Social "hit points" and mental attributes used for "social combat?"

[harpy]

Just wondering if this kind of system has ever been implemented.

I did get pointed me to Dynasties and Demagogues from Atlas Games and I finally tracked down a copy. The social battles in there are a much more crunchy and interesting compared to anything else I've seen.

Are there any other social systems that have been developed for D&D?

Has anyone developed a social combat system where you have social "hit points" and the mental stats get translated over, such as:

Intelligence = Strength
Wisdom = Dexterity
Charisma = Constitution

in terms of their functional roles within the social combat?

Intelligence modifies your ability to attack your foe. Being able to understand the social milieu allows the character to deliver efficient social attacks at a person or argument.

Wisdom is largely defensive in a social situation, though it can be used offensively in certain circumstances. Knowing how to feel out a situation, when to say something and when not to is essential in dealing with others.

Charisma modifies your social hit points. Those with a lot of charm and good looks can sustain themselves and "survive" longer in debate than someone who stutters and is painfully ugly.

In terms of the 3.0/3.5/4e system I could easily see combat maneuvers being translated over to elements derived from debate/forensics handbooks. I don't know what they are, but there has to be some structured social "maneuvers" that could be implemented.

There could be social buffing and debuffing, social AC, etc.

Even a "massive damage threshold" save, except it would be a Will save. Heck, you could even have a coup de grace based off a Will save.

Anyway, I'd be surprised if someone hadn't implemented a system like this in the last decade, and I'd be shocked if it hasn't been done at some time in the last 35 years.

Anything people can point to? Or has it be used and shown to be an awful system?

 

[Mallus]

All I have to contribute is... over my dead, viking-hat wearing body. One of the greatest pleasures in RPG play is hearing the batty things players have their characters say and responding to it in kind.

We can all talk. There's no need to use an abstract simulation for it.

(actually, I have something a little more helpful to contribute, I hear that Burning Wheel has interesting social combat mechanics --called the Duel of Wits-- I don't suppose I'd like it, but a lot of people seem to)

 

[harpy]

I've actually encountered quite a few players over the years who can't or won't talk to any great length in RPG sessions due to their personality. So having a system where they can play a social dynamo in a mechanically dramatic way is actually desired.

I don't know if the above system is actually a good way of doing it, but I'd assume someone has tried it over all of these decades.

 

[MarkChevallier]

Not meaning to be cruel, because a lack of conversational ability doesn't make someone a bad person, but if they can't or won't talk to any great length due to their personality, that is a bad thing that will make the game less fun for others. Game mechanics removing the need for them to do so at all run the risk of reducing the fun for everyone involved, if the participants derive fun from play-acting, as most of us (I'd guess) do, to one extent or another.

 

[Oni]

I've heard of the idea of a full combat system for social interaction before, and while the notion has intrigued me at times, I will admit that, in the end, I have a hard time seeing how it doesn't replace roleplaying with a minigame of sorts, rather than encouraging it.

That is not to say that I don't believe there is any room in social situations for mechanical resolution, but I feel like they need to be incomplete with out the roleplaying element, that is to say not robust enough to replace them on a satisfactory level.

A full fledged social combat system implies that it is a two way street, and I do have a problem taking the choice of how a player reacts away from them and reducing it to a mechanic. Dictating the emotional state of a PC is a serious pet peeve of mine.

For NPC's I don't think it unreasonable to have some sort of mechanic representing to resolve, or lack thereof, whether it be reaction rolls, morale, or some sort of very simplified HP system (i.e. convince him 3 points before he comes around to your side, or whatever). Some mechanic is good in that it allows the DM to maintain some appearance of impartiality. Put ultimately I want the PC's choice of actions and words to have greater weight than picking a mechanic off the character sheet. To that end, for instance, I have no problem with a diplomacy skill as long specific actions are undertaken to invoke it and those actions influence the outcome.

In short the more of a minigame you make out of social interaction, the more it becomes about playing the minigame rather than roleplaying. IMHO.

Less is more, and none is definitely better than too much in the case of social mechanics.

 

[Gort]

I do think D&D needs to either jump in with both feet as far as social rules are concerned OR stay out entirely. The current system of relying both on the diplomatic skills of the player AND the diplomatic skills of the character is basically the worst of both worlds. I can see two ways we could go.

1. A really good opposed-debate system for things like haggling, or trying to persuade the king to believe you instead of his evil grand vizier, with powers in use from both sides, like "cutting argument", "appeal to authority", and "harsh jest" which basically do "Argument Point" damage to the other side until you win. You could even have different styles of debate based off different stats, so a wise wizard might debate differently to an intimidating barbarian and so forth.

