And when I let players in my game create PCs who are forty-foot oni and hundred-year-old ishiken with Void 15, maybe the TNs and Raises required to cleave the Kaiu Wall at a blow--without some kind of multi-session plot buildup and the full connivance of the GM and the rest of the party--will be attainable for them.

Or we'll just go play Exalted, which is better at that sort of thing.

Until then, usually when we gather round to play L5R we're looking for samurai drama in a setting that's medium-high-fantasy but in which most of the characters are generally Badass Normals (to slightly misappropriate the TVtropes term). So when talking about social mechanics it's going to make a lot more sense to start from that baseline, not build around "1 person in 100 years" examples or things so complex/ambitious they ought to be the focus of a campaign arc.

Back to the actual topic, Yandia, I agree it'd be fun to have some optional rules for Getting Stuff for gifts and exchanges as a courtier, or crafting as an artisan. The Doji Courtier techniques are more concrete than some, in a way, but the fact that you're never quite sure what a normal character should have to go through to achieve a similar effect doesn't do them any favors . Similarly, I've played a Kakita Artisan and it was certainly fun--I'd like to revisit the school as more of a clever bastard next time--but it was never really clear to me how those techniques interacted with creating a permanent piece of art. (Crafting rules in 4E are pretty minimal, but honestly that's still preferable to the complex and often nonsensical rules from 3E. If you're never going to rationalize your item price list, don't turn around and base a rules subsystem on item cost! Hey, come to think of it, perhaps FFG will be the Chosen Ones who finally throw that moldy thing out. And maybe make it 10 bu to the koku while they're at it....)

That highlighted part is what I keep going back to -- there are all these Techniqes for Courtiers that seem to exist in a vacuum.

One of reasons why Adventures are great, is that they can be used as working examples of "how these things work" - Adventure can show you and teach you how to build a combat encounter, and it could also show you how to present your players a Riddle of Court. This allows you to provide a product in itself (Adventures are awesome entry points for new game masters), *and* even if you are not using adventure itself, it helps teach people how to do it themselves, and how it works in practice, without "wasting space" in core rulebook for lengthy examples.

What L5R lacks in it's current rulebook is good "If you want to play social game, these are things that are useful, here are few pointers that are non intuitive but really helpful, and if you want to make it more cutthroat/dramatic, you may consider this and this; for important scenes, it's good to do it in this and this way, while for smaller components of larger chain of events, its fine to accelerate it by doing this and this".

What annoys me is that while OK, core rulebook had to conserve space, supplements ignored this angle up until Imperial Archives, instead spending double digits number of pages on pretty pointless descriptions of spells that were already described

One of reasons why Adventures are great, is that they can be used as working examples of "how these things work" - Adventure can show you and teach you how to build a combat encounter, and it could also show you how to present your players a Riddle of Court. This allows you to provide a product in itself (Adventures are awesome entry points for new game masters), *and* even if you are not using adventure itself, it helps teach people how to do it themselves, and how it works in practice, without "wasting space" in core rulebook for lengthy examples.

What L5R lacks in it's current rulebook is good "If you want to play social game, these are things that are useful, here are few pointers that are non intuitive but really helpful, and if you want to make it more cutthroat/dramatic, you may consider this and this; for important scenes, it's good to do it in this and this way, while for smaller components of larger chain of events, its fine to accelerate it by doing this and this".

What annoys me is that while OK, core rulebook had to conserve space, supplements ignored this angle up until Imperial Archives, instead spending double digits number of pages on pretty pointless descriptions of spells that were already described

"Let us expound upon the spells of the Void, and examine the metaphysics and implications..."

I bring this up because as we're discussing the "social systems", there seems to be a certain derission and disdain from some parts towards the idea that some characters just would not do certain things unless they really were "mind controlled". IMO, it doesn't matter how well some Scorpion or Crane courtier rolls on their Skill or Technique, there are characters who just aren't going to do certain things -- it's just too out of character.

If I'm GMing, and a player says "Spider Joe is going to cut through the Carpenter Wall with a single swing of his mighty blade", then that's an impossible task, and no matter how well he rolls, he's going to fail. Why is it that some comments regading social interaction seem to scoff at the idea of an impossible task in that arena?

