D&D 5E Social Combat Rules for 5E

[Reynard]

I really don't think it matters who's saying it if knuckles is physically present and looks willing to do it. Of course if I'm a noble at a court ball surrounded by royal guards, that threat is going to be significantly less worrisome - again, regardless of whom it's coming from.

Compare with "I think you want to do me a favor, otherwise that shipment of rare wines you just had come into the docks might have some... in transit breakages in about 5 minutes". Or "Otherwise your daughter might be involved in a nasty riding incident". Or "your wife's childbirth might be... messy".

And all of those are far too blunt to be delivered in polite company... which is why it might help to have some decent mental stats.


All of that said: while I think that SOME comparison with physical combat is perhaps appropriate, that's more for the goals and outcomes of said combat and how they contrast with most social schemes.

1. Physical combat is resolved as multiple rounds of actions by all participants.
2. Typically doing nothing is the worst thing you can do: there are exceptions where you might deliberately take a consequence to improve your position, and misjudge (ie accepting an opportunity attack to improve your position, hitting friendlies with an area effect so you can hit more enemies), but you're best off doing something and not simply saying "My character doesn't fight much, I just go skulk in the corner and let the combat guys do this".
3. While the best fights might have an end result where a single roll becomes crucial, typically more than 10 actions and their assorted rolls would have lead up to that, and it would be hard to say in the wind up which roll by whom would be the crucial one.
4. Unless the competition is horrendously one-sided, there are consequences for the victor as well as the vanquished.
5. Multiple traits matter, so different characters and monsters will have a different approach.
6. Teamwork is more effective than being a lone wolf.
7. Player decisions matter.
8. You can usually bring it back from the brink of defeat.

I think that if you want to come up with any kind of a social combat system, those are the positive aspects of the combat system you want it to bring across. 4e's skill challenges failed at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, and in my view was an awful exercise in pointless rolling as a result. Most skill resolution systems fail in the same way: the best thing for an unskilled character to do is to recuse themselves, and a very limited number of pre-determined rolls dictate success or failure.

This is exactly so. The idea is to turn *some* set piece social encounters into the equivalent of combats, where every PC has an opportunity to contribute and engage and rather than being resolved with a couple die rolls it ebbs and flows over the course of the conflict. it isn't appropriate for all social encounters, or even most, but is intended to take the place of an equivalent combat encounter while providing the same fun.

The reason i chose the distribution of Attributes and Attack types was simply because I wanted to make a scenario in which everyone was able to contribute, not just the characters with the high charisma. Modern forms of D&D, including 5E, built their combat systems to be inclusive (hence at will cantrips for spell casters and other PC class balancing mechanisms) without necessarily making everyone the same. If only Charisma and Wisdom are important (as would be the case if you only relied on the skills as they were written) then only a few characters will be able to meaningfully contribute.

In any case, it seems a moot point. My players shot the whole idea down so I am going to dump the court scene entirely. We have a large group and prolonged RP encounters where only the "face" PC does anything are a slog.

 

[ammulder]

In any case, it seems a moot point. My players shot the whole idea down so I am going to dump the court scene entirely. We have a large group and prolonged RP encounters where only the "face" PC does anything are a slog.

In all honesty, the way we usually get around this is that everybody at the table talks, and we sort of jointly fantasize that the things said by everybody come out of the Face's mouth. Like, if the player of the dim-witted fighter asks a pertinent question, we don't say "you can't ask that," the NPC just answers. It's usually only when there's some disagreement over what to say/ask that the Face player has to decide which option to go with. (Though, that player is still usually the only one rolling dice for social situations.)

 

[Lanefan]

First there was combat as war.
Then there was combat as sport.
Now we have combat as...dinner party?

That said, the concept of some sort of rules for - I don't want to call it social combat as these interactions aren't always antagonistic - social interaction has some merit. I'll be interested to see where this goes.

