Social Combat

[Marras]

You don't have to map all relationships, only the most significant relationships. I would assign a general level of social armor that gets modified based on how the character feels about that particular character. Maybe you don't have to even know the person himself but if you don't generally trust people from certain populations (nationality, profession, military unit, religion) your armor is probably better against them whether you know that person or not. Association is good enough reason.

Similarly when someone you trust tries to influence you, your armor is lower than usually as you have lowered your guard and take their word at face value. Same way if someone tells bad things about people you don't like your armor is lower than in general as you actually want to believe a lie like that.

Maybe some sort of random system for motivations would help with that.

[Daeruin]

I have a lot to say about this subject, as I'm sure you noticed, but almost no time. I wish I had more time.

How many numbers get recorded on your character sheet for physical combat? Maybe aim for a similar number of stats for social combat. Maybe think about a system of defaults to govern relationships and attitudes, similar to combat proficiency defaults.

[higgins]

The difference between proficiencies and relationships is that... defaulting can be looked up from the book, but personal relationships are much more fluid. So, rather than attempting to quantify all that, my first instinct is to use our Temptation mechanic in this area.

For example, we could play it in a way that... If you succeed the roll, you don't mind-control the other guy, but get to Tempt him a'la "Okay, I won the argument, so, you'll concede that McGregors are on the right with the land dispute."

So, in a way, the issue would become something of a "temporary Flaw" which is can be tampered with, as per normal rules. When the issue comes down to a vote in The Elder Council, you can Tempt the other player. "I'll give you an Story Aspect point if you vote my way."

BUT if the other party wants to refuse, as per Temptation rules, he needs to pay an SA point for the Tempting character instead... but unlike normal Temptation that gets him off with one point, he must pay SA points equal to the MoS gained in the argument. The winner of the argument can always Tempt with just one.

For example, if one guy has conceded that "McGregors are on the right with the land dispute w/ MoS2", but he has SAs like "All McGregors deserve to rot in hell" and "There is no justice in this world" then by acting upon those two SAs, he doesn't even feel the blow... as he gains two SA points while losing two. But... if he has only a single SA firing the scene and he was convinced with a MoS4... you get where I'm going.

The idea is pretty rough, but it would keep things more fluid.

Alternatively, we could encourage consequences and award the player with free points if he takes on this argument and makes it a full blown SA.

And in addition, if you're being coerced by a bad argument and you're willing go along regardless, it would be easy to just Play it Up and receive free Story Aspect points, not unlike Playing Up a Minor Flaw.

[Marras]

Are Story Aspect points something like Fate points in FATE?

I suppose GMs have some sort of pool of those points, too to use in situations like that.

This sounds pretty neat as players still have the possibility to refuse to act according to how the roll goes but there is a price to pay if you refuse.

I don't believe that this will be a problem with my players but still I can see a problem where one player can leech SA points using stupid social combats against other players who don't want to act out the result and rather pay the SAs. One way to get around this would be a third option like resort to violence where you don't have to pay SAs but you have to escalate the conflict to physical (or magical) conflict.

[Daeruin]

That actually sounds like a really cool idea. Yeah, there are things you'd want to consider and tweak, but I like the basic idea. Given the massive number of possibilities in social combat, maybe it's best to keep things fluid with the use of traits or story aspects or whatever.

By defaulting, I was thinking of broader categories instead of individuals. So you assign an attitude towards an entire group of people, and based on that attitude you can easily assign default attitudes (or stats, whatever) to other, related groups of people. So you don't have to keep track of all individuals per se. You would definitely keep track of other PCs and important NPCs in a more detailed fashion.

[higgins]

Are Story Aspect points something like Fate points in FATE?

I created a whole new thread to cover that question: http://www.grandheresyforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=43

I don't believe that this will be a problem with my players but still I can see a problem where one player can leech SA points using stupid social combats against other players who don't want to act out the result and rather pay the SAs. One way to get around this would be a third option like resort to violence where you don't have to pay SAs but you have to escalate the conflict to physical (or magical) conflict.

And... I think you've already nailed it. If you don't want to accept the result of a social combat, you can always escalate to violence. But if you lose that contest as well, then you're bound by the result and have to shell out SA points if you want to act differently.

That actually sounds like a really cool idea. Yeah, there are things you'd want to consider and tweak, but I like the basic idea. Given the massive number of possibilities in social combat, maybe it's best to keep things fluid with the use of traits or story aspects or whatever.

It was just one of the many options that we tossed around, but I'm glad you like it.

By defaulting, I was thinking of broader categories instead of individuals. So you assign an attitude towards an entire group of people, and based on that attitude you can easily assign default attitudes (or stats, whatever) to other, related groups of people. So you don't have to keep track of all individuals per se. You would definitely keep track of other PCs and important NPCs in a more detailed fashion.

