Social Combat

[TwinBahamut]

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.

You know, this is exactly why I think there should be a more involved social combat system in D&D. If you leave things to be formless and rules-light, then diplomacy will primarily be handled by whichever player is most vocal and assertive. If you leave things down to a single number, like 3E's Diplomacy skill and Charisma stat, then things quickly devolve down to all diplomacy being handled by whoever has the highest relevant skill. Both systems tend to dump it all on a single player, whether that player likes it or not! In many campaigns I've run, the group often just let's one person handle it all, even if that player specifically tries to get other people involved, and does not have the highest Charisma stat.

If you have a more structured and complex system, then you have far more tools to encourage everyone to get involved, and can provide benefits for teamwork the same way you can in other complex game systems like combat.

 

[Terath Ninir]

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

Two points: I think WotC is more willing to listen to fans than they are generally given credit for. And this feels a lot like the runup to 3e, where half the fun was speculating and making suggestions. Even if they don't listen on this, it's still fun to talk about.

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).

This actually goes with my argument, which is that D&D has bad rules for social interaction. The fact that 3e/Pathfinder has bad rules, though, does not preclude someone coming up with good ones.

Again, Exalted only lets you have an on/off button on immediate things -- like "We're not your enemies, stop attacking!" To really change someone's mind you have to work at it. And you're not going to change someone's core beliefs without epic work. Maybe the paladin *can* convert the ice devil, but it's going to take far more time and effort than killing it would.

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.

I've not played a lot of indie games, but that could be another source of inspiration. Moving away from the yes/no of 3e/Pathfinder would be great, especially if it were there from the start of 5e.

 

[trancejeremy]

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.

So you just shouldn't bother to role play anymore and just roll dice?

This is where the DM aspect of the game is - you don't judge how well the person roleplaying is doing compared to a hollywood actor or professional debater, you judge him by the effort he put into it based on his own ability - did he actually try to role play, or did he just phone it in.

But then again, today people don't want to DM, they just want to follow rules for every possible situation...but role playing is the one thing that pen & paper RPGs offer over things like computer games.

 

[Terath Ninir]

I disagree.

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

Yes. It doesn't happen in every game, but very often, the true Charisma stat of a character is the charisma of the player. That's one reason it was the classic dump stat. Low charisma players should be able to play the party leader sometimes, too.

If you have a more structured and complex system, then you have far more tools to encourage everyone to get involved, and can provide benefits for teamwork the same way you can in other complex game systems like combat.

Exactly. If I want rules light, I am NOT going to be playing any version of D&D. I would like to see some of the same complexity applied in the social arena as in some of the other areas of the game. Then we could have new feats (or whatever 5e calls them), spells, magic items, and everything else tied in to the social rules. More stuff is always better in D&D.

 

[Tallifer]

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.

Ugh. It sounds like a system that would mostly appeal to players who already have great skills in acting, debating, logic or oratory. Let them roleplay it out since they clearly enjoy it.

I get it that the player should not equal the character. But there is nothing more painful for me than a player who does not care at all about the story, world or culture, and yet he can roll some dice and woo the queen. I like the present simple system wherein the player at least has to indicate what he is trying to say, and then rolls to see if it was effective. The more mechanical the social rules, the more burdensome to most players, and the more exploitable by the non-roleplayers.

 

[Terath Ninir]

So you just shouldn't bother to role play anymore and just roll dice?

It doesn't have to be either/or. Exalted is a VERY setting-heavy game -- you probably couldn't port the rules to another setting without more work than it would be worth -- and very heavy on roleplaying. But it also benefits from the social combat rules and dice rules. They aren't perfect, but they make the game move much more smoothly than it would without them.

This is where the DM aspect of the game is - you don't judge how well the person roleplaying is doing compared to a hollywood actor or professional debater, you judge him by the effort he put into it based on his own ability - did he actually try to role play, or did he just phone it in.

That's true, and players should get a benefit for actually roleplaying. But you should be able to phone it in on unimportant social interactions, like haggling with the third shopkeeper today. When you're talking to Smaug, though, you better come up with some good roleplaying or you'll end up roast hobbit steaks.

 

[Stalker0]

I am big mechanics fan. I like developing game mechanics, and I like rules for things.

That said, I have never been impressed with any social interaction mechanic I have seen.

The advantage of providing players rules to showcase their character (as opposed to the players) charisma has always been overshadowed by the loss of roleplaying I have seen with constant interruption of rolls and mechanics in a social scene.

 

[ferratus]

I get it that the player should not equal the character. But there is nothing more painful for me than a player who does not care at all about the story, world or culture, and yet he can roll some dice and woo the queen.

Yeah, that's another thing I forgot to mention. The players actually pay attention when I talk about court politics, or relationships between NPC's, or local events, or who the guy they are talking to is. Why? Because they actually have to come up with something to say.

Trust me guys, removing the Diplomacy skill is the single best thing you can do to improve the roleplaying experience of your game. Try it for 3 sessions, and you will surely be convinced.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Ugh. It sounds like a system that would mostly appeal to players who already have great skills in acting, debating, logic or oratory. Let them roleplay it out since they clearly enjoy it.

That's certainly not my group! The rules work very much like any other combat -- you attack with an argument, and your opponent either counters it or tries to avoid the subject entirely. It's a framework for roleplaying, just like the normal combat rules are a framework for fighting.

I get it that the player should not equal the character. But there is nothing more painful for me than a player who does not care at all about the story, world or culture, and yet he can roll some dice and woo the queen.

But how about this scenario: the bard has the social skills to woo the queen. But first he has to sweet talk his way past the guards, since he isn't going to do that in court. The king would chop his fool head off if he did, because social skills don't trump logic or a guy with an axe who isn't listening at all. Then he has to charm his way past the ladies in waiting. Then he has to persuade the queen and that's not going to happen in one roll. "Hey, baby, nice crown" doesn't get him there. So we're talking a minimum of three social combats, with the last one *really* tough.

THAT is what I'm talking about and what I'd like to see integrated into the rules. Not one roll and "whoops, the queen gives in to you!"

 

[Tallifer]

But how about this scenario: the bard has the social skills to woo the queen. But first he has to sweet talk his way past the guards, since he isn't going to do that in court. The king would chop his fool head off if he did, because social skills don't trump logic or a guy with an axe who isn't listening at all. Then he has to charm his way past the ladies in waiting. Then he has to persuade the queen and that's not going to happen in one roll. "Hey, baby, nice crown" doesn't get him there. So we're talking a minimum of three social combats, with the last one *really* tough.

THAT is what I'm talking about and what I'd like to see integrated into the rules. Not one roll and "whoops, the queen gives in to you!"

So three rolls, or three series of rolls. With different difficulty classes and different skills checked (bluff, diplomacy, maybe intimidate or bribe with streetwise he guards).