|
I know some games have a full combat system for arguments.
I know some people are vehemently against abstracted social combat systems, as they feel they remove the roleplaying from an rpg.
However, I know from personal experience that I'm not a huge fan of how Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate work in Pathfinder. They don't work particularly well, Diplomacy is practically flawless permanent mind control, and I don't like it.
That said, has anyone tried out an alternate system instead of the standard diplomacy/intimidate/bluff skill rules in a pathfinder game? What was it, and how did it work out?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, yes. I agree, no rules whatsoever for social conflict is like having a Fight skill that you roll once to resolve combat.
I was inspired by the Duel of Wits mechanic from Burning Wheel, and tried to get something similar in my Council of Thieves game.
I downloaded Dynasties and Demagogues, and used those rules for a while. Neat, but a little clunky.
I revised those into a home-brew system which I felt worked well, but my players refused to use it because they knew they weren't super persuasive, and were afraid that they would get talked into something.
So, new attempt is using Rich Burlew's Diplomacy fix (yes, the OOTS guy). Details are here
Oh, Paizo's got a social combat deck coming, probably work like the chase deck.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. Yeah I heard about the upcoming Deck, and the description made it sound similar to the chase deck.
Rich's Diplomacy fix sounds better than using the skill as written, that's for sure.
I'm not convinced that it is as good as having a subsystem to resolve social conflict, but at least it makes Diplomacy stop being mind control.
So far here are the things I've seen/heard of for social conflict systems (I'm not familiar with any of them, but these are the ones I've heard of now):
- Burning Wheel Duel of Wits
- Dynasties and Demagogues
- God Machine (World of Darkness)
- Song of Ice and Fire RPG
- Danse Macabre
Anyone else tried some sort of social conflict system, either in Pathfinder, or tried any of the ones above? What are they like? Which ones are good/bad, and why?
I've used Rich's modifiers to set the scene and allow Diplomacy to be opposed by Diplomacy rather than just the CHA modifier.
I've read Dynasties and Demagogues but tends to just use the administration mechanic to add delays to the PCs being in town, mainly to make them realise the NPCs have lives of their own and the PCs aren't necessarily the centre of everyone else's universe.
I'll research the other suggested sources - thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far here are the things I've seen/heard of for social conflict systems (I'm not familiar with any of them, but these are the ones I've heard of now):
- Burning Wheel Duel of Wits
- Dynasties and Demagogues
- God Machine (World of Darkness)
- Song of Ice and Fire RPG
- Danse Macabre
I'm familiar with all of those except Dynasties and Demagogues (I actually never even heard of that one, which is odd, since I'm familiar with a really wide assortment of RPGs), and, well, I am one of those people who thinks social systems like those are the antithesis of everything I enjoy about roleplaying, so I'm not a fan.
My suggested alternative social system is this:
Just let the PCs talk and let the GM react in character based on their actual words and arguments. It works and it's infinitely more interesting than rolling dice instead of talking. You can still throw out a Diplomacy check when you can't decide on how someone would react, but mostly, just use human judgment. It's pretty much how I run social situations in every RPG and it's worked well.
|
So far here are the things I've seen/heard of for social conflict systems (I'm not familiar with any of them, but these are the ones I've heard of now):
- Burning Wheel Duel of Wits
- Dynasties and Demagogues
- God Machine (World of Darkness)
- Song of Ice and Fire RPG
- Danse MacabreI'm familiar with all of those except Dynasties and Demagogues (I actually never even heard of that one, which is odd, since I'm familiar with a really wide assortment of RPGs), and, well, I am one of those people who thinks social systems like those are the antithesis of everything I enjoy about roleplaying, so I'm not a fan.
My suggested alternative social system is this:
Just let the PCs talk and let the GM react in character based on their actual words and arguments. It works and it's infinitely more interesting than rolling dice instead of talking. You can still throw out a Diplomacy check when you can't decide on how someone would react, but mostly, just use human judgment. It's pretty much how I run social situations in every RPG and it's worked well.
Which is fine, except it means that you never need to put a rank in any social skill ever. So even the most hideous stupid half-orc who is played by someone who is good at improv will get to wax eloquent during social encounters.
Which is fine, except it means that you never need to put a rank in any social skill ever. So even the most hideous stupid half-orc who is played by someone who is good at improv will get to wax eloquent during social encounters.
1) I've got no problem with that, considering that people who are good at tactical thinking and math and stuff have a "costless" advantage in other areas of the game.
2) I play with people who favor immersion, so that's never been an issue, anyway. Someone playing as a hideous, stupid half-orc wouldn't wax eloquent, even if they personally were capable of it.
