I've seen a few systems for treating social conflicts (and less commonly battles of wits) analogously to physical combat, with intiative, attack rolls, hit points, hit locations and so on.
Apocalypse World has a few different systems depending on what game it is (I know Monsterhearts has its "strings", but not familiar with others). Last time I cared for it White Wolf/Onyx Path devised at least three different sets of social combat rules (Exalted, Invite Only, Mirrors?) and one for mental conflict (Invite Only?).
What kinds of social and mental combat have there been? What do you think of the concept?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;926000I've seen a few systems for treating social conflicts (and less commonly battles of wits) analogously to physical combat, with intiative, attack rolls, hit points, hit locations and so on.
Apocalypse World has a few different systems depending on what game it is (I know Monsterhearts has its "strings", but not familiar with others). Last time I cared for it White Wolf/Onyx Path devised at least three different sets of social combat rules (Exalted, Invite Only, Mirrors?) and one for mental conflict (Invite Only?).
What kinds of social and mental combat have there been? What do you think of the concept?
Remember the holy trinity of RPGs? Combat, Problem-Solving, and Role-play? Those aren't just arbitrary categories nor mere empirical happenstance. It's because the source of every challenge is (tautologically) either willed or unwilled. The latter deals with the nature of the game world. The "physics" of how things work. This even includes complex mechanisms such as traps and technology. Addressing these challenges largely falls under the category of "problem-solving." The willed deals with any sentient creatures, and there are (tautologically) two ways you can deal with other sentient beings; by force or by consent. And from that come the categories of "combat" and "role-play."
Looking at the words "social combat" I see an apparent contradiction in terms. Look, if you love an endless RPG hack-fest start to finish and want to expand its realm to include descriptions of witty repartee without ever having to take a break from fighting, then hey, go nuts. But if you actually enjoy non-violent interpersonal interaction as an element of the RPG, it's a terrible idea to approach the "social" with a bad case of "physical" envy.
There are genres where "social combat" seems appropriate; superheroes or swashbucklers should be taunting their opponents, and it could reasonably have mechanical effects. Generally, the problem for me is that I want more creative role-playing for social situations, and mechanical systems of social combat mostly work against that. But I keep looking at such systems since I would also like to achieve more objectivity, or perhaps consistency is a better term, as a GM in adjudicating negotiation with an NPC.
A problem I see with some social combat systems is that they generally simulate a yes/no and/but outcome (e.g. convince the bouncer to let you pass or fail to, convince someone to be your friend or fail to, beat someone in a game of chess). A, for example, nuanced argument where two characters try to work out the details of a mutually beneficial conplex plan isn't simulated well, if at all.
Am I wrong?
When a person walks down a flight of stairs, it's because he wants to get to the bottom for one reason or another. When a ball bounces down that same set of stairs, it's not because the ball wants to. It's simply following the laws of physics. It's mechanical. Human action is not. In order to achieve objectivity and consistency in adjudicating negotiations with NPCs, all you need to do is take the time to note what the NPC wants and what he's willing to sacrifice to get it. New social stats aren't needed. And no amount of social stats or mechanics will get it quite right.
If you want social interaction to play a major part of the campaign, noting want the NPC wants verbally should be treated as seriously and as vital as numerical stats. Do you have a stock combat stat block for generic guards? Great. Come up with a stock personality profile for generic guards as well. Do you create special guard stats for an elite guard who is guarding something very important? Great. Come up with a special set of wants for this guard.
You should also get used to making discovery of an NPCs wants (or a PCs for that matter) part of the negotiation process. It's easy to feel like a winner for talking a 50 gp asking price down to 35 gp. Not so much when the guy would have gone down to 5 gp. Discovery changes everything and is the heart of the matter. Not thrusting with witty repartee and then parrying with a side-step and smokescreen.
Luna I always find myself in the curious position of both agreeing with your perspective and wanting to play devil's advocate.
So I'm going to play devil's advocate, not because I disagree, but because I want to pick your brain.
Quote from: Lunamancer;926018Remember the holy trinity of RPGs? Combat, Problem-Solving, and Role-play? Those aren't just arbitrary categories nor mere empirical happenstance. It's because the source of every challenge is (tautologically) either willed or unwilled. The latter deals with the nature of the game world. The "physics" of how things work. This even includes complex mechanisms such as traps and technology. Addressing these challenges largely falls under the category of "problem-solving." The willed deals with any sentient creatures, and there are (tautologically) two ways you can deal with other sentient beings; by force or by consent. And from that come the categories of "combat" and "role-play."
I'm not going to wade into the sticky debate of whether our apparent free wills are the result of physical properties of the universe (I'm aware of the controversy, but I'm neither a neurologist nor a philosopher, so I'm ill-equipped to debate either angle).
However, I raise the point to flag the validity of either a mechanical or roleplay approach to dealing with NPCs.
From that perspective, your paradigm of "willed" and "unwilled" becomes murky, as either speaking with NPCs or attacking them will ultimately be determined by the "physics" of the game world.
Quote from: Lunamancer;926018Looking at the words "social combat" I see an apparent contradiction in terms. Look, if you love an endless RPG hack-fest start to finish and want to expand its realm to include descriptions of witty repartee without ever having to take a break from fighting, then hey, go nuts. But if you actually enjoy non-violent interpersonal interaction as an element of the RPG, it's a terrible idea to approach the "social" with a bad case of "physical" envy.
