D&D General Social Pillar Mechanics: Where do you stand?

[Lanefan]

Now imagine:

1. Each action is (typically) associated with a roll, unless the player has such a great idea it should simply work, no roll required
2. The party must build up to success or failure, rather than just sort of throwing stuff at the wall until the DM decides "okay that's enough, you have won(/lost)"
3. Each time someone acts, it changes the situation meaningfully
4. How many failures and successes the group gets shapes the nature of the final outcome, e.g. a near miss is an imperfect victory, a near win is a gentle defeat

And then you have precisely what a (good) skill challenge should be.

The difference, however, is that with most skill challenges I've seen (as part of converting modules to run) the "challenge" part is somewhat passive: a harsh environment, a maze, a trap, finding something - whatever the PCs are trying to overcome just is what it is and doesn't materially change during the skill challenge, and ultimately the PCs either beat it or they don't.

With "social combat". however, the "opponents" are trying too; which means the parameters of the challenge itself are (potentially) constantly in flux as the opponents adjust their point of view, or their manner of persuasion or negotiation, or come up with new wrinkles as the conversation goes on. And unlike a physical challenge, there's also potential for either the PCs or the foes to flat-out misunderstand the point the other group is trying to make.

Do the foes get their own skill challenge to see if they can beat the PCs?

 

[Lanefan]

For the other pillars? For their own reasons?

Do they need to justify their activity to you?

If they're at the same table I'm at and their lack of engagement is dragging things down, then yes they do; not just to me but to the rest of us as well.

 

[Lanefan]

That seems to be the core 5e thing of DM discretion to give advantage or disadvantage if it feels right/to taste.

PC: "I jump out and swing around on the chandelier gaining momentum for my swing!"

DM1: "Ok roll your attack."

DM1a: "Cool, take advantage on that attack!"

DM1b: "That sounds awkward and tough to time right to actually do, it is still possible though, take disadvantage on the attack."

DM me: "Ok, first make a Dexterity check for the swing-on-chandelier move".

The results of that check would then inform whether that action had gained the PC advantage on the attack roll, or gained/lost nothing, or gained disadv, or maybe missed the chandelier completely and fallen flat on his face.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The narration affects the meaning, tone, and direction of the scene. Such things are vital. They are often part of what differentiates "no need to roll, that just works" from "hmmm, okay, but that will have a high DC" or whatever else. These things can still matter enormously. I really don't see how you've established that they're somehow totally irrelevant.

I'm not going to go over all the questions you had right now... but this one in particular I just wanted to clear it up since I got the impression you might have misinterpreted what I was trying to saying for this point. When I said that the narration has nothing to do with the mechanics (on this point) I was actually referring to combat. How you narrate your attack in combat does not impact the dice rolling or mechanics in combat. So for instance there are no bonuses to be gained in the mechanics if you describe how you attack really well. You can't narrate "I aim for the creature's jugular" and then gain Advantage or an auto-crit or whatever from the DM because they thought "That's a good tactic!". That was all I was saying.

 

[Reynard]

Right. All of which have to replace telling what you want your character to say with a series of social combat rolls. But you can't have both.

That's nonsense.

Just like in combat, players are engaged in the conversation that is play, and then utilize the game mechanics to make that happen in the fiction. Sometimes what they want to do is solely a function of what's on their character sheet, but usually there is interplay with the terrain,the other participants and the GM. Why would "social combat" be any different.

"I want to chop the goblin boss's head off!"
"Okay, roll to hit."

"I want make the vizier back off so I can talk directly to the king."
"Okay, make a intimidate check."

You can expand those conversations in either case, and of course how the dice rolls interact with the statblocks says a lot about what happens.

I get that some folks might not want a social combat system, and that's fine, but it is ridiculous to keep saying it would be fundamentally different than the rest of play. You could make exploration work like combat, too,if you wanted to.

 

[Reynard]

You can't say "Oh, this social combat system only comes into play in important situations". If it's in the game it's there to be used in ANY situations that calls for it, just like combat; and therein lies the prproblem.

Yes, therein lies a problem with the combat system, specifically that D&D doesn't have a built in "quick combat" system when that is infinitely more appropriate than a full on combat.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well this is tagged "D&D General" so I wasn't constraining myself to a specific interpretation of D&D

To be clear, are you advocating that player narration can affect social encounter rolls and out comes for the characters? Are you also suggesting this doesn't mess up the mechanical balance of social encounters?

