wrote:I'm not sure why people are obsessed with producing completely absurd social results like kings signing over their kingdoms
It isn't remotely absurd. If you are bigger in the combat pants than a feudal king his kingdom is yours by right.
But if you are bigger in the social pants than he is your kingdom is ALSO yours by right. If he is so socially weak that he can't lay the social smack down on you and MAKE you behave as his loyal subjects then he is less qualified to be king than those who can.
You keep up with this "its just as easy to take the kingdom" bullshit long after its been explained that no. Bob the peasant defends his "kingdom" with level 1 peasanting social powers, Bill the king defends his kingdom with level 10 Kinging social powers. That's a whopping great difference.
Instead of emulating full contextual bullshit modifiers taken out of the GMs ass you run your social combat system like real combat. That means the difficulties involved are determined primarily by a limited set of abstract offensive and defensive moves. You get situations where Joe the Barbarian is strong against Fear attacks because he has access to Brave defences, not because the GM or the Player pulled some modifier out of their ass.
wrote:I don't see a problem with having a resolution system for asking for seemingly mundane things.
I do. You are suggesting there that it should be IMPOSSIBLE for players to take control away from each other or the GM over anything remotely important.
But that an exceedingly complex and involved contextual social resolution system is needed for... every interaction so minor that no one actually cares about it?
wrote:It's one thing to say "The frost giants are storming your kingdom, you've lost it anyway, name me king and I'll beat back the giants and save your people."
It's quite another to just randomly walk in on a normal sunny day and say ,"Make me king because I asked nicely."
Or in other words if the GM says the King knows there are giants, and says the king knows he can't handle them and says he therefore is willing to give up the kingdom it works. (ie GM whim).
And if the GM says the king does not know that giants are coming, cannot be convinced of that fact or deceived toward that lie, doesn't believe he can't handle them and even if he did he wouldn't give up his kingdom then it doesn't work (ie GM whim).
You are differentiating there on "circumstances" which are utterly subjective. Even in the "unstoppable giants invade the kingdom" scenario there are countless permutations on how the king may react and what he knows or thinks he knows.
And the GM is in charge of all of them to the point that its basically just down to a case of "GM says no" or not.
That is not a system. That's just playing the GM says no game.
wrote:I guess I don't really think of social combat as a means of whittling down hp and gradually bringing your foe down.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
Meanwhile when it comes to physical combat as a means of whittling down hp and gradually bringing your foe down.
Sometimes I see it that way, sometimes I don't.
But I accept that abstraction as part of a valid basis of making a system that does not resolve in a single roll.
wrote:Without having different rules for "Join my team", "Join my team and give me all your money", and "Join my team an give me your artifact sword"
Why the heck do you imagine those are different?
I mean he joins your team, so his money and his artefact sword are at your disposal. Should having more money or an artifact sword mean its harder to make him join your team (assuming the target is still the same level and social archetype).
I mean if you give Bob the level 1 peasant an artefact sword is he now a social superhero who can never be convinced to ally with you ever again?
No, a system where artefact swords gravitate toward say level 7+ Heroic Leaders who are inherently harder to force into alliance and other states of social defeat, and inherently more valuable to leave equipped with their own cool stuff once they are your ally, actually makes more sense than worldly wealth making you more powerful "because dude, no way the level one village idiot would EVER give up 1 Million bucks!"
wrote:As far as removing narrative control from the DM goes, as brought up before, he's just going to pump up the social numbers on his NPCs to whatever he wants.
To some limited degree we as a community accept that from a regular combat perspective the GM can throw around bigger beefier things within a certain acceptable range and thats OK.
What we do NOT accept as OK is the GM saying you just plain cannot defeat or even harm certain beasts based on how he feels about it or "Because they own an artefact sword and no way are you getting that".
Or even saying "And there is a -1 bullshit situational modifier to your attack for every dollar in the beast's savings account, because I suddenly feel it is appropriate".
If you ran regular combat the way some of these guys want to run important social encounters we would all walk out on that bullshit game.