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

[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 ^^.