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

[clearstream]

Isn't the "mind control" model how things actually work a lot of the time though? Like, say you tell me you're running some errands and I ask you to pick up some snacks for me at the store. It may not seem like it, but I totally just manipulated you into doing something you weren't going to do originally, likely for some vaguely defined "favor" you might be able to call in later.

So my post isn't about the verisimilitude of mind control. No objection is raised in that regard. It's about another way of thinking about social skills, i.e. as a means of indicating the direction of momentum to your fiction rather than as mind control.

In relation to your thoughts, one could for instance observe that succesful mind control does set a direction of momentum e.g. the direction along which your fiction includes that you have mind controlled me to collect snacks for you. I'm saying that if we focused on resolving the direction of momentum instead of the skill expression of Persuasion, it may lead us to have in mind different options for failure or success. You might have been rather unconvincing in pressing your request, but my generosity of spirit prevails as I'm going to the store anyway. I want some snacks for myself and it's strictly no bother to bring you some too.

Is it mind control if I go to the store because of my generosity of spirit (and not because you implored me to?)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've been mulling over another viewpoint on skill challenges, which is to see the relevant mechanics less in terms of controlling what other creatures will do (i.e. forcing them to believe you are innocent, which feels in some respects like controlling the Emperor's mind via the skill) and more in terms of revealing the direction to take your fiction.

In the "mind control" model (I know the term isn't ideal, I just mean that successfully using the skill makes the creature change its mind) we picture that the Emperor is disposed to skepticism or perhaps pre-judgement - that is their mental state. The player character by using the skill and rolling well changes that mental state to one of trust or at least acceptance. If they had rolled badly, we might picture that the character had exercised their skill poorly, presenting weak arguments etc. So what is pictured in the character employing the skill, is a test of that character's ability to express their skillfulness.

In the "direction to take your fiction" model, the use of the skill doesn't change anything about the Emperor, rather it reveals what we should add to our fiction. This isn't about the character's ability to express their skillfulness. What is pictured in the player invoking the skill is a the situation itself and which way it is likely to twist.

The reason this matters is that it changes how a DM views calling for checks and setting difficulty classes. What the difficulty represents in the second case is our predisposition - as co-creators of a common fiction - toward our world being that one in which Emperors are truculent, or that one in which Emperors are sagacious. The character's skill is not called into doubt: they may be described exercising it adroitly even if the result is failure.

You have arrived at PbtA! I mean, let's say Dungeon World, is maybe a bit more mixed in terms of a result can be described or attributed to luck, skill, fortune, etc. And there's no concept of a 'DC'

 

[James Gasik]

So my post isn't about the verisimilitude of mind control. No objection is raised in that regard. It's about another way of thinking about social skills, i.e. as a means of indicating the direction of momentum to your fiction rather than as mind control.

In relation to your thoughts, one could for instance observe that succesful mind control does set a direction of momentum e.g. the direction along which your fiction includes that you have mind controlled me to collect snacks for you. I'm saying that if we focused on resolving the direction of momentum instead of the skill expression of Persuasion, it may lead us to have in mind different options for failure or success. You might have been rather unconvincing in pressing your request, but my generosity of spirit prevails as I'm going to the store anyway. I want some snacks for myself and it's strictly no bother to bring you some too.

Is it mind control if I go to the store because of my generosity of spirit (and not because you implored me to?)

One could argue that I took advantage of your generosity of spirit (ie, finding your weak point and exploiting it). I do apologize that I took your post the wrong way, I've endured a lot of debate about "persuasion isn't mind control" when DM's try to set limits on what they feel is unreasonable for a skill check, which generally defangs the utility of social skills.

Recently, I watched a player engage in roleplay with an NPC who was resistant to their point of view, give a well-reasoned, logical argument, and the NPC conceded the point...and not a die roll was made or asked for; it wasn't until after the fact that the DM realized the player (in character!) had successfully persuaded HIM.

Quite an achievement, given the player character was a Wizard with a 12 Charisma and no proficiency!

I think these sorts of exchanges happen more often than one might suppose, and it really undermines the role of Charisma in the game, especially when a DM rules that you can't use Charisma in certain ways (yet is completely vulnerable to real-life Charisma).

 

[clearstream]

You have arrived at PbtA! I mean, let's say Dungeon World, is maybe a bit more mixed in terms of a result can be described or attributed to luck, skill, fortune, etc. And there's no concept of a 'DC'

I'm glad you noticed; that was by intent! I aimed to relate PbtA principles to 5e social skills. Or at least to moot the possibility.

On a success, the Stonetop Persuade move has NPCs do what you want or tell you the easiest way to convince them. Which isn't so very far from the listed Conversation Reactions.

Stonetop constrains what fiction can trigger a roll with Presuade, guaranteeing going in that the fiction joins up. 5e is often played to go the other way, in effect deciding the "triggering" fiction retroactively. Even though that is not what the rules text limits players to doing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One could argue that I took advantage of your generosity of spirit (ie, finding your weak point and exploiting it). I do apologize that I took your post the wrong way, I've endured a lot of debate about "persuasion isn't mind control" when DM's try to set limits on what they feel is unreasonable for a skill check, which generally defangs the utility of social skills.

