I'm writing this after developing a bit of a fascination for the idea of social combat and so-called 'social' or 'roleplaying' encounters and a long-standing question I have about why so many RPGs, especially the d20 based ones, have such developed rules for physical combat but so little for social conflict. I mean it seems obvious to me that this stems from Dungeons and Dragons' roots in wargaming and that culture. But we've had these games for a while; why hasn't more changed?
And I want to be clear: I'm not critisising the idea of having fairly developed combat rules. And I don't necesarily mean complex rules when I say that, just games that have noticeably more developed rules for fighting and killing things than for other forms of interaction. I love me some complex and involved combat rules, certainly more complex than most d20 systems. I love hit locations, parrying rules, sacrificing armour, etc. But I also love being able to do something more or less equivalent with social conflict.
I know many OSR-style players will say that they prefer this sort of interaction to remain 'unmechanised' (a term I just made up), i.e. without rules. Because the social interactions are for roleplaying. And that's sort of fair enough. But its also sort of bullshit. I don't mock-fence when I'm roleplaying, mainly because there isn't room. Also because there would be collateral damage. Also because I don't have a wide assortment of medieval or other weaponry and armour and don't want them (ahh, the clutter!).
But I would also be shit at it. I didn't grow up in the middle ages, riding a horse from the age of six, learning to use a spear from seven and being knocked down bloody by 'tutors' until I was old enough to point out that I was now the lord of the manor and they had better show me some goddam respect! (Ahem...) Not was ever a navy seal, a fighter pilot for Star Force Earth or a ninja. I can solve puzzles and follow clues to a clear-cut conclusion, but not under the kind of time-related pressure good detective mysteries are made of.
I can however, argue, persuade, sooth, seduce, encourage and barter. Not an expert, but I can do it.
Actually, as a former teacher, I kind of am an expert. And that's the issue.
Because not everybody can do those things well. In fact, plenty of people seem to struggle with all these things, at the table. And when they do, in my experience as a player, they often get handwaved; the GM doesn't want his game sidelined by the social ineptitude of his players. And players who know they are not good at this, don't always want to have to play a class that doesn't do those things.
And this leads to the further consequence that the same player end up in those situations all the time.
People who enjoy that sort of thing (which I think Gygax once described as 'LARPing' - yikes!) will always looks for ways to do that and if they do it well, it will usually be in the hope of either getting what they want out of the interaction, which is fine, or getting some kind of bonus to any subsequent skill test, which I think is also fine.
But I don't think there is anything wrong with codifying some of those interaction options, so that players can think tactically either while roleplaying or while relying on skills they have invested in to to get them the outcome they want. And I don't think there is anything wrong, either, with the GM using those same rules to enable his antagonists to put one over on the players without raising a hand against them.
Below are my suggestions for some actions that might be taken, the skills that might facilitate that and the success or fail states that might ensue. Most of them appear as skills in rulesets that have skill systems. In other systems, they can perform the function of an action, to be achieved by a charisma test, perhaps with a circumstantial modifier. It definitely doesn't matter if you want to conflate some of these into fewer items, either, whatever works at your table.
But I try to be mindful of when different actions might pick up/represent different modifiers in diffierent situations and also when a failure might lead to a Reversal. A Reversal in this context means that by trying an action and failing, you actually benefit your target or enable then to achieve a goal opposed to your own interests. Attempting to lie, for example, can go wrong. If you are caught out, the other party might like you less, but they also know you had reason to lie and therefore have gained insight. Opening up a conversation in which you try to persuade someone might lead to them enlightening you on their reasons to such good effect that you change your mind.
Persuade - changing an NPC's specific course of action/alerting an NPC to the player's own goals
Insight - understanding motivations, goals or intentions/giving aay your own
Charm - making an NPC like you more, thereby influencing their future behaviour generally, usually in small ways/making the NPC dislike you or giving them insight into what the PC is like or wants.
Seduce - I think this one speaks for itself
Deceive - to mislead or misinform an NPC/give away the PC's motives for attempting deceit
Bargain - to get a good price for something/getting a worse price for something
As always, if you try it, let me know what you think!
No comments:
Post a Comment