Dungeon World and Social Conflict

[EpicureanDM]

You might also consider creating social tags in the same way that monster/equipment tags work. What is the social-tag-equivalent to a monster's "Stealthy" tag? What's the social-tag-equivalent to a weapon's "Piercing" tag? You don't need to translate all of the existing monster/equipment tags, but consider which of them could work in social combat. Give them to your NPCs and figure out ways to give them to PCs, maybe via spells or items.

 

[Manbearcat]

Before I get into the full response to this post, I think Threaten needs a rider:

When you weave threats into your demands and your target has reason to believe you can follow through on them...

That comports with DW's leverage in Parley, AW's Go Aggro rider (when the target isn't expecting a fight, can't fight, isn't prepared for one, and doesn't want one), and Blades' Command requiring fear/respect/et al (as leverage).

Also, I think they don't plot to betray you, may need a little bit of expansion both in how it can manifest and when it can manifest. I'm thinking:

They don't give in to resentment

If the player doesn't hedge against this outcome by choosing it on a 7-9, that would mean that the GM should make a Soft Move immediately in the fiction to Reveal an Unwelcome Truth or Show Signs of an Approaching Threat (maybe an unruly posse shows up and starts hurling warnings to the PCs to back off). If the PCs don't deal with it (diffuse it or confront it/run it off), the GM should make manifest that resentment in the near future how they see fit with a Hard Move (the Captain of the Guard shows up in force and escalates things, intervening on the NPC's behalf).

Here is the thing though, if the GM hasn't materialized that Soft Move into a Hard Move by the time the social conflict is over, if the social conflict is won by the PCs, the post-conflict materialization of that Soft Move into a Hard Move can't exert pressure on the asset/capital/relationship the PCs have won with their Social Conflict. Maybe it can complicate their lives, but it can't upturn their winnings.

For instance, those "don't take kindly to strangers" rabblerousers showed up and started hurling threats at the PCs. Social Conflict won. Let us say an off-duty Watch member owed money to a guild that one of the PCs belonged to and that looming threat was levied in the course of the conflict (and one of the PCs is the guild "leg-breaker"). The Watch member agrees to unlock the back door to the bailey tonight and the PCs promise to get him another week to get the scratch together to pay that debt.

Those rabblerousers are now chucking flagons of ale and one throws a chair while another puts a hard finger into the chest of one of the PCs with an open threat. This changes nothing for the deal that the PCs just made with the off-duty Watch member. He isn't going to chicken out because this group may have heard the deal and he isn't going to throw-in with them in hopes of taking down the PCs.

He's either going to try to diffuse it. Maybe the GM disclaims decision-making and rolls 2d6 on a Defy Danger for the Watch member; "Its ok, its ok, just a misunderstanding...we're all square." Maybe its a 7-9 and a few of them disperse...but a few more are drunk as hell and just want some violence...

I've never been a fan of things like Threaten or Intimidate being classified as social actions, especially if, as your current design suggests, they allow someone to use a physical stat like Strength to substitute for a social stat like Charisma. Imagine how you would react if someone's trying to convince you of something via Sway or Argue and then their buddy jumps in and puts a fist under your nose:"Agree with my friend's carefully crafted argument or I'll beat your ass." Would that make you more or less likely to go along with someone else's friendly or intellectual attempt to gain your agreement? If it's less likely, then why should it count favorably towards resolving the conflict? If it's more likely, then why have a social conflict at all? Just beat them up until they agree without the need for sweet talk. If you're engaging in a social conflict, it's presumably because you can't use physical force to get what you want. So why should physical force be an option once you're in the social conflict?

I'd remove Threaten entirely, but maybe I'm not considering social conflicts where the use of physical threats can be helpful? I'm assuming that since Strength is being rolled, Threaten actions are made against people involved in the conflict. You can Threaten someone's loved one who's in a house across town or suggest that you'll destroy a valuable bridge in a nearby province, but that sort of indirect threat would be better handled with Charisma or Intelligence, right?

