D&D General Your thoughts on "Social Combat" systems

[Voadam]

Charm and fear are fairly mechanical in 5e

Charmed
• A charmed creature can’t attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
• The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.

Frightened
• A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line
of sight.
• The creature can’t willingly move closer to the source of its fear.

The skill checks are very open ended.

A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation.

5e (as most D&D) is generally fairly far on the player end of the scale of leaving PC autonomy about feelings and thoughts to the player to determine versus mechanics-imposed narrative.

There are some exceptions, mostly enchantment magic like charm person's "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance." or the Philter of Love's "If the creature is of a species and gender you are normally attracted to, you regard it as your true love while you are charmed." Also dominate person, command, suggestion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So you assert that any way to play a RPG that is different than how you play is objectively wrong, but I'm the one who is snarky about people who play differently than I do. Too funny! Are you a comedian?!?

I've asserted no such thing.

And mocking other posters is against the forum rules. Stating strong opinions about how the game works, or even how it should work, isn't. Both are for good reason.

Also, a PC dying is the system asserting how a PC can proceed within the narrative.

You're either failing to see a pretty obvious difference, or willfully ignoring it in order to hammer on tangentially to the point.

Sorry if you don't like that people not you like things you don't like, but that's life, you should deal with it.

Again, mocking other posters is uncalled for, and against the forum rules. The above is also a nonsensical sentence, both in structure and content, as I've never suggested that I'm bothered by people liking things I don't like.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So you assert that any way to play a RPG that is different than how you play is objectively wrong, but I'm the one who is snarky about people who play differently than I do. Too funny! Are you a comedian?!?

Speaking for myself, if you are claiming that in 5e there is a rule that says anything to the effect of "if an NPC rolls higher on Charisma (Persuasion) than a PC rules on Wisdom (Insight), then the PC believes the fact the NPC is trying to convey, and the player must roleplay accordingly." then you are, in fact, wrong.

On the other hand, if you wish 5e were designed that way, and you house rule it to play that way, and your players enjoy it, then you are 100% right.

Also, a PC dying is the system asserting how a PC can proceed within the narrative. Sorry if you don't like that people not you like things you don't like, but that's life, you should deal with it.

Maybe I missed something but I don't think anybody has claimed that players have full control over "how they proceed with the narrative." That's just you expanding "control over their own character's thoughts and beliefs" into something much broader. And while I won't theorize about your reasons for doing that, I will note that it's a much easier position to critique.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I've asserted no such thing.

This is you asserting it...

And that type of system is bad. Full stop. That is literally what the thread is about; Are social combat systems good, which social combat systems are good or bad, etc.
Further, such a system is absurd, because losing an argument doesn’t force people to change their minds. The system is forcing the character to make a decision, without the player’s input. That is a bad mechanic.

I'm sorry but asserting that a RPG system is objectively bad is you claiming a OneTrueWay to play RPGs. It would be the same as me asserting that D&D is an objectively bad system and anyone who plays it is playing RPGs wrong.

You're either failing to see a pretty obvious difference, or willfully ignoring it in order to hammer on tangentially to the point.

I don't see the difference as being obvious. In both a combat death and in a social combat that forces a PC to change a belief, the PC is forced to change how they interact with the narrative. To me, there is no difference.

As you stated earlier, we have very different ideas as to how the hobby works, and should work. Again, I am sorry if I disagree with you on that point, but that is how life works, people often don't agree on things.

As to the mocking you seem to think I am doing, I am not, I am simply disagreeing with you. In the past however, you have called me a wack job, and insinuated that I am mentally unhealthy. I guess I should have reported you then, but I didn't, in the future I will report you if you do mock me again. Perhaps you should simply ignore what I post on this public forum in the future.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Speaking for myself, if you are claiming that in 5e there is a rule that says anything to the effect of "if an NPC rolls higher on Charisma (Persuasion) than a PC rules on Wisdom (Insight), then the PC believes the fact the NPC is trying to convey, and the player must roleplay accordingly." then you are, in fact, wrong.

On the other hand, if you wish 5e were designed that way, and you house rule it to play that way, and your players enjoy it, then you are 100% right.

I have never asserted that 5e does or doesn't do anything. This thread is also in the D&D general category so I wasn't assuming that we were discussing 5e exclusively. Personally I don't play 5e, and have no interest in doing so. Thus far I have simply been arguing as to what "social combat" systems can and can't do.

Maybe I missed something but I don't think anybody has claimed that players have full control over "how they proceed with the narrative." That's just you expanding "control over their own character's thoughts and beliefs" into something much broader. And while I won't theorize about your reasons for doing that, I will note that it's a much easier position to critique.

Both having control over a PC's beliefs and having control over their death is the player being able to alter the narrative. A PC death results in the player being forced in to a certain course of action. A PC being forced to change a belief because they lost a "social combat" is the player being forced in to a certain course of action. To me, these things are the same thing, a player being forced by the rules to take a certain course of action. I have no problem with either my PC dying or my PC's beliefs being changed by a "social combat" loss of that's what the rules say can happen. I enjoy systems that force my PC to change how they feel about something as exigent factors in real life influence how I feel about things even if that's not how I want to feel. That's life! I also realize that lots of players take exception to that idea and wouldn't want to use a system that has rules for such things. We all like different things, it's the spice of life!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In the past however, you have called me a wack job, and insinuated that I am mentally unhealthy.

This is a blatant lie. Prove it or retract.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe I missed something but I don't think anybody has claimed that players have full control over "how they proceed with the narrative." That's just you expanding "control over their own character's thoughts and beliefs" into something much broader.

Yeah, it’s an obvious difference. Literally no one has argued that players should get to decide what happens in the narrative. We have only argued that players should maintain control over what choices the character makes, and what they think and feel.

The goalposts first got picked up and moved into a completely different argument, as if we were arguing about how social conflict systems do work, and then when that didn’t work out they changed to snark and thinly veiled insults.

Generally, none of that is a good sign as to a desire to engage in a genuine discussion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm sorry but asserting that a RPG system is objectively bad is you claiming a OneTrueWay to play RPGs. It would be the same as me asserting that D&D is an objectively bad system and anyone who plays it is playing RPGs wrong.

No need for a fake apology, as you’re incorrect on all counts. What I said is not, in fact, the same as claiming a one true way, nor did I suggest anyone is playing wrong.

 

[Don Durito]

I agree that if the game clearly states the result of a mechanic compels you to have the character think or act a certain way, then that's what you should do if you agreed to play the game. There's room for objection and negotiation here, of course, depending on the circumstances, but if the game says I have to act like I believe the lying NPC because I failed a check or something, that's what I'll do if I agreed to play the game.

The issue then becomes whether the game actually says or intends this and, where D&D 5e is concerned for example, it seems like a lot of people are confused about what an ability check means in this regard.

In 5e I just rule that social skills work on NPCs only. You can't intimidate a fellow PC. You can tell them what you're trying to do and they can be initimidated if they like, but the dice play no part.

 

[iserith]

In 5e I just rule that social skills work on NPCs only. You can't intimidate a fellow PC. You can tell them what you're trying to do and they can be initimidated if they like, but the dice play no part.

Since the PHB says players decide how their characters think and act which means there is no uncertainty (and thus no ability check applies), this the rule anyway. But many, many people will disagree with that. Turn on any Twitch actual play stream and see.