PDA

View Full Version : Social Combat?



goto124
2015-04-10, 12:36 AM
I've heard of tabletop systems with 'social combat', where social interactions are modelled by complex mechanics much like usual combat, instead of leaving everything to roleplay and simple Diplomancy rolls.

Where can I find those systems, and any tips for using them?

(I think a Game of Thrones RPG was mentioned.)

If I'm bad with social interactions IRL but can handle crunch well, will I fare better or worse in a 'social combat' system compared to a more roleplay-dependant one?

Dimers
2015-04-10, 12:48 AM
The only one I've used myself was the nWoD book for vampires in ancient Rome, and that was just for formal debates in a certain style.

My best trick for overcoming poor personal social skill is to get my fellow players to help. Like, first I roll the skill, then I say, "Okay everybody, I got a 41 to make nice with the Earl. What did I say?" ... or if the players are in need of amusement: "Oh, cripes, I rolled a two. Anybody want to tell me how my character just screwed up?"

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 01:30 AM
Social Interaction can indeed be similar to combat, negotiation of a major political deal comes to mind, but it does not need complex mechanics.

When developing NPCs and other points of social interaction for characters keep in mind two things Personality and Motivations. Take a lot of notes as you play to record details of past interactions that establish these two things.

Motivation is the easiest thing to tackle first.

What does the lord of the realm want? What is he willing to pay for it? Neither of these things need to be money or treasure, he might want peace with the neighboring state and would be willing to trade his daughter in an arranged marriage to ensure peace. Also NPCs might want many things. The lord might want peace, but he might also want a local bandit that is making it difficult to maintain peace captured and is willing to reward those who get him what he wants.

Personality is the second half of the equation. Is the local lord aggressive, passive, miserly or generous? The words used to describe his personality can give methods the local lord will use to achieve his goals.

Lets take for example a rogues operating in the city. Assume the rogues motivation is pure and simple increase to his base wealth. His personality will lead to behaviors. An aggressive and uncreative rogue may be more of a thug who robs his victims at knifepoint. An agile and creative rogue might operate as a second story man breaking and entering through upper floors.

The same is true for social negotiations. The lord who wants peace with his neighbor and is willing to trade off his daughter might also be miserly and offer up a poor low value dowry along with that daughter. The gem merchant approached to fence gems acquired in the last adventure might only offer %30 of the value of the gems because he is greedy and wants to rip people off. The local farmer might only desire to have what he needs to harvest his next crop and feed his family.

Once you have some personality and motivations detail to work with then use the Diplomacy skill. For instance, I have a gem merchant in a setting who starts his negotiations for gem value at 50%. Then I use a diplomacy contest (opposed rolls between the players and the merchant) to evaluate swing. For each point the players roll higher than the gem merchant they gain a percent, for each point he rolls higher than the players he lowers his offer.

Good role playing and banter with the merchant, or sweetening the deal with other alternative offers that are creative can sway this further giving the players bonuses to their rolls. Maybe the merchant wants a very specific gem and would be willing to trade acquisition of the specific stone for a permanent increase of the base starting point.

After this I record history of interactions. Every time the players interact with an individual a point is earned with that specific individual. The players can collect these points and cash them in at some point in the future for a really good bonus. Thus the players could build up a relationship with the gem merchant, bring him quality goods which he makes a lot of money on and then at some point the players get a good haul and they cash in their favor. Once they cash it in the counter resets. Also treating the NPC poorly can cause it to reset with no benefit.

VoxRationis
2015-04-10, 01:38 AM
I never really got why people would want symmetry behind social mechanics and combat mechanics. The game is already largely conducted through the medium by which one socializes, unlike with combat, so why would you bother simulating it via another, more removed step?. It's like getting into a car, driving downtown, and having your friends in the backseat play Gran Turismo on a PSP or something. (I chose Gran Turismo on account of it being the most boringly realistic racing game I can think of.) Also, to have combat equal socializing in its game design either implies consistently antagonistic (and directly antagonistic) socializing or strangely cooperative combat.

