Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

[kyoryu]

If you want players to have family that they care for and will go into danger for, make that family act in supportive ways that deserve that dedication, don't make them heap extra stress onto the character because it would be more dramatic that way. Make it so that even if Aunt May pressures Peter to do the soup kitchen thing, Peter isn't harmed for being reluctant, he's actually rewarded for doing that over going with Mary Jane. Heck, make it so that if Aunt May really wants to go on the guilt trip line, she gets a Consequence for every one she ends up inflicting on Peter because of the degree to which she had to use force on a relationship in which Peter should want to help her. If that sounds unfair to Aunt May and makes you ask why she would do it, well, there you go, that's the point.

I think your point here is that mechanics shouldn't force "harm" where none is intended, and I agree with that. But I think you're missing some of how the system works that alleviates quite a bit of that.

So, a few clarifications:

1. Aunt May does not have the right to just say "we're in a Conflict". Peter has to agree. He can get out of the Conflict in this case in a few obvious ways (based on the situation, not the rules). He can just acquiesce, or he can just say "nope" and not engage, and deal with whatever social fallout results. The fact that he engages indicates he wants something from Aunt May - most likely, for her to let him out of the obligation without repercussions.

2. Aunt May complicating his life is almost certainly something Spidey has asked for in the form of an aspect, either directly (with a conversation) or as a broader aspect (My Normal Life Makes It Hard To Be Super, Too Many Commitments, or something like that). This means that at some point, he probably got a Fate Point as a reward for accepting this. Most likely, it's a broader aspect and Mary Jane asking for time when he was already in a commitment was phrased as a Compel that got him a Fate Point. So he almost certainly signed up for this conflict (little C).

3. Even in the Conflict, he can Concede at any time (except for while resolving an action - once the dice hit the table, you have to finish resolving that particular action before you can Concede - no Conceding once you see what the dice say). This will net him a Fate Point for the Concession, plus a Fate Point for every Consequence he takes during the Conflict. In a lot of ways, it's mechanically optimal to take a Minor Consequence (which goes away after a scene) when Conceding, to gain two Fate Points. This means that him staying in the Conflict as long as he does is his choice. He could have backed out way earlier and avoided the Consequence. Given the apparent low stakes, this is pretty poor play on Spidey's part, most likely to drag the Conflict out longer to use as an example. Since his social skills are kind of garbage, and Aunt May's are pretty stellar, trying to stay in as long as he did was pretty dumb on his part. In this case, given the almost certainty that she would win, once she got the two free invokes on him, Conceding would have been the smart move, netting him a single Fate Point for his inconvenience. Which would, as you suggest, give him a bonus for going with her. (If this had been a Compel rather than a Conflict, it would have been straight up the choice to go with her, netting a Fate Point, but I digress).

4. Even if he stays in the Conflict, taking Consequences is his choice. He can always just let the hit land and be Taken Out - meaning he loses, and suffers some loss of control over what happens. Since all Aunt May really wants is for him to go to the Soup Kitchen, this is probably a smart move - this is a low stakes Conflict, and so should have low stakes consequences (small C). Taking a Severe Consequence to stay in it (especially when it's obvious how outmatched he is) is a really questionable move. The only positive is that by sucking up the hit he gets three Fate Points, while if he was Taken Out he wouldn't get any.

So, in short, none of this is really on Aunt May. It's all on Spidey's player, for choosing to stick in a Conflict he's outmatched in and for little gain in the end. At various points in the Conflict, he had the following options:

1. Don't engage in the Conflict, and accept going to Aunt May's. (Result: Go with Aunt May, deal with fallout from Mary Jane)
2. Don't engage in the Conflict, and accept that Aunt May is gonna be mad. (Result: Go with Mary Jane, deal with fallout from Aunt May)
3. Engage in the Conflict, and Concede once the aspects and free invokes are on tilt (Result: Go with Aunt May, deal with fallout from Mary Jane, get a free Fate Point)
4. Engage in the Conflict, and Concede after taking the moderate Consequence (Result: Go with Aunt May, deal with fallout from Mary Jane, get a moderate consequence which lasts a session, get two Fate Points)
4.a As above, but use a Fate Point to drop the Moderate Consequence to a Minor, which only sticks around for a scene. This would cancel out one of the gained Fate Points, but means that the Consequence slot is a really minor inconvenience.
5. Engage in the Conflict, and get Taken Out by the first big hit (Result: Go with Aunt May, deal with fallout from Mary Jane, possibly some other light narrative loss, get no Fate Points)
6. Engage in the Conflict, and Concede after the second big hit -scenario as written- (Result: Go with Aunt May, deal with fallout from Mary Jane, suffer a moderate consequence for a session, a severe consequence for an arc, and get three Fate Points)
7. Engage in the Conflict, and get Taken Out by the second big hit (Result: Go with Aunt May, deal with fallout from Mary Jane, possible some other light narrative loss, get a Moderate Consequence and no Fate Points)

As you can see, by staying in the Conflict, Spidey is essentially upping the stakes - Fate Conflicts are really a bidding war combined with a game of chicken. Spidey's mistake here is that he stayed in the Conflict long after the result was obvious - he had a +1 to every social skill, and May seemed to have a +3. That's a heavy uphill battle unless you're willing to dump Fate Points, which Spidey didn't do.

For the sake of example, this was played really, really poorly by Spidey, and that leads to a lot of the issues you're seeing. Better play would have either been to drop out of the Conflict early (option 3 or maaaaybe 4a), or to accept that winning it was really worth it and be ready to dump Fate Points to make that happen (which Spidey didn't do here). A smart player here would have recognized the lopsided nature of this Conflict early on, and Conceded once it was obvious - which would mean that he would do what Aunt May had asked, and just like you say would be a good system, would be rewarded for it. (Note that none of this really requires high levels of system mastery - it's all pretty baseline consequence of how the system works, and it's something that I as a GM would absolutely point out to Spidey's player).

If there were no way through this Conflict except as written, I'd agree with you.

[NichG]

I think your point here is that mechanics shouldn't force "harm" where none is intended, and I agree with that. But I think you're missing some of how the system works that alleviates quite a bit of that.

So, a few clarifications:

1. Aunt May does not have the right to just say "we're in a Conflict". Peter has to agree. He can get out of the Conflict in this case in a few obvious ways (based on the situation, not the rules). He can just acquiesce, or he can just say "nope" and not engage, and deal with whatever social fallout results. The fact that he engages indicates he wants something from Aunt May - most likely, for her to let him out of the obligation without repercussions.

2. Aunt May complicating his life is almost certainly something Spidey has asked for in the form of an aspect, either directly (with a conversation) or as a broader aspect (My Normal Life Makes It Hard To Be Super, Too Many Commitments, or something like that). This means that at some point, he probably got a Fate Point as a reward for accepting this. Most likely, it's a broader aspect and Mary Jane asking for time when he was already in a commitment was phrased as a Compel that got him a Fate Point. So he almost certainly signed up for this conflict (little C).

