"You said long-term contracts! That is very funny, because to us, long-term contracts is the word for what you would call wee-wee."
Many things are lacking in D&D. But one of the ones that pisses people off the most is the whole "interacting with people in a non-violent manner" thing. And that's understandable. The fact that the rules basically say "Use one broken skill check for the whole thing or roleplay it or whatever" doesn't help.
However it is worth noticing that even though no-one is happy with what we have now, there is no solution that will make everyone happy. WW fans want it to be Magic Tea Party, just like they (incorrectly) think WoD does it. Many others want MTP too for that matter. Some people think it should be a series of boring interchangeable skill checks, and those people are called WotC.
Well this is my attempt at solving it. Because a person who is socially retarded and has difficulty figuring out how people think is the best person for making a subsystem about social situations and how people think and act.
-
Social combat is not just some thing that gets whipped out whenever you see someone you might talk to. It is a form of combat - as such, there needs to be some form of opposition going on, and a way to determine winners and losers. As such, the first step is to determine whether it even occurs:
1. all sides state what they want.
If this ends up being "Bartender: I want to sell a drink for the usual price" and "Adventurer: I want to buy a drink for the usual price", for instance, the entire thing is resolved already. Only if you end up with "I want you to kill the goblins" against "I don't want to fight the goblins" and similar do you have an issue. So you need to decide what it is that someone wants, and their offer, and note these down so you have the different sides.
2. For every pair of sides opposing each other, draw up a progression track:
[X][ ][ ][ ][ ][Y]
(If the party is facing off against a party of other things, and each party has the same goals, you just treat it as one progression. Only if several people are all at odds with each other need you do several).
With the goals stated, they should be more firmly stated and clarified so it is known what a complete victory would bring. For some very simple encounters you may wish to have only one or two boxes in the middle. For a situation where there is an obvious midpoint that the two could agree on without any losers, adjust to 3 or 5. 6 or more boxes should be reserved only for epic things that require many steps of negotiation and compromise - things that probably last days in-game. If the party does this every time it comes down to who gets the round in, you're doing it wrong.
The battle is considered to be over and agreed on if both participants end on the same square. Where this is will determine what happens - one person getting their way entirely, a midpoint being reached or someone mostly getting the better of the other.
Examples:
"I want a free drink" vs "I don't want to give a free drink away"
[X][ ][ ][Y]
If they both end up on the same square (either of the left 2), Person X wins. If they both end up on either of the right 2, Person Y wins.
"I want to cross the bridge for no toll." vs "I want to charge 100 gold"
[X][ ][ ][ ][Y]
All the way to the left, Person X would cross for free.
One to the right, he would pay 25 GP.
In the middle, they would settle on 50 GP.
To the right, they would settle on 75 GP.
All the way on Person Y's side, the full fee would be paid.
"I want them to surrender, ceasing acts of war and paying damages to us. Additionally they must become part of our kingdom for the next hundred years, paying taxes to our throne and helping our soldiers fight the dwarfs." vs "I want them to stop fighting us, walk away from this and help rebuild our kingdom."
[X][ ][ ][ ][ ][Y]
From X to Y:
* Exactly as X states
* As above, except they will not help fight the dwarfs
* As above, except they will only become part of the kingdom, paying taxes, for ten years, longer if help is made to rebuild
* They will surrender, cease the war and pay damages, no more.
* They won't even pay damages. Both sides just walk away.
* Exactly as Y states
3. Determine Initiative: all sides roll 1d20+Charisma modifier. This determines the order social actions are taken in, highest to lowest. For every five ranks of Sense Motive a participant has, they may add +1 to their Initiative. Get used to Charisma being a pretty good stat in this, but I'm trying not to make it the win button.
4. Begin making actions, only halting when one of the following occurs:
A) Both participants end on the same square. They are then locked into place and the deal is struck. When more than two sides are involve, each is resolved separately, but when one deal is made, that part of the combat is considered over. It can only be changed (and then re-haggled) if conditions are directly altered by another combat. Example:
A agrees to help B grow cabbages in return for B letting him borrow his cart. But then C makes a deal with B, selling the cart for a crate of potatoes. In this instance, the debate between A and B would have to be reset, starting with new terms.
B) Both participants decide they would like to make a deal regardless of what the chart says - perhaps the tensions are rising and both feel the urgency warrants a compromise. In this case, find the agreed-on point and settle it. This is then treated as both being on that square, like with A).
C) Any participant accrues more than 3 anger tokens against another. If this happens, all negotiations cease and the deal is off. Physical combat might even begin. Treat the angered participant as Unfriendly or Hostile as the situation warrants.
Social Kombat Mk II
Moderator: Moderators
Social Kombat Mk II
Last edited by Koumei on Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
TERMS:
Anger tokens: some actions explicitly give or remove anger tokens (often giving them on a failed roll). A participant may always spend their action apologising or backpedaling, in which case they are moved one square towards the other in exchange for removing one anger token from the other. Characters with a negative Charisma modifier already begin with one anger token against them on each opposing participant. Remember that if an opponent has more than three Anger tokens (total), social combat immediately ends and, if physical combat begins, the angered target automatically gets a Surprise round.
Skill Attacks: many abilities call for a Skill Attack. This involves rolling 1d20 plus the ranks they possess in the skill, plus the relevant ability score modifier, plus three if the relevant [Skill] Feat (or Skill Focus) is held. Nothing else applies unless gained from an ability in this section. The DC is equal to 13 plus the opponent's hit dice plus their relevant ability score modifier (Wisdom against Diplomacy, Charisma against Intimidate, Intelligence against Bluff and Sense Motive). If you meet or exceed the DC, the ability works. Natural 1 and 20 are not special, only the total matters.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND MODIFIERS:
There is no hard list for what happens - it is impossible to cover everything. However general situations and common things can indeed be covered:
One party has the other at their mercy: start with the disadvantaged one step in the favour of the advantaged. Intimidate Attacks suffer a -2 penalty against the advantaged.
The parties are at war/in a fight: everyone starts with an Anger token against each other.
One party is [Mindless] or as insane as the spell: incapable of social combat.
Wearing obvious armour to a diplomatic function or tea party: -2 penalty to Diplomacy Attacks.
Carrying a weapon to a diplomatic function or tea party: gain a +1 bonus to Intimidate Attacks and a -3 penalty to Diplomacy Attacks. Everyone else gains an Anger token against them.
Wearing inappropriate or insufficient clothing to a social scene: gain a -2 penalty to Intimidate Attacks, and others gain a +1 bonus to Diplomacy and Sense Motive Attacks against you.
Spilling your drink: make a DC 15 Reflex save. If passesd, you suffer minor embarrassment and others gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy Attacks against you on your next turn. If failed, you spill it on yourself and you suffer the penalty for the entire duration.
Poor fashion: you think everyone might be laughing at you a bit, it's hard to tell. You suffer a -1 penalty to Sense Motive Attacks against others.
Wanting something suicidal or completely unreasonable or impossible of another: they begin with 2 Anger tokens against you and will automatically slide a step back in their favour every second turn.
Anger tokens: some actions explicitly give or remove anger tokens (often giving them on a failed roll). A participant may always spend their action apologising or backpedaling, in which case they are moved one square towards the other in exchange for removing one anger token from the other. Characters with a negative Charisma modifier already begin with one anger token against them on each opposing participant. Remember that if an opponent has more than three Anger tokens (total), social combat immediately ends and, if physical combat begins, the angered target automatically gets a Surprise round.
