So, if you’re like me and Cameron, the recent preview of skill challenges by WotC has left you wanting. They’ve basically taken the complex skill checks from Unearthed Arcana and repackaged them so that multiple skills and characters can contribute to the success total. While this is clearly a step up from the 1-skill check system determining the outcome of a social encounter that was inherent in 3.5, it’s still a long way from where we’d like to see them go. As a result, we’ve decided to put our money where our mouth is (much like Chibbs did with his redesign of the WotC website) and try to develop a system for social encounters that works the way we want it to.
Now, Cameron’s a bit busy this week, and thus won’t be able to really devote a lot of time to this right away, but I thought I’d get things off the ground by laying out and outline of what we want.
In particular, the social encounter system should function in a manner similar to the way combat works. Multiple characters should undertake a variety of actions over the course of multiple “rounds” in an attempt to gain the desired outcome.
Now, the combat system does this through the use of three things:
1) Powers: These represent a character’s ability to enforce their desired outcome.
2) Defenses: These represent a character’s ability to prevent their opponents from achieving their desired outcome.
3) HP: This represents a character’s staying power in the encounter. Once they’re gone, the character can no longer influence the outcome of the encounter.
Having experienced the 4e combat system first hand here in SJ’s playtest adventure, I’d say that it works fairly well and that a social encounter system that works along the same lines wouldn’t be a bad thing. However, at the same time, we want to leave open plenty of room for role playing as there’s bound to be more of it going on in your average social encounter than there is in your average combat.
So, what do we have to work with:
1) Active Skill checks: These are supposed to represent our character’s non-combat abilities already, so we should probably be using these heavily in our redesign, especially Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, and Intimidate.
2) Passive Skills (Insight and Perception): These are supposed to represent a character’s innate awareness of their surroundings, so they form a kind of social defense.
3) Will Defense: This is a character’s resistance to mental attacks, so it might have a place as a defense against more aggressive social techniques.
Now, do people think that’s an accurate assessment of things? Do you have ideas about what a social encounter system should and shouldn’t be able to do?
Remember that at this point I’m not trying to get into nitty-gritty rules (what WotC would call development), so don’t be afraid to contribute an idea just because you can’t see how to turn it into a dice roll or modifier. This is the Design phase when we construct the outline of what we want and what limitations we want to impose.
It’s my general belief that the game as a whole should have similar resolution methods for both social and combat encounters. 2E didn’t have the problem so much because it was almost all role-played, but that was decidedly in the DM’s favor and didn’t give the players much of a rule mechanic to follow. In keeping with the idea that players should drive the story more than a DM, as 3E was trying to do, I toyed with this idea some in 3E when one of my players became an Inquistor for Aundair, and actually took up duties as a court prosecutor. That’s where my initial germination for a combat-style resolution of social encounters came from. I had a hybrid of using Diplomacy/Bluff/Knowledge/Search/Spot (the latter two as modified by Eberron Campaign Setting rules) against the jury’s will saves. I set out a number of successes using Victory Points to gauge the overall success of the trial. My players loved the system. It is my desire to create a similar system (but hopefully something much simpler) for 4E.
As such, BP pretty much hit my exact thoughts on the issue. I’ll be more active come Thursday (my last class for the semester is on Wednesday night) with regards to a new social encounter system. I just wanted everyone to know where I’m coming from here and steps I’ve taken within 3E to try to resolve the weak social encounters present in D&D.
Well from what I’ve gathered listening to Cam’s idea (which I agree with to some variation) is that it should flow more like combat. However, having never even touched 4th, yet. I’ll have to agree with your assessment.
1) Active Skill checks: These are supposed to represent our character’s non-combat abilities already, so we should probably be using these heavily in our redesign, especially Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, and Intimidate.
Active Skills are the ones that would be involved with the skill encounter, makes sense. I agree.
2) Passive Skills (Insight and Perception): These are supposed to represent a character’s innate awareness of their surroundings, so they form a kind of social defense.
Passive Skills .... is Sense Motive wrapped up within Insight? If not, it should definetely be in this section.
3) Will Defense: This is a character’s resistance to mental attacks, so it might have a place as a defense against more aggressive social techniques.
