TheRPGSite

So, in working throught the Zombipocalypse design, one of the things that Linda liked was that the combat system could be applied to social combat. This was an idea I had been playing with. So I wrote it up but I have always been kind of opposed to such things. I find my old dislikes coming to the fore. They seem to be:
1. Social mechanics seem to jazz with RPing. If I do some great speech, convincing argument or describe the seduction of the century, but roll for crap, it doesn't happen. This seems to be a problem with any system that overrides RP with mechanics.

2. I see the opportunity for abuse. The mechanics could be used to"force" the target to do your will. No matter how many times I say "Hey! It is not a spell" you know some player would have to say "But what good is it then". The root here seems to be the usefulness of the subsystem vs its effect. Make it too effective and it draws from the RP aspect of the game. Make it less effective and you make it less useful (helping resolve social combat situations).

Those are my big issues with social mechanics.

So, do you like them? If so what do they do?

Do you dislike them? If so, why?

Thanks,
Bill

I have yet to see one that really works, let alone works in a realistic fashion. I don't think I'd be opposed to a mechanic, assuming it worked. Like all mechanics you take the fun parts, and ignore the rest.

A general problem is using simple rules and dice to handle something that a player is an expert in - it will feel cold and simplistic to them. Humans are hugely social animals and pretty much everyone considers themselves an expert in social interaction.
 
re: #1, a system needs to allow room for creativity and actual talking, skill ranks and dice rolls aren't enough. On the other hand, some mechanics can be handy to distinguish the player from the character. A bit a randomness takes into account that a given action might have different results with a different audience or with a different context or mind state. For a rules light game, I prefer no social rules. For a more complex game, I like some framework that is flexible.
 
re: #2, there is nothing wrong with essentially forcing NPCs to take actions as long as their is some randomness that doesn't allow it to work every time and there is potential backlash. It depends on the larger context of the setting how possible this should be. But it also gives players a different way to go with their characters instead of the 95% of characters that are strongly combat focused.

Quote from: Nicephorus;273631A general problem is using simple rules and dice to handle something that a player is an expert in - it will feel cold and simplistic to them. Humans are hugely social animals and pretty much everyone considers themselves an expert in social interaction.
 
re: #1, a system needs to allow room for creativity and actual talking, skill ranks and dice rolls aren't enough. On the other hand, some mechanics can be handy to distinguish the player from the character. A bit a randomness takes into account that a given action might have different results with a different audience or with a different context or mind state. For a rules light game, I prefer no social rules. For a more complex game, I like some framework that is flexible.

And see, that was what I was shooting for in this system. The ability to play a lawyer who is adept at persuasion when the player is an engineer with no social grace. I am not sure it is attainable though.

Quote from: Nicephorus;273631re: #2, there is nothing wrong with essentially forcing NPCs to take actions as long as their is some randomness that doesn't allow it to work every time and there is potential backlash. It depends on the larger context of the setting how possible this should be. But it also gives players a different way to go with their characters instead of the 95% of characters that are strongly combat focused.

See, again, what I am shooting for precisely. The issue I see is that it all depends on the GM. I tend to trust the GM and think of him as the ultimate AI to the system. He can take discrete results and make them fuzzy. He can say  "Maybe" with conditions. That is difficult to model in a system of dice, points and codified rules.

Thanks,
Bill

That stuff only really is useful to decide things that happen between game sessions or 'offstage' if you do a timeshift forward during a game session.




...at least in my opinion, your kilometerage may vary.


- Ed C.

I think it as usual varies with the quality and implementation of the mechanic. I like the players to be able to play things that do not rely solely on their normal abilities--at the same time I want to see at least some non-token effort to roleplay out the social and communication aspects of their character.

I do like the idea of mechanics that can be applied across the board the same way--as needed to help players represent the characters in play.

My personal opinion is that they are only desirable if they fit the setting concept you are going for, and even then, do not cover all eventualities. For example, a combat game doesn't need them, a game of courtly intrigue might need some extra guidleines that these sorts of rules can give.