I argue that a mechanical approach does not devolve the interaction into "an endless RPG hack-fest". It does not remove the inherent challenge of the activity, merely changes it. Consider a contrasting approach to this problem in video games:
-In Super Mario bros, whether you hit a foe is determined by your skill at button combination and timing. The sequence and time in which you hit buttons is the skill tested. I would draw parallels between Mario's system and roleplaying through acting, dialogue and human interaction, as it tests human problem solving and skill in real time.
-In Final fantasy, whether you hit an enemy is based on the interplay of the "to-hit" ability and attack you've chosen for the character VS the foe's "defense" rating. Your skill from a player is in your choice of character/attack type and your strategic approach to leveling your characters. Final fantasy's system represents the more mechanical approach offered by a social system.
It is important to consider that both approaches to the same activity test player skill. It is only a question of the skill they test.
Which is to say: One can conclude that interacting with the game through the medium of its mechanics is as valid an approach to the social aspects of character interaction as purely roleplaying responses.
I would partly agree with Lunamancer.
RPG social conflict systems like conflicts in Fate or in Burning Wheel are often set out as "PC wants X, NPC wants Y - roll dice to see if PC gets NPC to do Y". In this model, it is seen as a loss if you change your mind and agree with the other person.
However, I think that in real life, social skill is often about being able to see other people's point of view, clear up misunderstandings, and come up with new solutions that are better for everyone. Changing your mind is sometimes an objective *win*, because you're better off from having learned from the other person, when really your original intent was a bad idea.
In general, I prefer social skill mechanics that provide (a) better initial reaction to the PC; (b) better at telling lies and detecting lies; (c) better at perceiving what the other person wants. Rolling to get the other person to do something can be OK, but I prefer other approaches.
Quote from: jhkim;926158In general, I prefer social skill mechanics that provide (a) better initial reaction to the PC; (b) better at telling lies and detecting lies; (c) better at perceiving what the other person wants. Rolling to get the other person to do something can be OK, but I prefer other approaches.
I think jhkim's point (a) is very important. When the GM does not know ahead of time precisely how the NPC will feel about the PC's initial proposition, it leads to a more impromptu conversation between parties where no side can predict or narratively force the outcome. When the GM predetermines NPC attitudes to rigidly, I agree that the social role-playing becomes a lose-if-someone-changes-their-mind situation.
For me, rolling social skills or abilities can be used during the conversation to discover new information or attempt empathy which may sway things. If the conversation does not finish to the PC's or NPC's satisfaction, I typically call for a deciding roll with some modifiers based on good points made by either side.
Anything more mechanical that this, I feel, bogs down the free-flow fun of roleplaying. If the social combat rules give finite goals to pursue, it channels the players into winning paths.*
* I'm not a psychologist and maybe IRL there are determinate winning paths to conversational success. Either way, I'm not interested in simulating this.
Quote from: Azraele;926144I’m not going to wade into the sticky debate of whether our apparent free wills are the result of physical properties of the universe (I’m aware of the controversy, but I’m neither a neurologist nor a philosopher, so I’m ill-equipped to debate either angle).
As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing sticky about it. There may be contrary views out there, but that doesn't make them all equally valid, regardless of the credentials involved. One answer that I feel does a decent job in settling it for me side-steps your point entirely. It doesn't matter whether free will is a real thing or just an illusion programmed by the determinism of a complex but purely physical universe. There are conceptual limits to human knowledge, and those gaps keep us from ever being able to pull back the curtain, so to speak. And for that exact reason, there is never enough data for the mechanical model to bring clarity to human action. Even if the materialistic view is strictly speaking true in the grander sense and we could fill the knowledge gap, it would be like saying Mars in fact orbits around the Earth in an odd, styrographic kind of orbit. The model may match up perfectly with observed data, but heliocentric model gives you the same answers with fewer headaches. Such is the view of humans as willed beings.
QuoteI argue that a mechanical approach does not devolve the interaction into "an endless RPG hack-fest". It does not remove the inherent challenge of the activity, merely changes it. Consider a contrasting approach to this problem in video games:
Combat in RPGs can be very challenging. The point isn't the challenge. The point is the feel. Using the exact same game mechanics only replacing "You slash the orc across the gut with your battle axe sending him reeling" with "You snub the duke with your subtle quip leaving him tongue-tied" is just putting lipstick on a pig. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE bacon. But that doesn't mean I don't also want eggs on my plate. Coloring some of the bacon yellow and calling it eggs is a pretty shabby substitute.
Quote-In Super Mario bros, whether you hit a foe is determined by your skill at button combination and timing. The sequence and time in which you hit buttons is the skill tested. I would draw parallels between Mario’s system and roleplaying through acting, dialogue and human interaction, as it tests human problem solving and skill in real time.
I'm having trouble seeing how this analogy is applicable. Do I squish the goomba? Do I not? Do I win? Do I lose? What characterizes social interaction in particular is gaining consent. That means finding (what is at least perceived as) a win-win. So in order to succeed, at some level, you gotta let the other guy have a win. This means there's going to be some kind of trade-off involved. Well, what's an acceptable trade-off? That's something really only the player can decide for his character.
