Boosting Social Interactions in D100 games

[nclarke]

Haven't got around to the testing of these options as I've been running a FAE game for teh past 3 months.

[clarence]

I'm thinking about including something like this in BRP Starships/Space, to offer an alternative to more action-oriented play. Not sure if I'm the right person to write it though...

[tooley1chris]

I don't know if anything like this would be useful but it is how we played out social conflicts in a past game we had.

In general it was done as combat normally is but with these values as the replacements.

 

Social Conflict

Resolve/Hit Points: CHA+POW/2 

Attack/Defend' skills: Orate, Debate, Intimidate, Bluff, etc

Wits Rank/Initiative: CHA+INT/2

Determination Modifier/Damage Bonus: use the standard STR+SIZ chart, replacing the stats with POW+INT(pg 30)

Damage:d6

Composure\Armour: Recognized Authority, frequently defaulting to 1/20th of Status 

Defeat:  Resolve of 0, usually resulting in negative modifiers to social interactions for a period

Holy WOW, Batman!

[RosenMcStern]

Said by someone who has been working on something similar for 5 years or so... Montjoy's rules are overcomplicated and miss the spot in many areas. Frex:

• Armor points in combat are there not just to decrease deadliness but to reflect something that IS THERE (physically). An exact parallel of armor in social combat is based on... what? I can see an attempt at reproducing rules in a different context here, not an attempt at simulating something you do in a social contest. Using Status (if applicable) as a supporting skill is easier, more streamlined and equally effective.
• The split between weapon damage and damage bonus has a reason behind it, representing both the damage you as a character do and the effect of a stronger weapon. What is the reason for the different dice here, apart for emulating an out-of-context ruleset? Using a table like the one for spirit damage present in both RuneQuest and Wind on the Steppes is easier and more appropriate.
• Please note that a simple d6 of damage whatever the INT, POW, CHA etc. will work just fine: the guy with a higher CHA already has an edge because he can take more damage. In combat you want to deal more damage to finish your opponent faster because then you have to cure the wound you take, and finshing him off when you are still at 10 HP is not like finishing him off with 1 HP left. Unless the rules model this difference in social combat, different damages for different characteristics is a totally unnecessary feature : the ability to take more punishment is enough.
• The roll should be opposed, not contested as it happens for combat. As you need to take your opponent down to 0 RP because there is no Major Wound rule, it may easily take 10 exchanges or so to finish off a debate, for each of which you have to invent a plausible in-character line. If it drags, after a while it becomes boring. WIth an opposed roll, each exchange has an effect, which is also more realistic as a "good parry" against a malicious argument will influence the audience favorably, unlike melee.
• In general, and beyond the above points, using the exact same mechanics as melee is not the most appropriate solution unless there is a specific reason to use them. I see almost none for all the elements above, all of which could be simplified and streamlined to a simpler model.
• Initiative: is it necessary? Using opposed rolls not only is more realistic, but completely eliminates the need to know "who goes first". Both roll, whoever wins does "reputation damage". Easier, faster, more realistic.
• Resolve points with POW: being offered a decent opportunity to rescue CHA from its status of "dump stat", why on Earth miss it this way? This way the CHA 15 POW 10 minstrel is basically as effective as the CHA 10 POW 15 magician in social conflict. CHA (or APP) and only CHA should be used.

 

Apart from the above, alternating roleplaying with rounds of "verbal exchanges" like in combat, as a basic idea, is quite good, and could be applied to a wider array of situation. Social conflict being the most interesting of all.