3. Even in the Conflict, he can Concede at any time (except for while resolving an action - once the dice hit the table, you have to finish resolving that particular action before you can Concede - no Conceding once you see what the dice say). This will net him a Fate Point for the Concession, plus a Fate Point for every Consequence he takes during the Conflict. In a lot of ways, it's mechanically optimal to take a Minor Consequence (which goes away after a scene) when Conceding, to gain two Fate Points. This means that him staying in the Conflict as long as he does is his choice. He could have backed out way earlier and avoided the Consequence. Given the apparent low stakes, this is pretty poor play on Spidey's part, most likely to drag the Conflict out longer to use as an example. Since his social skills are kind of garbage, and Aunt May's are pretty stellar, trying to stay in as long as he did was pretty dumb on his part. In this case, given the almost certainty that she would win, once she got the two free invokes on him, Conceding would have been the smart move, netting him a single Fate Point for his inconvenience. Which would, as you suggest, give him a bonus for going with her. (If this had been a Compel rather than a Conflict, it would have been straight up the choice to go with her, netting a Fate Point, but I digress).

4. Even if he stays in the Conflict, taking Consequences is his choice. He can always just let the hit land and be Taken Out - meaning he loses, and suffers some loss of control over what happens. Since all Aunt May really wants is for him to go to the Soup Kitchen, this is probably a smart move - this is a low stakes Conflict, and so should have low stakes consequences (small C). Taking a Severe Consequence to stay in it (especially when it's obvious how outmatched he is) is a really questionable move. The only positive is that by sucking up the hit he gets three Fate Points, while if he was Taken Out he wouldn't get any.

So, in short, none of this is really on Aunt May. It's all on Spidey's player, for choosing to stick in a Conflict he's outmatched in and for little gain in the end. At various points in the Conflict, he had the following options:

As you can see, by staying in the Conflict, Spidey is essentially upping the stakes - Fate Conflicts are really a bidding war combined with a game of chicken. Spidey's mistake here is that he stayed in the Conflict long after the result was obvious - he had a +1 to every social skill, and May seemed to have a +3. That's a heavy uphill battle unless you're willing to dump Fate Points, which Spidey didn't do.

For the sake of example, this was played really, really poorly by Spidey, and that leads to a lot of the issues you're seeing. Better play would have either been to drop out of the Conflict early (option 3 or maaaaybe 4a), or to accept that winning it was really worth it and be ready to dump Fate Points to make that happen (which Spidey didn't do here). A smart player here would have recognized the lopsided nature of this Conflict early on, and Conceded once it was obvious - which would mean that he would do what Aunt May had asked, and just like you say would be a good system, would be rewarded for it. (Note that none of this really requires high levels of system mastery - it's all pretty baseline consequence of how the system works, and it's something that I as a GM would absolutely point out to Spidey's player).

If there were no way through this Conflict except as written, I'd agree with you.

I mean, it's also on Aunt May's player for pressing the conflict even when the stakes have been increased. Which is sort of the point of how framing things as a 'combat' can put mechanical blinders on what might otherwise be intuitive social behaviors and can end up warping relationships between characters. At the point where e.g. Peter has refused to take the first hit and took a consequence instead, Aunt May could have concluded 'yes, I have the social ability to beat him down over this and get my way, but it already sounds like that last thing I said hurt more than I intended and if I go on it's going to hurt him even more, so I'll let this go'.

If you're in the mindset of looking at it as a mechanical contest, having a character withdraw when it starts to look like they're winning doesn't make sense. It's not generally what you do when you're playing a game. But from the point of view of Aunt May's character, choosing not to withdraw implies something at the narrative level about her character. And mechanics aside, that'd be true whether or not the person at the other end of the phone line could have prevented the conflict by giving in or hanging up.

[Devils_Advocate]

'Here, you're supposed to do this, it will suck, and I won't reward you for it' is a good recipe for players balking the expectation that they're supposed to do this and the game breaking down.

I'm guessing that very few GMs hand out extraneous prizes to their players. Players as a rule are rewarded for activities in the game with consequences in the game. How good a reward an in-game consequence is differs from player to player, and even from game to game for the same player. Sometimes it's about achieving character goals, not gaining XP to level up. So...

It's part of the job of the GM to make doing that dangerous stuff worthwhile (and part of the job of the players to help the GM know what that will take).

... um, yeah. That thing that you said. ... Kinda. What the PCs are supposed to do varies from game to game, too. In some games, the player characters should be avoiding danger as a rule.

If you want players to have family that they care for and will go into danger for, make that family act in supportive ways that deserve that dedication, don't make them heap extra stress onto the character because it would be more dramatic that way.

I take it that you assume that the game is centrally about the conflict between heroes and villains; hence, stress that doesn't serve to motivate that conflict is "extra". That's not an unreasonable assumption for a superhero game. But my point is that that doesn't have to be a player's top priority. Like, if a superhero fights supervillains to protect his loved ones, maybe his story is centrally about him and his loved ones and his relationships to them? If love of family is a vigilante's motivation, it's rather inappropriate for that to only motivate his fight against crime; one expects that character trait to show up in other ways. Unless the criminals are so much of a threat that stopping them takes precedence over everything else. You can do that, but it drains the story of a nuance a bit. And in that case, he probably doesn't interact with his family much at this point, at least unless they know his secret identity.

Edit: to put it another way, PCs might engage in dangerous activities where things want to kill them, but they aren't going to treat those things as if they aren't hostile and adversarial and D&D doesn't generally ask you to behave as if you're playing Undertale and the bullets are just friendship pellets.

Not every RPG is D&D, and not every RPG uses or should use all of the same dynamics. Different games seek to do different things.

My point was that disregarding the social context of what sort of story a game is intended to tell makes it easy to misinterpret rules as incentivizing the wrong player behaviors. To illustrate my point, I did just that with D&D.

I mean, it's also on Aunt May's player for pressing the conflict even when the stakes have been increased.

I'll admit that I had assumed Aunt May to be an NPC. If she isn't, then it's obviously not a "team of superheroes" game but a "life of Peter Parker" game that intends to treat stuff other than the conflict between Spider-Man and the villains as important.

In the comments of the linked Reddit post, the OP addresses this: "In an action-oriented game with world-saving heroics this might be a simple Overcome. But in a game that focuses on the day-to-day life of superheroes a Conflict seems appropriate."

But from the point of view of Aunt May's character, choosing not to withdraw implies something at the narrative level about her character.

Sure, that she holds her nephew to his commitments. You can spin that in a negative light, but you can do the same with Peter trying to go back on a promise to her.

[Telok]

... um, yeah. That thing that you said. ... Kinda. What the PCs are supposed to do varies from game to game, too. In some games, the player characters should be avoiding danger as a rule.

Successful veteran Call of Cthulhu character: 100% coward, near sighted, almost illiterate, Olympic track & field athlete, loves arson and throwing dynamite around.

[NichG]

I'm guessing that very few GMs hand out extraneous prizes to their players. Players as a rule are rewarded for activities in the game with consequences in the game. How good a reward an in-game consequence is differs from player to player, and even from game to game for the same player. Sometimes it's about achieving character goals, not gaining XP to level up. So...

... um, yeah. That thing that you said. ... Kinda. What the PCs are supposed to do varies from game to game, too. In some games, the player characters should be avoiding danger as a rule.