In physical combat, a character dies because they've been cut open with a steel blade or crushed by an oni's massive fist -- not because "the attacker rolled really well".

What if the mighty blade of Spider Joe is a Carpentar Wall Breaking Nemuranai? Haha, I'm joking!

I'll use your last part because I like it:

In social resolution, a character agrees with the decision because he's confronted with uncontestable facts or tricked by deceptions -- not because "the other courtier rolled really well".

Or

In social resolution, a character declare a duel to the other courtier because he's getting cornered by lies or backstabbed by his "allies" -- not because "the other courtier rolled really well".

How is that different from yours physical combat? Does "social resulution" should always result in: "These are not the droids you're looking for." Absolutly not. Like like you said with Spider Joe, if it's impossible, it's impossible. Like I said in the first one, the character that agree with the decision, it's like in real life. For example, you plan an activity for the day and you're ready to go, someone comes and says: "Aren't you forgetting to bring something to eat?" and you're like: "Oh, you're right!" which result you preparing food for your activity. Is that mind control? Not at all. Another example, you're arguing with someone on a L5R rule and then someone open up the book and shows what you're wrong with the actual rule. You'll change the way you're playing the rule or discuss on a way to change the rule because you hate it. Is that mind control? Not. It's the same thing. The roll represent these kind of things not some "Mystical Social Mind Bending Abilities".

If one of my player asks me: "I want to convince him to do X.". The first thing I ask isn't to roll his skill, but I ask him: "How do you intend to do it?". If the reason it: "I simply ask him.", unless the target already had motiviation to do X, he just won't do it and I won't even ask for a social roll. But if my player said: "I'll lie to him about Y to make him think that Z since he's in V emotional state, which would solve W problem if he does X ", then I'll ask for a few rolls. Will the result be: "the target do it?" It depends on the motivation and the streigth factor of V, W, Y and Z. Is that mind control? Nope, but the rolls would represent his actions.

I do agree that a character will never and should never do anything that he would NEVER do. Let's say that I have a character that would never attack his brother, no matter how evil his brother is. If that character would be into a social fight that would decide if he would have to fight him, in the situation where he lost, I would probably say that my character commits seppuku or fight along his brother instead of fighting him, because he would never do that.

I bring this up because as we're discussing the "social systems", there seems to be a certain derission and disdain from some parts towards the idea that some characters just would not do certain things unless they really were "mind controlled". IMO, it doesn't matter how well some Scorpion or Crane courtier rolls on their Skill or Technique, there are characters who just aren't going to do certain things -- it's just too out of character.

If I'm GMing, and a player says "Spider Joe is going to cut through the Carpenter Wall with a single swing of his mighty blade", then that's an impossible task, and no matter how well he rolls, he's going to fail. Why is it that some comments regading social interaction seem to scoff at the idea of an impossible task in that arena?

In physical combat, a character dies because they've been cut open with a steel blade or crushed by an oni's massive fist -- not because "the attacker rolled really well".

What if the mighty blade of Spider Joe is a Carpentar Wall Breaking Nemuranai? Haha, I'm joking!

I'll use your last part because I like it:

In social resolution, a character agrees with the decision because he's confronted with uncontestable facts or tricked by deceptions -- not because "the other courtier rolled really well".

Or

In social resolution, a character declare a duel to the other courtier because he's getting cornered by lies or backstabbed by his "allies" -- not because "the other courtier rolled really well".

How is that different from yours physical combat? Does "social resulution" should always result in: "These are not the droids you're looking for." Absolutly not. Like like you said with Spider Joe, if it's impossible, it's impossible. Like I said in the first one, the character that agree with the decision, it's like in real life. For example, you plan an activity for the day and you're ready to go, someone comes and says: "Aren't you forgetting to bring something to eat?" and you're like: "Oh, you're right!" which result you preparing food for your activity. Is that mind control? Not at all. Another example, you're arguing with someone on a L5R rule and then someone open up the book and shows what you're wrong with the actual rule. You'll change the way you're playing the rule or discuss on a way to change the rule because you hate it. Is that mind control? Not. It's the same thing. The roll represent these kind of things not some "Mystical Social Mind Bending Abilities".

