Social Combat

[PhoneLobster]

Murtak you ass I'm specifically telling people not to encourage RC to speak on social combat discussions specifically.

He has a history of demanding ridiculous crap from a social combat system then declaring the very concept of a social combat system impossible because his ridiculous crap can't be met.

Remember this is the guy who declared social combat would automatically mean everyone social combats the king into surrendering the kingdom. (which would somehow be wrong).

Declared he preferred NO social rules so as to support a game where you social the Queen, the kings advisors, and various foreign guys (who are also kings) into surrendering to you and then used all of them as social slaves to kill the king.

But then decryed a social combat system where you created allies like that as being A) not supportive of that, B) Impossible, and C) Unrealistic and bad wrong fun.

I'm not telling RC to shut up on everything, let him blather his idiocy about anything else, even his infamous pro rape idiocy. But on this topic he has NOTHING to say other than deliberate attempts at vandalizing the concept of a social combat system, or indeed ANY social mechanic since he openly advocates against ALL of them.

[shadzar]

Both sides are always trying to get something, it's just not always obvious. If you're trying to beg change from me, you're trying to get money from me, that's obvious. I'm trying to get you to leave me alone, which is less obvious but still a goal, and there should still be ways to advance that goal.

Honestly, in an abstracted social HP/damage system, making you give up and leave me alone is actually the same thing as making you surrender, or flee, or whatever in combat, and can even use the same rules. It's a social combat where you're trying to social attack me until I relent and give you money (i.e, surrender), and I'm trying to social attack you until you relent and fuck off (i.e., flee).

And when that doesn't work you go into real attacks.

Would people consider this social combat?

Cashier: Will that be all?
You: Yes
Cashier: Would you like fries with that?
You: No

Can you go into initiative then and sneak attack the cashier?

[violence in the media]

Both sides are always trying to get something, it's just not always obvious. If you're trying to beg change from me, you're trying to get money from me, that's obvious. I'm trying to get you to leave me alone, which is less obvious but still a goal, and there should still be ways to advance that goal.

Honestly, in an abstracted social HP/damage system, making you give up and leave me alone is actually the same thing as making you surrender, or flee, or whatever in combat, and can even use the same rules. It's a social combat where you're trying to social attack me until I relent and give you money (i.e, surrender), and I'm trying to social attack you until you relent and fuck off (i.e., flee).

And when that doesn't work you go into real attacks.

Would people consider this social combat?

Cashier: Will that be all?
You: Yes
Cashier: Would you like fires with that?
You: No

Can you go into initiative then and sneak attack the cashier?

Why wouldn't you be able to? That seems like a relatively common sequence for robberies.

Also, why is she offering you fires?

[shadzar]

Because the bitch didn't want to cook the food and was gonna make me do it!

[Orion]

Random, as a neutral party with equal distate toward both of you,

PL is right in this case. Both sides need to be making social attacks.

You may not shout at the beggar, but you absolutely adjust walking rate, posture, expression, and so on designed to create a shield that will prevent him from continuing to talk to you. You absolutely roll an attack to persuade him "leave you alone."

[ubernoob]

//

[PhoneLobster]

Really, if there's a penalty for failure then there's no need to have both sides rolling all the time if one side wants to simply ignore the other.

Yes. If you create a whole new source of risk then the risk of "failing while the other guy might succeed" is not required.

But since we want to support that sort of risk and it provides an elegant solution to the risk free "Well I roll bluff a-fucking-gain until it works!" scenario.

Also the risk has to be more than just "becomes less likely to succeed" because then the action is still effectively "free" and that's not acceptable for any resolution of encounters that matter, and you should ONLY be resolving those sorts of encounters so...

[shadzar]

Each person rolls, and each person can add benefits or impose penalties on each other.

I recall the L5R system...Focus, Focus, Focus, Strike.

You would keep going until someone decided adding benefits or penalties which were hidden until someone decided to striek which meant you then learn how the penalties and benefits stacked up to existing conditions.

Social "combat" is the same way.

I could present something that would invalidate your idea, so you got a benefit from yours, but mine imposes a penalty to remove that bonus.

