Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Part of the problem here is that Hero says that NPC skill use cannot force a character to act in a certain way.

 

If Dumb Hero knows the keypad entry code for the secret base, and Foxy Villain starts chatting him up, and gets excellent rolls on persuasion, seduction and conversation, it is perfectly possible, if the roles were reversed, that the keypad code would be obtained. Not so with the Hero holding onto information though, oh no.

 

So, as a reasonably straightforward fix, how about we hand out XP to players who role play their characters in accordance with their intellect and personality?

 

You are not FORCING the player to do anything, but you are certainly dangling a carrot if they do...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Here's one possible approach to 'extended' social interaction situations:

 

Aim. Whenever you are trying to influence someone you have to define an aim – what it is you want them to do. We will call this aim ‘The Motive’

Often it can be important to prevent the target (whom we will call ‘The Mark’) from realising you have a motive, or, if that is unavoidable, to suggest a false one.

 

When the initial approach is made, the target gets a PER roll, opposed by your most appropriate social interaction skill (not necessarily your best one). This will often be modified by the situation.

 

You can take a voluntary –2 on the roll to suggest a false motive.

If the PER roll succeeds, then The Mark knows they are being targeted. They may be happy with what you want to do, or they may even try and turn the tables. To do this, they make a social interaction skill, opposed by your PER, with a bonus equal to the amount they succeeded in their PER roll by. If they succeed, they can attempt to influence you. If they fail, it is obvious that they have sussed you.

 

Assuming you have succeeded, The Motive will require a number of successes, determined by the GM. You can roll as many times as you like to acquire these successes (a success is achieving your roll by more than you need to, so If you fail a roll, then The Mark gets another PER roll (opposed), which might blow the whole deal.

[zornwil]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

You sum up my point nicely. Because these skills do more bad than good (spoil the plot, make the problems too easy, give out information which the GM hides on purpose) I really do not like them. If you use "tactics" in my game, I (as a GM) will never explain to you what you should be doing. Assume Space Warfare scenario: You can have exact numbers about your ships, you can ask me "if we pit this ship vs that ship, will ours win?" and get a decent answer (assuming I know it) or you can get circumstance boni on ocv/dcv and similar things. Also, it will help for not being surprised.

We simulate combat with dice because we really cannot do well otherwise. But that is not true for mind games, which work nicely in our heads. Rolling dice is a crutch when nothing else works well, it's not how things "should" be!

Others have made the substantive responses I would make. As to the issue of "these skills do more bad than good," that has not been my experience in actual play at all, either as GM or player. I have found Deduction, Tactics, and so on both useful and non-abusive in driving narrative and "realistic" in a method by which players not possessing the abilities of their PCs/NPCs with those abilities. As you say, it requires GM thoughtfulness, but I'm not sure I've played in any substantial RPG that didn't require some GM ability in managing these kinds of skills, whether it's done with or without mechanics.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Personally I don't (when running games) let anyone take the deduction skill.

 

If there is something that needs deducing, they can have an INT roll (or other appropriate skill) as a gimme, but I find that having the skill makes it feel more like a right than a privilege, at least for some.

 

As a GM, if the players ARE stumped, something will happen that will set them ont he right track, or at least give them something to do. My plots tend to be quite simple but complicated by too much information, so running out of ideas is usually not the problem - it is eliminating leads, which is excellent RPG fodder.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Part of the problem here is that Hero says that NPC skill use cannot force a character to act in a certain way.

 

If Dumb Hero knows the keypad entry code for the secret base, and Foxy Villain starts chatting him up, and gets excellent rolls on persuasion, seduction and conversation, it is perfectly possible, if the roles were reversed, that the keypad code would be obtained. Not so with the Hero holding onto information though, oh no.

 

So, as a reasonably straightforward fix, how about we hand out XP to players who role play their characters in accordance with their intellect and personality?

 

You are not FORCING the player to do anything, but you are certainly dangling a carrot if they do...

 

In my games, the players certainly role play in this manner. I'd be just as happy if the interaction skills influenced PC's as well, although I don't need the hammer for my players. A reasonable middle ground is to simply tell the player that the person making his case is very persuasive. If you want to consistently say "my character isn't persuaded" expect it to come back in role playing xp and in the likelihood that you can persuade anyone else.

 

With the 1/3rd guy I meant: You can coerce/bride/sweettalk nearly anyone' date=' but you *will* fail with the BBEG. Same goes for MC, the BBEG will very definitely have countermeasures. But while there actually are countermeasures against MC (the magic amulet of mental damage shield/defenses, pretty simple), it is very hard to come up with a good anti-skill thing. 10 negative skill levels? Please, why would he have that?[/quote']

 

For the same reason he has the magic amulet. Why shouldn't it provide the same defenses against a con artist's mental manipulation as it does against a sorcerer's mental domination spell? For that matter, why should every significant opponent be invulnerable to Mind Control? It sounds like the best approach in that game is simply to load up on physical attacks, as nothing else will be permitted to be effective when it counts.

 

It's just that you cannot sweet talk anyone into anything. Period.

 

Yes. No one could ever persuade a trained Jedi to turn on them and murder them, even the children. That's just plain unrealistic, right?

 

It does not matter how much money you offer me and how great of a talker you are' date=' I will not kill my family. Never. The skill system does not reflect that at all, it actually does the opposite! Assume you roll a lucky 3 on your sweet talk roll with your 23- epic skill. What am I going to do as a GM here? Destroy the plot due to one lucky roll?[/quote']

 

You bought into the possibility the plot could be destroyed when you let the player buy his skill up to 23-. If you didn't want him to be able to influence the game markedly, why did you let him spend over 20 points on that skill?