I'm familiar with all of those except Dynasties and Demagogues (I actually never even heard of that one, which is odd, since I'm familiar with a really wide assortment of RPGs), and, well, I am one of those people who thinks social systems like those are the antithesis of everything I enjoy about roleplaying, so I'm not a fan.
My suggested alternative social system is this:
Just let the PCs talk and let the GM react in character based on their actual words and arguments. It works and it's infinitely more interesting than rolling dice instead of talking. You can still throw out a Diplomacy check when you can't decide on how someone would react, but mostly, just use human judgment. It's pretty much how I run social situations in every RPG and it's worked well.
One of the things I love about RPGs is the chance to be someone I'm not. Sometimes, that means pretending to have magic powers, or to be good at violence, or to be a werewolf.
Other times, it means pretending to have social skills.I understand for those who are naturally eloquent that the idea of letting the dice determine their persuasiveness may seem diabolical, it may seem the antithesis of what roleplaying is about. I'm sure Vampires roll their eyes at WoD games.
Pathfinder (like so many modern games) has rules for everything. Not always the best rules, but rules, nonetheless. To put yellow tape around it and say "You can't resolve social interactions by rolling a d20 and adding modifiers" is as silly as saying "Your ability to know stuff/fight stuff/notice stuff/cast a spell can't be resolved by rolling a d20 and adding modifiers."
And of course, Savage Worlds has a good, fast system for resolving social conflict. Like everything else.
|
|
Indeed that's the other side of the coin, does a shy, reserved player or one with poor social skills, or one who is bad at improv never play Bards or anything with a high charisma?
Sometimes folks play characters with silver tongues and put ranks in those skills so they don't have to come up with an impromptu monologue.
Indeed that's the other side of the coin, does a shy, reserved player or one with poor social skills, or one who is bad at improv never play Bards or anything with a high charisma?
First, I'm really confused by the idea of a roleplayer being bad at improv. Isn't roleplaying, well, essentially improv? How can you be a roleplayer and bad at improv?
Second, I'm also ok with this eventuality. You can think I'm a jerk or whatever, but the fact is, when wallflowers play the face, social scenes are never more boring. It's not really any different than when someone who can't open a website without a shortcut on their desktop tries to play a hacker, or when someone who thinks a submachine gun is a weapon on a U-boat tries to play a gun nut.
But I've had this discussion before and I don't want to distract from the thread's actual purpose. Not worrying about social skills and just talking it out was a legitimate suggestion.
Sometimes folks play characters with silver tongues and put ranks in those skills so they don't have to come up with an impromptu monologue.
Wait, are there people that write out dialogue ahead of time and then just read it at the roleplaying table? Is that really a thing? If not, what's the alternative to an impromtu monologue? (or well, dialogue, because a monologue makes zero sense in the context of an rpg).
That said, people in my games still put ranks in those skills basically as a back up. Sometimes, people have an off night and they can't get what they want across. Sometimes, they're in a totally unfamiliar situation or they are too tired to think of a proper argument. If the outcome is in doubt, or the player seems incapable of portraying what they want to get across, then a roll is made.
So, my point is not "remove all social skills," but rather that social skills should be an absolutely last resort, rather than the only resort.
As the system is now, where social situations are just rolled out, there is zero reason for anyone but the party face to speak. In fact, speaking without the skill to back it up is a liability, so people in a roleplaying game are being encouraged to not roleplay. That's a problem for me. My way of handling it basically just removes that barrier and encourages everyone to speak because their words can sway what their dice cannot.
As for those other systems, as I said, I'm very familiar with all of them, and they all have one thing in common: an utter lack of immersion and in-character conversation.
The writers all seem to think people are going to carry on a legit conversation and just conveniently roll in between paragraphs or something. But, uh, that never happens ever, since they're doing complex math to calculate the results of their attack, er, I mean, argument, and taking turns at unnatural moments all of which ruins your flow.
Every one of those systems essentially turns social situations into combats. Most feature a "social AC" and "social hit point" equivalent, so it plays just like a combat instead of a debate.
"I roll my 'cutting one-liners' against his 'feigned integrity' and got three successes, so he lost 3 influence plus another two because I'm a noble and arguing with the 'race card' weapon."
"Oh, but what was your cutting one-liner?"
"Huh?"
"The one-liner--what did you say?"
"You want to know what I actually said? You mean a bunch of friends around a table want to laugh at a one-liner instead of subtracting social hit points? That's not fair! I gave myself an online test and it proved that I have asperger's and now you're giving me a panic attack! I can't have conversations!"
I couldn't decide between that extended hyperbole or just calling the first line "BORING." Either way, if you think your game needs more combat and less interaction, by all means, adopt those systems.
|
|
My experience has been that players will make their arguments In Character, and then rules are used (generally with a circukmstance modifier based on how hard the GM thinks it will be to convince the person of what you're trying to convince them).
