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

[dave2008]

For me, the goal is getting the NPC to co-operate. If they will, I (as DM) decide to what degree they will help, not the dice.

Shouldn't the goal be determined by the PCs?

 

[clearstream]

it's occured to me what has been niggling at me throughout this conversation: the use of the term roll-playing, i admit i had thought it instead referred to characters acting out of character in order to utilise their most numerically effective methods of solving a problem,
when johnny-honest the paladin famed for his truthfullness willingly and unprompted walks up front and centre to bluff all the guards with his +12 deception even though this is still the same character who claimed not even a half-hour ago that they'd rather be run through with a blade than lie if they could help it, but they're the one with the CHA bonuses so it makes sense that they'd make the checks right?

besides it's not like actually having social resolution mechanics would impede your ability to roleplay, sure the dice might tell you how your actions faire but that doesn't mean they would describe anything about what you attemped, how you attempted it or your response to the NPC's reaction, oh so the dice say they didn't believe you? is that saying your character can't make another attempt to convince them? or turning to intimidation? or offering payment? or walking calmly away to find another wagon? or storming off in a huff yelling about stubborn peasants? No, it's just saying 'you failed to convince them', and is the dice telling you that the kobold rolled high on their DEX check against your attempt to trip them really so different from them telling you that the merchant rolled high on their WIS check against you trying to quicktalk them to let you ride on their wagon for free?

If we take RPG to be centered on ongoing authorship of common fiction, through a continuous process of drafting and revising, that all participate in, where a vital function of rules is through their linkage with the fiction to supply momentum to that fiction. Then to suppose that roll-playing and role-playing are at odds turns out to be mistaken. The two are not necessarily at odds.

 

[Manbearcat]

it's occured to me what has been niggling at me throughout this conversation: the use of the term roll-playing, i admit i had thought it instead referred to characters acting out of character in order to utilise their most numerically effective methods of solving a problem,
when johnny-honest the paladin famed for his truthfullness willingly and unprompted walks up front and centre to bluff all the guards with his +12 deception even though this is still the same character who claimed not even a half-hour ago that they'd rather be run through with a blade than lie if they could help it, but they're the one with the CHA bonuses so it makes sense that they'd make the checks right?

besides it's not like actually having social resolution mechanics would impede your ability to roleplay, sure the dice might tell you how your actions faire but that doesn't mean they would describe anything about what you attempted, how you attempted it or your response to the NPC's reaction, oh so the dice say they didn't believe you? is that saying your character can't make another attempt to convince them? or turning to intimidation? or offering payment? or walking calmly away to find another wagon? or storming off in a huff yelling about stubborn peasants? No, it's just saying 'you failed to convince them', and is the dice telling you that the kobold rolled high on their DEX check against your attempt to trip them really so different from them telling you that the merchant rolled high on their WIS check against you trying to quicktalk them to let you ride on their wagon for free?

Good post.

Its not clear your age, but its my guess is you at least weren't playing D&D in the late 80s or early 90s when the epithet "roll-players" came into use in the (not-so) great "role-playing vs roll-playing" wars? What happened is a certain cohort of AD&D 2e players and WoD players made it very well known that they thought the brand of D&D I had been running (basically Pawn Stance hexcrawls and dungeon crawls where NPCs actions were informed by Reaction Rolls/Morale Checks and PCs made moves with coinciding action resolution rolls; 1d6/hit on 1-2 & maybe AbMod or the Expert Saving Throw as Ability Check Model; 1d20/roll under) was lowbrow or even illegitimate; "boardgame-ey" (you saw this same epithet re-emerge during the 4e Edition Wars). In other words, it was culture war nonsense.

Obviously, it still survives today!

On your 2nd paragraph, I (clearly, given what I write on the subject) agree with you that social resolution mechanics don't impede your ability to roleplay! Not only that, when systematized well and handled deftly by all table participants, it serves as a nice system of discovery of what happens when sentient creatures are put under the varying forms of duress (as happens in all situations that matter, social situations certainly not exempt!) that ride shotgun with meaningful conflict. Take a look at the Dogs in the Vineyard excerpt I relayed above. The two PCs in question had a very intense social conflict where they (the players) learned a host of things about their characters in a dangerous crucible (that turned violent) whereby words turned frosty, which turned to veiled threats, which turned into real threats, which then manifested as someone getting slugged in the face (the kind of punch that can kill a person). Ceremony and alleviating emotional suffering is proven the apex priority in a calamitous situation and a "simple" tree (which happens to be an iconic symbol of The Faith in that game) becomes a battleground for pragmatism and utility vs faithfulness and honoring the loved and lost.

