PDA

View Full Version : Are there RPGs out there that can actually handle diplomacy?



Trekkin
2016-06-24, 01:39 AM
I have a very diplomacy-heavy campaign in preparation and would like to use a system that actually puts some care into how characters talk to each other and NPCs. That means it does not:

1. just tell the GM to eyeball it. I can do that already and that is not a mechanic.

2. abstract it to a single skill roll. I'm cool with combat being this simple, but if the game is about talking to people, it needs to involve more than gathering bonuses to a skill.

3. reskin combat. "It's not a parry, it's a rebuttal!" People always bring up FATE when I ask about this because it's universal -- or they bring up Burning Wheel, which is blatantly this. Workable as it is, I don't want universal and I don't want "talking is just as valid as fighting!" I want talking to be more fun to play through than fighting, and to feel different, and not to secretly be fighting under a different name.

Yes, these points are arbitrary. Still, are there any systems that take a fourth option?

goto124
2016-06-24, 01:45 AM
3. reskin combat. "It's not a parry, it's a rebuttal!" People always bring up FATE when I ask about this because it's universal -- or they bring up Burning Wheel, which is blatantly this. Workable as it is, I don't want universal and I don't want "talking is just as valid as fighting!" I want talking to be more fun to play through than fighting, and to feel different, and not to secretly be fighting under a different name.

But... er... how? Feel different in what way exactly? Maybe you want Diplomancy to feel less competitive/combative and more cooperative? Can cooperation be modeled?

Sparklelord
2016-06-24, 03:34 AM
3. reskin combat. "It's not a parry, it's a rebuttal!" People always bring up FATE when I ask about this because it's universal -- or they bring up Burning Wheel, which is blatantly this. Workable as it is, I don't want universal and I don't want "talking is just as valid as fighting!" I want talking to be more fun to play through than fighting, and to feel different, and not to secretly be fighting under a different name.



But diplomacy is combat, we have just not begin firing guns and calling airstrikes yet...

Can you give a hint of what you might like in a diplomacy system?

Genth
2016-06-24, 05:50 AM
Can't point out much in terms of a system, but I recall a game I played with a persuasion mechanic. Much of it worked in the same way as combat, but there was a key thematic difference. Ego, the 'Health' of the persuasion mechanic, was both reduced by being hit by the opponent in particular ways, and by using your own persuasive techniques. Just a contextual thought

Esprit15
2016-06-24, 05:55 AM
IIRC, the Song of Fire and Ice RPG has a decent social combat system. A tad simplistic, but certainly better than wondering if a 25 is convincing or not.

Trekkin
2016-06-24, 06:09 AM
But... er... how? Feel different in what way exactly? Maybe you want Diplomancy to feel less competitive/combative and more cooperative? Can cooperation be modeled?

Something like that, yes. Combat-as-diplomacy systems work best when there are clear sides, a clear (and mutually exclusive) goal, and a certain level of antagonism. Formal debates are a good example, and then social hit points and so forth make sense.

I would like a diplomacy system that's capable of handling less antagonistic negotiations, though, where the goal isn't to win but to arrive at some mutually acceptable arrangement. It would also be nice if there was some facility for discriminating between cases where the goal is to change an opponent's mind and cases where the goal is to influence some third party. Then, too, some more nuanced way of representing influence than a monolithic "X likes Y 25 points" system would be helpful.

Does that make sense?

NichG
2016-06-24, 06:55 AM
Simple idea for cooperative dynamics - start with everyone having some ability to grant a limited number of other people a concrete benefit, but being forbidden from receiving a benefit if they've granted one in a given scene (so they can't give one to themselves, or give someone a benefit for an immediate benefit in return). Or even, make it so that to give someone else a major benefit, they must suffer a minor penalty. Make it more expensive to change your benefit-giving state than to give the benefit (or make the penalty get cheaper with time).

Then set those people up against multiple simultaneous challenges that threaten different things if the challenges are failed, and see what results.

TheCountAlucard
2016-06-24, 08:34 AM
Try the new edition of Exalted?

Characters can engage in social influence to persuade, bargain, instill, inspire, intimidate, et cetera.; a character is only open to certain types of influence if the influence is keyed to at least one of their Intimacies (i.e., a person, place, thing, or idea the character feels strongly about, positively or negatively), so knowing one's audience helps.

Intimacies can vary in strength; a man might care more about his mistress than his business, and care more about his wife than either - the strength of an Intimacy can make it easier or harder to influence you. You can "defend" against one Intimacy being exploited by using another Intimacy that would go against the influence.

You can also reject influence through an expenditure of Willpower, representing a character's heroic drive. However, Willpower is a precious resource that seldom refills quickly, so if you're backed against a wall, it might be best to accept some influence and save the rest.

Using influence isn't like mashing down an "Attack" button - once someone resists your influence, you'll need to come up with a different plan of attack, or present stronger evidence for why they should accept your influence.


Sound up your alley? There's more details, obviously, but I'm AFB and just giving a summarized version.

Nerd-o-rama
2016-06-24, 08:41 AM
Chronicle of Darkness/New World of Darkness 2.0 takes a shot at this. Basically, if you want something from someone, and they don't want to just give it to you, you need to overcome their "Doors" (based on their Resolve attribute) by succeeding on social rolls against them. Doors can be added or subtracted or made easier or harder to open based on things like appealing to (or conflicting with) their Virtue or Aspirations, bribes, blackmail, Intimidation ("forcing Doors"), generally having a favorable social impression with them, or good old supernatural powers, all of which which add a lot of strategic depth to the system even if I personally find it too complicated for my tastes. It definitely lives up to WoD's reputation as a "social game", and might be closer to what you're looking for - it's still roll-based, but not abstracted into a single action, and it plays much differently from combat.

CharonsHelper
2016-06-24, 09:14 AM
One big question - are you looking for a system where said Diplomacy (I prefer "Negotiation" myself) works only against NPCs, or one where it works on anyone?

I think that the former is easier to design and probably more common outside of the 'combat re-skin' which you don't like.

I made a sub-system for my game where your opposed rolls and risk/reward mechanics in Negotiation end with the end result at +/- market price, though for many things the "market price" is a rather abstract/subjective decision by the GM based upon the circumstances. (The market price being higher for black market goods is pretty obvious, but what's the market price for pirates backing off? How much is a peace treaty worth? etc.)