I take it that you assume that the game is centrally about the conflict between heroes and villains; hence, stress that doesn't serve to motivate that conflict is "extra". That's not an unreasonable assumption for a superhero game. But my point is that that doesn't have to be a player's top priority. Like, if a superhero fights supervillains to protect his loved ones, maybe his story is centrally about him and his loved ones and his relationships to them? If love of family is a vigilante's motivation, it's rather inappropriate for that to only motivate his fight against crime; one expects that character trait to show up in other ways. Unless the criminals are so much of a threat that stopping them takes precedence over everything else. You can do that, but it drains the story of a nuance a bit. And in that case, he probably doesn't interact with his family much at this point, at least unless they know his secret identity.

I don't think it really matters what the game is intended to be about for what I'm saying here. This is more about player decision process and perception of the world through mechanical consequences.

If reasoning based on the fiction and reasoning based on the mechanics disagree, then that's bad mechanics design. If the fiction says 'this is a game about love for your family in day to day life' and the mechanics make it so that a disagreement over which way to make eggs at the breakfast table can end up making your character suicidal or have them join a cult, then it's really a game about toxic relationships even if the fiction doesn't present it as such, even if the fiction insists strongly 'this is good and healthy!'.

If the incentive structure of a game means it's against players' interest to do 'what the game wants them to do', that's down to bad design. And what inevitably happens is that you get some players who figure out what the mechanics actually reward and play to that even when it shreds the fiction.

E.g. you get Vampire games played as 'we're superheroes with awesome powers' rather than the angsty loss of humanity existential drama that the game says it wants to be. You get murderhobos and Wall of Salt economics in D&D. You get people finding tricks to get around Honor in L5R, or Old Man Henderson-ing great old ones in Call of Cthulhu.

If thinking in terms of what makes mechanical sense undermines the fiction, that's a reason to change either the mechanics or the fiction. Sure, if you didn't notice a potential problem in time then it's in everyone's interest to smooth over it at the time. But if you can see a potential problem and instead of fixing it you just ask the players to take disadvantages in order to prop up the fiction then that's unfair to them and is ultimately unstable.

Sure, that she holds her nephew to his commitments. You can spin that in a negative light, but you can do the same with Peter trying to go back on a promise to her.

That's not the negative thing.

The negative thing is that she's willing to cause her nephew harm in order to hold him to his commitments.

From the point of view of the fiction, her telling him off is very different from her, say, going Dolores Umbridge on him and torturing him with a blood quill. From the point of view of the mechanics, those are interchangeable. That's the thing that makes her seem awful in this example.

[Saint-Just]

Successful veteran Call of Cthulhu character: 100% coward, near sighted, almost illiterate, Olympic track & field athlete, loves arson and throwing dynamite around.

So, Old Man Henderson (except coward)?

[Telok]

The negative thing is that she's willing to cause her nephew harm in order to hold him to his commitments.

I read it more as she's willing to guilt trip him, and if he pushed hard enough but lost he'd be guilt tripping when something important happened and screw it up. That fits much better to the fiction and characters than old aunty trying to get the kid to self-harm because he wanted to go out with his girlfriend instead of her. I could be wrong though, I haven't kept up with the last 20 years of Spidey ret-cons.

So, Old Man Henderson (except coward)?

Well... that read more as trolling the GM and taking out the game with a bang. Pretty sure they weren't using the sanity mechanics by the end. Awesome story though.

[NichG]

I read it more as she's willing to guilt trip him, and if he pushed hard enough but lost he'd be guilt tripping when something important happened and screw it up. That fits much better to the fiction and characters than old aunty trying to get the kid to self-harm because he wanted to go out with his girlfriend instead of her. I could be wrong though, I haven't kept up with the last 20 years of Spidey ret-cons.

That's the fiction, sure.

But analyze it purely from the perspective of the mechanics, and it doesn't mechanically look like a guilt trip:

- Characters have mental and physical bars which fill up as they fail in individual exchanges with another character who is trying to determine something about what they do or what happens to them.
- When those bars fill up, characters have three slots shared between mental and physical which they can fill in order rather than accepting the outcome that the other character wishes to impose.
- The first of the three slots recovers immediately after the interaction. The second recovers more slowly. The third recovers only after the current game arc.
- If a character's bar fills up and there is no slot left unfilled, the character must accept whatever outcome the other character wishes to impose on them under the context of the interaction and that character's abilities.

So causing someone to fill up their third slot means that you leave them vulnerable to anyone else imposing any consequence they're capable of on the character.

[Telok]

That's the fiction, sure.

But analyze it purely from the perspective of the mechanics, and it doesn't mechanically look like a guilt trip:

I think I get it? You perceive that the mechanics make no distinction between a relative guilt tripping you and a crazy lighting you up with a flamethrower, if you're willing to take the betting & stakes up to that level, and you dislike that.

But what's the actual problem with it? Presumably in actual play the players would have a feel for where the narrative is, where its going, and how much they can reasonably risk. Mechanically if its early in the arc you don't want to risk going all "fight to the death" over who Peter spends an afternoon with, so you take the smallest hit or just refuse to engage and accept there will be some minor downstream consequences. If its late in the arc then the confrontation is either supposed to be a big deal or you just avoid it and again accept a minor issue later. It sounds like precisely what the system wants.

[NichG]

I think I get it? You perceive that the mechanics make no distinction between a relative guilt tripping you and a crazy lighting you up with a flamethrower, if you're willing to take the betting & stakes up to that level, and you dislike that.

But what's the actual problem with it? Presumably in actual play the players would have a feel for where the narrative is, where its going, and how much they can reasonably risk. Mechanically if its early in the arc you don't want to risk going all "fight to the death" over who Peter spends an afternoon with, so you take the smallest hit or just refuse to engage and accept there will be some minor downstream consequences. If its late in the arc then the confrontation is either supposed to be a big deal or you just avoid it and again accept a minor issue later. It sounds like precisely what the system wants.

In this thread I'm hearing a lot of 'I want the players to read the situation from the fiction, not the mechanics' while simultaneously arguing for mechanics which give forceful actions more power than the fiction suggests. So that's creating an exploitable situation where a party willing to take advantage of the power granted by the mechanics can hide behind innocuous fiction to defend those actions.

So going back to the broad subject of this thread, take social combat in general where the victor can compel the loser. If that's what the world is built on, people should treat persuasive speakers the same way they treat e.g. dosing someone with rohypnol. However, by dressing it up in 'this is just people having a conversation, it's how conversation works' it's trying to create that control over others and simultaneously to normalize it.

Ultimately I find 'knowing how to talk to others means I get to make them do what I say' to be a pretty toxic attitude to take. So no matter the intended fiction, if that's the reality that the mechanics create it's going to take over the story in my view when I as a player see a character using those mechanics in that way.

So the actual problem is that this system of formulating Aunt May's interaction with Peter makes her read to me as someone who is being (at best) an abusive guardian. Because no matter what words you use to dress the mechanics here, the actual structure they create is not an innocuous structure.

But for some reason it seems like it's hard to get across the idea that some players are going to read the world through the structure of the mechanics first and the fiction second - that when those disagree, they'll decide to prioritize what the mechanics say rather than what the fiction claims. By asking the player to not to that while simultaneously not holding back at all in the mechanical contest, it reads to me as (Aunt May's player or the GM) being unfair and exploitative. 'Hey, you should let my character attack yours in this way that my character can win, but if you try to make a big deal out of this then you're going against the fiction!'

