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

[pemerton]

It kind of feels like the honorable steward formally recognizing someone with both a blood claim to the throne and support from lots of folks whose opinion the steward values (support about them as a person and for their claim) is a bit different than a random bard walking up and convincing a monarch to just abdicate after a pleasant conversation?

I didn't know the bolded was what we were talking about.

I'm talking about reasonably serious FRPGing.

 

[pemerton]

So in our world, people can be persuaded to do many things not in their best interest. But I've noticed at the gaming table, nobody wants to feel "tricked".

Personally I'm not interested in mechanical resolution systems as a work-around for poor GMing. I'm interested in them as a framework for good RPGing, on the premise that everyone at the table is invested in the game.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, that was sort of along the lines of "Here's Anduril, the Sword Reforged. Swear on it now to uphold the honor of your ancestral line and office, Steward!" I mean, Aragorn didn't exactly try to convince him, he showed him proof that to one as learned as Faramir was, pretty much clinched the argument from a logical standpoint, as who else could have reforged that blade, but Elrond, and who is going to doubt the word of a (1/4) Maia?

And if my FRPGing doesn't have this sort of thing in it - or Conan convincing the people of Aquilonia to accept him as their sovereign; or Ged trying to impress while a pupil by summoning the dead; or similar sort of stuff - then frankly why are we bothering to turn up?

Those are the sorts of scenes that a good social resolution system in a FRPG should be facilitating.

 

[clearstream]

A lot of people say they want the game to focus more on Social interaction and roleplaying. Or decries that there aren't Social mechanics. But what would that even look like?

Would we have "Social monsters" with a "Social CR" and care taken to ensure they have level-appropriate Social abilities? Would you earn xp for "defeating" a social encounter? How does one define victory?

The game as it stands now, it mostly comes down to "wily merchant has thing you want but charges too much." "I roll Persuasion, and get a 17." "DM thinks, decides that's a good enough number, merchant drops the price". You can add some nuance by allowing players to make other checks to get information that might give them advantage, but players have lots of tools to give them advantage as needed, or expertise to gain stratospheric check results.

No doubt that correctly observes much play. Speaking of the rules, it goes something like this -

1. Somehow it is established that the merchant is friendly, indifferent, or hostile
2. Players describe the conversation their character holds with the merchant
3. Possibly this changes their attitude
4. If the price delta is meaningful and it's not certain that the merchant will refuse it, then a check is called for
5. Depending on the approach, a social skill might apply (e.g. Persuasion)
6. The roll indexes the conversation reaction table

Say the merchant is indifferent, but the bard with Cha 18 and expertise in Persuasion makes a 20+. The merchant will accept a minor sacrifice, which can play out straightforwardly as a drop in the price.

That said, and taking particular note of point 4., often a minor discount just isn't meaningful so a DM could just say the player character succeeds. In my example, they're a bard, they have Cha 18, they have expertise Persuasion: for some inexplicable perfectly explicable (!) reason merchants almost always give them a discount.

And what's a social ability? What would it look like? Advantage on certain checks? The ability to auto win a social roll? Or in the case of an NPC, impose disadvantage or just ignore the results of a check, like some kind of "Legendary social resistance?".

For me, a key step to richer social interactions in D&D (aside from using the rules as written) is to disambiguate the social skills. So that the situation and what players describe their characters doing matters. Consider -

Persuasion: When there is an offer of something the subject wants, and what’s at stake is a creature doing or sacrificing something it is willing to do or sacrifice. Good will is normally not at stake.

Intimidation: When a threat is described that [guide] the subject finds plausible, and what’s at stake is a creature doing or sacrificing something it is unwilling to do or sacrifice. Ill will and subversion are normally also at stake.

Performance: When props or devices are employed to weave a narrative, and what’s at stake is a creature succumbing to the distraction or imitation. Suspicion and rejection are normally also at stake.

Deception: When lying overtly or by deflection or omission is described, and what’s at stake is a chance to persuade, intimidate or imitate, for example selling a false promise, threat, or forgery. A damaged reputation and ongoing suspicions are normally also at stake.

Insight: When doubts and enquiries are described, and what’s at stake is revealing desires, intentions, or integrity. Misleading conclusions are normally also at stake.

Folk will have their own interpretations of these skills. Mine are based on thinking about what their names and descriptions might imply, with a view to interesting play. I wanted persuasion to feel different from intimidation in terms of how it emerges out of and drives our fiction. So rather than "I roll persuasion" versus "I roll intimidation" I am thinking about the fictional situation, what the player says they do, and what best follows?

Is it worth it to have a detailed system where all parties roll Social initiative, both sides have "resolve" (social hit points), and everyone takes turns trying to wear the other party down? Should there be a Social AC or Social saves?

And would it even be worth it, when players can possibly use spells to circumvent the whole system (as they generally do with exploration)?

In my homebrew world, I use a couple of principles to handle this. Creatures are aware of the magical nature of the world they live in. A character who casts a guidance spell as part of a negotiation will often be seen as appropriately seeking wisdom from a supernatural entity. Hostility to that is more likely pre-existing, for example folk with opposed beliefs might demand neutral ground. Virtually everyone knows that bards can inspire, and hearing the best possible case is a benefit they look forward to. Of course, a creature lacking the benefit of such counsel might insist on parity before entering a conversation.

To reflect that mechanically (i.e. to reflect awareness of magical and supernal influences), I normally increase the effective DC by a creature's level (or half their CR.) For example, approaching a red dragon for a favour might have a modifier of -8 (CR17). Our charming level-9 bard may have +12-8 = +4. To elicit any help from a hostile dragon (or let's imagine they play upon hard-won knowledge of its obsessions, and get it to indifference) where zero risks or sacrifices are asked of it (and let's face it, getting out of bed to help another creature is a terrible imposition, when you're a dragon) they would need to roll a 6+ (versus 16+ were it still hostile.) If they fail, the dragon eats them: that's only fair.

