Social Combat in CT...

[The Dragon Master]

At RPG.net there was a discussion of the difference between "indie" games and "Old School" games, where the concept of social combat came up. One of the posters postulated a slight modification of the current combat rules for classic traveller to allow for social combat.

The idea proposed was to use the "social" attributes (intelligence, education, and social standing) instead of the physical, and use the rest of the system as is (though no being knocked unconcious by social damage ). This seemed so simple that I will probably use it in my own games (should such come up).

Have any of you tried something like this in your own games?

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't quite understand. Instead of being bruised, the character is embarrassed?

 

[The Dragon Master]

Something like that, yeah. The original thread is here. This idea is mentioned in post 32, though the discussion starts at post 21 and continues most of the way through the rest of the thread.

The idea is that rather than the conflict ending because you were knocked unconsious, it ends because you are too embarased, or angry, or.. whatever. It's a way that a lot of newish games use so that social conflicts in play aren't either just one roll and we're done, or a matter of which player (including GM under that heading here) is the better smooth talker*.



*Yes, I realize this type of thing might fall under the "let's all be adults" heading, but that doesn't always work.

 

[aramis]

A common conceit of several of the current gen of Indie games is that intent is stated before the conflict, then the conflict is played through, and the winner gets their intent.
The Loser may also get some or all of their intent.

Take Burning Wheel or Burning Empires (or Mouse Guard) as exemplar. Hero Wars/Hero Quest also uses a very similar approach.

Actually, I'll use mouse guard, as it's the simplest

Step one: state proposed intents
Step two: set stakes and disposition. Disposition being a numerical value which is damaged.
Step three: plan round (3 actions)
Step four: Resolve action 1
Step five: Resolve action 2
Step six: Resolve action 3
Step seven: repeat steps three to six until one side's disposition is 0.
Step eight: evaluate results by disposition.

If lost none: No concession
Lost some: minor concession
Lost most: major concession
Lost all: opponent's intent succeeds OR yours fails

Actions:
Attack damages the opponent's disposition
Defend resists the opponent's attack, and if any left, adds to own disposition
Feint: cancelled by attacks, ignores defense, resisted by feint; reduces target's disposition
Maneuver: build bonuses for next action.

some actions interfere with your opponent's actions. Each action is resolved by a declaration of action, a narrative of what's being tried, the roll, and the narration of the result. When rolls are opposed, the winner does the end-result narration.

at the end, you figure out just how it all works out.

So, if my intent was to coerce the duke into adopting me, and his was to convince me to kill the emperor... it would depend on the compromises. If I win hands down, he's pretty much convinced to adopt me; If I'm dropped to one point left, I may have to kill the emperor first, or he might just hire me and I have to do nothing but work... If I lose, and he lost nothing, I'm convinced I need to kill the emperor; if he lost most, it could be (1) I'm convinced to kill the emporor, and he'll adopt me after, or (2) I'm joining the conspiracy, and he's sponsoring me into it, but I don't get adopted, nor do I kill the emperor, or (3) I agree to consider assassination, and he considers adoption...

If my intent was to leave my opponent angry and flustered, and I succeed, he's got penalties for being angry and flustered....

They all hinge on some other constructs missing from Traveller, tho'...
1) good or bad, once you agree to the task, you agree to play the result even if it limits your own options
2) no retries; once set by conflict, you have to have story reasons modify the outcomes.
3) player narrative input.

 

[ShapeShifter]

At RPG.net there was a discussion of the difference between "indie" games and "Old School" games, where the concept of social combat came up. One of the posters postulated a slight modification of the current combat rules for classic traveller to allow for social combat.

The idea proposed was to use the "social" attributes (intelligence, education, and social standing) instead of the physical, and use the rest of the system as is (though no being knocked unconcious by social damage ). This seemed so simple that I will probably use it in my own games (should such come up).

Have any of you tried something like this in your own games?

What came to mind when I read this is the concept of TAUNTING (causing a loss of "face") before a potential physical combat scenario. Taunting is a prominent game mechanic in the Slaine RPG (Mongoose Publ.). IIRC, an attacker taunts a target using his Charisma modifier to an "attack" roll, and if the attack succeeds, the target becomes impetuous (to borrow an old term from historical miniatures wargaming) and rushes the taunter but at a penalty, whereby he is made vulnerable by his rage. I suppose this is akin to "egging someone on" or "baiting."

Perhaps it can be developed like an opposed roll with the attacker making a roll and the defender making his own roll. If the attacker scores higher then the defender rushes the attacker (but now vulnerable). If the defender's score is higher, then he weathers the verbal attack/insult/etc. and may choose to make his own counter-attack.

