Social Combat

[MGuy]

If the winner presses the loser will most likely immediately retreat turning the pressing into an exercise in futility the whole "damn I should've asked for more" kind of thing when the other side just shakes their head and says no to any further interaction.

For the variable set give me a minute and let me get my targets together before I start hurling them.

[Orion]

Make the duration someone can't attack you dependent on level difference or some other "degree of success" that isn't part of the "bidding."

Have the restriction broken if you attack them.

That resolves the problems in the scenarios posted.

---

As for how to assess variable difficulties, I'd rather argue one thing at a time. But I'm confident that at a bare minimum you'd be able to distinguish, say,

Give me an Item/Do one action you can take while I'm watching you (reduce enemy to 50% HP)

from

Refrain from attacking or interfering with me (reduce to 25%)

from

Follow me and do as I say (reduce to 0%)

[PhoneLobster]

If the winner presses the loser will most likely immediately retreat

So the scenario goes.

Scenario 4
Succubus Queen sets goal to "Be My Eternal Love Slave"

Bob the Hypnotist sets goal to "Give me your pants".

Bob has her pants and initiates a new combat at "No, YOU Be MY Eternal Love Slave" because he will win automatically.

Succubus queen says "Cheese it girls!" and flys into the sunset without any pants.

It seems kinda silly.

[MGuy]

Hmmm... I'll revisit the scenario again but here's my suggestion in the face of the variable thing:

It'd make the system more cumbersome but for variables I'd say have various variables that give you defenses and soak damage in various places. So how hard an encounter was would depend on the target and its bonuses and social abilities along with their initial disposition toward you. The severity of what you're asking for I'd have to say this goes to DM fiat unfortunately. You'd have to go on variables like apparent risk, incentive, convenience, and cost. All of those would have grades. Again It seems cumbersome but doable.

[PhoneLobster]

That resolves the problems in the scenarios posted.

Scenario 5
Mary sets goal to "Non difficulty modifying level appropriate or whatever, bugger off already"

If Bob sets his goal to a discount easier than that fixed difficulty he has an automatic advantage. So he always does that as extremely as possible and wins at it all the time.

If Bob sets his goal to a discount harder than that he has an automatic disadvantage. So he never even tries that and all such actions may as well not exist in the game.

If the "special" bugger off type goal Mary sets automatically scales to match bobs goal then why doesn't she instead bid for something that matches bob's goal AND does something actually beneficial for her or detrimental to bob?

But I'm confident that at a bare minimum you'd be able to distinguish, say,

Give me an Item/Do one action you can take while I'm watching you (reduce enemy to 50% HP)

Give me your spare pants. No wait. Give me your magical artifact crown that symbolizes your rule over the kingdom.

Pass me that drink. No wait, stab yourself in the eye instead.

from

Refrain from attacking or interfering with me (reduce to 25%)

While I write this sternly worded letter. No wait. While I kill your wife.

from

Follow me and do as I say (reduce to 0%)

Because I need someone to carry my bags on my tropical island holiday. No wait, because I need starving mud splattered half frozen cannon fodder on the shell shocked eastern front.

Also any of those things, but I just killed your mom or alternately happen to be your bestest friend in the world.

[MGuy]

So the scenario goes.

Ok got it. He can't set a goal like that. He has to set his goal to not become a slave or run. The succubus should have to approach him in a different way initially, luring him into a false sense of security before gripping him in slavedom. She would set goal to seduce, and continue seducing him until his disposition towards her is so high he becomes her sex slave.

[PhoneLobster]

The severity of what you're asking for I'd have to say this goes to DM fiat unfortunately.

That is not the answer reached by the physical combat system in the face of similar variables.

And it is not an answer that can fit into a "system" worthy of the name "system". Like I said, that's in the "semi formal" or "rules lite" territory of my "How to Write No Rules" thread.

And at that point the arbitrary nature of the GM fiat variable basically makes it more desirable to move away from the complexity of a mini game and into the territory of pure mother may I with very short very simple mechanics (if any) that are transparent enough so that the GM fiat is utterly obvious to all players (including and especially the GM).