[Montjoy]

Said by someone who has been working on something similar for 5 years or so... Montjoy's rules are overcomplicated and miss the spot in many areas. Frex:

• Armor points in combat are there not just to decrease deadliness but to reflect something that IS THERE (physically). An exact parallel of armor in social combat is based on... what? I can see an attempt at reproducing rules in a different context here, not an attempt at simulating something you do in a social contest. Using Status (if applicable) as a supporting skill is easier, more streamlined and equally effective. 
• The split between weapon damage and damage bonus has a reason behind it, representing both the damage you as a character do and the effect of a stronger weapon. What is the reason for the different dice here, apart for emulating an out-of-context ruleset? Using a table like the one for spirit damage present in both RuneQuest and Wind on the Steppes is easier and more appropriate.
• Please note that a simple d6 of damage whatever the INT, POW, CHA etc. will work just fine: the guy with a higher CHA already has an edge because he can take more damage. In combat you want to deal more damage to finish your opponent faster because then you have to cure the wound you take, and finshing him off when you are still at 10 HP is not like finishing him off with 1 HP left. Unless the rules model this difference in social combat, different damages for different characteristics is a totally unnecessary feature : the ability to take more punishment is enough.
• The roll should be opposed, not contested as it happens for combat. As you need to take your opponent down to 0 RP because there is no Major Wound rule, it may easily take 10 exchanges or so to finish off a debate, for each of which you have to invent a plausible in-character line. If it drags, after a while it becomes boring. WIth an opposed roll, each exchange has an effect, which is also more realistic as a "good parry" against a malicious argument will influence the audience favorably, unlike melee.
• In general, and beyond the above points, using the exact same mechanics as melee is not the most appropriate solution unless there is a specific reason to use them. I see almost none for all the elements above, all of which could be simplified and streamlined to a simpler model.
• Initiative: is it necessary? Using opposed rolls not only is more realistic, but completely eliminates the need to know "who goes first". Both roll, whoever wins does "reputation damage". Easier, faster, more realistic.
• Resolve points with POW: being offered a decent opportunity to rescue CHA from its status of "dump stat", why on Earth miss it this way? This way the CHA 15 POW 10 minstrel is basically as effective as the CHA 10 POW 15 magician in social conflict. CHA (or APP) and only CHA should be used.

 

Apart from the above, alternating roleplaying with rounds of "verbal exchanges" like in combat, as a basic idea, is quite good, and could be applied to a wider array of situation. Social conflict being the most interesting of all.

 

I can address a couple of these points but honestly much of it comes down to how you want to play it at your table, as it should.

 

 

Point 1 Armor: Some people are able to use their reputations to deflect criticism or win conflicts even when the facts don't support their stance. This ability to lesson the opponents result seemed to best fit the same category as armor to our group.

 

Point 2 and 3 Damage: We needed a base damage and a d6 seemed a good place to start. As for bonus damage, we added it to give the more mentally strong characters a bonus in the same way the more physical get one in combat. In our eyes it makes sense to model the advantages or disadvantages an individual has just as physical combat does.

 

Point 4: Type of roll. Nothing to add here. Can easily be done with opposed rolls but does alter the dynamic. Perhaps in a way some prefer and if so good.

 

Point 5: Mechanics: Actually using the same mechanics was exactly our point. We didn't want a different system we were actively attempting to mirror an existing system.

 

Point 6: Initiative: Simply put we like initiative, and as we are attempting to mirror the existing system it has a place.

 

Point 7: Resolve: We stuck with 2 attributes for this in order to again mirror combat.

 

 

 

I think perhaps the point missed by the list is that we were, in fact, trying to mirror an existing system and not add another to the game.

I hope this adds some clarity to why we did what we did. 

In the end it's just one groups table rules for handling a situation. 

If you can get some use out of them or it gives you an idea great,

If not then they are easily ignored

[RosenMcStern]

 

I think perhaps the point missed by the list is that we were, in fact, trying to mirror an existing system and not add another to the game.

I got the point very well, and it is exactly what I identified as the system's pitfall. The problem is that mirroring a submarine is not the best way to design a plane, although the two may share some very basic characteristics. "Let's copy this solution, it works!" is a bad idea unless and until you have checked that the requirements for which you are providing a solution are the same or quite similar. This happens all the time in most disciplines, not just game design.