Lan-"loser of social combats for over 50 years"-efan

 

[77IM]

What exactly is the goal of this system? Why would I, as a PC, bother to go around intimidating/beguiling etc.?

 

[77IM]

FWIW, the goal of any social interaction is to get someone to do something. They have motivation to not do it; you supply them with motivation to do it. Even something as simple as "Excuse me, what time is it?" works this way.

I think that's what's missing from the OP's suggestion, for me. The OP's suggestion is an elaborate system for eroding the credibility of others. But then what? How do you increase your own credibility? And once you are the most credible person in the court, what do you do with that? How does a PC leverage their social standing to get a thing they want? Just because everyone else is home nursing their insults and plotting revenge, that doesn't necessarily mean that the king is going to listen to you.

 

[Bawylie]

FWIW, the goal of any social interaction is to get someone to do something. They have motivation to not do it; you supply them with motivation to do it. Even something as simple as "Excuse me, what time is it?" works this way.

I think that's what's missing from the OP's suggestion, for me. The OP's suggestion is an elaborate system for eroding the credibility of others. But then what? How do you increase your own credibility? And once you are the most credible person in the court, what do you do with that? How does a PC leverage their social standing to get a thing they want? Just because everyone else is home nursing their insults and plotting revenge, that doesn't necessarily mean that the king is going to listen to you.

I agree with this.

Seems to be a case of putting the cart before the horse, too.

There is perhaps something to be said for a stat like honor or reputation that might go up or down as players dishonor themselves (or others) or cover themselves in glory. That stat might sub-in for traditional charisma checks in the appropriate setting or otherwise modify traditional charisma checks.

But the idea of social HP doesn't quite jive. For me. For one, I would rather fall back on goals and obstacles in-universe than have a predetermined framework. That would allow you to gauge the effectiveness of the players' actions rather than throwing dice at the situation until it resolves. And this is important because in a game of courtly intrigue, you want a bit of uncertainty and murkiness. That helps define the social environment. But having a fixed Social HP and social damage would kind of demystify the "intrigue" part.


-Brad

 

[Reynard]

I think that's what's missing from the OP's suggestion, for me. The OP's suggestion is an elaborate system for eroding the credibility of others. But then what? How do you increase your own credibility? And once you are the most credible person in the court, what do you do with that? How does a PC leverage their social standing to get a thing they want? Just because everyone else is home nursing their insults and plotting revenge, that doesn't necessarily mean that the king is going to listen to you.

It was not that so much as trying to come up with a framework to measure success of argument (hence Social hit Points) while making sure that every PC had an opportunity to engage and contribute. The real intent was to figure out a way to make a social encounter -- such as court, a ball, or a trial -- as interesting and varied as a combat encounter. My motivation was largely that I have a big group with only a couple "face" characters. If I ran the big court scene with the rules as written, most of the PCs are cut out of the action. It was as simple as that. I don't mind interactions which are reduced to some roleplaying and die rolls, but I thought social combat could be fun in the same way tactical combat is.

I will revisit the idea when i do not have a session bearing down on me. As it is, I'll cut the court scene short and get on with the bloodletting.

 

[77IM]

My motivation was largely that I have a big group with only a couple "face" characters. If I ran the big court scene with the rules as written, most of the PCs are cut out of the action. It was as simple as that.

If that's the case, I have a simpler suggestion:

1) Each PC can only make 3 social checks. You can't use the Help action to aid another PC, either; you have to make your own check. You can talk to NPCs as much as you want, but if you want to apply the dice, that counts as a check. After each person has made 3 checks, the session at court is ended.

2) Make sure there are a variety of NPCs -- who like different PCs and like different approaches -- and make this information known to the players. For example, "General Martius is a career soldier who respects military acumen and has little time for the false-hope of religious figures. Mrs. Webworth is the head cook and a huge gossip amongst the servants. Lady Van Dyce is and elderly matron with a staid demeanor but a reputation for mischief and pranks." Hand out a dozen one-line descriptions like that. The idea is that the players will kind of self-sort into which PCs are approaching which NPCs. Emphasise that a good approach to interaction grants advantage, and a bad approach grants disadvantage.

