Social/Intellectual Combat System???

[The Monster]

One of the things I've wondered about is the relative lack of significance to the social skills and stats - PRE, Persuasion, etc. While the rules lovingly detail all the different calibers and modifications possible for firearms, complete with wonderfully granular in-game effects, there's little more than handwaving for repartee and other social interaction. Presence Attacks are such a blunt intrument, and left open to interpretaion, they seem a pretty clumsy mechanic compared to the combat rules.

Other systems attempt to deal with more detailed, specific effects around social interaction, with varying success. In d20, persuasive skills can affect the attitude rating of NPCs, with fairly specific target numbers and at least general meanings for the various attitudes (e.g., to move the target from Neutral to Friendly, you need to roll a 20, or whatever, with a list of modifiers). There are specific combat maneuvers (feint, for example) which call on a character's social skills and have actual combat effects laid out in the rules. In 7th Sea (the original d10 version!), there is a minor susbsystem for repartee - taunting, intimidating, etc. - which uses various character skills, has specific rules, and specific combat effects. I'm not claiming these examples are the best out there, or that they even necessarily work all that well (they're just the ones that come to me off the top of my head), but they do exist and they are more or less viable options for characters, providing some options beyond "I bash 'im again." Hero has almost nothing of this kind, despite a very nice list of interpersonal skills and detailed stats.

Yet the potency of repartee and social interaction is a significant part of heroic literature and film, especially in more 'heroic' genres (pulp, fantasy, and the like). Shouldn't there be something more to this in Hero than the Presence Attack, something more than the universally-invoked 'GM fiat'?

I don't yet have any suggestions on just how this would work. I do know that the new Star Wars Saga rules have a number of special abilities that use charisma-type abilities to boost allies and impede enemies, with potentially serious combat effects. I for one would like to see some rules for those characters who rely on wits and panache to supplement their combat skills, or even replace them! Yes, you can build Powers in Hero to do some things, but it seems a clumsy way to resolve things. After all, with normal weapons and a few points of skills, you can access a wide variety of combat options and maneuvers - but with a similar number of points in Persuasion, Sleight of Hand, and the like, there's nothing interesting you can do unless the GM is in a good mood?

I submit that Hero should offer some good, solid rules on using these skills and stats in action: INT, PRE, EGO, intellectual and social skills. The basic pieces are already there in the system; surely there's some way to make it work.

So, I throw this out for discussion: is it something that other folks are interested in, would it be a useful addition to the rules, or is everyone perfectly satisified with relying on GM whim?

[Lord Liaden]

Actually, Shelley Chrystal Mactyre is incorporating an optional mechanic for such situations, "Reputation Points," in her finished-when-it's-finished Regency HERO sourcebook. Shelley has several previews of the book on her website, including this glimpse at Reputation Points: http://www.mactyre.net/archives/regency/rps.html

[Vondy]

Only if its clearly marked optional and I don't have to use it. I would like a bit more granularity in terms of social skills (they're currently limited and old school), but I'd prefer to keep it open and not have it be solely adjudicated by dice).

My daughter wanted me to use a smiley. She picked this one: :king:

[Kdansky]

I know that this makes sense for a simulationist, but because I am a RPer first, I only want to simulate when I cannot RP it (combats being one of these cases). So I'm toooootally against this! :)

I would actually vote for getting rid of INT alltogether, because you just cannot play a character that is more intelligent than you are. Well, you can, but "I roll Deduction! Yes, a 3! GM, explain the plot!" is the worst kind of gameplay there is. :) As a GM, I will never give out a solution to a puzzle to a roll. If I did, we would not have need to RP.

Quintessence: Remove Int, might even remove Social Skills (although that *is* a bit crass) and replace with "You look handsome" perk.

[steamteck]

Except from a totally roleplaying point not mechanics. My players like playing characters of different intelligences and play them differently. Some people enjoy playing Super geniuses as much as others love playing strongmen. You CAN play someone more intelligent than you anyway because the NPC super geniuses are also limited by the GM. The number helps them conceptualize how smart they are and more easily get appropriate skills.

[CourtFool]

I would like to see some kind of Social/Intellectual Combat System. I like to play characters that are smarter and more socially adept than I am. I do not accept the GM to just hand over the keys to the kingdom just because I made a good roll…anymore than I would expect the GM to hand over the keys to the kingdom just because I beat someone in combat.

[buzz]

I definitely want to see this. HERO is sorely lacking in this area.

[Diamond Spear]

I definitely do NOT want to see this. "Social Combat" systems are a crutch that upsurp/replace role-playing with a mechanic.

[Jaxom]

There is a clear distinction between roleplaying and mechanincs. I game with the Monster all the time and I can assure you that what he is asking for is *not* a way to replace actually getting into character and delivering monologues.

Look at the rules for a Presence attack and think about what they do. They allow any character to influence combat (a mechanical system) by *roleplaying*.

In theory, you could build a power called "talk you into a stupor" as an EGO based entangle which requires extra time. You want to talk about a way to defeat roleplaying, that is it.

What The Monster is asking for here is a middle-ground. Not the blunt instrument of the Presence Attack. Not the specific surgical description of a power-build with special effects... Something which can define the interaction between in-character roleplay and dialogue with the mechanical systems of skills and combat somewhat systematically instead of relying on GM interpretation, flexibility and fiat. A convention, if you will, within the system for actually shifting the written mechanics. Presence Attacks already allow a modifier for a good monologue. What about every other numeric system in the game?

[Balok]

I think interaction between players and NPCs, or between players and players, is key to good roleplaying. I am loathe to see it reduced to die rolls. I have a player who constantly wants to "roll to bluff" without actually saying how he wants to bluff someone. I have to constantly remind him that simply making a roll won't cut it (when I'm the GM, anyhow). The last thing I'd like to see is a mechanic actually encouraging that sort of behavior.

[Tonio]

I think interaction between players and NPCs, or between players and players, is key to good roleplaying. I am loathe to see it reduced to die rolls. I have a player who constantly wants to "roll to bluff" without actually saying how he wants to bluff someone. I have to constantly remind him that simply making a roll won't cut it (when I'm the GM, anyhow). The last thing I'd like to see is a mechanic actually encouraging that sort of behavior.

As I see it, this is a fallacy. Just because the player is unimaginative, or shy, or socially inept, or generally uncomfortable with acting out what his character is doing shouldn't mean his character should be penalized.

Saying it's wrong to have a player want to "roll to bluff" without actually saying how he wants to bluff (apart from, of course, the general intent) is like saying it's wrong for him to "roll to hit" without describing his sword blow. "I try to bluff him into thinking this box is worth $1,000" is just as valid as "I try to hit him with my sword". Sure, he could always say "Can you see the inscriptions on the side? The type of font used is clearly from the 18th century, and the sharpness they exhibit shows the exquisite craftsmanship. Letting it go for $1,000 almost seems wrong, but hey, I like you.", or "I draw back my claymore, lifting it high above my head, and bracing myself by spreading my stance in preparation. With a mighty shout I pull it down over the orc's head, trying to cleave it in twain in one blow." Sure, it makes for a better story, and it's probably better roleplaying, but is it fair to give players with a gift for prose, or outspoken players, or confident ones, an advantage?

I support an inclusion of a social/intellectual combat system, although I probably wouldn't use it, mostly because my gaming group is much more into hack and slash than social play. =/

[The Monster]

Jaxom is correct (mutual admiration society in effect ;)) - there's no way I'm looking for a way to replace roleplaying with mechanics; Tonio strikes at this idea perfectly: with all the detailed combat maneuver options open to anyone (even those without a single WF to their name!), why is it that social and intellectual interaction is reduced to a handful of skills and handwaving? (To my mind, leaving such things to "pure roleplaying" is mostly an excuse for rules laziness; much the same as it would be laziness to reduce movement to "pure roleplaying.") What I'm thinking of is a way for charcters who aren't combat monsters to use their skills, which cost points just like CSLs, to have some kind of realistic option when the fan is biochemically enhanced. A way to have Errol Flynn's Robin Hood and Captain Blood to be something besides just another dude with a few CSLs in MA:Fencing and a high DEX. A way to make repartee, analysis, and deception (among other things) a useful, consistent and balanced subsystem. Ideally, there would be a way to have a verbal duel of wits which could deliver a clear victor, and result in in-game mechanics to reflect the result.

On the Characterstics Issues thread, there's a lot of people saying that COM should just be dumped as a stat, because it makes no game effect. Some people are even suggesting that PRE and INT are disposable to the game. What I'd prefer to see in a new edition is a way to bring those stats and their related skills into focus.

