Social Combat: An idea

[PhoneLobster]

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.

Er. No.

There have been two popular criticisms.

1) Social mechanics shouldn't be important.
RC and others have expressed the opinion that you just plain shouldn't be able to seduce the queen and thus get her to turn on her husband to overthrow his empire. Because then, everyone would do that to everyone else all the time for ever.

Then they said actually they want to do that. And even if they don't I DO. So I'm dismissing that one out of hand.

2) My system doesn't differentiate between things which matter (recruiting for violent overthrow of government) and things we don't care about (making me buy certain RPG systems).

And as far as I'm concerned things we don't care about shouldn't be covered by the system at all. And that's the only differentiation I can conceive of functioning.

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.

Whenever I talk about how rules should be some guy pulls this "you clearly do not trust in the infinite kindness and spur of the moment intellect of GMs" out. At this rate I want it named after me.

No, I don't have a deep distrust of GMs. For the most part I AM a GM. I propose rules that oppose unrestrained pulling bullshit out of your own ass at the last minute not because I don't trust the GM to use that power but because its a STUPID POWER TO HAVE. I as a GM do not want that annoying clumsy "power". Every time that I know that I just pulled a DC out of my ass there is at least ONE player at the table who knows the game is just fairy tea party and feels sad, and that is me.

But regardless, since you accuse my proposed system of ruining game play lets talk about that a second.

I've actually run with something resembling this recently. And a social combat came up and was resolved with it and it all worked exactly as planned.

The players wanted this dude to use his army to assist with their unfolding plan to defeat their enemies. They asked him, he said no, they said "do it for Rome" he said no.

So, they busted out the social combat. The party all used their archetypal attacks on available targets. The opponent and his bodyguards threatened and in the end they lost to the party and the party Seducer was the one to take down the enemy leader.

Then the seducer said "Move your army around to our place sweety" and he said "I'll see you in three days baby"

That was perfect. The change over from un mediated rule less RP and back again was as obvious and smooth as I had hoped, everyone understood and followed where the rules began and they left off. No one felt cheated by my reasoning that the guy really didn't want to help them voluntarily. I didn't feel like a bastard for deciding he didn't want to help voluntarily. Everyone got that the guy was now motivated to try and make the seducer happy.

And most importantly of all the story was smoothly progressed due to player input and a good RP reason (in the form of a successful seduction) was given for its progression.

But anyway maybe some REAL discussion might be in order...

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

A scale of goals based upon their value to the target;

I just fail to see that being made to work.

How do you determine the scale of value to any given goal?

Which player actually sets the scale?

How does it fit in with your stat and level based manoeuvres and defences on the same RNG?

How does it stop the differentiation of goals being big enough to render meaningless the level based abilities and thus the character Archetypes you want to represent?

I'm all for considering the option but I've looked and failed to answer those questions in a satisfactory manner already. Unless you can suggest ways of handling it I haven't seen it just adds complexity and removes desirable features like functioning archetypes and level based abilities.

A set of status levels or effects (including those from the physical/magical combat types) which then may give access to those goals;

Essentially thats what I have already. Only the variation in the status effect is by flavour and expiry conditions rather than degree.

So you can basically get what you want through Threats or Friendship, but one of them you sound angry and one you sound nice. And for one of them the effect expires if you later cease to be a threat and for the other the effect expires if you later prove to have betrayed their trust.

Having a set of status effects for each type, such as say a Minor, Medium and Major Friendship status effect might be of interest but it raises a heck of a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Like who decides which of the infinite possible actions fall into which category, and why?

Are the major versions only dealt by high level attackers? If so then how does that screw up low level stuff?

How much more complexity does this add to the social resolution system?

Adding additional complexity so that players can opt to spend more time for a lesser result, is that option going to be used? Appreciated?

A major benefit of my proposed system is that it is clear exactly when it starts (Impasse between players) and exactly when it ends (someones side is defeated). But if you can get what you want by inflicting only Minor Friendship status, does the social combat end? Why doesn't the opponent try to keep throwing status effects at you? How do we know exactly when it is over and everyone is happy to stop demanding yet another re-roll on their equivalent to a bluff/sense-motive check?

