D&D 5E Would you like to see a complex social interaction module early in 5E?

[JamesonCourage]

This is key (although perhaps we have slightly different conceptions of RPing). What I have in mind is - the system should work only when the player explains what his/her PC is doing in the fiction (eg what sort of thing s/he is saying to the NPC, with what goal in mind). Whether this is in 1st person or 3rd, and whether it is florid or prosaic, I personally care less about - 1st person and florid can be fun, but some of my best social encounter experiences have had plenty of prosaic 3rd person in there also.

We have different preferences, but I count both as "RPing", in this context. I want mechanics that only key off of explicit PC action: "I do this" and not "I roll this", please. We're in seemingly total agreement on this issue.

That's not complex social interaction mechanics. That's the rather poor 3E Diplomacy skill mechanics.

Too true (thus my link to the modified Diplomacy rules on GitP, where you have to give an in-fiction proposal to even use the mechanic). As always, play what you like

 

[ComradeGnull]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with 4e, but it has a complex social interaction mechanic - namely, the skill challenge. The advice on how to use the mechanic is a bit wanting, but the mechanic itself is reasonably robust (which is not to object to [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] and others who want something richer and more overtly multi-dimensional).

If 5e doesn't have something at least as robust as skill challenges, then it is going backwards. And at present there is nothing worthwhile in the playtest. So, for example, even if I wanted to do something interesting with the medusa, there are no mechanics to support that.

I'm familiar with Skill Challenges, but not that intimately, so correct me if I'm off base on something.

I guess I don't really think of skill challenges as being a 'complex' system, personally. To me, the skill challenge system is just a slight formalization of 'make up some things and make some rolls with DC's set by DM judgement'. The back-and-forth, multiple roll style that the 4e DMG presents for a social encounter is just basic 3e skill use at a slightly higher level of detail- something that could be included as 'for groups that don't particularly care about detailing social interactions, one roll on an applicable skill can suffice, but groups that want more detail can use multiple rolls on multiple skills in response to player ideas or the responses of NPC's'.

To me, there's no reason that something comparable to that wouldn't be included in (or readily extrapolated from) the base rules for skill use- when I hear 'complex social interaction module', I think of something with a bit more content to it.

In other words, prior to 4e people were doing things almost identical to skill challenges already in 3/3.5e, they just weren't calling it 'Skill Challenges'. Since we already know 5e has skills like Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, etc., it seems that the rules for using those skills would present a resolution system comparable to the Challenges system.

 

[pemerton]

To me, the skill challenge system is just a slight formalization of 'make up some things and make some rolls with DC's set by DM judgement'. The back-and-forth, multiple roll style that the 4e DMG presents for a social encounter is just basic 3e skill use at a slightly higher level of detail

<snip>

To me, there's no reason that something comparable to that wouldn't be included in (or readily extrapolated from) the base rules for skill use

I think that you are underestimating two features of skill challenges that distinguish them from free roleplaying mediated by checks with DCs set by GM judgement.

First, the DCs aren't just set by GM judgement. They're mandated by a system which scales them to level. That is, the main constraint on DCs is a metagame one, with the expectation that narration will then fall into line with that (where this is an issue - often it's not). This is not unlike the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest revised establishing the DCs on a metagame basis.

Second, there is a fixed number of successes required before a defined number of failures. This means that the GM is obliged to keep the scene alive for a certain duration.

In a Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits, no matter how devastating a player's Dismissal spoken for his/her PC, if it doesn't empty the opponent's body of argument the duel goes on - the GM is obliged to narrate some complication or reason that keep the Duel alive. And in a Hero Wars/Quest extended contest, a similar dynamic applies - until a winner is established via mechanics, the scene has to be narrated so as to keep it alive and unresolved.

Likewise with a skill challenge. The technique for doing this (although the rulebooks for 4e don't explain this, even though they present examples that only work by drawing on this technique) is to introduce new complications or twists that are introduced on a metagame basis, rather than just being "organic" extrapolations from the ordinarily established fiction (eg in response to the Dismissal in BW, or to the overwhelmingly wonderful Diplomacy check in a 4e skill challenge, "I hear what you say, and your reason is beyond question. But I swore an oath to my late father, and from that I cannot budge" - now the players have to think of a way to have their PCs get the NPC released from the oath, or to reinterpret it).

The first of these features - metagame setting of DCs - is what gives players agency. The DCs aren't just GM fiat, they're set having regard to the underlying maths of the game and a certain desired pacing.

The second of these features - metagame-driven adjudication by the GM - is what makes these sorts of mechanics generate unexpected results in play, that no one (GM or player) anticipated in advance. LostSoul posted a nice example on these boards some time ago, where the skill challenge mechanics create narrative space and unexpected outcomes even when the player had virtually no chance of losing:

I run a quick skill challenge as Kryx convinces the guards to turn against Sosruko.

