Social Combat

SOCIAL COMBAT IN RPG

>do not mind control player characters
>my fat neckbeard cousin should be able to roleplay a Bard

Also, this: story-games.com/forums/discussion/4880/designing-a-social-combat-system-that-doesnt-suck

I'm searching for any RPG that have a social combat (be it a debate where you must convince and audience or the simple bluff the guard) of sorts that could be analyzed. I remember reading about one who focused on "tags" applied, and players would have a bonus if following the tag, but would not be forced to do it. So, if a thief has the "greed" tag and was offered a suspicious reward, the player would be rewarded for accepting it (I think it was some meta currency) or the character would be penalized if not.

Preferably some system that can be used in combat as well, as shouting at the enemy to make it surrender or flee or taunt instead of it being only on the DM hand-wave part (I remember of AD&D Morale rules).

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VWYi5dA1jPY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>I remember reading about one who focused on "tags" applied, and players would have a bonus if following the tag, but would not be forced to do it.

That sounds like FATE.

Can we have an actuall nuanced discussion about this without devolving into "Replace roleplaying with die rolls" vs "No social mechanics whatsoever, each character is as persuasive as their player"?

Mutant: Year Zero has some rules for "breaking" character by means other than Wounds, such as Doubt. Here is an excerpt of the social rules I threw together in Paint.

The Infinity roleplaying game has social combat right down to giving social HP

Burning Wheel does have that Duel of Wits system, and the best out: "Murder Most Foul".

This works pretty well in my experience.

Also worth mentioning is Dogs in the Vineyard, although in that case, it uses the same conflict mechanics for everything.

Anybody have that pic that summarizes Exalted 3e's social combat?

>A social mechanics thread that doesn't immediately go to shit.
>Instead, it just dies.

Hopeful bump?

That the tabletop Infinity (TAGs, hackers, etc) game that is still in development?

Could we roll this thread into the YA RPG thread over here?

you might be thinking about Lady Blackbird, or the general version, Blackbird Pie

How in-depth do you want? Fate has social combat but Fate combat is shitty and boring. Burning Wheel has Duel of Wits, Mouseguard has a simplified version of the system.

Nobody?

Piggybacking on this, how does Veeky Forums handle rap battles/flyting sessions/the dozens/naqā’iḍ/ikocha nkocha/kilpalaulanta/Inuit taunting songs in their games, and are there any systems based on those?

GURPS Social Engineering has probably the best system for this. Though I like how distilled Savage World's is.

Social combat is one of those ideas which sound neat on paper but are better reserved for video games

I don't think that video games give you nearly as much freedom to make social combat interesting as RPGs do. I will take Exalted's social combat over some shit like Oblivion's mini game any day. I will give Monkey Island some points though.

What game has the worst?

>I will take Exalted's social combat over some shit like Oblivion's mini game any day
I wouldn't call Oblivion's persuasion 'social combat' at all. In this case creativity, fun and immersion are more important than freedom of choices.

youtube.com/watch?v=VWYi5dA1jPY

Let's not venture that way, for there lies shitty flamebait.

Looking at the focus is different, but how Monsterhearts deal with social combat? And Wulin? L5R?

Not tags per se, but check out the social combat in Dying Earth rpg. Pretty nice, I thought. Also understand that social combat necessitates that players go along with results that they as players might not have wanted when they get sucked/suckered into fools errands, swindled, persuaded etc. For some players this is just too much.

>how Monsterhearts deal with social combat
In MonsterHearts (I'll be specifically talking about 2nd edition btw) the social system revolves around Strings. If you spend a String on an NPC you get to ask the GM "What would it take for this character to...?" and get an honest answer, if a String is spent on a player then you get to say what you want the player to do and if they accept they mark XP. Strings are the only way in MonsterHearts of guaranteeing an NPC does what you say, you can change public opinion on people using Shut Down, prevent people from acting directly against you using Lash Out Physically, and get promises out of people using Turn Someone On, but to convince someone to do something takes a String.

>Also understand that social combat necessitates that players go along with results that they as players might not have wanted when they get sucked/suckered into fools errands, swindled, persuaded etc. For some players this is just too much.

