PDA

View Full Version : Enhanced 5e Project-- Social Conflict Rules



Grod_The_Giant
2018-03-14, 11:51 AM
I like 5e a lot, but while the rules for combat are pretty sleek and solid, the other parts of the game are... well... left up to the DM's judgement if we're being kind, and completely lacking if we're not. Which I think is bogus! We can do better. This (revamped) set of mechanics for playing out interesting social scenes is what I hope to be the first in a series of exercises in fleshing out some of the undeveloped bits of the edition, hopefully resulting in a much more robust game without adding in too much extra complexity.


Introduction
The most important thing to remember about these rules is that they're optional. Not every conversation has to be a full-fledged social conflict encounter, just as not every arm wrestling contest needs the full combat rules. Extended rules like these exist to make things more dramatic. A single ability check only takes a few seconds of real-life time to resolve a situation, but making an argument into a full-blown conflict draws it out, adding in a back-and-forth, giving the players much more influence over how it plays out, and reducing the impact of a single lucky roll. It also helps de-couple the players' social skills from their characters'. Without such rules, if a particular player is good with words, they can portray a suave, persuasive character even if their Presence is low— and the shy player will have trouble trying to be a fast-talking diplomat no matter what's written on their sheet.


Characteristics
Characteristics, as described in the PHB (your Traits, Bond, Flaw, and Ideal), become the core of the system. In addition to generating the five listed, designate each one as Minor, Major, or Defining. A character must have at least one of each strength.

A Minor Characteristic is a significant aspect of your personality, but not a major part of who you are-- they could be lost or changed without being too noticeable.
A Major Characteristic is a broadly applicable belief, one of the core tenants of your personal philosophy. They influence your behavior even in situations where they only tangentially apply, and can lead you to act against your own self-interest or even safety.
A Defining Characteristic is one of the more important parts of your life, beliefs that you absolutely will not change or compromise, and without which you wouldn't be recognizably yourself. They are the things you would lay down your life for, if necessary, and the inform almost every aspect of your behavior, one way or another. You may only have one Defining Characteristic at a time-- if a Major Characteristic is strengthened to Defining, either through natural character growth or social influence, your previous Defining Characteristic is reduced to Major for the duration of the change.

Characteristics are not immutable. Once per session, when not engaged in a social conflict, you may alter your Characteristics, provided the changes are related to the events that occured. A Minor Characteristic may be replaced with a new Minor Characteristic or increased in strength to Major, and a Major Characteristic may be decreased to a Minor one. You may also exchange the importance of an existing Minor and Major Characteristic.

Crisis Point: There are moments that force you to reevaluate everything you knew. Perhaps a trusted mentor is revealed to be a traitor, or a member of a group you hate risks their life for you, or a truth you once clung to is revealed to be false. When such a major event happens, it's known as a Crisis Point, and you may rewrite any number of Characteristics, up to and including your Defining Characteristic.

Self Reflection: People don't always change in dramatic ways. Sometimes, small experiences over the days and months add up, slowly chipping away at your worldview. You may change your Characteristics, provided enough time passes. You may "work" on multiple Characteristics at once, and you may engage in other activities (even adventuring!) at the same time.

Minor Characteristic: One week
Major Characteristic: One month
Defining Characteristic: One year



Social Stats

Integrity: Your Integrity is basically your stubbornness-- how long you can keep arguing, even when things aren't going your way-- think of it as your social HP. You have base Integrity equal to 10+Proficiency, which is restored during a Short or Long Rest. In addition, at the start of any social conflict, you gain temporary Integrity equal to your Wisdom or Charisma Modifier.
Resolve: Your Resolve is your ability to keep your own head and resist outside influence-- think of it as your social AC. It is equal to either 8+Proficiency or your current Integrity, whichever is higher.
Characteristics: Your Characteristics can also be used as a source of strength during an argument. When they would apply, you may draw upon a Characteristic to gain a bonus to your Resolve, after seeing the die roll but before the results are announced. Conversely, if you know one of your opponent's relevant Characteristics, you can draw upon that to gain a bonus to attack and damage when making an Influence check. Characteristics may only be drawn upon once per conflic, regardless of who uses them. A Minor Characteristic gives a bonus of +2, a Major Characteristic +3, and a Defining Characteristic +5.
Charisma Checks: Many Social Conflict actions require you to make Charisma Checks. When doing so, you may apply relevant skill or tool Proficiency-- for example, if trying to scare a guard into cooperating, you might make a Charisma (Intimidate) check.



