Social Combat

[MGuy]

I can understand wanting to make the Charisma man shine but I thought part of it was to make sure everyone participates in the social arena just as much as they can in the combat one. Wouldn't you need to divvy up related stats as well?

[ubernoob]

//

[MGuy]

just as much as they can in the combat one.

I doubt people are generally just aiding another throughout combat.

[ubernoob]

//

[Kobajagrande]

So the classic "good cop/bad cop" sceme gets reduced to "aid another than attack"? That's bad.

Actually, ubernoob, you know what you should do? Find and watch an episode of Homicide called "Three men and Adeena". Those 45 mins are really the essence of what social combat should be. If your rules cannot simulate that, then you should not be pleased with them. Hell, maybe even a starting point should be "how to make that work in an rpg"

[tzor]

I should point out that his limitation is within a single round. Having said that, and not considering the underlying rules mechanism, “good cop/bad cop” is a very complex action. It first involves the bad cop to intimidate the victim (the first action), then later the good cop to befriend the victim and to convince him that if the information is given he will protect the victim from the “bad cop.” This isn’t really one action, it’s three, and they are completely separate. (Indeed; the bad cop needs to be done in isolation from the good cop, because the action of intimidation is against the nature that the good cop wants to project.)

Back to my general point abut such rules. Social interactions need to be at the same level of granularity as combat. Thus like flanking an opponent may require multiple steps so too would a good cop/bad cop maneuver require multiple steps.

[MGuy]

I think that dynamic you pointed out is a good way to go and is doable within the rules. Intimidate inflicts shaken status. That imposes a -2 to will so the good cop's charm is more likely to work.

[RandomCasualty2]

Social combat has a few problems. Namely that social conflicts don't behave like standard battles with swords.

Partial victories: One main difference between social combat and real combat is that social combat needs to have degrees. Social combats shouldn't end with total victory. Winning a social battle against the black knight may cause him to leave the village alone and go home, but it shouldn't instantly get him to repent his wicked ways and become your slave. Similarly, asking the king to borrow a few horses for your quest needs to be a much easier social battle than asking him to turn over his kingdom to you.

Not won by attrition: In general, social combats aren't like taking an axe and beating a stone wall. If you're not adept enough to convince someone, you're probably not going to convince them by merely continuing to talk long periods of time, unless you use extreme measures like torture and brainwashing.

May have only one attacker: In standard combat, both sides are trying to kill each other. That's not necessarily true in social combat. One side is often simply defending against a proposal by the other side. This means that unlike real combat, where you can get killed, social combat tends to not have as many consequences. When some beggar comes up to you asking for coin, you really don't want anything from him. If social combat can do a lot of shit, you have to expect that people can and will try to do it on every merchant in town to get free shit.

[ubernoob]

//

[MGuy]

I think the "not won by attrition" point can be mitigated if there were a subset of stipulation rules for social combat. I don't know maybe "Social Arenas" where depending on the "Social Challenge" you have a set of "Social Goals" you must reach with different conditions and special rules surrounding how each "Social Arena" works.

-Edit: Forgot to mention that the rules may include time limits.

-Edit Again- There could be political, tribal, market, tribunal, Seduction, etc etc Arenas which have special rules like: Political Shenigans take place over X days or weeks, where in which parties may bribe, make a deal, politically assassinate, call in a favor, frame, extort, lie, call a meeting, contribute, Use Leverage, Ability X. But while in a political arena you may not physically intimidate, physically attack, verbally abuse or do anything else "uncivilized" or you automatically fail.

[koz]

Ubernoob: I think to address RC's second point, an 'anti-spamming' clause would be more productive.

[PhoneLobster]

OK I have RC on ignore so I can't address his "points".

But seriously don't even fucking try.

You can not make a social combat system that adheres to his insanity.

Go back and look at his contribution to every single social combat, or even social mechanic thread ever.

He is FUCKING INSANE. And if you try and satisfy his contradictory and bad design goals on this issue you will go nowhere.

Fast.

But then since you are going in this sort of direction...

Every attack after a the tenth round of combat gives the target a cumulative +1 per subsequent attack to defend against further attacks.

