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

[Crazy Jerome]

... If you drop scripting, you also need to think of some other device for making it impossible for a player to just ascertain and then apply the mechanically optimal strategy. At least to my intuition at the moment, getting the fiction front and centre seems like the best way to do this.

Tentative conclusion from these thoughts: draw on the direction D&Dnext is already heading in, of favouring strong GM framing of the circumstances of ability/skill checks (and the somewhat analogous "theatre of the mind" in combat), and try and work up a system which involves (i) at least a modest variety of social tactics (at a minimum the now-traditional "lie", "be pleasant" or "be scary"), but (ii) frames their difficulty in relation to a GM-narrated unfolding situation (which therefore sets up the room for player strategy - "We'll start like this and finish like this" - while making GM narration of the fiction pretty central), and (iii) has some sort of mechanism for bringing things to a close (whether hp-like or skill challenge-like).

I'd say there has to be multiple dimensions to the system, even if highly related. To the extent that D&D combat works, it works because it has attacks and defenses and hit points and then various spells and magic items to monkey with those simpler numbers, when they apply, etc.

I don't think an analogous system for D&D has ever been really tried, mainly because it has always been necessary to water it down to make it palatable to the people who don't like any kind of "fortune in the middle" and want to get on with it. A modular system allows for the a realy analogy to D&D combat in other spheres, because you can go all the way with it.

Such a system need not have, necessarily, "social hit points" and "social defenses" and such, though that might work. But it most definitely needs three or four separate mechanical bits, including at least one for "keeping score" that has a somewhat unpredictable aspect (as with damage rolls). And then it needs those bits defined well enough that magic can interact with it meaningfully. (Ideally, this magic will interact in such a way that those using more traditional social modules can also use the same item. For example, "rod of rulership" is a modest bonus to certain DM-adjudicated checks or even pure DM fiat in a simple module, but that same modest bonus has a concrete roll in the more complex modules.)

You can't make skill challenges palatable to those who voted No in this poll. So let's not water them down for those of us who like where skill challenges are trying to go. Heck, with a real system that is pushed hard, some people that don't like it now might find their dislike was because of the watering down, not the nature of the system itself.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I voted No.

The socialising/interaction mechanic comes, organically, from more than one human being playing the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's the word "early" that I disagree with. There is a lot more that's more important to a new D&D system to me than social interaction. Tactical combat, detailed exploration rules, skills, various character classes/races/themes, iconic monsters, character creation, weapons, armor, magic items, spells...there's a lot that's more important to core of what the game is than social interactions and I honestly think it should be one of the last rules modules playtested. Hell, they probably wouldn't even need to both with them until after the core books are published, introducing those rules modules in a splatbook or campaign setting book that's focused on more social interaction oriented play.

Which is why I said "late in the playtest" but early in the design. Late in the playtest is still early in the life of the product. If they don't include something like this during some part of the playtest, they might as well forget about it entirely. If the modular connections aren't integrated and tested, it will suck. This is the history of new systems slapped on top of an existing RPG, especially D&D.

For a clear example, ask the psionic fans. Do they want psionics put off until the core design is essentially frozen, and then built on top, or do they want a prototype psionic system tested with the core, even if not fully fleshed out until later? Which one do they think is likely to lead to a psionic system that works?

There is no try.

 

[Ferghis]

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.

But nobody has ever proposed "replacing" that with dice. In every game I've played, if you do a great job role-playing a bit, the DM will grant you that. No DM in his or her right mind will ever say "well, that sounded awesome, but you rolled crappy, so you fail." And, more to the point, you (and everyone else who wants to) should keep doing that.

The dice-based mechanics are there simply to assist players (and even DMs) who are less talented actors, and do not have the gift of gab, and haven't kissed the blarney stone, or just have poor writers doing their lines. And, again, you can totally ignore the mechanic if you don't need it at your table, but I think it's indispensable to offer the mechanic for those who want to use it. Not doing so amounts to edging out those of us nerds who are less socially apt. And I fear we have a few of them.

 

[Steely_Dan]

But nobody has ever proposed "replacing" that with dice. In every game I've played, if you do a great job role-playing a bit, the DM will grant you that. No DM in his or her right mind will ever say "well, that sounded awesome, but you rolled crappy, so you fail." And, more to the point, you (and everyone else who wants to) should keep doing that.

