I've seen a few systems for treating social conflicts (and less commonly battles of wits) analogously to physical combat, with intiative, attack rolls, hit points, hit locations and so on.

Apocalypse World has a few different systems depending on what game it is (I know Monsterhearts has its "strings", but not familiar with others). Last time I cared for it White Wolf/Onyx Path devised at least three different sets of social combat rules (Exalted, Invite Only, Mirrors?) and one for mental conflict (Invite Only?).

What kinds of social and mental combat have there been? What do you think of the concept?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;926000I've seen a few systems for treating social conflicts (and less commonly battles of wits) analogously to physical combat, with intiative, attack rolls, hit points, hit locations and so on.

Apocalypse World has a few different systems depending on what game it is (I know Monsterhearts has its "strings", but not familiar with others). Last time I cared for it White Wolf/Onyx Path devised at least three different sets of social combat rules (Exalted, Invite Only, Mirrors?) and one for mental conflict (Invite Only?).

What kinds of social and mental combat have there been? What do you think of the concept?

Remember the holy trinity of RPGs? Combat, Problem-Solving, and Role-play? Those aren't just arbitrary categories nor mere empirical happenstance. It's because the source of every challenge is (tautologically) either willed or unwilled. The latter deals with the nature of the game world. The "physics" of how things work. This even includes complex mechanisms such as traps and technology. Addressing these challenges largely falls under the category of "problem-solving." The willed deals with any sentient creatures, and there are (tautologically) two ways you can deal with other sentient beings; by force or by consent. And from that come the categories of "combat" and "role-play."

Looking at the words "social combat" I see an apparent contradiction in terms. Look, if you love an endless RPG hack-fest start to finish and want to expand its realm to include descriptions of witty repartee without ever having to take a break from fighting, then hey, go nuts. But if you actually enjoy non-violent interpersonal interaction as an element of the RPG, it's a terrible idea to approach the "social" with a bad case of "physical" envy.

There are genres where "social combat" seems appropriate; superheroes or swashbucklers should be taunting their opponents, and it could reasonably have mechanical effects. Generally, the problem for me is that I want more creative role-playing for social situations, and mechanical systems of social combat mostly work against that. But I keep looking at such systems since I would also like to achieve more objectivity, or perhaps consistency is a better term, as a GM in adjudicating negotiation with an NPC.

A problem I see with some social combat systems is that they generally simulate a yes/no and/but outcome (e.g. convince the bouncer to let you pass or fail to, convince someone to be your friend or fail to, beat someone in a game of chess). A, for example, nuanced argument where two characters try to work out the details of a mutually beneficial conplex plan isn't simulated well, if at all.

Am I wrong?

When a person walks down a flight of stairs, it's because he wants to get to the bottom for one reason or another. When a ball bounces down that same set of stairs, it's not because the ball wants to. It's simply following the laws of physics. It's mechanical. Human action is not. In order to achieve objectivity and consistency in adjudicating negotiations with NPCs, all you need to do is take the time to note what the NPC wants and what he's willing to sacrifice to get it. New social stats aren't needed. And no amount of social stats or mechanics will get it quite right.

If you want social interaction to play a major part of the campaign, noting want the NPC wants verbally should be treated as seriously and as vital as numerical stats. Do you have a stock combat stat block for generic guards? Great. Come up with a stock personality profile for generic guards as well. Do you create special guard stats for an elite guard who is guarding something very important? Great. Come up with a special set of wants for this guard.

You should also get used to making discovery of an NPCs wants (or a PCs for that matter) part of the negotiation process. It's easy to feel like a winner for talking a 50 gp asking price down to 35 gp. Not so much when the guy would have gone down to 5 gp. Discovery changes everything and is the heart of the matter. Not thrusting with witty repartee and then parrying with a side-step and smokescreen.

Luna I always find myself in the curious position of both agreeing with your perspective and wanting to play devil's advocate.
So I'm going to play devil's advocate, not because I disagree, but because I want to pick your brain.
 

