Social Combat: An idea

[Draco_Argentum]

1200651397[/unixtime]]OK, so in other words you are suggesting that if a character had a genuine outright killer social attack like "Suicidal Hypnotism of Doom"

They would then therefore use it on every target ever including passing peasants, allies, and other PCs.

There you go deliberately misreading again.

"No, its like saying every time combat starts it is fatal."

ie every time you use social combat you go all the way. No you don't use it on everything that you see, thats your strawman.

But just like every time you get into a combat there are corpses every time you get into social combat the loser loses everything.

People go into D&D combat assuming that their opponent will use lethal force. They therefore attempt to use lethal force first. Modeling talking to people after this pistols at high noon style combat system isn't what RC et al want.

[PhoneLobster]

Modeling talking to people after this pistols at high noon style combat system isn't what RC et al want.

For about the millionth time you do NOT engage in social combat every time you open your mouth.

Exactly the same as every time you walk into a room carrying a sword and there is some guy there you do NOT automatically engage in combat.

How hard is that to wrap your brain around?

I'm entirely serious about the involuntary instant death hypnotism angle.

This is no straw man.

You are saying because one of the potential outcomes of social combat is death then ALL outcomes of social combat are death.

That is just transparently stupid.

Charm Person in d20 can lead you to your death in any variety of ways. Is IT always fatal as well?

[Draco_Argentum]

1200652822[/unixtime]]
For about the millionth time you do NOT engage in social combat every time you open your mouth.

But every time you want to convince someone of something you do. It is your proposal for a social system, hence whenever a social system is needed social combat will start. Its taking over from bluff, diplomacy and intimidate.

Charm person is part of why people try to kill each other ASAP as soon as a fight starts. Even the non lethal effects that D&D people get are huge. Why wait to see if the enemy will charm you and get you to leave or charm you to be his bitch for a week? If you win init you use your best moves right now because the other guy will do that same the second he gets to act.

Sure, sometimes people survive D&D combat with their mind intact, its just rare. Either you die, die and something nasty happens to your soul, live and are some dude's mind slave (fortunately diplomacy doesn't work on PCs). If you're lucky you get taken captive and can escape.

Your social system sounds the same, once social combat starts fuck the other guy up hard and fast because he can and most probably will do the same to you.

In the end people are looking at "lets make talking like combat" and are thinking "but combat in D&D isn't a good model for anything, including combat". So how about you post some fleshed out mechanics instead of bitching that people think your concept sounds like it won't be good.

[PhoneLobster]

But every time you want to convince someone of something you do.

No, I was really rather explicit about this point.

You can try to convince someone WITHOUT social combat.

You can try and tell a lie, pay a bribe, make a friend, whatever the heck you like.

You do it with bullshit unmediated RP just like RC likes.

And the GM or Player in control of the the character you are interacting with reacts however they feel is appropriate again using bullshit unmediated RP.

You initiate social combat not when you want to convince a character, but when you CAN'T convince a PLAYER.

Its a mediation tool. Player A's character wants to be in a position to influence the actions of a character controlled by Player B and after their initial in character negotiations it's clear that its not happening.

So he starts throwing social attacks, and when the dust settles they return to in character negotiations only now the loser is severely obligated to agree with basically everything.

When disputes such as this come up there has to be SOME resolution.

When one character says to another "You can trust me, you go down first, I'll hold the rope." Then his player wants the target to believe and odds are good the target's player wants to not believe.

Do that in pure bullshit RP or in a situation where one player wears a GM hat and gets to spontaneously set all the numbers and define what is and isn't outright impossible to boot is a situation that leads to impasse or to the GM having no choice but to determine everything based on their own bullshit whims EVERY TIME.

If you offer social combat as a way out of this impasse then the result is by definition taking control of the target character. You take control of the original players choice to not believe the potentially deadly lie.

Every single social dispute that arises in game is in fact just a dispute between players or players and the GM over how they want a character other than their own to act. The goal no matter how small or large is always to usurp another player and for at least some period of game play take control of their character.

And as I have explained before. You just can't break that goal up into little bits with variable DCs based on infinitely complex contextual variations.

