Definitely, if you must phrase it that way. Note that "someone" can be multiple persons.

I would also assert that this quality is something that largely distinguishes RPGs from other games.

(Aside: over over here I called it the "freeform criterion", and while I described it as "weak", it's pervasive in the real world. I can't think of many RPGs which don't have it; exceptions might include En Garde, maybe Wu Shu...and that's about it.)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;274244Definitely, if you must phrase it that way. Note that "someone" can be multiple persons.

I must!

They can!

Here are some social rules that I like.

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html

They emphasise social interaction as being about trying to strike a bargain. The element of GM decision-making is that they have the final say on how good the deal being offered is, and what relationship the characters have. However there are substantial guidlines.

I think that, counter-instinctively, detailed rules for social interaction could work best in a dungeon or wilderness setting. The reason is that there are a smaller number of possible outcomes, which can be specified in the rules - if you give the monsters this much in gifts, and have this much Charisma, they have this much chance of allowing you to pass through their territory; if you're this powerful and threaten them, they have this much chance of offering you a bribe to spare them; these creatures hate elves, so if you have an elf in your party...

Whereas in a campaign with more realistic social interactions, it's impossible to come up with every possible outcome.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;273682You might look at Steffan O'Sullivan's piece on adapting social combat from Lace and Steel into other games. http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/articles/repartee.html

Quote from: Age of Fable;274351Here are some social rules that I like.

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html

These were very helpful guys. Thanks. I suggest anyone who has to deal with social rules to give them a look. Because of these, I will most likely be adding a table advising the GM on 1. the state of the target in relation to the attacker and 2. guidelines for modifying the Difficulty with respect to what is being asked.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: flyingmice;274229Whatever. I didn't know we had a system declared.

"To use Exalted as an example..." Instead of being a snotty ass, try reading what I wrote.

Seanchai

Thought of another area where social 'combat rules' could work well: haggling.

There's a limited range of outcomes: the trade either gets made or it doesn't, and if it does there's a range of how much the two sides give up.

And it's easy to think of what factors you'd use: items have a listed value, players have relevant scores (in some settings perhaps 'a gentleman doesn't quibble over coppers', so they have a disadvantage), and one or both parties can 'play hardball', reducing the chance that they get a bad deal but increasing the chance that they get no deal at all.

Obviously this is provided the players don't want to act out the process of bargaining.
EDIT...or have no haggling at all, and just have set values for everything.

Haggling has outcomes other than simple change of price. If the customer knows their desired product well, they may reject the offered product entirely as being not good enough; if the seller knows the buyer is knowledgeable, then the seller may be inclined to sell them an item of particular quality.

This occurred to me the other night when in Conan (D&D3.5) my character who was of the "soldier" was selling and buying armour. In the rules-as-written, it was better to have the thief haggle.

Which was a bit silly. One whose profession is arms will know arms and armour well, know what is good or bad and what things ought to cost, and the seller will immediately see that they know about this stuff. So while the buyer may not get the best deal possible, they will at least not get ripped off.

It's like an IT guy going to a computer shop, a chef to a kitchenware shop, or a builder to a house sale. Do these people take thieves with them to help them haggle?

Yes, the GM can assign a skill bonus in such a case. But it's still a big oversight of the rules, and this sort of oversight is very common in rules.

Good point, Kyle.

I would add another possible outcome of haggling: alteration of personal relationships. In mild cases a transaction can make someone like you better or dislike you more; in extreme cases, I suppose that haggling gone wrong could lead to a fight.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;274648It's like an IT guy going to a computer shop, a chef to a kitchenware shop, or a builder to a house sale. Do these people take thieves with them to help them haggle?

If they knew a professional conman they might well take them, and get good results.

I don't know the Conan game, but the D&D 3.5 thief is a bit of an Arthur-Daley type, as well as a pickpocket, a burglar, and an assassin. Which isn't very realistic, but probably does fit the kind of character people want to play.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;274683Good point, Kyle.

I would add another possible outcome of haggling: alteration of personal relationships. In mild cases a transaction can make someone like you better or dislike you more; in extreme cases, I suppose that haggling gone wrong could lead to a fight.

Well, lots of things could happen. But the typical way that trading works, in D&D at least, is that every item has a set value, regardless of where the characters are, who they are, or anything else. So, baby steps.