 

Frankly, if your plot can't stand up to one lucky die roll, you're not reallly much of a GM.

 

And I don't believe the system ever said that "nothing is impossible". You just want us to believe that allowing the Conversation skill to be effective means every game ends when the guy with Conversation rolls a decent roll.

 

And yeah' date=' I figured someone might quote my PRE example. But do you really think how you word your PRE attack has more influence than 1-2 dice tops? When you go with 20 PRE and blaze away, that's not *that* huge anymore. Buying a 18- skill for a lousy 10 points is.[/quote']

 

I find it's not the PRE attack, but the PRE skill (conversation, persuasion, etc.) where the player's conversational skills are used to replace the character's. Shy Stu's character has PRE 23 and interaction skills like crazy, but the player always speaks softly, stutters and looks at his shoes, so his character never succeeds. Meanwhile, Articulate Arnie's character has PRE 8 and no interaction skills, but the player speaks well and presents a good case, so his character succeeds. In such a game, there is no point buying these skills as it is the player's skills, not the character's, which determine success or failure.

 

That's the next problem. I cannot rely on characters to A: have the skill' date=' and B: make their roll. That means my clever clues might not be found, which results in a failed quest without anyone even noticing. True, that is a pessimistic view [/quote']

 

The failed roll is no more or less likely than the players not picking up on your clue unless you bludgeon them with it.

 

But in the end' date=' conversation boils down to this: If you have the right argument, the NPC will give in, and your skills/rolls/player charisma does not matter much. If you have the wrong arguments, the NPC will not budge.[/quote']

 

Then don't ask players to waste points on the skills. They don't matter. No one is ever talked in to something they later regret, at least not in your games.

 

Sure' date=' you can haggle a bit, but if he wants his daughter freed from the dragon first, he wants his daughter freed from the dragon first. "But we found this great prostitute on the street!" won't work. Never. [/quote']

 

"Then I guess she stays with the Dragon, as we won't be heading out unprepared to deal with the Dragon, and we need that advance payment to properly equip ourselves." He won't budge? Fine - we walk away. Seems to me that a more persuasive character is more likely to succeed with such an argument than a less persuasive character.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

but the PRE skill (conversation, persuasion, etc.) where the player's conversational skills are used to replace the character's. Shy Stu's character has PRE 23 and interaction skills like crazy, but the player always speaks softly, stutters and looks at his shoes, so his character never succeeds. Meanwhile, Articulate Arnie's character has PRE 8 and no interaction skills, but the player speaks well and presents a good case, so his character succeeds. In such a game, there is no point buying these skills as it is the player's skills, not the character's, which determine success or failure.

 

Yeah. Seconded.

 

If I landed a player in such a game, would suffer. Then when my turn came up to GM, I'd announce that like the last GM using player skill, not character skill in interaction, pull out my focus mitt (the small padded thing martial arts and boxing people put on the hand to be a target) and announce that it didn't matter what dex or CV your character has, if the player can hit the mitt when I try and move it, the character hits the target.

 

Well I wouldn't, but I would think about it a lot. It's pretty much the same thing in both examples - just replacing interaction skills with combat skills.

 

 

I, personally have very low interaction skill rolls. So I heavily rely on my characters having them.

[jaws]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

To yours and OddHat's above proposals, I think these are sorts of the ways to go, because ideally you want this to mesh with physical conflict, and to go seemlessly between the two. Ideally, basically, I think you would want to allow going to physical as a way to increase your resistance, and that could be a simple modifier for the resistant party being willing to go to blows.

 

 

It's possible that the mechanism to exploit is simply EGO but rather than Mental Defense one applies Social Defense as with Utech's idea, with the other parts of that. Much as BOD has both Energy Defense and Physical Defense. That with something such as the +30 level or similar is off limits as long as the target is willing to come to blows (which a +30 would be, but that would be the litmus test), or such.

 

Fighting for something you believe in is what history is made out of. You cant always reason things out. Sometimes both parties are correct on are on different perspectives. Coming to blows is always an option to get your point across. This of course may o may not reduce your social standing, but if you are out classed who cares! Show them what youa re really good at.. clober!

 

In other words, social interaction will never completely force you to do something, but will force you to make a decision between complying and accepting your social defeat, being truly convinced of something, or risking social clout, contacts, influence, resources, rank or what ever and just going to blows.

 

Using the "social STUN" and "Social body" stuff from the previously proposed systems can mean...

 

If STUN <= 0 You cant find a way to rebuff your opponents argument but remain unconvinced, though any by standards will side with your opponent on his argument unless they have their own opinions and remain unconvinced. / Everything they are saying is true, but you have a hunch or just cant prove their argument wrong.

 

If BODY <= 0 You are defeated and convinced of the truth you opponent says, at least until you find more or new evidence supporting your point of view to rekindle your spirit. / You will go along with actions that don't violate your principals or are VIOLENTLY opposed to doing (would fight or risk your life to avoid).

 

As long as body hasn't reached 0 at any time you may go in to physical combat, duel like. Social combat can continue normally with bonuses gained from MORALE (gained form having the upper hand in combat). Or you can go in to mindless combat which is more passionate and angry canceling out all enemies attempts at further social maneuvering but also limiting you strategy to that of some one "enraged" if at >0 Stun or even "berserker" if at >= 0 Stun (as the limitation).

