Both I and Wrecan, and i think everyone else who's argueing for a conflict system has said we would want it to be optional. A fact which you continuely ignore.
As for its a 'social game' arguement.
There are social/mental qualities which are judged on system, not player ability, in exactly the same manner as the strength arguement.
For instance, real world willpower has no influence on character will save.
That you are asking for remains an anomalye.
What is this "bard" you speak of?
Both I and Wrecan, and i think everyone else who's argueing for a conflict system has said we would want it to be optional. A fact which you continuely ignore.
As for its a 'social game' arguement.
There are social/mental qualities which are judged on system, not player ability, in exactly the same manner as the strength arguement.
For instance, real world willpower has no influence on character will save.
That you are asking for remains an anomalye.
No, there were a lot of arguments for including it core at the beginning. I'm not ignoring anything, though congrats, you're climbing the list. EDIT: My apologies, that was inappropriate. I'm just short=tempered today.
Again, real world willpower does not enhance, add, detract or fundamentally change the experience of a role playing game. Social interaction, and social ability however, does. Feel free to make tons more inappropriate comparisons, the long and short is that if you're a lousy RPer, you are going to detract from other player's enjoyment.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being obstinate about this, but I really don't think a system that turns "Um, so nice rack" into...
My love is as a fever, longing still
For that which longer nurseth the disease,
Feeding on that which doth preserve the ill,
The uncertain sickly appetite to please.
My reason, the physician to my love,
Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,
Hath left me, and I desperate now approve
Desire is death, which physic did except.
Past cure I am, now reason is past care,
And frantic-mad with evermore unrest;
My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are,
At random from the truth vainly express'd;
For I have sworn thee fair and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as hell, as dark as night.
Adds to the system. Because a system that fakes it, doesn't encourage the player to grow and stretch their RP muscles and to try and expand their social interaction. It makes 4 rolls, you get to bag the princess, and oh by the way, bring back the cheetoes from the Kitchen.
Now...
That said, what about a system based off of the CMB as a core, but with different potential moves. I know someone joked about Debate dodge, but to keep things somewhat similar mechanically, might this be a good starting point?
|
I'm growing a bit tired of this constant arguing really. Without ill intentions, I'm beginning to feel that a social conflict system for this thread would be a nice addition to the present conundrum... :P
That's the conclusion I've come to as well. :)
I can't cleave down two Bugbears in a single swing of my adamantine greataxe, I can't Summon Celestial Giant Bees from the Heavenly Honeycomb, and I can't finesse the precise combination of flowery words and seductive posture necessary to get Elle Bundchik to leave Tom Brady to be my sex-kitten.
But I do sometimes play Barbarians, Wizards and / or Bards who *can* do these sorts of things, and I don't see any reason why I should be forbidden from playing a social character just because I personally am Elle Bundchick-less.
Should I tell the player in a wheelchair that he's not allowed to role-play a speedster unless he can run a six-minute mile? Should I tell the woman who wants to play a burly Ranger that she can't do that until she proves to me that she can pee standing up?
Meh. If all I 'role-play' is someone exactly like myself, who is limited to not doing anything that I can't do myself, then it's hardly 'role-playing,' is it? It's 'me-playing.' I play me the rest of the week. When I pick up the dice, I want to play someone else, someone who may be stronger, smarter, uglier, weaker, dumber, better-looking, alien, magical, or otherwise *different* than myself.
I don't think that the game requires a special 'social class,' so much as a set of social skills that are a little less wonky than the current Diplomacy skill, which can be tweaked to insane levels.
I'm growing a bit tired of this constant arguing really. Without ill intentions, I'm beginning to feel that a social conflict system for this thread would be a nice addition to the present conundrum... :PThat's the conclusion I've come to as well. :)
I can't cleave down two Bugbears in a single swing of my adamantine greataxe, I can't Summon Celestial Giant Bees from the Heavenly Honeycomb, and I can't finesse the precise combination of flowery words and seductive posture necessary to get Elle Bundchik to leave Tom Brady to be my sex-kitten.
But I do sometimes play Barbarians, Wizards and / or Bards who *can* do these sorts of things, and I don't see any reason why I should be forbidden from playing a social character just because I personally am Elle Bundchick-less.
