Social Challenges (3.PF)

[EriktheRed]

I'm looking for some assistance in designing a sort of "social combat" system in Pathfinder. The following is what I used for my game tonight, and it seemed clunky. What I'm looking for is a system for two or more people debating in front of a third party that they are attempting to sway to their side (tonight's game, it was a vampire and the PCs trying to persuade a dragon to side with them in a conflict; PCs won, and the dragon was a big help in defeating the vampire).

Initiative: Rolled each round, uses Charisma instead of Dexterity to determine Initiative.

Turn Sequence: First character to act sets the tone of the round, selecting one interaction skill to use, and blocking another interaction skill from being usable in the round.

-In play, this was really brutal. The Vampire only had Bluff at solid levels, so once the PCs beat his initiative (and kept winning), he could do nothing.

Mechanics: Whoever rolls the highest skill check gains the benefit of that skill check, if it also beats the relevant DC or opposed skill check of the 3rd party. In the case of Bluff, I had a successful check reduce the arbiter's attitude by one towards the opponent.

Time- Each round is 1 minute.

I felt that while this system got the job done, it was kind of clunky in practice, although still better than resolving everything in one roll, in terms of dramatic tension.

Any suggestions on improvements would be appreciated.

[Kol Korran]

Hmmmm... social combat is poorly done in D&D, but here are some things that worked for me:
1) I see no reason to stop another from using their social skill. That IS brutal, and without a cause really, it will sort of negate most social encounters except between two very skilled social characters.

2) I find the D&D rules for diplomacy quite bad. I use The Giant's version of diplomacy rules. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2) Those have served me REALLY well, I suggest you check them! Bluff can be used to alter the modifiers of the check, by changing the "deal" you offer the persuaded. You can alter the rules to fit Intimidate simply enough as well.

3) For the actual "combat" I like the FATE core use of Contests: basically, in any case two sides try to achieve something against each other, but do not try to actively harm each other, they enter a contest. Basically in social combat, each round they contestants will try to make their case, each rolling their own roll (Adjusted by the rules I suggested above), and see who wins. Each "win" gains you one point in the contest, the first to reach 3 points wins. The important thing is that you can't use the same arguments in consecutive "rounds".

The way it plays out roleplay wise is that whomever the party and their opponents try to persuade takes time to persuade, and their opinions may need "reinforcing", or they can shift their opinions somewhat when the other person wins and so on.

I've used the method in Fate, and it worked splendidly. The gradual "winning/ failing" of a contest gives a feeling of an actual effort, instead of just one die roll. It can work of other challenges, like stealth challenges, tracking, and so on.

[SiuiS]

Social combat needs to be examined in a different fashion. What do you want social combat to do? "I want more than a single skill check" is not enough. Because you'll still get that sense of "roll dice, pass or fail, move along" only now it's even longer, and just as boring!

I suggest looking at the Doors mechanic from the new world of darkness Godmachine Chronicle update, it's available for free on drivethru RPG, as are the starter rules for the world of darkness in general.

Social combat resolution in this system starts with a resolution, a very, very clear one. Kind f like, at the start of combat, declaring victory conditions? "We will be victorious once we defeat the Blackguard" or "we will be victorious if we can keep the merchants alive for long enough that the guards arrive" or something. So you start your social encounter with "I want to convince the Vampire to give us access to the crypt under his manor (and the hidden library down there, as well)". That's your combat goal.

The DM then establishes the number of Doors; these are the barriers between you and success. Think of them as social HP. You would add together the CHA and WIS modifiers of the target, and an additional factor based on how well they like you; Hostile is around +6, so long as they aren't going to straight up attack you, all the way down to 0 for anything above fanatical.

Over long discussion, each person gets to make a roll, opposed by the enemy. This is bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, and the like. You add the bonus from how the guy feels about you to his rolls to resist, since people who don't like you are more prone to ignore what you say. And each time you get a success, you remove one Door, one HP. You can also remove them via straight up barter; Offering a favor may be worth a bonus on the roll, but it may just open a Door, as the (say) vampire considers that if you're willing to give gifts maybe he should play nice to keep you around. You can also close Doors by being a wad, if you intimidate someone who doesn't go in for threats, say.

