Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Lanefan]

holding your tongue isn’t an action. It’s doing nothing.

"Sometimes nothings lead to the best somethings." - Winnie the Pooh.

 

[prabe]

If they are at 1, they are friendly. Anywhere in between is indifferent. They start at a predetermined attitude (possibly random), say, 4. At this point I raise various objections or tough questions by the NPC during the conversation that the PCs can try to overcome or answer. If they do, then the slider moves toward friendly. If they don't, it moves toward hostile. Once I'm out of objections or questions, that's the final attitude of the NPC and now we can get to the PCs' ask.

I genuinely don't think there's a bad answer here, but I'm curious: Is that slider visible to the players?

 

[Ovinomancer]

One thing to bear in mind is that if you use the social interaction rules as written, the ask at the end is still an ability check (if there's an ability check at all) which means a botched roll can be resolved into failure or progress combined with a setback. So it doesn't have to be "you get it or you don't." Progress combined with a setback is generally how I do it.

It sounds like we may do something similar with multiple steps during the conversation piece. What I often do is have a slider on the screen or at the table that is labeled 1 to 6. If the NPC is at 6, they are hostile. If they are at 1, they are friendly. Anywhere in between is indifferent. They start at a predetermined attitude (possibly random), say, 4. At this point I raise various objections or tough questions by the NPC during the conversation that the PCs can try to overcome or answer. If they do, then the slider moves toward friendly. If they don't, it moves toward hostile. Once I'm out of objections or questions, that's the final attitude of the NPC and now we can get to the PCs' ask.

Roger that about the success with setback. I probably should have phrased it with 'you succeed or you fail.' The complaint wasn't that you couldn't fail forward with the DMG method, but that it either results in a success or a failure, there's no real way for it to end in a more complex situation where you might overall succeed at the goal but have lasting consequences from failures along the way, or fail at your goal but still have some lasting consequences from your successes. The roll-up to the final check leaves the outcome of the whole situation up to the GM's end narration rather than accruing as you go.

I do very much like the attitude slider, though. Reminds me of the clocks in Blades in the Dark -- a bit of game tech I adore. I'm just not as much a fan of the stock 5e social interaction mini-game. However, I did use it as written first, before I decided I'd like to add some bits from other games to expand the social pillar. I agree with you that you should try a game as it's presented before you run off and start playing it like a different game.

 

[iserith]

I genuinely don't think there's a bad answer here, but I'm curious: Is that slider visible to the players?

Yes, it's visible to the players. Visually moving that slider toward hostile reinforces the failure and increases the tension.

 

[prabe]

Yes, it's visible to the players. Visually moving that slider toward hostile reinforces the failure and increases the tension.

Given how transparent you seem to be as a GM, that was my first guess, but I could see it being useful as a GM-facing tool, also.

 

[iserith]

Roger that about the success with setback. I probably should have phrased it with 'you succeed or you fail.' The complaint wasn't that you couldn't fail forward with the DMG method, but that it either results in a success or a failure, there's no real way for it to end in a more complex situation where you might overall succeed at the goal but have lasting consequences from failures along the way, or fail at your goal but still have some lasting consequences from your successes. The roll-up to the final check leaves the outcome of the whole situation up to the GM's end narration rather than accruing as you go.

I see. It does seem to be very transactional in that regard for lack of a better word.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Turtles all the way down isn't a compelling argument, no. Of course, no one has suggested that it's turtles all the way down, so....

I mean, there was a turtle (the baron), and then another turtle (the Captain) and according to you the Captain's failure state wasn't discussed, so there could be another turtle under him and so forth.

It's not that this isn't a interesting direction to go. I've said as much. But as a DM who, a long long time ago, was leery of letting characters fail because I wanted them to always feel like Big Damn Heroes, I definitely think it can be overused. Hence the disclaimer.

Over time I came to recognize that heroes can be defined as much if not more so by their failures as their successes. So nowadays I don't sweat it so much. Although I do think about what might happen if they fail and how to enable progress despite it.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. In instances when the a party has all been dealing with someone like that, it's usually been because all the party wanted to be there--and I've let the PCs who wanted to speak, speak, and not beaten up on someone for having a low CHA. So far, no one has tried insulting their way to social success, so I haven't had to deal with this precise problem.

