What rules have interesting ideas in the social section?

[LiamEvans210]

What rule books have special rules in the social section that require players to think more than simply chat and throw dice?

I think most rule books only distinguish between types of social skills, such as persuasion, charm, intimidation, and deception, but there are also rules that have good design, such as the Intimacies rule in Exalted 3e

Too many rule books focus on improving the combat system, and many times I feel the need for detailed social rules to obtain advice and assistance.

[Lord Liaden]

You may want to look at the 6E Hero System Advanced Players Guide II, which includes detailed optional rules for "Social Combat." Let me excerpt a couple of passages from p. 79 introducing that section, to see if how it defines Social Combat aligns with what you're looking for:

 

A Social Combat system provides a HERO System rules framework for character interaction that would otherwise have to be relegated either to a few Skill rolls, or entirely to roleplaying. Both of those approaches have their merits, and you should use them if they work for you. But some gamers prefer a more structured way of determining the outcome of a social encounter, and Social Combat rules provide that.

 

As always, the GM should use common and dramatic sense when adjudicating the course of a Social Combat and its outcome. Social Combat rules, regardless of the specifics, are designed to enhance game play and make it more fun for everyone, not to provide characters with an easy way to force NPCs to do what they want regardless of logic, common sense, or the demands of the story.

 

Since Social Combat can be a broad, vague, intangible sort of thing compared to physical combat, it often helps if all the characters involved state their goals for the interaction when it starts: obtain a certain piece of information; get the girl; make my opponent look like a fool; prevent myself from being made to look like a fool; intimidate my opponent into going away; make this guy angry. That gives the GM a clear idea of what’s intended and how the Social Combat may evolve as the characters pursue their respective goals. It may also help him think of clever and creative ways to represent success, failure, and their implications. For example, maybe a character succeeds in intimidating a high-ranking nobleman, but that nobleman then spreads vicious rumors about him to all the rich and powerful people in the kingdom, which will cause the character problems down the line. Or the character fails to impress the girl of his dreams, but his efforts bring him to the attention of someone who’s actually much better suited for him.
 

APG II includes three complete Social Combat systems. One is Skill based, expanding on the uses of standard Hero Skills and adding a couple of new ones, plus new mechanics to represent the results of more complex interactions. Another is Talent based, providing a range of new Talents built using the standard system rules, which can impact people in a variety of subtle ways. The third is Combat Maneuvers based, offering a fair-sized number of new Social Combat Maneuvers with rules for attacking, defending, and "damaging" an opponent. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, depending on how they match what you'd like to have happen in your game.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Lord Liaden

[Cancer]

My experience is that in-character social interactions in a game depend at least as strongly on your players as on the rule system.  If you've got a group dominated by butt-kickers whose preference for an RPG is a game that's merely "story-telling through combat", well, they will be at least impatient if you compel them to trade double entendres all evening with bad guys in order to make headway, and they'll be looking to reduce the social stuff to an absolute minimum, no matter what ruleset you're working under.  You may want first to get an understanding of what your players want out of their RPG experience (and playing with them is probably the only way to do that; most people have troubles articulating this until they've played a fair amount) and see how their preferences stack up against the game you want to run.  If you already have that familiarity and are looking for a system that harmonizes with your players' preferences, you're ahead of a lot of people, even quite experienced RNG GMs.

[Old Man]

Perhaps counterintuitively, a fleshed-out social interaction system might be better for murderhobo types who are not inclined to roleplay.  As well as for players like myself, who could charitably be described as "not socially gifted".  Turn the interactions into a minigame and it becomes more approachable.  The default skill-roll system is not much different from that of any rules-light wishy-washy storytelling game.

 

(A fleshed-out system might also prevent me from abusing skill rolls.  I have been known to "roleplay" my paladin saying various clueless or even offensive things to NPCs and then making up for it with a Persuasion roll.  It's the social equivalent of Stealthing past a guard by walking right in front of him in broad daylight.  It drives the GM nuts.)