To ignore: the penalty for failure is they keep bothering you. That doesn't mean you can no longer try to ignore them. You only really fail when you give in.

There should be no need for a mechanic for this in a game at all, because it will be a waste of time, as it could go on forever, or until the party wishing to be left alone initiates combat combat.

[ubernoob]

//

[RandomCasualty2]

PL makes fun of my social system ideas, but in truth, it's his ideas that are batshit nuts. I saw in one thread that he actually wanted social combat to be absolute, in that the loser gives the winner anything he wants. Lose a social combat and you turn into a slave in PL's system.

So for all those agreeing with him, keep in mind that he believes that losing a social combat means that you actually light your entire life on fire. Haggling with a merchant to lower the price by 10% is the exact same thing as getting the king to become your slave. Seriously, that's what PL has advocated before. He wants making a social attack to be pretty much the equivalent of casting dominate person, complete with the fact that it provokes hostile responses to people. Yeah, raising a flag of truce and asking for peacetalks is an offensive attack according to Lobster.

Lets look at what he's said on the subject before:

No one seriously complains if you can lightning bolt the level 10 Barbarian king in the face and take his stuff. (assuming you are an appropriate level 10 lightning wizard or something and fighters aren't arbitrarily screwed) In fact they generally want that ability and want it to work like that.

So what's the big dealio about defeating him with your super wizard social powers instead?

Suffice it to say I am hugely impressed with my whole fighting to social defeat thing and I'd really like to hear what concrete criticism or alternatives you might level against it.

So before you agree with him, make sure you know exactly what you're agreeing to. In his system, there is no partial victory, if you beat someone in social combat, you get literally everything they have. You become the social equivalent of "dead" in his system and turn into a mind controlled slave. And no, that's not just one action in his system, that's the entire fucking thing. Haggling with a merchant is a life or death activity which ends in one side or the other selling their fucking soul.

That is PhoneLobster's system.

[ubernoob]

//

[RandomCasualty2]

RC, stop hating on PL. I can read his ideas and measure them for worth without subscribing to his ideals. What kind of moron do you think I am that I can't measure an idea for worth? Frankly, I'm insulted that you have that opinion of me.

I don't think you're stupid, however I do know that PL has a tendency to obfuscate his ideas and just focus on attacking others. It has actually confused a lot of posters in the past, because he rarely if ever discusses his ideas straightforward in a debate, instead he just focuses on attacking others, often by putting words in people's mouths. And it's deceptive for a lot of people who skim the thread, because typically Lobster will misstate his opponent's positions and never state his own position very clearly.

It's pretty much all he did back when he argued with me, which is why honestly I'm happy he put me on ignore. I mean, it's not like he ever really read my posts before anyway. I know that Psychic Robot also experienced Lobster pulling that bullshit on him too.

I just wanted to post what Lobster's actual opinion of social systems are for people who may not know, so they can know what saying "I agree with PhoneLobster" actually means. And really if people want the system he's proposing, that's fine. But I want them to actually know what that system is.

[MGuy]

Major and minor failure should mean different things for different instances in social combat. I don't know if penalties should exist for failing in one part of combat. If you're going with some kind of social HP failure that is not critical failure should just mean you make no progress. As for the whole beggar trying to get money thing I would like to once again posit that different social arenas should have different rules surrounding it. Honestly I don't think a beggar trying to get money should solicit anything beyond a quick no but if it has to mean something than allow it to be a quick encounter (Arena: Street) where you can use Intimidate, brush off, false promise, bribe, use violence, etc to get rid of him. Each social round lasts 6 seconds as per combat. The beggar has social HP as a mook would have in combat.

[Mask_De_H]

PL makes fun of my social system ideas, but in truth, it's his ideas that are batshit nuts. I saw in one thread that he actually wanted social combat to be absolute, in that the loser gives the winner anything he wants. Lose a social combat and you turn into a slave in PL's system.

So for all those agreeing with him, keep in mind that he believes that losing a social combat means that you actually light your entire life on fire. Haggling with a merchant to lower the price by 10% is the exact same thing as getting the king to become your slave. Seriously, that's what PL has advocated before. He wants making a social attack to be pretty much the equivalent of casting dominate person, complete with the fact that it provokes hostile responses to people. Yeah, raising a flag of truce and asking for peacetalks is an offensive attack according to Lobster.

