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

[Manbearcat]

Because it is the DMs Job to interpret the Action the players are taking. That is a necessary part to adjucate.
Without interpretation you reduce the DM to a number cruncher and could replace him with a computer.

I just don't see how this is true.

The complex mental life of a person is subjected to a very large host of pressures exerted upon it and those pressures aren't remotely limited to the needs/wants of the person they're engaging with or the navigation of labyrinthine social cues/signaling, or the multifactorial context of the situation before them. They include wrestling with their own general emotional state, weariness/level of contentedness, their own limbic system, and any number of immediate pressing issues (poor sleep or an argument with a friend or partner the night before or a logistical problem, such as an expense that can't be predicted or budgeted for, that is weighing them down).

GMs having to simultaneously index NPC dramatic needs and index the mechanical result of a move made by a player (both the gamestate change downstream of that move made and the nature of the move within the imagined space) is not a reduction in GM mental overhead. Its a different type of GM overhead than GM decides based on indexing nothing other than their gut/notes. And it is very much a difficult skill that must be cultivated with rigorous practice and time "in the lab."

And the play result of that simultaneous indexing (the bolded above) can be causally linked to any of the rational or irrational factors listed above. Fully-formed people make good decisions for the wrong reasons and bad decisions for the right reasons and make wise decisions that are actively harmful to their own interests and foolish decisions that are actively or incidentally helpful to their own interests all the time. GMs being constrained by having to index dice results in their handling of NPC responses and churning out any of the above is neither "defanging GMs" nor "reducing GM overhead" nor "reducing GM skill in managing their role in play" and its certainly not implausible for people to be co-opted by external forces (including "internal forces that are external to their conscious self") in their social interactions.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So we're at the point where the debate is should social challenges be free-form improv or dice rolling mini games?

My answer is "yes".

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

that is about the same ass me, the only thing is if the player tells me "Hey when I say that I am trying to make small talk to built rapport to lower price"

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would love nothing more than for conversations about social challenges to never again use price negotiation as a meaningful example.

I’d think a social challenge would have more at stake than saving a few gold pieces.

 

[Hussar]

So we're at the point where the debate is should social challenges be free-form improv or dice rolling mini games?

My answer is "yes".

To be fair, that's the heart of the debate since day 1. Whether it's better for social interaction to be free form or more mechanical. And, all points in between. I mean, if you're okay with skill checks during social interactions, then it's no longer free form. All we're basically arguing is how far you want to move the slider.

Although, in the D&D context, I would actually like there to be the option of a more mechanical social resolution. At the moment, we've got free-form and a bit less free form with what essentially typically results in a "roll high" system.

 

[pemerton]

I would love nothing more than for conversations about social challenges to never again use price negotiation as a meaningful example.

I’d think a social challenge would have more at stake than saving a few gold pieces.

I XPed your post because I basically agree. But I want to come at this another way.

In my Torchbearer game, we've had at least two Negotiation challenges about prices - the sale of stirges, and the purchase of rope. In my Burning Wheel session on the weekend, I played out a Duel of Wits haggling with a NPC about the price of their help in breaking into a harbourside office.

In all these examples, the reason we've resolved it using a conflict resolution framework was because it mattered. And that's the real thing about social resolution - the ostensible stakes have to genuinely matter. If events are going to unfold the same way regardless of who agrees to what in the social challenge, then the whole thing becomes pointless.

And in a lot of these conversations I do see, in some posts, an idea that social stuff is closer to mere colour, than to the genuine stakes of play.

 

[Aldarc]

To be fair, that's the heart of the debate since day 1. Whether it's better for social interaction to be free form or more mechanical. And, all points in between. I mean, if you're okay with skill checks during social interactions, then it's no longer free form. All we're basically arguing is how far you want to move the slider.

Although, in the D&D context, I would actually like there to be the option of a more mechanical social resolution. At the moment, we've got free-form and a bit less free form with what essentially typically results in a "roll high" system.

One problem with this debate, IME, is that some people can only imagine social mechanics as "roll to win" without roleplay involved. However, this flies in the face of direct experience that I have had with games that integrate more robust social mechanics: e.g., Fate, Cortex, Stonetop, Masks, Blades in the Dark, Mouse Guard, etc. I think that it's perfectly fine and valid if people prefer free form social interactions in their roleplaying games. However, holding that preference doesn't require misrepresenting roleplay in other games with social mechanics or how such mechanics could look like in a game like D&D.

 

[Hussar]

@Aldarc - yes I agree. The one thing that these discussions make really painfully clear is that people judging how social mechanics work have very little actual experience and I’d take it a step further and say most of the conversations show a serious lack of understanding even the basic mechanics of social mechanics.

 

[Red Castle]

So we're at the point where the debate is should social challenges be free-form improv or dice rolling mini games?

My answer is "yes".

My answer is, for DnD at least, a little bit of both.

With my group, when doing social challenge, we start by doing a natural roleplay conversation, or free-form improv as you put it.

Then, when one of us feels like a roll is needed, we ask for it. If me as the DM is not sure of the intention of the player, I’ll ask her/him what it is and then determine what skill should be use. But I won’t base the DC on what the player said or how he/she said it, because the character might have said it more or less convincingly (a character with 18 charisma should usually speak with more convinction than one with 8). Then, depending on the result, we continue the conversation and adapt it accordingly. We accept the result and move on.

We also never allow automatic success based on what the player said or how he said it. After all, it’s the character that is speaking, not the player. Not allowing auto success prevent players from using charisma as a dump stat with the idea that they can naturally be convincing. If they use charisma as a dump stat, they’ll play their character accordingly.

 

[James Gasik]

My answer is, for DnD at least, a little bit of both.

With my group, when doing social challenge, we start by doing a natural roleplay conversation, or free-form improv as you put it.

Then, when one of us feels like a roll is needed, we ask for it. If me as the DM is not sure of the intention of the player, I’ll ask her/him what it is and then determine what skill should be use. But I won’t base the DC on what the player said or how he/she said it, because the character might have said it more or less convincingly (a character with 18 charisma should usually speak with more convinction than one with 8). Then, depending on the result, we continue the conversation and adapt it accordingly. We accept the result and move on.

We also never allow automatic success based on what the player said or how he said it. After all, it’s the character that is speaking, not the player. Not allowing auto success prevent players from using charisma as a dump stat with the idea that they can naturally be convincing. If they use charisma as a dump stat, they’ll play their character accordingly.

Upthread I shared a recent experience where we were all roleplaying, and one character made such a logical argument the NPC just went with it, and it wasn't until later the DM realized it. While it's all well and good to say "no automatic success", are all the players and the DM on the ball enough to go "wait, point of order, persuasion check?" if something like this occurs?