 

Dead guy looses... or even both if the social situation merits it.

 

I am going to jump in before reading any replies, so this may have already been covered.

 

There is a fundamental difference, in terms of a roleplaying game, between "social" situations and conflicts (mingling at the Royal Ball and trying to sense the court's consensus about the Dragon Problem; chaffering with a merchant; convincing a super villain to surrender) and physical/mental situations and conflicts (trying to decipher a scroll; trying to break down a door; trying to outrun a ravenous bugblatter beast; shadowing a suspect across town)

 

The difference is that the game itself IS, fundamentally and inescapably, a social situation (and sometimes social conflict.)

 

We have mechanics for thinks like Ego Attacks and busting down doors and taking out Klingons with the Vulcan nerve pinch because we either can’t or don’t want to actually do these things as part of the game. We accept rules and rolls as abstractions of situations that are either impossible or undesirable or both (literal dragons to slay are generally unavailable, and unacceptably dangerous even if you could acquire one.)

 

You sum up my point nicely. Because these skills do more bad than good (spoil the plot, make the problems too easy, give out information which the GM hides on purpose) I really do not like them. If you use "tactics" in my game, I (as a GM) will never explain to you what you should be doing. Assume Space Warfare scenario: You can have exact numbers about your ships, you can ask me "if we pit this ship vs that ship, will ours win?" and get a decent answer (assuming I know it) or you can get circumstance boni on ocv/dcv and similar things. Also, it will help for not being surprised.

We simulate combat with dice because we really cannot do well otherwise. But that is not true for mind games, which work nicely in our heads. Rolling dice is a crutch when nothing else works well, it's not how things "should" be!

 

 

I believe the point of a social mechanism is that

• We are not super strong, super fast and don't have superpowers so we use rules to emulate that and role dice. If we use bad tactics it doesn't mater if the rules favor us we may likely loose.

• We are not all super intelligent(or at least as intelligent as our character) we are not all slick with the chicks or even very conversational (or at least not as much as our characters. Hey maybe we are even better). But we can use rules to emulate that. Even if our character is "The Silver Tongue" if you use bad role playing (read as tactics for combat) we still stand a good chance of loosing even with our silver tongue.

"HEY! just like combat!"

 

I have two players who are socially inept, a middle ground one and at least 2 silver tongues. Sometimes my silver tongues play "barbarous" barbarians and my barbarian plays the suave rogue.... with out social rules... oh my... the brick head barbarian is always telling the genius leader what to do, when and how??? hmmmmm.... with social rules "Hey my character is sooo cool he can actually lead this party of raving mad men...."

 

My other options... I can force the Smart guy playing the dumb char to stay in character... it will work for a while... until he gets exasperated from the incompetence of the other player and HAS to step in. Or he can lead the other player by the nose and just play 2 characters while the other guy just rolls the dice.

 

The result... frustrated players that CANT play the character they WANT to play because it just isn't part of the PLAYERS character. Sounds like not being able to play superman because you cant lift a car and fly.

 

THAT is why I think social rules should exist. But only as complex as the genre requires.

[zornwil]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Very well said all the way around, Jaws.

[Utech]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Entering Combat begins on 5ER page 356. The combat rules more or less end on page 432. That's 76 pages of detailed information on OCV, DCV, maneuvers, damage, etc.

 

Information on Skill Rolls begins on 5ER page 42. The rules for determining results pretty much end on page 46. That's 4 pages.

 

(There's also the Combat Handbook and The Ultimate Skill, but those fall outside the binding of our ultimate gamer's toolkit.)

 

We have lots and lots of tools in our toolkit for detailed, second by second tactical combat simulation.

 

We have precious few tools in our toolkit for social conflict.

 

Despite this, it is clear that the two sets of rules could be swapped.

 

One could easily run combats by saying "OK, you see an orc. Skill vs Skill contest. What's your Sword skill? Do you want to take a little extra time to try to slay him or do you want a quick kill? Do you have the right tool (a sword) for the job?" One roll of the dice later and we'd know if the orc was dead. (Or perhaps the GM might ask for several successful rolls before the orc died.)

 

One could easily run a simulated presidential campaign by saying "OK, we start on Phase 12 -- that's one week of campaigning. Mr. X has the highest PRE so he goes first." Each PC and NPC would then launch attacks at each other, try to outmaneuver each other, look for better ground to stand on, take advantage of the political environment, look out for their DNPCs (skeletons in the closet?), hide their Vulnerabilities, try to avoid becoming Enraged, etc. It would play out exactly like a physical combat does under current rules. And it ought to -- I suppose -- be exactly as interesting.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Very interesting extension. So is the roll by the PC totally normal other than the bonuses and penalties are reversed (i.e.' date=' the attacking NPC's bonus is the penalty, the defending PC takes what would have been a penatly to the NPC as his own bonus)? Or are you thinking of other changes in that?[/quote']

 

What Sean said.

 

I was thinking of simply reversing the probabilities - as far as the game mechanics go - if an NPC has a 60% chance of hitting you while you are dodging around then you might as well say that you have a 40% chance of dodging the blow while the NPC is trying to hit you.

 

So any changes to the chances would simply be reversed, though as Sean pointed out it would use a slightly different system to the to-hit mechanic unless you really wanted to pile on the fact that PCs are the best - they have improved chances to hit and improved chances to dodge...

