D&D 5E Planning Social Challenges like a Dungeon?

[KRussellB]

Hey all,

What are your experiences in planning out social challenges in a more game-like structure?

Typically in my game, I will create a kind of flow-chart of dialogue / social interaction options with an NPC, depending on PC social skill rolls or simply reacting to what the characters say.

But I'm interested in thinking up ways that I can play out social challenges to have more of a "game" feel to them, if that makes sense. I love the feeling I get as a player when I figure out an advantage to overcoming an enemy or a puzzle or a dungeon as a whole. Is there a way to port that feeling to social challenges?

When I plan out a dungeon, I first sketch down some themes, then figure out a basic room plan, thinking about possible strategies the players will use, and ways to reward / subvert those strategies. Then I place enemies, traps, and puzzles that further reinforce the theme, and add advantage or disadvantage to certain strategies. I also place treasures to reward risks, or to prepare characters for upcoming challenges.

I want to try planning out my next social challenge in a similar way!

In fact, I'll sketch out a social challenge below. Maybe we can work together to plan it out like a dungeon?

Challenge: The characters must convince a local ruler to give them access to a nearby dungeon with a powerful magical item. The ruler is influenced by members of the court, who want to use the resources of the dungeon for positive or negative purposes.


​

 

[Ganymede81]

Well, the first bit of advice I would give is to list out the Ideal, Bond, and Flaw of each relevant NPC. That'll help you keep track of avenues of persuasion that afford good results. It also gives you little tidbits of info to hand out when characters talk to secondary NPCs.

 

[Harzel]

Hey all,

What are your experiences in planning out social challenges in a more game-like structure?

Typically in my game, I will create a kind of flow-chart of dialogue / social interaction options with an NPC, depending on PC social skill rolls or simply reacting to what the characters say.

But I'm interested in thinking up ways that I can play out social challenges to have more of a "game" feel to them, if that makes sense. I love the feeling I get as a player when I figure out an advantage to overcoming an enemy or a puzzle or a dungeon as a whole. Is there a way to port that feeling to social challenges?

When I plan out a dungeon, I first sketch down some themes, then figure out a basic room plan, thinking about possible strategies the players will use, and ways to reward / subvert those strategies. Then I place enemies, traps, and puzzles that further reinforce the theme, and add advantage or disadvantage to certain strategies. I also place treasures to reward risks, or to prepare characters for upcoming challenges.

I want to try planning out my next social challenge in a similar way!

In fact, I'll sketch out a social challenge below. Maybe we can work together to plan it out like a dungeon?

Apologies in advance for taking off on what might seem like a tangent, but, if you will indulge me, I'd like to back you up and ask a few questions about your premise.

Challenge: The characters must convince a local ruler to give them access to a nearby dungeon with a powerful magical item. The ruler is influenced by members of the court, who want to use the resources of the dungeon for positive or negative purposes.​

Does this mean that the magic item is in the dungeon or that the magic item is needed to access the dungeon? (There are two different ways to parse "give them access to a dungeon with a powerful magical item".)

Assuming that the magic item is in the dungeon (since that seems to me to be the more likely reading), is the idea that the PCs want to get into the dungeon in order to acquire the magic item?

Assuming that the answer to that is "yes", then I get to what I really want to know: why do the PCs want the magic item? This is not an idle question; I would think that this might play an important role in their discussion with the ruler.

 

[77IM]

So, at a high level, if you want to design this like a dungeon, instead of rooms you have NPCs, and instead of monsters or puzzles you have the NPC's mind and situation. Instead of exploring rooms, the party is exploring NPCs. Instead of fighting monsters and solving puzzles, the players must figure out how to get leverage over each NPC (or some sufficient number of NPCs).

Secrets. Everybody in the court has them. The PCs need to figure them out. Sometimes merely knowing the secret gives them leverage (e.g. the Grand Duchess is having an affair with the Ambassador and doesn't want this to get out). Sometimes the secret reveals leverage (e.g. the Chamberlain is cursed and needs a special potion on a regular basis to suppress the effects).

Skill rolls can discover these secrets during conversation. However, sometimes you must talk to other people to figure them out; notably the servants, who see everything. Shadowing people, stealing diaries, surreptitious castings of detect thoughts should all be legitimate options too, though.

Wants, Fears, Believes. I like describing the NPC in terms of what they want, what they fear, and what they believe to be true. People obviously follow their wants and flee their fears. What they believe is important because people are much more likely to believe things that confirm their existing beliefs (e.g., if the Grand Duchess believes magic is dangerous, it's much easier for the PCs to convince her that the Chamberlain can't be trusted because the curse is warping his mind).

You can go with Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws if you want, but I haven't found those as useful as Wants, Fears, and Believes.

