Often overlooked as a social mechanic (in D&D-likes anyway): Fashion

[Vahnavoi]

Oh, it's a jest allright. The jest is that it can be legitimately argued.

[ShurikVch]

Dragon #340 have "Making an Entrance" article: for wearing specific clothes, accessories, etc, your PC got "style points"; every 10 "style points" give +1 on Cha checks on wealthy and elite people for 1 day

[noob]

In the 3.5 player manual it is mentioned that wearing the right clothes gave a bonus to diplomacy against nobles.

[icefractal]

A combat ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like health, position, equipment, allegiance, terrain and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - does the character win or not? (Or neither?)

I mean, you could say that about combat too. Why have all these different stats and feats and maneuvers, when really you just want to know whether the PCs won and at what cost? It could all be done in one or two rolls, using GM judgement rather than a list of modifiers.

And some rules light games do handle combat that way. But for D&D, the nitty-gritty is part of the fun. Same goes for fashion - in many games, it doesn't need details. But in a game that was social focused (which could be D&D or not), the details could be part of the fun.

[Anonymouswizard]

Dragon #340 have "Making an Entrance" article: for wearing specific clothes, accessories, etc, your PC got "style points"; every 10 "style points" give +1 on Cha checks on wealthy and elite people for 1 day

In the 3.5 player manual it is mentioned that wearing the right clothes gave a bonus to diplomacy against nobles.

The issue with both is that correct and on-trend fashion could, and likely should, matter with groups other than nobles.

[ShurikVch]

The issue with both is that correct and on-trend fashion could, and likely should, matter with groups other than nobles.

The exact text in the aforementioned article said:

Presented here is a new system meant to reward players who make an appearance beyond that provided by a basic noble's outfit and jewelry. The following adornments, services, and attendants all provide "style points" toward netting a character bonuses on Charisma-based skill checks made toward a certain group or class of people. Many have an associated cost in gold pieces or time that must be met to gain the noted number of points. For every 10 style points you accrue, you gain a +1 bonus on all Charisma-based skill checks made toward a certain class of people - in this case, the wealthy and elite - for 1 day.

As we can see, it says "a certain group or class of people"; "the wealthy and elite" was just a specific case - thus, it's, technically, possible to use the same system for other groups/classes...

[Mechalich]

The issue with both is that correct and on-trend fashion could, and likely should, matter with groups other than nobles.

Well, the thing is that prior to the industrial revolution 'fashion' really was the province of the rich only. Textiles were scarce and ordinary people mostly had working clothing in various states of disrepair and one or if they were lucky two sets of clothing for ceremonial and event purposes that they kept nice and never wore otherwise (this is arguably still relevant, ie. 'Sunday Clothes'). In fact the very concept of high fashion, as understood in Western thought, can arguably be traced to Louis XIV, especially the rapid changeover of styles, in the 17th century.

Wearing culturally appropriate garb will matter to people other than nobles, especially in terms of avoiding taboos and not appearing like a foreigner, but that's not the same thing as fashion.

[KorvinStarmast]

In fact the very concept of high fashion, as understood in Western thought, can arguably be traced to Louis XIV, especially the rapid changeover of styles, in the 17th century.

I'd suggest that it started in the Renaissance but that's a decent article.

[JeenLeen]

Usually when I played 3.5, I'd pay the extra few thousand to make my armor Glamoured so that it could appear as clothes. Both for fashion reasons and to appear as less-armored than I actually was, in order to throw off enemy perceptions.

I definitely think "how fashion matters" would be a good thing for GM and players to discuss, so they're not taken off guard. But I'd think, if it's a setting where "adventurer" is a career path, then walking around armored might ID you as an adventurer, but generally be accepted.
Also, at high level, walking around with magical gear is as or more ostentiously displaying wealth as a noble wearing exotic furs and jewels. I've heard many times that a high-level PC is probably wearing more wealth than many small kingdoms have. (Of course, depends on normality of magic items in the setting.)

[jjordan]

Well, the thing is that prior to the industrial revolution 'fashion' really was the province of the rich only. Textiles were scarce and ordinary people mostly had working clothing in various states of disrepair and one or if they were lucky two sets of clothing for ceremonial and event purposes that they kept nice and never wore otherwise (this is arguably still relevant, ie. 'Sunday Clothes'). In fact the very concept of high fashion, as understood in Western thought, can arguably be traced to Louis XIV, especially the rapid changeover of styles, in the 17th century.