No matter how good or bad the player is at doing that and how much we want the system to bridge the gap between player ability and character ability, we're stuck with this valuation problem. It's like saying, "Hey, you were going to pay $10 for a cheese pizza? Well, I'm sick of you getting ripped off just because you suck at negotiating, so I got Papa Luigi to put extra peppers on your pizza without an up-charge." And I'm like, "But what if I didn't want peppers?"
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;926000What do you think of the concept?
(http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Colin-Farrell-WTF.gif)
I have been working on the subject for more than one year now. And at last I can show a somewhat polished result in the form of the Revolution D100 SRD (http://www.alephtargames.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96%3Arevolution-srd&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=1&lang=en). The main feature of the system is that there is no pre-set result of an interaction, although at least one side must obviously have a goal before a conflict may start. But you may easily win and do not get the intended result: another result might come out of the interaction and the winner be forced to settle for it. Or the new result might be even better than expected.
It's absolute garbage. Trying to make a mechanic out of what you should be fucking role playing.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;926000What do you think of the concept?
I think it works better when it's a fundamental premise of the game and permeate various aspects of it. Games about intrigue, drama, competition, etc. like Paranoia, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Monsterhearts, just to cite a few.
Never seen a good implementation of it as "analogous to physical combat" though.
Smallville/Cortex+ Dramatic handles "physical" and "social" conflict the same way, but that's because it handles all conflict with the same mechanics. And it doesn't bother with physics emulation.
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying has different damage tracks for physical, mental and emotional, but uses the same mechanics for any action scene.
Yeah, Smallville is a nice example of what I was saying: a central theme of supers drama driving all aspects of the game and making it pretty good at social conflicts. I think that's the point I was making: games that are good at social conflicts are usually the ones about social conflicts. You know, from the ground-up.
*Edit*: it just occurred to me that Smallville and Monsterhearts are like "brothers" in this sense, as both tap on similar themes (teen/young adult drama) only on opposite sides of the fence (supers vs monsters). :D
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;926104A problem I see with some social combat systems is that they generally simulate a yes/no and/but outcome (e.g. convince the bouncer to let you pass or fail to, convince someone to be your friend or fail to, beat someone in a game of chess). A, for example, nuanced argument where two characters try to work out the details of a mutually beneficial conplex plan isn't simulated well, if at all.
Am I wrong?
Nope. Or, at least, you aren't wrong except in the sense that there's a whole lot more wrong with social combat systems.
The primary problem is: social interaction just doesn't work that way. You don't beat somebody over the head with words until they agree. (Well, they may publicly agree, just to shut you up, but more likely than not, they still don't agree.) What you do is you appeal to someone's desires or fears: "this good thing will happen if you agree", "this bad thing will happen unless you agree". If the good thing/bad thing is is personal, then it's a bribe or threat. If it's impersonal, not something you will do to them or for them if they agree, it's more of a persuasive argument. All that matters is whether the other person believes you and feels the same way about the points you make.
If it's two players trying to convince each other, they just try to convince each other. No rules needed. Same applies if it's the GM playing an NPC who's trying to convince a player. All roleplaying.
If it's a player convincing an NPC, either the GM knows what the NPC desires and fears, in which case it's more roleplaying, or the GM doesn't, in which case it's a reaction roll. Or some mix of the two. You might say, for example, that a guard is so loyal that he won't betray his duty unless he has a very good reaction to an argument, or that an argument has to make three good points before the NPC agrees.
The closest social interaction comes to combat is if it's two characters arguing in front of witnesses, vying against eacho other to win over the audience. Then, you could give each side hit points or the equivalent and have them "duel" with words. Whoever "dies" gets ostracized, run out of town, or whatever is appropriate.
Quote from: talysman;927922The primary problem is: social interaction just doesn't work that way. You don't beat somebody over the head with words until they agree. What you do is you appeal to someone's desires or fears: "this good thing will happen if you agree", "this bad thing will happen unless you agree". If the good thing/bad thing is is personal, then it's a bribe or threat. If it's impersonal, not something you will do to them or for them if they agree, it's more of a persuasive argument. All that matters is whether the other person believes you and feels the same way about the points you make.
That's how Monsterhearts (and other PbtA games) work.
Quote from: Itachi;927928That's how Monsterhearts (and other PbtA games) work.
It's also explicitly how Cortex+ Dramatic works, but it's also obvious that very few people in this thread have ever read a game that actually tries to do social conflict mechanics.
Quote from: Itachi;927928That's how Monsterhearts (and other PbtA games) work.
Quote from: daniel_ream;927932It's also explicitly how Cortex+ Dramatic works, but it's also obvious that very few people in this thread have ever read a game that actually tries to do social conflict mechanics.
So educate. "Appealing to someone's desires and fears"...how exactly? By pointing to descriptors, essentially matching metadata tags like invoking aspects, rolling dice and then narrating the outcome?
One of the problems with social conflict is...it isn't physical conflict. Two people contend physically, one will win, perhaps with no medical attention, both may lose. Two people contend socially, the chance of nothing being resolved could be high, which is where the metagame comes in, because in order to actually get things done, you have to determine goals, set stakes, and maneuver things, artificially, to where they can be resolved mechanically, and then there always has to be the "reintegration phase" - where, after we've left roleplaying behind to do this OOC metagame about our characters, we have to put our heads together and write the scene to determine what happened in-game so we can get back to roleplaying.
