How do social combat mechanics usually work? What games use them well? What are some pitfalls to avoid?

How do social combat mechanics usually work? What games use them well? What are some pitfalls to avoid?

See Burning Wheel. Basically you set your goals, muster a number of points that make up your "body of argument" and then play out a kind of rock-paper-scissors combat where you do stuff like make a point, or be evasive, or try to baffle them with bullshit. When one side's beaten down you look at how badly off each is, Unless the victor got a perfect victory, he'll have to concede to some extent and meet the loser in the middle somewhere.
The other guy has to concede defeat, though he still has the option of refusing to accept it and just escalating, like yelling "shut up, asshole" and drawing a sword. It's not going to convince anyone of the strength of his argument at that point, but hey, if he's so smart how come he's dead, huh?

Interesting. Does this ever feel like playing minigames instead of RPing, and/or harm player agency?

Is it more suited to a certain type of RPG than to others?

These """"systems"""" are universally terrible and distracting. Half the time they function as a boardgame so there is no point to roleplaying the conversation. Other times they try to integrate and the dice contradict the conversation. So it's basically a dicerolling minigame as an excuse for "well why does *combat* get all the mechanics?"

Because we can roleplay a conversation or argument and see who wins. We can't roleplay us fighting each other without injuries. Dumbasses.

Most chase systems are total shit, too, but that's a separate issue.

Only ever did it once, but not at all, it was no more "like a minigame" than running through a combat.

>if you can't swing a sword IRL you don't get to stab people in-game

It see-saws back and forth, just like says. You start with determining numbers/choices, then rp. The mechanics build around social skills/stats which you would use normally in play, and are designed primarily for really important in-character arguments with lasting consequences. The players pre-script what actions they will take, depending on what social skills they have, how they want the argument to progress, and what they predict the opponent will do, in a r/p/s manner, then play it out piece by piece, rolling the dice to see who actually ends up winning.

The scripting determines both the mechanical effect of a given exchange, and guides how we roleplay this part of the argument. For example, I script out Point, and my opponent has scripted Incite. I then roleplay my point in the argument, and my opponent roleplays ignoring this and trying to get under my skin. We then roll dice to determine effect, possibly with bonuses from help, or even given by the GM for good IC arguments.

It's very similar to how a lot of people run combat, with the order partially reversed. Most people would at least describe something dramatic after rolling a crit- this is much the same, but the dice are rolled after the arguments are made.

This isn't to say BW is mechanics-focused all the time. Rolling dice is a serious risk- I have conducted 10 minute long, multi-character conversations without rolling dice before, in the same way I would in a system without robust social mechanics. The main difference is that the mechanics are there for use. It is the players' job in BW to call for rolls a lot of the time, so if they prefer to do social encounters (hate that phrase) without ever touching the dice, they can. They just won't earn any experience... (I'm not going into the BW experience system here)

>if you can't swing a sword IRL you don't get to stab people in-game

Typical rollplayer bullshit argument.

RPGs have always been largely mental games. The player uses their own smarts to decide their character's course of action.

When it comes to overcoming obtacles in a game, you can use your real mind to come up with a point to win an imaginary debate or to solve an imaginary logic puzzle. However you can't use your real sword skills to stab an imaginary opponent, or your real strength to lift an imaginary rock, because that's impossible.

If you don't get that difference then you're a moron, or more likely, wilfully ignorant because you just want to lazily throw dice at every challenge.

...

>we can roleplay a conversation or argument and see who wins

Have you ever used a system with a real social mechanic built for it? I ask, because I know people who said exactly this, but were totally converted by doing the above. It isn't quicker than doing RP arguments, if everyone is equally perfect at seeing who has 'won' an argument; it certainly isn't quicker than doing the default GM reaction of offering compromise with a PC. It might be worth looking at nonetheless.