I also think it's very important to make provision for modifiers to any social combat rolls for In Character roleplaying of the situation at hand. This means that the system doesn't crowd out the roleplaying totally and might encourage some good roleplaying ideas.

Well, different social mechanics do different things.  Champions' Presence attacks are different from GURPS Reaction Rolls, which are different from Spirit of the Century Empathy rolls, and so forth.  

I find that I dislike confrontational social mechanics where you roll against a known NPC, and if you win they do what you want, and if they win they do what they want.  It doesn't represent social interaction well, in my opinion, and it can be dull to play through.  

However, I do like using rolls to pass off lies or detect them, to deduce secrets from subtle cues of an NPC, get a good reaction, and many others.  I am generally unimpressed with most of the extended social mechanics that I have seen, though, which tend to be confrontational.

Quote from: jhkim;273655I find that I dislike confrontational social mechanics where you roll against a known NPC, and if you win they do what you want, and if they win they do what they want.  It doesn't represent social interaction well, in my opinion, and it can be dull to play through.  

However, I do like using rolls to pass off lies or detect them, to deduce secrets from subtle cues of an NPC, get a good reaction, and many others.  I am generally unimpressed with most of the extended social mechanics that I have seen, though, which tend to be confrontational.

The above.

Turning an in-game social situation into social combat reduces a role-playing opportunity into a group of skill checks which takes away one of the fun cornerstones of what defines a role-playing game. The skill checks should remain, but the outcome of those skill checks should be modified by the role-playing that the players do. Otherwise, why call what you are playing a RPG?

Now, one of the common arguements I've seen against this idea is that the rules exist to limit the arbitrary power of the GM. I think that is crap. However, in order to answer the arguement, instead of using extensive rules for social situations - place some common sense guidelines about how a GM should role-play and adjudicate social situations during play (that way each game group can find their own happy medium).

Like others, I don't think social mechanics work well and they're dull. Where I like them best is swaying a crowd of NPCs or some minor NPCs.

Seanchai

Specifically social mechanics always make me pause.  Generic mechanics that can extend to social stuff, I don't mind at all.  Generic is handy.

Political / large group mechanics, now, I actively like.

You've outlined the problems well, Bill.

I can't say I've had enormous success, or for that matter problems, with social mechanics. It partly has to do with orienting your interpretation of what's going on when you make the roll, I think. In my opinion it's also advisable to just throw out all the crap about "GM Fiat". If the GM doesn't have a say in how persuasive your argument is, then competitive players, or players who are strongly invested in their character's success, will end up making token gestures at roleplaying while insisting the mechanics allow them to try to persuade everyone regardless of the situation. Or at least they'll be conflicted over whether to try to use the mechanic or be faithful to the fiction.

In short I think you ought to have a heavy dose of GM discretion in assigning modifiers, and possibly even a certain amount of "grading for effort" to balance different levels of player skill. And as far as the "mind control" issue goes, just consider that an extreme result may reflect something more than the PC's persuasion ability--it could reveal something about the target that the GM hadn't anticipated--something that gives him a predisposition to cooperate. But also, to keep the mechanic from being abused, I'd also consider penalties for trying and failing, especially if you fail spectacularly. That way you don't have the aspect of players wearing down opponents even after the argument's gotten silly. Eventually, the conversation ought to be done.

But alll this is focused on using social mechanics to get NPCs to do stuff. Using them on PCs is another matter and depends much more strongly on how the players approach the game--in a nutshell, whether they're looking at their character from the outside in, in a third-person collaborative storytelling mode, or in a first-person immersive mode. The former seem to be more accepting of having their character swayed. For the latter, it's probably better to have, at most, penalties that carry over for doing things that go against what the winning side wants.

You 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

Sorry to be kind of sketchy--I'm in a bit of a rush.

double post--ignore

Gamers tend to be rather anarchist in their worldviews... at least when it comes to themselves. "I know my rights, damnit!" So while they accept (say) their character being unable to walk because someone broke their leg, they won't accept being unable to walk because they're scared of something, or entranced by it, etc.

