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

[Guest 6801328]

FFS can we drop the semantic pissing match and just agree that, in this context, "combat system" is shorthand for "a subsystem that has interesting depth and complexity" with "single die roll resolution" representing the archetype of what we don't want?

 

[Don Durito]

FFS can we drop the semantic pissing match and just agree that, in this context, "combat system" is shorthand for "a subsystem that has interesting depth and complexity" with "single die roll resolution" representing the archetype of what we don't want?

The thing is that there are systems out there that do treat social interaction in a way very similar to combat with hit points and damage and it's useful to be able to distinguish them from other methods of resolving complex social interactions. There are other systems that essentially have 'conflict resolution' systems which apply equally to any sort of conflict. There are also systems that use completely different resolution systems for social interaction then they use for combat - it's not particularly useful to lump these all together if we want to be clear what we are talking about.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Two additional comments:

1) I have been assuming "combat" is used in this case to draw attention to the difference in complexity between most social interaction rules and most combat rules, not to suggest that encounters should have to be adversarial.

2) I'm never going to pretend to be convinced of something just because the DM tells me that's what my character thinks. While that type of roleplaying is certainly a valid, it's just not very interesting or fun for me. If the adventure depends on me pretending to not know something, it was a poorly designed adventure.

The exception, of course, is if it's some kind of magical compulsion, which would presumably have a finite duration. And that distinction illustrates why I don't like the sort of roleplaying that @zarionofarabel is advocating: playing a character that has been permanently mind-controlled, for an entire campaign, would be (to me, anyway) not very different from being forced to play a character whose thoughts and beliefs are dictated by DM and dice.

It wouldn't be mind control though. It would be you as a player agreeing that your character does actually believe something. This all comes down to what players are and aren't willing to allow the rules to dictate. If I as a player decided that my PC is immortal and cannot take damage from attacks, what happens?

 

[Charlaquin]

Which is much less about system and more about scenario design.

Agreed! Which is why I don’t think social encounters need a detailed resolution system like combat has.

Technically combat doesn’t really need such a system either, but the combat is part of D&D’s identity.

 

[generic]

Dungeons and Dragons could easily use a system of social combat, but it never has, and, likely, never will. Many video games have turned social interaction into everything from a bullet hell segment to a multi-staged choice menu with leveled forms of Charisma, et cetera. If your group does not enjoy, or is not proficient in, role-playing or character dialogue, a more gamey system of social combat mechanics could work well for you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It wouldn't be mind control though. It would be you as a player agreeing that your character does actually believe something. This all comes down to what players are and aren't willing to allow the rules to dictate. If I as a player decided that my PC is immortal and cannot take damage from attacks, what happens?

You would be likely to be very surprised and disappointed at some point in the game. Probably sooner rather than later.

BUT....If you could meet your demise while role playing how you rationalize that belief right up to the bitter end, I would applaud you.

(I don’t recognize your avatar name. I’m guessing you’ve missed the hundreds of pages of debate on this topic.)

 

[zarionofarabel]

You would be likely to be very surprised and disappointed at some point in the game. Probably sooner rather than later.

BUT....If you could meet your demise while role playing how you rationalize that belief right up to the bitter end, I would applaud you.

(I don’t recognize your avatar name. I’m guessing you’ve missed the hundreds of pages of debate on this topic.)

Well, if I as the player track my PCs hit points and I just don't allow any damage to happen to my PC, then I guess there would be no demise to worry about.

In other words, you missed my point. Rules in a RPG only work if people follow them. There is no way to force someone to follow the rules, they must abide by them voluntarily.

In a game with a "social combat" system, one of the rules is that if your side loses then your characters abide by the loss. So if your PC enters in to an argument that can convince the PC of something, then allowing the PC to be convinced is part of following the rules. Just like having your PC die when they reach zero HP, if you don't then you aren't following the rules.

(As for the part in brackets, I'm not sure what "hundreds of pages of debate" you are talking about, you will need to enlighten me. However, if it's about how games without PC death aren't fun or something, I will definitely disagree. Some of the funnest games I have ever played in didn't have PC death as an option.)

 

[generic]

Well, if I as the player track my PCs hit points and I just don't allow any damage to happen to my PC, then I guess there would be no demise to worry about.

In other words, you missed my point. Rules in a RPG only work if people follow them. There is no way to force someone to follow the rules, they must abide by them voluntarily.

In a game with a "social combat" system, one of the rules is that if your side loses then your characters abide by the loss. So if your PC enters in to an argument that can convince the PC of something, then allowing the PC to be convinced is part of following the rules. Just like having your PC die when they reach zero HP, if you don't then you aren't following the rules.

(As for the part in brackets, I'm not sure what "hundreds of pages of debate" you are talking about, you will need to enlighten me. However, if it's about how games without PC death aren't fun or something, I will definitely disagree. Some of the funnest games I have ever played in didn't have PC death as an option.)

Unless, of course, if there's no failure condition for PCs. A character doesn't (usually) lose all agency because an NPC convinced them of something. Heck, in real life, there are many people who can lose an argument by leagues and still retain the idea that they're right. Maybe the penalty of a loss in social combat is the enemy losing respect for you, not necessarily your character being convinced of something.

 

[Don Durito]

Unless, of course, if there's no failure condition for PCs. A character doesn't (usually) lose all agency because an NPC convinced them of something. Heck, in real life, there are many people who can lose an argument by leagues and still retain the idea that they're right. Maybe the penalty of a loss in social combat is the enemy losing respect for you, not necessarily your character being convinced of something.

This presumes you care about their respect and that winning an argument is important enough to model with a set of mechanics - which of course it can be - but doesn't usually tend to be the case in D&D.

But you could definitely run a game in some kind of fantasy city state republic where public debates are a thing and PCs may involve themselves in the political life of the city. In this case losing the respect of the audience would be important.
I can recall two examples of such systems, I believe, from the D20 era. One was the Messantia box set for Conan D20 and the other was one of the Atlas games Penumbra hardcovers focused on intrigue.

(I couldn't recall if either of them were any good, mind - so much stuff from that era was just written to provide content with little playtesting).

I think this relates to the point I was trying to make earlier. Unless you're happy with a system that resolves all conflict in mechanically identical ways like Fate, it's difficult to come up with a social system that isn't highly specific to a particular kind of social interaction.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Unless, of course, if there's no failure condition for PCs. A character doesn't (usually) lose all agency because an NPC convinced them of something. Heck, in real life, there are many people who can lose an argument by leagues and still retain the idea that they're right. Maybe the penalty of a loss in social combat is the enemy losing respect for you, not necessarily your character being convinced of something.

I think that's where most "social combat" systems are more complex than "physical combat" systems, the win/loss state. Physical combat basically has one avenue for loss, death (or inability to continue engaging in physical combat). Social combat generally needs to cover a variety of win/loss conditions.