One More Social System for TTRPGs

[deaddmwalking]

On the Discord Channel there have been several discussions of whether Magic Tea Party is always better than trying to use a Social System in play. I believe that using a system (even with flaws) has major advantages over the GM simply deciding what is, in their opinion, ‘thematically appropriate’. This is true when I am the GM; it is also true when I am a player. We all know that the issue with Cops & Robbers and other Pretend games is the argument of whether someone is or isn’t in a particular state (shot/fine, etc). When players have vested interest in DIFFERENT results it is even more important that there is a relatively fair way to adjudicate differing expectations – a system – knowable in advance and subject to the PCs actions and abilities helps resolve potential disputes in a way that doesn’t fray the social contract at the table.

In advocating for a system, I have been asked to share how we handle social encounters in our games. The base rules document (not counting spells/monsters which are in separate documents) run 110 pages, of which about 10 (including tables) directly relate to Social Encounters – this includes an explanation of the Reaction Roll, descriptions of attitudes, relevant skill descriptions, and minor self-contained rules like spells and Talents that interact with the system. Beyond the directly applicable rules text there are other important rules that are indirectly referenced - for example how skill checks are resolved. After some consideration, I have decided against copy/pasting pages of text with the formatting issues and simply use this time to describe our social system.

Aren't all Social Systems just MTP Anyway?
The DM has a lot of power when creating the game including choosing the opposition the party faces. Whenever you encounter a Frost Giant in place of an Ogre, ultimately a decision was made by the GM that one was appropriate. While potentially opposition could be created systematically via some type of encounter table, I expect that GMs typically choose opposition based on the adventure that they’re running – essentially GM Fiat. Once that decision is made, however, the combat rules are pretty good about determining whether you successfully strike your opponent and what happens when they run out of hit points. Just as a combat encounter begins with the DM deciding what happens but the rules take over, it's possible to have a social encounter that works in a similar way. Some people may consider it Magical Tea Party if an encountered creature is very difficult to influence based, in part, on decisions that the GM made prior to the PCs encountering them, but ultimately, I think that’s unfair – knowing that there are rules for how your interactions happen and that your character abilities determine outcomes creates enough separation from the initial conditions to resolve disputes beyond ‘I make him my friend’ versus ‘No, you don’t’.

In the context of social encounters, some people are okay with the DM deciding what happens next - did you say ENOUGH to convince the DM that you should get your preferred social outcome - and that can work fine. Magical Tea Party all the way CAN WORK, but is it really the BEST way?

When I DM, the PCs frequently interact with someone that I didn't develop a complex backstory for. I do need to come up with a personality for Guard #3 pretty quickly, but I've never considered 'what is their essential nature'. In cases where the PCs do want a particular outcome I prefer to use some process to determine what SHOULD happen - we live in a seemingly probabilistic universe where sometimes people fall in love at first sight and sometimes they don't - either one could make an interesting story, but it means more if the PCs used their skills and abilities rather than the DM deciding via 'fiat' what the result of those efforts are. Having a system helps me obtain a result that I didn’t already have a vested interest in choosing. From a player perspective, I feel more empowered when my actions determine the result. Obviously, the GM is responsible for knowing and using the system – they could make up a result and I might never realize – just like they could raise or lower an AC by 3 points. Having a system doesn’t mean it can’t be ignored, but it does mean that if you don’t want to MTP it or pick a response (or if two or more players want different things) you can use the system.

Rolling Skill Checks
A skill can be untrained (+0), trained (+4), or expert (+6); all PCs receive a bonus of +1/2 Level to all skills; PCs also receive a bonus based on an attribute (typically +1-+6). The TN for a skill is usually 10 + opponent attribute + ½ level + (relevant skill). For example, if you attempt to Feint an opponent, you would roll a Bluff check of 1d20 + Bluff Skill Bonus + Attribute + ½ Level against a TN of 10 + Opponent’s Sense Motive Skill Bonus + Attribute + ½ Level. If you’re trying to influence someone equal to your level you will both have the same bonus for level; if the opponent is higher level you will have a more difficult time; if they are lower level you will be more likely to succeed.
A PC that was interested in using Social Skills might have a +6 Skill Bonus (Expert), a +6 Attribute Bonus, and a bonus equal to 1/2 level). Assuming they were influencing someone of equal level they might be rolling 1d20+12 against a TN of 15 (10 + Attribute of 5).