And the player who dumps points into diplomacy basically has mind control powers, and the entire scene is resolved by a single roll (bad) with no stipulation that someone can be harder to convince than someone else based on how strong willed they are (bad) or how plausible it is that the target might object (bad).
I don't want to stop the dialogue. I want them to basically make their points, and when they make a good point they whittle down the other person's resolve, gradually convincing them, while still requiring the character who is going to be the party face to invest some of their character in being the party's face.
I suppose the alternative I can think of that would still be better than what is in the system by default, would be to drop all of the social skills and not have them at all. That would make Charisma even more of a dump stat at that point. If I'm going that way, it might be worthwhile excising Charisma from the game entirely.
Personally I think making social encounters into a sort of minigame that still requires the character to roleplay would be the ideal scenario. You want to make a witty retort that makes the opposing side of the discussion feel/look stupid? Say the retort, and then make the roll to see how big of an effect it has at making him look/feel stupid, and convincing him/others. The NPC will react based on how he's doing in the social encounter, etc. I think it would make PVP Social conflict into an interesting possibility as well.
Ideally, like combat, other players could make points if & when they have them, and then roll to see how they're taken; either gradually whittling down the oppositions resistance to the idea, or having their position strengthened to the point that it's become impossible to get what you want diplomatically.
I agree that you shouldn't have a wallflower playing the party face. It may seem unfair, but it wouldn't be fun for anyone at the table to sit through that. The wallflower won't be talking, he'll just be rolling, and the rest of the group will be uninvolved in the game itself.
I personally know of three social combat systems, all by little red goblin games,
One is featured in a roundabout form in the noble class, who can basically talk people into submission.
Two is the law and order product that features rules on how to run a court case and features a judge base class(think judge dredd with a hammer)
Three is a comprehensive social combat system featured in the necropunk campaign setting.
edit: in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a member of little red goblin game's staff, but I had no part in the above products and get no reward for promoting them.
I messaged scott about the necropunk stuff since he is more experienced with it. It's almost as in depth as actual combat. It's about a dozen pages long. As for the trial stuff, basically you determine the level of crime on a chart, the higher the crime the more pieces of evidence you allowed to submit. each judge is given a certain number of days to gather evidence before the trial begins, and are awarded a number of litigation points (which are spent during the trail) equal to their diplomacy bonus. from their it follows actual real life rules of trials including both sides presenting their evidence, although only the judge class can put a spin on their arguments (like calling the other sides evidence into question, or instituting a seed of doubt), but otherwise any character can participate. litigation points are used in opposed checks to determine whether a sides evidence is permissible, so they must be rationed wisely. that's just the opening jist of it, it goes more in depth from there, but it's a lot of information and I don't want to straight copy paste it.
MPL, your system seems to clearly work for your group, and that's really the most important thing.
But let me ask you this:
How long have you been playing together?
How long have you been playing total?
What happens in a con situation, where that trust isn't there yet?
What happens when players/judge are new?
I can imagine a situation where players want to good at this, but aren't yet. How do they learn?
MPL, your system seems to clearly work for your group, and that's really the most important thing.
But let me ask you this:
How long have you been playing together?
I've been playing with the group that only plays Pathfinder (sigh) for just about a year now. I started GMing for them about 3 months ago and it's going well. The other GM hasn't really included social problems--he started with an AP we all hated and now he's doing a semi-sandbox where we just murderhobo around the river kingdoms.
My other group (that won't play any version of D&D at all--also sigh) is split. I've played with one of them for about 12 years now, another for 10, and the last two are brand new. They've roleplayed with us for about 7 months or so, but had no table top experience before that (though they've been LARPing for like a decade).
How long have you been playing total?
I don't remember exactly, but it's in the 20-21 years range.
What happens in a con situation, where that trust isn't there yet?
I have never gone to a con and have zero interest in ever doing so.
What happens when players/judge are new?
The same things that happen when they're not new? I don't think I understand. I've never encountered people that were not comfortable with my style.
I can imagine a situation where players want to good at this, but aren't yet. How do they learn?
By doing it. How else could you get better at it?
It sounds like you're fine, but realize that there are also new players that enjoy things like Harry Potter and LoTR, and are giving Pathfinder a try.
While you've been playing for about as long as I have; we're the minority, most players are newer. And they don't know what we know.
Pathfinder needs to be easy to play for people that don't know how to play a role-playing game. I think there's room for improvement there.
There are common RP mistakes that are easy to fall into, and it's my belief that a system of some kind would help resolve them.
