D&D 5E Social Challenges & Political Conflicts

Tony Vargas

Legend
I just happened to notice a tangent that seemed way too good for the thread it started in. Hopefully, quoting the conversation will draw the folks having it here to continue it.


Hemlock said:
EzekielRaiden said:
If you want substantial breadth and flexibility, you want spells in 5e. And if you also hate being a spellcaster--whether mechanically or thematically--you don't have a lot of options.
You do have a lot of options, but they require fleshing out areas of 5E that don't really have a lot of attention from the rules: tactical combat options a la Disarm and Climb Aboard, different ways to Help in combat, object manipulations, diplomacy and negotiation, etc. Concrete example: the PHB really has no guidance for the DM on when and how the Persuasion skill works and what the DCs should be. If you love intricate interacting subsystems as a player, you'll have to get your DM to write up specific rules for Persuasion, a la "asking for something simple and costless like 'do you have the time?' from a neutral party is DC 10; asking for something inconvenient like 'can you give me directions to the nearest police station?' is DC 15; asking for a major favor like 'can you drive me to the hospital' is DC 25; success means cheerful compliance, failure means reluctant compliance and DC +5 on future interactions, failure by 5 or more means refusal".

So when you say "You don't have a lot of options," I think you actually mean, "You don't have a lot of guidance as to your options."

Edit: come to think of it, I'd pay good money for a set of 5E rules (D&D: Social Combat!) for social combat and political intrigue. Imagine certain NPCs who have Status Points, representing their reputation in the eyes of other NPCs and allow them to maintain allies and flunkies. Humiliating them or thwarting their goals can degrade their Status Points to the point where their allies begin to desert them. You can also engage in status contests where you both directly attack each others' Status (spreading gossip, etc.) at the risk of pyrrhic victory which hurts you both. In some other threads (@Aldarc) we've discussed "depth" vs. "cruft", and social/political play is an area that I would enjoy as adding depth in a positive way. So, I'd pay $50 for a Social Combat rules module, if it was well-designed and easy to explain to players. Otherwise I'd just write my own, which wouldn't have as much content.

MechaPilot said:
I'm actually working on something like that.

Back during my run as a 4e DM, one of my favorite campaigns was a courtly intrigue campaign. I'm working on updating that for 5e (taking into account the loyalty and renown rules in the DMG), as well as expounding upon it a bit. Right now I've got a list of noble titles, table of average landholdings for those titles, a table for the results of managing a landhold (as well as a table for special circumstances/complications that arise from the landhold), and record sheets for landholds and for NPC relationships (which includes their loyalty, favors owed to them or due from them, etc).

Hemlock said:
Lists of titles and favors owed is a start, but for players who want mechanical depth, what they will want is some actual mechanics that they can begin to optimize. And I kind of want that myself, as a DM. I actually have a number of things going on in my game that are political in nature, and it would be handy to offer players ways to "attack" various actors politically and feel like they'd done something concrete. "No, you may not have killed Ferrovankoth (adult red dragon) today, but you just cost him 200 status points by embarrassing him in front of his grandfather." Physically attacking someone with a lot of status points might be better than allowing them to crush you, but there would be ramifications if your actions are discovered. In some cases it might be possible or preferable to crush an enemy's status instead of killing him, and then turn him into an ally by offering a way to regain some status.

I should cogitate upon this notion for a while, but if WotC offers me a Social Combat module in the meantime I will almost certainly buy it and possibly even use it.

MechaPilot said:
Well I did say that it was a work in progress.

For now, I'm thinking that status is going to be similar to renown, with the PCs tracking status with different groups.

I only wish I had some great ideas to contribute... I tried something like this back in the 80s and it was a dismal failure. Except for the occasional not-too-boring social Skill Challenge, haven't tried anything like it since.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

nomotog

Explorer
If I was making social combat, I would start by stealing some ideas from AW and monster hearts. I like the idea of strings where different abilities link you to other people. They can pull on your strings and you can pull on theirs. The best part is you don't kill your opponent in social combat, so they can come back and you can have this evolving relationship for good and or bad.

Edit: Wow the grammar in this was bad. Can't believe I didn't notice it when I posted.
 