For soem reason I'm reminded of a situation in the game I play in, from a few years back:

We'd rescued two prisoners from somewhere or other, and brought them home with us. The prisoners were very obviously members of a particular culture whose goal is world domination, i.e. they're everyone's enemy.

My PC had by a mile the worst Charisma in the party (and one of the worst ever seen in our crew!), yet somehow I ended up doing all the diplomacy with these guys once we got home mostly because no other PC was willing to talk to them! So, in my best gruff beer-soaked smelly-Dwarf way I bought them beers (which I slopped all over them while putting them on the table), sat down with them, and told them how it was gonna be - they were strangers in a strange land, enemies of all they saw, and they'd better make themselves scarce quick because even if we saw them again we'd most likely shoot first and ask questions later using Speak With Dead.

We haven't seen them since. They're probably still running...

 

[Ovinomancer]

I see. It does seem to be very transactional in that regard for lack of a better word.

I don't mind it. The structure is that every check along the way changes the fiction in a substantial way, but doesn't individually result in overall success of failure. So, yes, it is transactional in that each check has an independent pay-off, but it's also cumulative, in that the total number of successes and failures determines the overall result.

 

[Nagol]

Massive disconnect here.

The PC is being retired by the player thus is (for now or forever) no longer adventuring; but the player still controls what it does in its retirement. This can be as simple as saying "I stay in town and do spell research for a few years." (which really needs little if any further input from anyone until those few years are up) or as complex as "I hire a ship and a crew and where the map is blank, I go." (which probably means a night in the pub sometime where you and the player determine what becomes of this voyage).

Reprise his ownership? Ownership never left the player in the first place!

Ah...something's beginning to dawn on me here - are you coming from a strict standpoint of "a player may only ever have one PC in the campaign world at a time"? Because if this is so, there's another big disconnect: as both player and DM I expect players to end up with several (or more!) PCs out there in the game world, of whom one or two are active at any given time.

In the game I play in, I currently have nine. One is in the party we'll (I think) be playing tonight. Another three are in three other active parties, each currently on hold while we play this one. One is retired for now; one is retired probably forever, but they are both still mine. One has in effect made herself a hench to another player's PC and if asked I'd hand her over either to that player or the DM. And two who I had thought were long-term dead were recently found and rescued (one) and revived (the other), so in that party I'll have three active PCs if-when we get back to it, at least for the remainder of that adventure. (I've good in-character reasons to split 'em up afterwards)

Retiring my PC from adventuring is my choice, and a common enough occurrence. Retiring my control over that PC - particularly if I'm still otherwise in the game - is also my choice and mine alone, and is an extremely rare occurrence. The two choices are not tied together.

That, and often I'm retiring one PC in order to cycle another back in; and in a year I might reverse the process. Gets boring playing the same one all the time.

If that PC's player is still in the game the PC is the player's to control.

If that PC's player has left the game I'll only use it with the player's permission (if I can contact said player) or I won't use it at all. The exceptions to this are a) having old characters reappear in something like a dream sequence, that has no lasting impact on anything or b) active PCs touching base with retired characters to keep up friendships, exchange info, and the like.

Even if that player is still sitting there at the table?

This touches on a whole different can o' worms, that being adventuring NPCs and their status within the party. I treat 'em just like PCs, as do the players; mostly because the PCs in the fiction would treat them as just one of the team.

Again a hard one-PC-per-player stance; I'd almost always allow the player to run both; even more so in this case because it's the other players (as PCs) seeking out that character.

I am not a hard-fast 1 PC per player in many campaigns. In others, I am, it depends strongly on the table experience I am looking for for a particulalr campaign.

However, I have had poor experiences in the past with particular players seeking extra-special attention / advantages from maintaining a variety of PCs part-time and coordinating their abilities and resources (such as freely sharing magic items and cash) and trying to jump back and forth between PCs in games where that was not the expectation.

You lose ownership of the PC as soon as you utter the words "I'm not playing that character any more." The immediate inference is "so someone else has to" so that someone takes complete ownership of that instance of the character. The former player has no more say -- at all -- in the NPC's actions, reactions, or choices. It does not matter if the player is sitting at the table every week or left the game permanently and is 2,000 km away. Just as I will not tolerate a DM telling me how to run my PC, I won't tolerate a player telling me how to run a NPC. I may ask for advice, direction, or insight so as to maintain the character's apparent personality, knowledge, and preferences, but that ask is certainly not mandatory. I may even delegate the NPC to player control to ease my workload, but again that is completely discretionary and subject to change.