Arbitrarily saying "+/- 5000 Circumstantial Social Hit Points!!" is a lot less clear (to the GM even) than "You have a 10% chance to succeed at this action". And as such should not be done.

[MGuy]

I haven't fully ironed this thing out mind you but I'm not talking about arbitrarily assigning numbers just giving a severity rating like when setting a DC for a balance check the DM has to judge what would slippery or very slippery is when adding mods to the DC. Similarly as Diplomacy is now disposition gives you a vague idea of how an NPC feels about you and depends on a DM to give a rough estimate of just how much someone hates you.

[PhoneLobster]

So the scenario goes.

He has to set his goal to not become a slave or run. The succubus should have to approach him in a different way initially, luring him into a false sense of security before gripping him in slavedom.

So to be clear then. That's basically a long winded way of saying that once social combat kicks in the options are...
1) Socially defeat opponent
2) Run
3) Punch them in the face instead

Which is what you get by setting the compulsory goal as a social defeat for all parties and letting them opt out by physically fleeing or fighting instead.

Or in other words my preferred methodology.

[MGuy]

Umm yes. I did say that I would like it to be as deep as combat where your options are:

1- Fight
2- Run
3- Try and talk it out

So if social combat emulate combat then everything is golden.

[PhoneLobster]

I haven't fully ironed this thing out mind you but I'm not talking about arbitrarily assigning numbers just giving a severity rating like when setting a DC for a balance check the DM has to judge what would slippery or very slippery is when adding mods to the DC.

Well that kind of IS arbitrarily assigning numbers.

But I think you mean you want the arbitrary numbers to be constrained within a relatively small range that has already been predetermined to have an acceptably small impact on actual outcomes.

However that's not going to make the "But we need subjective judgment for every scenario!" crowd at all happy. Because they want a difficulty range going from "impossible" to "automatically successful" based purely on fluff context.

Making the circumstantial modifier effectively unimportant is the only way you have an actual formal system, but doing so pretty much definitionally pisses of RC and co.

And meanwhile it doesn't really worry me or even relate to my points because "not enough to matter" is, well not enough to matter.

Umm yes.

Ok then, but I thought you were actively arguing for option 1 to have sub clauses where you fight only until you get a 10% discount as a "lesser" form of the fight goal.

[Orion]

Scenario 5
Mary sets goal to "Non difficulty modifying level appropriate or whatever, bugger off already"

If Bob sets his goal to a discount easier than that fixed difficulty he has an automatic advantage. So he always does that as extremely as possible and wins at it all the time.

No, if he reinitiates social combat he's already taken social wounds. She, on the other hand, gets a new pool of social HP for giving in to his demands.

If Bob sets his goal to a discount harder than that he has an automatic disadvantage. So he never even tries that and all such actions may as well not exist in the game.

Yes. If what you want from someone is more difficult for you to achieve than them getting you to bugger off, you will not achieve it. Similarly, "trip" should be removed from the game because your odds of tripping an elephant are slim.

Without Sarcasm: If you're higher level than your target, you can take a difficulty penalty and still win.

If the "special" bugger off type goal Mary sets automatically scales to match bobs goal then why doesn't she instead bid for something that matches bob's goal AND does something actually beneficial for her or detrimental to bob?

Because If she convinces Bob to "give me your pants" that doesn't prevent him from simultaneously convincing her to "murder your boss." If she wants his pants, she'd better be able to convince him to give her his pants AND THEN convince him to leave her alone before he finishes convincing her to murder her boss.

Give me your spare pants. No wait. Give me your magical artifact crown that symbolizes your rule over the kingdom.

Pass me that drink. No wait, stab yourself in the eye instead.

While I write this sternly worded letter. No wait. While I kill your wife.

Because I need someone to carry my bags on my tropical island holiday. No wait, because I need starving mud splattered half frozen cannon fodder on the shell shocked eastern front.

Also any of those things, but I just killed your mom or alternately happen to be your bestest friend in the world.

This is just blatant dishonesty. You specifically said subjective concerns like preexisting reasons to hate someone or the value one puts on a possession can't and shouldn't be considered.

