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

[MichaelSomething]

So instead of social conflict rules, the DMG should suggest improv classes to help DMs develop their ability to make judgement calls based on the fiction?

 

[Warbringer]

Being a D&D player during the 80s was a Social Challenge ... is that what you mean

 

[pemerton]

No. The goal is to get a ride from the NPC, which the NPC agreed to. So it is success.

The fact the NPC wasn't going all the way to Port Fairy doesn't matter.

How do we know the NPC isn't going all the way to Port Fairy? Or that the NPC isn't prepared to go out of their way to take the PC there? This is what the system is intended to help us work out, in the same way that we use the combat system to find out (eg) whether or not the NPC's shield blocks the PC's axe blow.

This is a good example of when there is no dice roll. Either the PC is the rightful king, and can prove it, or they are not, and they earn a one way ticket to the dungeons.

Is the claim accepted? Is the proof adequate? Does the Steward willingly perform their duty.

I mean, it's possible to adjudicate RPGing in the mode of a puzzle - Have the PCs got all the pieces and put them all into place? - or as a railroad - Have the players made the action declaration that at this point generates this response in the fiction? - but that's not the only way of doing it. It's not how D&D has traditionally adjudicated combat, or ascending vertical surfaces. It's not inherent in D&D that social contexts be adjudicated like this.

Do the PCs have authority over the djinni? Do the djinni, and their ruler Yan-C-Bin, accept any such claim over them? Play to find out!, as we did:

The PCs erected a magic circle around the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen, in order to prevent anyone from entering it and potentially learning her true name (backstory here); then rested; then scried on the tarrasque, which they knew to have recently begun marauding in the mortal world, identifying its location and noting that it was being observed by maruts. They decided that, to return to the mortal world to confront the tarrasque they would first teleport to their abandoned Thundercloud Tower, and then take that with them through another conjured portal and fly it to where the tarrasque is.

<snip>

When the PCs step through the portal from their resting place to the top of the tower, they find that it is not where they left it - on the disintegrating 66th layer of the Abyss - but rather in the palace of Yan-C-Bin on the Elemental Chaos. This brought the PCs, and especially the chaos sorcerer, into discussion with the djinni who had retaken possession of the tower and were repurposing it for the coming Dusk War. Mechanically, this situation was resolved as a skill challenge.

Sirrajadt, the leader of the djinni, explained that the djinni were finally breaking free of the imprisonment they had suffered after fighting for their freedom the last time (ie with the primordials against the gods in the Dawn War), and were not going to be re-imprisoned or bound within the Lattice of Heaven, and hence were gearing up to fight again in the Dusk War. He further explained that only Yan-C-Bin (Prince of Evil Air Elementals) and the Elder Elemental Eye could lead them to victory in the Dusk War.

The PCs both asserted their power (eg the paladin pointed out that the reason the djinni have been released from their prisons is because the PCs killed Torog, the god of imprisonment), and denied the necessity for a coming Dusk War, denouncing warmongers on both sides (especially the Elder Elemental Eye, whom Sirrajadt was stating was the only being who could guarantee the Djinni their freedom) and announcing themselves as a "third way", committed to balancing the chaos against the heavens and ensuring the endurance of the mortal world.

Sirrajadt was insisting that the PCs accompany him to meet Yan-C-Bin, declaring that mercy would be shown to all but the sorcerer. (The reason for this is that the chaos sorcerer - who is a Primordial Adept and Resurgent Primordial - has long been a servant of Chan, the Queen of Good Air Elementals, who sided with the gods during the Dawn War and is resolutely opposed to the Prince of Evil Air Elementals; hence the sorcerer is a sworn enemy of Yan-C-Bin.) As the PCs continued to debate the point and explain their "third way" reasoning (mechanically, getting closer to success in the skill challenge), Sirrajadt - sufficiently unsettled by their claims - invited them all to resolve the matter in conversation with Yan-C-Bin, who moreso than him would be able to explain the situation. The PCs therefore went to meet Yan-C-Bin himself, as guests and not as prisoners - not even the sorcerer.