Lets look at what he's said on the subject before:

No one seriously complains if you can lightning bolt the level 10 Barbarian king in the face and take his stuff. (assuming you are an appropriate level 10 lightning wizard or something and fighters aren't arbitrarily screwed) In fact they generally want that ability and want it to work like that.

So what's the big dealio about defeating him with your super wizard social powers instead?

Suffice it to say I am hugely impressed with my whole fighting to social defeat thing and I'd really like to hear what concrete criticism or alternatives you might level against it.

So before you agree with him, make sure you know exactly what you're agreeing to. In his system, there is no partial victory, if you beat someone in social combat, you get literally everything they have. You become the social equivalent of "dead" in his system and turn into a mind controlled slave. And no, that's not just one action in his system, that's the entire fucking thing. Haggling with a merchant is a life or death activity which ends in one side or the other selling their fucking soul.

That is PhoneLobster's system.

Do we rape the children before or after we follow PL's system ideas?

I mean, shit, it's extreme but that doesn't mean it's worth that much histrionics. Just don't make every social encounter "I win, now you have to be my bitch", but "I win, so I've succeeded at my goal." In fact, why not have the social aim stated before social combat starts, and from there, the difficulty/HP/Resolve/whatever is set.

Say, we have a merchant with 20 "Social HP". He has a Resolve number that acts as a soak as well as a defense. You have four options:

Intimidate - which does a great deal of Social damage but has a low "to-hit". Failure to hit may result in boosting Resolve.
Bullshit - which does no Social damage but lowers his Resolve.
Straight Talk - which does average social damage and has average to hit.
Rhetoric - which does little Social damage but has a high to-hit

If you're trying to convince a merchant to take 10% off of goods, his Resolve will be low, so you could really just Straight Talk him or try to make him shook with Intimidate in one turn. You could also use Rhetoric him down if you want to be accurate.

If you're trying to make him your bitch in a PL sort of way, his Resolve will be much higher. Trying to Straight Talk him will be brushed off most likely unless your Awesome McPantydropper. You could try to Intimidate him into submission, but if you fuck up you make things harder. From there, you can either chip away with Rhetoric or Bullshit him down to a more manageable Resolve.

This is just off the top of my head, and I'm not sure what would be a sensible mathematical setup. The d20+mods vs. TN/Soak system a la SAME might work.

[RandomCasualty2]

I mean, shit, it's extreme but that doesn't mean it's worth that much histrionics. Just don't make every social encounter "I win, now you have to be my bitch", but "I win, so I've succeeded at my goal." In fact, why not have the social aim stated before social combat starts, and from there, the difficulty/HP/Resolve/whatever is set.

Yeah, that would be sensible. The problems come with the fact that a lot of things will have to be eyeballed by the DM.

[Orca]

Perhaps something like some scaled system of HP - something like doing their base HP in damage will get you a minor victory (10% off!), twice that a moderate one (Yes, I will take that second-hand armour in payment), three times an major one (Please! Just take it away from me!)

The opponent should be able to bail at any time after the first social attack, unless you really have them backed into a corner somehow.

[Orion]

RC,

PL's system is more logical than it sounds, he's just bad at explaining it. Believe me, I've banged heads with him plenty in the past.

Haggling over prices doesn't end in someone selling their soul because he recommends *not using social combat* in that circumstance. He would presumably be okay with a Shadowrun-style Negotiate check for that, but he's ever said one way or another.

[PhoneLobster]

Lose a social combat and you turn into a slave in PL's system.

Oh my.

He still is going on ranting about that is he?

Lets remember. This is basically Charm Person that RC is talking about here.

And as we know thats the end of the fucking world.

And since that causes RC to shit his pants all over every social combat thread to come into existence THAT is why I'm telling you that you'd better shut out his high pitch girlish shrieks on the subject as soon as possible.

Because if you aren't running social combat off results about as good as charm person you shouldn't be writing anything on the scale of a mini game, simple as that.

And without effects as strong as that you CAN'T do the "seduce the queen and turn her against the king" that RC simultaneously wanks off on as his ultimate RPG goal and yet also regards as a thing that social mechanics can never actually allow.

