So, I am having the roughest time getting Social Combat to reflect what I want. I want it to be a mechanism for using either guile, reason or intimidation to get someone else to do something. I do not want it to be a magic power that controls someone else. You might break someone but it does not mean they are your slave. So, I am trying to model that and explain it. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Here is what I have so far.

Social Combat
A fatiguing of the mind and spirit, this represents a persons ability to resist the person attacking them and put up a counter argument.

Social combat works slightly different than physical combat. Here the same rules for Initiative follow but the attacker loses  points from their Mind stat if they lose the contest while the defender loses points from their Spirit. The combat is resolved when one party has their stat reduced to 0 forcing concession or retreat.

The player may use whatever skill they have that is applicable to social combat such as Education (Debate) or (Law) to argue and use reason. Alternatively, they may use Intimidation or an Athletics skill to attempt to bully their way out of the situation. The GM and player should agree on the skill to use before hand.

It should be noted that this is not a magical power. It may not be int he character to giving and it should never be used as a means to override roleplaying. This is only a tool best used for interactions of real conflict.

Example
Dirk finds a survivor. He has a horde of food but does not want to share it. Dirk decides to use his Intimidation (4) skill he learned in the Army against the survivor. He decides to build up to it and takes a full +4 on his initiative. He rolls 3d6 and adds his Intimidate (4) + Spirit (4) + the 4 for his initiative. He rolls a 3 + 3 + 5 for a total of 11 and adds 12 for his bonuses totaling to 23. The survivor rolls 3d6 and adds his Mind ( + Education (Law) (5). He rolls a 3 + 4 + 5 for a total roll of 12 and adds 13 for his bonuses for a total of 25 beating Dirk by 2. Dirk subtracts 2 from his Mind of 5 making it 3.

The argument rages. Dirk rolls a 3 + 5 + 6. Since he rolled a 6, he gets to roll again and add the result to his total. He rolls a 3. His rolled total is 3 + 5 + 6 + 3 = 17. He adds his Intimidate + Spirit for a total of 25. The Survivor rolls a 1 + 3 + 2 with his bonus of 13 for a total of 19. Dirk beats him by 6 destroying his Spirit of 4. The survivor spills the beans about the beans.

This system of Social Combat should not be used at all turns. It is meant for actual conflict between players or players and NPCs where it is a contest of wills.

QuoteIt should be noted that this is not a magical power. It may not be int he character to giving and it should never be used as a means to override roleplaying. This is only a tool best used for interactions of real conflict.

This is poorly worded.

I'd say make social combat a 'Single pass' type of thing; if you don't succeed on your first attempt, you don't succeed at all, say for X amount of time.  In my experience, socially, any conflict that isn't resolved swiftly tends to drag on. (And sometimes, on and on and on...)

With a situation such as you posted, there should also be consequences for failure - Such as the survivor pulling a gun.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;273508This is poorly worded.

I'd say make social combat a 'Single pass' type of thing; if you don't succeed on your first attempt, you don't succeed at all, say for X amount of time.  In my experience, socially, any conflict that isn't resolved swiftly tends to drag on. (And sometimes, on and on and on...)

With a situation such as you posted, there should also be consequences for failure - Such as the survivor pulling a gun.

Thanks. My editor has not looked it over and I think she will most likely hang me when she does. I will look it over again. So, do you mean that it should not have a prolonged contest but one roll for all the glory?

Thanks,
Bill

For realism, it's been my experience that most social things are decided near the beginning, rather quickly and if you want to change someones' mind after that, it's long, hard and generally fruitless.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;273546For realism, it's been my experience that most social things are decided near the beginning, rather quickly and if you want to change someones' mind after that, it's long, hard and generally fruitless.

I have to admit, my first draft of this social combat skill was more about one hit. Let's see if I can sum it up.

You would state your goal. So, for example, I want to get the location of the fuel dump out of the guard without him realizing he gave it up. Sly or using trickery. You choose to use a Deception skill with Mind stat and the GM o.k.s it. Then the GM decides it would be the Guard's Intimidation Skill plus Spirit Stat. Both sides roll 3d6 and whoever beats the other wins. I also thought a degree of success could be put in to determine if the guard was aware or perhaps how much information was revealed. Likewise, if the guard won, he might discover the true intention of the questioner.

Just a thought at a revision.

Thanks,
Bill

I have always had trouble with social combat simply because it discourages active role-playing. Nevertheless, system matters, and so...

I would go with one roll resolution. Your latest example is spot on. The greater the disparity between the rolls, the greater the success or failure. Nice and simple. If the roll is tied, then re-roll.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabe;273598I have always had trouble with social combat simply because it discourages active role-playing. Nevertheless, system matters, and so...

Oh, let me be clear, this is a first for me in 20 some years of designing systems...er, o.k. you got me, more like 25.