You're right, not a lot of in-depth study of social conflict mechanics here, but that's more of a feature than a bug.
Quote from: talysman;927922The primary problem is: social interaction just doesn't work that way. You don't beat somebody over the head with words until they agree. (Well, they may publicly agree, just to shut you up, but more likely than not, they still don't agree.) What you do is you appeal to someone's desires or fears: "this good thing will happen if you agree", "this bad thing will happen unless you agree". If the good thing/bad thing is is personal, then it's a bribe or threat. If it's impersonal, not something you will do to them or for them if they agree, it's more of a persuasive argument. All that matters is whether the other person believes you and feels the same way about the points you make.
Quote from: Itachi;927928That's how Monsterhearts (and other PbtA games) work.
Since I haven't read these, I'll have to take your word for it.
But does the Monsterhearts system have explicit social combat-style rules? Or does it do what my second paragraph suggests?
Quote from: talysman;927922If it's two players trying to convince each other, they just try to convince each other. No rules needed. Same applies if it's the GM playing an NPC who's trying to convince a player. All roleplaying.
The reason I ask is: I have read and played The Burning Wheel, usually cited as the best example of social combat rules. But in play, the result was crap. I do not recommend the Burning Wheel Duel of Wits.
Quote from: CRKrueger;927934So educate.
I'm not going to chew your food for you. You've been given two good examples already (three if you count talysman's suggestion of BW's Duel of Wits, but I'm not familiar with it). PDFs of all three of these are not difficult to come by.
I also find your distinction between physical and social conflict risible and demonstrably untrue, but I sincerely doubt you're interested in actually being educated. Perhaps I'm wrong. Go grab a copy of Monsterhearts and Smallville and read them over, then, and we can have a reasonable discussion.
Quote from: Lunamancer;926018Remember the holy trinity of RPGs? Combat, Problem-Solving, and Role-play? Those aren't just arbitrary categories nor mere empirical happenstance.
I'd like to point out that combat is just a sub-category of problem-solving:).
Quote from: jhkim;926158I would partly agree with Lunamancer.
RPG social conflict systems like conflicts in Fate or in Burning Wheel are often set out as "PC wants X, NPC wants Y - roll dice to see if PC gets NPC to do Y". In this model, it is seen as a loss if you change your mind and agree with the other person.
However, I think that in real life, social skill is often about being able to see other people's point of view, clear up misunderstandings, and come up with new solutions that are better for everyone. Changing your mind is sometimes an objective *win*, because you're better off from having learned from the other person, when really your original intent was a bad idea.
In general, I prefer social skill mechanics that provide (a) better initial reaction to the PC; (b) better at telling lies and detecting lies; (c) better at perceiving what the other person wants. Rolling to get the other person to do something can be OK, but I prefer other approaches.
I agree, those three are the least a social system should be doing, unless you're just playing it out. The problem with playing it out is, of course, that not all GMs play the NPCs well, which kinda impedes acting on that information;).
Quote from: CRKrueger;927934One of the problems with social conflict is...it isn't physical conflict. Two people contend physically, one will win, perhaps with no medical attention, both may lose.
Two people contend socially, the chance of nothing being resolved could be high, which is where the metagame comes in (...) so we can get back to roleplaying.
The odds of two people clashing physically and nothing being resolved is equally high, Green One. That's actually the expected result in many bar fights and school fights.
Violence can be social, when it's about hierarchies, or it can be asocial, when the other person is justa threat, an obstacle to a resource, or a resource in himself. Can you find me a system that does that distinction, BTW? Because they're simply not the same thing, to the point where I believe they merit different skills for skill-based systems:D.
Quote from: AsenRG;928026The odds of two people clashing physically and nothing being resolved is equally high, Green One. That's actually the expected result in many bar fights and school fights.
...and most RPGs as well, when you go to fisticuffs and aren't some kind of magical martial artist. I know Bulgaria can be rough, but are people carrying bastard swords to high school these days? :P
Quote from: AsenRG;928026Violence can be social, when it's about hierarchies, or it can be asocial, when the other person is justa threat, an obstacle to a resource, or a resource in himself. Can you find me a system that does that distinction, BTW? Because they're simply not the same thing, to the point where I believe they merit different skills for skill-based systems:D.
Cute, but fail. The reason *why* I am killing you doesn't matter to the laws of physics of the attack to any degree that can be modeled without an AI (or personality mechanics).
The stakes of most cases of physical combat are clear, the loser is rendered unable to continue, becomes unwilling to continue or physically escapes. The stakes of a verbal conflict in many cases have to be maneuvered in an OOC manner to get them to the point where the mechanics can determine a narrow enough range of outcome. In the end, it's not really any different than the "mind control" skill check to get a guard to accept a bribe, only with all the OOC meta minigame to wade through before we get to the point where the guard accepts the bribe...but, oh behold the wondrous depth, he also says you owe him one.