A series of stat and level based maneuvers and defenses (defenses are level based).

That's pretty much how I see it working. The difficulty of the social encounter set by the relative levels and archetypes of the characters trying to modify each others motivations.

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.

My problem with that is that just because something seems subjectively easier to do doesn't mean it has a smaller impact on the game play or story.

Its easier to convince you to hold something for me than to make you confess to murdering the king. But when the package contains a bloody dagger its basically the same thing.

So the second you care about a result at all the social encounter becomes a slow awkward mess while players think very hard and reword their actions over and over trying to figure out what you think would be the easiest way for them to get what they want.

If you don't differentiate by the specific methodology then players can just throw down their idea as it stands, and if they thought of "hey lets frame him by using his trust to hold this package" they feel smart, and if they couldn't think of anything better than "I'll convince my stooge to willingly take a fall" they don't get screwed for not being skilled story tellers.

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

No idea what "we" are going for.

I have specific goals. Though not a specific intended Genre. I guess I just want to support my gaming group's genre.
1) To support the play style and capabilities of my group.
2) To not punish people because I think the lies/reasoning they came up with is crap.
3) To have social combat be a commonly available alternative to physical combat and still progress the game/story smoothly, dramatically and rapidly.
4) To allow the avoidance of detailed discussion of some aspects of social actions. People want to be the cool seductress or cold stand over man, but they don't exactly want to negotiate with you explicitly how many erotic tonguing actions or graphically crushed children's thumbs are involved (kind of a requirement for any system where those contribute directly as subjective modifiers)

[Daiba]

1201053923[/unixtime]]By that argument, Daiba, there's no need for combat maneuvers or hitpoints.

It's not that I'm against every by the numbers system resolution, it's just that this one (and many others I've seen) are really worse than not having one at all. You need graded difficulties, or the way people interact, the way politics works, will not at all resemble what people are used to. Maybe you don't care about that. That's fine, but the admission has to be made.

A scale of goals based upon their value to the target;

Yes! The lack of this is my main objection to PL's system.

2) My system doesn't differentiate between things which matter (recruiting for violent overthrow of government) and things we don't care about (making me buy certain RPG systems).

Your system doesn't differentiate between things that matter, and things that still matter, but to a lesser degree. There's no partial success, or partial failure. Maybe if each social combat were time-limited, and you assessed degree of success at the end based on a comparison of the two parties, it would work. For example, you could then have 1/1, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, and 0/1 levels of success and failure based on how much social damage each side accrues. Of course, that's essentially the same as having graded difficulty...

I've actually run with something resembling this recently. And a social combat came up and was resolved with it and it all worked exactly as planned.

...

And most importantly of all the story was smoothly progressed due to player input and a good RP reason (in the form of a successful seduction) was given for its progression.

You've shown me that your system can work if used as a metagame, narrative tool, with a reasonable GM and reasonable players. If that's what you want, then bill it as such.

A social system, like a combat system, is essentially a physical law of the game world. Pit fiends fight each other with d20s, and when peasants argue over land, they'll be using your social attacks. When you implement something like this, you have to look at the ramifications from the top to the bottom and decide whether your world is still going to look the same. As it stands, I guarantee you it won't. Without a graded scale for different goals, the game's social landscape will look nothing like what most DMs and players want, and are used to.

Whenever I talk about how rules should be some guy pulls this "you clearly do not trust in the infinite kindness and spur of the moment intellect of GMs" out. At this rate I want it named after me.

It's more your acrid tone which seems to be confined GM defined DCs or modifiers, rather than general rules talk. Maybe that's just how you talk, and I've misconstrued your tone. My apologies.

Regardless, you are trusting the GM to not be a dick. You can't have a goal of "prevent the GM from being a dick", because that's impossible to implement inside the game.

[Crissa]

PL: Mean graded goals based upon their worth to the target.

Are you asking for his life? A couple days? An hour of inconvenience?
Each of those also have a monetary value; but I was thinking more of a percentile grade of a person's worth. That way the king might not care for a GP but a beggar might not part with a CP because they're of similar relative value.