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I think we could have three tiers of conflict resolution.

 

The first would be skill-based, so the most you do is roll one opposed skill roll, determining the results. That's how we presently handle, say, moving silently or crafting a sword, but as noted above, it could easily be extended to physical combat.

 

The second is one we don't presently have, but would be based on skills and time. You want to use your Smith skill to craft a sword? We determine how tough it is to craft the sword, and you make your roll. The degree of success determines the extent of progress made towards crafting that sword. We'd need rules for adjudicating time requirements, as well as degree of difficulty. This might be a rational middle ground for, say, a medical problem. After some period of work (say 6 hours), the Doctor rolls his skill. Made it by 4? OK, that counts as 3 "successes" (one for a successful roll, plus one for every 2 the roll is made by). The GM marks off his progress on the "cure" chart crafted for this medical issue. He hasn't solved the problem, but he now knows this will ultimately be fatal if not treated (for which he needed 1 success), and that a sample of the toxin from the creature that bit the victim would greatly assist in finding a cure (add +3 to his future rolls). The timeline would have other breakpoints, up to "cure from sample", "cure without sample", "immunization with sample" and "immunization without sample". What's the catch? He only gets one roll per time period, meanwhile the venom is running its course in the victim.

 

The third approach would be a full combat-like system, so Doc is now rolling against the disease/venom's own "hide cure" skill, rolling "damage" and applying it to the condition's "defenses", 'con", "stun" and "bod". If it's Stunned, he's at least slowed its progress for a time. If it's KO'd, it's in remission until it recovers. Get it down to "dead" and it's fully cured.

 

It seems reasonable for the toolbox to outline the three approaches, and provide detailed mechanics for the most common RPG conflict, being combat. Maybe some guidelines for the middle ground approach for a couple of commonly sued skills would be appropriate as well. High end resolution mechanics for other areas might best be presented in appropriate sourcebooks.

[StGrimblefig]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I think we could have three tiers of conflict resolution.

 

The first would be skill-based, so the most you do is roll one opposed skill roll, determining the results. That's how we presently handle, say, moving silently or crafting a sword, but as noted above, it could easily be extended to physical combat.

The "Simple Skill" approach is especially valid for things that are not really important to the plot, or that do not break down into subtasks. Moving stealthily is usually a single event that either works or not -- nothing to subdivide there.

 

The second is one we don't presently have' date=' but would be based on skills and time. You want to use your Smith skill to craft a sword? We determine how tough it is to craft the sword, and you make your roll. The degree of success determines the extent of progress made towards crafting that sword. We'd need rules for adjudicating time requirements, as well as degree of difficulty. This might be a rational middle ground for, say, a medical problem. After some period of work (say 6 hours), the Doctor rolls his skill. Made it by 4? OK, that counts as 3 "successes" (one for a successful roll, plus one for every 2 the roll is made by). The GM marks off his progress on the "cure" chart crafted for this medical issue. He hasn't solved the problem, but he now knows this will ultimately be fatal if not treated (for which he needed 1 success), and that a sample of the toxin from the creature that bit the victim would greatly assist in finding a cure (add +3 to his future rolls). The timeline would have other breakpoints, up to "cure from sample", "cure without sample", "immunization with sample" and "immunization without sample". What's the catch? He only gets one roll per time period, meanwhile the venom is running its course in the victim.[/quote']Actually, this sounds similar to one option described in TUSk. Break a task down into subtasks, assign an appropriate skill, base time and difficulty for each subtask, let the PCs make their rolls for each, and adjust the actual time used based upon the level of success (or failure). One or more of those rolls could be opposed, if the situation warrants it.

 

The medical example is a good one, but the swordsmithing example is equally valid. It could be broken down into selecting raw materials, forging, shaping, curing, etc. -- of course how detailed you get depends on the available domain knowledge. If neither the GM or the player knows anything about swordsmithing, it will be difficult to break it down into believable subtasks. This is where the detailed skill information in TUSk is extremely useful.

 

The third approach would be a full combat-like system' date=' so Doc is now rolling against the disease/venom's own "hide cure" skill, rolling "damage" and applying it to the condition's "defenses", 'con", "stun" and "bod". If it's Stunned, he's at least slowed its progress for a time. If it's KO'd, it's in remission until it recovers. Get it down to "dead" and it's fully cured.[/quote']This kind of resolution implies (to me) an active resistance. I would think that a microbe/virus/chemical compound would be to simple a thing to be able to use skills to actively resist, but if it is a created organism/substance, the creator's skill in creating it would be applicable. Otherwise, it is just a difficulty reflecting the complexity of the thing (possibly broken down into subtasks, as above -- discovery, characterization, countermeasures, etc.).

 

It seems reasonable for the toolbox to outline the three approaches' date=' and provide detailed mechanics for the most common RPG conflict, being combat. Maybe some guidelines for the middle ground approach for a couple of commonly sued skills would be appropriate as well. High end resolution mechanics for other areas might best be presented in appropriate sourcebooks.[/quote']I agree.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Can I just say that, whilst on one level (the tinkerer level) of my mind, I like the idea of 'social combat'. It appeals to the mechanical mindset I often adopt and simplifies the situation to a set of rules. I like the idea of the certainty that such a mechanic can bring to social interaction. Besides, 'Social Stun' has a certain alliterative charm.