A lot of the indie games have mechanics for setting stakes or resolving differences of opinion. Without out that, you can get either the eternal argument, "Left! No right!" or a default to the resolution system that is very clear: combat.
@Mythic+10; any word back on the Court Case/NecroPunk Stuff?
tried to explain it the best I could for the court case. as for necropunk, I guess you could say every character has a full set of both combat and social stats. I couldn't do it justice if I tried...
|
|
Hmm.
Okay.
One question, before I go out and buy it, then:
How compatible is it with regular pathfinder / how different are the necropunk game mechanics? Would I be able to pick up the system and just use it in a pathfinder game, or would it take alot of work to adapt it for use? The writeup on dtrpg makes it SOUND highly compatible; but say: If I went to run a pathfinder AP, how much more work would it be to use the social system with the NPCs in the AP?
Hmm.
Okay.One question, before I go out and buy it, then:
How compatible is it with regular pathfinder / how different are the necropunk game mechanics? Would I be able to pick up the system and just use it in a pathfinder game, or would it take alot of work to adapt it for use? The writeup on dtrpg makes it SOUND highly compatible; but say: If I went to run a pathfinder AP, how much more work would it be to use the social system with the NPCs in the AP?
yes you can
|
|
So I picked up Necropunk; and read through the Social Combat.
It looks quite good; It's kindof like Combat Maneuvers. I would definitely stipulate that the players would have to have an actual point they're making (the rules imply that there would be some actual dialogue, but don't outright require it). I might want to add a chart for on the fly modifiers based on how agreeable the point being made is.
Its shorter than I had hoped, at 3 and a half pages, but I like the idea behind it.
However, the setting itself seems quite good, and it has some interesting ideas for classes in a Pathfinder game as well.
All in all, so far it appears to be a good purchase even if you're not going to be using the setting for the game you're going to run.
Glad you like it, its definitely my favorite product(that i wasn't involved in) from them.
The northlands supplement for midgard has great rules for flyting (social combat involving teasing and mocking) - a surprisingly wide variety of skills are used.
I also used the rich Burlew rules for opposed diplomacy, with a trust bonus / penalty and a self interest bonus /penalty that encouraged my players to actually try to convince NPCs. I ran bluff against sense motive.
So the super-charisma paladin convinces the mayor to allow him to set up a unit of cavalry in the town. She bluffs him (low sense motive) into becoming her lover and paying for the cavalry. Luckily, he was the paladin of the moon goddess of secret lovers. . .
If your group can handle just talking it out, that's great, and I admit to being a bit jealous.
This does mean, however, that social skills work differently than other skills. Jumping is very concrete, very clearly defined. Diplomacy does whatever the DM thinks it does.
It's almost to the point where social abilities should be something else.
And while I can see how an experienced GM could teach a new player, I don't understand how a new GM would learn to adjudicate this way. Imagine a ten yr old with a new book for the holidays. Where does that kid start?
And while I can see how an experienced GM could teach a new player, I don't understand how a new GM would learn to adjudicate this way. Imagine a ten yr old with a new book for the holidays. Where does that kid start?
I've never had to teach anyone this. In my experience, it's the default behavior and you would have to teach people to do anything else (i.e., "No, you can't just say that, you have to make a Diplomacy roll now to see how well your words went over!").
And the way a new kid learns that is, uh, from themselves. It's how I learned. I started with a copy of Tunnels and Trolls (then quickly upgraded to AD&D 2e) and never had a teacher. In fact, until I met a Patfhinder group last year, every single person I'd ever roleplayed with was someone that I personally taught to roleplay.
I've been role playing for about 17 years now. Started with AD&D 2nd Edition. I'm also terrible at role playing anything that doesn't think and behave almost exactly like me. But I don't role play to play myself I Role Play to play something different. I also have known a few players that refuse to act in character because they find it to be creepy, they do everything in third person.
Basically, I find it hard to play any game that doesn't have pretty advanced social conflict rules, generally with detailed personality mechanics too. I love not only having the ability to change minds of others, but to have my character grow and develop as a person in ways that are totally unexpected to me.
I prefer the Exalted Social conflict system for the depth of its personality mechanics, but it does tend to play out as straight mind control unless you are quite subtle with the way you handle. The upcoming Exalted 3rd edition promises to be less mind control, but I worry that the mechanics will lose a lot of their teeth.
There are a lot of people that like Weapon of the Gods or Legend of the Wulin social mechanics, but those are still basically one roll systems. People like that instead of being mind control you can give bonuses or penalties based on if they act the way you want them to or not. You can also strengthen the bonuses or penalties too if you wanted. They need not be social bonuses or penalties either. It could be in the form of "You know you should do what he said, and as long as you fight it the self doubt will hinder your ability to fight."