D&D 5E What is a Social challenge, anyways?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not sure I follow exactly.

In a social situation, a DM assigns an NPC a starting attitude (Friendly, Indifferent, or Hostile) and also gives the NPC a bond, ideal, and/or flaw. Those are the relevant factors. The DM knows what they are from their game prep. The players can discover them through game play.

So, every GM knows these things about every NPC the player characters might happen to choose to engage with? And these factors don't vary at all from time-to-time? All sorts of stuff is going to be relevant in any realistic situation that has absolutely not been anticipated by GMs, this is a given.

The PCs can try to figure out those characteristics of the NPC through interaction with said NPC - perhaps a Wisdom(Insight) check is called for by the DM or perhaps magic is used in some way or perhaps it is just plain obvious. The PCs can then use that info to try to get what they want. Does it need to be more complex than that? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

OK, and then you simply move this determination to said wisdom check! Something has to determine the weight of all the various factors that are unspoken and not often even imagined by player or GM which are significant enough to make at least SOME difference. In any situation there may well be dozens of such factors.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, I'm not sure I agree with this. Because, the problem I have with this is that how does the DM "fairly determine" things? Most often, IMO, in practice, the "fairly determine" part is usually the problem.

And the other problem becomes:

Hello Mr. Merchant, I as the rescuer of the town would like a discount"
"Roll a persuasion check"
"5"
"He doesn't care. No discount."

or conversely,

My characters says: Hey stupid Shopkeeper, I'm the hero of this city, give me a discount!
"Roll a persuasion check"
"20"
"He gives you 10% off"

In other words, there is a huge disconnect between what the player is saying and the results. Like I said, I would much rather a system where nothing is determined by a single check - getting a discount isn't just a single die roll but a series of checks requiring the player to actually narrate as he goes. And, while the initial statement, "I want to get a discount" is just a statement of the goal, not actually any different than "I want to damage this monster". The die rolls, back and forth, direct the conversation while the player provides the script.

Well, this is a whole other issue, and it is why I maintain that simulation is unlikely to be an agenda. Realism, or a sense of verisimilitude, yes, but when it comes to the moment of deciding if the factors weigh for or against someone the practice of throwing dice is considered the best standard. This dates all the way back to old school military Kriegspiel.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In other words, there is a huge disconnect between what the player is saying and the results. Like I said, I would much rather a system where nothing is determined by a single check - getting a discount isn't just a single die roll but a series of checks requiring the player to actually narrate as he goes. And, while the initial statement, "I want to get a discount" is just a statement of the goal, not actually any different than "I want to damage this monster". The die rolls, back and forth, direct the conversation while the player provides the script.

And also, this is the argument for why INTENT works well, IMHO better, than task description. The player explicates their objective, the intent of this interaction, and then we work out what actually happens. That usually looks a bit like 'fortune in the middle' but not always.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And also, this is the argument for why INTENT works well, IMHO better, than task description. The player explicates their objective, the intent of this interaction, and then we work out what actually happens. That usually looks a bit like 'fortune in the middle' but not always.

But the player should be stating both objective (i.e. goal) as well as task description (i.e. approach). These go hand in hand for the DM to have enough information to adjudicate the PC’s action. Then the DM determines the outcome of said action, sometimes with dice, and narrates the results. Are we saying the same thing here?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But the player should be stating both objective (i.e. goal) as well as task description (i.e. approach). These go hand in hand for the DM to have enough information to adjudicate the PC’s action. Then the DM determines the outcome of said action, sometimes with dice, and narrates the results. Are we saying the same thing here?

Well, there are a few possibilities. Like in BitD there is a little negotiation there where first you're going to say what you want to achieve, the goal, and then the player chooses an action rating (skill basically), and the GM then decides the position and effect (how risky it is, and to what degree the goal could be achieved) based on factors spelled out in the rules (but there is some judgement here). The players then get to incorporate additional factors like assistance, pushing, devil's bargains, or spending other resources or just adding bonuses for things like class features. Finally a roll is made. Basically in that game the specific action being taken is mostly determined by which 'skill' is used. If you Prowl, you are sneaking, if you Wreck you are breaking stuff, etc. Obviously some choices may be completely ineffective/inappropriate. As a matter of course you will generally end up at a complete description of the action(s) taken.