I didn't know where the characters would come down on this before this social conflict and neither did their players. The dice and the resolution mechanics played a key role in facilitating this discovery in a high-stakes, high-duress situation.

 

[clearstream]

There was a discussion about this awhile back, and there was a lot of pushback about such elements, namely:

Feature: Position of Privilege
Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.

The idea, apparently, that being noble made random people kowtow to you in a fantasy setting was seen as unacceptable.

So rather than litigate such an element, the analysis I pursued would go something like this

1. Is Position of Privilege part of the 5e game text? Undoubtedly, yes. It's acceptability makes no difference to that.
2. What does it mean? Generally, this will come down to group norms. It could mean nothing at all, to some groups. I follow a principle that game text that has the appearance of rules ought to be conceded meaning if possible. Some groups could decide it does not have the appearance of a rule.
3. Does its meaning - if it has one - connect with the social mechanics on DMG244?

It seems to me to speak to the establishing of attitudes and the possibility of social interaction. The boundaries of that could be the whole game world, or perhaps a group will apply some other principles that constrain it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm talking about the GM's control of NPCs, not the players' play of their PCs.

The player declares their action - they tell the table what it is that their PC says to the guard (maybe in 1st person, maybe in 3rd person - different tables and different players have different moods and different preferences here).

(bold) I never talked about the players not getting to declare what their characters do. I have no idea where you are even getting this from.

Now the GM has to tell us what the guard says in response. How is that determined? You seem to prefer that the GM decides.

Of course the DM decides how the guard responds! The DM controls all the NPCs in the game. The die roll, generated by the PC's action, simply indicate what the nature of that response will be. Success = help, failure = no help. The measure of that help is up to the DM, just as the measure of what PCs do is up to the player....

That's fine, that's your preference. For a table that adopts that approach, there are no "social challenges" of the sort that might call for a mechanical resolution framework.

So, you want the dice rolls to decide the nature of an NPC's response as well as whether it is positive or not? As I said before, strange game...

That would be like the players rolling to determine the nature of their PC's response:

So, the giant is attacking us? Ok, let's see what my response should be.... (rolls die)
Response is I should fight, according to the die roll.
Hmm... well, I know now I have to fight, but should I attack or cast a spell this round...? (rolls die)
Oh, a spell! Let's see, which spell....? (rolls die)
Augury...? Not very appropriate for this fight, but I guess I can make that work.

Shouldn't the goal be determined by the PCs?

Well, the goal of getting to Port Royal was a decision made by the players for their PCs, sure.

But the goal of the single roll: will this merchant, etc. help get me to Port Royal? ...is not the same as the PC's goal of ultimately getting there.

The roll simply tells the DM the NPC's reaction to the PC's action, it does not determine the magnitude of the reaction in 5E. Unfortunately, this is a setback of the design in 5E IMO.

Instead of setting the DC first, you could allow the roll to determine the magnitude as well (like 3E IIRC?):

Step 1: DM determines PC's initial reaction: friendly, indifferent, or hostile. This sets the tone for the encounter and should grant advantage (friendly) or disadvantage (hostile).

Step 2: The player rolls the Charisma check. The result determines not only the nature, but also the magnitude:

Less than 5: Hostile, immediate rejection/attack
5 - 9: Hostile, may try again with -5 penalty (cumulative if rolled again)
10 - 14: Neutral, may try again
15 - 19: Neutral, may try again with +5 bonus (cumulative if rolled again)
20 - 24: Friendly, will help provided no inconvenience or personal risk
25 or more: Friendly, will go out of the way to help, even at personal risk

Or something along those lines.

A DM could use those sorts of set guidelines, or just determine the magnitude according to scenario, role-playing, adventure needs, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

So, you want the dice rolls to decide the nature of an NPC's response as well as whether it is positive or not? As I said before, strange game...

Basic and Expert D&D? Rules Cyclopedia D&D?

B/X and RC D&D aren't "real D&D?" Strange games?

Am I wrong or are you telling us where you landed in the AD&D 2e/WoD "Self-described Role-players call B/X and RC D&D players Roll-players" salvos launched in the late 80s through mid 90s? "D&D 4e is a boardgame?" That stuff?

 

[dave2008]

Well, the goal of getting to Port Royal was a decision made by the players for their PCs, sure.

But the goal of the single roll: will this merchant, etc. help get me to Port Royal? ...is not the same as the PC's goal of ultimately getting there.

But it could be. There are many possible outcomes from interacting with the merchant:

1. Merchant takes them all the way
2. Merchant takes them part of the way
3. Merchant takes them part of the way and gives them a contact to proceed further
4. Merchant can't take them, but tells them who possibly could
5. Merchant will not take them
6. Merchant will not take them and calls port authorities / blackballs them
7. Merchant agrees to take them, but plans to hand them over to pirtats/bandits
8. etc.

