Social Mechanics for OSR D&D

I'm looking for feedback on this system, which I haven't playtested yet. The purpose is to give more structure to tense social encounters, such as with monsters in a dungeon. The Patience stat puts a time limit on the conversation, and the 'End of conversation' boxes make the stakes clear to the players. I hope this will make the social encounters feel more 'fair' and thus allow the DM to dole out serious consequences if the social encounter goes poorly.

 This system combines a few ideas from OSR bloggers (I don't think I'm the first to come up with a 'Patience' stat) with dice math based on Apocalypse World moves. Design notes are in italics.

The Conversation Game

This subsystem is for use when encountering unfamiliar or potentially hostile NPCs, particularly in the wilderness or dungeons. It is not necessarily applicable to simpler social encounters such as with a quest-giver or a shopkeeper. The purpose is to create tension and interesting choices for the PCs.

These rules refer to NPC (singular) but can also be applied to a whole group.

Basic Procedure

-       When the NPC is encountered, make a Reaction roll to determine their Attitude and Patience.

-       PCs converse with the NPC. Each significant action in the conversation takes one Conversation Turn.

-       After each Conversation Turn, reduce Patience by 1. When it reaches zero, the NPC ends the conversation in a manner appropriate to their current Attitude.

The Reaction Roll

When the NPC is first encountered, roll 2d6 and add the highest Charisma modifier of the PCs’ group. The total amount is the NPC’s Affinity. The number shown on the highest die is the NPC’s Patience. (This is the only place where Charisma affects the encounter. I did it this way so that a player with high CHA gets to feel rewarded, but everyone can still participate in the conversation without being suboptimal.)

 Affinity represents the NPC’s overall disposition toward the party. Patience represents how long they will converse before taking an action that ends the conversation.

Affinity Track	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Affinity Mod	-3	-2	-1	-1	0	0	0	+1	+1	+2	+3
General demeanour	Hostile	Unfriendly			Neutral			Friendly			Helpful
End of conversation	Attacks; flees		Leaves; pursues own goals even if in conflict with PCs					Leaves; pursues own goals if not in conflict with PCs			Offers alliance or gift

(I envision this track on a sheet of paper in the middle of the table, with a token to show where on the Affinity Track the NPC is sitting.)

 

Conversation Turn

A Conversation Turn is an abstract measure of how the conversation has progressed. One Conversation Turn is something that moves the conversation forward and has a measurable effect. One Conversation Turn might cover:

-       A few sentences of back-and-forth dialogue

-       A single important question asked by the PCs

-       One of the specified Conversation Actions below

Conversation Actions

Improve Affinity: Covers all attempts at flattery, boasting, charming, gift-giving, and anything else where the main purpose is to make the NPC like the PCs more.

Roll 2d6+Affinity modifier:

On a 10+, move one step up the Affinity track. 

On a 7-9, the NPC may be unmoved, or may demand a gift or promise; if the demand is met, move one step up the Affinity track. 

On a 6-, the NPC is irritated and one extra point of Patience is deducted.

Bonuses from +1 to +2 can be applied by giving a gift the NPC likes, making a concession (e.g. throwing down weapons), or using techniques relevant to the NPC (e.g. flattery gets a bonus on a prideful NPC).

Make an Offer: Covers all attempts to trade, swap information, make an alliance, etc.

Roll 2d6+Affinity modifier:

On a 10+, the offer is accepted. 

On a 7-9, the NPC makes a counter-offer. 

On a 6-, the offer is rejected. Move one step down the Affinity track.

Bonuses and penalties from -2 to +2 are applied if the offer is unusually favourable or unusually unfavourable.

Make a Threat: Covers all attempts at extortion, scaring away, forcing submission, etc.

Roll 2d6 (no Affinity mod)

On a 10+, the NPC submits to the PCs' will, but moves 1d4 steps down the Affinity track.

On a 7-9, they retreat or make a counter-offer, and move 1 step down the Affinity track.

On a 6-, they attack or flee.

Bonuses and penalties from -2 to +2 are applied based on the relative strength of the PCs versus the NPCs.

Tell a Lie: Covers all attempts at deception.