Social Conflict
Roleplaying becomes clunky if restricted by the initiative system, so social conflicts don't operate in turn order. Anyone can speak at any time. The only restriction is that a character cannot take two social actions in a row-- there must be at least some back and forth. If multiple characters attempt to speak at once, make an opposed Charisma check; the winner successfully gets their words out first or speaks over the loser. There are six social Actions.

Convince
You can attempt to directly convince another character to do what you want them to do. Make a Charisma check, opposed by your opponent's Resolve. To take a Convince action, you must be able to cite an appropriate Characteristic (though this does not count as its once/conflict use),and the target must not be able to point to a opposing Characteristic of greater strength. The greater the request, the stronger the Characteristic must be. A Minor Characteristic will suffice for simple tasks that will not seriously disrupt their lives, such as delivering a package for you, or letting you into a nightclub. Drawing on a Major or Defining Characteristic will let you persuade people to make major changes to their lives-- they might join your army or break the law on your behalf, as long as death or ruin isn't certain.

However, if you fail your Charisma check, the target will not be pleased. If you made a Minor request, they can immediately Disengage as a reaction. If you made a Major request, they can attempt a Disengage as a reaction and can begin using Disengage to end the conversation, as though they'd taken the action three times this conflict. If you made a Defining Request, they may instantly end the conversation as though they'd successfully Disengaged, with no check required.

Disengage
You can attempt to simply end a conversation without making an active effort to persuade anyone. All Influence actions against you are made at Disadvantage until the start of your next turn. If you have taken at least three Disengage actions in this conflict, you may make a Charisma check, opposed by the highest Resolve of the character(s) you are arguing with. On a success, you end the conversation with whatever amount of grace you wish, and are immune to subsequent social conflicts with the same characters until you take a Long Rest. (You may also physically flee, of course, though doing so confers no immunity-- if they catch you, they can keep arguing). (Characters who are not willing to talk typically use the Disengage action every turn.)

Engage
Also known as the "tell me more" action, Engaging is simply following the line of conversation without really trying to influence it. When you take the Engage action, pick one opponent. You gain Advantage on your next social action taken against them, and they gain Advantage on their next social action taken against you. (Characters who are happy to talk typically use the Engage action every turn.)

Influence
You attempt to bring another character around to your way of thinking-- the rough equivalent of a "social attack," if you will. Make a Charisma check, opposed by their Resolve. If you succeed, you inflict 1d4 points of Integrity damage.

If your Integrity reaches zero, you are considered Swayed, and all Charisma checks made against you have Advantage. In addition, the Convince and Instill actions have enhanced capabilities against Swayed foes:

Convince: Citing a Defining Characteristic can persuade them to to take life-altering or near-suicidal actions, like donating a vast amount of money to your cause or volunteering to fight a hopeless rearguard action.
Instill: You may also strengthen an existing Minor Characteristic to Major, or weaken a Major Characteristic to Minor.


Instill
You attempt to alter another character's viewpoint, at least temporarily. Make a Charisma check, opposed by their Resolve. On a success, you may give the target a new Minor Characteristic, or remove an existing one. Characters may revert changes at the rate of one per hour, although even afterwards thoughts or actions from that time still seem perfectly normal. Instill actions can be used both offensively, to bring an opponent around to your way of thinking, or defensively, to reinforce an ally's beliefs.

Read
You attempt to draw out another character and get a sense of what makes them tick. When making a Read attempt, you must first ask a question. Not necessarily a literal in-character question, but you need to know what you're looking for-- "what's his opinion on the king?" "Who's most important in her life?" Once you're specified a question, make an Insight check against another character, opposed by their Resolve. On a success, you learn the Characteristic most related to your question, and its strength-- or, if they have no such Characteristic, you learn that as well.


Variant Rules
Group Conflicts
For conversations with two or more distinct factions working in tandem-- for example, if the entire party is attempting to persuade a pair of guards to let them inside the castle-- the easiest thing to do is to use a single Integrity and Resolve score for each side. If you do, take each party's average Integrity and Resolve, then add the number of people in the group. For example, if one side consists of three guards, with Integrity of 10, 12, and 8, their group Integrity would be 13. If this variant is in play, players are advised to record their typical group defenses.

In addition, the rule about turn order is strengthened: rather than no character being allowed to attempt two actions in a row, no side may attempt two actions in a row-- further speakers are merely backing up the first, in which case the resulting Charisma check may be made as a group check.

