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

[FrozenNorth]

I find a perfectly functional sword while in a dungeon. I go to a shop, they want to give me 1/5th it's value.

But wait, according to my background, I belong to a Guild, so I go to the Guild store to sell it. 1/5th it's value.

I get a merchant's license and buy my own shop and try to sell it. 1/5 it's value.

So how does this economy work again?

Why would a used sword you found in a dungeon be worth the same as a brand new sword you bought at a blacksmith’s?

 

[Red Castle]

Indeed, that's the recommendation in the 5e DMG.


100%.

If the intent (goal) - or the action (approach) for that matter - of the PC is unclear then the DM absolutely should be asking for clarification before adjudicating. Assumptions can lead to a mismatch of expectations at the table and awkward breaks in game play.


I don't call for rolls based on a PC's stats. Stats only are involved in how the number on the die is adjusted. My adjudication also has nothing to do with how convincing the player is (although a well-delivered roleplay can certainly be entertaining for the table). As mentioned, I base a decision for a roll on what the PC is trying to accomplish and how they are trying to accomplish it. Only if there is uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure, is a roll involved. Making a player roll solely because their PC has a low/dump stat is one step removed from just straight up telling them "your character wouldn't do that", IMO. That's not my role as DM.


Of course. A player needn't be eloquent to have their PC convince an NPC of anything. If they are having trouble roleplaying in the 1st person, I'll just have them clarify with me what their PC is really trying to accomplish and generally what points they are trying to make to do so, and I'll decide if a roll is even necessary.

I should have clarified that I would not make them roll just for the heck of it but when the situation can call for it. Let’s just say that in all my years of playing, I had to deal with powerplayers that dropped the knowledge and social stats (not talking exclusively with DnD here) to boost their physical ones and then expected to just roleplay out of the need to use the knowledge and social skills, so I had to adapt to these situations and make those players realise that there can be consequences to neglecting the knowledge and social attributes and that it’s not because they, as a player, know stuff that their character also knows it. Here again, it’s all about the intention of the player.

Luckily, I don’t have to deal with that kind of players now, the people I game with are experienced enough to not drop a stats just to boost another and will roleplay accordingly to how they built their characters.

 

[James Gasik]

Why would a used sword you found in a dungeon be worth the same as a brand new sword you bought at a blacksmith’s?

Uh, why wouldn't it? I can polish it up, it works the same, there's no statistical difference between the blades. Heck, maybe it's worth more because it's an antique or was made by a famous smith!

 

[pemerton]

Uh, why wouldn't it? I can polish it up, it works the same, there's no statistical difference between the blades. Heck, maybe it's worth more because it's an antique or was made by a famous smith!

To me, it seems weird to take a rules element - in D&D all swords have the same mechanical specifications, and there are no rules for blades being weak/strong/sharp/rusted etc - and then read that back into the fiction in spite of its unreality, and on that basis to criticise another rules element - the selling-of-scrap rules - on the basis that, when it is read back into the fiction, the resulting economy is not very realistic.

 

[James Gasik]

To me, it seems weird to take a rules element - in D&D all swords have the same mechanical specifications, and there are no rules for blades being weak/strong/sharp/rusted etc - and then read that back into the fiction in spite of its unreality, and on that basis to criticise another rules element - the selling-of-scrap rules - on the basis that, when it is read back into the fiction, the resulting economy is not very realistic.

Yeah but it doesn't have to be a rusted old sword either. Let's say I buy a rapier for my archer as a backup weapon. During the next adventure, we find a rapier +1. Huh, upgrade, ok. I never even used the rapier.

I go to sell it since I don't need it and....1/5 the price for resale.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The question is are you willing to spend money to buy a specialty product that gives you a more detailed system on selling items? And to go through a multi step process when you want go sell something?

Yeah but it doesn't have to be a rusted old sword either. Let's say I buy a rapier for my archer as a backup weapon. During the next adventure, we find a rapier +1. Huh, upgrade, ok. I never even used the rapier.

I go to sell it since I don't need it and....1/5 the price for resale.

 

[James Gasik]

The question is are you willing to spend money to buy a specialty product that gives you a more detailed system on selling items? And to go through a multi step process when you want go sell something?

I might? It really comes down to whether or not it makes the game more fun or if the rules get in the way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would love nothing more than for conversations about social challenges to never again use price negotiation as a meaningful example.

I’d think a social challenge would have more at stake than saving a few gold pieces.

More realistic examples can be a bit fraught. We could discuss how you would best adjudicate talking out an encounter with a deranged suicidal guy with a gun... eh, been there, done that. What I'm saying is, sometimes its just a matter of people want more fantasy with their reality, lol. I'm happy with these kind of things being a little abstract, you CAN be TOO IMMERSED.

 

[clearstream]

In my view, I'd go with a fairly simple system. Each character makes a declaration of some sort for their goal - in the example, the PC wants a discount and the NPC doesn't really want to give it. You have a pool of "Social Power" that is depleted through the discussion. So, it looks something like this:

Player: I want to get a discount from the merchant. So, I ask for a discount.
DM: Ok, roll your (We'll use the 5e rules for a moment) Persuasion vs his Insight and he rolls his Persuasion vs your Insight. Dice are rolled Ok, you both succeed, so, you each lose 2 Social Power points. What do you say?
Player: (narrating his success) Ho fat merchant. Your wares are very nice. I have just saved the city, so, howzabout a bit of a discount?

That's in sharp contrast to an approach where players say what their characters do before dice are thrown, and what they say helps decide whether a check is made and what its consequences could include. Which generally need not require narrating the character's actions in retrospect. (What happens not what happened.) A related option is for players to roleplay their characters, meaning roleplay in view of what they have made true through their choices in character creation. So that an unskilful orator does not orate skilfully.

Interestingly, the method you describe can produce a bit of disconnect between roll and fiction. Suppose that the player retroactively narrates something that all agree ought not to have worked (where for the sake of argument, no patching-up narration is on offer.) Frex, I roll 20 and hit, but I choose to narrate fumbling, dropping my axe and missing. Forwards-only narration does not run into this potential problem, because if I describe missing then that is what I do. (Performance isn't at issue, consequences are.)

As an aside, the mechanics in your example are not 5e.

 

[clearstream]

I would love nothing more than for conversations about social challenges to never again use price negotiation as a meaningful example.

I’d think a social challenge would have more at stake than saving a few gold pieces.

IKR but going with for sake of argument.