PDA

View Full Version : Running Social Encounters



Blackhawk748
2017-03-08, 10:09 PM
Ill be running a Pseudo Oriental Fantasy game in the near future, and since court intrigue is a big deal in most Oriental settings id like a hand in learning how to deal with social encounters.

So, how do you lot play out social encounters and challenges?

Quertus
2017-03-08, 10:53 PM
Can of worms, anyone?

Me, I use social skills - if the system has any - as a guideline for how people will react, as well as, to put it horribly, how many "social HP" you have. That is, if you have horrible social skills, one mistake, and people will at best excuse themselves. Great social skills, and an insult may be taken as a jest or a roast. But I otherwise simply role-play every NPC, same as I would a PC.

Actually, I can't really say "otherwise", because I try to do the same thing when I'm a player, filtering the player's dialog and stated actions through a filter of how charismatic / diplomatic / convincing their character supposedly is.

hifidelity2
2017-03-09, 07:04 AM
I allow / encourage the PC's to role-play and can then augment their roleplaying with a dice roll (as some people are naturally better at this)

I like the idea of "Social HP" though so might think of adding that to the players stats

Quertus
2017-03-09, 09:04 AM
I allow / encourage the PC's to role-play and can then augment their roleplaying with a dice roll (as some people are naturally better at this)

I like the idea of "Social HP" though so might think of adding that to the players stats

Perhaps "starting attitude" is a better description of the way I handle social encounters than "Social HP". One could view it as a system where a "helpful" individual is more likely to point out your "mistake", while a "hostile" one will rake you over the coals for a single slight.

This would even make 3.x D&D diplomacy actually mean something, if you wanted to, you know, make a formal system out of it instead of just eyeballing it, like I do. Each NPC is predisposed to a certain initial reaction level (which varies by individual, based on the NPCs personality - NPC Quertus favors wizards and elves, and distrusts druids, for example). Diplomacy changes that. And that determines your "social HP", as their reaction drops one (or more?) level for each "mistake" or "push" you make. And probably raises one (or more?) for favors, concessions, etc.

weckar
2017-03-09, 09:06 AM
Well, most social encounters are at their core about convincing someone else of one or more of your own ideals. In other words: Moral Kombat.

Satinavian
2017-03-09, 09:40 AM
Well, most social encounters are at their core about convincing someone else of one or more of your own ideals. In other words: Moral Kombat.
No, not really. Half of social encounteres are a cooperative excercise with either a mutual beneficial outcome or failure for both. And the hard part is trying to figure out which is which.

This is why social combat rules don't really work very well outside of fringe cases like court battles.

hifidelity2
2017-03-09, 10:55 AM
Perhaps "starting attitude" is a better description of the way I handle social encounters than "Social HP". One could view it as a system where a "helpful" individual is more likely to point out your "mistake", while a "hostile" one will rake you over the coals for a single slight.

This would even make 3.x D&D diplomacy actually mean something, if you wanted to, you know, make a formal system out of it instead of just eyeballing it, like I do. Each NPC is predisposed to a certain initial reaction level (which varies by individual, based on the NPCs personality - NPC Quertus favors wizards and elves, and distrusts druids, for example). Diplomacy changes that. And that determines your "social HP", as their reaction drops one (or more?) level for each "mistake" or "push" you make. And probably raises one (or more?) for favors, concessions, etc.

We play a lot of GURPS and this has that in that a success or failure generally moves you up and down the reaction table

So the DM determines what you initial disposition is from (IIRC) very favourable to very unfavourable (either random or DM determined) and then you roll your social skill to move up / down the chart. That’s way 1 failure / success does not determine the whole interaction

If you fail you can try again, at minuses or use a separate skill – so for example try diplomacy and if that fails maybe move onto fast talk or intimidation

I remember once the party was at am imperial ball and one of them tried to chat up the princess – rolled a fumble, tried to recover and rolled a second one. If something like this happens I sometimes tell the players that nothing has happened and I will “Keep the fumble until later” (they hate that)

The PC then roll played that nothing had gone wrong so he later asked her for a dance and fumbled the dance roll (it was a good night for the DM!). I had it that he tried for a quick grope (1st Fumble) while dancing, she rebuffed him and he tripped grabbing the front of her dress to steady himself and ripped it off (Dance Fumble) and then rather loudly said “Well you have a nice pair of T!ts” (2nd fumble)

It took the party a long time and quite a number of dirty jobs for the emperor before they cleared that debt

Quertus
2017-03-09, 06:20 PM
GURPS

It's great that my ideas can be of use to you, even though the way you play is in several ways the exact opposite of the way I play.

For one, I usually don't aim for humor. Instead, I aim for... Hmmm... Characterization, and player agency. IMO, it would be out of character for, say, Superman to grope the alien princess. So I let the players describe their actions as they want, and go with that for the direction they take the conversation, sometimes with a, "... and what are you trying to accomplish here?" if it isn't obvious to me. Then their social skills, and the nature of their relationship with the other person determine the particulars of how far they can get, how much backlash they suffer, how that affects the relationship, etc.

Another difference you may have noticed is that I generally rely more on the level of skill than on rolls. But I largely rely on neither. That is, I usually play social interaction as more of a puzzle of "can you find the right pieces" than as a game of chance. The king is likely to respond better to, say, someone who rescues his daughter than to a skilled talker who brings back her corpse. Someone is more likely to respond to your advances if you're their type, or have laid the proper groundwork. Some people respond better to blatant bribes, while others prefer "generous contributions". Etc etc.

But what's fun is, despite these differences, we can both appreciate adding similar concepts to the social challenge.

erikun
2017-03-09, 07:29 PM
I'm hardly an expert on social encounters. I've not ran that many and haven't really experimented with different social systems all that much. So here are my (inexperienced) thoughts on the matter.

If it is just a social situation, then there is no need for rolling. Just have the characters interact and roleplay as they would. Most characters just conversing or interacting are not going to have a reason to roll against one another. There is no need to roll when being introduced to the princess, unless the system has some sort of "first impression" mechanic. There's no need to roll to purchase something from a store vendor, since they are unlikely to deny PCs from making purchases.

The only time you would begin rolling is if there is some sort of conflict: if what the player(s) wants and what the NPC wants are different things. In this case, get an idea of what the NPC wants to do, and then have the player rolls influence either the attitude or influence their outlook of the situation. If the fruit vendor does not want to buy the party's +5 Longsword stolen from the throne room, then absolutely no amount of negotiation is going to change that. If the party makes the vendor friendly, then the vendor might mention that anyone caught with stolen royalty treasure is likely to be beheaded... but they aren't going to buy it. Similarly, if a NPC is guarding a door, then the party might cause them to lower their guard with befriending them. The party might convince the guard to join them if they can provide benefits for the NPC which outweight what they already have. (perhaps reliable protection for family and relocation?) But the heavily armed party is not just going to be able to sweet-talk their way past someone specifically designed to keep them out.

Of course, in the case of a different outlook, the NPC would need to believe the party can actually accomplish the task. The guard would need to believe that the party really could ensure their family's safety. Or, on another track, the guard would need to believe that the party really could kill the current evil king and put a better one on the throne... or at least believe that things won't get worse, and that the guard won't get blamed if the party is found inside.

oudeis
2017-03-09, 07:51 PM
Ill be running a Pseudo Oriental Fantasy game in the near future, and since court intrigue is a big deal in most Oriental settings id like a hand in learning how to deal with social encounters.I think court intrigue was a big deal in every setting. The Golden Age of Athens, the Roman Empire- both Eastern and Western- and the Republic which preceded it, Baghdad at the turn of the first millenium, or Ireland during the struggle with Viking invaders are all going to be seething with political maneuvering and scheming.

Taffimai
2017-03-10, 04:48 AM
I've always run social skills similar to knowledge skills. So instead of roleplaying the encounter and then rolling the dice to see how well it turns out, the players would roll, get my feedback on how best to tackle the situation, and then roleplay it armed with that information.

Frozen_Feet
2017-03-10, 06:00 AM
Mostly acting and talking. The players play their characters and I play mine. When I don't know how a character might initially react to the player characters, I roll on a reaction table, adjusting for numerical values like PC appearance and charisma. When I don't know how an interaction during the encounter might play out, I have another table for Loyalty and Morale I use to check which way the NPC reactions might swing.

