New IKRPG's Social Conflict System

[Tallyrand]

This is probably going to be me biggest decider on whether I play the IKRPG (I'm not going to kid myself and say that it may prevent me from buying it). What is the social conflict system in the IKRPG? In other words how to the rules deal with two characters or a character and npc engaging in debate, seduction or any of the other dramatic and uncertain social situations. In the RPGs I've played this generally falls into one of a few catagories.

1) No rules at all. "Keep your game out of my role playing."

2) Extension of the skill system. "Roll Convince the DC is his Will."

3) Full social combat system. "You want to seduce her? Roll Initiative."

Can anyone give me an idea of what it looks like?

[Sosthenes]

My money's on 2. I don't expect narrative sillyness* from a wargame company, and numero uno is almost unheard of within the current "state of the art".

Still, even within that, there's a lot of room for elaboration. Just compare the haggling system of a few RPGs...

*: My opinion, of course. Others quite do enjoy gameplay where they can do an "ironic social feint" against somebody's "ennui pool".

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

If the answer is #1, I can already hear this section of the forum exploding in rage about how IKRPG2 is really just Warmachine with a character generator bolted on. My money is on #2.

[PG_ThatRickGuy]

Agreed with the above, if it's #1, we'd be looking at a skirmisher combat game. #3 could be neat, as it would give smooth talking character's players a chance to get into a combat-like interaction, but I think it would probably feel too heavy and slow down game play too much for something that is usually adlibed and rolled. So my bet is also #2, with a fair bit of DM-discretion.

-Rick

[Weaselcreature]

I'm agreeing/hoping it will also be #2. While I don't think #1 necessarily just means it's a combat system that you have to role play around (depending on how the system is overall), #1 is a bad choice because it prevents players from playing a character that has skills/abilities/social nuances the player lacks. #3 is bad because of what Rick said: it would bog down what should be a nice smooth aspect of an RPG; a simple skill roll as you're relaying what your character is saying/attempting is probably the best way to do it.

[Sosthenes]

The only way I could see that a game nowadays would go with #1 is if it has no skill system at all or the designer is *really* opinionated about this (and willing to bet on this, i.e. also a *really* small company). If you've got a skill system already, it's just adding a few paragraphs about some social skills, probably the good ol' inveigle/convince split.

#3 is opinionated too, but not entirely against the current zeitgeist. Still, it's a lot to playtest, too, so unless the game has major intrigue elements, it's probably not worth it for a designer even if he likes it. Most games I've seen doing that have a very generic combat mechnism, where social interaction is just the same with different statistics and the numbers filed off. I'm not even arguing about the implications of considering social interaction "combat" here...

What social mechanic I'd actually like to see is a simple "faction" system. Five Fingers already had pretty usable stat blocks and diagrams, maybe some simple number per faction to show your standing would be useful in a lot of games. Doing this adventure gets you 42 XP, 5 favor points for the Greylords and you loose 3 favor points from the Mertens crime family - something like that. Considering the number of conflicting parties in the IK, this could prove quite useful. I know lots of GMs have their own internal variation of this, from pure deduction to intense, naughty, hardcore spreadsheet action. But considering the amount of people coming from the wargame, any help for "noobs" will be appreciated.

[jdripley]

I, personally, have a love/hate relationship with rules for social interactions in RPGs. I

hate them because there's always the player who will go into EVERY situation and no matter how the DM presents the NPC's their reaction is "I roll sense motive... is that really what they're up to?" And that's a bit of a downer, especially when otherwise that player doesn't play their character as overly suspicious. There's also plenty of opportunities for really great roleplaying that are muddled up with dice. Two examples: 1) the DM sets up a great situation, and a player simply rolls their way through it without any actual roleplaying. The story feels flat and random, and the player just skips along to the next source of XP/loot; 2) players come up with some awesome roleplay, and the DM asks for a skill check. The player follows up their great roleplaying with a "1" and the DM shrugs and says "the NPC doesn't believe you. Roll initiative."

All of those situations are ruined by dice.

But social rules are a must, I think. Without them, it's a free for all, and players and DMs can have wildly different expectations. Social rules help to frame a player's mind around their character's social standing - even if you never actually roll dice while talking to an NPC, a good player will have a place to start when he looks at his low or high charisma, for example. Social rules help the DM to think on his feet faster - if there's a handy little table on his or her DM screen, when a random situation comes up the DM can refer to that and quickly frame the situation in their mind so that the game can go on. Otherwise perhaps the DM has to stop and really think about how X NPC feels about Y character/situation, and that can slow the game down.


