I'm going through this process of trying to break down what I see as the "pillars" of OSR, the big gameplay modes that show up in just about every campaign (or that I want to do so). By identifying the core activities that make up these modes and the factors, in the fiction and at the table, that can play into how they resolve, I hope to gain a better understanding of what a good OSR game should have rules and procedures for and how they should work.
In my last two posts, I broke down journeys (a.k.a. wilderness exploration, overland travel, etc.) and dungeons. Today, I want to talk about what I'm gonna call...
Social Play
Rather than go straight into my breakdown of the main activities in social play, this time, I want to talk about some more general stuff first.
Of all the play modes I'd identify in OSR, social play almost always gets the least mechanical and procedural attention. This seems to be by design, which I think makes sense, because social play is the only mode that's less abstracted than dungeon play. When you're talking with an NPC, not only do you have all the same information as your character about what's going on and everything you need to make informed decisions from their perspective without relying on abstracted mechanics, you're actually doing the exact same thing your character is doing.
Well, that's not always the case--not all players or all groups actually roleplay conversations word-for-word, I suppose. Sometimes you'll just describe the general gist of what your character says rather than fully acting it out. But still, it seems like the pretty clear consensus that talking is the easiest thing to simulate in a game.
This can raise the question, does it need to have any rules attached to it at all? Some OSR folks take a pretty hardline stance against Charisma being used mechanically in conversations, suggesting that everything should just be roleplayed out. The opposition, mostly from non-OSR people in my experience, is usually that lots of gamers are socially awkward and that shouldn't stop them from playing charismatic characters, and that a player with higher "real-life Charisma" will, if not stopped by mechanics, basically be able to take over the whole game by convincing the ref to let them do whatever they want. (These takes, in my experience, largely seem to come from the sort of people who view social competence as some sort of superpower in real life, but that's neither here nor there.)
I personally love to act in character and will usually speak in my character's voice at the table given the chance, and I'll always encourage my players to do so when I ref, but I do think Charisma checks, or something similar like reaction rolls, have an important place in social play. I'm going to make what I suspect might be a slightly controversial statement, though maybe not: I don't think player charisma should be among the player faculties that are required to succeed in OSR games.
There's an important distinction, I feel, between what a character says or does in a social interaction, and how they say or do it. Both of these matter. You can tell someone exactly what they want to hear, but if you come across as shifty or unpleasant, they'll probably react a whole lot differently than if you seem charming and trustworthy; and you can be the slickest motherfucker around, but if you tell someone they look like a goat, they still probably won't be too happy (although you'll probably have a much easier time playing it off). The way things play out at the table, these involve fundamentally different skills. Even among the most dedicated roleplay groups I've played in, I've never encountered a group that expected everyone to play out social scenes in strictly real time; everyone's always been very open to a player taking a pause to think about how their character would respond before jumping back in with more in-voice acting. This seems to reflect an understanding that we as players aren't required to completely represent our characters' social ability.
Playing a character more--or less!--charming and witty than yourself is fun in the same way as playing a mighty warrior while you work a desk job. I think the game should let people do that. That doesn't mean our social mechanics should elide the player skills we do want the game to require, though. Much like how we accept combat mechanics abstracting martial arts skill but not tactics, I like the idea of social mechanics abstracting raw charm to some extent, but not social judgment. It's a very fuzzy distinction, but I think it matters.
That in mind, I see social play breaking down into two main activities.
Negotiation
This is what I think most of us imagine as social play in OSR, and not for nothing--I think it describes most social situations that come up in most games. This is where the PCs are talking with an NPC and trying to convince the NPC to give them something or do something for them. This process, I think, is where we're best off skipping the mechanics and asking the players to just make their own arguments. After all, as refs, we should have some understanding of our NPCs' motivations, what they want and what they're prepared to do to get it. There's no reason we can't expect the players to learn what they can about NPCs and their motivations and offer them the things they want in exchange for what the PCs want from them.
None of this requires in-voice roleplaying, though I enjoy seeing it. The player can just say something like, "I offer the guard a 20-sp bribe to let me pass." 20 sp is a concrete thing; the ref can make a judgment about whether the guard thinks the bribe is worth the risk based on that figure.
Emotional Appeal
This is the other social play use case I see: the situation where the PCs aren't trying to persuade NPCs logically with reasoned arguments about their best interests, but to provoke an emotional response, whether that's affection, fear, anger, whatever. Pulling off a convincing bluff, endearing themselves through flattery, intimidating someone into compliance, inspiring subordinates with a rousing speech. Here, I think, is where character charisma can more appropriately be invoked. Sure, I want to hear my players deliver the rousing pre-battle speech to their men-at-arms, and I'll encourage them to at least try it, but hell, I don't have that much faith in my own ability to improv something like that, and if the player wants to play an inspiring leader, I don't want to take that away from them. At minimum, I want to hear a general description from my player of what their character says, but in the end I'm okay with them rolling to see how effective their delivery is.
Funnily enough, although I feel like negotiation is the more common social play situation in most games, the most common hard social mechanic--the reaction roll--is an emotional appeal case. It's about how monsters feel about the party instinctively based on first impressions. It sets the initial tone for negotiations to follow, if any.
The Factors
I don't think this reveals anything new about what fictional or real-life factors matter in social play. We're all familiar with the tension between mechanics based on player charisma and simulation through conversation at the table. The factors at play, that character charisma or charm and player social judgment, can be invoked in some combination or one to the exclusion of the other. My personal taste-based argument is for a balance along the line I've drawn, but I know a lot of people feel otherwise.
Hoping to talk about combat next.
