Necessity of a Social Negotiation System? – When Should It Be Relevant?

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I GM all social stuff so that rolls have some impact, but roleplaying is the major deciding factor. It works at my table.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I GM all social stuff so that rolls have some impact, but roleplaying is the major deciding factor. It works at my table.

Agreed. I find it puzzling that these sorts of questions/topics keep coming up. Makes me wonder what the dynamic at their tables is like.

 

[aramis erak]

Here are a few questions I’ve been pondering:

• When do you feel social negotiation rules are essential for driving the story forward?

When other participants would be bored by the in character roleplay eating a chunk of session.
I get fed up with "bypass my having dumpstatted Cha by BSing the GM" types.
I get bored when players insist on long in-character negotiations in 1st person mode.
I, as a GM, want to know...

• What is your goal?
• What evidence are you using as a tool/asset?
• Is your character capable of actually doing that?

As a player, if I'm not contributing to the social scene, I want that scene to be short. If I am, I've a little more patience.

• Do you think social negotiation should be a constant feature of every roleplaying interaction, or should it be used more sparingly, reserved for moments where it truly matters?

A simple statement of each side, and a roll off, works when it's low stakes. For serious stakes, a formal social conflict system, such as Dune, Burning Wheel or FFG L5R 5 have is more fun. Make your statement, maybe get a mod, make a skill roll, and note that it represents X minutes of agrument.

• Are there any exceptions where the system shouldn’t intervene, and players should rely on roleplaying or narrative cues alone?

Simple interactions with low stakes and no challenge to anyone's beliefs.
So, no haggling with the gate for the pfennig-pro-Fuß Gatesteuer (apologies for bad Deutsche)

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences with this!

A given roll requires 1-3 sentences that are suited to the audience to get a bonus on the roll; if they are opposed to the belief, you might get a penalty.

Also, social conflict isn't changing their beliefs most of the time. (In BW/BE/MG, it can.)

Nor is it mind control. Well, in Dune, and sometimes in Trek, it can be... but not in Mouse Guard. My NPCs have beliefs as strong as PCs do... you can at best get them to back down from acting on them... unless you're willing to risk your own. The Voice makes breaking the imposed cost extra metacurrency in Dune; it also is literally mind control. And there are several telepathic species in Trek, and we know even Spock can impose his will over an unwitting victim (TOS: A Taste of Armageddon; ST IV: The Voyage Home) And of course, in TOS: Plato's Stepchildren, we see Kirk, Spock, and Uhura get puppetted.

And I make it clear to players that losing means having to obey the resulting temporary trait. If you put changing the target's belief as the goal in MG/BW/BE, I'm likely to require you to wager yours... If players are comfortable with playing imposed beliefs, so am I. I don't usually open with them... but I'll go there if players are willing.

 

[aramis erak]

Sure, if a game is built with it and doesnt have a long tradition of offloading this to fiat like D&D and other RPGs, then its a workable thing.

These things do happen in real life, but it seems a bit gamey to have every character roll for falling in love with the same NPC. That doesnt feel organic at all. I think that all or nothing isnt the dichotomy social negotiation ought to be set in.

Queen Guinevere is special... first off, she's a SHOCKINGLY beautiful woman (App 30 in 4th ed, in a system where normal is 5-18)... but Amor Guinevere is not (usually) the same kind of Amor - it's labeled in 4th ed's text as a "Chaste Amor" - she is so beautiful she inspires you to do great deeds in hopes she even acknowledges you...
You routinely get one chaste Amor (almost always Guinevere), and one unchaste one... but you can have two unchaste ones... but the lower one is going to be halved at winter unless you work to improve it and willfully ignore the other...

But those Amor passions are also great for an inspiration check... and inspiration gives a temporary +10 to one skill for the task stated... if you pass the check. If not, it can put you at a penalty to everything, instead, or even cause you a madness episode.

Generating an Amor is 3d6 + (1 per point of App over 20), +6 if they saved your life or saved you from a dire fate, +1d3 if they flirted with you, - Hate(enemy) passion if it applies.
If you have no Amor, and the roll is under 16, you can reject it.
If you have one, it requires a triggering act to check for a new one... and if the new one is lower, it doesn't take.

They also generate one... Now, I had a player who Saved the Queen before her dalliance with Lance began... and he managed to get an amor (Bradwyn) 21; that's higher than her Love (Arthur) 12 and Amor (Lancelot) 18... Meanwhile, Bradwyn had Amor (Guenivere) 25...
But that's not an instant sneak off to the stables...

There's the whole issue of resisting it, and the need to do glorious things in your Amor's inspiration, without getting caught together. It's 20-Amor... Bradwyn had to make annual opposed Loyalty Arthur vs Amor Guinevere... but he also zipyanked her attention away from Lancelot...

Also, if not used, Amor halves each year.

Also note: There are half a dozen places where Lancelot can wind up out of the picture by PC actions... but the rolls needed are not easy. It's all too easy for PCs to get that chaste amor, but a whole 'nother when the queen pulls your hand to her thigh... at camp after you rescued her from Arthur's enemy of the year. (Yeah, she didn that. The player was flabbergasted...)
That same campaign, one of the other PCs had a wife with an App 29. Once she was a widow, and married the liege, a number of the knights took her as a chaste amor. (Sadly, she was incompetent at Chirurgery, and hence why she was twice a widow... her incompetence killed 4 knights.)

 

[damiller]

Agreed. I find it puzzling that these sorts of questions/topics keep coming up. Makes me wonder what the dynamic at their tables is like.

i know the dynamic at my table:

I am playing. a. game.

Games have rules.

I like the rules of a game to include ways to do anything in the game, not just some things.

If I just wanted to "roleplay" it. I'd do improv.

I don't, so I look for games that give me the kind of support I want as a GM.

Or I make games do what I need them to do.

I find it it puzzling that people want rules for some stuff, but not for other stuff. Its almost like its a preference or something, and maybe I shouldn't make innuendo's about other folks fun? huh.

 

[Bill Zebub]

i know the dynamic at my table:

I am playing. a. game.

Games have rules.

I like the rules of a game to include ways to do anything in the game, not just some things.

If I just wanted to "roleplay" it. I'd do improv.

I don't, so I look for games that give me the kind of support I want as a GM.

Or I make games do what I need them to do.

That makes sense to me. Sorta. In the sense that it's logical but I don't quite understand the sentiment.

Personally, what I like in my RPGs is as few rules as possible. I've always thought that's what distinguishes them from other kinds of games.

I find it it puzzling that people want rules for some stuff, but not for other stuff. Its almost like its a preference or something, and maybe I shouldn't make innuendo's about other folks fun? huh.

WTF? I'm genuinely curious if the playstyle feels different at other tables, such that it feels like a hole in the game(s) to not have social interactions covered by rules. No innuendo.

 

[pemerton]

If you're asking 'when should dice rolls be used in social interactions?' - I think I find they should be used like any other role: when a failure can have serious results.

Do I think a barter session with a shopkeeper needs a dice roll? Generally no - UNLESS the players are trying to absolutely abuse the shopkeep (when it should be a No - because a shopkeep needs to be as proficient in running a business as you'd expect a fighter to be proficient in fighting)

I'm not sure how these two paragraphs relate: the first talks about serious results on a failure, but then the second seems to look at completely different considerations, like pacing and "realism".