THIS. This is the sticking point with social combat.

Players who have no qualms about the consequences from losing or being wounded in physical combat, suddenly balk at the consequences from "losing" or being "wounded" in social combat.

It comes down to roleplaying. Many people in RPGs are really just playing themselves no matter how much window dressing is applied. They can't quite grasp the central idea of roleplaying in that they can't "be" someone who thinks differently than they do.

Differences in muscles, agility, and skills is one thing, but intelligence, education, and behaviors? That's much harder for many people.

Could this be reduced if there was a social HP? If social skills attack and defend the Resolve, and when Resolve = 0 something bad happens, players may ride along better because if the sensation of defeat.

Unlikely, the problem is someone acting in a fashion they do not want or agree with.

>Could this be reduced if there was a social HP?

Not at all because, as neatly explains, the problem the reticence and/or inability people have with acting in a fashion they do not want or agree with. Many systems with some form of social combat use something akin to "social HPs" and the problem still occurs.

A PC who "loses" a social combat bout is going to have to act in a way which the player knows is wrong. That's hard for many roleplayers to do as illustrated by our constant discussions about players employing meta knowledge during the session which their PCs wouldn't know.

I'm not suggesting that people are "wrong" or "bad" or "stupid" for not being to do it. I am saying that it's rather hard to do and even harder to do consistently. The author of a really old Dragon article talked about all this with his PC "Ferd the Nerd". He'd rolled up a fighter with an INT of 2 and, instead of ditching the character, decided to play him as a near moron. While he had fun with the PC, he also admitted he still occasionally made choices which were smarter than Ferd would.

Look at GURPS for example. Players saddle PCs with disads and quirks during chargen to apply the points they receive towards other stats and skills. Then, during play, those disads and (especially) quirks are all but forgotten. Players even get upset when the DM enforces the disads and quirks the players choose!

Social combat is retarded and unrealistic. Dm is the only arbitor on the social encounters. If you cant deal with it you get out.

>my fat neckbeard cousin should be able to roleplay a Bard
How is that roleplaying?

It is as retarded as making int checks for puzzles.

>Combat mechanics are one of those ideas that sound neat on paper but are better reserved for video games

>SOCIAL COMBAT IN RPG
I never really understood this trend.
Why remove the role playing from role playing games?

Yes.
Who does that?

>2018
>this argument again
Codifying things enforces actual role playing. Without it, people never actually think about what their character will do in a situation.

You cant codify social encounters

People who are tired of "Let me solve this complex mechanical puzzle and then proceed to smooth-talk the NPC despite my character being a literally braindamaged barbarian."

No, but you can codify the resolution and how they affect dice rolls, which is what they do.
Even then, you are ignoring the point brought up by , which is the real issue with social dynamics of any sort in a game.

How is that a problem?
Sounds to me like you're jealous of the other players being smarter than you.

If your character is less intelligent than you , you can choose to act IC and not solve the puzzle. The reverse is not possible. So in conclusion you shouldnt try to play characters smarter than you.

Speak for yourself bro.

Green Ronin´s ASOIAF RPG does have mechanics for that.

You have a Composture (life points), you can be "wounded" (gaining stress) to avoid losing Composture. You have to choose an attitude towards your interlocutor (love, indifference, friendship, disdain... that kind of stuff), he does the same (but is free to choose whatever attitude bests suits him, you both can be friends, or you may try to seduce someone who feels indeferent towards you while you are in love). The attitude means some strategies are more useful than others, (you can get a bonus on your rolls depending which "technique" you use) and get some extra "defense" points too (for example you will be wary about lyes from someone you hate) or you may believe whatever that person tells you cause he is your friend!
To "attack" you interlocutor composture you have some "techniques": Bargain, Charm, Convince, Incite, Intimidate, Seduce and Taunt.
Each "technique" has it´s own perks and drawbacks and you are supposed to choose the most fitting for the scene.

That being said, Veeky Forums does not like this game or this mechanic, and I think you should use this as a guide.