These could be simply determined by the DM, but I personally (as the DM) don't find that as fun. At times I like the dice to guide the game - I don't need to control everything. And in the examples above it could be a series of rolls to get to one outcome or the other. And even if I do have an idea, I like the PCs to be able to influence it. And you can mix and match role-play and roll-play. That is the beauty of an RPG to me.

If your familiar with the 4e SC system.* That system, which can be used as is in 5e, requires a number of success before a number of failures to determine the outcome. Additionally, you can partial success failures based on the results.

The point being it is completely possible to roleplay social interactions and include rollplay if you want, and for that rollplay to not be a binary pass/fail.

*Relating the SC to combat:
A success in a SC is like doing damage in combat. It moves you closer to your goal (killing the monster in combat) but it doesn't get you there in one roll. Similarly, a failure is like taking damage. It doesn't prevent you from getting your goal, but it makes it more difficult.

EDIT: @DND_Reborn, I do want to be clear that your way of playing / DMing is completely fine. That is my default style as that is how I learned to play in the mid '80s. I just want to point out there are other perfectly acceptable ways to handle it, and they can be fun! You have come off a bit as a "one-true-way" believer,** but I think that is not your intent and likely a misunderstanding.

** I think that is why your getting so much push back

 

[DND_Reborn]

Basic and Expert D&D? Rules Cyclopedia D&D?

<snip>

B/X and RC D&D aren't "real D&D?" Strange games?

Ok, so you used those? Most DM's IME never bothered -- you are strange.

Am I wrong or are you telling us where you landed in the AD&D 2e/WoD "Self-described Role-players call B/X and RC D&D players Roll-players" salvos launched in the late 80s through mid 90s? "D&D 4e is a boardgame?" That stuff?

Yep, you're wrong. I never even heard of that until you posted about it--who bothered debating that junk?

But it could be.

Sure, it could be (I even provided an example in my prior post!), but in the 5E framework it isn't and I've never seen a need to have the roll determine it.

Consider this, other than the "critical hit on a 20", which was never part of D&D until 2E when they hardcoded it into the game system, 5E d20 rolls do not concern themselves with distinguishing between a 10 and a 17 if the roll just needed to be 10 or better. It is a simple success/fail system; the only complexity is what success and failure is precisely, which is up to the DM. The magnitude is determined by the damage roll, which is why it is separate roll.

When you "miss" in combat, we don't break down the roll to determine did the attack fail because it was block with a shield, parried, dodged, or whatever--it is just a miss (or failed attack technically).

The severity of the damage is determined by the damage roll (which is why my group uses critical damage, not critical hits).

*Relating the SC to combat:
A success in a SC is like doing damage in combat. It moves you closer to your goal (killing the monster in combat) but it doesn't get you there in one roll. Similarly, a failure is like taking damage. It doesn't prevent you from getting your goal, but it makes it more difficult.

Not really, although I see your point you're trying to make.

Here's my take: the check is the attack roll, not the damage. Does your check succeed in influencing the NPC in the direction you want (a "hit") or not (a "miss"). There is no damage aspect to determine how far (the magnitude) the NPC is moved in the corresponding direction.

There are lots of ways you could do this, certainly, but to what point? At this level, IMO, you are just breaking down role-playing to a series of roll and numbers, which is already what we do in combat, so why doing it to social? What do we gain?

EDIT: @DND_Reborn, I do want to be clear that your way of playing / DMing is completely fine. That is my default style as that is how I learned to play in the mid '80s. I just want to point out there are other perfectly acceptable ways to handle it, and they can be fun! You have come off a bit as a "one-true-way" believer,** but I think that is not your intent and likely a misunderstanding.

** I think that is why your getting so much push back

Oh, I know my way is fine.

Seriously though, if others what to make SC a long process just like combat, have at it. Frankly, it would bore me to death (the same way combat bores other players)--just making skill check after skill check until I get enough successes or failures... But to each, their own.

I'm just waiting for someone to actually post an example of a SC scenario that would be significant enough to warrant that sort of time during a session. Role-playing through it is more fun for me, and certainly when a check is called for it to determine the direction it takes, roll.

 

[Knorrrssk]

Just a side thing to point out that 5e skill checks need never be a binary pass/fail, especially for social checks.
In the DMG it shows a range of results for each attitude depending on the final total of the check; at 0, 10 and 20. There is nothing wrong with applying a scale of possible results to any 5e skill check, and it's very easy to do.

 

[Knorrrssk]

Ok, so you used those? Most DM's IME never bothered -- you are strange.

In my experience, plenty of people used the reaction tables. The point is to use them when a reaction is uncertain or not previously determined.