And if your goal is actually producing the words of that "gripping, and exciting dialogue scene" very heavy rules arbitration doesn't help you do that, and in fact hinders it in every single instance I've encountered from Blue Rose to FATE to whatever. Maybe the closest I have to a system that does do a decent job at this is DitV, but notably is pretty light about how the rules engage and it has a hierarchy where fisticuffs trump argument, and gunfights trump fisticuffs, as well as a lot of GM leeway for interpretation. It's not like the Aces and Eights of social combat, nor does it try to treat each pillar as identical.
In a traditional system, you can replicate gripping and exciting dialogue by mistake.
In a system built with the mechanics and structure that writers of gripping and exciting dialogue scenes use, you are more likely to produce (in structure if not quality) the same kinds of gripping and exciting scenes.
Now I grant you, that I don't often achieve that, but over the years I absolutely have achieved some scenes with gripping and exciting and dramatic dialogue from time to time and it's certainly not the lack of a social combat system that hinders me from doing it more often.
Again, and as an actor, who plays FREQUENTLY with scores of thespians and voice actors with deep commitments to emotionally rich characterization, if you play a game where the "social pillar" is gamefied, the machine more reliably outputs the thing it was built to create.
In a system built with the mechanics and structure that writers of gripping and exciting dialogue scenes use, you are more likely to produce (in structure if not quality) the same kinds of gripping and exciting scenes.
Again, and as an actor, who plays FREQUENTLY with scores of thespians and voice actors with deep commitments to emotionally rich characterization, if you play a game where the "social pillar" is gamefied, the machine more reliably outputs the thing it was built to create.
Yeah, I agree. The games I've played over the last year-ish that have very explicit social mechanics either via a multi-stage resolution process or "hit the docket and try something" have created the space for more dramatic building to a climax and resolution then I previously experienced via games that are more on a "vibe it out and then at some point roll" thing.
Running a negotiation in Draw Steel! felt like an actual negotiation: a back and forth, offering and rejection and redirecting, with the mechanics and dice helping that ebb and flow. Having to think about why a character would resist & what you can offer for Stonetop has more consistently led to real ugly bargains and big dramatic bangs.
Edit: also I've got a number of players in the game we were doing Draw Steel! in who noted that the transparent mechanics of the Negotiation System allowed them to focus on making an interesting scene without having to worry about like "am I saying the right thing to get what we want."
Yeah, the suggestion that the damage/hit point systems is just an afterthought - that beating a Pit Fiend in combat is just a modest mechanical variant on climbing a cliff - is pretty odd.
Again, and as an actor, who plays FREQUENTLY with scores of thespians and voice actors with deep commitments to emotionally rich characterization, if you play a game where the "social pillar" is gamefied, the machine more reliably outputs the thing it was built to create.
Running a negotiation in Draw Steel! felt like an actual negotiation: a back and forth, offering and rejection and redirecting, with the mechanics and dice helping that ebb and flow. Having to think about why a character would resist & what you can offer for Stonetop has more consistently led to real ugly bargains and big dramatic bangs.
Edit: also I've got a number of players in the game we were doing Draw Steel! in who noted that the transparent mechanics of the Negotiation System allowed them to focus on making an interesting scene without having to worry about like "am I saying the right thing to get what we want."
I'm not an actor, and no one whom I play with is a thespian, voice actor or other sort of performer. But social resolution mechanics have reliably produced strong social scenes. And the more robust mechanics of more "modern" games have done so better: the Rolemaster influence and interaction table isn't terrible, but 4e skill challenges are better. And so are the social systems in the BWHQ family of games. Our Prince Valiant play is full of social stuff as well as jousts and battles and the like.
I could link to heaps of actual play examples, but will confine myself to these:
The current focus of my 4e game - which is now at 30th level, the top end of Epic tier - is the fate of the multiverse: will it be engulfed in an imminent Dusk War, or is there some way of averting such a thing?
