Social Conflict and the BRP

[IndianaKen]

I am kicking around some ideas for using the combat matrix to resolve social conflict, especially since I am considering a Mad Men/ Cultists style mini-campaign for the Incarnations campaign I am running (a multi-era historical campaign style based around a series of reincarnations). Each conflict will have to have the results of the matrix defined for it, but I am undecided as to rather or not to write up a separate matrix for each social skill, or set the results based on the individual conflict. Of course, like combat, several rounds will need to be completed before the conflict is resolved. Any ideas?

[RosenMcStern]

Check Parpuzio Game System for a solution. The key to the problem is not how to translate the matrix, which represents a single exchange, but determinitg when an entire conflict is over.

The key mechanics in BRP is that when you lose or win a d100 roll, someone loses some sort of "hit points": Sanity, Hit Points, Location Hit Points, Power Points, Fatigue or such. It is just a matter of finding a suitable solution for social conflicts (Reputation, Stability or whatever).

[Jegergryte]

I suddenly became interested in a system like this, referring to my last question in the Dragon Lines book…

Reputation and Honour are two types of social "hit points" I can think of just now, Pride another, which would somehow be related to appearance/charisma (and perhaps something else?). Of course the name and nature of how it works would vary from setting to setting, even culture to culture, so here an initial decision must be made, if its to be a generic as possible system… or setting-specific. I know L5R has a system for this type of thing, not sure it lends itself well to BRP though, been way too long since I looked at that game… and its very setting-related…

Status should, at least could, also be tied into this, perhaps as a complementary bonus of some sort.

Hmmm...

[IndianaKen]

Let's call it Reputation (the name can change depending on the genre). Also, the chateristics used to figure it should vary by the genre. We'll use an outlaw gang as an example.

Reputation= APP + SIZ (the bigger outlaws have an advantage)

Social Conflict: occurs in rounds, each round approximately 30 sec., but can be altered to fight the engagement.

Initiative oder is based on max reputation+ 1d10

Each combatant stakes an amount of reputation at the start of the conflict. Instead of attacking, a combatant may up his ante. Each party in the conflict must state his goals should he win.

Attack with a social skill, defend with another, one 'free' defense per round, standard spiral of defense skill after the first defense. The results of Special damage for each social skill needs to be determined.

Matrix

Attacker Defender Result

Critical Critical No damage

Critical Special Defender loses 10% of stake

Critical Success Defender loses 10% of stake, plus Special, plus attacker +10% on next attack roll

Critical Failure Defender loses 50% of stake, plus Special, plus attacker +20% on next attack roll

Critical Fumble Defender loses 75% of stake, plus Special, plus attacker's next attack roll is Easy

Special Critical No Damage, attacker -10% on next attack roll

Special Special No Damage

Special Success Defender loses 10% stake, plus Special

Special Failure Defender loses 25% stake, plus special

Special Fumble Defender loses 50% stake, plus special

Success Critical No damage, attacker's next attack roll is Difficult

Success Special No Damage, attacker -10% on next attack roll

Success Success No Damage

Success Failure Defender loses 25% of stake

Success Fumble Defender loses 50% of stake

Failure - No Damage

Fumble - Attacker rolls ont he appropriate fumble table

[RosenMcStern]

Sounds a bit too complicate to me. The attack matrix exists to put an end to the endless attack/parry sequence of earlier versions of BRP. I do not see such complication as needed for social conflicts. Furthermore, why should debating against several opponents be more difficult? You can have several attorneys show up in court, but only one of them can speak at any given time.

[rust]

Social conflicts usually are about some specific issue and about whose proposal

how to deal with that issue is accepted. Therefore we use the skill related to

dealing with the issue in question and add modifiers based upon the character's

status (or whatever you want to call it) and social skill used, and the better re-

sult wins the contest.

As an example, imagine two caravels on a voyage of exploration. The captain of

one ship wants to continue further into the unknown, but the captain of the other

ship wants to return to the home port.

The character who begins the conflict determines which of the related skills he

uses for his "attack". In our example it is the second captain, the one who wants

to end the expedition, and he bases his argument on his Navigation skill ("We ha-

ve no idea where exactly we are and are in danger of getting lost completely, let

us sail home while we can still find the right route").

The characters add the modifiers for the social skills they use, in this case probab-

ly Persuade, and for their Status (or Reputation, etc.) to their Navigation skill. In

some campaigns we used 10 % of the social skill and the Status as modifiers, in

other campaigns only 5 %.

Then both characters make a normal success roll, and the one with the better re-

sult wins the conflict. If both fail to succeed, the conflict remains unresolved for

now.