Should I tell the player in a wheelchair that he's not allowed to role-play a speedster unless he can run a six-minute mile? Should I tell the woman who wants to play a burly Ranger that she can't do that until she proves to me that she can pee standing up?
Meh. If all I 'role-play' is someone exactly like myself, who is limited to not doing anything that I can't do myself, then it's hardly 'role-playing,' is it? It's 'me-playing.' I play me the rest of the week. When I pick up the dice, I want to play someone else, someone who may be stronger, smarter, uglier, weaker, dumber, better-looking, alien, magical, or otherwise *different* than myself.
I don't think that the game requires a special 'social class,' so much as a set of social skills that are a little less wonky than the current Diplomacy skill, which can be tweaked to insane levels.
Ya know this point is being missed so completely I'm not even sure it's worth explaining.
But yes, if you want an alternate system, one with "manuevers", you're going to need something more robust than one roll (or evne counter-rolled) result.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what might constitue some of these moves?
Would there be a potnetial split depending on whether this was contentious, like a debate or negotiation, as opposed to a more social event? Or would the need to "win" mean that all of the encounters are contentious?
proditor:
You refering to acting the part of your character as roleplaying, when roleplaying also includes a great many other skills such as Character empathy and metagame avoidence to name only two.
Set really has summed up the way a lot of people feel.
You can ignore this system, so why do you have a problem with it being there for those who want it.
I don't think anyones mentioned the term manuvers.
But there is nothing wrong with wanting different approach being treated differently.
And there is nothing wrong with wanting a system where their is more than two out comes availible.
I personally like the idea of 'achieve what you set out to do/remain on good term','achieve what you set out to do/damage your relationship', 'fail at achieveing your goal/remain on good term' and 'fail at achieveing your goal/damage your relationship'. As being the minimium infomation returned from a social interaction role.
proditor:
You refering to acting the part of your character as roleplaying, when roleplaying also includes a great many other skills such as Character empathy and metagame avoidence to name only two.
Set really has summed up the way a lot of people feel.
You can ignore this system, so why do you have a problem with it being there for those who want it.
No, I'm done trying to explain this. The analouges being presented have ranged from ridiculous, to the outright insulting. Apparently if I want someone to actually play a role, I'm going to exclude women and the handicapped by Set's last post, the one you said summed it all up so well.
So let's get back to talking about the system.
proditor:
You refering to acting the part of your character as roleplaying, when roleplaying also includes a great many other skills such as Character empathy and metagame avoidence to name only two.
Set really has summed up the way a lot of people feel.
You can ignore this system, so why do you have a problem with it being there for those who want it.
No, I'm done trying to explain this. The analouges being presented have ranged from ridiculous, to the outright insulting. Apparently if I want someone to actually play a role, I'm going to exclude women and the handicapped by Set's last post, the one you said summed it all up so well.
So let's get back to talking about the system.
You the one who is saying that a person who has less social acumen shouldn't be playing a bard. So you know, the guy with aspergous is out, last i checked that was a disability in my country. He is just taking your own comments on it to there logicial end point.
{snip the shirt-tempered rant}
That said, what about a system based off of the CMB as a core, but with different potential moves. I know someone joked about Debate dodge, but to keep things somewhat similar mechanically, might this be a good starting point?
I don't think social encounters should be analogous to combat. We may talk about a "verbal parry" in colloquial English, but social interaction is not similar to combat. I don't think we should give people Wit Points instead of Hit Points or a Humor Class instead of an Armor Class.
Social encounters either need their own mechanic (not so backwards compatible) or they need to work off the existing social mechanic as much as possible. It also has to reflect how we actually go about interacting with people
That's why my idea is to split interaction based on the primary mental trait used: Wisdom, Intelligence or Charisma. And then to split that further into three approaches based on how those interactions are used.
Wisdom, which is a passive Ability tied to observation, is used to get information from someone either through positive appeals (Diplomacy/"good cop"), negative threats (Intimidate/bad cop) or intuitive observation (Perception/profiling).
Intelligence, which reflects one's breadth and depth of knowledge, can be used to convince someone of a fact, whether through rigorous argument (Knowledge), through lording one's expertise over someone (Intimidate), and through confusing someone with torturous verbal legerdemain (Diplomacy)
Charisma, which reflects one's ability to affect others socially, can evoke emotional responses in others, whether positive (Diplomacy), fearful (Intimidate) or angry (Perform -- usually oratory).