Maybe you could add their HD or half their HD to the number? I dunno. but once you have all the Doors open, you can get what you want. They like you enough to let you borrow a book, or open a door into the crypt without yelling out an alarm, or something. Learning about them beforehand helps, too, so if you know you need to persuade not only the king, but also the visiting Duchess of Westmoreland, you can do some snooping (using a similar framework, I would say!) to learn that she is allergic to almonds, hates the Duke of fressia, and loves white chocolate with a good Bordeaux. Gifts of chocolate and Bordeaux would start her off in an amicable mood, then (but might poison her husband against you? Intrigue!)

There's also trying to "Force the Doors". This uses hard coercion. This goes from "Mister vampire, we will let you have some blood and also share anything interesting we discover down there if you let us by" to "If you don't get the hell out of my way I will blow the roof off this place so hard your ashes from sun exposure will have been cooling for a month before the first brick lands... And we loaded the building above you with barrels of holy water for sport." For this, you make one check, and only one. You multiply the remaining number of Doors by 6 and add that to the target's resistance roll. This is it, too; if you don't succeed (or even if you do!) You've ticked someone off enough they will plot against you and work to your downfall, or at least throw you under the bus if they can. Doing this is usually best left for when you're out of time, and need to get through this combat NOW, so it should be hard, but theoretically possible. If you just run up to someone and threaten them you'll fail, but if you set up circumstance bonuses, such as knowing the Duke's daughter's name and where she is presently, happen to drop the name of an assassin you've hired for "no real reason" and threaten to expose him with blackmail material to boot, that should give enough of a bonus to make the roll accessible (though never guaranteed).


So there you are, a breakdown of a social system using the current skill system, that can do long intrigue and still be shifted to short term rolls when needed. the exact numbers are based on memory of 3.5 so maybe for pathfinder you should multiply by 3 or 4 instead of 6, but the idea is sound.

[EriktheRed]

1) I see no reason to stop another from using their social skill. That IS brutal, and without a cause really, it will sort of negate most social encounters except between two very skilled social characters.

The idea was to have some mechanic for throwing your opponent off their game, and also to try and make it not just a series of rolls of the same skill over and over, with no reason to ever use a different skill. It did not work out well, but that was the thought behind it.


Social combat needs to be examined in a different fashion. What do you want social combat to do? "I want more than a single skill check" is not enough. Because you'll still get that sense of "roll dice, pass or fail, move along" only now it's even longer, and just as boring!

1. I want social "combat" to be something that can involve more than just the party bard talking while everyone else waits for him to finish the social mini-game. My system didn't really accomplish this well, it was everybody aid the bard, bard rolls; even though our paladin had intimidate, and our magus had diplomacy.

2. I want social combat to be interesting, assuming something is at stake (such as whether the dragon attacks you or the vampire).

3. I am specifically looking for more involved mechanics for when two or more sides are trying to persuade a third party. I am not looking to replace standard social skill mechanics for one on one social interactions (Pathfinder's diplomacy is more reasonable than 3.5).

4. I want, at the very least, there to be a way to both build up your own position, and a way to attack your opponent's position.

Edit -

Idea I've been kicking around based on comments on this thread so far, and from reading the Duel of Wits mechanics from Wheel of Time. I haven't finished adding all the actions I want, but throwing the unfinished version out for critique.


1. Social HP (Maybe call it Influence or Credibility?)

Each participant begins with SHP equal to their Wisdom modifier + their Charisma modifier, + a bonus or penalty based on the initial attitude of the 3rd party/arbiter. If the 3rd party is a group with no clear leader (such as a council of 3), add the bonus or penalty from each arbiter's initial attitude.

Hostile: -3
Unfriendly: -1
Indifferent: +0
Friendly: +1
Helpful: +3

Example: Albert and Berach are tying to convince a dragon (whose lair they have entered) to side with them against the other. Albert has a 16 Charisma and a 10 Wisdom. Berach has a 14 Wisdom and an 18 Charisma. The dragon's disposition is Unfriendly towards both of the intruders, but isn't confident it can defeat both parties at once, and so will have to side with one or the other in the end.