So, basically I agree, the player is signalling WHAT and their idea of HOW, though it may not turn out to be quite accurate! I could say I want to intimidate a guy by punching him up a bit, if I get a 1-3 (bad result) I might knock him completely unconscious instead! Oops, that's unfortunate! Honestly, a lot of D&D play can work similarly, though its less common for people to explicitly talk about their ultimate goal in taking an action. It does give the GM, or player, more leeway in describing the outcomes though.

 

[M_Natas]

See, I'm not sure I agree with this. Because, the problem I have with this is that how does the DM "fairly determine" things? Most often, IMO, in practice, the "fairly determine" part is usually the problem.

Usually, the Players need to trust, that the DM fairly determines and adjucate stuff (no matter if it one or 20 dice rolls). If the players don't think their DM can do this, they shouldn't play on his table. And if you think no DM can do that, you better play a computer game.

And the other problem becomes:

Hello Mr. Merchant, I as the rescuer of the town would like a discount"
"Roll a persuasion check"
"5"
"He doesn't care. No discount."

or conversely,

My characters says: Hey stupid Shopkeeper, I'm the hero of this city, give me a discount!
"Roll a persuasion check"
"20"
"He gives you 10% off"

In other words, there is a huge disconnect between what the player is saying and the results.

That is what I'm saying the whole time. The disconnect is the problem, thats why the DC needs to change according to the approach. If yoo insult the Shopkeeper the DC increases and maybe even a dice check becomes meaningless, because you can't roll a 40 to persuade him. The disconnect exists, because the action declaration "I want to get a discount" and the outcome, how the action looks like, so the actual thing the character is saying, come usually before any dice are rolled as opposed to combat or other ability checks. Because the Problem is, when you are having a dialogue, the action is already complete. With "Hey stupid Shopkeeper, I'm the hero of this city, give me a discount!" you declared your intention and also described the complete action on how the character is doing it.
In comparison: "I will climb the wall" is not complete. The action is not finished and usually the players are not describing from start to finish how they climb the wall. That's why it doesn't interrupt or create a disconnect when there is a roll between declaration and description of the outcome, of how the declared action will look like.

Like I said, I would much rather a system where nothing is determined by a single check - getting a discount isn't just a single die roll but a series of checks requiring the player to actually narrate as he goes. And, while the initial statement, "I want to get a discount" is just a statement of the goal, not actually any different than "I want to damage this monster". The die rolls, back and forth, direct the conversation while the player provides the script.

Are you doing that on the table? Several dice rolls just to get the shop keeper to give you a discount?
Because that feels like overkill. Also than it is not a conversation anymore. It becomes social combat. That kills any momentum and would make dialogue slow down to a crawl, like combat. Unless I missunderstand what you are trying to say. The complexity of a system needs to adress the importance of the thing they are trying to do.
Getting a discount or jumping over the puddle shouldn't take several dice rolls and hours on the table.
Convincing the King to give you an army or breaking into a mansion should.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A D&D player out of the basement...

... not anymore!

 

[M_Natas]

And also, this is the argument for why INTENT works well, IMHO better, than task description. The player explicates their objective, the intent of this interaction, and then we work out what actually happens. That usually looks a bit like 'fortune in the middle' but not always.

Yea, but that usually doesn't work with social interaction, because the players usually speak in Character (at my tables) except for the most mundane of social interactions (I'm looking for somebody to tell me where the market is, you find somebody, he tells you).
Speaking in Character is 100% Task Description (where the DM has to figure out the Intent) and that needs to be taken into account for the outcome, while usually every other action that is taken is intent declaration with some task description maybe sprinkled in.

