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

[Oofta]

Personally, I don't want and would not use a structured system for "social combat". I saw it too often in 4E (whether that was the intent of skill challenges or not).

Social encounters will always be either a structure set up by the DM or a mini-game that puts the focus on meta gaming. If it’s the former, once you know the DM you can still "play to the DM". If it’s the latter you're largely in my experience replacing role playing with roll playing with people just looking for excuses to use their best numbers and no longer approaching the game in character.

So for social encounters in my games, I focus on the what, not how. What have they done up to this point, what are the attitudes and goals of the NPCs, what (not how) do they say it. I also try to mix up the skills used. Persuasion is important, but so is insight, potentially others such as religion, arcana, history or survival.

Depending on what they say, what they contribute I'll set a DC which may well be automatic. It's not perfect, but there are just too many variables to systematize it, and I wouldn't want to.

 

[Vinicius Lessa]

Interesting discussion.

I don't have much knowledge in D&D5, but the simplest form of social conflict rules I know that actually drives games and is not some optional on the side, is Conditions-based. From Cortex to Fate to PbtA, imposing a condition on someone else through a roll, which can then be leveraged back in some way, be it through a carrot (if you do as the condition says you mark xp/lose Stress/gain Fate point) or through a stick (anybody who takes advantage of your Shaken condition gain a bonus on tests against you), has been an effective method for social focused games.

Seeing that D&D5 already has a system of conditions (as @Swarmkeeper describes above), couldn't it be expanded to acomodate the above?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

The main problem with a strict social rolls mechanic is that they will allow for otherwise impossible outcomes.

For example, no matter high a player rolls, they should never be able to convince a king to hand over his kingdom. But if the mechanic allows for success regardless of the circumstances, it would be subject to abuse.

Which is why I think social encounters should always be within the DM's framework and control, and never automatically decided by the dice.

That’s why you need to discuss what the stakes are for a conflict. In a physical conflict against ghouls, the stakes are obvious. In a social conflict they aren’t. Your opponent may have ulterior motives that you aren’t aware of. An example is in what I posted above.

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

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).

www.enworld.org

The point being, you can’t convince a king to hand over the kingdom because that would never be the stakes of a social conflict. You might be able to convince the king to lend you his best man-at-arms. But the king will also have an agenda so the players and dm must agree on the win and the loss condition before beginning a conflict.

 

[Quickleaf]

@James Gasik I'll answer for myself, and per my usual approach I'm slightly challenging the premise. Not because it's not a good question (e.g. Deities & Demagogues / Atlas Games had an entire "social combat" system like this), but because I think the question might be glossing over some helpful nuance...

IME there's no universal "combat challenge", no universal "exploration challenge", and no universal "social challenge." For example, 5e's combat is really focused on the small squad / typical party scale, but doesn't do well scaling down to 1-v-1 duels or up to mass combat...and if you want a running battle chase scene, you'll need to tweak the rules or make up new ones to get the desired effect. Similarly, a hex crawl has different rules/procedures than navigating a complex trap, and both vary substantially from table to table in how searching a room plays out.

The type of "social challenge" I have the most experience running is the negotiation, but other possible "social challenges" might include courtroom scenes, healing a mad wizard's mind, talking down an armed mob, or other examples. The best rules/guidelines approaches for those types of "social challenges" may be quite different from what I'm discussing below...

When I've run complicated multi-variable negotiation scenes – e.g. convincing an unfriendly dwarf lord to release both his dwarven hostages and captive crystal dragon, while avoiding offending him, and sussing out the monstrous traitor in his court – I created a series of 4 questions for the lord to ask of the PCs seeking an audience. Each question required an escalating number of "successes" (1 for the 1st, 2 for the 2nd, etc), and these "successes" might be accrued by clever roleplay appealing to some aspect of the lord's personality/beliefs, dramatic roleplay calling to mind past adventures that appealed to the lord, Charisma-based skill checks that made sense in the moment, Insight checks, certain lore checks, spells, calling upon NPC allies, certain class features, etc. Basically, it was just a structure to help me with my pacing & ensure the questions were ratcheting up the tension of the scene. Finally, I had some notes on a gradient of possible outcomes.

When I didn't think through it well, or I omitted a key detail in my notes that affected how I portrayed the NPC... then I would get brief moments of dissonance where it was evident the players had nothing else to contribute, but my tally sheet read something like "2 successful answers given out of 3 possible for question #3." In those cases, it was a learning process and I adapted on the fly.

Here's a concrete example from a one-shot conversion I ran a few months back...

SWAYING DRULL - Negotiation Scene
This scene involves 4 rounds, divided according to Drull's questions posed to PCs seeking an audience with him. PCs can gain a number successes = the current # of the question being posed; at that point or at a natural transition in conversation, Drull poses the next question. Tally total number of successes at end.

