What are the advantages of adding a Social Combat mechanic to a game...

>What options does it provide over plain roleplaying?

It provides you with an option of playing a character that is more charismatic/better with people than you are added with a feeling that you are actualy beating challenges instead of handwaving them with a single dice roll.

This guy, , for one, is missing the point. He says that social mechanics detract from RP yet ultimately resolves social situations with dice rolls - roleplaying still plays secondary part. More developed social mechanics allow for more mechanicaly engaging social encounters

>yet ultimately resolves social situations with dice rolls
It's not what I wrote. It's clearly wrote roleplay + dice roll is needed. If a player asks for just dice roll, he'll get a high penalty. On the other hand if he made a convincing speech, showed good arguments, he'll get a good bonus. A character with high charisma and good communication skills won't be affected so much by bad roleplay, while good roleplay will make him even better. Where this system has its limits is when NPC's try to manipulate PC's, as players are aware that their character is getting conned. In this situation a purely mechanical system like you are suggesting would be better.

People often underestimate the power good communication has. There are people who are ready to lie, steal or sell their ass because their manipulative lover told them to do so. Others will donate all their belongings, put on a suicide vest and detonate it in a bus station because their guru told them to.

When I GM, the thing I want out of any social mechanic is the ability to easily be authoritative when the players try to get their way by talking. Sometimes they're bribing a corrupt cop, in which case they should clearly succeed and I don't need anyone to roll dice to say "you succeed" while maintaining a sense of fairness and consistency within the game. Similarly, if they try to talk a swarm of rats into leaving them alone, I can just say "cute, but no" without being unjust. Sometimes though, an NPC clearly might or might not go along with the party's plans. It's nice to be able to say "that has a 65% chance of succeeding because the book says it does" in that situation. GMing is all about making the players feel like their actions have predictable consequences, otherwise they don't feel meaningful.

Rambling on to "social combat" specifically, if you're talking about a system where you have lots of rolls devoted to a single social contest, the same way most games wouldn't handle an entire shootout with just "roll your shooting... you shot the best, everyone else gets shot"... if you play a game with that sort of system, you're foregrounding the social interaction portion of the game. The extra detail might work in a very social game, where convincing someone to do something is a big part of the story rather than a thing you do in order to get to the story. I can only really think of Exalted as an example of a game which has that sort of mechanic, though. (Especially with the term "social combat"; Exalted 2e's social mechanics were basically its combat mechanics but refluffed, with counter-arguments as Parries and willpower as Hit Points and such. It wasn't a good system, because Exalted 2e wasn't a good system.)

Well a fight is more clear-cut than a conversation. You don't have to involve things like personal taste, personal philosphy, are they in a bad mood that day, are they just an asshole, etc. etc.

Depends on the context.

Legends of the Wulin has my favourite social combat system, in that its social combat is a part of the main combat system. A Courtier can keep trying to talk an opponent down during a clash of blades, and can be extremely effective in doing so. It's not appropriate in every game, but in the context it's very fitting, and very fun.

I hate them.

I feel they turn something as nebulous and multi-faceted as human conversation into something not nebulous and multi-faceted.

At the same time, conversations in the games I play to tend to be "combaty" where we'll pay attention to what is said and respond accordingly, paying attention to how the person might feel about the situation and other such things.

In my opinion, basic social conflict rules are important. Players are not their characters, they don't have to be as good as the character is in fighting, talking or knowing stuff and vice versa the character isn't necessarily as good as the player is in them.
Social Conflict rules are important because they add another layer to the game, a character might be a Huge McLarge but is easily swayed by a pretty face or he could be completely impervious to anything that wants to alter his opinion. Could that be left up to the players decision completely? Well, yes, kinda, but then the player also has absolute and complete control at all times and his character cannot ever be bluffed, lied, convinced or motivate for something that the player doesn't want, even though it would make sense ingame.
Having no social conflict rules makes it also necessary to lie to your fellow players and DM, which always struck me as silly. If you have Bluff rules, you can just talk openly at the table about what happens at all times, so everyone is involved at all times. Sure, that requires players that don't Metagame, but that really shouldn't be that much of an issue if you have everyone on the same page and just talk like adults if somebody crosses a line.