If one of my player asks me: "I want to convince him to do X.". The first thing I ask isn't to roll his skill, but I ask him: "How do you intend to do it?". If the reason it: "I simply ask him.", unless the target already had motiviation to do X, he just won't do it and I won't even ask for a social roll. But if my player said: "I'll lie to him about Y to make him think that Z since he's in V emotional state, which would solve W problem if he does X ", then I'll ask for a few rolls. Will the result be: "the target do it?" It depends on the motivation and the streigth factor of V, W, Y and Z. Is that mind control? Nope, but the rolls would represent his actions.

I do agree that a character will never and should never do anything that he would NEVER do. Let's say that I have a character that would never attack his brother, no matter how evil his brother is. If that character would be into a social fight that would decide if he would have to fight him, in the situation where he lost, I would probably say that my character commits seppuku or fight along his brother instead of fighting him, because he would never do that.

It sounds like you're doing what should be done with social interactions -- what I want is something like that baked into the rules, so that you don't get the nonsense situations like "I roll to convince the emperor to give me the throne -- the skill descriptions say persuading someone is a single contested roll of X+A vs Y+B."

It sounds like you're doing what should be done with social interactions -- what I want is something like that baked into the rules, so that you don't get the nonsense situations like "I roll to convince the emperor to give me the throne -- the skill descriptions say persuading someone is a single contested roll of X+A vs Y+B."

I may be wrong about this, but I think there's a section in the Storyteller section of the corebook about this. If I get a player like that, I play with him and bring some rules to counter his action. What I would do in a situation like this? Unless he managed his way to get a position as the Emperor's Head Advisor, an action like this would simply fail, but if he still wants a roll, you can take the whole Emperor's advisor team into consideration because we all know that an Emperor always talks with advisors before taking any decision, than you'll bring the cooperative rolls to boost up the Emperor's roll to the point where the roll simply crush the player rolls.

As I said, if the player works hard to get the position of the Emperor's Head Advisor, this kind of roll may be possible, because he climbed up to perform such things and worked hard and proved himselves though lots of actions, wars, etc.

However, I feel like player that goes in this kind of situation simply want to troll your game or just don't know the real fun in playing a RPG. Last time I've had a player like this in a game, I've removed him from my game because my other players didn't have fun with him because he was more trolling than anything. I still say it's a storyteller jobs to manage with these stuffs. As you said, I'm doing what seems to be the right thing, do I really need the system to tell me that I'm doing it right? I don't feel like it. I prefer to come to forum and ask other's opinion if my idea is nice than having a book of 200 pounds filled with rules and "how to" with few or no setting information. That's my opinion of course and I like the way the current corebook is made because it has a lot of stuffs for the setting, of course, it's a small piece of the setting. When I look at corebook and I feel like there's few to none information besides rules in it, I simply ignore that RPG.

It sounds like you're doing what should be done with social interactions -- what I want is something like that baked into the rules, so that you don't get the nonsense situations like "I roll to convince the emperor to give me the throne -- the skill descriptions say persuading someone is a single contested roll of X+A vs Y+B."

I may be wrong about this, but I think there's a section in the Storyteller section of the corebook about this. If I get a player like that, I play with him and bring some rules to counter his action. What I would do in a situation like this? Unless he managed his way to get a position as the Emperor's Head Advisor, an action like this would simply fail, but if he still wants a roll, you can take the whole Emperor's advisor team into consideration because we all know that an Emperor always talks with advisors before taking any decision, than you'll bring the cooperative rolls to boost up the Emperor's roll to the point where the roll simply crush the player rolls.

As I said, if the player works hard to get the position of the Emperor's Head Advisor, this kind of roll may be possible, because he climbed up to perform such things and worked hard and proved himselves though lots of actions, wars, etc.

However, I feel like player that goes in this kind of situation simply want to troll your game or just don't know the real fun in playing a RPG. Last time I've had a player like this in a game, I've removed him from my game because my other players didn't have fun with him because he was more trolling than anything. I still say it's a storyteller jobs to manage with these stuffs. As you said, I'm doing what seems to be the right thing, do I really need the system to tell me that I'm doing it right? I don't feel like it. I prefer to come to forum and ask other's opinion if my idea is nice than having a book of 200 pounds filled with rules and "how to" with few or no setting information. That's my opinion of course and I like the way the current corebook is made because it has a lot of stuffs for the setting, of course, it's a small piece of the setting. When I look at corebook and I feel like there's few to none information besides rules in it, I simply ignore that RPG.

