Most RPGs focus on combat, so the rules are more extensive about fighting. However, I only know a game that has rules for social conflicts, Bubblegumshoe, which has rules for social contests called Throwdowns. Which other games have mechanics for conflict resolution that are not physical combat?

I know someone else is going to say it, so I might as well. The method for solving social situations in almost every game is roleplaying. That's really all you need in a roleplaying game.

That said, there's a pretty broad continuum in terms of how much you want to game-ify the process with stats and dice rolls. On the low end you have things like Old School D&D, which usually just restricts things to the reaction roll. From there you scale up to things like 3.x D&D and most d100 games, where you're still expected to sort that out through roleplay, but you have skills like "persuasion", "deception", "diplomacy" etc. to help the DM resolve things if he isn't sure how the NPC should react. That's the level at which I would say the majority of popular games choose to handle it.

At the other end you have systems more like what you're talking about, where social encounters are turned into something like a minigame within the game. Those are pretty rare, but I would say that a lot of PBTA games do that, by incorporating social skills into the "moves" system. I haven't played either game, but Hillfolk/DramaSystem does something kind of similar to what you're talking about, and I think Skullduggery does as well.

Generally, that kind of mechanic pops up in games that are marketing themselves as "story games" rather than "roleplaying games".

Following that up with a bit of "RPG theory". The impression (which I would call a misconception) that RPGs are combat-focused is generated by the fact that it's where most RPGs have the most rules. Most RPG writers compound this perception by making it so that all their "examples of play" are combat encounters. Though in recent years, I've noticed a trend towards having more rules for things like chases, exploration, crafting, travel, and other things which aren't either combat or social encounters.

I would argue that the reason for this is that the rules of an RPG are there to cover specifically those things which can't be handled through roleplaying. Roleplaying is supposed to be the point, and the rules are in service of that. Things like whether an attack hits an enemy or what the weather is on a given day can't be decided purely by DM fiat without it feeling arbitrary. It's a bit hard to explain why, but I'd make the case that those things have an element of chaos to them in real life, which can only be simulated by the randomness of a dice roll. On the other hand, how a person reacts to a social situation can be extrapolated pretty logically based on who that person is and what their motivations are.

An element of randomness can add a little variety to that. (Personally I use the reaction roll even in games that don't otherwise include it). But too much dice rolling can actually be harmful to the immersion, as it leads to NPCs acting out of character. The classic (if slightly silly) example there is the 5e Bard rolling a natural 20 with +12 to Deception, and persuading the archdevil to give up evil and become a children's television presenter.

I know that Exalted 2e and beyond have an extensive (that doesn't necessarily mean "good") social combat mechanic.

Several of the Modiphius 2d20 games have social encounter (sorta combat) rules.

I've heard the newer Vampire games have such rules.

I just started looking at L5R 5e, and I think I saw such rules in my initial skim of the rules.

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 21, 2022, 09:56:25 AM
Following that up with a bit of "RPG theory". The impression (which I would call a misconception) that RPGs are combat-focused is generated by the fact that it's where most RPGs have the most rules. Most RPG writers compound this perception by making it so that all their "examples of play" are combat encounters. Though in recent years, I've noticed a trend towards having more rules for things like chases, exploration, crafting, travel, and other things which aren't either combat or social encounters.

I would argue that the reason for this is that the rules of an RPG are there to cover specifically those things which can't be handled through roleplaying. Roleplaying is supposed to be the point, and the rules are in service of that. Things like whether an attack hits an enemy or what the weather is on a given day can't be decided purely by DM fiat without it feeling arbitrary. It's a bit hard to explain why, but I'd make the case that those things have an element of chaos to them in real life, which can only be simulated by the randomness of a dice roll. On the other hand, how a person reacts to a social situation can be extrapolated pretty logically based on who that person is and what their motivations are.

An element of randomness can add a little variety to that. (Personally I use the reaction roll even in games that don't otherwise include it). But too much dice rolling can actually be harmful to the immersion, as it leads to NPCs acting out of character. The classic (if slightly silly) example there is the 5e Bard rolling a natural 20 with +12 to Deception, and persuading the archdevil to give up evil and become a children's television presenter.

