Social Combat

[Terath Ninir]

So, here's a question to ponder: will 5e have some actual, well thought out system of social interaction?

The social skill system in 3e/Pathfinder is... lacking, to say the least. It doesn't do much and it doesn't really do it well. I never played 4e, so I don't know if it does any better.

For the past 6 years, I've mostly played Exalted, which has an integrated social combat system. I'm not going to claim it's a *good* system, but it exists. You can actually change someone's mind on a topic, make them a friend, make them an enemy, make them hate someone else, etc.

Any chance we'll get that for 5e? I know it doesn't matter much for dungeon delvers, but it's been a long time since D&D was only used for those sorts of stories.

 

[TwinBahamut]

That certainly would be more interesting than just making diplomacy checks. I've never been able to really get into the Exalted system, so I don't know how it works, so I'm curious if you could tell us more about it.

Anyways, one thing I've considered one of the true innovations of 4E is that, through the skill challenge system, it enforces the turn-based mechanics usually seen in combat onto non-combat situations. This helps give every character a chance to share an equal amount of time in the spotlight during non-combat events, which can make them more interesting for everyone. A more systematized social encounter system (which could possibly be designed to smoothly transition to combat or other kinds of skill challenge) would probably add a lot of tension and drama to important debates and social events.

Honestly, it would just be interesting to see a system where the players could lose a clash of wills to such an extent that the PCs are forced to change their opinions on something, though I suppose such a thing would be rather controversial...

 

[Ahnehnois]

The trouble here is that social interaction is not well suited to systematization, and that many of the more theatrically oriented D&D players prefer their social interactions be very rules-lite. Complex Diplo checks are fine, but a whole separate system is not likely to make its way into the core (though I could see it as an option in an intrigue-based supplement or a bard's handbook or something).

 

[Terath Ninir]

The exact mechanics of Exalted social combat would take a long time to go through, but the basic idea is that everyone has a Motivation -- a core belief -- that is almost impossible to mess with, as well as Intimacies -- lesser but important beliefs. If you go into social combat with someone, you make an "attack" that they can defend against with a counterargument or that they can simply try to ignore. (The defense is a static value, like an AC value, but you have active or passive defense to choose from.) You can do something immediate in social combat -- stop attacking me, or stop that guy running down the street. Or you can attempt to really change someone's mind, by adding, subtracting, or changing one of their Intimacies, which takes a longer time and more effort.

Like I said, the actual rules in question are pretty wonky and could use some work. But it's nice to have them. Yeah, you're probably not going to talk to the rampaging troll. But how cool would it be to socially spar with a dragon? That was always one of my favorite parts of the Hobbit. And if you have urban adventures, the lack of a good social interaction system really hurts. It leaves the DM winging it too much of the time for my tastes.

 

[harlokin]

The trouble here is that social interaction is not well suited to systematization, and that many of the more theatrically oriented D&D players prefer their social interactions be very rules-lite. Complex Diplo checks are fine, but a whole separate system is not likely to make its way into the core (though I could see it as an option in an intrigue-based supplement or a bard's handbook or something).

I agree.

Much as I like Exalted and the Social Combat idea, I don't expect much appetite for innovation, rather than arguments over dinosaur names.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Honestly, it would just be interesting to see a system where the players could lose a clash of wills to such an extent that the PCs are forced to change their opinions on something, though I suppose such a thing would be rather controversial...

Ah, that is the other important factor in Exalted social combat I forgot to mention. You also have a stat called Willpower that, amongst other things, you can use to trump a social combat. Even if you lose a roll, you can still say "no". You can't do it forever, so you kind of have to choose which things to be stubborn on and which to not be.

The trouble here is that social interaction is not well suited to systematization, and that many of the more theatrically oriented D&D players prefer their social interactions be very rules-lite. Complex Diplo checks are fine, but a whole separate system is not likely to make its way into the core (though I could see it as an option in an intrigue-based supplement or a bard's handbook or something).