This was interesting. Kryx had a massive modifier - +13. He was rolling against the Will Defence of the guards - 14. That means he could only fail on a 1 if he said something that gave him a penalty.

Pointless exercise in dice rolling? No, as it turns out. Having to go through a number of checks meant that the guards made some demands of their own - that Kryx would be their new sheriff, that they would still keep their jobs, and that Kryx would "deal" with the bandits. Kryx gave them his word (part of the reason he was able to get such a high modifier), and as a dragonborn and a paladin that's a big deal.​

The playtest, as it currently stands, doesn't have the sort of mechanics - for DC setting, for establishing parameters for adjudication - that would permit this sort of result to be produced in a way that is surprising to both players and GM.

 

[ComradeGnull]

I think that you are underestimating two features of skill challenges that distinguish them from free roleplaying mediated by checks with DCs set by GM judgement.

First, the DCs aren't just set by GM judgement. They're mandated by a system which scales them to level. That is, the main constraint on DCs is a metagame one, with the expectation that narration will then fall into line with that (where this is an issue - often it's not). This is not unlike the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest revised establishing the DCs on a metagame basis.

Second, there is a fixed number of successes required before a defined number of failures. This means that the GM is obliged to keep the scene alive for a certain duration.

In a Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits, no matter how devastating a player's Dismissal spoken for his/her PC, if it doesn't empty the opponent's body of argument the duel goes on - the GM is obliged to narrate some complication or reason that keep the Duel alive. And in a Hero Wars/Quest extended contest, a similar dynamic applies - until a winner is established via mechanics, the scene has to be narrated so as to keep it alive and unresolved.

Likewise with a skill challenge. The technique for doing this (although the rulebooks for 4e don't explain this, even though they present examples that only work by drawing on this technique) is to introduce new complications or twists that are introduced on a metagame basis, rather than just being "organic" extrapolations from the ordinarily established fiction (eg in response to the Dismissal in BW, or to the overwhelmingly wonderful Diplomacy check in a 4e skill challenge, "I hear what you say, and your reason is beyond question. But I swore an oath to my late father, and from that I cannot budge" - now the players have to think of a way to have their PCs get the NPC released from the oath, or to reinterpret it).

The first of these features - metagame setting of DCs - is what gives players agency. The DCs aren't just GM fiat, they're set having regard to the underlying maths of the game and a certain desired pacing.

The second of these features - metagame-driven adjudication by the GM - is what makes these sorts of mechanics generate unexpected results in play, that no one (GM or player) anticipated in advance. LostSoul posted a nice example on these boards some time ago, where the skill challenge mechanics create narrative space and unexpected outcomes even when the player had virtually no chance of losing:



The playtest, as it currently stands, doesn't have the sort of mechanics - for DC setting, for establishing parameters for adjudication - that would permit this sort of result to be produced in a way that is surprising to both players and GM.

Very helpful explanation of the social skills challenge use- hadn't seen it done or explained in quite that way. I quite like it.

So I guess this gets back to my question of what is a 'complex' system- to run the sort of skill challenge based system you're describing, we'd need:
1) Scaling DC's- we had a table for this in 4e, could conceivably get the same thing for 5e.
2) Rules/guidelines for multiple success/failure when using skills- something like the Skill Challenge rules, hopefully with some explanation of how that looks in-game with social skills.

But for low-level play we have rules for setting DC's already, we have the appropriate skills. Saying 'that's a big ask- that requires five successes before three failures' or 'that's easy- two successes before four failures' or something doesn't seem like anything that requires much more than a rough heuristic. So why can't we do this with the rules we have right now? Is there enough material to support that to really make a whole module out of? It seems like you could cover it in a page or two of material- more like an article than a module. It obviously can produce some complex results, but it does seem quite close to roll moderated free forming it.

In other words, given the explanation that you just gave me, I don't see any reason to give WoTC $30, rather than giving you some XP and then just nicking it for my next game What do we need from them, really?

 

[pemerton]

So I guess this gets back to my question of what is a 'complex' system- to run the sort of skill challenge based system you're describing, we'd need:
1) Scaling DC's- we had a table for this in 4e, could conceivably get the same thing for 5e.
2) Rules/guidelines for multiple success/failure when using skills- something like the Skill Challenge rules, hopefully with some explanation of how that looks in-game with social skills

But for low-level play we have rules for setting DC's already.

For 1, I think the flat math might handle things so as to make scaling unnecessary. This is more-or-less how Burning Wheel does it: reasonably flat math, but also adding a player metagame resource (Fate Points and similar tweaks) to enable players to pile on the bonuses if the maths gets bumpy.