Initial Reaction and Influence TN
When the PCs first encounter anyone, we roll 2d6 to determine starting attitude. A 2-4 (~17%) yields an Unfavorable initial disposition; a 10-12 (~17%) yields a favorable initial disposition; a result of 5-9 (~66%) yields a Neutral Disposition. When the PCs walk into town, these are the types of reactions we expect – but when you’re discovered stealing a magical item from the orc king you expect things to be worse – if you have a negative modifier you can push your result to 1 or below – taking them to hostile. Likewise, if you have a positive modifier you can push them to 13 or higher – taking them to Helpful.

Everyone in our system has an Influence TN - this number represents how difficult it is to change their mind after its already been made up. The Influence TN is generally 10 + Attribute Mod + 1/2 Level. PCs get one check maximum per day to improve an NPCs current reaction. Attitude also factors into it. Influencing an unfavorable target is at a +4 TN; influencing a hostile target is at +8 TN. Someone who views you favorable is easier to influence; you have a -4 TN to influence them and a -8 to influence someone Helpful. If people are already seeing everything you say in the best possible light it’s easier to influence them to do the things you would like them to do.

A maximum of once per day, the PCs can use Diplomacy to modify a starting attitude either making the target more favorable or more unfavorable. If they succeed on the check the starting attitude is adjusted by +/-2 (PCs choice) +/-1 for every 5 points they exceed the TN.

We provide guidelines for what types of actions are appropriate based on attitude. For example, a Hostile Merchant won’t sell goods at any price and will likely contact the guard or other authorities to have PCs forcibly removed from their shop.


Example
The GM rolled a 7 (median result) on an initial reaction roll giving us a 'Neutral Result'. We can talk to the other group, allowing us to make a single Diplomacy check to improve (or lower) their initial reaction. Usually PCs will use it to increase their standing, but they could use it to decrease someone else's - for example if they were involved in a disputed negotiation. If I rolled a 10 with my +12 bonus I would have a result of 22. That is enough to succeed on a TN of 15 and it exceeds the TN by 7 so I can raise their starting attitude by 3 (+2 for a successful check, +1 additional for exceeding the check by 5 or more) from the 7 that was rolled to a 10 – raising their attitude from Neutral to Favorable.

Reaction Modifiers (Circumstance Adjustments)
We list 18 example reaction modifiers ranging from a -8 to the Initial Reaction to +6. Examples of a -8 include the Party having attacked the NPC in the last hour and/or initiating peaceful contact and then initiating combat in the same encounter. Doing a small favor for an NPC in the last week is worth a +2 on the reaction roll while a major favor in the past year is worth a +4.

Using Social Skills
Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive are the primary social skills. When you use Bluff your target generally believes what you say – at least that it is believable! This is primarily used to remove a circumstance adjustment. Bluff is opposed by Sense Motive (ie, a Bluff check is 1d20 + Bluff Skill Bonus + Attribute Modifier + ½ Level against a TN of 10 + Target’s Sense Motive Skill Bonus + Attribute Modifier + ½ Level). Diplomacy is used directly to improve their attitude. Their attitude determines what types of interactions are possible.

Spells and Magical Compulsions
Charm allows you to make a Diplomacy check to improve a target’s attitude with a +10 bonus (equivalent to +2 in the example above – not enough to make the target Helpful, but allowing a little more leeway before they might drop to neutral. Compulsions, like dominate don’t change a target’s attitude – when the spell ends it’s reaction will be what it was before though potentially with a circumstance penalty appropriate to the situation (ie, -8 if you cast dominate while breaking a parley).

