Social Combat: An idea

[RandomCasualty]

1200722748[/unixtime]]
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.

Yeah, he can, but at least the spells wear off. Basically this sort of social attacks don't really come back. You get "killed" in social combat and then you're basically the guy's slave. Permanently. You can't get it dispelled, you can't remove it, you're just pretty much screwed.

I mean dominate can be nullified by just a protection from evil, or a magic circle against evil for the whole party. No such thing works against social combat.

[CatharzGodfoot]

It makes sense to me that "defeat" and "death" would be two totally different things. When you defeat someone with intimidate, they do what you tell them to. When youkill them, they're a quivering wreck.

The first kind would heal naturally over a short period of time (days, hours, or minutes). To keep someone seduced, you have to keep seducing them.

Death, on the other hand, is more like insanity. A socially "dead" person can't engage in social combat at all, is is pretty much useless for any other task as well. It might take them weeks, months, or even years to 'come back', if they ever do (it's quite possible that they won't, as auto failing all social combats could keep them damaged indefinitely).

[angelfromanotherpin]

A good example of a 'dead' person would probably be Dracula's spider-eating man-bitch Renfield, who's not good for anything anymore.

[Crissa]

I think that's a terrible example.

People who were the target of abuse iRL generally then become the instigators of abuse elsewhere.

Maybe there might be a target where you've destroyed someone's personality, and they walk away, no longer themselves. But that should be more than rare, it should be downright impossible.

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

Regardless of realism or not, or whatever, I think Wrenfield stuff should be somewhat limited.

I don't mind if its some zany special ability but as standard its not what I had originally intended by a long shot.

For the system to function well in a "political" style game as RC had described a while ago, where you influence people to influence people you can't simply render your victims permanent social push overs, they have to be able to engage in further social encounters with others.

So I had imagined it more like this.

Social defeat removes you from the current social encounter, you may no longer contribute to it.

Social defeat is not permanent but it is conditionally indefinite. So it sticks to you until some person or event scrapes it off. Another character "heals" you or the original perpetrator performs actions to break the motivation that the defeat enforced on you (so sure you can ask your friend "hey can I borrow your family for a bit" and he'll be OK with that, but if later he finds you sold them into slavery, the friendship is over).

While suffering the inflicted condition, after the initial social encounter is over, you can function normally in future social encounters. But you may NOT attempt social attacks against a character that has an ongoing social defeat or condition inflicted upon you.

So after you meet your new best friend you can't turn around in an encounter instantly after that and threaten him. But you CAN turn around and threaten some other guy who is annoying your new best friend.

I think that's an important bit of functionality.

It differentiates between a world with dynamic and changeable motivations and alliances and a world with an ever growing population of drooling social zombies.

[odinspearx]

I have to totally agree with RC on this one. PL's "social combat", as presented, is not only a total mind-control ray, it is completely retarded.

For the sake of argument, let's say you've made the [saddle merchant / king] look like a total jackass in front of his [apprentices / entire kingdom]. There is NOTHING that says they now have to submit to your will. In fact, the VERY WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME for a loser of social combat is embarrassment, shame, or anger. NEVER in a MILLION YEARS can social combat result in mind-slavery.*

(*Unless you are playing in a very strict, honor-bound society with RIGID rules of propriety ... which is certainly not the norm for a D&D game.)

Let's not forget the "ignore factor", either.

If I'm walking down the street, and someone stops me and "engages me in social combat" to buy a new car, I can successfully ignore him. If a girl engages me in social combat in a bar by flirting with me I can successfully ignore her. If I am a king and some fool wanders into my throne room and says "Give me your kingdom", I can successfully ignore him. (More likely, though, I will order my guards to kill him.)

The point is, if something's just not possible, then NO amount of "social combat" should make it so. (HINT: That's what ROLEPLAYING is for!)

Without some sort of "leverage" (be it blackmail, seduction, intimidation, or even general friendliness), there is NO REASON that ANY npc will mindlessly bow to your demands, no matter HOW good you rolled "social combat/diplomacy", whether said demands are for a 5% discount off a saddle or all the king's daughters.

Does this put the NPC's reaction entirely in the hands of the GM? Yes. Is that a good thing? Of course. And here's why: the NPC's are the GM's characters. Your GM trusts you to play your characters. You should trust your GM to plays his. If you do not, you need to find another GM.

As a last note: if a mind-slaving social-combat system were in place, then any peasant can demand you trade your +3 longsword for a fistful of coppers simply by rolling a natural 20 on his social-combat check. Additionally, you will look like a total puss.