 

OTOH my concern is that it implies that anyone, if sufficiently beset, can be made to comply with a social requirement, whether it be a request for information, or forebearance, or whatever. Moreover, it quite strongly implies that all social requirements have an equal degree of 'social force', unless you are going to define social defences to a very high degree.

 

I don't believe that to be the case. Darth Sidious may well have been able to turn Anakin, but could he have turned Yoda? Doubt it. Could he have turned my 7 year old son? Absolutely not (although The Emperor might well have been in danger of being shown exactly what 'The Dark Side' is...).

 

Any social combat needs, at very least, a 'fumble' mechanic so that, if you blow it, you've blown it. Moreover, any such social combat would have to be undertaken 'in the dark'. A large part of 'social combat'is that you only know how well you've succeeded with hindsight. Did you REALLY convince the guard to let you by without reporting you, or did he just let you by SO that he could report you?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I've been thinking about the whole thing of social combat and Sean has indicated a useful point, that not all social combats are equal - they do not all start at the same point or finish at the same point - physical combats are different - they have the same beginning and end point - full stats - stats below zero.

 

I think there is a useful role for disadvantages to play here.

 

You have a 25 point code versus killing - you are not going to be persuaded to kill someone, you will not countenace someone killing for any reason. However a huge persuasion defeat might allow you to overlook someone being killed for good reason - execution of a very bad man who, if left alive will undoubtedly kill again.

 

If you have lesser degrees of code versus killing you may be persuaded at lower social levels.

 

Again this would take work to set up and would be individual to each character and campaign but it would provide a huge extra tier to potential roleplay opportunities.

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

OTOH my concern is that it implies that anyone, if sufficiently beset, can be made to comply with a social requirement, whether it be a request for information, or forebearance, or whatever. Moreover, it quite strongly implies that all social requirements have an equal degree of 'social force', unless you are going to define social defences to a very high degree.

 

I don't believe that to be the case. Darth Sidious may well have been able to turn Anakin, but could he have turned Yoda? Doubt it. Could he have turned my 7 year old son? Absolutely not (although The Emperor might well have been in danger of being shown exactly what 'The Dark Side' is...).

 

Any social combat needs, at very least, a 'fumble' mechanic so that, if you blow it, you've blown it. Moreover, any such social combat would have to be undertaken 'in the dark'. A large part of 'social combat'is that you only know how well you've succeeded with hindsight. Did you REALLY convince the guard to let you by without reporting you, or did he just let you by SO that he could report you?

 

I agree that there will need to be various levels of difficulty in respect of social combat. For the "detailed" approach to be viable for social combat, it would practically have to be built up to the same level as physical combat. That means not only social defenses, but that we need to establish a baseline of Social OCV, DCV, Defense, Stun and BOD and REC for each character (ie how easy is it to influence this person in general). These are probably based on stats like PRE and EGO. From there, we need modifiers (bonus DEF, Stun, BOD, REC and/or Damage Reduction) for certain situations, just as we have combat modifiers for physical combat. It would need be a whole, developed combat system. It's not going to be a couple of pages. That's why it would only be used in games where social combat is a defining feature. It seems likely most games would have only one or two "detailed system" conflict resolutions. A game focused on social conflict ("High School Hero"; "Political Intrigue Hero") probably gets by on opposed skill rolls for physical combat.

 

Would Yoda be impervious to Sidious' attempts to turn him because of some nebulous facet of his character, or because Yoda's defensive social stats are so high as to render Sidious unable to have an effect? A normal human can't hurt Grond because Grond has paid for enough PD that a normal human cannot hurt him. If social combat is a focus of the game, then characters would need to pay for the array of social stats needed to manage social combat. You don't get to be invulnerable to mental powers because you are "strong willed" - you buy mental defenses. Human Torch buys bonus defenses against fire - he's not resistant for free. If social combat is fully developed, characters would similarly have to pay the points for the resistances they attribute to their characters.

 

I've been thinking about the whole thing of social combat and Sean has indicated a useful point, that not all social combats are equal - they do not all start at the same point or finish at the same point - physical combats are different - they have the same beginning and end point - full stats - stats below zero.

 

I think there is a useful role for disadvantages to play here.

 

You have a 25 point code versus killing - you are not going to be persuaded to kill someone, you will not countenance someone killing for any reason. However a huge persuasion defeat might allow you to overlook someone being killed for good reason - execution of a very bad man who, if left alive will undoubtedly kill again.

 

I think disadvantages and established personality traits have to factor in as "social combat modifiers", much like mental combat factors in personality in assessing Mind Control's success or failure.

[StGrimblefig]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Can I just say that, whilst on one level (the tinkerer level) of my mind, I like the idea of 'social combat'. It appeals to the mechanical mindset I often adopt and simplifies the situation to a set of rules. I like the idea of the certainty that such a mechanic can bring to social interaction. Besides, 'Social Stun' has a certain alliterative charm.

 

OTOH my concern is that it implies that anyone, if sufficiently beset, can be made to comply with a social requirement, whether it be a request for information, or forebearance, or whatever. Moreover, it quite strongly implies that all social requirements have an equal degree of 'social force', unless you are going to define social defences to a very high degree.

Social combat is inherently limited -- as you say, you can influence someone's public behavior, but you cannot control their thoughts. You may be able to bluff & bluster your way past the party's bouncer, but that does not in any way prevent him from checking your identity later and having you ejected in an embarrassing (for you) display of bouncer diligence. You may be able to keep someone from going public with some bit of information by emphasizing the secondary effects to the person and/or their DNPCs, but they can "anonymously" leak the information later (unless you take other steps to prevent it). There is a fuzzy line between a social and a mental conflict -- it is up to the GM to decide where your desired effect lies.

