D&D General Your thoughts on "Social Combat" systems

[Tonguez]

I love the hell out of Fate and its conflicts, but for D&D I've just ported Parley move from DW and it works well too.

What does that look like?

 

[Faolyn]

I think that a "social combat" system would be useful for actual social combats, like a flyting, or a dueling banjos thing. Otherwise, nah.

 

[NotAYakk]

That said, if Cha doesn’t matter it just becomes a dump stat.

In a game with followers and organizations, your charisma can determine how big of a following you can develop.

These don't have to be adventuring companions.

Off the top of my head:

Loyal Steed: You have developed a bond with an extraordinary horse.

Guard: Having someone you trust guard your home is a relief.

Crafter: Capable of building masterwork equipment (of a particular type) and maintaining it.

Patron: If you help her out, she'll help you out.

Sage: Knows a lot about strange subjects, and can learn about new ones.

Informant: Gathers information and sends it to you clandestine-style.

Ship Captain: Can get you places at a discount that maybe others wouldn't.

Merchant: Gives fair prices, both buying and selling, and can find something to spend your gold on.

Retired Explorer: Knows about far away places and how to get there.

Architect: Can build and design fortifications and buildings.

Ruler: Having the ruler of an area on your side has lots of uses.

Now, you can also add Rivals and the like. Anti-companions. People who are out to get in your way, in particular. Not someone who wants to hunt you down and kill you directly.

Then say:

You cannot gain a Trusted Companion unless the sum of your Companions minus your Rivals is less than your Charisma bonus or penalty.

The "power" of trusted companions should scale roughly with PC level; a level 20 PC whose companion is a mayor of a small town ... well, it probably isn't very useful anymore.

Even if you gain these companions via roleplaying, the cap of charisma on them is a reasonably mechanical limit. Some people are better at keeping friends than others.

If you have a Guard who isn't a trusted companion guarding your castle, maybe they'll stay loyal, or maybe they'll sell you out.

 

[loverdrive]

What does that look like?

I don't know what exactly you are asking about, so I'm gonna answer for both.

In Fate there's no substantial difference between, say, a bar fight and a heated argument between lovers. The only difference is, in a bar fight characters use their physical skills to inflict things like Ruined suit and Broken ribs, and in a heated argument they use mental and social skills to inflict things like Ruined day and Broken heart.


Parley move in Dungeon World looks like this:

When you have leverage on a GM Character and manipulate them, roll +Cha. Leverage is something they need or want. ✴ On a 10+, they do what you ask if you first promise what they ask of you. ✴ On a 7–9, they will do what you ask, but need some concrete assurance of your promise, right now.

Parley covers a lot of ground including old standbys like intimidation and diplomacy. You know you’re using parley when you’re trying to get someone to do something for you by holding a promise or threat over them. Your leverage can be nasty or nice, the tone doesn’t matter.

Merely asking someone politely isn’t parleying. That’s just talking. You say, “Can I have that magic sword?” and Sir Telric says, “Hell no, this is my blade, my father forged it and my mother enchanted it” and that’s that. To parley, you have to have leverage. Leverage is anything that could lure the target of your parley to do something for you. Maybe it’s something they want or something they don’t want you to do. Like a sack of gold. Or punching them in the face. What counts as leverage depends on the people involved and the request being made. Threaten a lone goblin with death and you have leverage. Threaten a goblin backed up by his gang with death and he might think he’s better off in a fight.

On a 7+ they ask you for something related to whatever leverage you have. If your leverage is that you’re standing before them sharpening your knife and insinuating about how much you’d like to shank them with it they might ask you to let them go. If your leverage is your position in court above them they might ask for a favor.

Whatever they ask for, on a 10+, you just have to promise it clearly and unambiguously. On a 7–9, that’s not enough: you also have to give them some assurance, right now, before they do what you want. If you promise that you’ll ensure their safety from the wolves if they do what you want and you roll a 7–9 they won’t do their part until you bring a fresh wolf pelt to prove you can do it, for example. It’s worth noting that you don’t actually have to keep your promise. Whether you’ll follow up or not, well, that’s up to you. Of course breaking promises leads to problems. People don’t take kindly to oath-breakers and aren’t likely to deal with them in the future.

In some cases when you state what you want you may include a possible promise for the creature to make, as in “flee and I’ll let you live.” It’s up to the target of the parley if that’s the promise they want or if they have something else in mind. They can say “yes, let me live and I’ll go” (with assurances, if you rolled a 7–9) or “promise me you won’t follow me.”

For 5e porting, I've just switched 10+ and 7-9 to 18+ and 11-17 (which are rough approximation of PbtA numbers) and use whatever skill and ability that applies in a given scenario.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the problem most “social combat” systems is that they try to imitate the wrong parts of combat. I think the designers of these systems recognize that combat is often more engaging than social interaction, but mistakenly attribute that engagement to the combat rules system, when what combat really has over social interaction is a consistent source of dynamic conflict. Combat is ultimately a means of resolving a conflict, so if combat is happening, there is basically always a source of conflict, pretty much by definition. On the other hand, social interactions don’t always have built-in conflicts. They can often be aimless and meandering, which can lead to a feeling that those scenes are lacking something. And a detailed rules system isn’t going to fix that problem. What’s needed isn’t social combat mechanics, but more dynamic, conflict-driven social scenes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know what exactly you are asking about, so I'm gonna answer for both.