D&D has a number of different enchantment effects: charm is not dominate is not suggestion. I don't hear you complaining about that. That said, If you'd like MORE granularity to social effects, suck on these relatively objective conditions:

--Immune or strongly resistant to orders to harm yourself or let yourself be harmed
--strongly resistant to social attacks from anyone you have seen deal lethal damage to an ally
--break free from social conditions caused by someone you see attacking an ally

This covers the "stab yourself in the face," "help me even though I killed your mom," and "wait here while I kill your wife" orders.

Meanwhile, "pass me that drink," and "carry my bags," should, by your own admission, not even BE social combats.

[MGuy]

However that's not going to make the "But we need subjective judgment for every scenario!" crowd at all happy.

Well Right now I don't see a consistent way of doing it any other way. The small range should do the job as needed increasing the difficulty "high enough" so that outrageous attempts won't be done at low level but will carry the distinct probability of being "retreated" from (run/shrug off/laugh in his face always being an option). However I fear even that will be steeped arbitrary DM fiat. I'm not gonna make an excuse for it but if I get an idea of a way around it then I'll be sure to post it (though hopefully someone else finds a better solution).

Ok then, but I thought you were actively arguing for option 1 to have sub clauses where you fight only until you get a 10% discount as a "lesser" form of the fight goal.

I believe that I still am. Arguing for 10% is still a lesser goal as fighting a bunch of mooks is a lesser combat goal or as seeking to only do a little damage goal. If these merchants are real people then the price they set is probably well over actual value so a 10% off of asking price is probably a laughably minor inconvenience so it would be easy to argue for it if you choose to fight a lesser battle like that.

[IGTN]

Getting 10% off should be ad-hoc if you're going full social combat, or just reduced to a single check (negotiation skill roll). A 10% discount would be the merchant choosing (rather than being forced) to yield early to avoid further threat.

Maybe have a tacked-on system where, if you want to haggle over prices, you get one attack, and a discount dependent on how hard you hit in that one attack. If you want to press further, the merchant hits back. Possibly even do an initiative roll for such negotiations, so the merchant might have a chance to hit you before you even try, and just run for one combat round.

Changing the subject, I don't really see a whole lot of need for specialized maneuvers on nonspecialist characters. Instead, you have an analogy or two for every normal combat maneuver, available to everyone. Disarm might have taking an item, which analogizes to physically pulling the sword out of someone's hand and running off with it, except that it's easier if their psychological grip is weaker instead of physical grip, so, while it's easier to get a few coins or gems (from a rich adventurer) that way, it's harder to get their sword or even their whole wallet, as one analogy. It might also have another analogy where you stop someone from attacking effectively (maybe call it "shaming" or something).

You also have your default move, analogous to autoattacking, and analogies for the rest of your combat maneuvers, and then you just need to bring social abilities into line with physical abilities (that is, taking HP in the same quantities), and then figure out the consequences of being dropped (bearing in mind that beating someone in social combat is as hard as killing them, so you should gain as much). I personally like the idea of a suggestion or geas more than charm, though, for consequences.

[PhoneLobster]

She, on the other hand, gets a new pool of social HP for giving in to his demands.

So now if you heal after LOSING combat and the winner doesn't to discourage them from pressing home further combats, you get...

Scenario 6
Succubus queen goes for "Eternal Love Slave Forever"

Bob they hypnotist says "And I'll have your pants"

Succubus queen loses she heals, Bob doesn't[/b].

She declares a new combat for "Eternal Love Slave Forever, this time for sure"

Bob says "I like your shoes"

She loses, and bob has her shoes and pants, but he has two combats worth of damage and she has as many hit points (or whatever) as she entered the second combat with. Indeed, she can keep doing this forever.

Bob now MUST either meet her at a high stakes bid or she will wear him down eventually.

And while forcing a closer match is a good thing it would be better and more transparent to do this using a simple "Highest Stakes wins the bidding match" rule.

Instead you propose a system which doesn't really do your variable goals well at all, and actively punishes people who mistakenly think it does.

Yes. If what you want from someone is more difficult for you to achieve than them getting you to bugger off, you will not achieve it.

You realize that means you have a fundamentally non-functional social system there.

