Fields of Contest

[Pelle]

A diplomacy check doesn't get this kind of help from the rules.

This doesn't make any sense to me, if you don't have any context, how can you make a check at all? Rolling a diplomacy check without knowing what you want to achieve nor the arguments you use is putting the cart before the horse. As it is for combat mechanics; the player wants the character to attack with his sword -> attack action, not the other way around.


I can see why you might want a more complicated social combat system for certain special situations or if the player is bad at arguing, but I am perfectly happy with the simple roll die vs. DC. It gives you space to act out the discussion in a natural way. Only if it turns out that the result of the discussion is uncertain, you need to roll, and then it is often easy to set the stakes based on the situation.

I only have limited experience with more complicated social combat from Torchbearer, which uses the same conflict system for physical and social combat; choose Attack, Defend, Feint or Maneuver actions to chip away at HP. It can be fun, but to me it tends to get a little in the way of acting out the conversation in character. First of all, you can't just go on discussing freeform back and forth, you need to wait for the mechanics. Also, you often want to choose some type of action because it is good mechanically, but it is hard to make it make sense in context and thus you get some weak arguments. And sometimes you have a winning argument in context, but you can't really use it fully because mechanically the opponent has more social HP left. So you kind of need to feel out what is appropriate as one social action, so that the whole scene makes sense.

I am not that used to it yet though, though I see that it can probably work good as a source of inspiration for what kind of arguments to make. Still, feels more like it is better suited for a more storygaming approach to rpgs, since it limits a bit what you can say.

[Pleh]

This doesn't make any sense to me, if you don't have any context, how can you make a check at all? Rolling a diplomacy check without knowing what you want to achieve nor the arguments you use is putting the cart before the horse. As it is for combat mechanics; the player wants the character to attack with his sword -> attack action, not the other way around.


I can see why you might want a more complicated social combat system for certain special situations or if the player is bad at arguing, but I am perfectly happy with the simple roll die vs. DC. It gives you space to act out the discussion in a natural way. Only if it turns out that the result of the discussion is uncertain, you need to roll, and then it is often easy to set the stakes based on the situation.

I only have limited experience with more complicated social combat from Torchbearer, which uses the same conflict system for physical and social combat; choose Attack, Defend, Feint or Maneuver actions to chip away at HP. It can be fun, but to me it tends to get a little in the way of acting out the conversation in character. First of all, you can't just go on discussing freeform back and forth, you need to wait for the mechanics. Also, you often want to choose some type of action because it is good mechanically, but it is hard to make it make sense in context and thus you get some weak arguments. And sometimes you have a winning argument in context, but you can't really use it fully because mechanically the opponent has more social HP left. So you kind of need to feel out what is appropriate as one social action, so that the whole scene makes sense.

I am not that used to it yet though, though I see that it can probably work good as a source of inspiration for what kind of arguments to make. Still, feels more like it is better suited for a more storygaming approach to rpgs, since it limits a bit what you can say.

This is what I meant when I was saying that Combat is actually more situational than TTRPGs tend to make them out to be. Yes, the circumstances for round by round Social Combat would be far less common than passing conversations with NPCs.

Then again, you don't necessarily roll Initiative every time the PCs want to sit down for drinks at the tavern (unless they are actually racing to be seated for some reason).

It feels a bit like we're just making excuses when we want RULES for combat that is situational, but we structure the game to produce a disproportionate number of them anyway and then we want FREEFORM when we get into verbal exchanges with the NPCs. As if wanting to play a game that has rules somehow means you're just bad at arguing. Maybe we just like playing games that have rules even when we're pretty good at arguing besides?

I like what L5R actually did with all this. Their Campaign Setting really struck a Thematic Tone where Social Reputation was almost more important than Fighting Monsters (which you always hoped was a rare occurrence because by the time you're actually fighting taint monsters, things have usually gone VERY WRONG). The ability to argue fluently and persuasively was at least as important as your skill with a blade in terms of who was going to comply with your requests as you tried to do business on behalf of your lord.

I really don't see the point in arguing that "Social combat really doesn't come up all that often" because that's something the game designers fabricated, when I'm suggesting changing it so it wouldn't be that way anymore.

And again, I know this wouldn't be the preferred game for everyone to begin with. I'm just looking at how it might work if someone (possibly me) did the work to make a game like this: D&D that handles Social and Stealth like it does Combat (at least in scenarios where the contest would otherwise be in question).

The point? To make these other forms of gameplay more engaging to the players that come to the table wanting to play characters who specialize in these skills.