This allows a variety of players to participate in social encounters, based on their Skill set and their Abilities. Moreover,not every approach is good for every scenario. Heavy circumstance bonuses and penalties should apply. For example, trying to get a goblin to sympathize with the poor plight of an elven village threatened by an orc army should receive a hefty penalty, so the guy with the high Cha + Diplomacy score may have to give way to someone using a different approach (for example, the guy with Charisma + Perform, who gets that goblin angry over the fact that the army of orcs is coming to kill everyone -- including him).
Note that a DM would not analyze every statement. He'd let the role-play play out. Only when it's time for the DM to decide if the NPC 1) releases information, 2) agrees with the truth of the PCs' story, or 3) sympathizes with the PCs, the DM will either decide "There's no way the NPC buys this" (no dice), "This NPC will absolutely buy this" (no dice) or "Hmmm... I'm not sure if this NPC will buy this... maybe I'm being convinced by the player's abilities, notwithstanding that his character has a 6 Charisma... maybe I'm being too skeptical because I'm moderately intelligent and the NPC has a 6 Wisdom..." In that case, then the DM calls for a roll.
And also, even if the PCs' roll succeeds, the NPC still reacts consistently with his character, and is not a thrall of the PCs' uber-social skills.
You the one who is saying that a person who has less social acumen shouldn't be playing a bard. So you know, the guy with aspergous is out, last i checked that was a disability in my country. He is just taking your own comments on it to there logicial end point.proditor:
You refering to acting the part of your character as roleplaying, when roleplaying also includes a great many other skills such as Character empathy and metagame avoidence to name only two.
Set really has summed up the way a lot of people feel.
You can ignore this system, so why do you have a problem with it being there for those who want it.
No, I'm done trying to explain this. The analouges being presented have ranged from ridiculous, to the outright insulting. Apparently if I want someone to actually play a role, I'm going to exclude women and the handicapped by Set's last post, the one you said summed it all up so well.
So let's get back to talking about the system.
No, I said the system shouldn't be a crutch for poor roleplay. I even provided examples. Twice. Every example provided about how this is exclusionary has focused on things other than actually playing the game. So, ya know, invalid analogies.
As for Aspergous, well other than that brand of Autism seeming to preclude any cognizance of the actual game aside, if they can communicate with the GM and the players, what's the issue? Again, this is not a logical end to the argument. Most of the examples presented have been like comparing grapefruits to gasoline. Sure, they both start with G, but ingesting one of them can kill you. The most accurate analogy so far has been that if you have no head for tactics or tactical movement, maybe you shouldn't play the fighter.
I've tried twice now to get the conversation back on track only to have it deflected.
Now I'll ask you, do you want to actually discuss your original proposition, or do you want to argue more?
What are your ideas for the system?
So let's get back to talking about the system.
Ditto.
Please, cool your flames people. Lets keep it nice and civil.
Regards,
ZOOROOS
|
I humbly present my own houserule core class, the Negotiator:
NEGOTIATOR
Sometimes troubles can not be solved by force of arms alone. In these situations, kings, generals and priests may call upon the services of a negotiator. Negotiators might be part of a police force, a trusted advisor to the king, or a village chieftain. Their powers can be used to bring troubled people together – or to fiendishly drive friends apart. An adventuring negotiator may also refer to himself as a communicator, a go-between, or a strategist.
Adventures: Most negotiators seek out the ills of the world to set them right. Perhaps they have been sent on a quest by their lord or their subjects. In a few evil cases, they are out to create chaos. A negotiator will almost always travel with others, for their comforting presence if nothing else.
Characteristics: Negotiators are not capable warriors. Although they study with simple weapons in order to protect themselves in an emergency, they aim to prevent this from happening. Negotiators rely on either their ability to know their targets, or to make good use of their charismatic presence.
Alignment: Negotiators must maintain some level-headedness during sessions. As such, they must be neutral on one or more axis. For example, although many are good-aligned, and even more are lawful, no negotiator may ever combine the two.
Religion: Negotiators usually seek to avoid the complications of religion in their lives – but they certainly understand its usefulness. In rare cases, a negotiator might take up worship of an aspect of wood or water.
