Social Combat

[hyzmarca]

Because no one has proposed a complete diplomacy minigame overhaul in a while, I figure that I might as well restart this exercise in absolute futility.

To start with
SHP: Characters get Social Hit Points Equal to their Hit Dice + Charisma Bonus

SAB: Diplomacy is no longer a skill. It is replaced by the Social Attack Bonus. Classes with Diplomacy as a class skill get a point of SAB every level. Characters without get 3/4 of a point every level.

Social AC: Not sure yet + Wisdom Modifier

Social Damage: Not Sure yet + Charisma Modifier

Social Combat takes place in normal combat time, and social combat attacks may be used instead of physical combat attacks. Social attacks affect a single target capable of understanding your communication at full SAB or every target capable of understanding your communication at half SAB.

Unlike normal combat, a PC must ask for a Concession when he makes his first social attack. Depending on how harmful/undesirable this goal is to the target character, the DM adds a modifier to his AC.

Example Concessions: Give me Roanoak Castle, Stop trying to kill us, Your friendship, an alliance, that cool sword over there.

Intimidate and Bluff are no longer skills. They are maneuver that may be used in social combat.

Public Speaking/Mass Social Combat
A crowd is treated as a single unit with social stats equal to those of it's highest leveled member.

Victory and Concessions
Dropping a target to 0 SHP or less knocks him out of combat but does not make him your slave for life. Instead, he agrees that you were right about whatever you were arguing over and grants you the Concession you requested. Multiple Concessions require multiple social combats.

Negotiations and Counter-Offers. If a character is losing social combat, or even if he thinks he might not win, he can instead make a counter-offer, to his opponents. If the counter-offer is accepted, social combat ends immediately.

The opposing characters may instead make a counter-counter-offer and so fourth until they come to a mutual agreement.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You know, before we even get into the nuts and bolts of it I don't even LIKE the name social combat or what it implies.

If you were running a game like Secret Agent Man or War of the Roses in which it was assumed that everyone you talked to that was not already friendly was antagonistic and was trying to schtup you for maximum advantage, then sure. Social combat would be an acceptable way of describing how you interact with other people. But for a game like D&D in which the vast majority of social encounters that don't start out in violence are indifferent, potentially mutualistic, or even downright friendly I feel that's an extremely bad way of framing the game.

If you're meeting a band of drunken but non-hostile orcs on the road or a roving squad of guards on the hunt for a murderer, I think it's stupid to imply that the typical outcome is for one party to 'defeat' the other using diplomacy or intimidation.

[Username17]

You know, before we even get into the nuts and bolts of it I don't even LIKE the name social combat or what it implies.

If you're meeting a band of drunken but non-hostile orcs on the road or a roving squad of guards on the hunt for a murderer, I think it's stupid to imply that the typical outcome is for one party to 'defeat' the other using diplomacy or intimidation.

Very much this. Haggling minigames might benefit from "winners and losers", but even then there's a very real chance of agreement not being reached and then neither party getting what they want. Just as there is a very real chance of both parties getting a price they find acceptable and transferring goods.

The problem with any sort of diplomatic "combat" system is that it completely fails to address the entirely likely situation where actual diplomacy might get every party what they want. When two groups meet by chance on a path in the woods, probably neither one wants to have a deadly altercation. Having one happen anyway is the result of failure to communicate that fact in a trustworthy manner by one or both members. In a diplomatic combat model, the other side is the enemy and combat is the loss state, thus making it considerably more likely that you'll have a sword duel if the other guy on the path is good at diplomacy. That's fucking stupid.

Diplomacy minigames should be "diplomatic challenges" and the goal is to find or create agreement space. Not to "defeat" the other party.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

The problem with any sort of diplomatic "combat" system is that it completely fails to address the entirely likely situation where actual diplomacy might get every party what they want.

Except say. Any and every social combat system I've every proposed around here. What with them only even kicking in AFTER the condition that parties DON'T agree as the starting point for the social mechanics. Which, you know, virtually everyone should do in some form if working on this sort of thing.

But don't let that stop Frank from arguing against any and every attempt anyone makes at a social system more advanced than his own "lets just not have one" two posts in.

Just sayin'

[John Magnum]

Just because you assume disagreement as a starting condition for when social minigame music starts playing doesn't mean that "combat" isn't still a wildly inappropriate metaphor.

[PhoneLobster]

doesn't mean that "combat" isn't still a wildly inappropriate metaphor.

People use it for a metaphor because what they want is the same sort of abstract mini game as you get out of you know combat. It's a metaphor for a mechanical goal, not a mission statement about context and outcomes.

In that context it is a perfectly appropriate metaphor, but one which the "we demand no functional formal rules for social stuff EVAR!" crowd does not accept, because, well, they actually don't WANT an abstracted formal system to handly ANY portion of social interactions, even when you actually take the time to hive off the bits that could benefit from it while leaving the rest untouched. They are basically backwards grognards and you are encouraging them.