Legend of the Five Rings has quite a few social skills in its register, nearly so many as weapon skills, and they are important and interact in multiple different ways. I've only played one session of the game, though, so I can't really say how well it works.

BWR
2015-04-10, 01:47 AM
Ars Magica has a fairly detailed social combat system 8called debating, IIRC), which you can find in "Art and Academe"
Atlas games, makers of AM, wrote a d20 supplement for social combat. (http://www.atlas-games.com/product_tables/AG3220.php)I haven't actually read it because I only just became aware of it.
The Dying Earth has a combat system which applies to both physical and social, just based on different traits and with (hopefully) different results. Quite interesting.
L5R makes some attempt at it, but, like D&D, it usually boils down to 'make a single roll, hope you succeed'. While that's somewhat disappointing for a game and setting which makes a big deal about politics and court, the courtiers do get nifty special abilities to help them do a variety of other things related to talky-stuff.

goto124
2015-04-10, 02:04 AM
The Evil DM:

Not that I don't appreciate your concern :smallredface:, but this thread is unrelated to my previous one.

Still, thanks for the advice!

Sith_Happens
2015-04-10, 02:08 AM
FATE has a single set of rules for conflicts, whether the conflict be physical, verbal, social, or what have you.

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 02:40 AM
The Evil DM:

Not that I don't appreciate your concern :smallredface:, but this thread is unrelated to my previous one.

Still, thanks for the advice!


Apologies for not being exactly on topic. I thought you were asking for advice on how to manage social and use systems to do so - so I offered mine. No worries.

SiuiS
2015-04-10, 02:56 AM
I never really got why people would want symmetry behind social mechanics and combat mechanics.

The term social combat can be misleading. It's not so much that you want to use a power argument to remove more social hit points. Because "combat system" doesn't mean the ability to hit to remove points. It means positioning, parry? Riposte, feint, draw our enemy. Set them up, bluff, drive home, unbalance, engage, disengage, surprise.

A social combat system should let you set up situations where Rolling Matters. You should never have to roll to move forward. Rolling only happens when failing and succeeding are both interesting. A social combat system should let you Position and Leverage the scene around you. You shouldn't just swing. Your stance, however it's framed, should interact with the stances of others.

The cleanest system I've seen so far is from apocalypse world. The four social moves are Manipulate a person, Read a Situation, Read a Person, and Spens Money. Any time you roll, on a high result, you get what you want, a medium result gets what you want, mostly, with some cost, and a low result costs you.

Manipulate requires making promises; 10+, they do it, and you don't have to follow through. 7-9, they do it, if you have assurances of some kind (usually payment up front). 2-6, they don't do it and the GM gets to make a hard move. Against another player, a soft success means either they gain XP for doing what you say, or they are acting under fire (basically, in danger and maybe suffer consequences) if they refuse. A hard success, you get both.

Read a situation lets you get one question on a soft success or three questions on a hard success, and the questions are things like who is the biggest threat here, what is my enemy's true position (location), what should I be on the look out for, Who's in charge. Read a person is similar except it lets you do things like ask is this person lying, what does this person want me to do, what do they expect me to do, what do I need to do to make them do X, etc. The catch? This is always about reading charged aituations, so rolling in a tame scenario charges it. If there is no enemy, someone becomes your enemy. It's reading fights. Aggression. Conflict. These moves set your crosshairs on someone.

Finally, spending money with strings attached is basically rolling a hard success on manipulate; you spend the money, and the person does something for you even if you don't give them any favors later (cuz you already paid).

The interaction of these four moves (five with act under fire) creates a dynamic where it's entirely possible to dramatically lose an engagement with another player by words alone. This set up, where your social skills force changes to the board by removing or forcing certain reactions, is what "social combat" means. Putting someone in a situation where they either have to fight (a fight they don't want) or they lose face (and everyone looks down on them). Finding out what the other person is going to tell the queen, and telling her your version first – the classic "ah, he said you would say that. You really did steal the jewels!" Maneuver. Tricking someone into saying something and then running circles around them until, flustered, they look stupid and no one will listen to them. That's social combat.

