Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 3526254" data-attributes="member: 386">Two people want conflicting things, and they are using social means to achieve it.  The conflict isn't physical; that is, it isn't violent.Let's see... in a one of my games, I'm playing this crazy/holy monk/samurai who is bound to carry out the wishes of his father and family for 3 years.  (That came about from a social conflict, which I lost.)  Anyways, we're in the Valley of the Mists and it's controlled by a Spider Goddess, and all this evil is corrupting my father's lands (and everyone in it).Now I suspect there is some connection between her and my father, but I don't know for sure, or what exactly.  And I'm pretty much Lawful Good, so this is important to me.  So I go up to the Spider Queen and talk to her, trying to get her to reveal to me what her connection is with my father.We have a social conflict (resolved with dice rolls), and I lose.  After some back-and-forth roleplaying, she tells me that my father made a vow to her, but won't go into further detail; then she shows me her true face and I freak out and run away.  (That's what the Spider Goddess wanted - for me to leave her Valley.)That's one example.  In that game, we used dice rolls, which I think is important to mention.Another example: In a different game, I'm playing a noble.  We're going on a long trip and we want to bring along some men-at-arms.  I go and try to convince the guys who are already with me, but haven't agreed to go on this much longer trip, to come along.I was able to get some of them, but not all, to come, based on the DM's judgement of my in-character arguement.So those are two methods of resolving these social conflicts.In order to get a social conflict, all you need are two characters who have conflicting goals, but aren't willing to fight over it.  You could make some NPCs in your game who want things from the PCs (or won't do something that the PCs want them to do), and no one is willing to come to blows over it.  Characters like this might be: high-ranking persons of import (kings, nobles, high priests - not necessarily high-level, but possibly), children, wizened old people who can't fight back, and (especially) family members.What's more, you have to let the players know that they can achieve their goals without having to draw steel.  Tell them flat out before the social conflict starts.  "Hey guys, I just want to let you know that if you [insert resolution method here], you can convince this guy to do what you want."Now, a note on resolution methods:1) Rolling dice.  You can work this two ways:a) NPCs are affected by the results of the roll, but PCs are not; orb) All characters are affected by the results of the roll.a) is typical in most games (and is RAW - kind of), I think, but it means that social conflicts will be strangely one-sided: PCs can influence your NPCs with rolls and get them to do what they want, but you'll have to convince the players with your own talky-talk skill.I think this is good when players want to really get into a role that the player might not fit too well: a normal guy playing a James Bond-type guy, for example.  He won't be forced to break "out of character" if he loses a conflict, because, well, using this resolution method the players can never lose these conflicts.  That's a feature.b) is less typical, I think, but what do I know?  That's the kind of resolution I used in the Spider Queen example: I lost and had to do what she wanted me to (run screaming).One thing to remember here is to always allow the both people to just "walk away".  If, say, the Spider Queen wanted me to throw myself into a volcano, I would have said, "DM, you suck," and then I would have just walked away and not had the conflict in the first place.This isn't so great for players who like to get deep into character, for a bunch of reasons: you have to abide by the roll; you have to know what the other person wants (so that you can do it), and that means working on out-of-character knowledge, and I'm sure there are others.It is good if your group wants to really explore social conflicts and have a lot of them in your game.  It's good if your group likes to bounce from conflict to conflict, as (hopefully) one social conflict should lead directly into the next.2) Player (including GM) fiat. The person who controls the character takes stock of the other player's in-character argument.  I think that it's obvious how this works; there's no need to describe it.  This is not so great if you want to play someone who has a silver tongue, but you find yourself a little tongue-tied at times.  It can work well, and you will get lots of roleplaying, people really getting into their characters, probably more than any other method; however, there are some pitfalls which I don't feel like going into right now.That's how I see social conflicts.  I'm sure there are other ways to resolve them, but none that come to mind right now.  I prefer method 1) b. above, rolling for everyone, but your group might like something else.  I think the best way to try different methods is to play different games that have different methods.  2) you can find in 1e, 1) a. is (kind of) RAW, 1) b. is in Burning Wheel and some other games.  Find out what your group likes best and go with that.</blockquote>

Verification