D&D 5E What is a Social challenge, anyways?

[DND_Reborn]

I think this is a bit simplistic.

In recent social encounters in my Torchbearer game, results have included things like "I'll throw you down some rope, but only for 2D of coins" or "I'll let you go now, provided you promise to come back and investigate the dungeon beneath my house", or "OK, I'll accept that I shouldn't kill you all, but only if you offer me a sacrifice."

But even in your examples, it is binary. All you've done is include conditions. Those conditions are either met or not... still binary.

That isn't to say someone could imply they will follow the conditions and then renege, and have consequences possibly.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For social conflict to be interesting, social things have to matter as part of the fiction.

In real life, I care about my friends, my associates, my colleagues, not being arrested by the police, etc. If these things also matter in a RPG, then social conflicts will carry heft without the stakes needing to be life or death.

But the heft isn't ever as significant IMO.

And I included, for example, the PC being arrested.

Failure at all stages would be tantamount to defeat in the social combat (with the PC being arrested perhaps?).

However, unless you pose efficient force to stop the PCs from the "direct route" (i.e. combat) to solving a problem, rarely with players look for another solution. If the PC was arrested, for example, and the other PCs try talking to the magistrate, bribing guards, etc. the PC will force his way out or they will break him out of jail: again, combat.

 

[robus]

Another of the challenges to successful social encounters is it requires a higher level of engagement from the players. With combat the players can easily describe what their PC does in each round: they attack with whatever they choose.

Social interaction challenges, on the other hand, require a lot more creative thinking on the player side if they’re going to work. It’s not “jumping through the DMs hoops”, but just demonstrating that care and attention is being paid the NPCs desires and objections. And too many players aren’t particularly interested in that, or get frustrated when they don’t immediately win.

The more chatty, story oriented streaming games may be helping to overcome that reluctance/impatience.

 

[Hussar]

It depends on the players. If I were to say to my players "you have been charmed by the the succubus" they will role play the character being charmed. There is no need to take away control of the character from the player, because they will act in accordance with the character's magically altered perceptions.

I suppose it depends on what the player sees as their goal in playing. If their focus is on "winning the game" the might not be willing to have their character act in a way that is opposed to that. If "the play's the thing" then they are more interested in the drama.

I remember some years ago, using a monster that had a charm effect that caused the victim to see all of its allies as its most hated enemies and attack them.

The player did so. He was playing a caster. He made sure that every single time he cast any spell, he caught the monster in the effect too, so, while he did attack his allies, he made sure he killed the monster at the same time. While he was absolutely playing the letter of the effect, he was wildly off base about the spirit.

So, yeah, I'm very much in the boat that players will do anything rather than accept that something might actually change the way they play their character.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

Exalted is another game to look at for social systems.

It's based around Intimacies, which are a lot like Bonds and Ideals. In order to get somebody to do something, you have to leverage their Intimacies. You can try to figure out the intimacies just by role-playing with the NPC or make the equivalent of an Insight check. Alternatively you can try to instill a new Intimacy with the equivalent of a Persuasion check.

The intimacies also come in various levels, so to convince somebody to do something that risks their life you have to leverage their highest level of intimacies, but just getting a discount from a merchant could use any intimacy.

For the "Rollplay vs Roleplay" Exalted has a stunt system, which basically says you get a bonus if you describe what you are doing in a cool fashion. The well roleplayed argument gets the bonus, but the shy player with a high Charisma character still can make the roll with no penalty.

Finnally there's a just as many charms, the equivalanet of class abilities in classes system, that apply to the social system as there are for the combat system.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I love skill-less social negotiations as pure roleplay, but Savage Pathfinders social challenge system is amazing for making social skills meaningful. I as GM still hand out + or - to rolls depending how the player roleplay it, but skills matter and I use it al lot.

 

[cranberry]

The main problem with a strict social rolls mechanic is that they will allow for otherwise impossible outcomes.

For example, no matter high a player rolls, they should never be able to convince a king to hand over his kingdom. But if the mechanic allows for success regardless of the circumstances, it would be subject to abuse.

Which is why I think social encounters should always be within the DM's framework and control, and never automatically decided by the dice.

 

[dave2008]

The main problem with a strict social rolls mechanic is that they will allow for otherwise impossible outcomes.

For example, no matter high a player rolls, they should never be able to convince a king to hand over his kingdom. But if the mechanic allows for success regardless of the circumstances, it would be subject to abuse.

Which is why I think social encounters should always be within the DM's framework and control, and never automatically decided by the dice.

Evidently Fate has a way around that: see post #50, but it requires player & GM meta discussion outside the characters. Is that better or worse than GM fiat? IDK, but seems like there could be a middle ground.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"A miserable pile of secrets! But enough talk...HAVE AT YOU!"

More seriously: A social challenge has never been defined in any D&D ruleset. It has always been something completely ad-hoc, made up for each situation and usually without any rhyme or reason.

Or...wait...no, it has been defined. One time.

In 4th edition. Skill challenges covered both social and exploration challenges. So yeah.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Player immunity to social rolls has always been a touchy subject. On the one hand, it makes sense to not take away someone's agency. However, if that's your goal, then why can they be charmed, dominated, or magically frightened? That doesn't make any sense!

Imagine a player and an NPC sit down at the negotiating table. The NPC could be made to make concessions with a good roll, but the reverse isn't true, allowing the PC to back out at any time?

It depends on the players. If I were to say to my players "you have been charmed by the the succubus" they will role play the character being charmed. There is no need to take away control of the character from the player, because they will act in accordance with the character's magically altered perceptions.

I suppose it depends on what the player sees as their goal in playing. If their focus is on "winning the game" the might not be willing to have their character act in a way that is opposed to that. If "the play's the thing" then they are more interested in the drama.

What @Paul Farquhar is saying here and...

The Charmed condition has mechanical effects in the game, notably:

• A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.

Similarly, the Frightened condition also has mechanical effects:

• A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight.
• The creature can't willingly move closer to the source of its fear.

The Dominate Person spell imposes the Charmed condition and has a few other kickers - best to use it sparingly and make sure the player in on board for this one, though.

Other than adhering to these mechanical effects which are easy to incorporate into the scene, the player is really free to decide how their character thinks, speaks, and acts in 5e. If they want to really lean into the effect, great. If they want to do the minimum required by the condition, fine. That's not up to me, as DM, to decide for the player, IMO.