Social Combat? Please explain...

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Simlasa

Legendary Pubber
Joined
May 4, 2017
Messages
2,995
Reaction score
6,766
Something I see being talked up and added to a lot of games these days are rules for 'social combat'.
Games that don't have such rules are decried and plenty of older games I like seem to be getting makeovers to add them in.
My knee-jerk reaction is that they're somehow replacing in-character conversation/discussion/argument with dice rolling... that they're wanting rules for something that I never felt I needed rules for. That it's another 'anti-GM' move by people that don't trust GM fiat.
BUT... I suspect I'm missing something, or being stodgy, or mistaking the messenger for the message (because folks who push these sorts of rules also seem to push other sorts of rules I don't like).
I don't have any issue with 'reaction rolls'... using Charisma stats to give bonus/penalties to PCs trying to talk people into things. I don't have an issue with skills like Bargain or Intimidate or Seduce... but I do strongly prefer that the dice take a back-seat to actually roleplaying out those situations.
Unlike melee combat, where I can't actually poke other Players with swords, I CAN talk to them and NPCs and gods and monsters and whatever... so do I really need many rules to assist?

Anyway, I'm looking for opinions, rationales... is this just a trend? Is it something that's been sorely missing? Is it something we've had all along, just without a formal name? Should I stop being annoyed?
 
I share your annoyance. And yes, I agree and identtify completely with the statement that it replaces "in-character conversation/discussion/argument with dice rolling... that they're wanting rules for something that I never felt I needed rules for."

But different strokes, and all that I suppose. They types of games likely to have such rules generally follow an overall design paradigm that wouldn't interest me anyways.
 
Last edited:
As a GM, I don't mind it. Sometimes people want to play a character who is smarter than they are, or more charismatic, or whatever. I balance it well enough for my players at the table. If it makes sense that what they say and how they say it is good enough for a situation, great. We're done, move on. Basically, it's like anything else in an RPG: Roll when the outcome is in question, don't roll when it's not.
 
If it makes sense that what they say and how they say it is good enough for a situation, great. We're done, move on. Basically, it's like anything else in an RPG: Roll when the outcome is in question, don't roll when it's not.
I'm not against any rolling in such situations. My quandry is over people wanting to turn it into a full on combat system... that trying to haggle with a shopkeeper isn't done justice by a mere reaction roll and a bit of conversation, it should be played out with opposed rolls, verbal 'weapons', social 'armor', and 'damage'.
I mean, I could imagine a very detailed system, involving lots of dice rolls, for just about any task... first aid? tracking? driving a car? But most of the time we just describe how we are going about the thing, declare it done, or roll a skill check. We don't engage in 'combat' with the door while we're trying to pick the lock.
 
Gotcha, I'm with ya. Yeah, it takes specific circumstances for it to make sense, I think. The One Ring has extended social rules for when you gain an audience with an influential person (like a king or an ambassador or so on), and I think it works there...but those rules aren't meant for, say, getting a sweet deal on a new sword.
 
So you're saying that it should be situational, when it's high stakes?
That seems quite reasonable, as long as it's accompanied by at least some attempt to roleplay the thing, I'd be fine.

I wonder if that's how most people pushing for 'social combat' rules picture it... for some reason I had the idea they meant it for wider use, such as when they're flirting with barmaid NPCs or getting an orphan to pick pockets for them.
 
that they're somehow replacing in-character conversation/discussion/argument with dice rolling...
Correct.

that they're wanting rules for something that I never felt I needed rules for.
Correct.
That it's another 'anti-GM' move by people that don't trust GM fiat.
Correct, but also involves people who enjoy playing a game about their characters from an OOC perspective.
I suspect I'm missing something
Nope
so do I really need many rules to assist?
No, you do not.
is this just a trend?
Yes.
Is it something that's been sorely missing?
Not for IC roleplayers.
Should I stop being annoyed?
Nope. :grin:
 
So you're saying that it should be situational, when it's high stakes?
That seems quite reasonable, as long as it's accompanied by at least some attempt to roleplay the thing, I'd be fine.

I wonder if that's how most people pushing for 'social combat' rules picture it... for some reason I had the idea they meant it for wider use, such as when they're flirting with barmaid NPCs or getting an orphan to pick pockets for them.

That's how *I* always use it...(situational and high stakes, with at least an attempt to roleplay the thing). That's also the approach of Savage Worlds and The One Ring, two of my personal favorite systems.
 
