D&D 5E Need Advice for Running Social Skills

[DM Magic]

I find that I often one and done social skills, but want to change. For example, if the Queen will supply the party with horses on a successful check, and the group fails, that's it. No horses. Or whatever. How can I make it so that several rolls count and make it interesting? I know what I am describing is pretty much a skill challenge, which I definitely miss from 4th Edition. Does something like that exist for 5th? I like to think of social encounters like combats. One hit or miss with your sword and the encounter isn't over; it takes several hits or misses to succeed or fail. So shouldn't several rolls be needed to succeed at social skills?

And how are other DMs running social skills?

 

[cbwjm]

I'd look at bringing back in skill challenges, I don't think there is any reason why they wouldn't fit in with 5e.

 

[iserith]

The Social Interaction guidelines in the DMG are a decent framework for this. I used that as inspiration for the way I set up social interaction challenges. Now, here I'm talking about important things, not just any old chat with an NPC.

In my games, the players can "claim" Inspiration by playing to their personal characteristics once per trait, ideal, bond, and flaw (once per session each). This is so I don't have to keep track of 20 characteristics during play (I'm lazy and often drunk) and the PCs can rely upon it as a consistent resource if they play to the established characterization.

NPCs in a social interaction challenge can do the same, only when the DM plays to those characteristics, it generates a point of Antagonism. It's like Inspiration for the NPC, but Antagonism is spent to impart disadvantage on a d20 roll the PCs make. If the PCs are able to discern the NPC's personal characteristics before the DM claims Antagonism for them, it negates the NPC's ability to claim Antagonism for those characteristics - the PC has got them pegged or whatever. This is a good task for PCs who don't have great Charisma but passable Wisdom or Insight proficiency, so it allows more PCs than the "party face" to confidently participate. An NPC being able to fairly easily throw disadvantage on the PCs sucks, especially if it's a spellcaster NPC. They are going to want to shut that down! So this is an incentive to pay attention and try to read the mannerisms of the NPC and may call for a Wisdom (Insight) check as per the Social Interaction rules.

The NPC starts with a set attitude, usually Hostile or Indifferent which are basically difficulty settings - it's harder to move the NPC to Friendly if they start Hostile, right? Once the PCs make clear their goal during the interaction, the NPC can then offer up a number of objections to that relative to their own goal and characteristics. Overcoming those objections is the objective. It's more difficult if more objections must be overcome to move the needle on the attitude up a notch. Two, maybe three, is about right in my opinion. These might call for Charisma checks, when it's uncertain, and the players can roll with advantage if they play off the NPC's personal characteristics per the Social Interaction rules. But, hey, if they make a good argument or an awful one (relative to the NPC's characteristics and goals), maybe they just succeed or fail outright, no roll, just like anything else. You may also want to sketch out what might get an automatic failure and telegraph that during the interaction e.g. a haughty nobleman who will brook no attempt at intimidation.

Once the objections are either handled or not, you see where the attitude sits. Then the PCs can make one final go at getting what they want. The Social Interaction rules show the DCs and outcomes based on the attitude, if you decide to call for a check. The result is that they either get what they want or they don't or maybe they get the result for a lower DC (basically, success at a cost or with a setback).

Anyway, that's the structure of it from the DM's side so you have something to go on. It's doesn't play out so mechanically at the table. Good luck, let me know if you have any questions.

 

[5ekyu]

I use the death save like three way syatem for many many things of an ongoing development type. Each check takes 1\4 the expected total time so that you can get better or lower depending on results.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Yaarel]

Always follow the narrative.

The player says what the character does, thinks of something that might win the NPC over, or discovers something to blackmail the NPC, or so on.

You as the DM decide, yes, that obviously works. Or, no, that obviously doesnt work (albeit say, no, more diplomatically).

The only time you ever roll the d20 skill check is if you yourself are unsure if the ploy would work or not.

Would the dirty secret effectively blackmail the NPC? Or would the NPC brave it out, come clean, an neutralize the blackmail threat? Roll an intimidation check to see if it works or not.