I support an inclusion of a social/intellectual combat system, although I probably wouldn't use it, mostly because my gaming group is much more into hack and slash than social play. =/

Ah, but I bet that if some of those social skills allowed them to hinder or even damage their enemies somehow, there might be some interest, even to hack-and-slashers? RPGs have almost always ignored or trivialized social interaction in favor of brute force (however cunningly applied). But some of our favorite heroes are the ones who survive by wits and skill and panache, and may not be unstoppable dominators of the battlefield.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I'm not going to get into the arguments over the hows and whys of whether or not a "social conflict" system is or isn't detrimental to roleplay. I don't think the argument itself is appropriate for this forum.

I would like to see HERO have a system for playing out social conflicts in more detail than the basic Skill system facilitates. However, since there are many types of games where this level of detail for social elements isn't appropriate/necessary, and many types of gamers who would choose not to use it even in games where it probably is appropriate, I'm not sure it needs to be in the core rules. Perhaps it would be better suited to an expansion book covering rules for less-universal game elements.

In terms of how it would work, I'd envision a system similar to the combat system, with various Social Maneuvers, and so on. I'll work more on some particulars, and post some more specific ideas later in the thread.

[Thia Halmades]

I'm all for this, actually, at least as an optional rules set. There's already "Conversation Skill" that helps determine how much information you get out of an NPC; it doesn't mean you don't have to talk it out; it means there's a mechanic to back you up. To help convince people who don't want to talk to you (NPCs) to talk to you.

Is Presence Attack all that different? Not really. "BOO!" "Oh noes! I is afeard!!" So I think that a series of "Martial Maneuvers" for conversations to help guide the interaction would be great, and would a) break up the "one roll" mechanic that we already have and b) make sure that when those situations arise, there's a strong difference between someone who just has Conversation, and someone who's well versed in the arts of argumentation.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd like to see a full on conflict system with three levels of detail:


A skill roll, for when all you want to do is get through it and move on
A semi-detailed system of give and take, not unlike the current dogfighting rules
A full blown system of back and forth, blow by blow, tracking resources and maneuvers and the whole bit.


And rules for using any of them for physical and social combat.

Throw in an optional rule for setting stakes and I'm a very happy man.

[CourtFool]

Come on, Chris. Let’s go make our own game. Steve ain’t got the guts. :sneaky:

[BobGreenwade]

As someone with limited (albeit, of late, improving) social skills myself, I'd like to see an improved system of social interactions. Bits of Shelley's Reputation system, the Repartee Combat system from a late Adventurer's Club (the last one, I think), some of the Interaction Skills material from TUSk, and similar bits would be almost as helpful as TUMA has been for those of us who don't know squat about Martial Arts.

[buzz]

I'd like to see a full on conflict system with three levels of detail:


A skill roll, for when all you want to do is get through it and move on
A semi-detailed system of give and take, not unlike the current dogfighting rules
A full blown system of back and forth, blow by blow, tracking resources and maneuvers and the whole bit.


And rules for using any of them for physical and social combat.

Throw in an optional rule for setting stakes and I'm a very happy man.
I love you.

Anyone who says social resolution systems are detrimental to "roleplaying" really needs to try some games that use them. They don't mess things up the way people are implying. If anything, they make social situations much, much more fun.

[Thia Halmades]

I love you.

Anyone who says social resolution systems are detrimental to "roleplaying" really needs to try some games that use them. They don't mess things up the way people are implying. If anything, they make social situations much, much more fun.

I said it first. Where's MY love?

[buzz]

I said it first. Where's MY love?
Repped.

(EDIT: Chris too.)

[Thia Halmades]

Repped.

(EDIT: Chris too.)

Thank you. :D I was getting concerned there for a minute.

[Sean Waters]

So, what we need is a tuneable system.

At one end we remove interaction skills in favour of bonuses (handsome, silver tongued) or penalties (plain ugly, right but SOOO wrong) that you role play. At the other end we have a social combat system (I'd love to see one I could believe in).

Then we let the players of the game decide what system they want, in the game they are playing. Hell, they could use different systems in different situations within the same game.

Let's not nail our colours to the mast; there really is no need.

[Savinien]

I like this idea. I've always had trouble finding the middle ground between a charismatic player playing the social idiot and the social idiot playing the glib-tongued musketeer. Simply rolling dice doesn't cut it for combat, why should it for social interaction?

Detail the crunchy bits and allow customers to scale back to their tastes. (like we do with combat)

[MilkmanDan]

If there's a usual criticism for Hero, it's that it's too crunchy. Too many statistics, too many modifiers, too many rolls. So add more, to replace actual role playing?

Um, no.

[buzz]

Detail the crunchy bits and allow customers to scale back to their tastes. (like we do with combat)
This is pretty much how good social system work. E.g., in Burning Wheel, a social situation can be resolved:

The GM saying "yes" (i.e., there's no real conflict)
A single roll (i.e., a simple conflict)
The full-on "Duel of Wits" system (for a really, really important conflict)

You bust out the mechanics when it matters, not whenever a PC opens their mouth.

[Enforcer84]

I know that this makes sense for a simulationist, but because I am a RPer first, I only want to simulate when I cannot RP it (combats being one of these cases). So I'm toooootally against this! :)

I would actually vote for getting rid of INT alltogether, because you just cannot play a character that is more intelligent than you are. Well, you can, but "I roll Deduction! Yes, a 3! GM, explain the plot!" is the worst kind of gameplay there is. :) As a GM, I will never give out a solution to a puzzle to a roll. If I did, we would not have need to RP.

Quintessence: Remove Int, might even remove Social Skills (although that *is* a bit crass) and replace with "You look handsome" perk.
So every NPC in your campaigns is only as smart as you are? Or is it only players who are unable to play smarter than they characters? Or are you secretly Dr. Doom?

[Chris Goodwin]

If there's a usual criticism for Hero, it's that it's too crunchy. Too many statistics, too many modifiers, too many rolls. So add more, to replace actual role playing?

Um, no.

My proposal didn't add anything. It used things that are already present in the system.

[Derek Hiemforth]

And your proposal also never mentioned "replacing actual role playing." MilkmanDan seems to be reacting to a proposal no one has made. ;)

[Thia Halmades]

And your proposal also never mentioned "replacing actual role playing." MilkmanDan seems to be reacting to a proposal no one has made. ;)

Which is at the core of what I'm proposing, and in fact was considering doing a DH article for; nothing to "replace" roleplaying -- something to give you the mechanics to back up, or alter, a situation.

The party Paladin was in hostile (anti-Imperial-sentiment) territory. He gets into it with the local sheriff who's already dished out his own brand of justice on another Imperial Paladin. Our hero decides that he's willing to resolve this peaceably -- by demanding under Imperial Law that the sheriff let his prisoner go. It so happens that Paladins have Low Justice; and the law of the land states that the prisoner be remanded to custody and tried in a Senate by a jury of his peers. The sheriff doesn't see it that way.

Paladin: "Release him, by order of the Empire!"
(long pause)
Sheriff: "And what if I don't?"

Immediately tension around the table leaps about 20 degrees, and everyone thinks that there's going to be a bloody murder right there in the middle of the street. Suddenly, the party face says "Whoa, wait a second, Thia, before this gets any further out of hand, I want to try and talk the guy down." The party face then proceeds to role play his interaction with the sheriff, using calm logic and reassuring phrases to cool him off ... and makes a conversation roll.

Boom. He makes it by four (or five?) and the NPC then reacts appropriately. Some people may say "Well, that should have just been roleplayed!" and some people know that not everyone has the chops to RP it correctly. What i'm saying is simply this:

I favor a system where I can play my NPCs, and the PCs still have power. Rather than "The GM says this NPC reacts negatively no matter what!" now I know that this NPC changes his tune because the player gave him something to think about (RP) which then justified him making a roll (Conversation, I think) to swing him to his point of view. A great example of a simple roll for a bad situation, and one that was warranted. It saves ME the trouble of trying to make a decision -- the PC has the power in his hands to affect change in a rules-sanctioned way.

I just want another layer added to it, so that when my players go into talks with high-powered demons, lawyers, or Steve Long (and there may not be too much difference in those examples... :think:) that the high powered lawyers make their "conversation martial maneuver" rolls based on a sort of ICV -- Intelligence Combat Value. Some arguments (Closing) would be weighted to put it all on the line; leaving you open to rebuttal and so on. All to break down the INT score of the target to zero (thus "winning" the argument, and INT replaces BODY).