Even coming close means that even if you don't have a combat system you have a system on par in complexity and play time costs. And once it has those costs it had better be able to deliver SIGNIFICANT control over game events.

So how about you post some fleshed out mechanics instead of bitching that people think your concept sounds like it won't be good.

Yeah, because specific mechanics are going to solve your inability to answer this question.

Charm Person in d20 can lead you to your death in any variety of ways. Is IT always fatal as well?

You called it a strawman. That offends me, if it is a strawman then dealing with it clearly and concisely should be easy.

If my proposal of influence over another character that can be fatal will lead to all such interactions being fatal.

Then why are common place existing potentially fatal influences over other characters not already always fatal as well?

I mean I pretty much modelled the goal of my social combat system on charm person, so I'm waiting with baited breath for an explanation of how it is completely different.

[Draco_Argentum]

Its not, its that charm is part of the shit that is D&D combat rules. You know the ones where you lobs SoDs right of the bat and stuff gets fragged fast? The ones that people spend a lot of time complaining about being shit on this very board?

You say make social stuff like the combat stuff. What you're getting back is, 'combat is shit'. You know TDG uses save or die as a shorthand for save or you're out of the fight. Charm person is always a mission kill. Its one die roll and if you lose you're rooted.

So, yeah, strawman. Charm person is always fatal.

[Daiba]

1200657036[/unixtime]]You initiate social combat not when you want to convince a character, but when you CAN'T convince a PLAYER.

Its a mediation tool. Player A's character wants to be in a position to influence the actions of a character controlled by Player B and after their initial in character negotiations it's clear that its not happening.

So he starts throwing social attacks, and when the dust settles they return to in character negotiations only now the loser is severely obligated to agree with basically everything.

...

Every single social dispute that arises in game is in fact just a dispute between players or players and the GM over how they want a character other than their own to act. The goal no matter how small or large is always to usurp another player and for at least some period of game play take control of their character.

I think I see what you're getting at, PL, but your original presentation wasn't very clear.

What you want is a way to adjudicate narrative control over the story, not a social system that operates (like combat mechanics, or the hardness values of various materials) as a "physical law" of the game world. And within that control is the obligation to maintain narrative coherence, thus your insistence that people won't select the end cases all the time.

My perception was that it was intended as a "physical law", and thus the inescapable conclusion that uneducated peasants would go around talking each other into the ground.

In either case, this social combat system fails since:
-For resolving player disputes, you're better off just talking about it metagame. When has the wizard casting charm person on someone in the party to get them to do something ever gone over well? Taking character control away from a player frustrates them to the extreme, more than anything else you can do, more than killing them.
-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. The game requires a skilled and reasonable DM to work. You're never going to change that, since the basis of the whole system is that there is a single arbitrator.

[Judging__Eagle]

1200587062[/unixtime]]

1200583231[/unixtime]]
So, in summary, what happens when you win social combat:

You get to issue one 4 four word command that is performed once.

Your examples are pretty reasonable, but what happens with that wording is that commands become:

"Cut your throat. Now."
or
"Sign over your kingdom."

and now we're right back in unreasonable territory.

That's only if they win the combat.

The target can very well say:

"I'll gut you like a pieeg!" [attacks]

"Gaurds! Sieze them!" [Mooks start moving in on the Social Attacker]

Social Combat is meant to be either a replacement or a prelude to actual combat.

The benefit being that if things seem reasonable, you don't have to decide the result on one dice roll (the way Diplomacy currently is). But if something seems unreasonable, the losing party can resort Regular Combat or fleeing.

[angelfromanotherpin]

That's only if they win the combat.

The target can very well say:

"I'll gut you like a pieeg!" [attacks]

"Gaurds! Sieze them!" [Mooks start moving in on the Social Attacker]

Social Combat is meant to be either a replacement or a prelude to actual combat.

The benefit being that if things seem reasonable, you don't have to decide the result on one dice roll (the way Diplomacy currently is). But if something seems unreasonable, the losing party can resort Regular Combat or fleeing.