I think that's been a mistake for D&D, though. Yes, you want to roleplay out the really important social interactions. But do you want to roleplay out every time you haggle to buy something? Or persuade the town guards you weren't in that fight just now? Many times, it's a pain to have to decide whether someone would be swayed by your arguments.

Not to mention that it's rather unfair to the uncharismatic player who wants his character to be able to do better in the game!

 

[ferratus]

I'm not a big fan of using rolls to resolve social interaction. I find the Diplomacy skill is the biggest detriment to roleplaying in the game, as players generally use it as a "do what I say because you like me" button. It also shuts down characters from engaging in non-combat encounters if they have a low charisma (I'm looking at you fighter).

Playing 2e vs. 3e/4e was like night and day. When we switch to 2e in my ongoing campaign last summer, suddenly my players' interest and frequency of non-combat encounters spiked. The guy who played the ranger who goes to take a nap in non-combat encounters was suddenly front and center in negotiations and wheeling and dealing. I had just assumed as a warhammer player he just wasn't interested in RP, but it was just because he hadn't played a high charisma character in the five years I'd known him. Even my wife, who largely plays D&D to hang out with our mutual friends rather than being strongly interested in roleplaying, was more engaged and contributing.

My warhammer guy was enough of a wargamer though that he missed the minis and combat options of 4e, and my wife hated Vancian casting. There were also complaints about save or die from all the players. Thus being outvoted, we went back to 4e, and the first RP encounter that came up, the other players looked at the sorcerer (the high charisma character) and my wife rolled a diplomacy score to get past the gate of a city ruled by a despot. She then said, "He likes us, so he should just let us in without checking us out or what we're carrying".

Well, I was very annoyed to say the least, and shocked that such a small rule could have such a profound impact on the tenor of the game. What followed was a long argument about what Diplomacy was for and how it should be properly used. I argued that Diplomacy shouldn't replace roleplaying and that a guard isn't just going to risk his neck for you against his evil master just because he likes you; she still needed to figure out what he would accept to change his mind and accept the risk of betraying his duty. They argued that the diplomacy score meant that they shouldn't have to give out a bribe but just that they are so slick that they can just fast-talk their way past.

I dug in my heels of course (because I'm the DM) but the argument kept on returning. One player then asked "well what's the point of diplomacy then, if you insist on having us figure it out without it?". So I banned all the charisma based skill checks from the game, and my players retrained out of them.

Like magic the level of roleplaying and engagment with NPC's returned to 2e levels. So I'm firmly convinced that social skills, and tying the success of those skills to charisma, were the single biggest detriment to roleplaying in the history of the game. Now that I've seen it, I cannot unsee.

 

[Number48]

A variation on the "yes, but" system might be an adaptation that could move social encounters away from an on/off result. This was used in a couple indie games. The basic concept is there are 4 levels of outcome, instead of 2. If the player wins the roll by a lot, he gains authorship and dictates what the results of that roll were. If he wins, but only by a little, he still dictates the outcome, but the GM adds a "yes, but" to the end of it. If he loses by a lot, the GM authors it and if he loses by a little, the player adds the "yes, but".

The system would have to be toned back a bit to ensure that players didn't try to author game-changing events, but the concept is a jumping-off point.

 

[harlokin]

I'm not a big fan of using rolls to resolve social interaction. I find the Diplomacy skill is the biggest detriment to roleplaying in the game, as players generally use it as a "do what I say because you like me" button. It also shuts down characters from engaging in non-combat encounters if they have a low charisma (I'm looking at you fighter).

Playing 2e vs. 3e/4e was like night and day. When we switch to 2e in my ongoing campaign last summer, suddenly my players' interest and frequency of non-combat encounters spiked. The guy who played the ranger who goes to take a nap in non-combat encounters was suddenly front and center in negotiations and wheeling and dealing. I had just assumed as a warhammer player he just wasn't interested in RP, but it was just because he hadn't played a high charisma character in the five years I'd known him. Even my wife, who largely plays D&D to hang out with our mutual friends rather than being strongly interested in roleplaying, was more engaged and contributing.