Realistically, nobody actually follows social rules, I think. Not precisely. They're a guideline, and so I hope for the OP's #2 option. That gives the DM and players some expectations and isn't so complicated that messing with the rules has too many unexpected results. For example, I play alot of D&D3.5. When I DM I present my players with two options. First, they can roll the dice and then roleplay, and they can earn bonus XP for roleplaying the result well (i.e. if they flub a role, then accurately represent that flub in their roleplaying), or second, they can roleplay out the situation, and then roll. A successful roll will help drive home what they were doing/saying, and a failure will weaken it slightly (I never penalize players for poor rolling if they choose to roleplay first - after all, it's a ROLEplaying game not a ROLLplaying game). So the players tend to roleplay the really important situations, and rely on their words and wit to carry the day - the dice are a bonus; and they tend to roll the dice on incidental situations, where it's ok if you fail and it can be fun to play out a failure in a comical way.

[Weaselcreature]

Yeah, when I GM (not very often), and other GMs I play with, we give players bonuses for good roleplay, either bonuses to their dice rolls and/or XP bonuses. It encourages roleplay and doesn't penalize them as much for rolling badly when the roleplay was well done. Most rules systems have the caveat they are a guideline, and I think that's most important in the RP aspects of a RPG.

[Sthiel]

I was running an Eberron game once - and the group was trying to make their way through the mist wall. I noticed they were making their decisions based on the dice roll - not the character (They would go in the direction the person with the highest dice roll thought was correct instead of oh say the character with the most wilderness navigation experience). So I started inverting the roll results - I would give correct directions to whoever rolled lowest.

They wandered around fifty miles back and forth in a 4 mile wide curtain of fog. Afterwards I told them what I did. Lesson learned

[Hoyled]

I think option 2 is pretty much a given.

Option 3 isnt to likely I think. Though full scale social combat can be interesting. The Dresden Files rpg had a decent social combat system. Plus its kinda amusing forcing the antisocial wizard and halfling minotaur to back up the smooth talker dealing with a grandmother whose holding vital information.

[The Happy Anarchist]

My money's on 2. I don't expect narrative sillyness* from a wargame company, and numero uno is almost unheard of within the current "state of the art".

Still, even within that, there's a lot of room for elaboration. Just compare the haggling system of a few RPGs...

*: My opinion, of course. Others quite do enjoy gameplay where they can do an "ironic social feint" against somebody's "ennui pool".

That word, I don't think it means what you think it means. Seeing as how your description doesn't actually match any narrative game I have ever even heard of, let alone read - it seems to most closely match Exalted which is about as far from a narrative game as you can get.

That said, for the particular needs of the IK I think #2 is the way to go.

[Sosthenes]

That word, I don't think it means what you think it means. Seeing as how your description doesn't actually match any narrative game I have ever even heard of, let alone read - it seems to most closely match Exalted which is about as far from a narrative game as you can get.

As if anyone knows what the worlds really mean within the sad, poorly defined cosmos of GNS. And actually, Exalted's stunt mechanic alone probably brings it closer than a few other games (not *that* close, admittedly)

My description was intentionally hyperbolic, although with some Forge-bred creation, I wouldn't be surprised if I accidentally hit close. It's not too far off the more mild-mannered approaches like Burning Wheel, SoIaF or some FATE variants.

[Tallyrand]

Personally I very much favor option 3, although 2 would be tolerable to me. Mainly my difficulty with vague or single skill based system is that they in effect penalize social characters.

If in a game I expend character resources on being an excellent diplomat (by spending skill points, feats or even just putting my high stat in an appropriate attribute) and the GM hand waves and says let's just role play it he's telling me that I wasted my points. That is unless he asks the fighter to hit him with a sword rather than rolling the dice for combat.

Another thing that a solid social combat system does (like that in The Dresden Files and other Fate games) is equals out face time between the character specializations. Sure my diplomat is going to participate in combat, and the fighter is going to participate in a negotiation, but it's pretty clear who's 'staring' in the scene.

[Sosthenes]

That is unless he asks the fighter to hit him with a sword rather than rolling the dice for combat.

I would think that this is exactly the point where the justification for each subsystem differs: I can't swing a sword around (probably), but I *can* talk. Which is basically the point of a role-playing game. Sure, there's the oft-cited argument of the player who's shy, reclusive, introvert etc. but wants to play the charming diplomat. At which point you *can* take stats over. But will the table profit from that decision? I seriously doubt it. Sometimes you just have to curtail a character's choices because of the player's abilities.

And that's even true for the basic skill-based social interaction (i.e. #2, pun possibly intended). I've yet to see/hear a game, where an even more elaborate "social combat" doesn't completely interrupt the normal flow of the game. Instead of two or more people having a dialog, you'll have a few exchanges of words, disrupted by dice rolls. And (in my experience) a really weird effort at adapting real, spoken words to some abstract social tactic.

