Social Combat

So NPCs are there just to be social punching bags? We might aswell also decide that an NPC shouldn't defend or counterattack when attacked in real combat either.

Well, that depends on how you look at the game, doesn't it?

With physical combat you're attempting to overpower an enemy, either lethally or nonlethally, right? So the entire purpose of combat is to kill or rout the opposing side.

With social combat you're usually attempting to change somebody's mind. You're trying to get a judge to rule in your favor or get a guard to let you pass by. The effect is binary. Either you convince the NPC to agree with you or you don't.

So you're not fighting the NPC. You're fighting the NPC's opinion. The NPC defends their position and "attacks" you by punching holes in your argument, meaning they're less likely to believe your story.

I'm not looking at it like hack'n'slash combat. I approach it like sieges, where you're attempting to break down a gate and the opponents, rather than attack you directly, are attempting to fix the damage you've done or impede your progress.

Usually combat is the weakest part of any given system. It's something quick that ultimately takes ten times as long to resolve compared to everything else. However combat rules are necessary because it's much harder for raw, human brains to compute complex physical interactions.

Social interaction however is something our brains our wired for and even without rules we can carry out those interactions at a normal pace with considerable accuracy. Adding the layers of a combat system only seems to bog that down in an unnecessary way.

That's not to say game rules, bonuses and penalties shouldn't apply to in-game social interaction, only that an entire sub-system isn't needed to do it.
Personally I treat interaction as a scale of "desirable response" to undesirable response." When the character begins interaction they start higher or lower based on the bonuses or penalties from their relevant interaction stats and the demeanour of the NPC. Then depending on what the character says and does they will increase or decrease on the scale.
A roll is only made if the character takes a particularly risky or bold action, such as insulting the king in front of his court, threatening a guards life, telling an outrageous lie or kissing that duchess you just met 30 seconds ago.

With this method social interaction stays at a fairly brisk pace, players have plenty of freedom in how they roleplay and how their roleplay can effect the game AND their character stats stay relevant.

You're being willfully obtuse

Social combat is rolling dice to see what characters think about something.

Getting killed is the result of what characters think about things.

Dice are rolled in an rpg to determine what's going for things that can't be done in the real world during our game of pretend, we can still talk at each other over the table so it hasn't got a damn point.

so you'd advocate for the removal of the bluff skill and make it entirely based on how well of a liar you are IRL?

I tend to really enjoy good combat systems in RPG's. In a lot of games they suck or are really perfunctory, but good combat rules can make spending multiple hours resolving a fight really enjoyable.

Although I don't think it's the physical complexity that means detailed combat rules are needed- It's the narrative weight. Given how much is often decided by combat and how severe the consequences can be, people want more chances to make choices and influence the result. Plus, y'know, beating up the bad guys is fun, and if it's a large part of the point of the game then it makes sense to put a lot of effort into it.

I feel like this is where a lot of games stumble though. The majority of your wordcount should go towards what matters to your game. It's why I always find it confusing when people claim D&D isn't about combat- Because combat always has the highest wordcount dedicated to it. If the point of the game wasn't combat, then you should focus that attention to detail elsewhere.

Burning Wheel, OP. Duel of Wits is pretty cool. I think they had a duel of wits in the second-to-last episode of the Roll20 Burning Wheel campaign. Maybe the one before that? I remember it was interesting to see those mechanics at work.

It's only appropriate when it's player vs. NPC unless you're playing Monster Hearts or some such game that's more about exploring a theme than it is actually having fun.

Or if you're into ERP with a side on non-consent.

Personally I prefer my social combat to be rolling to perceive the characters reactions or notice things about them. Like that a ring they're wearing is affiliated with a particular cult and what their beliefs are, or that they're dismissive of when your female rogue speaks etc.

That way I can give the players different levels of successes that let them tailor their arguments to convince the other person.

For key points/arguments I'll also usually try to put in a couple logic traps that they can get bonuses for pointing out, and they can use their own FEL to roll against the NPC to see if he notices any gaps in their argument.