Social Attacks
As written, the rules grant a substantial advantage to characters with skill-enhancing features like Expertise or Reliable Talent. If you want to keep things on a more even keel, you may replace Charisma Checks with Social Attacks-- an attack roll, rather than an ability check, using your Charisma modifier instead or Strength or Dexterity. Charisma-based skills are treated as if they were weapons-- if you're Proficient in Intimidation, and are tying to intimidate an orc, you would add your Proficiency Bonus to your Social Attack. Expertise and the like would apply only in non-Conflict situations, where a simple check is deemed sufficient.

MaxWilson
2018-03-14, 12:53 PM
Hmmm. This could work, but is pretty heavyweight by my standards. My favorite approach to social management in an RPG is more lightweight:

You can have a reputation within an organization/peer group/etc., represented by a Reputation score within that context. You can belong to any number of contexts and have a different Reputation within each one.

The only mechanical effects of Reputation are that:

(1) Everyone in that context knows or can easily ascertain the Reputation of anyone else in that context, and the rules for gaining/losing reputation in that context (see #2). DM adjudication for word-of-mouth time lag is fine, but in practice you can just treat it as instantaneous and it's fine.

It's represented as a number for game purposes, but you should assume that the underlying reality is that you "just know" how good someone's reputation is, very much like PCs know their own HP but wouldn't ever talk about the number.

(2) With some effort (say, a week of downtime for a city-wide context, maybe months for a worldwide organization like the Harpers, maybe years for a spherewide organization like the Chainmen), you can change the rules for how Reputation is gained or lost in the context.

This is just a simple plurality vote based on Reputation: if the sum of the Reputation of those who favor the change is greater than the sum of the Reputation of those who oppose the change, the change is adopted.


Even though this system is very lightweight, it is flexible and mimics how social interaction works in real life. Because of rule #1, you can get realistic behaviors out of people whose goal in life is to increase their social status (gain reputation). E.g. within a context like a local aristocracy, if the group consensus from #2 says that doing heroic deeds gives you Reputation (say, +100 reputation for slaying an adult dragon), if there exist humans who enjoy having a high Reputation (and they always exist in every society) those humans will naturally seek to do heroic deeds, slay dragons, etc.

#2 provides a method of control and mechanical power. Within a context, if there exist individuals who seek to gain Reputation (and they always exist in every society), those who control the lion's share of Reputation can create behaviors in those others by changing the rules on Reputation. This could be as trivial as a Popular Girls' Club which is always changing the rules for the petty gratification of those on top (wearing leopard print boots used to give you +1 Reputation last season if you wore them in public, but this season they are -2 Reputation and pink ponies are +1--tough luck if you can't afford to buy a pink pony), or as important as a shadowy conspiracy of villains declaring that undercutting other villains will henceforth grant no Reputation--and the result the PCs see is that the villains suddenly start working together.

What I like about this system is that you can always refuse to play the game (decide not to care about your Reputation in a given context) but you also have a clear way to gain mechanical advantages within that context, if you want them, and the DM also has a clear way to communicate rewards and requirements to the players. ("Baron von Southface says you can marry his daughter, but only if your aristocratic reputation gains another 50 points. Luckily there is a dragon that needs slaying for +100 Reputation, and/or a Civil Ministry job opening available which increases Reputation by +50 for as long as you hold it. As you know, you can also win +5 Reputation every time you win a duel of wits with another noble, so you could also just spend several weeks partying and conducting duels of wit. Would you like to inquire into any of those options or do something else?")

clash
2018-03-14, 03:19 PM
I like it. It seems like a lot a first but combat seems like a lot the first time you look at it and runs pretty smoothly afterwords. I wonder if there would be a way to generalize this to other skills where the challenge can't be overcome by a single roll but rather by strategy and cooperation. Ie climbing a tree is an athletics check but scaling the side of a cliff could be an encounter

strangebloke
2018-03-14, 04:05 PM
I saw this before in the homebrew section. I really like the concept, but I think it's simultaneously loose and a bit too crunchy.

For example, what does 'citing' a defining characteristic look like? I know how it would work in Fate, which is to say, there'd be a light discussion between the DM and the player and then the player would either cite or not cite that characteristic. This is much crunchier than FATE, though. The instill ability seems particularly dodgy to me. Should I be asking my DM "Hey, can I argue that his daughter is threatened by the king?" before promoting his bond with his daughter? I would try to make things less crunchy so that conversation can be more free-flowing.

Characteristics:Overall, this looks good, however, I think that characteristics are easier to tie to the milestone system already in place: Levels.