I am normally much more in line with your POV. I am concerned this will be used like a spell to get ones way.
GM: "The guard asks you about your droids".
Player: I use social combat. "These aren;t the droids you are looking for."
Guard: "These aren't the droids we are looking for."
Player: Social fu on him again. "Move along".
Guard: "Move along...move along".

Not the effect I am looking for.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabe;273598I would go with one roll resolution. Your latest example is spot on. The greater the disparity between the rolls, the greater the success or failure. Nice and simple. If the roll is tied, then re-roll.

I agree. I think  simple test will speed things along and hopefully minimize groups dwelling on it.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;273609Oh, let me be clear, this is a first for me in 20 some years of designing systems...er, o.k. you got me, more like 25.

I am normally much more in line with your POV. I am concerned this will be used like a spell to get ones way.
GM: "The guard asks you about your droids".
Player: I use social combat. "These aren;t the droids you are looking for."
Guard: "These aren't the droids we are looking for."
Player: Social fu on him again. "Move along".
Guard: "Move along...move along".

All true.

Even better:

GM: The guard asks you about your droids.
Player: My guy uses his social-fun. [Rolls dice]. And I got a great roll. We lie to him and keep moving.
GM: Oh...

Social combat mechanics also discourage people who enjoy getting into their roles from doing so. It is hard to say to a player who has put forth a compelling argument (in character) that his argument was for naught and a roll is still required. I tend to let the player win the argument if their in character attempt to do so is worthy. That is the default I use with any game system. And I still allow players who are less comfortable with the social side of character interaction to roll dice.

Perhaps you can add a note to your social combat section allowing GMs to do that. That's just my two cents.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabe;273620Perhaps you can add a note to your social combat section allowing GMs to do that. That's just my two cents.

Yeah, this is what I have been dancing around. I am trying to "expand" my design skills but I think I am just epically failing with this one. Linda likes it a lot but I don't know if it will make it past the editing stage.

Thanks,
Bill

The issue I always see with social combat is that when it's a player vs an NPC the player will accept loss or defeat, you either did or did not convince the NPC, draw guns as appropriate.

However if it's PvP or GMvP if the PC loses they (mature players may ignore this) will never except defeat.  They may concede it then and there but they will always go out of their way to redirect the loss.  Players hate being told what they are to make their characters do.  For most I've found it a much easier pill for them to swallow that they are under a mind controll spell then the NPC has convinced you to do/say X.  Though ironically it's often at that point the real role playing comes out.

As for the rest.  I think a one roll mechanic is best.  If they choose to prolong it at that point it should be under other circumstances.

PC: These are not the droids you are looking for
Roll - pc's lose.
NPC:  Uhhh yeah they are - look I've got pictures, serial numbers and an eye witness that say they are.
Crap - contest ends, but PC's being what they are they decide to change the scope of the contest.

PC:  Umm here's $5 will you let us through anyway
roll: Perhaps at a penalty for losing the first of back to back social contests, Similar to the commonly excepted Trying it again penalty.  PC's win
NPC: Yeah sure I handed in my notice yesterday and I'm only here for 2 more weeks.

I am having similiar trouble with an Asian Fantasy game I am working on because I really hate diminishing the roleplay to a die roll AND there is the issue of NPCs throwing down social fu on the PCs.

On the Palladium boards, there was a good discussion of the use of Charm / Seduction by NPCs on PCs and whether what is good for the goose (PC) is good for the gander (NPC) and what that means for the game.

It's a tough one and always has been.  

For my game, I have broken it down to a single roll of Social Attack vs. Social Defense.   Since my setting is pseudo-Samurai, there are Honor penalties at stake for losing social combats, winning social combats but asking for something dishonorable, and losing social combats and refusing then to follow through with what has been asked.    I can do this within the setting because its part of the setting's social structure and the culture, but I doubt it would make any sense outside such a caste / hierarchical structure.

Maybe for your zombie game, different social skills cause different successes and failures.   AKA, Intimidate failure would lead to confrontation or violence where Seduction failure would lead to rejection and a Bluff failure would lead to distrust.

I'd also have to weigh in against explicit social combat rules; that should be handled by the 'Role-playing' part of 'RPG'.

Quote from: Spinachcat;273670I am having similiar trouble with an Asian Fantasy game I am working on because I really hate diminishing the roleplay to a die roll AND there is the issue of NPCs throwing down social fu on the PCs.

On the Palladium boards, there was a good discussion of the use of Charm / Seduction by NPCs on PCs and whether what is good for the goose (PC) is good for the gander (NPC) and what that means for the game.

It's a tough one and always has been.  

For my game, I have broken it down to a single roll of Social Attack vs. Social Defense.   Since my setting is pseudo-Samurai, there are Honor penalties at stake for losing social combats, winning social combats but asking for something dishonorable, and losing social combats and refusing then to follow through with what has been asked.    I can do this within the setting because its part of the setting's social structure and the culture, but I doubt it would make any sense outside such a caste / hierarchical structure.