No scaling DCs and no Fate Points or similar might make players tend to shut down or turtle a bit - but I think you'd have to road test the maths to find out.

I think that 2 is perhaps the bigger deal.

Saying 'that's a big ask- that requires five successes before three failures' or 'that's easy- two successes before four failures' or something doesn't seem like anything that requires much more than a rough heuristic. So why can't we do this with the rules we have right now?

I think that if you want your pacing to come out nicely, you might want more thoroughly settled numbers - first worked out mathematically, than vigorously playtested. Notoriously, 4e took a long time to settle on numbers that worked both from the maths and from the "how does this game actually play at the table" point of view. (Escalating bonuses made this harder than it should have been - so D&Dnext starts more strongly on this score, I think.)

But the other thing that is needed - and I think it's more than an article, but not necessarily mechanically very complicated - is advice to the GM on how to adjudicate. HeroQuest revised takes only a page or two to set out its core mechanic, but there is a lot of advice. Burning Wheel's mechanics are a bit more complicated, but still can be set out in 5 pages or so. But the advice is pretty detailed.

For me, a big issue with D&D is that its traditional way of putting pressure on the players is the risk of death. But given how trigger-happy D&D PCs are in any event, introducing this sort of pressure comes close to being guaranteed to turn your social encounter into a combat encounter. Burning Wheel has a lot of advice on how to frame and then adjudicate situations so that the players feel the pressure, but the stakes aren't "live or die". This is where I personally find the way the medusa is presented in Caves of Chaos a big disappointment. It seems like it's meant to be this intriguing situation full of potential - but how does a GM stop it turning into a blood bath almost from the get go?

This goes to scenario design - putting in stakes and hooks that aren't just about living and dying - but also monster design - giving monsters these things, so the GM can look up the Monster Manual and find non-live/die stakes and hooks built into the monsters. It also goes to PC build - letting the players build concerns, goals and hooks into their PCs that aren't just about living and dying (like the PC's honour that LostSoul played on in his paladin skill challenge). I think the background features would be a promising place to start for this sort of stuff (in 4e class and paragon path fill this space) but more development would be needed than what we currently have.

Anyway, this is some of the stuff that I would see a module covering - its not so much the resolution mechanics, which as you say can be fairly simple (although Duel of Wits gives us an example of more bells and whistles - it has social defence, for example), but (i) strong GMing advice, and (ii) ensuring that story elements - scenarios, monsters, PCs - work from the ground up to provide support for the sort of GMing that is required.

I hope this makes at least some sense!

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=6685694]ComradeGnull[/MENTION]

Perhaps you would better understand with my suggestion. Mine is a social system that mirror D&D's combat system. Essentially Charisma is Strength, Wisdom is Constitution, and Intelligence is mental quickness as Dexterity. The character attempt to bypass the objections of others using their force of personality and vast knowledge while defending their arguments with insight, convictions, and logic. The DM then apply circumstance bonuses and advantage if the players can further bolster their social attacks and defenses with heavier role play.

"The rogue reminds the noble of the devastation of the last orc invasion. So that's Intelligence +4 plus History +3 attack. And since that a Lore attack and not an unskilled one, it's 1d8+4 social damage to his argument."


"Knobby hides behind Redbear and casts Charm Person on the noble. 3d6 social damage."

 

[ComradeGnull]

[MENTION=6685694]ComradeGnull[/MENTION]

Perhaps you would better understand with my suggestion. Mine is a social system that mirror D&D's combat system. Essentially Charisma is Strength, Wisdom is Constitution, and Intelligence is mental quickness as Dexterity. The character attempt to bypass the objections of others using their force of personality and vast knowledge while defending their arguments with insight, convictions, and logic. The DM then apply circumstance bonuses and advantage if the players can further bolster their social attacks and defenses with heavier role play.

"The rogue reminds the noble of the devastation of the last orc invasion. So that's Intelligence +4 plus History +3 attack. And since that a Lore attack and not an unskilled one, it's 1d8+4 social damage to his argument."


"Knobby hides behind Redbear and casts Charm Person on the noble. 3d6 social damage."

Right- that to me would be something that I would consider to be a notch up in complexity vs. what pemerton was describing since theoretically you're having to come up with analogs for lots of combat options in the social sphere. I can see that, or something closer to Burning Wheel, constituting an entire module on its own.

I actually like the simplicity of the skill using, multi-success system, but again that just speaks to my particular prejudice. I think as someone who likes the unstructured way of doing it, I'm just unlikely to see the kind of advice and guidance that pemerton is describing being as necessary. To me it feels like we have enough information to put together something satisfying from the RAW with a little tweaking- thus reducing my feelings of urgency regarding having a lot more guidance from WoTC, but I can certainly see why someone would feel otherwise.