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

[CreamCloud0]

it's surprising me that for all the times i've seen it stated 'yeah well of course any conflict is always going to come to blows, over half of the rules are all about combat' that there are so many people advocating against social mechanics here, you don't get to roleplay 'my hero is the greatest swordsman in the lands, he draws his blade and cuts off the royal guardcaptain's head quicker than the eyes can see' into happening you need to roll your dice to see if you hit or not, whereas you have nigh total control of what your character does in the social environment. edit: you're expected to roll-play combat but role-play social situation and the fact that there's different expectations for the resolution method for each seems odd to me.

it'd be much more interesting if social mechanics had more intricate rules, there aren't just the four skills 'melee', 'ranged', 'magic' and 'guard' for combat so why is there just the persuasion, deception, intimidation and insight skills for social encounters? let me customise my PC in as many ways for social situations as i can for combat situations.

 

[James Gasik]

Just like combat optimizers, there will be players who try to maximize their results based on whatever social rule mechanics WoTC comes up with.

But until WoTC provides more details, everything is just speculation.

Well remember when the playtest gave us the Influence action and set DC's for it, I remember a lot of posts complaining that they were set too low, which makes me question if these DM's even want players to be able to succeed, lol.

 

[cbwjm]

Further, the players don't just say what their PCs want to do and then roll unbidden in 5e. The players say what their PCs want to do and the DM decides if a roll is appropriate based on 1) if there is uncertainty to the outcome and 2) if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. In the case above, there is no uncertainty. The Baron is not going to give the PCs his barony. No roll. Auto-fail. The DM narrates the result: "The baron laughs at your suggestion... what do you want to do next?"

That's the way it's meant to work, but some players are roll-happy, soon as their course of action leaves their mouth, that d20 is rolled.

 

[Staffan]

The funny thing is that for many combat isn't very exciting in the attack roll (the d20) by itself. It is fairly well established that most PC will hit 65% of the time (+/-5%). It is actually somewhat predictable, which is why creating encounters to a particular difficulty isn't too hard.

Which is the whole point of his analysis. Any one attack roll is likely-but-uncertain, adding some excitement to the roll. But the outcome of the combat as a whole is rarely dependent upon any one attack roll but the sum of many, giving you a pretty fair idea about how things will go. Where D&D breaks down is where too much weight is put on a single pass/fail roll.

IME? Pretty much pointless. After all, they don't have any mechanical impact whatsoever. If I ignore my Flaw, for example, what happens? Nothing. I get a cookie if I remember to use it - gain a point of Inspiration - but, again, IME, DM's don't even bother with it.

I've seen exactly one module that actually used BITF in the game - Riddle of the Raven Queen - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild Riddle of the Raven Queen. Outside of that one module, I've never seen them even remotely referenced in any WotC products. It's like the 2 weeks of Iron Rations you wrote on your AD&D character sheet - it's just there but no one ever actually worries about it.

In Princes of the Apocalypse, the main villains each have a powerful magic weapon gifted by their elemental overlords. Among other things, attuning to one of these will give the wielder a specific Flaw.

I think the various madnesses inflicted by the physical presence of various demon lords in Out of the Abyss are also represented as flaws.

 

[James Gasik]

Unfortunately, because the PHB doesn't give Flaws and the like much mechanical weight, they can be overlooked, and can be of dubious quality. Some games will handle this better than others, but I can honestly say in all the 5e I've played, it has never mattered. Heck, Background features rarely matter either (I have a fun story about trying to use the Noble feature once and having the DM immediately start to question if I should be allowed to do anything so egregious as get my party free lodging for the night!).

When I've run, I'm lucky to even get more than a few sentences of backstory, so I really don't expect to see anything written on their sheets with regards to Bonds and the like.

Heck, I don't even care if they have alignment written on their sheets, lol, players going to do what they want to do, and if you say "well, that's against your alignment", your game suddenly turns into a philosophical debate.

Even for people who are serious about roleplay, I've noticed it takes a few sessions for their character's personality to really gel, and I know people who are way better at improv than trying to carefully craft an entire character in advance, so I've come to the conclusion that a lot of these things I've been told for decades are "roleplay aids" have a tendency to get in the way of the actual proceedings.

NPC's in the world react to the players based on their words and deeds, not whatever their character sheet may claim.