I'm not really suggesting an entire chapter on the subject, just a page or two to tie together social interaction in the way that combat is tied together by more than reading through the weapons skills individually. (Again, not to suggest that social interacting be modeled on the combat system.)

(Also, combat could be a little more organized and less scattered... for example, to really understand using two weapons, you have to read sections scattered all over the book in combat, in skills, and in a Clan school.)

I'm not really suggesting an entire chapter on the subject, just a page or two to tie together social interaction in the way that combat is tied together by more than reading through the weapons skills individually. (Again, not to suggest that social interacting be modeled on the combat system.)

(Also, combat could be a little more organized and less scattered... for example, to really understand using two weapons, you have to read sections scattered all over the book in combat, in skills, and in a Clan school.)

I'm with you 100% about the information being scattered! I have to say that is a real pain sometime specially when you look for a rule that you read and you have to look everywhere in the book to find it and it's in a wierd spot.

It sounds like you're doing what should be done with social interactions -- what I want is something like that baked into the rules, so that you don't get the nonsense situations like "I roll to convince the emperor to give me the throne -- the skill descriptions say persuading someone is a single contested roll of X+A vs Y+B."

I may be wrong about this, but I think there's a section in the Storyteller section of the corebook about this. If I get a player like that, I play with him and bring some rules to counter his action. What I would do in a situation like this? Unless he managed his way to get a position as the Emperor's Head Advisor, an action like this would simply fail, but if he still wants a roll, you can take the whole Emperor's advisor team into consideration because we all know that an Emperor always talks with advisors before taking any decision, than you'll bring the cooperative rolls to boost up the Emperor's roll to the point where the roll simply crush the player rolls.

As I said, if the player works hard to get the position of the Emperor's Head Advisor, this kind of roll may be possible, because he climbed up to perform such things and worked hard and proved himselves though lots of actions, wars, etc.

However, I feel like player that goes in this kind of situation simply want to troll your game or just don't know the real fun in playing a RPG. Last time I've had a player like this in a game, I've removed him from my game because my other players didn't have fun with him because he was more trolling than anything. I still say it's a storyteller jobs to manage with these stuffs. As you said, I'm doing what seems to be the right thing, do I really need the system to tell me that I'm doing it right? I don't feel like it. I prefer to come to forum and ask other's opinion if my idea is nice than having a book of 200 pounds filled with rules and "how to" with few or no setting information. That's my opinion of course and I like the way the current corebook is made because it has a lot of stuffs for the setting, of course, it's a small piece of the setting. When I look at corebook and I feel like there's few to none information besides rules in it, I simply ignore that RPG.

I'm not really suggesting an entire chapter on the subject, just a page or two to tie together social interaction in the way that combat is tied together by more than reading through the weapons skills individually. (Again, not to suggest that social interacting be modeled on the combat system.)

(Also, combat could be a little more organized and less scattered... for example, to really understand using two weapons, you have to read sections scattered all over the book in combat, in skills, and in a Clan school.)

Ah one or tow pages is hardly enough to get a good detailed mechnic for the social setting and all things which are conected to it. I think you get to far better results with 1 pbook which is entirely devoted to the political sphere of Rokugan and its various situations. For the social setting it is important to know that you have to behave different on an Imperial court than on a provincial court.

Yes some bits of imformations are out there but I think this should be really focused in a book and should be underlayed by various dice based mechanics.

If you want to make this easy you could look at the combat systems and go for small court rules, dais and audience rules, political competitions and how to get and handle favors.

All these where never put into real mechnical rules and therefore people can mess with it, whcich can be very frustrating when I concider things like Winter Court or other offcial or

Semi offiical Games.

Therefore atleast a chapter which is onyl dealing with this is clearly needed if you don´t want to go the best way which is writting a source book about it.

Also just to note I think the corebook should deal with all mechanics which are necassary to play each aspect of the game and than if room is left deal with the setting and not the other way arround. The reason is that what you need to play the game are the rules and mechnics and not some tales about battles and clans. This can come with a background book but in books which introduce new rules the rules should be the focus and not the setting.