Will Defense… as in Save? Hmm, don’t necessarily agree with this. Unless you are using Cam’s HP idea in reference to this? A PC’s Will Defense equals his Will Save which is the amount of their Will HP?
Whereas PC makes a Diplomacy check of 20, NPC counter Diplomacy is 18, so the NPC takes -2 to his Will HP; and thus that PC’s round is over.
The basics look good, and sorry that what I’m going to contribute here is going to be short:
1. There’s a possibility that you could include social powers “siloed” with combat powers. At it’s foundation, base the silo on power source, so Martial characters might have a Menacing Visage which lets them roll a social skill with Strength. Then allow characters to purchase other “silos” later with feats? Could work. Downside: exponential increase in number of silos as more classes, power sources, and types of combat get added.
2. The successes/failures of the core system is actually a really good idea. d20 Advanced might see some updates in Dramatic Interactions in light of these ideas. Tracking “social hit points” I’m not so keen on… I think that might make it too much like combat, and not social enough.
3. Alternatively, Burning Wheel goes into depth on this concept, offering a host of social maneuvers in a Duel of Wits which many of us might liken to a highly refined Psionic Combat System. You can Avoid, Dimsiss, Rebut, make a Point, Incite, etc. etc. Since this is one of the primary types of combat in the system (players usually play big movers and shakers in a society trying to accomplish huge, world-shaking goals with their words and actions), it might need to be pared down for effective use in 4e. It might come back to choosing a maneuver each round, whether offensive or defensive, which imposes bonuses to your social skill check / penalties to your Will defense / vice verca, depending on your choices.
4. An alternative to “social hit points” might be a more formulaic way to come up with the number of successes / failures you need to “win”, and intermediate results if the social combat ends early. Perhaps a “resolve” score derived from Wisdom in a way similar to how Hit Points or Healing Surges are derived from Constitution. To succeed in social combat, you need to wear down your opponent’s resolve. Indeed, this could become a way for the DM to reward good roleplaying: a good argument could earn you a bonus point of resolve. So if the PC had a resolve of 4 and the NPC King had a resolve of 8, then it’s similar to a challenge where 8 successes are needed and 4 failures are allowed.
This is more like it. Previewed stuff vaguely disturbed me, but this sort of stuff’d be awesome. Much as I pride myself being a fair DM, actual, feasible mechanics for social encounters would do me good. Let’s see:
Skill set of Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate is good.
“Social HP” needs some work. Arcanum: of Steamworks and Magic Obscura had a visible “Reaction” stat for NPCs on percentage scale. We can work with that. To initiate skill checks, NPCs should be in a suitable mood, have a certain Reaction. Then skill checks can be used for whatever end.
Initially Reaction is affected by apparent stuff (race, companions, physical stats… down to clothes). When you start talking it changes (I remember in Arcanum NPCs reactions shot up about 0 when I started talking, yay for social skills). After speaking a little, a character with high/low mental scores can passively influence Reaction further (exactly how depends on NPC, which will give more incentive to flesh them out):
A bright barbarian with no Int penalty would impress a wizard who thought them all illiterate savages and get +5R. A guy with low charisma who downed a bottle or two for encouragement trying to hit on the wizard chick in skimpy outfit in the pub gets a sound -30R, whereas if the very charismatic elven bard who’s just a little worse for the drink at the moment did the same he’d have got a +15R. The very smart wizard talking to some shopkeeper who isn’t exactly smart might irk him and get -10R. A drow gets a flat -40R from any elf. So on and so forth…
Note this is just for stats. Then skill use comes into play. Social skills may passively change Reaction more. A high diplomacy skill reflects itself in a certain manner, getting a flat +5R from everyone. Or a high intimidate skill shows itself through the cracks, getting -10R in polite company. It’d become a +10R in impolite company however. Some correspondence between skill ranks and Reaction adjustment should be defined, maybe 2 to 1. Of course, there’s gotta be some limit to passive adjustment (piling on passive stuff and getting a +120 would be dumb). A hardcap of +-40 would be suitable I think.
Active skills can also be used to increase or decrease Reaction as well. Need rules to assign DCs to this. Again, some relation between rank and Reaction adjustment is necessary.