Coming from that is the fact that in an rpg, while we can't act out climbing or fighting or building a machine, we can act out talking. Indeed talking is half the "role" part of the roleplaying, the other half being figuring out stuff to do. If that's knocked over by dice rolls, players get annoyed.

I mean, players making choices and talking about what to do and talking to NPCs, that's what they roleplay for. Take that away and it's not an rpg.

The solution I've tried for a long time is this:

• there are game mechanics for social interactions
• they don't get used for trivial things, only important things (I treat combat mechanics the same way)
• if you just say, "I intimidate him" and roll the dice, it goes off PC ability. If you give an interesting/reasonable description of what you do, you get a bonus on your roll. You never get a malus on your roll from what you said.
• these social mechanics determine NPC actions - NPCs can be seduced, intimidated, etc with a successful roll.
  
• social mechanics influence but do not determine PC actions. Successful rolls give a bonus/malus to certain courses of action.
  

A player can always have the PC do whatever they want, but the success/failure in that social mechanic thing will give a bonus or malus to certain courses of action. If the NPC intimidates a PC with, "put down your weapon!" then NPC intent is that the PC can't fight them. "You failed your roll by 4, so you're pretty distracted by fear, and will be at -4 if you hold onto your weapon and attack him. But you can still run away at no malus, try to bribe him or whatever. It's just if you want to stab him you get -4."

So when the NPC loses the roll, that determines their actions, when the PC loses the roll, that just gives them a malus to actions other than those the NPC wants.

I find that players happily accept a bonus/malus to their character's actions due to social mechanics, and they tend to go with the results. In terms of what the PC ends up actually doing, it's just as if the social mechanics determined their actions - nine times out of ten, anyway. But in terms of how the player feels about it, it's as though they chose it. Because really they do have a choice, for that one time in ten.

Quote from: HinterWelt;2736271. Social mechanics seem to jazz with RPing. If I do some great speech, convincing argument or describe the seduction of the century, but roll for crap, it doesn't happen. This seems to be a problem with any system that overrides RP with mechanics.

2. I see the opportunity for abuse. The mechanics could be used to"force" the target to do your will. No matter how many times I say "Hey! It is not a spell" you know some player would have to say "But what good is it then". The root here seems to be the usefulness of the subsystem vs its effect. Make it too effective and it draws from the RP aspect of the game. Make it less effective and you make it less useful (helping resolve social combat situations).

Those are my big issues with social mechanics.

So, do you like them? If so what do they do?

Do you dislike them? If so, why?

3.x's little +2 bonus for good roleplaying (etc) was fine, although most of the time it was not a significant bonus.  I like more of a percentage based system so the bonuses are more transparant.

As for #2, the thing I've heard (but never played) is where losing a social contest will still allow you to ignore the consequences, but at a penalty.  It gives a lot of discretion (and work) to the GM, but it's the kind of thing that adds a lot to the game.  I think it's worth it.

Bill,
  First off, I love social mechanics. But I have a part time GM that love to play every character as an obnoxious prick, so I like being able to treat them differently and get different results.
  But, I think there are a few things that need to happen for them to work GREAT:
1) The rules need to take into account what the characters are saying
2) The rues need to take into account eh general mood
3) The rules ene4d to allow the target to continue on doing whatever it is, even if they fail (with a penalty of course).

  This last one, I think, gets at your issues. And I think its an elegant solution. So, your PC makes an elegant speech and convince the BBEG that violence is notthe answer. You roll wel and they roll bad. The GM has nothing to do and no plans for a pacifist minotaur, so they decide the minotaur will fight anyways. But, he fights with a hit penalty equal to the amount he missed the roll by (or some other fair penalty). This represents the character's self doubt and free will...

  But, even a bad social mechanic is still better than none. I mean why is it ok for me to play a character that can fight even though I can't or a character that can shoot fireballs even though I can't or one that is sneaky as hell even though I am not. But I can't make a ladykiller when I am ice cold with the ladies (and not in that good las vegas way)?