Skill Attacks: many abilities call for a Skill Attack. This involves rolling 1d20 plus the ranks they possess in the skill, plus the relevant ability score modifier, plus three if the relevant [Skill] Feat (or Skill Focus) is held. Nothing else applies unless gained from an ability in this section. The DC is equal to 13 plus the opponent's hit dice plus their relevant ability score modifier (Wisdom against Diplomacy, Charisma against Intimidate, Intelligence against Bluff and Sense Motive). If you meet or exceed the DC, the ability works. Natural 1 and 20 are not special, only the total matters.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND MODIFIERS:
There is no hard list for what happens - it is impossible to cover everything. However general situations and common things can indeed be covered:
One party has the other at their mercy: start with the disadvantaged one step in the favour of the advantaged. Intimidate Attacks suffer a -2 penalty against the advantaged.
The parties are at war/in a fight: everyone starts with an Anger token against each other.
One party is [Mindless] or as insane as the spell: incapable of social combat.
Wearing obvious armour to a diplomatic function or tea party: -2 penalty to Diplomacy Attacks.
Carrying a weapon to a diplomatic function or tea party: gain a +1 bonus to Intimidate Attacks and a -3 penalty to Diplomacy Attacks. Everyone else gains an Anger token against them.
Wearing inappropriate or insufficient clothing to a social scene: gain a -2 penalty to Intimidate Attacks, and others gain a +1 bonus to Diplomacy and Sense Motive Attacks against you.
Spilling your drink: make a DC 15 Reflex save. If passesd, you suffer minor embarrassment and others gain a +2 bonus to Diplomacy Attacks against you on your next turn. If failed, you spill it on yourself and you suffer the penalty for the entire duration.
Poor fashion: you think everyone might be laughing at you a bit, it's hard to tell. You suffer a -1 penalty to Sense Motive Attacks against others.
Wanting something suicidal or completely unreasonable or impossible of another: they begin with 2 Anger tokens against you and will automatically slide a step back in their favour every second turn.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
ABILITIES:
Everyone has the following abilities:
Threaten: make an Intimidate Attack against your opponent to move them one square in your favour.
Lie: make a Bluff Attack against your opponent to move them one square in your favour.
Sweet-talk: make a Diplomacy Attack against your opponent to move them one square in your favour.
Backpedal: voluntarily move one square in your opponent's favour, but remove one of their Anger tokens against you.
Renege: move one square back towards your own side, but grant your opponent two Anger tokens against you.
For every four ranks a character has in a specific skill, they may gain one linked ability. Some have requirements, others do not. All requirements must be met, as that is the point of having requirements.
Bluff:
Diplomacy:
Everyone has the following abilities:
Threaten: make an Intimidate Attack against your opponent to move them one square in your favour.
Lie: make a Bluff Attack against your opponent to move them one square in your favour.
Sweet-talk: make a Diplomacy Attack against your opponent to move them one square in your favour.
Backpedal: voluntarily move one square in your opponent's favour, but remove one of their Anger tokens against you.
Renege: move one square back towards your own side, but grant your opponent two Anger tokens against you.
For every four ranks a character has in a specific skill, they may gain one linked ability. Some have requirements, others do not. All requirements must be met, as that is the point of having requirements.
Bluff:
Blather:
In physical combat, make a successful Bluff Attack against an opponent to halt the fight, forcing one round of social combat with [X][ ][Y] (X: fight ends, start a social combat for an alliance etc., middle: fight ends, Y: fight resumes). The opponent begins with two Anger tokens against you from the start.
Doublespeak:
As an Immediate action, make a Bluff Attack to grant another participant a re-roll on a Bluff or Diplomacy Attack (they may keep the old roll or the new one) or grant yourself a re-roll on a Diplomacy or Intimidate Attack (you may keep the old roll or the new one). If failed, this grants the target an Anger token against you.
Web of Lies:
As a Swift action, make a Bluff Attack against one target. If successful, you gain a +2 Competence bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate Attacks. Every round you must do this again with +1 to the DC, success increasing the bonus by +1 every time. When you eventually fail, you lose the bonuses and they instead become a penalty for three rounds, as well as granting the target an Anger token against you.
Funny Noises:
Make a Bluff check (DC 20) to produce a Ventriloquism or Ghost Sound effect (duration: Concentration).
Shifty:
Activate this stance as a Swift action. Every turn it requires a Swift action to maintain. While active, you must make Bluff Attacks in place of Diplomacy Attacks.
New Fashion: (6+ ranks of Bluff required)
Make a Bluff Attack against all opponents. If successful against even one, you may remove one Circumstance penalty from yourself, and apply that penalty to everyone you beat who does not have that circumstance.
Legalese: (6+ ranks of Bluff required)
Having settled on an agreement, make a Bluff Attack against a target to change the terms, sliding both participants one square in one direction. Failure causes the target to gain two Anger tokens against you - if this would be enough to take them over the threshold, the deal is off.
Deceive the World: (9+ ranks of Bluff required)
Make a Bluff Attack against an opponent. If successful, this creates a Silent Image effect of your choosing, lasting for the round or until you cease concentrating on it (consuming your action each round). If the target interacts with the illusion and successfully disbelieves in it, they gain an Anger token against you.
False Urgency: (9+ ranks of Bluff required)
Make a Bluff Attack, even out of social combat, against a target to duplicate a Command effect (no saving throw).
Your Reality is a Lie: (16+ ranks of Bluff required)
When an encounter ends with a complete victory for you, you may make a Bluff Attack as an Immediate action. If successful, you rewrite the memories and mind of the opponent with no saving throw.
In physical combat, make a successful Bluff Attack against an opponent to halt the fight, forcing one round of social combat with [X][ ][Y] (X: fight ends, start a social combat for an alliance etc., middle: fight ends, Y: fight resumes). The opponent begins with two Anger tokens against you from the start.
Doublespeak:
As an Immediate action, make a Bluff Attack to grant another participant a re-roll on a Bluff or Diplomacy Attack (they may keep the old roll or the new one) or grant yourself a re-roll on a Diplomacy or Intimidate Attack (you may keep the old roll or the new one). If failed, this grants the target an Anger token against you.
Web of Lies:
As a Swift action, make a Bluff Attack against one target. If successful, you gain a +2 Competence bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate Attacks. Every round you must do this again with +1 to the DC, success increasing the bonus by +1 every time. When you eventually fail, you lose the bonuses and they instead become a penalty for three rounds, as well as granting the target an Anger token against you.
Funny Noises:
Make a Bluff check (DC 20) to produce a Ventriloquism or Ghost Sound effect (duration: Concentration).
Shifty:
Activate this stance as a Swift action. Every turn it requires a Swift action to maintain. While active, you must make Bluff Attacks in place of Diplomacy Attacks.
New Fashion: (6+ ranks of Bluff required)
Make a Bluff Attack against all opponents. If successful against even one, you may remove one Circumstance penalty from yourself, and apply that penalty to everyone you beat who does not have that circumstance.
Legalese: (6+ ranks of Bluff required)
Having settled on an agreement, make a Bluff Attack against a target to change the terms, sliding both participants one square in one direction. Failure causes the target to gain two Anger tokens against you - if this would be enough to take them over the threshold, the deal is off.
Deceive the World: (9+ ranks of Bluff required)
Make a Bluff Attack against an opponent. If successful, this creates a Silent Image effect of your choosing, lasting for the round or until you cease concentrating on it (consuming your action each round). If the target interacts with the illusion and successfully disbelieves in it, they gain an Anger token against you.
