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

[doctorbadwolf]

That seems a bit obtuse and tacked-on as a rule set. But as a D&D-based game, I think anything of the sort would inherently be the case. I'd be interested in seeing what such a subsystem looks like in a game that was designed to include in from the beginning. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with many of the newer game systems and RPGs out there.

I disagree strongly. Look at the downtime activities in Xanathar’s, for instance. IME, they aren’t obtuse or tacked on, and could easily be ported to cover social stuff.

 

[Don Durito]

I always liked the simple 3e tiers approach. Hostile / Unfriendly / Neutral / Friendly / Helpful.

View attachment 130673

It won’t model negotiating a treaty. But as a way of getting a person you’ve never met or who is unfriendly to undergo some task for you then it’s a good shout.

Social skill check with DC depending on the severity of the favour/task being asked. Allow the individual to suggest alternative stats if appropriate.

Usually automatic successes if Helpful, Usually automatic failure if Unfriendly

Advantage if Helpful, Disadvantage if unfriendly.

Then a reworked skill check DC to improve tier.

Hostile 20 to improve to unfriendly, 25 to unfriendly
Unfriendly 15 to improve to neutral, 20 to friendly, 25 to helpful
Neutral 15 to improve to friendly, 20 to improve to helpful
Friendly 15 to improve to helpful.

Failure by 5 reduce by 1 step instead
Roll a 1 and become hostile.

This is all just off the top of my head, cribbed from 5e.

I always thought the Diplomacy rules were a good idea in principle. Part of the problem is that a simple dice roll allows you to move too many steps at once. This led to diplomacy cheese. You should generally only be able to improve by one step at a time by rolling the dice unless something extraordinary is taking place. Of course there may be additional things you could do. Buying a round of drinks* may be enough to bring those mercenaries in the pub from Neutral to Friendly - then you can roll to make them helpful.

I ruled that it took increasingly long stretches of time to move someone each progression step by just using diplomacy.

Part of why this is not a bad system is it provides a concrete way of measuring how someone reacts to any event - so if Diplomacy is insufficient they may be able to do something in the game world to shift the characters attitude.

Robert Schwalb in A Song of Ice and Fire rpg built a whole intrigue system off this principle (a simplified version of which is in the Forbidden Rules supplement for Shadow of a Demon Lord). Although I have mixed feelings about that system because it ends up treading social encounters too much like combat.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Can someone provide me with an actual example of an RPG that has a "social combat system" and how those rules work (in brief)? I've hear "social combat" get bandied about on the boards before, but I don't get the meaning beyond having a skill system where there are social skills.

Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits. Each side in an argument is given a certain amount of "hit points" and the argument itself is conducted basically the same as a combat with the winner retaining some "hit points" when the loser reaches zero. The best part is that the duel rarely gives the winner a total victory, they often have to make compromises based on how many "hit points" they lost.

Several other systems have similar "social combat" style conflict resolution mechanics. They all work in a similar fashion wherein both sides get "hit points" of some kind and the winner is determined by whoever has "hit points" remaining at the end of the conflict.

 

[Don Durito]

Can someone provide me with an actual example of an RPG that has a "social combat system" and how those rules work (in brief)? I've hear "social combat" get bandied about on the boards before, but I don't get the meaning beyond having a skill system where there are social skills.

Ok. Here's how it works in the Forbidden Rules (basically option rules like Unearthed Arcana) for Shadow of a Demon Lord - which is similar to D&D 5e.

Both sides determine their attitude toward each other. Eg. Helpful, Friendly, Neutral, Unfriendly, Hostile. Characters have a composure score which is the same as their Will Ability Score. This is basically their social hitpoints.

It's turn based in exchanges. So one side tries an action and the other side responds with an action of their own like combat. Basically you can try to Befriend, Deceive, Intimidate, Persuade, or Taunt. You can also try to discover the opponents attitude toward you. What you try determines what you have to roll. For example if you are trying to 'deceive' then it's intellect vs your opponents intellect, while 'Persuade' is will vs will. If you succeed you do damage (called Influence) to your opponents compuse score.

The roll you make will be influenced by the opponents attitude toward you. For example, if you are trying to befriend a hostile character you take 3 Banes on your roll (roll 3d6 take the worst and subtract it from your D20). However, if you were trying to taunt them you would get 2 boons which makes it much easier.