I didn't need a system for that one, and please, Mr. "Zero Prep, GM everything on the fly", please try to tell me you
really engage with these Social Combat systems, instead of just deciding a couple of seconds ahead of time how the Guard will react to a bribe attempt, assign a value if he's bribable and just roleplay the thing out. :D
Quote from: daniel_ream;927943I'm not going to chew your food for you. You've been given two good examples already (three if you count talysman's suggestion of BW's Duel of Wits, but I'm not familiar with it). PDFs of all three of these are not difficult to come by.
I also find your distinction between physical and social conflict risible and demonstrably untrue, but I sincerely doubt you're interested in actually being educated. Perhaps I'm wrong. Go grab a copy of Monsterhearts and Smallville and read them over, then, and we can have a reasonable discussion.
Translation: You're not going to backup or defend
your assertion, and prove my assertion correct that
saying the game can "appeal to someone's desires or fears" is easy to do, not so easy to
actually do. Pretty much what I thought.
0/10 on the "it wasn't a real question so I don't have to answer" evasion. You're better than that.
CRKrueger, have you read or played Monsterhearts or other PbtA games like Sagas of the Icelanders or Urban Shadows ? They are great for the kind of (charged) social interactions we are talking about here: tense negotiations, compromisings, bluffings, intimidations, manipulations, seducting, etc. They have mechanics that mediate social interactions between players in nuanced ways. I reccommend taking a look. There is a ton of reviews out there.
Hillfolk and Smallville are like that too, but I never played or don't have many knowledge on them, so it's more difficult for me to discuss.
To be specific - In Monsterhearts, the basic rule for manipulate an NPC is:
QuoteWhen you manipulate an NPC, roll with hot. On a 10 up, they’ll do what you want if you give them a bribe, a threat, or a motive. • On a 7-9, the MC will tell you what it’ll take to get the NPC to do what you want. Do it and they will.
For Sagas of the Icelanders, there are different moves for men and women. Women have a move to goad a man to action, where the basic rule is -
QuoteWhen you goad a man to action, roll +gendered. On 10+ he’s got no other choice, on 7-9 he’ll do it as long as you promise something in return. For PCs it’s always his choice but on 7-9 you can offer him one, on 10+ both:
• he gains a bond with you if he does it
• his honour is in question if he refuses
Night Witches has the following rule for social manipulation,
QuoteWHEN YOU TRY TO GET YOUR WAY…
…by acting like a hooligan, roll +luck.
…by acting like a lady, roll +guts.
…by acting like a natural-born Soviet airwoman, roll +medals.
On 10+, choose two. On 7-9, choose one:
* Make someone do what you want (If the person you are imposing on is a PC, she can do it or not, but if she doesn’t you are both marked)
*„ Ensure that there are no consequences for acting up
„* Add one to the mission pool
On a miss there will be trouble.
For my tastes, it is a little mixed. Typically, a 7-9 result is roughly what is "normal" for role-playing out social interaction - you give something or accept consequences, and if you give enough, the NPC agrees. If you roll 6 or less, then the result is less clear but is usually failure. If a 10+, then you succeed.
So it does integrate motives, but high and low rolls can cut off how interaction plays out.
Oh, god, that's terrible.
Quote from: talysman;928073Oh, god, that's terrible
Out of curiosity:
what exactly is terrible ?
Quote from: jhkim;928063To be specific - In Monsterhearts, the basic rule for manipulate an NPC is…
snip
For my tastes, it is a little mixed. Typically, a 7-9 result is roughly what is "normal" for role-playing out social interaction - you give something or accept consequences, and if you give enough, the NPC agrees. If you roll 6 or less, then the result is less clear but is usually failure. If a 10+, then you succeed.
So it does integrate motives, but high and low rolls can cut off how interaction plays out.
Jhkim, I think looking at the moves in isolation would do a disservice to the concept the games are built upon. Not only there are other moves that complement the ones you cited (like reading a person/sitch, going aggro, raising you voice, help/hindering, using Strings/Bonds, etc) but each game agenda, principles and advancement cycle should also be taken into consideration.
Oh, and you seem to be focusing on interaction with NPCs, when I think these games really shine on Player-to-Player interactions.
Quote from: talysman;928073Oh, god, that's terrible.
Quote from: Itachi;928075Out of curiosity: what exactly is terrible ?
Modeling social interactions as "successful skill roll forces NPC to do what you want".
I've already detailed upthread why I say this is a bad model, so I won't repeat myself.
Talysman, if you mean doing this:
QuoteThe primary problem is: social interaction just doesn't work that way. You don't beat somebody over the head with words until they agree. (Well, they may publicly agree, just to shut you up, but more likely than not, they still don't agree.) What you do is you appeal to someone's desires or fears: "this good thing will happen if you agree", "this bad thing will happen unless you agree". If the good thing/bad thing is is personal, then it's a bribe or threat. If it's impersonal, not something you will do to them or for them if they agree, it's more of a persuasive argument. All that matters is whether the other person believes you and feels the same way about the points you make.
..then I'll repeat: PbtA games do exactly that. But you won't know about it by reading a small piece of the system in isolation in a forum. That's like hearing D&D has "Classes" and saying "Oh that's terrrible" on that basis alone.
*Edit*: lets make this clear - you may end up not liking the
way these games do that, and that's totally valid. But saying "its terrible" after reading a handful lines of it in isolation ? That's such a "terrible" thing to say. :D
Quote from: Itachi;928092Talysman, if you mean doing this:
..then I'll repeat: PbtA games do exactly that.