Just something so that a GM can use some rulers to determine which status effect would be sufficient for the request, that's all.

I know some characters might be more generous or whatnot, but we gotta get the DCs somewhere, right?

The rest sounds great.

And I meant what genre you were suggesting would fit. I'd make the design assumption that not all social encounter rules will work for every genre, that's all. I have no idea what you play with at home.

-Crissa

[Username17]

My system doesn't differentiate between things which matter (recruiting for violent overthrow of government) and things we don't care about (making me buy certain RPG systems).

Right. Your system doesn't distinguish between me getting you to set three hours of your life on fire and me getting you to set your entire life on fire. That's not "social" that's "bullshit."

There needs to be limits both to how much persuasion you can do, and to how far a specific person can be persuaded. Otherwise it doesn't generate a game that feels like a social situation.

If one character ha a narrow social edge they can presumably get some concessions. But they can't just keep playing their same edge over and over again to grind their opponent down into poverty or thralldom. That does not even make sense. From a simulationist standpoint, there is no way to even describe what such an action would entail because windmills do not work that way. From a gameplay standpoint it is also crap, because the gameplay does not then translate into anything knowable ahead of time.

If you were making a computer game this system could be fine. Beat the shopkeeper at social combat and you get a discount, beat the guard captain at social combat and he'll let you into the city, beat the king at social combat and he'll give you a knighthood. And so on with the specific game elements you achieve for beating each NPC in social combat hard coded for each of those NPCs. But in a table top game it doesn't work at all. Quite simply the results are as unguided as the modifiers you are arguing against. And that's even worse.

As is, your system is less functional than the Basic D&D system where an NPC has a starting attitude and that sets a DC to improve that attitude.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

1201061226[/unixtime]]2) My system doesn't differentiate between things which matter (recruiting for violent overthrow of government) and things we don't care about (making me buy certain RPG systems).

And as far as I'm concerned things we don't care about shouldn't be covered by the system at all. And that's the only differentiation I can conceive of functioning.

Then the system must define the difference. You say rpg purchasing habits aren't worthy of social combat. If one of your players disagrees who is right? What in the rules tells us?

We know trying to hit someone is an attack roll with a few defined exceptions. Social rules need to be the same.


Are NPCs intended to be allowed to use social combat on PCs?

[PhoneLobster]

Then the system must define the difference. You say rpg purchasing habits aren't worthy of social combat. If one of your players disagrees who is right?

Simple enough.

Since the differentiation is defined by game play.

The social combat does not occur when Frank suggests I buy an RPG system. I just say no.

Then the player in charge of Frank says, damnit this is so important I will suborn that character and make him do what I want, and in the process risk whatever retaliatory suborning he might attempt.

Then social combat occurs.

Essentially if a player disagrees as to when social combat occurs... then social combat occurs.

But personally I would take Franks player aside and say "Hey, you really want to waste our time resolving this?" Much as I would if Frank's player decided to send Frank over to my house to exercise the regular combat rules over a similar trifle.

I mean there is no rule for regular combat saying "you can't kick his ass without a good reason" and I'm not offering one for social combat. If he REALLY wants to pull out the big guns and use it because I disagreed with some item of no import then whatever.

Quite simply the results are as unguided as the modifiers you are arguing against. And that's even worse.

You aren't thinking this one through Frank.

The results are unguided. That's an RPG for you. Potentially ludicrously open ended. I just live with that.

But here is the thing.

No one complains about how "open ended" regular combat is. The potential implications for the plot line in the game are... limitless.

So yeah to some degree the results of social combat are similarly "unguided" as the unguided modifiers I'm arguing against. (but, hey, the rolling and resolution phase is over at this point, so at least it doesn't screw you in the fairness department)

But the unguided modifiers are unguided at BOTH ends.

Because anyone can set up some social action that has either massive negative OR massive positive modifiers AND its result on game play could be... anything.

Alternately you can do what I'm suggesting, drop the unknowable modifiers, and yeah, the result is still fairly unknowable, but hey. We've moved forward.