The_Snark
2015-04-10, 03:01 AM
Exalted (2nd edition, can't speak for others) has a social combat system which has a lot of parallels with the regular hitting-people-combat system. Fair warning, though, most players I've talked to don't like it much; it's usable, but... inelegantly designed, in that making efficient use of the rules as presented will lead to something that doesn't feel much like social interaction.

I would not suggest using it as a way to get around poor social skills IRL; in my experience it works best when used sparingly and with liberal doses of common sense.


The term social combat can be misleading. It's not so much that you want to use a power argument to remove more social hit points. Because "combat system" doesn't mean the ability to hit to remove points.

Actually, this is an apt summary of the issue with Exalted's social combat - "use a power argument to remove hit points Willpower" is essentially the base mechanic. A successful social attack forces you to a) play along with what the attacker wants, or b) pay a certain amount of Willpower to resist.

Wraith
2015-04-10, 04:22 AM
In Mouseguard, there are no "fights" or "arguments" - any kind of event where one side opposes another is resolved through the same Conflicts system.

In physical combat, it's very straight forward - you choose an action out of Attack, Defend, Feint and Avoid (if I remember correctly) and the outcome is decided by a combination of dice roll and rock-paper-scissors bonuses. The lesser roll results in loss of 'hit points' or, sometimes, a net gain for the greater roller.
At the end of the fight, the Storyteller compares each sides' comparative points and determines an appropriate outcome based on the players' stated goals.
(It's actually quite difficult to kill someone in Mouseguard for this reason - if your stated goal is "kill the other guy" and theirs is "get away safely", any result other than a 100% curbstomp should result in them surviving in some form or another, if perhaps badly mauled and helpless).

In another kind of conflict - in this case, a social debate, perhaps - the same actions are chosen and are just interpreted in a more abstract way. A verbal attack means to make aggressive accusations, for example, whereas a feint might be some kind of wordplay to catch out an unwary opponent. The 'loser' then concedes "hit points" until one side is exhausted, and again the Storyteller determines the outcome; if one side is completely dominant, the other is swayed to their opinion whole heartedly, whereas a very narrow victory indicates something more like a temporary concession of minor points from the opponent, who yet retains their main opinions untarnished.

Same actions, same cards, same dice, just expressed in a different context. It's longwinded and sometimes needs a bit of abstract thinking to work out how your stated action actually manifests in game, but it's remarkably versatile for resolving pretty much anything that you can think of as a conflict.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-10, 07:17 AM
I never really got why people would want symmetry behind social mechanics and combat mechanics. The game is already largely conducted through the medium by which one socializes, unlike with combat, so why would you bother simulating it via another, more removed step?

Just like we can throw a punch if we had to, most of us are probably not accustomed to the sustained physical brawling your typical adventurer is exposed to on a regular basis. The same goes for social combat.

Verbal fencing, social cutting, debate, argument, rhetoric, and savoir-faire require skill to perform well. Even though we can all express our opinions, most of us would probably be outclassed in a public policy debate with a professional (politician, corporate lawyer, Hollywood executive).

In RPG's we're usually playing larger-than-life heroes whose actions and opinions influence the world. Our characters are supposed to know how to hobknob with kings and generals, talk down armed bandits, or incite a mob to violence even if we players don't usually need to.

Kaun
2015-04-10, 07:23 AM
The burning wheel

Thrawn4
2015-04-10, 07:31 AM
I think a Game of Thrones RPG was mentioned.


Played it, disliked social combat. It basically boils down to a few social combat rounds that prevent suspension of disbelief. I prefer actually saying what I want to say or literally saying something IC, and then roll the modiefied dice once. Better atmosphere overall, although it MIGHT be nice in an intrigue-heavy campaign and my DM was kind of new to this.

Elderand
2015-04-10, 07:36 AM
The vampire the requiem danse macabre book has rules for social combat that make social encounter function exactly like combat does with HP, Initiative, defenses, maneuvers, the whole lot.

Thrawn4
2015-04-10, 07:51 AM
The vampire the requiem danse macabre book has rules for social combat that make social encounter function exactly like combat does with HP, Initiative, defenses, maneuvers, the whole lot.
Have you played it? Was it fun or clunky?

