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

[zarionofarabel]

One of the sticking points is what happens when the players lose?

Well, what happens when the PCs lose in combat?

For example in the example I gave the system is symmetrical, like in combat.

This example only holds up in games where the GM builds combat encounters to be "balanced" against the PCs abilities. If this is not the case then combat encounters are almost always asymmetrical in that one side or the other has a distinct advantage.

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.

It depends on the system. In Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits the players would agree to abide by the results of the duel. So if the NPC is trying to convince the PCs of something and they win the conflict, then the PCs are convinced. The same can be said of a combat system though, if the PCs are defeated the players don't get to simply decide the PCs win, right?

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.

In most cases I've encountered in a game this is the most likely outcome as NPCs are generally the "target" of a social conflict.

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.

Same goes for combat. D&D models combat very differently than Mouse Guard, or Mythras, or Cortex Prime. In fact, in Mouse Guard combat encounters and social conflicts are resolved using the same system.

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.

The same can be said of combat systems.

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.

I don't think making a social conflict system is any harder than making a combat system, in fact it may be easier as most I've seen are much less detailed than combat systems.

 

[Voadam]

It depends on the system. In Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits the players would agree to abide by the results of the duel. So if the NPC is trying to convince the PCs of something and they win the conflict, then the PCs are convinced. The same can be said of a combat system though, if the PCs are defeated the players don't get to simply decide the PCs win, right?

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

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

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

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.

 

[Umbran]

Dynamic conflict.

Which is much less about system and more about scenario design.

 

[Don Durito]

Well, what happens when the PCs lose in combat?

This example only holds up in games where the GM builds combat encounters to be "balanced" against the PCs abilities. If this is not the case then combat encounters are almost always asymmetrical in that one side or the other has a distinct advantage.

It depends on the system. In Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits the players would agree to abide by the results of the duel. So if the NPC is trying to convince the PCs of something and they win the conflict, then the PCs are convinced. The same can be said of a combat system though, if the PCs are defeated the players don't get to simply decide the PCs win, right?

In most cases I've encountered in a game this is the most likely outcome as NPCs are generally the "target" of a social conflict.

Same goes for combat. D&D models combat very differently than Mouse Guard, or Mythras, or Cortex Prime. In fact, in Mouse Guard combat encounters and social conflicts are resolved using the same system.

The same can be said of combat systems.

I don't think making a social conflict system is any harder than making a combat system, in fact it may be easier as most I've seen are much less detailed than combat systems.

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.

 

[Don Durito]

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".

 

[Umbran]

Can someone provide me with an actual example of an RPG that has a "social combat system" and how those rules work (in brief)?

In Fate-based games, Social combat uses the exact same rules as any other combat. In some variants you have separate Stress tracks for them, but in others they are the same track, and you can mix and match.

The Attacker narrates how they are attacking, choosing their approach. They roll 4 fate dice ( six-sided dice, marked +1, 0, or -1) generating a number from +4 to -4), and add the score in the skill appropriate to their approach. The defender narrates how they are going to resist, choosing their approach. They roll dice and add skill, just like the attacker. Compare results - if the attacker scores higher, they win, and the difference in their scores is Stress for the defender.

If the Defender does not want to take the Stress, or would be Taken Out by that much Stress, they can shift the Stress onto a Consequence.

Using Fate Accelerated as an example:

Jacques le Pew is facing off against Master Sergeant Harrington Wells in front of the Duke. The Master Sergeant has been a thorn in le Pew's side, but if he can berate the Sergeant in front of superiors, that will get him off le Pew's back.

Jacques le Pew: I make a Clever insult against the Sergeant's parentage, to embarrass him. "Sergeant, you mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!" Le Pew is quite Clever, and rolls his fate dice and adds 3 to the result. His roll isn't superb, however, and his total result is a 4.

MSgt. Wells: I will Forcefully stand up for my mother's reputation to defend. "Sir! I will have you know that my mother is a member of the Queen's Auxilliary Nursing Corps, and her reptutation cannot be tarnished by the likes of you!". The Sergeant is fairly Forceful, so he rolls his fate dice and adds 2. He gets a very mediocre roll, and only gets a total of 2.

The Sergeant finds that le Pew's disdain bites deep. He can either take two Stress, or a Consequence (a minor one, say, "Bruised Ego", which the opponent can use against him in later rounds for a bonus on rolls relating to Wells' ego).

Let's say Wells has been chasing le Pew's men around the city all day. He's been in two fistfights, fallen off a rooftop, and run 5 miles through the sewers without a drink of water. He's already nearly full of Stress, and his Consequences are full up. These Stress are too much, he is Taken Out.

The GM narrates, "The Duke snickers a bit at le Pew's comment, and casts a withering eye down at Wells' bedraggled condition. 'Master Sergeant! The disrespect you are showing to the esteemed Mr. le Pew, and to my court, with your harsh words and shockingly poor hygiene will not be borne. You are DISMISSED. Guards, show the Sergeant out!'" Wells is removed from the scene, completely unable to impact how it unfolds.

 

[Don Durito]

Yes. If you do things like Fate you can use the same system for both.

The only issue is you'd be playing Fate.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

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".

This is a good approach, and somewhat similar to how The One Ring works, as I described (loosely) upthread.

If (to reverse the question of this thread) we imagined combat to be more like social encounters, at least as they are too often presented, combat would look like this:
DM: You see an ogre.
Player 1: I swing my slashing weapon....14.
DM: Nope. Who wants to go next?
Player 2: I'll try. I swing my bludgeoning weapon....18.
DM: The ogre dies.

 

[Umbran]

The only issue is you'd be playing Fate.

Really. A game that quickly produces rip-roaring action and drama, and is super-easy to run online in covid-times. Surely, nobody wants to do that!

 

[CleverNickName]

For my games, an opposed roll (maybe Persuasion vs. Insight, or Intimidate vs. Will Save, whatever) is sufficient to handle most of the social challenges that come along. But having everything distill down to a single roll can be really anticlimactic for a major plot twist or event.

For really important situations or lengthy challenges (like a five-day peace treaty negotiation between warring nations), I make them a "best 2 out of 3" or even "best 3 out of 5" contest of opposed rolls.