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

[Hussar]

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 ^^.

See, again, that's placing the DM right squarely in the middle of the action. Just because I, the DM, am having a bit of a moment and not quite understanding what you're asking me, doesn't mean that the NPC automatically doesn't. The NPC has stats for a reason. So, why should the NPC's understanding of what player is asking be 100% based on me and whatever I feel is appropriate?

I really get the sense that there seems to be a very strong thread in these conversations that people want the DM to be front and center in every single element of the game. I do not want that. I want the game to tell me if the NPC understands. I want the game to tell me, again, as the DM, whether or not that NPC finds the argument compelling. I have zero interest in basing everything off of whatever I happen to feel is appropriate at the time.

I don't understand the resistance to gamifying social aspects of the game. We would absolutely lose our poop if the DM did that during combat. But, as soon as we're not in combat, it's all pass the story stick time and we shouldn't have any mechanics at all. It's frankly baffling to me.

 

[M_Natas]

See, again, that's placing the DM right squarely in the middle of the action. Just because I, the DM, am having a bit of a moment and not quite understanding what you're asking me, doesn't mean that the NPC automatically doesn't. The NPC has stats for a reason. So, why should the NPC's understanding of what player is asking be 100% based on me and whatever I feel is appropriate?

I really get the sense that there seems to be a very strong thread in these conversations that people want the DM to be front and center in every single element of the game. I do not want that. I want the game to tell me if the NPC understands. I want the game to tell me, again, as the DM, whether or not that NPC finds the argument compelling. I have zero interest in basing everything off of whatever I happen to feel is appropriate at the time.

I don't understand the resistance to gamifying social aspects of the game. We would absolutely lose our poop if the DM did that during combat. But, as soon as we're not in combat, it's all pass the story stick time and we shouldn't have any mechanics at all. It's frankly baffling to me.

We are talking here in this instance now about a very specific circumstance in the game:
The player is talking in Character to a NPC.
That is a special game circumstance. Different from Combat, different from Exploration, even different from having a social interaction the player is not doing in Character.

When a player speaks in character, he is showing a 100% representation of what is said by the character inside the game world (and that is also the only instance in an TTRPG where Player action can be a 100% representation of the what the character is doing).
So as the DM I react to what is said, not the intent behind it.

If the player is saying in character: "The weather is nice, isn't it?" I'm not going to let her/him roll for persuasion to lower the prices.
If the player is saying, out of character, that his character is trying to get lower prices from the trader by making beautiful smalltalk about the weather and by doing so building a nice rapport, I will let her/him roll for persuasion.

But if you as the player decide to speak in Character, you would actually need me to show how you do it.

 

[Hussar]

We are talking here in this instance now about a very specific circumstance in the game:
The player is talking in Character to a NPC.
That is a special game circumstance. Different from Combat, different from Exploration, even different from having a social interaction the player is not doing in Character.

When a player speaks in character, he is showing a 100% representation of what is said by the character inside the game world (and that is also the only instance in an TTRPG where Player action can be a 100% representation of the what the character is doing).
So as the DM I react to what is said, not the intent behind it.

If the player is saying in character: "The weather is nice, isn't it?" I'm not going to let her/him roll for persuasion to lower the prices.
If the player is saying, out of character, that his character is trying to get lower prices from the trader by making beautiful smalltalk about the weather and by doing so building a nice rapport, I will let her/him roll for persuasion.

But if you as the player decide to speak in Character, you would actually need me to show how you do it.

No. I disagree. Because the dice will often tell us that no, when a player speaks in character, he is not showing a 100% representation of what is said by the character. The player's speech may very well not match - a great die roll vs a stumbling speech or a poor die roll making a lie of a great speech. And, since you, the DM, are reacting to what is said, that means that you are placing yourself directly into the game, something I prefer not to do.

The point being, you are claiming that speaking in character is a special circumstance. I would counter that no, it shouldn't be a special circumstance at all. The dice, the stats of the character and the rules of the game should determine, or at least inform and direct what the players say. There's just no point in speaking first and then rolling dice since it will inevitably result in inconsistencies.

 

[M_Natas]

There's just no point in speaking first and then rolling dice since it will inevitably result in inconsistencies.

But that is impossible. Because what and how the players are saying in Character can very well determine if a Die roll is needed at all.
Also I've never been at a table where the characters roll first and than play out the social interaction in Character.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, again, that's placing the DM right squarely in the middle of the action. Just because I, the DM, am having a bit of a moment and not quite understanding what you're asking me, doesn't mean that the NPC automatically doesn't. The NPC has stats for a reason. So, why should the NPC's understanding of what player is asking be 100% based on me and whatever I feel is appropriate?

I really get the sense that there seems to be a very strong thread in these conversations that people want the DM to be front and center in every single element of the game. I do not want that. I want the game to tell me if the NPC understands. I want the game to tell me, again, as the DM, whether or not that NPC finds the argument compelling. I have zero interest in basing everything off of whatever I happen to feel is appropriate at the time.