Now, one of most common arguments against these rules are that you give a player or NPC the ability to Mind Control the other players. In D&D that's certainly true, where ability scores go to extreme heights and there is no defense against Diplomacy, because the rules simply do not have room for social conflict against PCs. A game with social conflict rules needs available and fair defenses against it, so you have to make the concious decision against taking them.
And if somebody minmaxes for social? Well, if he absolutely specializes in that aspect, I guess it's his right to be extremely good at it. That still does not mean he gets to mindcontrol players OR PCs, for two reasons.
(cont)

Reason one is modifiers. If somebody tries to do something unreasonable, say "I want to convince the King to hand me over his Crown and Kingdom", or "Hey, I want Jerry's PC to suck my cock", with no leadup or pretext whatsoever, well that's what modifiers are for. You have to be really damn convincing to make somebody actually kill himself with just a short talk. It's no different from any kinda outlandish idea like "Hey, I want to lift that bus full of sumo ringers with my bare hands!" Sure, you can try, but have fun actually making that roll. Social Conflict is no different and still subject to modifiers.

The second reason is, that the players and the DM still play the character. So, if you are diplomized, convinced or whatever, YOU still play the reaction. You should follow the spirit of the roll and try your best to roleplay your character in a way, that shows the result of those rolls. And if somebody tries to weasel around and twist himself out of a successful roll, well, that's what the GM is there for.

Now, all of that just goes for basic Social Conflict rules. Skills for Bluffing, Convincing, maybe one for logic and one for pure emotions, skills do defend, whatever. Most things can and should be left up to the GM, the players and the situation. But that's not really "Social Combat Rules", or at least not what most people mean when they talk about it.

Social Combat rules, stuff with "Social HP", moves, feints, multiple rolls, essentially full fledged combat but with words is pretty much unneccessary. It would be easy to write, yeah, but it's unneccessary.

What's the point of combat rules? It's to simulate something that can hardly be done at the table AND it's there to provide gameplay and fun. Could you distil combat down to one or two rolles? Certainly, but to most people, playing out a fight is fun, it's there to provide contrast to the roleplaying and adventuring.

It's also a welcome break for the GM, because he only has to slap down an encounter and the players practically entertain themselves.

So, with Social Combat, you don't have to really simulate something, because you can already do that with talking at the table and making a few rolls. As for providing mechanical fun? It's a way worse choice than straight-up combat.
Usually, there are a lot more social interactions in a game session than there are combats, barring sessions where you are entirely within a dungeon and never really talk to anyone. Rolling out a full-fledged combat every time you want to haggle with a merchant or flirt with a bar wench would get pretty damn annoying. Codifying it and making a combat system would also take social situations way, way longer than just talking and then rolling a few times.

Now, most of these things could also be said about Combat, but there's a big difference: In social situations, usually only one or two characters talk to somebody. It's pretty rare that more than two party members are part of a conversation and the entire party practically never talks. In martial combat, everyone's on the table. Even if you suck at fighting, you can still be stabbed and need to cover your ass. That means you are involved. Having lengthy combats where half the party has to sit out isn't really a good idea. That's also why you avoid throwing somebody into a full combat when he goes off on a short solo adventure or something: You don't want to have most of the table twiddling their thumbs while John is slapping Goblins for half an hour.

Now, most of this could be flipped in certain games. In a game where you play nobles and merchants moving through the social jungles and practically never, ever do any fighting, flipping it around might work. But as most games are being played right now, having more in-depth Social Conflict rules is pretty much unneccessary.

I don't like the comparison between combat and conversation since no matter what, a punch is a punch. It has a physical form and will impact things based on measurable metrics.

What's a punch in a conversation? An insult? What kind of insult would hurt a person? It all becomes so subjective and murky that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Well, a punch is pretty much arbitrarily abstracted in a game. Yeah, the game designer probably tried to emulate reality in some way, but at the end of the day, he still assigned numbers that felt "right".

If you are writing a social combat ruleset, you need to go to similar lengths and just abstract tons of shit, so you can make the argument that there's no real difference here.

I hate to go all "GNS theory" on you because it's pretty much known to be bullshit, at least as usually packaged, but unfortunately I'm not aware of any better models for understanding which aspects of RPGs are emphasized by a given system, so just take this with a grain of salt.

If your goals are narrativist (that is, focused primarily on having the best story possible) then you want as few rules as possible, and those that do exist should be primarily for adjudicating in situations where there may be disagreement about what would be best to have happen next, or to influence the tone of story you're telling, and that sort of thing. Probably don't want "social combat mechanics" unless they somehow contribute to the story being told.

