|
I like the idea of having a more complex social interaction system. So I'm going to start design one. It'll use stuff that you already have on your character sheet. Feel free to add, subtract, or critique.
So far, the system involves Argument and Rebuttal. Argument is like an attack and Rebuttal the defense, and they're opposed rolls. NPC's may (at DM's discretion) act as though their d20 roll was a natural 11, to reduce die-rolling. The higher roll succeeds, obviously.
I haven't figured out good mechanics yet for "critical hits" but I think that they should apply, just like in regular combat. Of course, if I put in critical hits, fumbles will also apply.
Authority is very important in social combat. It determines who wins by default. Characters in authority may get a circumstance bonus to all their social combat rolls, but I haven't made guidelines for this yet. A PC's henchmen, animal companions, familiars, followers, and even hirelings are considered to be under that PC's authority. Authority bonuses depend on how many followers each party has, and whose territory you're currently on. Creatures in their home, lair, territory, place of business, sanctum, or throne room always consider themselves to be in authority.
Social Combat is all about emotional manipulation, not mind control. Any magic that is effective vs. Compulsion or Mind-Affecting effects is not effective against Social Combat. Effects that improve saves vs. fear are effective against most forms of Intimidation.
Characters that do not have social skills may use a Standard Rebuttal, which is really just a Will Save. The Standard Rebuttal means you're being stubborn.
Success at social combat does NOT mean that the defender does whatever the aggressor wants, only that some concession must be made to the aggressor's wishes and will.
I give you... social combat maneuvers.
Intimidate
Browbeat - Argument only. You try to bully someone emotionally into doing what you want. This is not considered an attack, but it is cause for alarm. If you try to Browbeat someone with bodyguards, those bodyguards will attempt to intervene socially - they get a free rebuttal and usually respond with a Stare-Down or Confront. If a bodyguard and defender both roll, use the better of the two. A successfully browbeaten character treats the aggressor as having Authority.
Confront - Rebuttal only. Usually a response to intimidations, a confrontation may lead to conflict, though it doesn't have to. Confronting a character is cause for alarm, but it is not an attack.
Threaten - Argument only. Open threats are easy to do, but very risky. Bodyguards present may make a free rebuttal just as with Browbeat. Openly threatening an opponent is considered an attack, in most circumstances, and threatened characters may attack physically. The aggressor may accomplish a threat in a single round, however. Enemies already in combat are immune to threats (as they are obviously willing to fight you already), but may be demoralized as usual. A successfully threatened character is afraid of conflict seeks to get away from the source of trouble. Typically, this means they are very pliable, but likely to cause trouble later on.
Stare Down - Argument and Rebuttal. Not usually considered a cause for alarm. A stare down attempt takes a -2 penalty for being nonverbal, but it is less likely to lead to combat than other maneuvers. As a nonverbal maneuver, it may be used when no common language is shared.
Rally - Argument only. Your threats are all directed at someone who is not present. This maneuver does not always apply, but it allows a leader to persuade a group against a common foe.
Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Bluff to come soon!
This is gonna sound like I'm trolling, but I can't think of any other way to ask this.
Is this for people who can't or won't roleplay?
|
|
Nope. This is for people who want a more complex social mechanic and more clearly-defined roles for the social skills.
I was kind of inspired by the recent "intimidating a shopkeeper" thread. It occurred to me that each of these social skills can be used in many, many different ways. And people don't always communicate how they're using their social skills.
I hope I can establish a baseline for superior communication about what, exactly, a character is trying to do.
Nope. This is for people who want a more complex social mechanic and more clearly-defined roles for the social skills.
I was kind of inspired by the recent "intimidating a shopkeeper" thread. It occurred to me that each of these social skills can be used in many, many different ways. And people don't always communicate how they're using their social skills.
I hope I can establish a baseline for superior communication about what, exactly, a character is trying to do.
This sounds interesting. I'd like to see it developed further. :)
So not the d20 Slayers mechanics for verbal abuse? I'm going to need to go back and Pathfinderize those, so much fun. I've stared using a variant of the chase rules for extended social scenes.
Looks interesting but I don't see why you need critical hits. If you don't add auto pass/fail (as skills don't have them) I don't see why you need criticals. Although I will point you to the "if you fail by 5 or more mechanic" and it's common inverse where passing by 5 or more you get better results.