[Duke Bushido]

16 hours ago, Old Man said:

Perhaps counterintuitively, a fleshed-out social interaction system might be better for murderhobo types who are not inclined to roleplay.  As well as for players like myself, who could charitably be described as "not socially gifted". 

 

 

That!   That right there!

 

That is the thing I have been unable to put into words every time this subject comes up!

 

 

Thank you, Sir!

 

I one hundred percent agree!

 

Now don't get me wrong: if it is your preference to dice your way through a social situation, then by all means do so.  But do _not_ think that you are going to somehow _enhance_ the roleplaying experience,  as these systems by their very nature must _replace_ it.

 

Again: if that is your thing, then more power to you; I merely wish to shine a light onto the reality of such systems.

 

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Duke Bushido

[assault]

Check out Pendragon.

[Old Man]

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

That!   That right there!

 

That is the thinf I have been unabke to out into words every time this subject comes up!

 

 

Thank you, Sir!

 

I one hundred percent agree!

 

Now sont get me,wrong: if it is your preference to sice your way through a social situation, then by all means do so.  But so _not_ think that you are going to somehow _enhance_ the roleplaying experience,  as these systems by their very nature must _replace_ it.

 

Again: if that is your thing, then more power to you; I merely wish to shine a light onto the reality of such systems.

 

 

 

Sice?

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Sice?

Dice.  Fixed.  Fingers are too big for the phone keypad.

[Hugh Neilson]

Why is describing my intended action in combat, in exploration, in trap detection and removal, in infliltration, in research and in virtually every other situation, then allowing my character's skills and abilities to take over as we throw the dice "role playing", but describing my intended actions in a social setting and then allowing my character's skills and abilities to take over as we throw the dice "replacing role playing".

 

My character chooses his targets and his tactics in combat (wisely or foolishly) based on his personality. Ditto for exploration (perhaps he is careful and methodical, or maybe he is impulsive and hasty), trap detection and removal, infiltration, research and social interaction. Role playing means playing a character with goals, objectives, personal beliefs, character strengths and flaws rather than directing a pawn to the (perceived) most tactically advantageous choice in every situation.

[Duke Bushido]

It's not.

 

Roleplaying is literally acting out the social interactions- dialogue, attitudes, etc- between characters.

 

Desceibing your combat actions is fun, but if you aren't interacting- speaking, emoting, being nervous or cocky _as your character_, then you are not role playing.

 

If you are saying "my character moves to location X for cover and waits for an ipoortunity to return fire," you are war gaming.

 

The two go hand-in-hand in RPGs, as RPGs grew from war games to begin with, and there are still unshakeable elements if wargaming in RPGs today, simply because we arent interested in shootinf our friends and don't like playing games with our enemies.

 

But the question you have asked is "if X is Y, then why is X not Y?"  The problem is that X is not Y in either example.

 

If you enjoy role playing, then odds are your group doesn't require the purchase of social interaction skills.  If you do use dice-based social interaction systems, the you are wargaming that, too.

 

That is fine, if that is your thing- no one at any of my tables has ever been really comfortable role playing the Seduction-type skills since we grew up, entered the real world,  and decided that actual seducrion is a ridiculously fun and _very_ private thing to do.  So persuasion and arguments and interrogations (to varying degrees) we role play; seduction we wargame.  (Though the last time I told that story on this board, I was quite wrongly and insultingly accused of capitalizing on homophobia, so I don't tell it often, and even when I do, there is still an edge of 'screw that guy!' in my voice.)

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Duke Bushido

[Hugh Neilson]

I can provide embellished descriptions of my character's actions in combat or out, and discuss his feelings and motivations, or simply keep them to myself. knowing what they are.  I can do the same with social interaction.  Or I can "wargame" both, directing a pawn rather than playing a character.

 

If I want a character who is skilled in combat, I design such a character within the parameters of the game system. If i spend few character resources on combat, my character will not be good at combat, nor should he. I chose to design a character in that manner, who presumably is skilled in other areas. If I choose to invest few or no character resources on social skills, but then play the character as a suave and persuasive con man, I should expect those efforts to be unsuccessful - even if I have those skills, my character does not. Playing him as if he does is not good role playing - playing the socially inept character I built would be good role playing. Playing the role embraces the strengths and weaknesses of the character.

