Non Combat Systems- spin-off of Women in Glorantha

[Alex]

On 10/15/2021 at 7:31 PM, Runeblogger said:

I love this topic. 🙂 Here's 5 ways of doing that, from different D100 systems:

Great summary!  Thanks, I'll have to look closely at a couple of those.  Tempers my urge to sulkily complain that this is in the RQ forum, whereas clearly (OK, allegedly) QW solves all these issues!  Solution, do it the same say that QW does...

I'm reminded that this isn't without much earlier precedent in the Chaosium/BRP world:  the Romance rules in Pendragon, for example, which aren't a million away from these concepts.

I do have a lingering anxiety that these "social hit points" approaches may juxtapose awkwardly with the much finer-grained, multi-layered statted and skill-dense combat system.  But I'm sure that's something that's finessable.

[Squaredeal Sten]

i don't think we should be trying to duplicate combat.   There are no hit locations in persuasion, nor is there armor.

I do think that there is persuasion of one person, and of groups, and those are different.  There is  more detail and more steps in persuading groups. 

There are methods of persuasion (and IMHO the existing communication skills cover that adequately, except for (1)  gifts / bribery), and (2) past favors owed.

There may be several different people or groups to be persuaded.  This is a GM construct but the GM should be provided a checklist or template for constructing the situation.  (And there is direct and indirect persuasion, that is you can persuade "influencers". That's part of the same GM construct.)

There are predispositions / attitudes to be changed.  Those are like NPC stats.  By the way, Loyalty % will provide such a pre-disposition, even though you may want to rescale loyalty % to an attitude points scale.

The GM should be provided a template and process for the pre-dispositon and for resolving attempts to change that pre-disposition.

Augments apply to both combat and communication.  i don't see any reason to modify that.

There should probably be some bonus for using information about / appealing to the target's interests, prejudices, and history.  Discovering those interests and history should be done via role-playing and customs % and lore%.  That discovery will be the stuff of active role playing, not just a single 'die roll to discover stuff".

Edited October 27, 2021 by Squaredeal Sten
Loyalty; GM template

[Alex]

9 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

i don't think we should be trying to duplicate combat.   There are no hit locations in persuasion, nor is there armor.

Iunno.  Lots of people have 12 points of Confirmation Bias Enchanted Iron Plate, in my experience. 🙂  Hit locations I could go either way -- "11, ow -- right in the Feels!"

Sure, there's no (for example) hit points in persuasion, but nor are there in combat.  We just tend to forget that after 45 years of convention otherwise.  They're abstractions, the question is whether they're useful, fun, or evocative ones.

Depending on what type of persuasion it is, you could maybe attempt to break it down by points at issue.  For example the stereotypical gruelling politics negotiation and horsetrading exercise.  That could even turn it into several separate contests -- but you might want to frame it as a single conflict, in a "nothing's agree until it's all agreed" sort of way.

[Mugen]

On 10/15/2021 at 8:31 PM, Runeblogger said:

I love this topic. 🙂 Here's 5 ways of doing that, from different D100 systems:

1. Revolution d100's extended conflicts: Paolo Guccione transforms HeroQuest's extended conflicts into an easy D100 mechanism suitable for adding more rolls to a single dramatic action: chases, climbs, debates, infiltration, negotiation you name it. Basically each side has a pool of attrition points by adding up two characteristics. Each "attack" on the other side inflicts 1D6 "damage". There are some more bits to this basic frame. The best part is that depending on the level of points each side has lost at the end, they each have to concede smoe degree of victory to the other side.

This is the kind of system every conflict system in RPGs, including d100 roll-under games, should be based on, even combat. D100 Revolution and HW/HQ1 are in fact just an evolution of RQ2 Spirit Combat, with skill oppositions instead of POW vs POW rolls.

If you want something more exciting, you could use MouseGuard set of 4 actions (attack, defense, maneuver, feint), which are also just an evolution of Pendragon stances.

Another thing RQG lacks is a skill opposition system which results in less ties, especially with high or low skills.

[Squaredeal Sten]

16 hours ago, Mugen said:

.....

Another thing RQG lacks is a skill opposition system which results in less ties, especially with high or low skills.

The skill opposition system you advocate is the resistance table.  

I can see that applying when two sides are making opposed arguments.  

I'd like to distinguish between two opposed sides arguing and attempts to persuade.  That shiuld be part of the template provided to the GM.  

 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Squaredeal Sten
Spelling

[Akhôrahil]

28 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

The skill opposition system you advocate is the resistance table.  

