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

[James Gasik]

Because in Combat, you declare an action, the outcome is determined and than the action and outcome are described:
"I attack the Orc with my sword."
"Roll an attack."
"That's a 19."
"That's a hit, roll damage."
"10 Damage"
"Nice, tou all see, that Fin the Fighter draws his Sword, swinging at the Orc. The Orc tries to raise its shield, but it is to slow. Fin slashes wide open a big wound in the chest of the Orc, who growls in Pain."

In a social interaction, usually the action is described first, and based on that action and outcome is determined:
"Fin says to the orc: stand away or I will cut you!"
"Make an intimidation check"
"It is a 6"
"The Orc laughed and raises his Axe. Everybody, roll initiative."

So, in Combat, we have the Action declaration, the outcome determination and than the action and outcome description.
In social interactions we have usally the action declaration including the action description, then the outcome determination and then the outcome description.

For social interactions that can lead to a dissonance.
Like a players gives the best speech and roleplaying performance ever that in reality would make any king give up his kingdom, but than he rolls a Nat 1 and his character gets killed.
In Combat, the outcome is first described and then based on that, the action is described. If he rolled a 1 on the attack rolled, "Fin fumbled with the sword and couldn't bring it to bear against the orc" or a natural 20 "Fin, with on swing, hacks the Head off of the orc."

So, in 5e, if not be done carefully by the DM, how I describe my action in an social interaction doesn't have any bearing on the outcome. If I roll a nat 1, nothing what I said mattered. I failed.

Of course ... you could put the roll in front of the action description. Handle it like combat: declare an action, but don't describe it, with for the outcome determination and then describe the action based on the outcome.
"I want to intimidate the Orc"
"Make an intimidation check"
"20!"
Now he can describe a coom phrase. If he rolled a 1, he could describe how he stuttered and couldn't get the words out to really intimidate the orc.

But ... seperating the action declaration and the action description in social interactions kills any ryhthm. It slows it down to a crawl.

Really what should be happening is, the DC of the social check should be based on the roleplay, but that's super subjective and nothing stops a DM who doesn't want something to occur from just saying "I don't care how well you argue, the King isn't giving you access to his treasury."*

I'm not saying that this is a negative thing necessarily, some things should take more interaction than a single die roll, and some results could be abusive to game balance if they were "on the table", so to speak. But it does make social interaction murky; in combat, you are dealing with set DC's, like the AC of an opponent. And you know that if you roll a 20, you're going to be able to make a damage roll.

In social encounters, however, the DC isn't known, and the DM doesn't have to tell you that what you are attempting to do is flat out impossible until after you attempt it, which can sometimes feel like Lucy taking the football away from Charlie Brown.

As for the "state action first, then rp", while that would be ideal, that does interrupt roleplay, and as my earlier example pointed out, sometimes the DM can just waive rolls entirely if they like the roleplay enough.

This highlights the critical difference between most of the ways you interact with the game and social interaction. By and large, D&D functions by appealing to the rules of the game, making actions with relatively set parameters.

In social encounters, however, you aren't appealing to the rules directly, but appealing to the authority of the DM, their personal interpretation of the rules- which can come up in every aspect of the game, by design. It's why we have a DM.

But in my experience, social interactions are probably the most dependent on DM fiat (outside of edge case spell interactions, since many spells do what they say they do, even when that leads to confusing outcomes- a personal favorite is how you can't block a doorway with a Flaming Sphere, since you don't take damage from walking through it).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Because in Combat, you declare an action, the outcome is determined and than the action and outcome are described:
"I attack the Orc with my sword."
"Roll an attack."
"That's a 19."
"That's a hit, roll damage."
"10 Damage"
"Nice, tou all see, that Fin the Fighter draws his Sword, swinging at the Orc. The Orc tries to raise its shield, but it is to slow. Fin slashes wide open a big wound in the chest of the Orc, who growls in Pain."

In a social interaction, usually the action is described first, and based on that action and outcome is determined:
"Fin says to the orc: stand away or I will cut you!"
"Make an intimidation check"
"It is a 6"
"The Orc laughed and raises his Axe. Everybody, roll initiative."

So, in Combat, we have the Action declaration, the outcome determination and than the action and outcome description.
In social interactions we have usally the action declaration including the action description, then the outcome determination and then the outcome description.

For social interactions that can lead to a dissonance.
Like a players gives the best speech and roleplaying performance ever that in reality would make any king give up his kingdom, but than he rolls a Nat 1 and his character gets killed.
In Combat, the outcome is first described and then based on that, the action is described. If he rolled a 1 on the attack rolled, "Fin fumbled with the sword and couldn't bring it to bear against the orc" or a natural 20 "Fin, with on swing, hacks the Head off of the orc."