 

You made a D&D/Hero character and dumped CHA/sold PRE back to 8 and bought no social skills, but you portray him as a powerful, persuasive, articulate speaker?  I guess he must be a spitter, probably has his fly down too, because the characters is only as suave and persuasive as his skills - not yours - allow him to be.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Lord Liaden]

Except that we all play characters who are almost always far more competent than us in some areas. Very few of us here are master swordsmen, ace pilots, or can shoot lasers from our eyes. We have to rely on game mechanics to simulate abilities we don't have, and in Hero System those mechanics can get as elaborate as we like. We may or may not have enough experience or imagination to at least describe what we want our characters to do, but in the end we all roll the dice and crunch the numbers.

 

We want to play people different from ourselves, more capable than we are. That's the fun of these games, allowing us to take on roles we never could in real life. Well, what if I were by nature socially shy and awkward, but I'd enjoy the change of inhabiting a character who's suave, articulate and persuasive? I can, as you say, pay the points for the abilities such a character should have, but if I can't role play that effectively I have to rely on game mechanics to simulate it. What's wrong with having the option of mechanics to play that out in as sophisticated a manner as I and my game group would enjoy? Why should that be a negative for non-combat, but perfectly acceptable for combat?

 

 

BTW LiamEvans210 (the OP), is any of this helpful to your original inquiry? Is this what you were looking for?

Edited April 2, 2023 by Lord Liaden

[Opal]

On 3/30/2023 at 8:36 AM, LiamEvans210 said:

What rule books have special rules in the social section that require players to think more than simply chat and throw dice?

You might check out Fate and Powered by the Apocalypse games.  Those are both core systems that have been used to create a number of games each.

PbtA uses a structured system for resolving non-combat challenges that includes setting stakes and a 'clock' the players beat to succeed. (Im not doing it justice) 

The one Fate game I've played was Dresden Files, I did like the way it gave you different approaches to social tasks - I haven't played in like 10 years, but the one that stuck with me was "open up" where you share an experience to elicit some information.  So you have to think about whether it's a good approach, mechanically, and about your character's past and willingness to be vulnerable. (But, yeah, then you roll the weird fudge dice and count +'s & -'s )

Edited April 3, 2023 by Opal

[Ninja-Bear]

@Duke Bushido, I agree with @Hugh Neilson that what he describes is a form of Roleplaying.  What you describe is also Roleplaying too. I agree with Matt Colville’s definition. As long as you describe and have the character do what the character would and not you then its roleplaying. What you are describing are degrees of roleplaying.

[Opal]

On 4/2/2023 at 7:33 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

As long as you describe and have the character do what the character would and not you then its roleplaying.

I'd add that it's key the character can be different from you, and the game's mechanics can model those differences.

 

Lack of adequately playable resolution for social interaction holds back a lot of games, that way.  You may be able to play your version of the Scarlet Pimpernel when he's fencing or shooting or maybe even making a daring escape, but when it comes to sly manipulation or bluff or seduction, it's just you try'n to BS your GM into saying it worked.

 

[Duke Bushido]

48 minutes ago, Opal said:

I'd add that it's key the character can be different from you,

 

 

Got that covered.  All my characters are competent. 

 

 

 

 

[Cygnia]

Never used it too much as a GM myself (because I knew my players), but 1st ed 7th Sea had the Repartee system.

 

As a player, I'm always making use of the Intimidate action from that (Vendel swordswoman with the Large advantage).

[Scott Ruggels]

On 4/1/2023 at 10:12 PM, Opal said:

You might check out Fate and Powered by the Apocalypse games.  Those are both core systems that have been used to create a number of games each.

