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

[pemerton]

Well yes, obviously, I decide. But it's more like, if the PC's are reasonably well-mannered and ask an NPC for a ride on their wagon to a place they are already going, and the NPC is at least neutral, no roll.

But isn't that how it's supposed to work? The DM decides when rolls are necessary?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that social conflict rules are useful for deciding whether or not NPC farmers with their wagons give D&D-style PCs rides in the direction they're going anyway.

That seems pretty low stakes.

But the example that has been discussed in relation to "no doubt" is not that. It's Faramir ceding rulership of Gondor to Aragorn. That seems pretty high stakes to me.

I think the general proposition "the GM decides when rolls are necessary' is not helpful here. How does the GM decide that. Following what principles?

If the GM's principles are I decide in advance - or in the moment - how any given NPC might respond to any given proposal, then no rolls will be called for and no social conflict framework is required. That's one way to do it. (Of course, we could do the same for combat, but typically don't.) But it's not the only way. Heck, back in 1977 one of the earliest RPGs, Traveller, had a whole range of subsystems for resolving social encounters involving police and other officials and bureaucrats - Admin skill, Bribery skill, Streetwise skill, etc. And also for resolving social and emotional situations involving military or quasi-military recruitment and command, using Leadership skill.

Interestingly, and at odds with some D&D traditions, Traveller uses non-random methods for Leadership skill - at various ranks of Leadership, soldiers simply follow commands with no roll required. But uses random methods for dealing with public authorities - which is to say, the game is oriented around dealing with bureaucracy as a high-stakes situation! That may or may not be to anyone's taste, but that's a decision about aesthetics, not a technical consideration in game design.

Which all goes back to my point: we don't decide the scope and workings of a social conflict system by working out what is uncertain. Rather, we decide what we want to matter in our RPGing, and then build a social conflict system around that if we want to.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, this is an excellent point that needs to be made. If the players are simply at the level of basically pawn stance "I declare my skill check without engaging the fiction at all" play, you are not playing at a level where there's any point in bothering with the nuances of social challenges or whatnot.

Right. This is the flipside to my post upthread:

I'm talking about reasonably serious FRPGing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I could see a few pages (or maybe more than a few) devoted to a sort of three prong approach.

1. What in this thread has been called pawn stance. The players aren’t hugely interested in the social aspect at this time and just want to get on with things. Roll the check and move on.

2. Improv. A section on how to do improv/just talk it out social pillar encounters. Advice on stuff like “yes and” as well as advice on how to leverage the mechanics of the game without letting them become too prominent.

3. Full on social mechanics. Proper skill challenge mechanics for 5e perhaps. With clear advice on how and when this is best used.

Additional advice would help dms to decide which approach is best at which times. A single campaign would very likely use all three approaches depending on all sorts of factors.

I think that would be a fantastic section in the DMG.

But that would require they acknowledge specific modes of play for use in specific examples, and for some reason that’s verboten. Far better to be super vague and let readers find their own meaning in the tea leaves!

Otherwise the people enjoying option 1 wouldn’t be able to say their games deliver what option 3 delivers! Even though, when it’s not presented in that way, such a game gets described as “weird”.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's not quite as simple as that. In a real game, the DM will not know where every NPC is going.

I disagree. When the PC talks to the NPC and wants a lift, I DECIDE where the NPC is going, not the dice... So, when you DM maybe you don't know where every NPC is going--I do.

So partial success could reasonably result in a part way lift.

Or full success could represent the NPC simply being willing to give the PC a 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.

(bold) It does though.

The PC doesn't have a fixed value for every Charisma (Persuasion) check, if they did it would just be 10+CHA mod+ proficiency (if proficient). The roll determines how well that particular attempt goes and how the NPC reacts to it. The "luck" is how the PC might be feeling and thus influences how they react.

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.

If you see it that way, that's up to you.

For me, the goal is to get the NPC to help as much as they can. In this case, they can take the PC part of the way. Sure, the ultimate goal for the PC is to get to the location, but that could involve several different things--getting lifts from multiple NPCs, working as a guard for a caravan, having to walk part of the way, etc.

How do we know the NPC isn't going all the way to Port Fairy? Or that the NPC isn't prepared to go out of their way to take the PC there?

The DM decides it based on the adventure they want to run for the players??? That is how I do it.

If I want to "fast forward" to Port Fairy, the NPC can take them all the way. If I want them to interact with other encounters/NPCs before they get there, the NPC can only take them part of the way.

This is what the system is intended to help us work out, in the same way that we use the combat system to find out (eg) whether or not the NPC's shield blocks the PC's axe blow.

Not really. All the die roll tells us (again) is binary: hit or miss. It tells us nothing about if the NPC's shield blocked a failed attack, or the NPC dodged or parried it, or perhaps was really "hit" but without appreciable damage.

In what universe would this be better resolved by a single roll, or by "just playing it out" - ie either the GM deciding, or negotiating with one another until we reach tabletop consensus?

Seriously, you expect me to read all that!?! Yeah, I don't think so--it is not that important to me.

So for me it's not that strange to have situations in my FRPGing in which social and emotional consequences are important or even central to a character.

Good for you. It is strange to me. And FWIW, I also played OA and had honor, families, birthrights, etc. But 5E doesn't.