I've seen a game system attempt using social categories, and I don't think I ever saw someone actually using those rules. But even if we came up with better categories, I'm not yet sure how we'd track all that. Seems to me that it'd be easier just to write up a relevant SA. In that way, the attitude would manifest in other ways as well.

[Marras]

And... I think you've already nailed it. If you don't want to accept the result of a social combat, you can always escalate to violence. But if you lose that contest as well, then you're bound by the result and have to shell out SA points if you want to act differently.

I would say that if you happen to loose the physical contest you might have two option left. Either you comply or you get severe physical consequences. At that point beating (or even death) is bad enough consequence for keeping your head.

Of course there might be something that I'm missing why you have to pay SA points as well...

[higgins]

I would say that if you happen to loose the physical contest you might have two option left. Either you comply or you get severe physical consequences. At that point beating (or even death) is bad enough consequence for keeping your head.

Well, yes. At that point, he's basically at the mercy of the other... and I'd simply have the other guy make a decision. Whether it would be to kill him, maim him, or just say "You crazy mother******!" and walk away. I've seen the latter happen in fiction once or twice.

[Daeruin]

I've seen a game system attempt using social categories, and I don't think I ever saw someone actually using those rules. But even if we came up with better categories, I'm not yet sure how we'd track all that.

Well, I've used those exact categories before. Not consistently, but on occasion. I think I'm kind of an outlier, though.

I keep hearing concern over how to track all this social combat information. I'm not sure why it's such a big issue. The TROS character sheet had the outline of a human body split into zones to keep track of armor and as a reference choosing an attack location. All the physical combat information can easily take up an entire sheet of paper. If you value social combat enough, make room for it on the sheet.

I can picture the social combat portion of a character sheet having two or three little diagrams, perhaps like a ring with concentric circles. One could be your trust circle, for instance. Individuals or even entire social groups that your character is inclined to trust get written in the center circle. Those your character tends to distrust get written in one of the outer circles. That's if you like things visual. You could just as easily have a list of 10 blank lines with individuals or social groups written down along with a trust score for each one. I don't see this as being any more cumbersome than tracking armor for physical combat.

Also, here's something I ran into a while back that's really interesting. The RPG Diaspora, a FATE game, had social combat where they encouraged the use of social combat maps—abstract representations of the goals and stages of social situations. You might have five nodes connected in a linear fashion, each representing a stage of friendship, and the goal is to move the target character from one node to the next.

Here's an example of a Diaspora social combat scene with a map. I only had time to skim the post, so I hope it's good.

http://gamerchris.com/2010/09/07/diaspo ... skype.aspx

[higgins]

I keep hearing concern over how to track all this social combat information. I'm not sure why it's such a big issue. The TROS character sheet had the outline of a human body split into zones to keep track of armor and as a reference choosing an attack location.

'Bastards ain't TROS though. Choosing the strike location can be done in plain English and thus far we've easily managed with a single page sheet. Granted, backpack contents have been tracked freeform on the other side. There's no plans to include wound wheels on the sheet.

I can picture the social combat portion of a character sheet having two or three little diagrams, perhaps like a ring with concentric circles. One could be your trust circle, for instance. Individuals or even entire social groups that your character is inclined to trust get written in the center circle. Those your character tends to distrust get written in one of the outer circles.

That's an interesting take, but wouldn't it mean that every stranger you meet is outside that circle by default? And if you let people inside your circles, then you lower your guard towards them? And what would be the advantage in lowering the guard? Sure, we could give the character a persuasion advantage towards them, but not all social relationships are equal at both sides.

I can totally see a character being eager to please someone that treats them like dirt, or the other way around. In which circle would you place such situation?

[Daeruin]

'Bastards ain't TROS though. Choosing the strike location can be done in plain English and thus far we've easily managed with a single page sheet. Granted, backpack contents have been tracked freeform on the other side. There's no plans to include wound wheels on the sheet.

I use TROS as a reference in the absence of other knowledge. I personally don't mind a longer character sheet, but I understand the desire to keep it trimmed down. How do you track armor in 'Bastards?

I can picture the social combat portion of a character sheet having two or three little diagrams, perhaps like a ring with concentric circles. One could be your trust circle, for instance. Individuals or even entire social groups that your character is inclined to trust get written in the center circle. Those your character tends to distrust get written in one of the outer circles.

That's an interesting take, but wouldn't it mean that every stranger you meet is outside that circle by default?

That's why I mentioned social groups. So you might have Sicilians in a certain ring; if the stranger appears to be a Sicilian, he'd go in that ring by default. If he's not Sicilian but is married to one, your defaulting system might place him in an adjacent ring. Maybe you'd have a default rating for strangers that don't fit in any social group on your chart, based on how trusting your character is by nature.

And if you let people inside your circles, then you lower your guard towards them? And what would be the advantage in lowering the guard?