If your goals are gamist, then you want the setting and story and everything to just be a fun backdrop for figuring out the most optimal ways to proceed, much like in the case of a board game with really good fluff. Probably want them if there's going to be social encounters, to make the game fair and so you don't have to stop playing.

If your goals are simulationist, you want an internally consistent (and that doesn't necessarily mean realistic!) game world, such that decisions can be made as much in-character as possible, rejecting narrativist concerns by saying that what matters isn't the best narrative arc, but what "would happen," and gamist ones by saying that a system should reflect the in-universe reality as closely as possible, and/or give the GM room to do so, such that the optimal decision IN-UNIVERSE is also the one that makes the most sense OOC. Only want them if they add consistency.

Again, the idea that these are the fundamental goals of roleplaying, that they are always mutually exclusive, and/or that understanding them and "picking one" is necessary for a good game is pretty much bullshit, but I find they are a useful thing to add to a pre-existing toolkit to decide what you do and don't want in a given game.

A punch is abstracted but like I said it is still bound by real-world metrics. As humans we have an idea of how effective a punch is at inflicting pain and what it takes to make a punch stronger.

Conversation isn't bound by the same physical metrics. 90% of conversation is subjective bullshit and can easily end in a scenario where there are no "winners" or "losers" which would defeat the purpose of making it a combat or competition.

Your pathetic trolling attempt is exactly how combat is described in Over the Edge (pic related).

Those guns are triggering my /k/ autism.

>trigger discipline

>If your goals are narrativist (that is, focused primarily on having the best story possible) then you want as few rules as possible

As has been previously mentioned, more concrete mechanics can be of great help in many ways in situations where the player's own characteristics and abilities may be insufficient to portray their character ideally, producing a better story.

Yeah, I can see that. A social combat system would still heavily depend on moment to moment decisions of the DM. If you have Light, Medium and Heavy arguments with differing "social damage" values, then the DM would still have to decide where your arguments fall.

I still think relatively basic social conflict rules that the GM adapts to the situation work best.

Yeah, at the end of the day it'd all be so subjective I'd rather keep the typical opposed check system and just give situational bonuses/penalties based on what the person says and who the "defense" is.

Well a discussion is more clear-cut than combat. You don't have to involve things like reaction time, physical condition, are they feeling sick that day, are they just a lazy person, etc. etc.

That's a good point. I don't tend to lean toward narrativism, with the exception of pure storygames, instead favoring simulation, so I don't know as much about that one.

Damn, I wish there was better RPG theory around. I hate using this crap because it was created basically entirely by people who want to argue that anything besides "narrativism" is badwrongfun or at least plebeian compared to their patrician tastes.

Actually most combat systems do involve things like reaction time, physical condition, and other such things incredibly easy because those are simple things to measure and have easy metrics that are reflected in numbers.

However, conversation is subjective at its heart and almost in its entirety.

I hate it so much when you hear someone talk and they sound so smart and reasonable then they go right to asshole crazy town.

>because those are simple things to measure and have easy metrics that are reflected in numbers.

They really aren't that easily summed up in numbers.

If all that stuff was a matter of simple calculations, then we'd never actually have sports and far fewer wars because you could just look at the data and extrapolate how the game would play out based on the "specs" of the competitors.

And as any soldier, athlete, or person who engages in physical competition will tell you, it's 10% physical and 90% mental.

No, combat is reduced to a mechanical abstraction in most roleplaying games for simplicity. It's not an accurate rendition of the reality, but in most cases it's an acceptable one. Players understand they are playing a game. You buy the ticket, you take the right.

Social interaction can be similarly reduced to a mechanical abstraction for the same reason.

It seems logical that if you use a mechanical abstraction for one facet of interaction, you should use it for another.

Actually, D&D does have a (very basic) system for social interaction, wherein any stat other than charisma is pretty useless.
The real reason charisma is only used for casting is that social interaction is rare in D&D.

Well, I think a single dice roll is good for short and inconsequential social challenges, where prolonged interaction isn't involved. Social combat is better for prolonged scenes where all characters can get involved, so it's often better for politicking and scheming.

>social interaction is rare in D&D

wut

No, combat does include those things. Now most systems do assume that players are competent at combat and so don't get into the nitty gritty of "how to fight" for the sake of simplicity.