Pendragon's system or any system where you count the margin of your roll versus your skill works for this. It basically requires moving to D20 for resolution though, as the math is just too annoying otherwise.

[Kloster]

22 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Pendragon's system or any system where you count the margin of your roll versus your skill works for this. It basically requires moving to D20 for resolution though, as the math is just too annoying otherwise.

No, no need to go D20 (Heretic!). We use 'larger margin is the winner when quality is equal' since 30 years and RQ3.

[g33k]

On 10/24/2021 at 2:34 AM, Alex said:

...

I do have a lingering anxiety that these "social hit points" approaches may juxtapose awkwardly with the much finer-grained, multi-layered statted and skill-dense combat system.  But I'm sure that's something that's finessable.

There is some argument to be made that a  "much finer-grained, multi-layered statted and skill-dense <X> system"  (n.b. not necessarily a "social hit points" system) could yield similar kinds of tense player-engagement that combat does.

Obviously, you wouldn't want to haul it out trying to bargain the cost of a room every night, or every drink at a bar...

But when it's an important scene, with lasting and meaningful consequences (declaration of exile, or outlawry; right to go on an important quest; etc) then I think something more than a single opposed-roll is just more satisfying.

And, it gives the social-skills characters a chance to shine, and gives them a similar scope for applying tactical or strategic approaches.  It gives the *player* more to do, more options, more choices to make, more game-mechanical knobs to twirl and levers to pull.

Edited October 28, 2021 by g33k

[g33k]

It occurs to me that the "social hit points" thing (with attrition-to-zero) might usefully be re-framed as a race:

• "race to victory" (set score)
• "highest score at the end of X rounds wins"
• "first to be ahead by N points of advantage"
• some other metric...

n.b. some wargames use "Victory Points" mechanisms that include some or all of these, and can explicitly give different forces different scores for the same achievements.

[Alex]

12 hours ago, Kloster said:

No, no need to go D20 (Heretic!). We use 'larger margin is the winner when quality is equal' since 30 years and RQ3.

I'm now getting visions of roleplayers ending up like darts players, and being super-proficient when subtracting two-digits numbers in multiples of five, but if asked to perform other arithmetic calculations, are suddenly stumped!

(OK, doesn't quite work for RQ3 players, as they need to need to know how that works with 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 and 16-19 too...)

[jenh]

For involved social situations where just playing it out (always my preference) is not desirable, I think there are two important elements:

1. Outcomes are rarely win-lose, or even degrees of success. In a negotiation, for example, it is entirely possible for two parties to come out achieving what they wanted - which doesn't mean that it was easy or inevitable that that would happen.

2. Interpretation must be a significant element. That is, since we're typically much more keyed in to social dynamics and nuance, there is a much greater need to particularise the abstraction of the mechanical result, whatever and however that was determined. And I wonder if that might not be aided by being very explicit about what elements might come into play in the situation.

For example, before a complex negotiation is resolved, the players and GM might write out lists of specific things that are desirable and not desirable results. These needn't be restricted to what the negotiation is about; "thinks well of us as fair bargainers" could be on there, for example, or "don't step on the toes of third-party X". Then after resolution, the results can be interpreted by selecting the various items from the lists that came to be, and those which did not.

I think that selection process couldn't be otherwise than fairly subjective - if the mechanical result was something like "great success for party A; good success for party B" the resolution system wouldn't then say "pick 80% of the desirable items from list A; pick 60% of the desirable items from list B" or whatever. Rather I see the interpretive step as itself a negotiation between GM and players, to figure out what combinations of items match the general tenor of the results.

The mechanical element is not pointless - it sets that tenor, allowing for character skill and chance to shape the outcome.

In one sense this is just a richer form of setting stakes, but I like that the interpretive stage allows for the players to engage with the realities of what is being discussed, in or out of character as they prefer.

[Kloster]

6 hours ago, Alex said:

I'm now getting visions of roleplayers ending up like darts players, and being super-proficient when subtracting two-digits numbers in multiples of five, but if asked to perform other arithmetic calculations, are suddenly stumped!

(OK, doesn't quite work for RQ3 players, as they need to need to know how that works with 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 and 16-19 too...)

In fact, it is even easier with RQ than with D20, because most of the time, you only compare the tens (announcing 'success by a margin of thirty' or 'special by a margin of ten'), and only when the number and the quality are the same, you need the full calculation. This has probably be less than 50 occurrences in more than 30 years of play, i.e. around 1 or 2 times per year.