Personal Notes
In my mind, an NPC considers ‘a major favor’ to be the equivalent of their level 2 x 10 silver pieces. A 3rd level character might be willing to provide aid of approximately 90 silver pieces in value. In our system that’s a value equivalent to a medium armor. Each time an NPC provides this type of aid I move their attitude downward by one point. Continually doing small favors for NPCs that the party likes (or occasional major favors) automatically moves them up. In our group we don’t really have people that exploit relationships exclusively for their own gain. When running, I would let someone use a Sense Motive check to recognize Circumstance Penalties that currently apply so the PCs can attempt to remove them. I sometimes ask for a Diplomacy check

Final Thoughts
Since the rules as described above are detailed in our reference documentation, all of the players know how it works. This means that sometimes we would rather complete a major favor for the King before seeking an audience, especially if we knew we had circumstance penalties or an enemy whispering in his ear. For myself, I find that trying to make various minor NPCs interesting is enhanced – when a shopkeeper has an unfavorable attitude it encourages me to look down my nose and act like interacting with ‘these ruffians’ is distasteful, while a favorable reaction encourages them to be fawning and overly flattering.

[Kaelik]

We provide guidelines for what types of actions are appropriate based on attitude. For example, a Hostile Merchant won’t sell goods at any price and will likely contact the guard or other authorities to have PCs forcibly removed from their shop.

Without actually posting these guidelines you actually haven't told us a single thing about how your social system actually works. You have 400 rules about how to get an Attitude, and then also an influence roll, but right now, all the inputs go into the black box of "some guidelines" and come out with a result. That's just a black box with extra steps.

Since this is under the section about TNs, I'm also curious if you have to roll an influence check to get the get the shopkeeper to throw you out. You've said mutually contradictory things on this many times in the discord, and you still haven't spelled out if people who are helpful do things because they are helpful or if people who are helpful do nothing unless you roll an influence check, at which point you get a bonus from them being helpful.

When you use Bluff your target generally believes what you say – at least that it is believable!

Is this a typo? This isn't even a sentence with a coherent meaning.

When players have vested interest in DIFFERENT results it is even more important that there is a relatively fair way to adjudicate differing expectations – a system – knowable in advance and subject to the PCs actions and abilities helps resolve potential disputes in a way that doesn’t fray the social contract at the table.

From what you have posted here, there is nothing that would tell anyone how the rules would or would not adjudicate differing expectations.

[deaddmwalking]

Per the rules you don't have to make a check for helpful people to do helpful things. Helpful people will help when you give them an opportunity (such as asking). I usually have people roll a check ANYWAY that helps me decide the amount of resources available at this moment. For example, I was running the 3.x Adventure Series that starts with Sunless Citadel. There were some changes that I made to increase the consistency. The city that was used for Speaker in Dreams was also the starting point for Forge of Fury. I had a list of problems that the leader of the town was dealing with but the PCs had established a good relationship and had a Helpful reaction - but even with that there were some real constraints on how much help he could provide them. If I had fully detailed his treasury and his cadre of men-at-arms it wouldn't have been necessary - more importantly it helped me determine whether he was betting everything on the PCs success or holding some forces in reserve.

Rules text that explains what Hostile people do versus Helpful people exists, but I don't think it is necessary to repeat it here. The 3.5 DMG also has guidelines about what types of actions are appropriate based on their attitude. I am confident that people who are active on this site are capable of writing some specific guidelines that make sense to them - I also provided my general guidelines for how I choose to interpret it.

From my perspective, the major problems with 3.x is that it doesn't have any firm foundation to determine starting attitudes AND the fixed TNs used with Diplomacy create bad results. To address that we defined HOW initial attitudes are determined and WHAT SPECIFIC circumstances can improve an initial attitude and made Diplomacy as a skill scale with opposition. Moving +2/+3 on a 12+ point scale can have a meaningful impact without having people go from trying to kill you to being your best friend immediately - but still allows for a way to get there if you can convince them that there's been a wacky misunderstanding!

But Kaelik, I never believed I would convince you of anything. I've tried to go into the reasons why straight MTP isn't something our group is super-keen on both here and the Discord - this explains how we move it from straight MTP to a system that has inputs and outputs and is generally understandable to players and GMs without being so complex that we have to do differential calculus at the table.

[Kaelik]

Rules text that explains what Hostile people do versus Helpful people exists, but I don't think it is necessary to repeat it here. The 3.5 DMG also has guidelines about what types of actions are appropriate based on their attitude. I am confident that people who are active on this site are capable of writing some specific guidelines that make sense to them - I also provided my general guidelines for how I choose to interpret it.

