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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Probably not, and I think that's why a more critical look at ability checks are used in the game is required. I'm not saying the game should devolve into die rolls for everything; in fact, it's really neat when you can set the rules aside in a session.

But at the same time, if your ability scores become meaningless, that's a problem too.

Maybe if there was more than one way to accomplish a task; in the example of the logical argument, perhaps Intelligence could be used for some social rolls.

Maybe Dexterity can be used to climb some things.

Maybe having the Strength to lift an object isn't as important in some cases as having the Constitution to lug it around for awhile.

I know there are options for disassociating skills from abilities, to allow Strength (Intimidate) checks and so on. If we did that, but had guidance for when X ability score is allowable for Y check, perhaps that could improve things?

Just spitballing here, I've played in systems that do this, like Vampire, but it generally devolves to "I'm going to argue with the GM so I can use my best roll for everything".

Isn't this exactly how 5e skills work? You make an ABILITY CHECK and you MAY add in a bonus if you can explain how a particular skill helps to achieve the result you desire. Technically there is no such thing as a 'skill check' in 5e.

 

[pemerton]

Do you keep like a giant database of records for things that you once posted that you can pull out at a moment's notice? If so, how do you organize them? How do you remember that you said something from over ten years ago so you know to look for it?

I'm not sure if you're making fun (which would be fair enough!) or expressing awe (which would be welcomed!) or just neutrally curious.

Mostly I just rely on memory, and do a site search for key words perhaps with a rough date limitation.

Like in this case, I used "raining" as my key word.

Whether I reveal myself as ego-obsessed, or as trying to hold ENworld discussion to something like academic standards, or both (or I guess something else) I leave as an exercise for the reader!

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not sure if you're making fun (which would be fair enough!) or expressing awe (which would be welcomed!) or just neutrally curious.

Mostly I just rely on memory, and do a site search for key words perhaps with a rough date limitation.

Like in this case, I used "raining" as my key word.

Whether I reveal myself as ego-obsessed, or as trying to hold ENworld discussion to something like academic standards, or both (or I guess something else) I leave as an exercise for the reader!

Curious but also impressed. I can scarcely remember what I wrote five-years-ago and here you are remembering what you wrote ten-years-ago and dropping a citation to it in a thread as if you said it yesterday.

 

[cbwjm]

Curious but also impressed. I can scarcely remember what I wrote five-years-ago and here you are remembering what you wrote ten-years-ago and dropping a citation to it in a thread as if you said it yesterday.

You can remember stuff from five years ago? I'll often get notifications for a thread from a few months ago and have to check what I wrote.

 

[Aldarc]

You can remember stuff from five years ago? I'll often get notifications for a thread from a few months ago and have to check what I wrote.

Scarcely being the key word there. I thought that I should be at least somewhat generous to myself.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Curious but also impressed. I can scarcely remember what I wrote five-years-ago and here you are remembering what you wrote ten-years-ago and dropping a citation to it in a thread as if you said it yesterday.

I also, am in awe. I often cannot remember 5 minutes ago.

 

[James Gasik]

Isn't this exactly how 5e skills work? You make an ABILITY CHECK and you MAY add in a bonus if you can explain how a particular skill helps to achieve the result you desire. Technically there is no such thing as a 'skill check' in 5e.

I was more thinking how the character sheet says Intimidate is a Charisma skill, not offering other ways to do it (though this is an optional rule).

 

[clearstream]

I was more thinking how the character sheet says Intimidate is a Charisma skill, not offering other ways to do it (though this is an optional rule).

Well, following what @AbdulAlhazred said, one way to think about it is to focus on what the character is doing.

A character with high Charisma exudes confidence, which is usually mixed with a graceful or intimidating presence. A character with a low Charisma might come across as abrasive, inarticulate, or timid.

...it can represent a charming or commanding personality.

If they describe being commanding or intimidating, there's a good chance a check if called for should be +Cha. They don't need to be threatening harm to dominate someone with their presence.

Intimidation. When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence...

Proficiency bonus should apply if their approach is one of coersion. One might consider their credibility. In a magical world, muscles may count for less than a pointy hat. But in any case, if the player is bringing overt threats, hostile actions, or physical violence into the picture then the situation changes. It's now one in which violence is on the table.

Pursuant to my earlier post, a roll is not to see if they are able to offer threats because that part is covered by their proficiency with Intimidation, which applies given what they said their character does*. Rather, we may be rolling to see what direction to take our fiction as a result of that intimidation. Following the DMG rules, a bad fail might see the situation escalate. We know that is possible, because the player put it on the table.




-----------------------
*A possible difference between a character with proficiency Intimidation and one without, might be awareness of what creatures find perturbing and ability to sell a threat. Following this way of thinking, a player should say not simply what they - the player - wants to happen, but do so in view of their character sheet. That imposes constraints, as players realise that they ought not portray their character as Torquemada if they have not chosen proficiency with a basic tool of the Inquisition, i.e. Intimidation. Or to put it another way, if my plan is to portray Torquemada, I ought to choose proficiency with Intimidation. That doesn't entail having to act it all out if one does not want to, but rather - one way or another - helps determine what would be legitimate for my player character to add to the fiction.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i know it makes more sense for intimidation to be a charisma skill as intimidation is more than just having muscles but it might be nice to put it in strength just to give it one more skill beyond athletics.

 

[M_Natas]

What interests me is how people don't view combat in the same way.

Somehow, rolling in combat is perfectly fine. Often accompanied by elaborate descriptions of actions. "I swing my sword low, and then spin and bring it up high, slicing him across the chest!" and similar. Somehow, the rolls in combat are either perfectly acceptable as is, or are otherwise not an obstacle to narration.

But rolling for a social encounter? Suddenly the rules "get in the way".

Because in Combat, you declare an action, the outcome is determined and than the action and outcome are described:
"I attack the Orc with my sword."
"Roll an attack."
"That's a 19."
"That's a hit, roll damage."
"10 Damage"
"Nice, tou all see, that Fin the Fighter draws his Sword, swinging at the Orc. The Orc tries to raise its shield, but it is to slow. Fin slashes wide open a big wound in the chest of the Orc, who growls in Pain."

In a social interaction, usually the action is described first, and based on that action and outcome is determined:
"Fin says to the orc: stand away or I will cut you!"
"Make an intimidation check"
"It is a 6"
"The Orc laughed and raises his Axe. Everybody, roll initiative."

So, in Combat, we have the Action declaration, the outcome determination and than the action and outcome description.
In social interactions we have usally the action declaration including the action description, then the outcome determination and then the outcome description.

For social interactions that can lead to a dissonance.
Like a players gives the best speech and roleplaying performance ever that in reality would make any king give up his kingdom, but than he rolls a Nat 1 and his character gets killed.
In Combat, the outcome is first described and then based on that, the action is described. If he rolled a 1 on the attack rolled, "Fin fumbled with the sword and couldn't bring it to bear against the orc" or a natural 20 "Fin, with on swing, hacks the Head off of the orc."

So, in 5e, if not be done carefully by the DM, how I describe my action in an social interaction doesn't have any bearing on the outcome. If I roll a nat 1, nothing what I said mattered. I failed.

Of course ... you could put the roll in front of the action description. Handle it like combat: declare an action, but don't describe it, with for the outcome determination and then describe the action based on the outcome.
"I want to intimidate the Orc"
"Make an intimidation check"
"20!"
Now he can describe a coom phrase. If he rolled a 1, he could describe how he stuttered and couldn't get the words out to really intimidate the orc.

But ... seperating the action declaration and the action description in social interactions kills any ryhthm. It slows it down to a crawl.