[Alex]

13 minutes ago, Kloster said:

In fact, it is even easier with RQ than with D20, because most of the time, you only compare the tens (announcing 'success by a margin of thirty' or 'special by a margin of ten'), and only when the number and the quality are the same, you need the full calculation. This has probably be less than 50 occurrences in more than 30 years of play, i.e. around 1 or 2 times per year.

Hot take, switch to a D10 system!

But with my numerical computing hat on, I dunno how you only compare tens dice and determine 'success by a margin of thirty'.  You're also having to do a high-low one shannon comparison of the units.

[Mugen]

20 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

The skill opposition system you advocate is the resistance table. 

That's one possible solution, yes, and perhaps the simplest one.

My favourite is HQG/Pendragon style roll-under blackjack, though, but where the highest roll wins in case of a fail/fail situtation.

[Mugen]

25 minutes ago, Alex said:

Hot take, switch to a D10 system!

Well, that's exactly what I think of WarHammer 4th edition, which is a d100 roll-under game that uses the 10s of margins of success or failure. For instance, if you rolled 65 with a skill of 20 (and failed) and your opponent rolled 23 with a skill of 71 (and succeeded), he wins with a total Degree of success of 9 : your 4 points between 6 and 2 plus his 5 points between 2 and 7.

It would be a far simpler game if it used a d10+skill system instead.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Mugen

[Kloster]

28 minutes ago, Alex said:

Hot take, switch to a D10 system!

But with my numerical computing hat on, I dunno how you only compare tens dice and determine 'success by a margin of thirty'.  You're also having to do a high-low one shannon comparison of the units.

If your skill is 83% and you roll 52, you say 'Success by a margin of 30'. You have to make the full calculation only if your opponent is also with 'Success by a margin of 30'. In that case, your exact value is a success of 31 and you compare with the exact value of the opponent. If the quality (Critical, Special, Success, Failure, Fumble) is different, you don't even compare the values.

[Squaredeal Sten]

15 hours ago, jenh said:

For involved social situations where just playing it out (always my preference) is not desirable, I think there are two important elements:

1. Outcomes are rarely win-lose, or even degrees of success. In a negotiation, for example, it is entirely possible for two parties to come out achieving what they wanted - which doesn't mean that it was easy or inevitable that that would happen.

2. Interpretation must be a significant element. ....

For example, before a complex negotiation is resolved, the players and GM might write out lists of specific things that are desirable and not desirable ...

Good points, great idea on writing down goals of negotiation.

I think it is important to distinguish between persuasion and negotiation.  These seem to me to need two different templates for game mechanics.  Just as opposed skill rolls and the resistance table are two different mechanics for different situations.

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Squaredeal Sten
spelling, my nemesis.

[jenh]

4 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

I think it is important to distinguish between persuasion and negotiation.  These seem to me to need two different templates for game mechanics.  Just as opposed skill rolls and the resistance table are two different mechanics for different situations.

Can you elaborate on what the distinctions you want to make are?

I think I'd be happy to run at least some instances of persuasion using the same framework as I outlined. (Which of course are lacking the actual mechanical bit where luck and character skill are mixed together in some way to get the result that is interpreted.) For example, if Vasana is trying to convince a guard to let her in to some compound in Prax, I as GM might put "will accompany you", "requires recompense of goods or favour", "will notify superiors" on a list, while the player might have "remind her of that time I bailed her out of trouble", "pay her to look the other way", "appeal to their shared faith", "threaten her with future retribution".

Since there would be no point having the mechanical bit if persuasion was either unnecessary (the guard is always going to let her in) or ineffective (the guard is never going to let her in), Vasana has to provide some reason for the guard to do what she wants.

The key aspect of this is to be able to ground the outcome in particulars: not what exact words were said, but at least the topics and tone of what passed. If I don't have that, the entire exchange loses all reality for me.

I don't know whether that example is something you'd want to handle in a different way from a negotiation. If it is, I'd love to hear more!

Edited October 28, 2021 by jenh
Removed extraneous whitespace.

[Squaredeal Sten]

4 hours ago, jenh said:

Can you elaborate on what the distinctions you want to make are?

I think I'd be happy to run at least some instances of persuasion using the same framework as I outlined. (Which of course are lacking the actual mechanical bit where luck and character skill are mixed together in some way to get the result that is interpreted.) For example, if Vasana is trying to convince a guard to let her in to some compound in Prax, I as GM might put "will accompany you", "requires recompense of goods or favour", "will notify superiors" on a list, while the player might have "remind her of that time I bailed her out of trouble", "pay her to look the other way", "appeal to their shared faith", "threaten her with future retribution".

