Social Combat

[Lago PARANOIA]

I said "cause", not "roll" for a reason, Lago.

That's still the totally wrong way to look at it and is the source of all this confusion. A game engine should not see Ms. Diplomat 'causing' a reaction roll, a game engine should roll for how the wizard reacts to Ms. Diplomat's current actions. The English language allows this kind of equivocation in the bimonthly sense, but when talking about a game we need to be more explicit with our transitive verbs.

Anyways, "If Ms. Diplomat looked like his secret wizard school crush and was wearing a hot outfit and was patting a small child on the head, the assassin might decide to delay the attack or even cancel it altogether" sounds about as close to "Diplomacy should be called Cute and Innocent" as I'm going to get out of you, isn't it?

[*] While determining the starting attitudes of a person towards another creature (or even nothing at all) and providing ways for someone to alter how others perceive/react to them is the bare minimum of what you need for a diplomacy system, it's still the bare minimum. We haven't even discussed ways of getting favors or altering long-term attitudes or whatever yet. The diplomacy system can and should be more robust than this.

[*] I know you were trying to be snarky and clever, but nonetheless the name is deeply misleading. Being cute and innocent may or may not be the best way to get a good or bad reaction out of someone. Conan the Barbarian will get a better reaction out of Thog than Tenderfoot Fluffikins. The idea behind Cute and Innocent is sound but it needs a better name.

[*] Depending on how you want your diplomacy system to go the Cute and Innocent ability may not be a large part of how opening negotiations go. I feel that 'diplomatic' characters should get some kind of generic bonus that applies regardless of the particulars of the situation, but making the numbers too large creates the idiocy of convincing the king to happily and willingly hand over the kingdom even though you just killed his family.

[Foxwarrior]

Would you prefer "Fashion Sense"? Some more austere name like "Presentation"?

Presumably you'd want some element of choosing whether to be more or less politically correct at any given time, so you could get large or small bonuses with some people at the cost of proportionally larger penalties with others.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Maybe, but that might be getting too complicated for most games to have a Presentation: Underworld, Presentation: Religious Orders, Presentation: Nobility etc. skill or subskills. I'd rather just have one broad 'charisma' bonus and adjust penalties or bonuses on the fly.

[Foxwarrior]

No, the bonus and penalty stuff would be something you chose in-game when you decided to wear the priest's robes.

[MGuy]

Ending a combat encounter is not the same thing as starting a social encounter. You might as well say that speak with dead is just as good as Diplomacy at that point.

-Username17

So what exactly keeps you from starting a social encounter with the options I laid out? What, to you, constitutes starting a social encounter?

A social encounter is one in which you talk to someone. Rather than an encounter where you fight them and then interrogate them afterward. I really don't understand why this seems so fucking hard for you to understand.

-Username17

The reason I am confused is because you're spouting about how my three options don't allow you to talk to someone and you have thus far completely failed to explain how they don't do that. I mean seriously the FIRST ONE I NAMED SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS/HALTS HOSTILITIES SO YOU CAN DO DIPLOMACY!!!!!. I mean most of your hyperbole is about how without a reaction roll diplomacy doesn't exist. I pointed out that this only makes any sense if you're only talking about hostile situations only. Otherwise it is just a useless rant you're going on about how you want a reaction roll cause you like it. What's more all three of the options I laid out opens up "You can talk to them" as a thing you can do and yet you're saying that it doesn't open up talking to hostile targets. In fact you made light of Speak with Undead which specifically and pointedly opens up NEW diplomatic encounters.

So how is it that when asked about how what I presented fails you merely state that they don't do what diplomacy is supposed to do despite all three of the options doing what you JUST SAID diplomacy is supposed to do. They open up options for you to prevent fucking hostilities which is what you want to his reaction roll to do. So how is it then when you have options for the PLAYERS to do something about preventing hostilities it isn't enough but the addition of random mood setting via dice somehow makes it all better?