2. Removing the characters stats from roleplaying encounters. Perhaps attributes that are more inherent to the player playing the character like Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma need to go, replaced instead by attributes that are entirely inherent to the character, like Magic or Comeliness. Then players can just come up with whatever ideas they like without having the worry that their intelligence 8 half-orc wouldn't be able to decipher that puzzle, or that his 8 charisma would render his bluff transparent.

TL,DR - D&D should either have no rules at all governing talking, or rules that let someone who specialises in talking get as much spotlight time as someone who specialises in fighting.

 

[delericho]

Has anyone developed a social combat system where you have social "hit points" and the mental stats get translated over, such as:

Intelligence = Strength
Wisdom = Dexterity
Charisma = Constitution

in terms of their functional roles within the social combat?

I bounced a few ideas for such a system around on CM a few weeks back. One of the key criticisms that was raised was that there needs to be more to such a system than just spamming your most powerful 'attack' - where melee has all sorts of maneuvers, movement, and tactics; spells, magic items, and other resources; social conflict would require the same sort of constructs. Building such a system would be an interesting experiment, but it wouldn't be quick or easy.

Incidentally, I would map Charisma to Strength, Wisdom to Constitution, and Intelligence to Dexterity.

 

[harpy]

I can completely understand for the bulk of the population of roleplayers out there that a really involved system mechanic for social interaction is something that isn't desired.

However, over 30 years of roleplaying I've in fact hardly seen much in the way of real roleplaying. Most of it is at best "speaking with a funny voice" and for most people it isn't even that, just speaking in a normal voice and making no real effort at play acting of any kind.

On rare occasions I've played with people who are involved in theater on some level and that ends up being a completely different experience. You'd be sitting at the table with these people and the meta game completely fell away and you really thought that the person really was the character. For people like that I can see mechanics as an abomination.

So in this wasteland of roleplaying that I've experienced, I can see a lot of promise for a detailed social mechanic as it would actually enliven and engage people far more in something other than combat. Rather than trying to pull teeth from a crowd of people that are only really "rollplaying" instead embrace it fully and make alternate subsystems.

Right now in 3/4e it all collapses to a few skill checks as is, which isn't really engaging as a mechanic. If a social mechanic was raised to the level of complexity equal or near to that of combat then you could "game" out a lot more interesting plots. Right now though people just use the skills as triggers to get to the meat of the session, the combat encounters.

But like I said, this isn't for everyone, but there sure are a lot of rollplayers out there that would benefit from such a system.

 

[Oni]

I do think it is fair to say that not everyone can roleplay with the same degree of skill or level of believability. Hell, I've never considered myself to be spectacular roleplayer in the amateur thespian sense of the word.

Is it preferable to use a system (or lack of system) that encourages them to try harder and be better, or a system that encourages them not to try at all and instead substitutes an alternate resolution to roleplaying?

This reminds me of an interesting notion that I saw floated here once some time back, that 4e had made combat too fun to the detriment of the game. The idea is that players will gravitate toward the aspect of the game that they feel is the most enjoyable and rewarding, and if that aspect is combat then the game will become about combat.

Consider this, if you make the act of resolving social situations the most entertaining and enjoyable part of the game for the players, then they will gravitate toward it. However if you do that by removing roleplaying and substituting it with the minigame of social combat all you've done is make the game aspect the one of primary importance in the mind of the players, while at the same time reducing the incentive to actually roleplay.

Now the stories that you might be able to hang on such a framework might be different, you've now defeated the duke with words, and not swords, but how much have you actually changed the experience at the table. I wonder how interesting or engaging these different plots would be if they have been reduced to a series of mechanical resolutions.

I posit that the skill checks of 3/4e were never really meant to be engaging, that they are simply a tool for DM to adjudicate the situation based on the actions of the PC, not a blunt instrument for the PC's to wield in and of themselves.

Now I don't want to come across as saying you shouldn't try to innovate, but it is important to keep in mind that design decisions come with consequences at the gaming table.

 

[gamerprinter]

Mongoose Quintessential Samurai has this...

Not a real Mongoose fan or a Quintessential fan, but the Quintessential Samurai has a social combat system, somewhat similar to what you're describing.

You can find it in the Grand OGL Wiki, linked here...
The Grand OGL Wiki: Amongst the Courtiers

GP