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

[Manbearcat]

Because it is the DMs Job to interpret the Action the players are taking. That is a necessary part to adjucate.
Without interpretation you reduce the DM to a number cruncher and could replace him with a computer.

I just don't see how this is true.

The complex mental life of a person is subjected to a very large host of pressures exerted upon it and those pressures aren't remotely limited to the needs/wants of the person they're engaging with or the navigation of labyrinthine social cues/signaling, or the multifactorial context of the situation before them. They include wrestling with their own general emotional state, weariness/level of contentedness, their own limbic system, and any number of immediate pressing issues (poor sleep or an argument with a friend or partner the night before or a logistical problem, such as an expense that can't be predicted or budgeted for, that is weighing them down).

GMs having to simultaneously index NPC dramatic needs and index the mechanical result of a move made by a player (both the gamestate change downstream of that move made and the nature of the move within the imagined space) is not a reduction in GM mental overhead. Its a different type of GM overhead than GM decides based on indexing nothing other than their gut/notes. And it is very much a difficult skill that must be cultivated with rigorous practice and time "in the lab."

And the play result of that simultaneous indexing (the bolded above) can be causally linked to any of the rational or irrational factors listed above. Fully-formed people make good decisions for the wrong reasons and bad decisions for the right reasons and make wise decisions that are actively harmful to their own interests and foolish decisions that are actively or incidentally helpful to their own interests all the time. GMs being constrained by having to index dice results in their handling of NPC responses and churning out any of the above is neither "defanging GMs" nor "reducing GM overhead" nor "reducing GM skill in managing their role in play" and its certainly not implausible for people to be co-opted by external forces (including "internal forces that are external to their conscious self") in their social interactions.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So we're at the point where the debate is should social challenges be free-form improv or dice rolling mini games?

My answer is "yes".

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If the player is saying in character: "The weather is nice, isn't it?" I'm not going to let her/him roll for persuasion to lower the prices.
If the player is saying, out of character, that his character is trying to get lower prices from the trader by making beautiful smalltalk about the weather and by doing so building a nice rapport, I will let her/him roll for persuasion.

that is about the same ass me, the only thing is if the player tells me "Hey when I say that I am trying to make small talk to built rapport to lower price"

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would love nothing more than for conversations about social challenges to never again use price negotiation as a meaningful example.

I’d think a social challenge would have more at stake than saving a few gold pieces.

 

[Hussar]

So we're at the point where the debate is should social challenges be free-form improv or dice rolling mini games?

My answer is "yes".

To be fair, that's the heart of the debate since day 1. Whether it's better for social interaction to be free form or more mechanical. And, all points in between. I mean, if you're okay with skill checks during social interactions, then it's no longer free form. All we're basically arguing is how far you want to move the slider.

Although, in the D&D context, I would actually like there to be the option of a more mechanical social resolution. At the moment, we've got free-form and a bit less free form with what essentially typically results in a "roll high" system.

 

[pemerton]

I would love nothing more than for conversations about social challenges to never again use price negotiation as a meaningful example.

I’d think a social challenge would have more at stake than saving a few gold pieces.

I XPed your post because I basically agree. But I want to come at this another way.

In my Torchbearer game, we've had at least two Negotiation challenges about prices - the sale of stirges, and the purchase of rope. In my Burning Wheel session on the weekend, I played out a Duel of Wits haggling with a NPC about the price of their help in breaking into a harbourside office.

In all these examples, the reason we've resolved it using a conflict resolution framework was because it mattered. And that's the real thing about social resolution - the ostensible stakes have to genuinely matter. If events are going to unfold the same way regardless of who agrees to what in the social challenge, then the whole thing becomes pointless.

And in a lot of these conversations I do see, in some posts, an idea that social stuff is closer to mere colour, than to the genuine stakes of play.

 

[Aldarc]

To be fair, that's the heart of the debate since day 1. Whether it's better for social interaction to be free form or more mechanical. And, all points in between. I mean, if you're okay with skill checks during social interactions, then it's no longer free form. All we're basically arguing is how far you want to move the slider.

Although, in the D&D context, I would actually like there to be the option of a more mechanical social resolution. At the moment, we've got free-form and a bit less free form with what essentially typically results in a "roll high" system.

One problem with this debate, IME, is that some people can only imagine social mechanics as "roll to win" without roleplay involved. However, this flies in the face of direct experience that I have had with games that integrate more robust social mechanics: e.g., Fate, Cortex, Stonetop, Masks, Blades in the Dark, Mouse Guard, etc. I think that it's perfectly fine and valid if people prefer free form social interactions in their roleplaying games. However, holding that preference doesn't require misrepresenting roleplay in other games with social mechanics or how such mechanics could look like in a game like D&D.

 

[Hussar]

@Aldarc - yes I agree. The one thing that these discussions make really painfully clear is that people judging how social mechanics work have very little actual experience and I’d take it a step further and say most of the conversations show a serious lack of understanding even the basic mechanics of social mechanics.