That in the end is my problem with the very concept of 'social combat' - it creates a world where the rational thing to do is to reject the assumed attitude that talking is an inherently innocuous act, and that's harmful to the setting and the perception of what is reasonable in the world. If talking can potentially be mind control in what outcomes it brings about, then stabbing someone who walks up to you and tries to start an unsolicited conversation should be considered legitimate and justified self defense.

[icefractal]

I mean, I don't think it's wrong to have a character who's so persuasive they can talk anyone into anything ... but a character like that is scary.

A lot of TTRPG characters are scary once they get powerful enough - the warrior who can cut down hundreds of demons without breaking a sweat would be pretty much unstoppable by most cities if he snapped and went on a murder-spree. The mage who can drop asteroids out the sky ... can drop asteroids out of the sky.

But for some of them, there's at least a "tell" when you should GTFO - when said warrior unsheathes his sword, when said mage starts chanting, etc. Characters who have no "tell" are harder to trust. This applies to the ultra-silver-tongued, but it would also apply to a Psion who had no external signs they were preparing to overwrite your brain, or a Rogue who can kill with their bare hands faster than you can shout a warning.

It's more a problem for ultra-social-skills characters though, because it means that they won't get much chance to use those social skills on important things unless they're in disguise. A king is no more likely to agree to a private audience with "Bob, the Devil's Tongue" than with "Bob, Master of Instant Killing".

Which is also why I prefer ultra-social-ability to be a class ability / feat / optional component, rather than a natural consequence of really high skills, because that way players can choose whether they want to be a feared mind-bender or just a really charming and well-liked person.

[NichG]

I mean, I don't think it's wrong to have a character who's so persuasive they can talk anyone into anything ... but a character like that is scary.

A lot of TTRPG characters are scary once they get powerful enough - the warrior who can cut down hundreds of demons without breaking a sweat would be pretty much unstoppable by most cities if he snapped and went on a murder-spree. The mage who can drop asteroids out the sky ... can drop asteroids out of the sky.

But for some of them, there's at least a "tell" when you should GTFO - when said warrior unsheathes his sword, when said mage starts chanting, etc. Characters who have no "tell" are harder to trust. This applies to the ultra-silver-tongued, but it would also apply to a Psion who had no external signs they were preparing to overwrite your brain, or a Rogue who can kill with their bare hands faster than you can shout a warning.

It's more a problem for ultra-social-skills characters though, because it means that they won't get much chance to use those social skills on important things unless they're in disguise. A king is no more likely to agree to a private audience with "Bob, the Devil's Tongue" than with "Bob, Master of Instant Killing".

Which is also why I prefer ultra-social-ability to be a class ability / feat / optional component, rather than a natural consequence of really high skills, because that way players can choose whether they want to be a feared mind-bender or just a really charming and well-liked person.

Yeah, I think it's okay to choose for the ability to exist as long as you're willing for the setting and actions of other characters to reflect just how scary that is - and if that's a setting you actually want to run.

I think obligating that ability to exist (e.g. making it a skill as you say, or arguing that systems in general should have this sort of thing) causes problems though, because then you sort of have no choice but to run a socially paranoid setting.

[Pex]

In this thread I'm hearing a lot of 'I want the players to read the situation from the fiction, not the mechanics' while simultaneously arguing for mechanics which give forceful actions more power than the fiction suggests. So that's creating an exploitable situation where a party willing to take advantage of the power granted by the mechanics can hide behind innocuous fiction to defend those actions.

So going back to the broad subject of this thread, take social combat in general where the victor can compel the loser. If that's what the world is built on, people should treat persuasive speakers the same way they treat e.g. dosing someone with rohypnol. However, by dressing it up in 'this is just people having a conversation, it's how conversation works' it's trying to create that control over others and simultaneously to normalize it.

Ultimately I find 'knowing how to talk to others means I get to make them do what I say' to be a pretty toxic attitude to take. So no matter the intended fiction, if that's the reality that the mechanics create it's going to take over the story in my view when I as a player see a character using those mechanics in that way.

So the actual problem is that this system of formulating Aunt May's interaction with Peter makes her read to me as someone who is being (at best) an abusive guardian. Because no matter what words you use to dress the mechanics here, the actual structure they create is not an innocuous structure.

But for some reason it seems like it's hard to get across the idea that some players are going to read the world through the structure of the mechanics first and the fiction second - that when those disagree, they'll decide to prioritize what the mechanics say rather than what the fiction claims. By asking the player to not to that while simultaneously not holding back at all in the mechanical contest, it reads to me as (Aunt May's player or the GM) being unfair and exploitative. 'Hey, you should let my character attack yours in this way that my character can win, but if you try to make a big deal out of this then you're going against the fiction!'

That in the end is my problem with the very concept of 'social combat' - it creates a world where the rational thing to do is to reject the assumed attitude that talking is an inherently innocuous act, and that's harmful to the setting and the perception of what is reasonable in the world. If talking can potentially be mind control in what outcomes it brings about, then stabbing someone who walks up to you and tries to start an unsolicited conversation should be considered legitimate and justified self defense.

Again, the reason for it is to take DM bias out of the equation as much as possible. Players have agency. NPCs don't. The player is trying to convince the NPC, not the DM. The DM is not supposed to care if the player succeeds or fails other than the usual the DM should care if the player is having fun playing. The game mechanics resolution is a neutral arbiter. The player can't and is not supposed to read the DM's mind of the One True Response to get the NPC to agree. There is DM adjudication as mentioned of avoiding the nonsense extreme. The king will not abdicate his throne to the PC regardless of anything. You can allow for Plot Point where as the party succeeds or fails at earlier adventure tasks influences how an NPC responds. The social resolution is useful when the NPC can respond yes or no at the proverbial flip of a coin. Instead of a coin a die is used, and the character's game mechanics build choices get to influence the total to reach the target number necessary to have the NPC agree to the player's request.

[Cluedrew]

Ultimately I find 'knowing how to talk to others means I get to make them do what I say' to be a pretty toxic attitude to take.

You know I think this is another question that might be separated out. Quite different then "Is this a good social combat system?" is the question of "Is this scene a social combat?" And honestly, I would not describe most of the conversations with my family as combat. Maybe getting a younger one to do homework back, but I'm not sure I would use a system for this either.

[Mechalich]

I mean, I don't think it's wrong to have a character who's so persuasive they can talk anyone into anything ... but a character like that is scary.

A lot of TTRPG characters are scary once they get powerful enough - the warrior who can cut down hundreds of demons without breaking a sweat would be pretty much unstoppable by most cities if he snapped and went on a murder-spree. The mage who can drop asteroids out the sky ... can drop asteroids out of the sky.

But for some of them, there's at least a "tell" when you should GTFO - when said warrior unsheathes his sword, when said mage starts chanting, etc. Characters who have no "tell" are harder to trust. This applies to the ultra-silver-tongued, but it would also apply to a Psion who had no external signs they were preparing to overwrite your brain, or a Rogue who can kill with their bare hands faster than you can shout a warning.

It's not just that there's a tell, there's also usually a mechanism by which physical attacks occur. Asteroids falling from the sky, for example, is something that we can model. It happens, there's a process, and the process is fairly well understood. Likewise hurling an energy blast at someone is still functionally equivalent to existing physical phenomena, like a stream of superheated air or a massive electrical discharge and so on. While these results can get nonsensical at extremely high levels of power, cutting a planet in half with a sword looks hokey, you can still draw them (Disgaea has animations that are exactly this ridiculous).

