Skill challenges, group checks* and other forms of extended contests certainly have their uses, and I occasionally employ them, though probably far more infrequently than many others here. I feel they're most useful for abstracting extended activity exact details of which you're not interested in modelling. Travel is a common use.
* Seriously 5e's group checks are very similar to skill challenges, I don't know why people are not similarly enamoured with them...
However, the central claim of the OP was that skill challenges "centre the fiction". I don't really see this, it is almost the opposite. This is very "mechanics first" way to handle things. You have the mechanic framework as a starting point, and then you weave fiction on top of that to justify skill uses and invent what success and failures mean. Now people here certainly have given excellent examples of how to do that in a way that compelling fiction is generated. I think this is mostly due their skill and experience, and perhaps aided by importing principles, guidance and approaches from other games. The actual printed text IIRC is pretty sparse about how the fiction and mechanics are connected.
The "traditional" approach is for the GM to come up with the fictional situation and then trying to honestly and consistently represent this via mechanics. To me this me seem far more "centred to the fiction". If fictionally it makes sense that the problem is solved via one genius move or escalates into unmitigated catastrophe by an idiotic one, then so be it. In this approach such following of the fiction with integrity is not prevented by rigid mechanics that dictate predetermined amount of checks.
And I don't buy the notion that the latter is (or at least has to be) just GM arbitrarily deciding when the issue is solved. It is not arbitrary. The GM sets up the fiction and is constrained by honestly following it, just like in the skill challenge they set up the complexity of the challenge and are constrained by it.
And sure, things that were not predetermined might become relevant and the GM might need to ad hoc decide them. But similarly in skill challenge the GM has to make such decisions. When does the fictional positioning warrant the use of a skill? What additional complications failures bring? What additional avenues of gaining further progress the successes open? Especially if played in non-scripted, no-myth mode advocated by many I feel the GM must make far more such decisions and they will shape the course of the fiction far more than in an approach where the GM is just trying to honestly present a prepped situation.
Although (as you know), there is a whole lot of daylight between us in the bulk of what you've written above, good post nontheless (hence the xp).
Thoughts on your post (and
@Pedantic may want to chime in on this as well):
* Group Checks are in 4e (and Blades, and Stonetop, and most games really). 5e pulled them directly. They're a very good mechanic, but they don't do what Skill Challenges do. They just resolve a singular obstacle when all the PCs either
must be involved (eg climbing a mix-pitched, 100 meter, vertical face to get to a place they need to) or
can be involved (eg a social obstacle where all the PCs have something to say on the matter). They're routinely employed in Skill Challenge obstacle resolution.
* So back to social conflicts. I'm going to copy and paste my Blades in the Dark example above (which is pretty much my standard Clock deployment for Social Scores in Blades) and bring in Stonetop resolution (which should look a lot like 5e Social Interaction resolution as 5e's is clearly AW-inspired while Stonetop is straight-up AW-derivative):
BLADES: I've got a Master Rook (con artist, spy, socialite) NPC in Blades in the Dark that is Quality 3. The players have done the heavy lifting to pursue a Social Score with this NPC. Its going to see a whole lot of Desperate Position and Limited Effect because of their Tier and Quality relative to the Quality of this NPC. They're also going to be straight up "eating" Desperate or Risky social Complications (that they can Resist) because that is how Master NPCs work in Blades. I mechanize the challenge as follows:
* Linked Clocks of Mission Clock 4 to "Remove Their Guard" and a Tug of War 8 Clock to "Convince the NPC" which starts at 3 and the PCs have to get it to the zenith (8) before the NPC gets it to the nadir (0). So first they have to defeat the 4 Ticks of the first Clock to engage with the back-and-forth of the 2nd Clock.
I'm framing the scene based on the engagement roll > action > consequence/new framing > action > consequence/new framing.
Stonetop social conflict resolution is derivative of Apocalypse World (just like 5e's Social Interaction appears to be inspired by). Effectively the loop is this:
1) Establish the situation
- Frame the action
- Portray NPCs and monsters, clarify any questions
2) Make a soft GM social move that provoke action and/or increase tension. It demands players respond to my what I've said by saying or doing something with their PC. If its threatening (and threatening doesn't necessarily mean "physical threat"...it likely means "social threat/escalation"), then the player is going to have to say something or do something to defy that danger. This could lead to a number of things:
The player focusing in on the NPC/monster's words/posture/body language to try to get a cue about the dynamics of this NPC in this moment. So they might make a Seek Insight move:
SEEK INSIGHT
When you study a situation or person, looking to the GM for insight, roll +WIS: on a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below; on a 7-9, ask 1; either way, gain advantage on your next move that acts on the answers.
What happened here recently?
What is about to happen?
What should I be on the lookout for?
What here is useful or valuable to me?
Who or what is really in control here?
What here is not what it appears to be?
There are other playbook-specific moves that they might make in this case as well. Regardless, the player (through their PC) is trying to suss out key information to "parry" this "social attack/overture." Ultimately, since this is a threat, they're going to have to say something in response. When they say it, that will trigger a Defy Danger move (very likely Charisma) or a playbook-specific move:
DEFY DANGER
When danger looms, the stakes are high, and you do something chancy, check if another move applies. If not, roll...