Before you sell a suplement, you need a corebook. Corebook is the single most critical book in each rpg line. Banking on supplements to cover basic areas of play is sloppy design. Terrible corebook will kill a line, even if supplements are promised to be awesome.

Also just to note I think the corebook should deal with all mechanics which are necassary to play each aspect of the game and than if room is left deal with the setting and not the other way arround. The reason is that what you need to play the game are the rules and mechnics and not some tales about battles and clans. This can come with a background book but in books which introduce new rules the rules should be the focus and not the setting.

This is for you. On my side, I read the setting then I look at the rules and mechanics of the game. This is also why some people have trouble to use the rules to fit the setting because they focus on the rules and mechanics more than the setting.

I'll take the example I've pick in another post. Let's say you have a corebook with little to no setting information and there's the Lion Deathseeker. You run a game with a player running it and then, the "setting book" includes the fluff for the Lion Deathseeker. What a clash... I don't think this is how RPG should go... Also, producing more books as corebooks isn't always a good idea, specially when the player base isn't as big as other systems, you'll turn new comers away. The way the 4th edition corebook was made is very nice, with a few flaws, but including the most important stuffs for the setting and most of the rules, it's the way I think a corebook should be.

I think that 1 to 5 pages is more than enough for this. I also suggested a "Mass Combat version" for handling a court. Some already suggested some Social Combat mechanics, which didn't take too many places. You don't have to include the whole social system in the corebook, just the minimal, then in a supplement, you include more complex way to solve them.

Let's not forget, sometime, the simplier the better... A lot of RPG groups stick to the corebook because it's enough rules and they don't want to be overwhelmed with tons of rules.

It sounds like you're doing what should be done with social interactions -- what I want is something like that baked into the rules, so that you don't get the nonsense situations like "I roll to convince the emperor to give me the throne -- the skill descriptions say persuading someone is a single contested roll of X+A vs Y+B."

I don't get how you say you want this, and you want social interactions to be much more than a single roll, but you abhor a "social combat system". Because, like, that's what a social combat system is: the codified system, baked into the rules, of how these things work. And, like, when you want it to be more than one roll to do it... ultimately, the system you have for how many rolls it does take, is going to be some manner of "social health bar".

Before you sell a suplement, you need a corebook. Corebook is the single most critical book in each rpg line. Banking on supplements to cover basic areas of play is sloppy design. Terrible corebook will kill a line, even if supplements are promised to be awesome.

Well, you were the one who brought up 1st ed Mage: the Awakening, and for all the problems you identified with how the rules didn't support what the game thought it was about, the core book was even worse at CONVEYING what it was about and what you were even supposed to be doing. But people really liked the supplements for it.

Because MTA was successful despite these shortcomings; it covered otherc critical areas well enough to keep people interested, especially it's whole "how to play a Mage" thing . Note that Onyx Path Publishing "gave up" and is operating solely on Print on Demand Model; no more World of Darkness books hitting shelves of stores...anywhere.

Also notice that "people liked supplements" doesn't necessarily means "supplements were successful"; you can have a really good book that won't sell well due to bad marketing politics, large delay between releases, or core rulebook failing to catch interest.

Before you sell a suplement, you need a corebook. Corebook is the single most critical book in each rpg line. Banking on supplements to cover basic areas of play is sloppy design. Terrible corebook will kill a line, even if supplements are promised to be awesome.

Absolutely true.

And again, the corebook doesn't have to cover how to play out every single social scenario in painful detail, any more than it has to say "if three Bushi simultaneously attempt to fight each other over a perceived slight at a crossroads, here's how you handle it".

There needs to be skeleton for social interplay established and laid out, right there in the core book, both for Coutier Techniques to work within, and for a later sourcebook to build on.

It sounds like you're doing what should be done with social interactions -- what I want is something like that baked into the rules, so that you don't get the nonsense situations like "I roll to convince the emperor to give me the throne -- the skill descriptions say persuading someone is a single contested roll of X+A vs Y+B."

I don't get how you say you want this, and you want social interactions to be much more than a single roll, but you abhor a "social combat system". Because, like, that's what a social combat system is: the codified system, baked into the rules, of how these things work. And, like, when you want it to be more than one roll to do it... ultimately, the system you have for how many rolls it does take, is going to be some manner of "social health bar".