Now in a multi-PC game, you can certainly set a PC aside without retiring it, but if it is retired, it becomes a NPC. If you want it back as a PC, I'll take a look at what's happened to the NPC since it retired and decide if it still fits the campaign before allowing it back.

As an example, in my last 3.5 campaign, the group had a major falling out with their Wizard. and the PC was retired. He effectively usurped control of what the group wanted to do because only he had the power to travel to and from the adventure locale (a dwarven city cut off since the great devastation) and he didn't want to do that adventure. The PC did express a strong desire to "get in" with a college of wizards so when the PC was retired, the NPC went off to pursue that goal.

A few members of the party discovered much later that the Wizard was selling tours to that adventure locale to those interested in its history and development. The player couldn't recover that character as a PC even if he wanted to because his circumstances were so strongly altered between being retired as a PC and what it had become. (That, and I would not expect the other PCs to accept him back as a member).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I mean, there was a turtle (the baron), and then another turtle (the Captain) and according to you the Captain's failure state wasn't discussed, so there could be another turtle under him and so forth.

Again, I think you might want to go and re-read the scene presented by @Manbearcat. This is not a good summary of that scene, nor are the turtles stacked in any way as you seem to suggest. The Baron was challenged and the result was that the Captain of the Guard supported the PCs in the resulting narration. There was only one "turtle" here, the result of the contest between the insulting PC and the Burgomaster. It was just narrated in a way that added an NPC to the scene in a way beneficial to the PCs because the PC succeeded in that contest. There is no Captain turtle.

It's not that this isn't a interesting direction to go. I've said as much. But as a DM who, a long long time ago, was leery of letting characters fail because I wanted them to always feel like Big Damn Heroes, I definitely think it can be overused. Hence the disclaimer.

Over time I came to recognize that heroes can be defined as much if not more so by their failures as their successes. So nowadays I don't sweat it so much. Although I do think about what might happen if they fail and how to enable progress despite it.

Again, this has nothing to do with @Manbearcat's suggestions nor my follow-ups -- we aren't advocating any such chain at all. I'm extremely confident that @Manbearcat has no problem leveling painful consequences for failures, nor do I. We're both fans and advocates of PbtA games, MBC being a fan of Dungeon World, and me primarily of Blades in the Dark. Both of these games are predicated on failure snowballs driving the action through increasing consequences. There's very little possibility that following @Manbearcat's suggests would lead to going soft on PC failures unless your adding something to his posts he hasn't advocated.

Your advice is well heeled, and good advice, but you really shouldn't suggest that it's important advice to balance against @Manbearcat's points. Your advice doesn't address anything he's proposed, except in the general sense that it might apply to anyone as general advice.

 

[Fenris-77]

I disagree.

Spoiler: post text

For example, in my Sigil game, one of my players has a contact as part of his background that provides side-quests. This NPC is always helpful, never duplicitous, and always is on the side of the PCs. This is true because it's a background investment by the player, so it doesn't bite in at all, much like taking a feat shouldn't bite you. This NPC is a vehicle for the player to engage his PC's goals, and I keep him free of manipulation. I have a few notes on appearance and mannerisms so it's consistent, but nothing else -- Saul the Fixer will always align to the PC's goals and be a good ally. I think it's important to have elements of the game that are always PC allied, else the game turns into Suspicion and Paranoia.

Now, another player's PC has earned a relationship with an Illithid through play, both successes and failures, that is a tenuous ally that clearly has it's own goals. That relationship is fraught and always a challenge to interact to see if you come away better or worse for the deal. As an ally, he will usually get a deal that's somewhat beneficial to him (so success is, in some way, baked in), but what he has to pay to get the deal and/or what plots the Illithid advances as part of the deal are open to negotiation.

These are very different allies, but still examples of two ways I approach allies. The first is, as noted, part of the PC's backstory, and, as such, is reliable. The second was earned through play and, as such, can be adversarial even as an ally. It might be possible to get an ally such as the former through play in my game, but unlikely. Just as unlikely would be to get an unreliable and fully adverse ally. Usually, you'll get something like the latter with multiple failures -- in this specific case, the PC is an ex-Illithid thrall trying to reconstruct their past and had made some big failures at crucial points in this quest so has 1) learned that he volunteered to be a thrall (this was consensual, or, at least, the players agreed to the threshold at which I'm able to screw with their backstories prior to play and this player crossed that threshold) and 2) while looking for allies against the Illithids, both failed and succeeded, so he found an ally, but it was a rogue Illithid with an uncertain agenda that has resources and knowledge that aid the PC. Yup, I'm beating on this PC pretty hard. He likes it.