Extreme social influence often lacks this mechanistic step, because the event unfolds inside the targets brain and we, the audience, can't see in there. The first season of Jessica Jones has a number of good examples of this through their use of Killgrave. He just tells people to do things and they subsequently do it and its weird and jarring (very much intentionally so) because there is no explanation, it just happens.

Non-magical social influence runs into the problem that it supposedly didn't 'just happen' the actor didn't simply overwrite the target's brain chemistry magically, they actually said something that convinced them, but unfortunately the audience (which in this case is the other players and the GM) can't actually imagine what that thing was because we don't have any real world or even fictional examples of that happening. This is actually similar to the genius character problem, in that it is often extremely difficult to portray a character who is massively more intelligent than you yourself are, but you don't have any way to enter into the same reference frame. This is why depictions of genius in fiction tend to focus on everything but the actual discoveries that person made.

So while a character who is so persuasive they can talk anyone into anything might theoretically exist, especially in a fantastical setting, attempting to portray that in play or in a story tends to result in frustrating abstractions.

[Telok]

That in the end is my problem with the very concept of 'social combat' - it creates a world where the rational thing to do is to reject the assumed attitude that talking is an inherently innocuous act, and that's harmful to the setting and the perception of what is reasonable in the world. If talking can potentially be mind control in what outcomes it brings about, then stabbing someone who walks up to you and tries to start an unsolicited conversation should be considered legitimate and justified self defense.

So if I'm reading this correctly it isn't about any particular mechanics, but more the idea that a 30 second chat equals mind control or some other grave mental/emotional harm? Its not that a games uses one mechanic for all conflicts from thumb wrestling to nuclear war and guilt tripping relatives. The problem is mind control immedately on the conversation happening and a concern that players will game the mechanics. That right?

Wouldn't that make a point buy supers game where X points of mind control differs mainly by description an OK thing? The magic super may have a 1/day spell, the psychic has to gain exhaustion or something, and the talker has to pass a skill check, but they all paid the X points for mind control so that's what the get. Or a system where getting to the mind control level takes weeks of access to the target and repeatedly breaking thier will or subverting thier ideals?

I mean, it sounds more like not wanting a d&d 3.x diplomancer build with a lenient dm than not liking some rules about winning arguments or debates.

[NichG]

So if I'm reading this correctly it isn't about any particular mechanics, but more the idea that a 30 second chat equals mind control or some other grave mental/emotional harm? Its not that a games uses one mechanic for all conflicts from thumb wrestling to nuclear war and guilt tripping relatives. The problem is mind control immedately on the conversation happening and a concern that players will game the mechanics. That right?

Wouldn't that make a point buy supers game where X points of mind control differs mainly by description an OK thing? The magic super may have a 1/day spell, the psychic has to gain exhaustion or something, and the talker has to pass a skill check, but they all paid the X points for mind control so that's what the get. Or a system where getting to the mind control level takes weeks of access to the target and repeatedly breaking thier will or subverting thier ideals?

I mean, it sounds more like not wanting a d&d 3.x diplomancer build with a lenient dm than not liking some rules about winning arguments or debates.

So the issue isn't that mind control is possible in a system. The particular issue is taking the thing we describe as 'social interaction', making it into mind control, and expecting people to treat it with the norms we use for social interactions in reality because of what you chose to call it. If you want there to be mind control powers in a system that work instantly, that's fine. But make it so that being seen or known to use those things on others is treated as a serious crime, that being capable of them is like walking around armed with deadly weapons wherever you go, etc. If the consequence is that it breaks things you want to be true for the fiction you're trying to model, then that's a sign you should not be pairing those mechanics with that description.

And that leads to the broader issue, which is - okay, what if you play that straight? What if talking is mind control, and talking to people without their consent is considered assault in the setting? Well, then you have a setting where the functions that normal real-life social interaction served are being suppressed by the fact that it now is being framed in this strongly aggressive way of thinking about it.

So in the end, if you want mind control I'd much rather you say 'yeah, that's a mind control power' or heck even just a 'mesmerism' skill or whatever, and not try to say 'this is how we model someone being very clever with words and socialization'. Don't try to make being very clever with words and socialization about defeating or triumphing over or whatever someone else at all. Use a different way of thinking about those interactions if you want to make mechanics for them other than 'opposed rolls', 'contests', or 'combat'.

[Kymme]

Again, the reason for it is to take DM bias out of the equation as much as possible. Players have agency. NPCs don't. The player is trying to convince the NPC, not the DM. The DM is not supposed to care if the player succeeds or fails other than the usual the DM should care if the player is having fun playing. The game mechanics resolution is a neutral arbiter. The player can't and is not supposed to read the DM's mind of the One True Response to get the NPC to agree. There is DM adjudication as mentioned of avoiding the nonsense extreme. The king will not abdicate his throne to the PC regardless of anything. You can allow for Plot Point where as the party succeeds or fails at earlier adventure tasks influences how an NPC responds. The social resolution is useful when the NPC can respond yes or no at the proverbial flip of a coin. Instead of a coin a die is used, and the character's game mechanics build choices get to influence the total to reach the target number necessary to have the NPC agree to the player's request.

This is why things like Pierce the Mask from Masks: A New Generation is so great. It cuts straight through guessing what the One True Response is and goes straight into the drama. That move lets you ask the GM "How could I get this character to do X?" and they have to give you a truthful answer. It's an excellent form of social resolution that doesn't factor in your ability to persuade at all. Instead, it models your ability to understand.

[Telok]

So the issue isn't that mind control is possible in a system. The particular issue is taking the thing we describe as 'social interaction', making it into mind control, and expecting people to treat it with the norms we use for social interactions in reality because of what you chose to call it.

So... normal everyday interactions aren't combat therefore normal everyday social interactions shouldn't be social combat? I thought that was a normal given of the systems, that the basic normal stuff doesn't warrant going full combat mode. Same way you don't make them roll animal handling checks to mount their loyal & trained horse every morning, noon, and potty break.

Because I do prefer some sort of framework for things like long cons, court trials, ongoing psychological torture, and such. Things like just "d20+3 vs d20+8" don't have the feel of an experienced expert con artist putting one over on a noob farm kid with their first sword. They take some of the stress out of having characters who are mechanically weak willed and gullible but trying to get the players to act like it instead of them declaring they're immune to everything that isn't hit point damage.

Social conflict rules can be done badly of course. The d&d 3.x diplomancer and the "roll dc 15 to bribe the guard who asked for a bribe" being examples. But I find some structure to be better than "dm & players use RL skills to convince each other no matter what the characters are". And yeah, they'll game the social issue rules if they want to. But then they're already probably gaming the physical combat rules already, squeezing out the largest number of actions or metagaming d&d 5e legendary saves.

[NichG]

So... normal everyday interactions aren't combat therefore normal everyday social interactions shouldn't be social combat? I thought that was a normal given of the systems, that the basic normal stuff doesn't warrant going full combat mode. Same way you don't make them roll animal handling checks to mount their loyal & trained horse every morning, noon, and potty break.

Not just 'normal everyday interactions', all social interactions. The thing that makes socialization a powerful force and why having skill at socialization is impactful doesn't have to do with the ability to use that skill to win in a contest of social prowess.