Red Fel
2016-06-24, 09:22 AM
I have a very diplomacy-heavy campaign in preparation and would like to use a system that actually puts some care into how characters talk to each other and NPCs. That means it does not:

1. just tell the GM to eyeball it. I can do that already and that is not a mechanic.

2. abstract it to a single skill roll. I'm cool with combat being this simple, but if the game is about talking to people, it needs to involve more than gathering bonuses to a skill.

3. reskin combat. "It's not a parry, it's a rebuttal!" People always bring up FATE when I ask about this because it's universal -- or they bring up Burning Wheel, which is blatantly this. Workable as it is, I don't want universal and I don't want "talking is just as valid as fighting!" I want talking to be more fun to play through than fighting, and to feel different, and not to secretly be fighting under a different name.

Yes, these points are arbitrary. Still, are there any systems that take a fourth option?

I think you've kind of eliminated almost everything.

1. No eyeballing it. Okay, so there have to be mechanics to it. I can get behind that.

2. No single-rolling it. Okay, so the mechanics can't be simple. I get that too.

3. No opposed rolling. Okay, so the mechanics can't be... complicated? Or opposing?

What does that leave? It can't be freeform, because you want mechanics. It can't be about two sides rolling against each other, because that's basically combat. But it can't be one guy rolling, because that's a single roll.

So what is it supposed to be? One guy rolling multiple rolls?

I'm going to plug Ironclaw. I don't have my books with me right now, but the system has an emphasis on social interaction and societal standing. For example, an ordained member of the clergy can exercise his authority once in awhile (there's a specific "once per X" timer to it), that basically forces those present to acknowledge his wisdom, but overuse can get him into trouble with his organization. There are multiple social skills depending on what you're trying to do (party with commoners, mingle with nobles, strong-arm diplomats, intimidate combatants). There are modifiers based on your social standing, past actions, even race. It's a very robust system.

Even so, it all seems to come back to either (1) opposed rolls, which you don't seem to want, or (2) piling up relevant modifiers (e.g. "I'm a member of the clergy and a disowned noble, I use my racial bonus to being grand and impressive, and my oratory skill for additional numbers, let's roll,") which you don't seem to want either. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Trekkin
2016-06-24, 10:59 AM
I think you've kind of eliminated almost everything.

1. No eyeballing it. Okay, so there have to be mechanics to it. I can get behind that.

2. No single-rolling it. Okay, so the mechanics can't be simple. I get that too.

3. No opposed rolling. Okay, so the mechanics can't be... complicated? Or opposing?

What does that leave? It can't be freeform, because you want mechanics. It can't be about two sides rolling against each other, because that's basically combat. But it can't be one guy rolling, because that's a single roll.



Oh, it can be two sides rolling against each other -- but that shouldn't be all it can do. My problem is not with opposed rolling in and of itself, but with the kind of social combat mechanic that precisely emulates physical combat: every side gets a single pool of ablative not-having-lost and all the tactics focus on ablating that pool (or rendering it irrelevant.) For fighting, this is HP; for, say, Burning Wheel Duels of Wits, this is Body of Argument.

I'd rather a system that mechanically represents the values and mindset of whoever the party are arguing with in a way that requires some investigation and nuance to deal with, and I'd like some distinction between "get this person to like me" and "get this person to do X for me".

I'm not really sure what that would look like, thus my vagueness -- the WoD Doors system sounds close, though.

Quertus
2016-06-24, 12:59 PM
Can you give an example of how you'd want it to play out from books, movies, etc? If you have a clear vision of what you think diplomacy should look like, it may help us evaluate whether a given system can help achieve that vision.

That having been said, I've never found a social system that successfully modeled my personal observations of human social interaction. Nor have I encountered any systems that helped me actualize a character concept (unless that concept was being bad at social skills, but I can usually pull that off by myself, without any help).

Trekkin
2016-06-25, 12:33 AM
Can you give an example of how you'd want it to play out from books, movies, etc? If you have a clear vision of what you think diplomacy should look like, it may help us evaluate whether a given system can help achieve that vision.

That having been said, I've never found a social system that successfully modeled my personal observations of human social interaction. Nor have I encountered any systems that helped me actualize a character concept (unless that concept was being bad at social skills, but I can usually pull that off by myself, without any help).

Sure! In brief, I want a system that would make something like 12 Angry Men work -- specifically, something that rewards matching the tactic to the target with about that level of granularity rather than No.8 making eleven opposed Diplomacy rolls.

I guess what I'd ultimately like, in a very inelegant way, is some way of asking my players what line they're taking, matching that with some data about the NPCs, and having that affect the outcome in a mechanically rigorous and player-deducible way.

Milo v3
2016-06-25, 02:48 AM
I'll second the social maneuvering system from Chronicles of Darkness.

TheCountAlucard
2016-06-25, 03:09 AM
If the Chronicles of Darkness ruleset appeals to you, the Exalted one is very similar - both were developed by the same company at around the same time.

ImNotTrevor
2016-06-25, 03:42 AM
The best social rules I've seen in a game came out of Apocalypse World.

There are multiple kinds of "negotiation" in the game, from an Intimidation analogue called "Go Aggro" and a more Diplomacy-esque move called "Seduce/Manipulate."

To give an idea of the possible outcomes:
I counted how many rules-prescribed outcomes could potentially come from a single Go Aggro roll, regardless of the narrative.
(Bear in mind, in D&D the options are Succeed or Fail with a couple degrees of success that comes out to around 10 possible outcomes on any given roll. Maybe.)
From a single Go Aggro roll there are 32 different things that can happen based on the move itself and the GM Moves that the GM gets to make in response to various outcomes for the roll, all of which are open enough to be interpreted narratively in a wide variety of situations but are specific enough that it never feels like the GM is winging it.

10/10 it's my favorite social system.

goto124
2016-06-25, 10:03 AM
Come to think of it, using all sorts of weapons phrases to beat down the other party into submission sounds like a kind of RL abuse I wish not to repeat in a game.

Milo v3
2016-06-25, 10:06 AM
Come to think of it, using all sorts of weapons phrases to beat down the other party into submission sounds like a kind of RL abuse I wish not to repeat in a game.

+3 Flaming Ya Mum Jokes?

ClintACK
2016-06-25, 11:43 AM
Sure! In brief, I want a system that would make something like 12 Angry Men work -- specifically, something that rewards matching the tactic to the target with about that level of granularity rather than No.8 making eleven opposed Diplomacy rolls.