In fact, why not have the social aim stated before social combat starts, and from there, the difficulty/HP/Resolve/whatever is set.

As for variable goals like the merchant example, I'm sorry but its a lot of work for very little benefit.

Frankly if the merchant doesn't care, if the benefits are minor why are you having a social contest as complex as a combat?.

And if you want implement sliding subjective or even "objective" scales, you realize that it is impossible to do so as a formal minigame right?

If you want to do THAT you have moved into the territory of my "How To Write No Rules" thread. And that is NOT a "social combat" scenario, that is a "Social Rules Lite" scenario.

You can in fact do that, but it's an entirely different creature to a balanced social minigame or integrated regular combat role.

It's basically fairy tea party. Which is, you know, kinda bad.

[Orca]

That's a lot of negatives, PL. What are you in favour of? If I'm reading your earlier comments right it's social attacks doing direct HP damage with a different effect if you 'kill' someone, but I may be misunderstanding you.

[PhoneLobster]

In fact I would like to talk a little bit more about social combat and variable goals.

Lets be clear, I don't like it.

What I want to see is social combats having the fixed goal of altering your opponents motivations in a general manner. Similar to how charm person makes a guy into your friend.

So you have go,
1) free form social role play
2) Impasse between players
3) Abstracted formal social combat
4) social role play with mandatory motivations

The variable goals alternative goes like this. (and does so more often)
1) free form social role play.
2) "minor" impasse between players
3) Goals are set determining difficulty
4) Abstracted formal social combat.
5) Very specific narrow goal is met.
6) More free form social role play that can easily have MORE minor impasse events.

That's problematic because you are having social combats more often, and doing so for less benefit. Which is a complexity trap of sorts.

But there is a far worse problem with that set up, and with your specific merchant example.

Bob the Hypnotist encounters Mary the Merchant.

Bob declares his goal to be "Get 20% discount on items".

Mary declares her goal to be "Status Quo".

Notice how you know, status Quo is well, a lot EASIER than getting "something you want".

Mary wins social combat because bob had no "resolve soak" or whatever, while she had a measurable amount of it.

Worse still imagine Mary The Merchant encounters the Dark Succubus of Seduction.

And the Dark Succubus says... "My Goal is to turn you into my love slave!"

And Mary Says. "My goal is for you to give me a 10% discount off a fair price on purchasing your pants from you."

And Mary walks all over the succubus queen of doom because again, she had a far easier "goal" in combat.

What we have happening here is basically a war to underbid your opponent in the goal setting phase and that is really stupid because you basically undermine the entire systems functionality for the "seduce the queen and turn her against the king" (which is where the cool stuff is) and replace it with a system that promotes instead "Convince the Queen to Accept a Free Complimentary Handkerchief in order to stop her from sleeping with the party Paladin".

But the under bidding war is relatively minor.

There is the other issue.

The "Why stop there?" issue.

So Bod the Hypnotist again encounters Mary the Merchant.

Bod declares his goal "10% discount".

Mary declares her goal "10% mark up".

Battle ensues. Someone wins.

But when they do, why don't they do it again? Why doesn't their opponent do it again?

When I step into a regular combat I do not declare my goal "5 HP of damage to the ogre's left arm" and declare victory when I achieve it.

That makes no sense, he KNOWS I'm attacking him. He watches it happen. He is still awake, alive and relatively healthy when I've done it.

The fight goes on until someone is incapable of fighting any more.

Fighting for a social goal like a sweeping motivational change like "Friend", "Lover", "Terrified Wreck" etc... ends with your opponent unable to fight back.

But fighting for 10% discount on Mary's goods doesn't in anyway leave her unable to initiate a NEW fight for a NEW 10% mark up, or your pants.

You are effectively writing in a motivation for players to fight a lot of, indeed ENDLESS quantities of social combats for piddling trifles.

And if any party on either side tries to fight for a change big enough to end the damn thing the other side will set their goal to "A lot less than that" and prevent it from happening.