People on this website could write up their own guidelines to create their own social system, which would have whatever flaws that has, but it's pretty weird how committed you are to hiding your supposed very good social system behind obfusicating so that no one could possibly gleen anything about how your social system works from what you post.

But Kaelik, I never believed I would convince you of anything. I've tried to go into the reasons why straight MTP isn't something our group is super-keen on both here and the Discord - this explains how we move it from straight MTP to a system that has inputs and outputs and is generally understandable to players and GMs without being so complex that we have to do differential calculus at the table.

But that's the thing, it doesn't! Your system, as described here, is indistinguishable from MTP for anyone reading your posts.

Nothing you have posted has told us a single thing about how to resolve a situation in which players and DMs have different expectations about how a social encounter should resolve.

[deaddmwalking]

Nothing you have posted has told us a single thing about how to resolve a situation in which players and DMs have different expectations about how a social encounter should resolve.

You keep saying things like that, but I disagree. You can use Sense Motive to determine someone's attitude. You can use Diplomacy to improve their attitude. You can use Bluff to add/remove a circumstance modifier. It's possible to know what you need to do to get the outcome you want using your character's abilities. You can know what the TN is to influence someone before you make the roll.

I firmly believe those things matter.

D&D is a game of imagination and the GM has a lot of power to create adversaries and scenarios for the players. Once those have been created, it's comforting to know that the rules are used consistently and that character actions can have their intended impact. On the Discord I remember someone saying 'maybe I'd let that happen with a TN 200 check'. If I want to take someone from Hostile (1) to Helpful (13) and the normal Influence TN is 15, I know before I roll that I need a 23 (for the first +2), and that I need to beat the TN by 50 (for the next +10) [effective TN 73]. I also know that there's a circumstance modifier I can remove that will make them either Unfavorable or Neutral. Going from a 4 (unfavorable) to 13 (Helpful) means a TN 19 (for the first +2) and I need to beat it by 35 (for the next +7) [effective TN 54]. I also know that if I come in having accomplished a Major Favor I can start from 8 (neutral), so the TN is only 15 (for the first +2) and I need to beat it by 15 (for the next +3) to get to helpful [Effective TN 30].

Ultimately, this knowledge helps ensure that players and GMs are on the same page. If we need to get help from a Dragon we know we're going to get further if we have done a major favor. And if I have a +12 I know that I need an 18+ to get to Helpful, but that a 3+ will be enough to get to Favorable. As a GM I know that lending the party a powerful item is appropriate for a Favorable disposition, and that if they were Helpful they might gift the item or join in the crusade.

If we've done our job, these results should look a lot like what MTP would do - at least good MTP! The difference is that we can show numerically how to get the results we want rather than just ask the GM to make a gut-check to see if we've done about enough. That actually is a meaningful difference.

[Kaelik]

Nothing you have posted has told us a single thing about how to resolve a situation in which players and DMs have different expectations about how a social encounter should resolve.

You keep saying things like that, but I disagree. You can use Sense Motive to determine someone's attitude. You can use Diplomacy to improve their attitude. You can use Bluff to add/remove a circumstance modifier. It's possible to know what you need to do to get the outcome you want using your character's abilities. You can know what the TN is to influence someone before you make the roll.

I firmly believe those things matter.

These things only matter if they produce actual outputs! But you are deliberately hiding all the actual outputs so that all those things are meaningless.

An attitude only matters if we know what attitudes do, and you haven't told us what they do. Bonuses and TNs only matter if we know what a success or failure do, and you haven't told us what the result of an influence rule is.

If I want to take someone from Hostile (1) to Helpful (13) and the normal Influence TN is 15, I know before I roll that I need a 23 (for the first +2), and that I need to beat the TN by 50 (for the next +10) [effective TN 73].

But why would you want to get someone from Hostile to Helpful? So far the only thing we know that does that you will actually tell us is "it gives a +8 bonus on an influence roll" but if you can already make a TN 73 Influence roll, why do you care about a +8 bonus on your next influence roll?