We play a re-fluffed DH game.

No, if you enter social combat into the fray the PCs must agree to abide by it and use it on each other as well.

Burning Wheel is also pretty good since the rules say that both players participating have to agree on what will happen if each character wins, it get's around players being made to change their characters' mind problem which some people have with social combat rules.

Dogs in the Vineyard's social combat does the same thing

Does this shit actually exist?

95% of RPG rules are fucking terrible. Every time you try to pile more mechanics onto something it cheapens it. Because sometimes the story will take a direction that conflicts with the rules. This is why constricting combat rules are fucking retarded. But at least combat has easy stakes. Kill / capture the other guy, with some other goals mixed in. Social "combat"? Your opponent doesn't end up dead on the floor. The closest I can see is some courtroom drama shit that would be played out cringily by fuckers with no knowledge of the law. Shit like that would be better off as a board game.

Those courtroom drama novels do not work as an RPG. This high intrigue crap does not work in an RPG. Yes, you CAN do it in an RPG but tacking on social combat rules is 90% fucking retarded, because the people who design rules don't think about whether or not someone actually wants to fucking use them.

Case in point, Savage Worlds has (shitty) social combat rules and we never used them. Why? Because it's a million times better / superior than letting the game handwalk you through a social interaction where you ACTUALLY ROLEPLAY for once in the fucking game.

You do understand what roleplaying actually is, right? it's conversational method acting. Tacking a game onto that, you might as well just play the minigame without saying a word, because the mechanics don't define what you actually say, they at-best define how you say it. You're restricting one of the core elements of roleplaying with dumb shit that isn't necessary.

And let me say, the only fucking "social" rules you need are a few skills you can roll if a player might actually have a shot at persuading someone. But none of this "I rolled a nat20 I talked the guard with a family and 2000 gp into committing suicide" horse crap. Another example of "social" "combat" "rules" creating autistic crap that would never happen in real life.

Oh no, it's like people actually like rules that allow them to do things they normally can't, like be the super-charismatic and convincing people like in myth and legend who could convince water to flow uphill with a few silvered words!

How DARE they have fun that you don't like!?

Because you seem to be really stupid, let me say the above is 100% mocking you for being retarded.

You're literally arguing against all rules and just saying it applies to social combat specifically.

Social combat is easy, you secretly use 4e skill challenges like presented in the DMG2 where across important game-changing conversations you will have to make several skill checks, possibly retreat and try again with magical influence, etc. Unless it is hard coded into the system this is easily the best way to make a "universal" social challenge system outside of just rollplaying and fiat.

The Burning Wheel has a wonderful social combat system, because its all about convincing a crowd that you're right rather than the other person you're debating.

>Social combat is easy, you secretly use 4e skill challenges like presented in the DMG2
>proposes solution based on fucking D&D

dropped

How our groups handles it for most games is that the Players and GM roleplay most situations.
We mostly roll if Player and Character abilities widely differ. Especially if the Character is a better talker then the player who plays him.
Before the roll the Player lays out the argumentative logic and approach used by the character if that wasn't clear beforehand. Then the player rolls and the GM narrates what happens depending on the approach and the roll.

Example: The Players have to search a Boarding School to find the fetter that binds a ghost that's haunting the neighborhood. The matron is averse to letting strangers roam around, so they have to argue with her. She isn't very kind hearted and is very stuck up and business minded.
Now, the players could do different things:
>Appeal to her heart, to think of the children (Persuasion DC25)
>Appeal to her business sense, to think of the scandal if this became public (Persuasion DC15)
>Pressure her, threaten to make it public (Intimidation DC20)
>Offer her part of the Reward (Persuasion or Negotiation, DC depending on money offered)
There also could be small boni, for example if they laid out their reasons very well or if they offer her to shepherd them.

[cont]

[cont]

Usually the GM wings it, it's not like we always have a detailed list but these are roughly the DCs we use. We also don't bother to roll if taking 10 would suffice.