Averaged {INT, EDU, SOS} score......DM to 2d6 roll

2.....-5
3.....-4
4.....-3
5.....-2
6.....-1
7.....+0
8.....+1
9.....+2
10.....+3
11.....+4
12.....+5

Just some random thoughts.

 

[Supplement Four]

1) good or bad, once you agree to the task, you agree to play the result even if it limits your own options

Plenty of older games used to do this type of thing--taken from wargames. Even the first edition of D6 Star Wars (not super old, but not new, either) used to have this. A "Declaration" phase, then you have to play out exactly what you declared.

I dislike this type of thing. Players want to react to the moment--not to a few moments ago.

If a player says he wants his character to turn right and run down a corridor during his Delclaration phase, he shouldn't be held to that if, before he goes, he sees three NPC bad guys run down the same corridor ahead of him.

He hasn't moved yet, so he should be able to react to the new information.

 

[aramis]

Plenty of older games used to do this type of thing--taken from wargames. Even the first edition of D6 Star Wars (not super old, but not new, either) used to have this. A "Declaration" phase, then you have to play out exactly what you declared.

I dislike this type of thing. Players want to react to the moment--not to a few moments ago.

If a player says he wants his character to turn right and run down a corridor during his Delclaration phase, he shouldn't be held to that if, before he goes, he sees three NPC bad guys run down the same corridor ahead of him.

He hasn't moved yet, so he should be able to react to the new information.

No, you're misreading. has nothing to do with declaration phases (which I think are a good thing, anyway).

It's once you agree to the stakes, you're stuck playing the outcome.

As in, if you roll to resist the effects of a given influence, you NEVER get a reroll. No retry of failed tasks, either.

So, if you decide to follow Joe, and you make the roll to be unseen, Joe never gets another chance to notice you until you stop following him, or someone else points out to him he's followed.

In Old-school D&D, it's akin to rolling once for save vs Charm, and using that one roll for every check until the modifiers mean you break it.

Trying to break into the vault: Succeed on intrusion at the door, and your in all the way to the vault. Fail, and the GM decides where they catch up with you. You might even be caught in the vault.

it's a different paradigm entirely than what you're apparently thinking.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

No offense, but it's horrendous.

Yes, I've played Burning Wheel, and I've been in many, many debates on the issue.

Give me shuriken catapults any day. Dragonborn Vargr with lasersword tails. Space Marines on J-7 droptank scooters. But not that. Not in Traveller.

 

[atpollard]

Something like that, yeah. The original thread is here. This idea is mentioned in post 32, though the discussion starts at post 21 and continues most of the way through the rest of the thread.

The idea is that rather than the conflict ending because you were knocked unconsious, it ends because you are too embarased, or angry, or.. whatever.

Call me an old fart, but I followed the link and read the discussion and came away thinking ...

[If my hand wringing character ever becomes so emotionally torn that he can not continue the gunfight because the enemy spoke really mean and left me on the verge of tears, I would hope that a 'Big Damn Hero' was around to aim his 12 gauge and put me out of my misery!]

... but that is just my opinion.

 

[aramis]

The whole "play the results no matter how oenerous" aspect of many of the indie games can be sorely offputting, especilly with the "no retries" approach (Explicit in DITV, BW, BE, MG, and Impicit in Sorcerer, Cat, 3:16, and even Orcworld).

The other element, however, that is often misunderstood is that failures "... are not null F***ing results!" (Luke Crane). They are simply "Intent not met."

As in...
I: Pick the lock to get in before the guards get me
F: Pick the lock, but the guards arrive just as the door opens
F: Pick the lock to find guards on the other side (think Battle of Endor in Return of the Jedi!)
F: Find the lock unpickable, so a new strategy must be tried. (due to convention 1, you may not go through the door without guards.)

It is a VERY different style of play. For those who like it, it's F***ing awesome. For those who don't, it's a combination straight jacket and irritant powder.

 

[ghashsnaga]

The sort of thing that aramis is talking about works just fine. It's how I run Traveller.
If you are interested here are some general articles about the subject:

http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html
Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution
Practical Conflict Resolution Advice
Resolution, Why?

Or if you have your Burning Wheel books handy you can read up on it on pgs 26-41

Yes, social combat works great. But you need task/intent philosophy to have it run smoothly. And either party in the social conflict can walk away or escalate at any point in time.

ara

 

[The Dragon Master]

Hadn't expected that reaction. Guess I'll know what to expect with similar queries in the future...

Personally I prefer to have social combat rules, because (after a grand total of 3 years of rpging) I'm sick of having to out talk the GM in order to have my character with a high charisma talk a store owner into a discount, or having the whole thing over and done with in a single roll. But TEHO I guess.

 

[Supplement Four]

Hadn't expected that reaction. Guess I'll know what to expect with similar queries in the future...