My warhammer guy was enough of a wargamer though that he missed the minis and combat options of 4e, and my wife hated Vancian casting. There were also complaints about save or die from all the players. Thus being outvoted, we went back to 4e, and the first RP encounter that came up, the other players looked at the sorcerer (the high charisma character) and my wife rolled a diplomacy score to get past the gate of a city ruled by a despot. She then said, "He likes us, so he should just let us in without checking us out or what we're carrying".

Well, I was very annoyed to say the least, and shocked that such a small rule could have such a profound impact on the tenor of the game. What followed was a long argument about what Diplomacy was for and how it should be properly used. I argued that Diplomacy shouldn't replace roleplaying and that a guard isn't just going to risk his neck for you against his evil master just because he likes you; she still needed to figure out what he would accept to change his mind and accept the risk of betraying his duty. They argued that the diplomacy score meant that they shouldn't have to give out a bribe but just that they are so slick that they can just fast-talk their way past.

I dug in my heels of course (because I'm the DM) but the argument kept on returning. One player then asked "well what's the point of diplomacy then, if you insist on having us figure it out without it?". So I banned all the charisma based skill checks from the game, and my players retrained out of them.

Like magic the level of roleplaying and engagment with NPC's returned to 2e levels. So I'm firmly convinced that social skills, and tying the success of those skills to charisma, were the single biggest detriment to roleplaying in the history of the game. Now that I've seen it, I cannot unsee.

I disagree.

Your argument precludes players who aren't confident speakers from being good at Diplomacy 'in game'.

A player who is a Barrister by profession should not be allowed to sweet talk the guards continually using his undiplomatic and charismatic Barbarian just because he dazzles the GM with his arguments as a player.

If you think to real-life, there are many examples of politicians who make very sensible arguments but are ignored due to their lack of charisma, while more charismatic peers merely need to grunt to gain approval.

 

[ferratus]

I disagree.

Your argument precludes players who aren't confident speakers from being good at Diplomacy 'in game'.

I thought so too, but it doesn't seem to be the case. The biggest thing that seems to get people more confident in speaking is for everyone to be more involved. It is much easier to be involved in a group activity than it is to place yourself out there and take on the burden of roleplaying by yourself.

Since I've banned charisma-based skill checks, the party generally puts their heads together to figure out what to say. Then the group generally speaks out of someone's mouth, with others chiming in some corrections or addendums.

If the person still has the character concept of being beautiful or charismatic, that character still is considered to be the diplomat. However, they are helped along to say the right thing by their fellow players rather than a die roll.

This is a monumental improvement in enjoying the non-combat side of the game.

A player who is a Barrister by profession should not be allowed to sweet talk the guards continually using his undiplomatic and charismatic Barbarian just because he dazzles the GM with his arguments as a player.

True, but he generally doesn't if he is playing his barbarian as a brute. I have one player who is playing a brute, and he plays him as such. He does give input on what the party bard should say however.

The problem you are speaking of comes from using charisma as a dump stat, and then playing a character concept that doesn't have a low charisma. In other words, he wants to play a dashing fighter, but dumped charisma because the focus of the fighter class is only on combat and he wants to be effective.

If you think to real-life, there are many examples of politicians who make very sensible arguments but are ignored due to their lack of charisma, while more charismatic peers merely need to grunt to gain approval.

I'm sure you could, but a player can always choose to gimp themselves if they wish.

We have a low intelligence score, and that means that you can't have a lot of success in the book-learning skills, or the with knowing spells. It does not however, mean that you can't figure out dungeon puzzles or the rational course of action your character should take.

In a similar vein, why should a character's low charisma stat impact the ability of the player to roleplay?