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

[GMforPowergamers]

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

As a DM/player who sits at tables that everyone has and is DMing, I am VERY used to "Don't forget that's an X roll/rule"

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

The objective is for the merchant to charge you the most possible, and for you to get the best price, but that’s not how haggling actually works.

First off, if the price is actually negotiable, the merchant is going to begin by charging you a higher price. If a silken rope is worth 10 gp (as indicated in the PHB), the merchant is going to charge you 15 gp unless you haggle. The purpose of haggling (from the merchant’s perspective) is not to cut into his acceptable profit margin.

More importantly, haggling isn’t “I’ll offer 8” “I’ll accept 13” “Let’s settle at 11.” There needs to be an actual reason for why you are proposing more or less, and there are many circumstances where a merchant isn’t going to budge very much, if at all.

An adventurer trying to buy armor from the castle blacksmith? Why would he lower his prices? Where else are you going to go?

Finally, the merchant’s goal is to sell you stuff. He’s a lot less likely to give you a discount than he is to throw in something extra. No, he won’t sell you that 50gp healing potion (listed at 60 gp) for 40 gp. But he will sell you 3 healing potions for 135 gp.

The spears listed at 14 sp? He won’t sell them to you at 1 gp each. Buy 3, and he’ll throw in the 4th free!

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

If a person admits that there are situations that DON’T require a roll, then they are also saying that there are situations where automatic successes exist.

Honestly, I can’t imagine a game that DIDN’T have situations (whether social or exploration) where a roll is unnecessary.

 

[M_Natas]

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"

Than we are not so far off.
I just would add that there are instances were you automatically hit or automatically succeed your charisma thing (don't need to roll for it). Like, you don't need to roll to see if you can cut the throat of a sleeping NPC (if you succeed before on a stealth check for example) and you als don't need to roll if you wanna bribe the corrupted guard with 100 gold. That just works.

 

[Red Castle]

If a person admits that there are situations that DON’T require a roll, then they are also saying that there are situations where automatic successes exist.

Honestly, I can’t imagine a game that DIDN’T have situations (whether social or exploration) where a roll is unnecessary.

The difference is intention.

I don’t think automatic success should be intentionnally given by the DM based on the roleplay of the player. But mistakes can also happen.

I was replying hypothetically if that kind of mistake happened (nobody realised during the scene that a roll should have been made) and assumed that it was found only later after the scene. If it’s noted right after the event (a player saying ´wait, shouldn’t there be a roll of bluff for that?), I’ll acknowledge and ask for the roll, but if it’s found out much later, before backtracking instantly to correct the mistake, first I ask myself about the consequence of the mistake, what would have happened if the player failed at its roll. If the result would have been trivial, no need to backtrack, just move on and roll with it. So yeah, the player just got an automatic success, but it was not intentionnal, just an honest mistake.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The difference is intention.

I don’t think automatic success should be intentionnally given by the DM based on the roleplay of the player.

I agree with this. Flowery words from a roleplayed PC do not gain auto-success any more than a player describing in 3rd person what that PC is doing at our table. It's the approach of the PC towards achieving a goal that is important.

But mistakes can also happen.

I was replying hypothetically if that kind of mistake happened (nobody realised during the scene that a roll should have been made) and assumed that it was found only later after the scene. If it’s noted right after the event (a player saying ´wait, shouldn’t there be a roll of bluff for that?), I’ll acknowledge and ask for the roll, but if it’s found out much later, before backtracking instantly to correct the mistake, first I ask myself about the consequence of the mistake, what would have happened if the player failed at its roll. If the result would have been trivial, no need to backtrack, just move on and roll with it. So yeah, the player just got an automatic success, but it was not intentionnal, just an honest mistake.

But is it really a mistake? In 5e, the DM determines if a roll is appropriate in that there is some uncertainty in the potential outcome of the actions of the PC(s) and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. If the DM didn't call for a roll, then there's simply no roll. Presuming the PC succeeded in their deception without a roll, why would a player ask to make a CHA(Deception) roll if no roll was called for? Only bad things can happen (which might be fun for the table, I'll grant, but likely causes hardship for the PC(s)).

 

[Red Castle]

I agree with this. Flowery words from a roleplayed PC do not gain auto-success any more than a player describing in 3rd person what that PC is doing at our table. It's the approach of the PC towards achieving a goal that is important.




But is it really a mistake? In 5e, the DM determines if a roll is appropriate in that there is some uncertainty in the potential outcome of the actions of the PC(s) and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. If the DM didn't call for a roll, then there's simply no roll. Presuming the PC succeeded in their deception without a roll, why would a player ask to make a CHA(Deception) roll if no roll was called for? Only bad things can happen (which might be fun for the table, I'll grant, but likely causes hardship for the PC(s)).

Well, as I said earlier, I don’t recall having ever face this kind of situation where a call was needed but not asked, so it’s only hypothetical. I assume it’s a situation where there should have been a roll so consequences if failed.