Fumbles will also be necessary. Bluff is seen through, diplomacy backfires, insight proves wrong and intimidate only serves to (Gibbering Mouther Ate Your Word!) off.
Let’s say we have an NPC. He is fleshed out, so how a skill will affect him is known. He’s not very smart so bluff is effective unless noticed. He’s also good natured, not one to shun diplomacy as a coward’s choice of weapon. Insight works wonders. Intimidate however fails miserably, him being so stubborn.
PCs want something from him. First of all, DM decides (it’ll always be DM who decides how success will be achieved) NPC should like them (Reaction 60+) to give them what they want. Only then skill checks can be made to persuade him. NPC requires 5 successes (of whatever skill) to yield. DCs for success depends heavily upon the NPC. Base DCs depend on what exactly PCs want and what it’ll cost the NPC. As usual, DCs will be multiples of 5 for neatness. Insight DCs are lowered while intimidate DCs are sky high. Reaction better (this doesn’t necessarily mean higher) than required may lower all DCs.
Optionally, set Reaction requirements to even try checks may be removed but that’d mean a dynamic relation between Reaction and DCs should be made. Which my not work out well. Set Reactions would cut down on paperwork IMO.
An NPCs initial reaction is influenced by mechanics. After the first meeting however, Reaction is set. Though DM may opt to change it for whatever reason.
And we can have all sorts of feats and extra abilities:
Sex Appeal (feat): get +15R on opposite sex
Silver Tongue (feat): fumbled bluff and diplomacy checks don’t influence negatively
An Offer You Can’t Refuse (some class ability): successful intimidate checks have double effect
Temptress (succubus ability): gets +10R per charisma modifier
- of Dazzling (armor enchantment): gives wearer +5R in polite company
...
Now that was an ideadump. But this is a nice concept. I’ll be working on it.
CnSvnc, I think that’s a bit too involved there. That kind of system for reaction is so involved and detailed that it’s going to be overwhelming. Imagine if you had to do that kind of work up for a character’s hp for every combat. You’d need to spend 30 minutes just working up the numbers before you could actually start the fight. As with hp, a character’s “social hp” should be a static stat so that when a social encounter starts, everything is ready to go.
As much as I appreciate JK’s point that a concept of “social HP” might make social encounters feel too much like combat, I think they are necessary. A simple success vs. failures system runs into the problem in that it’ll be over far too soon because every roll will add towards either the success or the failure total. There needs to be the possibility of a null result, i.e. the equivalent of a miss in combat. A comment that goes by without being noticed, an argument that the other party doesn’t follow but isn’t offended by, etc. A system with social hp can represent this in a way that a purely success vs. failures system can’t.
For social powers, I’m not sure I like the idea of “siloing” them with combat powers. A character’s social abilities are generally separate from their combat abilities. As with combat powers, every character should have some social powers, but some character’s social powers are going to be more appropriate for some situations than for others. Also, I’m not sure how far we should take the idea of social powers. Taken to the extreme, we’d replace most social skills (if not all) with a power set and we’d essentially need a separate character sheet for the social aspect of a character just like we have for the combat aspect. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it does suffer from the “overwhelming” problem that could really turn players off. I think some compromise position might be in order.
Burning Wheel’s Duel of Wits has some good points to it, but as JK pointed out, is very similar to Psionic Combat, a system which was really complicated and off-putting. I think that if what we come up with resembles that too much, no one will use it simply because of that similarity.
So, what does that leave me with:
Social HP: This needs to be a static total for a character, like hp, that could advance with level. More social characters should have a higher social hp just like more combat focused characters have more hp. This implies some fixed amount for each class (training) plus an ability score basis that allows for individual variation (natural ability). Now, while this will make social encounters feel a lot like combat, I don’t think it’s too much or a bad thing. There will be enough differentiation between combat and social encounters in other ways, and the similarity of mechanics will help players understand what is going on. Also, they need a better name. “Reaction” and “Resolve” have both been suggested above. I’d like to add “Credibility” and “Reputation” to the mix. I think at this point I’m leaning towards “Credibility” or “Resolve” as both more aptly imply a character’s staying power in the social encounter.
