Social mechanics example

[Katemare]

There was a talk in The Game for Non-Gamers thread about social encounters. One of examples given was like this:

Player 1: "We want Sir Gavin to give us his prize falcon."
DM: "Okay, that's a Social Encounter. You need to roll your Social Skill against his Willpower, and beat him four times total. If you miss twice, you can't try and convince him any more. Go ahead and roll your Social Skill, use any of those skill powers you have, and tell me what you say. DC of 17."
Player 1: "My grizzled fighter uses Veiled Threat with my Intimidate skill. 'You don't want to give us the falcon? It'd be a shame if something were to happen to your nice castle here, wouldn't it?' " *roll* "I beat him! With Veiled Threat that means he won't make a counter-argument until after my next roll."
Player 2: "My smooth-tongued bard has Diplomacy, and I'll use Supporting Argument to help Player 4. If I beat him, Player 4 gets a +2 bonus to their roll for this. I know your CHA is lousy, dude. I say 'You know, Player 4's Character here is something of a powerful druid, and your falcon would be well cared for.' " *roll* "Easy as pie. +2, Player 4!"
Player 3: "I've got Diplomacy too, but I'm just going to make a straight check. It's not quite as good as Player 2's Character, I'm just a cleric. I say something like 'Pretty please?' " *roll* "Aw, fark, I missed."
Player 4: "Ech, yeah, my CHA still sucks with that +2....I've got Empathy, but that's really better with beasts...still, it's my highest....okay, rolling Empathy, and I because I'm a druid, can throw on the One of the Pack ability for free once an encounter, so I'll do that. If I win, his DC goes down by 2 the next round. Okay...I say... 'I love falcons just as much as you do!' " *roll* "Heh....well, the dice don't love me, either..."
DM: So, Player 3, he just kind of raises an eyebrow at you, and Player 4, he says 'I am no fanatic, you rapacious thing!' But, Player 1, he's certainly too afraid of what you and your muscles might be able to do to his entire castle to bother upsetting you, and Player 2, he tells you that he believes your intentions are pure, but that 'you shouldn't rely on religious fundamentalists like druids to care for your precious possessions.' He's too cowed to try and argue back, but he's going to use Stubbornness and gain +2 to his DC. DC is now 19. Next round! You've just gotta beat him twice more, but he's being very stubborn...Player 1! Go!"
...etc....

Recently I stumbled upon better instance of social mechanics - in Example of Play for Beast Hunters RPG (which is also available free is SRD form, in which they polished some of non-intuitive game terms). Though the example is not part of free SRD, I got a permission from author to cite a part of it:

***
​

Ben and Sarah decide to play an adventure. Sarah will be the Challenger

GM: and Ben the Hunter. [Ben's character] would like to go on his first Beast Hunt. (...) Ben: I want to get the blessing of my nadan’s [tribe's] leader. I would like to know that she and the tribe fully support me. Sarah: Well, the chieftain is torn on the subject. After all, her son is your enemy, as I can see from your traits. It seems you two had a hard time growing up together. Ben: Yeah well, all the more reason to make her change her mind, that’ll upset my enemy as well. Sarah: It’s a challenge, then. Obviously a social one. How are you going about it? Ben: First, I’ll make sure that she hears of how I passed the ritual [initiation ritual, the previous challenge]. Then I will tell her my hunt is important for the tribe because it’ll make me stronger. Sarah: Hmm, I think this is going to be a little difficult. Let’s roll for it. Since this is Phase One [of the challenge], I have to pay double, so I’m spending 8 AP to get a challenge with a rating of 4. I buy an offensive trait at +2, a defensive one at +2, a defensive resource of 1, and the basic damage boxes, with an initiative of 1. Sarah writes down descriptions for the traits and resources that apply to the challenge. Making up fitting descriptions is important for understanding how the challenge plays out, how the traits are activated, and how the resource could be denied. Ben: I have the initiative then. Okay, offensive move. I talk to some of my friends first and send them to the chief to tell her about how gloriously I passed the ritual. Sarah: Very nice. I’ll give you 8 advantage points for that. Ben: Sure, I’ll take them! Sarah: Now, the chief ’s son is nearby as your friends talk to her. He tells them of a time not too long ago when you slipped during a fight, and says that you really are too young and inexperienced yet. That’s an offensive maneuver. I’ll roll for him, and I got… 13, though no activated traits. Ben: I’m sure my friends stick by me. I didn’t activate any traits yet, though. Hmm. Regular roll, an 8. Sarah: Okay, that means I scored 5 advantage points against you. Ben: Chadral [Ben's character] is upset, but he knows that he is in good standing among his people. I activate “Family Honor,” a social defensive trait at +2. Sarah: My turn. The chief ’s son tells your friends that you frequently embellish your stories and that your word should not be trusted. Offensive Move. I roll a… 9 for this one. Ben: I got an 8, but with the +2, that’s 10. See, his accusations bounce off my family honor; my nadan members would never believe that I would embellish stories. Sarah: Apparently so. I don’t get any points for this one. What’s your next move? Ben: Another offensive maneuver: Chadral is outraged and reminds everyone about his ancestors’ heroic part in fighting the Karakaan at the borders. Sarah: Well, I’d let you have 3 advantage points for that one. Ben: No thanks, I think I deserve more than that. Offensive roll… and I get a 17. Sweet! Sarah: Well, I only rolled a 5, so you get 12 more advantage points for a total of 20. And because you got 12 points in one go, you can take a free Strike if you want. Ben: Cool. I strike. I take off my shirt and show the marks from the night’s ritual, invoke my lineage, and demand that the chief take a stand. I spend 20 advantage points for 2D10 of damage. I get a 15, plus 2 for my social offensive resource makes 17. Yeah! Sarah: Your opposition has a defensive resource of 1, so 16 make it through. That causes incapacitating damage; you win the challenge. The chief lifts a hand before her son can answer and declares that you and your family are highly respected in this tribe, and that the tribe’s blessings are with you. Ben: Cool. Do I get a bonus from that? Sarah: You can’t get actual bonuses as challenge outcomes. But you get 4 reward points, so you can spend those later on a trait or resource that’s linked to your tribe’s blessings if you want. *** Now, that hits the spot for me. Both numbers and actions affect the result, and the encounter is no less detailed/no more GM fiat than combat. ​

 

[Mallus]

I'm glad it works for you, but I wouldn't play a game that used mechanics like this. Turning talking into an abstract wargame sucks all the joy out of it.

Besides, in this example of play, no characterization emerges. The PC's play through a dramatic scene and nothing is added to their characters (in the literary sense). No clever, funny, or brilliant lines that get repeated for years by your gaming group. Just dry process.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Doesn't look like quite my cuppa either, but yeah, to each their own.

As for what I don't mind in terms of social mechanics, or more the point, what I've had good dealings with, there's the stuff from Pendragon, tacked onto another system altogether; alternatively, a 'Social Health' track, much like the standard Health track in True20, or the Mental Health track that's found in the Horror section of the corebook, under 'Rules Options' I believe; also, the likes of Dynasties & Demagogues and Love & War can provide some interesting options, most readily applied to 3e of course, but certainly applicable elsewhere.

I imagine (though I don't know for sure, not being a fan at all) that the 4e status thingy could be hacked in a similar way [to the True20 tracks, as mentioned above]. Oh, and of course the Star Wars Saga Edition condition track too, as found in that game (gee, really?) as well as a couple of spinoffs, notably Sword & Sorcery Saga from the Gneech of EN World fame(?)

I guess I just prefer a bit of a lighter touch from that side of rulesland.

 

[Katemare]

It's always a great sensation of wonder for me when people see things radically different than I do. If I played in the scene from this example, then the events, my clever decisions and the opponent's cunning would glow brightly in my memory due to vivid feel of participation at the time of play.