Quote from: dindenver;273705I mean why is it ok for me to play a character that can fight even though I can't or a character that can shoot fireballs even though I can't or one that is sneaky as hell even though I am not. But I can't make a ladykiller when I am ice cold with the ladies (and not in that good las vegas way)?

This is a matter of preference. Your rhetorical question implies that there's no difference between physical powers and social skills--and that may be true for your tastes.

But for many, the reason is explained pretty well by Kyle up above. I.e., there's no way at all to actually shoot fireballs, so we use a mechanic to represent it. When it comes to talking, a mechanic may be nice, but it's not necessary, and if you make it too easy to just treat social interaction as a pushbutton power that you activate at will, then you lose something that's essential to RPGs.

Even so, from a practical standpoint, you and I and Kyle have all suggested pretty much the same thing.

Personally I like the idea of there being some kind of mechanical reward for players who engage IC in social situations but have no problem with social mechanics.

Regards,
David R

Regarding social skills etc. there's a couple of simple guidelines that define if they're good or if they're crap:

1. Social skills, not "social mechanics"; they should NOT play exactly the same like combat, so that social RP is reduced to a series of rolls "to hit" with your charm or some shit like that.
2. Good social skills will contribute to the player's descriptions and basic effort, not replace it.
3. The social skill system should never allow the Player to be able force an NPC to change his mind about something unless the player can also, through his argument, change the GM's mind about what his NPC would think.

RPGPundit

I get both sides of the equation.

I've found myself as a player incapable of intimidating foes simply because the GM didn't want me to, no matter how well I role-played.  I've also found myself unable to use diplomacy, to negotiate, or do other social interactions simply because the GM decided he wanted things to go another way.

Having an actual mechanic can be very useful in those situations.  It also makes it possible for people who aren't exactly glib or expert improv actors to play those gifted with a silver tongue...and it can help stop those who really are gifted with a silver tongue from totally dominating the game -- something I've seen happen way too many times.

But most social mechanics systems do seem to get in the way of actual role-playing.  So it's kind of a toss-up.

Hinterwelt:

1. If you describe the most awesome combat attack but you roll crap that doesn't happen either. Basically the dice should be important but cleverness and RPing should be rewarded, just like in the combat engine of a game.

2. Good point. With a lot of social mechanics the result of using them is either completely up to the GM ("OK, I rolled "good" on diplomacy, WTF does that mean?") or basically works like mind control ("I rolled good on diplomacy, now you do what I say"). A good way of avoiding both of these problems is to have success on a Social Combat role give the person whose mind your screwing with a penalty if he goes against what you said, but still have the choice to do what he wants ("you tell the bounty hunter that you're innocent and as he points his gun at you you can see him hesitate, he gets -2 on his roll to shoot you for being emotionally conflicted"). This also has the benefit of working just as well on PCs as on NPCs.

Basically the way I like social mechanics is that they can: detect lies, pass off lies, detect things about what someone is thinking and affect the emotions of the person you're talking to (and affecting their emotions should have a mechanical effect if they do something that goes against what their emotions are screaming at them to do) but still leave the ultimate decision of what to do up to the individual, no matter how much social pressure you bring to bear on them.

I like them when they're used to allow the players to say "No, my character is good at this stuff and you can't just railroad us with this NPC."  That's the purpose they serve.  It can also be nice to have a labeling and tracking mechanism for pc/npc relationships.  For instance, Bob used to be your friend until the time you let him go first across a mine field and only told him about it later over drinks, now Bob distrusts you and is bitter, take a -20 to that fast talk roll.

I dislike anything complex or mandated.  I like something like a Charisma stat which the GM can have you roll against if he's not sure how the NPC will react.  Certainly something like Heroquest's point-bid mechanics I strongly dislike (for combat too).

Quote from: HinterWelt;2736271. Social mechanics seem to jazz with RPing. If I do some great speech, convincing argument or describe the seduction of the century, but roll for crap, it doesn't happen. This seems to be a problem with any system that overrides RP with mechanics.