"Whenever you level up, you may alter your characteristics up to two times. An alteration can involve any of the following: changing a major characteristic to a minor one, changing a minor characteristic to a major one, getting rid of a minor characteristic and replacing it with a new one, or swapping a defining characteristic with a major one. This movement must result in you having one characteristic of each strength."

Crisis points should stay as-is, however, and a line-item noting that long periods of time might allow some realignment of characteristics. There's no need to codify things that happen over long periods of time, since pacing in different campaigns can be wildly different.

Social Stats:
Looks good, basically. I'd change some of the names (Resolve->Poise for instance) but the concepts are good. I would consider just getting rid of integrity (and the swayed condition) altogether.

I... might consider some system where people can make intelligence(investigation) checks to uncover traits of a person in advance, but that's probably too much for this to begin with.

Social Conflict
Hooo boy. My main concern is that given a little bit of time and a character who is charmed/engaged, you can literally talk anyone into anything. Read until you get a defining characteristic, get him to give you all his money.

Convince: I would add a clause noting that if a request based in a characteristic went against a higher-strength characteristic, then the convince check automatically fails. I would also add scaling consequences to failing to convince:

Minor: nothing
Major: If the character was interested in speaking before, he is no longer interested, and may not take the engage action.
Defining: The character is no longer interested in talking and may choose to disengage with all of his remaining actions.


Disengage/Engage/Influence: These are fine.

Instill: Simply too complicated. I would get rid of this, personally.

Read: It should be significantly harder to get defining characteristics than it is to get minor ones, beyond just random chance... although I guess you could get points for guessing what to read?

Swayed: Yikes. This is very powerful, and the only real thing that you need to invest is time. Against Jo normal with 10 Integrity, you will need four rounds of successes on average to sway. To me, that's not interactive enough, and also too easy to do if someone is engaged with you.


I have more commentary, but at the moment I gotta run.

Grod_The_Giant
2018-03-14, 07:20 PM
Hmmm. This could work, but is pretty heavyweight by my standards.
Social systems are kind of hard to get right, in my experience. Pure freeform has problems in that it prioritizes player skill over character; single-roll is pretty much the worst of all worlds; extended skill checks are boring; generic social health tracks tend to turn into extended skill checks and thus become boring. I'm trying to create something that has at least a little bit of tactical depth to it, with space to hang special abilities if necessary.


You can have a reputation within an organization/peer group/etc., represented by a Reputation score within that context. You can belong to any number of contexts and have a different Reputation within each one.
Reputation isn't a bad mechanic, but it's not really covering the same thing.



I like it. It seems like a lot a first but combat seems like a lot the first time you look at it and runs pretty smoothly afterwords. I wonder if there would be a way to generalize this to other skills where the challenge can't be overcome by a single roll but rather by strategy and cooperation. Ie climbing a tree is an athletics check but scaling the side of a cliff could be an encounter
That does make for a pleasant symmetry-- my homebrew system, STaRS, works like that-- but I think you'd kind of have to design from the ground up for that to work. I dunno; I'll look at environmental stuff in a later installment.


I saw this before in the homebrew section. I really like the concept, but I think it's simultaneously loose and a bit too crunchy.

For example, what does 'citing' a defining characteristic look like? I know how it would work in Fate, which is to say, there'd be a light discussion between the DM and the player and then the player would either cite or not cite that characteristic. This is much crunchier than FATE, though. The instill ability seems particularly dodgy to me. Should I be asking my DM "Hey, can I argue that his daughter is threatened by the king?" before promoting his bond with his daughter? I would try to make things less crunchy so that conversation can be more free-flowing.
I imagine that there'd be a bit of Fate style back-and-forth, yeah. I think that's kind of inevitable in any social system; even Exalted 3e, which has the crunchiest social mechanics I've ever seen in an RPG, can't get away from that. Instill was taken from there as a sort of indirect-influence mechanic, similar to creating an aspect in Fate.


Characteristics:Overall, this looks good, however, I think that characteristics are easier to tie to the milestone system already in place: Levels.

"Whenever you level up, you may alter your characteristics up to two times. An alteration can involve any of the following: changing a major characteristic to a minor one, changing a minor characteristic to a major one, getting rid of a minor characteristic and replacing it with a new one, or swapping a defining characteristic with a major one. This movement must result in you having one characteristic of each strength."

Crisis points should stay as-is, however, and a line-item noting that long periods of time might allow some realignment of characteristics. There's no need to codify things that happen over long periods of time, since pacing in different campaigns can be wildly different.
That's not a bad idea; I want at least some ability to shuffle things around within the level, though.