Quote from: Lunamancer;926018Remember the holy trinity of RPGs? Combat, Problem-Solving, and Role-play? Those aren't just arbitrary categories nor mere empirical happenstance. It's because the source of every challenge is (tautologically) either willed or unwilled. The latter deals with the nature of the game world. The "physics" of how things work. This even includes complex mechanisms such as traps and technology. Addressing these challenges largely falls under the category of "problem-solving." The willed deals with any sentient creatures, and there are (tautologically) two ways you can deal with other sentient beings; by force or by consent. And from that come the categories of "combat" and "role-play."

I'm not going to wade into the sticky debate of whether our apparent free wills are the result of physical properties of the universe (I'm aware of the controversy, but I'm neither a neurologist nor a philosopher, so I'm ill-equipped to debate either angle).
However, I raise the point to flag the validity of either a mechanical or roleplay approach to dealing with NPCs.
From that perspective, your paradigm of "willed" and "unwilled" becomes murky, as either speaking with NPCs or attacking them will ultimately be determined by the "physics" of the game world.

Quote from: Lunamancer;926018Looking at the words "social combat" I see an apparent contradiction in terms. Look, if you love an endless RPG hack-fest start to finish and want to expand its realm to include descriptions of witty repartee without ever having to take a break from fighting, then hey, go nuts. But if you actually enjoy non-violent interpersonal interaction as an element of the RPG, it's a terrible idea to approach the "social" with a bad case of "physical" envy.

I argue that a mechanical approach does not devolve the interaction into "an endless RPG hack-fest". It does not remove the inherent challenge of the activity, merely changes it. Consider a contrasting approach to this problem in video games:

-In Super Mario bros, whether you hit a foe is determined by your skill at button combination and timing. The sequence and time in which you hit buttons is the skill tested. I would draw parallels between Mario's system and roleplaying through acting, dialogue and human interaction, as it tests human problem solving and skill in real time.

-In Final fantasy, whether you hit an enemy is based on the interplay of the "to-hit" ability and attack you've chosen for the character VS the foe's "defense" rating. Your skill from a player is in your choice of character/attack type and your strategic approach to leveling your characters. Final fantasy's system represents the more mechanical approach offered by a social system.
It is important to consider that both approaches to the same activity test player skill. It is only a question of the skill they test.

Which is to say: One can conclude that interacting with the game through the medium of its mechanics is as valid an approach to the social aspects of character interaction as purely roleplaying responses.

I would partly agree with Lunamancer.

RPG social conflict systems like conflicts in Fate or in Burning Wheel are often set out as "PC wants X, NPC wants Y - roll dice to see if PC gets NPC to do Y". In this model, it is seen as a loss if you change your mind and agree with the other person.

However, I think that in real life, social skill is often about being able to see other people's point of view, clear up misunderstandings, and come up with new solutions that are better for everyone. Changing your mind is sometimes an objective *win*, because you're better off from having learned from the other person, when really your original intent was a bad idea.

In general, I prefer social skill mechanics that provide (a) better initial reaction to the PC; (b) better at telling lies and detecting lies; (c) better at perceiving what the other person wants. Rolling to get the other person to do something can be OK, but I prefer other approaches.

Quote from: jhkim;926158In general, I prefer social skill mechanics that provide (a) better initial reaction to the PC; (b) better at telling lies and detecting lies; (c) better at perceiving what the other person wants. Rolling to get the other person to do something can be OK, but I prefer other approaches.

I think jhkim's  point (a) is very important. When the GM does not know ahead of time precisely how the NPC will feel about the PC's initial proposition, it leads to a more impromptu conversation between parties where no side can predict or narratively force the outcome. When the GM predetermines NPC attitudes to rigidly, I agree that the social role-playing becomes a lose-if-someone-changes-their-mind situation.

For me, rolling social skills or abilities can be used during the conversation to discover new information or attempt empathy which may sway things. If the conversation does not finish to the PC's or NPC's satisfaction, I typically call for a deciding roll with some modifiers based on good points made by either side.

Anything more mechanical that this, I feel, bogs down the free-flow fun of roleplaying. If the social combat rules give finite goals to pursue, it channels the players into winning paths.*

* I'm not a psychologist and maybe IRL there are determinate winning paths to conversational success. Either way, I'm not interested in simulating this.