2. I see the opportunity for abuse. The mechanics could be used to"force" the target to do your will. No matter how many times I say "Hey! It is not a spell" you know some player would have to say "But what good is it then". The root here seems to be the usefulness of the subsystem vs its effect. Make it too effective and it draws from the RP aspect of the game. Make it less effective and you make it less useful (helping resolve social combat situations).

Those are my big issues with social mechanics.

So, do you like them? If so what do they do?

I like them, but if they run like #1 and #2, you're doing it wrong.

WRT #1, there should be limits to what can be achieved with social skill rolls, as well as pre-placed opportunities that make them valuable. You are never going to swindle the emperor out of a death star, but you might get the furry natives to help you in your crusade. In D20 terms, that means there does not necessarily exist a DC that lets you make any NPC do anything you want.

WRT #2, this is a delicate issue with lots of loud debate on either side, but in general: players should be rewarded for good roleplaying, but characters should benefit from resources expended on soicial skills. They way I handle this varies by game. In a game that provides no immediate reward system like D&D, I prefer to simply provide a roleplaying bonus (or penalty) for good roleplaying.

In a system with immediate rewards for roleplaying, I prefer to see good roleplaying as a benefit to the players at the table rather than in-game, so I reward it with the appropriate kickback. In Spycraft, this would be an action dice, and if the player really thinks their performance should affect their chances, they are free to spend the action dice immediately.

Quote from: RPGPundit;273747Regarding social skills etc. there's a couple of simple guidelines that define if they're good or if they're crap:

1. Social skills, not "social mechanics"; they should NOT play exactly the same like combat, so that social RP is reduced to a series of rolls "to hit" with your charm or some shit like that.
2. Good social skills will contribute to the player's descriptions and basic effort, not replace it.
3. The social skill system should never allow the Player to be able force an NPC to change his mind about something unless the player can also, through his argument, change the GM's mind about what his NPC would think.

RPGPundit

I don't take a general view here on what's good or crap, but in practice this is how I use social mechanics in my games.

On 3, the NPC may not change their mind, but they may be persuaded for the moment against their better judgement.

Quote from: Balbinus;273805I don't take a general view here on what's good or crap, but in practice this is how I use social mechanics in my games.

On 3, the NPC may not change their mind, but they may be persuaded for the moment against their better judgement.

I'm with Pundit and Balbinus here. Social skills are cool, but if your character's RP argument is weak or, worse, complete bull, that is also factored in as a penalty, or bonus if it's a persuasive argument. Note I said RP argument, not roleplaying. You don't have to be a silver tongued devil, but I do need something solid in-character to base it all on. If the character's argument consists of "Because my character is a friggin' master of convincing!" then there's a problem.

-clash

Bill,
  Yeah, I think whenever the dice are involved, you have that opportunity for a sort of cognitive dissonance (e.g., I make a critical hit for 2 damage what does that mean?). But, you can't let that one possibility shut the door on other awesome opportunities.
  I don't know, I think its a catch-22 situation. One one hand you have players and GMs complaining when other players use CHA and similar as a dump stat. But then you have other instances where players who spend into these stats are penalized because the GM fiats all over their attempt to intimidate an enemy into backing down when the PC doesn't have the combat stats to back it up. Or otherwise RP'ing and ignoring the character's niche because they don't like social mechanics or are afraid of mind control.
  Really, if you make Social mechanics into an affair where their is more than one roll (you don't have to use combat mechanics, but that is why combat mechanics are so involved, because the results of them are usually critical, like someone dies), then you can come up with a balanced way for players to influence the game world in an exciting way. I mean, everyone talks about how fun and exciting combat mechanics are, so it seems only natural to expand that fun into more areas of play, no?
  Finally, I think that the games that handle this best are ones where it takes as many ability score points and skill  points to be good at social stuff as it does in physical stuff. I mean to be good at fighting you need Str, Dex, Con, at least 2 skills and a character class conducive to fighting. Being a social pro should require the same amount of mechanical commitment, no? But instead its usually relegated to on or two stats , one or two skills and no character class. And the way some games handle skill points, it becomes trivial to get those skills and be good at both social and combat.
  So, it seems to me you really need to pick a system and play style that are compatible to truly have fun.