Okay, I'm lost. I have no idea what you want social combat to actually do. If there's a reasonable agreement to be had, it's unnecessary, because there's no actual conflict; and if there isn't such an agreement to be had, it's irrelevant because it's apparently going to be resolved with regular combat anyway.

Social combat should be about getting unreasonable results without violence. Like when Hitler got the Sudetenland in exchange for Chamberlain shutting the hell up; or when Aahz convinces two Imps to switch to his team in exchange for giving Aahz all their money; or when a PC convinces a merchant to sell the PC something for less than the merchant wants to sell it for. If it can't accomplish those sorts of things, there's no point.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1200679259[/unixtime]]
Okay, I'm lost. I have no idea what you want social combat to actually do. If there's a reasonable agreement to be had, it's unnecessary, because there's no actual conflict; and if there isn't such an agreement to be had, it's irrelevant because it's apparently going to be resolved with regular combat anyway.

Social combat should be about getting unreasonable results without violence. Like when Hitler got the Sudetenland in exchange for Chamberlain shutting the hell up; or when Aahz convinces two Imps to switch to his team in exchange for giving Aahz all their money; or when a PC convinces a merchant to sell the PC something for less than the merchant wants to sell it for. If it can't accomplish those sorts of things, there's no point.

I agree. The problem with D&D-like combat is that every phrase would be a separate 'special attack'. 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" you can't have a balanced combat system.
To have separate rules (different DCs, whatever), you have to be running a 90s computer RPG or DM fiat, which is the same as not an RPG or no rules.

The best solution I can think of is a system based purely on persuasion and motive-sensing (two stats). The problem is the uncertainty of conscious intent, where the BBEG may not know if he is really capable of razing your village, both logistically and ethically (making sensing motive on his threat to do so rather difficult). Once you determine whether the BBEG is really capable, it's up to the player to decide whether he cares or not (which makes torture a bit difficult, as the whole point is that it keeps you from thinking rationally).
Basically, it comes down to DM fiat again, which is especially problematic when it's the player making the threats.

Actual combat using social abilities is much simpler; feints, insults, combat bluffs, and the like actually can be modeled as single separate abilities with no significant loss.

[RandomCasualty]

Well obviously, social skills are supposed to get people to do stuff that they wouldn't normally do if you didn't have social skills (or at least give you a greater chance of getting them to do that thing).

Now, the only real question is how far you can go with your demands. I personally prefer to keep social interaction on the social level. That is, it has be benign enough that people don't start worrying the minute you open your mouth. It isn't to the point where you've got to punch the girl in the face whose trying to seduce you, because otherwise eventually you get seduced if you just stand there.

That's stupid. I guess I don't really think of social combat as a means of whittling down hp and gradually bringing your foe down. Because really, someone sitting there nagging you probably isn't going to work very well. Off what PL is talking about, all I can see is a bunch of adventurers sitting around the king nagging him like a bunch of 10 year old kids asking "Are we there yet?".

I mean, I don't see a problem with having a resolution system for asking for seemingly mundane things. I mean if you go asking to borrow someone's horse, they could say yes and they could say no. Chances are actually that if they don't know you, then they will say no. So that's certainly a social contest of sorts.

I'm not sure why people are obsessed with producing completely absurd social results like kings signing over their kingdoms for no good reason or the evil mage changing to good after one short 12 second conversation. Seriously, that stuff is dumb. I don't even want that shit happening in my campaigns.

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."

[PhoneLobster]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!"

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.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1200693010[/unixtime]]

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!"

Right, so you tell Elric "You should fight with me against Klosterheim instead of with him, as he plans do destroy you". He believes you, so he immediately hands you Stormbringer and says, 'have fun with it'.

[PhoneLobster]

Right, so you tell Elric "You should fight with me against Klosterheim instead of with him, as he plans do destroy you". He believes you, so he immediately hands you Stormbringer and says, 'have fun with it'.

The major disjoint in your example there is that you never asked for the sword.

You asked for a powerful ally AND GOT ONE, then because you are being an ass, you took his sword. Now You have an unarmed ally who is an anaemic weakling without his magic voodoo blade AND you have the most cursed sword in the world in your hands corrupting your very soul.

