Actual play: my first "social only" session

pemerton

Legend
On the weekend I ran my first session of 4e that invovled only social interaction. So I thought I'd post about how it went.

The starting point
The PCs are low paragon - a dwarf fighter/warpriest of Moradin, a paladin of the Raven Queen, a wizard/invoker, a drow chaos sorcerer/demonskin adept, and a ranger-cleric of the Raven Queen. The player of the ranger-cleric was absent from the session.

The scenario combines elements of Thunderspire Labyringth (a 4e module), Heathen (from a 2008 online Dragon magazine), Speaker in Dreams (a 3E module from WotC) and Night's Dark Terror (a B/X module from TSR), plus some other elements of my own.

The PCs have recently entered a town which is under increasing pressure from hobgoblin and allied raiders. The town is ruled by a Patriarch of Bahamut and a Baron. The PCs are still getting the lay of the political land.

The PCs entered the town as heroes, having saved an affiliated village from being destroyed by hobgoblins. They were lauded by the Patriarch, and invited to join the Baron for dinner that evening. Later that day they then went on to stop an uprising by Demogorgon/Dagon cultists, and to cleanse the cultists' headquarters. In the headquarters, they rescued a priestess of Ioun who had been chained down next to a gibbering mouther, and had gone insane from the constant gibbering - the wizard cured her insanity using Remove Affliction.

The session begain with the PCs talking to the rescued priestess, and interrogating the one surviving and captured cultist.

Talking to the NPCs
This was almost entirely free roleplaying. The PC paladin had made a successful Intimidate check last session to cow the cultist and stop him running away. He made another check this session to interrogate him - the check was sufficiently high (in the high 20s or low 30s, from memory) that I decided nothing would be held back by the cultist. Some other skill rolls were made (History, Arcana) to see what sense the PCs could make of some of the things that the cultist revealed.

The conversations with the cultist and with the priestess happened side-by-side in play, and mostly side-by-side in the fiction. Three PCs were heavily involved - the paladin interrogating the cultist, the wizard and the sorcerer talking to the priestess. The dwarf was less heavily involved in the conversation, but the player of the dwarf was helping the other players put together and make sense of the information being obtained.

I awarded XP as per the guidelines in DMG2 - one monster's worth for 15 minutes of play.

Two revelations had the biggest immediate impact. One involved the PCs' principal enemy. This is the leader of the hobgoblins, a powerful wizard called Paldemar (but called Golthar in Goblinish). The PCs learned that in the town he is not known to be a villain, but is apparently well-thought of, is an important scholar and astrologer, is an advisor to the Baron, and is engaged to the Baron's niece. The PCs (and the players) became worried that he might be at dinner that evening. This was a worry for two reasons - (i) they didn't really want to fight him, and (ii) they know some secrets about an ancient minotaur kingdom that he does not, but has been trying to discover. One of those secrets involves a magic tapestry that the PCs carry around with them (becaue they don't have anywhere safe to leave it).

The second revelation was that the Baron was prophesied to die that night. The paladin had already sensed a catoblepas in the swamps outside the town, and had sensed it approaching the town earlier that day. The priestess explained that a year ago the Baron had been visited by a catoblepas, as a type of forewarning. And the cultist explained that the uprising had taken place today in anticipation of the Baron's imminent demise.

After learning these things, the PCs cleaned up in the cultists' bathroom and then hurried off to dinner.

The dinner
The PCs arrived late, and were the last ones there. On the high table they could see the Baron, and his sister and brother-in-law, and also Paldemar, their wizard enemy. They left their more gratuitous weapons - a halberd for the dwarf and a longbow for the ranger - with the dwarf's herald - an NPC dwarf minion called Gutboy Barrelhouse - and took their seats at the high table. Gutboy was also carrying the backpack with the tapestry.

The PCs also noticed a series of portraits hanging behind the high table. One had a young woman, who was the spitting image of a wizard's apprentice they had recently freed from a trapping mirror - except that adventure had happened 100 years in the past (under a time displacement ritual), and this painting was clearly newly painted. Another, older, painting was of a couple, a man resembling the Baron, and a woman resmembling the rescued apprentice but at an older age.