But you won't know about it by reading a small piece of the system in isolation in a forum. That's like hearing D&D has "Classes" and saying "Oh that's terrrible" on that basis alone.
Perhaps there is more to the system than quoted, but the quotes above are exactly the opposite of what I said. They are skill rolls that the player makes on behalf of their character which, if successful, make the NPC act in accordance with the PC's desire.
If this were the only part of the rule that were true:
QuoteOn a 7-9, the MC will tell you what it’ll take to get the NPC to do what you want. Do it and they will.
... it would be OK, because then it's essentially a roll to find out what would work. A knowledge roll, in other words. I'd prefer it to be a target number unknown to the player, but at least it's not framing social interaction as a skill. But if a player accidentally figures out what specific threat or offer to make, that should bypass any need for a roll. If the GM knows the NPC is greedy but also fears a harsh master, any bribe that doesn't address those fears won't work, and any bribe combined with a belief they won't get punished will work, regardless of any roll.
What this suggests:
QuoteOn a 10 up, they’ll do what you want if you give them a bribe, a threat, or a motive.
... is that the player makes up which kind of bribe, threat, or motive will work, or that any kind will work. Bribing a guard with food should *not* work unless food is listed as a guard's weakness (the guard is a glutton, or the food offered is something the guard loves and can't get easily except by accepting the bribe. Threatening an NPC with bodily harm shouldn't work, ever, if the NPC loves to fight. Threatening an NPC's child should work if the NPC worries excessively about their child, but should not work if the NPC loses their temper easily.
If
that is the way the system actually works, then the 10+ rules is meaningless and should be dropped. Just make it a knowledge roll to discover NPC weaknesses, or a believability roll if the PC makes a threat or offer that might be doubtful (shabbily-dressed person offers a thousand dollars/gold pieces, puny weakling physically threatens tougher character.)
Quote from: CRKrueger;928049...and most RPGs as well, when you go to fisticuffs and aren't some kind of magical martial artist.
QuoteI know Bulgaria can be rough, but are people carrying bastard swords to high school these days? :P
Actually, we've got much lower rate of murders per capita than the USA:p!
And I've got no idea what kids carry these days. Back in my day, it was your pick of knuckle dusters and knives, with sticks and chains being second most popular:). (All of it was mainly as a mark of prestige and in order to dissuade people from trying to use anything on you, though. All the serious injuries anyone in my class suffered were always the result of unarmed attacks...of course, the 90ies were kinda crazy violent by today's standards. And they still didn't reach the average for the USA:D).
QuoteCute, but fail. The reason *why* I am killing you doesn't matter to the laws of physics of the attack to any degree that can be modeled without an AI (or personality mechanics).
I never said "without personality mechanics". There's a reason why most people with combat experience that I know insist that fighting is about a clash of spirits, or something to that effect:).
Though deciding on different combat systems for the different styles of fighting might be a step in the right direction that circumvents the need for personality mechanics.
Also, you're wrong. The physics of the attack are very, very different depending on the reason,
because both fighters would be acting differently. I can show you many techniques that look like they would work...and they do work in sparring, until you add what we call "intent". Then the pressure-testing pulls them apart.
QuoteThe stakes of most cases of physical combat are clear, the loser is rendered unable to continue, becomes unwilling to continue or physically escapes.
Which kind of physical combat?
The stakes of social violence are clear: the loser surrenders or becomes unwilling to continue without verbally announcing it (goes on the defensive). Alternatively, the loser simply perfoms much worse in the eyes of onlookers, but usually it's the intent to participate that matters. Physical escape would be tantamant to surrender and total defeat. Being unable to continue is at most an unexpected by-product.
(Oh, and that's not true for all cases of social violence, BTW).
The stakes of asocial violence are also clear: suffering life-threatening or maiming bodily harm, and possibly losing other stuff as well (like money).
QuoteThe stakes of a verbal conflict in many cases have to be maneuvered in an OOC manner to get them to the point where the mechanics can determine a narrow enough range of outcome. In the end, it's not really any different than the "mind control" skill check to get a guard to accept a bribe, only with all the OOC meta minigame to wade through before we get to the point where the guard accepts the bribe...but, oh behold the wondrous depth, he also says you owe him one.
:D
Yeah, bribes are kinda like this, because they're their own argument. Persuading someone, though, might be a tougher task with more nuanced outcomes.
QuoteI didn't need a system for that one, and please, Mr. "Zero Prep, GM everything on the fly", please try to tell me you really engage with these Social Combat systems, instead of just deciding a couple of seconds ahead of time how the Guard will react to a bribe attempt, assign a value if he's bribable and just roleplay the thing out. :D
When I use a system that doesn't have a social combat system, I do exactly as you say, of course. Which, to be honest, is what I do most of the time these days. At best, the dice exist to present their offer as better than it seemed at first glance:).
When I use a system with social combat, I don't decide whether the guard is bribable. I just assign him whatever stats (possibly including whether he thinks he'll get caught, how much he fears that, and how much he needs or wants money). Then I let the dice fall;).
In the end, the result is the same, and yes, we could just freeform it. I could just freeform combat, too, with an occasional skill roll at crucial junctures.