[Username17]

The problem with any sort of diplomatic "combat" system is that it completely fails to address the entirely likely situation where actual diplomacy might get every party what they want.

Except say. Any and every social combat system I've every proposed around here. What with them only even kicking in AFTER the condition that parties DON'T agree as the starting point for the social mechanics. Which, you know, virtually everyone should do in some form if working on this sort of thing.

But don't let that stop Frank from arguing against any and every attempt anyone makes at a social system more advanced than his own "lets just not have one" two posts in.

Just sayin'

If your proposal for a diplomacy minigame for Dungeons & Dragons cannot handle "attempting to diffuse tension and misunderstanding in a chance encounter in a dangerous area such as a wilderness or cavern complex", then it is as worthless as all your other diplomacy suggestions. Just sayin.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Letsee...

You seem dangerous lets fight -> Agreed!
No social combat occurs. Situation resolved.

You seem dangerous -> Wait, No I'm Not -> Agreed!
No social combat occurs. Situation resolved.

You seem dangerous -> No I'm Not -> I Don't Believe you...
Social combat triggered, aiming to a friendly defeat outcome (in my systems) or some similar concession in other systems. Situation resolved.

Better yet in my particular proposals the actual mechanism for resolving convincing them into friendship actually permits it to occur during actual sword swinging. Which makes that situation REALLY dynamic and well resolved in a thematically appropriate way that provides awesome story telling and plot development potential.

Other proposals might not be nearly as dynamic as that. But actually writing a passive social "mechanic" for situations where everyone ALREADY wants the same fucking thing is kinda stupid. You are effectively once again trying to destroy discussion of ANY social mechanic that might provide a good outcome, like convincing the forest guardians that you aren't invaders while they try and stab you, in order to accommodate a stupid edge case scenario we don't give a shit about like your old "beggar asks for small change no one fucking cares about" scenarios.

[Ice9]

Unlike normal combat, a PC must ask for a Concession when he makes his first social attack. Depending on how harmful/undesirable this goal is to the target character, the DM adds a modifier to his AC.

This is pretty much the million dollar question where every previous social combat system I've seen has failed. Determining what the limits of a concession are, what the modifiers within that range should be, and how that varies from person to person is the hard part of a social combat system, and leaving it out is about as complete a system as D&D spellcasting with the entire spell chapter removed and replaced with "the DM will assign a spell level and details".

This isn't even about how much say the DM has in the process. Even for a system with completely DM-assigned DCs, the guidelines for setting them are still a major component.

The problem with any sort of diplomatic "combat" system is that it completely fails to address the entirely likely situation where actual diplomacy might get every party what they want. When two groups meet by chance on a path in the woods, probably neither one wants to have a deadly altercation. Having one happen anyway is the result of failure to communicate that fact in a trustworthy manner by one or both members

Definitely an issue I've seen with numerous social combat systems - convincing a perceptive person of the truth is harder than convincing an idiot. Fail. To which end, I've used something like this:

Diplomacy Use: Convey (Actual) Sincerity
This is not an opposed check, the DC is based on the improbability of what you're saying. In fact, the target also rolls Sense Motive - use the higher of the two results against the DC.

Better yet in my particular proposals the actual mechanism for resolving convincing them into friendship actually permits it to occur during actual sword swinging. Which makes that situation REALLY dynamic and well resolved in a thematically appropriate way that provides awesome story telling and plot development potential.

Apologies if I'm remembering wrong, but wasn't your system the one where convincing a peasant to commit seppuku for your amusement was easier than convincing a rich merchant to give you a couple gp?

[Username17]

Letsee...

You seem dangerous lets fight -> Agreed!
No social combat occurs. Situation resolved.

You seem dangerous -> Wait, No I'm Not -> Agreed!
No social combat occurs. Situation resolved.

You've already failed. If you can meet the Myconids and convince them to stop being wary of you without rolling dice, your entire system has failed. You don't even have a system at that point, because convincing the Myconids that you aren't an attacker and they don't need to fight you is the very first thing D&D needs a diplomacy system for. It's literally 100% of the diplomacy system from AD&D, and that was considered to be sufficient.

-Username17

[MGuy]

Wait a second. Now I remember not liking PL's system but what he listed here seems legit. He does say:

You seem dangerous -> No I'm Not -> I Don't Believe you...
Social combat triggered, aiming to a friendly defeat outcome (in my systems) or some similar concession in other systems. Situation resolved.

So if "whatever" doesn't take the party at his word a social encounter ensues. How is it that his system fails if he doesn't bother with a social encounter if the GM decides that (for whatever reason) the mushroom people don't view the PCs as a threat? Could be some magic involved or maybe the PCs have met them before so no more rolls are needed. Perhaps the plant people are really motherfuckin' peaceful and don't need convincing and will take someone at their word (unlikely but still).