It's like if you modeled making art as combat. Yes, you could put those mechanics to that process and use it to choose in a game setting which artist wins a competition. But that would miss out on 99% of what art is for, how it's effective, what it can accomplish, etc. It would be a bad model for art. And if you had a game that says 'the way you art in this game is, when you meet an opposing artist you have a series of roll-offs', that would be a game that would be bad for exploring what it would be like to be an artist. Or if you modeled scientific invention as combat against a group of hostile peer reviewers, yes, you could do that, but it wouldn't actually capture much of the actual things science does for the world (although it might be realistic for certain interactions scientists are used to).

And if that's 'what socialization is' or 'what art is' or 'what science is' in the way that a given game encourages you to see the world, that game is going to have a void where the actual stuff that socialization or art or science do for people would normally be. Even if those things are still technically possible for characters, the design of the system has drawn attention away from those aspects by giving you a concrete thing you can do by using the mechanics (e.g. defeat peer reviewers or browbeat a guard into dereliction of duty) and leaving everything else nebulous.

Like, the Fate example encourages you to think that if Peter doesn't want to follow through with a promise he made to Aunt May, the correct thing to do is for them to fight it out until one has achieved their ends without compromise and the other submits and suffers consequences aside. Rather than, say, Peter just saying 'hey Aunt May, something came up, how can I make this up to you later?' or Aunt May just saying 'Oh I see what's going on, this is really important to you huh? Well you have fun with Mary Jane, I'll find someone else to help. Love you, Peter.' or even something like 'Peter, why don't you bring MJ to the soup kitchen? I know its not much of a date, but kindness is attractive you know?'. But once you 'roll initiative' (or rather start trying to fill up each-others' stress bars), it's going to be a lot harder to get into the mindset on either side of the screen that these characters don't actually want to beat each-other up or hurt each-other. The mechanics introduce a preferred framing which ends up warping the fiction.

Because I do prefer some sort of framework for things like long cons, court trials, ongoing psychological torture, and such. Things like just "d20+3 vs d20+8" don't have the feel of an experienced expert con artist putting one over on a noob farm kid with their first sword. They take some of the stress out of having characters who are mechanically weak willed and gullible but trying to get the players to act like it instead of them declaring they're immune to everything that isn't hit point damage.

I think I said it up thread but, don't just lean on a mark being weak willed or gullible. Don't fixate on 'the informed attribute of this character is that they should be able to fool others' in order to express a con artist. Instead, actually put good bait on the table. Make it real. Make it actually possible for the players to come out ahead. But have the con artist hold back one important piece of information that makes it unlikely. If you go into it with the mindset of 'no matter what, I can't force them to accept' then you stop looking for bludgeons and you start looking for things that the other person is going to want to accept, and that will get you further towards actually making a good evocative con artist character than if you're leaning on 'this number on their sheet says they're good at conning you, you have to pretend like you were fooled now'.

This is why I universally prefer information gathering abilities when trying to add social mechanics over exertions of force. It's a lot more coherent to say e.g. 'the character you're interacting with did a lot of research on you before this meeting and has an ability which means they gain knowledge of the thing you're currently most in need of, the thing you're currently most afraid of other people finding out, and the greatest source of conflict between you and your party - what are those things?' and then to build a con or negotiation or whatever on what you actually receive from the player than to say 'this number means they make a really persuasive argument to you'. And sometimes that means the guy with a lot of points towards being a con artist is just not going to have the leverage to make something happen on short notice with a particular mark, even if they massively out-skill that mark. It may mean they need to do groundwork first - create a source of need before exploiting that need, etc. And if that's the case, so be it - the con artist should be skilled enough to recognize that this is a particularly bad choice for a mark and should instead go around them and try to con an associate or a friend or whatever in order to get their in.

If you want to model prolonged psychological torture? Easy - the person takes a temporary negative level (or system equivalent debuff) per interval of torture, and can make that process stop by giving in to the demands. If they hit Lv0 (or some threshold) without giving in, subsequent losses become outright XP loss. The player can decide if they're willing to roll up a new character in order for their character not to break.

Court cases? Rather than making it about oratory, make a set of lynchpin pieces of evidence. The side trying to produce a counterfactual outcome has to destroy, hide, or negate through technicality at least 2/3 of the evidence to win; the side trying to produce the outcome consistent with events has to pinpoint and deliver at least 1/3 of the evidence in order to win. On a tie, flip a coin or do whatever the equivalent of a hung jury would be in your setting.

[Lacco]

It's like if you modeled making art as combat. Yes, you could put those mechanics to that process and use it to choose in a game setting which artist wins a competition. But that would miss out on 99% of what art is for, how it's effective, what it can accomplish, etc. It would be a bad model for art. And if you had a game that says 'the way you art in this game is, when you meet an opposing artist you have a series of roll-offs', that would be a game that would be bad for exploring what it would be like to be an artist. Or if you modeled scientific invention as combat against a group of hostile peer reviewers, yes, you could do that, but it wouldn't actually capture much of the actual things science does for the world (although it might be realistic for certain interactions scientists are used to).

While I mostly like the rest of the argument, this part got me thinking something was off.

Mainly because I could say the same about D&D's combat mechanics. Using them would make you miss out on 99% of what combat is about, what it feels like or even how it looks like. It is a bad model for combat.

...and that would move us into the "unpopular D&D topics" conversation.

Still: you could model making art, or inventing, or cooking, or anything like combat. And depending on the mechanics it could be a fun and interesting game. It wouldn't be necessarily realistic, but the same can be said about "my CHA 4 silent guy is now making this eloquent argument in my voice and the GM likes me, so let's make it a freebie". Or anything in between. My main point with any social mechanics (and social "combat") is: if you are doing it, make it interesting mechanic-wise. Or don't do it at all.

[Telok]

Not just 'normal everyday interactions', all social interactions.

I think this is where you keep losing me. You insist on using a social conflict system for everything social. Its like using the combat system for all physical activities. Peter Parker making an excuse to put off something with his aunt isn't social combat, unless he wants more out of it than that and needs to start a screaming fight to get it. Its like you don't use the combat system for a bowling game, unless a fight breaks out of course.

I think I said it up thread but, don't just lean on a mark being weak willed or gullible. Don't fixate on 'the informed attribute of this character is that they should be able to fool others' in order to express a con artist. Instead, actually put good bait on the table. Make it real

Yeah, I've done that. I, personally, have to be able to con/bluff/convince/diplomacy the player/dm. And I can do that, sometimes, with some of them. And other players/dms haven't been able to do it to me. With zero support from the system I get faced with having characters/npcs with the right skills & experiences having no way to effectively use them beyond dm fiat. I got tired of having the below half average int-wis-will-cha characters being immune to deception & intimidation while the twice normal human int-wis-will-cha characters fall for it because of the players skills & capabilities.

The rest of it... its nice, sounds like it would work in those systems, but it feels like reinventing the wheel every time. If I can have a general non-physical conflict resolution (beyond "who rolls higher on the dice more often") subsystem that handles most of the conflicts reasonably well then I don't have to create a new subsystem for every event and I can spend more time playing or prepping.

[NichG]

While I mostly like the rest of the argument, this part got me thinking something was off.

Mainly because I could say the same about D&D's combat mechanics. Using them would make you miss out on 99% of what combat is about, what it feels like or even how it looks like. It is a bad model for combat.