Now take that a step more:  The reason that some of these game now have more rules for handling social things is because the people writing those rules perceive that these are the kind of things that are chaotic and poorly understood by the players.  Given some of their real-life behavior, I'm not sure they are wrong for their players.  Of course, more often than not, it is more because the writer of the rules has a twisted understanding of social actions, and lacks the self awareness to see where the fault lies when random players don't follow what he expects.

There is also an aspect of coddling going on.  Now, everyone draw the lines in a different place.  There aren't many GMs, for example, that wouldn't cut some slack for a player that was otherwise great to have in the group, but had a mild mental condition that was making certain interactions harder than normal.   You don't need a rule for that--just a little insight into human nature and capabilities and making allowances within limits.  However, it used to be that, outside those allowances, if you weren't good at that part of the game, the experience of playing gave you a chance to get better at it.  In fact, I've seen it work very well, bringing shy people a little out of their shell and such, that translates back to real life.  Anyway, the person putting in the rules is coming from the perspective (maybe even with good intentions and friendly) that shy people should be kept shy, and so on.

It doesn't help that so many people confuse roleplaying (making a decision for a character) with things that it is not (acting, funny voices, etc.) that, while fun, obscure the lines when talking about the activity actually happening.  Likewise, if the purpose of the game is make decisions that are satisfying to the players instead of pertinent to the character in the game world (AKA story games), then the rules are serving an entirely different purpose--more constraints and hints on the narrative outcome than anything else.  And guess what, many normal people are pretty darn good at navigating social situations, but not as good at producing narratives.

I don't personally think that "it is ALL roleplaying, no rules needed" is the best mix.  But whatever the mix, it's a hell of a lot closer to that than the other extreme of all rules, no roleplaying. 

Diaspora (and older Fate powered game that is pre-woke EH) turned most of the systems into mini-games including social and political combat.  Even if you're not a Fate fan, you could run with the idea of re-skinning combat with social and political equivalent terms.

Most people would probably be surprised to find out how much AD&D 1st Ed has in terms of "social mechanics." I've found most RPGs actually do give me the tools I need to run social encounters that lean on mechanics. So for me, it's not really a question of which RPGs do it. It's a question of doing it well.

One thing I will say right off, and I realize this is probably throwing a drink in the face of a lot of RPGs that have tackled it, is there's no such thing as "social combat" and even using the term "physical combat" may be redundant. There's a fundamental difference between the two. In a "social conflict" the ultimate end is to gain the other party's consent. That may be accomplished through persuasion of communicating some important information, trading, bartering, or even more nefarious means, bribery, threats, blackmail, extortion, coercion, and so on. At the end of the day, you want them to willingly do what you want them to do, even if it means leaning on them a bit. Where as in combat, you're not swinging a sword hoping to get the other party's consent to take a wound. You're just directly wounding them.

So that's how I evaluate different systems of social mechanics. Social mechanics as mind control goes on the bad list.


Here's a brief overview of how I use the tools given in AD&D 1E to run social encounters.

It begins with the NPC reaction table to determine the first impression the NPC has of the PCs. There is a small chance of the NPC being violently hostile right off the bat making further social interaction impossible in most cases. A hostile reaction is also tough to work with, but if the PCs are able to use something specific to the NPC (it might relate to something in the NPC's personality, something the NPC has a specific and present need for, or it just might relate to the NPC's role in the "story"), it's not impossible to turn the NPC around.

For neutral reactions (positive, negative, and completely neutral), another check on the table is called for any time the PCs make an ask of the NPCs. A check is also required in the case of friendly NPCs if the ask is beyond the scope of what is reasonable for merely being friendly in disposition. The result of the check will determine the answer and/or indicate if there should be some strings attached.