If the hardest thing in the world I can do is no better than "bugger off I don't want any" then well... that's just not cool.

Similarly, "trip" should be removed from the game because your odds of tripping an elephant are slim. Without Sarcasm: If you're higher level than your target, you can take a difficulty penalty and still win.

And if every level appropriate challenge was an elephant then yes, you should remove trip. Remember the default defense state you proposed was indeed a default defense state was it not? At the very least a standard one.

Because If she convinces Bob to "give me your pants" that doesn't prevent him from simultaneously convincing her to "murder your boss."

Yes it does, he is removed from social combat when he loses his SMALLER resource pool.

Thats somewhat assumed surely?

Because if you aren't doing that then we go to REALLY weird ass scenario crazy town.

I mean hell. You may as well just declare whatever goal you feel like if you can't actively be stopped from eventually reaching it.

And remember you STILL haven't defined how the hell we determine these difficulties. So if you can make ANY argument at all as to why making me give up my cherished goals is in any way an easier goal than my cherished goal itself...

Batshit Crazy Town Scenario 1 thru 4
Succubus Queen sets goal to "Eternal Love Slave"

Mary the Merchant sets goal to "Pants".

Mary wins. Succubus apparently heals and then keeps fighting without her pants.

Mary goes "WTF? I took all her HP, and her Pants? Why isn't it over?" and sets her goal to "All the rest of your clothes bitch!"

Mary wins, succubus heals, keeps god damn fighting.

Mary is now initiating her third combat encounter the succubus is still in her first only with free healing and less pants.

Where is this scenario good?

What if Bob had walked in AT THE SAME TIME and declared "Eternal Love Slave" as his goal.

Aside from the question "Wait, how the hell can the succubus have two different HP totals at once and if she can how is that a good thing?" we also have the issue where Mary is damn well healing bobs opponent.

Now assume Bob walks in without Mary pulling him down with the Pants tactics. He selects target goal of "Hey Quit It!" which is, hell probably the same difficulty as the eternal love slave, but MAYBE less.

He wins, then he goes for the pants in round two only to damn well lose, because SHE healed and he didn't, and he probably just fought a hell of a hard battle.

So seriously he won the giant fight for his soul, and he can't even HOPE to win the fight for her pants... WTF?

If she wants his pants, she'd better be able to convince him to give her his pants AND THEN convince him to leave her alone before he finishes convincing her to murder her boss.

Then why not get the pants after the don't murder routine?

Oh thats right, because this healing mechanic thing screws you on that.

Which is weird.

This is just blatant dishonesty. You specifically said subjective concerns like preexisting reasons to hate someone or the value one puts on a possession can't and shouldn't be considered.

But I assumed you disagree because you want to measure your varying goals by SOME metric.

Certainly the metric you suggested has exactly the variability I described in it (which is an issue).

But lets say instead you want to make it an objective metric.

So you know... that crown and the spare pants. They have presumably "objective" values. As do those different actions. And probably you know, different objective values. I mean hey, pants vs uber-magic crown, whats not objectively different about that?

But they are on the same entries on your scale of difficulties.

Personally I think your plan to scale difficulty in such a manner is a pile of ass whether you use the word "subjective" or "objective" to describe the values you are ascribing.

Remember you were the one who said "I want to categorize things by difficulty based on values I ascribe to them in some manner". Then you described your scheme, and like I said, it didn't work out well did it?

objective conditions:

--Immune or strongly resistant to orders to harm yourself or let yourself be harmed
--strongly resistant to social attacks from anyone you have seen deal lethal damage to an ally
--break free from social conditions caused by someone you see attacking an ally

Wait. "Objective" "conditions" now. I'm sorry, what happened to variable combat "goals"? Just forgotten by the wayside I guess.

Secondly hurray, some "conditions" which are not automatically self contradictory.

So we move to phase two of the master plan to categorize every single specific social modifier in the universe.

Making a complete list.

Come back when you have done that with every imaginable social modifier like the ones you listed.

Your list better be comprehensive and yet representable within a sane RNG in a way that we both care about and doesn't lead to infinite accounting and a table of modifiers the size of an encyclopedia.