Social mechanics can provide a way to force certain player types to conform to effects outside their control. I'm thinking specifically about a guy I used to play with who basically was under the impression that any character he played was not fazed by anything. If confronted with cthulhu, an ancient red dragon, incontrovertable proof that scientology is objectively right, or some other mind-blowing horror, he'd say "I'll retreat, but of course I'm not panicked or scared." Using an "Intimidated" or "Shaken" condition imposed by a social mechanic (in this case terror) can be used to have some effect on the guy who insists on always playing the ex- or current- military nihilistic killer without a conscience.

Thus, I'm thinking that there should be some way for social mechanics to affect combat (that notion of imposing penalties for a well-worded argument was an idea I'll use at some point) as well as the day-to-day behind the scenes stuff (maybe a good diplomat gets a discount on all normal equipment purchases depending on skill ranks/levels/whatever)

However, for actual social interactions, they rarely do anything but get in the way. That's just my experience. YMMV, like always.

Lots of excellent points guys. Thanks. My thinking is coming around on this point. Let's see if I can sum up.

1. I think I will need some sort of pre-roll conditions. This is mostly about how to present the rules and works like this. I  need to say up front that the player must present his argument. The first hurdle condition is if it is at all possible. Something like sweet talking the bouncer at a club to let you in..sure. Getting the guard to shoot himself in the head....no. Then, I need to outline the middle conditions (yeah, Clash).

2. Next step would be to present the player's case. They need to present their plan, maybe include their speech or generally what they will say. The GM will evaluate and assign a bonus OR just out and out give it or deny it based on the presentation and content. No penalty for bad presentation but if the player outlines his characters, a 90 lb weakling, going up to the 200 lb marine and poking him in the chest in order to physically intimidate him...not gonna happen. However, if he comes up to the guard and presents false credentials and claims to be a superior, we have something to work with and bonuses may apply depending on how it is played.

3. Finally the roll. I see a couple of conditions. First, a simple your lie was convincing or you broke him. Let's call these passive effects. It does not force them to do something but it allows an effect. The easiest to describe is passing off a lie, effectively impersonating another person, or general deception. Second, there would be the case of impeding action. So, you could  confuse the trooper so he needs to make a check to see if these are the droids (possibly at a minus) that he would not have before. Or you might apply a minus to init, combat or an action against the character since they are so sweet and innocent or some such.

4. I am always a fan of what I call discrete mechanics. Basically, what some folks are saying about the mechanics adding to or being the tools of the player to accomplish RPing and not having the mechanics dominate the RP experience. I will think how best to accomplish this but I think a big part o fit will be presentation or getting folks to think in those terms.

Does that sound workable?

Thanks guys,
Bill

I have used very loose almost non system skill checks to facilitate some randomness. This way a very literate player but poor RPer playing a illiterate barbarian will still have his low Intelligence/Charisma represented somehow.

Now this is heavily modified by Good RP. Which in effect is GM discretion.

I would like to see a system for social combat.

Quote from: HinterWelt;273871Lots of excellent points guys. Thanks. My thinking is coming around on this point. Let's see if I can sum up.

1. I think I will need some sort of pre-roll conditions. This is mostly about how to present the rules and works like this. I  need to say up front that the player must present his argument. The first hurdle condition is if it is at all possible. Something like sweet talking the bouncer at a club to let you in..sure. Getting the guard to shoot himself in the head....no. Then, I need to outline the middle conditions (yeah, Clash).

2. Next step would be to present the player's case. They need to present their plan, maybe include their speech or generally what they will say. The GM will evaluate and assign a bonus OR just out and out give it or deny it based on the presentation and content. No penalty for bad presentation but if the player outlines his characters, a 90 lb weakling, going up to the 200 lb marine and poking him in the chest in order to physically intimidate him...not gonna happen. However, if he comes up to the guard and presents false credentials and claims to be a superior, we have something to work with and bonuses may apply depending on how it is played.