As a last-last note, PL you seem to have some sort of trouble distinguishing between "people who join your team" and "slaves". I don't know who that Eldrith guy is, but even if you somehow convinced him to join your team, it does not automatically make him willing to die for you, or to offer you anything you desire. "I choose not to take your sword because I don't need it and logically it's better for me if you have it anyway" is not the same thing as "Give me your sword" followed by the appropriate response: "Fuck off."

[Orion]

Look, PL's system is pretty damn reasonable. Admittedly, having NO social system is also reasonable. If you just want the DM to control the NPC and tell the story how he likes, you can do that.

The only reason to introduce social combat at all is to give the PCs more input in the story.

That said, your ability to ignore someone trying to seduce you as you walk down the street is dependent on the fact that she is not a 10th level bard. If she were, you wouldn't be able to ignore her.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1200975200[/unixtime]]
For the sake of argument, let's say you've made the [saddle merchant / king] look like a total jackass in front of his [apprentices / entire kingdom]. There is NOTHING that says they now have to submit to your will. In fact, the VERY WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME for a loser of social combat is embarrassment, shame, or anger. NEVER in a MILLION YEARS can social combat result in mind-slavery.*

(*Unless you are playing in a very strict, honor-bound society with RIGID rules of propriety ... which is certainly not the norm for a D&D game.)

So you humiliate someone in front of her underlings. Anyone can do that; it isn't social combat. All you have to do is say stuff like 'Oh, what a big man you are. Let my buy you a pack of gum, I'll teach you how to chew it. Everybody's tough on the phone. My wife's tough on the phone. You're just. like. her.'

If you do this, it will probably just piss her off. If she has the power to do so, she will have bad things done to you.
If, on the other hand, you were a person skilled at "social combat", you might have scared the shit out of her. She is now actually so scared that she's offered you her entire stock of wagons without being asked. Or maybe she really thinks that your plan has merit, and she's given you command of half her navy. In an hour she might regret it, but she's already made the offer in front of her court. you're just that fucking glib.

1200975200[/unixtime]]Let's not forget the "ignore factor", either.

If I'm walking down the street, and someone stops me and "engages me in social combat" to buy a new car, I can successfully ignore him. If a girl engages me in social combat in a bar by flirting with me I can successfully ignore her. If I am a king and some fool wanders into my throne room and says "Give me your kingdom", I can successfully ignore him. (More likely, though, I will order my guards to kill him.)

Well, yeah, that's because the car salesman is level 1, and has a low charisma. The girl rolls low and 'just isn't your type'. The king has a will defense of +14.

The point being, if you had run into a really persuasive, charismatic guy on the street, and he had a deal on a new car which was just too good to turn down...you'd stop, and you might buy that car. If an incredibly hot, engaging girl starts chatting you up in a bar, you will listen. A girl that smoking hot talking to you? And she's smart too? Jesus, she even seems to like RPGs!

And finally, when God comes down and says to the king, "I want your kingdom", the king says 'How high?'.

1200975200[/unixtime]]The point is, if something's just not possible, then NO amount of "social combat" should make it so. (HINT: That's what ROLEPLAYING is for!)

Without some sort of "leverage" (be it blackmail, seduction, intimidation, or even general friendliness), there is NO REASON that ANY npc will mindlessly bow to your demands, no matter HOW good you rolled "social combat/diplomacy", whether said demands are for a 5% discount off a saddle or all the king's daughters.

It sounds like what you're saying is 'There's no way a guy with a stick can beat a knight in armor. It just can't happen, probability zero. Even if the guy is really good at stick fighting, the stick isn't magic and the knight is wearing armor and the guy isn't that good.'

Well, the guy with the stick really is that good. It doesn't matter if he's never met you before. He may not know a thing about you beyond 'probably human internet denizen', and that will be enough that he can smile at you until you drop your wallet and run.

1200975200[/unixtime]]Does this put the NPC's reaction entirely in the hands of the GM? Yes. Is that a good thing? Of course. And here's why: the NPC's are the GM's characters. Your GM trusts you to play your characters. You should trust your GM to plays his. If you do not, you need to find another GM.

NPCs are still just as much in the hand of DMs and PCs are still just as much in the hands of players as before. It's just that now we have a way to resolve things like Diplomacy beyond 'I got a 37, he's my friend for life.' That and things like Charms are changed into Save or Suck abilities rather than SoDs.