 

[Imaculata]

I once designed a pretty elaborate social encounter for my players. They were at a gathering of nobility to pick the next city regent. They had to talk to everyone to try to sway votes. Each npc had a topic they cared strongly about (such as trade) and a topic they did NOT care for (such as poverty). The players had to discover this by interacting with them. Whenever they tried to sway an npc with uncompelling arguments, they would need to overcome a DC which was unique for each one.

And to make things more interesting, one npc was easily swayed by his wife, so they really needed to change HER mind, not his. And there also was a bishop, as a representative of the crown, who was rather conservative and didn't want a female regent.

So the players had to carefully dance around all these obstacles. To top it off, an adversary of the party was also at the gathering, and making his bid to be the next regent. So the players definitely wanted to make sure it wouldn't be him, while also seizing the opportunity to slip him some poison.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A lot of people say they want the game to focus more on Social interaction and roleplaying. Or decries that there aren't Social mechanics. But what would that even look like?

Would we have "Social monsters" with a "Social CR" and care taken to ensure they have level-appropriate Social abilities? Would you earn xp for "defeating" a social encounter? How does one define victory?

The game as it stands now, it mostly comes down to "wily merchant has thing you want but charges too much." "I roll Persuasion, and get a 17." "DM thinks, decides that's a good enough number, merchant drops the price". You can add some nuance by allowing players to make other checks to get information that might give them advantage, but players have lots of tools to give them advantage as needed, or expertise to gain stratospheric check results.

And what's a social ability? What would it look like? Advantage on certain checks? The ability to auto win a social roll? Or in the case of an NPC, impose disadvantage or just ignore the results of a check, like some kind of "Legendary social resistance?".

Is it worth it to have a detailed system where all parties roll Social initiative, both sides have "resolve" (social hit points), and everyone takes turns trying to wear the other party down? Should there be a Social AC or Social saves?

And would it even be worth it, when players can possibly use spells to circumvent the whole system (as they generally do with exploration)?

I don't think the goal is to ape combat. If I zoom out a bit and think about Interaction in general as a mode of play, it's distinct from Combat, just like Exploration is. When I'm in Interaction mode, the stakes aren't life-and-death, but typically more related to my character's personality traits and their relationships to others. "Victory" in Interaction mode is my character being the lil' weirdo they are and making friends and allies and winning over enemies. "Failure" means isolation, violence, and dislike.

So thinking specifically about a "social challenge" in D&D, the challenge is usually to forge an alliance of some sort. Think: Convincing the guards to let us in the city, infiltrating an enemy camp, asking the dragon politely to not devour us, etc.

That can be as simple as casting charm person on an NPC, just like combat can be as simple as making a single attack roll against a commoner. If you want something that can't be solved with a spell, you need to raise the stakes - it's not just about charming the nearest guard, it's about getting an audience with an influential lord, or it's about not making enemies of all of dwarfkind, or it's about stopping the war with the orcs before it tears the land apart. Something that is bigger and more powerful.

And there you run up to the point that, as designed, social challenges in D&D are kind of supplemental to the core town-dungeon-climax loop. It hasn't got the mechanical weight that, say, a fight against a dragon has. You can get pretty big and layered with your skill challenges, but combat's gonna be bigger and more layered, just by the nature of the abilities PC's have and the weight of the rules attention if nothing else. If you want to play a game, free-form only takes you so far.

So, say we want to change that and make social challenges a key part of our game. What this means is that forging alliances become a big part of our game - and now we're playing something with more war and politics and intrigue, where if the heroes don't intervene, everyone falls to fighting each other and the forces of evil can take over (or whatever stakes make sense).

And then we're talking about things that other games do better than D&D. Maybe Audiences from the One Ring, or a reputation system, or a way to build a web of romance and relationships. And, definitely, you want PC's to be able to spend their resources (spell slots, actions) and exhibit certain roles (the diplomat, the pundit, the noble, the monster-speaker, the enchanter, etc.). And at this point you're definitely entering "why not just use another game that fits the vibe better?" territory. You could probably find a way to add this into D&D, but D&D is primarily a game about heroic adventure stories these days. Kludging a crunchy interaction system into it is sitll going to leave your rogue bored that they can't roll all their Sneak Attack dice and your sorcerer anxious to magic missile everyone.