About this time the players started talking about the skill checks they wanted to make, and I asked them what they were hoping to achieve. Their main goal was to get through the evening without upsetting the baron, without getting into a fight with Paldemar (which meant, at a minimum, not outing him as the leader of the hobgoblin raiders), and without revealing any secrets to him. In particular, they didn't want him to learn that they had found the tapestry, and that it was in fact 15' away from him in Gutboy's backpack. But it also quickly became clear that they wanted to learn about the people in the portraits, to try and learn what had happened over the past 100 years to the apprentice they freed, and how she related to the Baron's family.

This whole scene was resolved as a complexity 5 skill challenge. It ran for more than an hour, but probably not more than two. The general pattern involved - Paldemar asking the PCs about their exploits; either the paladin or the sorcerer using Bluff to defuse the question and/or evade revealing various secrets they didn't want Paldemar to know; either the paladin or the wizard then using Diplomacy to try to change the topic of conversation to something else - including the Baron's family history; and Paldemar dragging things back onto the PCs exploits and discoveries over the course of their adventures.

Following advice given by LostSoul on these boards back in the early days of 4e, my general approach to running the skill challenge was to keep pouring on the pressure, so as to give the players a reason to have their PCs do things. And one particular point of pressure was the dwarf fighter/cleric - in two senses. In story terms, he was the natural focus of the Baron's attention, because the PCs had been presenting him as their leader upon entering the town, and subsequently. And the Baron was treating him as, in effect, a noble peer, "Lord Derrik of the Dwarfholm to the East". And in mechanical terms, he has no training in social skills and a CHA of 10, so putting the pressure on him forced the players to work out how they would save the situation, and stop the Baron inadvertantly, or Paldemar deliberately, leading Derrik into saying or denying something that would give away secrets. (Up until the climax of the challenge, the only skill check that Derriks' player made in contribution to the challenge was an Athletics check - at one point the Baron described himself as a man of action rather than ideas, and Derrik agreed - I let his player make an Athletics check - a very easy check for him with a +15 bonus - to make the fact of agreement contribute mechanically to the party's success in dealing with the situation.)

Besides the standard skill checks, other strategies were used to defuse the tension at various points. About half way through, the sorcerer - feigning drunkenness with his +20 Bluff bonus - announced "Derrik, it's time to take a piss" - and then led Derrik off to the privy, and then up onto the balcony with the minstrel, so that Paldemar couldn't keep goading and trying to ensnare him. At another point, when the conversation turned to how one might fight a gelatinous cube (Paldemar having explained that he had failed in exploring one particular minotaur ruin because of some cubes, and the PCs not wanting to reveal that they had explored that same ruin after beating the cubes) the sorcerer gave an impromptu demonstration by using Bedevilling Burst to knock over the servants carrying in the jellies for desert. (I as GM had mentioned that desert was being brought in. It was the player who suggested that it should probably include jellies.) That he cast Bedevilling Burst he kept secret (another Bluff check). But he loudly made the point that jellies can be squashed at least as easily as anything else.

While fresh jellies were prepared, Derrik left the table to give a demonstration of how one might fight oozes using a halberd and fancy footwork. But he then had to return to the table for desert.

Around this time, the challenge had evolved to a point where one final roll was needed, and 2 failures had been accrued. Paldemar, once again, was badgering Derrik to try to learn the secrets of the minotaur ruins that he was sure the PCs knew. And the player of Derrik was becoming more and more frustrated with the whole situation, declaring (not speaking in character, but speaking from the perspective of his PC) "I'm sick of putting up with this. I want Paldemar to come clean."

The Baron said to Derrik, "The whole evening, Lord Derrik, it has seemed to me that you are burdened by something. Will you not speak to me?" Derrik got out of his seat and went over to the Baron, knelt beside him, and whispered to him, telling him that out of decorum he would not name anyone, but there was someone close to the Baron who was not what he seemed, and was in fact a villainous leader of the hobgoblin raiders. The Baron asked how he knew this, and Derrik replied that he had seen him flying out of goblin strongholds on his flying carpet. The Baron asked him if he would swear this in Moradin's name. Derrik replied "I swear". At which point the Baron rose from the table and went upstairs to brood on the balcony, near the minstrel.

With one check still needed to resolve the situation, I had Paldemar turn to Derrik once again, saying "You must have said something very serious, to so upset the Baron." Derrik's player was talking to the other players, and trying to decide what to do. He clearly wanted to fight. I asked him whether he really wanted to provoke Paldemar into attacking him. He said that he did. So he had Derrik reply to Paldemar, 'Yes, I did, Golthar". And made an Intimidate check. Which failed by one. So the skill challenge was over, but a failure - I described Paldemar/Golthar standing up, pickup up his staff from where it leaned against the wall behind him, and walking towards the door.