I should clarify that the reason why I'm calling your position hyperbolic is because you say that the system completely fails without a reaction roll and that without it diplomacy doesn't exist. That's obviously stupid and untrue. What really gets me is that you can't seem t imagine the players actively taking steps to go into a hostile environ or potentially hostile place and taking actions that would open up the option to prevent what would normally be hostile creatures/things from completely jumping out and getting them. At the very least I have the comfort of knowing Lago just likes things being random so I can read his posts and not care that he's for it. You, Frank, are acting like social systems fall apart without this one unnecessary extra tag along roll.

[Username17]

The reason I am confused is because you're spouting about how my three options don't allow you to talk to someone and you have thus far completely failed to explain how they don't do that. I mean seriously the FIRST ONE I NAMED SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS/HALTS HOSTILITIES SO YOU CAN DO DIPLOMACY!!!!!.

Listen up asshole: putting extra exclamation points after your bullshit doesn't make you less retarded. You're still retarded and putting up more exclamation points just makes you more of an asshole. So: you're an asshole. We get it.

Now try to wrap your fucking stegosaurus style butt-brain around the fact that ending a combat and interrogating your opponent afterwards is in no way equivalent to having a social encounter in the first place. Your idea of "social abilities" is literally exactly the same as finger of death plus speak with dead. And that is fucked.

-Username17

[MGuy]

The reason I am confused is because you're spouting about how my three options don't allow you to talk to someone and you have thus far completely failed to explain how they don't do that. I mean seriously the FIRST ONE I NAMED SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS/HALTS HOSTILITIES SO YOU CAN DO DIPLOMACY!!!!!.

Listen up asshole: putting extra exclamation points after your bullshit doesn't make you less retarded. You're still retarded and putting up more exclamation points just makes you more of an asshole. So: you're an asshole. We get it.

Now try to wrap your fucking stegosaurus style butt-brain around the fact that ending a combat and interrogating your opponent afterwards is in no way equivalent to having a social encounter in the first place. Your idea of "social abilities" is literally exactly the same as finger of death plus speak with dead. And that is fucked.

-Username17

Prevents prevents prevents prevents prevents prevents PREVENTS.

[Foxwarrior]

So MGuy, how does your "ability specifically aimed at preventing hostilities to allow diplomacy to be had" differ from the Presentation stat?

[MGuy]

So MGuy, how does your "ability specifically aimed at preventing hostilities to allow diplomacy to be had" differ from the Presentation stat?

For one its an ability not a stat so the player has to select to have it. Depending on how it is written up or how the rest of your social system might work you might have to activate it in some way. Assuming "Presentation Stat" is somehow closely aligned with "Reaction Rolls" that further separates the two.

[Foxwarrior]

So your character can choose to have none of it, and it can only make things better, not worse? If it has a random element (which it probably should; "nobody (who has these attributes) can ever want to attack you" is an annoyingly black and white ability that's likely to influence the DM's choices of opposition in a manner that can't be good) then it's essentially a Reaction Roll, isn't it?

[MGuy]

So your character can choose to have none of it, and it can only make things better, not worse? If it has a random element (which it probably should; "nobody (who has these attributes) can ever want to attack you" is an annoyingly black and white ability that's likely to influence the DM's choices of opposition in a manner that can't be good) then it's essentially a Reaction Roll, isn't it?

Yes, you can choose not to be good at diplomacy and to not have any other social abilities (knowledge, intimidate, bluff, disguise, etc). In a game where I'm letting the players choose their loadout the option of not taking certain options is indeed a feature.

Now as for how an ability for an unwritten system that I have no details to I cannot tell you exactly how it would work. In the game I'm writing there is an ability that mid range diplomancers can get that essentially forces a will save against known would be hostile targets that the diplomancer hasn't engaged yet and that do not have an adversarial disposition toward them. If they fail the will save the diplomancer can immediately launch into a use of one of their social skills and for at least one minute they won't be attacked. If they don't start immediately then the encounter goes on as normal. That's the shorthand of it. The version I use has more keywords and doesn't use the word Diplomancer but I think you get the idea.