If it's an NPC I know will be recurring, I begin tracking loyalty immediately. Or the second encounter with an NPC that I did not anticipate would be recurring, I begin tracking loyalty. Loyalty modifiers come into play whenever PCs make an ask of the NPC. But also if someone else asks the NPC to do something that would wind up hurting the PCs, then that calls for a loyalty check. The adversary running by the same rules as PCs would use in trying to enlist the NPC's aid with the complication of loyalty. Likewise, PCs may encounter an NPC who already has some loyal ties to another party. That loyalty must be considered any time the PCs ask the NPC to do something that goes against the interests of the other party.

It's all pretty straight forward, common sense stuff. The things that are mechanically determined for the NPCs are the things players would usually decide for themselves. There's no mind control component. Using asymmetries in terms of information and leverage provide a path for those who want to engage in some really in-depth verbal jiu-jitsu or social chess. The loyalty system in 1E provides several lists of modifiers so scores adapt logically to the situation. And it provides some details as to specifically how the NPC acts when loyalty or morale fail. It's like I said. It's got a lot more meat than most people realize.

I often port the 1E social mechanics to other RPGs. It works well on its own, even though the game has no social skilsl per se, the closest thing being Charisma. You bring it over to a skill-based RPG that includes a few "social skills" though, and you've got a social encounter system that's tough to beat.

Radical High has task resolution for succumbing to peer pressure.  The JUST SAY NO trait overrides the mechanic if the pressure is to take drugs.

In a future module, I'm going to write a mechanic game for playing Pac-Man.  You keep rolling until you lose all your lives.

Risus has a simple task resolution mechanic that is used for all conflicts, such as combat, battle of wits, dueling banjos, domestic passive aggression, etc. You make opposed rolls, loser takes "damage", wash rinse repeat until one wins. I've seen the same basic logic used in a handful of other rpgs. This is my preferred starting point for any kind of conflict resolution mechanic.

I've read a few arguments in the past that this adversarial design isn't well suited to handling social interaction that isn't adversarial (e.g. relationship building isn't comparable to a mean girls insult contest or haggling for the lowest price), but whatever.

Savage Worlds has a specific rule for Social Conflict that works on a debate format. Basically, it goes like this:

The characters involved each state their opening argument, citing what they hope to achieve, then follow up with a roll of some sort. The GM adjudicates by assigning modifiers to the rolls for good/compelling or bad/fallacious points. Successes are recorded.

The second round is a rebuttal, where characters address their opponents points. Again, rolls are made and successes recorded. The third round is for closing remarks. The side with the most total successes "wins" (i.e. achieves their stated goal).

Officially, only the Persuasion skill is supposed to be used, but I've allowed Intimidation and Taunt on rare occasions.

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 21, 2022, 09:28:27 AM
I know someone else is going to say it, so I might as well. The method for solving social situations in almost every game is roleplaying. That's really all you need in a roleplaying game.

Hey, new guy! Quit getting to my answer before I do.

Although your answer is much finer and nuanced than any crap I'd have said. Keep it up!

Roleplaying games have a built in social conflict resolution system called roleplaying. Providing game mechanics for social interaction makes social interaction something its not, a mini game.

From https://theangrygm.com/?s=social&id=6261

Quote from: AngryGM
Once upon a time – and for a very long time – we gamers didn't need or want rules for social interaction. Hell, we didn't feel like we needed rules for a lot of things. We liked the fact that the game was open-ended and relied on our imaginations first and rules and mechanics a distant second.

Quote from: AngryGM
First, there ARE a couple of RPGs that have some decent social interaction systems. Look at Fantasy Flight Games' Legend of the Five Rings, for example. I'm a latecomer to the L5R thing, so I can't talk about the previous versions, but I can say the most recent FFG edition has a pretty good social interaction system that is only slightly hindered by the fact that the rest of the game is such a f&$%ing mess. It's FFG. Which means it uses custom dice and an overly complicated action resolution system that really bogs the game down. But the framework for intrigue encounters – that's what L5R calls them – is pretty solid. Likewise, Green Ronin's A Song of Ice and Fire RPG, which was designed by the pretty awesome Robert J. Schwalb, has a pretty good social encounter system too. There's no reason you couldn't adapt either of their frameworks to a d20 system and have something that sort of works.