If PCs acquired the Hammer of Vitroin, at any time they may gift it to Drull to gain +1

At the end of each question/answer round, Drull uses the Mass Detect Thoughts power of his crystal throne (DC 15 Wisdom save). If he senses any difference between what the PCs have said and their intent, they lose -1

1st Q: “Why should I trust my brothers' toadies sent to bring me back to take the knee? Maybe you're just more thieves, better dressed, but still thieves?”

-2 PCs’ disguise or illusion revealed
+1 DC 16 Persuasion appealing to his pride
+1 DC 16 Deception that King is abdicating/dead
+1 revealing truth that Ekrundson = Evenshield
+1 well-reasoned argument

2nd Q: “So hard to think… a cloud is on my mind…”

-1 muddled strategy or talking over each other
+1 DC 16 History check to remind him of his life
+1 casting calm emotions or dispel magic on Drull
+1 creating illusion of his brother to soothe him
+1 recounting a vivid memory from Underduin

3rd Q: “What have you done for my people?”

-1 PCs destroyed any areas of Thunderdelve
-1 PCs freed Glittershard
-2 PCs killed any dwarves
+2 destroying or driving off the derro
+1 per dwarf's polymorph curse lifted
+1 rebuilding an area of Thunderdelve
+1 sharing the thunderstone vein Area 53/58
+1 slaying the aballin oozemother

4th Q: “What evidence have you?”
-1 falsely concocting improbable or conflicting evidence
+2 helping Drull see through the illusory dragon
+1 compelling a derro to reveal their plan
+1 testimony from emissaries of slithering tracker
+1 concocting plausible evidence matching other facts
+1 etching of forgotten dragon fight mural

9-10 successes: total success
7-8 successes: success with complication
5-6 successes: failure with silver lining
4 or fewer successes: total failure

 

[cranberry]

That’s why you need to discuss what the stakes are for a conflict. In a physical conflict against ghouls, the stakes are obvious. In a social conflict they aren’t. Your opponent may have ulterior motives that you aren’t aware of. An example is in what I posted above.

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

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).

www.enworld.org

The point being, you can’t convince a king to hand over the kingdom because that would never be the stakes of a social conflict. You might be able to convince the king to lend you his best man-at-arms. But the king will also have an agenda so the players and dm must agree on the win and the loss condition before beginning a conflict.

Just like combat optimizers, there will be players who try to maximize their results based on whatever social rule mechanics WoTC comes up with.

But until WoTC provides more details, everything is just speculation.

 

[cranberry]

Evidently Fate has a way around that: see post #50, but it requires player & GM meta discussion outside the characters. Is that better or worse than GM fiat? IDK, but seems like there could be a middle ground.

There has always been DM fiat (rolling "results" behind the screen), so to an experienced DM, this won't be an issue, anyway, I suppose.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

To be fair, this isn't really an option now. In this situation, the player rolls, and the DM says no, then acting as the baron, orders his guards to throw the PCs out.

 

[cbwjm]

Just like combat optimizers, there will be players who try to maximize their results based on whatever social rule mechanics WoTC comes up with.

But until WoTC provides more details, everything is just speculation.

It often doesn't matter how optimised a character is, as unoptimised characters will often speak and then be responsible for any rolls. Happens a lot in a game in playing in, I have a fighter with 10 Charisma and I'm often getting to the front of the party and starting the conversation. I do have a +4 in intimidation, but often what's called for is deception or persuasion, something rogue in the party is much more prepared for.

 

[James Gasik]

@James Gasik I'll answer for myself, and per my usual approach I'm slightly challenging the premise. Not because it's not a good question (e.g. Deities & Demagogues / Atlas Games had an entire "social combat" system like this), but because I think the question might be glossing over some helpful nuance...

IME there's no universal "combat challenge", no universal "exploration challenge", and no universal "social challenge." For example, 5e's combat is really focused on the small squad / typical party scale, but doesn't do well scaling down to 1-v-1 duels or up to mass combat...and if you want a running battle chase scene, you'll need to tweak the rules or make up new ones to get the desired effect. Similarly, a hex crawl has different rules/procedures than navigating a complex trap, and both vary substantially from table to table in how searching a room plays out.

The type of "social challenge" I have the most experience running is the negotiation, but other possible "social challenges" might include courtroom scenes, healing a mad wizard's mind, talking down an armed mob, or other examples. The best rules/guidelines approaches for those types of "social challenges" may be quite different from what I'm discussing below...