But I never use rolls to decide what player characters say, or how, or to who, nor do I allow them to use dice for such. I may give suggestions if they're stymied, but making those decision is up to them.

Sirdar
2017-03-10, 06:06 AM
Me, I use social skills - if the system has any - as a guideline for how people will react, as well as, to put it horribly, how many "social HP" you have. That is, if you have horrible social skills, one mistake, and people will at best excuse themselves. Great social skills, and an insult may be taken as a jest or a roast.




I've always run social skills similar to knowledge skills. So instead of roleplaying the encounter and then rolling the dice to see how well it turns out, the players would roll, get my feedback on how best to tackle the situation, and then roleplay it armed with that information.


Although Quertus and Taffimai run their social encounters quite differently, I think they both solve the most important problem. That is, to provide a fair and natural way to handle the situatuion when a player and his/her character have very different social abilities. And you can still roleplay the encounter to the best of your abilities as a player, which is very important. Especially when the character is a social God and the player is not. It feels so awkward when a player combines the worst bluff with a great dice roll and the DM lets the NPC swallow it. I think this type of situation can be avoided by going with either Quertus (tolerance/intolerance depending on skill check) or Taffimai's (guidance/lack of guidance depending on skill check) advice.

LibraryOgre
2017-03-10, 11:05 AM
When possible, I prefer to follow the rules, perhaps giving bonuses to eloquent players... though not so much as to overshadow those who have invested in it mechanically.

Based on Savage Worlds, I actually worked up a system of social combat for d6/Star Wars (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2016/12/d6-social-combat.html). Rather than "hit points", it's based on who has the advantage during multiple exchanges... argue hard enough, and you can force the other person to concede your point, even talk them around to your position. They might reset over time, but it wins the encounter.

Quertus
2017-03-10, 11:24 AM
When possible, I prefer to follow the rules, perhaps giving bonuses to eloquent players... though not so much as to overshadow those who have invested in it mechanically.

Based on Savage Worlds, I actually worked up a system of social combat for d6/Star Wars (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2016/12/d6-social-combat.html). Rather than "hit points", it's based on who has the advantage during multiple exchanges... argue hard enough, and you can force the other person to concede your point, even talk them around to your position. They might reset over time, but it wins the encounter.

I assume "argue hard enough" means "well enough"? People who argue hard enough often make people dig in their heels and stop listening.

Ok, crazy question for anyone who has a social system they use: how does your system handle this scenario?

A council of various races (think LotR) is arguing what to do with the McGuffin of power. Said McGuffin used to belong to, say, a supposedly deceased dwarf deity. But you know a secret - that deity is still alive. Heck, maybe you even are that deity in disguise. You know for a fact what the owner's wishes are, and cannot be swayed by other's attempts to interpret scripture, omens, etc. But you also aren't going to say a word to reveal your secret, so you aren't arguing with the force of your conviction.

Meanwhile, there's a bunch of other plans about what to do with the McGuffin, from giving it to the Chosen One (note: there are at least 2 contenders for this title), giving it to the best warrior even if they aren't the Chosen One, giving it to the person who needs it most, tearing it apart to try to make more, or using it as bait to draw out some enemies.

How do your systems handle who finally convinced whom to do what with the McGuffin?

LibraryOgre
2017-03-10, 01:03 PM
I assume "argue hard enough" means "well enough"? People who argue hard enough often make people dig in their heels and stop listening.

Ok, crazy question for anyone who has a social system they use: how does your system handle this scenario?

A council of various races (think LotR) is arguing what to do with the McGuffin of power. Said McGuffin used to belong to, say, a supposedly deceased dwarf deity. But you know a secret - that deity is still alive. Heck, maybe you even are that deity in disguise. You know for a fact what the owner's wishes are, and cannot be swayed by other's attempts to interpret scripture, omens, etc. But you also aren't going to say a word to reveal your secret, so you aren't arguing with the force of your conviction.

Meanwhile, there's a bunch of other plans about what to do with the McGuffin, from giving it to the Chosen One (note: there are at least 2 contenders for this title), giving it to the best warrior even if they aren't the Chosen One, giving it to the person who needs it most, tearing it apart to try to make more, or using it as bait to draw out some enemies.

How do your systems handle who finally convinced whom to do what with the McGuffin?

In the system I outlined above, I'd say that you have folks arguing the various sides, and some coming around to others points of view. If the DIQ isn't going to reveal his choice, then he may be outvoted, but others will be argued down to a majority opinion.. they may have regrets afterward, and may reset their opinion, but someone will come around, eventually.

The problem will be time, and its impact. If the McGuffin needs to be dealt with quickly, that's going to start putting pressure on people to form alliances and choose a path, regardless of what they really want. "I think it should go with Chosen One A, but Chosen One B is an acceptable choice, so I'll switch allegiance to that so we don't sit here while the world crumbles."

Honest Tiefling
2017-03-10, 11:05 PM
I really...Just wing it. I don't know, I've never tried a social combat system, but I ask players HOW they are trying to make the approach, then roll. The roll determines how good they were at their particular tactic, while the approach is well, the tactics chosen.

I do suggest that if you feel uncertain to stat up some assassins. That way if you feel you have painted yourself into a corner or lost momentum you can just have one burst in. Also think of back-up nobles in case they succeed.

Also consider spying. Even if your players aren't the sort to deal with politicians in a 'efficient' manner, getting to know the NPCs will probably help your party get invested. Spying on things such as their mood, topics to avoid (uh-oh, problems with the consorts! Better not bring them up...), religious or philosophical views and general modes of speaking will probably be good ways to feed different approaches and setting information to your players.

And if all else fails, blackmail is technically social.

Martin Greywolf
2017-03-11, 05:30 AM
First thing you need to ask yourself is: does the system I use have a good mechanical way to deal with social encounters? If the answer is yes (FATE), use that, if the answer is no (DnD 3.5), you have a problem.

Now, a good mechanical system has to do several things. They are, in no particular order:

Give you a clear idea what the number to roll against is
Make you roleplay, or at the bare minimum not hinder the roleplay
Be adjustable to most situations out of the box
Use your character's social skills in a meaningful way


Now, you can "just roleplay it out", without any rolls, but a massive problem with that is that you essentially make characters focused in social skills, or any investment in a social skill, a pointless waste of time. Obviously, you don't roll for every single sentence, going to buy a sword for the usual market price needs no rolling, but you have to be able to use the social skills when talking to a king - or in your case, the maharaja.

Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that rule 0 still applies, and if someone is trying to do something impossible with a skill (in the context of a given universe), you can step in and tell them no. A nice example is using seduction to knock someone out due to blood loss - not applicable to gritty medieval world, very applicable to a wacky anime setting. This, of course, requires you all to be on the same boat as far as campaign tone goes, but that's something you should have dealt with anyway.

Also, as I said, you need to have a clear guideline to what the difficulty of a given roll is - this guideline needs to be easily accessible to the players. FATE deals with it via adjectives attached to a target number (e.g. you need to be at least "legendary" negotiator to convince them of this), but you can make a chart of examples or modifiers. The point is, it must be easily visible, and it's best if it's fairly lightweight.

In actual play, what your character says is the "attack description", and the roll determines if it goes through. Sometimes it only colors the way a response is made, at other times it has more significant outcomes. For example:

PC: O great Maharaja [lists about 18 titles], we humbly bid you welcome.
rolls for diplomacy, succeeds
Maharaja: I see that news of my glory reached your far away land. Speak your mind, foreigner.
PC: We bear bad news to you, I'm afraid. Your most trusted advisor has conspired with your enemies behind your back.
rolls persuasion, fails
Maharaja: My advisor has served me faithfully for many years! I will not let a newcomer such as you speak ill of my most trusted man!
rolls intimidation, fails
PC: Alas, Maharaja, we have in our hands a proof of his misconduct, a letter from raja of your border provinces.
rolls persuade on handing over the letter, fails
Maharaja: The raja was always too ambitious, too jealous of his betters, and now he has found himself a lackey to do his bidding.
PC: O maharaja, we are but foreigners! How could we have known the raja was such a shortsighted man? We wanted to but serve your majesty.
rolls for panicked persuasion, succeeds
Maharaja: Very well, foreigner, it is possible you acted in ignorance. I will let you leave, but let this be a lesson to you - do not interfere in affairs you know very little of.