So, in 5e, if not be done carefully by the DM, how I describe my action in an social interaction doesn't have any bearing on the outcome. If I roll a nat 1, nothing what I said mattered. I failed.

Of course ... you could put the roll in front of the action description. Handle it like combat: declare an action, but don't describe it, with for the outcome determination and then describe the action based on the outcome.
"I want to intimidate the Orc"
"Make an intimidation check"
"20!"
Now he can describe a coom phrase. If he rolled a 1, he could describe how he stuttered and couldn't get the words out to really intimidate the orc.

But ... seperating the action declaration and the action description in social interactions kills any ryhthm. It slows it down to a crawl.

Solved by the DM not describing the PCs’ actions but rather just the outcomes of their actions, IMO.

I believe that’s the design intent and, indeed, what seems to be outlined in the How to Play section at the beginning of the PHB.

 

[M_Natas]

Solved by the DM not describing the PCs’ actions but rather just the outcomes of their actions, IMO.

I believe that’s the design intent and, indeed, what seems to be outlined in the How to Play section at the beginning of the PHB.

But then the action is not described.
The problem is not, that the DM described the action in combat (or the players) but that the description of the taken action in social encounters coincides with the action declaration, because usually that is the same, especially if the players speak in Character.
The describing of the action itself wither by DM or player is not a problem.

Really what should be happening is, the DC of the social check should be based on the roleplay, but that's super subjective and nothing stops a DM who doesn't want something to occur from just saying "I don't care how well you argue, the King isn't giving you access to his treasury."*

That is the "problem", because it reverses what the DM does in the rest of the Game.
Usually you have fixed DCs (AC, Trap DC, unlocking door DCs, finding hidden door DCs) and the players declare an action that needs a roll against a DC to adjudicate.
In social interactions, the players are saying and doing stuff that should change the DC. Suddenly the DC is dynamic. And not only dynamic by a certain set of rules (like, if you fail to to roll 10 or higher the DC increases by 1 for crossing that bridge), but subjective. Is the argument the Player character makes convincing enough so that the DM decides that he will lower the DC?

The DMG gives a little bit of guidance on that, but it is different from every other mode of play in the game in that regard and it is hard and can be regarded as unfair.

But also the pushback to set DCs and a fixed system like it was proposed with the influence action in OneDND is understandable, because it would kill the dynamic of the system.

‐---------------

So, my social system is pretty RAW. It doesn't need extra rules. It just gives the whole thing a little structure. It goes as follows:

My simple NPC interaction, like shop keepers and stuff, If the players want to do something or are doing something that has an uncertain outcome, there is one roll. Like haggling for prices. That's usally one roll. The DC is determined by how popular the PCs are with that shopkeeper based on their "fame" within the community, previous interactions, how they look, perform and so on and also by how they approach the situation. Also the wants and needs of the NPC play a part. I just do all that in the fly in my head to determine an appropriate DC.
Then they PCs roll their charisma check (+ appropriate skill). If the meet the DC, the will get a 5% discount. If the successful by 5 or more a 10% discount. If the fail, no discount, if they fail by more than five, the prices go up 10% and Amy further interaction will have a higher DC.
There is no reroll, unless the PCs change anything about the situation, like if they change their approach from persuasion to intimidation. But they can't just all reroll their persuasion attempts.

With more important NPCs / more complex situations, the approach is similiar, but their could be more rolls, depending on the situation and the approach the players take.

Let's say they want to recruit and NPC ad a spy.
They could just go to that NPC, offer him money and a veiled threat and that will be one roll.
Or they could try to befreiend the NPC first by "randomly " meeting him at a tavern, giving him drinks, helping him with a problem, collecting incriminating evidence against him and so on, which all warrants more rolls.

And the DC is determined this way:

1. How hard it is, what the characters are asking the NPC to do? That sets a base DC. For simple one off NPCs, that's usally enough. No roll required (0), 5, 10, 15, 20 ...

2. The attitude of the NPC towards the PCs which will adjust the DC by a certain number (from -10 (very friendly, just saved their lives and their whole famliy and brought a pie, too!) to 0 (indifferent) to +10 or even more (outright hostile like the PCs just killed the NPCs dog in front of him or something)). That could mean, that in a city, we're everybody hates the PCs, even asking for the way (usually no roll) could lead to a roll, because they would need to convince somebody to talk to them first.

3.the approach the PCs take (what are they saying? Are they bribing the guard? Did they bring an appropriate gift for the queen that is to her taste?) Which can influence the DC further.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But then the action is not described.
The problem is not, that the DM described the action in combat (or the players) but that the description of the taken action in social encounters coincides with the action declaration, because usually that is the same, especially if the players speak in Character.
The describing of the action itself wither by DM or player is not a problem.

