Quick & Dirty 'conversational combat'

[Kane0]

So my current game features both a Noble background rogue that likes to get into spats with other nobility and a Performer background Bard that sets up cons around funerals.

So given that these two characters (and players) really enjoy getting into the social aspect of the game but only make up half of the party I was thinking of putting some simple but concrete rules in place for when they get into arguments that goes beyond 'Skill check vs DC of my choice' so they can engage more on this front but not bog down time spent on it for the other two party members who are a little more hacky-slashy.

So something quick & dirty!

When PCs get into a verbal dispute we go into 'social combat'. Roll initiative adding Int instead of Dex, because this is about thinking fast rather than moving fast.

On your turn you can use your action to Attack, Dodge, Help and Disengage much like regular combat. You can also use an item or Cast a Spell if appropriate but you cannot Hide in social combat.
- Attack is more accurately 'Make an argument' (and associated Charisma skill check). You don't have to act out the speech but you do need to state your topic, approach, etc and not just 'I roll to persuade'. You have disadvantage if you have already made the same point previously in the same social combat.
- Dodge imposes disadvantage on attacks against you as normal
- Help grants advantage on an allies attack as usual
- Disengage withdraws you from the conversation, conceding without excessive loss of face.

Your 'Social AC' is the DC of an argument (the cha check), which is 10 + Wis mod. You also add half your prof bonus if you are proficient in Insight and half again if you're proficient in Deception/Persuade/Intimidate/Performance. Expertise does not apply.

If a check meets or beats your Social AC you take argument damage equal to the difference (minimum 1). A character has 'Social HP' equal to INT score + their level. If you are reduced to 0 Social HP you run out of the mental fortitude to effectively hold your position. (Edit: Can amend to INT score + Wis score + Level if the HP number is too small and leads to swingy conversations).

Characters can use the benefits of their class features as usual (Battlemaster speech maneuvers, Bardic Inspiration, Mastermind BA Help, etc).

The idea being that all three mental stats are important during a debate; INT for how fast you can formulate arguments and maintain your position, Cha for conveying your arguments and Wis for how well you can see through and hold up against their arguments.
So someone that is charismatic does not automatically win these sorts of encounters if they cannot hold up to scrutiny, and the same is true for someone that is well reasoned but can't sell their argument.

If you're beaten in a debate in this way you don't necessarily change your mind but you do lose a measure of conviction and must concede somehow. So these combat rules don't allow you to figuratively bludgeon anyone into doing your bidding any more than say a charm spell does.
Which overall might end up being a waste of time but still, looking for thoughts and opinions!

[jjordan]

I haven't really considered the mechanics but that was a cool read.

[JeenLeen]

It sounds like this would work best in a oration or rhetoric-based social combat, where it might not matter 100% that you convince your opponent, but how it falls out socially could have larger ramifications.
It can still work in small or middling applications, but something like trying to persuade a guard to take a bribe seems better served by normal rolls (perhaps with some well-regarded homebrew patches, akin to how the Giant rewrote Diplomacy for D&D 3.5. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com) I honestly don't know if the social elements in 5e are 'working' or not.)

In a way, it reminds me a lot of Social Combat in Exalted 2nd edition (and that's not an insult, even though most of their mechanics are not great design); and I think it's great that you have it similar enough to physical combat that the 'rules' migrate well.

If you can get a copy, read over the social combat rules for new World of Darkness (maybe after the God-Machine update to the rules; that may have made the rules a bit clearer/better). It might give some inspiration, especially regarding the consequences of combat.

But, all in all, this sounds like a cool add-on to make social elements have a real 'thrill' to them, instead of talking in-character and maybe that impacting the 1 or 2 dice rolls that matter. If it works for your group -- and it sounds like it would -- good job!
I do recommend playtesting it some to make sure your math works out. Simulate a few social battles to make sure nothing is broken. For example, it might be too easy for someone to Aid an ally in social combat, since it might be two orators debating each other; whereas in combat it's harder since that's one less blow you are delivering.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That would work.