False Urgency: (9+ ranks of Bluff required)
Make a Bluff Attack, even out of social combat, against a target to duplicate a Command effect (no saving throw).
Your Reality is a Lie: (16+ ranks of Bluff required)
When an encounter ends with a complete victory for you, you may make a Bluff Attack as an Immediate action. If successful, you rewrite the memories and mind of the opponent with no saving throw.
Mediation:
Using all your actions for the turn, make a Diplomacy Attack against two other people in the encounter. Each successful Diplomacy Attack moves the target towards the other, while not affecting your own progress bar.
Careful Words:
As an Immediate action, make a Diplomacy Attack against a target. If successful, it negates an Intimdiate Attack or Diplomacy Attack they just declared. This may also be used to interrupt the end of Social Combat due to Anger, removing a single Anger token.
Soft Words:
Make a Diplomacy Attack against the target to bestow a -4 Circumstance penalty on all Intimidate Attacks they make, and to grant everyone else a +4 Circumstance bonus on all Bluff and Diplomacy Attacks made against them. This lasts for one full round, and can be extended by maintaining concentration. This may even be used outside of Social Combat to grant the -4 penalty on all Intimidate checks they make and Saving throws against [Sleep] effects.
Calm Voice:
Make a Diplomacy Attack against the target. If successful, you remove a number of Anger tokens from them equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum 1). This cannot reduce their Anger tokens below zero.
Correct Etiquette:
Make a Diplomacy Attack against a number of targets no larger than your Charisma bonus (minimum 1). If successful, then until your next turn they are unable to make Intimidate Attacks or attempt any action that can possibly cause others to gain Anger tokens.
Magic Tea Party: (6+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
This ability is an ongoing affect that is automatically in place when you are hosting an actual function, party or gathering. Everyone in the Social Combat takes a Morale penalty on Intimidate Attacks equal to your Charisma modifier, and at the end of each turn, you may make one Diplomacy Attack. Compare the score against everyone's DC. Those affected lose one Anger token against any target of your choice.
Smooth it Over: (6+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
As an Immediate action, negate the penalties of a failed Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate Attack. Make a Diplomacy Attack, and if successful you may also move yourself and another participant each one step closer to each other and remove one Anger token from them.
Charming!: (9+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
Make a Diplomacy Attack to affect someone with Charm Monster (no saving throw) as a Standard action, even out of Social Combat (though in this case it takes a Full Round action). The duration is one round, but a Standard action each round can extend it each time.
Enthrall: (9+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
Using all your actions for turn, make a Diplomacy Attack. If successful, you may move your opponent one step closer to you. You may either leave it at that, in which case they are unable to move back or gain Anger tokens against you until your next turn. Alternatively, you may make another Diplomacy Attack, at a -3 penalty, to move them forward another step. Each time you succeed, you may continue and make another attack, increasing the DC by 3. If you fail, this ability ends and they retain the ability to gain Anger tokens and move back.
Ultimate Diplomancy: (16+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
When an encounter ends with a complete victory for you, you may make a Diplomacy Attack as an Immediate action. If successful, you mentally enslave the target as per Dominate Monster (permanent duration) without a saving throw.
Using all your actions for the turn, make a Diplomacy Attack against two other people in the encounter. Each successful Diplomacy Attack moves the target towards the other, while not affecting your own progress bar.
Careful Words:
As an Immediate action, make a Diplomacy Attack against a target. If successful, it negates an Intimdiate Attack or Diplomacy Attack they just declared. This may also be used to interrupt the end of Social Combat due to Anger, removing a single Anger token.
Soft Words:
Make a Diplomacy Attack against the target to bestow a -4 Circumstance penalty on all Intimidate Attacks they make, and to grant everyone else a +4 Circumstance bonus on all Bluff and Diplomacy Attacks made against them. This lasts for one full round, and can be extended by maintaining concentration. This may even be used outside of Social Combat to grant the -4 penalty on all Intimidate checks they make and Saving throws against [Sleep] effects.
Calm Voice:
Make a Diplomacy Attack against the target. If successful, you remove a number of Anger tokens from them equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum 1). This cannot reduce their Anger tokens below zero.
Correct Etiquette:
Make a Diplomacy Attack against a number of targets no larger than your Charisma bonus (minimum 1). If successful, then until your next turn they are unable to make Intimidate Attacks or attempt any action that can possibly cause others to gain Anger tokens.
Magic Tea Party: (6+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
This ability is an ongoing affect that is automatically in place when you are hosting an actual function, party or gathering. Everyone in the Social Combat takes a Morale penalty on Intimidate Attacks equal to your Charisma modifier, and at the end of each turn, you may make one Diplomacy Attack. Compare the score against everyone's DC. Those affected lose one Anger token against any target of your choice.
Smooth it Over: (6+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
As an Immediate action, negate the penalties of a failed Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate Attack. Make a Diplomacy Attack, and if successful you may also move yourself and another participant each one step closer to each other and remove one Anger token from them.
Charming!: (9+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
Make a Diplomacy Attack to affect someone with Charm Monster (no saving throw) as a Standard action, even out of Social Combat (though in this case it takes a Full Round action). The duration is one round, but a Standard action each round can extend it each time.
Enthrall: (9+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
Using all your actions for turn, make a Diplomacy Attack. If successful, you may move your opponent one step closer to you. You may either leave it at that, in which case they are unable to move back or gain Anger tokens against you until your next turn. Alternatively, you may make another Diplomacy Attack, at a -3 penalty, to move them forward another step. Each time you succeed, you may continue and make another attack, increasing the DC by 3. If you fail, this ability ends and they retain the ability to gain Anger tokens and move back.
Ultimate Diplomancy: (16+ ranks of Diplomacy required)
When an encounter ends with a complete victory for you, you may make a Diplomacy Attack as an Immediate action. If successful, you mentally enslave the target as per Dominate Monster (permanent duration) without a saving throw.
Last edited by Koumei on Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Intimidate:
Sense Motive:
Sleight of Hand:
I WANT THE TRUTH:
Make an Intimidate Attack as an Immediate action. If this succeeds, it negates a Bluff Attack, and the target may not make Bluff Attacks on their next turn.
Mutual Enemy:
Make an Intimidate Attack and apply the roll against two targets. If you succeed against a target, they move a step away from your favour, but a step towards the other's favour.
Loom:
This requires a Swift action to activate or maintain, and as long as it is active, you gain a +4 bonus to Intimidate Attacks and one target gains a -4 penalty to Sense Motive Attacks.
NO U:
As an Immediate action, make an Intimidate Attack against a target. If you succeed, their Intimidate Attack is negated and they may not make an Intimidate Attack on their next turn.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!:
As an Immediate Action, make an Intimidate Attack. If successful, it negates a Diplomacy Attack, and on your next turn you may make an Intimidate Attack in place of a Diplomacy Attack.
TALK!: (6+ ranks of Intimidate required)
Out of social combat, you may spend a Full Round action making an Intimidate Attack against a target who is Shaken, Stirred, Frightened, Panicked or Cowering. If you succeed, they instantly enter social combat, halting any other activity. You can use this as an Immediate action to, if it succeeds, prevent social combat from ending due to Anger tokens - remove one Anger token from the target.
KNEEL BEFORE ME: (6+ ranks of Intimidate required)
Make an Intimidate Attack against a target. If successful, you force them to move one step in your favour and lose 2 Anger tokens against you. If unsuccessful, they gain an Anger token against you.