Yes, I can see that this is definitely related to combat with swords, I just fail to see the *need* for it. If someone can show me a podcast or other audio recording where this actually is fun, please do. I've tried. And the results have been worse than the Vampire LARPs I've attended, where I've been "dominated" by sad, vaguely anthropomorphic heaps of cells.

[Burrowowl]

It's a bit late in the publishing cycle to vote on the matter, but I'd love to see what the Privateers would come up with for option 3. Social interactions in RPG rules are often akin to dialog in a porno: they're just there to provide some veneer of plot so you can get along to the meat of what you paid for. Having a fully realized rules metaphor for haggling, interrogating, ingratiating, and other social tasks would be lovely.

Lay out how you intend to get Duke Whathispants to let your caravan past the Llaelese border. Adjudicate what part of your social arsenal is being brought to bear, what modifiers are involved, and have at it. Flatter him a little bit to get him to like you a bit, then sprinkle a little scurrilous fearmongering about bandits and such, and once you've got him on the heels, go for the rhetorical jugular! CRITICAL SUCCESS! He's introducing you to his daughter and talking about dowries! You are a god among men! FULL METAL NEGOTIATIONS!

[Tallyrand]

I would think that this is exactly the point where the justification for each subsystem differs: I can't swing a sword around (probably), but I *can* talk. Which is basically the point of a role-playing game. Sure, there's the oft-cited argument of the player who's shy, reclusive, introvert etc. but wants to play the charming diplomat. At which point you *can* take stats over. But will the table profit from that decision? I seriously doubt it. Sometimes you just have to curtail a character's choices because of the player's abilities.

You most certainly can swing a sword around, assuming of course you can lift more than 5 pounds, what you may not be able to do however is form on the fly an impassioned speech about slavery in Menoth or develop a compelling argument for sparing your life on the fly. But that problem wasn't even the thrust of my argument. If you're going to say that a character's ability to fast talk a guard is based on the players ability to convince the GM then you really should go with option 1. Otherwise social skills and attribute are a trap, they are wasted currency in the game and there only to punish players who don't want to play Conan.

And that's even true for the basic skill-based social interaction (i.e. #2, pun possibly intended). I've yet to see/hear a game, where an even more elaborate "social combat" doesn't completely interrupt the normal flow of the game. Instead of two or more people having a dialog, you'll have a few exchanges of words, disrupted by dice rolls. And (in my experience) a really weird effort at adapting real, spoken words to some abstract social tactic.

I highly recommend looking at the Fate games (Spirit of the Century, The Dresden Files etc), SpyCraft 2.0 and 7th Sea, all have excellent social combat systems.

I don't actually listen to any Actual Play podcasts but I"m sure if you look up any of those games you'll find some examples.

[Sosthenes]

If you're going to say that a character's ability to fast talk a guard is based on the players ability to convince the GM then you really should go with option 1. Otherwise social skills and attribute are a trap, they are wasted currency in the game and there only to punish players who don't want to play Conan.

I'll generally go with a what/how split. The player tells me what he says and thus his intention, and then a skill roll (if necessary) determines how well that's presented and refined. This, in my opinion, is the rough equivalent of normal combat in a sufficiently detailed system, where the player chooses the maneuver and the dice show how well it's executed. In both cases there's an argument to be made that the character would probably be better at selecting the "what", too (the type of maneuver, the con), but that's where the game comes in.

I often disregard the dice roll, if the facts speak for themselves (and the character doesn't have some major flaw in that regard, i.e. ugly, squeaky voice, lower classes, barbarian or female in the wrong society). Just like I don't require perception rolls if the players describe exactly where they're expecting a surprise attack or a hidden trap.

I highly recommend looking at the Fate games (Spirit of the Century, The Dresden Files etc), SpyCraft 2.0 and 7th Sea, all have excellent social combat systems.

I've got SpyCraft in some moving box, and I mostly remember it as "mini games" for interrogation scenes etc., more a "2.5" approach. (Interesting that most of that was left out of FantasyCraft)

I do have Legends of Anglerre right next to me, although as far as I'm aware, other FATE games have more detailed social conflict features. It's done with the basic conflict resolution system, so LoA at least mentions it at a few times, but most of the examples and elaborations are about normal combat.
My major problem with this elaborate approach is the shoehorning of tactical terms into social interaction, as well as keeping track of the "mental state" in a similar way to wounds, blood loss. It's often a bad fit. If you're a really good fighter, you might say this about a lot of combat systems, too. But I don't have that many of those in my groups, or maybe the "game" aspects here are just easier to swallow. We do talk a lot in-character, and patterning that after some dice rolls would seem a bit too artificial and interrupting. So, after some testing, we mostly disregard those parts if the system provides them. YMMV.