Sure, those are both very fair examples. Once you're talking about allies the stakes are markedly different, at least in terms of there being a pre-existing relationship and some expectations on the part of the players, even if things didn't start out like that. I probably should have been more specific - the thread has been talking about encountered-in-play NPCs, and that was more what I was indexing, not allies and patrons, or even recurring enemies. In the case of known NPCs the players already have all the handles they need for SI to flow naturally, and the DM has the option to play things differently to show that there is a problem or change in behaviour. With the other sort of NPC the players have none of those handles, and thus they play differently, and the GM needs to use different tools.

 

[Lanefan]

I am not a hard-fast 1 PC per player in many campaigns. In others, I am, it depends strongly on the table experience I am looking for for a particulalr campaign.

However, I have had poor experiences in the past with particular players seeking extra-special attention / advantages from maintaining a variety of PCs part-time and coordinating their abilities and resources (such as freely sharing magic items and cash) and trying to jump back and forth between PCs in games where that was not the expectation.

Yes, unless there's a good in-fiction reason for a player's own PCs to get along or at least know each other unusually well (e.g. they're brother and sister, which has been done), I tend to frown on such things.

You lose ownership of the PC as soon as you utter the words "I'm not playing that character any more." The immediate inference is "so someone else has to"

If this happens while in town or downtime, no. Nobody else has to, and moreover nobody else is allowed to IMO unless the player approves.

If this happens while the party's in mid-adventure (usually due to a player having to drop out of the game suddenly, life happens) then the character becomes what we call a QPC (Quasi-Player Character) for the rest of that adventure, and is run in effect by committee of the remaining players. At the next reasonable opportunity, that QPC is eased into retirement as above.

so that someone takes complete ownership of that instance of the character. The former player has no more say -- at all -- in the NPC's actions, reactions, or choices. It does not matter if the player is sitting at the table every week or left the game permanently and is 2,000 km away. Just as I will not tolerate a DM telling me how to run my PC, I won't tolerate a player telling me how to run a NPC.

We're never going to agree on this, because a player's PC is and remains a player's PC no matter what.

The player is telling you how to run his-her PC.

Now in a multi-PC game, you can certainly set a PC aside without retiring it, but if it is retired, it becomes a NPC. If you want it back as a PC, I'll take a look at what's happened to the NPC since it retired and decide if it still fits the campaign before allowing it back.

As an example, in my last 3.5 campaign, the group had a major falling out with their Wizard. and the PC was retired. He effectively usurped control of what the group wanted to do because only he had the power to travel to and from the adventure locale (a dwarven city cut off since the great devastation) and he didn't want to do that adventure. The PC did express a strong desire to "get in" with a college of wizards so when the PC was retired, the NPC went off to pursue that goal.

A few members of the party discovered much later that the Wizard was selling tours to that adventure locale to those interested in its history and development. The player couldn't recover that character as a PC even if he wanted to because his circumstances were so strongly altered between being retired as a PC and what it had become. (That, the I would not expect the other PCs to accept him back as a member).

Do that to me as a player and the next thing you'd hear is the door closing behind me as I left the game.

You. Just. Can't. Do that.

Now had you-as-DM and I-as-player sat down at some point and updated that PC and during that process it developed that I was selling tours of the adventure locale, that's cool! But you can't just unilaterally decide this stuff - it's not your character - particularly if those decisions make further play of said PC impossible.

And yes, circumstances alter when you don't see someone for a while in reality - why should it be any different for a PC who's been out of a party for a while?

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, the DM doesn't get to play with my character just because I'm not currently playing it. It's the only bit of the game a player actually has ownership of, and you can have mine when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

 

[Imaculata]

That's a bad NPC, especially one that the module creates as a nearly guaranteed interaction point, and the leader of the best base of operations in the game. The Burgomaster is a trap, not for the players, but for the GM. It takes deft skill and experience to realize when and how to toss or modify the Burgomaster.

Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Not every NPC needs to be swayable or manipulable by the PCs or have layers of texture. Some are simply obstacles and annoyances. And that's fine, not a trap.

I agree with both of you, but I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree that the Burgomaster is underwritten (based on the summary that was posted), and that running him perhaps requires a bit too much from the DM, leaving the door wide open for dreadful mistakes. However, I also think that it is fine for a campaign to have unswayable pure blackhat npc's. Not every npc needs to be complex. But I wonder what the point of the Burgomaster encounter is (I haven't read or played this particular adventure). It sounds almost like he is purely there to force a conflict on the players.

Like Iserith, I use a slider for my npc's during social encounters, although the slider is not literally visible. However, I do communicate to my players whenever an npc is swayed by their arguments, or when they anger the npc. It is important for the players to know when they are making progress, or losing progress during a social encounter. I also point out nuances during social encounters, such as an npc being disinterested, highly negative or very passionate about a topic. It is important that the players get some clues regarding what an npc cares about, so they can make an informed choice regarding what they say to the npc.

Some npc's may already start out with a negative view of the players, making them much harder to sway. While others may already be friendly to the players, making them far easier to negotiate with. And there may be some topics that a particular npc is impossible to sway on, which I always point out to the players during the encounter so they can move on. I also keep track of so called loyalty quests for various factions (an idea I stole straight out of Mass Effect), to progress the attitude of a group of npc's further to the positive. The opposite is also possible, where certain quest outcomes will permanently make some factions hostile to them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, those are both very fair examples. Once you're talking about allies the stakes are markedly different, at least in terms of there being a pre-existing relationship and some expectations on the part of the players, even if things didn't start out like that. I probably should have been more specific - the thread has been talking about encountered-in-play NPCs, and that was more what I was indexing, not allies and patrons, or even recurring enemies. In the case of known NPCs the players already have all the handles they need for SI to flow naturally, and the DM has the option to play things differently to show that there is a problem or change in behaviour. With the other sort of NPC the players have none of those handles, and thus they play differently, and the GM needs to use different tools.

Firstly, I again disagree with your observations about allies being different from other NPCs. Just because an NPC is currently friendly doesn't mean they aren't a source of social interaction challenges. Nor does an NPC being friendly imply that the PC's have all the handles necessary. In fact, the second NPC I described in my post doesn't match this at all -- it is an ally, in that it's a source of succor for the PC, but always tries to extract a price for it's aid, which is always a social conflict. Anytime that PC interacts with this ally, there's a social challenge involved, and, trust me, the PC does not have all of the handles necessary. If that's the case, that NPC is "solved" and, as you note, only again becomes interesting if the GM changes the NPC into behaving in non-"solved" ways. There are many points in-between.

Secondly, my disagreement was with the blanket statement that all NPCs must be manipulable or become such as play is followed. This has little to do with status as ally or opponent. I still disagree with this. Some NPCs can exist solely as foils, not offering any changes but there to offset a PC only. Some might just be the fictional representation of a routine game mechanic interaction -- such as the reliably bombastic but non-challenging NPC promoter of the Sigil pit-fighting championship that's part of the expanded downtime rules for my campaign. As such, he's only flavor to enhance the mechanics of the downtime pit-fighting option (yeah, I have pit-fighting as a downtime activity, it's been a blast). There is interaction, but it's not confrontational in any way.

Perhaps we're sailing past each other on this, but I think you're trying to make a narrow point and I'm seeing a broad one. To that end, I disagree with you if you're making a broad point, but do not necessarily disagree on the narrow one. Perhaps that helps?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree with both of you, but I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree that the Burgomaster is underwritten (based on the summary that was posted), and that running him perhaps requires a bit too much from the DM, leaving the door wide open for dreadful mistakes. However, I also think that it is fine for a campaign to have unswayable pure blackhat npc's. Not every npc needs to be complex. But I wonder what the point of the Burgomaster encounter is (I haven't read or played this particular adventure). It sounds almost like he is purely there to force a conflict on the players.

Like Iserith, I use a slider for my npc's during social encounters, although the slider is not literally visible. However, I do communicate to my players whenever an npc is swayed by their arguments, or when they anger the npc. It is important for the players to know when they are making progress, or losing progress during a social encounter.