Depending on the content of the lie, it can instantly set the NPC’s Affinity track to a higher number (e.g. if you convince them you are an agent of their king, their Affinity is set to 11 or 12).

When you tell a lie, roll for its starting HP based on how plausible it is:

Implausible: 1d6-3

Plausible: 1d6

Airtight: 2d6

Add the NPC’s Affinity modifier to this roll.

(I envision a space on the sheet, below the Affinity track, where you can write down lies and put dice to show how much HP they have left. These lies could potentially continue across multiple sessions and multiple encounters with the same NPC.)

Lies

Each lie told has its own pool of HP (Hoodwink Points). If this pool goes to 0, then the NPC no longer believes the lie. A lie’s HP can never go higher than 12.

-       When the NPC sees/hears something that seems to disprove the lie, then the lie takes damage (1d4 for mildly suspicious, 1d6 for quite suspicious, 2d6 or more for blatant contradiction).

-       When the NPC sees/hears something that seems to be evidence for the lie, the lie is healed (1d4 for mild evidence, 1d6 or more for strong evidence).

-       Whenever a lie takes damage, the PCs have a chance to negate the damage if they make up another lie that explains the inconsistency. Roll HP for this lie separately.

-       When a lie reaches 0 HP, it ‘dies’ and the NPC stops believing it. When this happens, all other lies told to the NPC take 1d6 damage (possibly causing a chain reaction) and the NPC’s Affinity track moves down 1d6 steps.

Harry Clarke Bestiary Project: The Bull-Witch

Harry Clarke

An old bull becomes crafty and cruel. He wants revenge on the men who have imprisoned him and used him all his life.

A virgin girl becomes aware of her place in the world, and rebels against it. She wants strength and masculine power, the power to run free and to destroy.

They come together to help each other. The bull knows secret arts that run deep in his veins, memories of a distant age when his kind were still wild. He teaches these secrets to the girl. With his consent she tears off his hide, leaving only a flayed corpse behind.

When she wears the hide under the moon, she becomes a bull. She breaks down the doors of her enemies and tramples them in their beds. When she wears the hide during daylight, the old bull rides her body. He uses her voice to spread lies and hatred amidst the community, spurring men to violence against each other.

As long as she wears the bull-cloak regularly, the girl will not age. To keep it fresh she must leave it hanging on a post in the woods. She must remain a virgin, or the bull-cloak will shrivel and die. Eventually her immortality will become impossible to hide, and she will flee into the forest to become a Bull-Witch.

Sometimes Bull-Witches find each other and form covens. They may be peaceful and reclusive, keepers of secret knowledge; or they may be vengeful witches who work in secret to undermine whole societies. After a Bull-Witch has lived one hundred years, her cloak gradually fades away and becomes a phantom mantle on her shoulders, visible only in moonlight. She/he can shift between forms at will, and his/her mind is one with the bull's.

Human form
HD: 2
AC: Leather
Attack: slap 1d8
Morale: 8
Move: Normal human
Silver tongue: 1/day. Target must save vs. magic or believe whatever the bull tells them. If made to believe something plainly impossible, they instead become feverishly ill for 2d6 days.
Bull strength

Bull form
HD: 4
AC: Chainmail
Attack: Trample 1d8+1 or charge 2d8
Morale: 10
Move: 1.5x human
Shadow step: When in deep shadow, can teleport up to 50' into another area of deep shadow.
Bullfear: 1/encounter. Roar triggers primal fear in humans (save vs magic or flee blindly for 1d6 rounds).

Older Bull-Witches may cast spells as per Magic-User.

Through Ultan's Door Session 3: Pulling Punches

Sidney Syme

In the third session of my Ultan's Door campaign, the PCs went way off the map. This was exciting because I got to use some content I had developed myself; it was also challenging because I had to improvise a lot of things on the fly, which is not my strong suit.

The party found the Great Sewer River which lies at the edge of the map in Through Ultan's Door #1. They took a boat and rowed it upriver, which eventually led them to emerge from the dungeon into the streets of Zyan Above. Some of the party got captured by a group of paranoid Zyanese warriors, while one character made friends with some priests. At one point the party was split into three groups which was quite difficult to run. Eventually, through some fast talking and leniency on my part, they managed to bluff their way into escaping and took the boat back down the river to where they had started.