Social Stats:
Looks good, basically. I'd change some of the names (Resolve->Poise for instance) but the concepts are good. I would consider just getting rid of integrity (and the swayed condition) altogether.
You think? I was thinking that it would be useful to have some sort of ablative defense, to allow for some back-and-forth.


I... might consider some system where people can make intelligence(investigation) checks to uncover traits of a person in advance, but that's probably too much for this to begin with.
Uncovering traits in advance definitely seems like a thing you should be able to do.


Social Conflict
Hooo boy. My main concern is that given a little bit of time and a character who is charmed/engaged, you can literally talk anyone into anything. Read until you get a defining characteristic, get him to give you all his money.
I mean, only if it's in-character. If a guy's defining characteristic is "miserly," good luck ever getting money out of him. Even if it's "religion" or something, you'll have to bluff him into thinking that giving you cash is a religious thing to do. But point... you probably should not be able to touch those in normal circumstances.


Convince: I would add a clause noting that if a request based in a characteristic went against a higher-strength characteristic, then the convince check automatically fails. I would also add scaling consequences to failing to convince:

Minor: nothing
Major: If the character was interested in speaking before, he is no longer interested, and may not take the engage action.
Defining: The character is no longer interested in talking and may choose to disengage with all of his remaining actions.

That's a good idea. (Engage/Disengage are always options, though-- if they don't want to talk, they can just spend all their actions on that)


Instill: Simply too complicated. I would get rid of this, personally.
Hmm... I'm not so sure. It can be tweaked, but I feel like there needs to be some sort of less direct influencing that can be done?


Read: It should be significantly harder to get defining characteristics than it is to get minor ones, beyond just random chance... although I guess you could get points for guessing what to read?
On the one hand, I guess... but on the other, defining ones should be evident in most things you do-- it's hard to hide your core values.


Swayed: Yikes. This is very powerful, and the only real thing that you need to invest is time. Against Jo normal with 10 Integrity, you will need four rounds of successes on average to sway. To me, that's not interactive enough, and also too easy to do if someone is engaged with you.
I mean, if they're taking Engage actions, they're already kind of agreeing with you, or at least your presentation, but I see your point... maybe allow temporary alterations of your Defining Characteristic while Swayed, but remove the permanent changes?

strangebloke
2018-03-14, 08:51 PM
You think? I was thinking that it would be useful to have some sort of ablative defense, to allow for some back-and-forth.
No, I agree that an ablative defense is good, it's just... I don't know, it seems a little strange the way you currently have it formulated. Like,

Integrity:social AC unless resolve is higher.
Resolve: If it falls to zero, you are swayed. It is your social AC unless/until integrity is higher, and it starts higher than integrity.

I guess, maybe... this would be more clear?

Integrity: 8+proficiency+current resolve
Resolve: At the start of a social encounter, you have a number of resolve points equal to either your WIS or CHA mod. You can spend resolve to reroll one die, either yours or your opo



I mean, only if it's in-character. If a guy's defining characteristic is "miserly," good luck ever getting money out of him. Even if it's "religion" or something, you'll have to bluff him into thinking that giving you cash is a religious thing to do. But point... you probably should not be able to touch those in normal circumstances.

Well, I may be getting ahead of myself, but I'm just picture these things as being rather... gameable. Particularly if multiple PCs are all standing around someone, making multiple checks at him. Like the goal of social combat rules is to make them challenging, right?

Although, I suppose if you wanted to make a single guy a threatening social challenge, 5e's solution would be legendary social actions. Like the emperor just interrupts you and turns your success into a failure, because he's the emperor and people listen to him no matter how clever the arguement.

...I'm getting ahead of myself? Yes, yes I am.

I guess my thought is that regardless of the other guy's state of mind, the conversation has to have a necessary terminus, if only to keep things rolling.



That's a good idea. (Engage/Disengage are always options, though-- if they don't want to talk, they can just spend all their actions on that)[/QUOTE]
Right, my only thought here is to codify in rules that trying to manipulate someone can backfire, so that they're incentivized to do all the appropriate setup, even when they know a major trait of the target.


Hmm... I'm not so sure. It can be tweaked, but I feel like there needs to be some sort of less direct influencing that can be done?
I was mulling over something like the "Create an Advantage" action in FATE. Like, you can provoke your enemy into gaining the status condition "Angered" which gives him advantage on intimidation, but disadvantage on everything else. Or "Charmed," or "Frightened" which do exactly what you'd expect. (I suppose this would be treading on Whisper Bards toes... eh)


On the one hand, I guess... but on the other, defining ones should be evident in most things you do-- it's hard to hide your core values.
I suppose you're right. It's not like a super-religious cleric's love for Pelor is going to be some deep, dark, secret.