Congratulations, you are the master of strategy.

Could you have formulated a worse specific example?

And anyway, in this example you WON SOCIAL COMBAT VS ELRIC. That means you are the bigger dog. You are the god damn Chaos Gods themselves. It makes sense for him to be at your disposal, and heck as the bigger dogs you may well even have a use for the voodoo sword and justification for taking it (as unlikely as that may seem due to the rather poor choice of specific example).

If it DOESN'T make sense for him to give you access to his resources like that then that means HE is the bigger social dog. Which means HE will defeat YOU in social combat and YOU will be fighting on HIS side. And he damn well won't want your sword either because he isn't a moron. Unless you are waving around Mourneblade, but frankly a mechanism to take that away from a weakling littler dog makes perfect sense and if anything is needed by any sensible system.

[PhoneLobster]

Right, so you tell Elric "You should fight with me against Klosterheim instead of with him, as he plans do destroy you". He believes you, so he immediately hands you Stormbringer and says, 'have fun with it'.

Screw it, I'm answering this one TWICE its so poor.

As you have done repeatedly you are considering this entirely out of context. Remember this is social COMBAT.

It happens just like combat, and as an alternative too combat.

Now at any level with regular combat when you encounter Elric you have one of three options.

1) He is a level appropriate encounter. He is a challenge of the standard difficulty determined as acceptable by the system and his stuff which you can take if you win is what you are supposed to be collecting at this level.

2) He is lower level than is appropriate. Winning is easy (or at least easier). His stuff, which you can take if you win, is of little to no value to you.

3) He is higher than is level appropriate. Winning is unlikely (or at least a lot less likely). His stuff is of too great a value for you, if you can take it then someone has just screwed up wealth by level stuff, or you can expect all the other higher powers to take it from you as easy pickings.

Now if you encounter Elric as a social encounter instead the following options apply.

1) He is a level appropriate encounter. He is a challenge of the standard difficulty determined as acceptable by the system and his stuff which you can take if you win is what you are supposed to be collecting at this level.

2) He is lower level than is appropriate. Winning is easy (or at least easier). His stuff, which you can take if you win, is of little to no value to you.

3) He is higher than is level appropriate. Winning is unlikely (or at least a lot less likely). His stuff is of too great a value for you, if you can take it then someone has just screwed up wealth by level stuff, or you can expect all the other higher powers to take it from you as easy pickings.

Elric and his voodoo sword are NOT mythic characters from a book. They are either a level appropriate challenge and its wealth, OR NOT.

It amazes me that you can read Frank's discussions on the implications of combat power by level on the economics of magic items and such and how level 1 peasants don't get to keep +5 holy swords as a result. Accept that as the way combat and the economy interact.

But then want to institute a social system where the greater the value of the item compared to the possessor is the greater the possessor's resistance (or immunity) to having it taken from him is.

You complain that MY social system promotes killing everyone and taking their stuff. Combining the observed implications of standard combat and your preferred social mechanics and its literally the ONLY way to take any stuff anyone cares about.

[angelfromanotherpin]

So are you saying there's no meaningful difference between social combat and normal combat? There's a conflict of interest, and then someone gets owned?

[CatharzGodfoot]

1200697736[/unixtime]]

Right, so you tell Elric "You should fight with me against Klosterheim instead of with him, as he plans do destroy you". He believes you, so he immediately hands you Stormbringer and says, 'have fun with it'.

Screw it, I'm answering this one TWICE its so poor.

...

Now if you encounter Elric as a social encounter instead the following options apply.

1) He is a level appropriate encounter. He is a challenge of the standard difficulty determined as acceptable by the system and his stuff which you can take if you win is what you are supposed to be collecting at this level.

2) He is lower level than is appropriate. Winning is easy (or at least easier). His stuff, which you can take if you win, is of little to no value to you.

3) He is higher than is level appropriate. Winning is unlikely (or at least a lot less likely). His stuff is of too great a value for you, if you can take it then someone has just screwed up wealth by level stuff, or you can expect all the other higher powers to take it from you as easy pickings.

