Conversational Combat

[Orzel]

Instead of using single rolls or 4e style skill challenges, sometimes I use a combat-like system to simulate a noticeable use of the Conversation skills.

Each side of the conversation or debate start with a number of Social points. Social points point represent the total amount of evidence, confidence, and believability of your side of the argument.
A party's base social points is 10 plus the Intelligence modifier of each member of the party + their hostility modifier + their physical evidence.
Unfriendly NPCs get a +5 bonus to their maximum social points and hostile ones get +10.
Player gain a +5 bonus to their maximum social points for each piece of useful physical evidence to their claims.
NPCs with identical stats all count as one member for the purpose of finding social points.

If the party loses all their social points, it means the party does not get their desired help, and often the other side’s opinion of the party has dropped. If the opposing group was hostile already, it may result in combat.
If the opposing side loses all their social points, the party gets mostly what they want out of them. The DM may choose to give only part of the party's wishes if the lost a significant amount of social points.


Order:
Each character rolls a Wisdom check (1d20 + Wis). Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order.

Each character or set of NPCs must act on their turn. Possible actions are

Charisma skill check: Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate as intended or against a DC.
Success: The opposing side loses 1d6 social points.
Failure: Your side loses 1d10 social points.

Do no harm: Make a Charisma check vs DC 15.
Success: Nothing happens
Failure: Your side loses 1d6 social points.
(This represent the character doing or saying something that hurts their side's chances. This also may represent a character holding information due to shyness or nervousness)

Quiet another: Make a Wisdom check vs DC 15.
Success: Another character on their side gains a +5 bonus to their "Do no harm" check
Failure: Your side loses 1d2 social points.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

This makes a certain amount of sense - characters are often more (or less) socially able than their players, and a mechanical method of dealing with this is useful.
Word of warning - don't let it bog down the game. Sometimes the flow of a good run of roleplaying can be messed up if you stop it to call for die checks.

[Mulletmanalive]

i actually built an entire mechanism for this sort of thing. It worked pretty well, though it often suffered from PC gangup syndrome...

I'll share it if you like, though mine was a little more complex than yours. On the plus side, in testing, it actually worked fine in combat rounds, leading one player to build a character who spent his time talking his enemies into disarming themselves...

[Draz74]

Unfriendly NPCs get a +5 bonus to their maximum social points and hostile ones get +10.
Together with the fact that hostile NPCs may attack if they "win" the social battle, this seems to stack the odds steeply against even trying to negotiate with hostile NPCs. Seems like the harsher consequences for failure should be enough of a "bonus" to hostile NPCs, no?


Order:
Each character rolls a Wisdom check (1d20 + Wis). Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest.

So the reckless idiot character with 6 Wisdom isn't likely to blurt something stupid and damaging out before any of his party members have time to say anything? That seems backwards. :smallwink:

[DragoonWraith]

Wouldn't Charisma make much more sense anyway? Charisma would cover being able to respond quickly, I'd think, since it would influence how creative you are. Seems like a perfect use of Charisma.

[Orzel]

The idea is the wiser more perceptive person would be able to respond accurately at a faster rate. The less intuitive would have a higher "Err" or "Umm" rate as they react slower to outside signals .

[DragoonWraith]

Unless someone is whispering really quietly, perception shouldn't really come into it. A person with high Wis does not have faster connections between his ears and his brain, he just hears more. The primary impediment to responding quickly is determining what you are going to say, not what they said (unless they said something particularly confusing, but that's Int, not Wis), so I really think it should be Cha.

*shrug* It's your system, though, so whatever. I don't think I'd ever use something like this.

[Iferus]

I disagree; wisdom is the way to go. Wisdom is more than just perception - see PHB chapter one.

What I do not understand is how these three actions work. Do I get to choose? Because I will never pick Do No Harm unless there is an incentive...

[Draz74]

What I do not understand is how these three actions work. Do I get to choose? Because I will never pick Do No Harm unless there is an incentive...

The allure of Do No Harm is supposed to be that it makes your team lose less Social Points than the other options, if your character is bad enough at social skills that he probably won't succeed no matter what he does.

I agree, though, it doesn't look like a very appealing option.

[Toric]

Ugg agree. Ugg am no like stay quiet. Any tell Ugg stay quiet get Ugg axe in face. Oh hello, that am nice tree. Ugg like tree too. Want see Ugg axe? :thog:

[Orzel]

The allure of Do No Harm is supposed to be that it makes your team lose less Social Points than the other options, if your character is bad enough at social skills that he probably won't succeed no matter what he does.

I agree, though, it doesn't look like a very appealing option.

What if the normal failure caused more point loss?

"I totally not lying this time. The mayor gave me this girly gold necklace. That's not blood. It's tomato sauce. Keeps the gold shiny when you rub it with this shovel... What sack? "

[Fiery Diamond]

I think the concept is interesting, but it's a little weird. I mean, what's to stop people from saying: "My character will always keep his mouth shut when the party is negotiating. Therefore, he never gets any actions at all." That's better than Do No Harm, and it seems kind of stupid to force someone to have to roll to see if their character is allowed to shut up.

[Eurus]

I think Do No Harm is actually supposed to also represent not speaking up at all, and you have to roll to see if you can successfully fade into the background without coming off as creepy, weak, or threatening.

[The Demented One]

You should really really really check out Exalted and its social combat system. Its more or less the same idea you've got here, executed in a different system, and I think reading through it would probably give you some fruitful ideas.

[elliott20]

this also reminds me a lot of the Burning Wheel social combat system "Duel of Wits".

Though, the way they handle it is basically each side of the argument gets an action, not each character. (Characters can simply just assist though)