Recently, I watched a player engage in roleplay with an NPC who was resistant to their point of view, give a well-reasoned, logical argument, and the NPC conceded the point...and not a die roll was made or asked for; it wasn't until after the fact that the DM realized the player (in character!) had successfully persuaded HIM.

Quite an achievement, given the player character was a Wizard with a 12 Charisma and no proficiency!

I think these sorts of exchanges happen more often than one might suppose, and it really undermines the role of Charisma in the game, especially when a DM rules that you can't use Charisma in certain ways (yet is completely vulnerable to real-life Charisma).

Nah, it's fine. PbtA games for instance simply describe play as a dialogue. What happens follows from the fiction, engages prep, and addresses the game's agenda. Dice happen when a player describes an action which qualifies as a move. This a straight up RP like this is totally in keeping with the way these games work. Now, eventually the GM will make a move that probably pushes the players to act and make moves too but even here the NPC might simply ask for something in return for whatever they were doing for the PC. It still doesn't demand mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

You have arrived at PbtA!

Or this thing that I posted back in 2012, which predates my knowledge of Apocalypse World:

Suppose I am playing a dwarf fighter with a dumped CHA. And suppose my PC enters a new town, and wants to make a good impression with the mayor/baron/dwarven clan leader/etc. Having the bard or rogue do the talking isn't going to work. If I want my PC to make a good impression, I am going to have to say stuff.

That's not to say that the bard/rogue/whatever can't act as my PC's herald, announcing my PC's entrance and giving bonuses, reducing difficulties or otherwise changing the fictional situation in favour of my guy. But in the end my guy is going to have to say something, and I'll have to pick up the d20 and make a roll.

It's the same as combat: the wizard doesn't fight because combat is his/her thing, the wizard fights because the monsters are attacking him/her!

When it comes to out-of-combat resolution, the main requirement is to explain to GMs how to resolve the failed checks that will inevitably follow upon players making checks in which their PCs have poor bonuses. Burning Wheel does an excellent job of this. D&D, to date, has done a terrible job. Judging from posts I read around here, the default narration for the dwarf fighter attempting and failing the Diplomacy check is "You open your mouth and spray your spit over the mayor - sucks to dump CHA, I guess!" - and then people complain that their players won't use anything but their biggest numbers!

If the fighter fails the Diplomacy check, then there are any number of ways of narrating that failure without making the PC look like a fool - from "The mayor listens briefly, but then excuses herself to go off to the next meeting" to "Of course the mayor would love to help you, but she swore an oath to her late brother that she would never do XYZ" to "As you begin your address, rain starts to fall, and the mayor's entourage usher her back into the city hall before you can get your point across".

 

[Aldarc]

Or this thing that I posted back in 2012, which predates my knowledge of Apocalypse World:

Do you keep like a giant database of records for things that you once posted that you can pull out at a moment's notice? If so, how do you organize them? How do you remember that you said something from over ten years ago so you know to look for it?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think these sorts of exchanges happen more often than one might suppose, and it really undermines the role of Charisma in the game, especially when a DM rules that you can't use Charisma in certain ways (yet is completely vulnerable to real-life Charisma).

But is this really different from how we treat other skills? Take Strength for instance. Not all climbs require an Athletics roll, only those where there is a chance of failure. Most DMs don’t require a roll for climbing a ladder for instance. At the other extreme, most DMs would deem that suplexing a dragon is an automatic failure and wouldn’t allow the player to roll that either.

 

[James Gasik]

But is this really different from how we treat other skills? Take Strength for instance. Not all climbs require an Athletics roll, only those where there is a chance of failure. Most DMs don’t require a roll for climbing a ladder for instance. At the other extreme, most DMs would deem that suplexing a dragon is an automatic failure and wouldn’t allow the player to roll that either.

Probably not, and I think that's why a more critical look at ability checks are used in the game is required. I'm not saying the game should devolve into die rolls for everything; in fact, it's really neat when you can set the rules aside in a session.

But at the same time, if your ability scores become meaningless, that's a problem too.

Maybe if there was more than one way to accomplish a task; in the example of the logical argument, perhaps Intelligence could be used for some social rolls.

Maybe Dexterity can be used to climb some things.

Maybe having the Strength to lift an object isn't as important in some cases as having the Constitution to lug it around for awhile.

I know there are options for disassociating skills from abilities, to allow Strength (Intimidate) checks and so on. If we did that, but had guidance for when X ability score is allowable for Y check, perhaps that could improve things?

Just spitballing here, I've played in systems that do this, like Vampire, but it generally devolves to "I'm going to argue with the GM so I can use my best roll for everything".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Do you keep like a giant database of records for things that you once posted that you can pull out at a moment's notice? If so, how do you organize them? How do you remember that you said something from over ten years ago so you know to look for it?

Oh, man, that's funny because I ALMOST posted a similar question. @pemerton seems like he must have a page full of links to citations, annotated, just ready to fire off. Not just his own, either! One might say that to reach the level of getting on that list would be to have arrived! I aspire to one day be cited!