But I agree, I’m from the school of thought that a roll should only be asked if the result has real consequences, which doesn’t come up that much in our games. If there is no real consequences, we don’t bother with rolls.

I also think that as a GM, you should not be shy to ask the player what is his real intention. Let’s say a player decide to make a promise to a NPC to try to convince him to join him, I’ll ask the player if he actually mean it, if he intend to keep his promise or if he’s actually lying. If he’s sincere, I’ll make him roll for diplomacy, if not, roll for bluff. When in doubt, you better ask and come up with the player with the best way to deal with the situation.

Also, I hate dump stats, so let’s say a player say something very convincing but his character have low charisma, I’ll make him roll to see if his character was as convincing as him. Same goes for the opposite, if a player have trouble expressing himself but plays a very charismatic character, I’ll make him roll to see if his character found a better way to express himself.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Also, I hate dump stats, so let’s say a player say something very convincing but his character have low charisma, I’ll make him roll to see if his character was as convincing as him. Same goes for the opposite, if a player have trouble expressing himself but plays a very charismatic character, I’ll make him roll to see if his character found a better way to express himself.

that was what started my group down the "okay sounds good now roll it" mind set... watching a sorcerer or bard with a high cha and skill pts spent not be as good as the 8 cha no skill pts spent guy who happened to be played by the guy who knew the right way to speak...

 

[James Gasik]

Pretty sure that you is doing the heavy lifting there.

I find a perfectly functional sword while in a dungeon. I go to a shop, they want to give me 1/5th it's value.

But wait, according to my background, I belong to a Guild, so I go to the Guild store to sell it. 1/5th it's value.

I get a merchant's license and buy my own shop and try to sell it. 1/5 it's value.

So how does this economy work again?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But I agree, I’m from the school of thought that a roll should only be asked if the result has real consequences, which doesn’t come up that much in our games. If there is no real consequences, we don’t bother with rolls.

Indeed, that's the recommendation in the 5e DMG.

I also think that as a GM, you should not be shy to ask the player what is his real intention. Let’s say a player decide to make a promise to a NPC to try to convince him to join him, I’ll ask the player if he actually mean it, if he intend to keep his promise or if he’s actually lying. If he’s sincere, I’ll make him roll for diplomacy, if not, roll for bluff. When in doubt, you better ask and come up with the player with the best way to deal with the situation.

100%.

If the intent (goal) - or the action (approach) for that matter - of the PC is unclear then the DM absolutely should be asking for clarification before adjudicating. Assumptions can lead to a mismatch of expectations at the table and awkward breaks in game play.

Also, I hate dump stats, so let’s say a player say something very convincing but his character have low charisma, I’ll make him roll to see if his character was as convincing as him.

I don't call for rolls based on a PC's stats. Stats only are involved in how the number on the die is adjusted. My adjudication also has nothing to do with how convincing the player is (although a well-delivered roleplay can certainly be entertaining for the table). As mentioned, I base a decision for a roll on what the PC is trying to accomplish and how they are trying to accomplish it. Only if there is uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure, is a roll involved. Making a player roll solely because their PC has a low/dump stat is one step removed from just straight up telling them "your character wouldn't do that", IMO. That's not my role as DM.

Same goes for the opposite, if a player have trouble expressing himself but plays a very charismatic character, I’ll make him roll to see if his character found a better way to express himself.

Of course. A player needn't be eloquent to have their PC convince an NPC of anything. If they are having trouble roleplaying in the 1st person, I'll just have them clarify with me what their PC is really trying to accomplish and generally what points they are trying to make to do so, and I'll decide if a roll is even necessary.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I find a perfectly functional sword while in a dungeon. I go to a shop, they want to give me 1/5th it's value.

But wait, according to my background, I belong to a Guild, so I go to the Guild store to sell it. 1/5th it's value.

I get a merchant's license and buy my own shop and try to sell it. 1/5 it's value.

So how does this economy work again?

Why would a used sword you found in a dungeon be worth the same as a brand new sword you bought at a blacksmith’s?

 

[Red Castle]

Indeed, that's the recommendation in the 5e DMG.


100%.

If the intent (goal) - or the action (approach) for that matter - of the PC is unclear then the DM absolutely should be asking for clarification before adjudicating. Assumptions can lead to a mismatch of expectations at the table and awkward breaks in game play.


I don't call for rolls based on a PC's stats. Stats only are involved in how the number on the die is adjusted. My adjudication also has nothing to do with how convincing the player is (although a well-delivered roleplay can certainly be entertaining for the table). As mentioned, I base a decision for a roll on what the PC is trying to accomplish and how they are trying to accomplish it. Only if there is uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure, is a roll involved. Making a player roll solely because their PC has a low/dump stat is one step removed from just straight up telling them "your character wouldn't do that", IMO. That's not my role as DM.