This covers the "stab yourself in the face," "help me even though I killed your mom," and "wait here while I kill your wife" orders.

No it doesn't.

What if your face isn't important? You have a spare, it isn't really yours, you can grow a new one?

What if you hated your mom? But she liked you. Or the other way around. Or you loved her, but she turned into a vampire? What is she was about to turn into a vampire maybe? I mean, that could actually come up as an issue in play you know.

If you are honestly claiming these are *chuckle* "Objective" difficulties and modifiers you are setting are you seriously telling me "Wait here while I kill your wife" has to be announced as that?

I mean if you are distancing yourself from the subjective then when you say to Bob the Hypnotist, "Just wait here while go into the other room and have a private talk with Mary your wife" but you do so with the intention of killing her... Then you have to use the "wait here while I kill your wife" difficulty!

I mean then you may as well say to bob, "Screw it, wait here while I kill Mary Okay?". The system actually ENCOURAGES you to just flat out not be deceptive.

Worse, now everyone has to decide this stuff in advance! If you convince bob to let you spend "private time" with Mary (he thinks she is sleeping around with the succubus queen) then you decide during that private time that you want to kill her... you have to go back out and ask Bob if you can do that!

But then if you surrender and go the subjective path and let people use the "wait here while I have a private chat" difficulty... you can totally go and kill bobs wife while he waits there even though you only used a really low difficulty. But if someone else wants to try the flat out convince him to let you kill her path (she may really be the Succubus queen) then... well then you are screwed!

And that is kinda crap too.

Meanwhile, "pass me that drink," and "carry my bags," should, by your own admission, not even BE social combats.

1) They appeared on your list. Didn't they? A list you are proposing instead of my position on just not handling that shit with social combat? You understand the concept of "counter proposal" right?

2) Carry my bags around the Bahamas is actually kind of a big thing you know.

3) Still you know, if you want to have the argument parameters pointlessly redefined to "Pass me that kick ass magic potion" vs "Stab yourself in the eye". And "Carry My heavy bags up those richity stairs" vs "Going over the trenches to charge the machine gunner nest". Well...

[ubernoob]

//

[PhoneLobster]

The small range should do the job as needed increasing the difficulty "high enough" so that outrageous attempts won't be done at low level

Whut?

This is d20 this time round right? The only thing that is outrageous at low level is taking on much higher level opponents. And thats not a circumstantial modifier now is it?

Ragged street rats convincing level appropriate opponents to surrender and assist them is pretty important.

I'm very much not on board a system where level 1 street rats social fighting level one giant rats aren't allowed to attempt anything better than a 10% discount on giant rat merchandise.

I expect them to be doing things riding giant rats into their next battle.

And really when they are level 13 demigods I sorta expect them to still be doing basically the same thing only with dragons.

So this whole "certain social options don't open up until high level" really doesn't sound especially nice to me.

(run/shrug off/laugh in his face always being an option). However I fear even that will be steeped arbitrary DM fiat.

There is a point where you have to make SOME decisions.

The decision on whether to run, sword, or social is a tactical one that you pretty much HAVE TO (and should) leave in the GMs hands. Much as the choice on whether the character involved will sword or run when faced with an opponent set on swording in the current rules.

That's sort of OK. What you need to do is make the social, flee, and attack all be viable and interesting options in at least some likely in game circumstances.

When it comes down to choices its about making those choices interesting and viable. Choices aren't in and of themselves bad. Its choices between "Infinity", "Screw You", and "Wait, what the hell would that even MEAN?" that are bad.

I believe that I still am. Arguing for 10% is still a lesser goal as fighting a bunch of mooks is a lesser combat goal

A lower level opponent is only the same as a higher level opponent with a "lesser combat goal" to defeat if, and only if, the higher level opponent has any reason at all to submit to that lesser combat goal.

If Achilles MUST cop the big one when you kick his ankle then that does in fact make him a lower level challenge. But if the only thing that makes that a victory is Achilles for some inexplicable reason agreeing to stop the fight at that point...

Well I think the problem is pretty clear.

a laughably minor inconvenience so it would be easy to argue for it if you choose to fight a lesser battle like that.