I guess what I'd ultimately like, in a very inelegant way, is some way of asking my players what line they're taking, matching that with some data about the NPCs, and having that affect the outcome in a mechanically rigorous and player-deducible way.

I know you already mentioned FATE, but really, this *sounds* like the way social combat works in (at least the Dresden Files RPG subset of) FATE.

Superficially, it looks like "combat reskinned" -- but it doesn't play at all like D&D ablating hps combat. It's more about assessing "Aspects" of the enemy/target and placing new Aspects until you can get a kill-shot that bypasses the social hit-point-equivalent completely. (You *could* ablate the hps, but it looks like wearing someone down with your persistence rather than actually beating them.)

Example: You're trying to persuade the Traffic Cop to let you off with a warning. (In fact, you were speeding because you're on a deadline to stop the BBEG from killing people -- but there's no way the Traffic Cop will believe that.)

The socialite with great Contacts (including one in the Mayor's office), might intimidate the cop with threats of political consequences. The Bruce Wayne in the passenger seat might use Resources to offer a bribe. The shady fast-talker might use Deceit to come up with a more plausible urgent need than the real one. Or the starlet with Presence might flirt with him.

Of course, any of these gambits might backfire (depending on the hidden Aspects of the Cop's character, which you'll have picked and written down ahead of time). So first the high-Empathy gal makes an "Assessment" to try and get a sense of who the cop is -- so they don't try to bribe the unbribable cop, or show cleavage to the gay cop, or make political threats to the macho martinet.

Meanwhile, the Cop will be doing the same -- assessing the party and reminding them that he's the Law, and making them stew while he runs the license and registration.

Once the party thinks they have enough Aspects placed, one of them will make an opposed roll against the Cop -- maybe Intimidation or Rapport against the Cop's Presence, tagging the relevant Aspects for bonuses to the roll. If they win by more than the Cop's Social Stress track, the Cop has to choose between giving in (letting you go with a warning) or taking a Consequence (the more you win by, the more severe the Consequence).

If you were Intimidating him using the well-connected guy's Connections, and beat the Cop's roll by more than four, perhaps the Cop now has to decide between letting you go and severe consequences to his career (he'll never make Detective now). So the Cop will almost certainly cave -- and if he doesn't, it's a clear sign to the party that he has some other motivation. (Maybe he's just sick of the politics and hates his job and really ought to take that private-sector security job his brother-in-law keeps talking about.... or maybe he's been Mind-Controlled by the BBEG.)

The several good aspects of this system:
- It's got lots of flexibility for different party members to help, or hurt, in interesting ways -- so they aren't just sitting there watching the Face RP.
- It comes down to an opposed roll, so you aren't just eyeballing it.
- And... instead of that roll determining what the loser does, it determines how severe a Consequence the loser would have to be willing to accept if he won't yield. It's a much more interesting result than succeed or fail. There's even a specific mechanic for the loser to offer a different compromise outcome.


Anyway... it's definitely a *lot* more freeform than a D&D social check, and you (the DM) will be doing a *bunch* of eyeballing. (You're using your Guns skill to help Intimidate the Cop?! Oh, yeah, I don't care how high your Guns skill is -- that's not going to end well. You've possibly just escalated this to a Physical Combat. Or else the Cop is going to give in, but then phone for backup. Quick -- flirty socialite tries to Distract the Cop from what just happened.) But it's got a lot more going on than it might look like at first glance. It's not just reflavored hit-point ablation.

Beleriphon
2016-06-25, 12:59 PM
Something like that, yes. Combat-as-diplomacy systems work best when there are clear sides, a clear (and mutually exclusive) goal, and a certain level of antagonism. Formal debates are a good example, and then social hit points and so forth make sense.

I would like a diplomacy system that's capable of handling less antagonistic negotiations, though, where the goal isn't to win but to arrive at some mutually acceptable arrangement. It would also be nice if there was some facility for discriminating between cases where the goal is to change an opponent's mind and cases where the goal is to influence some third party. Then, too, some more nuanced way of representing influence than a monolithic "X likes Y 25 points" system would be helpful.

Does that make sense?

Diplomacy as conflict is your best bet here in most cases. FATE for example handles roles essentially breaking down into for discrete outcomes: fail (you don't get what you want), ties (you get what you want but with a minor setback), success (you get exactly what you want), or succeed with style (you get what you want, and more!). This is more for single rolls, or challenges rather than a "conflict".

Conflict end with success, taken out status, or conceded status. Taken out and conceded are the interesting points in a FATE conflict. Being taken out is bad, the winner character that is taken out gets their fate chosen by the winner (in fight this could be death, being captured, whatever the winner decides), which conceding means the character loses but chooses their own fate and how that loss happens.

I think to a degree these are useful concepts to keep in mind for trying to run diplomacy based games, because most diplomacy is treated a Zero Sum Game (even though it usually isn't).

Quertus
2016-06-25, 03:05 PM
Sure! In brief, I want a system that would make something like 12 Angry Men work -- specifically, something that rewards matching the tactic to the target with about that level of granularity rather than No.8 making eleven opposed Diplomacy rolls.

I guess what I'd ultimately like, in a very inelegant way, is some way of asking my players what line they're taking, matching that with some data about the NPCs, and having that affect the outcome in a mechanically rigorous and player-deducible way.
12 Angry Men is one of the best movies of all time, and is one of my go-to examples for social interaction! Woot!

Trying to imagine the gameplay for that movie in each system should be quite educational. Everyone should watch the movie if they haven't already! Uh... so that they can contribute. Yeah, that's why.

Let's look at D&D 3.x as an example. In 3.x, there isn't a good persuasion mechanic. I guess you could have one juror make repeated bluff checks against a variable DC based on other jurors' sense motive scores. Each time a juror joins his side, they aid another to increase the bluff score. And the various tricks pulled throughout the movie could be modeled as circumstance bonuses to the roll. Can you get there? Yes. 9/10 for possible. Does it feel like the movie? No. 1/10 for execution. Would it be engaging? Maybe. Probably not. 3/10 for gameplay.



Come to think of it, using all sorts of weapons phrases to beat down the other party into submission sounds like a kind of RL abuse I wish not to repeat in a game.