 

[Red Castle]

So we're at the point where the debate is should social challenges be free-form improv or dice rolling mini games?

My answer is "yes".

My answer is, for DnD at least, a little bit of both.

With my group, when doing social challenge, we start by doing a natural roleplay conversation, or free-form improv as you put it.

Then, when one of us feels like a roll is needed, we ask for it. If me as the DM is not sure of the intention of the player, I’ll ask her/him what it is and then determine what skill should be use. But I won’t base the DC on what the player said or how he/she said it, because the character might have said it more or less convincingly (a character with 18 charisma should usually speak with more convinction than one with 8). Then, depending on the result, we continue the conversation and adapt it accordingly. We accept the result and move on.

We also never allow automatic success based on what the player said or how he said it. After all, it’s the character that is speaking, not the player. Not allowing auto success prevent players from using charisma as a dump stat with the idea that they can naturally be convincing. If they use charisma as a dump stat, they’ll play their character accordingly.

 

[James Gasik]

My answer is, for DnD at least, a little bit of both.

With my group, when doing social challenge, we start by doing a natural roleplay conversation, or free-form improv as you put it.

Then, when one of us feels like a roll is needed, we ask for it. If me as the DM is not sure of the intention of the player, I’ll ask her/him what it is and then determine what skill should be use. But I won’t base the DC on what the player said or how he/she said it, because the character might have said it more or less convincingly (a character with 18 charisma should usually speak with more convinction than one with 8). Then, depending on the result, we continue the conversation and adapt it accordingly. We accept the result and move on.

We also never allow automatic success based on what the player said or how he said it. After all, it’s the character that is speaking, not the player. Not allowing auto success prevent players from using charisma as a dump stat with the idea that they can naturally be convincing. If they use charisma as a dump stat, they’ll play their character accordingly.

Upthread I shared a recent experience where we were all roleplaying, and one character made such a logical argument the NPC just went with it, and it wasn't until later the DM realized it. While it's all well and good to say "no automatic success", are all the players and the DM on the ball enough to go "wait, point of order, persuasion check?" if something like this occurs?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I would love nothing more than for conversations about social challenges to never again use price negotiation as a meaningful example.

I’d think a social challenge would have more at stake than saving a few gold pieces.

A good point that I came across reading the Monster of the Week guide (which is different than stakes), is “what is the PC offering?”.

I think that would reduce the number of times when players just roll persuasion to save 5 gp on plate mail.

In real life, you aren’t going to get far if your approach to haggling is “Ok, I’ve picked out what I want, how about I pay less for it?”

 

[James Gasik]

A good point that I came across reading the Monster of the Week guide (which is different than stakes), is “what is the PC offering?”.

I think that would reduce the number of times when players just roll persuasion to save 5 gp on plate mail.

In real life, you aren’t going to get far if your approach to haggling is “Ok, I’ve picked out what I want, how about I pay less for it?”

Isn't that how haggling works? The merchant wants to charge you more, you want to pay less?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

One problem with this debate, IME, is that some people can only imagine social mechanics as "roll to win" without roleplay involved. However, this flies in the face of direct experience that I have had with games that integrate more robust social mechanics: e.g., Fate, Cortex, Stonetop, Masks, Blades in the Dark, Mouse Guard, etc. I think that it's perfectly fine and valid if people prefer free form social interactions in their roleplaying games. However, holding that preference doesn't require misrepresenting roleplay in other games with social mechanics or how such mechanics could look like in a game like D&D.

My experience once a player realizes that if they say something "Dumb"* but they make a good roll they wonnt be penelized, or if they just can't think of a good way to do something there character SHOULD be good at they wont be told the character wont be able to... they try,

It started for us back around the end of 2000 beginning of 2001 with 3e. I tell these stories alot. We had a VERY clear divide before that between willing to try to RP and no... those that were smooth talkers ALWAYS did and the shy awkward people didn't... until we ended every discussion with "now roll for it"

DId sometimes we get a good laugh about someone saying something that SHOULD or at least FELT like it should work not work... or something that felt like it shouldn't did... yup

in the long term none of the players from even 6 years ago (let alone 20+) that were shy and awkward still are... in 3 different cases I can even say that it improved there out of game social skills... and I still see it with new players. Once you find you can try, you keep trying... and the more you try the better you get at it... and once you try a few times (sometimes a lot) at the game you find your confidence builds to try things not in the game... One player going so far as to say she would not have met her now husband had we not gone to rolling cha skills, cause her confidence allowed her to say "Hi" to the cute guy she would have a few years before not dared talk to.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Isn't that how haggling works? The merchant wants to charge you more, you want to pay less?

haggling begins with if the person CAN or will even entertain the idea of haggling. However rare is it that a DM has the back story of the shop keeper worked out (although I wont say I never do... I remember a time I had a whole sub plot built around one)

 

[James Gasik]

haggling begins with if the person CAN or will even entertain the idea of haggling. However rare is it that a DM has the back story of the shop keeper worked out (although I wont say I never do... I remember a time I had a whole sub plot built around one)

That's fair, I live in an era where store prices are non-negotiable, so my only experience with haggling was back before we had readily available MtG card pricing, lol, back when the value of a card was what it was worth to the guy wanting to offload it, and not some arbitrary number based on playability, rarity, and sunspot activity.