I can easily see people replacing RP with this system. I think it'd be much better served as the dice rolls that happen in between sessions. SURE. People CAN use it to replace RP. But much like a well run combat (I leap from the balcony, slide down the tapestry, and plunge my dagger into him!) it will add depth to an interaction series that is sorely lacking.

So that's me. Just as people can run stale combats, they can run stale argument series. And for some things (a day in court that you don't WANT to RP all day, and you need to convince a Jury, so who wins is determined by how much overall INT damage they do to the Jury -- who "convinced" them) you would RATHER have light RP (present argument, rebuttals) and then use your well paid for skills to get what you want.

Sorry, it's a ramble, but it's something I've been thinking about quite a lot.

[Balabanto]

I would rather claw my eyes out with a robot pitchfork apparatus, feed them to my cat, and have the cat regurgitate them and have the remains burned than have social combat rules.

[Enforcer84]

Okay, here's an RP situation in our game.

Enforcer (Brick, PRE 30, Interrogation 15-); I'm trying to get a thung to reveal what he knows. Enforcer's rep doesn't help in this situation, so I basically try to intimidate the fellow. Now, I am not a PRE 30 human being. And my GM is, to be fair, a frightening person in his own right.

Enforcer: "Normally, there'd be a lot of witty banter and implied threats, but time is of the essence and we need to know that address. So, this is you're helmet *CRUNCH* the helmet is stronger than your skull. Tell me what I want to know and that is the end of demosntrations."
No I stammered a bit and my GM was laughing so thank goodness I got a decent PRE attack; and the Thug was not literally my Gm. I beat his PRE to the point that he seriously considered what I had said, and then rolled the interrogation (to ask the right questions once I had scared him).

That was all done using the current rules. What else would I have needed there?

[Markdoc]

We already have a flexible and capable social combat system, using PRE, presence attacks and the large array of social skills available. My games have always featured a high degree of social interaction - last session's huge fight was the exception, not the rule.

Players routinely interact with NPCs through all of the options available.

What more do you want? A true "combat" style where a player has "social points" that can be lost by a "social attack" until they are "socially stunned"? Ghod, what a disgusting and un-roleplayable concept.

I'd far rather have have a player and an NPC duel via conversation and interrogation rolls, assign difficulty penalties and complentary bonuses as applicable and reach a logical conclusion based on role play and rollplay - as in Thia's example - than have a system where you roll and say "The baron has 12 d6 in "Impress" and rolls 40 - that's a KO. You tell him everything you know"

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Okay, here's an RP situation in our game.

Enforcer (Brick, PRE 30, Interrogation 15-); I'm trying to get a thung to reveal what he knows. Enforcer's rep doesn't help in this situation, so I basically try to intimidate the fellow. Now, I am not a PRE 30 human being. And my GM is, to be fair, a frightening person in his own right.

Enforcer: "Normally, there'd be a lot of witty banter and implied threats, but time is of the essence and we need to know that address. So, this is you're helmet *CRUNCH* the helmet is stronger than your skull. Tell me what I want to know and that is the end of demosntrations."
No I stammered a bit and my GM was laughing so thank goodness I got a decent PRE attack; and the Thug was not literally my Gm. I beat his PRE to the point that he seriously considered what I had said, and then rolled the interrogation (to ask the right questions once I had scared him).

That was all done using the current rules. What else would I have needed there?

And that's pretty much what I'd do as GM. One of my players stutters quite badly and English is his second language. And he plays a highly persuasive (if slightly sleazy) merchant! Expecting him to roleplay every situation in flowing speech is just going to be painful for all involved. I allow him to state what he wants to do, make his rolls and adjudicate the results: I provide the speeches if needed. He's happy.

I also have a player who plays a high strung, yet commanding noble. The player loves improv and has sunk many points into social skills and PRE. He loves to roleplay - in a fake French accent, yet. He gets to do his speech and if sufficiently impressive, he gets a bonus to the roll. He's happy too.

In both cases, I encourage liberal use of play and other skills - the merchant recently wanted information - he got it by finding his mark and using gambling to amass some credit with the mark, and conversation to extract the information - he got a bonus on the conversation roll because the guy owed him a lot of money - and was happy with the suggestion that maybe the debt could be deferred, etc. That's not exactly high-emo roleplaying, but it is roleplaying. The other player uses spoken language and combinations of skills such as High Society and Conversation with PRE attack, to browbeat social inferiors into doing what he wants. That's most definitely roleplaying in every sense.

The current system accommodates both extremes.

I agree with Enforcer - we already have a flexible toolkit in this regard: what more do we need?

cheers, Mark

[steamteck]

As I see it, this is a fallacy. Just because the player is unimaginative, or shy, or socially inept, or generally uncomfortable with acting out what his character is doing shouldn't mean his character should be penalized.

Saying it's wrong to have a player want to "roll to bluff" without actually saying how he wants to bluff (apart from, of course, the general intent) is like saying it's wrong for him to "roll to hit" without describing his sword blow. "I try to bluff him into thinking this box is worth $1,000" is just as valid as "I try to hit him with my sword". Sure, he could always say "Can you see the inscriptions on the side? The type of font used is clearly from the 18th century, and the sharpness they exhibit shows the exquisite craftsmanship. Letting it go for $1,000 almost seems wrong, but hey, I like you.", or "I draw back my claymore, lifting it high above my head, and bracing myself by spreading my stance in preparation. With a mighty shout I pull it down over the orc's head, trying to cleave it in twain in one blow." Sure, it makes for a better story, and it's probably better roleplaying, but is it fair to give players with a gift for prose, or outspoken players, or confident ones, an advantage?

I support an inclusion of a social/intellectual combat system, although I probably wouldn't use it, mostly because my gaming group is much more into hack and slash than social play. =/


Actually we never let anyone get away with "I hit hit him with my sword" or such. I guess we're a snobby group and that's just insufficient for us. If you're into that little after a few sessions I'm not sure why you're there. I've found ANYONE who enjoys the game does better than " I talk to him" after a little prodding and enjoys the game way way more. everyone has there own level of course but the act of actually trying and roleplaying rather than just going through the motions makes a big difference.

I think what we've got is pretty good system maybe a little tightening up on how to implement social skill rolls in the core rules is all.

[Kdansky]

I would also put it like that: If the player does not want to even use direct speach, but rather just "I roll to bluff" without even naming what he bluffs for, then he definitely needs to either play something else (not "Role"-playing but a MMORPG or KOTOR or Doom) or learn how to do it that, it's not even difficult!

I also do the "I explain to the merchant that this treasure box is of immense value because of the detailwork and the scribblings on the top." sentences, and they are fine enough. A single roll also suits these, I don't see why I should roll half a dozen things there. Also, in combat "I attack him with my sword." is definitely enough. It quickly gets boring and veeery slo if everyone takes three minutes to explain his attack roll. Sure, you can sometimes do something crazy (and you should), but not on *every* attack.

Now if my player has a long explanation, I might ignore the roll in favour of just letting him win, IF his character also is any good. If the character sucks at talking and the player manages something good, he'll get to roll and a bonus to boot. If the player screws up and the character is bad too, he'll get to roll and a malus (and will probably fail). If the players sucks at describing, but has a good character, he'll get a "well, your lie is extremly ridiculous, but since you (the Character) are so eloquent, you can still roll to get your way".
So if you describe with great care and amuse us well and do something your character is built for, then you win. That's it.

[CourtFool]

You all make a very good argument against a social combat system. You also make a very good argument for dropping the current combat rules. If we are going to free form, why do we need such a thick rulebook?

[steamteck]

You all make a very good argument against a social combat system. You also make a very good argument for dropping the current combat rules. If we are going to free form, why do we need such a thick rulebook?


Missed the point did we? Or a just a sarcastic sort?

[Pattern Ghost]

You all make a very good argument against a social combat system. You also make a very good argument for dropping the current combat rules. If we are going to free form, why do we need such a thick rulebook?

Am I detecting a bit of hyperbole here?

All of the arguments against a social combat system have boiled down to: We already have one. Nothing more, nothing less.

What's free form about actually roleplaying an encounter then rolling the appropriate skill if it's a critical situation? Or using the PRE attack mechanic to influence a situation? EVERY example in the counter arguments has used EXISTING GAME MECHANICS to make its point. They're saying we already have something that's useful.

The fact is, combat and social interaction are handled differently in the vast majority of RPGs due to the fact that they are separate entities.

In most genres, social interaction is appropriately left to roleplay, sometimes backed by social skill rolls, because the outcome of most social interactions doesn't involve death of a character, or any similarly high stake in the game.