Overall the session was a success, but there were a few points where I think I could have done better. I felt like I pulled my punches a lot when the PCs were interacting with the paranoid Zyanese. The PCs willingly gave up their weapons and let themselves be captured. Based on what I had established about the Zyanese, it would have been reasonable for them to kill the PCs or at least imprison them indefinitely. Instead I let the PCs get away with some fairly outrageous lies.

I think I was reluctant to make 'hard moves' because I was improvising (therefore the danger was not set in stone like in the dungeon areas I had prepped) and because I failed to properly outline the stakes to the players. Two of the players who got captured were new to this campaign and their idea of D&D is shaped largely by a) comedy D&D podcasts and b) my old Dungeon World campaign. Because of time constraints I had neglected to give them the full 'OSR spiel'. I think they were still in the mindset of "we can say silly things to these NPCs and we might get captured but we'll get free somehow" - which was reasonable, because I had not properly set expectations.

In hindsight, I wish I had explicitly framed the stakes before the PCs gave up their weapons. I should have said: "Look, you don't know who these people are, but they look threatening. If you let them take you captive, you might end up imprisoned or executed. At the very least they will probably take your stuff. Are you ok with that?" Then if the players persisted, it would have felt fair if they got killed.

The other weak point in the social scenes was the lack of dice mechanics. I had been set against using Charisma checks because I wanted it to be OSR style - "you just say what you say and the NPCs react accordingly". But there were several spots where I genuinely didn't know how the NPCs would react, and a roll would have come in handy there. I might start using "reaction roll modified by Charisma" to resolve these situations.

Aside from those points, though, the session was a success and I'm excited to see how the campaign grows from here. Depending on what the players want to do next it could stay as a dungeon crawl, or evolve into a citycrawl/political game.

Ritualistic Design

I've been thinking lately about a type of game mechanic or procedure which I'm going to call 'ritualistic design'. By that, I mean a case where the game or gamemaster calls for an action that superficially seems to have a purpose, but actually has no impact on the way the game plays out. A common example of this is the Perception check. Probably everyone reading this has experienced the situation of a GM saying "make a Perception roll", but you know that no matter what you roll the GM is going to give you roughly the same information - or if you fail your roll, another player will "check Perception" and so on until someone rolls high and the GM gets to tell you the thing that they wanted to tell you anyway.

Incidents like these are often seen as failures of design. Many people dismiss Perception checks as pointless. It's bad enough that they waste your precious gaming time on something that doesn't really matter. But also there's a feeling of fakeness that many players react against. It feels wrong to be offered a choice, or made to roll a die, only to realise later that there was actually only one possible outcome. It's like a tiny version of the Quantum Ogre.

I'm definitely one of the GMs who prefers not to use Perception checks in my games. But looking more broadly, I wonder if we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss a game action just because it "doesn't matter" in the grand scheme of things. Here's another example: asking the players "Who's carrying the torch?" as they enter a dungeon. This information might be relevant once in a while. Often it's not. But even if it never affects the game state, it's still an effective way of conveying to the players that they're entering a pitch-black environment - something that might otherwise be handwaved and forgotten.

You could just say "The cave is pitch black. You light your torch, but it sheds scanty light upon the darkness..." But involving the players in the descriptive process gives it more weight, makes it tactile.

Let's go back to Perception checks for a moment. In their "always succeed" mode, they can waste a few minutes of game time but are ultimately harmless. The real problems arise when the GM doesn't realise that what they're doing is a ritualistic technique. They call for a Perception check, everyone fails, and now the adventure can't move forward because the PCs didn't fight the specific clue they needed. The GM thinks the Perception roll is actually part of the game, not just colour.

So this is my recommendation for game designers: don't write off a game mechanic just because it "doesn't matter". Ask yourself if it's effective at setting the mood, engaging the players, developing the world... all sorts of things that don't involve directly affecting the course of the game. If you do use a mechanic in a ritualistic way, be honest about it. Let the GM know: "Everyone should make a Perception check here; the highest check will notice [blah]". Maybe that's a bad mechanic and maybe it's not, but at least if you phrase it that way then everyone can see what it's doing.