I'm sorry. If my persistence ever starts to become a trigger for you, please scream at me to stop. My Protective trait promises to do its best to subdue my Seeker of Truth trait.


-snip-.

Ok, so, in your example, why doesn't the exchange start off with the cop making some kind of "pay this ticket / comply with the law or else" roll?

ClintACK
2016-06-25, 05:27 PM
*sigh* as I run and check, but 12 Angry Men isn't free anywhere I subscribe. May have to rent.


Ok, so, in your example, why doesn't the exchange start off with the cop making some kind of "pay this ticket / comply with the law or else" roll?

It certainly could, like if the Cop was just writing a routine ticket and not interested in hearing anything. I was trying to imagine a scenario where the danger wasn't having to pay the ticket, but rather the delay. A quickly written ticket could actually be a victory for the party -- and cheaper than a bribe. :)

As to the mechanics -- one side could start with a "Social Attack" rather than a Maneuver to place an Aspect. But if they don't have a significant advantage (either in stats or in relevant Aspects to tag), it would just ding hit-point-equivalents (Social Stress), rather than jumping straight to forcing a consequence. You can *get* to a victory that way -- but it might play out more like nagging someone who eventually gives in rather than triumphing in a stroke of brilliance. (Edit: though in this case, the Cop might well have enough Aspects to tag (like: "I am the Law" and "You're in a Rush") to win in one roll and just hand the ticket over as a Mild Consequence (If you pay the ticket, one "scene" later the Consequence is removed.) or even a Moderate Consequence. (If you pay the ticket, the consequence is cleared at the end of the "session". Until then, you've got a "Tried to Weasel out of a Ticket" Aspect, that might be tagged later when the BBEG is trying to persuade the police that you're not to be trusted.)

On the gripping hand... if the Cop just walks up and starts writing a ticket, and the Party just accepts it, there's no fight. No rolls needed. The fight only happens when the two sides are working towards very different outcomes.

Take all this with an extra large grain of salt. I'm interested in the DFRPG game, but I've barely played it at all. I just think it looks like a neat system. And like the Dresden Files books. :)

Segev
2016-06-25, 09:57 PM
I just want to chime in for "take a look at the social mechanics in Exalted 3e." I know others have said it, and I know it's not perfect, but it's at least as good at social mechanics as very very early D&D was at combat mechanics.

Quertus
2016-06-26, 07:39 AM
I just want to chime in for "take a look at the social mechanics in Exalted 3e." I know others have said it, and I know it's not perfect, but it's at least as good at social mechanics as very very early D&D was at combat mechanics.

My knowledge of exalted social mechanics is, as a prank, make a poster that says all humans are evil and must die, to see how many bodies pile up from suicide before someone comes along who can resist it. But it's so good, so convincing, you fail your resist roll, and now you believe it yourself.

So, it's great for modeling supernatural levels of influence, but... how does it work at handling normal levels of social skill?

Satinavian
2016-06-26, 07:54 AM
Diplomacy as conflict is your best bet here in most cases.
I tried several systems with social interactians as combat and i find this concept pretty lacking.

Sure, it works, if there actually is a conflict. But many social interactions are more of a cooperative endeaver to search for a good solution for all involved. Others have elements of both like searching for compromises.

I don't know a system that handles all that well. Sure, haggling, intimidating and lying is easy to do as conflict or opposing role. But mediating or "telling the truth" or trying to convince to the benefirt of the victom becomes difficult. And it gets worse the more complex the situation gets.

TheCountAlucard
2016-06-26, 09:13 AM
My knowledge of exalted social mechanics is, as a prank, make a poster that says all humans are evil and must die, to see how many bodies pile up from suicide before someone comes along who can resist it. But it's so good, so convincing, you fail your resist roll, and now you believe it yourself.Your "knowledge" is... flawed. Even in 2e, all but the most powerful social effects couldn't drive someone to suicide. Also, you don't roll to resist - it's a passive rating, and even if it gets through, you can spend the Willpower like I mentioned in my post.


So, it's great for modeling supernatural levels of influence, but... how does it work at handling normal levels of social skill?Pretty amazingly.

Benthesquid
2016-06-26, 09:36 AM
Monsterhearts, running off the same basic engine as Powered by the Apocalypse, is fairly heavily based around social interactions, although fair warning, it points social encounters in fairly specific directions.

Say I'm speaking with someone. A lot of this will be played out as a matter of actual conversation between me and another player/the MC. However, at some point it's likely that I'll make a roll (only players roll). Say I'm trying to get into a club, but I'm under the drinking age because Monsterhearts is a queer teenage supernatural drama.

I could try to Turn On the bouncer, in which case I'll roll with my hot stat. Success is tiered, with a 10+ being the best (for the character, if not necessarily for the story) and a 7-9 being a qualified success. In this case, on a 10+ I can take a string against them, a measure of influence which I can spend later in a variety of ways. On a 7-9, the target of my roll gets to choose- give me a string, promise me something they think I want, or give themselves to me. On a six or lower, I miss- which doesn't mean I fail, necessarily, it just means that the GM gets to get creative with the consequences (could be the bouncer threatens to call the cops about my fake idea, could be that it turns out he's a vampire and I've just convinced him my neck looks really tasty, and he follows me into the club)

If I'm not feeling sexy (maybe I'm not trying to get into a club, I'm trying to get the leader of a werewolf pack to loan me a bodyguard for a meeting with a witch's coven), I could instead try and Manipulate an NPC (the only one of the social moves that doesn't play out the same against players). In this case, on a 10+, they give me what I want if I offer them a bribe, threat or other motivation ('don't you want to rub those witch's nose in it after what they did to your pack?). On a 7-9, the MC tells me specifically what the NPC needs to make what I want happen ("He scratches at his arm- he's obviously hurting for a fix. Offering him a hookup with your dealer would probably tip him over the edge,") and a 6 or lower is a miss ("He straddles his motorcycle, strapping a small cannon to his hip as two of his pack grab you by the shoulders 'We'll be at the meeting, but I think it's best if you sit it out,'").

I can also try to Shut Someone Down, in which case I make the perfect cutting remark to someone and roll with Cold- that can either let me negate strings they hold on me, gain strings on them, or let me tag them with a Condition. Conditions allow bonuses on later rolls against characters if you can convince the MC that they're relevant.

And while not directly a social roll, Hold Steady lets me roll with Cold to keep my cool in a wide variety of situations, and allow Conditions to roll off my back.