1200975200[/unixtime]]As a last note: if a mind-slaving social-combat system were in place, then any peasant can demand you trade your +3 longsword for a fistful of coppers simply by rolling a natural 20 on his social-combat check. Additionally, you will look like a total puss.

That's why you have a condition track rather than the current binary status. But really, maybe you should give peasants more credit. Social class notwithstanding, they can drive a hard bargain too.

1200975200[/unixtime]]As a last-last note, PL you seem to have some sort of trouble distinguishing between "people who join your team" and "slaves". I don't know who that Eldrith guy is, but even if you somehow convinced him to join your team, it does not automatically make him willing to die for you, or to offer you anything you desire. "I choose not to take your sword because I don't need it and logically it's better for me if you have it anyway" is not the same thing as "Give me your sword" followed by the appropriate response: "Fuck off."

Yeah, the difference is that convincing someone to join your team doesn't require social combat; it could be just a persuasive argument. If logic isn't enough, then maybe you try to manipulate the hell out of someone, and have them join you once they're wrapped around your finger.

But I do agree that PL's system could use more in the way of gradations.

[RandomCasualty]

1200977392[/unixtime]]Look, PL's system is pretty damn reasonable.

Honestly, I can't imagine why everyone wouldn't be a diplomancer. You gradually accumulate this snowball army of troops that keeps getting larger and larger, so anything that you can't beat socially you just overwhelm with your constantly growing army.

Basically you just get an army of mind controlled closet trolls and unleash em on whatever you happen to be fighting that can't be diplomacied. Everything else gets added to your army. So like it might be cool if you're playing Heroes of Might and magic, but it's just not cool for D&D.

It just wouldn't work at all in real play.

Not to mention the stories it'll tell will be complete garbage.

[PhoneLobster]

But I do agree that PL's system could use more in the way of gradations.

I see where you are coming from but its just unreasonable.

From the perspective of social encounters as a form of combat a gradation means a separate set of combat rules.

That's too many. I'd rather have the gradation a single step at the abstract metagame level as I've proposed and have one social combat system than to have two, or three, or four for different levels of effect.

And really, inflicting a trusting friendship motivation on someone that you can use to freely manipulate them is ALREADY a vague fluffy confusing condition.

As evidenced by the fact that a bunch of people on this thread can't differentiate between a condition that lets you get your "Friend" to hold your bloody dagger for a sec and talk to those angry guards for you and a condition that causes people to stab themselves in the face due to mind control rays.

Are you going to break that into two, three, more gradations that don't feel confusingly blurred and arbitrary?

Now you could try a single system that instead of inflicting states inflicted abstract HP style damage (or something) that then acted as some sort of modifier to distinct social actions that actually modified behaviour (you deal friendship damage THEN when you ask your friend to help you they do so on a roll with the damage as a modifier in your favour).

But that has numerous problems.
1) Well, I was running a system that was all about discrete states, so sliding scales were out for my implementation.
2) Its an additional layer of complexity, and a BIG one.
3) You go through big complex social combat and as a reward get something less rewarding and with more additional complications than the same time or less invested in physical combat.
4) You hit some serious RNG problems to account for the sliding scale modifiers and everything else.
5) You have all the arbitrary pulled out of your ass modifier problems of RC and the traditionalist's preferred system tacked onto the back end of all the complexities and abstraction of a more forward thinking social combat set up. Basically the worst of both worlds.

So I don't see any way to address inflicting gradations of social conditions that makes any real sense.

All or nothing, enforced motivation or not, that's easy for players to understand and sufficiently rewarding after a significant investment of time and energy. Anything else is "I wasted fifteen minutes of game play and a risk of, something, happening to my character, for what exactly?"

[PhoneLobster]

Not to mention the stories it'll tell will be complete garbage.

Wait.

Didn't you like five whole minutes ago in this thread want to play "political" campaigns where you take out the king by accruing an ever growing army of allies against him?

Try this out.

Adventuring Party 1: "We have slain the dragon, rescued the princess, smashed up a skeleton horde and forged a magical golden axe! Crown us kings of the realm!"

Adventuring Party 2: "Sorry dudes, but we happen to be Kings of the realm, because we stayed home and seduced the head of the palace guard, married the high king's son, brokered an alliance with the Ogre King, bought the services of the vast mercenary army, made friends with the city militia, and threatened the assassin's guild into our back pocket."

One of those parties was playing the political game, and it was defined by an every growing army of allies, hell an every growing army of allies each with their own armies of allies, and they defeat things with their allies (like the other adventuring party's claim to the throne).