Wearing culturally appropriate garb will matter to people other than nobles, especially in terms of avoiding taboos and not appearing like a foreigner, but that's not the same thing as fashion.

I think your definition of fashion is far too narrow. While Louis XIV and his court may have invented seasonal fashion, culturally appropriate fashion has been around for as long as we've been carving pictures in rocks and writing down legal codes and has indicated status/origin/affiliation. 'Barbarian' trousers versus the tunic and toga. The use of tyrian purple. Voluminous clothing for those that didn't have to work. Striped clothing for entertainers and prostitutes. Head-coverings. Clothing that covered faces. Rules on what fabrics could be used. Rules on what jewelry could be worn. The Silk Road was named for the fabric reserved for the wealthy (sometimes by law) long before Louis and company. I haven't even left Europe in my search for examples. The Americas, Africa, and Asia all have their own examples. No need to limit our choices.

In game terms I think most players will completely miss the fine details in narration, but if they ask then GMs can provide useful details or the details can be a useful explanation for a good Wisdom roll. E.G. A 19? You notice the man is wearing an embroidered silk undershirt not common to this nation, and even banned in many cities because of its association with the northern tribes.

[Mordante]

I do think that fashion is part of the game. Just like a group can spent a whole session on browsing the magic market. Spending a whole session or at least part of it buying the proper clothing is normal. My level 4 Bard in 3.5 got invited to perform at some high society party. So I spend considerable time on finding out what was in fashion in that town. What colours were a political go or no-go. Looking for a shop that could tailor make a dresses for met female catfolk in which she should dance and sing.

It did cost all my savings and I'm not sure if the performance was much story related. But if you get invited you better go the whole mile.

In another party our level 15/16 party was invited to attend the local king. So we spend time shopping for a decent outfit that would befit the gala, we did not wat to insult the king by looking like beggars.

[Easy e]

I was just reading a scholarly article about the Archamaenid Persian empire, and how in art "Persians" were distinct from their enemies based on fashion motifs in the various groups. You could also discern from which cultural groups the "enemies" came from based on the style of clothing.

If anyone is interested:
https://www.academia.edu/2765593/_En...Persian_Empire


That said, my "hot-take" is that sub-systems for such a system are not needed. Most sub-systems are not needed, and instead it is much harder to strip a game down to its core essence than to add on layers of sub-systems. Therefore, a games "Core Mechanic" should be able to absorb and utilize "fashion" as the inputs for determining success/failure as simply as possible.

[Psyren]

I think it's worth acknowledging the difference between not just helpful and unhelpful, but 'suited to the situation' and 'suited to the situation, while costing as much as a small business'. High level D&D characters tend to have enough WBL to splash hundreds to thousands of go on an outfit without really affecting their combat ability, which is a level that not even nobles can manage (and in something like World of Darkness PCs could very possibly be multimillionaires*).

It might also be worth doing something like Exalted/Scion's Stunting mechanics for outfits. Anything more than a bare bones description gets a small bonus, but to get a big bonus you don't just have to spend the GP, you have to describe something actually impressive.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, social penalties for putting no effort in. Encourage players to at minimum bathe and buy a good hat before meeting the queen (don't worry, there's no AC penalty for forgoing your helmet). The. Same should go for PCs, encourage them to bathe occasionally.

I'm considering trying to write a Bard's Guide to Adventuring Fashion thing for DMsGuild or the like. A mixture of rules and musings about personal presentation as an adventurer. Realistically I suspect most parties would occasionally detour to a river or stream to bathe, if only for health reasons, and would likely wash communally just to save on time. There is of course always that one member who never buys their own soap.

* I only have CofD to hand, and it tops out at 'filthy rich', so not really the 1%.

In 5e, downtime activities like "keep yourself clean" and "maintain your clothes" would all fall under the abstract Lifestyle Expense rules (PHB 157-159). They cover living conditions like lodging and cleanliness, as well as services like hiring a tailor for a pristine new outfit before meeting nobility.

