Social "combat"system

[Reynard]

From another thread iscussing a player that wants to be a social character:

I think you are correct in identifying this problem, but it is actually a systemic problem with D&D (if not d20 in general). Skill use is secondary to combat in resolving encounters, and far too often it is merely one "all or nothing" roll. This feeds into the lack of feats to support social interaction or, indeed, almost anything other than hitting the other guy.

I propose a system for handling social interaction that mirrors the system for combat. It is sort of loose and jumbled in my mind but it might go something like this:

Social Attack Bonus = Skill + Cha Mod + Level
Social Defense = 10 + Skill + Cha Mod + Level
Social Hit Points = (hmm, tough one -- maybe 5 per level, modified by Wis?)

The Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate skills would interact with modifiers, so intimidating someone who is Bluffing you might give you a +2 "to hit", while doing the same to someone using Diplomacy might have a penalty.

There would be a few sort of maneuvers, like Berate or Persuade, sort of analogous to various combat maneuvers (like, say, bull rush and disarm). Feats, of course, would give bonuses or remove penalties in relationship to these maneuvers.

And don't forget Arguments of Opportunity, where if a person involved in the discussion puts their foot in it or otherwise falters, the opponent gets an immediate action to press them even further.

Damage would be dealt based upon the maneuver being used, as modified by Rhetroical Weapons (hmm... some research needed into classic debate and rhetoric theory).

Upon reaching 0 Scoial Hit Points, one must concede the others' point(s). perhpas the terms victory should be set before the combat begins so Ox might say "I want the merchant to give me a 50% discount on my Huge Maul of Crushing" and the merchant (the DM) would say "The Merchant will convince you to pay full price, plus the 25% warrantee."

Or something.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Interesting, but it seems a bit wonky....how, exactly, do you determine the bonus? What kind of variants of "Social BAB" are dependant on class? (Maybe the skill check serves as the attack roll?)

And maybe an 'all or nothing' kind of system could be devised for combat, to work in reverse?

 

[Belen]

Personally, I have dealt with it in a different manner. In my game, all social skills are class skills for all. Therefore, no cross-classing that kills the desire to take these skills by other characters.

 

[maddman75]

INteresting idea - but what about these 'social hit points'? What do they represent? What happens when you run out of them? How do you get them back?

 

[Kichwas]

Dynasties and Demagogues has a debate combat system - it's one of the reasons I did not buy the book in the end, but if that's the sort of thing you desire it gives a published example.

 

[Reynard]

INteresting idea - but what about these 'social hit points'? What do they represent? What happens when you run out of them? How do you get them back?

As far as what happens when you run out, see the first post. As far as what they represent... well, like normal Hit Points, they are sort of a loose representation of stamina and ability, in this case one's social and mental toughness. So, by battering down one's opponent's "stance", you can force them to concede your point or otherwise agree with you.

Given this, I would say that Social Hit Points would be case-by-case: they exist as a pool for each argument or interaction and don't need to "heal" or regenerate. Perhaps a system in place where if you lose a social combat to a character you receive a negative level (just for social encounters) in relation to that character, so it is harder to win later arguments. Perhaps minor victories remove the negative levels.

The more I think about this system, the more I think it might be a good way to emulate those court room dramas without having to rely on a succeed/fail skill system or going without conflict and "combat" entirely.

 

[CCamfield]

I was going to say you've pretty much hit on the same idea as the Dynasties & Demagogues debate system mentioned by arcady. I think it's pretty cool although I haven't used it due to a lack of GMing.

The "social hit points" (Political Points in Dyn&Dem) are basically your staying power in the debate before you are beaten, can't come up with a reply or what have you. There's a Political Defense value based on 10 + average of Bluff/Diplo/Intim/Perform(oratory), rounds and initiative, and different maneuvers to pick from depending on what skill you use. For instance, one of the Bluff maneuvers is "the big lie" which is tremendously powerful but if you fail your attack roll it backfires on you and you have to avoid the attack yourself. Also the maneuver you pick is cross-indexed on a chart with your opponent's last maneuver which can give a +2 or -2 modifier to your roll.

 

[RangerWickett]

That's silly. I mean, we all know lots of people who cannot have their minds changed about certain topics. It might take years of slow acclimation to a thought they find stupid before they might begin to wear down. Are you prepared to keep track of years-long combats?

In ENMag, issue 4, there's a slightly similar article that proposes rules for using social skills in combat, representing rapier wit.

 

[clark411]

perhaps the important thing with social combat is that, even if you haven't beaten your opponent in his opinion, everyone who has witnessed it thinks you did. On the battlefield you care about if you're alive, while in a social gathering, the winner is the one people nod with by the end of the night.

Say a zealot arguing gravity as a divine force caused by the pressure of Pelor's holy light faces off against an archmage who believes every object not composed of force somehow pulls other objects in the Prime... with heavier objects having the most pull.

They face off, and in the end, nearly everyone in the room agrees with the Zealot. Tada. The mage gathers his notes, rhetorically out manuevered at every step, and returns to his studies with perhaps a tinge of doubt or at the very least a pang of hatred for the simpering dolts who let religion get in the way of arcane study, while the Zealot gets handshakes, perhaps a new devotee who was absolutely entranced by his arguments (silly 1d4 low HD nobles and their relatively weak social hit points), and at least a couple promises of donation to both his studies and his church.

Maybe the chap who loses gets to make a kind of stabilization check to not lose his opinion entirely. ^_^

 

[CCamfield]

That's silly. I mean, we all know lots of people who cannot have their minds changed about certain topics. It might take years of slow acclimation to a thought they find stupid before they might begin to wear down. Are you prepared to keep track of years-long combats?

Clark's example is a better one for at least Dyn&Dem's system. You aren't attempting to convince your opponent, but to counter their arguments and perhaps make them look bad. You're probably trying to convince others in the process. In a ruling council, there are probably a few councillors who feel strongly about an issue and the others are more neutral; the debators are probably the ones who feel strongly about it, attempting to sway the more neutral councillors to their way of thinking so that the vote goes the way that they want.

Similarly in a king's council, you'd be attempting to make the other councillor(s) look like idiots and sway the mind of the king.