I'm talking about most games here, if the social combat is basically the whole raison d'etre for the whole shebang, I don't have any problems with that. Dying Earth was hilarious to play, and I'm looking forward to working my way through Skulduggery.

Regarding scenes where the interaction is mainly taking place in the background, I'm all for a bit more elaboration than "roll vs DC". Gathering information, carousing, even off-screen seduction.

[The Happy Anarchist]

The main problem is that it makes playing a social character half way worthless, if you can just give good speeches, or know your GMs buttons you can get buy with minimal investment in social stats - where as if you don't it can be much harder for you even with good social stats. At which point why have social stats at all?

As far as other systems where social interaction works well without interrupting the flow - Dresden does have fairly advanced social mechanics - they work similar to the combat mechanics but the Consequences mean different things. Instead of bleeding gut wound, you might have shaken confidence or broken faith, or smitten or what have you.

Dogs in the Vineyard makes little distinction between social and physical conflict, other than the consequences that result and the stats used. Moreover, physical and social conflict can happen at the same time and fit seamlessly with each other - trying to talk a character down who is trying to fight you to get past you is an example given in the game, a very good one that shows a character not rising to the bait.

Polaris and In a Wicked Age are both narrative games that also make no real distinctions between the two, the social system fits seamlessly within the rest of the conflict system.

That is why I was so surprised by your comment. FATE is the only narrative game I am personally familiar with that actually has different social mechanics, and it fits in so well with the standard system that I don't find it jarring. Other social systems in games I have found jarring, like Exalted, which while it can be fun is a little flow breaking and complex. The other narrative games it is literally seamless - and that is one of the things I have seen as a hallmark of narrative games. Don't Rest Your Head is another one where the social is the same system as the combat, or chasing or anything really.

[PG_ThatRickGuy]

What I think you are pointing out isn't the problem of lacking social challenges systems, but the problem of excessive combat systems.

I've often griped before about how in some combat systems you need specific levels/feats/skills/abilities to be able to do some action. If you don't have the "trip" ability, you'll never be able to trip someone. If you don't have "dirty tricks" you can't throw sand at your opponent's eyes. etc...

The problem isn't that Social interactions are a #2, the problem (IMO) is that Combat interactions are a #3.

-Rick

[CaffeineBoy]

It's a bit late in the publishing cycle to vote on the matter, but I'd love to see what the Privateers would come up with for option 3. Social interactions in RPG rules are often akin to dialog in a porno: they're just there to provide some veneer of plot so you can get along to the meat of what you paid for. Having a fully realized rules metaphor for haggling, interrogating, ingratiating, and other social tasks would be lovely.

Lay out how you intend to get Duke Whathispants to let your caravan past the Llaelese border. Adjudicate what part of your social arsenal is being brought to bear, what modifiers are involved, and have at it. Flatter him a little bit to get him to like you a bit, then sprinkle a little scurrilous fearmongering about bandits and such, and once you've got him on the heels, go for the rhetorical jugular! CRITICAL SUCCESS! He's introducing you to his daughter and talking about dowries! You are a god among men! FULL METAL NEGOTIATIONS!

BURROWOWL! How I've missed ye!

As for the topic at hand, I agree that I'd love to see what Privateer could have done with #3, but I don't expect we will. Arguing for #1, however, is IMHO misguided. Sure, you can talk stuff out with your GM for the social parts, but I'd wager that *none* of us sitting around the game table can put a sentence together like Reagan, MLK Jr. or Joss Whedon. People who think that compelling dialog will just write itself at the game table because we all have some rudimentary ability to talk have obviously never had to write compelling dialog. Just as most of us can theoretically lift a sword and swing it about, a practiced man-at-arms of heroic proportion would make mince of us the second we came into conflict. So we, as gamers who want to imagine how good our characters would be in that kind of situation, come up with elaborate combat subsystems to show how good our li'l mans are at clubbing each other to death. Social combat is just the flip side of that. Sometimes people want structure to help them imagine, even if the conflict isn't physical.

[StJason]

BURROWOWL! How I've missed ye!

As for the topic at hand, I agree that I'd love to see what Privateer could have done with #3, but I don't expect we will. Arguing for #1, however, is IMHO misguided. Sure, you can talk stuff out with your GM for the social parts, but I'd wager that *none* of us sitting around the game table can put a sentence together like Reagan, MLK Jr. or Joss Whedon. People who think that compelling dialog will just write itself at the game table because we all have some rudimentary ability to talk have obviously never had to write compelling dialog. Just as most of us can theoretically lift a sword and swing it about, a practiced man-at-arms of heroic proportion would make mince of us the second we came into conflict. So we, as gamers who want to imagine how good our characters would be in that kind of situation, come up with elaborate combat subsystems to show how good our li'l mans are at clubbing each other to death. Social combat is just the flip side of that. Sometimes people want structure to help them imagine, even if the conflict isn't physical.