But with the subjective out your ass modifiers I can tell you a very believable lie, or a totally ludicrous one. And if either lie works you might end up in a situation of minor inconvenience, or dead.

Unless you are suggesting modifiers based on the degree of the result and NOT the subjective "believability" or perceived "inconvenience" of the action.

And yes, this AGAIN brings back the peasant with the artefact sword becoming socially invulnerable.

Feel free to explain how open ended subjective modifiers somehow remove the open ended results, or how result/inconvenience related modifiers don't make social weaklings more invulnerable the more ludicrous their stash of loot.

[Username17]

No one complains about how "open ended" regular combat is.

Because it's not open ended. You can at most kill the people you are fighting. And this success gives you right of plunder on whatever they happened to have in their pockets. No more.

It does not allow you to hit people so hard that their family members die. It does not allow you to rifle through their pockets so hard that their lair magically empties itself into yours.

Physical combat is discrete and limited. The modifiers are well established (with minor ad hocs for weird situations like riding around on a giant slug or whatever) and the results of the combat are extremely simple and fixed. You have found who has won and who is dead. The victors are left with a pile of corpses that they may be able to loot. And that's it.

Now once you've killed the dragon you can very likely marry the princess and rule the kingdom. But that is not a result of the dragon combat resolution itself, that's a social modifier that is extremely large based on the fact that you personally defeated an opponent that was perceived as itself being greater than the kingdom.

Defeating the Black Knight can certainly earn you a knighthood yourself. Defeating a manticore might get you the hand of a royal. And defeating the great dragon could well get you the entire kingdom. And it does all this socially. And if you're going to have social rules at all, it needs to address the difference between those positions or it's worse than just playing magical teaparty.

That's the nuclear option. If a rule system is not as helpful as just Munchausening it, we put the dice aside and tell stories. You have not convinced me that your system has an advantage over no system in this instance.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

1201082600[/unixtime]]I mean there is no rule for regular combat saying "you can't kick his ass without a good reason" and I'm not offering one for social combat. If he REALLY wants to pull out the big guns and use it because I disagreed with some item of no import then whatever.

Fair enough, it sounded sort of like there would be circumstances where someone wouldn't be able to start up social combat.

About modifiers: I'm happy with those. We already have subjective higher ground and cover/concealment. As long as they are broad categories like that it shouldn't be too contentious. Assuming the group is cooperating to tell a story at least. If its the sort of group that can't agree on cover bonus or what level of concealment then its going to fail.

[Edit]I am shit at quoting. [/Edit]

[PhoneLobster]

It does not allow you to hit people so hard that their family members die.

If they are the sole protector or provider then yes, it does.

It does not allow you to rifle through their pockets so hard that their lair magically empties itself into yours.

If you happen to defeat them at their lair, then, well, yes, it does.

Now once you've killed the dragon you can very likely marry the princess and rule the kingdom. But that is not a result of the dragon combat resolution itself, that's a social modifier that is extremely large based on the fact that you personally defeated an opponent that was perceived as itself being greater than the kingdom.

Just like defeating the king in social combat. It isn't HIM giving you the kingdom that gives you the kingdom, its the "social modifier" of the kingdom looking on going "crap, those guys are better social overlords than he is"

And if its "not the result of the dragon combat resolution itself" then if you lose the encounter and die do you still get to marry the princess and rule the kingdom?

Defeating the Black Knight can certainly earn you a knighthood yourself. Defeating a manticore might get you the hand of a royal. And defeating the great dragon could well get you the entire kingdom. And it does all this socially.

So, physical combat can cause wildly different and significant results based on the importance and power of who you defeat.

And you level the criticism against my system that social combat can cause wildly different and significant results based on the importance and power of who you defeat?

And really. Those aren't strictly "social" effects that you describe. Those are ramifications based as much on the plot line of the story and the power level of the challenge overcome. And yes. Both those things have ramifications for victorious social encounters. That's OK. That's unavoidable. That's already part of the status quo. You can't design me a system that avoids that "criticism" and if you did I'd criticise it for avoiding something it shouldn't.