From what I have seen, there are two primary reasons why social combat is used in RPGs:
1. It helps represent a PC's social ability when it differs from that of the player. For example, though a player might be able to use a foam weapon to hit a target, that doesn't really reflect the swordsmanship of their skilled warrior PC. The same can be said with a skilled orator PC.
2. Dice rolls and mechanical options are equated with excitement. So if you want to make social conflict exciting, with twists and turns, and lasting consequences, you need to add dice rolling and mechanical options.

As with any mechanic, its suitability is less about the overall concept and more about the specific application. This is then combined with the preferences of the group.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind social skills in games but have long felt that there are attack skills and no defensive skills. In essence allowing people to buy up 2 points a level of Diplomacy without providing for a scalable defense against it like D&D 3e did. My own feeling is that players often look on their character sheet for tools to apply to problems, if the only tools are combat tools they'll turn to those because social discourse is too prone to the whims of the DM while fighting can be reduced to odds and dice rolls. So as it rolls along you wind up with social combat. I've never quite gone as far as applying resolve as social hit points but I do feel providing some tools can lead to more moderate playstyles.
 
I don't mind social skills in games but have long felt that there are attack skills and no defensive skills. In essence allowing people to buy up 2 points a level of Diplomacy without providing for a scalable defense against it like D&D 3e did. My own feeling is that players often look on their character sheet for tools to apply to problems, if the only tools are combat tools they'll turn to those because social discourse is too prone to the whims of the DM while fighting can be reduced to odds and dice rolls. So as it rolls along you wind up with social combat. I've never quite gone as far as applying resolve as social hit points but I do feel providing some tools can lead to more moderate playstyles.

True in some games, not true in others. Savage Worlds, for instance, keys Smarts and Spirit as opposition to social attacks. And some of the issues just need common sense applied to them...like allowing things like Diplomacy checks to cause a king to give up his crown to you and go marry a mule.
 
But if you can buy a social skill at half the price of the defense characteristic an imbalance still arises.

and DUDE! That mule was HOT!
 
From what I have seen, there are two primary reasons why social combat is used in RPGs:
1. It helps represent a PC's social ability when it differs from that of the player. For example, though a player might be able to use a foam weapon to hit a target, that doesn't really reflect the swordsmanship of their skilled warrior PC. The same can be said with a skilled orator PC.
2. Dice rolls and mechanical options are equated with excitement. So if you want to make social conflict exciting, with twists and turns, and lasting consequences, you need to add dice rolling and mechanical options.

As with any mechanic, its suitability is less about the overall concept and more about the specific application. This is then combined with the preferences of the group.


I can see this and am not against it in theory, in fact, I quite liked the implementation in The Dying Earth RPG. But when I think of "social combat" systems, I tend to picture more along the lines of Burning Wheel...

Duel of Wits
The basic goal in DoW is to reduce the opponent’s Body of Argument (BoA) to zero, before he/she reduces yours to zero, through a series of verbal jabs and parries. By doing so, you prove your argument was the correct one, and your opponent has no idea what he’s talking about. A DoW is not about who is telling the truth; it’s about convincing everyone within earshot that you are.

Before a DoW, both players should state clearly their case and what is at stake. This is mostly a meta-game issue, to avoid confusion later. The stakes here are a social contract between the players that basically says, “My character will do this if I win and this if I lose.” It does not necessarily mean that both characters suddenly stop discussing and clearly state their case.

However, DoW is not mind control. If you cannot agree to the stakes being offered, you are free to walk away. A glib peasant couldn’t talk a king out of his kingdom, because no king would enter into such a deal! On the other hand, remember that BW conflicts are built on how much you’re willing to risk against what you hope to get out of them. Don’t be scared of big risks and desperate acts, because that’s the road to fortune and glory!