Elric and his voodoo sword are NOT mythic characters from a book. They are either a level appropriate challenge and its wealth, OR NOT.

So you're telling me that the only circumstances under which Elric will ever agree to help you are the same circumstances under which he will give up to you his primary class ability?

[RandomCasualty]

The problem is PL, that your system isn't social, it's just a fucking mind control ray.

If there's a social system, I want it to be more about political plots and less about instant complete mind control.

Social solutions generally take time. The duke doesn't walk into the king's room and convince him to relinquish the throne. He plots with the other lords to turn their armies on the king at a critical moment. He convinces some of the king's foreign allies that the king has been plotting behind their back and that he's not to be trusted. He tricks the king's most loyal paladin into thinking that king is under the influence of demons. He seduces the queen and convinces her to give up valuable secrets about the king's weaknesses. Then he puts that all together to stage an overthrow.

That makes for a cool story, and the PCs can relate to it.

Just having the roman senate toss mind control rays back and forth until everyone is a fanatical brainwashed servant of one victor makes for a crap story. People can't relate to that kind of social stuff, where suddenly you go from being rivals to being a fanatical supporter of someone, willing to give your life for them. And there's no good reason for that in your system, it's all just abstract.

Nope, one minute you're a lawful good paladin, then next thing you know, mind control ray, and you're selling your kids into slavery and murdering your wife because a pit fiend told you so.

What the hell?

Part of roleplaying is understanding your characters motivations. If you're going to do something crazy like that, you better have a damn good reason. I mean seriously, how the hell am I supposed to roleplay this character? I don't even know why he's doing what he's doing. Not to mention the scene where the pit fiend convinces him to do this, which would be a good roleplaying scene, is skipped and "abstracted", so we're missing out on the greatest roleplaying scenes containing major dramatic turning points. What the hell?

One of the key principles of RPGs is being able to choose your own adventure. You the player. Your system pretty much takes away any element of choice you really have. You lose one social combat and suddenly the DM can rewrite your entire character's personality and motivations. So in the space of a few minutes you go from having a pacifist monk character to a mass murdering psychopath. Oh, and your sexual orientation is now beholdersexual.

How does this make for a fun game?

[PhoneLobster]

He convinces some of the king's foreign allies that the king has been plotting behind their back and that he's not to be trusted. He tricks the king's most loyal paladin into thinking that king is under the influence of demons. He seduces the queen and convinces her to give up valuable secrets about the king's weaknesses.

In other words he takes control of everybody else one by one in social encounters using MY damn methodology.

I find it especially hilarious because his "foreign allies" that you take control of are also kings!

I want it to be more about political plots

How the heck are you going to achieve that when there is NO support in your system for ever making anyone do anything that actually matters?

Politics is all about influencing people. If you can't change their actions then you don't have a "politics" game where you influence your enemies minions and associates. You have a "strategy" game where you save up money to buy a sword and stab them in the face.

You are seriously suggesting on the one hand you can never influence anyone's actions in any meaningful way then on the other demanding to play a game where you go around taking control of the queen, a bunch of foreign kings, and the head of the palace guard and tell em all to turn on the local king on your behalf?

So you're telling me that the only circumstances under which Elric will ever agree to help you are the same circumstances under which he will give up to you his primary class ability?

No, as explicitly outlined countless times before NO.

The circumstance under which he is FORCED to help you are the circumstances under which he is FORCED to do that sort of stuff.

And you know, despite plenty of explanation you guys are STILL raving on about mind control ray bullshit. So I'm going to outline this very very clearly.

I envisage social defeat as similar to Charm Person. (which you guys still fail to explain the compatibility of with your view points).

The easy way to see it is like this.

If you are defeated in social combat the victor can make you do pretty much anything if he can end a description of why you should be doing it with a matching bit like.

(Friendship defeat)... "Because we are friends and you trust me"

(Deception defeat)... "Because you believe this lie I'm telling you"

(Seduction defeat)... "To prove you love me"

(Threat defeat)... "Or Else"

Though abstracted there is no "Oh but I don't get my motivation anymore". The entire social combat is a match to throw down a new strong motivation onto a character.

