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

[HammerMan]

I know @HammerMan talks about whole campaigns sometimes...

One of my best friends. A woman I have known since grade school is named Becky. She is the strangest RPG player in my group of friends (and proud of it). If given a choice her favorite class would be fighter she like tough no nonsense marine types (and that also explains her long line of ex s) BUT when she runs she often run social political games

We had a campaign go from low level to mid teens with 2 major fights and 1 slap heard round the world.

But even having been shown systems with better social mechanics she would rather homebrew and import to run/play d&d

 

[TheSword]

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.

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?".

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)?

The social wasteland in D&D 5e is a function of adventure writing in my opinion not mechanics. D&D design still has its roots deep in a dungeon with monsters in rooms and doors to be locked down.

If we look at the excellent WFRP adventures - let’s take Slaughter in Spitfield for instance. The PCs are trapped in a tenement by a cordon Sanitaire and have to find the source of the plague. They must deal with the confused ogre building manager, the dwarf racketeers that clearly have a secret, a protective ex pugilist who runs an orphanage (including one elusive orphan that knows all the hidden secrets of the tenements), a dying doctor who has tracked the disease but can barely speak, and the elf ex diplomat that has barricaded himself in the penthouse. Someone knows the source of the plague - or rather they all know clues. There are definitely combat elements, but in truth it is a mystery where the PCs gain more clues by talking to people than killing them.

Now there’s nothing stopping this being a low level D&D 5e adventure. It could easily be converted (in fact I am in the process for 2nd level). 5e adventures just aren’t structured like this though. They could be though. To be clear there are differences between this and 5e roleplay encounters that tend to be much simpler, less mysterious and can usually be resolved with a dice throw. There is a place for skill checks in roleplay but it has to be underpinned with mystery otherwise it’s just banal.

I’m excited to see how Keys pans out. I’m part way through reading them, but it could still do with a lot less leading by the nose and a lot more mystery. It has promise though.

 

[pemerton]

There is a place for skill checks in roleplay but it has to be underpinned with mystery otherwise it’s just banal.

Mystery is one way of approaching social situations in RPGing.

It's not the only one.

 

[TheSword]

Mystery is one way of approaching social situations in RPGing.

It's not the only one.

I think it is the single best way to make social challenges a challenge.

If folks know everything about an NPC where is the challenge in the roleplay?

I should clarify that by mystery I mean that NPCs have unknown information, motivations, opportunities and needs that the PCs might interact with meaningfully if they are canny enough to get it out of them.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

For myself, one of a few different scenarios will determine A) if I ask for a roll and B) the result of success.

1. If I don't have an agenda when the PC wants to get a ride to Port Royal (or whatever), the PC will get them there. (no check)
2. If the players want a ride but the adventure is about them taking time (e.g. walking) so as to present a time constraint later on, then they walk and the NPC can't help them (no check).
3. If part of the adventure is a stop-over in Haxel for an encounter or two, then the NPC can only take them as far as Haxel on a success, and they are walking to Haxel (on their way to Port Royal) on a failure.

I really hate to do this, at the risk of Godwinning the thread, but, how is this not railroading? The results of the player's actions - attempting to get a ride to Port Royal (thank you for that btw, I'd NEVER remember the actual proper noun place ) are determined, not by the in-game reality, but by the meta-level of the DM's wants and needs. The DM needs the player to walk, so, regardless of anything else, they will walk. No NPC will help them, and they won't even be able to make a check to change that. Or, conversely, the DM needs the player to stop in Haxel, so, again regardless of the players's role playing, they will only get to Haxel.

As a DM, I am really uncomfortable inserting myself into the fiction like this. I do consider that to be far too heavy handed and makes me extremely visible to the players. And, frankly, I don't WANT that level of responsibility over the game. I want to be surprised. So, if the players convince someone to take them to Port Royal, then, well, that's what happens. What I, or the adventure I wrote, want does not matter one whit.

As a player, I would be extremely frustrated as well. It's pretty obvious that the DM is road blocking here and forcing results, again, not because of anything the player's did, but, because the DM wants a certain outcome and will simply manipulate the game and, IMO, abuse his authority as DM, to ensure that a specific result will happen.