Yeah, I don't mind pure blackhats at all. You have to have villains, right? However, as you note, how the Burgomaster in CoS is presented is almost guaranteed (and by this I mean it would be exceptional play to avoid it without changing it) to be a point of conflict. And, as written, it's presented as if it should be a social conflict (civilian authority figure in a town the PCs are inclined to find as a temporary home in a hostile land). But, it's not, it's a fixed point that's not amenable to the PC's attempt to find a better way, and written to result in banishment if they try. The Burgomaster is poorly written and a bad encounter in an otherwise mostly great module.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of CoS, and I even like a lot of the surrounding fiction for the Burgomaster. However, as written, he's not a good NPC or encounter.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Every class can start at 1st level with any proficiency the player wants. Backgrounds give 2 proficiencies and if you don't like what the pre-made backgrounds give, you can just create a background with whichever 2 you want.

Yeah I know. I thought I was clear, but I’ll be more specific. The Fighter class does not grant the option for proficiency with any Charisma based skills other than Intimidation.

Yes, Backgrounds and Multiclassintg might grant additional options, but based on the way character design works, I’d expect far fewer Fighters to have a skill like Persuasion or Deception.


My point simply being how some classes are far more geared for the social pillar than others in a much more significant way than any disparity in combat efficacy.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

not a good NPC or encounter.

Summary for most 5e NPCs in adventure books, nowadays.

 

[pemerton]

The example of Gimli and Legolas talking to Eomer is a great example. I have a very different reading of that exchange than some of the ones that have appeared upstream. The whole of LotR is very rooted in Saxon and Norse myth and culture, and the responses of both Legolas and Gimli in that exchange are 'heroic' in that they show Eomer something about the mettle of the two, a measure of their character as it were. Eomer is a warrior, and when he sees that both Legolas and Gimli are also warriors, that they adhere to something like the same code of conduct and speech acts, which in this case specifically does not brook insult, he sees them as worthy - hence the gift of horses.

I'm pretty familiar with LotR and its sources. I've just finished (re)reading Shippey's The Road to Middle Earth.

What is the social framework in Curse of Strahd? Some blend of generic renaissance and Gothic horror? Where in that genre is it established that when heroic warriors voice their condemnation of a mad tyrant he calls for the guards (like King John in Robin Hood) as opposed to (say) curls up in shame, or tries to extricate himself via weaselly words?

The thing that's really at issue is dialogue with intent, where there there is a particular desired outcome of the action in question, and that outcome is in some doubt. This is a sticky topic to use examples from books for, because in those cases the author generally knows what the outcome is and it isn't in doubt.

<snip>

Modelling social interaction in LotR generally is hard for most TTRPGs because their base assumptions about the meaning of actions, and what matters in a given exchange, can be very different than model(s) Tolkien was working with.

The sorts of social interactions that authors write are different enough, at a level close to if not at the core, from the sorts of social interactions that play out around a TRPG table that I do not think any TRPG ruleset can replicate the social interactions from any source material. It is plausible that the players around a table can intentionally ape the interactions in LotR or Star Wars, but it's not necessary that they do so--and even if they did, the end results of four or five people ad-libbing dialogue around the table would be different from those of one author writing and rewriting and rewriting.

These claims are, in my view, just false.

It's not difficult to have social interaction at a RPG table that will evoke the genres on which D&D (and other FRPGs) purport to be based. Of course the dialogue won't be as polished as edited material - that's true of all aspects of RPGing, given that it is spontaneous and multi-authored. But that lack of polish doesn't mean that the basic dynamic and flavour isn't there.

Over the past several years I've played four different FRPGs: 4e D&D, Burning Wheel, Cortex+ Heroic (a hack of Marvel Heroic RP) and Prince Valiant. Those games have seen social interaction that resembles or evokes the source material.

From 4e D&D:

The current focus of my 4e game - which is now at 30th level, the top end of Epic tier - is the fate of the multiverse: will it be engulfed in an imminent Dusk War, or is there some way of averting such a thing?

<snip>

They decided that, to return to the mortal world to confront the tarrasque they would first teleport to their abandoned Thundercloud Tower

<snip>

When the PCs step through the portal from their resting place to the top of the tower, they find that it is not where they left it - on the disintegrating 66th layer of the Abyss - but rather in the palace of Yan-C-Bin on the Elemental Chaos. This brought the PCs, and especially the chaos sorcerer, into discussion with the djinni who had retaken possession of the tower and were repurposing it for the coming Dusk War. Mechanically, this situation was resolved as a skill challenge.