Interconnections. The members of the court are playing this game too; they all have leverage against each other already. One of the things the PCs should be doing is uncovering this web of friends and foes and figuring out how to reshape it to their advantage.

You may want to actually draw the web yourself with boxes and lines. I find this can make it easier for NPCs to react to changing situations. When something changes about one NPC, you can follow the lines to all the related NPCs and update them accordingly. (E.g., if the Ambassador is outed as a warlock, the Grand Duchess dumps him, because she believes magic is dangerous.)

Active NPCs. Some of the NPCs don't wait around for the PCs to approach them; some may actively want things from the PCs, and offer them deals. Ideally, these deals put the PCs at cross-purposes with other NPCs! (E.g., the Chamberlain wants the PCs to investigate the Ambassador but won't say why; it's because he thinks the Ambassador is a warlock who has something to do with the curse. Meanwhile, the Duchess has promised to side with the PCs as long as they don't pry into the Ambassador's business; it's because she's afraid the affair will be revealed.)

Don't Sweat It If It All Goes Up. When I create scenarios like this, it never, ever turns out the way I expect. Usually the PCs sweep in from way out of left field and get powerful leverage over some crucial NPC too early and the whole situation becomes chaos. To me, this is great! No sense setting up a court with a "stable equilibrium" unless you want the PCs to smash it! It's the equivalent of "beating the dungeon."

The only hedge against this that I've found is to limit the PCs access to members of the "court" (or whatever, sometimes it's a wizarding order or a criminal organization or something). For example, if there are 12 movers and shakers at court, maybe for the initial scenario (convincing the King to open the dungeon) only 6 of them are present. Then if you want to have another scenario in this same court, introduce 3 more members. This way if the party totally pwns the first 6 court members, these 3 are new unknowns (and may even bring some of the original 6 over to their side).

Visibility. If you want this to feel more like a "game," my only advice is to make the NPCs' mental states very visible. Lay out a sheet with the names of the court members. When the PCs discover how an NPC feels, right it down on the sheet. Quantify it with a number; something that can turn into a DC or a modifier is especially good. This will give the players a LOT of control over their next steps. (E.g., the Duchess has: loyal to the Ambassador +5, thinks magic is dangerous +8. So proving to her that the Ambassador is a warlock is difficult because the DC increases by +5; but once she is convinced, her distrust of magic wins out, and now convincing her to act against the Ambassador is at a net -3 to the DC because of the 8 gets subtracted.)

I've seen a lot of complex game rules revolving around social-conflict but honestly I think everything you need is covered by the core rules. The only thing missing is the visibility. Combat scenarios give a LOT of information about NPC positioning and capabilities (you can guess that the enemy in plate armor is a tank, and the one in robes with a staff is a wizard, etc.). For social scenarios the DM may have a clear picture in his or her head but it can be hard for players to relate without something to look at.

One visualization tool I've seen that worked reasonably well (a friend used this during a social conflict in a FATE game) is to get minis for the PCs and NPCs and place them on a board. Each location on a board represents a "position" or "attitude" of some sort. So as you change an NPC's mind, or change how people perceive them, they move to a new spot on the board. This gets tricky if the possible attitudes of NPCs is more complex than what you can fit on such a board.

 

[KRussellB]

So, at a high level, if you want to design this like a dungeon, instead of rooms you have NPCs, and instead of monsters or puzzles you have the NPC's mind and situation. Instead of exploring rooms, the party is exploring NPCs. Instead of fighting monsters and solving puzzles, the players must figure out how to get leverage over each NPC (or some sufficient number of NPCs)...

So many great ideas!!!

I love the structure of Wants, Fears, Believes.

One way I want to improve my social challenges is by adding the factor of time. I've noticed that my dungeons have many different scenes (usually broken up by different rooms), but my social challenges have only one or two scenes. In fact, thinking of scenes, I think I can plan out a social challenge using scenes like rooms.

Here's how I'd normally plan out a dungeon:

Room 1: Antechamber
Description: You see a big ol' room with columns, etc.
Doors: There are two doors. One is a locked door (DC 11) that leads to Room 2. One is a door with a pit trap (DC 15, 2d10 dmg) that leads to Room 3.
Enemies: Bugbear, orc x3, rust monster
Other Features: Trap (tripwire, DC 13, 1d10 dmg), Hidden Treasure (100 gp, DC 10 to find)
And so on.

Instead of rooms, however, my social challenge could go scene by scene. This, by the way, is not really based on any upcoming adventures. It's just an exercise. I'm planning it out with the Dungeon World style assumption that this is what each NPC will do if the characters do not interfere. Just like in a dungeon, the characters will of course do what I least suspect.