Needless to say you would not use this system for ordinary interactions but more for when you want to turn a social encounter into something of a set piece. This is a simplifed version of the same system from A Song of Ice and Fire as I indicated above. I think it's a neat idea, but it has the big problem in practice to my mind that it resolves everything indepentendly of what the PCs actually say or do - the role-playing becomes just colour and description - and while this works in combat, it doesn't feel appropriate for a social encoutner.

 

[Azzy]

I disagree strongly. Look at the downtime activities in Xanathar’s, for instance. IME, they aren’t obtuse or tacked on, and could easily be ported to cover social stuff.

I'd be happy to be wrong. It's not that I feel that it isn't possible for D&D to have more... elegant (?)... rules, but I'm generally pessimistic about the possibility given D&D general rules history.

 

[Azzy]

Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits. Each side in an argument is given a certain amount of "hit points" and the argument itself is conducted basically the same as a combat with the winner retaining some "hit points" when the loser reaches zero. The best part is that the duel rarely gives the winner a total victory, they often have to make compromises based on how many "hit points" they lost.

Several other systems have similar "social combat" style conflict resolution mechanics. They all work in a similar fashion wherein both sides get "hit points" of some kind and the winner is determined by whoever has "hit points" remaining at the end of the conflict.

That's neat. Thank you for providing me with an example.

 

[Azzy]

Ok. Here's how it works in the Forbidden Rules (basically option rules like Unearthed Arcana) for Shadow of a Demon Lord - which is similar to D&D 5e.

(snip)

Thank you for the example. It sounds interesting.

 

[Azzy]

Okay, from the examples given to me, it really sounds like something that could easily implemented/ported over into 5e without much issue.

I can see Don's issue with the rules in Forbidden Rules. It should be fairly easy, though, to design such a system that allows for player choices/words/actions to influence the rolls involved. I do like the idea of Burning Wheel's rules having compromises (or maybe even complications in something based on it) depending on how many "hit points" the winner loses.

This thread just makes me feel that I really need to play some more recent games to get a feel for what's going on in the wider TTRPG field.

 

[Don Durito]

Okay, from the examples given to me, it really sounds like something that could easily implemented/ported over into 5e without much issue.

I can see Don's issue with the rules in Forbidden Rules. It should be fairly easy, though, to design such a system that allows for player choices/words/actions to influence the rolls involved. I do like the idea of Burning Wheel's rules having compromises (or maybe even complications in something based on it) depending on how many "hit points" the winner loses.

This thread just makes me feel that I really need to play some more recent games to get a feel for what's going on in the wider TTRPG field.

One of the sticking points is what happens when the players lose? For example in the example I gave the system is symmetrical, like in combat. So if the PC is trying to convince the NPC that the Orc Army is a threat that must be stopped, and the NPC is arguing that it's really just some localised raids and nothing to get worked up about, then is the PC is now convinced the NPC is right.? A lot of players would balk at that.

You could possibly not play it that way and say that a loss for the PC side just means there's no further progress to be made. But that highlights one of the other issues with complex systems for resolving social situations - they often model the particular type of social interaction the author had in mind at the time of writing.

For example consider the following forms of social interaction:

• Trying to convince the king to take some action in an audience chamber.
• As above but with some of this advisors arguing against you.
• Carrying out a formal political debate to sway a crowd or just to make your opponent look foolish.
• An interrogation.
• Two people engaged in a political negotiation both trying to get concessions from the other side.
• A seduction.

Basically you have to deal with situations which are symetrical in power vs those that highly aysmetrical, plus you have to deal with situations where the target of your actions is the person you are interacting with vs when in fact it is a third party, and you also have to decide whether you want, and how to implement, any symetry in outcomes for PCs and NPCs. And part of the issue of course is that any system that can handle all of the above easily, doesn't necessarily handle any of them with a satisfying level of detail.

It's not that it's impossible - it's just that it's a lot harder then making a combat system. My experience too is that these systems need a lot of stress testing. A lot of them look really good on paper because you can see exactly the sort of thing there trying to model and they work for that - it's just when you take them out in the wild and actually use them you tend to find you basically have to do a lot of individual reworking to fit particular situations that arise in game.

 

[iserith]

I've been using the social interaction rules in the DMG since D&D 5e came out and they work just fine. Players are incentivized to find out the bond, ideal, flaw, and agenda of the NPC to try and influence their attitude. Attitude modifies how difficult it is to get what they want.