Still: you could model making art, or inventing, or cooking, or anything like combat. And depending on the mechanics it could be a fun and interesting game. It wouldn't be necessarily realistic, but the same can be said about "my CHA 4 silent guy is now making this eloquent argument in my voice and the GM likes me, so let's make it a freebie". Or anything in between. My main point with any social mechanics (and social "combat") is: if you are doing it, make it interesting mechanic-wise. Or don't do it at all.

There's a difference between having every detail and capturing the essence of a thing. Even with a very low degree of detail, a food and cooking system where cooking battles determine who rules the state is a worse model for cooking than a system in which cooking helps keep a nutrition bar filled to prevent debuffs, and really good cooking grants various morale-based buffs to people. Because fundamentally what food does to people is that it keeps them alive, provides energy, allows bodies to be rebuilt and grown, and the experience of food is largely a source of position emotion and a way that stress and fear can be released. That doesn't mean you have to have an oil temperature roll and detailed nutrition depletion curves for different cooking methods and different vitamins though.

So e.g. Space Food Truck is ostensibly a game about cooking and food, but it's more a game about what it's like to be a logistics coordinator than about what it's like to be a chef, since the food and cooking systems don't capture any particular thing about food or cooking that wouldn't be true of assembling a mechanical device or sourcing commercial goods as a merchant.

If you're doing something freeform, you can capture the essence of a thing without any mechanics at least up to the level of understanding of the person running it. If you put misaligned mechanics on it, you lose even that. So I'd say its better to have no mechanics for something than mechanics which represent it poorly, even if those mechanics (in isolation of what they're actually trying to model) might be interesting on their own. Go is an inherently interesting game, but having the player solve tsumego in order to climb a cliff is just dissonant in something that's trying to be an RPG. It's fine if you're making a game about tsumego and you want a visual progress marker or something, but for an RPG it's going to drive a really strong separation between in-character and out-of-character thinking - solving tsumego just doesn't feel at all like climbing a cliff.

So if you said that's true for you for D&D combat, then the design question is: can you suggest a model of combat which is no more complex, but is better aligned to what actual combat situations feel like? For every detail you add, you must delete a detail. I think its certainly possible to do, and it can be worthwhile to go down that design road. For me at least, it's not as bad as the social stuff tends to be though.

I think this is where you keep losing me. You insist on using a social conflict system for everything social. Its like using the combat system for all physical activities. Peter Parker making an excuse to put off something with his aunt isn't social combat, unless he wants more out of it than that and needs to start a screaming fight to get it. Its like you don't use the combat system for a bowling game, unless a fight breaks out of course.

I mean, I wasn't the one who gave this example as a good example of how a social combat system could work. So I don't think you can put that on me. But here's the thing. If the system defines a social skill, and that social skill is most useful or most detailed in how it applies in situations of social combat, that's going to make people who invest in having a very socially competent character predisposed to turning interactions into social combat, because that's where they get to use the abilities they paid for. It's the hammer the system gave them, which makes situations look like nails. I'd say this discussion has been proof of that effect - look at the people on that Reddit thread who became invested in arguing 'no, you absolutely could run this as a conflict' and the resistance here to the point that Aunt May might want to consider backing down when she realizes she's hurting Peter by pushing so hard.

Yeah, I've done that. I, personally, have to be able to con/bluff/convince/diplomacy the player/dm. And I can do that, sometimes, with some of them. And other players/dms haven't been able to do it to me. With zero support from the system I get faced with having characters/npcs with the right skills & experiences having no way to effectively use them beyond dm fiat. I got tired of having the below half average int-wis-will-cha characters being immune to deception & intimidation while the twice normal human int-wis-will-cha characters fall for it because of the players skills & capabilities.

Again, I think its a lot better to just let go of informed attributes and assumptions of what you think a character should be able to succeed at when it comes to interactions with others. A highly skilled diplomat being unable to convince someone is a valid outcome, if the diplomat has no leverage that that person actually would care about. Stop envisioning a particular outcome first and using a mental model where high competence means you can always beeline your way directly to that outcome.

And if its really a problem, if you're constantly getting dissonance from those informed attributes, then just remove everything from the system which would put a quantitative measure to one of those things. I don't think its a terrible idea to have a system where there are no attributes for social skill, even no mental attributes at all.

The rest of it... its nice, sounds like it would work in those systems, but it feels like reinventing the wheel every time. If I can have a general non-physical conflict resolution (beyond "who rolls higher on the dice more often") subsystem that handles most of the conflicts reasonably well then I don't have to create a new subsystem for every event and I can spend more time playing or prepping.

I mean, my tendency would not be to run those things as actual set-piece events unless I was sufficiently interested in laying out the map as it were. I'm not going to run a courtroom drama if I'm not actually interested enough in courtroom drama to make it special - I'll abstract it away or move it offscreen. I'm not going to run torture with mechanics unless it's at a table where everyone is interested in exploring such things, I'll just not have torture feature at all in the game, or with a table with a moderate level of tolerance I might say 'your character was tortured, how do they react?' and leave it to them to decide. That won't actually cost the game anything if it wasn't interesting enough to detail in the first place. I don't think the game suffers all that much from those things being abstracted away. But if you really must have them, do them in a way that reflects their essence, not just by slapping on a mismatched generic system that wants everything to be modeled as a conflict.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Again, I think its a lot better to just let go of informed attributes and assumptions of what you think a character should be able to succeed at when it comes to interactions with others. A highly skilled diplomat being unable to convince someone is a valid outcome, if the diplomat has no leverage that that person actually would care about. Stop envisioning a particular outcome first and using a mental model where high competence means you can always beeline your way directly to that outcome.

Yeah. High competence doesn't mean you always get your way (or only don't get your way if someone of greater competence opposes you). Some things just aren't possible, no matter how competent you are. E.g. most scientific experiments, run by highly competent individuals, fail. They provide inconclusive results that basically don't go anywhere; many of the ones that do give answers fail to replicate by other groups. "Highly skilled" != "always succeed". And conversely, "failed" != "not skilled enough." There's a huge amount of variability/randomness/uncertainty in anything that's interesting enough to focus on. Sure, having randomness in cooking a routine dinner is probably bad. But experienced recipe designers also go through dozens or more of iterations even just adjusting things they know well.

Personally, I find the idea of a character who can talk people into anything without mind control to shatter any possible verisimilitude I have, and social combat just makes things worse (for all the reasons you've described).

As someone who has never experienced combat with monsters, I struggle to know what makes sense in that context. So I need a system to abstract away a lot of that complexity and put both bounds and helps on the process. On the other hand, I've had lots of experience talking to people. Which makes that a lot easier to handle without the scaffolding that rules and mechanics represent. To me, this says that "having rules for it" or not doesn't mean much, other than that the developers expected people to need (or want) more detailed mechanical scaffolding for one thing over another. It doesn't even make it more important to the system (beyond relatively loose boundaries such as "if you have detailed combat mechanics, combat probably will come up regularly"). And different developers can disagree on what scaffolding they want to provide, depending on where they (and their intended audience and gameplay) wants to put the effort.

[kyoryu]

Personally, I find the idea of a character who can talk people into anything without mind control to shatter any possible verisimilitude I have, and social combat just makes things worse (for all the reasons you've described).