I think you are just placing the action description too late and conflating it with the outcome of the action. It comes first in 5e, whether in combat, exploration, or social interaction. And, by doing so, the DM doesn't need to take narrative control of the character at all - which I personally find problematic when my PC is described behaving in ways I myself would not imagine, especially on crit fails. It is, after all, the player's role to describe how their PC acts, speaks, and thinks. It is not the DM's role to roleplay the PC in 5e. When I DM, I have too much on my plate to play the PCs, too, even if that is just for a brief moment for the the sake of a quick narrative description - but those brief moments add up over the course of a session/adventure/campaign.

So, using your example:

Player: "I attack the orc with my sword" [which is fine as is -or- the player could describe with some flare as to what their PC is trying to do, in first or third person: "Fin the Fighter draws his Sword, swinging at the Orc with a quick slash."]
DM: "roll an attack"
Player: "That's a 19"
DM: "That's a hit, roll damage"
Player: "10 damage"
DM: "The Orc tries to raise its shield, but it is too slow. The sword slashes wide open a big wound in the chest of the Orc, who growls in Pain. Player 2 [who is obviously well prepared for their turn and not in the middle of looking at their phone], what does your PC do?"


The key is that the DM is staying in their lane by describing the outcome. I find it particularly helpful when I am DMing to avoid the word "you" here so I'm not inadvertently telling any player how their PC is acting/speaking/thinking.

Another solid example is when a DM cedes the description of the killing blow to the player: "How do you want to do this?" is great as it throws the roleplaying duty back onto the player where it belongs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because in Combat, you declare an action, the outcome is determined and than the action and outcome are described:
"I attack the Orc with my sword."
"Roll an attack."
"That's a 19."
"That's a hit, roll damage."
"10 Damage"
"Nice, tou all see, that Fin the Fighter draws his Sword, swinging at the Orc. The Orc tries to raise its shield, but it is to slow. Fin slashes wide open a big wound in the chest of the Orc, who growls in Pain."

In a social interaction, usually the action is described first, and based on that action and outcome is determined:
"Fin says to the orc: stand away or I will cut you!"
"Make an intimidation check"
"It is a 6"
"The Orc laughed and raises his Axe. Everybody, roll initiative."

So, in Combat, we have the Action declaration, the outcome determination and than the action and outcome description.
In social interactions we have usally the action declaration including the action description, then the outcome determination and then the outcome description.

For social interactions that can lead to a dissonance.
Like a players gives the best speech and roleplaying performance ever that in reality would make any king give up his kingdom, but than he rolls a Nat 1 and his character gets killed.
In Combat, the outcome is first described and then based on that, the action is described. If he rolled a 1 on the attack rolled, "Fin fumbled with the sword and couldn't bring it to bear against the orc" or a natural 20 "Fin, with on swing, hacks the Head off of the orc."

So, in 5e, if not be done carefully by the DM, how I describe my action in an social interaction doesn't have any bearing on the outcome. If I roll a nat 1, nothing what I said mattered. I failed.

Of course ... you could put the roll in front of the action description. Handle it like combat: declare an action, but don't describe it, with for the outcome determination and then describe the action based on the outcome.
"I want to intimidate the Orc"
"Make an intimidation check"
"20!"
Now he can describe a coom phrase. If he rolled a 1, he could describe how he stuttered and couldn't get the words out to really intimidate the orc.

But ... seperating the action declaration and the action description in social interactions kills any ryhthm. It slows it down to a crawl.

I really don’t think the distinction you’re making should matter.

If we’re saying that the roll of the dice is what’s going to determine how the declared action goes… whether it’s an attack or an ability check… then that’s what should determine the outcome.

I mean, we generally don’t change ACs or attack bonuses based on how someone describes their attack, right? Their attack bonus is their attack bonus. Why would we adjust those numbers in some way for skill use?

So if the roll says that’s what happens, then that’s what happens. It doesn’t have to mean that the character making the attempt did a poor job… it just means the other character was not persuaded or intimidated or tricked. I mean, a strongly constructed argument can still fail. We see it happen all the time. This forum is filled with examples of impassioned, well-constructed arguments that fall on deaf ears.

This is why I don’t think the rules “get in the way”… they tell us what happens. They facilitate play.

If that’s not what’s wanted, then I would say not to call for a roll… just have the player say what their character says and the GM decides if it works or not. This has impact I don’t prefer in my game, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid approach.

 

[Hussar]

IMO the dice should provide direction, the players provide the script.

So I do believe rolling should come first. You can’t know how well or badly your character is doing something until the dice tell you. So it’s usually dice first, exposition second. I realize though that a lot of people very strongly object to this.

But to me, going the other way just makes the game inconsistent with good rp being rewarded with failure or, worse, diving down into mother may I territory where the players are just trying to find the magic key words that let them automatically succeed.

 

[M_Natas]

I really don’t think the distinction you’re making should matter.