Your desire to make it "similar to combat" changes what is a very good initial intuition ("let us use the attrition system that BRP uses for Hit Points, Sanity and Fatigue in another, creative way") into a game artefact that fails its primary purpose: mirroring social interactions. Most if not all of your considerations (re-read them) come from gamey observations about how combat works in BRP, not on how debates work in real life.

I stress the point: the base idea is rather good and can provide a lot of fun if you follow this general direction in play. It is the implementation as written here that is as clumsy as a submarine shaped as an airliner. I suppose you can have such a thing sail and dive, but I doubt it will ever be fast or silent....

[Montjoy]

I got the point very well, and it is exactly what I identified as the system's pitfall. The problem is that mirroring a submarine is not the best way to design a plane, although the two may share some very basic characteristics. "Let's copy this solution, it works!" is a bad idea unless and until you have checked that the requirements for which you are providing a solution are the same or quite similar. This happens all the time in most disciplines, not just game design.

Your desire to make it "similar to combat" changes what is a very good initial intuition ("let us use the attrition system that BRP uses for Hit Points, Sanity and Fatigue in another, creative way") into a game artefact that fails its primary purpose: mirroring social interactions. Most if not all of your considerations (re-read them) come from gamey observations about how combat works in BRP, not on how debates work in real life.

I stress the point: the base idea is rather good and can provide a lot of fun if you follow this general direction in play. It is the implementation as written here that is as clumsy as a submarine shaped as an airliner. I suppose you can have such a thing sail and dive, but I doubt it will ever be fast or silent....

 

As I've said, if the idea isn't liked then oh well I put it out there to try to help and it is easily ignored.

 

Would it be possible for you to post a suggestion for how you would do it?

I can see many of the things you'd change in your criticism but a clean post of your rule variant would likely be useful to the topic.

[clarence]

I think both of your systems have merits:

 

Opposed rolls is probably a good idea, if only for the speed of it. The resistance table is not a favorite of mine though...

 

Differentiating damage a bit seems right to me: An intelligent and POW-ful person can make a very stinging argument, even if his/her skill is not so good.

 

CHA is to me a good choice for Resolve, as it finally lets this stat do some heavy lifting.

 

Composure/Authority I can see as quite useful in many ways. Arguing with a king or his guard will be rather different. An argument will be harder to strike home with the king, if only because the character has to be more careful with his/her wording. Armor is one way of modeling that, or perhaps a fraction of the opponent's Status as a negative skill modifier.

 

Some other thoughts: Are all skills equal in social combat? Fast Talk, Bargain and Persuade (in BGB) are three different approaches to social interaction. Can any of them be pitted against any other with equal success? Will Fast Talk yield only temporary damage, unless followed up by a Persuade roll? And how can Perform, Etiquette and Command help in a heated discussion?

 

 

(And Paolo, I must say that you are a very harsh critic… Not to mention the irony of a thread about social combat turning into exactly that : )

[Montjoy]

 

Composure/Authority I can see as quite useful in many ways. Arguing with a king or his guard will be rather different. An argument will be harder to strike home with the king, if only because the character has to be more careful with his/her wording. Armor is one way of modeling that, or perhaps a fraction of the opponent's Status as a negative skill modifier.

 

Some other thoughts: Are all skills equal in social combat? Fast Talk, Bargain and Persuade (in BGB) are three different approaches to social interaction. Can any of them be pitted against any other with equal success? Will Fast Talk yield only temporary damage, unless followed up by a Persuade roll? And how can Perform, Etiquette and Command help in a heated discussion?

 

Usually we used what worked best by the BGB definition.

Bargain was generally used to hash out an agreement over something when the facts were basically agreed upon, like the price of an item.

Persuade is used to convince someone that a point is correct. 

As for fast talk we generally let it work the same way as persuade but the target sorta just shook it off later where as Persuade would leave them with an altered view.

[Montjoy]

blah accidental early reply..

 

And how can Perform, Etiquette and Command help in a heated discussion?

 

Having to stretch my brain as this was done in a game over a year ago, but if recall correctly we allowed them to apply bonuses.