Powers/Active Skills: These are a character’s “social attacks.” They might lie (Bluff), argue (Diplomacy), scare (Intimidate), sympathize (Insight) or do any number of other things. A character’s “basic attack” is their untrained skills, you don’t use these unless you have to. Trained skills form a character’s “at-will powers,” they should be a character’s bread and butter of the social encounter. Beyond them there should be a way for a character to acquire the equivalent of encounter and daily powers for those that really want to excel in the social arena.
Defense/Passive Skills: This is your ability to stave off an opponent’s attacks. Passive Insight is your ability to see and counter oral tactics (point out a lie, rebut a point, etc.). Passive Perception is your ability to read and counter your opponent’s body language (keep from being hidden behind your opponent’s supporters, shift positions subtly so that your opponent points at some one else when they meant to point at you, etc.). Will Defense is your ability to keep from being blustered.
As in combat, specific powers would target specific defenses.
Just a design strategy: why not come up with a few exemplar social encounters? Once we nail down what the system will be used for, it will be easier to see what contributes and what detracts. Here are my meager suggestions:
A. The party is found trespassing on the land of an unfriendly intelligent group (let’s say hobgoblins?). The leader of the unfriendly patrol questions the party about their business. It is at his discretion whether to allow the party to pass, send them back the way they came, attempt to bring them in for interrogation, or simply kill them on the spot.
B. The party has captured the last surviving member of a failed attack group and has tied him up for interrogation (orc this time?). The orc knows that aiding the enemy will hurt his fellows (maybe even his orc-spawn?), lead to ostracization, and possibly incite the chief to have him tortured to death as punishment for turning traitor.
C. The party has met a vampire outside of a small town. They are now trying to convince all of the townspeople to lock their doors at dark and to each carry a holy symbol at all times. The townspeople see no evidence of a vampire aside from the witness of traveling strangers.
Oh, and one more idea: the tactical use of terrain and position is a very fun element of combat. If social encounters can include meaningful choices beyond which skill to use (Diplomacy or Bluff?), that would make them more fun to me. Perhaps there can be a kind of social terrain. As a character, I might attempt to attain a position of superiority or subservience. Bravado, concern, helplessness, and aloofness might be other positions. This could be a multi-dimensional terrain. If flanking-like actions are available, so much the better, perhaps along the lines of the good-cop bad-cop routine. Certain positions might open up new ploys or simply bonuses. Begging for mercy probably works better when one is in a subservient and helpless position. And non-Charisma abilities and skills should definitely be useful. A demonstration of strength or wit might get one into a superior position.
For social powers, I’m not sure I like the idea of “siloing” them with combat powers. A character’s social abilities are generally separate from their combat abilities. As with combat powers, every character should have some social powers, but some character’s social powers are going to be more appropriate for some situations than for others. Also, I’m not sure how far we should take the idea of social powers. Taken to the extreme, we’d replace most social skills (if not all) with a power set and we’d essentially need a separate character sheet for the social aspect of a character just like we have for the combat aspect. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it does suffer from the “overwhelming” problem that could really turn players off. I think some compromise position might be in order.
…
Powers/Active Skills: These are a character’s “social attacks.” They might lie (Bluff), argue (Diplomacy), scare (Intimidate), sympathize (Insight) or do any number of other things. A character’s “basic attack” is their untrained skills, you don’t use these unless you have to. Trained skills form a character’s “at-will powers,” they should be a character’s bread and butter of the social encounter. Beyond them there should be a way for a character to acquire the equivalent of encounter and daily powers for those that really want to excel in the social arena.
If you require characters to get social powers at the expense of combat powers, then they won’t, if their shtick isn’t a diplomancer-type character. If you were creating a game where social combat was the equal of, or was more important than, physical combat, I think you’d be on the right track. However, a game where physical combat is still king needs to make non-combat abilities a little cheaper, in a way, so that players won’t consider them a “waste”. Siloing was introduced as a concept specifically to allow for this sort of thing. In theory, someone who’s been trained in Dragon Tail Swipe might have a social approach different from someone who is a Gold Wryvren Caster (the former might verbally bully and even engage in a little shoving or flexing, while the latter might use dizzying displays of logic to make a point).