But how do you define the amount of inconvenience?

Who does that? On what scale? By what terms?

Do we have a guide? A table? What?

But still more importantly. When you achieve the minor inconvenience (or not), why doesn't the social combat continue with retaliations from the loser or pressing for more from the winner?

[PhoneLobster]

PL: The problem here is that there's an actual "damage" amount. There doesn't need to be "damage" if one side can push the other off the RNG because once you're off the RNG you've lost the encounter.

Er... combat resources are combat resources ubernoob. If I take hit point damage or RNG penalties, and if those are modified by "variable goals" as described above it all holds perfectly true.

Penalties for failing checks is the way to go to prevent spamming.

I haven't addressed this much because I thought it was a passing fad.

But really. No.

If the ONLY penalty to trying to get a discount at the merchant is that it will be harder to make that check again next turn...

Then I keep trying it until I succeed or I cannot try anymore.

Yeah it puts an upper limit on "spamming" but unless those limits are way bigger than the minimal ones you proposed (ten tries then 1 penalty per try after that wasn't it?) its still like twenty damn rolls later!

And regardless even if it's one try and go home, unless you face an active opponent, that is a free try.

Zero risk, zero cost, zero opposition, is not and never will be a "mini game" especially not a "combat" type mini game.

[Draco_Argentum]

I don't like PL's system but at least it meets his design goals. RC only ever proposes 'everything other than MTP is shit'. Thats not a useful input in a thread about making something other than MTP.

Social death does at least allow the fighter's to have social attacks that stack up against charm person.

[ubernoob]

//

[virgil]

Firstly, I've wondered about the idea where social combat isn't on par with dominate person unless you seriously outclass the opposition (level 8 vs commoner), on the grounds that otherwise negotiations would be treated as hostile attacks. It'd be a form of 'safe' combat, because the stakes aren't as high.

Secondly, what if you have an actual cap on your social goal, and that losing an encounter lowers your cap on further social encounters with that individual? This is assuming you can consistently rank the goals, though I'm fairly certain that "be my eternal sex slave" ranks higher than "give me a 10% discount".

EDIT: Just noticed Ubernoob's comment, which is similar to what I've said (for the second half), just more 'crunchy'. I definitely agree in spirit.

[Orion]

Scenario 6
Succubus queen goes for "Eternal Love Slave Forever"

Bob they hypnotist says "And I'll have your pants"

Succubus queen loses she heals, Bob doesn't[/b].

She declares a new combat for "Eternal Love Slave Forever, this time for sure"

Bob says "I like your shoes"

She loses, and bob has her shoes and pants, but he has two combats worth of damage and she has as many hit points (or whatever) as she entered the second combat with. Indeed, she can keep doing this forever.

This is Functioning As Intended. If, when confronted with a succubus, you choose not to run away, insult her, or stab her in the face, the chance of your being seduced does indeed go up the longer you spend around her. That's kind of the DEAL with succubi.

Yes. If what you want from someone is more difficult for you to achieve than them getting you to bugger off, you will not achieve it.

You realize that means you have a fundamentally non-functional social system there.
If the hardest thing in the world I can do is no better than "bugger off I don't want any" then well... that's just not cool.

Yes: you will not reliably be able to get substantial benefits by attacking equal- or higher-level enemies in social combat, just as you do not reliably benefit from attacking equal- or greater-level enemies in physical combat. Options more difficult than "bugger off," such as "become my follower," exist so you can kick around mooks.

Because If she convinces Bob to "give me your pants" that doesn't prevent him from simultaneously convincing her to "murder your boss."

Yes it does, he is removed from social combat when he loses his SMALLER resource pool.
Thats somewhat assumed surely?
Because if you aren't doing that then we go to REALLY weird ass scenario crazy town.

No; when he runs out of social HP he gives her his pants. He can keep making social attacks until he's convinced to do something which would prevent him from making further social attacks, such as "fuck off," "go patrol the walls," or "stab yourself in the eye."

The next bunch of your post is just a recapitulation of the first half. (Save for the issue of how multiple unallied social aggressors works, which is admittedly a little weird. All systems have that problem though)

But lets say instead you want to make it an objective metric.