I mean, if they're taking Engage actions, they're already kind of agreeing with you, or at least your presentation, but I see your point... maybe allow temporary alterations of your Defining Characteristic while Swayed, but remove the permanent changes?
Yeah, that'd be fine. I guess my main issue is, looking at this in the larger context of dnd, wither things like charm person and whatnot, you shouldn't have the ability to permanently change someone's mind through skill checks, or else we're back to the good old days of mindrape and such nonsense.

It's also just a general concern, that if you're going to give these abilities to NPCs, you don't want a player suddenly forced to play a character he doesn't like because the baddy shuffled his character traits about. "Woops, guess I'm evil now."

Plus, there's the issue of mentality. FATE players are usually (in my experience) not trying to break the system. DND players typically are, and you have to account for that. (Exalted players are too, but everyone's broken there anyway.) I shudder at thinking of some of my players who would look at these rules and go... "So what kind of advantage do I get if I'm torturing this guy?"

Cespenar
2018-03-15, 04:59 AM
Okay, bear with me:

As a rule I think optional rules with brand new systems made from wholecloth are generally a bad idea. They are hard to learn, hard to balance, hard to stop people from abusing them, etc.

As a second rule I think the social parts really don't need any extra rules. It's one of the few places where some actual roleplaying can occur, instead of just being a wargame.

That being said:

1) If you go to the trouble of making all these rules, at least put some gradual success/failure outcomes in them, hopefully weighted more towards the middle (minor success/minor failure) instead of allowing massive swing-arounds.
2) The characteristics are a nice thought, but think about tying them to the existing bond/flaw/trait system if you can for added sleekness.
3) Similarly, I would try to tie the "maneuvers" to the existing skills as well (Deception, Persuasion, Insight, what-have-you).

Grod_The_Giant
2018-03-15, 07:09 AM
No, I agree that an ablative defense is good, it's just... I don't know, it seems a little strange the way you currently have it formulated. Like,

Integrity:social AC unless resolve is higher.
Resolve: If it falls to zero, you are swayed. It is your social AC unless/until integrity is higher, and it starts higher than integrity.

I guess, maybe... this would be more clear?

Integrity: 8+proficiency+current resolve
Resolve: At the start of a social encounter, you have a number of resolve points equal to either your WIS or CHA mod. You can spend resolve to reroll one die, either yours or your opo
I was trying to have them linked somehow, in a way that didn't wind up being terribly convoluted... what if you just take, oh, a -2 penalty to Resolve if your Integrity is at less than half?


Well, I may be getting ahead of myself, but I'm just picture these things as being rather... gameable. Particularly if multiple PCs are all standing around someone, making multiple checks at him. Like the goal of social combat rules is to make them challenging, right?

Although, I suppose if you wanted to make a single guy a threatening social challenge, 5e's solution would be legendary social actions. Like the emperor just interrupts you and turns your success into a failure, because he's the emperor and people listen to him no matter how clever the arguement.

...I'm getting ahead of myself? Yes, yes I am.

I guess my thought is that regardless of the other guy's state of mind, the conversation has to have a necessary terminus, if only to keep things rolling.
The goal is to make them interesting, but yeah, fair... "each side of the conflict cannot make two actions in a row" would certainly help with the action economy thing, while also being somewhat logical for an actual discussion. (Maybe to go in the group conflict variant-that-I-really-suggest-using?)


Right, my only thought here is to codify in rules that trying to manipulate someone can backfire, so that they're incentivized to do all the appropriate setup, even when they know a major trait of the target.
Right... what if the failure gives the target free Disengages? Maybe on a Minor they immediately can take a Disengage, on a Major they can take a Disengage and jump straight to attempting to end the conversation, and on a Defining they can just cut you off and gain the immunity to further attempts?


I was mulling over something like the "Create an Advantage" action in FATE. Like, you can provoke your enemy into gaining the status condition "Angered" which gives him advantage on intimidation, but disadvantage on everything else. Or "Charmed," or "Frightened" which do exactly what you'd expect. (I suppose this would be treading on Whisper Bards toes... eh)
The trick is doing so in a way that doesn't become over-complicated. Fate gets away with it because Aspects are a really flexible core mechanic, but D&D doesn't really work that way. I still kind of like the idea of using characteristics, since they're 5e's existing roleplaying hook, but... hmm. What if you can only play with Minor characteristics normally, and can jump up to Major if they're Swayed? Would that be a little more reasonable?