Now we use a houserule (perhaps, in light of DMG2, not so much a houserule as a precisification of a suggestion in that book) that a PC can spend an action point to make a secondary check to give another PC a +2 bonus, or a reroll, to a failed check. The player of the wizard PC spent an action point, and called out "Golthar, have you fixed the tear yet in your robe?" - this was a reference to the fact that the PCs had, on a much earlier occasion, found a bit of the hem of Paldemar's robe that had torn off in the ruins when he had had to flee the gelatinous cubes. I can't remember now whether I asked for an Intimidate check, or decided that this was an automatic +2 bonus for Derrik - but in any event, it turned the failure into a success. We ended the session by noting down everyone's location on the map of the Baron's great hall, and making initiative rolls. Next session will begin with the fight against Paldemar (which may or may not evolve into a fight with a catoblepas also - the players are a bit anxious that it may do so).

This is the most sophisticated skill challenge I've run to date, in terms of the subtlety of the framing, the degree of back and forth (two major PCs with whom the PCs were interacting, with different stakes in the interaction with each of them), my concentration on evolving the scene to reflect the skill checks and the other action while still keeping up the pressure on the players (and on their PCs), and the goals of the players, which started out a little uncertain and somewhat mixed, but ended up being almost the opposite of what they were going into the challenge.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon

Legend
Thanks for the interesting account. How do you feel the skill challenge framework assisted you in running this session? I really struggle to see what the point of them is, and I wonder if maybe my brain or DMing style just work differently from the WoTC designers and their target audience.
 

pemerton

Legend
How do you feel the skill challenge framework assisted you in running this session?
By forcing me to make decisions about what complications to introduce, and how to evolve them. And, at the end, by forcing me (and the players - especially Derrik's player) to decide how to bring events to a climax.

At a very abstract structural level, I'd say it's analogous to the turn sequence in combat - every time my NPCs' initiatives come up, I have to decide what to do with them so as to complicate the situation - and also to hit point attrition - at a certain point, the combat is resolved!

Obviously that structural comparison breaks down once you get to the details of the mechanics. That's why I find that the idea of "pouring on the pressure" is so crucial. It forces the players - assuming they care about their PCs' "location" within the fiction - to engage and make (potentially hard) choices.
 


wedgeski

Adventurer
That sounded like a very high quality encounter, nice job. :)

How do you feel the skill challenge framework assisted you in running this session? I really struggle to see what the point of them is, and I wonder if maybe my brain or DMing style just work differently from the WoTC designers and their target audience.
For me, simply asking myself what the PC's might do to earn their successes is usually enough to inspire whole Skill Challenges. Then I also follow pemerton's advice: keep the pressure up, evolve the situation, add complications, reward (or punish) the players with on-the-fly mods depending on their actions.

As an interesting comparison [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], let me ask: how would you have run this encounter?
 

S'mon

Legend
As an interesting comparison [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], let me ask: how would you have run this encounter?

My normal approach would be to get into the minds of the major NPCs, decide what their goals were, and with that in mind run them much as a player runs a PC. A kind of 'method acting' approach. It does not define the situation in terms of a success/failure state for the PCs - the players themselves define what their success/failure conditions are, or they don't define any and sort of drift through the 'encounter'. It's often possible for the players to succeed in their goals with no dice rolls made; dice are usually only rolled when I'm uncertain how an NPC will react. And it's possible for both PCs and NPCs to 'succeed' - to regard the encounter as a success - or to 'fail' - to see the encounter as a failure.

I have a lot of trouble understanding how the Skill Challenge binary success/failure state is supposed to work in terms of general social dynamics, or why it 'cuts out' once success or failure is achieved. What I do tend to use is a "3 strikes & you're out" approach to particular goals - eg you get 3 rolls to persuade the Baron, if you fail 3 times before 1 success then he's unpersuadable. I find that a lot more intuitive than always requiring (eg) 4 successes before 3 failures.
 

wedgeski

Adventurer
I have a lot of trouble understanding how the Skill Challenge binary success/failure state is supposed to work in terms of general social dynamics, or why it 'cuts out' once success or failure is achieved.
Running an encounter (social or otherwise) so that the actions of the PC's build naturally towards a conclusion is a real trick, and one I'm still learning.

