Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:48:16 PM
I will say, though, that having the player actually talk to the GM as if he were the NPC is much more fun and engaging than any possible social minigame.

I was planning to do both! 

Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:48:16 PM
The thing is, while combat rules aren't all that realistic, they are compromise because the players cannot possibly replicate combat any other way. Yet social interactions, since it's just talking, can be replicated on the game table. That's why combat rules are needed but social rules are not.

Count me in this camp as well. The argument "what about unsocialized nerds wanting to play smooth-talking orators?" has always felt flat to me. It's like saying, "what if someone who isn't athletic wants to play soccer real good?". If the game we're playing is a tabletop simulation, then sure, let's roll using the "soccer skill". But you don't get to roll or use a mechanic if the game is, you know, soccer.

At some point, we have to decide what skills the game is testing for the players. If player skill isn't involved in a dominant game pillar, then it the players might as well be computer simulations instead of actual people.

To the OP, I'd say, skip the explicit meta-currency as well the deus-ex-machina. Instead, let natural social consequences be the implicit currency. Just make sure it's meaningful and has expressly concrete manifestations.

QuoteThe thing is, while combat rules aren't all that realistic, they are compromise because the players cannot possibly replicate combat any other way. Yet social interactions, since it's just talking, can be replicated on the game table.

Trust me, you cannot replicate believably 18 Cha suave bard, having Cha 6 yourself That's the problem.

QuoteI don't see how the GM deciding whether or not the player's argument are convincing is any more arbitrary than the GM deciding that an NPC has a Social Armor Class of 14 and 6 Social Hit Points.

Because one is improvised as it goes, and another pre-planned and objectively standing against player attempts to do something around it.
That does not mean players should not RP. Roll should happen after action is described, not instead of it - and in fact that's how it usually looks in games using social skills.

QuoteCount me in this camp as well. The argument "what about unsocialized nerds wanting to play smooth-talking orators?" has always felt flat to me. It's like saying, "what if someone who isn't athletic wants to play soccer real good?". If the game we're playing is a tabletop simulation, then sure, let's roll using the "soccer skill". But you don't get to roll or use a mechanic if the game is, you know, soccer.

Problem is - RP-ing with your friends is about as related to dunno running hard round of gang negotiations in post-apocalyptic Jacksonville as is playing Football Manager to actual soccer in II league

Quote from: Zalman on October 10, 2022, 12:16:03 PM
The argument "what about unsocialized nerds wanting to play smooth-talking orators?" has always felt flat to me. It's like saying, "what if someone who isn't athletic wants to play soccer real good?". If the game we're playing is a tabletop simulation, then sure, let's roll using the "soccer skill". But you don't get to roll or use a mechanic if the game is, you know, soccer.

At some point, we have to decide what skills the game is testing for the players. If player skill isn't involved in a dominant game pillar, then it the players might as well be computer simulations instead of actual people.

Using social mechanics can still be a test of player skill, just as combat mechanics are a test of player skill. Combat is typically testing player tactical skill in a boardgame/wargame fashion. For example, when I last played Burning Wheel a few years ago, I created my character as an optimized champion in Duel of Wits (the BW social mechanic), and I carefully weighed my options in such duels.

Alternately, social mechanics can serve a similar function to knowledge and technical skills in a mystery. In a mystery, the player is putting together the clues - but they may need skill rolls to collect the right clues and sometimes to interpret or act on the clues.

In social situations, the player is choosing who they are talking to and what they are attempting, but how well they execute might depend on their Charisma and/or appropriate skill rating. They could also get additional information from using skills - like whether they think someone is lying, what that person is looking for, and other information a skilled person might pick up by observing body language, eye movement, and other details that the player doesn't have access to.

Quote from: Wrath of God on October 10, 2022, 06:55:22 PM

QuoteThe thing is, while combat rules aren't all that realistic, they are compromise because the players cannot possibly replicate combat any other way. Yet social interactions, since it's just talking, can be replicated on the game table.

Trust me, you cannot replicate believably 18 Cha suave bard, having Cha 6 yourself That's the problem.

What about a player saying, "I use my bard's suave and sophistication to impress and hopefully seduce the bar wench"?

The GM might ask "How?"

And that player could reply with "I use compliments that occasionally seem like they could also be insults... then I get her drunk."

Quote from: VengerSatanis on October 23, 2022, 08:52:49 AM

Quote from: Wrath of God on October 10, 2022, 06:55:22 PM

QuoteThe thing is, while combat rules aren't all that realistic, they are compromise because the players cannot possibly replicate combat any other way. Yet social interactions, since it's just talking, can be replicated on the game table.

Trust me, you cannot replicate believably 18 Cha suave bard, having Cha 6 yourself That's the problem.

What about a player saying, "I use my bard's suave and sophistication to impress and hopefully seduce the bar wench"?

The GM might ask "How?"

And that player could reply with "I use compliments that occasionally seem like they could also be insults... then I get her drunk."

I personally do not allow the players to wave off the interaction and go through with it by mechanics alone, no matter how good their stats are. This makes the interaction easily shallow and might be counterproductive towards your goal of interaction centered gaming, that´s just my two cents though.

Quote
What about a player saying, "I use my bard's suave and sophistication to impress and hopefully seduce the bar wench"?

The GM might ask "How?"

And that player could reply with "I use compliments that occasionally seem like they could also be insults... then I get her drunk."

that's quite fine
strategy can modify roll

QuoteI personally do not allow the players to wave off the interaction and go through with it by mechanics alone, no matter how good their stats are. This makes the interaction easily shallow and might be counterproductive towards your goal of interaction centered gaming, that´s just my two cents though.

