Just wondering.  D&D's model is quite lackluster for this sort of thing.

Conversation and roleplaying?

I mean mechanically.

Quote from: B.T.;465532I mean mechanically.

I know you did.

I come up with a personality and a motivation for the characters and let them respond however seems fair. If someone thinks they will die if they step a red line, a natural 20 on a diplomacy check won't talk them into crossing it.

If there is a question, I have players roll right at the start of the RP and let the die roll influence how I have the character act, but usually the die roll picks between a minimum number of possible responses which are similar. Its never fall in love or call the guards, but it might be call the guards in a minute or call them now.

Well considering there is no universal "How best to run an RPG", it depends on the game at hand.  

It also depends on the circumstances of the encounter.

Many games use a kind of combat system. I usually had a problem, when such a system would be used with diplomatic acts, making people your friends and the like. Intimidating isn't really a problem for me. Give people Resolve Points or whatever and beat them down with Intimidation. But beating down I-don't-care-about-you Points with Diplomacy didn't suit me.


I came up with the following for a game of mine.

Everybody has a Philosophy a.k.a. alignment. Everybody has a Reputation score a.k.a. character level, as well.

There is no diplomacy skill. I had one at first, but found that everybody should be able to make friends, just not as easily with everyone. Therefore philosophies are figured in.

The mechanism works like that: When a PC interacts with an NPC the player can roll 1d6 through 5d6 as he likes. Every die coming up 4+ is a success. If a single die shows a 1, all successes from this roll are lost.

So there's a gamble. It's easier to collect successes in several small attempts than rushing things. I like that, as I think that building up relations takes time.

To gain Influcence for an NPC you first need a number of successes equal to their Reputation (important people don't care about your petty advances) plus one for each step your philosophies differ.

Further succeses are considered Influence and can be used to buy favors from the NPC.


I always tell the players that they do not need Influence to get something. If they have good arguments or strike a deal that's perfectly fine. Spending influence means that the NPC gives you stuff, just because they like you.


My experiences with this little system have been quite good. It's a bit more like building connections than encountering problems but it suits me just fine.


Edit: Tried to make that legible.

Nice trolling attempt, as usual, B.T.

It depends how important they are to the resolution of the game.

In Tough Justice and Courtesans a form of social dice play was essential as the Character's social skills needed to be mechanically quantified.

QuoteIn Tough Justice and Courtesans a form of social dice play was essential as the Character's social skills needed to be mechanically quantified.

Can you explain how this worked?

Well Tough Justice needed a way of determining who had won the Case beyond GM Fiat. Courtesans needed a way of determining how well each lady manipulated her Admirers emotions.

Both use modified d6 roll offs as the core mechanic. In Tough Justice success either offensively or defensively in a Team v Team context adds Case Points which build to the total result.

Courtesans is similar but the Margin of Success can be taken in Resources of the Player's choice. These are Legend (public image) Reputation (standing in the prostitution scene) Wealth (money) and Influence (Political clout)

Quote from: B.T.;465530Just wondering.  D&D's model is quite lackluster for this sort of thing.

If you ignore 95% of their implementation, 4E skill challenges work on occasion quite well, = 'do complex skill checks operating on target numbers the GM cooks up while ignoring 100% of the official material to that effect'.

On the whole though I mostly ignore any rules implementation whatsoever. And that's not based on my folders being on, but on having slouched through several Burning Wheel "duel of wits" scenarios. It's literally Rock, papers, scissors with social interaction names tagged on the individual social combat maneuvers, and arbitrarily so.

Just look at 1of3's d6 roll mechanic. You could paste that onto any other risk influenced resource management subsystem, and you wouldn't know the difference.

Huh, I found DoW fun.

Also, Diaspora has a nifty social conflict system that can be used to model many non-combat situations (or even fleet battles).

Then again, I'm not interested in simulation, but rather resolving conflict and introducing uncertainty, so a system being arbitrary doesn't matter to me so long as it makes play interesting/fun.

If they are playing their character usually roleplay.

If they are playing themselves I use dice and the stat or skill they have or lack there of...Same if the player has a lack of social skills himself I wont force him to do what he is uncomfortable with.

I generally narrate and roleplay social encounters but if a PC has a social skill and wants a different outcome I let them roll it and I let the result stand.  Of my own game designs, Bare Bones, Incandescent, and among the beautiful creatures have almost no social rules excepting leadership and morale of course.  Galaxies in Shadow and In The Shadow of Dragons have fairly elaborate social rules but the later has a much broader range of social skills and the former goes into greater detail when dealing with relationships.

In both there is a default modifier that represents the initial relationship, it's easier to wheedle your old granny than the dark lord, well, most of the time at least.  The default modifier can be adjusted by circumstances and can be permanently altered by social actions.  If you try intimidating your old granny she may be as intractable as the dark lord the next time you come around begging favors.

But it basically is a modifier that also serves as hit points.  It's a way of pushing past player disputes and accusations of unfairness with a dice roll or two and gives the DM some tools for defining who NPCs are in relationship to the PCs.