......

I don't know whether that example is something you'd want to handle in a different way from a negotiation. If it is, I'd love to hear more!

To me, the difference is that persuasion is for a yes/no result, and negotiation is for an exchange of actions, favors, or goods; and as you indicate, a probable result is  "requires recompense of goods or favour" . 

Yes negotiation includes persuasion, or at least has to be preceded by persuasion:  If I'm not persuaded that I want what you have to offer than I will not negotiate for it.  Negotiation indicates the need to write down bargaining goals, as you outlined above. 

I am farther along on my thought about a template for persuasion than i am about negotiation.  So let me give an example of the template i have in mind. 

I will attach a PDF form. 

It is arranged with the NPCs (individuals or groups) to be persuaded listed across the top.  Let's say that my character is trying to persuade the clan to send a war party with  her, to attack marauding scorpionmen right now, rather than waiting until after harvest or until the scorpionmen attack first.

The primary person to persuade is the clan chief.  Influencers are (just as arbitrary examples) the Ernalda priestess, the weaponthanes, and the farmers.  The farmers want to get the harvest in first, the weaponthanes want glory, and the clan chief has to balance eating and safety.  The clan chief starts as neutral to the idea, but feels Loyalty to the PC and the PC has some Reputation..

I arbitrarily say that the GM's concept of the clan is that the chief has 50% of the say-so. (He would never send out a war party against united opposition) .  The Ernalda priestess has 20%, the weaponthanes 10%, the farmers 20%, the total weight of influence is 100%.

The starting Resistance (IAW ALM's book) is 6, neutral, on a scale of 10 to 0.

The PC first goes to the friendly priestess and appeals to their mutual loyalty and to the desirability of fighting Chaos.  The GM decides that the PC's charm skill will be the basis of the attempt to persuade, but this will be augmented by their mutual loyalty and an appeal to Sartar lore (everyone knows scorpion men are a real threat.)  The augments are rolled, a success and a failure) and the effect is a benefit of 20%. 

The PC's Charm is only 30%, but after augment she is rolling for 50%, and she gets a 32.  Success!  This will change the priestess' resistance from 3 to 2.

The influence on the total decision is the difference between the chief's attitude (which is yet to be computed since the PC hasn't yet spoken to him)  and the priestess's, times the priestess's 20% influence on the decision.

The PC talks to the weaponthanes, who are neutral to favorable, appealing to glory augmented with the PC's reputation.    The GM decides the underlying skill is Orate and it will be augmented by Reputation.  But the Rep roll is fumbled! 20% unfavorable impact. Worse yet, the PC's orate roll is a 94, not quite a fumble.  The total effect on the weaponthanes is a failure to persuade, but does not alienate them.

There is a clan meeting... The PC addresses the farmers, who don't like the idea of fighting before the harvest, and the chief.

She attempts to Fast-talk the farmers past their harvest time objection, and fails. ( She also failed the Orate roll, so the augment  failure gave a penalty of 20%.)  Luckily even this does not come out as a fumble.

The address to the chief is more carefully prepared.  First, the PC gave the chief a suitable gift.  Then she succeeds with her Sartar lore and Reputation rolls! A total 60% augment.  Her orate roll is a success, but not quire a special, and the chief's opinion improves by 1, he's moving toward being interested.

The three influencer groups' effects are mixed, but the priestess is so favorable that the net result is to further persuade the chief a little, by 0.4.  Therefore the Resistance is down to 4.6, interested.  The meeting will continue....

Example use of Form for group persuasion.pdf

Edited October 29, 2021 by Squaredeal Sten
spelling, my nemesis. Took out white space.

[jenh]

11 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

To me, the difference is that persuasion is for a yes/no result, and negotiation is for an exchange of actions, favors, or goods; and as you indicate, a probable result is  "requires recompense of goods or favour" .

Interesting - thank you for going into such detail with your example! How would you handle attempts to persuade an influencer (say, the weaponthanes) via multiple different arguments? I can see how it's convenient to have a binary pass/fail for persuasion when there's one argument in play (an appeal to glory), but is there a simple way to model a second bite of the apple (potentially but not necessarily affected by earlier arguments and their reception)? 

