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

[Imaculata]

In my 3.5 game, I use social skill checks only when conflict occurs. For example, when a character is trying to sway the opinion of another character. If a character already agrees on something, then no check is required. Likewise, if a lie or bluff is convincing, and there are no reasons for a character to doubt it, then there is no check.

The difficulty of swaying a character is based on their intelligence, and how strongly they hold their opinions. For example, a character that is a pacifist, will be harder to convince that a violent solution is needed. If the players are trying to change that character's mind, that would require a check. The opposite also holds true. An npc would also need to roll a check to convince the players. I will narrate the outcome, and how convincing the npc is. Unlike the npc's however, it is up to the players to decide if they are swayed. No dice roll can play their character for them.

 

[TheSword]

I always liked the simple 3e tiers approach. Hostile / Unfriendly / Neutral / Friendly / Helpful.

It won’t model negotiating a treaty. But as a way of getting a person you’ve never met or who is unfriendly to undergo some task for you then it’s a good shout.

Social skill check with DC depending on the severity of the favour/task being asked. Allow the individual to suggest alternative stats if appropriate.

Usually automatic successes if Helpful, Usually automatic failure if Unfriendly

Advantage if Helpful, Disadvantage if unfriendly.

Then a reworked skill check DC to improve tier.

Hostile 20 to improve to unfriendly, 25 to unfriendly
Unfriendly 15 to improve to neutral, 20 to friendly, 25 to helpful
Neutral 15 to improve to friendly, 20 to improve to helpful
Friendly 15 to improve to helpful.

Failure by 5 reduce by 1 step instead
Roll a 1 and become hostile.

This is all just off the top of my head, cribbed from 5e.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

I basically did this, but I modified it slightly.

1. Have the PC tell you what they're trying to do. They must have leverage.
2. Decided the DC. For me, that usually means pick a number that feels right and then subtract 2-3 because I tend to highball DCs a bit.
3. Have the PC roll their Persuasion check. If the PC succeeds: They get what they want, but are asked for immediate proof or compromise. If the PC succeeds and overcomes the DC by 5: The PC gets what they want as long as they promise. Failure just indicates failure. I don't generally allow retries. In some cases, if the PC fails the DC by 5 or more something particularly bad might happen, but that's only in situations where I think there needs to be a penalty for failure. That doesn't come up that often.

Persuasion works pretty easily with this system. I've been thinking of running Deception and Intimidate the same way, except using the listener's Insight to determine the DC for Deception and there's always a penalty for failure for both of these skills. I haven't had a chance to run it yet, though.

I also stole Spout Lore for Knowledge and Discern Realities for Insight. (Here's a link to Parley for those who want it.)

 

[Voadam]

I generally prefer first person roleplaying without mechanics or with limited social ones. I think social systems can work well though for second person narrative situations like downtime. Narratively saying "OK you spend a month trying to gain allies for your cause while your evil twin tries to sabotage your efforts," is a good place for a social combat mechanics minigame system if the DM does not want to just narrate on the go. Skill challenges are one way to do this and usually my go to wing it mechanic for these types of situations. I know Atlas Games' Dynasties & Demagogues was designed to do some extended social mechanics for d20 specifically with debate and election system mechanics and Love & War has d20 rules for tracking renown and conducting courtly battles of wit but I have not dived into the systems.

 

[SkidAce]

I always liked the simple 3e tiers approach. Hostile / Unfriendly / Neutral / Friendly / Helpful.

View attachment 130673

It won’t model negotiating a treaty. But as a way of getting a person you’ve never met or who is unfriendly to undergo some task for you then it’s a good shout.

Social skill check with DC depending on the severity of the favour/task being asked. Allow the individual to suggest alternative stats if appropriate.

Usually automatic successes if Helpful, Usually automatic failure if Unfriendly

Advantage if Helpful, Disadvantage if unfriendly.

Then a reworked skill check DC to improve tier.

Hostile 20 to improve to unfriendly, 25 to unfriendly
Unfriendly 15 to improve to neutral, 20 to friendly, 25 to helpful
Neutral 15 to improve to friendly, 20 to improve to helpful
Friendly 15 to improve to helpful.

Failure by 5 reduce by 1 step instead
Roll a 1 and become hostile.

This is all just off the top of my head, cribbed from 5e.

Do you have my computer bugged?

 

[TheSword]

Do you have my computer bugged?

View attachment 130674

Ha I should do. Nice table!

 

[Azzy]

Can someone provide me with an actual example of an RPG that has a "social combat system" and how those rules work (in brief)? I've hear "social combat" get bandied about on the boards before, but I don't get the meaning beyond having a skill system where there are social skills.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Can someone provide me with an actual example of an RPG that has a "social combat system" and how those rules work (in brief)? I've hear "social combat" get bandied about on the boards before, but I don't get the meaning beyond having a skill system where there are social skills.

Exalted was mentioned (and criticized) earlier, but here are some PF rules:

Social Conflicts – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

 

[TheSword]

Exalted was mentioned (and criticized) earlier, but here are some PF rules:

Social Conflicts – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

The vast majority of the pathfinder rules are just about encounter design - rather than being a system though. I would go so far as to say building stakes, learning the lay of the land and trying to influence people are system agnostic.

The verbal dueling rules are just painful. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

I do like the additional rules for the skills. To my mind 5e should have far more suggestions for how skills could be used.

 

[Azzy]

Exalted was mentioned (and criticized) earlier, but here are some PF rules:

Social Conflicts – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

That seems a bit obtuse and tacked-on as a rule set. But as a D&D-based game, I think anything of the sort would inherently be the case. I'd be interested in seeing what such a subsystem looks like in a game that was designed to include in from the beginning. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with many of the newer game systems and RPGs out there.