The DoW proceeds as follows:

  1. Choose Dueling Skills: At the beginning of a DoW, each player chooses his dueling skill, which he will be using for most of the DoW. Almost all other social skills can see use in a DoW, but only the following can be used as dueling skills: Oratory, Rhetoric, Persuasion, Interrogation, Stentorious Debate, or Haggling.
  2. Determine BoA: Roll your Dueling Skill, and add your Will Exponent. This is your BoA, the overall strength of your argument. Traits may affect this, or the BoA can be double if the topic is a big deal or cut in half if it’s a small deal. Let your GM take care of this.
  3. Script Exchange: Each player secretly scripts three volleys, one action per volley. Actions are revealed one volley at a time, with each person speaking their part. Once both sides have said their piece, advantages and disadvantages are given, and the dice are rolled. The GM describes how the audience perceives the results of the volley.
  4. Victory & Compromise: The Duel ends when one participant’s BoA is reduced to 0. If your BoA has been reduced by any amount, you still win, but you will have to compromise. The lower your BoA ends, compared to how it was originally, the more you will have to compromise. If both sides find their BoA reduced to 0 in the same volley, then an entirely new set of stakes must be agreed on in which neither side gets precisely what it wanted.
 
I would consider Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits to be on the more extreme end of the social conflict mechanic spectrum. It's not my cup of tea either. However, there are less extreme versions that aren't as much of an issue for me.
 
It's taboo, but I allow dice rolls for social interactions so that people who invested in social skills during character creation get to use them. However, those who actually roleplay well, or at least explain what their PC is saying/doing, and how, will have better odds than those who don't.

As in, I'm okay with narrating vs. theatrical acting as long as it is good and contributes to the scene. I have friends who are socially awkward but have great ideas.

Those who just say: "I roll Charm to seduce the queen" will not be given much generosity in terms of bonuses and consequences for failure. Those who explain their PC's body language, what they say, what their intentions are etc are okay in my book. Those who at least TRY to talk in character (and act) will be rewarded extra benefits.
 
I am not a fan of social combat, with this caveat: I do believe social skills should set the tone in which the NPC interacts with the player characters.

I addressed this in ZWEIHÄNDER by having a set of temperaments be generated by the success & failure of skills used, taking place before social 'combat' (or in this case social intrigue) begins. This is reserved for special social events that go beyond a quick exchange (normal roleplaying without dice rolls) or success/failure with skill tests (such as bargaining and haggling for goods).

Players first discuss above-board what they hope to achieve and what is at risk. They then pick a social tactic - a commitment to a roleplaying approach - (based on specific skill) and roll. The success or failure creates a set of temperaments (emotions) a GM references for roleplaying during the interaction. Success/failure on the dice has no immediate impact as to the success or failure of the exchange, it merely determines the range of temperaments (emotions) that a GM can employ when speaking as the NPCs. In addition, NPCs have a general social disposition, which gives a rough guideline on how far an NPC is willing to concede or bend if the characters can convince them. Following this, the roleplaying resumes as normal, but the GM has a set of keywords in front of them to help guide them during the process as players interact. If a player changes their approach, the GM will pause the social intrigue event and have the player make another skill test to determine a new temperament (but with a harder difficulty rating).

It sounds complicated, but is simple and elegant in practice. It challenges many of the issues that I see with most social combat systems while placing the control of the exchange in the hands of the GM, with roleplaying at the fore but values dice rolls to determine the flow of the discussion.
 
At the heart of the "social combat" construct is the idea that other subsystems can be built up in complexity to become as engaging as combat (a subsystem that tends to get more attention than any other in most trad RPGs — probably just the wargame roots showing).

This is an idea that, by itself, is harmless and even intriguing, even if fiendishly elusive to actually implement (D&D4 "skill challenges", anyone?).

The trouble with doing this with social interactions is that the content of these interactions (i.e. what the PC actually says or does) is traditionally governed by the player and inherent to the very act of roleplaying (at least as I understand it).

I do believe that there are groups where the GM will let your character off the hook with a good social skill roll, and more power to them if they're fine with it. I don't want to imply that they're "not roleplaying" because that's counterproductive bullshit — maybe they're just using an existing game system to expedite what they consider a less fun aspect of the game — but I have been using a "dual system" for some time.

My "dual system" goes something like this: player crafts content ("I tell the constable we're acting under orders from the Duke!"), I set the difficulty ("that's one bold faced lie, roll at -20%") which may involve some negotiation ("ok, then I show him the counterfeit ducal seal we got from the Thieves' Guild!" and "right, let me roll to see if he recognizes it's a forgery") until we finally settle on a difficulty ("he didn't. Roll at no penalty.") and the dice measure the quality of the delivery ("your imperious statement impresses and even somewhat embarasses the constable, who scrambles to save some face as he allows you into the stockades").

I can see how you could extend this across several points and counterpoints for a truly momentous negotiation but I've never done it. I might do it some day, though I'd probably stick to the combination of player-generated content and dice-determined delivery.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top