When I've run complicated multi-variable negotiation scenes – e.g. convincing an unfriendly dwarf lord to release both his dwarven hostages and captive crystal dragon, while avoiding offending him, and sussing out the monstrous traitor in his court – I created a series of 4 questions for the lord to ask of the PCs seeking an audience. Each question required an escalating number of "successes" (1 for the 1st, 2 for the 2nd, etc), and these "successes" might be accrued by clever roleplay appealing to some aspect of the lord's personality/beliefs, dramatic roleplay calling to mind past adventures that appealed to the lord, Charisma-based skill checks that made sense in the moment, Insight checks, certain lore checks, spells, calling upon NPC allies, certain class features, etc. Basically, it was just a structure to help me with my pacing & ensure the questions were ratcheting up the tension of the scene. Finally, I had some notes on a gradient of possible outcomes.

When I didn't think through it well, or I omitted a key detail in my notes that affected how I portrayed the NPC... then I would get brief moments of dissonance where it was evident the players had nothing else to contribute, but my tally sheet read something like "2 successful answers given out of 3 possible for question #3." In those cases, it was a learning process and I adapted on the fly.

Here's a concrete example from a one-shot conversion I ran a few months back...

SWAYING DRULL - Negotiation Scene
This scene involves 4 rounds, divided according to Drull's questions posed to PCs seeking an audience with him. PCs can gain a number successes = the current # of the question being posed; at that point or at a natural transition in conversation, Drull poses the next question. Tally total number of successes at end.

If PCs acquired the Hammer of Vitroin, at any time they may gift it to Drull to gain +1

At the end of each question/answer round, Drull uses the Mass Detect Thoughts power of his crystal throne (DC 15 Wisdom save). If he senses any difference between what the PCs have said and their intent, they lose -1

1st Q: “Why should I trust my brothers' toadies sent to bring me back to take the knee? Maybe you're just more thieves, better dressed, but still thieves?”

-2 PCs’ disguise or illusion revealed
+1 DC 16 Persuasion appealing to his pride
+1 DC 16 Deception that King is abdicating/dead
+1 revealing truth that Ekrundson = Evenshield
+1 well-reasoned argument

2nd Q: “So hard to think… a cloud is on my mind…”

-1 muddled strategy or talking over each other
+1 DC 16 History check to remind him of his life
+1 casting calm emotions or dispel magic on Drull
+1 creating illusion of his brother to soothe him
+1 recounting a vivid memory from Underduin

3rd Q: “What have you done for my people?”

-1 PCs destroyed any areas of Thunderdelve
-1 PCs freed Glittershard
-2 PCs killed any dwarves
+2 destroying or driving off the derro
+1 per dwarf's polymorph curse lifted
+1 rebuilding an area of Thunderdelve
+1 sharing the thunderstone vein Area 53/58
+1 slaying the aballin oozemother

4th Q: “What evidence have you?”
-1 falsely concocting improbable or conflicting evidence
+2 helping Drull see through the illusory dragon
+1 compelling a derro to reveal their plan
+1 testimony from emissaries of slithering tracker
+1 concocting plausible evidence matching other facts
+1 etching of forgotten dragon fight mural

9-10 successes: total success
7-8 successes: success with complication
5-6 successes: failure with silver lining
4 or fewer successes: total failure

As to whether or not there is a "combat challenge" or an "exploration challenge"...not as such, no. But there are monsters and traps, both of which have "levels" (Challenge Rating for monsters, and level bands for traps), and both have fairly detailed rules. For my own part, I think detailed social rules would be a disaster for D&D, but since I often hear people claiming to want them, I figured I'd ask what they would look like.

Yours is a well-thought-out example, but it also shows the care and detail required to set up; I would say that you put more work into this social challenge than most would for the average combat encounter. I do have to point out, however, that in many conversations (you can find examples on this very forum), the idea of being able to cast spells in a social encounter is completely rejected out of hand; you can look at just about any discussion of guidance to see that kind of pushback. And casting a spell that requires a saving throw on an NPC is right out as the targets know they have been affected by a spell by the rules and will no doubt be very unhappy once it wears off.

Whether or not this is what people want when they want the game to have stronger social systems and be "more roleplay focused", I'm unsure of.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

To be fair, this isn't really an option now. In this situation, the player rolls, and the DM says no, then acting as the baron, orders his guards to throw the PCs out.

Further, the players don't just say what their PCs want to do and then roll unbidden in 5e. The players say what their PCs want to do and the DM decides if a roll is appropriate based on 1) if there is uncertainty to the outcome and 2) if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. In the case above, there is no uncertainty. The Baron is not going to give the PCs his barony. No roll. Auto-fail. The DM narrates the result: "The baron laughs at your suggestion... what do you want to do next?"