Background: Being a negotiator is a bit like being a rogue. In many cases, extensive training has been undertaken in order to perfect the craft. But some come by it naturally. For those who study, enrollment is usually in some type of government or military academy.
Races: Forest elves make the best negotiators; their level-headed outlook provides them the impetus to take up the class, and the skills to succeed. Aquatic elves have also been known to be successful. An occasional halfling picks up the trade out of concern for the community. Dwarves are far too rigid, gnomes are more interested in enjoyment, and bastion elves are simply not well received.
Other classes: Negotiators get along best with other classes that are open-minded and natural. Druids, sorcerers, rogues and bards are often great companions of negotiators. Classes that focus on combat, such as rangers or fighters, are often disdained by negotiators. Monks, paladins and wizards are too inflexible to cooperate well with negotiators.
Role: The negotiator disarms situations before they devolve into combat. They get the party into secure areas, and out of inescapable situations. They often require the backup of at least one combat-oriented class.
Game Rule Information
Negotiators have the following game statistics.
Abilities: Wisdom is the most important for negotiators who take the Assessment path. Charisma is likewise necessary for the Forceful path. A good Intelligence score helps with important class skills. Dexterity might help the negotiator avoid dangerous situations.
Alignment: Any neutral.
Hit Die: d6
Starting Gold: 5d4 x 10 gp
Class Skills
The negotiators class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are: Bluff (Cha), Decipher Script (Int), Gather Information (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Knowledge (Warfare), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Ride (Str), Sense Motive (Wis), Speak Language (not relevant), Spot (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (6 + Int modifier) x 4
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 6 + Int modifier
Lev BAB Fort Ref Will Special
1st +0 +0 +0 +2 Path +2, negotiate on the run
2nd +1 +0 +0 +3 Initiative, language
3rd +1 +1 +1 +3 Mental deftness
4th +2 +1 +1 +4 Silk tongue
5th +2 +1 +1 +4 Path +4
6th +3 +2 +2 +5 Presence +2
7th +3 +2 +2 +5 Language
8th +4 +2 +2 +6 Prediction, silk tongue 2/day
9th +4 +3 +3 +6 Mental balance
10th +5 +3 +3 +7 Path specialty
11th +5 +3 +3 +7 Path +6
12th +6/+1 +4 +4 +8 Language, silk tongue 3/day
13th +6/+1 +4 +4 +8 Leadership
14th +7/+2 +4 +4 +9 Presence +4
15th +7/+2 +5 +5 +9 Path mastery
16th +8/+3 +5 +5 +10
17th +8/+3 +5 +5 +10 Language
18th +9/+4 +6 +6 +11 Path +8
19th +9/+4 +6 +6 +11
20th +10/+5 +6 +6 +12 Mental perfection
Class Features
All of the following are class features of the negotiator.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A negotiator is proficient with basic weapons plus 1 other group. They can wear light and medium armor but not shields.
Path (Ex): At first level the negotiator chooses his path, either assessment or forceful. Once the choice is made it can not be changed. The path represents the negotiator’s tactics and techniques. The following applies to the respective path:
Assessment Path: The negotiator has chosen to use standard diplomacy tactics. Diplomacy becomes the negotiators key skill as applying to his other path abilities. The negotiator adds Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) and Knowledge (Religion) to his list of class skills.
At first level, the negotiator receives a +2 competence bonus to checks involving Diplomacy, Gather Information, Listen, and Sense Motive. This bonus increases to +4 at 5th level.
Specialty (Su): At 10th level as a free action the negotiator can use discern lies at will as a supernatural ability. The caster level is the negotiator level. The save DC is equal to 10 + ½ negotiator level + Charisma bonus.
Mastery (Ex): At 15th level the negotiator is close to the pinnacle of his craft. He can make Diplomacy checks as a full-round action without any penalty normally applied for doing so. In addition, while attempting any diplomacy check the negotiator may also attempt a simultaneous Sense Motive check.
Forceful Path: The negotiator has chosen to berate his opponents into submission. Intimidate becomes the negotiators key skill as applying to his other path abilities. The negotiator adds Disguise, Forgery, Hide, Intimidate, Move Silently, and Sleight of Hand to his list of class skills.
At first level, the negotiator receives a +2 competence bonus to checks involving Bluff, Forgery, Intimidate and Sleight of Hand. This bonus increases to +4 at 5th level.
