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

[James Gasik]

Love the Venture Brothers. Though the only reason the Summit was resolved was due to Rusty knocking over the game board by denouncing the whole process as immature nonsense, not because of his diplomacy skills (which he has very little of, lol).

 

[Hussar]

There is always the other side of the screen on this as well. The absolute insistence that a player's character MUST NEVER be subject to any sort of mechanic which determines any sort of internal truth about that character. So, in D&D, PC's are immune to persuasion checks. They are immune to morale checks (if you use those - and have always been immune since at least B/X D&D). You must never, ever have any sort of non-magical effect which takes away even the slightest control over a PC.

Which, if you have actual social mechanics, isn't true. If you lose a social check, of some sort, you are obligated to actually play out that loss. And that is very, very much a bridge too far for a very, very, very vocal segment of the hobby.

Like I said, social mechanics are in the same category as psionics. There are those that are big fans of these things and would love to see them in the game, but, it will never, ever happen because there is just no way to get past the opposition.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If you're interested, I'd be happy to discuss this in another thread. @Manbearcat should also be part of that, as he is probably the master of skill challenges.

The starting point is the 4e DMG2 discussion, and how those ideas can be built on.

I would be interested in seeing some examples and thoughts on how one would presented to people unfamiliar with it.

 

[BrassDragon]

I do not believe that D&D needs a specific social subsystem but I believe that D&D needs a non combat resolution system that is more complex and nuanced than the simple pass fail of the ability check
I am not sure what that would look like, the skill challenge was an attempt but I think it lacked something.
I will admit that I maybe looking for something fairly meta, so I would be happy with an optional add-on. My issue with the skill challenge was that it was still mostly pass fail.
My thoughts are that the players spend some meta currency to increase success that the DM can later use to raise complications but that may not be the best approach.

This is the crux for me... social interactions typically involve compromise and consensus building to avoid negative outcomes for all participants. We really need a resolution system that can reliably determine outcomes like 'Yes, and...' (resolved with additional positive outcocmes) / 'Yes' (resolved) / 'Yes, but...' (resolved at a cost) / 'No, but...'(unresolved with a new path forward) / 'No' (unresolved for now') / 'No, and...' (the situation worsens or escalates)

That would also prevent players treating Persuasion like mind control and gives some room for having players suffer actual loss in social challenges without taking away their free will completely.

 

[S'mon]

I think 5e D&D is rather good for the social interaction play pillar, despite the extremely weak social element in all the WoTC adventures I own. This is because the rules don't get in the way like 3e (broken Diplomacy skill, CHA 8 Fighters who don't dare say a word) or 4e (social interaction as Skill Challenge).

The way to support social interaction play is to have well motivated NPCs for the players to interact with. It's not about rules. GMing advice on creating motivated NPCs in various contexts would certainly be useful. Eg advice on creating the village inhabitants for the starter town, courtiers for the noble court, personalities of an outlaw band or mercenary company.

Useful advice I think does require some understanding of human nature though. And you need to be looking at the internal aspect of the NPC - what do they want.

 

[James Gasik]

Player immunity to social rolls has always been a touchy subject. On the one hand, it makes sense to not take away someone's agency. However, if that's your goal, then why can they be charmed, dominated, or magically frightened? That doesn't make any sense!

Imagine a player and an NPC sit down at the negotiating table. The NPC could be made to make concessions with a good roll, but the reverse isn't true, allowing the PC to back out at any time?

 

[S'mon]

It means people want games with more role playing then roll playing, or to put it simply a game that is anything other then mindless combat.

You can find good role players and have a good role playing game. However, there will still be way too many players that just want to skip anything and get right to the combat.

The big hang up is: The rules. For too many players, unless they are using a rule, they are not "playing the game". They don't want to just sit around and talk, they want to use the rules to play the game. They want action, adventure and most of all combat.

The dream would be social rules as detailed as the combat rules, so that would be hundreds of pages. You'd have social based abilities. People and creatures would have Social Armor. Everyone would have a Base Social Bonus. Everyone would have Social Life. You'd have social backgrounds and archtypes and feats. You'd have Renown, Standing, Honor, and other such social rank rules. You would have items and equipment that had effects. And all magic would be re written to fit the social rules. The best way would to have a dual "classic combat side" and a "new social side" much like a multiclassed character. So you might be a 3rd level fighter/2nd level commoner. The social classes would get abilities per level, just like other classes. And when you defeat someone socially you'd get loot and XP.

So the 2nd level commoner, who wants to get past a toll guard for free, would attack with the "we are all in the same boat" 1st level commoner ability and attempt to get the guard to see that they are both just folk. The 3rd level guard would resist using the 2nd level guard ability "I'm just following orders". Dice are rolled, both sides attack and defend. If the commoner gets the guards social life down to zero, he gets to pass for free and gets Confidence points and XP.. If the guard gets the commoner to zero social life first then they don't get to pass for free and gets Confidante points and loyalty points if "just following orders" and XP. And so on.....

This is surely a classic case of "roll playing" over "role playing"?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Player immunity to social rolls has always been a touchy subject. On the one hand, it makes sense to not take away someone's agency. However, if that's your goal, then why can they be charmed, dominated, or magically frightened? That doesn't make any sense!

Imagine a player and an NPC sit down at the negotiating table. The NPC could be made to make concessions with a good roll, but the reverse isn't true, allowing the PC to back out at any time?

It depends on the players. If I were to say to my players "you have been charmed by the the succubus" they will role play the character being charmed. There is no need to take away control of the character from the player, because they will act in accordance with the character's magically altered perceptions.

I suppose it depends on what the player sees as their goal in playing. If their focus is on "winning the game" the might not be willing to have their character act in a way that is opposed to that. If "the play's the thing" then they are more interested in the drama.

 

[Aldarc]

Soo....what are Flaws, Alignment, Ideals, Traits, and Bonds?

Based on what we've seen in the One D&D playtest, I would say that they are mostly on their way out the door. Alignment likely being the one exception, mostly due to brand and traction.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Fate has social combat which works well. There is a social track that you can maneuver against and attack. You take damage in the form of aspects which are used to compel characters to do certain things or used to leverage bigger attacks. It works well.

I’m not suggesting a social hit point track on D&D but any social confrontation requires buy-in.

So if a player wants to convince the Baron of something, the player can’t say, “My character will never be influenced by the Baron; don’t take away my agency!!!”

Instead, as per Fate, when setting up any conflict-social or physical-both sides negotiate (out of character) what success and failure looks on both sides. So success might be convincing the Baron to lend you his army to fight the undead that are invading and failure might be he withdraws the army away to attack someone else, leaving the PCs without support. Success with a complication might be he lends you the army but you owe him a favour etc…”

Once the parameters are agreed upon, you start your conflict and there’s no risk of loss of player agency.

This way you don’t have situations like, “I try to convince the Baron to give us his barony. I rolled a 20”. That just wouldn’t be an option.

In d&d you can then run it as an extended test with multiple rolls (contested rolls or cat and mouse or however you want to do it) where certain factors added to the conversation maybe giving you bonuses or advantage on certain rolls (“our cleric will raise your General if he dies”). These kind of bonuses allow for lots of negotiation and role-playing.