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

[Tonguez]

Yet in the system I described there is no conflict (unless we use the term in such a general way as to be meaningless). The king is willing to listen to the PCs but does not necessarily want something from them. It is an asymmetrical situation. Again why do you think it is useful to describe this as a combat system?

The scenario you set up isnt a social conflict and doesnt need a confloict system to resolve.

Thats because its an attrition based logic puzzle, the player just needs to work out the points that need to be made and then make a guess at how many times they need to be made.

but do your players enjoy such guessing games?
What clues do you give out that the King might be cowardly?or concerned for his legacy?

I can see where such an approach could be used and clues given via RP but that doesnt mean a conflict based negotiation can’t be RP’d too

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

Completely disparate types of scenarios.

The contention is that player characters should not have their decisions determined against the will of the player.

The PC doesn’t decide to fall unconscious when hit hard enough. The PC does decide to believe or not believe an argument. Because it is a thing that the PC decides, it must be determined solely by the player, or the player loses agency in the game.

 

[generic]

Completely disparate types of scenarios.

The contention is that player characters should not have their decisions determined against the will of the player.

The PC doesn’t decide to fall unconscious when hit hard enough. The PC does decide to believe or not believe an argument. Because it is a thing that the PC decides, it must be determined solely by the player, or the player loses agency in the game.

It's almost like, in real life, I decide (at least to the extent that I'm in control of myself) what I believe, but not when or if I die/fall ill...

 

[Don Durito]

The scenario you set up isnt a social conflict and doesnt need a confloict system to resolve.

Thats because its an attrition based logic puzzle, the player just needs to work out the points that need to be made and then make a guess at how many times they need to be made.

but do your players enjoy such guessing games?
What clues do you give out that the King might be cowardly?or concerned for his legacy?

I can see where such an approach could be used and clues given via RP but that doesnt mean a conflict based negotiation can’t be RP’d too

"Attrition based logic puzzle"? What a bizarrely hostile reading. No it's a structure for a role-playing scene.
There's a million and one ways the pcs can find out the king is cowardly - surely that's obvious and I don't need to spell it out? Why would I need to give hints?

And yes it's not particularly a conflict. (But it does fit with how Robin Laws divides dramatic scenes into petitioners and granters. In fact, now that I think about it, it's explicitly a system for handling PC petitioning and NPC granting - for the reverse situation I don't really see the need for a system).

One of the big misunderstandings is that people tend to think that because it's sometimes said that scenes in drama need to involve conflict, rpgs also need to. The currency of rpgs is not drama but meaningful player decisions. As long as there's at least one meaningful decision to be made you have the justification for a scene.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Could you cite which system or RPG you are describing? Losing a "social combat", and abiding by that loss, does not have to mean that your character has to think or believe some specific thing.

(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.)

There have been literally hundreds of pages of discussion/debate in this forum about whether the DM in 5e is empowered to tell a player what his/her character thinks/believes/feels.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Completely disparate types of scenarios.

I disagree. Both are a matter of what is dictated by the rules. The fact that one is a fictional death and the other is a fictional change of mind is beside the point. The fact that numerous RPG systems model "social conflict" and "physical combat" using the same system is proof of that.

The contention is that player characters should not have their decisions determined against the will of the player.

But what about charm spells, or illusions, or psychic mind control. What if I as a player simply doesn't want my PC to be hurt by physical attacks? Again, it comes down to the rules that players are willing to follow. If one is using a "social combat" system that states that a PC who loses an argument is convinced of something, then to not have the PC act as though they are convinced would be breaking the rules. The same way not reducing HP after getting hit with an attack in a system that dictates that a PC loses HP when getting hit with an attack would be breaking the rules.

The PC doesn’t decide to fall unconscious when hit hard enough. The PC does decide to believe or not believe an argument. Because it is a thing that the PC decides, it must be determined solely by the player, or the player loses agency in the game.

No, player agency is preserved in either case as player agency is the ability of the player to make meaningful choices within the narrative. Player agency doesn't mean always being in control of what a PC thinks or feels.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Could you cite which system or RPG you are describing? Losing a "social combat", and abiding by that loss, does not have to mean that your character has to think or believe some specific thing.

Burning Wheel, and specifically it's social combat system called Duel of Wits. The result of the conflict determines how the narrative should proceed, and can determine how a PC should think or feel about something. If a PC were to engage in a conflict about what they believe about something, and agree that losing the duel will alter said belief, then losing the duel alters said belief. If the player then simply decides that their PC hasn't had their belief altered, they are breaking the rules. Rules in a RPG only work if everyone follows them. If a player refuses to allow their PC to take damage in a physical combat, they are breaking the rules. So, taking damage in a physical combat is voluntary, same as allowing a social conflict to alter how a PC thinks or feels about something.