Specialty (Su): At 10th level the negotiator can use command at will as a supernatural ability. The caster level is the negotiator level. The save DC is equal to 10 + ½ negotiator level + Charisma bonus.
Mastery (Ex): At 15th level the negotiator is so familiar with demoralizing opponents he now ignores the opponents size when determining penalties for Intimidate checks. Bonuses from the negotiator’s size still count. In addition, normal Intimidate checks may be attempted as a full-round action.
Negotiate on the Run (Ex): The negotiator may attempt their preferred path of negotiation on a single creature as a free action during a move action. Doing so applies a -5 penalty on the check for the hurried attempt, in addition to any other penalties applied for rushing these checks.
Language: At 2nd level the negotiator has studied enough foes to have learned an additional language. This language can be selected from any monstrous foe such as Slaadi, and may also be Druidic. An additional language is learned at 7th, 12th, and 17th level.
Initiative: The negotiator is aware of any moves his opponents may make. The negotiator gains the Uncanny Dodge ability at 2nd level and a +2 bonus to all initiative checks.
Silk Tongue (Ex): Once per day after reaching 4th level, the negotiator can choose to re-roll any Diplomacy or Intimidate check (as per chosen path). The negotiator can choose the higher of the rolls. This ability can be used 2/day upon reaching 8th level, and 3/day after reaching 12th level.
Presence (Su): At 6th level the negotiator is an identifiable sight on the battlefield. All allies within line of sight to the negotiator receive a +4 morale bonus on saves against fear or compulsion effects. This bonus increases to +8 at 14th level. The negotiator must be conscious for this ability to work.
Mental Deftness (Ex): At 3rd level the negotiator has become so skilled at his craft that, unless willing, he can not be influenced by any checks made using Diplomacy or Intimidate. This immunity is lost if the creature attempting the check is a negotiator at least 2 levels higher than the target negotiator.
Prediction (Ex): At 8th level the negotiator has become very aware of his opponents. He can no longer be flanked by opponents unless they are at least 4 levels higher than the negotiator in a class with a similar ability. This ability functions like Improved Uncanny Dodge.
Mental Balance (Su): At 9th level the negotiator has become so accustomed to being neutral that he is no longer in danger of going astray. He is immune to any magical effects that would otherwise change his alignment. He is also under an effect similar to a phylactery of faithfulness. If the negotiator takes a standard action to question whether his action will affect his alignment, he will know as such.
Leadership: At 13th level the negotiator receives the leadership feat for free. If he already has this feat he may choose any other feat he meets prerequisites for.
Mental Perfection (Su): The negotiator is the pinnacle of understanding and reasoning. His mind is so attuned to its own workings that he is no longer subject to many effects. The negotiator gains immunity to any mind-affecting effect. In addition, the negotiator is under the constant effect of the comprehend languages spell, but the negotiator does not have to touch the person or object.
Ex-Negotiators
A negotiator who ceases to be neutral on at least one axis loses all class abilities except weapon proficiencies. The negotiator must return to a neutral alignment and then perform a personal penance requiring 200gp in materials and one week of reflection. After this time all class features are restored.
*SNIPPED for space* This allows a variety of players to participate in social encounters, based on their Skill set and their Abilities. Moreover,not every approach is good for every scenario. Heavy circumstance bonuses and penalties should apply. For example, trying to get a goblin to sympathize with the...
Gotcha, and yeah, that seems like a good idea. It allows the specialists in a given area/stat to excel.
Random thought: What do you think about adding something similar to common sense/philosophy to Wisdom?
How do you see resolution? Working off a tri-stat system, do you see it as a split based on what you want to achieve?
IE: My PC has a high INT, and I need to convince the duke to loan us troops to guard something while my party knocks out the main threat. So I could use Knowledge to lay out the why, then Diplomacy to finish the deal?
Would you be able to blend rolls for an effect?
Same example; I start with the Knowledge skill, but finish with a WIS based Perception check to point out the benefits to the duke.
|
|
Actually I think both grapefruits and gasoline would both kill me. Those things are disgusting.
Anyway just thought that I'd point out that there is rules for social "combat" in Vampire's Requiem for Rome. Useful rules I guess, not everyone is a senator in real life after all. If you are a senator in RL you're probably too busy doing your roleplaying before congress. }; )
Random thought: What do you think about adding something similar to common sense/philosophy to Wisdom?