Given that there are genres where social interaction IS life and death, or appropriately high stakes, the idea of a social combat system IS a valid one, but perhaps more suited for a genre book than filling space in the core book, as well as taking development time to create an entirely new subsystem.

[MilkmanDan]

How crazy of me to think a new social combat system with Martial Conversational Maneuvers or an ICV or a blow-by-blow system of tracking resources and maneuvers or such would add extra rolls, modifiers, or complexity. Clearly, I'm making assumptions. And pasting verbatim from higher up in this thread.

They tried to give me a social combat system, I said nooo, nooo, nooo . . .

[Chris Goodwin]

I would rather claw my eyes out with a robot pitchfork apparatus, feed them to my cat, and have the cat regurgitate them and have the remains burned than have social combat rules.

Man, the problem with you is that you're just so damned hard to read sometimes. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

[buzz]

http://www.meeplepeople.com/prodimages/BlackGrognardShirt1b.jpg

:p

[Vondy]

We already have a flexible and capable social combat system, using PRE, presence attacks and the large array of social skills available. My games have always featured a high degree of social interaction - last session's huge fight was the exception, not the rule.

Players routinely interact with NPCs through all of the options available.

What more do you want? A true "combat" style where a player has "social points" that can be lost by a "social attack" until they are "socially stunned"? Ghod, what a disgusting and un-roleplayable concept.

I'd far rather have have a player and an NPC duel via conversation and interrogation rolls, assign difficulty penalties and complentary bonuses as applicable and reach a logical conclusion based on role play and rollplay - as in Thia's example - than have a system where you roll and say "The baron has 12 d6 in "Impress" and rolls 40 - that's a KO. You tell him everything you know"

cheers, Mark

Soap Opera Hero!!!

[CourtFool]

Soap Opera Hero!!!

Where?! In for two!

[The Monster]

On the one hand, there's the problem of adding even more rules to an already rules-heavy system. I agree that's a problem. However, there's also the problem that all these social and intellectual skills ultimately just don't matter unless the GM wants them to - the combat rules are pretty specific about what can be done when, and how, and for how many cookies. Given that combat is a common (or even overwhelming) focus for RPGs; nevertheless, if we're talking about building characters and spending points, there's not really any solid reason anyone should ever need to buy hardly any skills at all, beyond simple flavor. If social and intellectual situations are simply going to be resolved with "pure roleplaying" then why have rules for them at all? Why not have the player just whip up a list of stuff her character would be good at, and then roleplay off that? After all, it would simplify the system, the math, and the build process, and it would avoid imposing an artificial level of granualrity that ends up making no dofference in play.

I'm not trying for a reductio ad absurdam (sp?) here - there's an awful lot of talk about dumping this or that stat (very often COM or INT) because they have little game use, or can be abstracted out of the system with little apparent impact. Rather than dumping stats, I'd rather see them made useful by making actual mechanical purposes for them.

One of the things that spurred me to post this idea in the first place is my reading and (so far very limited) play of the Star Wars Saga Edition. In it, they have actually constructed things so that leadership abilities can make a concrete, game-mechanic, significant difference in combat and negotiation, beyond a simple skill roll and GM interpretation. It's one of the things that has me excited about that system - it is so rare that a crunchy system provides such openings for people who aren't equipped with biga$$ swords and biggera$$ spells. If they can do this for a level-based d20 system, why does it seem so offensive to suggest it for the Hero System - a system which has otherwise proved repeatedly and continuously to be more flexible and more consistent?

As others have already described, such a social combat system would not replace roleplaying any more or less than a detailed physical combat system does. I think that if well constructed, it would allow a wider range of options to players and characters than is currently available, or at least make those characters capable of active contribution during combat, in ways that do not violate, but actually reinforce, the character concept.

I don't know how to do it - I've only begun trying to think about this myself. But I'm a GM, not a game designer. I was kind of hoping that some of the large number of designers and wannabee designers around here might be tempted to take a crack at it, if there was a significant interest in it. I honestly don't think Mr. Long is going to spend much time on this (please correct me if I'm wrong, Steve! I love your work and look forward to seeing more!), with all the other things thrown onto his plate. Seeing the variance of reaction so far already, I think there's going to have to be some concrete suggestions before the idea can be more fruitfully discussed.

[Markdoc]

On the one hand, there's the problem of adding even more rules to an already rules-heavy system. I agree that's a problem. However, there's also the problem that all these social and intellectual skills ultimately just don't matter unless the GM wants them to - the combat rules are pretty specific about what can be done when, and how, and for how many cookies.

Sure: the reason for that is characters in combat are basically binary: they're active or inactive (usually that means unconscious :D). It's a very simple series of outcomes to work with - and it's left us with about 300 pages of text to cover.

In social settings, however, not only do the settings vary wildly from game to game, but the range of outcomes is nearly infinite. How do you write "when and how" rules for that?

One of the things that spurred me to post this idea in the first place is my reading and (so far very limited) play of the Star Wars Saga Edition. In it, they have actually constructed things so that leadership abilities can make a concrete, game-mechanic, significant difference in combat and negotiation, beyond a simple skill roll and GM interpretation. It's one of the things that has me excited about that system - it is so rare that a crunchy system provides such openings for people who aren't equipped with biga$$ swords and biggera$$ spells. If they can do this for a level-based d20 system, why does it seem so offensive to suggest it for the Hero System - a system which has otherwise proved repeatedly and continuously to be more flexible and more consistent?

I'm a "social interaction" GM - even the big fight scene last adventure ended with a proposal of marriage :D

So I'd certainly look - with great interest - at anything which enhanced this. However....

I don't know how to do it - I've only begun trying to think about this myself. But I'm a GM, not a game designer. I was kind of hoping that some of the large number of designers and wannabee designers around here might be tempted to take a crack at it, if there was a significant interest in it.

Ahhh - and therein lies the rub. I know not this Star Wars Saga you speak of, so I can't judge how well it works. I have however played around with house rules for years and tried several of the systems with built-in social interaction systems (Earthdawn, Burning Wheel, Hero wars, etc) and found them kludgy and prone to giving bizarre, player-jarring results (From Hero wars - a Lunar agent, being discovered and "talking the Storm Bull out of killing him" even though it was likely he was involved in said Storm Bull's exile - and the Storm Bull knew that.) These systems only work if all the players are invested in making them work and the GM is prepared for a fair deal of improv. For general gaming they're loathsome, creaking, kludge machines: it's why they are and will remain niche systems.

My concern - albeit it's not something I expect to happen to Hero - is that I don't want to see a bare-bones system that works quite well, replaced by a more rigid, less intuitive system that doesn't work well.

cheers, Mark

[buzz]

That was all done using the current rules. What else would I have needed there?
Of the three scenarios I mentioned up-thread (GM says "yes,", simple conflict, extended conflict), what you describe is exactly how a simple conflict could work. Kudos!

But what about more important moments, with more important participants? Might it not be fun to have a way to resolve them that isn't just a simple skill roll, or purely the GM making a call?

And, no, I'm not talking about a system that's as protracted as HERO combat.

Imagine a FH game about ambassadors from an elven kingdom visiting a dwarven prince in order to negotiate an important treaty. Let's assume that most of the session was the typical play you'd expect; some fights broke out, players interacted in-character, alliances were made/broken, some skills were rolled, etc.

But, now we're nearing the end of the session and it's time to get the treaty issue resolved. We don't want it left solely to GM discretion, because that might negate a lot of the effort made earlier. And we don't want to just make a single skill roll, because that's kinda boring.

So, maybe we do this.

Step 1: Each player in the final negotiation states what they want. Elf's player: "All dwarves must leave the southern hills and respect the border agreed to by our forefathers." Dwarf's player: "The elves will cede the southern hills to our clan and agree not to meddle in the affairs of the dwarven colony."

Step 2: Each player rolls their PC's PRE dice and counts the Normal Damage BODY. This becomes the BODY of their respective arguments. Maybe we even handle it just like an Entangle and give the arguments DEF equal to the number of dice rolled.

Step 3: We give the players, say, three exchanges in which they will make opposed skill rolls. Each player chooses a primary "dueling" skill, such as Oratory. Each exchange they make opposed rolls, and the margin of victory is the "damage" done to the loser's argument BODY.

Now, players aren't just saying, "I make a compelling argument," and then rolling. Each roll has to be predicated by some sort of role-playing. I.e., they have to actually coming up with some sort of point they want to make. It can be a valid point, an insult, a bluff, anything. ON top of this, depending on what they are having their PC do, they can add complementary skills to their roll. Maybe the dwarf is going to use his CuK: Elves to bolster an juicy insult. Maybe the elf is going to use KS: Dwarven Law to support an argument based on a legal point.