Shut it: (9+ ranks of Intimidate required)
Make an Intimidate Attack on your turn. Whoever would be affected by this is unable to make Skill Attacks of the kind you determine when using this ability, for 3 turns. You must choose the skill before rolling, and the same one is applied to all. The choices are Intimidate, Bluff and Diplomacy.
I Will End You: (9+ ranks of Intimidate required)
Using all your actions for the turn, make an Intimidate Attack. If you fail, the target is still moved 1 step in your favour, but if you succeed, they are moved two steps in your favour, you move back one step in your favour and they take a -3 penalty on Intimidate Attacks on their next turn.
Words of Terror: (16+ ranks of Intimidate required)
When an encounter ends with a complete victory for you, you may make an Intimidate Attack as an Immediate action. If successful, you terrify your opponent into being your permanent slave as per a permanent Dominate Monster, with no save allowed.
Make an Intimidate Attack as an Immediate action. If this succeeds, it negates a Bluff Attack, and the target may not make Bluff Attacks on their next turn.
Mutual Enemy:
Make an Intimidate Attack and apply the roll against two targets. If you succeed against a target, they move a step away from your favour, but a step towards the other's favour.
Loom:
This requires a Swift action to activate or maintain, and as long as it is active, you gain a +4 bonus to Intimidate Attacks and one target gains a -4 penalty to Sense Motive Attacks.
NO U:
As an Immediate action, make an Intimidate Attack against a target. If you succeed, their Intimidate Attack is negated and they may not make an Intimidate Attack on their next turn.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!:
As an Immediate Action, make an Intimidate Attack. If successful, it negates a Diplomacy Attack, and on your next turn you may make an Intimidate Attack in place of a Diplomacy Attack.
TALK!: (6+ ranks of Intimidate required)
Out of social combat, you may spend a Full Round action making an Intimidate Attack against a target who is Shaken, Stirred, Frightened, Panicked or Cowering. If you succeed, they instantly enter social combat, halting any other activity. You can use this as an Immediate action to, if it succeeds, prevent social combat from ending due to Anger tokens - remove one Anger token from the target.
KNEEL BEFORE ME: (6+ ranks of Intimidate required)
Make an Intimidate Attack against a target. If successful, you force them to move one step in your favour and lose 2 Anger tokens against you. If unsuccessful, they gain an Anger token against you.
Shut it: (9+ ranks of Intimidate required)
Make an Intimidate Attack on your turn. Whoever would be affected by this is unable to make Skill Attacks of the kind you determine when using this ability, for 3 turns. You must choose the skill before rolling, and the same one is applied to all. The choices are Intimidate, Bluff and Diplomacy.
I Will End You: (9+ ranks of Intimidate required)
Using all your actions for the turn, make an Intimidate Attack. If you fail, the target is still moved 1 step in your favour, but if you succeed, they are moved two steps in your favour, you move back one step in your favour and they take a -3 penalty on Intimidate Attacks on their next turn.
Words of Terror: (16+ ranks of Intimidate required)
When an encounter ends with a complete victory for you, you may make an Intimidate Attack as an Immediate action. If successful, you terrify your opponent into being your permanent slave as per a permanent Dominate Monster, with no save allowed.
Got Them Sussed:
Make a Sense Motive Attack against every opponent. Those successfully affected by the attack are unable to make Bluff or Diplomacy Attacks against you on their next turn.
Psychology 101:
Make an Opposed Sense Motive Attack against one target, with a +4 bonus to your roll. Whoever rolls higher gains a +3 bonus on their next Diplomacy Attack, and may substitute their roll from this ability for the dice roll.
Xanatos Gambit:
Upon failing a Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate Attack, you may re-roll it as a Sense Motive Attack as an Immediate action.
Can't be Led:
As a Swift action, make a Sense Motive Attack. Anyone who would be affected by it is unable to move you in their favour until your next turn.
OBJECTION!:
As an Immediate action, make a Sense Motive Attack to negate any one Skill Attack.
Call the Bluff: (6+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
Make a Sense Motive Attack against one person to turn a bonus into a penalty of equal size for the remainder of the social combat.
Xanatos Speed Chess: (6+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
As an Immediate action, make a Sense Motive Attack against someone who has just acted to reverse a Skill Attack they made - as though their target had in fact successfully used their ability against them instead.
See Through It: (9+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
Make a Sense Motive Attack against one person. If successful, you dispel an illusion they put into play.
52 Xanatos Pile-Up: (9+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
This ability uses all your actions for the turn. Move 1 other person 1 step in your favour. They can then make a Sense Motive Attack against you at -2 to move 2 steps in their favour. You can then attempt the same to move them 3, then they can try at -4 to move 4, and so on until one person fails.
Keikaku Doori: (16+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
At the beginning of a socail combat, make a Sense Motive Attack. If you succeed and the combat is a complete victory for you, you rewrite the target's memories so they think they win and everything they do is just as you planned.
Make a Sense Motive Attack against every opponent. Those successfully affected by the attack are unable to make Bluff or Diplomacy Attacks against you on their next turn.
Psychology 101:
Make an Opposed Sense Motive Attack against one target, with a +4 bonus to your roll. Whoever rolls higher gains a +3 bonus on their next Diplomacy Attack, and may substitute their roll from this ability for the dice roll.
Xanatos Gambit:
Upon failing a Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate Attack, you may re-roll it as a Sense Motive Attack as an Immediate action.
Can't be Led:
As a Swift action, make a Sense Motive Attack. Anyone who would be affected by it is unable to move you in their favour until your next turn.
OBJECTION!:
As an Immediate action, make a Sense Motive Attack to negate any one Skill Attack.
Call the Bluff: (6+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
Make a Sense Motive Attack against one person to turn a bonus into a penalty of equal size for the remainder of the social combat.
Xanatos Speed Chess: (6+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
As an Immediate action, make a Sense Motive Attack against someone who has just acted to reverse a Skill Attack they made - as though their target had in fact successfully used their ability against them instead.
See Through It: (9+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
Make a Sense Motive Attack against one person. If successful, you dispel an illusion they put into play.
52 Xanatos Pile-Up: (9+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
This ability uses all your actions for the turn. Move 1 other person 1 step in your favour. They can then make a Sense Motive Attack against you at -2 to move 2 steps in their favour. You can then attempt the same to move them 3, then they can try at -4 to move 4, and so on until one person fails.
Keikaku Doori: (16+ ranks of Sense Motive required)
At the beginning of a socail combat, make a Sense Motive Attack. If you succeed and the combat is a complete victory for you, you rewrite the target's memories so they think they win and everything they do is just as you planned.
Party Tricks:
As a Swift action, you can replicate a Prestidigitation effect.
The Awkward:
Make a Sleight of Hand check (DC 10 + HD of target) to cause embarrassment to the opponent: plant a weapon on them or alter their clothing (for the standard penalties) or make them spill their drink (likewise), or a generic -2 penalty on Diplomacy Attacks.
Frisk:
As a Swift action, make an opposed Sleight of Hand check to find any hidden items on a target with a reasonable pat-down, without drawing suspicion or causing offence. If they win, they notice and gain an Anger token against you.
It Wasn't in my Pocket, Trebek: (6+ ranks of Sleight of Hand required)
Make a Sleight of Hand check (DC 15 + HD of participoant with most HD) as a free action at the start of social combat to be immune to Frisk and conceal any movement of items during the encounter. Sense Motive Attacks against you suffer a -2 penalty.