The method you reach the conclusion is different, though. And the procedure matters to some people, making it feel more impartial. (And given that a failed bribe attempt might be your death just as much as a sword strike, it's equally important to be impartial in both cases).
Quote from: talysman;928097Perhaps there is more to the system than quoted, but the quotes above are exactly the opposite of what I said. They are skill rolls that the player makes on behalf of their character which, if successful, make the NPC act in accordance with the PC's desire.
If this were the only part of the rule that were true:
... it would be OK, because then it's essentially a roll to find out what would work. A knowledge roll, in other words. I'd prefer it to be a target number unknown to the player, but at least it's not framing social interaction as a skill.
Well, finding out what works is a skill;).
But yeah, that part is okay with me as well.
QuoteBut if a player accidentally figures out what specific threat or offer to make, that should bypass any need for a roll.
If the GM knows the NPC is greedy but also fears a harsh master, any bribe that doesn't address those fears won't work, and any bribe combined with a belief they won't get punished will work, regardless of any roll.
By the rules of the Apocalypse World, it works exactly like that. "It's a conversation, when you know what's going to happen, simply narrate it and go on, until you need a roll", or something to that effect.
QuoteWhat this suggests:
... is that the player makes up which kind of bribe, threat, or motive will work, or that any kind will work.
Actually, that's probably you persuading the guard that what you offer is something they need. When a vendor rolls that on you, you walk away with something you didn't need, but it seemed like a good idea at the time:D.
QuoteBribing a guard with food should *not* work unless food is listed as a guard's weakness (the guard is a glutton, or the food offered is something the guard loves and can't get easily except by accepting the bribe. Threatening an NPC with bodily harm shouldn't work, ever, if the NPC loves to fight.
The rule about "if you know what is going to happen, narrate without a roll" works both ways if you ask me, so this is true as well. By (my understanding of) the rules, that is, though of course, I can't speak for how it works in different groups;).
Talisman, AsenG already provided some good (and knowledgeable) answers. The link you're missing is this move:
QuoteRead a Person
When you read a person in a charged interaction, roll+sharp. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7–9, hold 1. While you’re interacting with them, spend your hold to ask their player questions, 1 for 1:
• is your character telling the truth?
• what’s your character really feeling?
• what does your character intend to do?
• what does your character wish I’d do?
• how could I get your character to __?
You don’t usually go looking to seduce or manipulate without knowing you have leverage—either you know they want something, because it’s clear in the fiction, or you use the read a person move to find out.
I can see some justification for social combat mechanics of some sort in as much as not all GMs and players are comfortable with roleplaying it out. Generally I prefer the mechanics to be as swift and simple as possible. Roleplay as much as you can then make a dice roll and get on with the game. Adjust the dice to account for the roleplaying.
The old Australian game Lace & Steel had a system for repartee combat that was card based and used mechanics very similar to their rapier fencing system. Players would choose attacks and defenses from a hand of cards, according to "line" the low line being the baser sorts of insults, the high line being intellectual whitiscism, etc. It turned the whole thing into a little minigame in its own right. It could be fun, but it didn't really feel like roleplaying.
See the thing about Read a Person is that instead of you simply rolling awesome and receiving information, your gut telling you, or you pulling a House, you instead move out of the character as a player, to ask the other player what the other character is thinking, feeling, etc. and then go back to roleplaying. I don't see how this is better than...just roleplaying and maybe making a skill check. Do it behind the screen like a Detect Traps roll. The GM can just tell me "You buy what he's saying, you believe it's the truth, etc...". There's no need for the 100% accuracy, no need for the metagame at all. The only person who knows whether someone is 100% lying or not is an author.
I do like the "Norse woman running shit by shaming the man into action", that's a real thing in the Icelandic and Norse Sagas, but again, why not just roleplay it. Let the player decide how to deal with his scheming wife (or her ambitionless husband) and let the GM handle the world and the consequences.
We always come back to "If you don't trust the GM to Play the Fucking World, find another table."
Yeah, the out of character stuff can be an issue if it's not your thing. I agree.
Quote from: CRKruegerI don't see how this is better than...just roleplaying and maybe making a skill check. Do it behind the screen like a Detect Traps roll. The GM can just tell me "You buy what he's saying, you believe it's the truth, etc..."
Don't know if I got your point. If this was so, wouldn't it fall on the trap we were criticizing a few pages back (aka: resolving social interactions like a round of fight, ignoring intentions, weaknesses, fears, agendas, etc ?).
QuoteI do like the "Norse woman running shit by shaming the man into action", that's a real thing in the Icelandic and Norse Sagas, but again, why not just roleplay it. Let the player decide how to deal with his scheming wife (or her ambitionless husband) and let the GM handle the world and the consequences.
But how to do that when there are conflicting interests between wife and husband ? Maybe that neighbour is an old friend but your wife envies him to death. How to mediate it through pure role playing ? Remember, the game is setup more or less like in Paranoia where the players have opposing agendas. In other words, a ticking time bomb. :D
Quote from: Itachi;928160Yeah, the out of character stuff can be an issue if it's not your thing. I agree.
Don't know if I got your point. If this was so, wouldn't it fall on the trap we were criticizing a few pages back (aka: resolving social interactions like a round of fight, ignoring intentions, weaknesses, fears, agendas, etc ?).