So you know... that crown and the spare pants. They have presumably "objective" values. As do those different actions. And probably you know, different objective values. I mean hey, pants vs uber-magic crown, whats not objectively different about that?

But they are on the same entries on your scale of difficulties.

Remember you were the one who said "I want to categorize things by difficulty based on values I ascribe to them in some manner". Then you described your scheme, and like I said, it didn't work out well did it?

This is true, a proposal I made in the past was going to sort things into minor and major items, minor and major favors, and so on. That would be really hard to do, and introduce a lot of DM fiat, which you don't like, so I explicitly took that out this time.

Yes, making all items equivalent is a RIDICULOUS abstraction. But not as ridiculous as making all items equivalent to all actions and motivation changes.

Wait. "Objective" "conditions" now. I'm sorry, what happened to variable combat "goals"? Just forgotten by the wayside I guess.

Secondly hurray, some "conditions" which are not automatically self contradictory.

I have no idea what any of this means.

So we move to phase two of the master plan to categorize every single specific social modifier in the universe.

Making a complete list.

Come back when you have done that with every imaginable social modifier like the ones you listed.

Nope, not planning on doing that. You yourself insisted a giant table of modifiers was a bad idea, and you were right. Then you turned around and complained that my new system allowed obvious absurdities. Make up your mind!

Look, those three conditions (no suicide, no helping enemies, no staying friends with people who kill your friends) cover most of the big problems. You might need a few more, but certain fewer than ten total. And guess what? D&D ALREADY HAS these rules. You totally are harder to charm/diplomacy/fascinate once blood is shed. You totally don't have to take suicidal orders even when Enchanted. You totally get another save to resist murdering your friends. All there in the PHB, bitches!

What if your face isn't important? You have a spare, it isn't really yours, you can grow a new one?

What if you hated your mom? But she liked you. Or the other way around. Or you loved her, but she turned into a vampire? What is she was about to turn into a vampire maybe? I mean, that could actually come up as an issue in play you know.

Fuck you with a cherry on top!

If your face isn't important, stabbing yourself in the face isn't self-destructive, so you don't resist it.

If you hate your mom, you don't get a bonus to resist killing her. Unless you do because she's on your team even though you dislike her. Whatever. D&D already distinguishes "enemy" from "ally," so suck on it.

Meanwhile, "pass me that drink," and "carry my bags," should, by your own admission, not even BE social combats.

1) They appeared on your list. Didn't they? A list you are proposing instead of my position on just not handling that shit with social combat? You understand the concept of "counter proposal" right?

You're right that the social combat rules shouldn't be used for stupid shit. They shouldn't come out at all unless someone's life is at stake (not necessarily a participant's) or someone needs substantial aid (a valuable item, help fighting something, etc.)

But there should be at least two tiers of success. Sometimes, you should be able to talk a mage into healing you but unable to talk him into fighting alongside you. Or talk a judge into letting a prisoner free but not into rebelling against the crown.

[PhoneLobster]

This is Functioning As Intended.

Then frankly your intentions are both opaque to players and basically stupid.

You want the succubus to be more likely to win social combat just make her more likely to win it.

Do not make her more likely to ONE DAY win a social combat through the "mechanism" of losing all the time until she finally wins just once. That isn't good game design in the eyes of anyone not crazy.

Yes: you will not reliably be able to get substantial benefits by attacking equal- or higher-level enemies in social combat, just as you do not reliably benefit from attacking equal- or greater-level enemies in physical combat. Options more difficult than "bugger off," such as "become my follower," exist so you can kick around mooks.

Then you lose the thread, because this is supposed to attach to d20 here.

If you do that we ignore your social system and call in the 1st level wizard with charm person memorized every time we want to humiliate your silly little social mini game.

No; when he runs out of social HP he gives her his pants. He can keep making social attacks until he's convinced to do something which would prevent him from making further social attacks, such as "fuck off," "go patrol the walls," or "stab yourself in the eye."

That's just stupid. And I explained why.