By comparison, physical combat is represented in the Basic Moves by the single move Lash Out Physically, and a four point harm track.

Various Skins (classes or archetypes) add more social moves, as well as adding options to the basic moves.

Beleriphon
2016-06-26, 10:16 AM
I tried several systems with social interactians as combat and i find this concept pretty lacking.

Sure, it works, if there actually is a conflict. But many social interactions are more of a cooperative endeaver to search for a good solution for all involved. Others have elements of both like searching for compromises.

I don't know a system that handles all that well. Sure, haggling, intimidating and lying is easy to do as conflict or opposing role. But mediating or "telling the truth" or trying to convince to the benefirt of the victom becomes difficult. And it gets worse the more complex the situation gets.

Note that conflict doesn't mean combat. {scrubbed} Even generally amicable diplomacy or social interactions are going to be conflicts to a degree. Even if the parties agree they must have have slightly different agendas; otherwise there wouldn't be different parties there would only be one, and there's no need for working towards agreement.

Segev
2016-06-26, 11:49 AM
Exalted 3e social mechanics revolve around intimacies (using the 2e term, as I'm away from book and haven't fully internalized 3e yet). These are things your character values, and you get to define when you create him what he thinks of them/how he values them. Social mechanics involve discovering these intimacies, their relative strengths, and then finding ways to roll on them with the design being to tug them to evoke reactions (whether emotional or exhorting specific action). If none of them are useful for the actions you want taken, you can try eroding intimacies that get in the way ("Really? You're ABSTINANT? Come on, man, live a little!") or building new intimacies that would help, using existing ones ("Hey, you're into horse racing? I love that stuff. Tell me about it; let's be friends. ... So, since we're such good friends... ...and I'm sexy... ...how about a date?" <= this might be over several encounters, mind). So that parenthetical example might lead from knowing the mark is into horse racing to having him fall in love with you, which you can then use to get him to do things to make you happy.

But it's actually rather organic, and revolves around using what they value to either get what you want, or alter what they value until you can use their new values to get what you want. Like any complex system, there's lots of ways to make progress or hit road blocks, and your ultimate success and failure is the product of a protracted set of "game moves."

slachance6
2016-06-26, 11:52 AM
There is Ultimate Charisma for Pathfinder, which has extensive rules for social conflict. It's 3rd party though.

Quertus
2016-06-26, 02:40 PM
Exalted 3e social mechanics revolve around intimacies (using the 2e term, as I'm away from book and haven't fully internalized 3e yet). These are things your character values, and you get to define when you create him what he thinks of them/how he values them. Social mechanics involve discovering these intimacies, their relative strengths, and then finding ways to roll on them with the design being to tug them to evoke reactions (whether emotional or exhorting specific action). If none of them are useful for the actions you want taken, you can try eroding intimacies that get in the way ("Really? You're ABSTINANT? Come on, man, live a little!") or building new intimacies that would help, using existing ones ("Hey, you're into horse racing? I love that stuff. Tell me about it; let's be friends. ... So, since we're such good friends... ...and I'm sexy... ...how about a date?" <= this might be over several encounters, mind). So that parenthetical example might lead from knowing the mark is into horse racing to having him fall in love with you, which you can then use to get him to do things to make you happy.

But it's actually rather organic, and revolves around using what they value to either get what you want, or alter what they value until you can use their new values to get what you want. Like any complex system, there's lots of ways to make progress or hit road blocks, and your ultimate success and failure is the product of a protracted set of "game moves."

Thank you for explaining that in detail - I wasn't playing a social character when I played exalted, so my memory is... obviously incomplete.

So, how would 12 angry men play out? Hmmm... the jurors talk, those who care about the outcome of the trial attempt to create (and determine) intimacies in their fellow jurors. The difficulty of the task is based on their relative social skills and resistances. Sounds like you can get to the same conclusion, in a way that is way better than the 3.5 method... probably fun to play out, but won't feel exactly like the movie. Probably worth a look. :smallsmile:

RazorChain
2016-06-26, 06:41 PM
I run a campaign in Gurps where the PC's utilize a lot of influence skills and knowledge skills for social maneuvering.

Fast talk: For a quick lie
Acting: to fake it
Detect lies: to know when they are lied to
Body language: to discern peoples emotions when they try to hide them.
Diplomacy: for the finer points
Savoir-Faire: to not embarrass yourself
Intimidation: to make'em
Public Speaking: for rabble rousing
Streewise: for a rough crowd

Of course you have to provide the roleplaying venue and the players must be aware that they can't solve the problem with a single die roll.


My players use info gathering skills to find out what is happening, who's influencing who, what people want, who's working together or against each other etc. Then they base their approach on the info at hand.

Satinavian
2016-06-27, 12:52 AM
Note that conflict doesn't mean combat. David Cameron recently made a long term diplomacy attempt, and it was a conflict, and lost. Even generally amicable diplomacy or social interactions are going to be conflicts to a degree. Even if the parties agree they must have have slightly different agendas; otherwise there wouldn't be different parties there would only be one, and there's no need for working towards agreement.
Not necessarily.

Let's take a simple "telling the truth"-interaction. The one telling the truth wants the other party to believe it, so from that side there is no problem. Higher numbers -> better chance at succes. But the listener doesn't actually want to not believe it. He wants to believe it if it is true and not, if it is a lie. If he has better stats, then the teller should have an easier time convincing him, not a harder time. If the listener is convinced, both have won, if not, both have lost.

Conflict simulation does not work that way.

CharonsHelper
2016-06-27, 02:43 PM
Conflict simulation does not work that way.

Indeed. It works decently for lying, intimidation, or negotiation. But a lot of social situations aren't opposed at all.

goto124
2016-06-28, 03:07 AM
Should there be long-term (de)buffs for social situations? Especially in a social-centered game?

For example, seducing a noble can take a month or even longer. If the advantages of one social battle encounter don't carry over to the next or stack up over several encounters, the seduction wouldn't work.

Trekkin
2016-06-28, 09:05 AM
Should there be long-term (de)buffs for social situations? Especially in a social-centered game?

For example, seducing a noble can take a month or even longer. If the advantages of one social battle encounter don't carry over to the next or stack up over several encounters, the seduction wouldn't work.

I think so, yes, or at least some form of memory.