In order to capture what 4e is going for with combat, everyone needs to be able to play a role, and I think that’s the key. If we can come up with some “social combat roles”, I think that might guide the rest of the process. Here’s some early suggestions (the = doesn’t mean that all controllers are debaters or defenders are trappers, just that it’s a roughly similar concept for social combat and can be thought of as such for the sake of discussion):
Controller = Debater, using logical points in a structured manner to create a case for his point of view.
Defender = Trapper, liberally sprinkling land-mines around the opponent to box in his argument and punishes him for making mistakes.
Leader = Pulpit, turning the crowd against the opponent rather than attacking the opponent directly.
Striker = Rhetoric, appealing to emotion and undermining an argument with feelings, not points.
If you require characters to get social powers at the expense of combat powers, then they won’t, if their shtick isn’t a diplomancer-type character.
I agree completely. Any social powers that we create should be something a character has in addition to their combat powers. If they replace anything, it should be social skills, and even there I’m not sure how far we should go down that road (having those skills around for those times when a single dice roll is all that is needed has merit). I just don’t want certain social “attacks” to be tied to a person’s knowledge of a physical attack. A character’s social skills should be distinct from their combat ones, otherwise the distinction between combat and a social encounter is going to get far too fuzzy.
As for the idea of starting with roles in the social encounter, I think it’s a good one. I’m not sure I agree with the roles that you’ve thrown out though, or at least not all of them. Debater looks okay, as does Trapper (though I don’t like the names). Pulpit and Rhetoric however, I’m not so sure about. Here’s my take on defining roles.
Logician: Someone who makes points and brings up information designed to support their position.
Critic: Someone who tears down his opponent’s arguments, attempting to make their position seem untenable and thus have his own position adopted by default.
Mud-slinger: Someone who attempts to discredit his opponent, so that no one will listen to him.
Authoritarian: Someone who attempts to establish their own credibility as beyond reproach and thus their position should be taken as the “word of God.”
Roughly speaking, my Logician is equivalent to your Debater and my Critic is equivalent to your Trapper. Mud-slinger and Authoritarian take the ground your Pulpit and Rhetoric cover and divide it up along what I think might be more natural dividing lines.
Oh, and one more idea: the tactical use of terrain and position is a very fun element of combat. If social encounters can include meaningful choices beyond which skill to use (Diplomacy or Bluff?), that would make them more fun to me. Perhaps there can be a kind of social terrain. As a character, I might attempt to attain a position of superiority or subservience. Bravado, concern, helplessness, and aloofness might be other positions. This could be a multi-dimensional terrain. If flanking-like actions are available, so much the better, perhaps along the lines of the good-cop bad-cop routine. Certain positions might open up new ploys or simply bonuses. Begging for mercy probably works better when one is in a subservient and helpless position. And non-Charisma abilities and skills should definitely be useful. A demonstration of strength or wit might get one into a superior position.
I totally agree. Just as physical terrain makes combat more interesting, so too “social terrain” would make a social encounter more interesting. This would also be the logical place to implement situational bonuses and penalties. Bribes, racism, friendships, enmities, etc. could all form part of the social landscape.
I totally agree. Just as physical terrain makes combat more interesting, so too “social terrain” would make a social encounter more interesting. This would also be the logical place to implement situational bonuses and penalties. Bribes, racism, friendships, enmities, etc. could all form part of the social landscape.
Here’s the thing: at least in 3e, the players pretty much understand what different terrain does. Cover, concealment, higher ground, a narrow ledge, a cliff edge, and flanking are all things that the player can completely comprehend. A hidden pit is an unknown to the players, but not because they don’t understand how it works.
The social terrain should similarly be something that, once reconnoitered, is completely comprehensible. The +4 AC from cover doesn’t have to be an unknown amount in order to make cover a fun element. Getting a +4 from being vouched for by a friend should also be something that, if known (like a sprung pit trap), is completely understood.
