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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Is your version of the GitP rules available anywhere?

 

[Alarian]

To me this would do two thing. First, this is just another thing to turn a ROLE-playing game into a ROLL-playing game. The role-playing is what makes these games. I can't imagine most people would want to simply roll some dice instead of actually role-playing out an encounter.

Second, it basically removes the power from the DM. With stuff like this, the DM turns more into a rules referee than the Game Master. I would much rather role-play out the encounter and have the DM tell me what happens than to roll some dice and have the DM look at a chart and tell me "Ok, you succeeded."

 

[am181d]

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.

Again with the proviso of "play your game the way you want to play it": One of the core benefits of role-playing games is the opportunity it presents to practice role-playing skills: taking on a new role, getting into the mindset of a different person/character, problem solving, etc. These are all great social skills with real world applications.

A good role-player will play different characters differently: So a dumb ogre isn't going to come up with a clever plan, even if the player is a genius, though he might. Similarly, if a player is playing someone who's very charming and is trying to give an inspirational speech, he should do his best (because, hey, maybe it'll be good practice for the real world), roll some dice, and the DM should provide a circumstance bonus to reflect the player's effort relative to ability.

If your game consists of "I stand before the assembled armies and give an inspiring speech. I rolled a 14, plus 7 is 21! My DC was only 18." you may still be playing a role-playing game, but you're not actualy role-playing.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To me this would do two thing. First, this is just another thing to turn a ROLE-playing game into a ROLL-playing game. The role-playing is what makes these games. I can't imagine most people would want to simply roll some dice instead of actually role-playing out an encounter.

Wow, the "roleplaying/rollplaying" silly business and a strawman all in one nifty paragraph. Some of us like to roll dice and roleplay, in, you know, a roleplaying game.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Would you change your vote, then, to "Yes but for others,"

No.

 

[Abstruse]

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.

Hopefully, WotC will approach this playtest idea over the entire life of the product. So when the PHB/DMG/MM comes out, they're playtesting stuff for PHB2 etc. Playtest shouldn't just vanish as soon as the new edition comes out, and they shouldn't try to get all the playtesting done before the first core books come out. I really don't want to wait until the final playtest rules for advanced stronghold building and the campaign rules for Lankhmar to be finished before we get the PHB.

So while I want there to be modules for social interaction, psionics, playing monster races, rules for evil campaigns, etc. to be modules available; I don't want them to try to do everything all at once. Focus on the core rules, get them right, then get them printed for us to buy. After that, start working on other stuff, playtest that until it's right and make sure it builds on the existing rules rather than rewriting them, and then print that and move on to something more obscure and niche or more "out there" in terms of ideas, like spelljamming or d20 modern.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Is your version of the GitP rules available anywhere?

I haven't done anything to make it public or available, no. Part of the reason why is because skills in my game run slightly different (the modifiers are literally cut in half, I don't use synergies, I don't do 4 ranks at level 1 / +3 bonus starting out, etc.). I've also changed Bluff and Intimidate to reflect the new rules, and added a Wisdom-based social skill called Empathy to perform other tasks (where Sense Motive is seeing through lies, Empathy is emotionally connecting with someone), which also interacts with the other social skills.

I could probably throw together a PDF of my social skills (or just Negotiation, which is my Diplomacy), if you want, and send them your way. Let me know and I'll send you a private message.

No.

Can I ask why you're against other people getting it as an option? And what your objection to my take on it is:

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".

I want a mechanical system that only works when you're RPing. I still want it to help make decisions, mechanically, and to be important to characters who want to specialize in that type of thing (especially being viable as an option over combat). If I can ask, what do you object to about this take on it? Thanks, in advance, for the reply. As always, play what you like

 

[ArmoredSaint]

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

No.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I would say that that's a bit uncharitable. It's not that you "aren't roleplaying" if you ignore your stats, it's that "when you are roleplaying, the stats of your character should inform your play". In other words, don't ignore your character sheet whenever you feel it would be inconvenient.

Sign me up for wanting complex - at least as complex as the combat rules - rules for social interaction in the playtest. It's something that will take a lot of work to get right and lots of iterations. I hope they bring it out early so it can be done right.

It makes me a bit of a sad panda to see so many people say no though. We've seen excellent systems in all sorts of other games that are tons of fun. It's not like it's a totally new system that's never been tested anywhere. Incorporating elements of other games is something D&D has always done.

 

[jadrax]

Can I ask why you're against other people getting it as an option?

I think the problem here is the poll decided to exclude the middle option of 'I don't want it, but I don't mind it being in for others'.

If you don't actually want the rules, your only real legitimate way of expressing it in this poll is voting No, or taking the lemon curry option and posting about it here.