Another one:

PC: O great Maharaja [lists about 18 titles], we humbly bid you welcome.
rolls for diplomacy, fails
Maharaja: What is it, foreigners? I have precious little time to devote to you, I trust you have a good reason to disturb my rest.
PC: We bear bad news to you, I'm afraid. Your most trusted advisor has conspired with your enemies behind your back.
rolls persuasion, succeeds
Maharaja: My advisor has served me for many years, foreigner, I trust you did not come to me without proof?
PC: Indeed, raja of the northern provinces has given us this letter.
rolls persuade on handing over the letter, succeeds
Maharaja: These are heavy accusations indeed, but little more than that. I cannot in good conscience condemn my advisor on them alone.
PC: O maharaja, we are foreigners in your land. Perhaps we could help you in your investigations?
rolls for persuasion, fails
Maharaja: While I appreciate your offer, this is a matter of state. You will remain my guests while I have my advisor investigated.

BWR
2017-03-11, 07:09 AM
The most important thing in any social encounter is the NPCs. You have to know who they are, what they know, what they think and how they are likely to react to different things.
Once you have that down you can fiddle with the mechanics of whatever system you are using to fit the scene, and other people here have done a better job of talking about that than I could.

Depending on the situation and system, I vary between a straight roll, 'social HP' version and a skill challenge system (a set number of successes must occur before a set number of failures, various skills may be employed depending on the situation).
I do not require players to roleplay a social encounter, though it's nice if they do, primarily because some players are **** at that sort of thing and I don't want them to ruin things for their characters. Like the honest Tiefling, I will usually require a description of the approach they take, even if I don't expect them to roleplay it.

Quertus
2017-03-11, 11:22 AM
Now, you can "just roleplay it out", without any rolls, but a massive problem with that is that you essentially make characters focused in social skills, or any investment in a social skill, a pointless waste of time.

I won't deny, going 100% player skill - especially in games which have character skill - is my least favorite way of handling social interaction. However, I would like to point out that my way involves almost no rolls, feels like just role-playing it out, but is informed by social stats. Back in older editions of D&D, when the charisma stat was the extent of your social skills, I ran a game for a group of players who hasn't really played with me before. It just so happened, the lowest charisma in that party was a 15. I dare say their experience was the opposite of feeling that investment went to waste.


The most important thing in any social encounter is the NPCs. You have to know who they are, what they know, what they think and how they are likely to react to different things.
Once you have that down you can fiddle with the mechanics of whatever system you are using to fit the scene, and other people here have done a better job of talking about that than I could.

Depending on the situation and system, I vary between a straight roll, 'social HP' version and a skill challenge system (a set number of successes must occur before a set number of failures, various skills may be employed depending on the situation).
I do not require players to roleplay a social encounter, though it's nice if they do, primarily because some players are **** at that sort of thing and I don't want them to ruin things for their characters. Like the honest Tiefling, I will usually require a description of the approach they take, even if I don't expect them to roleplay it.

This. Although I'd add, "if they do role-play it out, don't let them ruin it for their character". If ever there was a time for retcon, helping the anti-social / socially-inept player RP the silver-tongued socialite is it.

Haldir
2017-03-11, 01:43 PM
Our game last week went for about 8 hours, and we didn't do a single round of combat. It was all really fun social interactions.

I generally don't use any rolls for social interaction until an NPC needs to react to something the player does. When I need to decide how an NPC reacts I take into account a few things:

1. Did the player make a good try at roleplaying with the NPC to influence them?
2. What does the NPC think and feel, does he have any limits or biases? These are the things that determine the DC.
3. The actual strength of the players roll. I never roll anything socially for NPC's, I leave it all up to player agency.

So if a player rolls well, even if they made a ****ty attempt at the roleplaying, they can succeed. My warlock managed to convince an officer of the law that he was going to use a cursed dagger to find the criminal who enchanted it by rolling a Nat20 and saying "Come on, man!'

Yora
2017-03-12, 02:13 AM
I simply have the players explain what kind of arguments they are making to convince an NPC of something they want. How well it is delivered or presented doesn't matter much. In case that really matters the character has to make a Charisma check, but primarily it's about presenting good reasons why NPCs should cooperate.

Bogwoppit
2017-03-12, 04:05 AM
I have a couple of methods I commonly use - firstly, I have players roll their social skill check before they roleplay their action; secondly, I've adopted the Intrigue mechanics from A Song of Ice and Fire RPG.

Rolling first allows you to see the success or failure on the dice, and play accordingly. There's nothing worse at breaking immersion than making a bad roll after a good speech. By rolling first, you give the player agency in acting out any failure, instead of imposing it on them.

ASOIAFRPG has an intrigue systems that asks for different checks depending on your intent: check out the rules on page 17 of the free quick start rules here:
Freeronin.com/gr_files/SiF_Fast play.PDF

I didn't find it difficult to use similar ideas in my other games. Your mileage may vary.

Frozen_Feet
2017-03-12, 09:22 AM
Regarding the "Council of Elrond" example:

If all the characters debating are player characters, this is where I lay back and enjoy the show. The players are essentially doing my job for me.

If there is one or more NPC present: each NPC has a Loyalty/Morale score. This gives a probabilistic chance of how unyieldingly the NPC will stick to their side's opinion. If a player character's opinion aligns with theirs, they will side with that PC by default. Any compromise will trigger a loyalty check, adjusted by PC's charisma and potential bribes; so will being outnumbered/outvoted.

The part about a character knowing for fact the wishes of the McGuffin's creator is completely irrelevant if that information won't come up; if the character with such information is a NPC, then I might give them an unbreakable loyalty score, meaning they will not compromise or side with an opposing faction on this particular issue. It is only important if that NPC is in the position to make the ultimate decision on the matter.

If a lot of council members are NPCs, I might have to do a lot of behind-the-scenes rolling to determine how NPCs align with each other before accounting for the players. The alternative being that I pick a default outcome which will happen if the PCs fail to convince anyone.

ImNotTrevor
2017-03-12, 09:50 AM
With said Council of Elrond situation about multiple opinions clashing in various directions, you would probably need a system explicitly built with this kind of incredibly complicated social interaction in mind, such as The Burning Wheel, to be able to get much game out of it.

The way I'd handle a similar situation in a PbtA system (my preferred) would essentially be to roleplay out the argument until I hear a specific instance of a player trying to get someone to do something. At which point I would say "What exactly do you want them to do?" They tell me, and if they could reasonably be convinced of that I have the player roll 2d6+Stat.
On a =<6, they fail and things get worse.
On a 7-9 they get what they want but there are strings attached.
On a 10+ they convince them handily.

Lather, rinse, repeat until everyone is on the same page or it devolves into fighting. Whichever comes first.

Frozen_Feet
2017-03-12, 10:44 AM
You don't need a complex system to get things out of it. That's what I'd call a mechanistic fallacy.

When dudes talking around a table want to simulate a swordfight, you need mechanics, or you need to stop talking around a table.

When dudes talking around a table want to simulate dudes talking around a table... they can just talk around the table. Negotiations are their own game already, with their own risks and rewards directly stemming from what is being talked about.

Mechanics only make sense when:

1) one or more players suck at negotiating, and you want to give their characters a leg up.
2) you are the GM or otherwise play multiple characters, and mechanics make it faster for you to make decisions than deciding each character's opinion yourself.
3) everyone at the table actually just hates negotiating, so you turn to something else to solve the situation.

Seriously. Acting out the opinions of different characters, and witnessing others do the same, is one of the most basic facets if roleplaying. If it becomes less interesting to you when more opinions are involved, or when there's no die rolls involved, it raises questions of why'd you even bother with social intrigue.

ImNotTrevor
2017-03-12, 12:21 PM
You don't need a complex system to get things out of it. That's what I'd call a mechanistic fallacy.

When dudes talking around a table want to simulate a swordfight, you need mechanics, or you need to stop talking around a table.

When dudes talking around a table want to simulate dudes talking around a table... they can just talk around the table. Negotiations are their own game already, with their own risks and rewards directly stemming from what is being talked about.

Mechanics only make sense when:

1) one or more players suck at negotiating, and you want to give their characters a leg up.
2) you are the GM or otherwise play multiple characters, and mechanics make it faster for you to make decisions than deciding each character's opinion yourself.
3) everyone at the table actually just hates negotiating, so you turn to something else to solve the situation.