3. Finally the roll. I see a couple of conditions. First, a simple your lie was convincing or you broke him. Let's call these passive effects. It does not force them to do something but it allows an effect. The easiest to describe is passing off a lie, effectively impersonating another person, or general deception. Second, there would be the case of impeding action. So, you could  confuse the trooper so he needs to make a check to see if these are the droids (possibly at a minus) that he would not have before. Or you might apply a minus to init, combat or an action against the character since they are so sweet and innocent or some such.

4. I am always a fan of what I call discrete mechanics. Basically, what some folks are saying about the mechanics adding to or being the tools of the player to accomplish RPing and not having the mechanics dominate the RP experience. I will think how best to accomplish this but I think a big part o fit will be presentation or getting folks to think in those terms.

Does that sound workable?

Thanks guys,
Bill

Looks good to me, Bill!

-clash

I'm puzzled by players who don't invest in social skills for their characters, yet expect to make up for it with some clever talk from their part. You shouldn't play Henry V if your character doesn't have some mad speech skills to back up your personal oratory.

Quote from: JongWK;273898I'm puzzled by players who don't invest in social skills for their characters, yet expect to make up for it with some clever talk from their part. You shouldn't play Henry V if your character doesn't have some mad speech skills to back up your personal oratory.

I tend to think of it as two different things - the argument, and how persuasively it's presented. Generally I give a modifier for the quality of the argument, and apply it to the quality of the skill use for presentation. If the argument is ass, then the presentation, no matter how slick, is probably going to fail. If the argument is coherent, reasonable, and appealing to the target, then even a poor presentation won't hurt it much.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;273814I'm with Pundit and Balbinus here. Social skills are cool, but if your character's RP argument is weak or, worse, complete bull, that is also factored in as a penalty, or bonus if it's a persuasive argument. Note I said RP argument, not roleplaying. You don't have to be a silver tongued devil, but I do need something solid in-character to base it all on. If the character's argument consists of "Because my character is a friggin' master of convincing!" then there's a problem.

-clash

That's exactly how I run things, I expect the players to make a bit of an effort, since that's in large part what I'm at the table for.  But if a socially less adept player makes an effort, I won't penalise them for being themselves less socially adept.  That would be crappy.

But yeah, if someone said "I roll my Persuade, I get a 04, that's a critical, I say something really persuasive" then I myself would be unpersuaded by their persuasion roll.

Quote from: David Johansen;273770I like them when they're used to allow the players to say "No, my character is good at this stuff and you can't just railroad us with this NPC."  That's the purpose they serve.

Does it really work that way, however? Because if a GM is going to railroad you, he or she is going to railroad you.

We were playing in a game, for example, that used percents. We were flying in a helicopter in a storm and the GM wanted us to crash. Even though the PC pilot rolled a 01, the best possible roll, and his character was a professional pilot in game, we still crashed. There were mechanics to cover the situation, but the GM ignored them.

So what's to stop that from happening with social mechanics?

Seanchai

Quote from: flyingmice;273814I'm with Pundit and Balbinus here. Social skills are cool, but if your character's RP argument is weak or, worse, complete bull, that is also factored in as a penalty, or bonus if it's a persuasive argument.

Which makes a lot of sense. But it's also subjective. Was the argument weak? Well, the GM might have thought so, but the players might have an entirely different take on the matter. And so we're right back to, basically, fiat.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;273965Does it really work that way, however? Because if a GM is going to railroad you, he or she is going to railroad you.

We were playing in a game, for example, that used percents. We were flying in a helicopter in a storm and the GM wanted us to crash. Even though the PC pilot rolled a 01, the best possible roll, and his character was a professional pilot in game, we still crashed. There were mechanics to cover the situation, but the GM ignored them.

So what's to stop that from happening with social mechanics?

Seanchai

Sadly I think they are a weak GM for blatantly steering the plot. Not to say I have not steered things. However, if a subject comes up that is completely out of player control than they don't get a roll. I don't ever want to do what was mentioned in the posting. When a player rolls a crit it should be a momentous occasion and not be disregarded for plot.