Pull the Strings: (6+ ranks of Sleight of Hand required)
With a Sleight of Hand check (DC 18) you can replicate a Greater Mage Hand effect.
No Hands!: (6+ ranks of Sleight of Hand required)
As a Swift action, make a DC 20 Sleight of Hand check. If successful, this allows your other Sleight of Hand abilities to be used at a distance without touching anyone (gaining a +4 bonus) and grants the appearance of innocence, providing a -3 penalty to Sense Motive Attacks made against you.
As a Swift action, you can replicate a Prestidigitation effect.
The Awkward:
Make a Sleight of Hand check (DC 10 + HD of target) to cause embarrassment to the opponent: plant a weapon on them or alter their clothing (for the standard penalties) or make them spill their drink (likewise), or a generic -2 penalty on Diplomacy Attacks.
Frisk:
As a Swift action, make an opposed Sleight of Hand check to find any hidden items on a target with a reasonable pat-down, without drawing suspicion or causing offence. If they win, they notice and gain an Anger token against you.
It Wasn't in my Pocket, Trebek: (6+ ranks of Sleight of Hand required)
Make a Sleight of Hand check (DC 15 + HD of participoant with most HD) as a free action at the start of social combat to be immune to Frisk and conceal any movement of items during the encounter. Sense Motive Attacks against you suffer a -2 penalty.
Pull the Strings: (6+ ranks of Sleight of Hand required)
With a Sleight of Hand check (DC 18) you can replicate a Greater Mage Hand effect.
No Hands!: (6+ ranks of Sleight of Hand required)
As a Swift action, make a DC 20 Sleight of Hand check. If successful, this allows your other Sleight of Hand abilities to be used at a distance without touching anyone (gaining a +4 bonus) and grants the appearance of innocence, providing a -3 penalty to Sense Motive Attacks made against you.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Racial abilities will go here eventually
Also, current playtests have shown low level social combat tends to be quick and also boring/limited. I feel that I don't care about low levels, so I am okay with this. At higher levels, it gets more interesting but you need to have roughly equal numbers on both sides.
I should probably come up with some rule that stops people from using Diplomay armies to spam basic abilities.
People may post now.
Also, current playtests have shown low level social combat tends to be quick and also boring/limited. I feel that I don't care about low levels, so I am okay with this. At higher levels, it gets more interesting but you need to have roughly equal numbers on both sides.
I should probably come up with some rule that stops people from using Diplomay armies to spam basic abilities.
People may post now.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
-
TarkisFlux
- Duke
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:44 pm
- Location: Magic Mountain, CA
- Contact:
You probably don't need a rule to keep diplomacy armies out of social combat since anyone bringing an army to a social combat could just be refused a seat at the table, so to speak. If you're really worried about it, just write in a rule 0: both sides are wiling to negotiate under the circumstances, but I'm not sure it's necessary.
What's slightly more concerning is the bluff ability that forces people into a social combat that you can then mob with social abilities. Maybe. Still digesting the whole thing.
What's slightly more concerning is the bluff ability that forces people into a social combat that you can then mob with social abilities. Maybe. Still digesting the whole thing.
The wiki you should be linking to when you need a wiki link - http://www.dnd-wiki.org
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
As I'm reading it currently, there's no rules regarding the "magnitude" of the end points. Therefore, it's always to your advantage to make your demands as ridiculously extreme as possible.
Example 1:
X: "I want you to pay 100 gold to cross my bridge."
Y: "I want to cross it for free."
Midpoint: Pay 50 gold.
Example 2:
X: "I want you to pay 100 gold to cross my bridge."
Y: "I want you to pay me 10,000 gold for my bridge-evaluating services and serve as my unpaid bodyguard for 10 years."
Midpoint: X only pays 1000 gold and acts as a bodyguard for 1 year?
Maybe require both parties to agree to the possible end-points before negotiations start? But then it seems like you're negotiating your negotiation.
Example 1:
X: "I want you to pay 100 gold to cross my bridge."
Y: "I want to cross it for free."
Midpoint: Pay 50 gold.
Example 2:
X: "I want you to pay 100 gold to cross my bridge."
Y: "I want you to pay me 10,000 gold for my bridge-evaluating services and serve as my unpaid bodyguard for 10 years."
Midpoint: X only pays 1000 gold and acts as a bodyguard for 1 year?
Maybe require both parties to agree to the possible end-points before negotiations start? But then it seems like you're negotiating your negotiation.
Last edited by Ice9 on Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe the bridge evaluation and bodyguard thing would count as an epic negotiation that would have 6 boxes and take several days to negotiate. And your party may well just thump you over the head and carry you across after paying the toll. If they're feeling nice....
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Probably true. I'm not sure what the guidelines are for determining when a negotiation gains more boxes.
Even so, it seems like it's always to your advantage to take the most extreme stance possible within the current negotiation framework.
"I want to cross for free" is better than "I'll pay 50 gold".
"I want you to surrender and help my country rebuild" is better than "I want the war to end in a truce and we go our separate ways"
Even so, it seems like it's always to your advantage to take the most extreme stance possible within the current negotiation framework.
"I want to cross for free" is better than "I'll pay 50 gold".
"I want you to surrender and help my country rebuild" is better than "I want the war to end in a truce and we go our separate ways"
I don't know if I'd say the most extreme circumstance possible... The most beneficial to you that is vaguely reasonable, maybe....
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
-
RandomCasualty2
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
Well no, that's always a valid point to consider in any social system.TarkisFlux wrote:You probably don't need a rule to keep diplomacy armies out of social combat since anyone bringing an army to a social combat could just be refused a seat at the table, so to speak. If you're really worried about it, just write in a rule 0: both sides are wiling to negotiate under the circumstances, but I'm not sure it's necessary.
If the enemy can literally just say "I don't want to do social combat" then your system is generally useless against nonsocial characters, because there's flat out no reason for someone with no social skills to even bother with a social encounter. So the question of "What if I draw my sword and start stabbing people, can they still talk to me?" is always a concern. Some systems inevitably say that talking ends when someone draws a sword, other times, you can still diplomatize people after.
The social army question is a big deal, especially in a system that effectively has no damage roll and no real penalty for failing a roll, meaning that you can have guys just spamming a cacophony of diplomacy requests at once. And really, I think that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Cornering someone in a back alley alone so you can whack them with repeated diplomacy checks should not really make your job easier.
I'm not sure what a great solution to that problem is, without creating a situation where you rely on a party *face* who does all the talking and tells everyone to shut up. There has to be some benefit to having more people otherwise you wont' get other PCs involved, but at the same time, that advantage has to be minute enough that you can't just beat people socially with pure numbers. A one versus 6 scenario really needs to be winnable by the one in the social arena.
Also for haggling rules, I'd really narrow down the progression some. There shouldn't be a possibility of getting something free. You'd probably going to look at something like 50% of the price to 150% of the price, with 100% being the midpoint. You want a great deal, he wants to rip you off, and you haggle to a fair price (assuming nobody gets the edge).
Diplomacy systems that produce unbelievable results tend to be ill advised with gamers because the PCs look like morons when their characters end up giving away all their cash for nothing and nothing ruins a conception of a hero more than making him look like a total fool because he gave away his whole fortune haggling for a coil of rope.