If we’re saying that the roll of the dice is what’s going to determine how the declared action goes… whether it’s an attack or an ability check… then that’s what should determine the outcome.

I mean, we generally don’t change ACs or attack bonuses based on how someone describes their attack, right? Their attack bonus is their attack bonus. Why would we adjust those numbers in some way for skill use?

So if the roll says that’s what happens, then that’s what happens. It doesn’t have to mean that the character making the attempt did a poor job… it just means the other character was not persuaded or intimidated or tricked. I mean, a strongly constructed argument can still fail. We see it happen all the time. This forum is filled with examples of impassioned, well-constructed arguments that fall on deaf ears.

This is why I don’t think the rules “get in the way”… they tell us what happens. They facilitate play.

If that’s not what’s wanted, then I would say not to call for a roll… just have the player say what their character says and the GM decides if it works or not. This has impact I don’t prefer in my game, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid approach.

Yeah, and for combat it is generally accepted that when a player declares a normal attack, no matter how he describes it, it goes by the attack rules. But in social interactions, the description, so what is said and how it is said, is way more important and influences the outcome. It could lead to a "your argument is so convincing, no roll is needed" to "you insulted the guy so much, he attacks you".
If what my characters says and how s/he says it doesn't matter and only the dice matters,we stop playing a roleplaying game.

 

[M_Natas]

IMO the dice should provide direction, the players provide the script.

So I do believe rolling should come first. You can’t know how well or badly your character is doing something until the dice tell you. So it’s usually dice first, exposition second. I realize though that a lot of people very strongly object to this.

But to me, going the other way just makes the game inconsistent with good rp being rewarded with failure or, worse, diving down into mother may I territory where the players are just trying to find the magic key words that let them automatically succeed.

I never saw any table where a roll of the social interaction Was rolled before the player character made their argument.
Any table I played at and any game I saw online was:

"Hello Mr. Merchant, I as the rescuer of the town would like a discount"
"Roll a persuasion check"
"20"
"He gives you 10% off"

And not:

"I would like the Merchant to give me a discount".
"Roll a persuasion check."
"5 - so my characters says: Hey stupid Shopkeeper, I'm the hero of this city, give me a discount!"
"He doesn't give you a discount."

That is the "Problem" with social interaction. The Action declaration (I want to convince the shopkeeper to give me a discount) is usally identical with the action description (by telling him, that I rescued the town).
So you would describe it line twice. It really kills the flow of any dialogue.

The best practice would be, that the DM fairly determines, how the approach of the players, so how and what they say, would change the DC. So you need to be aware as the DM, that social interaction can't really be resolved like combat, that it is different than other approaches. Because social interaction is a dialogue. It is two or more people talking. It is a quick back and forth that you don't want to interrupt like in combat. You need the action declaration and action description (how the declared acrion looks in the outcome) in one go and not split it like in combat or you kill the dialogue.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, and for combat it is generally accepted that when a player declares a normal attack, no matter how he describes it, it goes by the attack rules. But in social interactions, the description, so what is said and how it is said, is way more important and influences the outcome. It could lead to a "your argument is so convincing, no roll is needed" to "you insulted the guy so much, he attacks you".
If what my characters says and how s/he says it doesn't matter and only the dice matters,we stop playing a roleplaying game.

I don’t agree with the last part at all. But I also don’t think it’s an either/or situation.

So the “your argument is so convincing, no roll is needed” and “you insulted the guy so much, he attacks you” are essentially auto-success and auto-failure results.

What determines when those come into play? Does it depend on what’s written in the NPC’s statblock? Or is it entirely up to the GM? Do the players have any way to learn that information?

I get the part where you’re concerned about role-playing… but what about the game? What’s the game here? Intuit the GM’s idea of what this NPC thinks? Again, sometimes an argument can be amazingly convincing to one person (the GM) and do nothing for another (the NPC). How is this determined?

 

[M_Natas]

I get the part where you’re concerned about role-playing… but what about the game? What’s the game here? Intuit the GM’s idea of what this NPC thinks? Again, sometimes an argument can be amazingly convincing to one person (the GM) and do nothing for another (the NPC). How is this determined?

It Is determined by the DM like everything else in the game.
It is not really different from "this lock is has a 16 dc to pick".
Only that the DC is more flexible based on the interaction the PCs are having with that NPC.
It is more complex, but also very subjective, because especially with smaller NPCs, the DM has to make up the Wants, Needs and personality traits of the NPC on the Spot. Like will this Guard be bribed? Is that Guard a bribable guard or a rare honest Guard?
And to feel fair to.the players, such traits should, if possible, be telegraphed how the NPC is portrayed be the DM.

That what makes social interactions complex. Because you can just set a DC 15 to all Guards to bribe and tell the players that's the DC for that because that would make the game stale and boring.