Step 4: After three exchanges, we see who's argument BODY has the most points left. That player gets what they want, i.e., wins the duel. If the loser was reduced to 0 BODY, they get nothing. However, if the winner took any damage and the loser still has some BODY left, the players need to make some sort of compromise. E.g., "The elves will give you the southern hills... In exchange for the secret of making mithril!"

Is this too complicated? No. Does it hamper "role-playing"? No. Does it provide a conclusive result that can take the game in interesting directions? Absolutely. Does it make social skills into actual useful parts of the game that are worth spending points on? Yup, that too.

On top of this, you could use a similar mechanic for all kinds of extended skill contests: interrogation, seduction, hacking, brainwashing, disabling elaborate devices, etc.

[buzz]

However, there's also the problem that all these social and intellectual skills ultimately just don't matter unless the GM wants them to...
This was definitely true in my last HERo group. Heck, INT didn't even really matter. Spending points on skills that were not combat-related was a total waste. And this was a very "whole night goes by without rolling dice" kind of group.

[buzz]

For general gaming they're loathsome, creaking, kludge machines: it's why they are and will remain niche systems.
Niche like D&D 4e, Exalted, and (iirc) nWoD? So creaking and kludgy that they win/are nominated for Origins (and other) awards (Burning Empires, Burning Wheel, Spirit of the Century, Spycraft 2.0, etc, etc)? That people like Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison consider them the "future of RPG'ing"?

You've obviously either had really bad experiences with these systems, or else they just don't jibe with your personal gaming preferences. And, really, that's cool.

But let me ask this. Given the fanbase's otherwise overwhelming joy at seeing HERO provide variant and options for every possible rule under the sun, why should they be so dead-set against providing this particular option, given that it's a well-proven, successful part of current RPG design? ("Current" being a place I'd really like to see HERO move towards.)

It's entirely possible that this is a direction in which HERO just isn't interested in going. That's fine. But to not investigate this option at all? That'd be doing a big disservice to both current and potential fans.

[Markdoc]

Niche like D&D 4e, Exalted, and (iirc) nWoD? So creaking and kludgy that they win/are nominated for Origins (and other) awards (Burning Empires, Burning Wheel, Spirit of the Century, Spycraft 2.0, etc, etc)? That people like Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison consider them the "future of RPG'ing"?

They can consider all they like. I've played Burning Wheel and consider the scripting mechanism one of the few truly innovative things I've seen in RPG design in ages. From the game designers' point of view, I can see why they were impressed - and I can see why it's won awards.

For actually playing on a regular basis though, it rapidly becomes slightly ridiculous and tiresome: which is why Burning wheel is destined not to be "the future of RPG'ing." It's destined to be what it is now - a niche system, beloved of Indy gamers and designers. It's an example of thinking outside the box in it's design, and it's a great pickup game that you can quickly teach people. It's fun for an evening's play. But longer -term? Bleaaah..... For combat, it's really only suitable for very limited group sizes, and for social conflict we soon ended up handwaving most social interactions and only using Duel of wits intermittently. Meaning we basically ended up with a social interaction system that was less useful in real life than what Hero offers. In addition, we didn't stick with it long enough to run into character development issues, but the character progression was clearly not designed with long, lovingly designed campaigns in mind.

In short, yeah, a brilliant innovation .... that doesn't actually work very well.

As for the other games mentioned, 4e isn't a niche system, obviously but they seem to be going the opposite direction, emphasizing miniatures, combat and all the social depth we've come to expect of an MMORG. nWoD is also not what I'd call a niche product - but it also doesn't have detailed social combat system (actually, it doesn't really have a detailed physical combat system either :D). Our resident WoD guru says - "Yeah we tend to handwave combat - actually we tend to handwave most of the rules: they're not the point"

You've obviously either had really bad experiences with these systems, or else they just don't jibe with your personal gaming preferences. And, really, that's cool.

Oh, they jibe with my personal preferences - I'd LIKE a system that I could use which provided more options for social interaction. But you're right, I've had bad experiences - all of the systems so described have turned out to be woefully lacking in real life. As I noted above in detail, it's not good enough for the intentions to be good or the mechanisms to be "current": to hold my attention, the system has to actually work - and do so without being intrusive. So far none of them have passed the "real-life gaming test" - so I'm bitterly disappointed.


But let me ask this. Given the fanbase's otherwise overwhelming joy at seeing HERO provide variant and options for every possible rule under the sun, why should they be so dead-set against providing this particular option, given that it's a well-proven, successful part of current RPG design? ("Current" being a place I'd really like to see HERO move towards.)

Well, I can only answer for myself. If it could be done - well - I'd be delighted. But based on past experience, I'd rather have the fairly spare system we have now, which works well, than much more involved system, which works badly.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Of the three scenarios I mentioned up-thread (GM says "yes,", simple conflict, extended conflict), what you describe is exactly how a simple conflict could work. Kudos!

On top of this, you could use a similar mechanic for all kinds of extended skill contests: interrogation, seduction, hacking, brainwashing, disabling elaborate devices, etc.

I've snipped your example out: it's a fine example, but the suggested mechanisms don't really grab me (OK, to be fair, I realize it's spur of the moment example, not carefully developed system :D).

Your key point about extended contests though is a good one - but again, one that GMs interested in playing social aspects in Hero already use. And yes, it applies to all sorts of things - seductions, interrogations and yes, disabling complex devices. Maybe that aspect should be highlighted in the rules book?

To take a recent example, from my game, the players wanted to contact the local lord of a town where they have arrived. They turn up at the manor and I decide they need to get past the gate guards, persuade them that they should see someone in authority and get past the chamberlain before meeting the lord - an extended contest, since each point can require multiple rolls.

Their approach was to march up to the gate and then one of the two usual face men (Lamoniak) decides to bully his way past the guards (socially). He does a PRE attack, rolling high society (successfully) to score a bonus d6 via seeming lordly and aristocratic: he addresses the guards from horseback (another d6, since these guys have never seen a horse before) and demands to see the chamberlain. He even gets another d6 for his rich, spotless clothing indicating that he is person of consequence in this remote and rural burg. He also makes a little speech announcing his Very Important Arrival, but gets no bonus, since it's not terribly engaging. Nonetheless with his 23 PRE and 3 bonus dice he rolls high enough to cow them - they send a man running for the chamberlain. In this case, good roleplaying (and dice) have short-circuited the first few steps of the challenge.

They get the chamberlain. He's more socially adept and Lamoniak's player realizes that a PRE attack - which is, when all is said and done, an attack - could easily rebound on him if he fails (Lamoniak has bought a Detect motive talent - he's good - very good - at sussing people out). So they opt for a softer sell and Lamoniak uses conversation roll (with a High society roll as a complementary) to introduce himself and his "followers" and persuade the chamberlain that they are decent folk, not untrustworthy wandering adventurers. He then passes the man off to the party's bard (Khatz) who has better persuasion skills - and Khatz convinces the man (based on a series of persuasion rolls added by Lamoniak providing complementary skill bonuses) that they really do need to see the lord and that it's important they see him now.

Here we have a series of contests and play taking - oh maybe 20 minutes, with a fairly balanced blend of rolling and talking. All simple, intuitive, well understood by players and GM, and all flowing seamlessly, with no need for looking things up in the rules. Obviously in such a setting having social skills - and at a high level - is crucial: the person who has to rely on his everyman 8- roll is clearly going to fare worse in the discussion, than the person with Persuasion 15-. But the guy with persuasion 15- still has to put forward a case. Saying "I persuade him" isn't going to go anywhere - saying "I persuade him we are solid trustworthy folk, and heroes of the Northryn shore - and look! Here's our warrant from Theyre town with the Baron's seal! I roll 6 under my persuasion skill" ..... that works.

That's the "state of the art" as far as Hero system rules go: for a more detailed rules set, to be of interest (to me at least) would have to offer something on top of that to justify the extra complexity.

What is that "something"? I freely admit I don't know, although I do know it's not any of the alternatives I've seen so far. Does that make my position clearer?

cheers, Mark

[jtelson]

I dislike optional rules; Mostly, I'll admit, because calling a rule optional implies the existance of non-optional rules. I understand it's a wording convention, simple nomenclature and largely unimportant everyone knows (or should know) what it means but it's just nails on a chalkboard when I read it.

That being said; I'm very much in favor of an optional sub-system probably based on whatever Martial Arts becomes, combat like but using alternate stats. It could be used to simulate Social/Interaction combat but also any other form of more detailed conflict that a genre requires.