Yan-C-Bin greeted them, but mocked the sorcerer and his service to Chan. There was some back and forth, and some of the same points were made. Then the PC fighter/cleric Eternal Defender, who has recently taken up the divine portfolio of imprisonment (which position became vacant after the PCs killed Torog), spoke. Both in the fiction and at the table this was the pivotal moment. The player gave an impassioned and quite eloquent speech, which went for several minutes with his eyes locked on mine. (We tend to be quite a causal table as far as performance, in-character vs third person description of one's PC vs out-of-character goes.) He explained (in character) that he would personally see to it that no djinni would be unjustly imprisoned, if they now refrained from launching the Dusk War; but that if they acted rashly and unjustly they could look forward to imprisonment or enslavement forever.

The player rolled his Intimidate check (with a +2 bonus granted by me because of his speech, far more impassioned and "in character" than is typical for our pretty laid-back table) and succeeded. It didn't persuade Yan-C-Bin - his allegiance to the Elder Elemental Eye is not going to be swayed by a mere godling - but the players' goal wasn't to persaude Yan-C-Bin of the merits of their third way, but rather to avoid being imprisoned by him and to sway the djinni. Which is exacty what happened: this speech sufficiently impressed the djinni audience that Yan-C-Bin could not just ignore it, and hence he grudgingly acquiesced to the PCs' request, agreeing to let the PCs take the Thundercloud Tower and go and confront the tarrasque - but expressing doubt that they would realise their "third way", and with a final mocking remark that they would see for whom the maruts with the tarrasque were acting.

 

[pemerton]

When my PC Thurgon, Knight of the Iron Tower returned to his ancestral estate of Auxol, he wanted to reunite with his brother Rufus and his mother Xanthippe. The result in the first case was resolved using social mechanics, in the form of simple tests. In the second case it would have been resolved via a Duel of Wits, but Thurgon prayed first that the doubt and burdens would be lifted from Xanthippe's shoulders, and the prayer was successful.

Combat, no, but role-playing or a single roll would be sufficient. You really don't need a series of rolls, accumulated successes, etc. to resolve these.

Here's the actual play report:

My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.

Aramina's had three Beliefs - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!; I don't need Thurgon's pity; If in doubt, burn it! and three instincts - Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger; Always wear my cloak; Always Assess before casting a spell.

<snip>

Thurgon decided that they would head east, along the river, looking for the cave - which must be a goblin cave, he thought - the old-fashioned way. He also kept an eye out for an ex-knight, Friedrich, who lives in the area and had helped Thurgon and Aramina when they were on their way to Evard's tower. This Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for Reputation as the Last Knight of the Iron Tower and +1 for an affiliation with the Order of the Iron Tower, vs Ob 2) succeeded, and as the character trudged along Friedrich passed them, poling his skiff along the river.

<snip>

Friedrich took them as far as the next tributary's inflow - at that point the river turns north-east, and the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family. The Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for an Affiliation with the nobility and another +1 for an Affiliation with his family) succeeded again, and the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart. (Thurgon has a Relationship with his mother Xanthippe but no other family members; hence the Circles check to meet his brother.)

There was a reunion between Rufus and Thurgon. But (as described by the GM) it was clear to Thurgon that Rufus was not who he had been, but seemed cowed - as Rufus explained when Thurgon asked after Auxol, he (Rufus) was on his way to collect wine for the master. Rufus mentioned that Thurgon's younger son had married not long ago - a bit of lore (like Rufus hmself) taken from the background I'd prepared for Thurgon as part of PC gen - and had headed south in search of glory (that was something new the GM introduced). I mentioned that Aramina was not meeting Rufus's gaze, and the GM picked up on this - Rufus asked Thurgon who this woman was who wouldn't look at him from beneath the hood of her cloak - was she a witch? Thurgon answered that she travelled with him and mended his armour. Then I switched to Aramina, and she looked Rufus directly in the eye and told him what she thought of him - "Thurgon has trained and is now seeking glory on his errantry, and his younger brother has gone too to seek glory, but you, Rufus . . ." I told the GM that I wanted to check Ugly Truth for Aramina, to cause a Steel check on Rufus's part. The GM decided that Rufus has Will 3, and then we quickly calculated his Steel which also came out at 3. My Ugly Truth check was a success, and the Steel check failed. Rufus looked at Aramina, shamed but unable to respond. Switching back to Thurgon, I tried to break Rufus out of it with a Command check: he should pull himself together and join in restoring Auxol to its former glory. But the check failed, and Rufus, broken, explained that he had to go and get the wine. Switching back to Aramina, I had a last go - she tried for untrained Command, saying that if he wasn't going to join with Thurgon he might at least give us some coin so that we might spend the night at an inn rather than camping. This was Will 5, with an advantage die for having cowed him the first time, against a double obstacle penalty for untrained (ie 6) +1 penalty because Rufus was very set in his way. It failed. and so Rufus rode on and now has animosity towards Aramina. As the GM said, she better not have her back to him while he has a knife ready to hand.