I mean, what the heck? Social combat might effect the plot line? Oooh, must be just like fairy tea party. Because combat can't effect the plot line, existing or alternative social rules can't effect the plot line.

Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

About modifiers: I'm happy with those. We already have subjective higher ground and cover/concealment. As long as they are broad categories like that it shouldn't be too contentious.

But that's different to what people have been discussing.

Higher ground etc... essentially gets a portion of the RNG assigned to it to work with. And its not big. Its not bigger than your class/archetype variations, level based powers, etc...

If you want small well defined subjective modifiers used during social combat that are limited in those ways, that's no big deal.

But people have been advocating modifiers that range literally from +infinity to -infinity. Because some things are just that subjectively hard or easy. At that point the circumstantial modifier is bigger than the entire system and negotiating your modifier is the most important and time consuming aspect rendering all else irrelevant.

So yeah, social cover, moral high ground. Etc... bring it on. Totally subjective "how hard does it feel" modifiers however are a non starter.

[socrates999]

Delurking for a few minutes. . .

First, I don't buy the argument that in when walking down the street you can just choose to ignore the attractive woman or the car salesman. You can only "ignore" the bad ones - because you won the social combat that they tried to initiate on you.

Think about there are literally thousands of people in the US who go to "free" seminars to learn about time shares so they can "earn" a free gift. They go with no intention of buying a time share (because time shares are stupid). And yet, every year, thousands of people buy stupid time shares. And sign bad deals on buying cars. And take out payday loans at 900% interest. And do stupid things for a potential lover. And on and on. Social combat does happen, and there are real consequences. You just may not realize that you lost the combat. You're doing it because you think you want to.

And maybe you have buyer's remorse the next day (when the social damage wears off), but by then it's too late - you signed the contract, bought the car, etc. . .

Second, I do think that there should be modifiers in the realm of combat modifiers - things in the +1 to +4 or so range based on tactical social situations. Maybe the king has an advisor who is able to create difficult social terrain. Or has social concealment. And he probably has the equivalent of social bodyguards. Just like you couldn't just walk up to him pull your sword and stab him in the face without his bodyguards getting in the way, the same would likely go for his counselors. And if he is high enough level to be a level appropriate challenge for you, then he won't be a pushover in social combat either.

Third, I think that there is a lot of room for long lasting social combat effects. So you can seduce the queen over a period of months, and the seduction damage doesn't heal. Eventually you wear her down (do enough sedutcion damage) and then you've seduced her. Maybe there should be a distinction between acute and chronic social damage. Doing enough chronic social damage to someone may be enough to remove them as a threat as they lose standing in the circles of power.

Fourth, you might need to think about some forms of social combat as aggressive or noticeable and others as subtle. So if you attempt to intimidate someone in social combat, it is just as blatant as pulling out your axe and going to town and therefore draws the same kind of reaction (although perhaps more likely social than physical). Seduction might be more subtle (or not) and therefore have penalties associated with its use if you want it to remain unknown - this could be paired with the idea of long term/chronic social damage.

[RandomCasualty]

1201128526[/unixtime]]

Think about there are literally thousands of people in the US who go to "free" seminars to learn about time shares so they can "earn" a free gift. They go with no intention of buying a time share (because time shares are stupid). And yet, every year, thousands of people buy stupid time shares. And sign bad deals on buying cars. And take out payday loans at 900% interest. And do stupid things for a potential lover. And on and on. Social combat does happen, and there are real consequences. You just may not realize that you lost the combat. You're doing it because you think you want to.

Yeah, sometimes you may set a lot of money on fire because you got tricked into it. Sometimes you might make bad decisions. But in no case is anyone becoming a mindless mind controlled robot for the rest of their lives. The attractive girl at the bar can get me to buy her a drink or give her a ride some place, but she isn't going to get me to kill my family.