For starters, I think "combat" is an abjectly terrible model or methodology for a social interaction system, and even using an entirely different model while just calling it "social combat" is going to lead players to a mistaken understanding. "Combat" implies that all interactions are hostile, based on dominance, manipulation, and win-lose outcomes.

Sounds pretty much like social life of humans for me .

For starters, I think "combat" is an abjectly terrible model or methodology for a social interaction system, and even using an entirely different model while just calling it "social combat" is going to lead players to a mistaken understanding. "Combat" implies that all interactions are hostile, based on dominance, manipulation, and win-lose outcomes.

There's win-lose outcomes because you enter the conflict with differing goals. "Social combat" is about making things that you want to happen, happen, while interacting with people that start out not wanting those things to happen. If you get the thing you wanted, you win. If you don't get the thing you wanted, you lose.

If there are no differing goals at all, you don't need "social combat" or any sort of system to model it anyway -- you're already aligned! You don't need to roll to convince people to do things they already wanted to do.

Sounds pretty much like social life of humans for me .

My own cynicism aside, I'd say that many human interactions end up as fair trades (something is sold, both people agree it was an equitable exchange, both get enough of what they wanted to not feel cheated), win-win situations (a good friendship or romance), etc.

For starters, I think "combat" is an abjectly terrible model or methodology for a social interaction system, and even using an entirely different model while just calling it "social combat" is going to lead players to a mistaken understanding. "Combat" implies that all interactions are hostile, based on dominance, manipulation, and win-lose outcomes.

There's win-lose outcomes because you enter the conflict with differing goals. "Social combat" is about making things that you want to happen, happen, while interacting with people that start out not wanting those things to happen. If you get the thing you wanted, you win. If you don't get the thing you wanted, you lose.

If there are no differing goals at all, you don't need "social combat" or any sort of system to model it anyway -- you're already aligned! You don't need to roll to convince people to do things they already wanted to do.

There's a huge grey area of things that people are willing to do for the right exchange, or "didn't realize" they wanted to do, or where one party starts out neutral and just needs to be convinced that it's to their advantage or offered the opportunity.

Example -- I've watched a real-life romance play out slowly, wherein both people started out interested in each other, but each had to convince the other that the relationship was a good idea while not being able or willing to just show all their cards and say "I'm interested in you" because they'd both been burned by terrible relationships previously.

They both wanted a relationship with the other, they both won in the end, but it was a hell of a dance they had to go through just to get to where they both wanted to be.

Wow, totally missed this thread.

I'm gonna post something here for discussion, that I wrote some 4 years ago for an online game. As far as I can recall, it ended up not being used - but we were trying to tackle this very same problem: how to handle complaints and discussions around Social rolls? My approach was to see it somewhat as a combat (like previous posters have), but instead of a skirmish of sorts I chose to apply the model of a duel. As the folks chose not to use it, I ended up leaving it largely unfinished and didn't delve on social situations with multiple participants

Still, food for thought.

-------

Social Skills and You

Simple Social Situations

Situations where the simple applications of a skill applies, without the defender resisting, or doing so by simply countering the attacker with the Etiquette skill.

Examples:

• Seducing someone, who is trying to politely decline/resist (Temptation/Awareness vs Etiquette/Awareness)
• Intimidating someone, who is refusing to be so via bravado/not believing the 'attacker' (Intimidation/Awareness vs Etiquette/Willpower)
• Manipulating someone into helping you, with the target trying to see through your ploy (Courtier/Awareness vs Etiquette/Awareness)

• Resolving Simple Social Situations

As mentioned, simply apply the Skill that best represents what your character is trying to accomplish. The player of the character taking the "offensive" action checks the table below to know how many Raises he needs to call on his roll:

• 3 Free raises - Target is your best friend/strongest ally or madly in love with you, AND your clans are currently allies.
• 2 Free Raises - Target is your close friend, a strong ally, or romantic interest
• 1 Free Raise - Target is fond of you
• 0 Called Raises - Target has no special feelings for you.
• 1 Called Raises - Target seriously dislikes you
• 2 Called Raises - Target seriously hates you or is your Nemesis/Sworn Enemy
• 3 Called Raises - Target is your Nemesis or Sworn Enemy AND your clans are currently in conflict

Complex Social Situations

When there is a discussion, where the two opponents are both trying to influence the other and/or gain their support for themselves. Also, any social situation where a non-social skill is being used.