Scene 1: Argument in the Courtroom
Description: The king sits upon his throne. To each side of him is an influential figure: the army commander scowling to his left, the high priestess menacingly stroking her eyebrows to his right. You have his attention. (Characters make argument). The army commander and high priestess start arguing, until the king demands a recess from the court to deliberate.
Exits: The army commander goes to consult his mentor, a retired adventurer, in the Map Room (Scene 2A). The High Priestess storms off to pull books in the Library to support her argument (Scene 2B). The King will go visit his toddler son (Scene 2C)
NPC's: King Hesitatious (wants: to pass a secure kingdom onto his son, fears: dark forces from the dungeons, believes: inaction is a good defense), Commander Angrypants (wants: to end the stream of monsters coming from the dungeons, fears: his army is too weak to stop the invasion of monsters, believes: too much of the kingdom's wealth is going to magic research), Priestess Futura (wants: to harness the magic of the dungeons, fears: the demon lord Yulthang who rules the dungeons, believes: the next age of magic is upon us).

Scene 2A: Maps!
Description: Commander Angrypants stands over a map with his mentor, Oldus Adventurous. They are pointing out the various dungeons that the characters are interested, and hemming and hawing.
Exits: Commander Angrypants will go down to the prison cells to torture a local orc (Scene 3A), Oldus Adventurous will go plead with Priestess Futura in the Courtroom to hear out Angrypants' plan (Scene 3B).
NPC's: Commander Angrypants, Oldus Adventurous (wants: to keep his bastard son (Angrypants!) safe, fears: Angrypants falling to the dark side and going to the dungeons himself, believes: everyone needs to chill out and work together).

Scene 2B: The Library!
Description: Priestess Futura wildly pulls scrolls and old tomes from the walls, trying to find more information on the dark lord Yulthang to convince the King that the power of the dungeons must be harnessed by the forces of good (or at least her forces of good!).
Exits: Once she finds the Book of Vile Yulthang, Futura will go to her Scrying Pool to try to spy on the dark lord (Scene 3C).
NPC's: Priestess Futura, Librarian Bookus (wants: to retrieve lost books from the dungeons, fears: Futura is working for the dark lord Yulthang (incorrect), believes: the king is wise to spend his wealth on knowledge and magic).

Scene 2C: The Nursery
Description The king plays ball with his toddler son. There's a portrait of the queen who passed away this last summer. The boy's nurse rocks in a chair, knitting something.
Exits: The king will go to the Library to read up on history in order to better understand the current conflict (Scene 3D), the Nurse will take the prince out into the Courtroom to stretch his legs (Scene 3B).
NPC's: King Hesitatious, Nurse Oldwisey (wants: the prince to grow up strong, unlike the old king, fears: Commander Angrypants will find a way for the prince to die and take command of the kingdom, believes: the god Believeus speaks to her in her sleep, though it's actually the dark lord Yulthang!), Prince Toddler (wants: to eat a cookie, fears: orcs under his bed, believes: naps are the worst!).

And so on! In each scene, the characters can split up to pursue multiple NPC's, or just follow one. Meanwhile, the other NPC's will be moving around, doing things. Each time the characters uncover a Want, Fear, or Belief, they can then use that knowledge to gain advantage on future rolls.

 

[jmucchiello]

Number the scenes without letters. The pcs will, no doubt, cause the order of scenes to go squirrelly at scene 1.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using EN World mobile app

 

[Bawylie]

Sure! Insofar as the game structure remains the same, a dungeon of social intrigue is a linked set of encounters containing obstacles that have to be surmounted to progress and ultimately achieve some objective.

Obstacles can indeed be fears or beliefs, but can also be ambition, greed, credit, spite, etc.

So as you design your social dungeon, each room will have some benefit to clearing it (such as access to the next room or a tool that allows further progress in another room), and one or more obstacles safeguarding that benefit.

Ultimately a dungeon is just a game structure that you can "see." You can use that same structure (and maybe you should!) for all sorts of adventures, investigations, courtroom drama, social intrigue, hunts, etc.

You write it up, populate it, frame the objective, telegraph the obstacles, and send the adventurers to wreck merry hell on it.

IMX, my players run about 2-3 scenes an hour. So I design about 10 rooms or scenes when I want to fit an adventure into a session. And my initial notes often do represent a flow chart or pyramid whether they're about a physical location or not.


-Brad

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6864429]KRussellB[/MENTION]

I've done this (introduced more gamist elements into social interaction) in two ways.