Hear Hear!
And while it's true that at the extremes, all attributes are somewhat hard to roleplay (How do you play a WIS 18 character differently from a WIS 12 again?) it always seemed to me because it is so called upon and yet so hard to roleplay that Charisma-type attributes and social skills need a bit of framework. I certainly can't come up with an inspiring speech on the fly, can't talk the knickers off a lady I just met, and certainly would be hard pressed to pass off my jug of ditch water as a high-potency potion. Trying to force me to suddenly do this because it's the type of character I made is as ridiculous as trying to get me to physically lift a 400 lb. portcullis just because my character can.

[Sosthenes]

Them's the roleplaying challenges. Generally my recommendation for high charisma types is to tailor the type of if to the player's abilities. Playing someone with Cha 20 is hard enough, no need to make it even harder if you're completely playing against type. So if you're not really blessed with the gift of gab, don't try Axel Foley-ish fast-talking. Go with the Toshiro Mifune/Clint Eastwood silent types. They're not really known for their elocution, it's the delivery that matters.

Also, I did notice that a lot of the people who would run out of the room if asked to make a short speech or come up with some remotely savoir faire phrases at a debuttante's ball are the same people who would have serious problems embellishing or justifying social conflict techniques. And the only thing more boring than "I hit him with my sword, I hit him with my sword, I hit him with my sword" combats is "I charm her, I charm her, I charm her" social interaction. (Well, okay, something found at Vampire LARPing can probably top that.)

[StJason]

Them's the roleplaying challenges. Generally my recommendation for high charisma types is to tailor the type of if to the player's abilities. Playing someone with Cha 20 is hard enough, no need to make it even harder if you're completely playing against type. So if you're not really blessed with the gift of gab, don't try Axel Foley-ish fast-talking. Go with the Toshiro Mifune/Clint Eastwood silent types. They're not really known for their elocution, it's the delivery that matters.

So... wait. If I wanted to play a Arnold Schwartenegger type, I shouldn't because I can't bench 250?
If I wanted to play Jackie Chan, I shouldn't because I have trouble just walking down the street?
If I wanted to play Spotted Horse (from Quick & the Dead), then I shouldn't because I get a cold if someone sneezes in a mile of me?
If I wanted to play Thomas Edison, then I shouldn't because I have trouble putting Legos together?
If I wanted to play Ghandi, then I shouldn't, because I have all the deep spirituality of a puddle of gasoline?
If I wanted to play Axel Foley, then I shouldn't, because I'm verbally incompetent?

I call BS. If I wanted to play myself, then I wouldn't need roleplay.

[Tallyrand]

So... wait. If I wanted to play a Arnold Schwartenegger type, I shouldn't because I can't bench 250?
If I wanted to play Jackie Chan, I shouldn't because I have trouble just walking down the street?
If I wanted to play Spotted Horse (from Quick & the Dead), then I shouldn't because I get a cold if someone sneezes in a mile of me?
If I wanted to play Thomas Edison, then I shouldn't because I have trouble putting Legos together?
If I wanted to play Ghandi, then I shouldn't, because I have all the deep spirituality of a puddle of gasoline?
If I wanted to play Axel Foley, then I shouldn't, because I'm verbally incompetent?

I call BS. If I wanted to play myself, then I wouldn't need roleplay.

This, but also to reiterate, a lot of my problem is in the opposite direction. If I am Axel Foley and am playing a character with only average charisma when when the GM hand waves the roll then I am getting a benefit that I shouldn't be. While if I decide to play a character with a high charisma I basically just wasted that resource since I could have received the exact same effect with only an average stat.

[Sosthenes]

I call BS. If I wanted to play myself, then I wouldn't need roleplay.

As opposed to all the things you've mentioned, we do *talk* at the gaming table. Unless we're talking about IK LARPing, in which case I'd agree with your assessment. Nothing's more boring than rule-based live-roleplaying (believe me, I've tried).

But maybe we just have entirely different styles of gaming. Let's assume your character, Sugel the Smart is meeting a potential employer at a middle-class tavern. After some discussion, he wants more money out of it. In most games I play, this would involve some "But good, sir, surely you must be aware of the associated dangers of that particular mission, and as we all known, remuneration in proportion to the likelihood of losing ones lives would speed the valor of those associated…" etc. etc.