Honestly, I have very little experience of any games with fleshed-out social mechanics outside of Burning Wheel, which is so multiply redundant in terms of having parts of it's design justify other parts, that it's very hard for me to say that social mechanics are universally a good thing. I think the best general point in favour of them would be 'it signposts to less perfectly skillful players/gms how to RP an argument well'. The next best point is allowing for players to play characters who are better, worse, or argue in a very different way to the way the player would personally conduct an argument. Playing with a limited hand of cards leads to interesting play- pardon the poor analogy. I'm honestly not sure how coherent these arguments were- I'll probably reply more tomorrow.

also,
>says social combat doesn't improve on actual argument's ability to indicate which side has won
>it's the internet and we could potentially keep arguing forever without listening to a single thing each other has said
> Duel of Wits would solve this

I don't know what magical land you come from where social mechanics in other systems or most groups involve heated, thrilling debate. Generally, if there is no way your argument COULDN'T convince the NPC you don't roll and do some low-key rp, and if it is in question you roll. This should logically make you extremely angry given how much you ridicule social combat for making arguments an abstraction.

Also, Burning Wheel is one of the most profoundly narrative-focused systems out there, so you trying to paint it as something munchkins play to skip roleplaying comes off absurd.

He's just baiting.

Dogs In The Vineyard has a really slick social combat system, which is mostly just a really slick conflict resolution system that can escalate from an argument to a gunfight.

Basically the involved parties set stakes like 'convince the town not to lynch the bartender' and roll their dice pools of associated stats and relevant traits. Each dice is used to make a raise, describe what you're upto and how effective it is, the opposition has to meet or beat the dice with one of their own and description. You can use two dice but it creates long term fallout. If you can't, then you either lose the stakes or can escalate the conflict and bring in other dice.

Its dope. Main problem is it needs a lot of different sized dice.

>Hitler did nothing wrong
>natural 20
>we 4th Reich naow

D&D's social mechanics are shitty, but that's because they're meant as a "skip cutscene" button. They're there so you can just do a roll and get that dumb social shit over with and get back to murdering things and taking their stuff.
That said, what you're talking about is not legal in any edition of D&D.

This is contradicted by literally the first paragraph of the first section in the Duel of Wits chapter of the Burning Wheel rulebook which is what most the thread has been about.

>Argument not Mind Control

>The Duel of Wits is designed to simulate debate and argument: A speaker convinces an audience of the merits of his point. It is not designed to change a single character's or player's opinion. While this is possible, it is not the goal.

Exalted.

I've heard that just like everything else in it, ASOIAF rpg has a very intersting, but utterly broken social combat rules.

I like Legends of the Wulin's version, where Courtier Social-fu is part of the core combat system and is just as capable of taking an opponent down as fists or fireballs.

I don't understand why systems can so easily put in wounding or damage for physical and mental traits but forget that social aspects of a character can be damaged as well. I hate when players always think a high charisma stat allows them to constantly spam persuade, and such with no consequence or "fatigue" unless the DM blocks them with no real way to back up the reasoning other than stop being a dick.

>social combat mechanics

I prefer something that offers the flexibility needed to properly adjudicate things, like OSR-style reaction rolls. One roll modified for the situation tells you each NPC's first general impression of the PCs, and that impacts how reluctant or eager the NPCs are to help. An NPC who gets 'hostile' or 'unfriendly' will charge extra for goods and services (within the latitude that he can, of course), is unlikely to give any information he doesn't have to, wishes the PCs ill unless something changes, and might immediately attack if he's a monster. An NPC with 'indifferent' charges market price and will approach the PCs like strangers, with appropriate caution, while monsters or bandits may try to avoid combat unless they already planned to attack. And so on.

Then, you can have a similar roll decide other things when the outcome is not certain, such as the PCs trying to recruit an NPC or monster to the party. If desired, the GM can still make their roleplaying matter by applying his impression of it as a modifier (i.e. was the player's argument convincing enough for a +1 or +3), or forgo the roll entirely if the outcome is certain in the GM's mind. If nobody wants to roleplay a particular interaction but still see it as uncertain or important (i.e. how much can we sell each of these 30 diamonds for?), they can simply roll without an argument-strength modifier.

But if the GM is already certain of how the NPCs would view or react to the players (such as PCs walking through a throne-room brandishing the head of the king's wife, or PCs stumbling into a room full of hungry zombies), then he doesn't need to roll to know what happens next.

This is something I like about the heroquest rpg.

Combat and social interaction are just two forms of contest, and it's perfectly possible to be "injured" or even "killed" socially through a particularly successful argument.

The latter being basically so shaming you've pretty much got to go into exile and never show your face again.

To be fair, every single skill contest is the same unified mechanic. I really love the core and wish it got expanded before AW got a second edition.