I'll also mention that both Burning Wheel and some incarnations of Fate have generic conflict resolution systems that work equally well for fighting and talking and for other kinds of conflicts. But, when I say 'equally well,' you have to remember that we're talking about Fate and Burning Wheel. And while there are some things I would actually do with Fate – and even admit Fate is the best system to do those things with – I would never wish Burning Wheel on anyone. Not even someone I hate. The only thing Burning Wheel can do is run Burning Wheel. And no wants or deserves that s$%&. And yes, I'm including the BW derivates too like Mouse People and Shadowgate: Torchbearer.

Quote from: AngryGM
Considering social interaction is the one thing that a TTRPG is uniquely equipped to handle with minimal rules, you really want to consider whether that's a good idea. And because every rule you create is going to make social interaction feel less like social interaction, you have to be really careful about how you do it. You want to make damned sure you don't move from rock climbing past Breath of the Wild and into Uncharted territory. No pun intended.

I borrow the "combat" system from a very rules lite game called Freeform Universal RPG.

Essentially you count up the pros and cons of a given situation and add/subtract that many D6's from your dice pool.  Pick your single best D6 dice roll result if you have the advantage, aka more pros vs cons, or worst dice if you're at a disadvantage.  What counts as a pro or con is a judgement call by the GM. That GM has to rule on what is or isn't allowed. 

Once you have your D6 result, this happens. 

6.  You succeed at what you want to do, and an additional bonus of some kind
5.  You succeed.
4.  You succeed, but something bad happened.
3.  You fail, but some secondary thing succeeds
2.  You fail
1.  You failed, and something else makes it worse.

Example:  you are a known super hero, complete with skintight suit, cape, color matching face mask, and super powers.  You want to convince the mayor of the city to evacuate the biggest skyscraper before evil Dr Voltage teleports it to another dimension.

Pros.  Your story is true.  You are a known hero who wouldn't lie.  You once saved the mayor's daughter.  Cons.  Nobody has heard of this Dr Voltage.  Teleporting a whole skyscraper sounds implausible. 

That's 3 pros, and 2 cons.  Net result is just 1 extra dice to roll.  2D6= a 1 and a 4.  You pick the 4.  The mayor will evacuate the building, but there is a catch.  The mayor threatens you with arrest if this so-called villain is a no-show.

This system can be used for anything, from determining who gets initiative to act first, to who wins a multi-year long interstellar war in just a single dice roll.

Quote from: Wisithir on August 21, 2022, 11:02:55 PM
From https://theangrygm.com/?s=social&id=6261

Quote from: AngryGM
Once upon a time – and for a very long time – we gamers didn't need or want rules for social interaction. Hell, we didn't feel like we needed rules for a lot of things. We liked the fact that the game was open-ended and relied on our imaginations first and rules and mechanics a distant second.

There have been plenty of RPGs with detailed mechanics for social interaction since at least the early 1980s. James Bond 007 had plenty of social encounter rules. Champions had Presence attacks. AD&D had a number of separate systems for henchmen, morale, reactions, and others.

I get ticked off at these characterizations about gamers "once upon a time" as if all old-school gamers were the same. There were a huge variety of games and gamers from early on in the 1970s and 1980s. It's not like social mechanics were a new thing in the 2000s or 2010s.

I personally prefer mechanics that don't treat social resolution like combat resolution. Succeeding in a social challenge often means building understanding between parties, rather than one side winning and another side losing. I think Burning Wheel's "Duel of Wits" is a good mechanic for limited cases of win-vs-lose like arguing a court case or similar. But social challenges more broadly should more often not be win-vs-lose.

Thank you very much for all the answers. They are very enlightening .

I remember that Mouse Guard has a conflict mechanic that can be applied to many conflicts (Argument, Chase, Fight, Fight Animal, Journey, Negotiation, Speech, War). It uses 4 actions (Attack, Defend, Feint, Maneuver). Depending on how it is resolved, both parties usually have to discuss a reasonable middle ground for compromise.