Seriously. Acting out the opinions of different characters, and witnessing others do the same, is one of the most basic facets if roleplaying. If it becomes less interesting to you when more opinions are involved, or when there's no die rolls involved, it raises questions of why'd you even bother with social intrigue.

I like having mechanics because there's a G after the RP. While it is RolePlaying, it is also a Game.

When I'm doing just RP without the G, then I don't invoke rules for things. When I've got the G, I'm there for a game, and sometimes I want the game to extend to the whole thing.

And yes, my wording was poor but systems with complicated ways of dealing with social combat are nice from a purely organizational standpoint. Having a clear rundown of where everyone sits on the opinions landscape and what everyone wants to achieve therein is not particularly different from figuring out where everyone is on the literal landscape and what they each want to acheive therein. You don't need a battle grid to play D&D. But it can be helpful.

Do you NEED rules? No.
But as I've asserted in other threads, there is no rule that is strictly needed.

Are they nice to have to provide a framework in really complicated social situations for the same reasons a battle grid is good for really complicated combat situations? Yes.

LibraryOgre
2017-03-13, 10:58 AM
Mechanics only make sense when:

1) one or more players suck at negotiating, and you want to give their characters a leg up.
2) you are the GM or otherwise play multiple characters, and mechanics make it faster for you to make decisions than deciding each character's opinion yourself.
3) everyone at the table actually just hates negotiating, so you turn to something else to solve the situation.

Seriously. Acting out the opinions of different characters, and witnessing others do the same, is one of the most basic facets if roleplaying. If it becomes less interesting to you when more opinions are involved, or when there's no die rolls involved, it raises questions of why'd you even bother with social intrigue.

It very much depends on the system. If the system has resources that can be devoted to improving social abilities, then going with "Just act it out" penalizes those players who invested in social abilities. The example I use is from d6, the opposed "Willpower v. Intimidation". If I am facing Darth Vader, with an impressive Intimidation score, he's very likely to use that score against me. If I have put dice into Willpower, I should have a better chance of resisting that intimidation than Bob, who didn't. If Bob is able to suffer no consequences for putting nothing into Willpower, then I've wasted dice that could've gone to something else... why improve Willpower if someone who hasn't improved it can declare by fiat not to be convinced or intimidated?

This doesn't mean that sitting around and talking it out is unimportant... or unfun... but if the system has mechanical choices being made, then those choices should matter.

EvilCookie
2017-03-13, 01:22 PM
I remember once the party was at am imperial ball and one of them tried to chat up the princess – rolled a fumble, tried to recover and rolled a second one. If something like this happens I sometimes tell the players that nothing has happened and I will “Keep the fumble until later” (they hate that)

The PC then roll played that nothing had gone wrong so he later asked her for a dance and fumbled the dance roll (it was a good night for the DM!). I had it that he tried for a quick grope (1st Fumble) while dancing, she rebuffed him and he tripped grabbing the front of her dress to steady himself and ripped it off (Dance Fumble) and then rather loudly said “Well you have a nice pair of T!ts” (2nd fumble)

It took the party a long time and quite a number of dirty jobs for the emperor before they cleared that debt

Please, dont do this to your players.
Let your players play their own characters, doing this can completely destroy someones character.

The rolls should be made for how the NPCs react to what players say and for skill checks.

It feels awful for a player when the GM starts controling their character, especially when the GM says you do something utterly insane (like sexually assaulting a member of the royal family)

The dance fumble makes sense, you made a mistake dancing, fell, and tore of a peace of the princess' dress. Its even an interesting plot hook.

And let your players decide what their characters do. I doubt anyone would say "nice tits" in that situation, because thats how you meet Timmy the Executioner.


What makes sense with fumbled social rolls is something along the lines of "You said something but the princess misunderstood/misheard/thought you were using the sarcasm)

Dont tell your players what they did, tell them how your world reacted to their action.

hifidelity2
2017-03-14, 07:46 AM
I remember once the party was at am imperial ball and one of them tried to chat up the princess – rolled a fumble, tried to recover and rolled a second one. If something like this happens I sometimes tell the players that nothing has happened and I will “Keep the fumble until later” (they hate that)

The PC then roll played that nothing had gone wrong so he later asked her for a dance and fumbled the dance roll (it was a good night for the DM!). I had it that he tried for a quick grope (1st Fumble) while dancing, she rebuffed him and he tripped grabbing the front of her dress to steady himself and ripped it off (Dance Fumble) and then rather loudly said “Well you have a nice pair of T!ts” (2nd fumble)

It took the party a long time and quite a number of dirty jobs for the emperor before they cleared that debt


Please, dont do this to your players.
Let your players play their own characters, doing this can completely destroy someones character.

The rolls should be made for how the NPCs react to what players say and for skill checks.

It feels awful for a player when the GM starts controling their character, especially when the GM says you do something utterly insane (like sexually assaulting a member of the royal family)

The dance fumble makes sense, you made a mistake dancing, fell, and tore of a peace of the princess' dress. Its even an interesting plot hook.

And let your players decide what their characters do. I doubt anyone would say "nice tits" in that situation, because thats how you meet Timmy the Executioner.


What makes sense with fumbled social rolls is something along the lines of "You said something but the princess misunderstood/misheard/thought you were using the sarcasm)

Dont tell your players what they did, tell them how your world reacted to their action.

Well I'm sorry but my party like my style of DMing - OK may not be to your style but each to their own

The whole point of Fumbles (this was using Spacemaster) is to give the DM some "fun". For some skills its explained (and indeed the fumble tables for firearms can let you kill your friends) so a series of Fumbles in a social situation like this was for the game totally relevant.

We have been playing together for over 25 years, we understand each others styles and they would be quick to tell me if they didn't like the way I ran my games

Quertus
2017-03-14, 11:02 AM
Well I'm sorry but my party like my style of DMing - OK may not be to your style but each to their own

The whole point of Fumbles (this was using Spacemaster) is to give the DM some "fun". For some skills its explained (and indeed the fumble tables for firearms can let you kill your friends) so a series of Fumbles in a social situation like this was for the game totally relevant.

We have been playing together for over 25 years, we understand each others styles and they would be quick to tell me if they didn't like the way I ran my games

Yeah, don't do this with a group you don't know, or a group who won't communicate their likes and dislikes, and certainly don't do this with me. But if your group enjoys it, have fun. Different people want and enjoy different things, and, as much as I sometimes may want it to be, that's not wrong. :smalltongue:

Bogwoppit
2017-03-14, 11:21 AM
The biggest problem I have with "Just role-play it" as a social encounter solution isn't that socially inept players get left behind - we're all used to the idea of helping them out with suitable skill rolls, etc.

No, it's the highly charismatic or skilled debating PLAYER that is the problem.

I had a game where an older old-school player was used to "Just role-playing" any social (and indeed, any mental) encounter. He pretty much ignored his low stats in those areas, and steamrollered over the rest of the group with his big brash personality.
This left the players whose actual characters were statted out with the skills for these encounters overshadowed by this guy who insisted on "Just role-playing" the social stuff.

So I say: Forget that. Let everyone play their character as it's written. Use rules.

Honest Tiefling
2017-03-14, 02:06 PM
So I say: Forget that. Let everyone play their character as it's written. Use rules.

Or, if you let people use their RL charisma and penalize those without, don't complain if you get murderhobos. My fireball has a 100% chance of working. My social skills have a 99% chance of failure. Murder it is.

Quertus
2017-03-14, 02:10 PM
The biggest problem I have with "Just role-play it" as a social encounter solution isn't that socially inept players get left behind - we're all used to the idea of helping them out with suitable skill rolls, etc.

No, it's the highly charismatic or skilled debating PLAYER that is the problem.

I had a game where an older old-school player was used to "Just role-playing" any social (and indeed, any mental) encounter. He pretty much ignored his low stats in those areas, and steamrollered over the rest of the group with his big brash personality.
This left the players whose actual characters were statted out with the skills for these encounters overshadowed by this guy who insisted on "Just role-playing" the social stuff.

So I say: Forget that. Let everyone play their character as it's written. Use rules.

Would anyone care to submit rules which would enjoyably simulate, say, the council of Elrond, or gaining votes in a 5-way political debate?

Because, afaik, I've never seen good rules to cover such circumstances, so we can't just "use rules".