That being said, now that I think about it most systems for combat are just about as simple as conversation, the only difference is that they have added layers of "damage" and stuff due to the necessity of such things in a fight.

Once again, social interaction is so fundamentally subjective that I can't see it having those additional layers without threatening to turn conversation into some kind of mind control instead of a narrative device.

Well, compared to other rpgs at least. I actually kind of like the way D&D 5e handles it, because it's not too hard to involve stats/skills beyond charisma, but it's not often that I see social interaction beyond 'bluff/bribe the guard' in published adventures. It's more a prblem of playstyle than system really, you could get the system to work.

I feel your analogies are incredibly inaccurate since any system that would incorporate those things would make them a whole intricate system in of themselves, such as the many boardgames that involve war and sports.

Also I would hope that coaches and battlefield commanders would look at the numbers involved and make a projection of how they feel the "match" will go since that would make the most sense.

>it's not often that I see social interaction beyond 'bluff/bribe the guard' in published adventures

Oh that's a bummer. The games my group play will have good sections with social interaction and we are even starting to get good at it more even in a-typical places.

Combat rules should provide the possibility of unintended or unexpected results. The player doesn't choose whether his attack is blocked; the dice roll provides the result, and the player has to choose his response.

Social combat should work similarly. Sometimes people get flummoxed, or hustled, goaded, tempted, et al. A Dirty World is the best social-combat game I've seen, because in playing it you're accepting that your PC can be influenced by outside sources. The mild-mannered socialite that keeps being bullied and degraded eventually flips his shit. The player might describe his PC as "always pacifist and in control of his emotions," but the game can inflict consequences beyond the player's direct control.

This requires thee players to give up a bit of control over the direction of their roleplay, which is something that a lot of players have come to see as sacrosanct. But part of the fun and challenge of something like ADW is in reacting to the unexpected.

It's akin to Traveller's semi-randomized character backgrounds. The player decides his PC went to naval academy, but the dice determine whether the PC passed or flunked out. Then the player has to react to an outcome he might not have otherwise chosen or even considered. When first explained, a lot of people react negatively because they're used to being the sole author of their PC's backstory. They might need to play through it before they get the fun part of it.

I dunno. That sounds like it's going to encourage players to think of social encounters in gamey terms, such that the character is something on the table and I use its features to interact with the features of the NPCs, trying to get +1 to whatever by insulting or sucking up, then shrugging off your insult by choosing to take it as a compliment, but only if I can roll above your wit, and you get a bonus because you have the "razor tongue" trait, and suddenly there's no part of the game where I'm actually immersed and thinking "what should I do to convince this person" but instead "how can I win this social battle?"

Especially since often people are interacting amicably and yet one of them is trying to influence the other with no ill intent whatsoever. But this turns that into a conflict in which the amicable element of the interaction is ignored (or abstracted into a mechanical effect).

At that point, why not just have everyone in-universe use rock paper scissors to determine who wins a non-violent conflict? That way when you play it IRL, at least you're acting like your character.

The reason combat is abstracted is because it's dangerous and physically exhausting for some (and impossible for others), not because players need as many pieces of "game" separating them from their game of pretend as possible.

It's far more abstract than you're imagining. Like a fight between virtues and vices, not "mah +1 Insult of Fatshaming gives me extra damage vs Neckbeard-based defenses."

And just like any game challenge, the social combat rules are there for conflicts, not everyday interactions. Like a scene in a movie where an attorney browbeats a witness on the stand into revealing a hidden agenda. Not the scene where your bros decide what bar they're going to.

My favourite rpg for social games is probably MonsterHearts and it takes a similar attitude to Dirty World in that you do not fully control your character's emotions. If another player succeeds in a Turn Someone On check against you then you were aroused by whatever they did, whether you like it or not.

I get what you're saying, but I still feel like it could ruin immersion.

>"The prosecutor calls you a liar and brings up that time in second grade when you peed your pants in front of your crush."
>"What? Fuck that guy. My word is my bond and I had a medical condition. I insult his mother."
>"Nope. Social combat rules state that in this situation, he has you at his mercy."
>"But my character feels like throttling him, not like crying and kowtowing to his whims."
>"You're wrong about what your character thinks. Stop thinking in-character and think about game mechanics instead."

If I played that game I would fart on people, tell them I want to piss on a turkey sandwich and make them eat it, etc., and give myself really good stats for social elements just so their characters are constantly discovering horrifying fetishes, because holy fuck is that stupid.