The first was when PCs attempted to gain cooperation of a disreputable lord to pass through his lands; it involved me preparing a series of 5-6 questions the lord would ask the PCs. I had in the back of my mind potential ways they could gain a "success" at each question (e.g. skill checks, spells, smart role-playing, auto-successes based on other things), but then ran it freeform. According to the answers they gave, they accrued a number of successes. If they gained 6 successes I ruled it as a total success and the lord would agree to their demands entirely for a reasonable price. If they gained 4-5 successes I ruled it as a partial success and the lord would have demanding stipulations on the use of his lands that were unfavorable to the PCs. If they gained 3 or fewer successes, they failed and the lord outright refused their proposal, requiring them to figure out another way while putting the lord on alert for the PCs potentially trying to cross his lands without his permission.

The second was with an interrogation scene where the PCs interrogated a trio of cultists they'd taken captive. This was even more structured, and rather than try to explain it, I'll just post my one-page PDF of how I went about prepping and running it...

View attachment interrogation scene.pdf

 

[Tony Vargas]

What are your experiences in planning out social challenges in a more game-like structure?

Well, there, um... 'mixed.' Very early on it struck me that there were comparatively concrete and detailed rules for combat, but not for interaction (which, 'obviously,' though not to 14yo me, meant you just RP'd through it), so I naively adapted a combat-like structure including some sort of hp-like resource that was eroded in 'social combat' - the result was that every interaction devolved inevitably into actual combat. I dropped the idea for decades.

In the mean time, plenty of games had social skills and used them, noting how desultory and unengaging the results tended to be compared to combat, but unwilling to go back to the failed transliteration of combat to social. D&D eventually adopted social skills in 3.0, giving us the Diplomancer. Yeah, that worked out.

So, when 4e gave us mathmatically non-functional Skill Challenges, bad as they were, they were a new idea, and I tried 'em out. The early sample ones, even if you fixed the math, still tended to make social encounters desultory - not meaningfully different from 'everyone shut up while the party face rolls diplomacy' (just 'rolls diplomacy n times'). Eventually SCs got fixed up and I got some ideas about structuring them, leading to some decent social-pillar SCs.

The two most sophisticated/memorable ones I recall running were a set-up challenge - you had a potential ally, but getting an audience was a problem - and a political election. The former was a low-complexity, challenge a little over the newly-paragon party's level, as they began navigating the politics of a city. The latter, in contrast, was a complex, under-level challenge for Epic level characters that was there to put a little pressure on their preparation for dealing with the real epic level challenge they would be facing later. (Because their enemy made its move when they'd be distracted, obviously.)

I structured each challenge, as I almost always did, around turns, so everyone would describe what they were doing and how, and I'd decide which skill applied (typically the one the player had in mind) and what the DC was (based mainly on the level of the challenge - SCs having levels just like monsters, and there being a convenient table of hard/medium/easy DCs by level), and we'd resolve it, only after everyone had done something would the same character go again.

In both cases, I also went a little farther in making where and with whom interactions were taking place a factor. Neither of these were one interaction with one NPC, in both cases any number of interested parties might be brought into it (or involve themselves). So there were relevant 'areas,' where a character would go to do certain things. In the election, for instance, a PC wanting to flex his CHA and oratory with the populace would go to The Forum and speechify, while one looking for a legal loophole could research things in The Library, and one looking to cut backroom deals would schmooze his way around The Citadel. Different skills were thus 'available' in different contexts. You decided where to go (or to stay in the same area) at the end of your turn, so there's a teeny bit of strategy, there, too.

The first challenge was pass/fail, but the election was actually a little complicated, you could rack up successes towards the victory of one candidate or another, most simply, but you could also use them to affect the political position in the case of a victory or loss. Some of the players put emphasis on making sure the elections were perceived as legitimate and abided by, while others had a definite preference, and two were unconcerned (and used their turns, and thus successes, on only tangentially-related goals)...


...yeah, I suppose that's another thing. There are times when a given PC just is unsuited or unconcerned with a given challenge. Still taking into account their actions (or inaction) is worth it to keep the player involved, and, because, if you're all part of a group that's involved in negotiations or making impressions, there's no such thing as 'not participating.' Group checks are one way of doing that. While your 'face' is doing the Hard diplomacy checks, y'all still have to avoid a fatal faux pas that might undercut his efforts, for instance. Automatic failures proved too harsh, and, likewise, forcing a PC into a difficult check with a skill they were hopelessly bad at was unreasonable. On the other extreme, letting them get away with a desultory 'help' action every turn was also pretty worthless. Both the DM and Players have to make some effort to keep everyone meaningfully involved - or off doing something else unrelated, but just as important.

No, that wasn't 5e, but it was the last time I went and ran really complex social challenges like that. So far I've run 5e at low levels, and a quick check from the face or a quick group check is usually all I've needed before moving things along - low level PCs aren't exactly movers-and-shakers, afterall.

In any case, while 5e lacks skill challenges, their easily ported over, all you have to do is use 5e DC-setting (which is prettymuch DM judgement anyway).