Our session on May 29 began with a transition scene (to borrow the MHRP terminology). The PCs erected a magic circle around the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen, in order to prevent anyone from entering it and potentially learning her true name (backstory here); then rested; then scried on the tarrasque, which they knew to have recently begun marauding in the mortal world, identifying its location and noting that it was being observed by maruts. They decided that, to return to the mortal world to confront the tarrasque they would first teleport to their abandoned Thundercloud Tower, and then take that with them through another conjured portal and fly it to where the tarrasque is.
<snip>
When the PCs step through the portal from their resting place to the top of the tower, they find that it is not where they left it - on the disintegrating 66th layer of the Abyss - but rather in the palace of Yan-C-Bin on the Elemental Chaos. This brought the PCs, and especially the chaos sorcerer, into discussion with the djinni who had retaken possession of the tower and were repurposing it for the coming Dusk War. Mechanically, this situation was resolved as a skill challenge.
Sirrajadt, the leader of the djinni, explained that the djinni were finally breaking free of the imprisonment they had suffered after fighting for their freedom the last time (ie with the primordials against the gods in the Dawn War), and were not going to be re-imprisoned or bound within the Lattice of Heaven, and hence were gearing up to fight again in the Dusk War. He further explained that only Yan-C-Bin (Prince of Evil Air Elementals) and the Elder Elemental Eye could lead them to victory in the Dusk War.
The PCs both asserted their power (eg the paladin pointed out that the reason the djinni have been released from their prisons is because the PCs killed Torog, the god of imprisonment), and denied the necessity for a coming Dusk War, denouncing warmongers on both sides (especially the Elder Elemental Eye, whom Sirrajadt was stating was the only being who could guarantee the Djinni their freedom) and announcing themselves as a "third way", committed to balancing the chaos against the heavens and ensuring the endurance of the mortal world.
Sirrajadt was insisting that the PCs accompany him to meet Yan-C-Bin, declaring that mercy would be shown to all but the sorcerer. (The reason for this is that the chaos sorcerer - who is a Primordial Adept and Resurgent Primordial - has long been a servant of Chan, the Queen of Good Air Elementals, who sided with the gods during the Dawn War and is resolutely opposed to the Prince of Evil Air Elementals; hence the sorcerer is a sworn enemy of Yan-C-Bin.) As the PCs continued to debate the point and explain their "third way" reasoning (mechanically, getting closer to success in the skill challenge), Sirrajadt - sufficiently unsettled by their claims - invited them all to resolve the matter in conversation with Yan-C-Bin, who moreso than him would be able to explain the situation. The PCs therefore went to meet Yan-C-Bin himself, as guests and not as prisoners - not even the sorcerer.
Yan-C-Bin greeted them, but mocked the sorcerer and his service to Chan. There was some back and forth, and some of the same points were made. Then the PC fighter/cleric Eternal Defender, who has recently taken up the divine portfolio of imprisonment (which position became vacant after the PCs killed Torog), spoke. Both in the fiction and at the table this was the pivotal moment. The player gave an impassioned and quite eloquent speech, which went for several minutes with his eyes locked on mine. (We tend to be quite a causal table as far as performance, in-character vs third person description of one's PC vs out-of-character goes.) He explained (in character) that he would personally see to it that no djinni would be unjustly imprisoned, if they now refrained from launching the Dusk War; but that if they acted rashly and unjustly they could look forward to imprisonment or enslavement forever.
The player rolled his Intimidate check (with a +2 bonus granted by me because of his speech, far more impassioned and "in character" than is typical for our pretty laid-back table) and succeeded. It didn't persuade Yan-C-Bin - his allegiance to the Elder Elemental Eye is not going to be swayed by a mere godling - but the players' goal wasn't to persaude Yan-C-Bin of the merits of their third way, but rather to avoid being imprisoned by him and to sway the djinni. Which is exacty what happened: this speech sufficiently impressed the djinni audience that Yan-C-Bin could not just ignore it, and hence he grudgingly acquiesced to the PCs' request, agreeing to let the PCs take the Thundercloud Tower and go and confront the tarrasque - but expressing doubt that they would realise their "third way", and with a final mocking remark that they would see for whom the maruts with the tarrasque were acting.