But, otherwise, I think you're completely correct. Still, let me tease this apart, because there's a few issues here to address. I may even be splitting these issues up into the wrong groupings, but here's my take:

First is the purely social issue. Someone with low stats "Just role-playing" just steamrolled the rest of the (high stats) group? Who are "used to the idea of helping <socially inept players> out"? This is a horrible situation, but there's some disconnect here. That player wasn't role-playing their low stats. And they weren't helping the less socially adept players out. If they were doing these things, this wouldn't - almost couldn't - be an issue. Y'all need to talk to them OOC, and find a solution that works, for y'all. Get that player to agree to roleplay better, agree to help the other players get above his level, or get him to agree to just roll for it.

Then there's the tactics of social. Personally, I don't want rules to tell me that my character gropes the princess, or in any other way removes control of my character, for anything less than supernatural means. I get to do exactly one thing as a player: make choices for my character. Don't take that away.

Lastly, the issue of player skills vs character skills in the purely mental arena. This one's quite tricky for me. I'm old-school. I'm used to suddenly encountering a lengthy player-skill puzzle / riddle in the middle of a dungeon. But I'm also a good roleplayer. On the off chance that my character is dumb, I'm not going to contribute much. Which isn't terribly fun for me. So I rarely run dumb characters, and even more rarely have I encountered player-skill challenges when running dumb characters*. But, while I can enjoy playing, say, hangman or Wheel of Fortune, I can't see the draw in rolling to see which letter my character picks, or rolling to see if my character recognizes the word / phrase. If your group does, then I guess you can replace the player component in purely mental challenges with dice rolls.

* one notable exception was when ~4 hours were taken up with a council of war session before the final battle of the campaign, where my character contributed absolutely nothing, because he was completely tactically inept. I loved the session, but my character was bored, and I didn't really contribute anything beyond role-playing my character's boredom and ineptitude.

And, before someone asks, no, this wasn't my signature character, Quertus. This character made Quertus look like a tactical genius in comparison.

LibraryOgre
2017-03-14, 03:31 PM
Would anyone care to submit rules which would enjoyably simulate, say, the council of Elrond, or gaining votes in a 5-way political debate?

Because, afaik, I've never seen good rules to cover such circumstances, so we can't just "use rules".


Well, I posted some for Star Wars d6, but they're based on the ones from Savage Worlds.

Basically, you have several rounds... SW goes with 3, but I'm more flexible. Each round, everyone rolls, accumulating successes. Whoever has the most successes at the end, wins.

Now, depending on your system, you might count successes differently. For L5R, you might have each team accumulate a total score... so if I Lion-dono rolls 16, 5, and 12, he'll have a total of 33, while Crab-dono might have 13, 15, and 2, for a total of 30... Lion wins.

Or you might set successes at various levels... a 15 means 1 success, a 20 means 2, 30 means 3, etc. Make a REALLY good point one round, and you rack up successes.

ImNotTrevor
2017-03-14, 09:20 PM
Would anyone care to submit rules which would enjoyably simulate, say, the council of Elrond, or gaining votes in a 5-way political debate?

Because, afaik, I've never seen good rules to cover such circumstances, so we can't just "use rules".

But, otherwise, I think you're completely correct. Still, let me tease this apart, because there's a few issues here to address. I may even be splitting these issues up into the wrong groupings, but here's my take:

First is the purely social issue. Someone with low stats "Just role-playing" just steamrolled the rest of the (high stats) group? Who are "used to the idea of helping <socially inept players> out"? This is a horrible situation, but there's some disconnect here. That player wasn't role-playing their low stats. And they weren't helping the less socially adept players out. If they were doing these things, this wouldn't - almost couldn't - be an issue. Y'all need to talk to them OOC, and find a solution that works, for y'all. Get that player to agree to roleplay better, agree to help the other players get above his level, or get him to agree to just roll for it.

Then there's the tactics of social. Personally, I don't want rules to tell me that my character gropes the princess, or in any other way removes control of my character, for anything less than supernatural means. I get to do exactly one thing as a player: make choices for my character. Don't take that away.

Lastly, the issue of player skills vs character skills in the purely mental arena. This one's quite tricky for me. I'm old-school. I'm used to suddenly encountering a lengthy player-skill puzzle / riddle in the middle of a dungeon. But I'm also a good roleplayer. On the off chance that my character is dumb, I'm not going to contribute much. Which isn't terribly fun for me. So I rarely run dumb characters, and even more rarely have I encountered player-skill challenges when running dumb characters*. But, while I can enjoy playing, say, hangman or Wheel of Fortune, I can't see the draw in rolling to see which letter my character picks, or rolling to see if my character recognizes the word / phrase. If your group does, then I guess you can replace the player component in purely mental challenges with dice rolls.

* one notable exception was when ~4 hours were taken up with a council of war session before the final battle of the campaign, where my character contributed absolutely nothing, because he was completely tactically inept. I loved the session, but my character was bored, and I didn't really contribute anything beyond role-playing my character's boredom and ineptitude.

And, before someone asks, no, this wasn't my signature character, Quertus. This character made Quertus look like a tactical genius in comparison.

Sometimes a rule can be in place not to simulate all of the intricacies of social interaction, but to provide a way to moderate.

Our only indication of how charismatic a character is will be a number or, in rarer cases, a phrase on a sheet of paper. We work with what we have.

The team points is a good way to do it. Having each bit be its own roll is another.

That every rule must have a 1-to-1 representation to something happening within the fiction to be worth time is just... not objectively true at all.

hifidelity2
2017-03-15, 03:58 AM
First is the purely social issue. Someone with low stats "Just role-playing" just steamrolled the rest of the (high stats) group? Who are "used to the idea of helping <socially inept players> out"? This is a horrible situation, but there's some disconnect here. That player wasn't role-playing their low stats. And they weren't helping the less socially adept players out. If they were doing these things, this wouldn't - almost couldn't - be an issue. Y'all need to talk to them OOC, and find a solution that works, for y'all. Get that player to agree to roleplay better, agree to help the other players get above his level, or get him to agree to just roll for it.

Apart from the other players and the BM telling the guy he should not play like that - in the end the DM can just not award XP for Roleplaying. As we play GURPs if a Player is playing someone with lowish INT and low social skills / social disadvantages and then does this they will not get any/ as much XP. They will have been warned before hand




Then there's the tactics of social. Personally, I don't want rules to tell me that my character gropes the princess, or in any other way removes control of my character, for anything less than supernatural means. I get to do exactly one thing as a player: make choices for my character. Don't take that away.
Indeed you do control your character - the Player CHOSE to chat up and dance with the princess - the fact that he fumbled his rolls means that something VERY BAD happened

If this had been combat the PC could have said I shoot "badguy1" - Rolled a fumble, fumble tables says shoot nearest friend. The PC cant say I did not chose to shoot my friend - you cant make me

In other social encounters a fumble might mean that you say out loud what your character is thinking but would never normally say e.g. being introduced to the Dwarven King and thinking "Jees he's a short Ar$e". On a fumble you accidentally say it out loud only to find he is short for a dwarf and really touchy about it. This then can become a new plot hook

On an aside when this happens its often the rest of the players that come up with the best "punishment" ideas and I am often far more lenient as a DM than if I used their "suggestions" as to what should happen to the poor PC who rolled the fumble

Cozzer
2017-03-15, 04:35 AM
I really, really like the "social interACTION (http://theangrygm.com/systematic-interaction/)" rules the angryGM proposes on his website.

Basically, it works like this: for a social encounter to be an encounter, the party and the NPC (or NPCs) has to want different things (otherwise it's just a dialogue scene). You decide which are the main reasons why the NPC doesn't want the same thing as the PCs and assign points to each reason (ex. "the dark lord will kill my family if I he finds out I betrayed him: -3", "the dark lord pays well: -1").

Then, the party can either clear these "negative" points (for example, by convincing the NPC they can protect his family, or by promising to pay him a lot of money) or to create enough "positive" points to tip the balance (ex. "serving the dark lord will eventually make your family hate you: +2", "no matter what, serving the dark lord is morally wrong: +1").

In this system, diplomacy/bluff/intimidation checks can help the PCs make a single point. Let's say they say they're going to protect the NPC's family from the dark lord's retribution. If they make a decent Diplomacy check, the "fear for the family" point can go from -3 to -2. If they make an excellent check, that point could completely disappear as the NPC is convinced the party is able and willing to protect his family. If they make a very bad check, the NPC could see them as lying or patronizing, and get more negative points. Every few failed attempts, the NPC could gain a "the party is starting to annoy me with their persistence: -1" reason.