And really, it's that lesser stuff that I'm interested in, because that's the most common use for social abilities. Inherently I feel that social combat should handle stuff like Frank trying to convince us to buy Shadowrun, the corrupt merchant trying to sell you a substandard magic sword, offering the guard a bribe to let you into the castle or talking the mercenary into giving up the name of his employer. Those are decisions that you can possibly get influenced into making and none of those involve busting out the mind control ray, yet they're stuff that can help you by letting you bypass obstacles without combat.

PL basically has no rules for the above stuff, since all his social combat involves is when you choose to draw your mind control ray. You're not negotiating, you're just dominating.

[PhoneLobster]

Sometimes you might make bad decisions. But in no case is anyone becoming a mindless mind controlled robot for the rest of their lives.

Scientology anyone?

The attractive girl at the bar can get me to buy her a drink or give her a ride some place, but she isn't going to get me to kill my family.

She might however live in your house, on your money, get you to pay for her to raise children, and get you to run her various errands FOREVER.

And even if it came down to a choice between the love of your life and your family...

I'm simply going to say its entirely established in source fiction that seducers turn you against your friends and family ALL THE TIME.

It may even be sufficiently established they do that in reality.

No one would blink twice if it happened in game.

And really, it's that lesser stuff that I'm interested in, because that's the most common use for social abilities. Inherently I feel that social combat should handle stuff like Frank trying to convince us to buy Shadowrun, the corrupt merchant trying to sell you a substandard magic sword, offering the guard a bribe to let you into the castle or talking the mercenary into giving up the name of his employer.

Stop right there RC. Because.

One of these things is not like the others.

One of these things is not quite the same.

We really don't care if frank sells us shadow run (and he doesn't care if he fails). But we REALLY care about the other three things.

The other three things are LIFE AND DEATH SITUATIONS. If I buy a sub standard sword I die. If the guard lets me into the palace the king kills him. If the mercenary names his employer his employer kills him.

At the very least they are all massively against the interests of the victim, and against any reasonable response without the impact of some form of compulsion that takes control of the victims actions AGAINST their interests and their controlling players interests.

They are all major turning points in the plot of the game. No less so than if the merchant tried to stab me, or if I killed the guard to get in or if I beat the merc to death and stole his employment contract from his corpse.

These are all events on par with what my system is designed to deal with. They are all so important they EASILY warrant "breaking out the mind control ray".

Heck if you use regular d20 you can seriously expect people to LITERALLY break out the mind control spells for ALL THOSE SITUATIONS.

They are NOT "lesser stuff".

In fact its examples exactly like those why I DON'T dispute that the results of my social combat system could easily lead to the death of the victim. But then, the same goes for your alternative...

[RandomCasualty]

1201133620[/unixtime]]
She might however live in your house, on your money, get you to pay for her to raise children, and get you to run her various errands FOREVER.

And even if it came down to a choice between the love of your life and your family...

I'm simply going to say its entirely established in source fiction that seducers turn you against your friends and family ALL THE TIME.

It may even be sufficiently established they do that in reality.

No one would blink twice if it happened in game.

If it happened over time, probably not.

But if it's some girl you just met and suddenly she talks you into killing your family, that's pretty stupid.

The problem with your system is that it happens like super fast. You get someone to basically be your slave in like the space of 5 minutes and they have to give you nothing.

Even the seducing girl better be at least giving out sex and stuff if she expects to get any perks out of you.

The other three things are LIFE AND DEATH SITUATIONS. If I buy a sub standard sword I die. If the guard lets me into the palace the king kills him. If the mercenary names his employer his employer kills him.

At the very least they are all massively against the interests of the victim, and against any reasonable response without the impact of some form of compulsion that takes control of the victims actions AGAINST their interests and their controlling players interests.

I don't think they're always against the interest of the victim. At least not entirely. See good negotiation makes you think it is in your interests.