At first, all these "you get 17 advantage points" and "defensive trait of +2" seemed awkward, but then, I like D&D as much as the next guy, numbers don't scare me. For me, the amount of abstraction in social mechanics here is just right. (I also like pure roleplay in my games, but the more kinds of fun the better.)

There is another RPG that uses unified rules for all manners of combat (including social conflict): Suzerain, basic rules available for free. It has hp-like tracks for health, mind and social. I don't remember there being an example non-physical combat, though.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm glad it works for you, but I wouldn't play a game that used mechanics like this. Turning talking into an abstract wargame sucks all the joy out of it.

Besides, in this example of play, no characterization emerges. The PC's play through a dramatic scene and nothing is added to their characters (in the literary sense). No clever, funny, or brilliant lines that get repeated for years by your gaming group. Just dry process.

QFT. I like to let the conversation flow naturally and toss in a die roll based on the character's relevant skill/stat when needed. Turning social interaction into a tactical exercise kind of kills the fun.

 

[Janx]

QFT. I like to let the conversation flow naturally and toss in a die roll based on the character's relevant skill/stat when needed. Turning social interaction into a tactical exercise kind of kills the fun.

I think the examples outlined by the OP are saying "when needed" is approximately right after each statement.

It seems to model wearing the other side down/convincing them by each time you say something, you make a roll to see how successful it was.

Other than having lots of extra Feats and attack types to choose from, rather than a simple Diplomacy, Intimidate or Bluff check, it's the same thing.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm glad it works for you, but I wouldn't play a game that used mechanics like this. Turning talking into an abstract wargame sucks all the joy out of it.

Besides, in this example of play, no characterization emerges. The PC's play through a dramatic scene and nothing is added to their characters (in the literary sense). No clever, funny, or brilliant lines that get repeated for years by your gaming group. Just dry process.

Funny how two people can read the same thing and get something very different from it.

I find that example of play bursting with characterisation and role-playing. It was a dramatic scene where what they did and the choices they made help them achieve the outcome they were after.

It completely avoids the 'mother may I' / 'DM fiat' approach which is effectively the alternative for most social encounters in D&D, and seems much more interesting and engaging than the 'Skill Challenge' format in 4e.


Thanks for sharing, Katemare.

Cheers

 

[FunkBGR]

We play with a social mechanic at my table that goes as follows:

You roll the die. Based on what you roll is how you play the conversation.

But in reality, the reason I have this house rule is because I got tired of people rolling Diplomacy, and then going on and trying to "recover" using words.

I happen to dislike how you can have a talkative player, who thinks that he doesn't need the Diplomacy skill because "he can just talk to the NPC".

I also like the social mechanics Katemare presented, because it looks as a way to present a clearcut task resolution for when these kinds of things would occur. I don't think it should be used every time, but for example, it could be a way to make the player who plays the "social character" shine just as much as the big, two-handed sword wielder.

 

[Stormtalon]

Also need to keep in mind it's a published example of play; I'd fully expect that it's been edited (or written straight-up) for clarity and flow and deliberately drops any of the "in-character" speech that could easily slip in to a real session. A whole bunch of in-character boasting/posturing would quickly overwhelm the play sample.

 

[Mallus]

Funny how two people can read the same thing and get something very different from it.

I'm always shocked when that happens.

I find that example of play bursting with characterisation and role-playing.

I like my role-playing to be indistinguishable (less distinguishable?) from dialog that you might find in film or novel. Well, a terrible film/novel about elven corpse-looters, but still...

For instance, my group does a lot of play by email/messageboard post. The character dialog is usually written out in full. The posts read like fiction --though we do roll virtual dice from time to time. I've cut-and-paste these into posts for our Chronicle of Burne Story Hour here on ENWorld.

I couldn't do that with the OP's example. It's not sufficiently fiction-like, and that's one of the things I want out of RPG play.