Of course. A player needn't be eloquent to have their PC convince an NPC of anything. If they are having trouble roleplaying in the 1st person, I'll just have them clarify with me what their PC is really trying to accomplish and generally what points they are trying to make to do so, and I'll decide if a roll is even necessary.

I should have clarified that I would not make them roll just for the heck of it but when the situation can call for it. Let’s just say that in all my years of playing, I had to deal with powerplayers that dropped the knowledge and social stats (not talking exclusively with DnD here) to boost their physical ones and then expected to just roleplay out of the need to use the knowledge and social skills, so I had to adapt to these situations and make those players realise that there can be consequences to neglecting the knowledge and social attributes and that it’s not because they, as a player, know stuff that their character also knows it. Here again, it’s all about the intention of the player.

Luckily, I don’t have to deal with that kind of players now, the people I game with are experienced enough to not drop a stats just to boost another and will roleplay accordingly to how they built their characters.

 

[James Gasik]

Why would a used sword you found in a dungeon be worth the same as a brand new sword you bought at a blacksmith’s?

Uh, why wouldn't it? I can polish it up, it works the same, there's no statistical difference between the blades. Heck, maybe it's worth more because it's an antique or was made by a famous smith!

 

[pemerton]

Uh, why wouldn't it? I can polish it up, it works the same, there's no statistical difference between the blades. Heck, maybe it's worth more because it's an antique or was made by a famous smith!

To me, it seems weird to take a rules element - in D&D all swords have the same mechanical specifications, and there are no rules for blades being weak/strong/sharp/rusted etc - and then read that back into the fiction in spite of its unreality, and on that basis to criticise another rules element - the selling-of-scrap rules - on the basis that, when it is read back into the fiction, the resulting economy is not very realistic.

 

[James Gasik]

To me, it seems weird to take a rules element - in D&D all swords have the same mechanical specifications, and there are no rules for blades being weak/strong/sharp/rusted etc - and then read that back into the fiction in spite of its unreality, and on that basis to criticise another rules element - the selling-of-scrap rules - on the basis that, when it is read back into the fiction, the resulting economy is not very realistic.

Yeah but it doesn't have to be a rusted old sword either. Let's say I buy a rapier for my archer as a backup weapon. During the next adventure, we find a rapier +1. Huh, upgrade, ok. I never even used the rapier.

I go to sell it since I don't need it and....1/5 the price for resale.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The question is are you willing to spend money to buy a specialty product that gives you a more detailed system on selling items? And to go through a multi step process when you want go sell something?

Yeah but it doesn't have to be a rusted old sword either. Let's say I buy a rapier for my archer as a backup weapon. During the next adventure, we find a rapier +1. Huh, upgrade, ok. I never even used the rapier.

I go to sell it since I don't need it and....1/5 the price for resale.

 

[James Gasik]

The question is are you willing to spend money to buy a specialty product that gives you a more detailed system on selling items? And to go through a multi step process when you want go sell something?

I might? It really comes down to whether or not it makes the game more fun or if the rules get in the way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

More realistic examples can be a bit fraught. We could discuss how you would best adjudicate talking out an encounter with a deranged suicidal guy with a gun... eh, been there, done that. What I'm saying is, sometimes its just a matter of people want more fantasy with their reality, lol. I'm happy with these kind of things being a little abstract, you CAN be TOO IMMERSED.

 

[clearstream]

In my view, I'd go with a fairly simple system. Each character makes a declaration of some sort for their goal - in the example, the PC wants a discount and the NPC doesn't really want to give it. You have a pool of "Social Power" that is depleted through the discussion. So, it looks something like this:

Player: I want to get a discount from the merchant. So, I ask for a discount.
DM: Ok, roll your (We'll use the 5e rules for a moment) Persuasion vs his Insight and he rolls his Persuasion vs your Insight. Dice are rolled Ok, you both succeed, so, you each lose 2 Social Power points. What do you say?
Player: (narrating his success) Ho fat merchant. Your wares are very nice. I have just saved the city, so, howzabout a bit of a discount?

That's in sharp contrast to an approach where players say what their characters do before dice are thrown, and what they say helps decide whether a check is made and what its consequences could include. Which generally need not require narrating the character's actions in retrospect. (What happens not what happened.) A related option is for players to roleplay their characters, meaning roleplay in view of what they have made true through their choices in character creation. So that an unskilful orator does not orate skilfully.

Interestingly, the method you describe can produce a bit of disconnect between roll and fiction. Suppose that the player retroactively narrates something that all agree ought not to have worked (where for the sake of argument, no patching-up narration is on offer.) Frex, I roll 20 and hit, but I choose to narrate fumbling, dropping my axe and missing. Forwards-only narration does not run into this potential problem, because if I describe missing then that is what I do. (Performance isn't at issue, consequences are.)

As an aside, the mechanics in your example are not 5e.

 

[clearstream]

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.

IKR but going with for sake of argument.