One “problem” (I use the parentheses to indicate that not everyone is dissatisfied) with 3e social encounters is that they could often feel like a frustrating combination of luck (few rolls with only success-failure outcomes, like save-or-die spells) and DM fiat. Because the DCs and situation bonuses were completely up to the DM, the best strategy was to perform in such a way to get the DM to like one’s actions. In combat, on the other hand, whether the DM likes your tactics or role-playing has much less to do with whether you succeed.
If the goal is to make social encounters more like combat encounters, then I’d say the goal should be to make things much more “fair,” that is, reduce the judgment calls by the DM. The DM’s role should be much more that of introducing interesting characters in an engaging terrain and letting the dice fall where they may.
Agreed. When we get to the point of having some mechanical hooks to hang our proverbial hat on, we should define different aspects of social terrain mechanically too.
I’m not too fond on the whole role concept. But it does work quite well. However, those roles are too confrontational. There’s gotta be more to sociality than arguements and verbal duels. What I mean to say is: which one of those roles are suitable to pick up a girl? Or befriend the dirty street urchin? Or swindle the dumb sailors from their last few coppers? One up the dragon in the riddle contest? Persuade the Common impaired cannibals to not eat you? There’s quite a lot of situations where one or more (or all) of those roles are useless.
I’d wager a better base would be tied to skill usage. That BDII skillset is very good and can certainly support the basis (Powers) of social encounters as roles (Bluffer, Diplomat, Intimidater and Insightful). They may also double as defenses as well. Bluff and insight nicely counter each other. Diplomacy and intimidate aren’t that good a match however.
Unfortunately, picking up a girl doesn’t exactly fit in any of these either. Maybe there’s some things that can’t be quantified. But any game I run, someone always tries to pick up a girl or two. I NEED mechanics for that…
which one of those roles are suitable to pick up a girl?
Any of them, depending on how you want to do it. Convince her that going out with you is a good idea? Logician. Dissuade her from seeing anyone else in the Tavern as a viable prospect? Critic. Convince her that she can’t do any better than you through subtle put downs? Mud-slinger. Have her worship you as a god? Authoritarian.
The same goes for any situation. It isn’t the situation that defines the available roles. The roles define how you approach a situation. A logician, for instance, tends towards point and support, so to befriend a dirty street urchin he’ll point out how said friendship would be of benefit to the street urchin. To swindle some sailors, he might point out that “investing” their coppers with him would gain them greater rewards down the line. To one up the dragon in a riddle contest, he’ll try to come up with better riddles, and show how his answers always seem to satisfy the dragon’s riddles. To persuade the cannibals, he might make the argument that he’s going to taste bad.
All roles are not going to be equal in all situations, but all roles can be used in all situations. You simply need to step back and envision the encounter as a conflict (in literary terms, not combative ones). Once the conflicting goals of the parties involved are established, seeing how the roles apply is easy. If you can’t set up conflicting goals, then chances are you don’t have a social encounter.
Also, I don’t roles shouldn’t be tied to certain skills because there is nothing about a role that specifies how the role is carried out. Your logician might be lying through his teeth (Bluff), or he might be arguing with you (Diplomacy). He might be tailoring his arguments to make you afraid (Intimidate) or he might be using ones that play on your heartstrings (Insight).
As for the idea of starting with roles in the social encounter, I think it’s a good one. I’m not sure I agree with the roles that you’ve thrown out though, or at least not all of them. Debater looks okay, as does Trapper (though I don’t like the names). Pulpit and Rhetoric however, I’m not so sure about. Here’s my take on defining roles.
Logician: Someone who makes points and brings up information designed to support their position.
Critic: Someone who tears down his opponent’s arguments, attempting to make their position seem untenable and thus have his own position adopted by default.
Mud-slinger: Someone who attempts to discredit his opponent, so that no one will listen to him.
Authoritarian: Someone who attempts to establish their own credibility as beyond reproach and thus their position should be taken as the “word of God.”
Looks fine by me. I was just trying to get across the concept of roles, not necessarily the specifics thereof.
Black Plauge - 06 May 2008 10:58 AM
Agreed. When we get to the point of having some mechanical hooks to hang our proverbial hat on, we should define different aspects of social terrain mechanically too.