Speaking only for myself I can say that the principle of applying a goal to most scenes/encounters has enriched my game quite a bit, mostly because I'm an obsessive about how my game is paced. In pemerton's encounter, the goals were quite clear: investigate the paintings, don't embarrass the Baron, keep their secrets from Paldemar. Once these are defined it's quite easy to define a Challenge which keeps the PC's on their toes and which, if they prevail, feels like a victory.
 

pemerton

Legend
My normal approach would be to get into the minds of the major NPCs, decide what their goals were, and with that in mind run them much as a player runs a PC. A kind of 'method acting' approach. It does not define the situation in terms of a success/failure state for the PCs
Adding to my reply to you above - another thing that a skill challenge does is precisely to establish success/failure states.

So in my session, events have unfolded to a point where (i) one last roll is needed, and (ii) within the fiction, Derrik is nearly boiling over as a villain with a glib tongue sits nexts to him and taunts him, but (iii) that villain is also becoming frustrated as he still hasn't learned the secrets that he hopes to (because the drow, the paladin and the wizard keep turning the conversation away at the crucial point), and he also may just have been outed to the Baron, meaning that (iv) it is eminently feasible that Derrik may be able to goad him into attacking. What the final die roll does is give Derrik's player a chance to settle that issue one way or another, without being reliant on how the GM plays the NPC. What the prior die rolls do is establish a smaller series of similar events, with "sub-stakes" - "Do we get the Baron off the topic of gelatinous cubes, and back onto the topic of his family history and the apprentice wizard who became his grandmother?" - that gradually unfold the fiction towards (what turns out to be) the climax.

I see it as a mechanism for reducing the GM's control over the unfolding plot, while preserving, and perhaps even enhancing, the GM's control over the framing of the scene. (I know that what I'm saying here is a bit controversial, because it tends to imply that the "method acting" GMing approach is really "mother may I" railroading. I'm not meaning to generate such a strong implication. But after many years of playing with "method acting" GMing, I am enjoying taking a different approach that more clearly circumscribes and delineates the GM's role.)

I have a lot of trouble understanding how the Skill Challenge binary success/failure state is supposed to work in terms of general social dynamics, or why it 'cuts out' once success or failure is achieved.
I find this tricky too. I don't think the 4e rulebooks address it at all. HeroWars does (and better, I think, than its revised version known as HeroQuest), in the context of its extended contest rules (which resemble skill challenges in many ways, although the GM also rolls), but with more focus on combat challenges than social challenges.

I think the key is to describe the unfolding situation in a way that both (i) exhibits a clear evolution, but (ii) also allows for divergence in the direction of either success or failure. Of course it's easier to state this general principle than to implement it! But part of what helps implementation is a readiness to metagame - in the sense of relaxing with the "method acting"/ingame causation, and focusing more on the story dynamic. In my session, when the last roll has to be made, I make it clear what the stakes are - testing them simply for plausibility within the fiction as it has played out so far - and then let the die roll be made. So we've already worked out how success or failure will result from that roll: if Derrik's player succeeds, Paldemar will attack; if he fails, not. (The picking up of his staff and walking out was my embellishment of the agreed-upon stakes.)

I've found that when I've been less clear on exactly what the stakes are in a social challenge, both in my own mind and in framing the challenge with the players, then interpreting the pass/fail outcome has been harder. (In a physical challenge I haven't found the same issue, because I think the stakes in these sorts of challenge are much more obvious, and the description of the PC's progress towards them is more straightforward. It's the NPC dynamic in social challenges that makes them harder to run, I think.)

I'm curious how long the session was in real time and exactly how many dice rolls were made.
The session itself was somewhere short of 4 hours, but probably not much short (I wasn't watching the clock). We started actual play a bit late, because the PCs had gained a level after the last session and we were still doing some bookwork associated with that, plus the standard "my new power is this, what's yours?" comparisons that take place after levelling.

The other factor in our sessions is that, as quid quo pro for leaving my partner on her own on a Sunday afternoon, I take our two young kids to hang out with me at the session. Which, depending on who else has brought along their kids, whose place we're at etc, can mean more or less time spent taking "parenting breaks".

So we're probably talking about three hours of actual play, roughly half/half on each of the two episodes I've described.

I suspect that play with my group may be on the slow side by typical standards - they like to think a lot, toss ideas back and forth, etc, and I run a campaign with a fairly rich backstory that they are trying to work out and make sense of. But it's not glacial - they're levelling about once every three or four sessions, using standard 4e XP awards.