What does an influence roll do that we would want a +8? We still don't know, because you won't tell us what any of the rules actually do to resolve any conflict.

Ultimately, this knowledge helps ensure that players and GMs are on the same page.

It does not in fact do that! If all I know as a player is what you've posted, I have no fucking clue what page we are on, because I have no idea what an influence roll even does! I don't know what a helpful NPC would do!

As a GM I know that lending the party a powerful item is appropriate for a Favorable disposition, and that if they were Helpful they might gift the item or join in the crusade.

Do the PLAYERS know that? Because if the players don't know that, then they can't be on the same page with you because they don't know that they can get every helpful NPC to follow them around in a Katamari party, and they might end up dying and feeling bad that they didn't have a cleric with raise dead trailing the party (or getting poisoned/neutralize poison, whatever).

If they players do know that, then why are you so committed to not posting these guidelines when people have asked you for them, both here and on the discord?

If we've done our job, these results should look a lot like what MTP would do - at least good MTP! The difference is that we can show numerically how to get the results we want rather than just ask the GM to make a gut-check to see if we've done about enough. That actually is a meaningful difference.

I definitely think that if I knew what helpful did, I would think that good MTP would not involve doing a few favors to push every person I wanted to helpful in 3 days.

[deaddmwalking]

I definitely think that if I knew what helpful did, I would think that good MTP would not involve doing a few favors to push every person I wanted to helpful in 3 days.

Doing a favor within the last week earns a +2. You can't stack them. What you can do is have several interactions with a specific individual and claim a bonus for having a history of favorable relations. I personally don't think that the Heroes should have much trouble getting people to have a Helpful demeanor - they're the heroes after all. But I definitely don't have a problem with them spending time in-game to accomplish things that NPCs they want to influence want them to do. When the PCs are preparing to ask a favor and they say 'what have we done for him lately', that's a very normal reaction in the real world and in the game.

[Kaelik]

Doing a favor within the last week earns a +2. You can't stack them. What you can do is have several interactions with a specific individual and claim a bonus for having a history of favorable relations.

This is in your post above:

"PCs get one check maximum per day to improve an NPCs current reaction."

From this I have determined that in 3 days you can push someone to helpful, despite you posting this as if it's a contradiction, it seems to be you mostly agree:

"I personally don't think that the Heroes should have much trouble getting people to have a Helpful demeanor - they're the heroes after all."

I personally don't think that the Heroes should have much trouble getting people to have a Helpful demeanor - they're the heroes after all.

As I said: "I definitely think that if I knew what helpful did I would think that good MTP would not involve doing a few favors to push every person I wanted to helpful in 3 days."

Obviously since you have told no one what helpful does and you won't even tell us if your players know what helpful does, I can't be sure. I will never know, since you will never provide any information that would actually allow people to know what the attitudes and influence rolls do.

I still am very curious, no matter how much you avoid mentioning it, what an influence roll does when it's not being used to change an attitude that I don't know what attitude does either.

[deaddmwalking]

From this I have determined that in 3 days you can push someone to helpful, despite you posting this as if it's a contradiction, it seems to be you mostly agree:

"I personally don't think that the Heroes should have much trouble getting people to have a Helpful demeanor - they're the heroes after all."

It's entirely possible to get someone to helpful in a single interaction. It's probably not possible to go from Hostile to Helpful just using the Diplomacy skill, but if there are misunderstandings then clearing them up could make it possible.

Obviously since you have told no one what helpful does and you won't even tell us if your players know what helpful does, I can't be sure. I will never know, since you will never provide any information that would actually allow people to know what the attitudes and influence rolls do.

I think that the attitudes are relatively self-explanatory. More to the point, the 'system' is about how we modify attitudes and the mechanical underpinnings are the only thing that I think are unique and interesting. As mentioned, attitudes are described in the 3.x DMG and can be used. But this is what I mean by helpful:

The NPC is willing to aid the Party in major and even dangerous ways. They might physically defend the party from harm, lie to authorities on their behalf, loan them a significant amount of money, or even join them in a quest. The NPC is unlikely to forsake existing friends or responsibilities in favor of the Party—at least not for long—and they will provide aid relative to the resources they have available. (For example, a loan of a few silver coins is
significant to a peasant but a pittance to a rich merchant, who might be willing to lend tens or hundreds of gold coins.)