 

I don't believe that to be the case. Darth Sidious may well have been able to turn Anakin' date=' but could he have turned Yoda? Doubt it. Could he have turned my 7 year old son? Absolutely not (although The Emperor might well have been in danger of being shown exactly what 'The Dark Side' is...).[/quote']I have to ask whether that was really a social conflict, rather than a mental one? It was an extended test, to be sure, as the Sith master wore down the young apprentice's resistance over time, but ultimately, the end effect was a change in Anakin's thoughts and beliefs. There may well have been complimentary social skill rolls along the way, to get the youth to verbally agree to small points that were eventually chained together to guide his thinking to a particular conclusion. The overall effect, however, was mental. In my opinion, anyway.

 

The thought of a 7 year old Sith apprentice pwning the Emperor does give me a smile, though.

 

Any social combat needs' date=' at very least, a 'fumble' mechanic so that, if you blow it, you've blown it. Moreover, any such social combat would have to be undertaken 'in the dark'. A large part of 'social combat'is that you only know how well you've succeeded with hindsight. Did you REALLY convince the guard to let you by without reporting you, or did he just let you by SO that he could report you?[/quote']

I do agree that the final dice results of a social combat should be hidden -- the PCs only know the immediate results. I am not sure that a fumble mechanic is necessary. How a NPC responds to your failure is a function of his/her/its personality and how badly you failed.

 

 

 

 

 

I've been thinking about the whole thing of social combat and Sean has indicated a useful point' date=' that not all social combats are equal - they do not all start at the same point or finish at the same point - physical combats are different - they have the same beginning and end point - full stats - stats below zero.[/quote']I disagree that all physical conflicts have the same endpoint -- at least if the NPCs involved aren't mindless drones. There should be a point at which even mooks decide that their own lives are more important than obedience to their superiors (perhaps even moreso for mooks than for lieutenants). Perhaps it is more likely that the bad guys want to kill the heroes than vice-versa. If you include sporting events (i.e. boxing or collegiate/olympic wrestling), it should not necessarily be the goal at all. Then again, I might just be splitting hairs, too.

 

I think there is a useful role for disadvantages to play here.

 

You have a 25 point code versus killing - you are not going to be persuaded to kill someone, you will not countenace someone killing for any reason. However a huge persuasion defeat might allow you to overlook someone being killed for good reason - execution of a very bad man who, if left alive will undoubtedly kill again.

 

If you have lesser degrees of code versus killing you may be persuaded at lower social levels.

 

Psych Lims should be useful, but I would think that Soc Lims would be at least as powerful in this kind of conflict. If only people used more of them.

 

The other thing that I think must be taken into account is that any social conflict is greatly influenced by the social environment in which it occurs. You will get vastly different results if you try to threaten violence at a black-tie party, than on a street corner. The social environment skills (Streetwise, High Society, etc.) should be very important complimentary skills for social conflicts, as they allow you to know what is appropriate and what is not in their respective domains.

 

Again this would take work to set up and would be individual to each character and campaign but it would provide a huge extra tier to potential roleplay opportunities.

I agree. I wonder; How long did it take to evolve the current set of physical combat maneuvers? I can see this going in that kind of direction.

 

I remember a book I read in junior high school, called something like, "games people play," in which the different kinds of social games that people used to try to control the situation in a therapist's office. That might be an interesting starting point for social combat maneuvers -- I will have to see if I still have it.

[jaws]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

OTOH my concern is that it implies that anyone, if sufficiently beset, can be made to comply with a social requirement, whether it be a request for information, or forebearance, or whatever. Moreover, it quite strongly implies that all social requirements have an equal degree of 'social force', unless you are going to define social defenses to a very high degree.

 

... shortened for brevity...

 

Any social combat needs, at very least, a 'fumble' mechanic so that, if you blow it, you've blown it. Moreover, any such social combat would have to be undertaken 'in the dark'. A large part of 'social combat'is that you only know how well you've succeeded with hindsight. Did you REALLY convince the guard to let you by without reporting you, or did he just let you by SO that he could report you?

 

People are complying with social requirements every day. Why shouldn't the characters. Then again they aren't bound by it if society is not important to them. The barbarian doesn't care what the nobles think of him, he is in a social tight spot, he leaves or pummels the culprit!... unless he is trying to negotiate a treaty or woo the noble damsel. If some social defeat forces them to do something to get to their objective it isn't much different than a cave in in the dungeon that forces them to dig or give up. They don't HAVE to dig, they still have a choice, but its another conflict due to a combat (social, skill or physical) failure.

 

Besides most social conflicts are not about changing people but about how others perceive them and their actions. Social conflict in the short haul is to ridicule some one in public, convince some one of some short term immediate action, increase or reduce reputation, etc..

 

A character should never be FORCED in to a line of action or thinking except through drawn out constant subtle manipulation... you do that all the time as GM anyway. No mater how much freedom you give your players you are always subtly nudging and directing in the end you get a compromise. Thats how social interaction works.

 

In fact if social interactions are the basis of a campaign the GM should keep track of "social body" for individual issues and record damage and healing based on things that strengthen or weaken their social standing on an issue or beliefs.

