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:

[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.