Personally I prefer to have social combat rules, because (after a grand total of 3 years of rpging) I'm sick of having to out talk the GM in order to have my character with a high charisma talk a store owner into a discount, or having the whole thing over and done with in a single roll. But TEHO I guess.

Sounds like you need a better GM.o:

 

[far-trader]

Still trying to wrap my head around the idea and the implementation.

On the face of it, I like it. Finally a way to use social skills like physical ones. The lamentation of having to out-talk the ref so a high social character is noticed sucks. Nobody would expect me to out-fight the ref so a high physical character kicks butt would they? Same thing. We as players do not have the attributes and skills of our characters. Yes we should role-play but that should not unduly influence the rule-play and roll-play should it?

There should be mechanics to handle all interactions, physical, mental and social. I vaguely recall trying to invent such ages ago, can't recall how well it came out, got distracted and never finished iirc.

 

[tbeard1999]

Call me an old fart, but I followed the link and read the discussion and came away thinking ...

[If my hand wringing character ever becomes so emotionally torn that he can not continue the gunfight because the enemy spoke really mean and left me on the verge of tears, I would hope that a 'Big Damn Hero' was around to aim his 12 gauge and put me out of my misery!]

... but that is just my opinion.

<golf clap>

What a bunch of angst-ridden, navel-gazing, self-absorbed gibberish. Shooting them with an ACR on full auto with a clip of HE is too good for them

 

[Drakon]

Wastes ammo too.

 

[aramis]

Sounds like you need a better GM.o:

Rules for social conflicts are a tool. A tool that divorces character ability from the player and GM's abilities to argue a point.

They are, for most cases, a far more fair way to handle it, especially when games have social skills. They allow Steve the Socially Inept to play the suave heartbreaker. Steve gets rejected by Rosy &Co... but he can still play Herc Hearththob and succeed, by having the correct social skills.

 

[Darkhstarr]

I've used social status quite often in my games. So have a few of my players like my friend Deb, who played an Imperial Noble & used that to wow the locals & charm officials.
My wife's character Bette Noire likes to use her Imperial knighthood to the same affect. She also wears her old Imperial dress uniform with ALL her medals. Really wows the locals who don't know she deserted the Imperial Navy.

 

[Supplement Four]

They allow Steve the Socially Inept to play the suave heartbreaker. Steve gets rejected by Rosy &Co... but he can still play Herc Hearththob and succeed, by having the correct social skills.

If I'm reading it right, it's too much "roll" playing and not enough "role" playing.

I understand a good role player using stats and outcomes of throws to guide his role play. A CT character with a low INT and low EDU shouldn't be role played with great ideas all the the time. The player should acknowledge that. But, if an incredible throw happens, the player should play the outcome accordingly.

As with all CT, I use a free-form approach. Depends on the situation.

I may want to skip over something quickly, and keep the moving to the next encounter: "Roll 10+ to find a gunrunner contact, +2 per level of Streetwise, +1 if INT 10+."

Once that's done, I'll pay some lip service to how the character did--but it will only be a sentence or two.

OTOH, I may want to role play this out (If I think its interesting, and I think the players will get a kick out of it.)

"Let me see your character sheet (noting the Streetwise-1 skill and INT 7)."

"You've made it to a bar. It looks as good a place as any, to start. What do you want to do? Maybe speak to the bar tender?"

Player: "Why can't I just roll, using my Streetwise skill?"

GM: "I noted your Streetwise skill and INT. That's why I let you find the bar so easily. Your past experience has gotten you to the right place--what you think is the right place. It's up to you to make anything come of it. The bartender sees you leaning against the bar. He swaggers over, 'What'll it be?', he says, in a thick accent."



In scenario #1, I roll dice and move on. The juicy enounter happens when the player meets up with the gunrunner.

In scenario #2, the actual finding of the gunrunner is the juicy part. So, it's role played.



It just depends on what is required--what will serve the scene and the game best.

I don't like the idea that many social encounters are diced, instead of role played. I think there's an appriate time for either.

 

[Jacqual]

It does have merits like for streetwise, bribery, and seduction. Things along that nature it can make some since if you ar playing a very smart character and you insult someone to see if they lose their temper. just remember if you piss off the marine and he loses his temper he isnt gonna insult you he will beat you up or kill your character. Put I can see rolling to see if you insult someone so well they dont even realize the insult? It really does come down to play style it would work great for solo games, as well as seeing if the bribe took or you found the black market sellers. There is reason for it, and it should be used. The bribing can be rolled if the player doesn't know that the guard wants a 1000 imperiel credits instead of a 100 creds. there are so many times that a character knows things that the player dont and vise versa. If the player knows the story you dont want the character to act on it. but if he can do something with a roll to show he might have some knowledge then great.