Now this doesn't change the target's attitude at all by itself. It just basically gives you the opportunity to talk it out. Since my system basically has skills that grant powers all the player even has to do to get it is concentrate on being able to do diplomacy then electing to have it. The ability can only activate once so there's no having a team of diplomancers to force multiple rolls.

As opposed to reaction rolls that just have you randomly determine the NPCs attitude so that "maybe" you can get a chance to start a social encounter through no power of your own. I'd also have to imagine that that reaction roll "maybe" forces you to fight in a situation you don't have to. I'd akin this ability closer to something like Perception as it may prevent you from being ambushed or maybe not depending on the rolls involved.

[Username17]

The reason I am confused is because you're spouting about how my three options don't allow you to talk to someone and you have thus far completely failed to explain how they don't do that. I mean seriously the FIRST ONE I NAMED SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS/HALTS HOSTILITIES SO YOU CAN DO DIPLOMACY!!!!!.

Listen up asshole: putting extra exclamation points after your bullshit doesn't make you less retarded. You're still retarded and putting up more exclamation points just makes you more of an asshole. So: you're an asshole. We get it.

Now try to wrap your fucking stegosaurus style butt-brain around the fact that ending a combat and interrogating your opponent afterwards is in no way equivalent to having a social encounter in the first place. Your idea of "social abilities" is literally exactly the same as finger of death plus speak with dead. And that is fucked.

-Username17

Prevents prevents prevents prevents prevents prevents PREVENTS.

It very specifically didn't prevent combat, because you categorically deny that players need or even should have abilities that affect NPC decisions of whether or not to roll initiative. You're just a fucking liar. In addition to being an asshole.

See, once you've doubled down on this:

In the thread where this as brought up in the first place Frank could not bring up a solid reason to want a randomized reaction roll other than his insistence that randomness was intrinsically better.

Then you have explicitly stated your opposition to abilities that actually prevent combat from happening. If there isn't a roll to determine whether combat starts that you can influence, you can't prevent combat, you worthless dumbass!

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

And that, folks, is EXACTLY why the social combat metaphor is a complete pile of donkey dicks and why I devoted my very first post to eschewing this nonsense.

Why would it be better to let dice randomly determine how well a social encounter goes before the encounter even begins?

In the game I'm writing there is an ability that mid range diplomancers can get that essentially forces a will save against known would be hostile targets that the diplomancer hasn't engaged yet and that do not have an adversarial disposition toward them. If they fail the will save the diplomancer can immediately launch into a use of one of their social skills and for at least one minute they won't be attacked.

Why would it be better to let dice randomly determine how well a social encounter goes before the encounter even begins?

[MGuy]

Listen up asshole: putting extra exclamation points after your bullshit doesn't make you less retarded. You're still retarded and putting up more exclamation points just makes you more of an asshole. So: you're an asshole. We get it.

Now try to wrap your fucking stegosaurus style butt-brain around the fact that ending a combat and interrogating your opponent afterwards is in no way equivalent to having a social encounter in the first place. Your idea of "social abilities" is literally exactly the same as finger of death plus speak with dead. And that is fucked.

-Username17

Prevents prevents prevents prevents prevents prevents PREVENTS.

It very specifically didn't prevent combat, because you categorically deny that players need or even should have abilities that affect NPC decisions of whether or not to roll initiative. You're just a fucking liar. In addition to being an asshole.

See, once you've doubled down on this:

In the thread where this as brought up in the first place Frank could not bring up a solid reason to want a randomized reaction roll other than his insistence that randomness was intrinsically better.

Then you have explicitly stated your opposition to abilities that actually prevent combat from happening. If there isn't a roll to determine whether combat starts that you can influence, you can't prevent combat, you worthless dumbass!