If you can't challenge a group with allies with interesting events and stories you can't handle a political game. You can't even handle a game without rules that support creating allies because if even your bullshit not really a mechanic at all social system doesn't allow for gaining allies one way or another plently of games should see heroes having or gaining allies regardless.

Even Adventuring party 1 in my example who had only ever stabbed things in the face as a career had managed to rescue a princess who may well have been their ally.

So yeah, an ever growing army of allies, that's a political game right there for you.

Live with it, or, lump it and stop pretending you want a "political" style of game at all.

[RandomCasualty]

1200990253[/unixtime]]
Didn't you like five whole minutes ago in this thread want to play "political" campaigns where you take out the king by accruing an ever growing army of allies against him?

We have different views of political games. Politics is about give and take, not about just brainwashing. The interesting thing about political games is that everyone has their own agenda. Sure, the duke has agreed to help you overthrow the king, but he may well plant the knife if your back after it's over, or possibly even during the attack.

In your system, you just can't get the cool betrayal plot, because everyone who is your ally is a mindless servant. For storytelling purposes, that sucks.

I don't have problems with people brokering alliances, I just don't want them to be one sided.

The main idea of a political game is that your only allies are also enemies. They're lords like you who want their own power and have their own agendas. You can't do that in your game, because if someone gets socially converted, they're your mindless servants. So it's like you're just leading a robot army and the robot army just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

That's not a political game. That's just "lets run around and have fun with a mind control ray."

Real politics is feeling out people's loyalties, slowly probing to see if you can get someone involved in the plot, or if they'll turn on you. It's a dangerous affair where you have to keep your true intentions secret until you strike.

It's not "BAM! mind control ray!"

All I can imagine is a silly NPC who keeps getting converted back and forth like a chip in an Othello game. King talks to him, now he's white... rebellious duke talks to him, now he's black again. King talks again, white... duke walks in.. black again. In this system, you dont' execute traitors you just flip them over so they're on your side again, because everyone is a mindless and easily reprogrammable drone, not a live being with actual motivations and loyalties.

I mean such a system is fine I guess if you want to describe just a nameless mob of fools, who are intentionally supposed to be portrayed as easily gullible morons, but named characters just shouldn't behave that way.

[Draco_Argentum]

1200989470[/unixtime]]
As evidenced by the fact that a bunch of people on this thread can't differentiate between a condition that lets you get your "Friend" to hold your bloody dagger for a sec and talk to those angry guards for you and a condition that causes people to stab themselves in the face due to mind control rays.

People are having that trouble because you haven't set out why a character can't shoot for the total ownage. There doesn't appear to be a difference, mechanically, between asking someone to help you in exchange for helping them in return and simply asking someone to be your loyal ally.

Here are two choices:

A: Ask the head cleric of Pelor to send some of his priests with you to destroy some vampires.

B: Ask the head cleric of Pelor to send some of his priests with you to serve guests at a drunken party.

What part of your system makes these requests mechanically different? Alternately, are you saying both should be exactly the same mechanically?

[PhoneLobster]

What part of your system makes these requests mechanically different? Alternately, are you saying both should be exactly the same mechanically?

You are asking the wrong question.

You are trying to differentiate based on your subjective, and I'm sorry to say bullshit, judgement of the likely hood of agreement.

SO subjective I can't even tell if the party or the vampire hunting is supposed to be the more unlikely outcome... (I mean what? The Pelor hates parties now? The PH said something about his dudes being popular and well liked, didn't it? Isn't their sun domain trick charisma based?)

Anyway I have gone over this a half dozen times already. In detail.

But I'll do so again. Slowly.

You are NOT resolving for the specific narrow goals of "preist vs vampires" or "priest vs party".

You ARE going for "the ownage" every time because the specific narrow goal you are resolving to achieve is to change a fundamental motivation of the character in question.

Because you ALREADY tried subtle subjective hand waving and the player running the target said "naaah, I don't think so". Should HE set a difficulty rating based on how much he doesn't think so? Should he tell you to try again only different then he might change his mind?

If the priest TRUSTS you he would send priests to fight your vampires. And if he trusts you enough for that then why the fuck is it a separate action to send them to your party if you tell him its important?

Alternately if he trusts you and sends priests to a party, which turns out to be full of vampires because it was a trick on your part, then how is that different from him trusting you enough to just send the guys around for a rather easy and possibly fun chore?