Last edited:

MechaPilot

Explorer
I only wish I had some great ideas to contribute... I tried something like this back in the 80s and it was a dismal failure. Except for the occasional not-too-boring social Skill Challenge, haven't tried anything like it since.

I think skill challenges certainly have their place in adventures focused on intrigue. I used a modified version of a skill challenge for dueling, which I've just completed updating for 5e.



Dueling
Each round of the duel is a contest. Both parties roll 1d20 + modifiers to attack with the dueling weapon. Whoever rolls lowest is at risk of being hit and must make a Dex save against the opponent's roll. If the Dex save fails, the PC who failed the save is hit.

The victory condition for a duel lasts depends on the type of duel. A duel can be to "first blood," meaning that whoever draws blood first wins; in a duel of this type, whoever hits the target once is the winner. A duel can be fought with blunted weapons to a given number of points, usually three; in such a duel, a point is earned each time you hit your opponent. Duels that are fought "to the death" use the usual combat rules.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
The few really memorable skill challenges I was in or ran took the structure and expanded it into a sort of mini-game. One DM did a very memorable chariot race, right out of Ben Hur, for instance, with 'chariots' to put minis in and a finish line, as you made success on various skills - and there was a player choice & a random roll to determine which skill was useful each round - you moved a chariot forward (or messed with a different one). Two PC per chariot, and a bunch of NPCs, so we were competing as well as trying to assure one of won.

For social challenges, a couple of times, I'd define 'areas' where the players could attempt to exert influence - for instance, in a city, it might include the ruler's palace, the constabulary, a fashionable club, the dockyards where the thieves' guild does business, and so forth. Each area would a have picture, NPCs that could be interacted with, and skills that would typically be used and special rules that applied only there. Each 'round' the players would each pick which area they would go to, and then I'd go around the table and resolve what they tried. Then they'd each choose to stay or got to a different area - if they weren't in the same area, they couldn't help eachother. The NPCs were designed with skills and 'powers' that could affect the challenge. In one, for instance there was an NPC who had a power 'spies everywhere,' so he could use a 'reaction' to counter one thing the PCs did each round.

IMHO, things that add structure and assure that each player participates help.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I created a series of skill challenges plus a way of using parts of the action economy and combat rules to run a "social combat" in D&D 4e. Perhaps some of the ideas can be used to come up with something that fits D&D 5e.

Premise: The campaign is a D&D/supers mashup, typical fantasy medieval fare but with some anachronistic technology and comic book tropes. The PCs are superheroes: The Punchmaster, Hawkguy, The Unbelievable Bulk, Mastermind, and Arachnikid. Their nemesis, a noblewoman with an alternate identity called Luscious Luminary, calls a gathering of movers and shakers to her home to push her agenda of unmasking superheroes, registering them, and passing laws against vigilantism. She's also the patron for a new breed of heroes - "adventurers" - and hopes to see these morally gray mercenaries be the solution for the city's problems. Only one PC is invited - Dr. Brice Banter, a famed scientist, and former colleague of Luscious Luminary. (When Dr. Banter gets really angry, he transforms into The Unbelievable Bulk.) The rest of the PCs have to figure out a way to contribute.

The challenge takes place at Luscious Luminary's mansion which I had all mapped out on a grid. Guests, guards, agents, and adventurers were spread out through the place, which made exploration important and frequently forced touch decisions, especially since most of the PCs were not supposed to be there.

"Combat" Rules: Basically the action economy was used to manage spotlight and narrative control. Everyone acted in initiative as if in combat.
[sblock]As a standard action, engage in The Supers Solution (or other) skill challenge.

As a move action, move to anywhere visible on the map (ground floor, second & third stories). Anyone along the route can take note of your passing if you don't take steps to avoid it.

As a move action, move a guard, neutral or pro-super guest to anywhere visible on the map (ground floor, second & third stories). Agents, adventurers, and Luscious Luminary cannot be moved without a skill check (DC 15) while you are in the room with them. Failure results in 2d6+7 damage. (Damage incurred in this manner can only be healed with an extended rest. If reduced to 0 hit points, the hero is taken out of the challenge.)