[John Magnum]

Well, the point is that the decision of which branch of that flowchart you go down--do you or do you not believe that the people you've just met are hostile--seems to be something that should be adjudicated by a diplomacy engine. If not the entire point thereof.

It's like how the entire system punts the question of "How does the NPC react to this particular demand for a concession?" by just having the DM pull a modifier out of his ass. That's the entire crux of the issue, so having that by not a part of the system means that the system just... really doesn't cover very much.

This is part of why "social combat" continues to be a really poor conceit for any subsystem that purports to handle diplomacy. You end up excluding vast and important swathes of what people in the real world think diplomacy is so that you can cram the social interactions you CAN handle into the adversarial format.

[Omegonthesane]

Letsee...

You seem dangerous lets fight -> Agreed!
No social combat occurs. Situation resolved.

You seem dangerous -> Wait, No I'm Not -> Agreed!
No social combat occurs. Situation resolved.

You've already failed. If you can meet the Myconids and convince them to stop being wary of you without rolling dice, your entire system has failed. You don't even have a system at that point, because convincing the Myconids that you aren't an attacker and they don't need to fight you is the very first thing D&D needs a diplomacy system for. It's literally 100% of the diplomacy system from AD&D, and that was considered to be sufficient.

-Username17

The same way that the combat system has automatically failed if, without me rolling dice, the orc guards who have no prior reason to initiate hostilities can decide that my party is not worthy of their attentions?

Hate to say it but PL is right, you are grasping at straws to shut the discussion down here. That or Occam's Razor has failed me for the last time and will be shot.

[Username17]

Well, the point is that the decision of which branch of that flowchart you go down--do you or do you not believe that the people you've just met are hostile--seems to be something that should be adjudicated by a diplomacy engine. If not the entire point thereof.

It's like how the entire system punts the question of "How does the NPC react to this particular demand for a concession?" by just having the DM pull a modifier out of his ass. That's the entire crux of the issue, so having that by not a part of the system means that the system just... really doesn't cover very much.

Pretty much this. If your "system" forks to "you win" and "you lose" at the MTP stage before any dice are rolled or modifiers checked, you don't have a system. You at best have an optional subsystem that the DM can pull out when he feels like it.

If you invest in a big modifier to diplomacy, then at the very least this should in some tangible way allow you to increase the odds of having non-violent encounters with wary strangers. As stated previously, that was literally 100% of the diplomacy system for 20 years and the game did manage to limp along with that. It is the only non-negotiable portion of a D&D diplomacy minigame: determining whether you get to have non-violent encounters with wary strangers encountered in dangerous areas.

There are lots of things it would be nice for a diplomacy subsystem to be able to handle. It would be nice to be able to talk violent encounters down to peaceful ones. It would be nice to be able to negotiate favorable deals in treaty negotiations. It would be nice to be able to haggle for goods and services. It would be nice to be able to get neutral groups to side with you in ongoing conflicts. It would be nice to be able to get allies of your enemies to withdraw their support. It would be nice to be able to inspire people to follow you. It would be nice to be able to convince others to follow your plan instead of the plan of some other dude who might be a doppleganger. It would be nice to be able to seduce princesses. It would be nice to be able to convince people that one danger is pressing enough that it needs to be dealt with in a priority fashion.

And so on. But literally the only thing that the diplomacy system has to do to be anything other than a flaming bag of dog shit is to unambiguously let Diplomatic McBardypants convince wary strangers in dangerous regions to have a peaceful encounter instead of rolling initiative. If you have to MTP that, you don't have a fucking system.

-Username17

[ishy]

But literally the only thing that the diplomacy system has to do to be anything other than a flaming bag of dog shit is to unambiguously let Diplomatic McBardypants convince wary strangers in dangerous regions to have a peaceful encounter instead of rolling initiative. If you have to MTP that, you don't have a fucking system.

-Username17

Doesn't that lead to, encounter -> bard does her thing, everyone else looks bored -> other stuff?

[Username17]

But literally the only thing that the diplomacy system has to do to be anything other than a flaming bag of dog shit is to unambiguously let Diplomatic McBardypants convince wary strangers in dangerous regions to have a peaceful encounter instead of rolling initiative. If you have to MTP that, you don't have a fucking system.

-Username17

Doesn't that lead to, encounter -> bard does her thing, everyone else looks bored -> other stuff?

Does that inevitably happen when Rangers make a tracking or scouting check?

-Username17

[John Magnum]

At some point, we have to live with the fact that we cannot have every party member involved equally in every scene of the game. We don't try to write up subsystems that make it so that everyone has to do a Power of Friendship speech to charge up the wizard's Cloudkill. When zie casts Cloudkill, that's it.