I don't understand the resistance to gamifying social aspects of the game. We would absolutely lose our poop if the DM did that during combat. But, as soon as we're not in combat, it's all pass the story stick time and we shouldn't have any mechanics at all. It's frankly baffling to me.

Because the paradigm that is being played, so-called Neo Trad generally, is "The GM feeds everyone a story and the players move through it." Obviously there are more and less levels of linearity and fictional significance to various choices they can make, but in essence its up to the GM to decide where things go. So, if your suggestion was adopted, where would the GM's leverage exist to move things in whatever direction they have decided its going to go? By far the most common way to do that is by deciding how all the NPCs act! They say what needs to be said, they react to things the players have the PCs do and say, etc. Without that you have, basically, no traction, and there aren't other mechanisms to drive the action forward, aside from the hope that some of the players will do that. However they will go in their own arbitrary directions and that won't do either.

 

[Hussar]

But that is impossible. Because what and how the players are saying in Character can very well determine if a Die roll is needed at all.
Also I've never been at a table where the characters roll first and than play out the social interaction in Character.

No I agree. It’s not done that way. But it should be.

And the whole “determines is a die roll is needed at all” in my opinion needs to die in a fire. I do not want that to be the baseline at all. It’s 100% about gaming the dm and virtually nothing to do with playing your character.

 

[M_Natas]

No I agree. It’s not done that way. But it should be.

And the whole “determines is a die roll is needed at all” in my opinion needs to die in a fire. I do not want that to be the baseline at all. It’s 100% about gaming the dm and virtually nothing to do with playing your character.

But now you are removing the roleplay aspect and the agency of the DM. If nothing the player do or says has an effect on the outcome, but only the roll of the die, you are playing a computer game. You don’t need a GM anymore.

The GM is there to adjucate the player actions. She/he determines, what the consequences of character actions are and when they outcome is unsure he uses the rules for that (in 5e usually an ability check, attack roll or saving throw).

It feels like you want to remove any agency the GM has. But than why bother with a GM? Play baldurs gate 3.
Because I definitely wouldn't want to play as a GM the way you are proposing.

 

[pemerton]

But now you are removing the roleplay aspect and the agency of the DM. If nothing the player do or says has an effect on the outcome, but only the roll of the die, you are playing a computer game. You don’t need a GM anymore.

These claims seems obviously false.

Here are two reasons why; there are probably others:

* The "roleplay" aspect on the player side of things (i) determines what skill is tested (if the system distinguishes between, say, trying to reach friendly agreement vs trying to bully someone into agreeing) and (ii) helps frame the situation, which leads into:

* If the check fails, the GM needs to narrate consequences, having regard to the framing which includes (ii) above.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

But now you are removing the roleplay aspect and the agency of the DM. If nothing the player do or says has an effect on the outcome, but only the roll of the die, you are playing a computer game. You don’t need a GM anymore.

The GM is there to adjucate the player actions. She/he determines, what the consequences of character actions are and when they outcome is unsure he uses the rules for that (in 5e usually an ability check, attack roll or saving throw).

It feels like you want to remove any agency the GM has. But than why bother with a GM? Play baldurs gate 3.
Because I definitely wouldn't want to play as a GM the way you are proposing.

This is the equivalent of saying that I will so awesomely describe how my battleaxe dips under the orc's swing and completely shatters its rib cage, that you, DM, have no choice but to assign this a natural 20 due to the amazing role playing. Roll the dice, then role play the outcome, whether the scenario was combat or social-based, is how I look at it.

 

[Hussar]

But now you are removing the roleplay aspect and the agency of the DM. If nothing the player do or says has an effect on the outcome, but only the roll of the die, you are playing a computer game. You don’t need a GM anymore.

The GM is there to adjucate the player actions. She/he determines, what the consequences of character actions are and when they outcome is unsure he uses the rules for that (in 5e usually an ability check, attack roll or saving throw).

It feels like you want to remove any agency the GM has. But than why bother with a GM? Play baldurs gate 3.
Because I definitely wouldn't want to play as a GM the way you are proposing.

And, just to add to the others, this is patently false.

The DM cedes a tiny bit of control over the outcome of a scenario in order to avoid inserting the DM into the resolution. Remember, the DM has pretty much total control over the initial set up of the scenario - controlling all the NPC's and the location and everything else that isn't the player. So, it's not like the DM's is really losing anything. But, at this point, the rules are GUIDING the DM to narrate results that are in keeping with the results of the game itself.

In other words, yes, you're right, the DM is losing a bit of control, but, is gaining the ability to be truly surprised by the outcomes. So long as the participants abide by the results of the dice, and use the dice and mechanics to guide roleplay, then very little is actually lost.