So if I'm running a Mythic Japan campaign where behavior at court is a form of combat, HER-in-O d'Bergerac where wit is as important as swordplay, Chess Hero where players are Grandmasters and most sessions involve at least one critical game that may want for more than a simple Skill vs Skill roll to resolve, I have a subsystem that with minimal adjustment can be used to enhance it.

It's not useful for every campaign, heck it wouldn't be useful for most campaigns but when you want that extra level of detail: It would be nice to have it easily at hand, rather than have to build it from the ground up.

[Chris Goodwin]

Right, make them optional and I'm happy. At least as long as we know how to do it in Hero.

[Cancer]

Part of my frustration with HERO is that the flexibility of the power-construction rules make it even more viable to blow off INT and COM. You are free to base your uber-powers on whatever your want, if anything. You're not tied to a magic system (unless the GM says so) which is based on INT. PRE is more versatile than COM and has a specific mechanic built in, while COM has no such thing, so COM is just a source for a couple of free points in character construction.

De facto, you end up with nothing but sociopathic killing machine characters dominating the character groups. This is aided & abetted by HERO's versatility in its construction rules, and HERO's appalling vacuum in place of concrete mechanics for social interactions, meaningful other-than-DEX-based character cooperation, and coherent penalties for skipping noncombat roleplaying.

Nothing shows HERO's flaws in this regard more than its assignment of Teamwork as a DEX-based skill. That alone makes me splutter with incoherent rage.

[Egyptoid]

in one game we had a power called whispering campaign

basically the person who had the power picked up the phone at noon,
and by the six oclock news the target was finished, rep-wise.

PRE drain, linked to Transform, No range mod, plus a whole lot of advantages,
and continuous, so soon: PRE = 10, and target gains Rep: Wimp ( or whatever the rumor was started)

Did you know they have youtube video of Seeker in bed with a ...... ?

[Jaxom]

Ok, people keep asking what more you could want. Giving examples of situations where PRE attack and some skill rolls are used.

Here's a social power that none of you have used but which is huge in some genres. Build me the beloved Sergeant who motivates his men. Build me Lt. Dan Taylor from Forest Gump. Build me someone who can give every person in his group a Teamwork bonus or OCV or DCV bonus. Give me someone who can motivate his troops to rage and get them an extra damage level in combat. Build me Helen of Troy with a face that can launch 1000 ships.

I suppose we could build a Leader with a huge AID VPP and some modifiers. You ever looked at what that costs? I tried it once. It was easier and more effective to throw the social aspects out the window and build a shooter. And even with the VPP you wind up appealing to GM fiat to link it to any kind of characteristic that you bothered to spend points on like COM or INT or even PRE.

The PRE attack is a blunt instrument. It's like saying all we need for combat is STR, ok, and DEX too to allow for ranged attacks. Everything else can be resolved as a result of those two numbers.


The whole point here is that we have a very mechanical combat system. We know what we have to roll to hit. We know how much damage we do. We have entirely divorced all social interaction from that system (with the single exception of the PRE attack) because there is no codified way that I am aware of to use a social skill or skill level to modify the numbers in combat. In a combat system where we have OCV, DCV, DC, BODY, STUN, PD, ED, rPD, rED, range modifiers, cover, prone and a whole host of skills, CSLs and moves, we have exactly one "speaking attack" and it doesn't provide you any access to *any* of the numbers that are considered important for combat.

In essence, if you are not here to fight with guns or knives or fists, then go home nancy-boy.

[buzz]

In short, yeah, a brilliant innovation .... that doesn't actually work very well.
Well, that hasn't been my experience, and probably hasn't been the experience of the coupla thousand people playing these games on a regular basis. For me, these types of rules have proven fun (and usable) as heck.

So, we got a "yes" vote and a "no" vote. :)

[buzz]

Your key point about extended contests though is a good one - but again, one that GMs interested in playing social aspects in Hero already use. And yes, it applies to all sorts of things - seductions, interrogations and yes, disabling complex devices. Maybe that aspect should be highlighted in the rules book?
I'd certainly be happy with that.

I was probably one of maybe three people who were disappointed with The Ultimate Skill. I was primarily disappointed because, IMO, TUS provided a lot of *data* about the various HERO skills, but I didn't think it really did anything to make them more mechanically interesting to use. The social skills in particular felt pretty glossed over compared to other skills.

I don't necessarily want social (or any) skills to be more complicated; I would like them to be more interesting, and less dependent on GM whimsy. I've played too much HERO where any skills other than Breakfall and Acrobatics were totally wasted points. If I want to have my PC be Mr. Face Man, and I spend points on badass social skills, they should matter, and they should allow me to accomplish cool things via my PC.

[buzz]

So if I'm running a Mythic Japan campaign where behavior at court is a form of combat, HER-in-O d'Bergerac where wit is as important as swordplay, Chess Hero where players are Grandmasters and most sessions involve at least one critical game that may want for more than a simple Skill vs Skill roll to resolve, I have a subsystem that with minimal adjustment can be used to enhance it.

It's not useful for every campaign, heck it wouldn't be useful for most campaigns but when you want that extra level of detail: It would be nice to have it easily at hand, rather than have to build it from the ground up.
Bingo.

[nexus]

As I see it, this is a fallacy. Just because the player is unimaginative, or shy, or socially inept, or generally uncomfortable with acting out what his character is doing shouldn't mean his character should be penalized.

Saying it's wrong to have a player want to "roll to bluff" without actually saying how he wants to bluff (apart from, of course, the general intent) is like saying it's wrong for him to "roll to hit" without describing his sword blow. "I try to bluff him into thinking this box is worth $1,000" is just as valid as "I try to hit him with my sword". Sure, he could always say "Can you see the inscriptions on the side? The type of font used is clearly from the 18th century, and the sharpness they exhibit shows the exquisite craftsmanship. Letting it go for $1,000 almost seems wrong, but hey, I like you.", or "I draw back my claymore, lifting it high above my head, and bracing myself by spreading my stance in preparation. With a mighty shout I pull it down over the orc's head, trying to cleave it in twain in one blow." Sure, it makes for a better story, and it's probably better roleplaying, but is it fair to give players with a gift for prose, or outspoken players, or confident ones, an advantage?

I support an inclusion of a social/intellectual combat system, although I probably wouldn't use it, mostly because my gaming group is much more into hack and slash than social play. =/

It’s a pretty common (and IMO false) dichotomy. Combat, physical actions are perfect able to be summed up in a dice roll even if the player knows jack about how it’s done. All I can honestly say I know about swordsmanship is "The sharp end guns in the other guy" but I can play a master of blades with just a some combat skill levels and maybe the occasional description I ripped off from a movie or the last fantasy book I read.

But if I want to play James Bond, Cyrano D'beregac or Don Juan (or Mata Hari or Cleopatra for that matter) I have be more or less "be" those people instead of my black male shy and slightly overweight self and be able to improvise witty and effective dialogue (good enough to overcome the disconnect that its Me saying it) on the spot. The points I've put into the allegedly proper skills mean nothing.

Or I'm a bad player, not a ROLEplayer but a ROLLplayer. The character I created, the story hooks I thought up. or the motivations behind what I was trying to do mean nothing.

On top of that my fellow player who's put nothing in those skills can out perform my players because he's naturally glib. But if I had happened to be great with a sword or martial arts my characters gets no benefit from that unless I pay points for it.

That doesn't seem entirely fair.

From the gm's stand point, PCs can never be socially manipulated unless their players are willing to go along without some mechanic to give social skills weight. If that's a feature or a bug is subject to opinion, mine is it's a bug. A PC is not their player and the player, unless they are -very- immersed is not in the same "headspace" as their character. They are not talking to the Solumi the silver tongued seductress, they're a possibly married man sitting around a gaming table eating cheetos and talking to their gm. The GM should not have to seduce/manipulate or persuade the player to have social skills have any impact (maybe his role playing, like a player’s can earn a bonus. I ask my players if it should).

Personally, I'm not asking for a full blown emulation of the physical combat system except for social/mental duels. Exalted essentially does that and, while functional, it leads to issues. I think the current system can be tightened up, codified and given some (optional) "bite" that is a way to make social skills (and rejecting/ignoring them) have consequences like physical/combat skills.

Nothing insanely complicated but a little fleshing out couldn't hurt.

[nexus]

I dislike optional rules; Mostly, I'll admit, because calling a rule optional implies the existence of non-optional rules. I understand it's a wording convention, simple nomenclature and largely unimportant everyone knows (or should know) what it means but it's just nails on a chalkboard when I read it.