On the first paragraph broadly and, specifically, "If you're engaging in a social conflict, it's presumably because you can't use physical force to get what you want:"

What about the following situations/decision-points?

• You want an actual reciprocal relationship or a long term alliance (could mean potentially locking yourself out of a mechanical advantage - Cohort, or a fictional advantage such as protection against a Show Signs of an Approaching Threat move becoming manifest).
• Force will complicate your life by making either 1st order enemies (those you're now threatening) or 2nd order enemies (their proxies, those who have their backs, etc).
• Force will complicate your life by increasing your profile (drawing the notice of higher powers, the authorities).
• You don't want to complicate your life by assuming the risk of immediate cost (HP/Harm/Stress/Debilities, Coin/Stash, Ammo, etc).

On the second paragraph:

I think the scale/potency of "a stick" can definitely help "the carrot", even if the stick isn't actually deployed in a physical way.

A Cutter (Bill the Butcher style) hacks his brisket in two, cleaving the wood table in the same blow and says "...oops" through a toothy grin after all the clatter settles from the wreckage. Its "accidentally on purpose" right after his Slide friend has made a compelling argument that trailed off with something about "some say me and my crew...we make great friends...but worse enemies..."

Stuff like that.

That might be a case where the PC has rolled a 10+ and chosen the Clock Tick and they don't give in to resentment.

But, again, if you take it up a notch to a threat that promises violence and you don't get the result you're looking for/take the soft move off the table...well, you're looking at trouble (as outlined above) and a reframing of the nature of the relationship that you're trying to establish.

 

[Manbearcat]

I really don't like Sway. It's set up as as pretty much requiring a Consort action to take the reveal what's important option to be useful, and, if you do that, it becomes the absolute no-brainer option to go for.

On this, its definitely intended that they synergize. I like that design, assuming its not a scenario where it contracts the decision-point space in play rather than expand it. I think what you're envisioning is a contraction.

Here is how I'm envisioning it as an expansion. You tell me if this disarms your concerns.

1) Consort (Cha) is basically a specialized aspect of Discern Realities (they reveal what is important to them and how they thinks or feel) with specified Social Fallout (they're offended) for Social Conflict.

2) Discern Realities (Wis) is still broadly more usable and available where you get 3 (10+) or 1 (7-9) questions that the GM must answer about the situation/person and you get to take +1 forward when acting on them.

3) Spout Lore (Int) is still available. A 10+ should provide you something both interesting and useful so it should definitely mean that your consulted knowledge on the subject has the answer rolling around in your head...either the GM fills you in or gives you authorial rights to describe it). A 7-9 simply give you something interesting to act upon, its up to you to make it useful for this Social Conflict.

4) Argue (Int) can open up Discern Realities with +1 forward for you or DR or Consort or something else for you or an ally (which can help toward success or hedging against a failure).

5) Hirelings can be used to assist in attaining this info.

6) There are lots of PC Playbooks with mundane divination abilities that can intersect with any/all of the above or just have outright fiat to uncover what is important to an NPC; the Bard's fiat move Charming and Open, a Paladin's I AM THE LAW, a Fighter using Heirloom to consult the spirits of his/her weapon, a Thief's Wealth and Taste. Plenty more.


So, my case here is that it expands the existing menu of options rather than contracting the menu from many to one. Thoughts?

I'm also a bit uncertain how binding the 'can't betray, don't take offense, their allies don't aid' options are. If only for that action, okay, but that's not as useful if I have more actions to take and those options get put back on the table for a fail result on that check. Meanwhile if they persist, a combination of those kinda really locks down the results.

I don't have a copy of AW, so I'm not sure what the binding resolution states for the clocks would be. What binds on a success, and what binds on a failure? I see a case where a 7-9 on Threaten ends up with +1 forward on Hack and Slash but you lose the argument and must accept those conditions because the MC's move is to tick the clock down to 1. That seems like it might his a situation where the cost negates the chosen benefit? Need more elaboration on the overall win/loss states to do more evaluation.

Hopefully I answered these above concerns in my above post to Epicurean GM. The abstract:

1) If a GM makes a Soft Move (any of the above cited) because a PC rolled a 7-9 and didn't choose the option to prevent that move, they should set it up in the fiction just like normal.

