Social System Critique
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:31 pm
Alright so I'm trying to do a thing and I need to know if it's shit or not.
A PC and an NPC have reached an impasse. The PC has decided they would like to try and negotiate with the NPC and wishes to roll a persuasion attempt.
The PC only has 1 diplomacy skill but can choose from 5 different approaches:
Friendly
Assertive/Authoritative
Hostile
Deceitful
Bargaining
Each NPC has two styles that they are receptive to, one they are neutral to, and two they are not receptive to. If the PC picks an approach that the NPC is receptive to, they get a bonus to their skill roll, neutral no bonus, disdainful gets a penalty.
So for example the PCs are trying to negotiate with a villain's lackey. His receptive approaches are Bargaining (he's selfish and self serving) and Hostility (he's a coward and easily bullied into line), Neutral towards Friendly advances, and disdainful of attempts to Deceive him (he is suspicious by nature) or be Authoritative (command or try and argue with him).
My thoughts: In real life conversations, how people receive my statements often has less to do with what I've said and more to do with how I've said it. In most rpgs "how it's said" tends to be bundled into the diplomacy/charisma stat where it's assumed if you roll high enough your character said it the right way. I wanted something that allowed the GM to account a little more for tone without playing mother may I.
Investment in Talking Pretty can outweigh penalty: If a face with insane talking skills meets a TN despite picking a disdainful approach then the assumption is they're good enough to push through their social faux paw and get their intention across regardless.
Add ons:
- Character options for face focused characters that would give them either a bonus to two approaches of choice (at least enough to negate the penalty incurred for choosing poorly) or the ability to know which approaches are a bad idea.
- Modifiers for NPCs who are currently actively hostile to the party. The BBEG would probably all of his approaches set to "No" while someone who disliked the PCs intensely might have 3-4 disdainful approaches and only neutral options.
- Modifiers for NPCs who like the PCs a great deal. Basically reverse the above.
Does this seem like a workable social conflict resolution system or am I being too complicate/not complicated enough? Too much overhead for the GM? Just plain stupid?
A PC and an NPC have reached an impasse. The PC has decided they would like to try and negotiate with the NPC and wishes to roll a persuasion attempt.
The PC only has 1 diplomacy skill but can choose from 5 different approaches:
Friendly
Assertive/Authoritative
Hostile
Deceitful
Bargaining
Each NPC has two styles that they are receptive to, one they are neutral to, and two they are not receptive to. If the PC picks an approach that the NPC is receptive to, they get a bonus to their skill roll, neutral no bonus, disdainful gets a penalty.
So for example the PCs are trying to negotiate with a villain's lackey. His receptive approaches are Bargaining (he's selfish and self serving) and Hostility (he's a coward and easily bullied into line), Neutral towards Friendly advances, and disdainful of attempts to Deceive him (he is suspicious by nature) or be Authoritative (command or try and argue with him).
My thoughts: In real life conversations, how people receive my statements often has less to do with what I've said and more to do with how I've said it. In most rpgs "how it's said" tends to be bundled into the diplomacy/charisma stat where it's assumed if you roll high enough your character said it the right way. I wanted something that allowed the GM to account a little more for tone without playing mother may I.
Investment in Talking Pretty can outweigh penalty: If a face with insane talking skills meets a TN despite picking a disdainful approach then the assumption is they're good enough to push through their social faux paw and get their intention across regardless.
Add ons:
- Character options for face focused characters that would give them either a bonus to two approaches of choice (at least enough to negate the penalty incurred for choosing poorly) or the ability to know which approaches are a bad idea.
- Modifiers for NPCs who are currently actively hostile to the party. The BBEG would probably all of his approaches set to "No" while someone who disliked the PCs intensely might have 3-4 disdainful approaches and only neutral options.
- Modifiers for NPCs who like the PCs a great deal. Basically reverse the above.
Does this seem like a workable social conflict resolution system or am I being too complicate/not complicated enough? Too much overhead for the GM? Just plain stupid?