All that you really need here is an attitude scale with defined modifiers for different social precepts. To be honest, I think the best way to handle this would be a simple scale applied across the swathe, with numbers like +/- 2 for minor aspects of “social terrain” (such as “dwarves aren’t from around here” or “there’s a dragonborn on the city council"), +/- 5 (for “racism against tieflings” or “I grew up with that guy, so I trust him") to +/- 10 (for “hysterical xenophobia” or “fanatical worship").
CnSvnc - 06 May 2008 11:11 AM
Unfortunately, picking up a girl doesn’t exactly fit in any of these either. Maybe there’s some things that can’t be quantified. But any game I run, someone always tries to pick up a girl or two. I NEED mechanics for that…
Unfortunately, I think this is one MAJOR danger of tightening the mechanics too much. If the rules become so much about Social “Combat” that things like non-confrontational social encounters, then we’ve made a huge mistake. One advantage to the Skill Challenges system is that it is flexible enough that I can easily shoehorn anything from disarming a trap to searching a city for the halfling who stole your loot to running away from the guards to picking up hawt elf chicks, and easy enough that I can do it on the fly. The weakness with it is that it requires involved players who are going to think on their feet and try to come up with solutions of their own.*
So tread carefully… I’d like to see this succeed in spades, but keep the goal in mind of creating a social encounter system, not just something that will be used to resolve a single subset of social encounters (arguments / debates).
*The trick which I found for making this successful is to tell your players to essentially “flip over your characters sheets and tell me what you want to try”, and then be flexible about giving the players narrative control over the environment they’re in).
If the rules become so much about Social “Combat” that things like non-confrontational social encounters, then we’ve made a huge mistake.
Que? I think part of the sentence is missing and I can’t reconstruct it from context.
One thing I think needs to be made clear right now is that “conflict” and “confrontation” are two different things in my mind. As any good author knows, conflict is what drives a story. If there is not conflict in a particular scene in a novel, then it’s boring as hell to read. Said conflict, however, doesn’t have to take a confrontational tone. Confrontation, the direct facing of conflict and trying to force an immediate resolution, is certainly one way of dealing with conflict, but it isn’t the only way, or even the most effective in all situations.
Take the “picking up a girl” scenario. If there is no conflict, then the scene consists of:
Boy: “You want to hook up?”
Girl: “Sure.”
Boy and girl leave together.
There’s no real encounter here. There is no conflict. Embelishing that basic dialog with descriptions or atmosphere might make it take up more page space, but it’ll be boring to read. Think of the pages of Moby Dick where Melville describes the rigging on a sailing ship. Think of a dry history book which recounts facts about what happened to end the Hundred Years’ War. Without conflict the reading is a chore, and in a RPG it’s something that should simply be skipped over.
Add conflict, however, and now we’ve got something interesting that we’re willing to pay attention to. Chapter 2 of Moby Dick, The Carpet Bag, is full of descriptions of New Bedford, and yet we are captivated by them as they are presented in the context of conflict: Ishmael has missed the boat to Nantucket and must now find lodging to await the next one. It’s not the kind of conflict that can be confronted. There is no opponent out there actively denying Ishmael access to shelter. Yet the conflict of Ishmael’s desire to find shelter vs. his limited means and his general unfamiliarity of New Bedford remains and drives our interest in the story.
To go back to our pick up scenario we can add conflict, and thus interest to it in a variety of ways. Perhaps the girl is at the tavern with her boyfriend. Now our would-be suitor must some how remove the boyfriend from the picture in order to presue the girl. Not only that, but he must do so in a way that doesn’t leave him looking like a cad to the girl. As a result a direct confrontation (like say a fight) is probably not going to work. Subtler methods must be employed (like getting a barmaid to hit on the boyfriend or a friend to provoke the boyfriend into making a faux pas). No confrontation, but definetely conflict. Or instead of a boyfriend, the source of the conflict could be the fact that the girl is there with a bunch of girl friends. Now the conflict revolves around separating her from the pack. Maybe she just isn’t interested in our Casanova. The conflict then revolves around changing her mind.
Conflict is the story driver and as such our system should be set-up to resolve conflict when said conflict doesn’t involve swinging swords and casting spells.