2) If the PCs fail to act upon it at any point (either in the middle of the Social Conflict before the win/loss condition is met or thereafter), then the GM is obliged to make it manifest in some way that complicates things.

3) If (a) that Hard move is made manifest post-Social Conflict, AND (b) the PCs secured victory in the Social Conflict, THEN (c) the manifestation cannot complicate the earned asset/currency/relationship that was won in the Social Conflict. The GM should take care to make the complication interesting and follow the fiction, but keep the earned victory off the table, uncompromised/uncomplicated (and certainly not upturned).

If the players feel like the GM has screwed up a bit and complicated their victory, they should state their case and the GM should revise the fiction after the conversation.


Does that alleivate your concerns?

 

[Ovinomancer]

On this, its definitely intended that they synergize. I like that design, assuming its not a scenario where it contracts the decision-point space in play rather than expand it. I think what you're envisioning is a contraction.

Here is how I'm envisioning it as an expansion. You tell me if this disarms your concerns.

1) Consort (Cha) is basically a specialized aspect of Discern Realities (they reveal what is important to them and how they thinks or feel) with specified Social Fallout (they're offended) for Social Conflict.

2) Discern Realities (Wis) is still broadly more usable and available where you get 3 (10+) or 1 (7-9) questions that the GM must answer about the situation/person and you get to take +1 forward when acting on them.

3) Spout Lore (Int) is still available. A 10+ should provide you something both interesting and useful so it should definitely mean that your consulted knowledge on the subject has the answer rolling around in your head...either the GM fills you in or gives you authorial rights to describe it). A 7-9 simply give you something interesting to act upon, its up to you to make it useful for this Social Conflict.

4) Argue (Int) can open up Discern Realities with +1 forward for you or DR or Consort or something else for you or an ally (which can help toward success or hedging against a failure).

5) Hirelings can be used to assist in attaining this info.

6) There are lots of PC Playbooks with mundane divination abilities that can intersect with any/all of the above or just have outright fiat to uncover what is important to an NPC; the Bard's fiat move Charming and Open, a Paladin's I AM THE LAW, a Fighter using Heirloom to consult the spirits of his/her weapon, a Thief's Wealth and Taste. Plenty more.


So, my case here is that it expands the existing menu of options rather than contracting the menu from many to one. Thoughts?



Hopefully I answered these above concerns in my above post to Epicurean GM. The abstract:

1) If a GM makes a Soft Move (any of the above cited) because a PC rolled a 7-9 and didn't choose the option to prevent that move, they should set it up in the fiction just like normal.

2) If the PCs fail to act upon it at any point (either in the middle of the Social Conflict before the win/loss condition is met or thereafter), then the GM is obliged to make it manifest in some way that complicates things.

3) If (a) that Hard move is made manifest post-Social Conflict, AND (b) the PCs secured victory in the Social Conflict, THEN (c) the manifestation cannot complicate the earned asset/currency/relationship that was won in the Social Conflict. The GM should take care to make the complication interesting and follow the fiction, but keep the earned victory off the table, uncompromised/uncomplicated (and certainly not upturned).

If the players feel like the GM has screwed up a bit and complicated their victory, they should state their case and the GM should revise the fiction after the conversation.


Does that alleivate your concerns?

Some, but ultimately I'm still a bit concerned. Of course, principled application can smooth over rough spots, but I'll be honest that I'm uncertain about application from just the Move presentations. I think, maybe, that my sticking point is that I'm unclear on the requirements, here. It really seems like a development of mechanics that do a thing without a clear statement of the thing to be done other than wanting to improve the space. I'm not sure that these options really improve the space so much as be clever rules. This is exacerbated by the fact that they seem to require a good deal of GM principle to make work -- or, as I like to call it, driving around the potholes.