>The reverse is not possible.

It's very much possible, it's just that you can't imagine how it could be possible.

It's exactly the same as PCs having skills and/or ability the players do not. I've players whose PCs are smarter than they are. When those players fail to notice something, find a clue, or solve a puzzle I believe their PCs would have noticed, found, or solved I'll either pass them a note or have them role versus some stat or skill.

It's very easy to play a PC who is stronger, faster, smarter, more capable, etc. than you. People tend to dig their heels in when it's the opposite.

Or you could just not be an autist and talk with your DM.

>you are an autist because of an opinion on imaginary results of an imaginary conversation

No one is stopping you from playing a char more charismatic or more intelligent than you but that doesnt mean it will not look unrealistic and break the roleplay. Yes you can make a speech infront of an army and say '' uhm..uhh hey guys thanks for coming, there is these guys and they are bad right. We have to kill them do your best '' than turn to DM telling him you have 20 Charisma and want to roll for it now but it will look retarded to everyone involved. You can roleplay a skill that you dont have to show off infront of other players because no one is expecting you to imitate lifting weights infront of them but people are expecting you to act charismatic when roleplaying a charismatic character.

The hell are you talking about?
OP made a thread about RPG with social combat.
I told there is one, and I mentioned how it works.
Why are you mad at me?

I've never heard this argument made irl.

>No one is stopping you from playing a char more charismatic or more intelligent than you but that doesnt mean it will not look unrealistic and break the roleplay.

You are profoundly stupid, aren't you? It's not about "showing off" in front of the other players. It's about employing the skills and stats you have. That player with a 20 CHA general doesn't need to actually make the speech just as the player with the 20 INT navigator doesn't need to actually compute the Hohmann transfer orbit.

>>people are expecting you to act charismatic when roleplaying a charismatic character.

Do those same people expect you act leprous when roleplaying a low CHA leper too? Just with your weightlifting example, you roleplay the EFFECTS and not the ACTIONS, moron.

Anyway, you have the point being made in this discussion exactly backwards. People have no problem roleplaying PCs which are better than they are. It's when they have to roleplay PC who are less capable that the problems begin.

The people that complain about social mechanics the loudest are always the ones that never bother actually playing their character, or making a normal character.

Pretty much. As with the earlier GURPS example, they'll load up on disads and quirks to gain more points and then cry when the GM enforces the disads and quirks they themselves chose.

>my fat neckbeard cousin should be able to roleplay a Bard
No he shouldn't

In my time, Bards had a minimum character ability requirements, not player ability requirements.

Oh wait, you werent pretending to be retarded. You are actually retarded.

I'm designing a social combat system for my game and the central logic I use is that social combat revolves around bribery.

In other words, you can never force a character to do anything, you simply make doing what you want more and more appetizing, and possibly doing what they want punishing. So, perhaps carrot-and-stick is a better description.

The currency of the bribes is the games meta-resource, which is broken into several categories based on narrative theme, and can be spent on character progression, "fate points", or ability "mana" within that narrative theme.

During social encounters, you establish the different outcomes a participant may side with and all participants take turns effecting the "XP pot" on those outcomes with various techniques, the used technique deciding what kind of narrative theme is used (and may be strong or weak in execution depending on circumstance)

Guessing what kind of narrative theme will be most tempting to an NPC is a major aspect of the mechanic. Finally, players have a very strong incentive to simply give up and "lose" the social encounter once they decide they simply have more "XP" of a desirable theme to gain from doing so, and in making this choice they don't feel as forced.

What about a system that works like this,
You can roll, say, a bard, and depending on his background/personality he receives different "traits" which are used in a social combat scenario.

For example, this particular thief has the "charmer" trait. This charm trait comes with a +2 in social-combating against members of the opposite sex.

When in a social combat scenario, the two combatants stack all their traits together. Perhaps your characters has a few +s because they are more armored than the enemy, etc. Whoever has the highest wins.

I suppose this wouldn't solve the main issue of getting players to act like their PCs would. I think the best thing to do would just to have the GM decide if they pass or not.

