| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A while back I found, while searching the web, the beginnings of a social combat system for the d20 system. I found it interesting and waited patiently for it to be completed for use in my home games. Unfortunately, interest seemed to die out and no further refinement of the system occurred.
The following material is heavily based on this, with several additions such as a form of social condition track. I'd like to see it refined further and scale appropriately, which I'm not sure it does currently and would appreciate suggestions and criticism in that direction.
Google Docs Link: Social Combat
This looks awesome, and reminds me of the debate system from Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
Expect comments and critique to come.
That was my first thought when I first ran across the original version. It is so much simpler than a lot of the other social combat systems I've seen and I really wish they'd been able to maintain interest and finish it.
I may have to take a look at the Three Kingdoms system for more inspiration and ideas.
As for comments and critique, much appreciated. I added in a critical success and failure a few moments ago, but need to review how it interacts - particularly the possibility of some sort of "confirmation" for a critical failure since it could end "negotiations" very quickly.
I also added in a couple feats at the end and am trying to figure out whether to keep adding new feats, or making a list of pre-existing feats and granting these affects which relate to social combat (provided they don't already by virtue of increasing a skill involved and so on).
Technique Focus, a feat, was added, as well as a new technique called "Plea".
The feats may be removed later and integrated into the system in some other fashion, perhaps as a form of "skill trick" format. As feats, they seem a bit "weak".
I do have plenty of ideas and have been working them out some, but my internet has been spotty. Don't think I gave up on it.
Techniques, as they are now, are kinda lame, with the exception of Convince (which actually does something if you don't win this round) and Plea. I have ideas for giving them benefits during the combat even if you fail to win this round (making them more like risky maneuvers you can try that give you an advantage if they work, but hurt you if they fail).
Also had thoughts for turning the basic actions into more interesting things then simply "roll off every turn, oh and these guys aid".
Will post when I can get it all together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've just completed a version two of my own - you can find it here: Social Combat version 2
Originally each side was limited to a "primary" and three "subordinates" (and only they could aid) - I elected to limit it to two subordinates, and limit the amount of times they can aid each debate (two for now).
Techniques have been improved to include more options and give them greater depth. You can also only use them once each - no spamming! Some include big bonuses or advantages, but also drawbacks if they fail. Others simply give a benefit if they succeed.
The feats were removed, but I intend to include some of my own, as well as a new NPC class - "Negotiator". I will also include a full social combat broken down to make sure users can understand.
EDIT: I should mention this drew heavily upon Da'ath's own Google Doc - I just made changes I thought were in the best interest of the system, by giving it more depth and clarification.
Looks good... and it may be that the only way to get some players to interact with NPCs at all is to call it a type of 'combat.' (LOL)
I know what you mean, unfortunately. Used to roleplay with a guy you couldn't get to shut up, ever. Get him at a gaming table and not one word came out of his mouth.
EDIT: I should mention this drew heavily upon Da'ath's own Google Doc - I just made changes I thought were in the best interest of the system, by giving it more depth and clarification.
Wow, just wow. You definitely raised the bar on it, too. I was flailing about in the dark with only a vague grasp of where I wanted to go with it compared to the refinements you've made. Major kudos! I have been moved, swayed, and defeated in one post. =)
In the best interests of the system, I completely support your version and "you have the floor".
One thing I thought of when I noticed you'd altered techniques to one-shot "powers" (a brilliant idea btw) and altered the definition of a "critical success" was as follows:
What if, on a natural 20, you recover one spent technique?
EDIT: I should mention this drew heavily upon Da'ath's own Google Doc - I just made changes I thought were in the best interest of the system, by giving it more depth and clarification.Wow, just wow. You definitely raised the bar on it, too. I was flailing about in the dark with only a vague grasp of where I wanted to go with it compared to the refinements you've made. Major kudos! I have been moved, swayed, and defeated in one post. =)
In the best interests of the system, I completely support your version and "you have the floor".
One thing I thought of when I noticed you'd altered techniques to one-shot "powers" (a brilliant idea btw) and altered the definition of a "critical success" was as follows:
What if, on a natural 20, you recover one spent technique?
I'm honored you have such a high opinion of my additions! You easily deserve at least as much credit as me for coming up with the base system though.
I personally tend to dislike the "swinginess" of the D20, but I could expand the options for a critical success to include an additional damage on the resolve track (two if you were already dealing resolve damage, one if not), "refresh" a technique already used, or recover a step on the resolve track.
Thoughts? Also, I agreed with your assessment before Da'ath, about improving the feats. I think they should be stronger and will reflect that once I write them up.
I personally tend to dislike the "swinginess" of the D20, but I could expand the options for a critical success to include an additional damage on the resolve track (two if you were already dealing resolve damage, one if not), "refresh" a technique already used, or recover a step on the resolve track.