Honestly, though, I think it's good enough to take for a drive, but I'd like to see some concrete high-level statements about what play this is supposed to engender so there's good traceability from the actual play back to the design intent. I think you have reasonable design intent, but it's not clearly stated in a way that allows data from play to be mapped back to the design intent through the mechanics. Like, "this happened, and that meets/frustrates the design intent because X mechanic behaved in Y way during play," or, "I had to do B because mechanic A introduced unwanted outcomes in opposition to design goal C." Maybe it's the engineer in me looking for requirements traceability, but I think it holds for gaming. I'm still kicking around an essay about bringing system engineering concepts to game design and talking about process at multiple levels in game play and game design. Games are, after all, systems. Regardless, I applaud your efforts here and hope everything I'm saying is taken as constructive.

Thinking on it more (which happens sometimes while I'm writing), it occurs to me that there's a lot of overlap in your proposition. As you know, we already have Discern Realities for finding things out, but Consort primarily does exactly the same thing. And Spout Lore has some overlap as well. The real new 'tech' here is the introduction of Argue and Threaten. I don't really see anything new about Consort outside of a reframing of holds and triggers, and, with Consort so tightly tied to Sway, Sway is just Argue with a Consort beforehand. I'd think about streamlining your efforts here and maybe just adding Argue and Threaten. Maybe roll Consort into something like Beguile, as a different effort from Argue. Then we have "poke around and find something out" still as Discern Realities, we have 'convince the my argument is right" as Argue, we have 'browbeat them into accepting my wants' as Threaten, and we have 'seduce them into following my lead' as Consort or Beguile.

I think these map better at a high level to get to what social conflicts are about and how we usually address them -- logic, threats, or seduction. All are bolstered by knowing more about the desires of your opponents, which is where Spout and Discern live, as they already occupy those spots. I don't think muddying the waters of how you find things out in game is worthwhile. If you need to do anything, add some social conflict holds to Spout and Discern rather than building a social version of them. And Sway is really just Argue with a kicker from Consort.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ovinomancer

That's good input. I haven't taken it for a spin yet (I'll have some data after Tuesday, which is our make map, make characters (without Bonds or Alignment), play a scene from their past so they can flesh out Bonds and Alignment, play an opening few scenes.

I can't say for sure a Social Conflict will arise out of that, but, if it does, I'll post the results.

Broadly, here is the design intent:

1) The mechanical architecture is meant to emulate the Tug of War Clock in Blades.

Tug-of-War clocks
You can make a clock that can be filled and emptied by events, to represent a back-and-forth situation. You might make a “Revolution!” clock that indicates when the refugee Skovlanders start to riot over poor treatment in Doskvol. Some events will tick the clock up and some will tick it down. Once it fills, the revolution begins. A tug-of-war clock is also perfect for an ongoing turf war between two crews or factions.

A good Social Conflict should feel precisely like that. The mechanics should bring that to life.

2) As you know, Dungeon World is about bold, thematic decisions in conflict-charged situations creating snowballing fiction where we get to discover who these PCs are and what is this setting they inhabit. So the game should incentivize boldness and thematic coherency as it interacts with interesting, danger-laden decision-points. I feel like the moves above play nice with the existing Basic Moves and Playbooks such that it should perpetuate more boldness and thematic decision-making across the various archetypes. Toughs have more options to coherently and effectively interact. Schmoozers can coherently and effectively schmooze. Empaths can feel folks out and move them coherently and effectively by way of their connection establishment.

And the decision-points in each of those moves are nicely player-facing and focusing on the particular type of fallout that "Toughing", "Schmoozing", and "Empathing" should reap, if things were to go wrong.

3) (a) Parley has always felt clunky (and clearly does to a lot of DW GMs as folks are constantly trying revisions) and (b) the fact that Dungeon World doesn't have an embedded, player-facing Win:Loss Condition for Social Conflict has always bothered me because it draws me out of the mental state of "play to find out what happens" a little bit. This provides it, thus reducing the mental overhead of sorting through that grey area of adjudicated Win:Loss and simultaneously amplifying the habitation of the mental state of the "play to find out what happens" disposition, at least for me, as GM.

This resolves both (a) and (b).