Though every one of those states could conceivably, and damn well SHOULD conceivably be manipulated to do get your victim to do pretty much anything there is STILL plenty of RP and game play left beyond that to reach those ends.

Taking control of characters according to specific narrow motivations. Is NOT a "fucking mind control ray".

Its a "God damn plot twist".

Its a contest to tell the GM that the queen's new motivation is that she loves Barbarian Bob and will do anything for her unrequited affair.

You either can do that or can't, period. And if your mechanics refuse to achieve that goal then that means half an hour of corny chatting up your GM in a bad Austrian accent while he does that annoying monty python voice.

[Koumei]

1200707401[/unixtime]]
You either can do that or can't, period. And if your mechanics refuse to achieve that goal then that means half an hour of corny chatting up your GM in a bad Austrian accent while he does that annoying monty python voice.

Okay, you've convinced me. We need to implement these rules so as to avoid half an hour of monty python voices at the table. I'd take the "I roll 30 for Diplomacy. We're all friends. Pass me the tea, please." over that.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1200707401[/unixtime]]

So you're telling me that the only circumstances under which Elric will ever agree to help you are the same circumstances under which he will give up to you his primary class ability?

No, as explicitly outlined countless times before NO.

The circumstance under which he is FORCED to help you are the circumstances under which he is FORCED to do that sort of stuff.

And you know, despite plenty of explanation you guys are STILL raving on about mind control ray bullshit. So I'm going to outline this very very clearly.

I envisage social defeat as similar to Charm Person. (which you guys still fail to explain the compatibility of with your view points).

If a system like that exists in the same world as charm person, it either has no reason to exist or it is charm person.

With the Elric example, it's dominate person, which either means that dominate person does not exist or social combat is a waste of time.

So dominate does not exist. That's fine. It's just a powerful effect that takes multiple rounds to put into effect. It's especially nice (I think this addresses some of RC's concerns) that what you say actually matters, because even when you fail your 'opponent' is free to do as you ask.


My confusion arose from irrelevance of truth. That's a good way of sidestepping an otherwise problematic issue, so kudos for making it so.


So, some stuff I didn't see addressed earlier:
How does stacking different damage types work? If I deal you 5 points of lying damage, 3 points of seduction damage (which is also a lie of sorts), 4 points of intimidation (also a lie of sorts), and 10 points of friendship damage, do the sources matter?

How is the damage healed?

Say it was 4 different people doing the bamboozling, seduction, frightening, and coercing. Does the damage stack?

[Koumei]

Seduction and intimidation don't have to involve lies. Seduction could be as simple as "Look! I have breasts!" - it's happened many a time in fiction - or more intricate, but still without lies. It'd be closer to diplomacy than anything else, offering them benefits for siding with you, and making them like you.

Intimidation, on the other hand, can range from "I will fuck you with a rake." or "I will stab you in the face. Multiple times." which could be 100% true, or they could be much more subtle such as the good old "I know where you live." or "Did you know that I'm a pig farmer?" You may or may not be lying here, but nothing says for certain whether you are or not.

[RandomCasualty]

1200707401[/unixtime]]
In other words he takes control of everybody else one by one in social encounters using MY damn methodology.

I find it especially hilarious because his "foreign allies" that you take control of are also kings!

Wtf is with you and 'taking control' of people. No, this isn't mind control. When someone lies to you successfully, you may be deceived, but you're certainly not mind controlled. There's a big difference between convincing someone "The king of Cormyr is massing troops at the border to invade your lands." and "I am your lord and master, give me your kingdom now and do everything I say."

How the heck are you going to achieve that when there is NO support in your system for ever making anyone do anything that actually matters?

Politics is all about influencing people. If you can't change their actions then you don't have a "politics" game where you influence your enemies minions and associates.

Politics isn't mind control. It's about finding what people want, offering them that and getting something in return. That's how politics works. Republican party funds the candidates and they in turn follow the Republican agenda in exchange for the money.

Medieval duke agrees to betray the king because you've promised him increased power and influence in your new regime. Seduction is about trading on sexual favors, intimidation is threatening in effect to take something away.