In the interest of efficiency, I would simply ascribe a bonus or penalty based on where that PC falls on the Lifestyle table relative to the NPC they're interacting with. If you're at the same level on the table, straight check, if you're above, advantage, if you're below, disadvantage. Two or more rungs below (e.g. meeting with royalty when you're Modest, Poor or Squalid) and the check may be an automatic failure as they refuse to even talk to you.

[Anonymouswizard]

That said, my "hot-take" is that sub-systems for such a system are not needed. Most sub-systems are not needed, and instead it is much harder to strip a game down to its core essence than to add on layers of sub-systems. Therefore, a games "Core Mechanic" should be able to absorb and utilize "fashion" as the inputs for determining success/failure as simply as possible.

Great idea, why don't we reduce combat to 'each sice makes an attack roll and the higher result wins' while I'm at it.

@Psyren: not going to go into a detailed reply, but that's a reasonable way to do it if you don't care about defining outfits

[Psyren]

@Psyren: not going to go into a detailed reply, but that's a reasonable way to do it if you don't care about defining outfits

I'd probably also layer on the Services table as well - say, you might normally live a Modest lifestyle as a ranger, but if you stop by the tailor for a dapper outfit prior to visiting the local lord's manor, you might count as Comfortable that evening instead and not eat disadvantage.

Great idea, why don't we reduce combat to 'each sice makes an attack roll and the higher result wins' while I'm at it.

I mean, that's not exactly a fair comparison if we're talking about D&D. As a combat simulator with a handful of abstracted mechanics for the other pillars, the game just isn't designed for highly detailed and nuanced social interaction. Put another way, the game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Entertainment & Etiquette.

[Easy e]

Great idea, why don't we reduce combat to 'each sice makes an attack roll and the higher result wins' while I'm at it.

Coming from a wargaming background, many systems use that approach. However, many RPGs are even worse because the target doesn't even get to resist and doesn't get to roll at all. The player just has to beat a TN to generate success in combat.

I.e. roll a d20 and get a number higher than armor class 15 to hit.

At least in your example, the defender gets to do something too!



However, in a more serious take on the topic. The "Core Mechanics" should have a way to determine success/failure of a player. The chance of success is dictated by various inputs and is frequently done via modifiers. Therefore, instead of a full sub-system the "Core Mechanic" should be able to absorb the appropriate use of Fashion as a simple Modifier to help determine success/failure of the player.

Elaborate sub-systems that do not use the "Core Mechanic" of a game to resolve are less optimal.

[Psyren]

Coming from a wargaming background, many systems use that approach. However, many RPGs are even worse because the target doesn't even get to resist and doesn't get to roll at all. The player just has to beat a TN to generate success in combat.

I.e. roll a d20 and get a number higher than armor class 15 to hit.

At least in your example, the defender gets to do something too!

Just to nitpick, the defender gets plenty of counterplay even with static AC. They control the starting number via the protective gear they wear, and they can utilize positioning/cover to modify it further. And all that is before buffs/magic.

However, in a more serious take on the topic. The "Core Mechanics" should have a way to determine success/failure of a player. The chance of success is dictated by various inputs and is frequently done via modifiers. Therefore, instead of a full sub-system the "Core Mechanic" should be able to absorb the appropriate use of Fashion as a simple Modifier to help determine success/failure of the player.

Elaborate sub-systems that do not use the "Core Mechanic" of a game to resolve are less optimal.

I'd argue that even non-elaborate subsystems should incorporate fashion into the core mechanic. It's just efficient/elegant.

(Otherwise agreed)

[noob]

In 5e, downtime activities like "keep yourself clean" and "maintain your clothes" would all fall under the abstract Lifestyle Expense rules (PHB 157-159). They cover living conditions like lodging and cleanliness, as well as services like hiring a tailor for a pristine new outfit before meeting nobility.

In the interest of efficiency, I would simply ascribe a bonus or penalty based on where that PC falls on the Lifestyle table relative to the NPC they're interacting with. If you're at the same level on the table, straight check, if you're above, advantage, if you're below, disadvantage. Two or more rungs below (e.g. meeting with royalty when you're Modest, Poor or Squalid) and the check may be an automatic failure as they refuse to even talk to you.

I could also see being too many rungs above giving a disadvantage for befriending someone or stopping a conflict and it being an advantage mostly when you are trying to extort them or intimidate them (ex: you could stop a conflict by making them scared of you calling guards but they would resent you even more afterwards).