Whenever the plus-es overcome the minus-es, the NPC is willing to work with the party. If for whatever reason the negative points become more than X (depending on the encounter), the NPC isn't willing to deal with the party anymore and the encounter is "lost".

Sirdar
2017-03-15, 05:15 AM
Would anyone care to submit rules which would enjoyably simulate, say, the council of Elrond, or gaining votes in a 5-way political debate?


Assuming a fair debate, i.e. all partys involved are given equal time to present their case i would suggest something like this:


Determine every partys 'modifier' for the round
Action: Each party rolls and add their modifier. This number represent how well you argued for your standpoint.
Bonus Action: Each party may use their bonus action to one of the following options:
agree with a another partys standpoint, i.e. your backup option if you lose the debate (you then add your modifier to that partys roll)
attack another partys standpoint, i.e. your worst adversary (you then subtract your modifier to that partys roll)

Reaction: If you where attacked by one or more parties in the previous step you may defend yourself and 'make a save' against the attacks. If you succeed you don't make any subtractions.
The party with the lowest total has lost the debate and don't get any action in any future round of the debate. They do keep their bonus action and reaction though so that they can fight for their second best option.
Repeat until all parties except one has been removed of their actions and there is a winner of the council.


Of course, this is psuedo-rules that needs to be converted to proper rules (please help me do so!), but you get the idea. I think the Argue-(Support/Attack)-Defend system should be enjoyable, playable and simulate a democratic political debate quite well. But I made them up right now so I haven't tested myself yet. :smallwink:

Quertus
2017-03-15, 07:54 AM
Sometimes a rule can be in place not to simulate all of the intricacies of social interaction, but to provide a way to moderate.

Our only indication of how charismatic a character is will be a number or, in rarer cases, a phrase on a sheet of paper. We work with what we have.

The team points is a good way to do it. Having each bit be its own roll is another.

That every rule must have a 1-to-1 representation to something happening within the fiction to be worth time is just... not objectively true at all.

Sorry, I don't follow.

The original statement was that we should make rolls and follow the rules.

Then I said we can't just follow the rules, because there aren't rules covering everything.

And your point is... what? That we should use the rules when we can, and only fall back to "just role-playing" when we can't? That we should take the closest existing rule, and wing it?


I really, really like the "social interACTION (http://theangrygm.com/systematic-interaction/)" rules the angryGM proposes on his website.

Basically, it works like this: for a social encounter to be an encounter, the party and the NPC (or NPCs) has to want different things (otherwise it's just a dialogue scene). You decide which are the main reasons why the NPC doesn't want the same thing as the PCs and assign points to each reason (ex. "the dark lord will kill my family if I he finds out I betrayed him: -3", "the dark lord pays well: -1").

Then, the party can either clear these "negative" points (for example, by convincing the NPC they can protect his family, or by promising to pay him a lot of money) or to create enough "positive" points to tip the balance (ex. "serving the dark lord will eventually make your family hate you: +2", "no matter what, serving the dark lord is morally wrong: +1").

In this system, diplomacy/bluff/intimidation checks can help the PCs make a single point. Let's say they say they're going to protect the NPC's family from the dark lord's retribution. If they make a decent Diplomacy check, the "fear for the family" point can go from -3 to -2. If they make an excellent check, that point could completely disappear as the NPC is convinced the party is able and willing to protect his family. If they make a very bad check, the NPC could see them as lying or patronizing, and get more negative points. Every few failed attempts, the NPC could gain a "the party is starting to annoy me with their persistence: -1" reason.

Whenever the plus-es overcome the minus-es, the NPC is willing to work with the party. If for whatever reason the negative points become more than X (depending on the encounter), the NPC isn't willing to deal with the party anymore and the encounter is "lost".

I like this. Of course, it sounds like it works out similarly to my "social as puzzle" method, where you are rewarded for addressing the NPCs concerns, so I'm predisposed to liking it :smallwink:


Well, I posted some for Star Wars d6, but they're based on the ones from Savage Worlds.

Basically, you have several rounds... SW goes with 3, but I'm more flexible. Each round, everyone rolls, accumulating successes. Whoever has the most successes at the end, wins.

Now, depending on your system, you might count successes differently. For L5R, you might have each team accumulate a total score... so if I Lion-dono rolls 16, 5, and 12, he'll have a total of 33, while Crab-dono might have 13, 15, and 2, for a total of 30... Lion wins.

Or you might set successes at various levels... a 15 means 1 success, a 20 means 2, 30 means 3, etc. Make a REALLY good point one round, and you rack up successes.


Assuming a fair debate, i.e. all partys involved are given equal time to present their case i would suggest something like this:


Determine every partys 'modifier' for the round
Action: Each party rolls and add their modifier. This number represent how well you argued for your standpoint.
Bonus Action: Each party may use their bonus action to one of the following options:
agree with a another partys standpoint, i.e. your backup option if you lose the debate (you then add your modifier to that partys roll)
attack another partys standpoint, i.e. your worst adversary (you then subtract your modifier to that partys roll)

Reaction: If you where attacked by one or more parties in the previous step you may defend yourself and 'make a save' against the attacks. If you succeed you don't make any subtractions.
The party with the lowest total has lost the debate and don't get any action in any future round of the debate. They do keep their bonus action and reaction though so that they can fight for their second best option.
Repeat until all parties except one has been removed of their actions and there is a winner of the council.


Of course, this is psuedo-rules that needs to be converted to proper rules (please help me do so!), but you get the idea. I think the Argue-(Support/Attack)-Defend system should be enjoyable, playable and simulate a democratic political debate quite well. But I made them up right now so I haven't tested myself yet. :smallwink:

These tell you who wins, but not what percentage of the votes they have (which may matter, or may even be the "win" condition in some debates), or how any particular NPC feels after a given exchange.

So, for example, you're still at "just role-playing" to determine which political figure will be targeted by assassins sent by whom for what reason after which round of the debate, because there's nothing in these systems to inform that decision.

Just as, if some of the debaters are PCs and some are NPCs, there is nothing but "just role-playing" to inform which stands they'd take, let alone in Sirdar's system who the NPCs (or PCs) would choose to attack or support.

Cluedrew
2017-03-15, 08:34 AM
You should first answer two questions:
How much support does your system provide for social encounters?
How much support does the group want for social encounters?

If these who answers are not same there may be an issue (especially if want>provided). And I say this because, after ~35 pages and about 3 months we determined that there really isn't an answer to the question of how many rules should be provided to for social parts of the game. I can break it down in... excruciating detail if necessary, but I don't think that it is. For this question you really just have to go with what your group enjoys.

After that then you can pick out the advice that applies to you, which can range from "never touch dice" to "role-play the results of a role".

hifidelity2
2017-03-16, 03:41 AM
You should first answer two questions:
How much support does your system provide for social encounters?
How much support does the group want for social encounters?

If these who answers are not same there may be an issue (especially if want>provided). And I say this because, after ~35 pages and about 3 months we determined that there really isn't an answer to the question of how many rules should be provided to for social parts of the game. I can break it down in... excruciating detail if necessary, but I don't think that it is. For this question you really just have to go with what your group enjoys.

After that then you can pick out the advice that applies to you, which can range from "never touch dice" to "role-play the results of a role".

Totally agree

I have played with groups that don’t want any / very minimal social encounters to those who can take an entire session of many hours working their way through layers of bureaucracy before they reach the King and loving every second of it

Quertus
2017-03-17, 04:27 PM
Totally agree

I have played with groups that don’t want any / very minimal social encounters to those who can take an entire session of many hours working their way through layers of bureaucracy before they reach the King and loving every second of it

Hey now! Let's not confuse "desire to have social encounters" with "desire to have rules governing social encounters". I have pleasant memories of spending a whole season role-playing our characters chatting while on watch. No dice, no rules, just pure role-playing.

Cluedrew
2017-03-17, 04:43 PM
To hifidelity2: Glad you don't think its crazy.

To Quertus: That is another important question, good catch. How many rules do people want? Opinions on this matter are change dramatically. There is also not one correct answer to this one either. Some people hate them, some love them, many could go either way.

ImNotTrevor
2017-03-18, 12:54 PM
You should first answer two questions:
How much support does your system provide for social encounters?
How much support does the group want for social encounters?