Albert: 2 SHP
Berach: 5 SHP

If you reach 0 SHP, the arbiters won't listen to you anymore, so you can take no actions, and it will be very easy for your opponent to claim victory.

2. Social Initiative
Initiative in social combat is based on Charisma instead of Dexterity, but trait and feat bonuses apply. Ready, Delay, and Refocus works the same in social combat as it does in physical combat. Each round is 1 minute. I am not keeping the "reroll initiative each round" mechanic. If multiple points are being argued, the first opponent to start debating a point (see actions) determines which point is on the line first.

3. Actions in Social Combat

Note: If there are multiple arbiters, you target individual arbiters for most actions, so you could pick one that likes you better, or that you think is more gullible, etc.


Ingratiate
Make a diplomacy check, per the standard mechanics in Pathfinder to influence a character's attitude. An improved attitude increases your SHP appropriately.

Threaten
Make an intimidate check against the arbiter. If successful, their attitude is shifted to friendly, which effects your SHP appropriately. This typically lasts the entire combat (1d6*10 minutes). If you fail, or the time runs out on your intimidate check, the arbiter's attitude shifts one less than their initial attitude, effecting your SHP appropriately.

Alternately, you can threaten your opponent, which causes them to be shaken for a number of rounds based on your result (this is standard for Pathfinder, although the duration is normally in 6 second rounds, not 1 minute rounds).

Lie
Make a bluff check against the arbiter's sense motive skill. The arbiter adds the SHP of your opponent to their roll. If you succeed, you reduce the SHP of your opponent by 1, plus 1 for every 5 by which you defeat the arbiter's sense motive. If you fail, you lose 1 SHP, plus 1 for every 5 by which you failed the bluff check by.

Debate Point
Make a bluff or diplomacy check to strengthen your position (bluff if your point is based on a lie, otherwise diplomacy). If your opponent also uses this, you must beat their roll, in addition to the base DC:

Bluff: Arbiter's sense motive.
Diplomacy: DC based on arbiter's attitude, +5.

If you succeed, you gain 1 SHP, plus 1 for every 5 by which you succeed. If you fail by 5 or more, you lose 1 SHP.

Concede Point
Only useful if there are multiple points being debated in the same conflict. You concede the point currently being discussed, and gain 3SHP, +/- the attitude modifier of the arbiters (combined).

Revisit Point
Only available if there are multiple points being debated in the same conflict. You revisit a previously lost or conceded point. You must succeed at an opposed Bluff or Diplomacy check modified by current SHP. Whether you succeed or not, you lose 3SHP, modified by the attitude of the arbiters (combined).

Change Subject
Only available if there are multiple points being debated in the same conflict. You change the subject to a different contested point. This is otherwise treated as Debate Point, with a -5 penalty to the roll, but you succeed at changing the subject unless you fail by 10 or more.

Misdirection
With a successful bluff check, which must beat the sense motive of all arbiters and all opponents, you make it seem like your opponent is attempting an action other than what he declared. Your opponent's skill check remains the same as if they were using their intended action, but the results are based on the action your misdirection lead him to. If you fail, you lose 1 SHP for each arbiter that you fail against.

Claim Point
You press the point and make the arbiters decide for or against you on that point. Make a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate check, adding your SHP to your roll, against the following DC:

Diplomacy: Average base influence DC of arbiters, based on attitude, plus 10, plus combined SHP of opponents.

Bluff: Highest sense motive check of arbiters, plus 10, plus combined SHP of opponents.

Intimidate: Highest intimidate DC of arbiters, plus 10, plus combined SHP of opponents.

Failure results in the loss of 3 SHP, modified by the attitude of the arbiters (combined).

Accuse
Usable only if opponent has used Bluff (and you made the Sense Motive to notice) or Intimidate with a tactic, or Misdirection was used to make them appear to have done so. Roll a Diplomacy check against the average base influence DC of the arbiters, plus the SHP of your opponent. If you succeed, your opponent loses 1 SHP, plus 1 SHP for every 5 points by which you succeed. If you fail, you lose 1 SHP, plus 1 SHP for every 5 points you fail by.