Bribing the guard:

"Come on, I just need to get into the castle. Here's 500 gold that you can use to buy medicine for your sick daughter. I won't get caught doing anything in the castle, after all, I'm no fool. I know if I was ever caught breaking in, I'd be sentenced to death. "

Merchant selling the sword :

"See this sword has jewels all over it. The ladies will be all over you when they see this. Just imagine you walk into the tavern and the fighter next to you pulls out some plain masterwork sword... Yeah it fights well, but it's not going to catch any glances from the noblewomen. And why should it, it's just a standard boring old sword for a standard dull witted mercenary warrior. But what about if you had this blade! See how nicely that blade catches the light? And look at all those gemstones... that just says 'I'm a hero of legend'. "

Mercenary:

"What's your employer paying you? Only 200 gold for that whole job? Well that's just sad, you know I know a friend up in Cormyr who was getting 500 gold for a very similar job. Your boss really ripped you off on that one. They're still hiring for jobs in Cormyr and I know you're just a man following orders, doing his job, and not really my enemy. They could use good men like you up in Cormyr, and the pay is double. If you tell me what I want to know, I'll let you go free and maybe give you the name of a good employer up there that could get you a job. If not, I'll turn you over to the local authorities for attacking us. I realize you're normally loyal to your employer, but think of yourself here..."

Now as you can see... all these offers are certainly things that someone may accept or turn down. none of them involve making someone a mindless slave, but none of them are exactly no brainers either.

And that's the stuff if you have a social system that you want it to resolve. Reasonable requests that may or may not work.

But in any case you can see good reasons why someone may or may not accept an offer.

The guard or mercenary could decide he'd rather have his honor and be loyal to his employer. Maybe the guard just doesn't trust you that you won't be spotted... who knows. The adventurer buying the sword may realize the defects in the otherwise good looking sword and buy something else.

But in either case, there's actually a reasonable story reason for people to behave regardless of which option they happen to choose.

In your system, there's really no great story reason for people to switch sides. It's just suddenly you're a white peice and you get flipped over to black, for no good reason. The guy didn't offer you anything, you're just suddenly a mindless robot on his team now. And that tells shit stories. It doesn't even make any sense.

I mean as a PC you can't even explain in character why you decided to side with Kordrik the Deciever. How the fuck are you supposed to make a story out of that?

[Crissa]

At this point, PL, I think you need to have the stuff written out so we know what you're arguing for.

Because I don't think your social combat modifiers are currently high enough.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

1201123453[/unixtime]]It does not allow you to hit people so hard that their family members die.

Higher ground etc... essentially gets a portion of the RNG assigned to it to work with. And its not big. Its not bigger than your class/archetype variations, level based powers, etc...

If you want small well defined subjective modifiers used during social combat that are limited in those ways, that's no big deal. [/quote]

Thats pretty much what I want. Most of the bonus should be level based since this is D&D. Then add some subjective stuff about how much the other guy likes you and how good the deal is.

Actually I liked GitP's diplomacy revision the best out of anything I've seen.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

The physical combat system works the same wether I want to slay a dragon that wants to eat me, or I want smack the party rogue in the back of the head for making a stupid joke. Now, in all truth, noone cares if I smack the rogue in the back of the head for a pitiful amount of subdual damage, but the system is still there if I want to use it.

-Desdan

[socrates999]

While I don't buy the whole "mind control ray" argument, there are many real life examples of people using almost exactly that.

There are people who are convinced to drink the poison kool-aid. There are people who are convinced to hate their children because of their sexual orientation. There are people who are convinced to turn their children into suicide bombers. There are people who are convinced to kill their spouse so they can run away with a lover. People can be convinced to do absolutely horrible things. Maybe it is by a 20th level convincer. And maybe they're 1st level sheep. But it still happens.

[Draco_Argentum]

But we don't want that shit happening to the PCs. So even level combatants shouldn't get facially pwned like that.

[PhoneLobster]

But we don't want that shit happening to the PCs. So even level combatants shouldn't get facially pwned like that.

Wait. So my system aside, the evil queen can be seduced into alliance against the king.

But she can't seduce the party barbarian into alliance with her?