As a minor action, figure out a noble’s secret motivation (DC 15 History, Insight, Streetwise). If you succeed, the secret motivation will be revealed. Failure results in 2d6+7 damage. (Damage incurred in this manner can only be healed with an extended rest. If reduced to 0 hit points, the hero is taken out of the challenge.) If you then promise to fulfill their wishes, it counts as an automatic success on the skill challenge. However, if those promises are not kept in short order, complications ensue.

As an immediate action, respond to complications arising from Baiting the Bulk skill challenge. You must be in the same room as Dr. Banter. If more than one PC responds to the complication, it becomes a group check. Half (rounded up) must succeed to count as a success toward the skill challenge.

As a free action, ask for a favor from a pro-super guest. This gives you an Advantage. You must declare this before a roll. Alternatively, you can instead ask them to counter a foil. There is a limit of one favor per pro-super guest in this scenario.

Spend your action point to immediately take yourself out of one scene and enter another.

All DCs for the skill challenge are moderate (DC 15) except when a foil is also in the room (DC 23). Foils are Luscious Luminary, anti-super guests, Luminary agents, and adventurers. Use of a skill means all subsequent uses of the same skill are at +4 to the DC.

Advantage:

  • A success with a hard DC complication counts as two successes: a success against both a hard DC and a moderate DC.
  • A success with a hard DC complication removes a failure that has already been accumulated in the challenge instead of counting as a success.
  • A success against an easy DC (11) counts as a success against a moderate DC complication.
  • A success against a moderate DC counts as a success even though the superhero making the check has already used the same skill to gain success against a moderate DC.

Success in The Supers Solution ends the Baiting the Bulk skill challenge.

Defeat in the Baiting the Bulk skill challenge means accruing one failure in The Supers Solution skill challenge.[/sblock]

The Supers Solution (Skill Challenge): This is the main challenge. There were equal numbers of pro-super guests, anti-super guests, and guests that were neutral on the issue of reigning in superheroes. So the challenge for the PCs was in convincing just enough of the neutral guests to go pro-super. As mentioned above in the "Combat" Rules, certain NPCs work against the PCs' efforts.
[sblock]8 successes before 3 failures

House Goldwise: A mercantile house, Goldwise is very wealthy but not well regarded. Eldar Goldwise is the very old head of the house. There is much controversy now among his many children as to who will take control when the Eldar is gone.
Complications: Senility, Squabbling Children.
Secret Motivation (History, Insight, Streetwise): To get his squabbling children out of his hair for the rest of the night.
NPCs: Eldar, Eldar Jr., Eldara​

House Fey: Scholars and gentlefolk, House Fey normally avoids confrontation and rarely gets involved in squabbles between other houses. A family of elves and half-elves belong to this house, headed by Faye Fey, a half-elf.
Complications: Missing Heir, Supremely Neutral
Secret Motivation (History, Insight, Streetwise): To get proof that Luscious Luminary knows something about their missing heir's whereabouts.
NPCs: Faye Fey, pixie handmaidens Flora & Fauna​

House Looker: A wealthy house, Looker is known for its talented, glamorous, and attractive family. Devina Looker is the head of the house, which patronizes the arts.
Complications: Image is Everything, Art Snobs
Secret Motivation (History, Insight, Streetwise): To get into a torrid love affair with Hawk Guy.
NPCs: Devina Looker, her publicist Vicki, and two veiled hand maidens, Trish and Chantal.​

House Boor: Famous for its military leadership and martial prowess, House Boor is made up of arrogant oafs and self-righteous warriors. Churl Boor is the current master of the house.
Complications: Boorish Personality, One-upmanship.
Secret Motivation (History, Insight, Streetwise): To set up an exhibition match between himself and Punchmaster - and Punchmaster must take a dive.
NPCs: Churl Boor and his squire, The Boob.

Success: Luscious Luminary’s plans are thwarted. The council will not take up legislation as she has proposed.