Well, yes. Generally in Fate, both sides have to have some leverage in order for a Conflict to happen. Otherwise, one side or the other would just back off. It's pretty explicit that you roll the dice only when the outcome is in question - and if one side or the other would never agree, then there's no need to roll the dice.

Secondly, both sides have to be willing to engage. In the example provided, both May and Peter were willing to verbally duke it out. I feel a good amount of the criticism casts Peter as a victim, but he's really not. He could have engaged or not. May had something he wanted (reading between the lines, "getting out of his commitment without suffering the repercussions") and so he was willing to engage to try to do it. He just played that scenario very, very poorly for any number of reasons. It's a good example of how the mechanics work, but a terrible example of effective strategy.

I agree that any system that allows "mind control" without actual mind control is pretty bad. I generally view social interactions as trade offers - and if something is either a good or a bad trade (ie, that is, it's either obvious to both sides they should do it, or obvious to one side they shouldn't), then mechanics don't come into play. Only bring mechanics into it when the answer to "should I take this deal" is "maaaaaybe?"

Also, Fate as a system is a lot about "what's it worth to you?", and Consequences aren't just a combat thing, and non-combat things are generally considered just as important as combat. I think there's a lot of system-level things that are being presumed poorly. In D&D? Yeah, that scenario would be pretty bad, since usually it's "roll for initiative, you're in combat until you win or die", and it really seems like just a resource soak. Context does matter.

[Jakinbandw]

So as someone working on an rpg, I'd like to toss my social system out there and see if it helps.

It's a very simple system: Characters will ho along with any suggested course of action unless they have at least one specific reason they won't. Each reason they wont go along is a Block. Npc Blocks are determined secretly by the GM, while PC blocks must be shared out loud.

There are 2 ways to find out blocks:

1: Just ask the character. Remember that characters go along with requests unless they have a block against it, so this usually easy to accomplish.
2: Talk with them and attempt to read between the lines using insight. Harder, but sometimes it's the only option.

There are 4 ways to clear blocks:

1) Make an argument: Characters go along with courses of actions unless they have a reason not to. You can clear a block by suggesting that it be cleared in a way that a character has no reason to object to. Generally this is based around resolving the reason for the block.

"Get up and come out of the house!" (Course of action)
"Don't wanna..." (sign that their is a block and social conflict has started)
"The house is on fire! Get out before you burn!" (Argument that clears the 'I'm feeling lazy' block the npc had)

Lying can be part of an argument, as can needing to convince people of differant cultures that you're telling the truth. (Look up the lego movie 2 song 'not evil' for an example of this.

2) Fast Talk: You can get someone to agree to something in the moment, but it is inherently deceptive. When they are faced with any negative consequences from them going along with the fast Talk, they realize they were tricked. Ie: you could get a king to sign a paper saying you were the new king, but I you actually tried to take the kingdom from him he wouldn't go along with it. And note that this only works as long as you are talking with them and keeping them confused. The moment you stop, the effect ends and if any negative consequences happen to them based on your fast talk, they will know you tricked them. Fast Talk is also very obvious to outside observers (ie: not the target), so someone trying to fast talk a king where anyone can hear is going to get interrupted and either tossed out or put in jail.

3) Honor: in my game pcs gain honor points for being honorable. They can wager those points to clear a block related to lack of trust. The target sets the cost of the wager, and if the pcs can pay, then they lose access to that honor until they keep their word. If they break their word, the honor is lost forever. NPCs can do the same, but they offer honor to the PCs instead. If thr NPC keeps their word, the PCs don't get the honor, if they break their word the PCs do. Of course the PCs can choose to not accept the wager if the honor offered is too low.

4) Favours: Chaeacters can call in favours, or offer to do favours to clear blocks. There are 4 levels of favours, and each with guidelines on what they require. This method of clearing blocks is transactional and requires both sides to agree on a price they feel is fair. If a NPC owes a favour, they must fulfill it, and each favour has guidelines on what can be required of the the one that owes it (its why I have multiple levels of favour). If a King owes the party an extreme favour, they can demand that he give his throne to them. It wouldn't necessarily be that simple, as civil war could break out, but a more common way of making it work would be a political marriage to their heir, with an agreement for the king to step down.

Of course this means nobles and kings are very careful not to agree to owe any favours.

----

So far this system has worked pretty well in my tests, but I'm curious to hear opinions on it.

[kyoryu]

I'm not fond of the framing of "you should do what someone wants unless there is a block". It may just be presentation, but for negotiaions/agreements, it feels a bit coercive.

I prefer to see them as exchanges - "I'll give you x in exchange for y". Sometimes those are vague and fuzzy things, and ssometimes they're negative things "in exchange for 100gp, I won't punch you." Practically they might end up being the same (and certainly the idea of blocks is better than a lot of systems), but for some reason the framing just feels wrong to me.

I'm not saying it's absolutely wrong objectively, of course, and as I said, it is better than a lot of systems, but it rubs me wrong in ways I can't properly articulate.

[Jakinbandw]

I'm not fond of the framing of "you should do what someone wants unless there is a block". It may just be presentation, but for negotiaions/agreements, it feels a bit coercive.

I prefer to see them as exchanges - "I'll give you x in exchange for y". Sometimes those are vague and fuzzy things, and ssometimes they're negative things "in exchange for 100gp, I won't punch you." Practically they might end up being the same (and certainly the idea of blocks is better than a lot of systems), but for some reason the framing just feels wrong to me.

I'm not saying it's absolutely wrong objectively, of course, and as I said, it is better than a lot of systems, but it rubs me wrong in ways I can't properly articulate.

I'm curious why you feel it's coercive. The intent is to have to allow things to flow smoothly without any need for the system until something specific comes up. You want to make friends at the bar? Cool, you succeed, nothing special needed. You don't need to offer anything, you want to be friends, the guy your talking to isn't against it, and so you get along and become friends.

Now if you are playing a draw and your in a racist tavern and youre trying to make friends things will be differant. The GM can immediately see that it shouldn't work, and that the block is that those in the bar are racist. If you want to still try to make friends as a drow, you'll have to find a way to overcome their racism.

It's at this point that trading and bargaining can happen. I use favours as just a way of handling intangibles because wealth and money mean differant things to dofferant people. A beggar will value 100gp more than a king will, for example.

[kyoryu]

It feels like the model is "if people don't want to do what you want, you need to overcome them until they agree."

Again, in play it probably doesn't work out that way and wouldn't be all that different from what I'd do. But for some reason the presentation is off to me. Like the other person isn't an equal, but an obstacle to be defeated, if that makes sense.

Note also that I'm talking very squishy and subjective presentation/feel issues, not a hard "this is bad because" or "this is broken".

[NichG]

I'm not sure it feels coercive to me unless the blocks can be cleared in ways that ignores their content (so maybe Fast Talk in particular is a concern), but it does have a faint lawyerly feel to it. Like, it could reduce to a lot of semantic arguments about how someone phrased their block, or whether someone properly thought out all contingencies and corner cases when defining their blocks.

So e.g. let's say you want to protect yourself from the request 'kill your lover', so that under no circumstances will you do that. How would you phrase the blocks and how complicated would it need to be? How about if you want to protect yourself from 'if you don't kill X, I will kill Y' when you care about X and Y?

Could someone have a block 'under no circumstances will I do something only because I'm asked to do it; I will listen, refuse, and then I may or may not independently decide to do it anyhow'? Would that be bypassed by honor?