So you can go harder than D&D does right now for social challenges, but I'd probably caution against going too crunchy on it, 'cuz the game ain't really built out for it. Though this is making me want to take those Creative Commons rules and tweak them to be a game more about forging alliances and earning peace than exploring dungeons and fighting dragons...

 

[clearstream]

Hello Mr. Merchant, I as the rescuer of the town would like a discount"
"Roll a persuasion check"
"5"
"He doesn't care. No discount."

or conversely,

My characters says: Hey stupid Shopkeeper, I'm the hero of this city, give me a discount!
"Roll a persuasion check"
"20"
"He gives you 10% off"

In other words, there is a huge disconnect between what the player is saying and the results.

This casts interesting light on @AbdulAlhazred's comment on intent. One problem in these examples is that the intent is identical - in both cases the player character wants a discount. What changes is the approach, which as @Swarmkeeper points out, intuitively matters.

Reflecting on rubrics such as "to do it, do it" I feel like intent is a slight red-herring. What's more at issue is whether the dice roll is determining character performance (their skill expression), or whether it is directing what players can add to the common fiction. Goal and approach can both be taken as inputs that help line up consequences. Goal alone usually isn't sufficient... and besides, which goal? Say I'm opening a safe to find the dirt to incriminate the chancellor. That's three intents. Open safe. Find dirt. Incriminate the chancellor. The usefulness of knowing those intents is that it helps line up what to add to our fiction, and a reason to draw attention to intents over acts is that while performance is not at issue - the character does what they do - fulfilling the intent indeed may be frustrated. Intent is a fact that happens to supervene on consequence resolution.

With "to do it, do it", character performance isn't at issue - they did what they did and that triggered the roll. The roll is not going to undo the triggering fiction: it's going to direct what to add to the fiction next. That can add to the triggering fiction in a way that takes it to a new place. This is resolving what happens, not what happened. It's one reason for only rolling when there are consequences that matter: the roll is about consequences. In this mode the wargaming assumption of dice as factors unknown can be a distraction, as whatever factors we don't know we cannot very well add to our fiction. On the other hand, a result can inspire a notion that wasn't considered before now, but fits.

With a consequences approach, players can't expect polar-opposite descriptions of their character's approach to line up with the same consequences. Which is pretty much what the Social Interaction system does. However, the Social Interaction system is not an exception to the general approach on offer in the 5e rules (taken as a whole), it's a pre-formulation.

@M_Natas consider the following

Hello Mr. Merchant, I as the rescuer of the town would like a discount"
"Roll a persuasion check" DM has DC 10 in mind.
"5"
"He doesn't care. No discount."

or conversely,

My characters says: Hey stupid Shopkeeper, I'm the hero of this city, give me a discount!
"Roll a persuasion check" DM has DC 20 in mind, due to the approach.
"20"
"He gives you 10% off"

Norms at our table can lead us to fill in some fiction based on the number rolled (c.f. much commentary on player expectations around nat 1s and nat 20s.) That can be forward-going just as effectively as the consequences approach. By which I mean, it need not undo anything that went before, but rather can entail adding something to our fiction to dissolve the dissonance. I see the DC-adjustment approach as PHB 5e, whereas I see the consequences approach as DMG 5e. That's because I don't really see anything in the PHB that would lead one to a consequences approach, whereas text in the DMG spells it out.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, no, convince the merchant for a discount is not what I had in mind. I was just using the example given.

For me, I wouldn’t even bother playing out shopping. Haven’t done so in many years. But, again, just sub in another scenario for shopping ifitsuits better.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So, basically I agree, the player is signalling WHAT and their idea of HOW, though it may not turn out to be quite accurate!

