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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm all for options, but this would prevent WotC from actually creating any kind of special social abilities (not that I'm 100% sure what those would look like), since they would only work with social mechanics. Not saying that's good or bad, but it is a thing some people claim to want.

IMHO you could make up abilities that did "something" in cases 1 and 2, like in case 1 if you can describe what your 'thing' helps with, you get advantage. In case 2 it might give the player an opportunity to interject their 'special thing' into the situation when narratively appropriate with advantage, or making a different check, using a different ability score, etc. In the third case if you expend a resource of some sort, you get a free success, or if its a more minor thing, or doesn't get expended, you can declare use of an advantage (the GM normally does that). It gives each implementation a way to use the same 'power' in a way that is fairly equivalent (and these are just spitballing, but my experience with 4e SCs says that almost any resource can find a home there).

 

[pemerton]

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.

It is a 5e thread, but the question was asked What is a social challenge?

I mean, we could answer that, as 5e is widely played, the answer is either (i) there are none, or (ii) it's a type of puzzle that the players solve by learning what they have to say to/offer to/do for the NPC who will then give them the <insert desired benefit here>.

But I take it to be legitimate to point out that, within the same general ballpark as 5e D&D, there are approaches to understanding what a social challenge can be, and how it is to be resolved, that are different from (i) and (ii).

Going back to OA, p 26 tells us that "Wu jen speak the language of tengu and oni. In fact, their contact and commerce with these creatures gives the wu jen a +20% modifier on the reaction dice roll when he encounters any of these creatures." Page 32 tells us that "A character gains a +10% bonus to reactions from NPCs belonging to a family that is related to him by marriage." And there are many further, similar modifiers scattered throughout the rules for PC building, families, etc.

It's not earth-shattering social conflict resolution. But it clearly shows us that the OA authors envisaged social dealings between PCs and NPCs to be something that might matter in play, and that would be resolved by something other than just GM decision-making.

I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to think that 5e D&D, more than 30 years on, is capable of offering as much if not more.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm all for options, but this would prevent WotC from actually creating any kind of special social abilities (not that I'm 100% sure what those would look like), since they would only work with social mechanics. Not saying that's good or bad, but it is a thing some people claim to want.

I think the closest thing that 5e has to social mechanics besides the Charisma based skills and Insight would be the Background Features for some of the backgrounds. They give the players the ability to gain some benefit in certain social situations or with certain social groups.

I don’t expect they’ll be making it to whatever iteration of D&D follows the playtest, butI think they’re a decent indicator of what social mechanics could be within the 5e chassis.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Here's an interesting observation. What move is it in Dungeon World when Aragorn tells Faramir he is claiming the Throne of Gondor? I would argue it is NO MOVE AT ALL. There is no general move in Dungeon World that corresponds to giving a command (or making a demand)! You can Parley when you have something the NPC desires, but I don't see that being the case here! It may be that Faramir desires to see the return of the King, but that isn't what is at question here. What is at question is, will he yield the throne specifically to Aragorn (and accept his claim, which in the logic of this situation are indivisible IMHO). There simply is no move for that. The player would describe his making of the claim, and the GM would then have a choice, he could make a (almost certainly soft) move in response, or he could simply move the fiction on and frame a new scene with either Aragorn being acknowledged/having been acknowledged, or one in which he's not (IE some sort of overt or covert conflict with Faramir probably). So, interestingly, our Indy Low Myth story game isn't leaning on mechanics here (though the SYSTEM does have a lot to say about this scene). Heck, a perfectly appropriate response from the GM would be "I don't know, Aragorn, does Faramir bend the knee, or not?" Or maybe he'd ask Samwise!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is a 5e thread, but the question was asked What is a social challenge?

I mean, we could answer that, as 5e is widely played, the answer is either (i) there are none, or (ii) it's a type of puzzle that the players solve by learning what they have to say to/offer to/do for the NPC who will then give them the <insert desired benefit here>.

But I take it to be legitimate to point out that, within the same general ballpark as 5e D&D, there are approaches to understanding what a social challenge can be, and how it is to be resolved, that are different from (i) and (ii).

Going back to OA, p 26 tells us that "Wu jen speak the language of tengu and oni. In fact, their contact and commerce with these creatures gives the wu jen a +20% modifier on the reaction dice roll when he encounters any of these creatures." Page 32 tells us that "A character gains a +10% bonus to reactions from NPCs belonging to a family that is related to him by marriage." And there are many further, similar modifiers scattered throughout the rules for PC building, families, etc.

It's not earth-shattering social conflict resolution. But it clearly shows us that the OA authors envisaged social dealings between PCs and NPCs to be something that might matter in play, and that would be resolved by something other than just GM decision-making.