By the by, having gotten Exalted 3e...it'll certainly serve my purposes, at least for a Mortals game.

Segev
2016-06-28, 09:56 AM
Indeed. It works decently for lying, intimidation, or negotiation. But a lot of social situations aren't opposed at all.

In fact, a lot of the reason why social situations are challenges revolve not around an antagonistic relationship existing, but the fear that one might.

Games like Mafia, Secret Hitler, and Werewolf really demonstrate this challenge. In those games, there are two teams. I'll use Werewolf as my example, as it's the one I know best and is simplest at its core.

Several townsfolk are really werewolves; the rest are innocent townsfolk. The werewolves want to kill all the innocent townsfolk. The innocent townsfolk, not wanting to die, want to kill the werewolves before they can finish their evil ways.

The werewolves know who all the other werewolves are. The townsfolk do not know who is a werewolf and who isn't (other than themselves; you as an innocent townsperson know you're not a werewolf).

Each round is one night followed by one day. Each night, the werewolves collude to pick a townsperson to kill. When they agree, that person is notified and acts out his death scene (as Shatnerian as possible, if it's me). Each day, the townsfolk get together and discuss who might be a werewolf, and vote on who to drive out of town/lynch. If the werewolves kill enough townsfolk (and/or get enough townsfolk lynched erroneously) to outnumber the innocents, they win, because now they can't be outvoted for lynchings. If all the werewolves are lynched, the (surviving) townsfolk win.


In this kind of game, the townsfolk are all on the same side. But they still have to use social tactics to convince each other (and to try to detect the liars from the truth-tellers).

Similarly, when Bob is trying to persuade Alice of the truth, and Alice wants to know the truth, but it's hard to believe, they both want the same thing: ideally, Alice will believe Bob. However, Alice doesn't know that that's what she wants. She wants to know the truth, whatever it is. But if she believes Bob and he's lying, that's bad. If she fails to believe Bob and he's telling the truth, that's bad.

So she needs a means of telling if he's telling the truth.

Simplistically, most systems model Bluff/Sense Motive-like rolls; in such systems, Bob doesn't bother bluffing and Alice just uses Sense Motive and automatically gets "he seems sincere," since Bob isn't lying.

But if you want to model it more realistically, to engender the kind of challenge posed in Werewolf (perhaps Bob knows Cindy is a werewolf, but Cindy says she isn't and Alice wants to know who to believe), if Cindy rolls a high enough bluff, the fact that Alice gets "both seem sincere" doesn't help. Bob's testimony doesn't matter, ultimately, because it's just Cindy's word vs. Alice's.

Worse, if Cindy isn't saying anything (because maybe she's not here), Alice can't Sense Motive Cindy; she gets that Bob believes what he's saying, but how can she know Bob is right?


Or, in a more likely RPG-type scenario, the party have discovered werewolves are behind the murders in the frontier town, and have to convince the Sheriff. The Sheriff isn't likely to believe in such supernatural tomfoolery (as this hypothetical game is set in a world where the supernatural is considered superstition). The PCs aren't bluffing, but the best that "Sense Motive" can tell the Sheriff is that they believe what they're saying. They could be crazy, or they could be gullible victims of a hoax (possibly perpetrated by the real killer trying to blame werewolves for his crimes).

Ideally, the "socialite" character should be able to convince the Sheriff of her sanity and reason, and thus make him at least take her allies seriously when they say to prepare silver bullets for this hunt for the killer. This is an area where more nuanced social mechanics are needed to model it as anything other than a question of whether the socialite's player is skilled enough IRL to convince the GM that his socialite can convince the sheriff.

CharonsHelper
2016-06-28, 02:57 PM
I totally agree Segev - and I enjoy playing Werewolf - but such mechanics are difficult to do mechanically outside of a single die roll style system.

When figuring it out, I'd rather figure it out as a player rather than relying upon a single die roll. So, we get led back to an asymmetric system where such things work only on NPCs rather than PCs.

Segev
2016-06-28, 03:19 PM
I totally agree Segev - and I enjoy playing Werewolf - but such mechanics are difficult to do mechanically outside of a single die roll style system.

When figuring it out, I'd rather figure it out as a player rather than relying upon a single die roll. So, we get led back to an asymmetric system where such things work only on NPCs rather than PCs.

It's certainly a hard problem, but I think that's giving up too easily.

What is needed is means of abstracting it so that it's not "one roll, you're convinced or you're not." Just as combat isn't "Roll Combat, DC 25; you beat it? Okay, monster's killed."

It does require a willingness to accept that your PC may be convinced of something even if you're not. But it would be cool if it could be designed such that successful invocation of a "convincing" roll actually does make it more likely the character's player will act on it being true.

Perhaps having your beliefs validated comes with perks that can be used to capitalize on it (or to mitigate it) when it comes to pass. And/or acting against your IC beliefs (that is, if Alice doesn't get convinced, IC, by Bob, but she chooses to act against what she believes to be true anyway) comes with some sort of penalties.

But it's hard to speculate without a larger system in which to root it. What kind of "perks" or "penalties?" To what kinds of actions?

The ultimate goal would be to make choosing to have your PC act in accordance with the persuasions and beliefs instilled is a more optimal gameplay move, and probably have that reflect fluff by having him be unsure, unconfident, and generally hesitant when he needs to be better than that, because his heart really isn't in what he's doing and he's convinced it's hopeless/wrong. Or he doesn't want to be doing it, or he'd rather be elsewhere. Or regrets are piling onto him.

Whatever it is, going along with what he's been influenced with makes him do better overall. Maybe not perfectly, maybe only in the short term, or maybe at greater consequences later...but all of that's not unlike what's being simulated from reality. (Making the hard, unpleasant choice now getting better rewards later than doing the easy/fun thing now and leaving the hard stuff to fall by the wayside, and thus not getting the big rewards down the line.)

Knaight
2016-06-28, 03:21 PM
Take a look at Synapse. It has fairly detailed psychological modeling, and the way social interactions work in that game is largely based on appealing to the particulars of one's psychology. It's not one roll, it's not an ablative HP like system, and it should work for what you're looking for.

Sith_Happens
2016-06-28, 03:42 PM
By the by, having gotten Exalted 3e...it'll certainly serve my purposes, at least for a Mortals game.

While I fully approve of this decision, I'd also like to defend Fate a little since you seem to have a skewed impression of how social interactions work in it and previous posters attempting to correct that misconception weren't as concise as I'd have liked (sorry guys:smalltongue:).

