Quote from: RPGPundit;673133I'm pretty sure this thread proves otherwise.

RPGPundit

I don't think it does.  Yes, you can play a more illogical game where a starting character like a thief with zero experience in the social forum or contacts in the court or understanding of etiquette who speaks one language poorly and has never left the city can outperform a seasoned, top level courtesan and trained orator with dozens of years of experience, friends in every chamber, speaks four languages fluently and has been all over the world, in a straight up debate in public.

Because the game mechanics are built to make sure that that same starting thief with 5 HP and leather armor and a dagger can't beat a 10th level knight with 70hp and a magic suit of plate mail in a straight up fight in public.  This is what the game is built to do, or in the words we like to use, this is where the 'simulation' is.

Frankly, the starting thief winning either one should be just as illogical and in-setting illogical, maybe more so the first case, to be honest.  The reason it works the way it does, however, is because the game is balanced around the second scenario, while the first example, the Social part, is incidental to the game.

Quote from: LordVreeg;673214I don't think it does.  Yes, you can play a more illogical game where a starting character like a thief with zero experience in the social forum or contacts in the court or understanding of etiquette who speaks one language poorly and has never left the city can outperform a seasoned, top level courtesan and trained orator with dozens of years of experience, friends in every chamber, speaks four languages fluently and has been all over the world, in a straight up debate in public.

Because the game mechanics are built to make sure that that same starting thief with 5 HP and leather armor and a dagger can't beat a 10th level knight with 70hp and a magic suit of plate mail in a straight up fight in public.  This is what the game is built to do, or in the words we like to use, this is where the 'simulation' is.

Frankly, the starting thief winning either one should be just as illogical and in-setting illogical, maybe more so the first case, to be honest.  The reason it works the way it does, however, is because the game is balanced around the second scenario, while the first example, the Social part, is incidental to the game.

agreed but i have tried to argue in other threads and the usual suspects will shout you down with an argument that either they managed social mechanics without rules, thus missing the point or arguing that social mechanics can only ever be 'i roll diplomacy' and that that noise should apparently have sexual intercourse.... but good luck.
i liked your system by the way when my players mature a little i might introduce a variant of it... i kind of do but not so formal

Quote from: LordVreeg;672891When you want to play a game where combat takes a back seat to intrigue or politics, old school games, much though I love them, are like using an oven to make ice cubes.   Wrong tool kit.

All RPGs can handle this because of the zeroth mechanic. They are games were players play as individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee.

All RPGs automatically come with the ability to handle social interaction due to their focus on the play of individual characters. And it develops naturally over the course of a campaign due to the fact players starting out having little to no relationship with or knowledge of the NPCs.

Then during the course of the campaign it develops so that in the end despite no explicit support a 9th level Thief will master a 1st level Thief in a political or intrigue confrontation by the simple fact that the 9th level character would have far more time to develop relationships and learn how things work socially.

Quote from: estar;673284All RPGs can handle this because of the zeroth mechanic. They are games were players play as individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee.

All RPGs automatically come with the ability to handle social interaction due to their focus on the play of individual characters. And it develops naturally over the course of a campaign due to the fact players starting out having little to no relationship with or knowledge of the NPCs.

Then during the course of the campaign it develops so that in the end despite no explicit support a 9th level Thief will master a 1st level Thief in a political or intrigue confrontation by the simple fact that the 9th level character would have far more time to develop relationships and learn how things work socially.

Right, it's adjudicated like everything else not covered by the rules.  I've done it this way and did it with these games for years myself.  It's one of those things that makes an RPG different from other games, the PCs can do anything, and if it is not covered by the rules, it is adjudicated.

But not all RPGs are created to do everything as well as others.  Some games do madd combat better, some do space travel, some specialize in certain magic systems, some simulate tech well, and the difference and specialization is based on the ruleset/system, and how it handles that specialization.   One does not say that D&D, for example, does space travel well because it has no mechanics for it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;673230agreed but i have tried to argue in other threads and the usual suspects will shout you down with an argument that either they managed social mechanics without rules, thus missing the point or arguing that social mechanics can only ever be 'i roll diplomacy' and that that noise should apparently have sexual intercourse.... but good luck.
i liked your system by the way when my players mature a little i might introduce a variant of it... i kind of do but not so formal

'when my players mature a bit'....ok, that's priceless in and of itself.  Glad you like it.  Like anything it evolved and changed.

Quote from: LordVreeg;673346But not all RPGs are created to do everything as well as others.  Some games do madd combat better, some do space travel, some specialize in certain magic systems, some simulate tech well, and the difference and specialization is based on the ruleset/system, and how it handles that specialization.   One does not say that D&D, for example, does space travel well because it has no mechanics for it.