I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to think that 5e D&D, more than 30 years on, is capable of offering as much if not more.

I would hope so. I was commenting specifically on @James Gasik asserting a specific answer. Since he didn't qualify it in any way, I assume it follows from the thread topic and subforum. And honestly, my answer also is "hey, 5e actually DOES have a fairly developed system!" I mean, it takes up a whole page and is fairly specific in what it says. Again, my feeling, and I expect probably yours too if you are taking a position on it, would be that its a perfectly OK design for what its goals are (IE to mostly cater to GM decision making while giving the GM many chances to seek player input and utilize dice mechanics). I'd note that 5e's writeup VERY much backstops everything with GM decisions, players are entirely limited to describing their character's actions and even then the GM will decide if they get to roll dice, and against what. I think, frankly, its probably pretty close to what the OA authors envisaged, which is standard AD&D 1e reaction checks.

 

[Quickleaf]

As to whether or not there is a "combat challenge" or an "exploration challenge"...not as such, no. But there are monsters and traps, both of which have "levels" (Challenge Rating for monsters, and level bands for traps), and both have fairly detailed rules. For my own part, I think detailed social rules would be a disaster for D&D, but since I often hear people claiming to want them, I figured I'd ask what they would look like.

Yours is a well-thought-out example, but it also shows the care and detail required to set up; I would say that you put more work into this social challenge than most would for the average combat encounter. I do have to point out, however, that in many conversations (you can find examples on this very forum), the idea of being able to cast spells in a social encounter is completely rejected out of hand; you can look at just about any discussion of guidance to see that kind of pushback. And casting a spell that requires a saving throw on an NPC is right out as the targets know they have been affected by a spell by the rules and will no doubt be very unhappy once it wears off.

Whether or not this is what people want when they want the game to have stronger social systems and be "more roleplay focused", I'm unsure of.

There was a product that Courtney Campbell (the same fellow who put out the excellent Empty Rooms document) put out a while ago called On the Non-Player Character – it's been on my radar screen but I haven't yet picked it up. The way I've heard it described it's an approach to "social challenges" that involves a reaction roll, giving NPCs several "locks and keys" (aspects that evoke certain responses if triggered), and then a ton of approaches the players can take. It sounds like a more generic version of my highly curated Negotiation example. I think setting up the NPC's "locks and keys" could be the social version of a "monster stat block" like you're hinting at – still requires some prep, but not so much like I put into my example.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Well, the DM doesn't decide (in that example) if the NPC helps or not, just the degree to which the NPC will help.
Or the DM wants to allow the roll to dictate the degree of assistance (which I believe is your concept).
Or the DM could also decide (due to role-playing or the desire to forward the adventure), that the NPC will help and no roll is needed.
Or the DM might decide the NPC won't help (because the adventure requires the PCs look for an alternative or just wants them to "walk").

In 5E, the DM calls for the roll when the result is in doubt. In the 3rd and 4th, there is no doubt--the NPC will help or won't as the DM dictates. The 1st and 2nd leaves the outcome in doubt, so asks the player to roll. How the DM deals with the success or failure is up to them, of course.

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.

Well, that is the thread title, sure, but he goes on in the OP to ask a bunch of questions about it.

Anyway, for the most part, social challenges in 5E should be resolved via role-playing as much as possible, not roll-playing, IMO. It is the only challenge we can easily resolve without dice rolling. Combat can't really be "acted out", nor can exploration challenges. So, we have rules and resort to rolls to resolve them.

Can you hit the creature attacking you? Make an attack roll.
Can your PC swim the river? Roll a Strength (Athletics) check.
Can you convince the guard to let you into the prison? Role-play it or make a Charisma (Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation) check.

We know combat requires multiple rolls to resolve due to how it is designed in 5E and the stakes involved.
Can swimming a raging river require multiple rolls to resolve as well? Certainly, and depending on factors, a DM might want a single roll for success or several.
You can certainly require multiple rolls for convincing the guard, but you can also role-play it out. For a role-playing game, why would you choose to roll? Maybe they are newer players who aren't comfortable with it, but otherwise I would think encouraging this part of the game is sort of the point of it being "role-playing".

 

[Manbearcat]

So I talked about what I expect out of a game that promises systemitized social conflict.

Then I presented a play excerpt from Dogs in the Vineyard that illustrates that.

Now I'm going to speak exactly to the thread title's question. So what is a social challenge anyway?