Yeah, that'd be fine. I guess my main issue is, looking at this in the larger context of dnd, wither things like charm person and whatnot, you shouldn't have the ability to permanently change someone's mind through skill checks, or else we're back to the good old days of mindrape and such nonsense.

It's also just a general concern, that if you're going to give these abilities to NPCs, you don't want a player suddenly forced to play a character he doesn't like because the baddy shuffled his character traits about. "Woops, guess I'm evil now."

Plus, there's the issue of mentality. FATE players are usually (in my experience) not trying to break the system. DND players typically are, and you have to account for that. (Exalted players are too, but everyone's broken there anyway.) I shudder at thinking of some of my players who would look at these rules and go... "So what kind of advantage do I get if I'm torturing this guy?"
Yeah, that's actually a really good point. I'd been spinning off Exalted as a rules-heavy social system, but I wasn't thinking enough about the fact that it's also a system/setting where social specialists are supposed to be able to rewire people's heads by talking at them. I'll cut that part.


Okay, bear with me:

As a rule I think optional rules with brand new systems made from wholecloth are generally a bad idea. They are hard to learn, hard to balance, hard to stop people from abusing them, etc.

As a second rule I think the social parts really don't need any extra rules. It's one of the few places where some actual roleplaying can occur, instead of just being a wargame.
I (self-evidently) have a different take on the matter, but thank you for still providing useful feedback!


1) If you go to the trouble of making all these rules, at least put some gradual success/failure outcomes in them, hopefully weighted more towards the middle (minor success/minor failure) instead of allowing massive swing-arounds.
the idea in general was to reduce swing by replacing a single skill check with a number of distinct rolls and choices, but yeah, after strangebloke's feedback I'm definitely looking at cutting back on the potential for major mind control. And Did you have any specific ideas along those lines?


2) The characteristics are a nice thought, but think about tying them to the existing bond/flaw/trait system if you can for added sleekness.
As far as I can tell, "characteristics" is the official name for the traits/bond/flaw/ideal system. Can't hurt to make that more explicit, though.


3) Similarly, I would try to tie the "maneuvers" to the existing skills as well (Deception, Persuasion, Insight, what-have-you).
My thinking was that not tying them to specific skills would help maintain some of the natural roleplaying flow, and prevent it from getting too game-y.

strangebloke
2018-03-15, 08:24 AM
I was trying to have them linked somehow, in a way that didn't wind up being terribly convoluted... what if you just take, oh, a -2 penalty to Resolve if your Integrity is at less than half?
That would be fine as well. Very quick.


The goal is to make them interesting, but yeah, fair... "each side of the conflict cannot make two actions in a row" would certainly help with the action economy thing, while also being somewhat logical for an actual discussion. (Maybe to go in the group conflict variant-that-I-really-suggest-using?)
Yeah, this addresses one of my primary concerns from a balance perspective.

What would the characteristics of a group look like? Like if I do a read asking "What's their attitude regarding the king?" Do I get the most common attitude? Do I get a characteristic that applies to them as a group?


Right... what if the failure gives the target free Disengages? Maybe on a Minor they immediately can take a Disengage, on a Major they can take a Disengage and jump straight to attempting to end the conversation, and on a Defining they can just cut you off and gain the immunity to further attempts?
The exact amount of penalty is something that needs to be carefully thought through, but I confess that I haven't yet. What you've written seems fine to me.


The trick is doing so in a way that doesn't become over-complicated. Fate gets away with it because Aspects are a really flexible core mechanic, but D&D doesn't really work that way. I still kind of like the idea of using characteristics, since they're 5e's existing roleplaying hook, but... hmm. What if you can only play with Minor characteristics normally, and can jump up to Major if they're Swayed? Would that be a little more reasonable?

Part of my thinking was that not every conversation is about persuading the other guy to do something for you. Sometimes you might be trying to embarrass them or sway an audience. I guess that would be more reflected by you both making checks at the audience whilst speaking to each other. Hmmmm, that actually sounds pretty fun.

Well, let's break down how big the impact of the instill action as you've described it actually is.

Creating a new minor characteristic is essentially granting yourself a +2 on the next roll. This makes it roughly comparable to giving yourself advantage. It also opens up a convince attempt, which is a part that I like. The idea of conning someone by creating a minor trait 'believes in the power of the elixir' is just so humorous.