PbtA uses a structured system for resolving non-combat challenges that includes setting stakes and a 'clock' the players beat to succeed. (Im not doing it justice) 

The one Fate game I've played was Dresden Files, I did like the way it gave you different approaches to social tasks - I haven't played in like 10 years, but the one that stuck with me was "open up" where you share an experience to elicit some information.  So you have to think about whether it's a good approach, mechanically, and about your character's past and willingness to be vulnerable. (But, yeah, then you roll the weird fudge dice and count +'s & -'s )

I have had terrible experiences with FATE, and PbTA, as they are external narrative systems that for me, torpedo RP immersion. Partially, what I game for is RP immersion ( the other is tactical problem solving). That immersion, is dependent upon the world remaining a self consistent environment. The problem is that making social interaction as mechanics, renders the world malleable, and the narrative becomes external to the world, rather than internal.  Because of this I avoid indie RPGs in their entirety, and stick with pre-Amber Diceless traditional RPGs.

[Ninja-Bear]

3 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I have had terrible experiences with FATE, and PbTA, as they are external narrative systems that for me, torpedo RP immersion. Partially, what I game for is RP immersion ( the other is tactical problem solving). That immersion, is dependent upon the world remaining a self consistent environment. The problem is that making social interaction as mechanics, renders the world malleable, and the narrative becomes external to the world, rather than internal.  Because of this I avoid indie RPGs in their entirety, and stick with pre-Amber Diceless traditional RPGs.

How does Social Mechanics make the world anymore or less malleable than it already is? I’m confused on that point.

[Duke Bushido]

I don't believe that he is regeeeing to social "mechanics'.  I believe he is referring to narrative resolution of tactical action.  This is a sticking point for,both of us, actually:  for Scott because he enjoys the plotting and logistics od mapped and diced combat, and for me because my fate riding on the throw of the dice  is a kind of religious fervor for me.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

There is a mechanic in Star Wars: The Old Republic in which you make choices that lead to light or dark side tendencies.  Also, when grouped, you compete for who wins and directs the dialog at various points in a conversation and that gives "social points" which can be used to buy certain goods.  The net result is that it incentivized role playing and making decisions how you want your character to be viewed and act in the world.  I want to see more of that in games; reasons to  role play beyond being scolded or shamed, and just personal whim.  I'm working on that idea, over time.

[Opal]

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

How does Social Mechanics make the world anymore or less malleable than it already is? I’m confused on that point.

They let you play a character different from yourself, interacting with a character different from your DM.

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, Opal said:

They let you play a character different from yourself, interacting with a character different from your DM.

Well, that’s a good thing isn’t it? At least I would think so.

[Hugh Neilson]

Agree with Ninja Bear. 

 

My GM is not a fire-breathing dragon and I am not a stalwart Dwarven warrior. Combat mechanics  allow us an objective means to resolve my Dwarf, and his teammates', efforts to slay the dragon (and its efforts to respond in kind).

 

My GM is also not the Chancellor to the Emperor of the Western Kingdoms, nor am I a skilled diplomat. Social mechanics  allow us an objective means to resolve my diplomat's efforts to obtain an audience with the Emperor through the Chancellor.

 

How many gamers would accept "don't bother rolling - the dragon kills and eats you."?  Why are they more accepting of "Don't bother rolling - the Chancellor rejects your every request".?

 

Better tactics, like higher ground or an ambush, improve our odds against the dragon.  Better tactics, like knowing the Chancellor's likes and dislikes, and using them in our presentation, should improve our odds of persuading the Chancellor.

Personal skills, like knowing how to build an explosive the dragon's breath would set off, does not enter into the game. Why should the player's personal articulateness enter into the game?

Edited April 18, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Christopher R Taylor]

Right, this a pet peeve for me and many a time have my friends had to endure a rant about this exact thing when it comes to "RPG" video games that test the player more than they do the character.  If I cannot figure out a riddle that doesn't mean my character cannot.  Don't test my skills at resolving things my character is doing, test my CHARACTER's skills.  Yeah my soliloquy might suck, but its the best I can come up with, so the GM should take that into account with the presence attack.