In Fate there's no substantial difference between, say, a bar fight and a heated argument between lovers. The only difference is, in a bar fight characters use their physical skills to inflict things like Ruined suit and Broken ribs, and in a heated argument they use mental and social skills to inflict things like Ruined day and Broken heart.


Parley move in Dungeon World looks like this:


For 5e porting, I've just switched 10+ and 7-9 to 18+ and 11-17 (which are rough approximation of PbtA numbers) and use whatever skill and ability that applies in a given scenario.

Yeah, apart from the different dice system and degrees of success, the Parley move really isn’t all that fundamentally different than a Charisma check. What I think Dungeon World gets right that D&D doesn’t, is that it straight-up tells the MC that the Move isn’t called for just because two characters are talking to each other and one of them wants something. It’s not for any and all social interactions, it’s for resolving active attempts to leverage an NPC. By requiring the PC to use leverage to perform the Move, it basically builds the declaration of goal and approach right in, and by using the degrees of success, it insures that the Move always has consequences for failure. To me, that’s one of the brilliant things about PbtA in general - good GMing practices are a built-in part of the way Moves work, so it’s really hard to mess it up.

 

[Azuresun]

I think the problem most “social combat” systems is that they try to imitate the wrong parts of combat. I think the designers of these systems recognize that combat is often more engaging than social interaction, but mistakenly attribute that engagement to the combat rules system, when what combat really has over social interaction is a consistent source of dynamic conflict. Combat is ultimately a means of resolving a conflict, so if combat is happening, there is basically always a source of conflict, pretty much by definition. On the other hand, social interactions don’t always have built-in conflicts. They can often be aimless and meandering, which can lead to a feeling that those scenes are lacking something. And a detailed rules system isn’t going to fix that problem. What’s needed isn’t social combat mechanics, but more dynamic, conflict-driven social scenes.

This thread about the social combat system in Exalted 2e is a good (and pretty funny) breakdown of how a detailed, crunchy social system can go horribly, horribly wrong.

 

[Tonguez]

I don't know what exactly you are asking about, so I'm gonna answer for both.

In Fate there's no substantial difference between, say, a bar fight and a heated argument between lovers. The only difference is, in a bar fight characters use their physical skills to inflict things like Ruined suit and Broken ribs, and in a heated argument they use mental and social skills to inflict things like Ruined day and Broken heart.


Parley move in Dungeon World looks like this:


For 5e porting, I've just switched 10+ and 7-9 to 18+ and 11-17 (which are rough approximation of PbtA numbers) and use whatever skill and ability that applies in a given scenario.

ae, I wasnt entirely clear but I was seeking an overview of the Parley system and from what you've explained it does look like a good way to handle social interactions that require the players to actively engage in "offer and bargain" system. I like it

 

[Iry]

Skill challenges for me. 2 rolls for the really simple challenges, and up to 6 for prolonged or really important negotiations.
The entire party gets to describe to me how they contribute, and roll something or help someone else.

 

[Stormonu]

I've tried a couple social interaction systems, with varied success. I wouldn't be opposed to a system that was as detailed as D&D's combat system with witty thrusts and repartees, innuendos and insinuations, veiled threats and shouted ultimatums. It would be more appropriate for a political sort of game, where things are resolved by intrigue and backstabbing long before knives are drawn (if ever). Not something that generally fit in typical D&D.

In a recent combat in 5E, I had a combat where the PCs were fighting a nemesis PC and her cronies. The group's warlock - who had jilted and betrayed the enemy leader - found himself the focus of her fury. He kept interjecting his actions with attempts to parley and talking her down. His smooth talking had various effects - he was able to focus her attacks away from others, infuriate her and make her careless and so forth, using a variety of Persuasion, Intimidate, Insight and Deception rolls (and RP) to try and keep her off-balance long enough to finally whittle down the remaining opposition and talk her into surrender. It made the combat very interesting and unusual, and I wish I'd had stronger rules where perhaps the skill checks could have directly whittled away (or even bolstered) her resolve in better defined ways.

I wouldn't have been opposed to some of it dealing psychic-type damage to represent chipping away at her resolve in fighting or distracting her to set her up for a killing blow. We already have some spells that "magically" inflict some of these sort of things ranging from Vicious Mockery to Dissonant Whispers - I for one wouldn't mind seeing a way to do something like Persuasion/Intimidate/Deception vs. Passive Insight to deal 1d4+Cha modifier psychic damage to a target (or more with abilities or feats). It would mean moving away from the perception of hit point as "meat" and more toward hit points as resolve/opportunity to overcome a foe/obstacle.