The player of the eternal defender had already noted that, when I read out the description of maruts and their contracts earlier in the sessin, the only being actually mentioned by name was the Raven Queen. So he predicted (more-or-less in line with what I had in mind), that the maruts observing the tarrasque would be there at the behest of the Raven Queen (who is served by three of the five PCs), to stop it being interfered with.
When the PCs then took their Tower to confront the tarrasque, that was indeed what they found. Upon arriving at the tarrasque's location they found the tarrasque being warded by a group of maruts who explained that, in accordance with a contract made with the Raven Queen millenia ago, they were there to ensure the realisation of the end times, and to stop anyone interfering with the tarrasque as an engine of this destruction and a herald of the beginning of the end times and the arrival of the Dusk War.
(Why the Raven Queen wants the Dusk War has not fully come to light, other than that it seems part of her plan to realise her own ultimate godhood. One idea I had follows in sblocks.)
With Ometh dead, it seems possible that those souls who have passed over the Bridge that May be Traversed But Once might be able to return - repopulating a world remade following the Dusk War and the restoration of the Lattice of Heaven.
I wasn't sure exactly what the players would do here. They could try and fight the maruts, obviously, but I thought the Raven Queen devotees might be hesitant to do so. I had envisaged that the PCs might try to persuade them that the contract was invalid in some way - and this idea was mentioned at the table, together with the related idea of the various exarchs of the Raven Queen in the party trying to lay down the law. In particular I had thought that the paladin of the Raven Queen, who is a Marshall of Letherna (in effect, one of the Raven Queen's most powerful servants), might try to exercise his authority to annual or vary the contract in some fashion.
But instead the argument developed along different lines. What the players did was to persuade the maruts that the time for fulfillment of their contract had not yet arisen, because this visitation of the tarrasque was not yet a sign of the Dusk War. (Mechanically, these were social skill checks, history and religions checks, etc, in a skill challenge to persuade the maruts.)
The player of the Eternal Defender PC made only one action in this skill challenge - explaining that it was not the end times, because he was there to defeat the tarrasque (and got another successful intimidate check, after spending an action point to reroll his initial fail) - before launching himself from the flying tower onto the tarrasque and proceeding to whittle away around 600 of its hit points over two rounds. (There were also two successful out-of-turn attacks from the ranger and the paladin, who were spending their on-turn actions in negotiating with the maruts.)
The invoker/wizard was able to point to this PC's successful solo-ing of the tarrasque as evidence that the tarrasque, at least on this occasion, could not be the harbinger of the end times whom the maruts were contracted to protect, because it clearly lacked the capacity to ravage the world. The maruts agreed with this point - clearly they had misunderstood the timing of celestial events - and the PCs therefore had carte blanche to finish of the tarrasque. (Mechanically, this was the final success in the skill challenge: the player rolled Insight to see what final argument would sway the maruts, knowing that only one success was needed. He succeeded. I invited him to then state the relevant argument.)
My group has played a couple of Prince Valiant sessions since my last actual play report.
The first of these (fourth session in what has turned out to be a campaign) saw the squire PC progress dramatically.
<snip>
There was talk of a powerful knight who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle - and so far unbeaten. (This was Sir Lionheart, of the second Challenge from a Knight scenario in the rulebook.) Naturally the PCs headed off to see if they could do better, with a crowd in tow to see the excitement and the performer working the crowd.
The PCs had only light or medium armour (+1 or +2 dice), and ordinary horses - not fully-trained warhorses - and with the best brawn + arms total being 8 dice, for overall dice pools (including 1 for lance) of 11 or 12 at best. Whereas Sir Lionheart, with arms 5 and heavy armour (+3) and a fine warhorse (+1) had 14+ dice. (Technically the system calls for coins, but we use dice counting evens as heads.) Conversation with Sir Lionheart revealed that he had returned from the Crusades, and was a knight without match who was waiting to find a fitting lord to serve. (I took this not from the scenario description, but from the excellent 1981 film Excalibur's treatment of Sir Lancelot.)