Except in the case of social interaction. There are no true mechanic in the sense of rolling to see whether you hit the opponent.  In general in most RPGs a hit is a black or white resolution either you hit him and proceed on through. The same with a successful jump navigation roll, a roll to see how well you planted your crop.

Social interaction are always adjudicated any rolls result in a guideline. The resolution is in the interplay between the referee as the NPC and the player. And this is the fundamental mechanic shared by all tabletop RPGs.

In the case of adjudicating anything involving mass appeal like speaking to a crowd, leading an army, etc, I agree with your points. However not at the level of individual interactions and how they play out through the life of a campaign.

From my point of view there are several major aspect to a tabletop RPG. Among the there is the game and then there is the roleplaying. The game are the mechanics. The roleplaying encompass what you do with the game. It is the roleplaying that sets RPGs from their wargame progenitors.

The roleplaying to me is more than just pretending to be or acting as another character it is the campaign, the setting, sessions, etc. All the fuzzy wuzzy  ill-defined human stuff that surrounds the game mechanics. I view the social interaction as part of the roleplaying not the mechanics.

Social tables, rules, etc are aides in the same class as NPC generation and world building are aides. Yes they can help but they are not necessary in the way a combat system is or magic is.

I'm also with LV here, though I also agree that you can ad - lib some stuff. But there are various level of intrigues. Sometimes you want to play a Talleyrand, but you ain't one. There are also issues of player skill vs character skill at work here - a good RL talker will be at a strong advantage here over someone who's a "silent player". That aside, if anything social skills are useful as RP guidelines.

Quote from: estar;673398Social tables, rules, etc are aides in the same class as NPC generation and world building are aides. Yes they can help but they are not necessary in the way a combat system is or magic is.

I think that's a gross oversimplification. It depends on a genre and game - in a high court intrigue combat skills may be less useful than diplomatic ones. Or investigative games.

I actually like per se the concept of social combat. It's just that I wish there was a simple, elegant execution of it.

Quote from: estar;673398Except in the case of social interaction. There are no true mechanic in the sense of rolling to see whether you hit the opponent.  In general in most RPGs a hit is a black or white resolution either you hit him and proceed on through. The same with a successful jump navigation roll, a roll to see how well you planted your crop.

Social interaction are always adjudicated any rolls result in a guideline. The resolution is in the interplay between the referee as the NPC and the player. And this is the fundamental mechanic shared by all tabletop RPGs.

In the case of adjudicating anything involving mass appeal like speaking to a crowd, leading an army, etc, I agree with your points. However not at the level of individual interactions and how they play out through the life of a campaign.

From my point of view there are several major aspect to a tabletop RPG. Among the there is the game and then there is the roleplaying. The game are the mechanics. The roleplaying encompass what you do with the game. It is the roleplaying that sets RPGs from their wargame progenitors.

The roleplaying to me is more than just pretending to be or acting as another character it is the campaign, the setting, sessions, etc. All the fuzzy wuzzy  ill-defined human stuff that surrounds the game mechanics. I view the social interaction as part of the roleplaying not the mechanics.

Social tables, rules, etc are aides in the same class as NPC generation and world building are aides. Yes they can help but they are not necessary in the way a combat system is or magic is.

But you see that is the point.
It's the love of roleplay that make we want to look for more and better mechanics that support Social skills and interaction because as you say yourself most games have none.

Just because the social aspect of the game has been left as underdevoped as it was when Tenser first decided to wade into the orcs with his staff rather than cast a sleep spell doesn't mean that we as GMs and some of you guys as designers shouldn't be thinking about ways to add more mechanical support for role play.

I think a good GM can incorporate skill roles into interaction. Looking here though a large % of GMs don't want to or find it too hard or whatever.
I really think that picking mechanics that really work, like the 007 Seduction system is the best way forward. Pick stuff that works well and adapt and develop it.

Quote from: estar;673398Except in the case of social interaction. There are no true mechanic in the sense of rolling to see whether you hit the opponent.  In general in most RPGs a hit is a black or white resolution either you hit him and proceed on through. The same with a successful jump navigation roll, a roll to see how well you planted your crop.

Social interaction are always adjudicated any rolls result in a guideline. The resolution is in the interplay between the referee as the NPC and the player. And this is the fundamental mechanic shared by all tabletop RPGs.

In the case of adjudicating anything involving mass appeal like speaking to a crowd, leading an army, etc, I agree with your points. However not at the level of individual interactions and how they play out through the life of a campaign.

From my point of view there are several major aspect to a tabletop RPG. Among the there is the game and then there is the roleplaying. The game are the mechanics. The roleplaying encompass what you do with the game. It is the roleplaying that sets RPGs from their wargame progenitors.