You fight to win his trust, once you have it trying to measure it objectively and determine how much you have and what you can do with it is so fucking hard and retarded that it just plain shouldn't be done. He trusts you. End of story, do with it what you will, fight vampires, get priests drunk, its the same trust resource at your disposal.

This is an objective, measurable, fair circumstance. You can point to the moment this happens in game and say, look, I won the social combat, he trusts me now, he believes what I say from now on, I get to decide that characters actions based on the motivation I have set for him. And everyone can agree that, yes, fair is fair, you won the contest, you are now in charge.

Differentiating between the different things the PLAYER has refused to do with his priest and giving them different ratings is subjective, unfair and not at all measurable.

Because you CAN'T point to some request and have everyone agree "yes, that is objectively and clearly a -10 modifier due to my characters Aunty+Yesterday's Lies+That Guy's Childhood+The Religion of Pelor" To suggest so is stupid.

I for one cannot for the life of me tell you which vampires, or parties priests of Pelor would go to, let alone by the specific priest. I cannot for the life of me tell you what other actions they may or may not take and which would require some degree of social contest and which don't. I wouldn't presume to create a table of modifiers covering it, and I think if you want to you are a total fool.

I mean really what is the alternative? "Lets pull bullshit DCs out of our ass for everything, ever."

You got anything better? Try me.

[Username17]

You fight to win his trust, once you have it trying to measure it objectively and determine how much you have and what you can do with it is so fucking hard and retarded that it just plain shouldn't be done. He trusts you. End of story, do with it what you will, fight vampires, get priests drunk, its the same trust resource at your disposal.

And that right there is what people have a problem with. I imagine that most people here who haven't played Runequest trust me enough that when I say "Don't play Runequest, it's a crap game." that they will take me up on that. Many people would be willing to trust me enough to purchase a book on my say so, and I doubt more than one or two of y'all would take up arms against the state due to your trust in me.

---

The idea of having a Social Combat system in which you combine threats, bribes, cajoling, and flattery into a tally is appealing. But there has to be more to it than "win" or "lose."

Consider the deeply flawed but fairly entertaining Europa Universalis. It has a thing called a "War Score." Beating enemy armies in the field, sieging their castles, marching armies around in their lands, and blockading their ports all increase your war score. You can demand various things from them based on how big you are winning the war. Actually annexing an enemy country is really hard, and often takes several wars or many years as you take pieces of their nation into yours and vassalize them and what naught.

As a guy you know through the internets, I lack the position to socialize any of you enough to make you take arms against the nation. That would have to be the process of several socializations and many real world events. And that's the thing that isn't really coming through here.

Social interactions aren't like duels, where one person wins and the other person is dead. They are like wars. Where one person gains some advantage based on what they brought to the table compared to what they left with. The democratic debates, for example, should be the mdoel here. People sit down and push their agendas, but they don't get everything they wanted.

-Username17

[tzor]

I don’t want to comment directly on PL’s proposed system but I do think that the counter arguments do tend to go overboard. In looking at “Social Combat” I see two very powerful strong points that point in opposite directions. If you use them both you could have a very balanced system.

The first is what I’m going to call “What would P.T. Barnum do?” Before he linked up with the circus guys he used to run a museum of his oddities. He had a major problem in that people wanted to go into his museum but not go out. Asking his assistant for a fancy foreign word for exit, he added a new exhibit to the museum on the spot, “THIS WAY TO THE EGRESS.” People inside the museum flocked to see the egress and as a result he was able to let more people into the museum. You can fool some of the people all of the time.

This is balanced by what I’m going to call “Social Regeneration.” Sure you can get the King to give you a crown. Tomorrow he may also order his assassin to return the crown after he takes it off of your cold dead heads. We all do things because we have been conned. “Fool me once shame on you,” and all other stuff the fact is that we all recover quickly. Socially, we are all trolls.

If I were to design a social combat system I think you need a ying/yang mechanism. Any attempt to “con” someone is going to make that person more hostile to you overall. (Those people who saw the egress did not have a fonder opinion of Barnum as a result.) Hostility should count against your ability to con someone to do something.

So a system should be based on two things. The first is trying to make that person your “friend.” Once you have a sufficient level of friendship you can apply the “con” to get him to do something. But the result of that is that the level of friendship will decay and that he will recover from his action quickly. (You also need to put in the Paladin Exception, where a paladin’s saves from being conned to do a deliberate act is so high that it’s nearly impossible.)

So what would be the difference between this and the magical equivalent? The later doesn’t care about the relationship between the two people; they might be in the middle of mortal combat (which assumes they both share a significant level of hostility towards each other). The other requires a buildup of friendship and trust.