Examples:

• Two characters discussing a philosophical matter
• Two characters discussing the deeds of their ancestors
• Two characters trying to seduce each other (to
• A character using their knowledge of Lore: History to prove another character's argument wrong
• Two characters trying to manipulate each other: one using intimidation tactics, the other resorting to more polite tactics

• Resolving Complex Social Situations - SOCIAL DUELS

What is a Social Duel? A Social Duel is a system to both the standard negotiations and debates but can also be used for seduction, interrogation, provocation/taunting, or any other social situation the players wish to resolve with this system.

• Step 1: Goal

Before the duel, the players must determine their character's Goal and how will they achieve it.
The Skill that the character will use, as well as any Emphases, must be appropriate to the nature of this Goal. Only after all players (and GMs, if any) have agreed to these will they proceed to the next step. Once this decided, both players roll Etiquette/Awareness, to represent their characters initiating their discussion in a polite and civil manner. If a character wins this roll by 5 or more, he gains a FR during the Argumentation Step.

Example: Mickey and Minnie's characters are having a discussion IC and they decide to use the Social Duel system. Mickey's character wishes to convince Minnie's that the ends always justify the means, while she wishes to convince him otherwise. Mickey opts to use his character's Tempation to point out the hidden and seductive advantages in choosing such course of action. Minnie will use her character's knowledge of the Lore: History skill to prove that such is not always the best course of action

• Step 2: Argumentation

The participants begin to discuss their ideas and building up their arguments. The players make a Contested roll using their chosen Skill (as determined in Step 1) and using the appropriate Trait as indicated in the skill's description (this overrides Skill Substitution Techniques). Characters using the Courtier skill may apply the Rhetoric emphasis to this roll. The character that wins the roll by 5 or more earns the right to make his Delivery first and gains a Free Raise toward his Delivery roll for every increment of 5 by which he beat his opponent’s roll. If no one wins the roll by a difference of 5 or more, the Social Duel is considered a tie: the characters find themselves in a stalemate, with none achieving their Goal.

Example: Minnie and Mickey's character came to the maneuvering phase, having decided to use Lore:History and Temptation to say the opposing character. Minnie rolls Intelligence/Lore: History and Mickey rolls his Awareness/Temptation.

• Step 3: Delivery

The participants make their final arguments, hoping to sway the other to meet their Goal. The participant who won the Argumentation rolls their chosen Social Skill, keeping Awareness. Characters using the Courtier skill may apply the Manipulation emphasis to this roll. This is against a TN equal to 5 plus their opponent's Rolled Trait x 5. If the participant is using Intimidation or Temptation, this TN is increased by their opponents Honor rank. If the first participant's Delivery succeed, then the Social Duel ends and the winner attains their Objective. If the first Delivery failed, however, then the second contestant may attempt to make their own Delivery. Succeeding in this final step grants the winner their Objective. The loser must concede and roleplay the consequences.

• Optional Rules

1. If you won the roll at the Step 1, you may choose not to take advantage of your FR during the Argumentation Step and instead gain 1 point of Honor.
2. For extra participants (assistants), the Cooperative rolls rules can be applied.

Also just to note I think the corebook should deal with all mechanics which are necassary to play each aspect of the game and than if room is left deal with the setting and not the other way arround. The reason is that what you need to play the game are the rules and mechnics and not some tales about battles and clans. This can come with a background book but in books which introduce new rules the rules should be the focus and not the setting.

This is for you. On my side, I read the setting then I look at the rules and mechanics of the game.

I'm the same way. You can have the most amazing dice mechanics in the world and a really wonderful streamlined combat system that makes things exciting but also tactical and shines your shoes while you're killing bad guys -- but when I ask myself "do I want to play this game?," my angle of approach is to try to think of a story I'd like to tell or a character I'd like to play. Which means looking at what kind of world the game is designed to create, what genre of narrative it aims to create.