I'm not sure what you mean by "accurate" here - it seems you are implying the Player can't accurately describe their own PC's actions, which I find odd in the context of my experience. Of course the Player can accurately describe what their PC is trying to do. The DM needn't mess with that. It's the outcome of those actions that is uncertain (i.e. not "quite accurate").

Again, in 5e, the Player signals their goal and approach and the DM determines if it works. The DM narrates the outcome of the actions, the environment and/or attitudes of the NPCs are described by the DM as altered to some extent, and we're back to the Player declaring what they want their PC to do next. Narratively control of the PC, however brief, need not occur to describe an outcome.

I could say I want to intimidate a guy by punching him up a bit,

Great - although this really seems to have turned the social interaction into a combat piece but we can go with it - the goal is clearly stated (intimidate the guy) and the approach is as well (by punching him). The player doesn't necessarily know this is going to work - or maybe they have a good sense it will because they've previously learned this guy is conflict averse or whatever. The DM decides if the outcome is uncertain and if there is a meaningful consequence for failure - if yes to both, a roll is called.

if I get a 1-3 (bad result) I might knock him completely unconscious instead! Oops, that's unfortunate!

A decent example of a meaningful consequence for failure.

Honestly, a lot of D&D play can work similarly, though its less common for people to explicitly talk about their ultimate goal in taking an action.

And it does in 5e when the Players fulfill their role of fully describing what they want their PCs to do. In combat, what the PC explicitly wants to do is often so obvious (i.e. "hurt the bad guy") that it is not stated out loud before the action declaration and roll. In exploration and social interaction, however, without a clear goal and approach, the DM is left with truly nothing to adjudicate. I mean, it could be obvious what the PC is trying to achieve but better for a DM to ask the player "what are you hoping to accomplish by doing X" rather than assume the intent/goal. It's a collaborative game, after all, and each person at the table needs to fulfill their role for the play loop to really work well.

It does give the GM, or player, more leeway in describing the outcomes though.

The DM can declare any outcome they feel makes sense, of course. However, I prefer that the DM be transparent with their stakes ahead of time so the Players can make informed decisions for their PCs. Before the roll, at our table as I've mentioned before, the DM lets a Player know what could happen (specifically or vaguely depending on the situation) on a success and what could happen on a failure. The DM can add flare to the outcome accordingly after the roll. The Player does not describe outcomes in 5e except when the DM deliberately cedes that to them on occasion, for example on a particular killing blow.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So, every GM knows these things about every NPC the player characters might happen to choose to engage with? And these factors don't vary at all from time-to-time? All sorts of stuff is going to be relevant in any realistic situation that has absolutely not been anticipated by GMs, this is a given.

If an NPC is important enough to be prepped, I would hope the DM would prep theses things. In the case where the PCs are interacting with an NPC that the DM has not prepped, it is not a heavy lift for the DM to assign that NPC a starting attitude (Friendly, Indifferent, Hostile) and some kind of motivation (bond, ideal, flaw) and then go with it in the moment.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yea, but that usually doesn't work with social interaction, because the players usually speak in Character (at my tables) except for the most mundane of social interactions (I'm looking for somebody to tell me where the market is, you find somebody, he tells you).
Speaking in Character is 100% Task Description (where the DM has to figure out the Intent) and that needs to be taken into account for the outcome, while usually every other action that is taken is intent declaration with some task description maybe sprinkled in.

Well, I have personally only seen a game where people ONLY spoke in first person PC perspective once or twice, and IMHO it wasn't all that great. I mean, it SOUNDS good, but without that OOC channel of communications to allow for developing and understanding the shared fictional space, its hard to orient your character and understand the world as they do. I'm all for speaking as your character, but as GM I would also ask "what are you trying to accomplish here?" and sort out what the player thinks is going on, what they think their character knows, and how/if that matches up with the other players. I think that dialog is the essence of how you build up narrative play.