As opposed to:
"Sugel wants more money. Bluff 23" (or "Verbose appeal to conscience 23")

(Not that the roll wouldn't still take place, but it wouldn't be the only thing happening at the table)

And my group consists of a bunch of IT nerds…

Lt. Lutz: "Who the hell are you?"
Axel F.: "Natural 1, dang. Bluff 15"
DM: Ok, you tell him some story about being a psychic, but stumble over some names. He doesn't quite believe you.

[Whimper]

I think what we're hearing here is that different groups and different players approach social roleplaying in different ways, which should come as no great shock to anyone who has ever sat down at a gaming table before. I think it's important to have some sort of rules in place to act as a step-ladder for players who can't be as smart as their INT 18 or CHA 18 characters. Someone like the IT nerds Sosthenes mentioned might still want to play pretend he's a smooth-talking socialite, and die rolls should be able to help him enjoy the game that way.

Likewise, if Grognak the Barbarian happens to be played by someone with a doctorate in English literature whose everyday banter could land her a job as a speech-writer... the dice and the rules can tone down perpetual eloquence, so they only have the effect that Grognard could muster.

What about the following alternative:

The rules are the rules. But if the GM sees a player trying to be smarter, wiser, or more charming than usual, the GM can apply a concrete bonus to things. And if you ask me, this should go for combat too. Not all roleplayers are master tacticians, but if they really work hard on a plan, the GM could throw them a bonus here or there even if the plan doesn't work out.

[StJason]

But maybe we just have entirely different styles of gaming. Let's assume your character, Sugel the Smart is meeting a potential employer at a middle-class tavern. After some discussion, he wants more money out of it. In most games I play, this would involve some "But good, sir, surely you must be aware of the associated dangers of that particular mission, and as we all known, remuneration in proportion to the likelihood of losing ones lives would speed the valor of those associated…" etc. etc.

As opposed to:
"Sugel wants more money. Bluff 23" (or "Verbose appeal to conscience 23")

(Not that the roll wouldn't still take place, but it wouldn't be the only thing happening at the table)

And my group consists of a bunch of IT nerds…

Lt. Lutz: "Who the hell are you?"
Axel F.: "Natural 1, dang. Bluff 15"
DM: Ok, you tell him some story about being a psychic, but stumble over some names. He doesn't quite believe you.

I think we are kind of saying the same thing, but from different angles. My contention is situations like this:
GM: Okay, so Stugal the Smart meets up with his employer in the tavern.
Me: I want him to let me into the exploration that's about to leave.
GM: Okay. What do you want to say?
Me: ...err... 'let me into the expedition'?
GM: I'm afraid that he isn't really swayed by your argument.
Me: What? Wait. I have a Charisma of 30 and 15 ranks in Diplomacy!

[Sosthenes]

GM: I'm afraid that he isn't really swayed by your argument.
Me: What? Wait. I have a Charisma of 30 and 15 ranks in Diplomacy!

I think with this premise I'd call that a lose-lose situation, as

GM: Erm, okay, as you've got a Charisma of 30 and 15 ranks in Diplomacy, he's convinced by your cunning argument.

seems to be about as bad to me (Assuming the discussion is somewhat important and we're not just needlessly expanding on some side-line argument here, of course.)

Edit: Just to be clear: I'm not saying "this is how it has to be done", I'm just saying how I do it, and that any social rules system would have to fit in there to work for me.

[StJason]

I think with this premise I'd call that a lose-lose situation, as

GM: Erm, okay, as you've got a Charisma of 30 and 15 ranks in Diplomacy, he's convinced by your cunning argument.

seems to be about as bad to me (Assuming the discussion is somewhat important and we're not just needlessly expanding on some side-line argument here, of course.)

But you would agree that my character, having that much invested in social interactions should be somewhat better at it then a social bottom-dweller like myself, right? I have no issue with doing some roleplay on something like that, but if I flatly deliver a line, or fail to ask the DM if there is a picture of the guard's little girl on the desk, that doesn't mean that my character would not do these things any more then if my character "Bob the Fencing Master" should lose any fight if I don't mention that I adopt the Italian School and 4th position.

[Sthiel]

I think as well there are multiple interpretations of 'Role Playing'. In my games 'Role Playing' is playing the character appropriately - making consitent decisions that the character would make if they were making the decisions - (No mateer how outnumbered they were Grond the Barabarian would never try and sweet talk their way out of a situation, no matter how obvious that would be to the player).

I certainly encourage players to add color to the game: Working on their 'In Game' voice, etc, but in those situations I would reward a player for trying - regardless of how well they did.

[Sosthenes]

...if my character "Bob the Fencing Master" should lose any fight if I don't mention that I adopt the Italian School and 4th position.