---

So in total:

I think the mechanical architecture captures the emotional/mental disposition of social conflict.

I think the moves revision/expansion increases boldness and thematic coherency (both in broadening the access to inputs and in the potential fallout/outputs).

I think the Win:Loss amplifies "play to find out what happens" for the GM.

 

[EpicureanDM]

On the first paragraph broadly and, specifically, "If you're engaging in a social conflict, it's presumably because you can't use physical force to get what you want:"

What about the following situations/decision-points?

• You want an actual reciprocal relationship or a long term alliance (could mean potentially locking yourself out of a mechanical advantage - Cohort, or a fictional advantage such as protection against a Show Signs of an Approaching Threat move becoming manifest).
• Force will complicate your life by making either 1st order enemies (those you're now threatening) or 2nd order enemies (their proxies, those who have their backs, etc).
• Force will complicate your life by increasing your profile (drawing the notice of higher powers, the authorities).
• You don't want to complicate your life by assuming the risk of immediate cost (HP/Harm/Stress/Debilities, Coin/Stash, Ammo, etc).

I read your examples as adding specificity to the "what you want" part of my italicized statement. For example:

• "I'm engaging in a social conflict because I can't use physical force to [create an actual, reciprocal relationship or long-term alliance.]"
• "I'm engaging in a social conflict because I can't use physical force to [avoid complicating my life by creating first- or second-order enemies.]"
• "I'm engaging in a social conflict because I can't use physical force to get what I want [without complications to my life by assuming the risk of immediate cost.]"

My construction sets up a fairly strict separation between physical and social conflicts, which is obviously my preference. I'm more sympathetic to Burning Wheel's stance on this: if your social conflict fails, you can escalate to a physical conflict (using those separate rules for physical conflicts), but you don't mix the two. It might not be where you're interested in going. I haven't thought too rigorously about whether it's the right fit for DW's design goals.

On the second paragraph:

[...]

But, again, if you take it up a notch to a threat that promises violence and you don't get the result you're looking for/take the soft move off the table...well, you're looking at trouble (as outlined above) and a reframing of the nature of the relationship that you're trying to establish.

I'd include some sort of trigger that automatically changes or reframes the nature of the relationship if you Threaten someone, whether it's successful or not. Maybe you can't use Sway or Consort on someone once a Threat's been made? You've got to rely on Argue or Threaten from then on?

I like your shift towards resentment and the Soft Move -> Hard Move response. I just harbor lingering suspicion of using Strength-based moves and threats in social conflicts. It feels like a sacred cow smuggled in from D&D, maybe, or like it's an "escape valve" to be used when the "social" part of social conflict resolution becomes to tricky in play.

I am keen to see where this ends up, though.

 

[chaochou]

I just harbor lingering suspicion of using Strength-based moves and threats in social conflicts. It feels like a sacred cow smuggled in from D&D, maybe, or like it's an "escape valve" to be used when the "social" part of social conflict resolution becomes to tricky in play.

I put that in, and I am the least likely person on the boards to 'smuggle in' anything from D&D - largely because I consider D&D to be mostly garbage with very few redeeming features. I certainly don't consider it to have sacred cows.

But if you don't consider threats to be a considerable part of negotiation, I suggest you've never been in a pub at closing time. Violence, and the threat of violence, can be very much a part of negotiation, especially once we move into the more lawless periods of history or works of fiction.

Furthermore, I added the 'They don't plot to betray you' very much to create the tension of lingering resentment. It means you can use threats, but only against people you can't risk having as enemies. And the point of moves in PbtA is, largely, so characters can demonstrate just how much they are prepared to risk. So it allows threats and intimidation to be brought into social situations, but at the risk of lasting emnity, which is quite a high and interesting price.

It's far closer in spirit to Go Aggro from AW than anything from D&D.

 

[chaochou]

I think Threaten needs a rider:

When you weave threats into your demands

and your target has reason to believe you can follow through on them...

You don't need the rider - the outcome and picks from the roll will tell you whether that's the case!

 

[EpicureanDM]

Deleted. Just feels like I'm harping on the same point.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would need an example...