So, similarly, at some level it's just OKAY for there to be a party face who does most of the talking. Now, there are ways this can fail pretty badly. Crucially, the amount of real-world time that we spend going through mechanics that only one player interacts with can get large, fast. And on a longer timescale, if one player monopolizes a disproportionate amount of scenes, then stuff gets ugly. But the sheer fact that some encounters will play out as "One person can convince a group of NPCs that they don't have something to fear from the PCs" is not an immediate cause for concern.

A possible way to alleviate this concern is to track how your character either supports or undermines the bard's persuasion attempt. If you've got a barbarian coated in kobold guts standing around glaring at everyone, then the bard's explanations are tougher. Whatever. That can get you a modicum of sensible contribution from other party members, and it gives you a good place to stick a bunch of examples of DC modifiers and suchlike.

[Pedantic]

One issue I'm seeing is how difficult the "convince them not to kill us" roll ought to be. If the game is primarily about killing monsters and taking their stuff, you actually don't want the bard to succeed terribly often, because that nets less stuff and risks shutting the barbarian out of the game a lot.

On the other hand, tuning it to a number that results in a lot of combat will make the bard feel miserable, because his talking powers work so rarely (and presumably less effectively against level-appropriate foes).

Easiest way around all of that is to make the rest of the diplomacy system more accessible. It'd be nice if you could get away with some sort of gradient of success mechanic, but the problem with that is that only potential outcomes are "they fight you," "they talk to you more" or, in some situations "they leave."

[Lago PARANOIA]

One issue I'm seeing is how difficult the "convince them not to kill us" roll ought to be. If the game is primarily about killing monsters and taking their stuff, you actually don't want the bard to succeed terribly often, because that nets less stuff and risks shutting the barbarian out of the game a lot.

It'd be nice if you could get away with some sort of gradient of success mechanic, but the problem with that is that only potential outcomes are "they fight you," "they talk to you more" or, in some situations "they leave."

[Dean]

Does that inevitably happen when Rangers make a tracking or scouting check?

-Username17

At some point, we have to live with the fact that we cannot have every party member involved equally in every scene of the game.

See this is bullshit. If this system is going to cover all PC-NPC interactions it is totally unacceptable to just shrug and accept that only one person gets to play. That's why people keep calling it Social Combat and not social tracking because they don't want it to be anything like the single check binary system that tracking is and more like the multifaceted and all inclusive system that combat is.

"Only one person plays that minigame" is not a shrug off problem it's a real fucking problem

[hyzmarca]

Ideally, "don't try to kill me" should be part of a negotiation, not a binary win-lose condition.

You convince the other guys to put away their weapons by offering to put away your weapons first (or at the same time, if you're paranoid).

However, such negotiations should not be separate from the combat in game. Rolling initiative should not make non-lethal resolution impossible.

Ideally, your face should continue doing his thing during the combat mini-game, either by performing maneuvers that inflict status effects (intimidate to induce Fear, for example) or by offering compromise (which would end the combat if accepted). Or both.

[Lago PARANOIA]

See this is bullshit. If this system is going to cover all PC-NPC interactions it is totally unacceptable to just shrug and accept that only one person gets to play. That's why people keep calling it Social Combat and not social tracking because they don't want it to be anything like the single check binary system that tracking is and more like the multifaceted and all inclusive system that combat is.

Aside from the fact that combat is an inappropriate metaphor to begin with for diplomacy, you've highlighted the other problem with making diplomacy a team-based interaction.

See, team-based combat works because there is one goal (disable and/or rout all the enemies while losing as few people on your side as possible) and the myriad tools and tactics players have ironically end up leading down the same road. This is precisely what you don't want to have for a social-based system.

To put this into perspective, people already bitterly complain about the Save or Die/Vanilla Damage problem; that is, groups end up working at cross-purposes at each other and nullify each others' contributions. And they all have the same goal! Imagine how much people will end up stepping on other party members' toes when one person is an earnest friendship-speech giving priestess and the other is a scary-as-hell macho barbarian.

[PhoneLobster]

Ideally, your face should continue doing his thing during the combat mini-game, either by performing maneuvers that inflict status effects (intimidate to induce Fear, for example) or by offering compromise (which would end the combat if accepted). Or both.

You have three options to deal with the "this is the bard's mini game".

One, everyone plays the minigame, it doesn't belong to the bard.

Two, the above. The bard's "minigame" is actually just something productive he (or possibly anyone) can do during the usual minigame.

Or three. You totally kick your social mechanics in the nuts until they are quick and largely worthless drivel so it doesn't matter that only the bard does it.

You will note that Frank will kick a shit fit over anything other than three. Which is rather sad really. Because the first two are far more interesting options.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Option four: This is the bard's minigame, but it's really quick, and then you move on to the next thing.

[PhoneLobster]

Er. That was option three.

If you do it twice it will take too long.