There have been literally hundreds of pages of discussion/debate in this forum about whether the DM in 5e is empowered to tell a player what his/her character thinks/believes/feels.

Well, as 5e doesn't have a social conflict system I'm guessing you are using that as an example of how a GM can't tell a player how their PC thinks or feels. However, 5e still has charm spells and magical fear effects and such, so yes, under certain circumstances the GM actually can tell a player how their PC thinks or feels.

 

[zarionofarabel]

It's almost like, in real life, I decide (at least to the extent that I'm in control of myself) what I believe, but not when or if I die/fall ill...

This would be a fun philosophical debate that could rage for centuries, and it has! Are we really in control of what we believe, or are all the exigent factors influencing us actually responsible for what we believe? Does free will truly exist? So on and so forth and not really a great example of why social combat is a bad idea.

It's just rules for a game. If players agree that the rules can influence how their PC thinks or feels, then said rules can influence how a PC thinks or feels. If players refuse to allow their PC to take damage in a physical combat, then the PC takes no damage. How would a DM force a player's PC to take damage in a physical combat if the player simply refused to log said damage?

 

[generic]

This would be a fun philosophical debate that could rage for centuries, and it has! Are we really in control of what we believe, or are all the exigent factors influencing us actually responsible for what we believe? Does free will truly exist? So on and so forth and not really a great example of why social combat is a bad idea.

It's just rules for a game. If players agree that the rules can influence how their PC thinks or feels, then said rules can influence how a PC thinks or feels. If players refuse to allow their PC to take damage in a physical combat, then the PC takes no damage. How would a DM force a player's PC to take damage in a physical combat if the player simply refused to log said damage?

Damage isn't as nebulous a concept as the definition of free will under a neurological (or even a spiritual) paradigm.

A player taking damage is in no way analogous to a contract on rules influencing the emotions of a player. Of course, it's all about the contract. If your play group enjoys play-acting, and trying to embody their character, a rule which removes agency in order to enhance story is entirely reasonable. Similarly, my group has agreed to play a game, under the game's explicitly defined rule-set.

PCs take damage because the Game Master is the final adjudicator of the physical. Pretty much every convention of D&D, as well as most RPGs, rests on the idea that the player has entered into a contract wherein the Game Master can narrate the physical consequences of action. Just as in real life, we can debate whether or not I make my own decisions, but there is no debate as to whether or not I am in control of taking damage when I get hit by a bullet.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Damage isn't as nebulous a concept as the definition of free will under a neurological (or even a spiritual) paradigm.

Agreed. Though within the context of rules for a RPG, they are one and the same, as they are both narrative constructs.

A player taking damage is in no way analogous to a contract on rules influencing the emotions of a player. Of course, it's all about the contract. If your play group enjoys play-acting, and trying to embody their character, a rule which removes agency in order to enhance story is entirely reasonable. Similarly, my group has agreed to play a game, under the game's explicitly defined rule-set.

The emotions of a player, no, the emotions of a PC however is a different matter. PCs are not players and players are not PCs. A player is the real life human sitting at the table playing the RPG. A PC is a narrative construct, or more importantly, a figment of the imaginations of the players and DM. Having a PC's beliefs changed by the result of a social conflict in no way removes agency. A player can still make meaningful choices within the narrative even after a PC's beliefs have been altered. And yes, following the agreed to ruleset is part of the contract. So, if the ruleset includes a "social combat" system that can alter a PC's beliefs then allowing those beliefs to be altered is good form as it fulfills the obligations of the contract.

PCs take damage because the Game Master is the final adjudicator of the physical. Pretty much every convention of D&D, as well as most RPGs, rests on the idea that the player has entered into a contract wherein the Game Master can narrate the physical consequences of action. Just as in real life, we can debate whether or not I make my own decisions, but there is no debate as to whether or not I am in control of taking damage when I get hit by a bullet.

As stated above, fulfilling the obligations of the contract is good form. Following the rules is good form. If a "social combat" system is part of the rules then abiding by the results of any "social combat" is good form, just as abiding by the rules governing physical things. Also, many RPGs nowadays have very few rules regarding physical things and instead lump everything physical and non-physical under the same narrative framework. In other words, the rules govern the narrative directly, whether the thing they govern is physical or not is irrelevant.