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

[GMforPowergamers]

It’s possible to have some choices matter and some not.

100% in fact I will elt you in on a secret... sometimes my players THINK something will have long ranging consequences and it doesn't really matter... and sometimes they off the cuff think a choice doesn't really matter but will define multi sessions of a campaign.

It’s possible that the route the party takes doesn’t matter because the first village they come to will hold the adventure if how the party react and interact with adventure absolutely does matter in a critical way. Agency doesn’t need to be 100% for it to be satisfying.

also agree... and sometimes we just have to agree out of game to things... like "Look, yes you COULD head due north and be off the map in 11 days, or due south for 3ish weeks gets you off the map... since I drew a nice map with a dozen locations labled and some that aren't can we stay on it for atleast a few levels" seems fine to me

There is no meaningful difference between the party travelling near Haxel triggering the wheel to break on their coach. As there is with you repurposing the adventure designed for Haxel to fit into the later village of Blumpt because the PCs decide to go there and you hadn’t written anything out for Blumpt.

yes and no... if you have Haxel on your map 3 days north, and we are heading to a town that is 7 days north/ slightly north west and we decided to go west then north and miss Haxel for any reason or no reason (unless the reason is to be a jerk out of game and mess with the DM) then that set of encounters just doesn't happen...

going back to my spell jammer game, those pirates that they didn't hear about until tehy got to the moon... had a small ship on a nearby astroid, if they had taken the food run option they would have 100% run across those guys... those encounters didn't happen and wont most likely now, the campaign is diffrent by there choice

It’s problem to claim one method is good and the other is bad.

I don't think it's good or bad in a cosmic scale... I think it's prefrence. I don't want to play in a game where it feels like the DM scripted the main points before we sat down

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, and I never said they were. So... what?

Actually, you said:

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".

And my response was that it seems like not all techniques fall into the extreme of being nothing but dice rolls or nothing but play acting. There's a middle ground! Just because you tossed some dice during play doesn't mean you weren't role-playing, but you do seem to be saying it isn't.

Because the stakes are higher--life or death--continuing to have a PC and not. SC aren't that intense IMO so I don't think they need it.

I'm not sure this is a given. It seems to be how many GMs in the D&D world have organized things.

 

[billd91]

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!

I can see it would have been a move with high stakes if Denethor had survived to meet Aragorn because we know, from the established fiction, that Denethor doubted Aragorn's claim/suitability. As perspicacious and formidable as Denethor was on many levels, Faramir simply exceeds his old man's intuition and wisdom on the subject of character, meaning he doesn't require a move for him to do the right thing here.

Of course, this idea also would have opened up the possibility of making moves to get around the direct social conflict such as arranging for Denethor to be taken out and having it look like an accident...

 

[jgsugden]

Social covers every interaction between beings, so it covers most of the game. You have social interactions within combats.

To me, the mechanics have to be light and non-intrusive. Social conversations require timing and acting to convey a good story. Stopping the action to roll dice really gets in the way of telling a good story. To that end, I try to limit the situation to 1 or 2 rolls for a lengthy situation - and I usually have it take place early in the situation.

In my campaigns, players tell me what they're attempting socially. Then, I think about whether their ability scores support what they are attempting. If so, they passively achieve what they attempt. If not, I may call for a roll or determine that they do not succeed based upon the impact to the game of their potential failure.

Example, two 9th level PCs walk into a bar and locate an underground figure that sells information. Thewy know that the figure has information about a quest they are working to resolve, and they want that information. The two figures are an 8 charisma barbarian with no charisma or wisdom skills, and a warlock with a 20 charisma, 16 wisdom and proficiency in insight, persuasian and intimidation. I determine that unless the PCs have a good introduction, starting a conversation with this figure (who had some bad blood with the PCs in the past) would be a moderate challenge - DC 15.

If the barbarian player says they walk up and say, "We know you've got information on a Tortle named Grunk. We want to know where to find him, and who might be with him.": I would either tell the barbarian that the figure brushes them off without a response (as it wasn't a partocularly great opening - not something that would give them help on the DC) or I'd ask them to make a charisma check with a DC of 15 to start the negotiations.

If the warlock player said the same thing, I'd just go straight into the negotiation as the +8 persuasian bonus is enough to get past the DC to start negotiations with the fesity underground figure.