 

Prolonged convincing and cajoling and manipulation SHOULD be able to change any character (PC or NPC). If a character is willing to regularly parlay and discuss or maneuver on an issue with anyone they should run the risk of being convinced of an issue no mater how strong the players stance. Social conflict always takes 2 just like a fight. You can "socially run or avoid" conflict just as you can physical. If you voluntarily or by inaction allow yourself to be exposed to an idea long enough even "Iron Mind Negotiator" should be convinced if he looses often enough. Its hard to believe in ideas you have no support for or ar repeatedly shown to be weak.

 

As the Doc said, It is an excellent place to put in to play social and mental limitations.

 

Social conflict is fairly subjective, but so is physical when you take in to account SFX. The GM needs to use a little judgment, but we always.

 

Sorry if I rambled, but I had a lot of points to communicate.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

My, that bit got commented on a lot

 

I think my concern about social combat also stems from the fact that it implies you can model a personality with, effectively, mental martial arts. I don't think you can.

 

To take a very simple example, it is going to be easier to convince me to put £1 (that'll be $2.039) into a charity collection tin than into the hand of a beggar.

 

Mind you the beggar would have an easier time convincing me to part with the cash if I'd just got some good news and was feeling generous, or just read a story on the plight of the homeless and was feeling guilty.

 

The point (I think) I'm trying to make is that even people's attitudes are very fluid. Whilst you can probably model how effective a punch is to a reasonable degree of accuracy, it probably doesn't matter that much if I'm in the mood for a fight or not - I still hit hard. The same simply is not true of social situations - and the degree of work to model the influence of timing, environment and such is, I believe, way beyond us.

 

You are welcome to prove me wrong

 

Now here's an idea, for modelling personality; crude, inaccutate and incomlpete, but, hey, it just might work.

 

A lot of personality typing systems use dynamic opposites: introvert v extrovert, for example, or at least seperate points around a centre.

 

Perhaps we could dynamically create our character's personality as we go?

 

Whenever you make a choice, in game, a choice that dentoes a preference, you note it as a sort of personality profile. It could be as specific as beer v wine, it could be as general as doer v thinker. You could even assign a number to it, say 1 to 5.

 

Say you are 'beer v wine 3'. That means you like beer over wine, and it means that in a social situation where someone tries, for example, to get you to come out for a drink, if they suggest going out for a beer, they get +3 on the roll, and if they suggest going out for a glass of wine then they get -3.

 

You can set up as many of these as you like when you create the character, or just note them as they come up. Over time you'll gain a pretty comprehensive picture of people's preferences and what pushes their social buttons.

 

The setup can even be dynamic: if a roll, that is modified, is made, then the player can chose to move that 'slider' toward the appropriate preference by one point, but they don't have to.

 

For instance, if you are persuded to go to a wine bar, by a gorgeous co-worker, despite egnerally preferring beer, that might change your perception of wine positively. You are now 'beer v wine 2'. Much more of this and you might beceom 'wine v beer'!

[Utech]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Social combat is inherently limited -- as you say' date=' you can influence someone's public behavior, but you cannot control their thoughts.[/quote']

 

I disagree. Brainwashing/indoctrination is well-documented. There is also religious conversion. Political conversion. Peer pressure. Trends. A culture of consumerism that convinces people to buy things they do not need and cannot afford. Power corrupts. Sweet talk can get you far. Bullied children can be made to feel that they truly are inferior; ugly; stupid; worthless. A great coach can turn a bunch of losers into the Bad News Bears!

 

If you're willing to accept that a character can be killed in physical combat, you should accept that the same character can have their thoughts changed in social combat.

[nexus]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Wanted to say that this is a remarkably well timed thread for me. I and a friend have been rolling social/interaction skills in Hero recently. There's been some great discussion on both sides here.

[Utech]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I think my concern about social combat also stems from the fact that it implies you can model a personality with, effectively, mental martial arts. I don't think you can.

 

To take a very simple example, it is going to be easier to convince me to put £1 (that'll be $2.039) into a charity collection tin than into the hand of a beggar.

 

Mind you the beggar would have an easier time convincing me to part with the cash if I'd just got some good news and was feeling generous, or just read a story on the plight of the homeless and was feeling guilty.

 

The point (I think) I'm trying to make is that even people's attitudes are very fluid. Whilst you can probably model how effective a punch is to a reasonable degree of accuracy, it probably doesn't matter that much if I'm in the mood for a fight or not - I still hit hard. The same simply is not true of social situations - and the degree of work to model the influence of timing, environment and such is, I believe, way beyond us.

 

You are welcome to prove me wrong

 

Oh, I doubt I can prove you wrong. But I'll respond anyway.

 

So our hero comes across a beggar. He doesn't like beggars, so he ignores the chap and moves on. He has successfully run away from a combat. No worries.

 

Our hero stops at the next corner and waits for the signal to change. Another beggar walks over and starts his pitch. The beggar asks for some coin (Strike) and our hero murmurs something indistinct and waves him off (Dodge). The beggar explains that he's out of work and could really use some help (Strike) but our hero counters that the beggar ought to be out looking for a job instead of a handout (Block). Our hero has the initiative and goes on to point out that there is a "help wanted" sign in the window of a nearby store (Strike). The beggar is taken aback (Stunned). The beggar begins to cry (Drain Ego) but our hero is heart hearted (has Power Defense) and is unmoved. The signal changes and our hero walks on.

 

Our hero, we should point out, has a huge advantage over any beggar he comes upon. Our hero has strong defenses and is willing to counter attack with strong arguments. The beggar has a weak social position and very little ability to force our hero to do anything. The beggar, in other words, is built on considerably less social points than our hero. Sad, but true.