>but forget that social aspects of a character can be damaged as well
I feel like shadowrun is a decent example, with street cred and contact loyalty numbers to represent each character's social network. The player writes them down on his own sheet, so that can help redirect muderhobo number-cranking toward improvement of relations with other people. Street cred is applied as a modifier to social actions where the character's reputation in the shadow-community is important. Similarly, a fence's relationship with a character decides how much the fence will give in exchange for stolen goods.

>constantly spam persuade
Some ways to deal with it include putting in a hard cooldown (i.e. you can't try to find the item in shops again until the next month, you can't hope to propose the noblewoman again until next year, etc), harshly penalizing additional persuasion attempts before an appropriate interval passes, having the NPC get pissed at the PC for wasting his time, or tell the player that his one persuasion roll covers the entire negotiation process and it cannot be re-attempted.

>We can't roleplay us fighting each other without injuries. Dumbasses.
Ever heard of larping?

Also in tabletop RPGs narration of actions is one aspect of role-playing, so you can perfectly roleplay fight scenes without any combat minigames.

I really like Monsterhearts' rules for social interaction (I mean it's a teen drama game so you'd hope they'd be good).

You have strings and you have conditions. You earn strings on people by gaining social power over them, they might be attracted to you, scared of you, respect you, but in some way or another you have influence over them and these strings can be spent to influence their actions. The other side is conditions which, as well as being used for physical injuries, are used to represent things like negative reputations, bad states of mind, or generally anything detrimental to the character's life. Anyone who acts against a character with a condition relevant to what they're doing gets a bonus.

>I don't know what magical land you come from where social mechanics in other systems or most groups involve heated, thrilling debate.
My go-to social combat mechanic is to make the player find a thread on Veeky Forums and argue as hard as they can over as inane a point as possible. I rate their success based on the number of (You)s they get.

Neat idea but it's way too easy to game as a mechanic.

In GURPS, there is two mechanics for social encounters - reaction rolls and skill rolls. First one determine if NPC like you/want to help you, and good social skill roll can just his reaction to Good. I have some rules on my games, and they work well for me. First, I play with principle "state your intent, roll first, roleplay the results". Second, NPCs can influence the PCs in the same way PCs can influence the NPCs. Third, there is at least three rolls for each social encounter: to approach, to present your idea/desire, to talk/intimidate/seduce the other character to it. So it's kinda a social combat on my games, except without "hurt" part.

I gotta say, I'm pretty firmly on the side of making players actually roleplay some social stuff instead of letting them just go "uh...I roll to uh...convince the guard we're, uh, ok?"

If that's how players express themselves when referring to simple rules I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to listen them trying to "actually roleplay".

>NPCs can influence the PCs in the same way PCs can influence the NPCs
"Look, Frank. I know your character felt really strongly about getting into the fortress and saving his sister from being ritually sacrificed and having her soul devoured by pain demons, but the guard you were trying to talk your way past rolled really well and has convinced you it's all for the best."

Repeat after me:
>Under no circumstances should the GM cause the player character to make a decision barring supernatural influence
>Under no circumstances should the GM cause the player character to make a decision barring supernatural influence
>Under no circumstances should the GM cause the player character to make a decision barring supernatural influence
That's why they're called PLAYER characters. They are the domain of the players.

Ok

That would be about -15 to skill, so even critical success won't help.

Okay, then NPCs are GM characters, and under no circumstances should the PCs cause the GM character to make a decision barring supernatural influence. Let's see how it rolls.

>Rule Zero
go fuck yourself

First, that has nothing to do with the topic and secondly, if I say there's no raping babies in my game, then there is no raping babies.

If the PC can try to influence the guard then the guard can try to influence the PC, fair's fair. It's about verisimilitude you know? NPCs are just as real creatures as PCs within the game world.

>Also, Burning Wheel is one of the most profoundly narrative-focused systems out there, so you trying to paint it as something munchkins play to skip roleplaying comes off absurd.

Define roleplaying. If you mean reddit nu male circlejerking in the style of Critical Role, then I would agree with you.

This. At least Vincent Baker understands that the rules should follow from the roleplaying if you're going to make a social combat system.

>if you can't swing a sword IRL you don't get to stab people in-game

Nope. Because an RPG is people sitting around a table talking. Want to change that? Now it's a LARP, different discussion altogether.