Would Suggested Rules work better for you?

[jtelson]

Would Suggested Rules work better for you?

Perhaps Alternative :)

[MilkmanDan]

Ok, people keep asking what more you could want. Giving examples of situations where PRE attack and some skill rolls are used.

Here's a social power that none of you have used but which is huge in some genres. Build me the beloved Sergeant who motivates his men. Build me Lt. Dan Taylor from Forest Gump. Build me someone who can give every person in his group a Teamwork bonus or OCV or DCV bonus. Give me someone who can motivate his troops to rage and get them an extra damage level in combat. Build me Helen of Troy with a face that can launch 1000 ships.

I suppose we could build a Leader with a huge AID VPP and some modifiers. You ever looked at what that costs? I tried it once. It was easier and more effective to throw the social aspects out the window and build a shooter. And even with the VPP you wind up appealing to GM fiat to link it to any kind of characteristic that you bothered to spend points on like COM or INT or even PRE.

The PRE attack is a blunt instrument. It's like saying all we need for combat is STR, ok, and DEX too to allow for ranged attacks. Everything else can be resolved as a result of those two numbers.


The whole point here is that we have a very mechanical combat system. We know what we have to roll to hit. We know how much damage we do. We have entirely divorced all social interaction from that system (with the single exception of the PRE attack) because there is no codified way that I am aware of to use a social skill or skill level to modify the numbers in combat. In a combat system where we have OCV, DCV, DC, BODY, STUN, PD, ED, rPD, rED, range modifiers, cover, prone and a whole host of skills, CSLs and moves, we have exactly one "speaking attack" and it doesn't provide you any access to *any* of the numbers that are considered important for combat.

In essence, if you are not here to fight with guns or knives or fists, then go home nancy-boy.

Taken from a character playing in one of my campaigns:

Master Tactician... If You Do As I Say: +2 with All Combat, Usable Simultaneously (up to 8 people at once; +1); Requires A Tactics Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 20 Active Points; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4)

[jtelson]

Taken from a character playing in one of my campaigns:

Master Tactician... If You Do As I Say: +2 with All Combat, Usable Simultaneously (up to 8 people at once; +1); Requires A Tactics Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 20 Active Points; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4)

I think we've built it as "Instructions must be spoken and heard" -1/4 rather than incantations.

Ranged Missile Deflection is also a good one for this type of character, as well as a UAA Mental Defence/ PRE Aid (Snap Out of it!)

[The Monster]

Perhaps the issue should be parsed, broken down - there are a couple of different ideas tangled together, which may or may not be resolvable separately.

One is the idea of making social and intellectual skills useful in combat - maneuvers and options based on leadership, tactics, repartee, and so forth.

Another idea is making a rules structure for social interaction, so that an argument or discussion becomes a sort of alternate combat system by itself.

Each of these has certain things which seem attractive to some, and offensive to others; and they may or may not end up using the same procedures - in the Hero System, a high value is placed on consistency, so I assume that the mechanics for using social skills would be largely the same in either a combat or social situation. In fact, I would make it a requirement of any social/intellectual maneuver system that it behave consistently with existing maneuvers and mechanics, rather than creating a glued-on system of its own. At most, I would aim for a subroutine that could be easily added or ignored, much like Hit Locations or other optional combat rules.

One of the reasons I'm pursuing this is the thought that, with all workable granularity and smooth flow of the Hero system, and the carefully worked-out point cost of everything, why is it that these skills cost points at all, if they are largely useless? Yes, they can be of great value if the GM is willing to apply them, but their usefulness depends entirely on the creativity and cooperation of both the player and the GM - a situation that cannot be said of the combat system. If characteristics such as INT, COM, and even PRE have so little objective value in the game mechanics, why should they cost build points? Why should they be defined by numbers and die rolls, let alone with the detail that the Hero System imposes?

The fact that Hero players are accustomed to this state of affairs says only that they are accustomed to it - it makes for a very weak defense for a system that is otherwise very robust and adaptive. The argument that such things should be left to pure roleplaying strike me as rather weak - in fact, that argument would seem to support the proposition that social and intellectual skills and characteristics should be entirely removed from the game. If they aren't useful in the game mechanics, then why should we pretend that they are, by applying point costs to them? As it stands, they are little more than flavor text. As far as game mechanics go, their primary use is as a "requires skill roll" prop for Power Limitations - hardly a thing worth spending dozens of rules pages defining and describing (let a lone an very nicely done supplement!). Also, if there are no effects spelled out in the rules, then many players will simply ignore them, in order to concentrate on things that do have an objective payoff within the game mechanics.

Another argument is that it is up to the GM to make these skills useful in play. To me, that begs the question, because ultimately it is up to the GM to make anything, including combat skills and powers, useful in any situation. Under the current rules, the GM can set up a combat situation and run it easily, applying rules as needed, with little need for on-the-fly interpretation or creativity; the creativity in combat can be applied to tactics and color description - not that these are trivial matters, but compare the social and intellectual skills: to make them useful and interesting, the GM has to create the situation that applies to that skill set, then not only create tactics (choice of words and actions) and description, but also has to interpret every die roll - and that with few guidelines on die-roll modifiers, let alone directives on how to interpret and apply the results! And the players are under similar pressure: there are no solid guidelines about how to use these nicely detailed skills and modifiers that they have paid for and recorded, so they must make up for themselves applications and effects, which must be negotiated continuously with the GM - again, unlike combat rules, which can be looked up in the book and applied with a reasonable expectation that the GM will be operating with the same rules. There is no objective standard by which to construct expectations; you can't know what good it will do to try a social skill, even if you make a good roll.

[The Monster]

Pardon me while I "think out loud" about this Skills in Combat can-o-worms I've brought up. Writing this out helps clarify for me (and, I hope, for others) where I'm coming from, where I might be going, and the groundwork I'm laying. Feel free to comment and feed back.

For openers, I'm concentrating on what skill maneuvers might be useful in combat; it's a more limited scope than a general social interaction system, and focuses on the area which I think would have the most impact on game play, without disrupting the idea of open-sided roleplaying too much. It is my suspicion at this point that if this aspect can be reasonably dealt with, the constructs might be fairly easily expanded to include noncombat situations, but for now my own scope is deliberately limited to how skills and maneuvers might be used iduring an action sequence, to produce a result that has actual, objective effects within a fight scene.

One major problem with social and intellectual maneuvers in regular combat is that they don't do actual damage - "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." You can't kill or physically injure someone with words and gestures (barring magic or superpowers, which go beyond the scope of this discussion). But you can distract them, inconvenience them, and significantly influence their behavior with means that do not include violence (unless I'm seriously misinformed, a fair amount of martial arts include ways to do this to your opponent; while this may be factored into the OCV/DCV bonuses of various existing maneuvers, the idea is certainly no stranger to combat training). The ability to influence an opponent's morale is, if anything, more important than the ability to actually injure him. So there need to be some fairly simple effects that would allow social and intellectual skills to be useful, without directly harming the target. At the same time, any maneuvers and options which are added to the game should not be allowed to replace or overshadow actual powers; actual Mind Control should be more effective than cutting repartee. They should also not be so potent that they become a universally preferred option for combat: the goal is to expand options and allow in-game expression of certain character types and actions that currently have no useful role in combat, yet are common heroic types and are entertaining both to watch and (except in the current combat rules) play.

Some may object that any special options and maneuvers could and should be built with existing Powers, Advantages and Limitations. Of course they can; in fact, it is my intention to build them that way and see how they look, for comparison purposes. However, when one examines the existing combat maneuvers, many of them actually turn out to be rather interesting builds under the Powers rules. Grab, for example, is a highly modified Entangle power, which also allows the attacker to inflict damage on the target (and scales freely with STR). Haymaker is a variable-result Aid to almost any characteristic or power, with Extra Time, Self Only, and a variant(!) Concentration Limitation. Dodge is a 15-point CSL which can be invoked by anyone, with the Lockout Limitation. These and others are available for free to every character, yet if built as powers they would add up to a fair number of points, especially for heroic characters. They require no Weapon Familiarity, skill checks, or anything else - you can do this long list of maneuvers just because you show up. So there is solid precedent for what are essentially free powers which can have a significant impact (literally and figuratively!) on events in the game. Furthermore, some combat maneuvers include facets which require creative and nuanced interpretation of the powers rules to recreate. And the list of Martial Arts Maneuvers includes a number of abilities which can be purchased for cheaper than they would be if built as full-fledged Powers; not to mention a few things that simply do not appear in the Powers list, such as knocking an opponent prone.