Stonetop (by way of Apocalypse World) has an answer to that which is not far afield from 5e's Social Interaction on page 244 of the DMG (as I noted upthread, its clear the designers were inspired by this aspect of AW when devising that design). The answer is by skillfully engaging and navigating the decision-tree inherent to the following loop:

* Challenge: Suss out the NPC's Instinct (this is the NPC's dramatic need) primarily, and any relevant tags secondarily. You do this in order to either (a) outright establish a reason for them not to resist your overtures or enticements so you don't even need to make a Persuade move (or a specialized, thematic Playbook move should you possess one) or (b) address their Instinct in your overtures or enticements and then make a Persuade (or Playbook) move to find out if they're agreeable (10+) or if you need more leverage/further enticements and what that is/how to resolve that.

* Converse & Resolve: Engage the NPCs and NPC cohorts in back-and-forth with an intentful, thoughtful surveillance/studying of your opposition. Ingest what they're saying and work to trigger Seek Insight (or a Playbook move) so you can "read them" with a 7+ and use that newfound information (and the mechanical boon that goes with it). Deftly evade their rhetorical snares and pointed ripostes via Defy Danger (or a Playbook move) as the GM will be making soft moves against you in accordance with the NPC/cohort Instinct and tags.

* Solve the NPC/Deploy your Gambit/Hit Your Win Con: Once the back-and-forth has sufficiently resolved the participants needs, goals, and nature, make your move. Here are some examples, starting with the basic playbook move:

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,

SPRING’S FIRST THAW
When you spend time (an hour at least, maybe more) seeking to stir hope, kindness, or mercy in an NPC, roll +CHA: on a 10+, you light a fire deep within them and affect a lasting change; on a 7-9, you kindle goodness in their heart for now, but they will eventually return to their old ways; on a 6-, their heart hardens and, whatever else the GM says, you can’t use this move on them again.
WILD SPEECH
The grunts, barks, chirps, and calls of natural beasts are as a language to you. You can understand their intentions and communicate basic ideas. When you Persuade a beast, you can choose to roll +WIS.

ALPHA
(Requires Wild Speech or Spirit Tongue)
When you assert your dominance over a beast or spirit of the wild, roll +WIS: on a 7+, it must choose 1 from the list below; on a 10+, you also gain advantage on your next roll against it.

• Fight you for dominance
• Slink away or flee, then avoid you
• Accept your authority, at least for now

IRRESISTIBLE
When you interact with someone, you can ask their player if they find you attractive and get an honest answer (usually “yes”). When you Persuade by using your considerable charms as leverage, you have advantage.

BEAR WITNESS
When you speak the truth with conviction and candor, none can doubt you. They might deny what you say, but in their hearts they recognize the truth.

---

This is another expression of how social challenges are intentfully designed into play at the game layer. Its different then Dogs in the Vineyard, but there are overlapping core concepts.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Can you hit the creature attacking you? Make an attack roll.
Can your PC swim the river? Roll a Strength (Athletics) check.
Can you convince the guard to let you into the prison? Role-play it or make a Charisma (Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation) check.

We know combat requires multiple rolls to resolve due to how it is designed in 5E and the stakes involved.
Can swimming a raging river require multiple rolls to resolve as well? Certainly, and depending on factors, a DM might want a single roll for success or several.
You can certainly require multiple rolls for convincing the guard, but you can also role-play it out. For a role-playing game, why would you choose to roll? Maybe they are newer players who aren't comfortable with it, but otherwise I would think encouraging this part of the game is sort of the point of it being "role-playing".

I think we have different definitions of roleplaying, because to me making a charisma check is roleplaying. Or rather, is part of roleplaying.

There is no such thing as a social encounter. There is also no such thing as a combat encounter. There are only obstacles and ways to overcome them. Social activities are just possible methods to overcome obstacles (along with stealth and violence .

Roleplaying is when a player decides, "What method would this character choose to overcome this obstacle?"

Why is the character swimming the river? Because they want to get to the other side. There are many ways they could do this (bridge, boat, raft, fly, swim, polymorph into a fish, teleport, water walk, and so on). These all have various costs, requirements, consequences, and chances of success. In this case, the player chooses "swim". Now the GM has to determine if success is automatic ("you do it!") or impossible ("you don't do it!") or variable ("roll some dice!").

Why is the character persuading a guard? Because they want to get into the prison. There are many ways they could do this (fly, tunnel, climb walls, bribe a guard, teleport, persuade a guard, threaten a guard, impersonate a guard, get arrested themself, and so on). In this case the player chooses "threaten the guard". Now the GM has to determine success, the same as any other obstacle.

I'm also a big fan of character skill over player skill because I don't like it when charismatic and manupilative players dump charisma and then expect to overcome every social challenge because of their personal persuasion skills. I've seen it done a few times, always very dliberately, and I don't like it. I don't expect players to have swordfighting skills or lockpicking skills to be able to play a fighter or rogue; the same goes for social skills.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think we have different definitions of roleplaying

We do. I'll leave it at that. I've grown pretty tired of this discussion/thread.