Check out "The Burning Wheel." They have a social combat system that looks like exactly what you want. You'd have to do a little adapting (but not much, I think) to get it to work in Pathfinder.
This is gonna sound like I'm trolling, but I can't think of any other way to ask this.
Is this for people who can't or won't roleplay?
I would recommend you play a session of a pre made adventure for Burning Wheel. The mechanics for social interaction actual encourage some really cool roleplaying. Try it before you knock it.
This is gonna sound like I'm trolling, but I can't think of any other way to ask this.
Is this for people who can't or won't roleplay?
Yes, that is exactly what it is, i mean how dare anyone use an abstract system to determine success, rather than there own skill, i mean come on, using a system to determine if your speech turns a jury in your favour? Whats next? Rolling dice rather than physically demonstrating your skill as a lock picker? They'll tell us we have to start using dice rather than our skill and brawn to determine our success in combat next....that said, what with all the friends I have lost to weapon injuries, there is a little bit of me which would be happy with this, especially as our parties mage and cleric suck...they can't cast a spell for the life of them...
Okay, so that was all rather silly, but the point is deadly serious. We are not our characters...it doesn't matter if we can't hike fifty miles in two days, or swing a sword, or cast magic. None of these things affect in anyway our characters abilities to move, fight or cast magic, and I doubt that you'd argue that these things should be left purely to the skill of the players involved, after all, your in a table top RPG forum, not one belonging to a "hard skill" systemed LARP.
So why would you consider a players skill as an actor(notice i do not say roleplayer, your skill as a role-player includes your skill as an actor, your ability to remain in character and empathise with them, and to use the system well to reflect that character) determine your success in social activities. Why should the skinny nerd with a forceful personality be able to play a hulking brute who can talk his way out of any situation as well as fight his way out of situation the player could never handle, while the ex soldier at the table who couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag not be able to play a successful bard?
The fact is, we already have a social conflict resolution system, and it is truly terrible. It would be wonderful if we could get a decent Social conflict resolution system.
Alot of cool and interesting stuff
Something I did when GMing a long time ago was make something called Social Initiative. It basically worked like normal initiative, but you used your Charisma bonus instead of your Dexterity bonus to figure out the order the party would go in a conversation. A question/statement was a "standard action" so people were allowed one question per turn, though if the party agreed that the one person should do the talking, then that person just keeps going. I find that this is a good way to keep players from yelling out what they want to say/do in a non-combat situation and it gives Charisma a bit more of a use. Also, I made these feats for the Charisma impaired.
Sharp Wit
"Your keen mind allows you to charm others with your quick thinking"
You substitute your Social Initiative with your Int modifier.
Sagelike Demeanor
"An aura of wisdom calms those around you, allowing you a chance to speak openly"
You substitute your Social Initiative with your Wis modifier.
Social Butterfly
"You flock to groups of people and your knowledge of the tongue keeps you as top dog in social circles"
Add a +4 to your Social Initiative.
These are what I used and it seemed to work fairly well. Hope this helps.
This is gonna sound like I'm trolling, but I can't think of any other way to ask this.
Is this for people who can't or won't roleplay?Yes, that is exactly what it is, i mean how dare anyone use an abstract system to determine success, rather than there own skill, i mean come on, using a system to determine if your speech turns a jury in your favour? Whats next? Rolling dice rather than physically demonstrating your skill as a lock picker? They'll tell us we have to start using dice rather than our skill and brawn to determine our success in combat next....that said, what with all the friends I have lost to weapon injuries, there is a little bit of me which would be happy with this, especially as our parties mage and cleric suck...they can't cast a spell for the life of them...
Okay, so that was all rather silly, but the point is deadly serious. We are not our characters...it doesn't matter if we can't hike fifty miles in two days, or swing a sword, or cast magic. None of these things affect in anyway our characters abilities to move, fight or cast magic, and I doubt that you'd argue that these things should be left purely to the skill of the players involved, after all, your in a table top RPG forum, not one belonging to a "hard skill" systemed LARP.
So why would you consider a players skill as an actor(notice i do not say roleplayer, your skill as a role-player includes your skill as an actor, your ability to remain in character and empathise with them, and to use the system well to reflect that character) determine your success in social activities. Why should the skinny nerd with a forceful personality be able to play a hulking brute who can talk his way out of any situation as well as fight his way out of situation the player could never handle, while the ex soldier at the table who couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag not be able to play a successful bard?