So there is ample precedent for limited but significant abilities which can be had for free: the combat maneuvers, especially the Martial Arts. There is precedent within that for unusual effects that may not appear in the Powers list, or may require convoluted builds to recreate. There is precedent for expansion to the basic list of maneuvers which are more potent and flexible than the free ones, which can be purchased for a few points each, which again invoke effects which may or may not be available through other means (the martial Arts maneuvers). I submit that it is possible, perhaps even desirable, to create a list of such maneuvers that rely on a variety of skills other than WFs and CSLs, that are effective, consistent with established rules, and clearly delineated as to use and results. Such maneuvers should expand the options available to players without replacing roleplaying - in fact, it should enhance it by allowing otherwise non-combat characters the chance to contribute actively and effectively to a fight scene.



So what kind of effects would be suitable for social and intellectual skills employed in a fight (or in general, but at first it would be useful to limit the focus).

-- mentally distract the opponent, making him less likely to succeed in their actions

-- confuse an opponent, causing her to hesitate, strike an unintended target, or even take an action they would not have normally attempted

-- interfere with an opponent's train of thought, disrupting their reactions and making them vulnerable to attack

-- discern and trigger their psychological disadvantages, including Berserk/Enraged triggers

-- bolster allies with additional confidence and courage

-- disrupt communications between opponents, so that they cannot coordinate attacks or actions

-- convince an opponent to change their target priority, making them attack someone else or yourself, as you prefer

-- deceive an opponent as to your own abilities, those of your allies, or the general situation, possibly inducing retreat

-- discern an opponent's intentions, allowing you to predict their next action

To be truly useful in combat, skill effects must be quick - nearly instant - in their effects, and those effects should be expressible in game mechanics. They need to present options that are not trivial or else the design and implementation of this whole scheme becomes moot.

More to come as I ruminate (though I don't usually ruminate in public! Ew!). :)

[The Monster]

Well, now that I've killed my own thread, here's a rough start of what I've been thinking of around this issue. These are basically combat maneuvers using mostly interaction skills, with the mechanism and effects listed, as well as what skills can be used to make the attempt. I tried to come up with cool names and almost succeeded. Anyway, this should give some concrete indication of the kind of thing I'm talking about, at least as far as in-combat skill maneuvers.



Maneuver :: effect :: useable skills :: skill penalty
(Oratory, Persuasion, Seduction, Interrogation, Conversation, *= suitable knowledge or professional skill)

Gotcha! :: -DCV :: OPS :: -0
Missed! :: -OCV :: OPS :: -0
Loser! :: -overall skill penalty :: OPSI :: -0
Incoming! :: +DCV :: O :: -0
Charge! :: +OCV :: O :: -0

Look Out! :: Target aborts to Defensive action :: OP :: -3

Buck Up! :: Target gets a free Recovery :: OPSC :: -5 Full-Phase action
Hurry Up! :: Target may abort to a normal action :: OP :: -5
Focus! :: Designate target for target’s next attack :: OPS :: -3

Assess :: detect Berserk or Psychological Limitation :: PSIC* :: -0
Provoke :: activate known Berserk or Psychological Limitation :: OPSIC* :: -0


Social Maneuvers, unless otherwise noted, are half-phase actions, but do not end your phase the way normal attacks do. Thus it is possible to do both a Social Maneuver and a normal attack in the same phase.

Social maneuvers are all opposed skill checks; the attacker may use any of the skills listed in the table; the target, if she chooses to resist, may oppose with the same skill as the attacker uses, or may use a normal EGO or PRE roll. Note that only the attacker suffers the penalty to their skill roll; the defender never suffers a penalty to resist a Social Maneuver (any penalties due to injuries, situations, Limitations, and so on apply normally – no Social Maneuver imposes a direct skill check penalty to resist that maneuver). The Resistance Talent may be applied as a bonus to skill rolls against Social Maneuvers. Making a roll to resist a Social Maneuver takes no time.

Social Maneuvers are not affected by OCV or DCV modifiers of any kind. Stunned characters can be affected by Social Maneuvers normally (although some may have no useful affect if the target is Stunned). Automatons cannot be affected in any way by Social maneuvers.

Effects of most Social Maneuvers last one Turn, or until the target takes a Recovery, whichever comes first.

Bonuses and penalties are not cumulative with other Social Maneuvers, though they can cancel each other out. For example, if a character is suffering a DCV penalty from a Gotcha! Maneuver, she is not subject to another DCV penalty from any social maneuver; if an ally uses an Incoming! Maneuver, the DCV bonus does apply, and will cancel some or all of the penalties. The effects of Social Maneuvers are cumulative with modifiers from other sources (for example, someone under the effects of an Incoming! Maneuver adds that DCV bonus to any DCV bonus he gets from being behind cover).

Penalties and bonuses to CV and skill rolls are limited to a -1 in Heroic campaigns. In superheroic campaigns, the effects can be much greater; a skill roll which succeeds by 0 or 1 grants a +/-1; for every 2 points the success margin increases, increase the imposed bonus or penalty by an additional +/-1. Note: I'm not sure about this idea; heroic campaigns may be self-limiting because the range of stats and skills is more limited anyway. I'd like there to be potential for dramatic effects, so this is essentially Autofire applied to the effect. An alternative, if such high levels of penalty seem abusive, might be to limit the effect to only +/-1, increased to +/-2 with a critical success.

-----------------------------

Gotcha! imposes a DCV penalty by distracting the target or deceiving him about your intentions.

Missed! imposes an OCV penalty on the target by using distraction or deception of some kind to throw off the target’s aim

Loser! impacts the concentration and confidence of the target, causing her to be less able to successfully perform actions of all kinds.

Incoming! gives an extra warning to the target, allowing him to better avoid attacks.

Charge! inspires the target to aggressive action, focusing her energy on striking the target more effectively.

Look Out! forces the target to abort their next Phase to a defensive action (Block, Dodge, etc.). The target may choose what defensive action is taken. Note that this has no effect if the target is currently taking a defensive action (for example, if a target is already Dodging, this maneuver has no effect on them).

Buck Up! allows the target to take a free Recovery, as if they had used one of their Phases to recover. It does not provide all the benefits of a post-12 recovery: for example, it does not accelerate recovering from a Drain or Transform. This can only be successfully used once per Turn on a given target (no matter how many allies attempt it).

Hurry Up! inspires the target to urgent action; the target may take their next Phase immediately, as if they normally had a Phase in the current Segment. Note that this does not grant any extra phases; it only allows the target to take their phase earlier than normal. The specific action taken is entirely up to the target. This can only be successfully used once per Turn on a given target (no matter how many allies attempt it).

Focus! distracts or persuades a target to the point that, the next time the target attacks (if they attack within the next Turn), the one who did this Social Maneuver can designate which opponent they attack. This effect still applies if the target is currently Enraged or berserk, although the target may get a chance to recover from those states if changing targets, as per normal rules. This maneuver in no way compels the target to attack; but they can only attack the opponent designated by the one who did the Focus! Maneuver. If it becomes impossible to attack the designated target, the effect of this maneuver is canceled and the target is free to attack whomever she wants.

Assess is an attempt to discover if the target has any Psychological or Berserk/Enraged Limitations, and what the triggers for those are. A single success indicates that there are such Limitations; each subsequent success can reveal one of the following, as the attacker chooses:
- the specific trigger for a Limitation
- the intensity of the Limitation (i.e., the roll needed to resist the Limitation)
- an additional Limitation to those already discovered
Multiple bits of this information can be gathered with a single roll: one bit is gained with a simple success roll; for every 2 points by which the success roll is made, another bit of information is gained. Assess can be resisted with the Acting skill, in addition to the normal range of skills.

Provoke is an attempt to trigger the target’s Psychological or Berserk/Enraged Limitations by taunts, suggestions, and insinuation. If the skill roll succeeds, the target must make a roll against the targeted Limitation or suffer its effects (i.e., become Berserk, flee from a phobic stimulus, etc.).

------------------------------
As can be seen here, there are some effects that could have major impact on game play, but do not, I think, go much beyond the range of power levels possible in the existing range of normal combat maneuvers. Some (like Buck Up! or Hurry Up!) might be worth separating out in the same way as Martial Arts are, where the character has to pay 3-5 points to be able to do it.

That's a first run at the problem. Obviously it would need to be examined and tested for usability and balance.

[Steve Long]

OK, folx, I think we've had enough discussion on this issue. To the extent I'm willing to consider something along these lines, I don't think it's appropriate for the core rulebook. I'll save it for a supplement or 2010's HERO System Advanced Player's Guide. Thankyew for your input. ;)