The dice-based mechanics are there simply to assist players (and even DMs) who are less talented actors, and do not have the gift of gab, and haven't kissed the blarney stone, or just have poor writers doing their lines. And, again, you can totally ignore the mechanic if you don't need it at your table, but I think it's indispensable to offer the mechanic for those who want to use it. Not doing so amounts to edging out those of us nerds who are less socially apt. And I fear we have a few of them.

Excellent, totally agree; and also (not only, but also), there was a great article in an old Dragon magazine by Roger Moore titled "Character's Are What You Are in the Dark".

 

[Ferghis]

Excellent, totally agree...

Would you change your vote, then, to "Yes but for others," since any such mechanic would necessarily need to proposed, examined, and integrated into the playtest phase of the game?

I ask the same of the rest of you who have so adamantly voted for a flat "No," since WotC folks DO follow these boards, and these kinds of votes could have an effect on what makes it into playtesting and what doesn't.

EDIT: I realize that on these boards you can't actually change your vote. But, if you voted "no," and change your mind after discussing, please post as much.

 

[am181d]

One thing that sort of bugged me was although you can easily go long periods of the session in the third pillar, you can easily feel like you are doing the interaction and not the character you are playing. Of course, I can put my characters motivations, prejudices, and personalty into the talking, but it is easy to feel disconnected from the character or have this aspect be disconnected from the rest of the game. It is easier to yell at your character for failing because of his bad accuracy or chattering armor than his stubbornness unless you actively enforce it unlike the other pillars.

So I selected "Yes for other people" from the option list. But the play style you describe above is completely alien to me. You feel least like you are role-playing when you are... role-playing?

I get that different people play the game for different reasons, but if you replace social interaction with die rolls, what kind of game are you playing?

 

[am181d]

Would you change your vote, then, to "Yes but for others," since any such mechanic would necessarily need to proposed, examined, and integrated into the playtest phase of the game?

I ask the same of the rest of you who have so adamantly voted for a flat "No," since WotC folks DO follow these boards, and these kinds of votes could have an effect on what makes it into playtesting and what doesn't.

EDIT: I realize that on these boards you can't actually change your vote. But, if you voted "no," and change your mind after discussing, please post as much.

I think the Wizards folks are smart enough to know that if 50% of their audience wants something *as an option*, it doesn't matter if the other 50% is saying "not for me" or "NEVARH!" I don't pretend to know the exact cut-off, but if a large enough block wants the option, Wizards will work to accomodate.

I don't think they take fans seriously who say "I will not abide this optional rule!"

 

[Minigiant]

So I selected "Yes for other people" from the option list. But the play style you describe above is completely alien to me. You feel least like you are role-playing when you are... role-playing?

I get that different people play the game for different reasons, but if you replace social interaction with die rolls, what kind of game are you playing?

I mean that after a certain point, free form roleplaying become player skill over character skill.

If I am playing a charismatic super genius, I shouldn't have to think of sensible reasons and bluff to use on the target. The super genius is the smart one, he probably can think of the logical argument. When I, the player, am thinking up plans and excuses, it pulls me out of the game since the character's skill determines success or failure. Some. DMs are nicer and let you just describe what the PC is doing. But other DMs actually ask for the words of the characters (I don't play with those DMs)

I go by the "character determines all results" belief but D&D traditional only does social checks with a boring single roll.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

But nobody has ever proposed "replacing" that with dice. In every game I've played, if you do a great job role-playing a bit, the DM will grant you that. No DM in his or her right mind will ever say "well, that sounded awesome, but you rolled crappy, so you fail." And, more to the point, you (and everyone else who wants to) should keep doing that.

The dice-based mechanics are there simply to assist players (and even DMs) who are less talented actors, and do not have the gift of gab, and haven't kissed the blarney stone, or just have poor writers doing their lines. And, again, you can totally ignore the mechanic if you don't need it at your table, but I think it's indispensable to offer the mechanic for those who want to use it. Not doing so amounts to edging out those of us nerds who are less socially apt. And I fear we have a few of them.

Actually, plenty of people have proposed that, even insisted that a player isn't really roleplaying if social interaction resolution is based on his words rather than his character's stats. I haven't seen the argument voiced in this specific thread, but this discussion/argument has been going on forever, both here and elsewhere. So it's definitely worth mentioning what kind of social rules you like, in case anyone with pull is listening.