... +STR to power through or test your might
... +DEX to employ speed, agility, or finesse
... +CON to endure or hold steady
... +INT to apply expertise or enact a clever plan
... +WIS to exert willpower or rely on your senses
... +CHA to charm, bluff, impress, or fit in
On a 10+, you pull it off as well as one could hope; on a 7-9, you can do it, but the GM will present a lesser success, a cost, or a consequence (and maybe a choice between them, or a chance to back down).
Depending upon how this goes, the conversation could escalate to more trouble or open up the player to "going on the offense."
(3) Ultimately, what they player is trying to do (from a gamestate perspective) is (a) get to a situation where they have uncovered the NPC impulse and (b) use that to get to a point where they can either (c) press or entice an NPC where they don't have a reason to resist (eg they leverage their understanding of the NPC's Instinct etc to perform an overture/promise that ensures the NPC will agree) or (d) press or entice an NPC where they have a reason to resist (eg they leverage their understanding of the NPC's Instinct etc to perform an overture/promise but they aren't willing to just straight-up do what the NPC want of them so they're trying to persuade them/reorient the NPC Instinct to a favorable position for Team NPC - which is handled via the Persuade move) before (e) things go south and aren't recoverable socially (triggered by a move, often a Defy Danger, of 6- and/or conversation has just turned violently against the NPCs Instinct).
Conversation takes place, triggering moves, and NPC Instinct is uncovered (or not) and either an overture that leverages Instinct is accepted or we go to the dice with a Persuade move. So Seek Insight (above) might uncover an Insight. The PC might draw upon Know Things to draw upon accumulated knowledge to establish something interesting and useful (useful here would mean "allows the player to angle the conversation in such a way to reveal the NPC Instinct or a way to leverage it) or they might have a playbook-specific move that does the same thing as Know Things but through different thematic means (such as the Lightbearer's All is Illuminated...which requires different fictional positioning than Know Things):
KNOW THINGS
When you consult your accumulated knowledge, roll +INT: on a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the topic at hand; on a 7-9, the GM will tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful; either way the GM might ask, “How do you know this?”
ALL IS ILLUMINATED
When you look closely on another and see their soul laid bare, roll +WIS: on a 10+, ask their player 1 question from the list below, plus “And what would make them feel loved, beautiful, or worthy?”; on a 7-9, ask them 1 question from the list. In any case, they must answer truthfully.
- Of what are they most ashamed?
- What do they most desire or covet?
- What hope have they abandoned?
- Who or what is most precious to them?
Raw conversation might not reveal an Instinct in a table-facing way, but in a "I'd like to solve the puzzle" way where the PC just wants to take a risk and escalate to Persuade.
Regardless, ultimately, they're using the uncovered NPC Instinct as leverage to entice the NPC toward the player's sought end:
PERSUADE (vs. NPCs)
When you press or entice an NPC, say what you want them to do (or not do). If they have reason to resist, roll +CHA: on a 10+, they either do as you want or reveal the easiest way to convince them; on a 7-9, they reveal something you can do to convince them, though it’ll likely be costly, tricky, or distasteful.
Alternatively, they might have a playbook move that does roughly the same thing as Persuade (or lets them leverage a different stat with different fictional positioning, eg Strength when they have a reason to fear your intimidating presence/threats).
Regardless, the social conflict loop is structured and follows the same shape (much like 5e's Social Interaction mechanics).
The same thing goes for the Blades in the Dark Social Score as above. Framed social obstacle > conversation had > action rolls and resistance rolls made > clocks ticked toward ultimate resolution (win con/loss con/abandonment of Score).
These are all kindred to the 4e Skill Challenge (though with subtle differences in structure).
The advantage (in my estimation) of these things is that they (a) give shape/structure to Social Conflict and (b) establish codified win/loss cons. In the absence of (a) and (b), a completely freeformed social resolution relies wholly on (i) fairly intensive GM prep because (ii) the GM has to mentally model the affair (the NPC's multivariate nature, the influencing situation dynamics, backstory dynamics that the GM has prepped or has just imagined, or not, that might influence the NPC's mood/orientation to the PCs/orientation to the situation) > skillfully telegraph all of this through freeform conversation with players who then must > extrapolate the GM's conception and portrayal of all of these goings on of this imagined space > convince the GM that "they've done enough work to cement the social conflict victory" before the GM decides (through their mental modeling + extrapolation based on all of the conversation back-and-forth) "this NPC just won't budge at all" or "this NPC finds their differences with the PCs irreconcilable" or "this NPC finds these PCs irredeemable due to some or another slight that the GM has perceived is relevant in the course of the conversation back-and-forth."
In my opinion (and in my experience), this has a huge abundance of both (i) failure points baked in (most everything listed above is a failure point + if the GM has significant prep invested, that is going to be an area of downward personal pressure on themselves to have play realized/manifest in a particular way - which often leads to an instance of GM Force) and (ii) tends toward a dynamic of "gaming the GM" or (iii) exerting metagame downward social pressure on the GM (we're buddies, we're partners, we all just want to have a good time, I'm signaling that I'm not pleased with your rendering of this NPC/the situation before me so you need to make amends, etc).
Now...what I've mentioned above doesn't have to be the way things manifest...but I've witnessed this model for play go pear-shaped for the reasons I mentioned above with extraordinary frequency....or I've heard testimonials about this exact pear-shapedness manifesting (and boy do you see a lot of testimonials to this effect on ENWorld!).
And this isn't even touching upon the "metaplot/AP requires this social conflict turn out
this way (either successful parley for required advancement of the plot or parley being a predestined impossibility due to the scenario design).