The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thrugon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again. The GM was getting ready to force a Duel of Wits on the point - ie that Thurgon should not leave again - when I tried a different approach. I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. This was a prayer for a Minor Miracle, obstacle 5. Thurgon has Faith 5 and I burned his last point of Persona to take it to 6 dice (the significance of this being that, without 1 Persona, you can't stop the effect of a mortal wound should one be suffered). With 6s being open-ended (ie auto-rolls), the expected success rate is 3/5, so that's 3.6 successes there. And I had a Fate point to reroll one failure, for an overall expected 4-ish successes. Against an obstacle of 5.

As it turned out, I finished up with 7 successes. So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more! (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").

Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of never meeting the gaze of a stranger, her Instinct is to look strangers in the eyes and Assess. And rather than I don't need Thurgon's pity, her Belief is Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol. This earned a Persona point for Mouldbreaker ("If a situation brings your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits into conflict with a decision your PC must make, you play out your inner turmoil as you dramatically play against a Belief in a believable and engaging manner").

In what universe would this be better resolved by a single roll, or by "just playing it out" - ie either the GM deciding, or negotiating with one another until we reach tabletop consensus?

Strange game, IME then...

Nearly 40 years ago I purchased the original OA for AD&D. PCs in that game have families, and martial arts masters, and so on. That was when I worked out that personal relationships, family, honour, glory can all be as much a part of RPGing as can the man-with-no-name types that are assumed by a module like Against the Giants or Keep on the Borderlands. Since then, my main RPGs for FRPGing have been Rolemaster, D&D 4e, Prince Valiant, Cortex+ Heroic (adapted from MHRP), Burning Wheel and Torchbearer. In all these games, there are frameworks for resolving social conflict - RM's Influence and Interaction static action table, 4e's skill challenges, the uniform conflict resolution systems in Prince Valiant and Cortex+, and the systems in Burning Wheel exemplified above (which Torchbearer adapts with some modest variation).

So for me it's not that strange to have situations in my FRPGing in which social and emotional consequences are important or even central to a character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So instead of social conflict rules, the DMG should suggest improv classes to help DMs develop their ability to make judgement calls based on the fiction?

It would seem that would be more helpful for most folks' games than anything to do with social mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

I only use rolls where I feel the resolution would be in doubt.

Who decides what's in doubt?

To me, there seems to be a huge issue of question-begging in this respect - in this thread, and many others like it.

Because D&D as typically approached requires the rolling of dice to resolve fighting, or climbing walls, these are treated as generating doubts.

And because D&D often encourages the GM to decide how NPCs react without rolling dice, these are generated as not in doubt (see eg the Faramir example)

But this can all be flipped around. It's trivial to resolve combat through a single opposed roll (this is a regular thing in Burning Wheel play) or just by narrating what happens (this is the default in Cthulhu Dark if an investigator confronts a shoggoth). And we can use a social resolution framework to introduce uncertainty into social contexts - does Aragorn falter or hesitate at the last minute? does Faramir insist on more proofs, or on a more gradual process of transition or co-rulership?

The general point is that we're talking about fictions which are, of necessity, authored. So anyone can introduce doubt at any point. When we recognise this, and then look at it through the lens of RPG design, the question becomes where do we want our game to be about puzzle-solving? (eg the players can't win the combat against the dragon until they have the arrow of slaying, at which point they win automatically), where do we want our game to be about GM narration and/or table consensus over narration?, and where do we want our game to require taking risks, deploying resources, and putting it all on the line?

There is nothing magical about combat as a subject-matter of authorship that requires it to be the sole or even principal answer to that last question.

 

[pemerton]

OK, so NOW we do get to some of what I would call fertile ground. I basically don't get much from pregenerated adventure content.