In that example, I think I have been generous in supposing indifference was attainable. But generally, the point I am making is that when you ask -

A lot of people say they want the game to focus more on Social interaction and roleplaying. Or decries that there aren't Social mechanics. But what would that even look like?

To me, the least answer is that it has to be play that your group wants to engage with. That means going further than "I roll Persuasion..." Here I am not criticizing "I roll Persuasion..." approaches to D&D, but rather questioning whether they are going to be satisfying for a group whose stated purpose is to engage with social interaction?



EDIT Not discussed above, but also relevant, is when contests are called for. Such as when parties' interests are opposed and each seeks to persuade the other. A group also need to decide on their principles relating to that (one example is the common principle that "social skills are not mind control".) Suppose in the negotiation player characters have resolved that whatever the result, they will make no concessions: in this case, they are making no concessions. If the other party knows that, then it factors into how things play out.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't know what you would count as non-binary.

"I want a lift to Port Fairy."
"I can take you as far as Geelong."

That would be a potential compromise in many social conflict frameworks. Does that count as non-binary?

No. The goal is to get a ride from the NPC, which the NPC agreed to. So it is success.

The fact the NPC wasn't going all the way to Port Fairy doesn't matter.

That's not my experience.

When my PC Thurgon, Knight of the Iron Tower returned to his ancestral estate of Auxol, he wanted to reunite with his brother Rufus and his mother Xanthippe. The result in the first case was resolved using social mechanics, in the form of simple tests. In the second case it would have been resolved via a Duel of Wits, but Thurgon prayed first that the doubt and burdens would be lifted from Xanthippe's shoulders, and the prayer was successful.

These aren't problems that can be solved by combat.

Combat, no, but role-playing or a single roll would be sufficient. You really don't need a series of rolls, accumulated successes, etc. to resolve these.

And they were the most important problems to confront Thurgon in the play of that game.

Strange game, IME then...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, that was sort of along the lines of "Here's Anduril, the Sword Reforged. Swear on it now to uphold the honor of your ancestral line and office, Steward!" I mean, Aragorn didn't exactly try to convince him, he showed him proof that to one as learned as Faramir was, pretty much clinched the argument from a logical standpoint, as who else could have reforged that blade, but Elrond, and who is going to doubt the word of a (1/4) Maia?

This is a good example of when there is no dice roll. Either the PC is the rightful king, and can prove it, or they are not, and they earn a one way ticket to the dungeons.

The dice are only rolled when the outcome is uncertain, could go either way, and luck is a factor.

That doesn't mean there is no gameplay. The PC might decide the do not want to be king, and does not press their claim. In which case, if they want to persuade the steward to undertake a particular course of action, they will need to make a skill check, they cannot simply issue an order.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It probably should never be one roll, but it's mostly done for expedience. I mean, cracking open my VtM 20th, I see that seducing someone is three rolls; first you make a good first impression, then you make some witty remark to break the ice, and finally you make a pass at the other person. Failure at any stage ends you up with a drink in your face!

But reducing something like that to dice rolls seems blah...even though I would think most players would balk at trying to seduce their DM!

Then don't reduce it to dice rolls. Like...I don't understand where you're getting the idea that making use of dice rolls is the same as reducing to dice rolls. By that logic, combat is the worst thing ever invented in D&D, because it reduces tactics, strategy, motion, critical thinking, etc. to nothing more than attack rolls.

Yet we all recognize that it doesn't do that. That there's so much more to combat than just the attack rolls you make, even though those are a key part of working through the process of combat. Positioning (be it actual grid position or something more nebulous), tactics (considering the disposition and morale of enemy forces), terrain, extenuating circumstances (a ritual you have to stop, a victim you have to save, a prize you have to catch, etc.) and more.

Do that for social SCs too. The exact nature of these things will differ, but the core idea remains the same. "Positioning" becomes a matter of the principles and goals of the people involved. Tactics would be basically unchanged, just swapping physical organization for some other kind (hierarchic, societal, economic, etc.) "Terrain" becomes a question of resources that can be leveraged, hangups that have to be discovered and worked around, learning the lay of the social landscape, etc. Extenuating circumstances remain essentially the same too.

And, of course, just like with battle where every turn can change the state of play, make that happen with SCs too. Make every player's contribution actually advance the fiction, not just plink up a number on the scoreboard.

"Reducing [social challenges] to dice rolls" is always a choice, a matter of how you implement the thing. Using SCs intelligently--actually taking seriously the good advice about them in the books, and then growing beyond that to best practices discovered by the community--means not "reducing" anything--unless you have made the erroneous conflation between "reducing to dice rolls" and "making use of dice rolls."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No. The goal is to get a ride from the NPC, which the NPC agreed to. So it is success.

It's not quite as simple as that. In a real game, the DM will not know where every NPC is going. So partial success could reasonably result in a part way lift. The dice roll does not represent the PCs persuasiveness - they have a fixed value for that. The dice roll represents the unknown external factors (AKA luck) that might influence the outcome. In this case, that would include where the NPC is actually going.

 

[S'mon]

I feel that some people here do not feel the need for a social pillar because it is less important/less consequential than combat.

No, I think the social pillar of play is too important to be left to rules.

 

[dave2008]

No. The goal is to get a ride from the NPC, which the NPC agreed to. So it is success.

The fact the NPC wasn't going all the way to Port Fairy doesn't matter.

That is a very odd response to me. The goal is to get to a specific location. The NPC wouldn't take them there (so they didn't obtain their goal), but the NPC would get them closer (so their goal is easier to achieve). This is clearly not a pass/fail situation, it is a compromise.