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

[pemerton]

no matter high a player rolls, they should never be able to convince a king to hand over his kingdom.

How do we know this? Aragorn persuaded Faramir to hand over his kingdom.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Which is the whole point of his analysis. Any one attack roll is likely-but-uncertain, adding some excitement to the roll. But the outcome of the combat as a whole is rarely dependent upon any one attack roll but the sum of many, giving you a pretty fair idea about how things will go.

It isn't really "exciting" until the end approaches, then combat becomes exciting if the outcome is close enough to be in doubt. Until that point it is just a back-and-forth exchange until the averages play out and the most likely outcome (90+% as victory) is achieved. This is why many players complain about the slog of it.

Frankly, I don't think an attrition model (like combat) would work for social challenges.

Where D&D breaks down is where too much weight is put on a single pass/fail roll.

But it never does, does it?

When a single roll is called for, the situation doesn't have too much weight. Where multiple rolls are called for, it does. Combat has a lot of weight (ultimately possible death and the end of the adventure for a PC), as where social rolls don't carry the same weight. If one option fails, others can often be attempted because "failure" in an ability check doesn't necessarily mean the "end".

Consider the other d20 roll--the saving throw. When the stakes are higher, a series of rolls is used (often at least two, and many times three or more, even each round for a minute until the save succeeds or the effect ends).

Now, consider an exploration challenge, something like making a Strength (Athletics) check to climb a cliff face. There is a very poor structure to resolve this except (by design) that it is "up to the DM". Do you make a single check? A series of checks? After all, depending on the height of the fall, you might be killed, right? If you don't make the DC, do you fall or just fail to make process? When do you fall? And so forth...

Social challenges carry even less weight and have a strange consequence that good role-playing should override poor rolls, possibly even making rolls unnecessary. They currently (as we know) have just as poor a structure, relying almost entirely on DM fiat.

So, how to implement them, and if it is even worth it to create a system for it, when the weight is often insignificant, would be equivalent to having 15th level PCs fighting each encounter with CR 1 creatures they encounter. Most games don't have time to expend bothering with challenges without significant weight and therefore gloss over such things.

The result is social challenges are resolved in a single roll many times. You could certainly do a series of checks might be made along the way as a scenario unfolds, with each individual check leading towards success or failure, until the path is resolved and the scenario ends, but this depends vastly on the scenario and what interest the players have in rolling during it instead of role-playing during it.

 

[Hussar]

I love skill-less social negotiations as pure roleplay, but Savage Pathfinders social challenge system is amazing for making social skills meaningful. I as GM still hand out + or - to rolls depending how the player roleplay it, but skills matter and I use it al lot.

Sorry but where could I find this? I often find Savage Worlds has great mechanics that I can mine.

 

[Hussar]

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.

No they don’t. DnD social mechanics might but that’s because DnD social mechanics blow large chunks.

Systems with actual social mechanics won’t let this happen any more than DnD will let your first level character one shot a dragon.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Sorry but where could I find this? I often find Savage Worlds has great mechanics that I can mine.

Savage Pathfinder core p.164.

It’s not rocket science, fast and fun to run, and very easy to adapt to any traditional style system. It just put some meat on meaningful social conflicts.

 

[Cadence]

How do we know this? Aragorn persuaded Faramir to hand over his kingdom.

It kind of feels like the honorable steward formally recognizing someone with both a blood claim to the throne and support from lots of folks whose opinion the steward values (support about them as a person and for their claim) is a bit different than a random bard walking up and convincing a monarch to just abdicate after a pleasant conversation?

 

[cranberry]

No they don’t. DnD social mechanics might but that’s because DnD social mechanics blow large chunks.

Systems with actual social mechanics won’t let this happen any more than DnD will let your first level character one shot a dragon.

I was referring to D&D social mechanics, not other systems....

 

[kunadam]

I feel that some people here do not feel the need for a social pillar because it is less important/less consequential than combat. But combat can only be won if you have any chance of besting your opponent, and those chances mostly depend on social interactions. Can you convince someone to lend his/her army? To equip you with cold iron against the wicked fey?
Would you risk your life for nothing, or how did you negotiate the price for your party's services?
Would the ruler just throw you to jail and let your rot there because you broke the law? Did you have a good reason to do so?
While I agree that social encounters could not kill you in themselves, but the consequence of them can.
Also look at Hancock or any of the Spiderman stories. They are the heroes, but others can cause plenty of mayhem for them on a social level. The same can apply to adventuring parties as well. Will they be seen as heroes and saviors, or just a murderous/thieving lot?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.

combat or social combat optimizers still won't be able to dictate the King handing over their kingdom, regardless of how good their 'stats' are.

 

[Cadence]

combat or social combat optimizers still won't be able to dictate the King handing over their kingdom, regardless of how good their 'stats' are.

What was it in the first playtest package - a natural 20 is an auto-success on anything with a DC of 30 or less? I'm kind of scared to see a 3.5-esque extensive table of social difficulties.

Will ONE still have that the DM only calls for rolls on things where the outcome is uncertain? It feels like that handles a lot for the folks who think talking folks into some things (at least in the short term, and without coercion of magic) would be essentially impossible.