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?

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.

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.