Though it is not how we generally play, I don't really see any difference in allowing player narration to affect (or not) social, exploration, or combat encounters. I think it is acceptable to allow a similar approach to all three phases.

Personally, I think is a bit unfair and unbalanced mechanically if one player's social skills allow their character to overshadowed characters you are mechanically better in social situations.

For Social? Absolutely. Just like in every case of Skill use... I follow the "Don't ask for a check if there's no chance for failure" format. Which means if a player in-character says something obvious that the NPC's only natural reaction would be "Well, of course! That makes total sense!" (in my view as the DM) then I'm not going to make the player roll a Persuasion check for it. To me that's pointless. If a player makes a good point, then I the DM (as the NPC) will go along with it.

But I DON'T grant things like auto-crits or Advantage if you as a player say to me "I'm aiming for the dragon's eye!" Because in combat it is assumed the characters are doing all the "right things" already and looking for the best opportunities in their fighting. Likewise I don't withhold Sneak Attack from the Rogue if they don't tell me where on the monster they hit it-- the game rules assume that if you have Advantage on the attack or an ally adjacent to the creature that the Rogue character gets Sneak Attack, no narration necessary.

 

[Corinnguard]

Do the foes get their own skill challenge to see if they can beat the PCs?

That would make things interesting. Unfortunately it would also bog down the RPG session as the DM (who is role-playing the foes) and the players 'combat' one another with opposing skill checks. Ex. Deception vs. Insight.

Social interaction should be about role-playing and getting into character.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The difference, however, is that with most skill challenges I've seen (as part of converting modules to run) the "challenge" part is somewhat passive: a harsh environment, a maze, a trap, finding something - whatever the PCs are trying to overcome just is what it is and doesn't materially change during the skill challenge, and ultimately the PCs either beat it or they don't.

Then I would say that that is a fundamentally bad skill challenge. If nothing changes as a result of player action, a significant part of what makes this method interesting is gone. The world is not and should not be a static thing.

With "social combat". however, the "opponents" are trying too; which means the parameters of the challenge itself are (potentially) constantly in flux as the opponents adjust their point of view, or their manner of persuasion or negotiation, or come up with new wrinkles as the conversation goes on. And unlike a physical challenge, there's also potential for either the PCs or the foes to flat-out misunderstand the point the other group is trying to make.

Do the foes get their own skill challenge to see if they can beat the PCs?

No. Instead, they should be part of how the situation evolves dynamically in response to the players' actions and proceeding from their own goals. I gave an example upthread, where there was a duplicitous Baron and a deceived Countess. The Baron casts aspersions, exploits weaknesses, etc.--no rolling on his part, instead, changing the context for future interactions. If, for example, the party Rogue fails a check, that could cash out as the Baron catching her on a flubbed bit of fact, or revealing her unsavory past, or some other setback that now puts the players on the defensive. Conversely, if the players do well at something, he might try to steer the conversation back to something under his control, and thus make it hard to repeat previous successes but opening up room for new approaches. Likewise, the Countess isn't a bad person, but she's been misled, and it's very important to avoid hardening her opposition. (So, for example, if the overall SC fails, but the party succeeds on every roll related to the Countess, they could get a consolation prize of "you've persuaded me there's more going on. Let's work together to prove your claims, because I don't want this country being ruled by evil cultists!")

This is part of why it's so important for SCs to actually be dynamic. Static, passive situations result in fairly static, boring experiences.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That seems to be the core 5e thing of DM discretion to give advantage or disadvantage if it feels right/to taste.

PC: "I jump out and swing around on the chandelier gaining momentum for my swing!"

DM1: "Ok roll your attack."

DM1a: "Cool, take advantage on that attack!"

DM1b: "That sounds awkward and tough to time right to actually do, it is still possible though, take disadvantage on the attack."

Exactly. It's for individual DMs to use at their leisure. But it's not a "combat maneuver" within the rules that a player can choose to narrate and gain Advantage each and every time. A player can't make the tactical decision to "swing from a chandelier" during the combat mini-game and thus get themselves Advantage. So their narration is cool and helps set the scene, but doesn't guarantee anything during the combat mini-game.