I would have the DM set the chart of how far your negotiations can progress, as opposed to both sides picking some outlandish number and hoping to get lucky. Otherwise every merchant deal ends up being "I'll sell it for every item and coin you have on you" versus "I want it for free, along with everything else in your shop." And that's just stupid. So really, what each side gets on a win is probably something the DM has to determine from circumstances.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
hypothetical diplomatic situations have not caused me to laugh this much since I first played Twilight Imperium and I explained the turtle race's veto power as throwing a mario style turtle shell at the other diplomat...RandomCasualty2 wrote:The social army question is a big deal, especially in a system that effectively has no damage roll and no real penalty for failing a roll, meaning that you can have guys just spamming a cacophony of diplomacy requests at once. And really, I think that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Cornering someone in a back alley alone so you can whack them with repeated diplomacy checks should not really make your job easier.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
-
TarkisFlux
- Duke
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:44 pm
- Location: Magic Mountain, CA
- Contact:
Unless you want to make the ridiculous argument that anytime I challenge someone to a fight they are required to fight me, even if I have an army, then "I run away" or "I avoid the situation" is as much an option in social combat as it is in the physical variety. Refusal to participate in a subsystem (or to get out of it as fast as possible) is a valid strategy under a wide range of circumstance. If you feel that the demands someone is making on you are unreasonable or you're outnumbered and would lose your house and your ass, you don't have to sit down to talk with them. It might mean that they attack you instead and you lose it all anyway or they just go negotiate with your enemy and you're in an even worse position, but that's your decision to make.RandomCasualty2 wrote:Well no, that's always a valid point to consider in any social system.TarkisFlux wrote:You probably don't need a rule to keep diplomacy armies out of social combat since anyone bringing an army to a social combat could just be refused a seat at the table, so to speak. If you're really worried about it, just write in a rule 0: both sides are wiling to negotiate under the circumstances, but I'm not sure it's necessary.
This system is predicated upon agreement, that you agree to even keep up your end of the bargain if things go really, really against you. You really do have to have people agree to start a social combat and be willing to be bound by its results before the system even begins to work and not just be an exercise in time wasting. I really didn't think that needed to be spelled out, but I guess I was wrong.
So Koumei, I think you should add this: You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and you can walk at any time up to agreeing on ending points and participants. You don't get to add participants to an existing social combat.
Once it starts you don't get to pull out a sword and start stabbing, because the rules say you need anger tokens for that.
Doing it this way fixes all of the unreasonable crap that people are throwing at the system. If your position is "I want this for free", the guy behind the counter just laughs and refuses to social combat you on the issue. You can still stab him and take it for free of course, but he could just run from you then too. If the consequence of refusal (the murdering) is obvious or implied, then the guy might accept your terms because he'd rather try to get something out of it than risk a physical fight.
---
Regarding "party face syndrome", that could be solved by splitting skill points into a "whatever" pool and a "social" pool and making people spend at least the social ones in social skills. It's not a particularly awesome system, but it forces minimum competence in characters like you need if you want them all to be able to participate in the system (even if they'd rather be smashing things).
The wiki you should be linking to when you need a wiki link - http://www.dnd-wiki.org
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
-
RandomCasualty2
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
At that point, the system is totally fucking useless.TarkisFlux wrote: So Koumei, I think you should add this: You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and you can walk at any time up to agreeing on ending points and participants. You don't get to add participants to an existing social combat.
It's like making it so charm person works only on willing targets.
Seriously, if the shop owner is selling some shit for 250 gold, why would he want to give you a chance to haggle him down? Wouldn't he just say "Nope, I'm not letting you pull any of your BS, this is the price."
A gate guard whom you're trying to get to let you through the gate? Why bother getting into social combat? He has nothing to gain by it. And if you're offering him a bribe, well then he can still take it without actually using the social combat system.
The only time you'd ever get a social combat is when both people feel like they have the upper hand, which seems rather impractical.
-
TarkisFlux
- Duke
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:44 pm
- Location: Magic Mountain, CA
- Contact:
No, that's not the only time that it would be used. It will get used when people want to try to get something more than nothing since it's an alternative to people simply not engaging with you or stabbing you in the face. Merchants who want to sell shit for 250 gp might be willing to take less if it means a sale, it's not as if they don't hike prices or expect haggling. I work with sales people, and this is exactly what they do in real life where you can just walk away from a social kombat any time you feel like it. If they're not willing to adjust the price, then we just learn it and save a few rounds of social combat that wouldn't even matter ultimately because they won't see it for less.RandomCasualty2 wrote:At that point, the system is totally fucking useless. [...] The only time you'd ever get a social combat is when both people feel like they have the upper hand, which seems rather impractical.
Seriously, do you want to just fucking waste time social kombating for things that people wouldn't agree to in principle, so when it's all over we just ignore the results? Cause that's what I seem to be getting from you. People do negotiate when they're not in a position of power, because it's better than not sitting at the table at all or fighting over it. Merchants want sales, and they'll take a reduced profit over none if they have to. Weak nations negotiate with stronger ones with armies pointed at them, because they don't want to get overrun. Party members negotiate with party members to get shit settled because actual party violence or long standing disagreements are worse. If your other options are worse than what you could be left with in a social kombat, you take the kombat.
A more cogent criticism of my suggestion might be that asking parties to agree to end points before the negotiation even starts is stupid. Cause it is, and I was wrong to suggest it in the way that I did. It needs to be done in a metagame way, where both sides shoot down suggested end points that they wouldn't agree to. The idea that the end points have to be something the parties would actually agree to is something you need in this setup. Not having that means wasted time unless you force everyone to abide by the terms of the kombat, it means rewarding people for picking the most bullshit terms they can for the kombat, and it means encourage social kombat armies for everything so you can try to win your bullshit stuff in a round. Which is fucking stupid. A simple meta-game discussion to select terms that both sides would agree to follow if it came down to it and the number of participants fixes those things in large part and doesn't actually suffer the uselessness you claim unless your DM is an ass and everything is "take it or leave it" railroading.
The wiki you should be linking to when you need a wiki link - http://www.dnd-wiki.org
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
-
violence in the media
- Duke
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm
I like the idea of the Bluff ability: Blather being able to "trick" people into social combat. Ideally, there should be some sort of opener ability that mimics the sales pitch, the pick-up line, the hook, etc. that gets people to stop and listen to what you have to say for a moment. They can still elect to walk away at that moment, but it provides an opportunity for you to social combat someone without them consciously agreeing to it. Whatever you're proposing isn't a done deal yet, but you're starting with an end goal in mind (sell the tchothkie, get sex, fleece rubes) and the other person is still in the "what does this guy want?" mental state.
Think of it this way, your adventurer is walking through a busy marketplace and they're constantly being assaulted by all of these "opener" attacks: "See the bearded lady!" "Healing potions--Cheap!" "Polish your sword, sir? *wink*" "Listen to my bardic tale!"
Normally, you probably want to ignore all that bullshit, because you have other things to do, but something about that dude telling the story about the old hero made you pause and listen and, at then end, you throw a couple of coins into the hat. You had no business or desire to engage the storyteller in social combat, but he weaseled a few coins out of you nonetheless. You could even make this sort of thing a random encounter variant, like a bandit attack, if you use such things.
Mechanically, what happened here is that the storyteller hooked you with some ability that gave him 1 round's worth of social attempts and he hit you with a simple attack of, "listen to my story and give me a few coins afterwards." He could have failed, in which case you just walk away. But his success means you hang around for 10 minutes or so and drop him a few coins for the trouble afterwards. He wouldn't (or rather, shouldn't) be able to propose a deal where you give him all your worldly possessions in that time frame, nor should he be able to target you specifically with a significantly different deal than he's proposing to everyone in earshot.