And this sort of direction...

There could be political, tribal, market, tribunal, Seduction, etc etc Arenas which have special rules like: Political Shenigans take place over X days or weeks, where in which parties may bribe, make a deal, politically assassinate, call in a favor, frame, extort, lie, call a meeting, contribute, Use Leverage, Ability X. But while in a political arena you may not physically intimidate, physically attack, verbally abuse or do anything else "uncivilized" or you automatically fail.

I think I can safely already say "Social combat, you're doing it wrong" anyway.

Remember some of the key goals here?

Balance, abstraction and fitting into the d20 system without being tacked on, cumbersome, alien and shitty.

Those suggestions don't do that.

[ubernoob]

//

[MGuy]

Balance, abstraction and fitting into the d20 system without being tacked on, cumbersome, alien and shitty.

I thought the idea was to do all those things and make it as deep (or almost as deep as) combat. Since DnD doesn't have a social minigame (or really any other real minigame) I'd have to submit that any such thing, if it is to be as varied and interesting as combat (should be), would be tacked on, alien, and cumbersome. Combat is the big thing in DnD anything else that is to be even half as big would be labeled as those things. Anything less would just be a skill challenge.

[PhoneLobster]

The more I look at it the more I am convinced if you want to add it to d20 it should not be a mini game but an in combat effect.

Almost everything in d20 works like that, including various existing "social" powers like Charm Person and Fear and such.

You want to add it do d20 and make it good then that's where you want to be.

So yeah, d20 doesn't have minigames, so for this to be a d20 addition it shouldn't really BE a mini game then should it?

In d20 Social Combat should be something you do IN combat.

The Barbarian scares off a bunch of mooks. The sorceress seduces and ogre and rides his shoulders through the rest of the encounter. The Rogue tricks the villain into falling into a pit of lava.

Most of the d20 systems "non combat" effects are basically combat powers that have non combat implications.

So for it to be genuinely "d20" in nature really all this negotiation off the combat field business should be something you just happen to be good at as a side effect of having an ability that seduces ogres in the middle of fist fights.

[ubernoob]

//

[mean_liar]

Not won by attrition: In general, social combats aren't like taking an axe and beating a stone wall. If you're not adept enough to convince someone, you're probably not going to convince them by merely continuing to talk long periods of time, unless you use extreme measures like torture and brainwashing.

Have you been to MPSIMS recently?

[tzor]

Social combat has a few problems. Namely that social conflicts don't behave like standard battles with swords.

I will disagree; they work exactly like standard battles with swords. The problem is not social conflict but self imposed limitations on the wide variety of possibilities in physical combat.

Partial victories: ...

Partial victories are always possible in physical combat as well. Not all physical combat needs to be “to the death.”

Not won by attrition: ...

Some arguments are won by attrition. There is the old Biblical parable about the old woman who so pestered the judge that the judge ruled in her favor so he would have to be bothered by her anymore.

On the other hand, considering the possible nature of social healing surges and post encounter ego healing, it is not as easy as chopping every day at a mostly dead piece of wood.

May have only one attacker: ...

That’s a stupid requirement. Just as you can be “flanked” by attackers, you can be “flanked” in a debate or a discussion or even an argument. (The “good cop / bad cop” is a different problem because each cop uses a different type of attack in sequence.)

In fact every single combat maneuver has an equivalent social maneuver; parrying an argument, reposting a counter argument, dodging the issue altogether, socially tripping up your opponent, and so on.

The only real difference between social combat and physical combat is the goal (and the fact that unlike physical combat, there is not just one single parameter – HP – you are trying to adjust; you could be bruising his ego, or trying to adjust his attitude towards you) and while all combat attacks basically work towards the same goal, not all social attacks work towards that same goal.

[RandomCasualty2]

Not won by attrition: In general, social combats aren't like taking an axe and beating a stone wall. If you're not adept enough to convince someone, you're probably not going to convince them by merely continuing to talk long periods of time, unless you use extreme measures like torture and brainwashing.

Have you been to MPSIMS recently?