Maybe for your zombie game, different social skills cause different successes and failures.   AKA, Intimidate failure would lead to confrontation or violence where Seduction failure would lead to rejection and a Bluff failure would lead to distrust.

Oh, I have plans for this system if I get it hammered out for Chavalier. A whole honor system will dovetail in and be tied to schticks. Also, weapons will be able to acquire honor and intelligence of their own. Cool stuff.

Here is what I have revised based on the discussion in RPO. Still needs work but I think we are closing in.

Social Contests
A fatiguing of the mind and spirit, this represents a persons ability to resist the person attacking them and put up a counter argument.

The steps to a social contest are as follows.

1. The player presents a summary of what they wish to attempt. This should include and speeches and convincing attempts at role-playing the exchange from the GM and player. During this exchange the GM should keep in mind any bonuses for role-playing or execution of the plan.

2. The GM then determines if the players proposal is possible and if so, assign a bonus from + 0 to 4. It the plan is not possible then the GM should state it as so and this ends the contest. If the player role-played extremely well, or the plan was extraordinarily well thought out, then and extraordinary bonus should be applied.

3. Execution of the plan in terms of a contested skill check. One never knows how a plan may be foiled, a slip of the tongue, a cough at the wrong time. The roll represents the execution of the plan, argument and the opponent's resistance to the advances of the character. Success means there has been an effect which may be as simple as detecting a lie, executing a lie, seduction, distraction or tricking information out of the target. However some successes will mean the the target may still act against the attacker's wishes but receive a minus. For instance, a guard may still shoot at the party as they go past his check point but he does so at a minus due to the fear one of the characters put into him with a successful intimidation. The degree of these minuses are discussed below.

Social contests works slightly different than physical combat. Here the same rules for Initiative follow but contest is a simple contested check with the attacker using the appropriate skill and stat(eg. Initimidate & Spirit) and the defender choosing how they wish to resist (eg. Education (Law) & Mind). Both sides roll 3d6 and add any modifiers applied by the GM, their skill + Stat and whoever has the highest result wins. Ties can be carried over to another round however if two ties in a row are made, then the attempt is considered to have failed.

If the plan being attempted is not a discrete action (lying, detecting a lie, seduction, information gathering or the like) but an effect attempt (distraction, inhibiting an action on the part of the target) then the target will receive a -1 to any skill or stat check for every 2 that the attacker has won by. For instance, if the attacker had distracted the guard with talk of a food stash he had found on the outskirts of town. His roll plus bonus is 22 and the guard's is 17, the guard would have a -3 (made it by 5, divide by 2 and round up) to notice the party sneaking through the gate.

It should be noted that this is not a magical power. It may not be in the character to giving and it should never be used as a means to override roleplaying. This is only a tool best used for interactions of real conflict.

Example
Dirk finds a survivor. He has a horde of food but does not want to share it. Dirk decides to use his Intimidation (4) skill he learned in the Army against the survivor. He decides to build up to it and takes a full +4 on his initiative. He rolls 3d6 and adds his Intimidate (4) + Spirit (4) + the 4 for his initiative. He rolls a 3 + 3 + 5 for a total of 11 and adds 12 for his bonuses totalling to 23. The survivor rolls 3d6 and adds his Mind ( + Education (Law) (5). He rolls a 3 + 4 + 5 for a total roll of 12 and adds 13 for his bonuses for a total of 25 beating Dirk by 2. Dirk knows something is up but he must find a different way to find out.

This system of Social Combat should not be used at all turns. It is meant for actual conflict between players or players and NPCs where it is a contest of wills.

One thing I'm not getting is how initiative plays into this.  I'm not thinking of a compelling reason to not always take the maximum initiative hit when dealing with a social conflict.

Actually even further to the point I don't even see how initiative really even applies.  It's usually crystal clear when and who is starting the conflict.

Quote from: kryyst;274151One thing I'm not getting is how initiative plays into this.  I'm not thinking of a compelling reason to not always take the maximum initiative hit when dealing with a social conflict.

Actually even further to the point I don't even see how initiative really even applies.  It's usually crystal clear when and who is starting the conflict.

The longer you take the higher the bonus the other person can take. Also, you are able to take the first action if you go quicker. Due to the way combat works, the person who takes their action first as their resolution applied first so if you take too long, your opponent could decide to go first and you might have a minus to your attempt.

Look at it this way. If you are debating with someone and they jump in and make a powerful point you then are on the defensive and fighting their point. Then, you are fighting to make your point while attacking his position. This leads to you being in a disadvantage.

Another example would be seduction. Remember, you get bonuses for delaying the init. So, this would be an example of the girl rubbing up against the guard to then seal the deal;i.e. warming him up for her pitch.

Now, all that said, I am not wed to the init idea. I just like it and its application as outlined above.

Thanks,
Bill