Failure: Luscious Luminary has garnered enough votes on the ruling council to convince the Governor to enact legislation to curtail superheroes – unmasking, registration, crackdown on vigilantism.
[/sblock]

Baiting the Bulk (Skill Challenge): Luscious Luminary invited her old colleague Brice Banter for one reason - to enrage him into transforming and causing a scene. A sudden appearance of The Bulk and the chaos he leaves in his wake would help sway neutral guests to her way of thinking. So while the PCs are trying to succeed at The Supers Solution, they must also help Dr. Banter avoid becoming The Bulk, despite Luscious Luminary and her agents' best efforts.
[sblock]6 successes before 3 failures

Complications: “Accidental” Cockpunch (DC 15), Insult Research (DC 15), Question Credentials (DC 15), Bring Betty Into It (DC 15), Threaten to Reveal a Secret (DC 23), Mistreated Kid (DC 23).

Success: Dr. Banter keeps his composure and doesn’t Bulk out.

Failure: Dr. Banter Bulks out and destroys a portion of the estate before escaping. A failure is accrued on the Supers Solution skill challenge.[/sblock]

Man, I miss this campaign.
 

Saeviomagy

Adventurer
As a DM, I think that the main thing I want out of a social system is basically a system for accounting for NPCs, but I want it to be covert, not overt. Unlike Hemlock, I feel like courtly intrigue isn't such a concrete thing that you can know you've done X points of reputation damage, but as a DM behind the scenes, it would be nice to have something to take care of that.

In actual fact, it's probably just something I need to dedicate time to.
 

[I posted this in the other thread, repeating here]

I'm thinking that it would make sense to track status in a given context, e.g. Underworld, Courtly, and Common. Then give status zero mechanical benefits except the ability to alter the status of others within your context, and the fact that other people know your status. Certain NPCs will pursue high status for in-character reasons, so gaining status will give you the ability to incentivize their cooperation, maybe even recruiting them as allies. Embarrassment or failure will penalize the status of all allies involved, unless the embarrassment can be hidden or blame shifted onto a scapegoat. Those who don't seek status for its own sake may seek it to gain power over others, or they may ignore it entirely to pursue their own interests and be none the worse for the lack.

Voila! a reasonable facsimile of either a high school or Washington D.C., take your pick.
 

As a DM, I think that the main thing I want out of a social system is basically a system for accounting for NPCs, but I want it to be covert, not overt. Unlike Hemlock, I feel like courtly intrigue isn't such a concrete thing that you can know you've done X points of reputation damage, but as a DM behind the scenes, it would be nice to have something to take care of that.

I think the PCs would not necessarily know exactly how much reputation damage they'd inflicted, but as a concession to the fact that 5E is a game as well as a world simulation, I think it's valuable for the mechanics and the results to be visible to the players, at least in general terms. Imagine how much less attention combat would get from players if not only HP totals but attack and damage rolls were kept covert, with monsters occasionally vanishing from play but the players uncertain as to exactly which of their actions had been most effective in bringing their enemies down.

My interest in this stems largely from the fact that currently, much of the political consequences of my players' actions is kept covert, or at least opaque to the players except in the broadest possible terms, and I am dissatisfied with the results. I feel as if I'm failing to properly support my players' agency--as if they don't fully understand their options or the consequences of their actions, and if I had a system for quantifying the results they achieve maybe they'd be more empowered. Or maybe not--perhaps it would turn out that they're simply uninterested in the political dimensions of the game.

But if you disagree and just want a system as a DM-only tool, that's cool too.
 

I had a political/social situation in my campaign a while back. The players had to appoint a new ruler for the city, and for that they needed to sway the opinion of various nobles. I made a list for each noble, regarding what topics interested them the most, and which topics they were disinterested in, along with their candidate of choice. The players could then use a combination of rumors that they had collected from talking to other nobles, and their diplomacy, to try and sway the opinion of the nobles.

They also had to take into account that some nobles tended to listen more to the opinion of another. For example, a young noble tended to be swayed a lot by his overbearing wife. So if they wanted to sway him, they really had to sway her. And there was a bishop who had a bias against women, so getting to convince him to appoint a woman as the new ruler, would only be possible if the majority of the nobles agreed.

It made for an interesting session.
 


Remove ads

Top