-Username17

Frank you are fucking crazy. It "didn't" prevent combat? I categorically deny that players need or should have abilities that effect NPC decisions? Where the fuck are you digging this shit up from? Did you just completely forget the three things I listed as better solutions just so you could have the chance to call me an idiot? What's more a reaction roll is NOT player ability! It does NOT give the PCS the chance to do anything! At all! It isn't even something Pcs can control! So WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM? I'm specifically talking about enabling the PCs TO have control of whether or not they can walk into a diplomatic situation and you are specifically talking about randomizing that chance with NO player input! How in the fucking hell do you even GET to be that backwards?

You keep telling me I'm somehow telling people they can't roll shit when that's specifically what I want them to do! I want them to DOOOOOOOOOO something to prevent combat not intrinsically have it happen just for the fuck of randomness.

[Lago PARANOIA]

What's more a reaction roll is NOT player ability! It does NOT give the PCS the chance to do anything! At all! It isn't even something Pcs can control!

I don't even know what to say to this.

[MGuy]

What's more a reaction roll is NOT player ability! It does NOT give the PCS the chance to do anything! At all! It isn't even something Pcs can control!

I don't even know what to say to this.

You've done a good job at telling people randomness is best s far I don't know why you wouldn't just repeat some variance of that rhetoric to me.

[virgil]

What's more a reaction roll is NOT player ability! It does NOT give the PCS the chance to do anything! At all! It isn't even something Pcs can control!

I don't even know what to say to this.

You've done a good job at telling people randomness is best s far I don't know why you wouldn't just repeat some variance of that rhetoric to me.

How about the fact that players can get a higher AC through abilities and choices under their control? Reaction rolls fall under the same purview of player agency.

[Foxwarrior]

A reaction roll can be controlled by the players with their Presentation in much the same way that an enemy's attack roll can be controlled by the players with their AC. This parallel goes even further, in that you can try to impress specific groups by wearing things to improve your relative Presentation, and you can try to not die to specific attacks by wearing several layers of worked steel.

Edit: Aww, ninja'd

[Lago PARANOIA]

What I'm flabbergasted about is that you specifically and pointedly rejected reaction rolls because you don't think that the outcome of a social encounter should be predicated on something being random and out of the hands of the PCs.

Yet...
... you proposed a ability that can determines how a social encounter will go.
... that's dependent on whether someone makes a will save.
... a save you make with dice.
... that the player has little-to-no control over.

I'm not even going to criticize how the rest of your proposal is some serious immersion breaking Pokemon parody crap. I'm just baffled at the basic contradiction in your proposal. I got Elennsar vibes from that, dude.

[MGuy]

What I'm flabbergasted about is that you specifically and pointedly rejected reaction rolls because you don't think that the outcome of a social encounter should be predicated on something being random and out of the hands of the PCs.

Yet...
... you proposed a ability that can determines how a social encounter will
go...
... dependent on whether someone makes a will save. A save you make with dice that the player has little control over.

I'm not even going to criticize how the rest of your proposal is some serious immersion breaking Pokemon crap. I'm just baffled at the basic contradiction in your proposal. I got Elennsar vibes from that, dude.

Reaction Rolls happen automatically upon meeting with someone and is a thing that just happens and isn't something a players selects to have happen. It isn't "initiated" in any way but by default whenever the PCs exist around something whether or not the players know it exists, have done something to create an opinion, etc. Combat is at least initiated by someone doing something. Reaction Rolls are initiated by things existing. That's pretty much like Perception. If that's the case then why roll anything since how the NPCs feel should just be set right as they find out you exist? You just let the NPCs perceive or not perceive something and that'd be the end of the story.

Having a Diplomatic encounter basically set by virtue of something finding out you exist is not a diplomatic encounter. It is basically having perception check immediately lead into a randomized diplomatic encounter. If you're wearing the right disguise to walk by the rest of the guards then Disguise should have taken care of it. Why the fuck are you needing to make a Reaction Roll for that? You already have the opposing side's Perception to see if they spot you as a fake. What about the situation where you're being ambushed from the shadows by people you don't know exist and have no way to prepare for? Why would there be a reaction roll for walking into a bar and ordering a drink? If you're obviously from a race, creed, nationality, species, whatever that the bartender doesn't like why would you need to randomize his reaction? He shouldn't like you because that's the way he is. Why is there a chance that he randomly doesn't act like a racist prick? Especially if the player has no fore knowledge as to his intent, disposition, or other leanings?