Now, you wouldn't want every trip to the market to involve the DM throwing a handful of d20s to see which merchants were able to reel you in. Nor would you even be able to handle it that way, as time is a finite commodity and, if you're listenting to the storyteller, you're probably not going to be banging the hooker: either simultaneously or sequentially. Still, I think that illustrates how social combat should be able to function in addition to the more formalized scenario where people are negotiating the sale of the Dragon Orb or war reparations with Orcistan.
Often, you're going to want people to just pay the fare, or toll, or bribe and move on with their lives specifically because it's easier. Basically, you want people to attempt social combat when it matters, or is necessary to them, and to dispense with it when it doesn't. And you have to remember that a lot of times, necessity is going to be one-sided.
Think of it this way, your adventurer is walking through a busy marketplace and they're constantly being assaulted by all of these "opener" attacks: "See the bearded lady!" "Healing potions--Cheap!" "Polish your sword, sir? *wink*" "Listen to my bardic tale!"
Normally, you probably want to ignore all that bullshit, because you have other things to do, but something about that dude telling the story about the old hero made you pause and listen and, at then end, you throw a couple of coins into the hat. You had no business or desire to engage the storyteller in social combat, but he weaseled a few coins out of you nonetheless. You could even make this sort of thing a random encounter variant, like a bandit attack, if you use such things.
Mechanically, what happened here is that the storyteller hooked you with some ability that gave him 1 round's worth of social attempts and he hit you with a simple attack of, "listen to my story and give me a few coins afterwards." He could have failed, in which case you just walk away. But his success means you hang around for 10 minutes or so and drop him a few coins for the trouble afterwards. He wouldn't (or rather, shouldn't) be able to propose a deal where you give him all your worldly possessions in that time frame, nor should he be able to target you specifically with a significantly different deal than he's proposing to everyone in earshot.
Now, you wouldn't want every trip to the market to involve the DM throwing a handful of d20s to see which merchants were able to reel you in. Nor would you even be able to handle it that way, as time is a finite commodity and, if you're listenting to the storyteller, you're probably not going to be banging the hooker: either simultaneously or sequentially. Still, I think that illustrates how social combat should be able to function in addition to the more formalized scenario where people are negotiating the sale of the Dragon Orb or war reparations with Orcistan.
Often, you're going to want people to just pay the fare, or toll, or bribe and move on with their lives specifically because it's easier. Basically, you want people to attempt social combat when it matters, or is necessary to them, and to dispense with it when it doesn't. And you have to remember that a lot of times, necessity is going to be one-sided.
-
RandomCasualty2
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
But that's the entire point of social combat is getting people to agree to things they normally might not. If you can't do that, then you are effectively just magic teapartying the entire thing and you might as well not make dice rolls at all.TarkisFlux wrote: Seriously, do you want to just fucking waste time social kombating for things that people wouldn't agree to in principle, so when it's all over we just ignore the results? Cause that's what I seem to be getting from you.
Sure if your choice is "talk or die", then you probably do engage in it. If the option is "talk with this guy and sell an item to a bard at a loss or at almost no profit or simply wait for someone else," I'm probably going to wait for someone else, or try to get his friend the fighter to negotiate with and look for someone who sucks at social combat.People do negotiate when they're not in a position of power, because it's better than not sitting at the table at all or fighting over it. Merchants want sales, and they'll take a reduced profit over none if they have to. Weak nations negotiate with stronger ones with armies pointed at them, because they don't want to get overrun. Party members negotiate with party members to get shit settled because actual party violence or long standing disagreements are worse. If your other options are worse than what you could be left with in a social kombat, you take the kombat.
The other problem is simply that a lot of social combats, the defender literally has nothing to gain. If you're trying to talk your way past a gate guard, he really gains nothing if you fail. He says "no" and you go by. If the case is that him saying "no" involves you running him through, then it's in his best interest to let you by and therefore he probably shouldn't even be doing social combat at all and just let you past. In any case, there's no reason for him to agree to social combat at all.
And that's how a lot of social combats are. Yes, there are going to be times when both people agree to negotiate, but in an RPG, you also need to have cases where one side isn't particularly interested.
-
TarkisFlux
- Duke
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:44 pm
- Location: Magic Mountain, CA
- Contact:
Nothing I've said has contradicted that. What I have said is that there's no point running combat when one of the sides wants something that the other side would never agree to. There's a huge difference between a social kombat for selling an item at a loss and selling an item at a discount. The latter is something that is probably acceptable to a merchant if they're pushed, and the kombat is simulating the pushing. The former is pointless without an enforcement mechanic that is currently lacking from this construction, which is fine because an enforcement mechanic encourages you going from "sell me this item at a loss to you" to "give me this item for free, and that one too, and everything in the safe while you're at it."RandomCasualty2 wrote:But that's the entire point of social combat is getting people to agree to things they normally might not. If you can't do that, then you are effectively just magic teapartying the entire thing and you might as well not make dice rolls at all.TarkisFlux wrote: Seriously, do you want to just fucking waste time social kombating for things that people wouldn't agree to in principle, so when it's all over we just ignore the results? Cause that's what I seem to be getting from you.
Enforcement mechanics without demand limitations lead to behavior that's basically unacceptable to me. Demand limits of "would agree to this is pushed really hard" don't require enforcement mechanics, because they'd agree to it anyway, even if they'd not be particularly happy about it. This is the standard case of merchant selling you something at a steep discount as opposed to not selling it that day. Some money in is better than no money in. But if the defender doesn't have anything to gain then I'm fine with them sitting it out, but I don't know why you couldn't simply offer them something so that they had a reason to get involved. Your guard example isn't just a binary thing, if he would accept a bribe then he has a reason for the kombat: to determine how much.
VitM makes the point better than you that you need to be able to draw people into a combat once in a while, and that basically covers the rest of your "defender has nothing to gain" point. And I'll concede that being able to drag people into these discussions is a useful thing. But if you're relying on these instead of actually making both parties interested in the kombat (by making both sides gain something or though simple fear of non-participation) you're probably doing it wrong.
---
All that said, there probably should be abilities that push people past what they'd normally accept and enforce their side of things. It's a world with suggestion and domination and crap after all, and this should atempt to compete so it's not just ignored in favor of those abilities at higher levels. Those things require maintenance of some sort or are otherwise limited in duration, and any abilities that let you force crappy things on people should be similarly limited. There should be no requirement that the deal hold after they expire if the deal wouldn't have been acceptable in the first place.
The wiki you should be linking to when you need a wiki link - http://www.dnd-wiki.org
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
Fectin: "Ant, what is best in life?"
Ant: "Ethically, a task well-completed for the good of the colony. Experientially, endorphins."
-
CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Yep, that's how real life often works too: The goal is a hard sell or a con. But the merchant won't necessarily be able to determine how skilled a bargainer you are before the social interaction. Even if she has ranks of Sense Motive, you might just have enough Bluff to fool her (again, this is true in the real world too).RandomCasualty2 wrote:If the option is "talk with this guy and sell an item to a bard at a loss or at almost no profit or simply wait for someone else," I'm probably going to wait for someone else, or try to get his friend the fighter to negotiate with and look for someone who sucks at social combat.
The job of a merchant is to make money selling stuff. If you sell to a high-diplomacy guy at a small profit margin and then to a low-diplomacy guy at a high profit margin, you've made even more money than you would have by only making the second sell. If potential customers see you brush off others, they might just take their business elsewhere.