I still am very curious, no matter how much you avoid mentioning it, what an influence roll does when it's not being used to change an attitude that I don't know what attitude does either.

I did mention it in the original post. You can use your influence to adjust the attitude towards others (positively or negatively). If you are a trusted advisor then you can make a check (usually opposed) to color someone's attitude toward a 3rd party. I also explained that I use a check to determine how much of their available resources might be available when asked. We all like to help our friends but we all also have other responsibilities.

[Kaelik]

It's entirely possible to get someone to helpful in a single interaction. It's probably not possible to go from Hostile to Helpful just using the Diplomacy skill, but if there are misunderstandings then clearing them up could make it possible.

I said over 3 days because you said you can roll again every day! You can get anyone you want to helpful by just talking to them each day. That's the thing that I think would be a problem, if you would tell anyone what helpful means.

I think that the attitudes are relatively self-explanatory.

The attitudes are not self explanatory! That's the entire system! What people will or will not do for you is what a social system is supposed to tell you, and your entire system apparently boils down to 10 pages of complex rules to decide if someone is or is not helpful and then "helpful is self explanatory" that's just MTP with extra steps.

The NPC is willing to aid the Party in major and even dangerous ways. They might physically defend the party from harm, lie to authorities on their behalf, loan them a significant amount of money, or even join them in a quest. The NPC is unlikely to forsake existing friends or responsibilities in favor of the Party—at least not for long—and they will provide aid relative to the resources they have available. (For example, a loan of a few silver coins is significant to a peasant but a pittance to a rich merchant, who might be willing to lend tens or hundreds of gold coins.)

Here's what you said about why your system is better then MTP in your first post: "When players have vested interest in DIFFERENT results it is even more important that there is a relatively fair way to adjudicate differing expectations – a system – knowable in advance and subject to the PCs actions and abilities helps resolve potential disputes in a way that doesn’t fray the social contract at the table."

So, now let's look at your description of helpful and see if it accomplishes this!

What happens when the players think the NPC should physically defend the party from harm, but the GM thinks they shouldn't? MTP!

What happens when the players think the NPC should lie to authories on their behalf, but the GM thinks they shouldn't? MTP!

What happens when the players think an amount of money is significant, but a GM thinks it is too much? MTP!

What happens when the players think an NPC should join them in a quest, but the GM thinks they shouldn't? MTP!

What happens when the players think a situation is so exceptional that the NPC should forsake existing friendships or responsibilities in favor of the party, at least for a while, and the GM thinks they shouldn't? MTP!

Your entire system is ten pages to get to the part where the helpful description is just "The NPC MIGHT help or they MIGHT not, and that's a decision I'm just going to make up on the fly in my own head and has nothing to do with you and you could have never predicted." Congrats, you are just doing MTP but lying to yourself.

I did mention it in the original post. You can use your influence to adjust the attitude towards others (positively or negatively). If you are a trusted advisor then you can make a check (usually opposed) to color someone's attitude toward a 3rd party. I also explained that I use a check to determine how much of their available resources might be available when asked. We all like to help our friends but we all also have other responsibilities.

So everything you posted in Discord was just a lie you were telling for fun. Interesting.

Because in Discord, when we talked about whether a helpful wife would join the PCs in evacuating the town as an army came down you insisted that they wouldn't just leave, that in fact, even helpful NPCs you have to roll an influence check.

Specifically: "In the wife example, we'd know that we're already in very favorable exchange rate (unless I had recently been impersonated by a doppelganger or something that gave me some penalties). Then I'd make a check based on relative level and if I did well it would work and if I roll very poorly and miss the DC we would introduce a complication. A sense motive could tell me how I could address it."

Nothing about this is about changing attitude on the Helpful wife. Both Fox and I asked you at the time to tell us about this influence roll that you would require of the helpful wife before she evacuated and you never told us, and now apparently the reason is because it never existed.

I'm starting to think you are actually making up the rules to your imaginary social system anew each time you discuss it.