The fact is, we already have a social conflict resolution system, and it is truly terrible. It would be...
Wow! Guess you saw my "I'm not trolling" and raised it with some smarm. To counter your point with an equally rediculous idea, I could suggest instead of actually playing the characters, one could just use the creation rules from Traveller, where everything is decided for you with dice. Need background? No problem! Need a storyline? No problem! Need a character death? We have those too...and you never had to actually play the character!
Or maybe read a "Choose your own adventure" book?I would gather one of the main reasons RPGs exist is escapism. It allows you to adopt a persona for a few hours that is contrary to yours, in some cases. Act out like you wouldn't normally do.
That having been said, I don't think the idea the OP has is a bad one, necessarily. The PF rules for Diplomacy are too limited. The king resists your idea becasue of legitimately story driven ideals...*POOF* gone with a natural 20 diplomacy check, if you let the mechanics absolutely rule your games as a DM.
My opinion is coming up with more rules to hedge you in is not perhaps the best way to go. Just my 2 cp.
The key insight is that mechanics don't have to replace roleplaying -- you can certainly figure out the mechanical result of an encounter (physical or social) and then roleplay that result, and the interpretation of the mechanical result may have additional effects on the story of the game.
When I design larp characters, I will often give some mechanical abilities to characters that should be better in certain social situations than the player may be. These don't cut short or eliminate roleplaying; they essentially act as stage directions that allow both the less-charismatic player and the other players to play out fun situations with characters that are unlike them.
[They] essentially act as stage directions that allow both the less-charismatic player and the other players to play out fun situations with characters that are unlike them.
Were's the rep button on this forum. +100! Can I please add that to my signature on the various RPG forums I frequent. This is exactly the point I try to make all the time to hard-core narrativists who scoff at using social and job-like skills in games and deride them as unnessisary. It is like having on the fly stage direction, and the same goes for oddball things like alignment.
|
|
Thanks for the feedback! Seems optimistic, if cautiously so.
Please, no escalating conflict in my thread. {Rolls Diplomacy check for Request}.
Thank you for explaining the purpose of these mechanics, AvalonXQ. Your description was succinct and accurate.
I plan to incorporate some "margin of success" chart or rules so that exceeding your opponent's diplomacy check by +20 is different than exceeding it by +5.
Authority - Attitudes towards the person in authority are typically considered one step better than they would otherwise be. The actual attitude isn't changed, but people in general are more likely to help and less likely to hinder those in authority over them.
Taking insult - Attitudes towards an insulting person are generally lowered by one step. Particularly painful insults may lower attitudes by more than one step. Unless otherwise stated, any of the following maneuvers may be taken as an insult depending on the terms stated and the roll made.
If a PC makes a high roll and says something insulting, the wise GM is encouraged to inform the player that it would be insulting, rather than have the NPC in question be insulted.
Diplomacy
Persuade - The standard diplomacy maneuver, the object of persuasion is to sway one's opponent (or audience) without giving up . This only carries a penalty if the opponent or audience is forcefully opposed to the course of action being suggested. Persuaded opponents are not slaves and are under no compulsion to do as they are told. Rather, they see the argument or counter-argument given them in a good light.
Request (Argument only) - A request is a polite and completely nonthreatening way to ask for something. A request roll usually takes a penalty (-2 for very polite company, -10 or more against people making threats) because it isn't forceful at all. On the other hand, a request is never taken as an insult.
Compromise (Rebuttal only) - A compromise always contains a concession to what the opponent desires. This is usually less desirable for the diplomat, but it grants a bonus according to that concession (+0 or +2 for token concessions, +10 for granting nearly everything that the opponent wants).
Offer (Argument only) - You make an offer to another character, whether it is to purchase, barter, or transact in another way. For transactions with merchants according to standard values, no roll is generally necessary. A DM may allow or require an Appraise roll in addition to or instead of a Diplomacy roll, depending on the circumstances.
Haggle (Rebuttal only) - Generally in response to an offer, one may haggle to obtain better terms for one's self. An NPC will often grant more favorable terms to a successful haggle, but will not typically make an offer that actually causes her to suffer any kind of loss, at least not knowingly. As with the 'offer' maneuver, a GM may allow or require an Appraise roll in addition to or instead of a Diplomacy roll, depending on the circumstances.