So I started out with “What would P.T. Barnum do?” but I’m going to end it with “What would Mr. Gecko do?” I mean if Mr. Gecko asked you to by insurance for your Paladin’s Warhorse you would right? You trust Mr. Gecko. Why you trust him so much you would ask him to be your best man at the wedding to the princess.

Note another problem with social combat is you have to take the argument into consideration. If you are trying to use false statements or reasoning in your argument, the victim should be able to add his INT bonus to his save. If you are trying to hide something that is obvious to a casual observer the victim should be able to add his WIS bonus to his save and so on. And yes you should get a bonus if you want to ignore.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Frank, the 'war points' you're talking about is the social damage track. As two people engage in social combat, they are knocking each other down one or more tracks with any number of techniques. Each loss would carry some penalty, and 'defeat' would only come after a lot of suffering.


IMO reasoning with someone is not, in itself, a social attack. Your flawless logic carries the ability to persuade, but it cannot damage. Actual social attacks are a combination of timing, delivery, and content.
The ability to sense motives is still important. The evil duke on your side may not have suffered any damage in social combat with you at all. He may just be helping you so he can stab you later (or because he wants to help you of his own accord, but then finds more important things at stake). Or maybe he was won over, but someone else came and 'healed' your social damage to him (poisoned your relationship).

1201019712[/unixtime]]
If I were to design a social combat system I think you need a ying/yang mechanism. Any attempt to “con” someone is going to make that person more hostile to you overall. (Those people who saw the egress did not have a fonder opinion of Barnum as a result.) Hostility should count against your ability to con someone to do something.

So you have a system of 'con points', and once you place enough counters on a person you can pop them off and they do something dumb?

I don't think that an innate 'hostility' stat is needed, however. If the target realizes they've been had, you don't need to force them to be more hostile. They're perfectly capable of acting according to their own inclination.

[RandomCasualty]

1201004725[/unixtime]]
I mean really what is the alternative? "Lets pull bullshit DCs out of our ass for everything, ever."

You got anything better? Try me.

Honestly anything is really a better system than the one you are proposing. Hell, the D&D 3.5 diplomacy system is probably better than that. At the very least, being helpful doesn't mean you're the guy's mindless slave.

Having no rules at all beyond DM judgment is a better system. It's a very arbitrary system, but it's still better at simulating social stuff.

Doing charisma check versus wisdom with arbitrary modifiers is a better system.

Really, almost anything works better than having an all or nothing social system.

There are so many factors that go into convincing someone to do something. I mean lets take something simple. Like Frank telling us to go buy Shadowrun 4th edition. Here are some of the modifiers that might come into it. I'm not even going to start to determine what the numbers on those modifiers are, I'm just going to list them as positive and negative.

+X because you trust Frank's judgment on what makes a good game based on past experiences.
-X because you happen to be poor and buying the book would stretch your finances thin
+X because you're unsatisfied with existing RPG systems you've played and are looking for something better.
+X because you like the general thematic concept of cyberpunk mixed with fantasy.
-X because you're unsure you can find a group willing to play it.

And this is a simple matter. Now we could simplify these categories into categories like: Relationship with speaker, Desire for what's being offered and consequences of taking said action. But still as shown, there are plenty of modifiers that can make Frank's job easier or harder.

Even if Frank wins that social contest, he's not going to make you his mindless slave, or anything close to it. He just got you to buy Shadowrun, that's it. How much you like it may influence future social contests he makes by increasing or decreasing your trust in his opinion.

But by no means are you suddenly a mindless robot that only does what Frank says.

[tzor]

1201023311[/unixtime]]So you have a system of 'con points', and once you place enough counters on a person you can pop them off and they do something dumb?

Actually I think I was trying to argue for the "con" being a sort of "attack" and that attempts to make friendly being a kind of "buff." You butter up the victim with buffs and then make the "con" attack which sets you back for your next con against the victim and requires more friendly buffs.

The buffs is vaguely like 3E diplomacy, and the con is vaguely like 3E intimidate.

If you look at the 3.5E system the biggest problem is that the DC to achieve a better attitude does not depend on the target or on any circumstancs present in the attempt.

(The other problem is that people assume too much from the system. Helpful is defined as "Protect, back up, heal, aid" not "give you the family farm / kingdom / all of my magic items.")

[odinspearx]

@CatharzGodfoot: I hope to god this whole post was a joke. But I'm going to assume it's not.

