Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8564115" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Each of the three mental stats provides a derived characteristic useful for "dispute" (the social equivalent of "combat.") Intelligence provides Wit, the dispute equivalent of Initiative, e.g., those with high Intelligence are "quick-witted." Charisma provides Belief Class or BC, the dispute equivalent of armor class or AC; it is your self-confidence, your ease with which you deflect the manipulations of others. Wisdom is the basis of your "Counter Points" or CP (analogous to HP), which measure your ability to handle being countered (exactly as HP measure your ability to handle being hit, not how well you hit).I would then attempt to define dispute roles, as in, more-or-less cohesive packages of behavioral goals a character might have and which they should have some starting/innate facility with. You can have the "person of few words" types, who are hard to dislodge but must wait for the right opportunity to dish out a simple, devastating retort. You have the bright and flashy types that call attention to themselves or lead opponents on verbal wild goose chases (consider Flash in that one episode of Justice League where he defends Green Lantern against an accusation of planet-murder), less concerned with making effective points and more with harrying or confusing the opponent. You have the incisive intellectuals, who build up a case from solid foundations. You have the heartstring-pullers, who make risky (emotional) plays but win big when they succeed. Etc.With enough of these roles (I would think 3-5), you can then start creating an actual game of the process of winning a dispute. By these lights, a formal dispute is something very serious--the kind of thing that might be treated as a major and difficult Skill Challenge in 4e. Skill Challenges thus become a useful intermediate step, between the ultra-simple "make your case and roll a die" (useful for a lot of situations, but kinda boring if it's your only option), and the complex and weighty "disputes," which involve a serious back-and-forth and may even result in allies "falling" (either excusing themselves from the deliberations or, if it makes sense, possibly even showing sympathy for the opponent's side!)The goal would not be to make absolutely ALL social encounters work like this. That would be pretty pointless, not to mention actively worsen the rules. Rather, it would be to spice up an area of rules that all too often ends up being either absolute freeform "mother-may-I" (and thus grating because it's hardly different from merely "playing the DM") or absolute "whatever the singular die you roll says is what happens" (and thus grating because, y'know, that's a crazy simplistic way of representing a huge swathe of human interaction).I wouldn't want it to develop to the full breadth and complexity of 4e combat rules. But having something with a bit more heft to it--where it feels like you really have to work and strategize for your success--seems like a useful tool for including in the DM toolbox, even if some (or many!) groups simply don't choose to use it.</blockquote>

Verification