Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is a Social challenge, anyways?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8965168" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>This casts interesting light on [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s comment on intent. One problem in these examples is that the <strong>intent</strong> is identical - in both cases the player character wants a discount. What changes is the approach, which as [USER=6921763]@Swarmkeeper[/USER] points out, intuitively matters.</p><p></p><p>Reflecting on rubrics such as "to do it, do it" I feel like intent is a slight red-herring. What's more at issue is whether the dice roll is determining character performance (their skill expression), or whether it is directing what players can add to the common fiction. Goal and approach can both be taken as inputs that help line up consequences. Goal alone usually isn't sufficient... and besides, which goal? Say I'm opening a safe to find the dirt to incriminate the chancellor. That's three intents. Open safe. Find dirt. Incriminate the chancellor. The usefulness of knowing those intents is that it helps line up what to add to our fiction, and a reason to draw attention to intents over acts is that while performance is not at issue - the character does what they do - fulfilling the <em>intent</em> indeed may be frustrated. Intent is a fact that happens to supervene on consequence resolution.</p><p></p><p>With "to do it, do it", character performance isn't at issue - they did what they did and that triggered the roll. The roll is not going to undo the triggering fiction: it's going to direct what to add to the fiction next. That can add to the triggering fiction in a way that takes it to a new place. This is resolving what happens, not what happened. It's one reason for only rolling when there are consequences that matter: the roll is about consequences. In this mode the wargaming assumption of dice as factors unknown can be a distraction, as whatever factors we <u>don't know</u> we cannot very well add to our fiction. On the other hand, a result can inspire a notion that wasn't considered before now, but <em>fits</em>.</p><p></p><p>With a consequences approach, players can't expect polar-opposite descriptions of their character's approach to line up with the same consequences. Which is pretty much what the Social Interaction system does. However, the Social Interaction system is not an exception to the general approach on offer in the 5e rules (taken as a whole), it's a pre-formulation.</p><p></p><p>[USER=7025918]@M_Natas[/USER] consider the following</p><p></p><p>Norms at our table can lead us to fill in some fiction based on the number rolled (c.f. much commentary on player expectations around nat 1s and nat 20s.) That can be forward-going just as effectively as the consequences approach. By which I mean, it need not undo anything that went before, but rather can entail adding something to our fiction to dissolve the dissonance. I see the DC-adjustment approach as PHB 5e, whereas I see the consequences approach as DMG 5e. That's because I don't really see anything in the PHB that would lead one to a consequences approach, whereas text in the DMG spells it out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8965168, member: 71699"] This casts interesting light on [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s comment on intent. One problem in these examples is that the [B]intent[/B] is identical - in both cases the player character wants a discount. What changes is the approach, which as [USER=6921763]@Swarmkeeper[/USER] points out, intuitively matters. Reflecting on rubrics such as "to do it, do it" I feel like intent is a slight red-herring. What's more at issue is whether the dice roll is determining character performance (their skill expression), or whether it is directing what players can add to the common fiction. Goal and approach can both be taken as inputs that help line up consequences. Goal alone usually isn't sufficient... and besides, which goal? Say I'm opening a safe to find the dirt to incriminate the chancellor. That's three intents. Open safe. Find dirt. Incriminate the chancellor. The usefulness of knowing those intents is that it helps line up what to add to our fiction, and a reason to draw attention to intents over acts is that while performance is not at issue - the character does what they do - fulfilling the [I]intent[/I] indeed may be frustrated. Intent is a fact that happens to supervene on consequence resolution. With "to do it, do it", character performance isn't at issue - they did what they did and that triggered the roll. The roll is not going to undo the triggering fiction: it's going to direct what to add to the fiction next. That can add to the triggering fiction in a way that takes it to a new place. This is resolving what happens, not what happened. It's one reason for only rolling when there are consequences that matter: the roll is about consequences. In this mode the wargaming assumption of dice as factors unknown can be a distraction, as whatever factors we [U]don't know[/U] we cannot very well add to our fiction. On the other hand, a result can inspire a notion that wasn't considered before now, but [I]fits[/I]. With a consequences approach, players can't expect polar-opposite descriptions of their character's approach to line up with the same consequences. Which is pretty much what the Social Interaction system does. However, the Social Interaction system is not an exception to the general approach on offer in the 5e rules (taken as a whole), it's a pre-formulation. [USER=7025918]@M_Natas[/USER] consider the following Norms at our table can lead us to fill in some fiction based on the number rolled (c.f. much commentary on player expectations around nat 1s and nat 20s.) That can be forward-going just as effectively as the consequences approach. By which I mean, it need not undo anything that went before, but rather can entail adding something to our fiction to dissolve the dissonance. I see the DC-adjustment approach as PHB 5e, whereas I see the consequences approach as DMG 5e. That's because I don't really see anything in the PHB that would lead one to a consequences approach, whereas text in the DMG spells it out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is a Social challenge, anyways?
Top