I think, looking over it again, that you're already on the right track and it's not necessary. I think my "natural 20 obsession" is an artifact of previous to modern editions of the game and the fact I'm terribly resistant to change. You system for +10/-10 is probably the way all criticals should work.
Also, I agreed with your assessment before Da'ath, about improving the feats. I think they should be stronger and will reflect that once I write them up.
Yeah, when I put the original feat ideas together, I was following a very linear line of thought: each one could mirror a style of combat feat (technique focus, technique specialization, power technique - I'm kidding on the last one, or am I?). Looking at them and then examining all the problems people already have with feat value... I couldn't see myself taking them over other feats.
I eagerly look forward to your next update.
I personally tend to dislike the "swinginess" of the D20, but I could expand the options for a critical success to include an additional damage on the resolve track (two if you were already dealing resolve damage, one if not), "refresh" a technique already used, or recover a step on the resolve track.I think, looking over it again, that you're already on the right track and it's not necessary. I think my "natural 20 obsession" is an artifact of previous to modern editions of the game and the fact I'm terribly resistant to change. You system for +10/-10 is probably the way all criticals should work.
I like the options, so I think I will keep them as it is. Each person can decide which they want in any given situation. While they may not be balanced against each other perfectly, I can see using each one of these during an actual debate. So it's probably a net plus.
Also, I agreed with your assessment before Da'ath, about improving the feats. I think they should be stronger and will reflect that once I write them up.Yeah, when I put the original feat ideas together, I was following a very linear line of thought: each one could mirror a style of combat feat (technique focus, technique specialization, power technique - I'm kidding on the last one, or am I?). Looking at them and then examining all the problems people already have with feat value... I couldn't see myself taking them over other feats.
I eagerly look forward to your next update.
Yeah. The main issue is that you have to pick this over a feat that was designed with the game and packed into it. So it has to be pretty compelling.
I had a few thoughts along this line - I was thinking either a line of feats (Beginning Bargainer, Novice Negotiator, Skilled Secretary, Commanding Consul, Epic Emissary), that you gained automatically once you met the pre-requisites of the next one. These would be weaker overall, but since you only ever had to spend one feat (and get the necessary skill ranks), it could be done. Like the names? XD
The other was fewer feats overall, but more oomph. It would give significant bonuses in a negotiation, meaning one would be hard-pressed to win if he's behind on feats. The first feat I was thinking of would be something like - "Before each social combat pick a technique. You may
use that technique twice during this social encounter. You gain +1 position and +1 to all influence rolls."
Thoughts?
Yeah. The main issue is that you have to pick this over a feat that was designed with the game and packed into it. So it has to be pretty compelling.
I had a few thoughts along this line - I was thinking either a line of feats (Beginning Bargainer, Novice Negotiator, Skilled Secretary, Commanding Consul, Epic Emissary), that you gained automatically once you met the pre-requisites of the next one. These would be weaker overall, but since you only ever had to spend one feat (and get the necessary skill ranks), it could be done. Like the names? XD
They look good to me and just to make sure I understand what you're saying, I'm going to provide an example (I want to be on the same page):
Entry Feat: Diplomat - gives you access to the chain, starting with beginning bargainer
Novice Negotiator - prereqs X/Y character level Z - effect here
Skilled Secretary - prereqs X1/Y1 character level Z1 - effect here
Is that what you mean?
The other was fewer feats overall, but more oomph. It would give significant bonuses in a negotiation, meaning one would be hard-pressed to win if he's behind on feats. The first feat I was thinking of would be something like - "Before each social combat pick a technique. You may use that technique twice during this social encounter. You gain +1 position and +1 to all influence rolls."
That's definitely the way to go and the sample feat looks great.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feats have been added. Again, the link can be found just below this line.
There are three feat choices to be made - The Negotiator feats (for the speaker, primarily), a feat for seconds, and a feat for other PCs who elect to serve as a guard and not participate.
The Negotiator feat line is pretty powerful, but the first feat is the only one required to be taken. I am a bit worried the feats are a bit strong, but you do eventually get them for free later on, so it's impossible to fall behind as long as you take the first one.
The feat for seconds is pretty straightforward - when you serve as a second, you give your speaker benefits and can aid his efforts more.
The guard feat is also easy to get - when you are protecting your speaker (typically another PC), you get a bonus should combat break out.
Feedback is welcome.
For reference/ inspiration along these lines I recall three works from Atlas Games D20 Penumbra line: Dynasties and Demagogues, Crime and Punishment, and Love and War. I believe Green Ronin may have had some systems in some of their historical D20 supplements as well.
I'll have to check them out and see if anything clicks. Thanks!
Feats have been added. Again, the link can be found just below this line.
There are three feat choices to be made - The Negotiator feats (for the speaker, primarily), a feat for seconds, and a feat for other PCs who elect to serve as a guard and not participate.