I just feel like pointing out that the original two points were exactly that consideration of "Does the group want support for their RP," so that point wasn't really glossed over or forgotten. Just unnoticed.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-18, 01:43 PM
The biggest problem I have with "Just role-play it" as a social encounter solution isn't that socially inept players get left behind -

It is true such players get left behind, but this is true of a lot of players for a lot of things. And it really does come down to: lots of people will get left behind. I say just let them fall behind as they are who they are. And if they really want to change who they are, they can always seek the help of trained mental health professionals.

I greatly encourage socially inept players to play socially inept characters. So socially inept Billy has the character Gorky the Goblin, and when the group goes to talk to the king at dinner Gorky is all like ''I go sit in a mud puddle and make mud pies''.

Really, it does not end the game for a character to not do something every second. After all, the optimized roll playing all combat characters do go to the kings dinner...but just sit there and complain ''is this over yet? Can we fight something now?'' So it's not like they are role playing or adding anything to the social encounter.


Then there's the tactics of social. Personally, I don't want rules to tell me that my character gropes the princess, or in any other way removes control of my character, for anything less than supernatural means. I get to do exactly one thing as a player: make choices for my character. Don't take that away.


I agree that it is a bad idea to take control of a character from a player. To say ''ok, your character does this and that and this...you just sit back and watch'' is wrong.

Cluedrew
2017-03-18, 06:22 PM
To ImNotTrevour: Yes, it was there, but considering that this by itself might just be one of the most controversial points in table-top/pen-and-paper role playing games: "unnoticed" can lead to problems as well. And of course we have a thread of other knobs you could talk about (soft/hard for example) once you decide you want some role-playing mechanics.

Oh, and then you can decide if you want it to be part of the challenge of the game or not. I think in this thread it is supposed to be, but just taking time out and letting the characters be characters is also valid. Like Quertus's watch scene, as far as I can tell there was no threat of failure there, it wasn't a challenge it was just a moment of characterization.


And if they really want to change who they are, they can always seek the help of trained mental health professionals.Lack of role-playing ability is not a disorder. It is a skill one must practice to improve (or theory crafting can only take you so far). Personally I think one could do a lot better helping them forward rather than leaving them behind.

Darth Ultron
2017-03-18, 10:31 PM
Lack of role-playing ability is not a disorder. It is a skill one must practice to improve (or theory crafting can only take you so far). Personally I think one could do a lot better helping them forward rather than leaving them behind.

Lack of role playing is not a disorder, but being socially inept (or Avoidant personality disorder) is a disorder.

If someone does not know how to role play, you can teach a person...but you can't teach out a disorder(though a mental health professional can).

ImNotTrevor
2017-03-19, 01:35 AM
Lack of role playing is not a disorder, but being socially inept (or Avoidant personality disorder) is a disorder.

If someone does not know how to role play, you can teach a person...but you can't teach out a disorder(though a mental health professional can).

As someone who works in mental health, and who has friends who work in mental health, and has a wife with mental health issues:
You have not even the vaguest idea what the hell you're talking about.

Being shy is not a mental disorder.
Being introverted is not a mental disorder.
Being unconvincing as a person is not a mental disorder.
Being uncharismatic is not a mental disorder.

You listed one mental disorder here, AVPD, which is shyness to the extreme such that is prevents you from living a normal life. If someone has untreated AVPD, they probably aren't going to be at your game in the first place.

Your whole thing is "screw the players, they all suck big donkey doo." Which is a terrible schtick to begin with, but making the assertion that shy or unconvincing players are MENTALLY ILL?

What the hell, dude?

BWR
2017-03-19, 03:45 AM
Hey now! Let's not confuse "desire to have social encounters" with "desire to have rules governing social encounters". I have pleasant memories of spending a whole season role-playing our characters chatting while on watch. No dice, no rules, just pure role-playing.

There is no reason to inflict mechanics on situations where nothing is at stake, obviously, but the mechanics for combat and whatever else are there for a reason:
there is the possibility of Failure, and Failure has Consequences.
Social interaction is no different than combat or environmental challenges in that respect, it's just slightly easier to describe in detail what your character does and says, as (unlike combat, tactics and wilderness/dungeon exploring) it is something literally every player has some experience with.

Quertus
2017-03-19, 11:16 AM
There is no reason to inflict mechanics on situations where nothing is at stake, obviously, but the mechanics for combat and whatever else are there for a reason:
there is the possibility of Failure, and Failure has Consequences.
Social interaction is no different than combat or environmental challenges in that respect, it's just slightly easier to describe in detail what your character does and says, as (unlike combat, tactics and wilderness/dungeon exploring) it is something literally every player has some experience with.

Am I understanding correctly, or am I putting words in your mouth, to paraphrase you as saying that rules exist to make the game fair?

If that's your stance, I strongly agree. Rules are the best protection against the arbitrary, the best way for a character to interact with the world in a reasonable & predictable way, and one of the best defenses against horrible GMs (of which I've had lots (and lots and lots and...)).

I guess I'd have explain my stance thusly: I have never seen social rules that were as good as a good group just role-playing it out, taking into consideration the social skills of the characters, and the social tactics minigame. Role-playing is a skill that can be trained, and, as it's two-thirds of the letters in "RPG", I see little excuse for those not interested in improving their role-playing in an RPG. RPG - RP = G. I'd happily play a war game with those who are not interested in actively opposed to role-playing.

Now, if anyone ever made rules that were at least as good as a good group just role-playing it out, I'd happily try them out, and, if they didn't chafe in the wrong spots, you'd see few people happier than me to finally have good social rules in a game.

Until then, I strive for better than the rules can provide. Sometimes, even though I'm not good enough, I'm in a group which is collectively good enough that we succeed at hitting my benchmark role-playing goals. The rest of the time, I try to learn from my mistakes.

ImNotTrevor
2017-03-19, 11:47 AM
I guess I'd have explain my stance thusly: I have never seen social rules that were as good as a good group just role-playing it out, taking into consideration the social skills of the characters, and the social tactics minigame.


Here's where I become curious, because it is mever defined:

Please define what you mean by "good" in the context of a social interaction in an RPG.

I ask because "Good" is incredibly vague.

If someone tells you "I want a good car," they haven't actually told you anything about their preferences. They might want a van. Or a sportscar. Or a truck.

"I want something good to eat" is similarly vague.

"RP as good as a Good Group" is doubly vague. Ot doesn't define what a Good group is or what Good RP being produced by said good group LOOKS LIKE.

By what you've given, all Social Systems hit or don't hit the bar depending 100% on what I interpret Good to mean in both cases, making it entirely arbitrary.

It's perfectly fine to have an entirely arbitrary preference. Humans have lots and lots of them. But what you've put forward as your stance is 100% dependent on what you personally define Good RP and a Good Group to be. Since I don't know either, this stance isn't particularly helpful in my understanding what social systems, if any, meet it.

For instance if Good RP would win an oscar, then no. No social system will work.
If Good RP is a person being able to express at the level their character can regardless of their own ability, many Social systems accomplish this task just fine.

BWR
2017-03-19, 11:54 AM
To clarify:
'Fair' is one part of it, but the core is 'mechanics allow us to model a characters abilities in an agreed-upon way', and 'the mechanics allow characters to do things the players can't'.
This has been pointed out many times any time this sort of thread comes up, but not all players are equally good at talking. Some players, and I know a couple, will basically make everything worse for themselves and the party every time they open their mouths, yet these players may want to play characters who are good at social stuff. You can either let them roleplay, screw things up all the time, and have a generally unhappy group, or you can have mechanics that allow a character to be good at things the player isn't. This is no different than allowing a player who can't organize a piss-up in a brewery to play a tactical and strategic genius - you can either allow the mechanics to take care of something the player can't or you can let the 'genius' fail to take guns into account while assaulting an army base. The third option, which I generally discount, is having the GM telling the player what they say and do to best overcome the obstacle.

I don't expect the player of an expert warrior to be an expert warrior himself. I don't expect the player of a cleric to be religious and have powers. I don't expect a superhero's player to be a superhero, yet there are mechanics for these things and people don't seem to mind. Likewise, I don't expect a player to master e.g. the art of courtly interaction in Rokugan without tons of practice, so they have mechanics to allow them to be good at these things. Some players also are more interested in the story and plot progression rather than acting out every minor interaction. Mechanics are good in these cases, and it is no less roleplaying if you don't act.