Because of this lack of physicality, fights play out in the game mechanics but roleplay encounters should generally be, well, roleplayed. Then you can do your diplomacy roll if it seems like the PCs have a chance of convincing them. But you can't just say "well I'll convince the king to join us with no real reason why he would, I rolled a 30, gg no re." That's the kind of bullshit that D&D 3.5 inspired despite the fact that only complete assholes played it that way.

Then people decided roleplaying was optional because otherwise it was rayyycisss to the socially awkward (get over it) so we end up with gay shit like Burning Wheel.

Yet even in Dogs roleplaying and the actual dice rolls are separate from each other - just saying things well doesn't make you roll higher after all.

Legends of the Wulin combines that with 'NPCs can still affect player characters'.

Mostly by making courtier (Big Social Guy) effects carrot and stick.

'Hey, would you like +5 to actions while acting in line with the condition of being attracted to them? No? Ok, you don't have to but you won't get the bonus'

"I swing my sword at his chest" is roleplaying and doesn't involve dice.
Thus you have no reason, to not roleplay out combat encounters.

>roleplay encounters
What the fuck are those? Is there some kind of competitive roleplaying in your setting?

That's a nice way to handle it, offering a bonus if they do what the NPC says but still letting the player to make the choice.

Some games work on that assumption (WoD for example) and some games don't (D&D generally doesn't)

>Reddit nu make circlejerk

If you're going for the "meaningless buzzword" high score you forgot sjw and cuck.

D&D PCs aren't aware that they're characters in a game either, or at least I haven't seen a ruling like that.

The opposite can also happen. You can end up with a penalty if you go against it.

It's up to the guy who made it/how much of a dick they wanna be. As a GM I find that the bonus often works better than the penalty as motivation to act along with it as the penalty turns up when people go against it but players are happy to try and deliberately find situations where the bonus can apply.

As I said, carrot and stick but never forcing anyone to do something. Well, with one exception: Being taken out in a fight. If you lose a fight, the other guy gets to decide what happens to you. Though a player does have veto power if they don't believe it makes any sense/the ability to talk about a compromise. Your guy retreating and swearing vengeance rather than screaming and running away for example. Either way you are out of the scene.

No, but they are characters in a world, and the players refuse to allow their characters to be influenced by the world they are in, then the players are fairly shitty.
Something I tell all new players is that you affect the world, the world affects you. Who your pc is at the start of the game can't be the same at the end, or you have a cutout, not a character.
That said, I generally have my npcs tell pcs the truth on face, because players are the ones who are always ready to disbelieve the gm, especially when it's something they don't want to hear.
For example, running a game, just started, kobold trap dungeoncrawl. Party is hired by the city, and are told, in implicit words, that these kobolds are unlike other vermin, they are strong, disciplined and deadly, and no group they have sent to their lair has returned whole or with success. I drilled this in with repeated npcs, including a maimed survivor they went to ask for advice from. The survivor told tem the place was rigged with deadly, esoteric traps from the front door on, and the kobolds usually attacked from positions of advantage like from murderholes in the stone, with crossbows and flung explosives from afar, whilst stronger, well armored spearmen held the front line.
They went in and got DEMOLISHED. The front door had 2 traps set up that they were already told about, and they tripped them both, then were jumped, falling into hidden tiger pits.
5 of the 6 pcs died, and I asked in disbelief how they managed to so greatly underestimate the kobolds, the one guy's response was, "DMs always lie!".
Idiot.

>instead of letting them just go "uh...I roll to uh...convince the guard we're, uh, ok?"
Good thing that's not what anyone in the thread was suggesting other than your fellow shitposter

Back to tumblr with you, you shill!

This. Social combat - because we don't want in-game arguments being 200+ post threads

Ah thanks, I'd forgotten those. Put those on the list while we're at it, then.

This. I wish other systems would unabashedly steal a few pages from LotW.

>How do social combat mechanics usually work?
Badly.

>What games use them well?
Ones that avoid them, or at least making them different from combat.

>What are some pitfalls to avoid?
Social combat.

You know, some players do better with more structure. It's a kind of options paralysis. With no game structure to give them a direction, they could come at it in any way at all, and they freeze up trying to pick one.