Sirrajadt, the leader of the djinni, explained that the djinni were finally breaking free of the imprisonment they had suffered after fighting for their freedom the last time (ie with the primordials against the gods in the Dawn War), and were not going to be re-imprisoned or bound within the Lattice of Heaven, and hence were gearing up to fight again in the Dusk War. He further explained that only Yan-C-Bin (Prince of Evil Air Elementals) and the Elder Elemental Eye could lead them to victory in the Dusk War.

The PCs both asserted their power (eg the paladin pointed out that the reason the djinni have been released from their prisons is because the PCs killed Torog, the god of imprisonment), and denied the necessity for a coming Dusk War, denouncing warmongers on both sides (especially the Elder Elemental Eye, whom Sirrajadt was stating was the only being who could guarantee the Djinni their freedom) and announcing themselves as a "third way", committed to balancing the chaos against the heavens and ensuring the endurance of the mortal world.

Sirrajadt was insisting that the PCs accompany him to meet Yan-C-Bin, declaring that mercy would be shown to all but the sorcerer. (The reason for this is that the chaos sorcerer - who is a Primordial Adept and Resurgent Primordial - has long been a servant of Chan, the Queen of Good Air Elementals, who sided with the gods during the Dawn War and is resolutely opposed to the Prince of Evil Air Elementals; hence the sorcerer is a sworn enemy of Yan-C-Bin.) As the PCs continued to debate the point and explain their "third way" reasoning (mechanically, getting closer to success in the skill challenge), Sirrajadt - sufficiently unsettled by their claims - invited them all to resolve the matter in conversation with Yan-C-Bin, who moreso than him would be able to explain the situation. The PCs therefore went to meet Yan-C-Bin himself, as guests and not as prisoners - not even the sorcerer.

Yan-C-Bin greeted them, but mocked the sorcerer and his service to Chan. There was some back and forth, and some of the same points were made. Then the PC fighter/cleric Eternal Defender, who has recently taken up the divine portfolio of imprisonment (which position became vacant after the PCs killed Torog), spoke. Both in the fiction and at the table this was the pivotal moment. The player gave an impassioned and quite eloquent speech, which went for several minutes with his eyes locked on mine. (We tend to be quite a causal table as far as performance, in-character vs third person description of one's PC vs out-of-character goes.) He explained (in character) that he would personally see to it that no djinni would be unjustly imprisoned, if they now refrained from launching the Dusk War; but that if they acted rashly and unjustly they could look forward to imprisonment or enslavement forever.

The player rolled his Intimidate check (with a +2 bonus granted by me because of his speech, far more impassioned and "in character" than is typical for our pretty laid-back table) and succeeded. It didn't persuade Yan-C-Bin - his allegiance to the Elder Elemental Eye is not going to be swayed by a mere godling - but the players' goal wasn't to persaude Yan-C-Bin of the merits of their third way, but rather to avoid being imprisoned by him and to sway the djinni. Which is exacty what happened: this speech sufficiently impressed the djinni audience that Yan-C-Bin could not just ignore it, and hence he grudgingly acquiesced to the PCs' request, agreeing to let the PCs take the Thundercloud Tower and go and confront the tarrasque - but expressing doubt that they would realise their "third way", and with a final mocking remark that they would see for whom the maruts with the tarrasque were acting.

From Cortex+ Heroic:

the group travelled to the north, gradually climbing through the foothills ever higher towards the snow-capped peaks. In spring and summer the more adventurous herders might be found here running their animals upon the pasture, but in the autumn there were no humans about.

Cresting a ridge and looking down into the valley below, they can see - at the base of the rise on the opposite side - a large steading. Very large indeed, as they approach it, with 15' walls, doors 10' high and 8' wide, etc. And with a terrible smell. (Scene distinctions: Large Steading, Reeks of Smoke and Worse.) After some discussion of whether or not giants are friends or foes, the swordthan decides to knock at the gates and seek permission to enter. Some dice rolls later and he has a d6 Invitation to Enter asset, and a giant (I used the Guide's Ogre datafile) opens the gate and invites him in.

Meanwhile (I can't quite remember the action order) the scout has climbed up onto the top of the pallisade, gaining an Overview of the Steading asset, and the troll has remembered tales of Loge the giant chieftain, gaining a Knowledge of Loge asset. And the berserker - who has the Deeds, Not Words milestone which grants 1 XP when he acts on impulse - charged through the open gate at the giant, inflicting d12 physical stress.