But Bob might have known that it wasn't a good idea to try to disarm your opponent, when it would've been better to feint and go for the throat. Yet you, silly player, did just that. Does that mean that we should shortcut the whole combat, as my character is better at the tactical things, too? Some people actually do argue that way, both some narrative folks and some of the old-school crowd (where a combat round is ten minutes).

I wrote above that I generally make the distinction in these matters at the what/how level. So your delivery might be a bit flat, and maybe your phrasing could be improved, but you just told me what you wanted to say, and then your character's stats and possibly a roll determine how well it's appreciated. I can saunter up to a girl and drop a ridiculous one liner, and it's quite likely (and statistically proven) that this won't go down too well. Now Sean Connery has much better chance with exactly the same words. And for James Bond, success is basically given. And in my personal opinion, it's funnier and more immersive if a character spouts said line, be it ever so stupid or unimaginative. It's still better than just "If there are some girls there, I wanna do 'em."

There's a wide range of bringing in the skills and stats. For said picture, that's clearly a perception roll and then it's a choice of the character whether he wants to use that or not. I'd never surmise a successful roll of intimidation with "you notice a picture and threaten the guard's daughter", that's clearly a matter of how far the player's going.
For some stuff, it's not worth playing it out and the roll/stat alone will be sufficient. For more involved ones, it's talky-talky plus roll. For even more complicated ones, it's a serious of rolls plus back and forth talking (which would seem to support a social combat system, but I've never met one flexible enough). And for some stuff, it's clearly the words of the player alone, mostly when it's all about what gets said. (Do you agree or not with the archvillains plans etc.)

Other people might draw the line somewhere else, and that's perfectly fine for me. But in my games, I do prefer direct speech, just like I wouldn't allow a player to shortcut the interesting level riddle I made up just by rolling against his character's 24 int. Realism be damned.

[The Happy Anarchist]

As long as you are fair about melee. I wouldn't necessarily require them to come up with a whole speech.

Is - "I try and flank them between me and the fighter, and catch them when they are looking the other way" - or "I rush aggressively forward, trying to intimidate them with wild swings and overwhelm them" any worse than "I try and sweet talk them, make it seem like I am a guard in my hometown so maybe they can get me in, just between the two of us" or something like that.

If you are requiring them to say what their character would say, word for word, I think that is excessive. I have also come to dislike the blow by blow descriptions of combat - at first they were fun but now they just seem tedious.

[Lanz]

I'm expecting it will be 2 in the sense of some kind of stat versus an objective challenge rating, but I expect they will go out of their way to not just be like D&D and will try to throw some other elements in there.

[Burrowowl]

What I think you are pointing out isn't the problem of lacking social challenges systems, but the problem of excessive combat systems.

I think you've cut to the core of the matter. When game designers put together their rules, they're showing their customers how their game is to be played. If one third of the book is character creation and one third is combat systems, clearly this is a game about making characters and having them fight. If social interactions are handled with the same detail as tying a rope to a post, then social interactions are roughly equal in importance to the game as tying ropes. To posts.

Is - "I try and flank them between me and the fighter, and catch them when they are looking the other way" - or "I rush aggressively forward, trying to intimidate them with wild swings and overwhelm them" any worse than "I try and sweet talk them, make it seem like I am a guard in my hometown so maybe they can get me in, just between the two of us" or something like that.

Clearly the correct option was krumphau. In both circumstances. Your character is dead now, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[StJason]

As long as you are fair about melee. I wouldn't necessarily require them to come up with a whole speech.

Is - "I try and flank them between me and the fighter, and catch them when they are looking the other way" - or "I rush aggressively forward, trying to intimidate them with wild swings and overwhelm them" any worse than "I try and sweet talk them, make it seem like I am a guard in my hometown so maybe they can get me in, just between the two of us" or something like that.

If you are requiring them to say what their character would say, word for word, I think that is excessive. I have also come to dislike the blow by blow descriptions of combat - at first they were fun but now they just seem tedious.

It's great when you are trying to do something special. But the point is that most combat systems are abstracted already. "Roll to hit vs. Defense" or the like. It doesn't go into (thank the FSM) the minutiae of different fencing positions, trying to aim for the *****s in the armor, the endless drilling, sudden inspirations, position and counterposition of real fighting.
Likewise, social competitions. You shouldn't have to worry about delivery and eye contact, about social meaning and historical construct. A bit of abstraction here is necessary too. I don't particularly want to roleplay a hour-long interrogation session to get the secret out of the Evil Henchman. It would be decidedly uncomfortable to try and roleplay a seduction with my Game Master. I should be able to say "I want to try and knock his helmet off, blinding him" or "I want to try and convince the guard that I'm actually a trader that got separated from the caravan.