But this is middle ground for someone who would, and possible GM cringed terribly at actually playing flirt.
Treat interaction like combat/exploration - chosen tactics influences difficulty.

I didn't realize that this board was actually still open, and PM'd VS an idea that I might as well write out publicly. It still uses a meta-currency, so I understand if you're not keen on it.

Mechanics like Honour are there to get NPCs to like or tolerate you enough for a conversation in the first place, so you want the mechanics to focus on the incentives to speak with NPCs and not the interactions themselves.

Example:

• Get 1 Reputation point with that NPC when you complete a favour.
• Trade 5 Rep points for 1 Esteem point with that NPC's social circles, get more by completing their quests.
• Trade 5 Est points for 1 Fame point in that non-player circle's region of dominance, authourity, etc.

And of course you lose points by failing their missions, besmirching their honour, betraying them outright, etc. You can spend these points at any level if you need to call favours from these NPC's, if it would involve them doing something they'd rather not interfere with for good reason like blood & treasure or their own rep/est/fame.

Edit:
Tbh GM's technically already do this, you usually need to meet a threshold of trust beore an NPC begins to offer the party jobs, but in spelling this out, favours are not rigidly defined as a single unit.

If you really go out of your way as a party and finish the favour or quest with flying colours, that would be worth extra points with the first, though if you underperform you might get no points yet still get paid. You can make no progress, or more than what was asked and leap to the next level in one or two steps.

On that framework, you might instead have Minor and Greater quantum levels of Rep/Est/Fame, and only by outdoing the previous level in quality of accomplishment will you be allowed the next level. With this, a possible adjustment to Fame might be: you can't spend those points/make good on your fame unless you outdo yourself for the social circle in that region, making both you and the NPC famous across the citizenry, residents, etc.

I sincerely think the OP's goal of making social aspect the main pillar of D&D - a game which rules are about combat and exploration of catacombs - is simply impossible. That said, I think it's possible to inject some social juice on it. So, here are my 2 cents:

Quote from: VengerSatanis on September 28, 2022, 12:48:43 PMHere's what I'm currently doing to get there - using Divine Favor (kind of like 5e's inspiration) as a meta-currency.  Players get Divine Favor when they interact socially between encounters + roleplay elements of their background.

Looks good but give "roleplaying" and "elements from their background" more concrete form, otherwise it will fall on GM fiat and whoever player has better theatrics skill at the table. Instead, why don't you have the players list 3 personal convictions/beliefs (whatever name you prefer) on their character sheet, and reward them inspiration/divine favor each time they uphold them in ways that creates trouble/cost, including social interactions? And have that inspiration/divine favor have strong effects everywhere else in the game (like combat). Not unlike Pendragon or Burning Wheel do it with their Passions and Instincts, I guess. And it works for player-on-player interactions too.

Still wouldn't make social interactions the main pillar of a D&D game, though. 

Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:48:16 PMThe thing is, while combat rules aren't all that realistic, they are compromise because the players cannot possibly replicate combat any other way. Yet social interactions, since it's just talking, can be replicated on the game table.

Can it really, though? In a way that respects characters' capabilities and not the players'?

In my experience, every game lacking rules to mediate social interaction ended up with the player with better rethoric having advantage on social situations (that, or the GM's best friend).

Quote from: Tod13 on October 08, 2022, 06:52:18 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2022, 05:48:16 PM
I will say, though, that having the player actually talk to the GM as if he were the NPC is much more fun and engaging than any possible social minigame.

I was planning to do both! 

Yep, I like games that do this. Players have a normal conversation punctuated by some rolls here and there. Seems the best of worlds to me.

It's a strong bet that meta-currencies are useless though

If you want more social interaction than combat, run RPGs where social interaction will be more likely to achieve the players' goals than combat would.

A murder mystery is a good example. There's little value in running about stabbing NPCs to discover the killer. Instead, talky-talk is required to figure out the butler did it so you can now stab him. 

Also, running RPGs in settings where violence would most likely result in a TPK, or at least, the fights would be highly risky. It's one of the reasons I loved Planescape. Plenty of violence happened, but you could easily get into fights with powers far beyond your own and because of that, the PS setting was far more talky-talk than other TSR settings.

As for rewarding player behavior with XP or metacurrency? That's fine if you want to encourage certain behaviors, but let's admit that you're treating players like trained seals at a certain point.

Gygax had the OD&D system use Gold for XP because he wanted  "inventive tomb raiders" instead of grinding combat after combat, so there's an ancient history of GMs using specific carrots with players to get the table experience they desired.

QuoteIf you want more social interaction than combat, run RPGs where social interaction will be more likely to achieve the players' goals than combat would.

You mean like Old School DnD when parlaying with monsters was usually more beneficial (if possible) then combating them

QuoteAs for rewarding player behavior with XP or metacurrency? That's fine if you want to encourage certain behaviors, but let's admit that you're treating players like trained seals at a certain point.

Well but most RPGs have some theme or genre so encouraging sticking to it's is far from trained seal level.

Quote from: Spinachcat on February 16, 2023, 04:05:34 AM
If you want more social interaction than combat, run RPGs where social interaction will be more likely to achieve the players' goals than combat would.

While I agree with this, I must ask again: how to differentiate the PCs' abilities to deal with those social situations without the use of rules?

How does Planescape do this?