 

[Vael]

One of the issues with Skill Challenges, as they were presented in 4e is that they tended to feel a little static and often Players would try to find their best skill and spam it, or find reasons not to engage if they thought they didn't have the "right" skills. Which will be a problem regardless, but hopefully something that can be dealt with.

That said, I do think they are the way forward, some type of way to adjudicate complicated scenarios that are more than a single ability check.

 

[James Gasik]

One of the issues with Skill Challenges, as they were presented in 4e is that they tended to feel a little static and often Players would try to find their best skill and spam it, or find reasons not to engage if they thought they didn't have the "right" skills. Which will be a problem regardless, but hopefully something that can be dealt with.

That said, I do think they are the way forward, some type of way to adjudicate complicated scenarios that are more than a single ability check.

Some classes had so few skills that you can't really blame them for wanting to try and use things they were remotely good at. Fighters had it especially bad because of WotC's mentality that you should be "punished" for wearing heavy armor, so several of the checks you were good at were penalized by your gear.

I remember this really poorly designed skill challenge in an LFR mod where you have to deal with this Shou merchant, and the adventure claims she is immune to Intimidate! That was ever so much fun for my Dwarf Fighter...

 

[Aldarc]

So for social encounters in my games, I focus on the what, not how. What have they done up to this point, what are the attitudes and goals of the NPCs, what (not how) do they say it. I also try to mix up the skills used. Persuasion is important, but so is insight, potentially others such as religion, arcana, history or survival.

Depending on what they say, what they contribute I'll set a DC which may well be automatic. It's not perfect, but there are just too many variables to systematize it, and I wouldn't want to.

Stonetop (a Dungeon World hack) has an interesting approach to social persuasion:

PERSUADE (vs. NPCs)
When you press or entice an NPC, say what you want them to do (or not do). If they have reason to resist, roll +CHA: on a 10+, they either do as you want or reveal the easiest way to convince them; on a 7-9, they reveal something you can do to convince them, though it’ll likely be costly, tricky, or distasteful.

There is no "mind control" here or mind games trying to play the GM. Success, whether mixed or full, involves revealing what is required to persuade the NPC, and the PCs may even back off from trying to persaude them if the trade-offs are too costly.

 

[Staffan]

One of the issues with Skill Challenges, as they were presented in 4e is that they tended to feel a little static and often Players would try to find their best skill and spam it, or find reasons not to engage if they thought they didn't have the "right" skills. Which will be a problem regardless, but hopefully something that can be dealt with.

That said, I do think they are the way forward, some type of way to adjudicate complicated scenarios that are more than a single ability check.

Part of the problem is that the skill system of 5e is, well, not particularly robust. It's like a column made of papier mâché: it might look good from a distance, but if you try to put any amount of actual weight on it it will collapse. This is evidenced by how skills basically function as a bonus to ability checks within their wheelhouse – you don't make an Arcana check, you make an Intelligence (Arcana) check, or an Intelligence check where you get to add your proficiency bonus if you have the Arcana skill.

A game like the Troubleshooters, while not particularly rules-heavy, at least has enough skills (28) and enough variability within those skills to support a skill challenge mechanic. In the Troubleshooters this is generally handled by selecting a set of 3-5 skills to deal with different stages of a longer-term effort, and the overall success is dependent on how many of those skill checks succeed.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Personally, I don't want and would not use a structured system for "social combat". I saw it too often in 4E (whether that was the intent of skill challenges or not).

Social encounters will always be either a structure set up by the DM or a mini-game that puts the focus on meta gaming. If it’s the former, once you know the DM you can still "play to the DM". If it’s the latter you're largely in my experience replacing role playing with roll playing with people just looking for excuses to use their best numbers and no longer approaching the game in character.

So for social encounters in my games, I focus on the what, not how. What have they done up to this point, what are the attitudes and goals of the NPCs, what (not how) do they say it. I also try to mix up the skills used. Persuasion is important, but so is insight, potentially others such as religion, arcana, history or survival.

Depending on what they say, what they contribute I'll set a DC which may well be automatic. It's not perfect, but there are just too many variables to systematize it, and I wouldn't want to.

Then the BIFTs of 5E would be the best support option for you. Those were designed (or can be used) to provide the context and motivation of NPCs that the DM can use a basis for judgement calls.