First off, a scene of social maneuvering isn't necessarily going to be a Conflict and in fact usually won't be; Conflicts only occur when at least one party is deliberately trying to harm another, which in a social context generally means you're trying to push someone's buttons until they suffer a breakdown of some sort or bully them until they're too mentally worn out to refuse your demands. Other social situations and tactics are better represented as either a Contest, a Challenge, or an ad-hoc series of Overcome and/or Create an Advantage rolls, depending on the context of the interaction and the respective parties' goals.

Secondly, while the need to do so isn't enforced nearly as strongly as in Exalted, a social actor in Fate can still benefit tremendously from playing to their target, i.e.- by using Create an Advantage rolls to uncover the target's Aspects and/or place new Aspects on them and then spending the free invokes to ensure the success of the final Overcome roll.

goto124
2016-06-29, 02:15 AM
Conflicts only occur when at least one party is deliberately trying to harm another, which in a social context generally means you're trying to push someone's buttons until they suffer a breakdown of some sort or bully them until they're too mentally worn out to refuse your demands.

But how else can social situations be modeled by mechanics? At least the kind that needs mechanics?

Actually, answer the question as if it weren't in blue. I feel the answer's on the tip of my tongue...

Trekkin
2016-06-29, 08:39 AM
While I fully approve of this decision, I'd also like to defend Fate a little since you seem to have a skewed impression of how social interactions work in it and previous posters attempting to correct that misconception weren't as concise as I'd have liked (sorry guys:smalltongue:).

First off, a scene of social maneuvering isn't necessarily going to be a Conflict and in fact usually won't be; Conflicts only occur when at least one party is deliberately trying to harm another, which in a social context generally means you're trying to push someone's buttons until they suffer a breakdown of some sort or bully them until they're too mentally worn out to refuse your demands. Other social situations and tactics are better represented as either a Contest, a Challenge, or an ad-hoc series of Overcome and/or Create an Advantage rolls, depending on the context of the interaction and the respective parties' goals.

Secondly, while the need to do so isn't enforced nearly as strongly as in Exalted, a social actor in Fate can still benefit tremendously from playing to their target, i.e.- by using Create an Advantage rolls to uncover the target's Aspects and/or place new Aspects on them and then spending the free invokes to ensure the success of the final Overcome roll.

Fair enough; I still don't like FATE, but I can see how one could handle less antagonistic social maneuvering with it.

Segev
2016-06-29, 08:42 AM
But how else can social situations be modeled by mechanics? At least the kind that needs mechanics?

Actually, answer the question as if it weren't in blue. I feel the answer's on the tip of my tongue...

More like something where you can influence how strongly somebody feels about something, and WHAT they feel about it (possibly creating conflicting feelings, too). And then use those feelings and desires you know of or have created to instill situations where they get benefits for going along with something or penalties for resisting it.

In general, there are things which are bad ideas to do, but which in theory people enjoy in the short-term and so either rationalize away the long-term costs or overlook them or just don't think about them. These are the kinds of things that are hardest, I think, to model in an RPG, because the PLAYER won't feel the conflict. To the player, the choice is obvious: pick the thing that goes well for the part of the experience the player SHARES with the character (getting that promotion, protecting the MacGuffin, achieving the objective that furthers the party's successes, not winding up with an STD or an unwanted pregnancy/child sideplot), and shun the thing that "feels good" to the character but the player gets nothing out of (skimping on the assigned maintenance work, skipping the boring hobnobbing to go to the wild party, sleeping with the groupie who may or may not be a femme fatale manipulatrix or suave manipulator).

That's why the best way to play with social "hooks," I think, is to allow socializing to grant buffs and penalties. Take the Bard and turn him up a notch: his ability to "inspire" comes from his ability to reliably grab the party's social hooks and pull on them in such a way that doing what the party wants to do as a whole gives bonuses to activities dedicated in that direction. And penalties to things which work against it, possibly (thus letting the inspiring sergeant bolster his men against taking risky actions like sleeping with the camp followers, especially the ones that are the exotic members of the enemy culture). When characters work towards things they're hooks tug to, they get better results reflecting higher morale. When they work against them, the opposite happens.

A player of a PC who is tempted by a clever manipulator to engage in behavior that would normally be one of the above sorts of situations (where the only reason it sounds tempting is because the PC will get short-term gratification, for instance, which the player wouldn't share), would thus be faced with having to take on penalties of some sort which will make him less capable and/or less likely to "win" in the short to medium-term, and weigh that against the risks of the tempted activity. Alternatively or in addition, he might also be faced with potential short-to-medium-term bonuses if he gives in, and has to weigh those against the long-term costs and risks.

Thus, the player feels something of the temptation and tension of the PC. No, the player isn't going to enjoy the party to which the character is invited, but he'll enjoy the morale boosts going to it gave the PC.

goto124
2016-06-29, 09:47 AM
... I need concrete examples to digest all of that. Penalties or bonuses to what? XP? Loot? Skill Points? Inspiration Points?

Morty
2016-06-29, 09:52 AM
Chronicle of Darkness/New World of Darkness 2.0 takes a shot at this. Basically, if you want something from someone, and they don't want to just give it to you, you need to overcome their "Doors" (based on their Resolve attribute) by succeeding on social rolls against them. Doors can be added or subtracted or made easier or harder to open based on things like appealing to (or conflicting with) their Virtue or Aspirations, bribes, blackmail, Intimidation ("forcing Doors"), generally having a favorable social impression with them, or good old supernatural powers, all of which which add a lot of strategic depth to the system even if I personally find it too complicated for my tastes. It definitely lives up to WoD's reputation as a "social game", and might be closer to what you're looking for - it's still roll-based, but not abstracted into a single action, and it plays much differently from combat.

The thing about this system is that it works in pretty large time intervals, unless you make a favourable enough impression to shorten them. Good for getting into someone's good graces over a time, not so much for negotiations taking place within a few hours.

Segev
2016-06-29, 10:12 AM
... I need concrete examples to digest all of that. Penalties or bonuses to what? XP? Loot? Skill Points? Inspiration Points?

I generally assume it's to "rolls," a la morale bonuses and penalties, but it really depends on the system. It could be that the "bonuses" are some sort of expendable resource, either purely meta-game like Hero Points or Fate Points, or more integrated into the mechanics like some sort of "resolve" reservoir from which you must draw to take certain kinds of actions or to keep persevering when things get difficult.