And frankly, it was pretty boring for me. But hey, tastes differ and if you like it, more power to you.

 

[Staffan]

How do we know the NPC isn't going all the way to Port Fairy? Or that the NPC isn't prepared to go out of their way to take the PC there? This is what the system is intended to help us work out, in the same way that we use the combat system to find out (eg) whether or not the NPC's shield blocks the PC's axe blow.

I disagree. When the PC talks to the NPC and wants a lift, I DECIDE where the NPC is going, not the dice... So, when you DM maybe you don't know where every NPC is going--I do.

I think there's a difference in scope here, and what question is actually asked. In one example, the question is "Can we find a ride to Port Fairy?", in which case "No, but you find someone who'll take you to Geelong" is a perfectly valid example of a partial success. In the other, the question is "Can we get this particular NPC to get us to Port Fairy?" and in that case the answer would be determined both by whether that's where they're actually going and whether the PCs can persuade the NPC to give them a ride. In the latter case, a partial success would be something like the NPC wanting something in return.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think there's a difference in scope here, and what question is actually asked. In one example, the question is "Can we find a ride to Port Fairy?", in which case "No, but you find someone who'll take you to Geelong" is a perfectly valid example of a partial success. In the other, the question is "Can we get this particular NPC to get us to Port Fairy?" and in that case the answer would be determined both by whether that's where they're actually going and whether the PCs can persuade the NPC to give them a ride. In the latter case, a partial success would be something like the NPC wanting something in return.

Sure, there's a point here. 5E's one thing about ability (skill) checks is failing to meet a DC doesn't mean you necessarily failed at the task.

There is success with a set back, no progress, or absolute failure, and completely up to the DM which the result it. Personally, I like the rule used often enough in adventures, which is failure by X (usually 5) or more, etc., but for my own game when multiple checks are allowed, the DC increases by 1 for each failed attempt. If you fail by 10 or more, you can't try again. It was when a 20 wouldn't make it, but that takes a long time... Also, 10 or more is our guideline for critical hits and critical failed saves.

Anyway, you could work it like this...

DC 15 Charisma (Persuasion) check results:

20 or more = Success. The NPC will take you all the way, even if this puts them out of there way, etc. They REALLY want to be helpful! This might mess up the DM's plans, but so be it.
15-19 = Success. The NPC will take you as far as the they can given the narrative decision of the DM.
13-14 = Success with a set back. The NPC will take you as far as the DM decides, but they require a service, payment, etc. in exchange.
11-12 = No progress. Try a different approach.
10 or lower = Failure. The NPC won't take you at all.

Of course, you can adjust the ranges to suit your own concepts of how they should work. Regardless, it is still just a single roll... which doesn't seem to be what people want from a "skill challenge".

 

[dave2008]

If you see it that way, that's up to you.

For me, the goal is to get the NPC to help as much as they can. In this case, they can take the PC part of the way. Sure, the ultimate goal for the PC is to get to the location, but that could involve several different things--getting lifts from multiple NPCs, working as a guard for a caravan, having to walk part of the way, etc.

So you agree it was not just a pass/fail then. Good, I was beginning to think you were being deliberately obtuse.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So you agree it was not just a pass/fail then. Good, I was beginning to think you were being deliberately obtuse.

Um... that isn't what I said... it is pass/fail. I just think we are looking at different aspects of the goal.

For me, the goal is getting the NPC to co-operate. If they will, I (as DM) decide to what degree they will help, not the dice.

Sure, you can let the dice dictate the degree of assistance, but that would be like saying there is a difference between rolling an 14 or a 15 on an attack roll when 9 or better hits.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well yes, obviously, I decide. But it's more like, if the PC's are reasonably well-mannered and ask an NPC for a ride on their wagon to a place they are already going, and the NPC is at least neutral, no roll.

But isn't that how it's supposed to work? The DM decides when rolls are necessary?

I would concur in that this is a 5e thread! I mean, the DMG has a fairly tight description of how the game designers believe it probably should work, though they didn't elevate it to the status of a game subsystem, ala combat. Frankly, given the envisaged GM/Player relationship 5e assumes, it isn't exactly a horrible design, pretty fair really. It might be improved upon, but if people are fairly happy pretty much leaving the outcomes of social encounters up to the GM with the players giving some, possibly quite strong, input on their take on it, that's fine stuff! Mike and Co. undoubtedly calculated that it would please MOST, and be easily ignored by the rest. They're undoubtedly correct.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree. When the PC talks to the NPC and wants a lift, I DECIDE where the NPC is going, not the dice... So, when you DM maybe you don't know where every NPC is going--I do.

<snip>

The DM decides it based on the adventure they want to run for the players??? That is how I do it.

If I want to "fast forward" to Port Fairy, the NPC can take them all the way. If I want them to interact with other encounters/NPCs before they get there, the NPC can only take them part of the way.

Right. So like I posted, if the GM is going to decide what happens, then there are no social conflicts and there is no need for a mechanical framework for resolving them.

But @James Gasik asked "What is a social challenge" and so I'm putting forward some examples, from D&D and other FRPGs, that illustrate social challenges, and various approaches to resolving them. And in passing, in response to replies that such approaches are unnecessary, I'm explaining why they are necessary if there are certain things one is looking for in RPGing.