D&D General Your thoughts on "Social Combat" systems

[zarionofarabel]

Get knocked to zero hp is qualitatively different than act as if you have been convinced. There are significant issues of player autonomy.

Only in that the player has already agreed to allow their PC to be permanently removed from affecting the narrative. If the player agrees to allow their PC to be convinced of something because the rules say they are, then there is no difference.

An NPC intimidating a PC to inflict the frightened condition is significantly different from getting them to knuckle under to something.

I disagree. The player can easily refuse to have their PC be frightened. They can just as easily allow their PC to be convinced of something.

There are decent reasons most D&D social skill systems have some rules that work differently against NPCs vs. players.

What reasons are those? If it's because players don't like to be told how their character is thinking or feeling, then what happens if a PC is charmed, or frightened, by a magic spell? Or do those spells only work on NPCs?

Sometimes it can be fun going with the imposed narration and giving up that autonomy in playing your own character, but there are valid reasons to treat PC autonomy issues as different from character hps.

I disagree. It all comes down to what the players are willing to agree with and what rules are able to enforce. It's just as easy for a player to say that their character took no damage from an attack as it is for them to say that their character is not convinced by an NPC's argument. If the players agree that the rules allow their PC to take damage from an attack, they can also agree to allow their PC to be convinced by an NPC's argument. It's all up to the players what they agree to allow the rules to do. I own several systems where the rules say PCs can be convinced of something by the mechanics of the game, players of those games simply agree that they will abide by those rules and everything works fine. I also have a couple systems where the PCs cannot be killed by the mechanics of the game, so unless I'm a jerk GM who breaks the rules, PCs cannot be killed.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I made two points about symmetry in that post. One was about symmetry or asymmetry in power which of course you do have both in combat and one was about symmetry in outcome between pcs and npcs. (I thought that I had foreseen potential confusion and was careful to differentiate them)

In combat people don't really mind that their character can die if they lose - it's part of the game. Most people do object if an NPC can change their character's mind by persuading them; in particular, if the NPC can convince the character that something is true that the player knows or is pretty sure is false. There is no way around the fact that for most players, probably most, this is an undesirable outcome. We could argue about whether or not it should be but that wouldn't change that fact. This is the problem with symmetry of outcome in social combat which you don't have in combat.

This comes down to whether or not players are willing to seperate character knowledge from player knowledge.

 

[zarionofarabel]

One thing that playing A Song of Ice and Fire helped me realise is that the purpose of social combat is basically to turn a socal encounter into a kind of set piece.

It's anti-climactic to try and convince the king that the threat of the Orcish invasion is real and then have it come down to one roll.

These days with D&D I tend to do it something like this: I write down a list of reasons why the king doesn't believe the Orcish Horde is real or doesn't want to act and give them a number rating. I also add in some facts about the king that can be leveraged.

eg

• Trusts his advisor 2 (who is a traitor assuring him the Orcish horde is not real.
• Cowardly 2 (Is afraid to lead his armies into the field)
• Concern for his kingdom 3
• Worried about his legacy 2
• Afraid of invasion by the neighbouring kingdom (worried that if he moves his armies north to fight the Orcs his neighbour will take the opportunity). 2

The PCs need to speak to the king and they need to hit at least 5 points. There's three points in concern for his kingdom but they can only get those points if they present three different arguments. Persuasion is not really necessary to make a lot of these points - they just have to make them. Persuasion is more for when they want to go against one of those points (convince him he can't trust his advisor) or when they contradict each other (allay his cowardice by appealling to how future generations will remember him) or try an approach not listed above but which is reasonably plausible. This means everyone can participate but characters with social skills just have a few more options.

I find this works quite well for common D&D situations where the players are trying to get something from an NPC. It provides just enough structure to communicate to the PCs. "He's wavering, but still doesn't look fully convinced".

Ta-da! You've just invented an ad-hoc social combat system!

 

[Don Durito]

Ta-da! You've just invented an ad-hoc social combat system!

Depends how you look at it. I certainly don't see it as a social 'combat' system any more than I see a chase system as a chase combat system.

For one thing there are not two sides in this 'combat' - the system only goes in one direction. This means the analogy to combat is really not particularly meaningful.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Depends how you look at it. I certainly don't see it as a social 'combat' system any more than I see it a chase system as a chase combat system.

For one thing there are not two sides in this combat - the system only goes in one direction. This means the analogy to combat is really not particularly meaningful.

Again, depends on the system. I have at least one system I can think of where all of the rolling for combat is done by the players. Does this mean it isn't a combat system?

 

[Don Durito]

What has rolling dice got to do with it?

PCs can stand around and make attack rolls against a door in D20 and even do hit point damage to it. It would feel bizarre to call that a combat system.

Why is it useful to call what I described a combat system?

Is any kind of structured system with more then one roll a combat system? Are skill challenges 'combat'?

And why isn't a single roll sufficient for a combat system?

Ultimately this is just semantics so the onus is on you to explain why thinking about it in a particular way and using a particular kind of terminology is useful.

 

[zarionofarabel]

What has rolling dice got to do with it?

Well. You said the system only goes in one direction. I took that to mean that the active part of the "combat" was rolling dice. If combat is resolved only by what the players are doing, does that mean it's not actually a combat system? Perhaps I'm missing something, if so, please clarify.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Two additional comments:

1) I have been assuming "combat" is used in this case to draw attention to the difference in complexity between most social interaction rules and most combat rules, not to suggest that encounters should have to be adversarial.

2) I'm never going to pretend to be convinced of something just because the DM tells me that's what my character thinks. While that type of roleplaying is certainly a valid, it's just not very interesting or fun for me. If the adventure depends on me pretending to not know something, it was a poorly designed adventure.

The exception, of course, is if it's some kind of magical compulsion, which would presumably have a finite duration. And that distinction illustrates why I don't like the sort of roleplaying that @zarionofarabel is advocating: playing a character that has been permanently mind-controlled, for an entire campaign, would be (to me, anyway) not very different from being forced to play a character whose thoughts and beliefs are dictated by DM and dice.

 

[zarionofarabel]

What has rolling dice got to do with it?

PCs can stand around and make attack rolls against a door in D20 and even do hit point damage to it. It would feel bizarre to call that a combat system.

Why is it useful to call what I described a combat system?

Would conflict system be better? Combat is then a subset of conflict.

Is any kind of structured system with more then one roll a combat system? Are skill challenges 'combat'?

Conflict?

And why isn't a single roll sufficient for a combat system?

In Burning Wheel combat can easily be resolved with a single roll. In fact, it often is.

Ultimately this is just semantics so the onus is on you to explain why thinking about it in a particular way and using a particular kind of terminology is useful.

For me, conflict system and combat system are basically the same thing as combat is merely a subset of conflict. I have several systems where social conflict and physical combat is resolved using the exact same system.

EDIT: Also, chases are resolved using the same system as social conflict and physical combat. So yes, it's a chase combat, or chase conflict if you prefer.

 

[Don Durito]

Yet in the system I described there is no conflict (unless we use the term in such a general way as to be meaningless). The king is willing to listen to the PCs but does not necessarily want something from them. It is an asymmetrical situation. Again why do you think it is useful to describe this as a combat system?

It is certainly not confrontational in the same way that a pubic debate between two sides would be (this would feel appropriate for something that more closely resembles a combat system).

In Burning Wheel combat can easily be resolved with a single roll. In fact, it often is.

Not the point I was making but it illustrates it fairly well. If conflict is enough for a combat system and one roll is fine too then presumably making a straightforward persuasion roll to bribe a guard is also a combat system - at which point the term has become so general and insipid as to be meaningless.