 

[M_Natas]

Well, I have personally only seen a game where people ONLY spoke in first person PC perspective once or twice, and IMHO it wasn't all that great. I mean, it SOUNDS good, but without that OOC channel of communications to allow for developing and understanding the shared fictional space, its hard to orient your character and understand the world as they do. I'm all for speaking as your character, but as GM I would also ask "what are you trying to accomplish here?" and sort out what the player thinks is going on, what they think their character knows, and how/if that matches up with the other players. I think that dialog is the essence of how you build up narrative play.

Of course they do not speak in Character all the time. But when the character is speaking to a (not completely unimportant) NPC, that usually happens in Character.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This casts interesting light on @AbdulAlhazred's comment on intent. One problem in these examples is that the intent is identical - in both cases the player character wants a discount. What changes is the approach, which as @Swarmkeeper points out, intuitively matters.

Reflecting on rubrics such as "to do it, do it" I feel like intent is a slight red-herring. What's more at issue is whether the dice roll is determining character performance (their skill expression), or whether it is directing what players can add to the common fiction. Goal and approach can both be taken as inputs that help line up consequences. Goal alone usually isn't sufficient... and besides, which goal? Say I'm opening a safe to find the dirt to incriminate the chancellor. That's three intents. Open safe. Find dirt. Incriminate the chancellor. The usefulness of knowing those intents is that it helps line up what to add to our fiction, and a reason to draw attention to intents over acts is that while performance is not at issue - the character does what they do - fulfilling the intent indeed may be frustrated. Intent is a fact that happens to supervene on consequence resolution.

With "to do it, do it", character performance isn't at issue - they did what they did and that triggered the roll. The roll is not going to undo the triggering fiction: it's going to direct what to add to the fiction next. That can add to the triggering fiction in a way that takes it to a new place. This is resolving what happens, not what happened. It's one reason for only rolling when there are consequences that matter: the roll is about consequences. In this mode the wargaming assumption of dice as factors unknown can be a distraction, as whatever factors we don't know we cannot very well add to our fiction. On the other hand, a result can inspire a notion that wasn't considered before now, but fits.

Yeah, with Dungeon World, which is what you are pretty much describing here, the dice are basically just a purely mechanical device which determines who's version of the fiction gets told next. Role 7+ and the player gets to do that, possibly with the GM injecting a consequence, or on a 6- its pretty much purely up to the GM to come up with something. PbtA doesn't really talk about 'intent' as such though, but the way each participant gets to introduce fiction following the roll (and generally have some mechanical consequences depending on the move in question) produces something pretty similar to the BitD situation. I'd say BitD is a bit more specific on the danger/consequence/outcome having some mechanical input, but the nice thing about the PbtA approach is it can be zoomed in or out, etc. and overall its a bit more flexible.

With a consequences approach, players can't expect polar-opposite descriptions of their character's approach to line up with the same consequences. Which is pretty much what the Social Interaction system does. However, the Social Interaction system is not an exception to the general approach on offer in the 5e rules (taken as a whole), it's a pre-formulation.

Meh, at least in Dungeon World all the outcome has to do is match with agenda, really. Once we know if things are going in a forward or backwards direction for the PC the actual ensuing fiction can be most anything. Presumably players will limit themselves to something closely related to the action taken, but GMs often don't.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Speaking in Character is 100% Task Description (where the DM has to figure out the Intent)

Why does the GM have to figure it out? They can just ask the player.

GM: It sounds to me like to are trying to get a discount by using your reputation, is that right?

 

[cbwjm]

Why does the GM have to figure it out? They can just ask the player.

GM: It sounds to me like to are trying to get a discount by using your reputation, is that right?

If I'm unsure what a player is trying to accomplish, I ask them. It's actually a good way for the people who aren't natural roleplayers to not fall behind. It means you can have some players actually make a rousing speech while other players will state that they make a rousing speech to convey XYZ to try and persuade the baron to help out.

 

[M_Natas]

Why does the GM have to figure it out? They can just ask the player.

GM: It sounds to me like to are trying to get a discount by using your reputation, is that right?

Because, that would interrupt the flow again. Also, if the player is speaking in Character and it is not clear what he is trying to accomplish, then it is also not clear for the NPC ^^.