I've used these types of techniques for decades and have never really felt like there was a gap in my game caused by the approach. It is fast and effective. Most of the 40 years I've been playing didn't even have the roll element. I just figured out success and failure based upon ability scores - I think it was late 2E when I really started to allow people to roll a die to improve their odds of success. Prior to that, I listened to what people said and asked how charismatic you'd have to be to "pull it off" in the situation.

 

[HammerMan]

Because the stakes are higher--life or death--continuing to have a PC and not. SC aren't that intense IMO so I don't think they need it.

Stakes don’t have to be directly life or death. They can be losing political power or capital or losing an Allie.


Way back when Becky ran her first 5e game (been running since we had a series of 5 duchess and baron controlled lands and a capital region controlled by the seneschal. We were working for the king to find out if there was any truth to the rumor that there was a plot to overthrow him… we had to travel to (so sometimes run into random encounters) each region and use out titles and personal power to get an audience and a read on each noble. Some of these had lesser lords in their courts. Some had cleric or arcane caster advisors. All had military power.
At no point in the early game (until we found the master sword lie) did we think our lives were EVER in danger. We still had a lot of RP and skill and even spell use to get through challenges.

 

[kunadam]

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.

I would think that the exact opposite is true. The outcome of the fights is mostly that the PCs won, otherwise it is the end of the game. While this expectation might not be met, the adventure assumed it does. As for social interaction there could be many outcomes and all could propell the story into different arcs.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If we continue you use the Siege of Minas Tirith as an example, a time when a skill check is made would be when Pippin persuades one of the citadel guards to delay Denethor's murder/suicide until he can get back with Gandalf. We can assume that whilst important NPCs like Faramir and Denethor have detailed personality profiles, so the DM can fairly judge how they will react, we have to assume that GenericGuard#7 does not. So a skill roll decides. If it fails, the player playing Pippin will have to try something else. Or maybe Faramir dies. Sad, but not really significant for the plot.

Now, the DM could create a personality for GenericGuard#7 on the fly. But this is where there is an issue with player agency. No matter what decisions the player has made, if the DM decides they are having a bad day the attempt fails, ore they decide they are having a good day, and the attempt succeeds. Only the DM's decisions count, the player's decisions do not matter one jot.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would think that the exact opposite is true. The outcome of the fights is mostly that the PCs won, otherwise it is the end of the game.

100% this

now when I run for newbies I throw more softballs,a nd when I runn with my group (see screen name) I know I can throw CR 19s at 9th level parties

While this expectation might not be met, the adventure assumed it does. As for social interaction there could be many outcomes and all could propell the story into different arcs.

I always plan... what if they get what they want, what if they get half of what they want... what if they stick there foot in there mouth and get nothing, and what if they SKIP and don't even talk to/interact with them...
I then TRY to imagine an out of the box "What if they do X" and I STILL can get surprised

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I would think that the exact opposite is true. The outcome of the fights is mostly that the PCs won, otherwise it is the end of the game. While this expectation might not be met, the adventure assumed it does. As for social interaction there could be many outcomes and all could propell the story into different arcs.

Is it "the end of the game", though? What does it mean to "win" or "lose" a fight? Are all fights to the death? Is retreat a possibility? Even with a TPK, does that preclude the players rolling up a new party (or, indeed, already having multiple characters in the campaign) and keep playing the same adventure?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Because the stakes are higher--life or death--continuing to have a PC and not. SC aren't that intense IMO so I don't think they need it.

i'd think that lots of social situations resolution, in both success or failure and everything inbetween go on to have knock on effects on later events or even directly lead to some of them, including those life-or-death fights so their outcome is just as important as those fights as they impact your capacity in them, a basic good social interaction with a noble might have you come out with new information on your current task(like what was previously mentioned in the thread informing you of the parent in 'we found out about the young dragon but didn't know about the parent'), the best outcome might have you come out with the information and some extra boon like gold or an item(which may then help you survive a later combat), the poor outcome has you leave with no information and a complete flub of the roll has him becoming entraged at your insolent behaviour and calls the guards forcibly remove you(thus starting a combat), a neutral outcome is that they might direct you to someone else who has better chances of knowing something about your quest objective.