<snip>

I've seen people do PRETTY well, there's a 4e module called Courts of the Shadow Fey that was put out by Kobold that I was a collaborator on (Bauer is an awesome guy) that did really well. It, again, avoided really nailing things down to specific encounters. It presented the various factions, the 'rules of court', the various ploys that would be used, individuals and their motives, and an overall scenario. There wasn't any specific set way that things would work out, AT ALL.

The Narrator's Book for HeroWars, written by Robin Laws, has an interesting scenario called The Demon of the Red Grove. I adapted it to 4e D&D:

The PCs in my 4e game <snippage> headed off to a place they had heard of but never visited - the Tower of Sunset, which undergoes worldfall every dusk, and then returns to the Feywild at dawn.

They knew that the Tower would have hags living in it, as they had (much earlier in the campaign) dealt with some of the hags' sisters.

<snip>

When the Tower shifted into the Feywild the PCs (following the hag's directions) headed north. The invoker summoned them phantom steeds, in the form of giant flying dragonflies. (When the player mentioned the dragonflies, I suggested rainbow gossamer wings, but he wouldn't come at that. So the Feywild charged him 100 gp rather than 70 gp worth of residuum for the ritual.)

As the PCs were flying along, they saw an eladrin hunting party, with a displacer beast pack, below them in the woods. As they were turning about to investigate more closely, the eladrin feyknight whistled and called the drow sorcerer's dragonfly to him. (The mysterious magic of the Feywild!) Pleasantries, which included the drow prominently displaying his symbol of Corellon to prove his good faith (he is a member of a small drow cult of Corellon worshippers who seek to end the influence of Lolth and undo the sundering of the elves), revealed that the eladrin was a Marcher Baron, Lord Distan. (The PCs and players recognised that name, as someone who had kicked the hags out of their former home 20-odd years ago, leading them to taking up residence in their Tower instead.)

He invited them back to his home, where it quickly became clear that he didn't really want their company, but rather wanted them to help him with a problem - he was expecting a visit in a few days from his Duke overlord, but his special apple grove was not fruiting as it normally would.

This was an adaptation to 4e mechanics and backstory of the scenario "The Demon of the Red Grove" in Robin Laws's HeroWars Narrator's Book. The reason for the trees in the grove not fruiting is that a demon, long bound there, has recently been awoken but remains trapped within the grove, and hence is cursing the trees. Mechanically, this was resolved as a skill challenge. First the PCs had to endure the demon's three cries of "Go Away!" (group checks, with failing PCs taking psychic damage - the sorcerer, who is also a multi-class bard, was the most flamboyant here, spending his Rhythm of Disorientation encounter power to open up the use of Diplomacy for the check, which in the fiction was him singing a song of apples blossoming in the summer). Somewhere during this process the cleric-ranger and invoker both succeeded at Perception checks and could hear the high-pitched whistling of a song bird. And the sorcerer's Arcana check revealed the presence of the demon - an ancient and mighty glabrezu (level 27 solo, as I told the players in order to try to convey the requisite sense of gravity).

At this point I thought they would attack the demon, but they decided to speak to it first, to find out how it had got there and what it was doing there. With successful Diplomacy checks they learned that it had been summoned long ago during the Dawn War ("When Miska's armies were marshalling on the Plain of a Thousand Portals") by a powerful drow who had come into the Abyss, in order to ambush a strong and cruel sorceress. But the sorceress had defeated it and trapped it in the grove. When they asked it the name of the sorceress, it replied that the name had been erased from its memory - at which point the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen worked out the sorceress was his mistress, and the player of the drow worked out that the ambusher must be Lolth. They also learned that it had been woken a year ago by an NPC wizard who was, earlier in the campaign, a nemesis of the PCs, as part of his attempts to learn the true name of the Raven Queen.

They then debated whether to bargain with it, but doubted its promise that "My word is my bond." The player of the invoker decided to use the Adjure ritual - that works on immortal creatures only, so he used it to try and change the immortal magic of the Raven Queen that was binding the demon. Instead of being trapped in the grove, they wanted the demon to instead go forth and fight frost giants and formorians. A roll was made (with help from the paladin, the ranger-cleric (who is also a Raven Queen devotee) and the sorcerer (who hates the giants because they serve evil primordials and he serves Chan, a "good" archomental). Unfortunately the roll was not very high, which meant that even with the bonuses it didn't achieve a full success, so the demon is bound for a week only - and hence was quite cheerful as it flew off to the north to beat up on frost giants.