[Zit]

Just an idea: you may think about something I did sometime for mass combat, based on psychic combat (!!) and opposed characteristic roll:

1- Every side has its „hp“ (Let’s say “credibility“, or coherence), based on whatever is relevant (characteristic, situation, social position, reputation, membership of a community…), in the range of 3-18. For example, APP for an attorney APP +/- bonus depending on his knowledge of the case, if he’s in the same bridge club than the judge, if he’s a half-troll among humans or half-elves…

2- One or several characters in each side have a chance to use a social skill to decrease the opposing side’s credibility, let’s say 1d3, or any other effect the skill may have on the conflict. If you want to, you may allow “offensive” rolls which decrease opponent the credibility or defensive ones which increases yours: this depends on the complexity level you want to play, but I would suggest to limit any increase which will slow down the process

4- Add bonus for role playing

5- Every side makes an opposed credibility roll like in psychic combat, decreasing the opponent’s credibility of 1d3 in case of success. Start again at point 2 for a new round until one reaches 0.

Or

5bis- end the conflict as soon as one has a higher success level than the opponent. Otherwise starts again at point 2.

Or

5ter- even faster: make an opposed credibility roll

This is just a basic idea. Since social conflicts are the best chance for role playing, I think there should be a way to push players to role-play and to only roll dices (point 4).

[Evilschemer]

Let's call it Reputation (the name can change depending on the genre). Also, the chateristics used to figure it should vary by the genre. We'll use an outlaw gang as an example.

Reputation= APP + SIZ (the bigger outlaws have an advantage)

Social Conflict: occurs in rounds, each round approximately 30 sec., but can be altered to fight the engagement.

Initiative oder is based on max reputation+ 1d10

Each combatant stakes an amount of reputation at the start of the conflict. Instead of attacking, a combatant may up his ante. Each party in the conflict must state his goals should he win.

Attack with a social skill, defend with another, one 'free' defense per round, standard spiral of defense skill after the first defense. The results of Special damage for each social skill needs to be determined.

Matrix

Attacker Defender Result

Critical Critical No damage

Critical Special Defender loses 10% of stake

Critical Success Defender loses 10% of stake, plus Special, plus attacker +10% on next attack roll

Critical Failure Defender loses 50% of stake, plus Special, plus attacker +20% on next attack roll

Critical Fumble Defender loses 75% of stake, plus Special, plus attacker's next attack roll is Easy

Special Critical No Damage, attacker -10% on next attack roll

Special Special No Damage

Special Success Defender loses 10% stake, plus Special

Special Failure Defender loses 25% stake, plus special

Special Fumble Defender loses 50% stake, plus special

Success Critical No damage, attacker's next attack roll is Difficult

Success Special No Damage, attacker -10% on next attack roll

Success Success No Damage

Success Failure Defender loses 25% of stake

Success Fumble Defender loses 50% of stake

Failure - No Damage

Fumble - Attacker rolls ont he appropriate fumble table

I like it. It's the germ of a good idea.

The only thing I think it's missing is social "armor" in the form of stubborn-ness or clueless-ness or some other means of ignoring or missing or reducing the impact of the point.

The other day, I got into a debate about gun control with a friend of mine (I am pro, he is against).

After the debate, we both conceded that the other made some very good points and I think we both explained our positions eloquently using examples and analogies.

But ultimately, I was never going to change his mind and he was never going to change my mind. Neither one of us were doing enough social "damage" to get past the other's armor. We were plinking away at each other's defenses. A little was getting through and both of us ended the discussion a little more enlightened about each other's views, but either one of us would need much bigger "guns" to really affect the other.

I suppose using the above rules, we would both be countering each other's rolls. Successful attacks and successful defenses resulting in no damage. I think we were both achieves successes in our "attacks" because we both recognized that the other made good points, but we were successfully "parrying" the attacks with the strengths of our convictions.

[Atgxtg]

Spirit of the Century has social conflict and it works similar to other forms of combat.

POW (as in Willpower), APP, and INT are all prime candidates for "social hit points." A successful roll could inflict damage.

I'd go with tying the damage die to INT+POW, or INT+APP, kinda like a damage bonus, as brighter, more charismatic people tend to find the best barbs.

I'd also suggesting using major woulds of some sort, to reflect especially devastating hits that might not win the debate outright, but make a given position untenable.

[Evilschemer]

Also, different skills represent different tactics but could result in consequences.

Persuasion is the long road, requiring logic and reasoning, but in the end your opponent agrees with you with no hard feelings. Also, it becomes harder for someone else to un-do your persuasion.

Intimidate, however, is the short path, doing the most "damage", but in the end your opponent will hate or fear you. Plus, it's easy for someone to un-do the coersion.

Fast Talk can be a short path, using confusion and misdirection to baffle your opponent into acquiescence, or the long path, using more subtle lies to "persuade" your opponent using fabricated facts or false logic. An opponent swayed by Fast Talk can be easily undone by someone else with Persuasion.