I call no fair on that.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I think it should be possible to use social skills to talk enemies into joining your side, convince people to kill themselves, and convince kings to give you their kingdom. I don't think it should be easy, certainly not a matter of "I put all my points into diplomacy and now I can talk anyone into anything". If it's gonna be possible to 'win' using only social skills (And it needs to be possible to 'win' using social skills), then it needs to take as much effort and resource-devotion as it does to 'win' using spells or swords*. Just like you don't want a wizard to say "I'm bored, so I think I'm going to kick ass with a sword for a while" and then be just as good with a sword as the guy who's been spending all his resources on "Sword Guy", you don't want sword guy or spell guy to go "I'm bored of using spells/swords to win, so I think I'm going to convince people to kill themselves, just like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs!"

-Desdan

*Before you come out bitching, in a good game, you should be able to 'win' with swords too. This game may not be D&D but that's irrelevant.

[RandomCasualty]

1201344803[/unixtime]](And it needs to be possible to 'win' using social skills),

This I guess I don't understand. What's the obsession with making social skills being able to solve every single encounter in the game? That might make sense if it was a game about lawyers or politicians or something, but this is D&D, the game where you're heroes and kill monsters.

I mean I dunno about you, but I think there damn well should be situations that can't be resolved with diplomacy. Maybe diplomacy can help by getting you some extra allies, but at the end of the day, that necromancer is evil and you're going to have to fight him, because that's what the game is all about.

I'm not saying you can't advance your goals with social skills, but to be able to just say you can win every single combat by just talking I think makes social abilities way too powerful.

The main problem that keeps coming up with social guys is that it's a one man endeavor. one guy is playing Conan, who chops stuff up and the other guy is playing the magic nagging bitch, who keeps harping on people until they're so miserable they stick a dagger in their eye just so she doesn't talk anymore.

Those who ideas just aren't very compatible and you can't have them in the same group. Because the nagging bitch is bored while Conan is swordfighting and Conan is bored while the nagging bitch is doing her thing. No matter what the system, you're still going to run into the 3rd edition shadowrun decking problem, where you've got two people playing entirely different games, while the other side is just sitting there with nothing to do.

Social ability should be a secondary skill, like picking a lock or disabling a trap. It's just not compatible enough with regular combat to be a combat replacement.

[PhoneLobster]

The main problem that keeps coming up with social guys is that it's a one man endeavor.

I think its already been made fairly clear that that need not be the case. And that it would be a bad idea to needlessly make it so. Though admittedly Desdan seems to want it to be that way.

But it could work that way if he wants to. You would just do away with social combat and just have social flavoured attacks as a potential role in regular combat.

Because then it works just as he described, in the same way as choosing between swords and spells, its a role in the same phase of the game as everyone else plays in.

It's certainly acceptable, just not at all the same place I'm going with social mechanics.

[PhoneLobster]

but to be able to just say you can win every single combat by just talking I think makes social abilities way too powerful.

When designing my social combat stuff I was faced with a small problem.

If one guy wants to use talking, and one guy wants to use murder.

What the hell happens? Do I provide complex rules for social encounters that coincide or mix with combat encounters? If not then I have to set precedence and say one encounter type trumps the other, but which one?

So I set a precedence rule.

Regular combat and social combat couldn't happen at the same time. If it was attempted then regular combat gets precedence.

I thought I'd throw a bone to my group's most avid hack and slasher (a blood thirsty young man with a combat centric gaming view apparently shared by RC).

[Draco_Argentum]

1201344657[/unixtime]]
Wait. So my system aside, the evil queen can be seduced into alliance against the king.

But she can't seduce the party barbarian into alliance with her?

I call no fair on that.

No, I said even level combatants. Doesn't matter if they're PCs or NPCs.

I don't want to see the PCs having their actions too heavily controlled by the social rules.* The social rules also must apply to the PCs equally. If they don't than the DM has nothing other than 'because I said so' when he wants an NPC to try to influence a PC.

End result, the social rules can't change the actions of the loser a whole lot.

*PCs are typically courageous with strong convictions for a reason. They're the heroes.

[PhoneLobster]

No, I said even level combatants.

So that stuff does exist but it just requires level inappropriate opponents so the PCs know what they are doing doesn't matter or that the GM is fucking them over.

Meanwhile you basically put a big stamp on level appropriate challenges saying "Social is not a real option".

OK fair enough. But its not the game I want to play, not by a long shot.