Always follow the narrative. The dice have no force on their own.

 

[77IM]

Here are some techniques I use:

1. Allow a secondary check to determine degree-of-success or degree-of-failure. (In fact, sometimes when the outcome is so certain that no primary check is needed, I still call for this secondary check just to determine degree-of-success. This way, Charisma matters, and also players just love rolling dice.)
2. Only allow each PC to only influence each NPC once, not multiple times. This gives everyone a turn to speak. Maybe still allow PCs to Help each other, though.
3. If the check fails, have the NPC just tell the PCs what they could do to make it succeed. Like, "I can't just help you, but if you do this thing for me..."
4. Offer Wisdom (Insight) checks to learn what the NPC cares about. Then, if the PCs use this knowledge to apply leverage, reward them with advantage on their check.
5. Finally, and most importantly, sort out in your mind the REASONS that a particular NPC might or might not do something. You should be able to come up with at least 1 reason why they would cooperate and 1 reason why they wouldn't (if you can't, then skip the primary check and go straight to the secondary degree-of-success/failure check). Remember that emotions are the strongest reasons even though emotions are not rational. As the PCs make their arguments, tally the reasons for cooperation versus the reasons against cooperation, including their relative strength. Successful Charisma checks "boost" the strength of a reason. I used to have a formal system for this but nowadays I just kind of wing it. The most important thing here is for you to understand the mental state of the NPC, because that is the game-world object that the players are trying to alter. Persuasion works by building rapport (emotional reason for cooperation) and providing nice-sounding justifications (so the NPC doesn't feel as bad about discarding their reasons against cooperation). Anyway, if the NPC has many complex reasons in conflict -- THAT is where your social-interaction gets more interesting and can require multiple checks. Like if there are 3 reasons why the NPC won't cooperate, maybe the PCs need to provide 3 reasons why the NPC should cooperate, and succeed on 1 check for each.

For Example: The PCs want the Queen to give them horses for the quest she just sent them on. If one of them can make a Wisdom (Insight) check, they can figure out, based on some stuff she's said, that she doesn't quite trust their competence. If they try to persuade her by making a big show of competence, then the PC making the Charisma (Persuasion) check gets advantage. Then another PC can make another check. If the Queen is supplying horses, the result of the second check determines whether they are riding horses or war horses. If the Queen is not supplying horses because the first check failed, success on this second check means she'll explain that she's not going to entrust horses to the party until they prove they are capable adventurers.

 

[Li Shenron]

I find that I often one and done social skills, but want to change. For example, if the Queen will supply the party with horses on a successful check, and the group fails, that's it. No horses. Or whatever. How can I make it so that several rolls count and make it interesting? I know what I am describing is pretty much a skill challenge, which I definitely miss from 4th Edition. Does something like that exist for 5th? I like to think of social encounters like combats. One hit or miss with your sword and the encounter isn't over; it takes several hits or misses to succeed or fail. So shouldn't several rolls be needed to succeed at social skills?

And how are other DMs running social skills?

Sure you can require multiple checks to "win" a social encounter, nothing wrong with that.

However, I would be hesitant to try and make it work like combat, because combat is definitely NOT just a series of rolls! In combat you have movements, obstacles, several possible actions to choose from, different targets, intermediate goals, and overall you have to balance offense and defense. It's a huge work to make a social encounter work like combat, and the risk is that it won't be fun if it doesn't feel like a social encounter anymore i.e. if you cannot talk your way through it but rely too much on dice.

Maybe consider something less extreme. At least, make a short list of a few possible different outcomes, not just "success" and "failure". Perhaps even draw a sort of "states diagram" to represent different stages of the social encounter, with arrows connecting the states to represent possible "transitions" that are triggered by making the right choice of things to say and/or winning a check.

Skill challenges can be the background rule framework behind those "states", but if they're just a bunch of checks without a narrative representation, their effect is only on probability distributions but it won't help making the social encounter more interesting.

 

[5ekyu]

Sure you can require multiple checks to "win" a social encounter, nothing wrong with that.

