Social Encounters: More than Hearts and Effort?

#1

I was watching Trap Theory II: RP Mode again, and although the concept of RP-in-turn seems like a winner, the video falls short of explaining how to evaluate the situation after the timer runs out. The example of the princess goes:

  1. Players RP in turn.
  2. Timer runs down.
  3. When the timer runs out, nothing the players have said or done makes a difference. The princess explaining her surprise decision is the “trap”, but there’s nothing to fight and nothing to save against until that moment.

Several suggestions here boil down to “roll for hearts and effort”, but that bypasses the actual role-playing that I and my players want to do. Nobody has to be Shakespeare, but a couple of sentences, either in first person or third (like, “Olaf reminds the queen that the Count never held up his end of the bargain”) will do. Something to indicate that the PCs are actually talking about something.

I do have a method in my OSR game, however: I don’t mean to plug his product, necessarily, but Courtney Campbell’s On the Non Player Character details a method of evaluating social actions and their results based on original D&D’s 2d6 reaction roll. The method is, roughly:

  1. Roll 2d6, modified by CHA and optional “stance” (Neutral, Hostile, Friendly, or Obsequious). Higher is better.
  2. Based on the roll, the NPC has an initial reaction level (Attack, Hostile, Neutral, Friendly, or Helpful), and a number of actions to let the PCs engage and try to better their disposition. So if, e.g., the players roll a 7 for an NPC Captain of the Guard, said Captain’s disposition is Neutral, and they have 7 actions to try to make it better. (You can see the analogy with timers, I’m sure.)
  3. PCs select from a list of a couple of dozen social actions, like Bluff, Gamble, Demand, Trade, or Threaten, among others. Each action has a target number, a benefit for success, and a penalty for faiure. They may move the reaction level up or down, grant extra time, or give a bonus to a future roll, for instance.
  4. Players roll for success, and the GM applies the bonus or penalty for success or failure, until the timer runs down.
  5. The GM evaluates the NPC’s reaction level at this point, and acts accordingly. (Ideally, the NPC notes have a list of reactions for each level of disposition.)

The reason this isn’t just “roll for hearts and effort” is that the GM has decided (beforehand, or in the moment) that some tactics will fail and some will succeed regardless of die roll, and some may short-circuit the countdown (either the NPC agrees to the PC’s position, or they have offended him/her so badly, civil discussion can’t go on). The GM should give clues about what these may be while playing out the NPC’s reactions. For example, a steadfast Captain of the Guard would be offended if the PCs tried to offer him a “Gift” while on duty, but a good Joke will always ease his temper.

I have used this at the table in my own OSR game, and it does provide a useful framework for RP when I need it. Now I’m trying to figure out how I would convert this to ICRPG (such as how many hearts the 2-12 scale would represent).

Has anyone else here used a method like this in ICRPG (or D&D, for that matter)? How did it work out for you?

#2

That seems needlessly complex. I tend to just stay in the moment and have a sense about how closely the NPC is guarding his or her secret. The NPC might give it up with a piece of inspired RP by one of the players. Or, I might have a PC make a CHA check after a good bit of RP. Or I might have the PC make a Hard CHA check.

Not every social encounter has to have effort, just like not every door has to be chopped down with an axe. To keep the game moving, and with less work for DMs, I recommend just using a simple binary pass/fail method and not requiring effort unless you just want to stall for time (the NPC is trying to stall so guards can arrive, for example).

#3

Thanks for sharing! I like the idea and I don’t want to be a bummer, but that is literally how social encounters work in D&D (DMG, p. 244-245) and it’s a good system.

Seriously, I love this idea. That’s actually pretty close to what I do right now :slight_smile: I just connect this to the typical rolls in ICRPG, Hearts and Effort and stuff. For example, I break down the conversation in steps, then roll as they go, their arguments making the roll Easy, Normal, or Hard on that turn.

That all said, I love your codifying of social stances and attack mode! Seriously, it’s very well done. However, I would use it only in very specific games… But not in ICRPG (but that’s only me, I’m sure other people will use what you posted it here). It reminds me of the Game of Thrones RPG by Green Ronin, was it an inspiration?

#4

@P_Frota: I didn’t get it from GoT. I got it from Courtney Campbell, but for all I know he might have got it from there. I do know that it can also help streamline RP, because I’ve used it successfully in my own game. I still think the essence of the process can be ported over to ICRPG, but I haven’t worked out the numbers.

What does the DMG say about it? I haven’t picked up D&D rules since 3.5, although I’ve played in a couple of 5e games.

#5

@Alex: It’s not as complex as it seems. I’ve used it in my own game, and it’s almost seamless to run. You do have to make some decisions when creating the NPC, but even then it’s not hard. And you don’t need to do it with every NPC, just ones you expect the PCs to have important interactions with.

#6

I’ve used a version of this in TOR, but with much less granularity. In TOR, you have two reputation stats. In important social encounters, I determine which of the stats is more relevant (basically, are they impressed by reason or deeds) and use this to guide both their patience and the types of tactics that might persuade them. This works well for that system, but I haven’t really implemented anything like it in other games (besides the occasional notes like: likes flattery)