If Conversation Worked Like Combat

[Kaodi]

If conversation were to work like combat, at least in principle, how might you implement it? Of course, depending on which system you are using, this is going to be somewhat different, but for my purposes I am concerned with 3e/Pathfinder and 4E.

Were I building such a system for Pathfinder, for instance, I can imagine that each class might have a die for their speech points (like hit points) and their base rhetoric or argument bonus, as well as maybe intimidate, bluff, and diplomacy saves. Bard would probably be really badass in this way, with d12, good argument, and good bluff and diplomacy saves. Barbarian would be awful, with d6, bad arguments, but good intimidate saves. Or something like all that. Wisdom bonus would be added to speech points per level, charisma would be added to direct arguments, and intelligence to indirect arguments. The equivalent of Armor Class might be a little trickier... Proficiences would have to do with certain kinds of debate.

For 4E, it would be rather different of course. You would still have speech points, and intimidate, bluff, and diplomacy defenses. Conversational "powers" though could be interesting. Like "Forceful Retort, Encounter, Immediate Reaction, Direct, Target: Creature who has just debated you, Attack: Wisdom vs Diplomacy, 2(W) + Wisdom modifier damage, and the target is speechless (save ends)."

Or something like that...

 

[Bedrockgames]

The game Colonial Gothic (at least in the revised edition) sort of takes this approach. You have something like HP for social interactions.

 

[Morrus]

Isn't that predicated upon an assumption that the aim of conversation is to "defeat" your "opponent"?

Or is this more just for those situations when you're trying to persuade someone to do something they don't want to do?

 

[Heathen72]

Burning Wheel has a conversation system, IIRC, as does Dying Earth

 

[Kaodi]

Isn't that predicated upon an assumption that the aim of conversation is to "defeat" your "opponent"?

Or is this more just for those situations when you're trying to persuade someone to do something they don't want to do?

In the context of the game, it does seem that any situation in which you would use the social skills to begin with are at least minimally adversarial. It is not necessarily even to get them to do something they would not want to do rather than to believe something they would not otherwise have believed.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Exalted has what seems to be a pretty robust Social Combat system that works amazingly like the regular combat system, with social attacks, dodges/parries/blocks, etc.

Edit: So, in 4e, you'd make an attack (Cha + 1/2 level most likely) against Will. You'd want to populate the system with utilities for that, and possibly let Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc apply either to your Will defense or to the attack roll.

Brad

 

[Quickleaf]

Atlas Games: Charting New Realms of Imagination Dynasties & Demagogues from Atlas Games has a solid set of rules for debates, that would be your best bet for d20/3e.

 

[Diamond Cross]

I'll never understand some players' need to have a rule that governs for every single situation that arises.

 

[NewJeffCT]

It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure I would like this idea - I think without using charm/domination spells, certain things should be unachievable via normal conversation.

 

[Kaodi]

I'll never understand some players' need to have a rule that governs for every single situation that arises.

I do not necessarily think that the purpose of such a system would be just to supplement the combat rules. Rather, the purpose of such a system would be to bring the game elements of D&D to a campaign that revolved almost entirely around non-combat encounters. It is, at least, I think a useful thought experiment.