3) Give the PCs several clear goals. "Convince the Duke to re-open the eastern mountain pass. Find out who is secretly a member of the Ruby Covenant. Get at many invitations to the Yule Ball as you can. Discredit Baron Zlonberg to at least 4 nobles (the Duke counts double)." The idea is for players to decide which goals to pursue, and allows the outcome to be a "partial success" instead of all-or-nothing. (This is a big difference between social conflict and combat. In combat you are trying to "win" by eliminating enemy hit points. In social conflict you "win" by achieving goals and can easily produce a "win-win" scenario.)

If this sounds like a 4E-style skill challenge, it kind of is. Except instead of tallying successes towards a single outcome, you are tallying successes towards various outcomes. There's really no "failure" except failing to participate.

 

[Geoarrge]

Charisma being such a dump stat otherwise, I'd recommend using it for "social initiative".


Consider thinking in terms of leverage, for social HP. Whatever damage you suffer must be repaid in the form of some kind of concession or favor, which you must be able to offer in order to continue the interaction.

Personal reputation represents your 'core' leverage pool. It is always attacked last. If you choose to maintain gracious interaction, you must give your opponent the option to withdraw before putting their reputation at stake. Your maximum reputation is determined by your level, any awards or titles received, Charisma modifier, and your standard of living. Suffering reputation damage results in lowering your social damage die, and suffering a penalty to any chance of being invited/admitted to future social events until your reputation is recovered.

Concessions or gifts made in advance create a pool that must be depleted first before exposing anything else on offer.
Other items can be handled in any order. Secret information, support for election/appointment to a prestigious office, favors, etc.

 

[Reynard]

If that's the case, I have a simpler suggestion:

1) Each PC can only make 3 social checks. You can't use the Help action to aid another PC, either; you have to make your own check. You can talk to NPCs as much as you want, but if you want to apply the dice, that counts as a check. After each person has made 3 checks, the session at court is ended.

2) Make sure there are a variety of NPCs -- who like different PCs and like different approaches -- and make this information known to the players. For example, "General Martius is a career soldier who respects military acumen and has little time for the false-hope of religious figures. Mrs. Webworth is the head cook and a huge gossip amongst the servants. Lady Van Dyce is and elderly matron with a staid demeanor but a reputation for mischief and pranks." Hand out a dozen one-line descriptions like that. The idea is that the players will kind of self-sort into which PCs are approaching which NPCs. Emphasise that a good approach to interaction grants advantage, and a bad approach grants disadvantage.

3) Give the PCs several clear goals. "Convince the Duke to re-open the eastern mountain pass. Find out who is secretly a member of the Ruby Covenant. Get at many invitations to the Yule Ball as you can. Discredit Baron Zlonberg to at least 4 nobles (the Duke counts double)." The idea is for players to decide which goals to pursue, and allows the outcome to be a "partial success" instead of all-or-nothing. (This is a big difference between social conflict and combat. In combat you are trying to "win" by eliminating enemy hit points. In social conflict you "win" by achieving goals and can easily produce a "win-win" scenario.)

If this sounds like a 4E-style skill challenge, it kind of is. Except instead of tallying successes towards a single outcome, you are tallying successes towards various outcomes. There's really no "failure" except failing to participate.

This is a good alternative but it fails to address the major issue: given all that, characters with social skills are the only ones likely to be effective. plus, it really isn't any less work than developing the court scene as i intended.

Also, i get the feeling that i was unclear on "social attacks" and "social damage" in that some people in this thread are assuming the entire interaction was intended to be aggressive. These were just corrallaries to how combat works for simplicity sake. Just because you reduce an opponent to 0 Social HP doesn't mean you browbeat them: if you were engaging in persuasion, that means you finally convinced them of your psoition and you come away in agreement.