It's all give and take.

In no social situation aside from straight up brainwashing do you make someone your slave.

I envisage social defeat as similar to Charm Person. (which you guys still fail to explain the compatibility of with your view points).

Your view isn't even charm person, it's more like dominate person, since the other guy will take self-destructive actions. A charmed guy won't hand over his family into slavery or his worldly possessions. He considers you a friend, but he's not your mindless slave.

If you are defeated in social combat the victor can make you do pretty much anything if he can end a description of why you should be doing it with a matching bit like.

(Friendship defeat)... "Because we are friends and you trust me"

(Deception defeat)... "Because you believe this lie I'm telling you"

(Seduction defeat)... "To prove you love me"

(Threat defeat)... "Or Else"

Still too much abstraction.

You still haven't answered the question of how you roleplay a character without even knowing his motivations. If you've been lied to, then what is the lie? Seriously, that's shit you got to know.

And having this believe of absolute control is dumb. How often in movies do you see a morally challenged character get convinced to do something and then back out when they ask too much of him. Control is almost never absolute.

And when does this hypothetical control wear off? Is it permanent? Do you clear your head in a couple hours like charm person? Or what?

Taking control of characters according to specific narrow motivations. Is NOT a "fucking mind control ray".

Its a "God damn plot twist".

Yeah it is a mind control ray. It doesn't take the character's personality into consideration, and it gives absolute control.

The character just instantly forgets about all their past ties, and without good reason, just suddenly has every single value and motivation they've ever had replaced by some new implanted directive. They go from being a sentient being to being a complete slave.

Yeah it is a fucking mind control ray.

Its a contest to tell the GM that the queen's new motivation is that she loves Barbarian Bob and will do anything for her unrequited affair.

Why does every single control have to be absolute? Absolute control happens so very rarely anywhere.

What kind of person is the queen? Is she the type that's always looking for the perfect man? If so then maybe seduction works well on her. Maybe she's more interested in power? In that case, she probably doesn't want to screw with her own agenda. She likes Bob and may go out of her way to keep him out of trouble or give him special perks, but she won't do anything for him.

You either can do that or can't, period. And if your mechanics refuse to achieve that goal then that means half an hour of corny chatting up your GM in a bad Austrian accent while he does that annoying monty python voice.

Honestly I don't believe any social system should grant absolute control and if such a thing is achievable it should take time. You shouldn't just walk into a room and in 5 minutes, you have instant and complete control. Brainwashing of that type takes either a highly suggestible mind or a lot of time and effort.

And seriously, what fun is it when the DM can send out his buttfuck level 20 king who mind controls your characters into doing all the missions for no gold, and whenever you don't want to be railroaded anymore, he has another buttfuck social guy come over and mind control you again. And that's all the game is, just a bunch of social attack bullshit, where your characters don't have a mind of their own. They're literally like always under the control of some high level NPC. And that control is absolute.

Welcome to railroad heaven.

Yeah, I'll take the Monty Python voice over that anyday.

[angelfromanotherpin]

And seriously, what fun is it when the DM can send out his buttfuck level 20 king who mind controls your characters into doing all the missions for no gold, and whenever you don't want to be railroaded anymore, he has another buttfuck social guy come over and mind control you again. And that's all the game is, just a bunch of social attack bullshit, where your characters don't have a mind of their own. They're literally like always under the control of some high level NPC. And that control is absolute.

Welcome to railroad heaven.

Um, the DM can already do that if he's inclined to be a dick. 20th level Wizards can already Dominate Person your entire party. For that matter a 20th-level Rogue can give you a to-do list and an 'or else.' High level characters can bully the PCs no matter what. This portion of your argument is invalid.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1200713502[/unixtime]]Seduction and intimidation don't have to involve lies. Seduction could be as simple as "Look! I have breasts!" - it's happened many a time in fiction - or more intricate, but still without lies. It'd be closer to diplomacy than anything else, offering them benefits for siding with you, and making them like you.

Offering people friendship with benefits isn't the same thing as dominating them to make them do something normally against their will. You don't need social combat to get someone to do something they would do anyway.