Effectively the resulting social feud of petty, but endless, proportions will only end when A) Everyone is bored of it accepts their losses and goes home. B) Everyone is frustrated enough to mutually agree to a fight to the social death. C) Someone says "screw this" and pulls out the swords.

[Orion]

PhoneLobster: why not have one of the possible goals be "stop making social attacks for X duration of time"?

[PhoneLobster]

That's a lot of negatives, PL. What are you in favour of? If I'm reading your earlier comments right it's social attacks doing direct HP damage with a different effect if you 'kill' someone, but I may be misunderstanding you.

As pure policy wonk on some imaginary better home brew system I might go in other directions.

But for a d20 patch, basically yes.

We already have social spells and save or dies. They can be expanded on a bit. Filling that role. So we want a "hit with social sword" alternative that works much like the "hit it with a real sword" action for much the same reasons that that exists.

So we also want some social attacks that do deal "Social Damage" to hit points. And when the last thing to finish you off is one of those you should end up under a social effect similar to established d20 social effects like friendship and fear.

More so I want to see these attacks run off other existing d20 resources and mechanics. So social attacks should probably largely run off BAB and Charisma bonus and target a social AC that runs off 10+Some Stat+Social Armour (from items, I have a +4 Fashionable Feather In My Hat!).

And they should also tie in with existing d20 combat actions. So for instance you can sunder someones clothes off and also make a social attack for Seduction, Embarrassment, or Fear on the primary target, or Distraction or Anger of secondary targets.

Then you let people invest in improving their seduction bonuses and such and they run around in combat performing odd combat maneuvers like "Blouse Sundering", "Pants Disarming", "Refraining From Dealing A Killing Blow", and "Saving an Enemy From a Deadly Effect For No Reason". And whenever they do they bust out a social AoO or something and apply their various seduction bonuses and maybe get some new "special" friends.

And outside of real combat they also apply those bonuses to the occasional "fight" where swords are never drawn in that great vague mass that is "everything other than real combat" in the d20 system.

[MGuy]

I can answer the "why not go on" problem. You have no more social Hp left. You are drained for this time and must rest. Of course the rest is shorter than the rest you'd need for actual combat but it will give the other side enough time o walk away from your shop.

Edit- For the under bidding thing I think the logical thing to "i'm making you my slave" vs 10% bid would be to force anyone attacked in social combat to have to defend themselves, even if its a retreat maneuver because they can't be bothered. This also adds a level of depth because you want to make sure that you don't scare away your target.

[PhoneLobster]

PhoneLobster: why not have one of the possible goals be "stop making social attacks for X duration of time"?

Scenario 1
Bob the Hypnotist sets his goal to "10% Discount"

Mary the Merchant sets her goal to "Bugger off for a long time"

Mary loses because she bid too high.

Scenario 2
Bob the Hypnotist sets his goal to "10% Discount"

Mary the Merchant sets her goal to "Turn around and whistle for five seconds"

Mary wins because she bid low, but then she has to do it again every five seconds for the rest of the working day.

Scenario 3
The Succubus Queen sets her goal high, "Make You My Eternal Love Slave".

Bob the Hypnotist bids lower with "Do not Social Attack Me for about the length of another social combat".

He wins with the lower bid.

He initiates a new combat and sets his goal as "Make You My Eternal Love Slave".

The Succubus swears loudly because no matter what her goal is she has to sit there for a full social combat worth of Bob the Hypnotist hitting on her without retaliation.

[PhoneLobster]

I can answer the "why not go on" problem. You have no more social Hp left.

So that explains why the LOSER doesn't retaliate.

It doesn't explain why the WINNER doesn't press the advantage.

Mary the Merchant bid for status quo and depleted your HP to nothing. She still has, well, ANY, she immediately bids high and wins automatically.

Edit- For the under bidding thing

Which is effectively what you do with the fixed goal of "Charm or Similar Effect". You force both sides to fight for the same stakes at the same advantage/disadvantage.

But doing so for less than an actual social defeat leaves the question of "Why not go on" looming high.


But I seem to have forgotten to speak about the biggest problem with this.

Defining the actual difficulty of variable social goals.
How do you do that?

Give me some examples so I can shoot them down. I've had practice on this one.

Trust me. You can't give a good answer to this question.