The Negotiator feat line is pretty powerful, but the first feat is the only one required to be taken. I am a bit worried the feats are a bit strong, but you do eventually get them for free later on, so it's impossible to fall behind as long as you take the first one.
The feat for seconds is pretty straightforward - when you serve as a second, you give your speaker benefits and can aid his efforts more.
The guard feat is also easy to get - when you are protecting your speaker (typically another PC), you get a bonus should combat break out.
Feedback is welcome.
First things first: I added a link to the original document which now points to Social Combat v2 so folks will see right off the bat that they're in the wrong one.
Second, love the feats. I could actually see myself taking those.
Third, I really love the guard feat. It allows the rest of the party not speaking or acting as seconds to feel involved as well.
Fourth, another brainstormed feat - a feat which might allow an individual to gain an extra "normal slot" on the Resolve Track, "Unwavering" or something like that? I'm not invested in the suggestion, just throwing out things as I think of them.=)
First things first: I added a link to the original document which now points to Social Combat v2 so folks will see right off the bat that they're in the wrong one.
Thanks for the link. It's much appreciated. You've been super, by the way. It was very easy to think I was treading on your toes or trying to steal the project or something. I promise, it wasn't my intention, but you have been fantastic, Da'ath. I won't forget it.
Second, love the feats. I could actually see myself taking those.
That was the aim of them. If they're good enough to take in a game where social combat will matter (especially the guard and seconds' one) then it's a job well done. I also think they do good by not being "too obvious" (with the exception of the negotiator line, if you really get into the system).
Third, I really love the guard feat. It allows the rest of the party not speaking or acting as seconds to feel involved as well.
Yeah, I realized situations like that could get boring. So if the DM can throw some assassins or a surprise attack at the party while the speaker is trying to get some social combat on, the martial characters can feel good about their feat choice.
Fourth, another brainstormed feat - a feat which might allow an individual to gain an extra "normal slot" on the Resolve Track, "Unwavering" or something like that? I'm not invested in the suggestion, just throwing out things as I think of them.=)
I was thinking about feats like that - stuff that gives you straight benefits outside the negotiator line. Most builds are starved for feats though, so I rather like having everything in one place. Asking for people to take 3 or so feats to become truly effective with the system is too much for a part of the game that won't be a massive issue.
A few changes made. Several grammar and clarification changes. Lowered Convince's bonus to +8. Added an Objective Change action for the Speaker, usually only necessary when a sudden situation change during a Social combat occurs (your army just lost a battle, a defecter joined your side, etc). Seconds can now step in during that action as well. Next step is a full demo using the system to be put into the document. Hopefully I can get it done before bed tonight. Got my job in the morning, after all.
More changes. Added the first part of an exchange intended to show the system in action. Made clear seconds go at the same time as their speaker. Also intensified the diplomacy penalties for bad relations.
Thanks for the link. It's much appreciated. You've been super, by the way. It was very easy to think I was treading on your toes or trying to steal the project or something. I promise, it wasn't my intention, but you have been fantastic, Da'ath. I won't forget it.
Not a problem and thanks for the compliment. I don't tend to invest my ego in most things; I'd much rather see something get done and done right. Believe it or not, it was kinda a relief - I was able to finish up 4 other smaller projects as a result, lol.
I was thinking about feats like that - stuff that gives you straight benefits outside the negotiator line. Most builds are starved for feats though, so I rather like having everything in one place. Asking for people to take 3 or so feats to become truly effective with the system is too much for a part of the game that won't be a massive issue.
Agreed, 100%.
More changes. Added the first part of an exchange intended to show the system in action. Made clear seconds go at the same time as their speaker. Also intensified the diplomacy penalties for bad relations.
The exchange looks really good so far.
Only problem I really see is that the influence DC is opposed by the target's sense motive. Most npcs don't actually have sense motive. Are they basically insta-convinced?
God no. Let me just talk to the DM and role play. Dice are an abstraction that we use to distance players from the game and simulate things they can't do.
Being able to converse with NPCs doesn't warrant more rules. Our groups "social combats" are very intense and funny at times. They would not be enhanced by rolling more dice and consulting more tables than what the current rules already allow for.
Only problem I really see is that the influence DC is opposed by the target's sense motive. Most npcs don't actually have sense motive. Are they basically insta-convinced?
It should probably have a fall back of 10 + 1/2 character level + relevant modifier or something similar in there (i.e. use the greater of the sense motive or that).
God no. Let me just talk to the DM and role play. Dice are an abstraction that we use to distance players from the game and simulate things they can't do.
Being able to converse with NPCs doesn't warrant more rules. Our groups "social combats" are very intense and funny at times. They would not be enhanced by rolling more dice and consulting more tables than what the current rules already allow for.
That's how it works at my table, as well - we talk and roleplay, but player statistics do and should matter. I'd just rather not determine, say, the fate of warring nations, for example, with one diplomacy roll or GM fiat.
I'm glad you're happy with the current rules. Good gaming to you.