Edit: Furthermore I proposed an ability that the PCs can use on opposition. It is hardly any different than suggestion or charm person and all it does is allow the PCs to shoot for having a chance to defuse a HOSTILE situation without giving the chance that a nonhostile situation, or indeed any hostile situation ever be defused at random.

Further edit: I'm not opposed to things having a failure chance I'm opposed to having random rolls for no reason especially when someone hasn't done anything to instigate it.

Also I note that no one has defended how the system is completely unnecessary in non hostile situations.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Reaction Rolls happen automatically upon meeting with someone and is a thing that just happens and isn't something a players selects to have happen. It isn't "initiated" in any way but by default whenever the PCs exist around something whether or not the players know it exists, have done something to create an opinion, etc.

That's... just... stupid. So a player can't elect to encounter the Captain of the Guard while he's having dinner with his family or after the Captain of the Guard celebrated his promotion at the tavern or after he has a grueling day at work? Contrariwise, a drow in a city full of dwarves can't elect to just sneak in the shadows or stay in the inn room or only go when accompanied by the great dwarven hero?

The timing of a reaction roll is just as important as how you present yourself when one goes off. In fact they're exactly the same fucking thing. And it is totally something players have a degree of control over.

If that's the case then why roll anything since how the NPCs feel should just be set right as they find out you exist?

Don't be an idiot. An NPC can catch sight of you while you're returning from a reward ceremony or whether you're sneaking out of the bedroom window of the tax collector or after you've put on your Hercules disguise. These have plausibly different outcomes on how a NPC will respond to you and you should certainly roll in these scenarios.

If you're wearing the right disguise to walk by the rest of the guards then Disguise should have taken care of it. Why the fuck are you needing to make a Reaction Roll for that?

Because 'right disguise' is a vague and video-game term. If your disguise is a generic no-name guard then you might get drafted into drill or guard duty while sneaking through the courtyard -- which will get a different reaction than if your disguise was the scary royal vizier storming through. Similarly, if your disguise fails you might get a different reaction depending on whether you were disguising yourself as a guard or the scary royal vizier.

What about the situation where you're being ambushed from the shadows by people you don't know exist and have no way to prepare for?

That's precisely the situation in which 3E D&D's paradigm of diplomacy fails flat on its ass and reaction rolls shine at. Without a reaction roll, the DM has to magic tea party whether the bandits attack you even if you look huge and burly yet are only carrying sackcloth.

Why would there be a reaction roll for walking into a bar and ordering a drink?

Because a hero or a villain walking into a bar while the entire place hushes up and the bartender meekly goes to serve him a drink before they even do anything is a total staple of the genre. Or getting hostile looks from everyone and being told that they don't serve his kind.

How the hero or villain reacts from there is up to the individual. But if you don't have a reaction roll, the DM has to fiat the action.

If you're obviously from a race, creed, nationality, species, whatever that the bartender doesn't like why would you need to randomize his reaction?

Why is there a chance that he randomly doesn't act like a racist prick? Especially if the player has no fore knowledge as to his intent, disposition?

Because there are some bartenders who will, despite you being a filthy drow, serve you a drink because you're Drizz't and some who don't give a damn and will pull out a crossbow on you. And there are some bartenders who waffle between the two positions and may react to you differently depending on how much money they've made in the last two months. And there's no way to determine which way the bartender will react except by DM fiat.

[virgil]

Reaction Rolls are initiated by things existing. That's pretty much like Perception. If that's the case then why roll anything since how the NPCs feel should just be set right as they find out you exist? You just let the NPCs perceive or not perceive something and that'd be the end of the story.

Perception is not a flat thing, it can be influenced by player choices through Stealth. It's not hard to see how this applies in the Diplomacy angle, and how it would work differently from a narrative PoV.