I think "ah, a world based on Earth of yesteryear" and in media I've encountered, there's almost always some negotiation involved. One could, I suppose, just say "haggling is assumed, this is the price you end up at", though that does leave glib talkers out in the cold.

Personally, I'm still confused how merchants make money, if you can only sell things for 1/5th their market value...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Personally, I'm still confused how merchants make money, if you can only sell things for 1/5th their market value...

our house rule for years has always been "its assumed you can get x% without trrying but if you want to put the effort and time and maybe a bit of investment into it you can get up to full value plus thatt same x%

so if we assume that a PC can sell any PHB item for 20% (1/5th) the phb cost that means if you take some time some RP some skill checks and maybe some cash investment you can get up to 120% the PHB listed value.

Although I remember a 3/5 game where the DM was going to "show us how it's done" and insisted there was no 'magic item shop' to buy items... and at one point my buddy jon wwent to sell a +1 sword and the shop keeper (DM) made the mistaake of saying "it's only worth 1,000gp" and whne jon's character pushed he wanted 15x that the NPC (DM) said "please you can at best sell those for 2,000gp" and Jon jumped at it "If you show me where people sell magic items like that I will GIVE you this sword?"

Funny enough one of the other things he was "showing us the right way" about was not allowing any cha skill checks...

 

[Pedantic]

Personally, I'm still confused how merchants make money, if you can only sell things for 1/5th their market value...

Pretty sure that you is doing the heavy lifting there.

 

[M_Natas]

Upthread I shared a recent experience where we were all roleplaying, and one character made such a logical argument the NPC just went with it, and it wasn't until later the DM realized it. While it's all well and good to say "no automatic success", are all the players and the DM on the ball enough to go "wait, point of order, persuasion check?" if something like this occurs?

No automatic success is a dumb rule. Sorry for my choice of words here, but Player skills matter. You wouldn't penalise a player for making optimal choices in combat by saying the character wouldn't be able to strategise this well, wouldn't you?
If you remove playerskill from the game, there is no game anymore.

 

[Red Castle]

Upthread I shared a recent experience where we were all roleplaying, and one character made such a logical argument the NPC just went with it, and it wasn't until later the DM realized it. While it's all well and good to say "no automatic success", are all the players and the DM on the ball enough to go "wait, point of order, persuasion check?" if something like this occurs?

Well, from my 30+years of roleplaying, I honestly don’t recall it ever happening.

But hypothetically, if it were to happen, I don’t think it would be a real problem. DnD is not a competition and nobody is perfect, so honest mistake can happen. First of all, if a situation that could have necessitate a roll would pass under the radar, you should start by asking yourself if a roll was really necessary. If everybody missed the window, could be that a roll was not important in the sense that it would not have change much regardless of the result.

Then, if it was really important and somehow we would have all missed it, there would be two options. Either me as a DM accept that I made an error and move on, or we all discuss it and try to find the best solution together that benefit the story.

As a GM, one of my first personal rule is to not punish the players for my mistakes. So just like in a combat if I forgot to roll for additional damage a round or two ago, I won’t suddenly roll it to damage the player, I will accept my mistake and move on. So if I forgot to ask for a roll in a social challenge because we somehow all missed it, I won’t suddenly go back and reverse the call. I’ll roll with it. Mistakes happen, the important thing is that nobody feel cheated.

It might help that I don’t play with strangers, only with friends, or people that a friend vouch for. And we are all approaching the game as a cooperative game, not competitive. As a DM, I don’t play against my players, and players don’t see me as their opponent. We’re all in this to try to have the best experience as possible.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No automatic success is a dumb rule. Sorry for my choice of words here, but Player skills matter. You wouldn't penalise a player for making optimal choices in combat by saying the character wouldn't be able to strategise this well, wouldn't you?
If you remove playerskill from the game, there is no game anymore.

the thing is (IMO, from my POV) you have this argument backwards... if your player described the best tactic, the best sword swing you would not give them an auto success in an attack roll (OKAY, I don't know you most wont)
I'm not penalizing the player or the character by saying "Wow, sounds great, now roll cha+ persuasion to see how well it goes" anymore then I am penalizing the player if I say "Wow, sounds great, no roll an attack roll to see how well that goes"


Player skill can never be brought to 0, nor do I think it should... but I think the lion's share should be the character's skill not the players.

Now the thing I see some bring up (and I often play in games that do this and have in the past allowed as a DM) is make teh DC a little easier or give a bonus or give advantage for good RP... my go to rule of thumb as a DM is "If I would give advantage in combat for that cool a thing, I should try to give advantage on a skill or social thing too"