You are supposedly the one arguing for "varied" and "lesser" goals but now I have to actually KILL my social opponents and if I even ATTEMPT a lesser goal I do nothing but aid my opponent in killing me?

You didn't get that from my explanations?

BAD SYSTEM!

Save for the issue of how multiple unallied social aggressors works, which is admittedly a little weird. All systems have that problem though)

Mine doesn't.

And that wasn't "unallied" that was allied but with different "variable goals".

So yeah. "weird" hey. Who could have anticipated or prevented such unfortunate "weirdness". Oh yeah. Me and my suggestions did didn't they.

Yes, making all items equivalent is a RIDICULOUS abstraction. But not as ridiculous as making all items equivalent to all actions and motivation changes.

Now you are just being silly.

I have no idea what any of this means.

It means you have given up on having a short list of functional generic goals and resorted to a pile of highly specific arbitrary modifiers. A pile might I add of modifiers equal to the number of differences in scenarios I presented you with.

As in... your accounting for "stuff" really sucks if thats the case.

Nope, not planning on doing that.

So in otherwords not going to write up a system that "works" they way you describe are you?

No surprise there, none of my other critics who come up with basically that same genius plan have ever done so.

You yourself insisted a giant table of modifiers was a bad idea, and you were right. Then you turned around and complained that my new system allowed obvious absurdities. Make up your mind!

And yet you had to come up with a new modifier (unquantified no less!) for every variation in scenario I proposed.

Then when I said "what about the rest?" you said "the plan is there will be no rest!"

And to that I say. Fuck you your system is made of utterly comprehensive suck.

Look, those three conditions (no suicide, no helping enemies, no staying friends with people who kill your friends) cover most of the big problems. You might need a few more, but certain fewer than ten total. And guess what? D&D ALREADY HAS these rules.

They don't work like you think they do.

1) They are all subjective from the victims perspective. You hate subjective, you got really antsy when I suggested you were using subjective perspective.

2) They are typically conditional events that break an unpleasant ongoing state you are in. NOT difficulty modifiers to create the state.

I use similar things myself.

But they aren't actually part of the "social combat" that applies that state in the first place, no more than the thing where you can't attack your charm victim or the charm will break is part of the DC, duration and spell save mechanics.

Fuck you with a cherry on top!

Couldn't handle the vampire one hey.

Well no one can so... oh wait, my system does!

Also everything else you said on this were new conditional variations on whether modifiers apply.

Ie... your list is ever growing despite your protestations.

But there should be at least two tiers of success. Sometimes, you should be able to talk a mage into healing you but unable to talk him into fighting alongside you. Or talk a judge into letting a prisoner free but not into rebelling against the crown.

And... how was the healing you one of those life at stake moments?

And er... isn't releasing a prisoner of the state, you know, rebelling against the state?

Also. Does this mean we now need tiered difficulties for how treasonous a goal is too now.

Your list grows ever longer buddy!

[PhoneLobster]

Would you mind reading what I write?...

Fail by a large margin: Some sort of backlash.

Again, and more so since you dwelled on the incremental difficulty bullshit, I assumed it was a passing fad.

Have you yet proposed the nature of these "backlashes".

Because right now I got this rather vague statement that there will be some risk/cost, you promise!

Also if we keep to the old tiny incremental penalties on the "small margin" failures and combine it with the fail by 5/fail by 15 and assume fairly basic d20 style roll vs DC mechanics and numbers...

Then some guys never ever fail by enough to risk even the incremental penalty. And socially attack for free forever.

Many (many many) other guys start out not being able to fail by enough to trigger the actual "backlash" and can fail X free times (and unknown number of not so bad failures) before they risk any cost.

Anyway. Margins of success/failure is not a typical d20 mechanic and really isn't appropriate to consider for the claimed goal.

For variable successes/failure D20 likes critical successes (and even to limited degree critical failures) and you know it!

I wouldn't normally advocate such things, but you know you want to merge all nice like with d20, don't you?

[老子]

It seems obvious to me that /combat/ is not the right model for a social interaction. It could be the right model for a structured debate, but not social interactions in general. If we truly want to turn social interactions into a mini-game I think a better model of the activity would be a good first step.