1200713502[/unixtime]]Intimidation, on the other hand, can range from "I will fuck you with a rake." or "I will stab you in the face. Multiple times." which could be 100% true, or they could be much more subtle such as the good old "I know where you live." or "Did you know that I'm a pig farmer?" You may or may not be lying here, but nothing says for certain whether you are or not.

Exactly. Even when you're bluffing, you might be telling the truth. The system doesn't care. Intimidation is a kind of bluff, even though it might be deadly serious.

The point of the intimidation "I'll fuck you with a rake" is on multiple levels: If the intimidation succeeds, the person does what you say regardless of the rake issue.
If the intimidation fails, they might still do what you want if they don't want to be fucked with a rake (and they think you'll carry through); they might not do what you say because they don't believe you or they aren't so worried about being rake fucked.
In the end, maybe you'll fuck them with a rake, maybe you won't. The system doesn't care.

Ultimately the the system can't care if your bluff is true or not, because it doesn't know either.

[PhoneLobster]

OK, now answering real questions about a specific implementation is hard.

Part of the reason why is because the only specific implementation I have put together is totally non d20 and though almost a direct carbon copy of my combat system is full of assumptions and mechanics unique to my latest somewhat eccentric homebrew rules set.

Its even harder because this thread is actually about some other guy's implementation and I'm about to talk about mine...

So, some stuff I didn't see addressed earlier:
How does stacking different damage types work? If I deal you 5 points of lying damage, 3 points of seduction damage (which is also a lie of sorts), 4 points of intimidation (also a lie of sorts), and 10 points of friendship damage, do the sources matter?

Its just a matter of making a choice here and sticking with it. I see no particular problem with simply deciding its all one stacking "confusion and general social weakening" damage track.

However in my actual implementation I effectively had a Nice damage track (from friendly gentle nice social attacks) and a Nasty damage track (from nasty threats and confusing lies and general hurtfulness).

Every attack was either tagged as Nice or Nasty.

I had originally intended that the two damage tracks would be opposed and Nice damage would heal Nasty damage and visa versa.

But in practice that was a little too much so I dropped it. I might reintroduce it later once the players and I find our feet a little more in the basics of the system.

How is the damage healed?

Its a rather system specific answer I'm afraid.

All combat damage in my current system comes in the form of individual (though often broad and abstracted) injuries, which include a specific instruction on how the injury can be healed.

But it breaks down into three broad categories with the only differentiation being essentially bullshit fluffy stuff.

1) Minor injury that heals as soon as the encounter ends.
2) Major injury that requires rest (some unspecified probably brief period of out of combat down time) and possibly minor treatment (the kind any unskilled person including the injured party can do for free at no additional cost to the unspecified minor down time).
3) Very major injuries like say, death, which basically require a special ability to heal, and that ability will outline how (typically just having a character with some bullshit "bring back the dead" ability and some vague small amount of down time).

Originally my social equivalents in injuries were things like.
1) Minor injury that heals as soon as the encounter ends.
2) Major injury that heals with minimal rest and down time
3) Very major injury (social defeat) that is only healed by some form of social intervention by other parties who's social credentials are still intact.

Frankly I'm considering reforming aspects of my injury/healing system. It works but it could be more transparent, streamlined and could interact better with healing powers if some changes and clarifications are made.

Say it was 4 different people doing the bamboozling, seduction, frightening, and coercing. Does the damage stack?

I had Seduction and trying to make friends damage stack on the basis that they were making the target confused and weakened in a happy cheerful "build em up" kind of way.

And Threats and Lies stacking separately to the nice attacks on the basis that they were undermining confidence and certainty in a mean "knock em down" kind of way.

But really it doesn't matter too much, you can have however many separate damage tracks or one damage track and from a conceptual standpoint its no big deal to perceive of them as distinctly different kinds of attacks or as somehow all working off a common basis of undermining a character's over all social strengths and mental foundations.

Its like Mental and Physical damage (or other distinctions) for damage in regular combat. You can make an argument either way for the division and with some provisos and implications a system can work treating them as separate damage tracks or unifying them under one banner.