Elderand
2015-04-10, 07:57 AM
Have you played it? Was it fun or clunky?

I have played with it briefly but my group abandonned it in favor of just narrating stuff with the occasional basic roll if really needed.

Can't really comment on the quality of it, just not my taste. I hear a lot of people enjoy it though.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-10, 08:28 AM
Like the above Mouseguard example, Noitahovi uses unified mechanics for all conflict resolution. Once a conflict has been called, all of them follow a similar pattern. First, participants roll Iniative. One who rolls successes gets what they want; if one or more of the losing participants pays enough points of Sisu (Guts), the conflict continues to either Mind or Body. (Mind, most likely, in a social scenario.) Again, dice are rolled, person with most successes wins unless losing participants pay enough Sisu. If the conflict is still on, you move to Preseverance, rinse, repeat. If even after that there's no clear winner, the conflict results in a tie, with either all remaining parties getting what they want, or none of them getting what they want, as appropriate.

Thrawn4
2015-04-10, 09:58 AM
So... anyone here who actually played a game with social combat and enjoyed it?

Eisenheim
2015-04-10, 10:08 AM
I play fate, which as mentioned above uses the same mechanics for social and physical conflicts. I think it's a great system, especially because it lets socially powerful characters continue to engage when the swords come out. It's a strongly narrative system, so quite different from D&D, but if you're down for that it's very satisfying and social conflicts can feel at least as deep as physical ones.

goto124
2015-04-10, 10:38 AM
Keep going guys! Amazing what sort of systems people can come up with.

Somewhat on topic: Are there computer games with similar style of social combat mechanics? I just want to get a feel for the system, without having to find actual players.

kyoryu
2015-04-10, 11:31 AM
So... anyone here who actually played a game with social combat and enjoyed it?

Yup.

I play Fate, and enjoy conflict in it, whether social or physical.

SiuiS
2015-04-10, 03:46 PM
Played it, disliked social combat. It basically boils down to a few social combat rounds that prevent suspension of disbelief. I prefer actually saying what I want to say or literally saying something IC, and then roll the modiefied dice once. Better atmosphere overall, although it MIGHT be nice in an intrigue-heavy campaign and my DM was kind of new to this.

You may like the Godmachine chronicle update / second edition of world of darkness. The doors mechanic is designed to emulate schmoozing someone for days or weeks to build a rapport before asking for something, and is an elegant way of modeling it. It does exactly what it intends to, which is make a game that can play out episodes of supernatural, white collar, or breaking bad.


So... anyone here who actually played a game with social combat and enjoyed it?

Yes.

Any lack of enjoyment usually stems from conditioning. People expect talking to be talk, and fighting to be crunchy dice interactions and spread sheets, because that's how D&D did it. This is why people make a lot of the assumptions they do about how games work.


*


The most fascinating and novel approach I've seen For game design, period, turned the HP model on its head. Enemy moves don't damage you, they inflict conditions. You can resist these conditions by taking stress (marking Hp boxes) and rolling to resist.

Imagine that. "The enemy guard thrusts his spear at you! It punctures your heart, and you begin to black out as your blood slicks the floor." "Oh no! I don't want the [Dead] condition. I Mark off three health boxes to resist. The spear grazes my ribs and catches on my armor. I counter attack!"

Suddenly the idea that HP is not health, but luck, skill, avoidance, awareness, and divine intervention makes sense. The barbarian doesn't have more meat; he has more combat savvy and awareness and can turn more utterly lethal strokes into near misses and fatiguing bruises through sheer grit.

Milo v3
2015-04-11, 08:35 AM
Monsterhearts is 90% social combat rules.

LibraryOgre
2015-04-12, 03:31 PM
ODE, of course, uses similar mechanics for Social Combat and Physical combat.

I would add that, IME, folks who don't like social combat tend to object that it makes their characters do things. Physical combat may make their characters die, but social combat makes them acquiesce to things, which can be pretty objectionable if you're playing for a degree of escapism from having to do what others want to make you do.