I'm pretty sure to qualify for the roll in the first case the action has to be at least somewhat attractive but, depending on how strict your GM is, sure why not

Exalted 3rd Edition actually has a really slick way of doing social combat - you need to figure out a motherfucker's intimacies (read: things/people they care about) and then try to use that as leverage to get what you want from them.

The interesting thing is that hybridizes the form of real life persuasion with the gameplay mechanics, but mandates that you get a bit creative in a way that doesn't force you to spell out every word if you're not a smooth talker.

>"The orc stabs you with his sword and then twists the blade in your wound, making you drop to a knee."
>"What? Fuck that guy. His sword could not get past Trognarr's defenses! I cut off the Ork's head"
>"Nope. Combat rules state that in this situation, he has you at his mercy."
>"But Trognarr could kill him any time, he wouldn't be skewered by him!"
>"You are wrong about what your character thinks. Stop thinking in-character, and start thinking about game mechanics!"

Did you see ? The reason combat is abstracted is specifically because players cannot really act it out.

So freeform roleplay with combat doesn't exist?

It does. It just generally sucks. Meanwhile freeform roleplay with nonviolent social interaction is usually good.

The rules are there to fill in the gaps in what can be done well, freeform. If your group can do everything freeform, then have at it. If your group needs rules for literally every contingency, then that's your business.

>It's akin to Traveller's semi-randomized character backgrounds

See I'm ok with this because I visualize it as "my character applies for X" and whether or not they succeed is up to fate.

I still have plenty of room to roleplay my character within it. However the social combat as you describe feels like mind control over how people act.

My issue is that the Traveller background determines what you DID already. Not what you do once the game has begun.

The fact that can't imagine his perfect character ever being caught emotionally vulnerable EVER, because he's rough and tough and he'd never cry, no sir, proves that you can't trust the players to act out their characters in social situations either.

I didn't say that. Hell, what about the opposite?

>"My character breaks down and cries."
>"Nah, you rolled too well. You can pretend to cry but you don't actually cry. The dice decide how you feel."

> social combat as you describe feels like mind control over how people act
from what I've seen there are two ways that games handle this, they either explicitly spell out from the start that you are not in full control of your character and sometimes the game rules will dictate things your character does sometimes and if you don't like it then don't play this game. The other way is the argument resolver, essentially the conflict doesn't determine how the character feels, just what happens, if there's an NPC who one member of the party trusts and another doesn't and they're trying to decide whether he can accompany them or not and the first player wins, then the NPC is coming along, player 2 continues to distrust him and can take any further action he feels his character would, but that's how this particular situation resolves.

Why don't we all just make up characters then hand them to the GM, and sit around and watch one person roll dice and tell us the story?

I view it as part of the game. Like, character creation is where the game starts.

I can see the resolver but even then the necessities of the plot should handle all of that.

Umm, no.

That's not social combat, that's "dice tell me what my character does". In social combat you are assumed to be defending yourself, like in real combat. You can say at any time in combat "I let myself wide open" or something if you want as well, why couldn't you with the social stuff?

You are projecting your ideas really fucking hard on a system you don't understand.

what kind of shit GM doesnt let you roleplay a succes?

>Meanwhile freeform roleplay with nonviolent social interaction is usually good.

What fantasy land do you live in again?

>"I let myself wide open"

I have never heard that in the description of a fight in a game unless someone does a move to leave themselves open (and there are literal real-world metrics for this).

In a conversation, not so much. Hence mind-control. NPCs would have the tools to mind-control players through conversation.

>what kind of shit GM doesnt let you roleplay a succes?

You failed to grasp the analogy he was making.

Also in all of my games the nonviolent social interaction is where we hold off on the dice rolling the most but there is still plenty of strategizing as we think about the scenario and who we are talking with.

Only in the sense that I have mindcontrolled you into replying.

This. The GM takes control away from players and tells them what they do anyway, to the extent that in the game described by the GM can tell you when you have a boner. Might as well just give them some suggestions and let them run the whole game.

No?

it feels like you're forgetting that the PCs are still in control of 90% of their own actions and that they can do the same thing to NPCs and each other, if anything they tend to be better at it than the NPCs are

>the GM can tell you when you have a boner.
>Implying people decide when to have boners.

