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.

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?

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.