Spoken like a true, paranoid tabletop RPG player! I would think a character who can trust nobody would be pretty dysfunctional and have penalties in other areas. Such a character would be sad, lonely, and have few allies to rely on.

I can totally see a character being eager to please someone that treats them like dirt, or the other way around. In which circle would you place such situation?

Just because you trust someone doesn't mean they have to trust you, or love you. Like you mentioned, relationships aren't always reciprocal. I might have you in my inner circle of trust, but you have me in an outer one. I'm not even set on having trust circle per se though. I'm also picturing other rubrics. Perhaps circles to measure love-hate, contempt-admiration, or even social standing—whatever makes sense for the setting and campaign. You might have a person in your inner circle of love but an outer circle of trust. Have you ever loved someone you knew might try to lie to you? It's a classic situation in literature.

[Marras]

I agree that some sort of general attitude towards other people could be a sort of baseline to all interactions that is then modified based on the level of "circle of trust". That means if the character is very trusting he would not be all that hard to convince even by those that he distrusts as he generally wants to believe in everyone.

In general I like to have character building as a process rather than create the character from 0 % to 100 % in one sitting. Therefore I see no problem to at first have maybe even no entries in those circles and everyone is in general status. Then as character meets people they (as individuals or as representatives of certain people like Sicilians as mentioned by Daeruin) can be placed to circles. That's how I would do it with PCs. NPCs could have very simple or general circles or even generated randomly when encountered as GM prep time should be taken to consideration when thinking of rules.

In case of conflicting emotions like loving someone who the character knows is deceitful could be handled like that one is in the circle of distrusted but the character has a flaw of loving that person.

About why you would want to lower your guard and trust someone? How can you form a PC party if you don't trust others? But also, if you don't trust anyone wouldn't you be sceptical about everything that everyone says? Maybe you would have some negative modifiers for social skills (like using part of your social skill every time to 'parry' the social attack from that person, even if there is no attack in reality) based on how badly you distrust others as you question their honesty and maybe double check what they say etc.

[Agamemnon]

Loving the discussion so far. Familial issues have kept me busy here just recently, but I've been following along.

I don't believe that this will be a problem with my players but still I can see a problem where one player can leech SA points using stupid social combats against other players who don't want to act out the result and rather pay the SAs.

I suspect even without any kind of ruling about escalating to violence, the player who kept doing that to the other players would quickly get that character killed. A persuade roll can be nuanced. Social Combat is backing someone into a corner and pulling their arm behind their back. As a rule, people generally don't like their hands forced, and we just happen to have a melee combat system that just begs to be used.

I suspect the issue would sort itself out pretty quickly regardless.

[higgins]

How do you track armor in 'Bastards?

We haven't decided upon a teaser yet, so, it'll probably be revealed in the beta.

And if you let people inside your circles, then you lower your guard towards them? And what would be the advantage in lowering the guard?

Spoken like a true, paranoid tabletop RPG player! I would think a character who can trust nobody would be pretty dysfunctional and have penalties in other areas. Such a character would be sad, lonely, and have few allies to rely on.

Haha, touché! But that was actually a point I was leading up to -- the trust circles can't really work from outside to inside (as I believe you were originally suggesting). We can't assume that every unmarked person (i.e. someone outside your circles) would be treated with utter mistrust, or we would have a very sad game indeed. Instead, the unmarked people should be in the neutral area.

So, the following model makes sense to me: If you trust someone, you add them to trust circle, if you mistrust someone, you add them to mistrust circle.

Now, having said that... it sounds a LOT like writing up a relationship as an SA, which would:
a) define the relationship with a nuanced wording
b) show the Narrator your interest in wanting to see that relationship in game
c) gain bonus dice whenever that relationship comes up
d) gain points in pursuing that relationship, whether for good or ill

As opposed to:
a) defining the relationship by placing it under an umbrella term
b) gaining some mechanical advantage or disadvantage based on that

So, the real question is... given this contrast, would the social circles accomplish anything that the SA's aren't already accomplishing better?

[Daeruin]

So, the real question is... given this contrast, would the social circles accomplish anything that the SA's aren't already accomplishing better?

I see what you're saying, and I totally get the advantages of using an SA to define a relationship that way. I think SAs have a huge potential to affect social combat and make it awesome. When I imagine what social combat could look like in an ideal game, I often think of A Song of Ice and Fire, specifically the interactions of the Lannister siblings—Tyrion, Cersei, and Jaime. The conflicting and overlapping SAs between those characters are practically screaming at you.

The advantage of social circles based on how we've been talking about them would be their extensibility. You could put any number of people or groups in a given social circle, but you only have five SAs. You likely aren't going to use all five SAs on relationships (depending on the type of game you're running), but you're definitely going to meet more than five important people in a given campaign (unless it's a one-shot).