But the swordthane - who was hoping to learn more about his quest - used his Defender SFX to take the physical stress onto himself (in the fiction, stepping between giant and berserker and grabbing hold of the latter's axe mid-chop). And the berserker - whose player was happily taking 3 XP for being rebuked by an ally for his violence - calmed down.

The next action cycle took place in the main hall of the steading, into which the PCs were led by the giant at the gate. I drew heavily on the G1 thematic here - all but one of the players was familiar with it. And I got to add in my third scene distinction - Great Wolves under the trestle tables and gnawing on bones at the sides of the hall.

I'm not going to remember all the details of this one, but highlights included: the swordthane opening up negotations with Loge, the giant chief, including - in response to a demand for tribute - offering up the steed as a gift; the scout, after successfully parlaying his Overview of the Steading asset into a Giant Ox in the Barn asset, leading the ox into the hall and trying to trade it for the return of the horse, and failing (despite the giant chief's Slow distinction counting as a d4), and subsequently avoiding being eaten (a stepped-up Put in Mouth complication, as per the Giant datafile in the Guide) only by wedging the giant's mouth open with his knife (a heavily PP-pumped reaction roll); and the swordthane successfully opening a d6 Social resource (based on his Social Expertise) in the form of a giant shaman in the hall, who agreed that the troubles plaguing the human lands were afflicting the giants too, and so they should help one another.

In the end, the PCs succeeded in stepping up their Persuaded to Help complication on Loge above d12, and so he relented and decided to befriend them rather than try and eat them.

From Prince Valiant:

There was talk of a powerful knight who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle - and so far unbeaten. (This was Sir Lionheart, of the second Challenge from a Knight scenario in the rulebook.) Naturally the PCs headed off to see if they could do better, with a crowd in tow to see the excitement and the [PC] performer working the crowd.

<snip>

The [squire] PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed. I took the words of the knight ceremony from Excalibur - "In the name of God, St Michael and St George I give you the right to bear arms and the power to mete justice".

The player of the (now) Sir Morgath determined that he would use his certificate for an outright victory. He considered knocking Sir Lionheart senseless, but he suspected (correctly, as it turned out, given the scenario description) that if he unhorsed Sir Lionheart but didn't kill him, Sir Lionheart would insist on fighting with swords to the death. So he decided to Kill a Foe in Combat - when the lances of the two knights connected, the one wielded by Sir Morgath splintered, and a shard flew through a gap in Sir Lionheart's visor and entered his brain through his eye, killing him!

Sir Morgath was feted by the crowd. He also was able to upgrade his gear, being the first of the PCs to have heavy armour and a warhorse. He also won Sir Lionheart's superbly jewelled sword, which grants a bonus die for social situations where prestige is in issue.

<snip>

they continued north to see what adventures might be had! On the road, they met a richly-dressed damsel, Lady Elizabeth of York, and her handmaiden, who had barely escaped from bandits while returning home from a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Sigobert. She asked for assistance, and the PCs offered it.

The introduction to the scenario notes that "An amusing use of this Episode is to get one of the Adventurers married off to the main character" and goes on to say that "Once [she] feels safe she will begin to flirt with the Adventurers, prying for information on marriage status, lands held, family, etc. During this scene she picks a candidate for marriage, if possible, from the Adventurers. Depending on the way you wish to run the Episode, the victim may consider himself lucky, or cursed". Sir Morgath, with his knightly armour, his jewelled sword, and his famous victory over Sir Lionheart, was the object of her pursuit.

<snip>

When the group arrived back at the castle of the Duke of York, he was very impressed by the young and obviously valiant Sir Morgath. An attempt by Sir Morgath to persuade the Duke that he might not be the best match for his daughter failed (ie Sir Morgath's player rolled poorly) and so he found himself being wed to Lady Elizabeth rather than the Lady Violette whose handkerchief he had been carrying with him.

<snip>

So he started the session a squire, and ended up a famous knight married to the daughter of the Duke of York!

I would add: this last post shows that there is no tension or conflict between using prepared material - both the knight and the lady scenarios were taken straight from the rulebook - and having social interaction that does not involve a script or a puzzle or a "face" character.