Quote from: Azraele;926144I’m not going to wade into the sticky debate of whether our apparent free wills are the result of physical properties of the universe (I’m aware of the controversy, but I’m neither a neurologist nor a philosopher, so I’m ill-equipped to debate either angle).

As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing sticky about it. There may be contrary views out there, but that doesn't make them all equally valid, regardless of the credentials involved. One answer that I feel does a decent job in settling it for me side-steps your point entirely. It doesn't matter whether free will is a real thing or just an illusion programmed by the determinism of a complex but purely physical universe. There are conceptual limits to human knowledge, and those gaps keep us from ever being able to pull back the curtain, so to speak. And for that exact reason, there is never enough data for the mechanical model to bring clarity to human action. Even if the materialistic view is strictly speaking true in the grander sense and we could fill the knowledge gap, it would be like saying Mars in fact orbits around the Earth in an odd, styrographic kind of orbit. The model may match up perfectly with observed data, but heliocentric model gives you the same answers with fewer headaches. Such is the view of humans as willed beings.

QuoteI argue that a mechanical approach does not devolve the interaction into "an endless RPG hack-fest". It does not remove the inherent challenge of the activity, merely changes it. Consider a contrasting approach to this problem in video games:

Combat in RPGs can be very challenging. The point isn't the challenge. The point is the feel. Using the exact same game mechanics only replacing "You slash the orc across the gut with your battle axe sending him reeling" with "You snub the duke with your subtle quip leaving him tongue-tied" is just putting lipstick on a pig. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE bacon. But that doesn't mean I don't also want eggs on my plate. Coloring some of the bacon yellow and calling it eggs is a pretty shabby substitute.

Quote-In Super Mario bros, whether you hit a foe is determined by your skill at button combination and timing. The sequence and time in which you hit buttons is the skill tested. I would draw parallels between Mario’s system and roleplaying through acting, dialogue and human interaction, as it tests human problem solving and skill in real time.

I'm having trouble seeing how this analogy is applicable. Do I squish the goomba? Do I not? Do I win? Do I lose? What characterizes social interaction in particular is gaining consent. That means finding (what is at least perceived as) a win-win. So in order to succeed, at some level, you gotta let the other guy have a win. This means there's going to be some kind of trade-off involved. Well, what's an acceptable trade-off? That's something really only the player can decide for his character.

No matter how good or bad the player is at doing that and how much we want the system to bridge the gap between player ability and character ability, we're stuck with this valuation problem. It's like saying, "Hey, you were going to pay $10 for a cheese pizza? Well, I'm sick of you getting ripped off just because you suck at negotiating, so I got Papa Luigi to put extra peppers on your pizza without an up-charge." And I'm like, "But what if I didn't want peppers?"

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;926000What do you think of the concept?

I have been working on the subject for more than one year now. And at last I can show a somewhat polished result in the form of the Revolution D100 SRD. The main feature of the system is that there is no pre-set result of an interaction, although at least one side must obviously have a goal before a conflict may start. But you may easily win and do not get the intended result: another result might come out of the interaction and the winner be forced to settle for it. Or the new result might be even better than expected.

It's absolute garbage. Trying to make a mechanic out of what you should be fucking role playing.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;926000What do you think of the concept?

I think it works better when it's a fundamental premise of the game and permeate various aspects of it. Games about intrigue, drama, competition, etc. like Paranoia, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Monsterhearts, just to cite a few.  

Never seen a good implementation of it as "analogous to physical combat" though.

Smallville/Cortex+ Dramatic handles "physical" and "social" conflict the same way, but that's because it handles all conflict with the same mechanics.  And it doesn't bother with physics emulation.

Marvel Heroic Roleplaying has different damage tracks for physical, mental and emotional, but uses the same mechanics for any action scene.

Yeah, Smallville is a nice example of what I was saying: a central theme of supers drama driving all aspects of the game and making it pretty good at social conflicts. I think that's the point I was making: games that are good at social conflicts are usually the ones about social conflicts. You know, from the ground-up.

*Edit*: it just occurred to me that Smallville and Monsterhearts are like "brothers" in this sense, as both tap on similar themes (teen/young adult drama) only on opposite sides of the fence (supers vs monsters).