Well, common sense? Sure. I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophy" though. That seems more like a Knowledge.
How do you see resolution? Working off a tri-stat system, do you see it as a split based on what you want to achieve? IE: My PC has a high INT, and I need to convince the duke to loan us troops to guard something while my party knocks out the main threat. So I could use Knowledge to lay out the why, then Diplomacy to finish the deal?
Would you be able to blend rolls for an effect?
Same example; I start with the Knowledge skill, but finish with a WIS based Perception check to point out the benefits to the duke.
Well, I would actually require the party to role-play it out, because although the intent may be to start out with a factual appeal (Int + Know) to convince the duke about the nature of the threat, they might hit a metaphorical wall. So then one of the other players starts probing the Duke with questions (A Wisdom-based appeal). In this case, wither Inquiry (Wis+Diplomacy) or intuition (Wis+Sense Motive) might work. Interrogation (Wis+Intimidate) is probably a sure trip to the stockades! If successful, the party might discover the DUke already agrees that the main threat is serious, but fears that re-allocating troops would open himself to a more serious threat elsewhere.
Well, that throws a monkey wrench in your plans. Now the party needs to come up with a new approach. What's this other threat? Is it really more serious than the one we know of. Could the Duke help us in other ways?
Only through actually role-playing the scenario would the DM be able to determine which approach the players are using and only through role-play would the players be able to actually affect things. The dice are used only when the DM is unsure how a NPC might react.
Making PCs rely on multiple abilities and multiple skills ensures however, that the encounter won't simply be resolved by one PC with a +35 on his Charisma + Diplomacy.
Well, common sense? Sure. I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophy" though. That seems more like a Knowledge.
I think you're right. I was trying to go for a Zen feel, but that still entails some training as it were.
*SNIP WELL DETAILED EXPLANATION*Only through actually role-playing the scenario would the DM be able to determine which approach the players are using and only through role-play would the players be able to actually affect things. The dice are used only when the DM is unsure how a NPC might react.
Making PCs rely on multiple abilities and multiple skills...
Ah, gotcha. That's pretty spiffy. This seems like a pretty rules light system overall, with complimentary skills/rolls when needed if I followed correctly.
Do you see any reasons why you might want to increase the structure or is your preference to leave it mostly to the DM with outs for when they get stuck?
As a follow-up, how would you apply this to something like a debate? More structure, or mostly DM interaction?
(Sorry for all the questions, but to meme it, "Your ideas intruige me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.")
|
I think that the FATE system, used by Spirit of the Century, has a good model for this.
Fundamentally, we need some way to track "social stamina", which is analagous to how we track "physical durability": through hit points. When a character beats his enemy's AC he doesn't automatically kill his foe; it's a gradual process representing his foe's decreasing ability to defend itself. Currently the social conflict resolution system, in the form of Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate checks versus a set DC doesn't represent this gradual change. However, sometimes an argument, or a debate, can take some time to resolve as one party convinces the other of valid points.
Wrecan's ideas are good ones, and it still lacks some way to track the durability of a character in a social conflict.
To use the example of a PC trying to convince a duke, let's see the following scenario:
1. The PCs are trying to get the duke to loan troops to them.
2. The duke has been dealing with recent civil unrest, and is hesitant to send his troops off to battle, since it might mar his public image and cause more severe civil unrest, such as rioting. He wants the PCs to leave him alone.
3. The PCs use whatever tools they have for social conflict, be it a variety of Appeals they make (factual, inquiry, etc.), Skill checks they make versus some manner of Skill-Defense, or something else entirely.
4. When the PCs try to convince the duke, social conflict begins. If they roll well, and wear down his "social stamina", they might convince him, depending on how the conflict is resolved. This is similar to whether the PCs cut an enemy to ribbons with their swords or blast it into oblivion with fireballs in physical combat; it's simply the way in which they reach victory.
5. If the PCs lose the social conflict, rather than the duke convincing them of his side, since my sense is that most players don't like being told how they should play their characters, it simply becomes clear to them that the duke is firm in his beliefs. Namely, this isn't something they can convince him to do.
For the purposes of what "social attacks" versus "social defenses" are appropriate, I'm inclined to say that we should use some of what already exists in the form of Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, and so on. In the FATE system, these are called things like Resolve, Empathy, Deceit, Rapport, and Intimidation.