>or does it replace it with rollplaying?
It doesn't replace it with "rollplaying" in the sense of just "roll dice and kill monsters" but it does replace it with a Mario Party style minigame.

See, I just did it again!

Except they wouldn't be able to control their actions if they are Intimidated by an enemy NPC and lose the combat.

I can't believe this is even a discussion that's happening.

>Should players have control of their characters or should social interaction be turned into choosing from the most mechanically advantageous in a list of social maneuvers like it's a JRPG menu, then coming up with in-character justification, and if you lose, you no longer control your character until the GM gives it back?

That's the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in my entire life. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Ok?

No, they also wouldn't be able to control their actions if they got knocked out, mind controlled, petrified, killed, paralyzed, attempt an impossible feat, or are asleep. You seem to be making an odd divide by saying that taking away a character's agency using social skills should never happen but by any other means is apparently fine

Not that user, but it isn't arbitrary at all to say "you maintain control of your character's capacity to MAKE DECISIONS at all times, barring magical interference."

This doesn't mean your character can do things that are physically impossible, or is immune to magic or being stabbed. It just means that the whole point of the player being present in the first place is to make decisions for the character.

What is this retarded system everyone keeps harping on about? Because so far it seems like every post is making it seem more ridiculous than the last, while not actually mentioning any specifics.

No really, what system uses Social Combat in the way this thread treats it?

Well, seems to.

>The mild-mannered socialite that keeps being bullied and degraded eventually flips his shit. The player might describe his PC as "always pacifist and in control of his emotions," but the game can inflict consequences beyond the player's direct control.

>This requires thee players to give up a bit of control over the direction of their roleplay, which is something that a lot of players have come to see as sacrosanct. But part of the fun and challenge of something like ADW is in reacting to the unexpected.

>Game specifically about losing control of your character
>Social Combat is terrible you cant even roleplay!!!

I guess I just don't really see the difference then, to me both situations are just "you decide what your character does until the rules say otherwise" whether that's because the action is impossible or because the character's opinions have changed doesn't really matter to me

No, those other things make sense either in our world or in the world of the game.

Conversation, however, is not some magical tool that allows you to unravel the mind and turn another person into your puppet that will obey your command because you "beat" them.

If that's the central point of that game, then it wasn't a good example for a thread about the advantages and disadvantages of ADDING a social combat mechanic to a game. Maybe a milder example should have been brought up, because I think it's colored a lot of people's understanding of what social combat is.

I think this is the heart of it, really.

The people against social combat have the lens of all the games that they play while the people for social combat do not providing any examples of it working.

This.

>my character is only affected by what I say he's affected by!
>everything else is mindcontrol!

If the GM takes control of both the physical situation AND what the character believes/wants to do, then why even have a player present?

>"I want to go investigate the murder."
>"No, you don't. Remember? You lost that social combat and now you want to go downtown and become a stripper."
>"But I made this character with certain ideas in mind."
>"Fuck you."

Strawman harder, you might actually convince somebody.

Yeah, this is good. Plus you can typically roll diplomacy to gather information, bluff is important to remove DM Fiat from how well your character lies and player ooc knowledge on NPC lies, etc. Besides which, sometimes you just don't want to spend fifteen minutes role-playing buying some rations and caltrops.

This is rather ironic coming after

How should a GM handle an uncharismatic roleplayer who's roleplaying as charismatic? Without social combat

What the hell do you expect when nobody has actually explained how social combat ACTUALLY fucking works or what its consequences are? Just "if you lose, your character changes their mind about stuff."

Not really. Nobody has demonstrated how "social combat" should work so I'm not sure if there is any way to strawman it, you know?

Like, I have yet to see an argument being advanced saying "this is how it would work and this would be how it plays out" aside from extremely vague "You talk...but like a fight!"

They'll do the legwork or try and guide the player through the conversation so they actually have something to say.

That or be vague about it and let them roll.

>"You talk... but like a fight!"
I think you mean "You fight... but like a talk!"

No?

Ha! Mind controlled you!

But seriously fuck "social combat."

This is a tough encounter, that's for sure.

Fuck the GM.

The only two games I can think of off the top of my head which use social combat are Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard. Both of them require the players involved to agree what the consequences will be either beforehand. For instance in this scenario that could only happen if the player had agreed to the stakes of "If you win then I won't get in your way investigating but if I win then your character becomes a stripper", if the player doesn't like those terms then they can be negotiated until both parties agree to the terms