That being said, I have two suggestions. First, a general one: Look at how others have tried to do the same thing and see if they have any good ideas. My go-to example (...and one of the few decent ones) is a video game called Last Word (https://youtu.be/R_tkNh9kO0Y?t=310), which also illustrates my second suggestion.

Having two separate HP bars makes the conversation feel less like a singular entity that one side or the other is controlling, and more like a conflict between two people trying to exhaust the others' will to fight. I'd suggest instead having something functionally equivalent to a single conversation bar, like in Last Word. Whenever you "deal damage," you move the bar in your favor; whenever you "take damage," the bar moves to your detriment.

For instance: A and B are in an argument. The "argument score" starts at 0. When A deals 7 social points of damage, the "score" becomes 7 in A's favor. When B deals four points of damage, it becomes 3 in A's favor; if B dealt 12 instead, the score would be (12-7) 5 points in B's favor. Whenever the score in A's favor exceeds B's tolerance ("social HP"), A wins, and vise versa.

This system would require a bit of tweaking to fit multiple participants in the same argument, and you'd need to tweak the numbers to keep debates from consistently dragging on forever (on one end of the spectrum) or being resolved in a single "attack" (on the other), but it makes social encounters feel more mechanically distinct (and prevents half of your team from losing an argument when it's the same argument for the entire team).


The biggest problem is, obviously, that there aren't several books of mechanical support for engaging "social combat" encounters. The only solution to that would be to somehow convince WotC to add some kind of social conflict subsystem to 6e...which I'd like them to do, but I doubt they would.

[Kane0]

It sounds like this would work best in a oration or rhetoric-based social combat, where it might not matter 100% that you convince your opponent, but how it falls out socially could have larger ramifications.
It can still work in small or middling applications, but something like trying to persuade a guard to take a bribe seems better served by normal rolls

Yes indeed. Simple checks are still going to be in use for smaller one-and-done interactions eg. bargaining with a merchant, bribing a guard, threatening a beggar, etc.
These rules are more specifically for big social encounters like bringing a matter to a duke's court, wooing a crowd that could turn into a mob, negotiating terms of surrender with an opposing general, etc.



Having two separate HP bars makes the conversation feel less like a singular entity that one side or the other is controlling, and more like a conflict between two people trying to exhaust the others' will to fight. I'd suggest instead having something functionally equivalent to a single conversation bar, like in Last Word. Whenever you "deal damage," you move the bar in your favor; whenever you "take damage," the bar moves to your detriment.

Ah yeah, more like a tug-of-war. That could work.

So instead of each side having mental stat + level HP, each side contributes their best mental stat to the pool and successful arguments drag the counter (starting in the middle) towards their favor, ending when the counter fully reaches one side or the other by the end of the round. This way we can also place a time limit (eg 5 turns) to stop evenly matched parties from going on forever.
My group has the benefit of a whiteboard so I can easily throw this up for them to track how the conversation is going.



In a way, it reminds me a lot of Social Combat in Exalted 2nd edition.

If you can get a copy, read over the social combat rules for new World of Darkness (maybe after the God-Machine update to the rules; that may have made the rules a bit clearer/better).



My go-to example (...and one of the few decent ones) is a video game called Last Word (https://youtu.be/R_tkNh9kO0Y?t=310)

Thanks for the references, i'll check those out!

[Martin Greywolf]

FATE does it this way, where social encounters can be run with combat ruleset.

The easiest way to do this is to straight up copypaste stats of characters that you have and changing abilities that give bonuses - which you did, good call.

THe only thing missing are the weapons, and you do need those. While you could make them situational (you know something about them - their real name is Lawrence), those are better handled with advantage or disadvantage or temporary bonuses.

So, what should weapons be? Easy. Clothes. Yup, how you are dressed should absolutely impact how people percieve you, full plate armor in a formal ball is not okay, while rich, embroidered robes that have trash AC are great for it. You could expand it to where symbols of office (e.g. medallion of the master of the Paladins) give you AC, because people are less likely to go against you. Scale the values off of standard weapons and armor, and you're set.