I wrote above that I generally make the distinction in these matters at the what/how level. So your delivery might be a bit flat, and maybe your phrasing could be improved, but you just told me what you wanted to say, and then your character's stats and possibly a roll determine how well it's appreciated. I can saunter up to a girl and drop a ridiculous one liner, and it's quite likely (and statistically proven) that this won't go down too well. Now Sean Connery has much better chance with exactly the same words. And for James Bond, success is basically given. And in my personal opinion, it's funnier and more immersive if a character spouts said line, be it ever so stupid or unimaginative. It's still better than just "If there are some girls there, I wanna do 'em."

Exactly. See? I told you we were talking about the same thing, just from different angles.

Clearly the correct option was krumphau. In both circumstances. Your character is dead now, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Curses! Krumphaued again!

[Whimper]

If you are requiring them to say what their character would say, word for word, I think that is excessive. I have also come to dislike the blow by blow descriptions of combat - at first they were fun but now they just seem tedious.

I want the RPG to be able to handle things both ways- that's my point. The tabletop group I play with would say, "I spend the next few minutes trying to convince the counsellors in the hall to back up our efforts with some supplies and support from the City Watch." It's because half of our players wouldn't feel like composing and delivering the request word-for-word, nor would they feel like listening to it if someone did.

But in my online play-by-post game, written dialogue is the norm and usually the expectation. As a GM, I might tolerate a few instances of "My character says something- whatever seems right" but if started to happen a lot, I'd be talking to the player about whether he or she was in the right game.

The IK RPG should be able to handle, nay, encourage social play in both styles and anything in between.

[Sosthenes]

Exactly. See? I told you we were talking about the same thing, just from different angles.

And there I was, thinking that I'm growing into the "Thespian" role-player cliche in my dotage.

The IK RPG should be able to handle, nay, encourage social play in both styles and anything in between.

Hmm, supporting isn't the hard part here, I'd say. Something on the level of D20 with two main social skills plus a few auxiliary ones would be enough for most abbreviated scenes and could easily be extended by the GM for more involved social conflicts.

But how do you encourage this - or even the more talky-talky approach? Would a general note that "good role-playing gets you a +2 bonus" suffice for you?

What I generally find helpful, but don't use often enough are general disposition rules. So you meet Magistrate Knopfloch. You've got a high fast-talk skill and oodles of Charisma. Yet you're a low-class swampie. And a witch. And not properly dressed (a factor specific to the Magistrate). Also, your party was just tied to some crimes of the Griffin gang. All that adds up to a certain penalty. Roll the dice: Initial reaction: Hostile.
That supports all kinds of gameplay styles, whether it's just talking or a long serious of elaborate maneuver rolls. And it brings in the intricacies of the setting, adding some flavor. In a situation like this, maybe it would've been better if the fighter of the group would've done the talking. Sure, he can't think of "diplomacy" without the "gunboat" prefix, but he's got a shiny armor, is a graduate of an elite academy, related to the high society of this city, and still a bachelor (Magistrate Knopfloch has more daughters than your average Jane Austen novel).

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

I think you've cut to the core of the matter. When game designers put together their rules, they're showing their customers how their game is to be played. If one third of the book is character creation and one third is combat systems, clearly this is a game about making characters and having them fight. If social interactions are handled with the same detail as tying a rope to a post, then social interactions are roughly equal in importance to the game as tying ropes. To posts.

I think you're really going to enjoy my upcoming self-published RPG, Chronicles of the Post-Ropers.

What I generally find helpful, but don't use often enough are general disposition rules. So you meet Magistrate Knopfloch. You've got a high fast-talk skill and oodles of Charisma. Yet you're a low-class swampie. And a witch. And not properly dressed (a factor specific to the Magistrate). Also, your party was just tied to some crimes of the Griffin gang. All that adds up to a certain penalty. Roll the dice: Initial reaction: Hostile.
That supports all kinds of gameplay styles, whether it's just talking or a long serious of elaborate maneuver rolls. And it brings in the intricacies of the setting, adding some flavor. In a situation like this, maybe it would've been better if the fighter of the group would've done the talking. Sure, he can't think of "diplomacy" without the "gunboat" prefix, but he's got a shiny armor, is a graduate of an elite academy, related to the high society of this city, and still a bachelor (Magistrate Knopfloch has more daughters than your average Jane Austen novel).

Wasn't that a big part of the NPC interaction stuff in AD&D 2e?

[Sosthenes]

Wasn't that a big part of the NPC interaction stuff in AD&D 2e?

AD&D had NPC interaction?

[Burrowowl]

I think you're really going to enjoy my upcoming self-published RPG, Chronicles of the Post-Ropers.