Why would there be a reaction roll for walking into a bar and ordering a drink? If you're obviously from a race, creed, nationality, species, whatever that the bartender doesn't like why would you need to randomize his reaction? He shouldn't like you because that's the way he is. Why is there a chance that he randomly doesn't act like a racist prick? Especially if the player has no fore knowledge as to his intent, disposition, or other leanings?

The argument there is that the DM doesn't have a psychological profile of his NPCs, and in many cases doesn't even have their name. He *doesn't* know how they are, their intent, their disposition, or even how they'll react under the circumstances. You can't guarantee that a hateful, violent, and xenophobic monster (yet not mindless) would automatically shoot their sworn enemy (and their fez) on sight if that enemy is diplomatic enough. The details are glossed over with the randomized Reaction Roll, and can be influenced one way or another by how the player presents himself and by the DM fleshing out the background & environment of the NPC in question.

[MGuy]

Reaction Rolls are initiated by things existing. That's pretty much like Perception. If that's the case then why roll anything since how the NPCs feel should just be set right as they find out you exist? You just let the NPCs perceive or not perceive something and that'd be the end of the story.

Perception is not a flat thing, it can be influenced by player choices through Stealth. It's not hard to see how this applies in the Diplomacy angle, and how it would work differently from a narrative PoV.

Why would there be a reaction roll for walking into a bar and ordering a drink? If you're obviously from a race, creed, nationality, species, whatever that the bartender doesn't like why would you need to randomize his reaction? He shouldn't like you because that's the way he is. Why is there a chance that he randomly doesn't act like a racist prick? Especially if the player has no fore knowledge as to his intent, disposition, or other leanings?

The argument there is that the DM doesn't have a psychological profile of his NPCs, and in many cases doesn't even have their name. He *doesn't* know how they are, their intent, their disposition, or even how they'll react under the circumstances. You can't guarantee that a hateful, violent, and xenophobic monster (yet not mindless) would automatically shoot their sworn enemy (and their fez) on sight if that enemy is diplomatic enough. The details are glossed over with the randomized Reaction Roll, and can be influenced one way or another by how the player presents himself and by the DM fleshing out the background & environment of the NPC in question.

I'm not talking about something as as extreme as a guy shooting someone because they don't like the cut of their jib. In fact I would want to avoid that kind of blatant motherfuckery. I also don't have anything against someone dressing up so that the target's disposition starts off an octave or two higher because of it. Thus the walk by the guards scenario. If you did your disguise check right and no one spots you as a fake they should just treat you like another guard. There should not be another roll that needs to be made after that if you're not actively doing anything that would require that diplomacy be rolled. It should be a meeting where you go up to the guards on duty and they get there check to see through your disguise. If they don't make it congrats you don't need to do anything special to go past them. If they do make it and they question you about it congrats social encounter.

That's a straight forward and sensible way for it to work out. Should the guards see through your disguise they are going to be of course suspicious and unfriendly with you. They might even be hostile depending on how bad your disguise was and how high risk the situation is but that wouldn't ride on how well your reaction roll went but how well perception vs disguise went.

In the bar scene even it doesn't need to be something as intense as "This guy doesn't like orcs so he shoots them on sight". It would be much more likely that he kicks him out, refuses him service, or gives him a hard time for his stay.If the GM wants to randomize the NPC's attitude coo, whatever, but it shouldn't be the standard go to thing for every encounter especially if the PCs are dealing with shit the GM DID flesh out.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think it's pretty fucking neurotic and pathetic that certain people on TGD can only interact with a roleplaying game if they have checkboxes and power cards explicitly instantiating the activity. And not even for non-obvious things like poking at traps with a 10-foot pole, I mean for basic fucking shit like 'an NPC will view you less favorably if you show up at 3:00 AM in their bedroom covered in gore'.

Video games: they're fun, but they rot your brains, kids.

[hyzmarca]

I must point out that the Mexican Standoff, in which both parties roll initiative and then fucking talk with cocked guns pointed at each other is common enough in both fiction and reality that it's something that should be emulatable using any diplomacy rules.