D&D 5E Would you like to see a complex social interaction module early in 5E?

[Mishihari Lord]

I would like to see a well-done social-interaction module (meaning one that fits my personal taste ). Early would be better, but these types of rules seem really hard to do well, I'd prefer they take as long as needed to get it right.

As for what I think would be a good system ... well, something that augments simply talking in first person and deciding what you think your character would do rather than replacing these elements of play. I get a lot of my fun at the table from first-person method-actor play, and most social interaction systems I've seen suck the fun right out of the game for me. For a system to be fun to me, it has to be fortune-at-the-end, and what I say and how I say it has to matter at least as much as my character's charisma and skill.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Unlike combat, social interaction is something I can resolve through talking and something that I feel I can judge based on everyday experience.

Dice are used in combat because we don't have any other means to know how a deadly battle would turn out. But doing something without dice and rules is always preferable.

That's my position, in a nutshell. I've always wanted to see a social system that would improve on this, but I've yet to see it.

 

[Derren]

What D&D needs are not more complex, and given WotC track record likely gamist, social rules but less focus on combat and good DM advice. As it is now no matter how complex social interaction rules are, they will always be just an addon to combat.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Want.

If 5e D&D is supposed to be my game, and not WotC telling me how to do it right, 5e D&D needs to give me the option to make peace with the goblins and recruit the kobolds and convert the orcs and not make it feel like a second-class option to putting something sharp and pointy in them.

It's kind of new territory for D&D, but I want it.

 

[Serendipity]

Yeah, absolutely no interest here, but if you want it, great.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

While this may be something that works at your table, sometimes people want to play characters that are radically different from themselves, which is pretty tough to act out, especially if you're making stuff up on the spot. I like roleplaying as much as the next guy, but I don't even pretend I am a high Int, high Wis, or high Cha person. It's nice if the game offers an opportunity for a shy person to play a silver-tongued character.

Acting out a character who is "radically different" from myself is one of the parts of RPGs I enjoy the most. Replacing this with dice rolling takes a lot of the fun out of the game for me.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The "No" vote, being listed after "Yes, but for other people" should be read as "No, screw everyone else, I'm the only one that matters"

And I'm not surprised that it's currently 3-1 over the "Yes but" option...

And no, I likely wouldn't use such a rule, but I'm not bitter enough to begrudge those that would.

I'd interpret "No" as a preference that WOTC devote their limited resources to rules that the voter would use rather than attributing malice to them, especially since "early in 5e" is part of the question.

 

[Dragoslav]

Acting out a character who is "radically different" from myself is one of the parts of RPGs I enjoy the most. Replacing this with dice rolling takes a lot of the fun out of the game for me.

I feel the same way... most of the time. Sometimes I'm too worn out to try mimicking a burly fighter or a genius spellcaster, and sometimes I just don't have it in me to get my actions and my character's actions to get as close to 1:1 as possible. Sometimes I just want to say "I try being very polite and calm him down" and roll a diplomacy check.

And there are players (maybe they're shy or inexperienced or whatever) who just generally prefer a more detached, third-person roleplaying style.

As long as it's a module, you can do social interactions whichever way you prefer.

EDIT:

On a random note, I think it would be funny if half the votes were for "Yes, but for other people" and the other half were "No."

 

[Ahnehnois]

I wouldn't use such a thing and I'm not a huge fan. Not because I hate social interaction, but because I prefer to handle it mechanics-lite.

But I would like to see it presented. Other people who really need rules for everything might find it useful, and more importantly, it sends the message that while D&D has a lot of combat, it is not "about" combat.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I said yes, and I would use it, but it doesn't need to be that complex. I think that Giant In the Playground Games is a good place to start. It still makes you roleplay ("what do you say? What's the deal you're offering?"), and it gives you rules to follow for mechanical resolution, while also giving you a sliding scale (1-4 means he's open to the idea, but not quite there, and may even counteroffer).

My negotiation rules are modeled on this, but still pretty different (adding a "+∞ Impossible:" level to Risk vs Reward, with skills like Intimidate able to lower that down, etc.). Also, Bluff to deceive is more along the lines of "does he believe me" (with appropriate modifiers for outlandish or very believable deceptions), instead of "does he do what I want him to do?" For example, instead of a "Bluff the guard to get into the castle" situation, you have a "Bluff the guard to make him think we're diplomats on the run from pursuers, and now see how he reacts to our deception" situation.

I think this sort of thing still allows for a lot of meaningful social RP play, while also giving you the tools to determine success or failure mechanically. Mechanically, you get "I failed my negotiation check by 7... he just isn't willing to go along with that. I need to come up with something new. Time to RP that back and forth, then roll on another proposal." This (along with Bluff per deception to convince them you're not lying, not to make them react a certain way) makes things a lot more roll-intensive in social encounters, rather than binary, which is something I like.

Both the PC's mechanical skill and the player's personal interaction become important to resolving the scenario, and it's more versatile, flexible, and dynamic than "I rolled Diplomacy to befriend him, and he likes me now" or "I use Bluff to make him let us inside, telling him we're diplomats". Is there something wrong with that style of play? No. But, if we're talking about a more complex social mechanic for D&D, then I want more than that. I want mechanics that make people believe things, or react to things, but not to change their long term views, or force them to act in a certain way against what makes sense for them.

Just my views. If nothing else, I see no reason why certain people could use this, and others could opt out. The "no" vote support so far (31 "no" and 7 "yes, for other people") is just terrible, in my opinion. As always, play what you like