So you humiliate someone in front of her underlings. Anyone can do that; it isn't social combat. [...]

OK, a reasonable argument: social combat isn't about humiliation. But I never said social combat WAS about humiliating someone, just that humiliation was a likely effect. I would say social combat is about getting someone to do something for you that they wouldn't likely to do. NOT about getting someone to do what they would NEVER do. Apparently you and PL think that by besting someone verbally, by "wowing" them with your words, you can convert them to slaves.

What I would like from you, then, is an example. What would you say to the king (in an hour, or 12 seconds) that would make him give up his crown and title? How would you "socially combat" him? Be "that fucking glib" to me.

If your answer is "roll a d20", then you have officially left the realm of role playing for the realm of ungrounded mechanics.

Well, yeah, that's because the car salesman is level 1, and has a low charisma. The girl rolls low and 'just isn't your type'. The king has a will defense of +14.

The point being, if you had run into a really persuasive, charismatic guy on the street, and he had a deal on a new car which was just too good to turn down...you'd stop, and you might buy that car. If an incredibly hot, engaging girl starts chatting you up in a bar, you will listen. A girl that smoking hot talking to you? And she's smart too? Jesus, she even seems to like RPGs!

And finally, when God comes down and says to the king, "I want your kingdom", the king says 'How high?'.

You're talking about attackers and defenders like they were the same thing. The car salesman can attack me with his +1, but the king can defend against me with +14. What I'm saying is, the king does not have to defend at all (just like I don't have to defend against the car salesman). It's called "simply ignoring you". You cannot engage in social combat with someone who is not being social to you.

As far as the salesman, no, I wouldn't stop to listen to him, because I have a car. I am not so socially defeatable that people can stop me on the street and sell me stuff that I neither want nor need.

As far as the girl hitting on me, you're right, I would probably talk to her. But really, how weak-willed do you have to be to allow her to get you to DO anything? I might buy her a drink (but then my wife would kill me). I would not write her a check, give her my bank account info or my social security number, or sign over my house. No matter HOW charming she was being.

And really? "God"? You're comparing a "socially adept" person to a freaking religious figure that people WORSHIP?

It sounds like what you're saying is 'There's no way a guy with a stick can beat a knight in armor. It just can't happen, probability zero. Even if the guy is really good at stick fighting, the stick isn't magic and the knight is wearing armor and the guy isn't that good.'

Well, the guy with the stick really is that good. It doesn't matter if he's never met you before. He may not know a thing about you beyond 'probably human internet denizen', and that will be enough that he can smile at you until you drop your wallet and run.

JCWTF?? I said NOTHING about guys with sticks or armor. How does your analogy even make sense? Yes, you can hit someone with a stick. You can also try to intimidate/seduce/bribe/blackmail/convince someone. The big difference is, you can ignore the person ranting at you. You can't ignore someone with a stick.

And, if you DO go after someone with a stick, it is NOT the same thing as "social combat". It's thuggery, pure and simple.

NPCs are still just as much in the hand of DMs and PCs are still just as much in the hands of players as before. It's just that now we have a way to resolve things like Diplomacy beyond 'I got a 37, he's my friend for life.' That and things like Charms are changed into Save or Suck abilities rather than SoDs.

So you would rather have a situation where you say "I got a 37 on my Social Combat check. He's my friend for life."

If you don't like Diplomacy, then don't use it. Personally, the only thing I feel Diplomacy should be used for is negotiating a small deal. It will never "win you a friend for life".

See, winning a friend for life happens by either a) being someone's friend, b) doing something really, really great for that person, or c) conning them. Conning, however, takes a long time. You cannot make a simple check, based on a single interaction, and win a friend/mindslave.

That's why you have a condition track rather than the current binary status. But really, maybe you should give peasants more credit. Social class notwithstanding, they can drive a hard bargain too.

Really? You can envision a situation where someone offered you $8 for your car and you would take it? Can you truly envision yourself being that gullible? Or malleable? Or "socially defeatable"? And I'm not talking about ditching a car you shot someone in, or a car that was about to break down (where you are, in effect, screwing the "peasant"). I'm talking about you getting fleeced.

Come to think of it, I'd like an example of this, too, though I don't think you'll be able to come up with one. It's just too easy to say "get lost" then risk engaging in some sort of "wager" that will allow someone to drive off with your car.

Of course, he can mug you (hit you with a stick). Or he can blackmail you (but that would require extraordinary luck (witnessing you do something, being quick enough to get proof, and tracking you down after) or hours of research). Or he can seduce you into taking rufies or something.