If you were going to just roleplay it, then all you need are the intentions, weaknesses, fears, agendas, etc... If you are going to use some form of skill mechanic, you factor the intentions, weaknesses, fears, agendas, roleplaying etc. into the skill check. That's the GM's job, after all, adjudicating things. The skill check itself can be as much or as little of a factor...Sam's not betraying Frodo, no matter what the hell you roll. :D
Quote from: Itachi;928160But how to do that when there are conflicting interests between wife and husband ? Maybe that neighbour is an old friend but your wife envies him to death. How to mediate it through pure role playing ? Remember, the game is setup more or less like in Paranoia where the players have opposing agendas. In other words, a ticking time bomb. :D
How do men deal with that every day of the week? You walk the line. Somehow you manage to keep from getting your balls chopped off in bed, your head bashed in outside, and getting charged with murder. :D
The only possible reason you would ever need a system like that is because you specifically WANT the OOC. You want to set up an agreed upon premise, have an OOC system to keep things fair and play the game
about the characters as much or more so than playing
as the characters.
Paranoia, however, is a one-trick pony. You'd better have a bunch of one-trick pony narrative games on tap, like you do in the boardgame closet or the cardgame drawer.
I'd play Saga of the Icelanders, but I'd rather just roleplay a guy from Iceland at the time of the Sagas.
Quote from: Itachi;928160Don't know if I got your point. If this was so, wouldn't it fall on the trap we were criticizing a few pages back (aka: resolving social interactions like a round of fight, ignoring intentions, weaknesses, fears, agendas, etc ?).
As someone who hit that criticism pretty hard, I'd like to answer this. Only problem, is I'm not sure exactly how you are equating skill checks for things such as cold reading to a round of a fight that ignores intentions, weaknesses, fears, agendas, etc. Cold read, detect deception, and so forth are activities aimed at gaining information.. information about things such as intentions, weaknesses, etc.
The fundamental idea here is "social" is aimed at gaining consent. Theoretically, if you knew everything about your counterpart (and yourself for that matter), you'd probably be able to find at least some area where a win-win can be had. Win-win is typically a range of possibilities, and typically you want one end of that range and your counterpart wants the opposite end. The challenge is, you don't have all that information. If you're going to be successful, you need to get it while also managing what information you give up on yourself.
Part of the fun of all this is sometimes you are able to stumble upon some new piece of information that you hadn't even considered that leads to a high value trade. Because such things are outside the boundaries of what you initially thought the social encounter was about, it makes real social encounters impossible to model. You can express certain components of the encounter mechanically (such as lie detection), but if they are strung together by some model or over-arching mechanic rather than roleplay, it will stifle the unexpected.
Quote from: Lunamancer;928261As someone who hit that criticism pretty hard, I'd like to answer this. Only problem, is I'm not sure exactly how you are equating skill checks for things such as cold reading to a round of a fight that ignores intentions, weaknesses, fears, agendas, etc. Cold read, detect deception, and so forth are activities aimed at gaining information.. information about things such as intentions, weaknesses, etc.
There's no need for the fighting system to ignore intentions, weaknesses, fears and agendas. In fact, not ignoring them would improve the fighting simulation:).
Cold reading and detecting deceptions are essential skills in both cases;).
Quote from: Lunamancer;928261Part of the fun of all this is sometimes you are able to stumble upon some new piece of information that you hadn't even considered that leads to a high value trade. Because such things are outside the boundaries of what you initially thought the social encounter was about, it makes real social encounters impossible to model. You can express certain components of the encounter mechanically (such as lie detection), but if they are strung together by some model or over-arching mechanic rather than roleplay, it will stifle the unexpected.
I find the opposite to be the case. The idea of the NPC or the PC that anyone at the table has in their head is a simplification of a real person's personality, wants, needs, fears, and desires or it's just yet another version of the base player personality so that sort of new information isn't as likely to occur in game (especially for multiple NPCs) as it is to occur in reality. A mechanical system with a rare die roll result is more likely to generate the effect of new information. On the down side, the effect then needs to be explained out of character..."So why did that guard decide not to arrest you despite your inability to provide a lucrative bribe?"
- You remind him of his long lost brother;
- He swore an oath to do one good deed today in return for the miraculous healing of his aged mother;
- He secretly worships the god of luck and he flipped a coin and it came up in your favor;
- He belongs to a banned cult and you exactly fit the profile for their next sacrifice of "a stranger come to town."
- He is aware of an obscure prophecy that says the reigning evil tyrant will be killed by a traveler with a broken sandal...and your sandal is broken.
Quote from: CRKrueger;928255The only possible reason you would ever need a system like that is because you specifically WANT the OOC. You want to set up an agreed upon premise, have an OOC system to keep things fair and play the game about the characters as much or more so than playing as the characters.
I think you're into something here, but I would argue the OOC part is small. I think the real point is gamifying these "charged social interactions" these games aim for. Sure you could "roleplay it out" and solve it with a single skill roll, but then you could do the same with combat: would it be as fun if combat encounters were decided with a single skill roll ? I think the logic is the same, you deepen/"zoom-in" on the part of the game you want to focus.
P.S: I loved the "wife chopping his balls off when his sleeping". I will totally use this in my next game. :D