The guard's job is to let people through the gate. If the guard wasn't supposed to be letting people through, there wouldn't be a gate. Refusing to engage in social combat is refusing to do his job, and he will be fired and replaced.RandomCasualty2 wrote:The other problem is simply that a lot of social combats, the defender literally has nothing to gain. If you're trying to talk your way past a gate guard, he really gains nothing if you fail. He says "no" and you go by. If the case is that him saying "no" involves you running him through, then it's in his best interest to let you by and therefore he probably shouldn't even be doing social combat at all and just let you past. In any case, there's no reason for him to agree to social combat at all.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-
RandomCasualty2
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
Well no. See here's the thing. You can apparently suggest prices and conditions without entering into social combat. So the guard can literally say "Show me proof of your identity" and then refuse social combat, demanding to see proof and cutting through the double talk, which is exactly what you figure most people would want to train their guards to do.CatharzGodfoot wrote: The guard's job is to let people through the gate. If the guard wasn't supposed to be letting people through, there wouldn't be a gate. Refusing to engage in social combat is refusing to do his job, and he will be fired and replaced.
Literally the only people who are going to engage the guard in social combat there are people that he should explicitly *keep out* of the gate because they're people who are going to fast talk their way through. But you can actually eliminate them from fast talking by just not listening.
Well no. I'm pretty sure that if you have a voluntary system of social combats, you always need to set it up so both sides have things to gain. The merchant isn't battling to sell something at market price, he's battling to rip you off. You on the other hand are battling to get a good deal. If you're going to have a system of negotiation that both people have to volunteer for, then you better have some way of inciting them to do it.Tarkis wrote: VitM makes the point better than you that you need to be able to draw people into a combat once in a while, and that basically covers the rest of your "defender has nothing to gain" point. And I'll concede that being able to drag people into these discussions is a useful thing. But if you're relying on these instead of actually making both parties interested in the kombat (by making both sides gain something or though simple fear of non-participation) you're probably doing it wrong.
The other problem you have to address is when talking becomes social combat. For instance, if the merchant says "I'll sell it for market price." and I respond "I'll deal right now for 200 gold off that, or we'll have to enter social combat", does that mean I'm already in social combat because I'm haggling, or can I metagame it such that I can use the threat of social combat to offer someone a "Deal or no Deal" scenario.
All that stuff really needs to be handled in some fashion which is where voluntary social combat becomes especially problematic.
-
CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Demanding to see a person's identification (with the implication that you'll let them in with proper ID) sets one of the ends of the social battlefield. It's an opening attack.RandomCasualty2 wrote:Well no. See here's the thing. You can apparently suggest prices and conditions without entering into social combat. So the guard can literally say "Show me proof of your identity" and then refuse social combat, demanding to see proof and cutting through the double talk, which is exactly what you figure most people would want to train their guards to do.CatharzGodfoot wrote: The guard's job is to let people through the gate. If the guard wasn't supposed to be letting people through, there wouldn't be a gate. Refusing to engage in social combat is refusing to do his job, and he will be fired and replaced.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-
RandomCasualty2
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
Well no, because he's claiming that you explicitly need to agree to social combat. But it's totally okay (in fact necessary) to set up end points for a win/loss scenario in social combat and then reject or accept the terms.CatharzGodfoot wrote: Demanding to see a person's identification (with the implication that you'll let them in with proper ID) sets one of the ends of the social battlefield. It's an opening attack.
So literally if the social contest is "If you win, I show you my identification, if you lose, I let you through." Then the guard will simply say, okay if you want to be like that, fuck you, I'm not socially dueling you. If you want to surrender and show me your ID, I might let you through the gate, otherwise, I'm not going to bother getting into a combat where I lose nothing.
The fact is that the guard can pretty much just allow or refuse you entry without doing anything at all. There's really no incentive for him to enter social combat, because someone with proper identification wouldn't fight him in the first place. The only one who will try to enter social combat with him is likely someone who he doesn't want to let in anyway. Granted it could be the King's general who misplaced his ID, but you're much better off being safe than sorry.
Now if you want to set the stage such that talking to someone at all enters you into social combat, you're talking about something different and opening a totally new can of worms.
I think the magnitude of the conditions needs to factor into the system somehow. Because otherwise, there's not going to be a right answer. We want people to sometimes get "stealth kombatted" by a Bard and end up tossing them a few coins, but we don't want people getting "stealth kombatted" into giving all their worldly possessions to a random passer-by in exchange for a moldy piece of bread (or as least I don't). We want haggling where you might end up paying more than you planned to, but we don't want haggling where the end result can be "give me everything in your shop for free" or "pay me 10,000 gold for this shoe".
TL;DR, if the system lets you explicitly set your terms before any actual kombat starts, then it doesn't do much and the real negotiation happens before-hand. If the system lets you trick anyone who talks to you into some batshit-crazy deal, then it sucks, and people will shoot each-other from a distance instead of talking.
TL;DR, if the system lets you explicitly set your terms before any actual kombat starts, then it doesn't do much and the real negotiation happens before-hand. If the system lets you trick anyone who talks to you into some batshit-crazy deal, then it sucks, and people will shoot each-other from a distance instead of talking.
Last edited by Ice9 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
If I might offer a dissenting opinion, at higher levels you do want to be able to do that sort of thing. A high-level wizard can blow up cities (without those cities being able to fight back), and a high-level warblade-type can single-handedly raze cities (without those cities being able to fight back meaningfully). I'd argue that a high-level bard would similarly be able to, say, single-handedly convince every person in an entire city to give them their life's savings, without the city being able to put up any significant resistance.
Therefore, a suggestion: give the DM some power, and increase the system to have four fixed points: two selected by the player (with the player's desired outcomes), and two selected by the DM (with reasonable outcomes). The players start on the reasonable points, and then proceed as expected. Result is that players can define whatever goals they want, and it preserves the epicness inherent in being a high-level diplomat, but the system is still coherent and usable, and the DM and players don't have to have a pre-negotiation negotiation.
Therefore, a suggestion: give the DM some power, and increase the system to have four fixed points: two selected by the player (with the player's desired outcomes), and two selected by the DM (with reasonable outcomes). The players start on the reasonable points, and then proceed as expected. Result is that players can define whatever goals they want, and it preserves the epicness inherent in being a high-level diplomat, but the system is still coherent and usable, and the DM and players don't have to have a pre-negotiation negotiation.
DSMatticus wrote:There are two things you can learn from the Gaming Den:
1) Good design practices.
2) How to be a zookeeper for hyper-intelligent shit-flinging apes.
A legendary Bard making some random bystanders give him all their stuff for nothing, that's fine. But the legendary Bard doing that to equally legendary but not particularly social people - not good. And even if you do manage to keep it entirely on the RNG, that kind of ability should be rare enough that "nobody gets to talk to the king - all messages have to be filtered through a series of translators that will eliminate any persuasive phrasing" is not a standard precaution.
That said, there's nothing mutually exclusive between that and scaling the difficulty based on the request magnitude, if you put the crazy requests at "incredibly difficult" rather than "not possible". Even a legendary levels, halfway reasonable requests are still easier, even if the crazy ones are fully possible.
That said, there's nothing mutually exclusive between that and scaling the difficulty based on the request magnitude, if you put the crazy requests at "incredibly difficult" rather than "not possible". Even a legendary levels, halfway reasonable requests are still easier, even if the crazy ones are fully possible.
Last edited by Ice9 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.