I'm sorry I can't provide concrete examples; I don't have a go-to system to use as one, and whatever the rewards/penalties are, they'd work best if integrated thoroughly with the rest of the system.


A quick and dirty hypothetical example, borrowing from Noblis for a moment for their stat system in which dice are never rolled because higher stat always wins, perhaps the "bonuses" are a refilling of Miracle Points (which Noblis characters spend for one-off increases to their stats in order to try to win contests where their static stat is lower than their foe's). So in a system where you succeed or fail based on a blind bidding mechanic combined with your raw stats, the "bonuses" from giving in to temptation could be more of the bidding resource. The "penalties" might be either taken from that bidding resource, or applied elsewhere.

CharonsHelper
2016-06-29, 10:52 AM
A super simplistic example is the inns in Pillars of Eternity.

You can stay in the common room for super cheap and have it count as resting for spells/health etc. The same if you camp outside.

However, if you spend $ and stay in a nicer room, all of your characters get various minor bonuses until you rest 2-3 more times.

Frankly, I wouldn't use that particular system in PnP due to the bookkeeping required for rather minor bonuses, but it works pretty decently in a video game.

Sith_Happens
2016-06-29, 01:47 PM
But how else can social situations be modeled by mechanics? At least the kind that needs mechanics?

Actually, answer the question as if it weren't in blue. I feel the answer's on the tip of my tongue...

A debate or reasoned argument over something might be played out as a Contest, which is a series of opposed Overcome rolls with the goal of being the first to win three times; you can also try to Create an Advantage to give yourself bonuses, which replaces your opportunity to roll Overcome that "round" if and only if it fails.

Making someone like you would usually be done via Create an Advantage, letting you place an appropriate Aspect (e.g.- Pals with [Character]) on them that, in addition to representing the fact that they like you now, can be used to get bonuses on other relevant actions down the road.

Create an Advantage rolls with an appropriate skill (generally Empathy) can also be used to uncover Aspects that someone already has, giving you some insight into what makes them tick as well as potential bonuses to later actions.

Convincing someone to do something is typically a single Overcome roll with the appropriate skill (though you can try to Create an Advantage first to improve your chances), but against a more important or especially recalcitrant character it might be a Contest against their Will skill.

And so on.

Milo v3
2016-06-29, 06:44 PM
The thing about this system is that it works in pretty large time intervals, unless you make a favourable enough impression to shorten them. Good for getting into someone's good graces over a time, not so much for negotiations taking place within a few hours.
It can cover that fine, just use the forcing doors part of the rules, or try to get a very good impression.

NichG
2016-06-29, 09:35 PM
But how else can social situations be modeled by mechanics? At least the kind that needs mechanics?

Actually, answer the question as if it weren't in blue. I feel the answer's on the tip of my tongue...

I think combat is a terrible model for socialization, so here's a model skeleton of a non-combat diplomacy 'game', though it probably needs 6+ people to be interesting:

- The game is organized in terms of a series of 'pacts'. A 'pact' is basically a group of people who have agreed to act according to the majority decision of the pact. You can 'buy into' a pact by agreeing to be bound by its decisions, but this in turn permits you to influence it. Some pacts may have restricted membership, or additional agreed-upon costs for buy-in (this is a council of nations where each nation gets a vote, so you can't just bring in 1000 commoners to buy into the pact and get 1000 nation-equivalent votes, for example).
- Each 'round' consists of vote on one or more issues - this could be a week or a month or a year of in-game time. For each issue raised in a round, each pact member has a single Vote, aside from the members who raised issues that round. Prior to the start of voting, any member of the pact may opt to leave it at this stage. However, if they stay past this, they are bound by the decisions made this round. Members who leave a pact are still bound by the decisions up to that point for the remainder of the round.
- The first part of a round is that members of the pact can raise an issue for voting. A member who raises an issue is forbidden from directly participating in the voting that round on any issue raised that round. Issues correspond to agreements for policy or action among members of the pact - 'we will each contribute X amount of troops here', 'we will permit open trade', etc. Issues can also be more complex than yes/no, for example: 'do we go right or left?', but in that case there is always an implicit 'null issue' vote option to prevent things like 'you all give me all your money, or you all commit suicide - please choose one.'
- The second part of the round is a series of cycles of offers and bids. An offer says 'if you do X, you can buy one or more of my votes on Y'. X could be 'vote the way I want on another issue', or it could be something external to the pact. You can also offer a blind vote on future issues - 'if you do X, you receive one of my future votes of your choice', for example, or structure it as an auction 'lowest bid on doing X receives that number of my votes this round'. Offers can also be personalized 'I want the Balkazi to open their borders to trade, so if they do so I will vote the way they want this round'. Offers traded during a pact are as binding as the decisions made by the pact. Since you can receive votes by agreeing to offers, there may be multiple cycles of offers. If two people both wish to accept an offer, the one making the offer can choose between them. Once an offer has been made, however, it cannot be withdrawn (though no one can take them up on it). In that case, the Vote promised in the offer is basically frozen for this round, but returns to the original owner during the third phase.
- The third and final part of the round is that votes on the issues are tallied, and the decisions become binding. Ties mean that nothing happens with that issue this round.
- Pacts may have agreed-upon rules of order. For example, limiting public debate on its issues. Or requiring that offers in the pact be made 'blind' so the person making the offer can't be selective about who fulfills it. Etc.

What can happen in this kind of system is that if there are multiple things you have opinions on but they have different levels of importance to you, you can sell your principles on the unimportant ones in order to win the important ones. Since making offers locks down votes, the iterated sub-rounds of making offers and bids eventually comes to a close (it could go on forever if you could change your offers, so this forces players to commit to an idea and then see if it will work or not). Also, since raising an issue costs your votes for that round, there's a metagame which encourages people who think you will disagree with them to also raise issues when you're raising yours - in turn, tending to create a lot of simultaneous votes where people have to figure out 'which of these two is more important to me?'.

The minimum meaningful pact size seems to be 4 participants. At 2 participants, its going to be 'lets do this!' 'okay' or 'lets do this!' 'no'. At 3, you either have consensus or a tie, so its also not so interesting. But with 4 participants, there's the possibility to have a losing minority.