However, I would be hesitant to try and make it work like combat, because combat is definitely NOT just a series of rolls! In combat you have movements, obstacles, several possible actions to choose from, different targets, intermediate goals, and overall you have to balance offense and defense. It's a huge work to make a social encounter work like combat, and the risk is that it won't be fun if it doesn't feel like a social encounter anymore i.e. if you cannot talk your way through it but rely too much on dice.

Maybe consider something less extreme. At least, make a short list of a few possible different outcomes, not just "success" and "failure". Perhaps even draw a sort of "states diagram" to represent different stages of the social encounter, with arrows connecting the states to represent possible "transitions" that are triggered by making the right choice of things to say and/or winning a check.

Skill challenges can be the background rule framework behind those "states", but if they're just a bunch of checks without a narrative representation, their effect is only on probability distributions but it won't help making the social encounter more interesting.

Agree...

To me the multiple checks 3W accumulation i tend to use is to emulate the gradual combat if you will. Its the tracking hit point equivalent of a task.

For social conflicts, i have seen plenty of variation on the dice vs talk mechanics.

Dice Tops - seen gm who use the skill and roll for outcome making them just as important as to hit vs ac etc in combat. Here the "talk-fu" is just like the player choices of move here, use this attack, etc in combat. Talk bad = made poor tactical choice so might not be able to roll to advance the progress, just like moving wrong wsy may cost you a round of attacks or get an OA that sets you back.

Talk Tops - seen GMs who mostly use narrative hardly looking at scores or dice. This basically counts the players description as the roll result which is a big departure from combat challenges, crafting challenges, etc. May or may not also use modifiers from the character skills.

Mixed - here the GM still relies on stats and rolls for the core determiner but uses the natrative description the player provides as modifier, maybe plus or minus, maybe advantage disad, etc. Provides more concrete numerical shifts for good talk vs bad talk choices.

To me, the thing to focus on is that i yteat "what your character says", "who you approach" " flattery appeal to vanity" "bait for the greedy" etc in the social encounter as the eqivalent to your tactical choices in combat. So, as a GM give them as much influence in social combat as you give your players tactical choices in combat.

If "good choices" in combat means just get the standard output, the the first option is likely your bet.

If you reward good choices in combat with "no roll" successes quite a bit, option two might be a better fit.

If you commonly all good choices and narratives in combat to grant bonuses or advantages/disads beyond that which the base mechanics provide, option 3 is maybe more consistent.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I suppose that you could think of it as a fencing match of verbal repartee. For a flat single yes/no proposition, a single check will work, but it should be part of a conversation in which both sides have more than one aim to achieve.
Most of these I would resolve as opposed persuasion checks, but allow other skills to be applied. If someone with Handle Animal or Land Vehicles proficiency argued that the horses would be well-cared for, then they could roll a check using that for example.

If needs be, try to break the discussion down into multiple points. So to be persuaded to give the party horses, the queen has three arguments that must be countered:
- Can the party be trusted?
- Will the party be able to take care of them?
- Why can't a party competent enough to undertake a royal quest afford their own horses?
That breaks it down into three different opposed rolls. If the party only partially succeed, the queen will probably send an NPC with the group to keep an eye on them.

- Its also probably worth emphasising that all the party should be involved in this and get to make rolls. If the party have only a single character that does all of the talking, then resolving the conversation in a single roll and moving on to activities that all the players can participate in may be best.

 

[Shiroiken]

Something else that can be done is a variable effect based on the roll (rather than a straight DC). For example, with a neutral NPC:

<1 NPC refuses
1-4 NPC disagrees (-10 on next check)
5-9 NPC hesitant (-5 on next check)
10-14 NPC interested (+5 on next check)
15-19 NPC swayed (+10 on next check)
20+ NPC agrees

This allows for a series of roll to convince an NPC, requiring the players to put forward several reasons for the NPC to agree. One bad roll shouldn't cause immediate failure (without penalties), but a lucky roll might sway the NPC right away. This system might make social interactions take a lot longer, however, with a lot of die rolling.