As for number of dice rolled, I'm reconstructing that not by remembering the actual die rolls, but by thinking through how I adjudicated it. There was one Intimidate check for the cultist, plus some Arcana and History checks - maybe 2 or 3 checks for each of the arcanists. Let's say 5 or so checks in the first episode.

In the dinner, there was a group Diplomacy check upon meeting the Baron, that preceded the skill challenge. And at one other point there was a group check for something - Insight, maybe? - I can't remember now. That's 10 rolls (including rolls made by someone else for the missing player).

I made two die rolls - a Bluff check for Paldemar/Golthar at one point (I know skill challenges don't use dice for the opposition, but this was outside the context of the skill challenge - I can't remember now exactly what it was for!), and an initiative roll at the end of the session. And the players made their initiative rolls. So that's another 7 rolls there.

Then there's the skill challenge itself - 12 successes, 2 failures, plus 2 or 3 secondary checks - let's say 17 rolls there. The PC whose player was missing didn't participate in the skill challenge at all - it's one thing to roll his initiative or contribution to a group check in his absence, but there didn't seem any point trying to drag an "unplayed" PC into a social challenge.

I make that a total of 40 rolls for the session - maybe a bit less or a bit more. All d20s, of course.

What I liked about the session was that every die roll mattered. I've been reading the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner lately, and it has lots of advice on when to call for checks and when to either "just say yes" (or, perhaps, no), or to let the results of a previous check stand ("let it ride"). This helped me with my session. There were at least a couple of occasions, for example, where the players knew something, but it wasn't clear whether their PCs did (eg Derrik's player is swearing loudly, but do the PCs notice that Derrik is frustrated?) - the players reached for their dice, but I said there was no need for a check, because nothing of dramatic importance was at stake - it was clearly good for the game that the PCs be able to act on knowledge of Derrik's frustration, for example, and so I didn't require any Insight checks.

After GMing mostly Rolemaster for many years - which is very skill roll intensive if played in its default style - I feel that, by combing the 4e mechanics with the advice from games like HeroWars/Quest and BW, I'm finding a nice balance between no checks - which, like I replied to S'mon, I feel defaults to excessive GM force - and check mongering. Roll the dice, but only when it counts!

(Of course, 4e combat is a whole other kettle of fish! 4e's very confused in that way, but for some reason that's something I like about it!)
 
Last edited:

Neubert

First Post
In the first social skill challenge I ran (using Stalker0's Obsidian system), I stopped the challenge once the required successes had been achieved. When thinking about that later, it was clearly a mistake. It was not a natural stopping point and even if the group had achieved their goal, I should have let it finish (with no chance of failure) and simply have additional successes provide additional benefits (which could be information, assistance, etc).
 

pemerton

Legend
I can say that the principle of applying a goal to most scenes/encounters has enriched my game quite a bit, mostly because I'm an obsessive about how my game is paced. In pemerton's encounter, the goals were quite clear: investigate the paintings, don't embarrass the Baron, keep their secrets from Paldemar. Once these are defined it's quite easy to define a Challenge which keeps the PC's on their toes and which, if they prevail, feels like a victory.
One thing I liked about the way the encounter resolved - and I don't know if this is orthodox or unorthodox in terms of skill challenge methodology - was that the way in which those goals would be achieved changed over the course of the encounter. It started out as "Let's just get through the dinner until the catoblepas gets here" and ended as "I'm so sick of this guy, and his smarminess, that I'm going to push him harder than he's pushing me!"

So the goals - investigation, propriety, secrecy - were still in play, but what counted as a successful realisation of them changed. The PCs went from "defenders" to "attackers" - they will preserve propriety by goading Paldemar into outing himself, and thereby stop him being in a position to learn the secrets.

I think that this was to a significant extent a function of making it a maximum complexity challenge. The mechanical constraints of that made us all - but especially me, as GM - work to keep the scene alive. Which then created the "space" in the fiction for this sort of change in orientation - both the players' orientation and their PCs' orientation - to occur. This creation of "space" is another reason I like a skill challenge-style mechanic. I haven't had the same sort of experiences with the "method acting" approach to GMing. (Not that every social skill challenge involves this sort of transformation. Sometimes the players are pushing for the same thing at the end as they were at the start.)
 

Remove ads

Top