Anyway, in that light, it isn't really all that complicated or weird. I suppose you've swayed me on this topic. ;)


Yeah, that's actually a really good point. I'd been spinning off Exalted as a rules-heavy social system, but I wasn't thinking enough about the fact that it's also a system/setting where social specialists are supposed to be able to rewire people's heads by talking at them. I'll cut that part.

People forming a consensus on giantitip? What madness is this?

Cespenar
2018-03-15, 09:14 AM
the idea in general was to reduce swing by replacing a single skill check with a number of distinct rolls and choices, but yeah, after strangebloke's feedback I'm definitely looking at cutting back on the potential for major mind control. And Did you have any specific ideas along those lines?

It's tough to flesh it out for every one of your maneuvers, but the main idea would be something like:

Failure: An actual setback.
Minor failure: More of a lockdown than a setback.
Minor success: An advantage on the next check, instead of an actual success.
Success: A definitive move forward.


As far as I can tell, "characteristics" is the official name for the traits/bond/flaw/ideal system. Can't hurt to make that more explicit, though.

Oh, yeah. I'm guilty of skimming, and you're right.


My thinking was that not tying them to specific skills would help maintain some of the natural roleplaying flow, and prevent it from getting too game-y.

You've already made it game-y, in my opinion. There are already many new checks and stats and maneuvers in your system, and a player must know and use all those rather than just explaining his point. If you won't use the skills especially made for situations like this, when are they going to be used?

Besides, "make a Charisma check" (which you have) and "make a Deception check" read and work very similarly anyway.

strangebloke
2018-03-15, 10:02 AM
You've already made it game-y, in my opinion. There are already many new checks and stats and maneuvers in your system, and a player must know and use all those rather than just explaining his point. If you won't use the skills especially made for situations like this, when are they going to be used?

Besides, "make a Charisma check" (which you have) and "make a Deception check" read and work very similarly anyway.

Ok, but say you want to Instill a character with a new characteristic. You might intimidate him to add the "Afraid of Grog" characteristic. You might use deception to add the "Believes in the power of the snake-oil" characteristic. You might use Persuasion to add the "Trusts the army's leadership" characteristic.

Tying Instill to any one skill would be a mistake.

Cespenar
2018-03-15, 10:48 AM
Ok, but say you want to Instill a character with a new characteristic. You might intimidate him to add the "Afraid of Grog" characteristic. You might use deception to add the "Believes in the power of the snake-oil" characteristic. You might use Persuasion to add the "Trusts the army's leadership" characteristic.

Tying Instill to any one skill would be a mistake.

Okay, then do it just like that. Don't tie it to any one skill, but give the option to use a skill.

Grod_The_Giant
2018-03-15, 10:57 AM
Okay, then do it just like that. Don't tie it to any one skill, but give the option to use a skill.
I do.

Charisma Checks: Many Social Conflict actions require you to make Charisma Checks. When doing so, you may apply relevant skill or tool Proficiency-- for example, if trying to scare a guard into cooperating, you might make a Charisma (Intimidate) check.
(Emphasis mine)

Cespenar
2018-03-16, 04:28 AM
Okay, I stand corrected again.

Before I Disengage from the thread, then (:smalltongue:), the only I thing I can suggest is for you to try the system with a 4-strong group against a single "NPC", and test how many of the time they can convince him to do a big change in their life. Because in a game the players would probably try that with a noble or a similar high ranking individual. I'd assume at least one of the PCs to have a rather high modifier as well, in that test. I'd also assume them to try individually, so that a successful Disengage wouldn't let him immunize himself against all the party at once.

strangebloke
2018-03-16, 06:00 PM
Okay, I stand corrected again.

Before I Disengage from the thread, then (:smalltongue:), the only I thing I can suggest is for you to try the system with a 4-strong group against a single "NPC", and test how many of the time they can convince him to do a big change in their life. Because in a game the players would probably try that with a noble or a similar high ranking individual. I'd assume at least one of the PCs to have a rather high modifier as well, in that test. I'd also assume them to try individually, so that a successful Disengage wouldn't let him immunize himself against all the party at once.

This is what I wanted to say as well, the real test is to actually try the thing. I can get a group together for some playtesting, probably, although I'll need some time.

ImproperJustice
2018-03-16, 11:30 PM
Have you ever taken a look at the savage worlds social conflict rules?

It comes down to die rolls, but provides for degrees of sucess and failure which may be an abstract means of getting closer to what you ate aiming for in a more streamlined fashion.