[nexus]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

That sounds remarkably like Exalted's (by white wolf) Social combat system. The system has some issues but it does an all right job moderating social conflict but runs into some issues since it clings very closely to the physical combat rules. It also fails to take the nature of the request into the difficulty. That is, objectively, it's not much harder for a begger to ask for a dollar as for him to ask for all the money you have.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I disagree. Brainwashing/indoctrination is well-documented. There is also religious conversion. Political conversion. Peer pressure. Trends. A culture of consumerism that convinces people to buy things they do not need and cannot afford. Power corrupts. Sweet talk can get you far. Bullied children can be made to feel that they truly are inferior; ugly; stupid; worthless. A great coach can turn a bunch of losers into the Bad News Bears!

 

If you're willing to accept that a character can be killed in physical combat, you should accept that the same character can have their thoughts changed in social combat.

 

I agree...but I disagree. Peer pressure does not have consistent results. In a given peer group, a test group of ten similar subjects is placed. Some sunjects might be persuaded to drink liquor and kiss women, others might not. Stick the same sunjects in with different peers, and some might be persuaded to worship Jeebus, and some might not...and we have no way of knowing in advance if it would be the same people, different people or some weird overlapping venn diagram thing.

 

How does that square with social combat? To my mind, how you are and can be influenced is a very complex thing, based on a lifetime of observations and prejudices. We just don't have enough paper to accurately model that.

 

What aer the possible outcomes going to be?

 

Agrees

Disagrees but goes along anyway

Agrees but likely to change their mind soon

Disagrees

Disagrees but pretends to agree

Agrees but pretends to agree out of orneryness

 

...could be a long list...

 

I don't know enough about brainwashing to know if it works consistently, but if it does I'd suggest it is less of an application of social skill and more of a RSR mental transformation.

 

In fact that almost defines skills in Hero: stuff you do that you can't guarantee will work.

[zornwil]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I think we could have three tiers of conflict resolution.

 

The first would be skill-based, so the most you do is roll one opposed skill roll, determining the results. That's how we presently handle, say, moving silently or crafting a sword, but as noted above, it could easily be extended to physical combat.

 

The second is one we don't presently have, but would be based on skills and time. You want to use your Smith skill to craft a sword? We determine how tough it is to craft the sword, and you make your roll. The degree of success determines the extent of progress made towards crafting that sword. We'd need rules for adjudicating time requirements, as well as degree of difficulty. This might be a rational middle ground for, say, a medical problem. After some period of work (say 6 hours), the Doctor rolls his skill. Made it by 4? OK, that counts as 3 "successes" (one for a successful roll, plus one for every 2 the roll is made by). The GM marks off his progress on the "cure" chart crafted for this medical issue. He hasn't solved the problem, but he now knows this will ultimately be fatal if not treated (for which he needed 1 success), and that a sample of the toxin from the creature that bit the victim would greatly assist in finding a cure (add +3 to his future rolls). The timeline would have other breakpoints, up to "cure from sample", "cure without sample", "immunization with sample" and "immunization without sample". What's the catch? He only gets one roll per time period, meanwhile the venom is running its course in the victim.

 

The third approach would be a full combat-like system, so Doc is now rolling against the disease/venom's own "hide cure" skill, rolling "damage" and applying it to the condition's "defenses", 'con", "stun" and "bod". If it's Stunned, he's at least slowed its progress for a time. If it's KO'd, it's in remission until it recovers. Get it down to "dead" and it's fully cured.

 

It seems reasonable for the toolbox to outline the three approaches, and provide detailed mechanics for the most common RPG conflict, being combat. Maybe some guidelines for the middle ground approach for a couple of commonly sued skills would be appropriate as well. High end resolution mechanics for other areas might best be presented in appropriate sourcebooks.

That's a neat idea. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that really the tiers represent a sort of basic story-level interest level, in that where you resolve something could in theory be done any tier, just that we select the tier most satisfying to the level of story-time we want to put into that conflict.

[zornwil]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Can I just say that, whilst on one level (the tinkerer level) of my mind, I like the idea of 'social combat'. It appeals to the mechanical mindset I often adopt and simplifies the situation to a set of rules. I like the idea of the certainty that such a mechanic can bring to social interaction. Besides, 'Social Stun' has a certain alliterative charm.

 

OTOH my concern is that it implies that anyone, if sufficiently beset, can be made to comply with a social requirement, whether it be a request for information, or forebearance, or whatever. Moreover, it quite strongly implies that all social requirements have an equal degree of 'social force', unless you are going to define social defences to a very high degree.

 

I don't believe that to be the case. Darth Sidious may well have been able to turn Anakin, but could he have turned Yoda? Doubt it. Could he have turned my 7 year old son? Absolutely not (although The Emperor might well have been in danger of being shown exactly what 'The Dark Side' is...).

 

Any social combat needs, at very least, a 'fumble' mechanic so that, if you blow it, you've blown it. Moreover, any such social combat would have to be undertaken 'in the dark'. A large part of 'social combat'is that you only know how well you've succeeded with hindsight. Did you REALLY convince the guard to let you by without reporting you, or did he just let you by SO that he could report you?

I think, to your and Doc Democracy's point, though, having seen and heard of this in action for some time now I think that group guidelines and common sense address it pretty easily. It's pretty intuitive in practice.