DC < 10 : A small favour from a friend. In general asking somebody who's friendly towards you to do something that they are okay with, that's no huge bother and may even be self serving for them. No need to roll.

DC10: Getting somebody to do something that's not against their best interest and not to big a hassle. Again, most times no need to roll unless the character doing it is particular uncharismatic.
>Getting the barkeep of the tavern you are staying in to give an anonymous letter to another patron.

DC15: Getting somebody to do something that's either time-intensive, exhausting, bothersome, or otherwise could have negative repercussion for the influenced.
>Getting a Wizard to admit you to his private Library when you seem trustworthy.

DC20: Getting somebody to do something that's very time-intensive, exhausting, bothersome, or otherwise could have more severe negative repercussion for the influenced. Often this is something where you leverage long-term versus short-term interests.
>Getting a guard at the end of the shift to let you go instead of booking you so he can go home on time.
>Getting the Wizard to allow you to use his expensive and delicate alchemy lab as well so you have potions and can achieve your (common) goal easier.

DC25+: Getting somebody to do something that's very time-intensive, exhausting, bothersome, or otherwise could have quite severe negative repercussion for the influenced. Also for things that in general go against the persons grain , against their self interest or a core principal or if they clearly dislike the character.
Practically DC25 is for things where there is a chance, but only a very slim one.
>Getting the Wizard to pay the expensive ingredients of the potion.

[cont]

[cont]

But, as i said, these are usually are intuitively assigned (and not announced). The racist elve might never help the dwarf and the doe eyed youth might lap up every word of the eloquent bard, roll or no roll.

And of course i am very D20-ish with my examples here, but these are aplicable in most other systems and the way we preffer to handle it.

If you don't want to play it out completly (for one reason or another) let the player make the case and roll for it.
Rolling without saying what the character says is boring and pointless, only letting the players social graces and quick thinking handle it can be unfair.

[Damn Captcha, i'm no Robot!]

Or what, your feelings will be hurt? How do you get to dictate everyone's game? I don't even allow my PCs to engage in physical combat with each other, why would social get a free pass?

>Oh no, it's like people actually like rules that allow them to do things they normally can't,

In the context of a roleplaying game you are completely wrong. Rules do nothing but add legitimacy to your described actions. Read Lumpley's Law, it sounds like semantic bullshit but it's a very important definition.

> like be the super-charismatic and convincing people like in myth and legend who could convince water to flow uphill with a few silvered words!

Except sometimes you simply cannot convince someone, no matter what. Bullshit Greek legends aside. And a Persuasion check fulfills that niche *perfectly*. All that social combat rules do is inject more subsystems the game doesn't need.

> How DARE they have fun that you don't like!?

Where did I say that? I merely expressed my opinion. If you're falling back on the "I can play whatever I want" shit then you have officially exited the discussion.

> Because you seem to be really stupid, let me say the above is 100% mocking you for being retarded.

Cool. Why don't you explain how I am retarded instead of reading the first few sentences of my post and ignoring the rest.

What is roleplaying? It's talking. Character interaction is talking. There you go.

Unless you are going to act out all of your combats, you need rules to resolve that part.

And some rolls to resolve social situations, as when the character is more charming than the player. But an entire fucking subsystem because people can't stand that the only subsystem in the game is for combat? Fuck off.

>I don't even allow my PCs to engage in physical combat with each other

Pussy GM detected

>Rules do nothing but add legitimacy to your described actions.
OH NOOOO. It's not like that's important or anything!

And its a pretty common story-theme, way past just greek legend, but players are badwrong for wanting to do it, I getcha.

And you implied it very heavily when you shat yourself in rage for 271 words that someone could dare want to have RPG rules for more then just combat.

The rest of the post was just you screeching about how everyone that enjoys that sort of thing is BAD AND WRONG and was already addressed.

Take two .50 cal aspirin and don't call anyone in the morning.

no, actually that is good GMing.

SOCIAL KOMBAT!
Test your might!