Overall I was quite happy with the Red Grove scenario as a good introduction to the Feywild, and establishing some suitable flavour within the context of the broader campaign backstory. I had first made notes for running this scenario 3 or more years ago, back when the PCs were upper Heroic/low Paragon, and was glad to finally be able to use it (though with everything levelled up a bit!). Framing the PCs into the situation in the first place - via the eladrin encounter - was a bit harder than I would normally do things, but I knew that the players would be interested in the Lolt/Raven Queen backstory. And the outcome in relation to the demon was unexpected and certainly gives material for future developments.

Skill challenges aren't the only way to handle There wasn't any specific set way that things would work out, AT ALL, but they're one way.

 

[James Gasik]

Who decides what's in doubt?

To me, there seems to be a huge issue of question-begging in this respect - in this thread, and many others like it.

Because D&D as typically approached requires the rolling of dice to resolve fighting, or climbing walls, these are treated as generating doubts.

And because D&D often encourages the GM to decide how NPCs react without rolling dice, these are generated as not in doubt (see eg the Faramir example)

But this can all be flipped around. It's trivial to resolve combat through a single opposed roll (this is a regular thing in Burning Wheel play) or just by narrating what happens (this is the default in Cthulhu Dark if an investigator confronts a shoggoth). And we can use a social resolution framework to introduce uncertainty into social contexts - does Aragorn falter or hesitate at the last minute? does Faramir insist on more proofs, or on a more gradual process of transition or co-rulership?

The general point is that we're talking about fictions which are, of necessity, authored. So anyone can introduce doubt at any point. When we recognise this, and then look at it through the lens of RPG design, the question becomes where do we want our game to be about puzzle-solving? (eg the players can't win the combat against the dragon until they have the arrow of slaying, at which point they win automatically), where do we want our game to be about GM narration and/or table consensus over narration?, and where do we want our game to require taking risks, deploying resources, and putting it all on the line?

There is nothing magical about combat as a subject-matter of authorship that requires it to be the sole or even principal answer to that last question.

Well yes, obviously, I decide. But it's more like, if the PC's are reasonably well-mannered and ask an NPC for a ride on their wagon to a place they are already going, and the NPC is at least neutral, no roll.

But isn't that how it's supposed to work? The DM decides when rolls are necessary?

 

[Hussar]

It would seem that would be more helpful for most folks' games than anything to do with social mechanics.

I could see a few pages (or maybe more than a few) devoted to a sort of three prong approach.

1. What in this thread has been called pawn stance. The players aren’t hugely interested in the social aspect at this time and just want to get on with things. Roll the check and move on.

2. Improv. A section on how to do improv/just talk it out social pillar encounters. Advice on stuff like “yes and” as well as advice on how to leverage the mechanics of the game without letting them become too prominent.

3. Full on social mechanics. Proper skill challenge mechanics for 5e perhaps. With clear advice on how and when this is best used.

Additional advice would help dms to decide which approach is best at which times. A single campaign would very likely use all three approaches depending on all sorts of factors.

I think that would be a fantastic section in the DMG.

 

[James Gasik]

I could see a few pages (or maybe more than a few) devoted to a sort of three prong approach.

1. What in this thread has been called pawn stance. The players aren’t hugely interested in the social aspect at this time and just want to get on with things. Roll the check and move on.

2. Improv. A section on how to do improv/just talk it out social pillar encounters. Advice on stuff like “yes and” as well as advice on how to leverage the mechanics of the game without letting them become too prominent.

3. Full on social mechanics. Proper skill challenge mechanics for 5e perhaps. With clear advice on how and when this is best used.

Additional advice would help dms to decide which approach is best at which times. A single campaign would very likely use all three approaches depending on all sorts of factors.

I think that would be a fantastic section in the DMG.

I'm all for options, but this would prevent WotC from actually creating any kind of special social abilities (not that I'm 100% sure what those would look like), since they would only work with social mechanics. Not saying that's good or bad, but it is a thing some people claim to want.