Yes, there ARE ways of making people do what you want. But none of those things is even remotely similar to "social combat". And CERTAINLY not the type of social combat where you win a "friend for life"! Go ahead, blackmail someone into doing something for you, and see if they're willing to be your pal.

Yes, there are people that are easy to dupe out there. But I think I am safe when I say that those people are not kings, or if they are they are backed up by panels and cabinets chock full of competent viziers.

[Surgo]

And really? "God"? You're comparing a "socially adept" person to a freaking religious figure that people WORSHIP?

I think this small sentence represents the point that you seem to be missing throughout your entire post. A high-level person in D&D world is pretty much a demigod. That demigod status is going to include 'social combat' as well as everything else.

[PhoneLobster]

Social interactions aren't like duels, where one person wins and the other person is dead. They are like wars. Where one person gains some advantage based on what they brought to the table compared to what they left with. The democratic debates, for example, should be the mdoel here. People sit down and push their agendas, but they don't get everything they wanted.

Catharz actually produced a pretty good answer but I have this to add.

You are making a realism argument. I'm making a game play argument.

I win.

I don't care if you feel its more realistic to ask for some individual specific goal with every interaction depending on some bullshit modifier out of the GM's ass. That's demonstratively bad for game play reasons. And there is no fair and functional system that you can deliver that will satisfy the most basic demands of your realism argument.

OK, so you want to differentiate between the different degrees as to how much I trust you, like I said before, HOW?

How is that going to actually WORK in game play without destroying fairness, undermining character archetypes, and undermining the very point of having any system at all?

And anyway as a realism argument its a bunch of subjective claptrap. I can just say "nah ah, realism means that one big lie is stronger than a thousand little ones" and we go nowhere.

And meanwhile realism has about zero to do with delivering the game play outcomes we need from things like Puss in Boots vs the Black Widow.

Those two do NOT meet and go away with a democratic compromise for their constituents. And THOSE are the kinds of encounters we care about for the game.

[Daiba]

1201046364[/unixtime]]How is that going to actually WORK in game play without destroying fairness, undermining character archetypes, and undermining the very point of having any system at all?

I think you need to answer this question about your own system first, since in my opinion (and that of many others, it seems), your system is definitively worse for the game than not having a system at all.

...some bullshit modifier out of the GM's ass...

I think we've established already that no system is going to stop a bad DM from ruining the game, and that the only solution is to walk away from those situations. There are, however, systems that can stop a good DM from running a good game, and yours is one of them, as it makes the game world totally nonsensical. It's like the wealth-by-level guidelines or the CR system, except on a larger scale and affecting the part of DND that is absolutely indispensable: the talking.

Did you have a really bad experience with a railroading DM, or a series of them, or something? Because it's more and more starting to sound like this is an outlet for some long-festering rage.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1201040155[/unixtime]]
...I would say social combat is about getting someone to do something for you that they wouldn't likely to do. NOT about getting someone to do what they would NEVER do. Apparently you and PL think that by besting someone verbally, by "wowing" them with your words, you can convert them to slaves.
...What I'm saying is, the king does not have to defend at all (just like I don't have to defend against the car salesman). It's called "simply ignoring you". You cannot engage in social combat with someone who is not being social to you.
...I am not so socially defeatable that people can stop me on the street and sell me stuff that I neither want nor need.
...I would not write her a check, give her my bank account info or my social security number, or sign over my house. No matter HOW charming she was being.
...The big difference is, you can ignore the person ranting at you. You can't ignore someone with a stick.
...Yes, there ARE ways of making people do what you want. But none of those things is even remotely similar to "social combat".

You obviously already have an opinion of what social combat is; it apparently has little resemblance to the system proposed.

As long as you're arguing against your misconception rather then the actual systems, very little that you say will make sense to me (and vice-versa). Please don't tell me that building your own straw man and then knocking him down has any bearing on the real work done here.

[Crissa]

By that argument, Daiba, there's no need for combat maneuvers or hitpoints.

Anyhow... So PL and those actually discussing the system have suggested:

A scale of goals based upon their value to the target;
A set of status levels or effects (including those from the physical/magical combat types) which then may give access to those goals;
A series of stat and level based maneuvers and defenses (defenses are level based).

That's not so bad. The scale needs to start small and make sure hard things stay hard to do... And the status effects need to be designed to fit the maneuvers.

With that thought - what genre are we going for? Myth Inc and Grey Mouser or what?

-Crissa