Basically you'd make a skill check for Etiquette or Command etc, if it made sense, and if successful we applied it as a bonus to the primary skill.

I honestly can't remember atm what the bonus amount was.

[clarence]

Ok, here is my take on Montjoy's system with some of Paolo's ideas incorporated:

 

 

Social Conflict 2

 

Resolve (Hit Points): CHA or APP

Attack skills: Fast Talk, Bargain, Persuade. Use opposed rolls. The different skills can be opposed in any combination (eg. Bargain vs. Persuade). Complementary skills: Perform, Command, Etiquette or any skill connected to the actual subject. Add 1/5 of the complementary skill to the main skill.

Damage Bonus: Use the Damage Bonus chart below.

Damage: 1d6

Composure (Armor): Recognized authority, frequently defaulting to 1/20th of Status

Defeat: Resolve of 0, usually resulting in negative modifiers to social interactions for a period.

 

"The easiest of the methods of attempting to adjudicate a case of opposed skills is to simply let everyone involved in the opposed check roll his or her chances for success as normal (any normal modifiers apply) and compare the results. The highest successful result rolled that is not a critical or special success is the winner". BGB

 

As an alternative to Composure, 1/5 of the Status skill can used as a negative modifier when the person with the highest Status is attacked.

 

Note: Fast Talk, if used exclusively by one combatant, will yield only temporary damage - it will last just a few minutes after the conflict is over.

 

POW + INT, Damage Bonus

2 to 12, -1d6

13 to 16, -1d4

17 to 24, None

25 to 32, +1d4

33 to 40, +1d6

41 to 56, +2d6

57 to 72, +3d6

73 to 88, +4d6

89 to 104, +5d6

105 to 120, +6d6

121 to 136, +7d6

137 to 152, +8d6

152 to 168, +9d6

[nclarke]

Here's what I did based mostly on Green Ronin's ASoIaF system.

 

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BwzePBsqT0NFfk5vVDVYN1J5d0pRYnpZY09hS0RUMWVHM0M1Sk9iR25QXzB1Y2JMQi0xaFE&usp=sharing

[clarence]

Interesting! Seems like a good mechanic for court intrigue. I like the concept "Target disposition" - I suppose that the GM keeps track of those values for later conflicts. And Deceit is a skill BRP could need.

 

It seems to me that there is one active part (using a persuading skill) and a passive part trying to hold steady with their Willpower skill (or Insight to spot a lie). Is that right? I'm having a scene where the characters are trying to convince a group of freedom fighters to not send more suicide bombers to the capital of the repressive regime on Sychua. This feels like a situation where there are two equally strong parts trying to sway a group, where both sides will use Orate/Persuade.

 

I'm also wondering about the Objective. It seems a bit limiting with only Friendship, Information, Service and Deceit. Using my example above it doesn't seem to fit any of the objectives.

[nclarke]

You are correct in that there are two parts /sides to a social conflict. Your two groups trying to persuade each other I'd run as two separate conflicts to increase the range of possible outcomes (both succeed, neither succeed or one side does). Each side 'attacks' with their own argument and 'defends against the other's argument (Monte Python jokes aside).

 

I'm missing your example or it isn't clearly delineated in the thread.

 

If those four Objectives, and they fit most of the situations I thought of, don't fit then add some more.

 

I mean to say what other Objectives do you think need adding that cannot be subsumed into one of those four?

[clarence]

The example is only a scenario seed I'm using to test social conflict mechanics on. Sorry if I was a bit unclear. There is a bit more to it than I wrote above, but the conflict situation is not much more than I stated above. You would make it two conflicts? Hmm, I will have to think about that for a bit...

 

Which of the objectives would you use in the "halt the terrorist attacks" example above? I would simply call it persuade, but I'm unsure how to fit it into one of the four objectives (this is not a critique - I'm just trying to understand).

[nclarke]

Asking a group  to 'halt the terrorist attacks' is surely Service - you want them to perform a Service for you.

[clarence]

Ok, I get it now : )