If players want to roleplay the scene, great. I prefer it that way. I just like having mechanics to back things up when things get difficult.

Knaight
2017-03-19, 12:13 PM
One point that hasn't been mentioned here, and which is really relevant to the specific situation: There are social interactions which are unlikely to get played out because they just take too long to cover in detail. A character giving a several hour speech is the obvious case here, but there are also all sorts of social rituals that take a long time and that are much better subsumed into an etiquette or [specific ritual] roll than played out in detail. Then there's things like insinuating onesself in with a group over a period of time, tedious information gathering that's pretty pointless to play out due to being 95+% talking to someone, finding out they know nothing relevant, then talking to someone else. There's an entire class of social activities that make sense as having skills even if the standard is to rely entirely on roleplaying when it's feasible.

Quertus
2017-03-20, 08:28 AM
Please define what you mean by "good" in the context of a social interaction in an RPG.

Perhaps it is easiest to give an example or two of bad role-playing: Superman murdering Batman for control of the drug cartel; using OOC knowledge.

Bad examples of social interaction might, therefore, include being able to (mundanely, without mind control etc) convince Superman to murder Batman, or social interaction that relies on player charisma instead of character skills.

So, role-playing through a scene in a "good group", by which I suppose in context I mean one which roleplays successfully, assuming equal knowledge of all roles (which, in an RPG is admittedly highly unlikely), it wouldn't matter which player got assigned to which role, it could play out the same. And, if each player made the same choices (and, if there are dice involved, got the same rolls), would play out the same. And, any "reasonable person", knowledgeable of the "character" of the individual characters*, would not feel that disconnect similar to watching Superman or Ghandi murder someone.

Even role-playing myself, there are occasionally times when I look back and say, dang, that's not what I would have done in that situation. Sometimes, it's subtle, like how Thai sits on my stomach would mean I wouldn't prefer the particular flavor of cupcake I had "character me" choose. Sometimes, it's just blatantly wrong. :smallfrown: But, most of the time, I select a choice I reasonably could have made in that situation.

Comparing what real humans can and can't be convinced to do, and what it takes to convince then to do so, to what, RAW, the social system allows you to convince them to do, and how it allows you to convince them, is not complete, but a good starting point to see how I measure how "good" (accurate) a social system is when compared to how good "just role-playing" can be.

So, what would a test of how good a social system is look like? I suppose, if I made all of my decisions on how convinced etc my character was based entirely on RAW, and compared it to making all of said decisions based on "just role-playing", and looked back in the two sets of results, and compared the number and severity of "WTF" moments, that would be a good measure of how "good" the system was compared to "just role-playing".

* although I really shouldn't have to say this, I mean both PC and NPC.


If Good RP is a person being able to express at the level their character can regardless of their own ability, many Social systems accomplish this task just fine.

I have yet to encounter a social system which, RAW, did not allow dysfunctional results beyond my tolerance.


To clarify:
'Fair' is one part of it, but the core is 'mechanics allow us to model a characters abilities in an agreed-upon way', and 'the mechanics allow characters to do things the players can't'.
This has been pointed out many times any time this sort of thread comes up, but not all players are equally good at talking. Some players, and I know a couple, will basically make everything worse for themselves and the party every time they open their mouths, yet these players may want to play characters who are good at social stuff.

Some players also are more interested in the story and plot progression rather than acting out every minor interaction. Mechanics are good in these cases, and it is no less roleplaying if you don't act.

If players want to roleplay the scene, great. I prefer it that way. I just like having mechanics to back things up when things get difficult.

Fair, predictable, and empowering, then?

If the players - especially the GM - are looking at delivery and player skill instead of character skill, they are failing at role-playing.

Good call separating "acting" from "role-playing". Role-playing is making in-character choices; acting is, well, acting. Apparently, not many people recognize the difference. However, it is still role-playing to say, "I attempt to convince person X of thing Y, by telling them Z, A, and R", without acting it out... and the results of said interaction need not involve dice. Yes, I generally prefer for people to act things out, and not just make in-character choices for their character, but it is no less role-playing to say, "Batman takes the criminal aside and intimidates him for the information". And...


One point that hasn't been mentioned here, and which is really relevant to the specific situation: There are social interactions which are unlikely to get played out because they just take too long to cover in detail.

One (probably) cannot act out truly extended actions, like giving hours-long speeches. That does not prevent role-playing, however. Superman and Batman would likely raise very different points, and take very different approaches in giving such speeches. These differences, key to their character, should be integrated into the description / declaration of the action.

ImNotTrevor
2017-03-20, 11:00 AM
Perhaps it is easiest to give an example or two of bad role-playing: Superman murdering Batman for control of the drug cartel; using OOC knowledge.

Bad examples of social interaction might, therefore, include being able to (mundanely, without mind control etc) convince Superman to murder Batman, or social interaction that relies on player charisma instead of character skills.

So, role-playing through a scene in a "good group", by which I suppose in context I mean one which roleplays successfully, assuming equal knowledge of all roles (which, in an RPG is admittedly highly unlikely), it wouldn't matter which player got assigned to which role, it could play out the same. And, if each player made the same choices (and, if there are dice involved, got the same rolls), would play out the same. And, any "reasonable person", knowledgeable of the "character" of the individual characters*, would not feel that disconnect similar to watching Superman or Ghandi murder someone.

So good roleplaying means that you're all 100% in-sync with the character (essentially acting) to the point that even if you all switch characters and do it again, there will be no change whatsoever to the proceedings.

I'll openly admit this sounds not particularly fun, to me. This could be accomplished in a satisfactory manner by reading a book, and then reading it again with the voices in your head swapped around. Half of the fun for me is knowing that things would play out differently if everyone swapped because every player is different and will focus on different aspects of the character they're playing. Which is actually the reason why Shakespeare plays keep getting done over and over and over. Every actor brings a new and unique focus to the role. Losing that just makes it an animatronics show. I personally like that each of my players brings something unique to their character and would bring something equally unique to the other characters if they played them. But maybe that's because I like the social interaction of the table as its own thing. I have learned a great deal about my players because of their characters.

To put it in TL;DR style, I like knowing that this sequence of events is entirely unique to this set of people and wouldn't go the same way if we did it all over again and swapped places. That's the entire appeal of RPGs as opposed to novels.



Comparing what real humans can and can't be convinced to do, and what it takes to convince then to do so, to what, RAW, the social system allows you to convince them to do, and how it allows you to convince them, is not complete, but a good starting point to see how I measure how "good" (accurate) a social system is when compared to how good "just role-playing" can be.

This is solved with a "within reason" clause in any social rule that forbids you from convincing the crown prince to throw his beloved grandfather out the window after a 5 minute conversation. Luckily, those are a thing in many social rulesets.



So, what would a test of how good a social system is look like? I suppose, if I made all of my decisions on how convinced etc my character was based entirely on RAW, and compared it to making all of said decisions based on "just role-playing", and looked back in the two sets of results, and compared the number and severity of "WTF" moments, that would be a good measure of how "good" the system was compared to "just role-playing".

So any system which does not force you to make any particular decision passes this by default since it can't make you do anything. This means that most PbtA systems meet this requirement.

Since you've said in the past that PbtA doesn't actually meet your requirements, you'll need to expand on why.





I have yet to encounter a social system which, RAW, did not allow dysfunctional results beyond my tolerance.

I'm assuming, because you've not entirely defined good but have defined bad (so I guess good in this context is the lack of the bad you listed, and has no intrinsic properties of its own except as compared to the lack of bad), that a "dysfunctional" result is one that prompts an out-of-character response from a PC or NPC.

What about systems that offer carrots and sticks for doing/not doing what the socializer requests but the decision is ultimately up to the player? Since Joe Mushmouth can't ACTUALLY convince your character (Although, in reality he's convincing YOU, not your character), we offer an incentive to the player, which is the next best thing we can do to simulate his character's convincing-ness (Because, again, we're actually convincing YOU).

Knaight
2017-03-20, 11:32 AM
One (probably) cannot act out truly extended actions, like giving hours-long speeches. That does not prevent role-playing, however. Superman and Batman would likely raise very different points, and take very different approaches in giving such speeches. These differences, key to their character, should be integrated into the description / declaration of the action.

At which point there's still plenty of room for a skill roll to come into play.