>Yes you can make a speech infront of an army and say '' uhm..uhh hey guys thanks for coming, there is these guys and they are bad right. We have to kill them do your best '' than turn to DM telling him you have 20 Charisma and want to roll for it now but it will look retarded to everyone involved
You idiot, if you're doing something vastly greater than your experience you don't 100% roleplay it out.

You say you give a speech. An inspiring speech, striking the hearts of men and warriors alike, speaking of honour, of loyalty. A rally to arms, to protect this nation. A speech that brings tears to soldiers eyes, brings fire to their minds. A speech that ends with the soldiers chanting in unison, with one thought in mind, to fight for their country.

It's hardly rocket science.

That sounds all well and good. However, the best system in the world isn't going to be worth anything if the players don't use ALL of it. What do I mean by all of it? If the players don't "allow" their PCs to be negatively effected by successful "social combat" attack performed by a NPC, the system doesn't matter.

The problem with social combat is not a matter of PCs inspiring their followers or successfully lying to bad guys. Players want to be able to do that.

Instead it's a matter of PCs being hoodwinked, conned, lied to, or otherwise convinced to take actions which the players know are either wrong, dangerous, or counterproductive. Players don't want their PCs to be "forced" to do something that they the players don't like.

That's the problem with social combat. Making players roleplay the bad instead of just the good.

Legends of the Wulin kind of does this. Courtiers can use their Secret Arts in ordinary combat, as well as use them outside of it.

LotW uses Chi Conditions as a general unit for a lot of things, but they're all built the same way- A narrative clause tied to a mechanical bonus or penalty. Obey the clause and get the bonus for positive ones, obey the clause or eat the penalty for negative ones.

This makes social influence, and social combat, a pretty seamless part of the game, fitting into both utility and combat quite seamlessly. A 'fight' between two courtiers can also 100% just be a battle of words.

But you don't understand user, "roleplaying" is speaking in first person and nothing else!

Part of that is honestly just having players who will buy into it and accept it, but there are ways to systematically incentivise it. For all its problems, Legends of the Wulin does this pretty well with its Chi Conditions.

If you want to be extra insidious, you can even do it by giving a player a bonus rather than a penalty- Want all your rolls to be higher? Well, bending your actions in line with the influence will help you! Naturally they'll try to rules lawyer to a degree, to interpret it as harmlessly as possible, but it can still make the difference in a tense situation.

I guess the only way to really inforce this would be by the GM's discretion. If a PC loses a social combat scenario and throws a bitchfit, it's on them.

>Part of that is honestly just having players who will buy into it and accept it

In other words, play with players who actually roleplay.

Tell me, how often are you able to do that? I've been enjoying this hobby for more years than I want to remember. Players who will roleplay both the good and the bad rather than "meta" aren't that common and have never been that common. As you suggest, I've stooped as low as to reward roleplay with bennies down the line, but that seems so underhanded. Shouldn't they do it because it's part of the game? And not because they'll gain "karma points" for later? I dunno.

There's no single answer to all of this just as there's no single way to play a RPG. The problem has effected my choices in games however. I'd love to use GURPS for a few settings, but I can't run it because many players won't touch it without the disads/quirks loopholes.

I don't know what to tell you man, I know enough great players to form six or seven distinct groups with a mix of people between them all, who all roleplay the good and the bad. I personally have a reputation for seeming to enjoy my characters getting into shitty situations a little too much, but I really enjoy RPing that side of things.

Your experience is much like mine. I've had players and groups who had no need of a social combat system because they roleplayed it. I've had players and groups who didn't easily roleplay but would "abide" the results of a social combat system good or bad, and I've had players and groups who could neither roleplay or would abide by "bad" results from a social combat system.

I'm still playing though!

In my groups, generally social rules are treated as a compliment to roleplay. They're something that aids and systemises it so it's not just dominated by the most silver tongued player, instead incentivising people to RP as appropriate to their character. If you've got a low Cha, you probably shouldn't be the person trying to be the face, or if you are you should do so in a way that accounts for the characters social difficulties, however they manifest.

>social combat
its called rhetorics you plebian