To me, @D&D_Reborn's three examples that I quoted are 100% the reason as a player and a DM that I want social mechanics. It makes the game far more transparent and allows the game to flow far more organically with everyone's input being taken into account, rather than just the DM feeding the story to the players. OTOH, I've absolutely played with players who 100% would adore @D&D_Reborn's approach. So, there's nothing wrong with it and it's certainly something that players will enjoy.

Just not me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As a DM, I am really uncomfortable inserting myself into the fiction like this. I do consider that to be far too heavy handed and makes me extremely visible to the players. And, frankly, I don't WANT that level of responsibility over the game. I want to be surprised. So, if the players convince someone to take them to Port Royal, then, well, that's what happens. What I, or the adventure I wrote, want does not matter one whit.

that is how I run games... I don't know what is going to happen next

As a player, I would be extremely frustrated as well. It's pretty obvious that the DM is road blocking here and forcing results, again, not because of anything the player's did, but, because the DM wants a certain outcome and will simply manipulate the game and, IMO, abuse his authority as DM, to ensure that a specific result will happen.

oh so if we sent the bard to charm (magic or not) our way on to the ship or if we just said "we walk on the ship" it works or doesn't by DM fiat annoys me... even worse no matter what you do NOTHING will work cause the adventure requires walking...

To me, @D&D_Reborn's three examples that I quoted are 100% the reason as a player and a DM that I want social mechanics.

100% agree

It makes the game far more transparent and allows the game to flow far more organically with everyone's input being taken into account, rather than just the DM feeding the story to the players. OTOH, I've absolutely played with players who 100% would adore @D&D_Reborn's approach. So, there's nothing wrong with it and it's certainly something that players will enjoy.

Just not me.

its also how a lot of pregen adventures are written (since they have to not take EVERYthing into account)

 

[Hussar]

...

100% agree

its also how a lot of pregen adventures are written (since they have to not take EVERYthing into account)

Badly written ones anyway. Again, there’s nothing wrong with a linear structure. Sometimes it makes perfect sense. If you want to travel from x to y, there really are only so many ways you’re going to do that.

But when the dm is actively leveraging his authority over the game, I tend to start checking out really quickly.

 

[TheSword]

that is how I run games... I don't know what is going to happen next

oh so if we sent the bard to charm (magic or not) our way on to the ship or if we just said "we walk on the ship" it works or doesn't by DM fiat annoys me... even worse no matter what you do NOTHING will work cause the adventure requires walking...

100% agree

its also how a lot of pregen adventures are written (since they have to not take EVERYthing into account)

I don’t want a GM who is following me 5 steps behind as I meander aimlessly around their world. Frantically trying to invent on the spot what I come across… nor do I want them having to detail every inn and warehouse in the city just in case I step into it.

If the GM has a good few scenes in Haxel that will be fun and engaging, maybe advance the meta-plot of the campaign, maybe develop our characters place in the world. Then I have no problem with a wheel falling off our stagecoach in Haxel.

It isn’t railroading to get the PCs to the start of an adventure. It’s a plot hook. There is a responsibility on players to be open to the adventures the DM has written. It sounds like complaining that the DM has gone to the effort of putting together a fun session - because it isn’t exactly when and where you want it to be. If you want that level of control - go be a DM.

 

[Hussar]

I’d agree there’s a fine line between pacing and organizing an adventure and railroading.

 

[pemerton]

There is a responsibility on players to be open to the adventures the DM has written.

I think "the adventure the DM has written" wouldn't normally include pre-written outcomes to fights - although I guess it may in a few cases - but probably will include pre-written outcomes to social interactions.

For that sort of FRPGing, social conflict resolution mechanics are probably not useful.

I think it is the single best way to make social challenges a challenge.

If folks know everything about an NPC where is the challenge in the roleplay?

I should clarify that by mystery I mean that NPCs have unknown information, motivations, opportunities and needs that the PCs might interact with meaningfully if they are canny enough to get it out of them.

I'm not 100% sure what you've got in mind as the purpose or outcome ofsocial interactions.

But I posted some examples upthread. The PCs persuading the Baron to trust them and accept their accusations against his vizier doesn't really depend on unravelling a puzzle. It's more about the extent to which the players are prepared to put their own interests and concerns are on the line.

Or when Thurgon met his brother Rufus, the challenge wasn't to learn what motivated Rufus: it was to try and persuade him to act out of principle rather than acquiescence, by trying to shock him into recognising his own fall into a pathetic state. (In play, it reminded me of some of the scenes involving Saruman in LotR.)