I would like to think I have never engaged in Railroading. Having said that I do freely admit to trying to bend things into my favor. For example my friend's girlfriend was playing in one of my games. She was a vacuous dingle berry but I let her play to appease my friend. Her character had a pet dog and for fun I started taking pot shots at it (mainly cause I did not want to take the shots at her). Well after the third critical failure and rolling fits of laughter it became quite apparent that I would have to keep the Rat Dog just for comedy relief.

If the copter needs to crash to get the party on the deserted island then let it crash. Mechanical failure could easily have rendered Chuck Yeager unable to save a prototype plane. The 01 super crit now means everyone gets out alive and unharmed.

Peace

Quote from: JongWK;273898I'm puzzled by players who don't invest in social skills for their characters, yet expect to make up for it with some clever talk from their part. You shouldn't play Henry V if your character doesn't have some mad speech skills to back up your personal oratory.

Well, I think one possibility that I've seen is that they have encountered a GM who would ignore the social skills of the PC to just always have NPCs react according to what they wanted for the plot.  i.e. A player buys a ton of social skills, but then the GM still has the mission-giving NPC yell and belittle them, and the surly prisoner NPC stonewall them, and so forth.  I've seen this a lot, and it doesn't take very much of this to convince players to abandon social skill spending altogether.

Quote from: Seanchai;273973Which makes a lot of sense. But it's also subjective. Was the argument weak? Well, the GM might have thought so, but the players might have an entirely different take on the matter. And so we're right back to, basically, fiat.

Seanchai

No - The fiat only influences, it doesn't dispense. The roll has a function too.

-clash

If anyone is interested, I have updated the mechanics for Zombipocalypse Social Combat now called Social Contests in the design thread. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=274107#post274107)

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: Seanchai;273965So what's to stop that from happening with social mechanics?

Seanchai

In a perfect world?  Baseball bats, ropes ,and trees.  One less bad GM wrecking the hobby by driving out good players.

Quote from: flyingmice;274078No - The fiat only influences, it doesn't dispense.

But, really, it does. Unless there are limits to what bonuses and penalties are applied and when.

To use Exalted as an example, the minimum bonus for a social stunt is zero dice. The maximum is three. If the GM is following the rules, there's only so much he or she can alter the chances of something succeeding or failing.

If the GM could add or remove as many dice as he or she saw fit, the GM could make an action a definite success or impossible.

Thus, to my mind, mechanics + fiat still = fiat.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;274208But, really, it does. Unless there are limits to what bonuses and penalties are applied and when.

Sidebar: a d20 player once argued to me that according to the rules a referee could never impose a circumstance modifier of more than +/-2.

I'm in the group that thinks players need to make an effort at being social when using social skills, for as Balbinus notes upthread, the in-character interaction around the table is part of the fun for me when I play. If social skills are reduced to a die roll, I think that part of the game is lost.

At the same time, I do like some measure of mechanical reinforcement for social interactions, even something as simple as a bonus to reaction rolls for a high ability score or skill level. If the mechanics allow players to build characters who can always get a particular reaction in social situations, then that's a system problem for me.

Quote from: Seanchai;274208But, really, it does. Unless there are limits to what bonuses and penalties are applied and when.

To use Exalted as an example, the minimum bonus for a social stunt is zero dice. The maximum is three. If the GM is following the rules, there's only so much he or she can alter the chances of something succeeding or failing.

If the GM could add or remove as many dice as he or she saw fit, the GM could make an action a definite success or impossible.

Thus, to my mind, mechanics + fiat still = fiat.

Seanchai

Whatever. I didn't know we had a system declared. A +3 limit in one system is killer, but in another might be pretty useless, thus I didn't put numbers up. But you go on telling me what I mean when I say something. It's wicked useful.

Outta here.

-clash

Quote from: Seanchai;274208Thus, to my mind, mechanics + fiat still = fiat.

The GM can set whatever difficulty they like.

Or, to be more blunt:

All roleplaying games operate by the socially accepted fiat of someone.

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 (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/43767.html) 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.