Intrigue, Influence, Contacts, Relationships: How do they interact?

[Yolande d'Bar]

So Pathfinder now has a bunch of very similar subsystems:

ordinary Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidation, Sense Motive checks
Influence (UI)
Contacts (UC)
Relationships (UC & Ultimate Relationships from Legendary)
Social Combat Deck
Verbal Duels

I like the implementation of all these, but I'm really unclear how they interact with one another and what kind of encounter is appropriate for one subsystem over another, esp. how to decide between Influence & Contacts & Relationships (& the Social Combat Deck too, for that matter).

Here are some inchoate thoughts on how these might be differentiated:

ordinary skill checks: when a character acts alone, esp. in combat situations

Influence: used for groups during social occasions esp. w/ casual acquaintances (feasts, parties, funerals e.g. Blakros Matrimony, Hellknight's Feast, Merchant's Wake PFS adventures)

Contacts: used for an individual character deliberately cultivating a relationship with a business associate, political official i.e. networking

Relationships: used for individual interactions based on blood, love, friendship etc.

Social Combat Deck: not sure; it's certainly for group situations, where multiple characters attempt to persuade a single target: how can this be distinguished from Influence?

Verbal Duels: PC vs. NPC debates in front of an audience

I'm interested in how other DMs are implementing these, especially if they're using more than one.

[Deadmanwalking]

Standard skill checks are for randomly making friends with people and asking them favors. Also for asking favors of those who are already kindly disposed towards you. Basic, straightforward, kinda stuff.

Influence is a bit more in depth. It's intended for social interactions that are a bit more in depth and important than those governed by a standard skill check...but not necessarily those that are long-term.

Contacts are used to establish a long-term business relationship with someone. Friendship may well be involved, but isn't necessarily, and the currency used in the mechanics is risk and trust. This is for building a working relationship. Networking, like you said.

Relationships are about building emotional ties with someone. This is an affair of the heart, for good or ill, not one with a business element as a primary concern.

Verbal Duels are a spectator sport. Like a trial or a political debate, they aren't about convincing your opponent, but instead focused solely on those watching.

So...I pretty much agree with you on most of those, though I think the distinction between standard skill checks and Influence is more based on the importance of the social interaction than how many people are involved.

[strayshift]

Agree with deadmanwalking and would just add that the dm's choice of which category it falls into also depends upon the interactions importance to the task at hand and the npcs significance or lack thereof (there is some thought and prep work involved so you wouldn't want to completely slow your game down with every interaction being 'fought' out). It is also worth noting that the dm can personalise the encounter to some degree with the resistance to influence mechanic.

Social combat I read as being about achieving an identifiable outcome using social skills where there is 'opposition'. Influence to me would be asking a favour where there is an existing relationship and no opposition.

I like the mechanics as it can involve a breadth of social, knowledge and performance skills and differening party member can cooperate in a more nuanced way than just the standard 'roll to assist'. Working out how best to influence an npc can lead to good role-playing opportunities and means the party have to actively make decisions during the 'encounter'. I'm defniately incorporating the mechanics into my (sandbox) games.

[Yolande d'Bar]

I'm intending to houserule diplomacy in my games, based along the lines of a few other posters on these boards. I'm going limit its use to 1) persuading someone of a belief you actually hold; or 2) offering a bargain/deal/requesting a favor.

I mainly want to avoid diplomacy rolls everytime a character is just being nice--I think influence, contact, and relationship rules deal with those kinds of ongoing interactions better.

The characters in my campaign are all Barons, and I'm about to create a short adventure, entirely political, involving machinations during the Council of Barons--a legislative body creating law for the March of Sterich. The arguments and deliberations of the Council are somewhat similar to the US Congress or British Parliament, in that speakers are allotted time to speak, and these speeches constitute the debate on a bill prior to its passage. What system should I use for this?

Verbal duels at first seems best, as it presumes an audience, but I don't think that system handles a dozen or more speakers, each taking their turn, as opposed to a back-and-forth between two people.

It feels like what's being called for are either straight diplomacy or oratory checks (possibly bluff or intimidate, as circumstances dictate), or else using the social combat deck.

What would you guys use?