[Squaredeal Sten]

1 minute ago, jenh said:

Interesting - thank you for going into such detail with your example! How would you handle attempts to persuade an influencer (say, the weaponthanes) via multiple different arguments? I can see how it's convenient to have a binary pass/fail for persuasion when there's one argument in play (an appeal to glory), but is there a simple way to model a second bite of the apple (potentially but not necessarily affected by earlier arguments and their reception)? 

I would treat each argument presented in the same session as an augment, and allow multiple augments.

That has the advantage that all GMs and players are already familiar with the augment concept.

A second round of persuasion will be handled by running through part B of the form again, since ALM's persuasion concept in Company of the Dragon is  explained that way.  Basically you wear down the target group(s) Resistance.   A simple success is good for 1 step on the scale of 0-10 (though you should hope to begin with Resistance in the center of the scale - 10 is for persuading enemies!)   It takes a special or a  Critical to make 2 or 4 steps of progress.  So you can persuade an Interested group in one round, but a Neutral group will take at least two.  It seems to be oriented toward the idea that you will usually need more than one argument.

 

 

[Squaredeal Sten]

I am thinking that in a second round, the targeted groups' reactions to the first round might affect each other; that is, if the priestess and the chief change to be favorable, then in round 2 they might affect the weaponthanes and the farmers.  Say a change to Interested or Inclined  will affect the other groups favorably, while a Hostile or Suspicious change will be unfavorable.

In this way the clan should move toward a consensus. 

What do you think of that as a mechanic for simulating the group?

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Squaredeal Sten
spelling, clarity

[jenh]

34 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

What do you think of that as a mechanic for simulating the group?

Sounds sensible to me. I expect that in play, under whatever system (definitely including my outline above), I'd very quickly get frustrated and want to run everything as in-character conversations with outcomes determined solely on what feels right, but that's neither a mechanic nor something many people find at all satisfying (for a variety of entirely valid reasons). I'm at the extreme end of not caring about gamist concerns.

[DreadDomain]

On 10/15/2021 at 9:34 AM, Jeff said:

As an aside, I would. IMO this is one of the best fight scenes ever and I love it when RQ fights go this way:
 

 

Great example! In this case, the build up to the fight is as important if not more than the fight itself. Passions! Orate! Fast draw! In a sense, this fight feels more Pendragon than RuneQuest.

On 10/27/2021 at 4:51 PM, Mugen said:

Another thing RQG lacks is a skill opposition system which results in less ties, especially with high or low skills.

The Resistance Table is of course an option. As for the opoosition roll, I understand the approach Chaosium chose but a simple sentence to add that in cases of non-sensical (or non interesting) ties, the higher roll wins (as it was in the Quickstart) would have covered every cases. Oh well, It doesn't matter they didn't include it, it's how it works anyway!

On 10/27/2021 at 10:49 PM, Kloster said:

No, no need to go D20 (Heretic!). We use 'larger margin is the winner when quality is equal'

Outrage! That's preposterous! There is no precedent for that!

On 10/27/2021 at 10:49 PM, Kloster said:

since 30 years and RQ3.

Oh...

[Squaredeal Sten]

3 hours ago, jenh said:

Sounds sensible to me. I expect that in play, under whatever system (definitely including my outline above), I'd very quickly get frustrated and want to run everything as in-character conversations with outcomes determined solely on what feels right, but that's neither a mechanic nor something many people find at all satisfying (for a variety of entirely valid reasons). I'm at the extreme end of not caring about gamist concerns.

And that's certainly OK with me.  My purpose is to put a definite mechanic out in public in accord with the theme of the thread.  This suggestion is  intended to get  players and GMs thinking about non-combat events. 

It has the advantage of knowability: It's a template to follow:

• Methodically suggests to GMs how to think about and prep background for those non-combat interactions. 
• and suggests how to do  persuasive rather than combat actions, using the adventurers' existing skills and lores and suggests identifying who is to be persuaded.  If you want to skip die rolls and do in-character conversations that's definitely OK with me. 

I will personally try to push the adventurers into doing in-character conversation anyway, if only to define what they are trying to do.    But when the player has Orate 5% and the character has Orate 60%, the die roll is intended to let the player play someone who can orate.  Just like plenty of people who have never thrust a sword or a spear (or a rifle and bayonet, very similar to a 2 handed  spear) can play characters who have Broadsword 90%, 2H Spear 90%.  If you want to  play a Mostali with a musket, do you have to have a real world skill with muzzle loading smoothbores?  

Now the next step is to do a similar template for a bargaining situation.  The GM decides which of the two templates fits the situation and the adventurers' goals.