If Conversation Worked Like Combat

[I'm A Banana]

Here is how FFZ does it:

• If something is not a "social conflict," it doesn't need any dice rolls. You only need dice to resolve a conflict. If there's no conflict, just narrate the thing.
• Every class has a Social skill (in addition to other things). This is given a "power dice" from d4 to d12. The Bard's Social Power is 1d12. The Barbarian's is d4.
• Some classes have special abilities to use in Social situations. The Bard has Charm, which lets him roll two Social Power dice (2d12).
• Every character has a Social Defense, based on their Social Power (d8 = 50, d12 = 70, d4 = 30, etc.).
• A "Social Conflict" is resolved by the sides rolling Social Power until one side's Social Defense is depleted. If the Bard and the Barbarian work together, they get to roll their dice, and subtract it from the SD of their targets (this works like HP and Damage, basically).
• The first side to loose all their Social Defense loses the conflict, meaning they acquiesce to the other side. The Bard and Barbarian convince the guards to give up the information on the hiding place of the Duke if they reduce the guard's Social Defense to 0 before their own Social Defense is reduced to 0.
• Once an individual's Social Defense is reduced to 0, they can't make any more Social Power rolls. So the Barbarian is targeted by both of the guards, and is weeded out early, leaving only the Bard to help influence them.

This is pretty much the way FFZ does everything, including combat. It's the core resolution mechanism: damage vs. defense pool.

 

[steenan]

I know two good approaches to combat-like social interactions. Both address the basic issues: that there is no clear "win" and "lose" in most conversations and that adjudicating them must take a context into account as an important factor.


In first approach, the stakes must be set before the conflict is played out. The players decide what they want to achieve, state it clearly and discuss if necessary, modifying the stakes until everybody agrees. Thanks to this, nobody will be forced to accept anything he'd never have his character do and everybody needs to take a risk to gain anything.
After the stakes are set, the conflict is played out. It uses a HP-equivalent (some kind of will or determination points), social attacks and defenses, special powers. It may even use a map for metaphorical positioning (like in Diaspora), but I think it's taking the combat-equivalent thing too far. Of course, each attack and defense is something being said or done and it needs to be roleplayed; the dice decide how effective you are, not what you say.
When one side is defeated (HP-equivalent reduced to zero), the other side gets its stake. Some games allow players to back off and accept defeat before this point, in exchange for a small compromise and getting a part of the stake.


The other approach does not require setting stakes and does not adjudicate victory and defeat at all. Characters must be described by some kind of traits that represent their goals, beliefs and relations ("I want to save my family from the sorcerer", "I never back off from combat", "I trust Jed the Paladin" - like the Aspects in Fate). Social attacks allow modifying opponent's traits and/or adding new ones; actions that agree with these traits are benefited, while actions that oppose them are penalized.
In this framework, I do not try to "defeat" somebody in a conversation. I may try to impose some traits on my opponent, like "I believe Steenan is a good strategist", "I'm afraid of the orkish horde gathering near our town" or something like that - and, as a result, the baron will give me men and weapons necessary to organize defenses. Or maybe I'll end up with traits like "I have no right to command king's soldiers" and "Orcs are no danger" and I'll be too penalized to continue arguing with him on the matter.


The first approach has more metagame elements (stake negotiation) and is focused on confrontation. It feels like combat because you defeat someone or are defeated. It creates intense, dramatic situations. It requires players mature enough to set the stakes reasonably and agree on them (and later play by what they accepted). It isn't useful when character agendas are not directly opposite, because it encourages conflict, not compromise.

The second approach is definitely more complicated (though it may be handled quite fast in play). It's main advantage is high level of realism and ability to model a wide range of possible social interactions. It is definitely more useful if both sides aim for compromise while trying to make it beneficial for them (like in contract negotiation) or when there are more than two sides with different agendas. It is also more tactical, which may be seen both as a strength and as a weakness.

 

[Heathen72]

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

When you have a Stat for Charisma, and people who want to play non combat orientated characters (particularly in 3rd Ed) they often want to have something that reflects their abilities. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

And for those who feel uncomfortable with feats of personality that, say, turn an enemy into a friend - there are many examples in D&D where people do remarkable things - potentially unbelievable things - based on their class abilities and skills. How are personality based traits any different? If a player comes up with a remarkable skill roll then the GM and the players should work together to find a plausible sounding outcome.

I am quite happy if a Miles Vorkosigan, a Harriet the Spy, or (any Chris Tucker Character) fast talk their way out of a tight situation.

 

[Vespucci]

Shouting is clearly broken.

 

[wolff96]

Dresden Files (and FATE in general) use the exact mechanic for social conflict as you would for actual combat, just different skills and stress tracks.

You *might* use it to convince someone of something, but it's more often used in a public setting to embarrass your opponent, get someone to admit something they'd rather not have said, or interrogate subjects.

In one rather memorable case in a game I ran, we had a social conflict where a player got information out of an NPC without the NPC being aware that she'd actually been questioned. The player did a good job of steering the conversation and pushing the NPC to the answers she wanted.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I concur with the recommendation for Dynasties & Demagogues

I would love to see this rule-set ported over to 4e.

In answer to Diamond Cross, the reason I like these additional rules {as a player} is that I don't rely on the DM to interpret my roleplaying, I know that if I fail to get the bargain for the magic sword it wasn't because the DM didn't really want me to get it.. basically removes the player vs DM vibe.

And just to be clear, the rules are not for 'normal' conversation, but for convincing the other side that your stance should be agreed to. Whether that means bargaining for a lower price, convincing the guard to let you by, etc.. and as written are primarily for 'courtly conversation' and heavy politic level debates. Its the sort of stuff often left out of games, and this framework allows political debate to become a central peice of a session.

YMMV.

 

[Cor Azer]

ASoIaF RPG also has a very good Intrigue system very analguous to its combat system.