The roleplaying to me is more than just pretending to be or acting as another character it is the campaign, the setting, sessions, etc. All the fuzzy wuzzy  ill-defined human stuff that surrounds the game mechanics. I view the social interaction as part of the roleplaying not the mechanics.

Social tables, rules, etc are aides in the same class as NPC generation and world building are aides. Yes they can help but they are not necessary in the way a combat system is or magic is.

Estar,  there are many things that set war games apart from RPGs.   And role playing, or playing in character, is more than speaking or interacting.  And the background for your prejudice comes from a game that was closer to a war game.  And determining that the interaction being part of the role play and not the mechanics is merely part of the choice of matching game to system.  It is frankly one of the reasons that traditional governmental systems always look so silly in most trad RPGs, monarchies can't pass on king ships when character combat level is really a prime determinant of who is in charge.   Remember the first grey hawk, when all the countries had to have uber high level leaders....so really, all the governmental heads were past adventurers?   That's because there is no social/political power that equates to character level.

I agree you can role play without the mechanics, as I said, I did it for years and do it still.  But when I play a game based upon an area of the game, I like having mechanics that allow for the character to have skills like etiquette and detect falsehood and bluff and flirt and detect social dynamic and instill trust and read body language and instill confidence.   It can make for a different game, and one better suited to certain game style and setting/ system matches.

Quote from: Rincewind1;673474I actually like per se the concept of social combat. It's just that I wish there was a simple, elegant execution of it.

This is addressed to LordVreeg's and JibbaJibba relies as well. My view is that the essential social combat mechanic was built into RPGs the moment the players and referee started acting as individual characters.

At best social mechanics are a guide for referee to determine how the NPC is reacting to what the character is saying or doing. I do not have a problem with this type of mechanic as LordVreeg pointed out it helps to make characters better at certain things then the player is.

It doesn't work as well in reverse. Most players I find do not like their characters actions determined by a dice roll.

Quote from: Chugosh;670701On social mechanics, I think that stats and skills are more about guiding how you role play the character more than they are for constant dice rolls.  I'll play a guy with a CH 5 very differently than I do a guy with CH 15.  I'm not too sure of my acting abilities outside of that range.

I remember a number of awesome scenes done without rolling dice in a number of different games, and I think one of the reasons I'm on the OSR wagon is the number of scenes that were not as fun because I insisted on rolling rather than letting the players acting determine the outcomes.

I remember a scene I did when I was 13 where in a guy was on trial for being a pure strain human and was expelled from the community.  I still think it was one of my best scenes, and I have been doing rather a few.

I am so stealing that trial concept for gamma world!

Quote from: LordVreeg;673214I don't think it does.  Yes, you can play a more illogical game where a starting character like a thief with zero experience in the social forum or contacts in the court or understanding of etiquette who speaks one language poorly and has never left the city can outperform a seasoned, top level courtesan and trained orator with dozens of years of experience, friends in every chamber, speaks four languages fluently and has been all over the world, in a straight up debate in public.

Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen.  The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it. Said thief will stand NO chance, no matter what he says, if he's trying to argue with said orator (I suspect you meant "courtier" not "courtesan"?) in a debate being held among gentlemen (he might have some chance if said debate was happening in a low-class brothel, or in front of an angry mob predisposed to hate the courtesan, of course).

On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;674824On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen. The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it.



Look, the quality of the game will always depend on the quality of the players and GM. Acting otherwise, no matter which side of the "rules/no rules" social mechanics divide you are on is moronic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674824Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen.  The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it. Said thief will stand NO chance, no matter what he says, if he's trying to argue with said orator (I suspect you meant "courtier" not "courtesan"?) in a debate being held among gentlemen (he might have some chance if said debate was happening in a low-class brothel, or in front of an angry mob predisposed to hate the courtesan, of course).

On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

RPGPundit

dude eh?

and a guy with 12 points in diplomacy is a seasoned orator, that is what 12 points in diplomacy means just like 12 points in hit stuff with sword means he is good at hitting stuff with a sword.....

Quote from: RPGPundit;674824Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen.  The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it. Said thief will stand NO chance, no matter what he says, if he's trying to argue with said orator (I suspect you meant "courtier" not "courtesan"?) in a debate being held among gentlemen (he might have some chance if said debate was happening in a low-class brothel, or in front of an angry mob predisposed to hate the courtesan, of course).

On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

RPGPundit

The interesting detail I take from this is that social skills in an rpg can be too simplistic.

The thief with diplomacy is a good example.

'streetwise' and 'courtier' really are different and not one 'diplomacy' skill.

A farmer turned soldier fighter with Intimidate skill might be an inspiring commander.

A wizard with Intimidate might be riding on the fearsome reputation of dark sorcery for his Intimidate.

So I can see a ton of thematic issues; but it depends how one customizes a skill to the particular character.