Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5589637" data-attributes="member: 23240">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.</blockquote>

Verification