The players of the knights were hoping that the performer PC would work up the crowd to support them - like the Geoffrey Chaucer character in the film A Knight's Tale - but the player of the performer worked up the crowd in general, so that both jousting knights got a bonus die.
The first of the PCs to have a go was Sir Gerran. He lost, soundly beaten (but Storyteller Certificate still in the player's hand).
Next up was Justin "the Gentle", Sir Gerren's son . He lost too.
<snip>
The squire PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed. I took the words of the knighting ceremony from Excalibur - "In the name of God, St Michael and St George I give you the right to bear arms and the power to mete justice".
The player of the (now) Sir Morgath determined that he would use his certificate for an outright victory. He considered knocking Sir Lionheart senseless, but he suspected (correctly, as it turned out, given the scenario description) that if he unhorsed Sir Lionheart but didn't kill him, Sir Lionheart would insist on fighting with swords to the death. So he decided to Kill a Foe in Combat - when the lances of the two knights connected, the one wielded by Sir Morgath splintered, and a shard flew through a gap in Sir Lionheart's visor and entered his brain through his eye, killing him!
Sir Morgath was feted by the crowd. He also was able to upgrade his gear, being the first of the PCs to have heavy armour and a warhorse. He also won Sir Lionheart's superbly jewelled sword, which grants a bonus die for social situations where prestige is in issue.
<snip>
they continued north to see what adventures might be had! On the road, they met a richly-dressed damsel, Lady Elizabeth of York, and her handmaiden, who had barely escaped from bandits while returning home from a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Sigobert. She asked for assistance, and the PCs offered it.
The introduction to the scenario notes that "An amusing use of this Episode is to get one of the Adventurers married off to the main character" and goes on to say that "Once [she] feels safe she will begin to flirt with the Adventurers, prying for information on marriage status, lands held, family, etc. During this scene she picks a candidate for marriage, if possible, from the Adventurers. Depending on the way you wish to run the Episode, the victim may consider himself lucky, or cursed". Sir Morgath, with his knightly armour, his jewelled sword, and his famous victory over Sir Lionheart, was the object of her pursuit.
Flirting and courting was interrupted by an attack by the bandits.
<snip>
The PCs were victorious and the bandits routed.
When the group arrived back at the castle of the Duke of York, he was very impressed by the young and obviously valiant Sir Morgath. An attempt by Sir Morgath to persuade the Duke that he might not be the best match for his daughter failed (ie Sir Morgath's player rolled poorly) and so he found himself being wed to Lady Elizabeth rather than the Lady Violette whose handkerchief he had been carrying with him. As per the scenario text, if the Lady and "one of the Adventurers [are] betrothed . . . end the Episode with a grand wedding sequence. [Her] father will give each Adventurer an impressive gift." Sir Gerran was given a trained falcon. And Sir Justin "the Gentle", so named because of his deads at the Abbey of St Sigobert, was gifted a fine silvered dagger that had been blessed at that shrine.
And Sir Morgath and his wife were gifted with a manor. So he started the session a squire, and ended up a famous knight married to the daughter of the Duke of York!
To me, when I reflect on these actual play examples and the many other similar sorts of examples I experience in play, the idea that social mechanics undercut social scenes - their emotional power, their "organic" nature, etc - seems plainly wrong. Likewise the idea that social scenes are all about the "face" PC doing the talking while the other PCs (and players) look on mutely.
Yeah, the suggestion that the damage/hit point systems is just an afterthought - that beating a Pit Fiend in combat is just a modest mechanical variant on climbing a cliff - is pretty odd.
Oh that’s another great point: games with more enumerated social mechanics often take pains to present ways in which varied characters can engage with the moment and all contribute together both in terms of in-character actions & mechanics. I can’t count how many times a player in a more universal skills game would say something like “oh, hey facechar why don’t you take over my Persuasion is terrible.”
I can’t count how many times a player in a more universal skills game would say something like “oh, hey facechar why don’t you take over my Persuasion is terrible.”
In a system built with the mechanics and structure that writers of gripping and exciting dialogue scenes use, you are more likely to produce (in structure if not quality) the same kinds of gripping and exciting scenes.