People certainly try to win social debates by attrition, but it doesn't actually do any good. It's not about that you can't try to just constantly spam people with text Elennsar style, it's just that that's not going to actually convince people that way.

It's why pretty much if someone's opinion is going to change, it'll change in the first two pages of a thread and not 10 pages deep. By that point all the major arguments have been stated and it's just devolved into pointless nitpicks which won't convince anyone.

That’s a stupid requirement. Just as you can be “flanked” by attackers, you can be “flanked” in a debate or a discussion or even an argument.

You missed my point. It wasn't that there was only actually one person attacking, but rather that there was only one side attacking. The other side may well be total defense. Unlike combat where I'm trying to kill you and you're trying to kill me, in a social encounter, one side may well have nothing to lose because the other side isn't even trying to socially attack.

[IGTN]

Both sides are always trying to get something, it's just not always obvious. If you're trying to beg change from me, you're trying to get money from me, that's obvious. I'm trying to get you to leave me alone, which is less obvious but still a goal, and there should still be ways to advance that goal.

Honestly, in an abstracted social HP/damage system, making you give up and leave me alone is actually the same thing as making you surrender, or flee, or whatever in combat, and can even use the same rules. It's a social combat where you're trying to social attack me until I relent and give you money (i.e, surrender), and I'm trying to social attack you until you relent and fuck off (i.e., flee).

[PhoneLobster]

Both sides are always trying to get something, it's just not always obvious. If you're trying to beg change from me, you're trying to get money from me, that's obvious. I'm trying to get you to leave me alone, which is less obvious but still a goal, and there should still be ways to advance that goal.

Exactly.

Note one of the early points I made on this thread was that in social combat both sides MUST be fighting.

It is not acceptable for one guy to be throwing around social attacks that compel you to do stuff while you sit on your hands going "well gee that isn't really so bad so I won't take any actions".

Which is largely how a lot of semi informal social mechanics "work". Or more accurately, how they rather specifically DON'T work.

This is a game you are playing and when you are playing for rewards there should be risks. That means when social combat starts everyone draws their social swords. Or regular ones. That would be OK too.

[RandomCasualty2]

Honestly, in an abstracted social HP/damage system, making you give up and leave me alone is actually the same thing as making you surrender, or flee, or whatever in combat, and can even use the same rules. It's a social combat where you're trying to social attack me until I relent and give you money (i.e, surrender), and I'm trying to social attack you until you relent and fuck off (i.e., flee).

Well no. That's not how it works. I mean you can turn to the beggar on the street and actually yell at him to go away, but most people just keep walking and ignore the person. The beggar eventually gives up because he's not getting through, not because he was convinced to leave. In fact, the beggar could be persistent and follow you around for hours but he'll probably only succeed in annoying you or getting you to call the cops.

You want a system where continued attacks have diminishing returns and eventually become ineffective altogether, so that eventually someone turns a deaf ear and your only real option is to give up. You could read Shadzar's posts for hours and hours and he could keep telling you his stuff, but it's not actually going to convince you simply by the mass volume of stuff he posts.

Similarly, in any social system, you want to make sure that spamming isn't a valid tactic for most negotiations.

Note that this is contrary to how standard combat works. If someone keeps stabbing at you with a dagger, one of those shots may eventually get lucky and kill you. But conversations don't work that way. Doing a two hour filibuster on someone tends to just get them to stop listening as opposed to wearing down their defenses.

[Murtak]

But isn't getting someone to throw up their hands and leave the room a valid outcome of social combat? If that is analogous to running out of HPs in real combat, then convincing someone of your argument is the equivalent of Charm Person and intimidating them is the equivalent of Dominate Person.

[PhoneLobster]

Let me use my psychic guessing powers...

RC just advocated a "system" where one side gets to attack and the other one just has to grin and bear it.

Yeah?

Seriously. Get him off this thread as fast as you can, you've got NOTHING positive he can contribute to a social mechanic discussion of any kind.

[Murtak]

Actually he just advocated the opposite. Now kindly take him off ignore or stop littering this thread with bullshit accusations to show us all how much you hate him. Ignoring people does not work when you keep yelling "look how much I'm ignoring you".