What about thoughts on how to track social stamina? Debate Points? Wit points? Thoughts?
Ah, gotcha. That's pretty spiffy. This seems like a pretty rules light system overall, with complimentary skills/rolls when needed if I followed correctly.
Thanks!!
Do you see any reasons why you might want to increase the structure or is your preference to leave it mostly to the DM with outs for when they get stuck?
Well, the goal of any game design is to make it Fine-sized, but the temptation is to make it Colossal! Yeah, a supplement might involve expanded Social Encounter Rules, with feats and classes dedicated to it. But I think the mechanics are pretty sound and they encompass most issues.
The expansion, in my opinion, would simply be a means to expand on how a DM can prepare social encounters, flesh out NPCs for social situations, and better "wing it" when an encounter you thought would be a fight turns into a parley.
As a follow-up, how would you apply this to something like a debate? More structure, or mostly DM interaction?
Mostly DM interaction. Also, D&D isn't made for formal debate. Frankly, that might get resolved simply with opposing Perform (oratory) checks.
Fundamentally, we need some way to track "social stamina", which is analagous to how we track "physical durability": through hit points.
We do? Why? Why not just let the DM decide when the NPC says, "I tire of this jabbering. Are you going to do what I ask or is this going to get ugly?"
Really, that's the sort of thing that should be written into the personality of the NPC. "This NPC is impatient." "This NPC is more likely to wear down the PCs than vice versa." "If the PCs haven't convinced the NPC before General Hospital comes on, he stops listening." "This NPC begins discussion by saying 'I'll give you one minute, then I have a pedicure to get to.'" "This NPC will listen patiently, but if they mention that they've been to the county of Sarlek, the NPC will stop listening to anythign they say until after they patiently hear his long and boring tale of his trek to the Sarleki Mountains forty years ago. If they interrupt, he kicks them out. If they listen patiently, they will get a +3 circumstance bonus on all social rolls for the rest of the encounter."
I don't think that a detailed social stamina system is necessarily needed. Let me explain. If a roll is used after a player states an argument (going into as much detail and in-character acting as he wants) to determine if it succeeds, then once the player makes enough rolls to convince the NPC of his points to satisfy the player, the scene can end, irregardless of how much social stamina he has left. The end of negotiations are when the player is satisfied with the results or the NPC calls in the guards. If rolls are used on a point (as in argumentative point) by point basis, the results will suggest an end by themselves while still letting social encounters last 20-30 minutes in real time.
How do you guys feel about a situational bonus to some of the rolls?
ie: Somone constructs a really good argument for a debate or really anything requiring let's say a Knowledge roll, so you give them a +2 circumstance to that part of the check.
Or
Someone RPs their delivery really well and even the DM is ready to just agree before remembering that the DUke is still annoyed about that whole "midnight fencing" incident between the PC and his young daughter. SO for delivery, he gets a +1 cuz the Duke is still honked after all.
How do you guys feel about a situational bonus to some of the rolls?
I'm all for it. I think that circumstances would make up a large portion.
- Bonuses for good acting by the player
- Bonuses for an approach the NPC would be predisposed to accept
- Bonuses for teamwork (i.e., good cop-bad cop)
But penalties as well
- Penalty for poor etiquette
- Penalty for an approach the NPC would be predisposed to reject
- Penalty for contradicting or being contradicted by your allies.
- Penalty for wasting time (i.e., the boredom penalty)
In addition, these bonuses and penalties encourage players to prolong the social encounter and the roleplay because they are going to want to gather as much information as possible before making their pitch. But what if someone else is making a counter-pitch? (I.e., a rival adventuring party who wants the count's permission to enter the dungeon the PCs want to enter.) Does the party rush in and possible step on a proverbial mine, or do they wait to gather info, and risk the other NPCs getting first crack at the treasure?
A social encounter section in a Pathfinder supplement should have only the barest minimum of mechanics, but a lot of discussion on how to construct good social encounters, which would include a discussion not only of penalties and bonuses, but also time management issues, building complex NPCs, juggling multiple NPCs with conflicting agendas, and discussing when it is appropriate and inappropriate to use the dice.
A lot of these sections would be useful even to people who have no plans to roll dice to resolve social conflicts.