Mind you, there's room for both kinds. To oversimplify hugely, L5R is a world with some rules provided for telling stories in it, while something like d20 or GURPS is a set of rules you can apply to different worlds. Other games fall on a spectrum in between (or further toward the ends). For a "universalist" system, the mechanics are what matters, and setting is an optional thing best left to supplements. But L5R isn't that kind of game, and never will be, so it needs much more about setting right out of the gate.

I agree that the core book should provide the basic rules necessary for playing the game: don't give me combat rules and then say "we'll explain spellcasting in a later supplement," because then I can't play a shugenja. But there are lots of little modular additions that don't have to be in the core book, if they take the focus too much away from the basics of both setting and mechanics: kata, kiho, dueling, Mass Battle, alternate paths, advanced schools, basically anything that's a variation on or non-load-bearing addition to the standard setup. I would rather have seen Mass Battle left for an early supplement in order to make room for a better explanation of social mechanics, because the latter is the equivalent of explaining what to do with your bushi in daily life, while the former is a special case that will not apply to all campaigns or character types.

Sounds pretty much like social life of humans for me .

My own cynicism aside, I'd say that many human interactions end up as fair trades (something is sold, both people agree it was an equitable exchange, both get enough of what they wanted to not feel cheated), win-win situations (a good friendship or romance), etc.

For starters, I think "combat" is an abjectly terrible model or methodology for a social interaction system, and even using an entirely different model while just calling it "social combat" is going to lead players to a mistaken understanding. "Combat" implies that all interactions are hostile, based on dominance, manipulation, and win-lose outcomes.

There's win-lose outcomes because you enter the conflict with differing goals. "Social combat" is about making things that you want to happen, happen, while interacting with people that start out not wanting those things to happen. If you get the thing you wanted, you win. If you don't get the thing you wanted, you lose.

If there are no differing goals at all, you don't need "social combat" or any sort of system to model it anyway -- you're already aligned! You don't need to roll to convince people to do things they already wanted to do.

There's a huge grey area of things that people are willing to do for the right exchange, or "didn't realize" they wanted to do, or where one party starts out neutral and just needs to be convinced that it's to their advantage or offered the opportunity.

Example -- I've watched a real-life romance play out slowly, wherein both people started out interested in each other, but each had to convince the other that the relationship was a good idea while not being able or willing to just show all their cards and say "I'm interested in you" because they'd both been burned by terrible relationships previously.

They both wanted a relationship with the other, they both won in the end, but it was a hell of a dance they had to go through just to get to where they both wanted to be.

I think that "convincing people who are initially neutral that something is a good idea" falls well within the boundaries of a social combat system as I just described it. Getting someone's goals to align with your own is an opposed challenge. Someone who is bad at it will not be able to accomplish it as well as someone who is good at it. A social combat system outlines how that happens. Not every interaction has to be belligerent; I think that's just your own baggage you're adding.

It's the free set of baggage that comes with the word " combat ".

Would using 'Social Encounters' help in preventing split hairs?

I had a proposal about this on the old boards, but I took it further. A skirmish involves a small number of people and lasts for a minute at most; if you're talking about lots of people doing something over a period of hours, you use Mass Battle. Similarly, a conversation is a small number of people in a short period of time; if you're looking at large groups of courtiers wheeling and dealing over a period of days, I think you need something modeled on the Mass Battle rules, not the skirmish rules. Very short version of what I proposed is that there would be a Politics skill (comparable to Battle), a "commander" (the courtier in charge of whatever large-scale thing is happening -- a trade negotiation or whatever), and "heroic opportunities" would be scenes in which a PC has some kind of potentially useful interaction with an NPC (e.g. flattering them with a poem or intimidating them into backing down on a certain point or whatever). For Court-level maneuvering, I feel like that's a better model than the moment-to-moment detail of skirmish/conversation.

Hi Kinzen!

I remember that thread on the old AEG forums and I finally came to like your idea of a Politics skill and Politics "mass battle" as long term intrigue/court...but than this whole AEG forum disaster happened!

That thread was great, I was starting liking the mechanics you were proposing (although maybe some refinement was due) and I liked also the replies of the other ones suggesting ideas for "heroic opportunities".

Did you save that?

Do you have any mean to paste that stuff here?

Thanks a lot in advance.

I've got the gist of it, and am considering just making a webpage with all my homebrew stuff. But that may wait until my stupidly over-ambitious redesign of social stuff is ready to go. :-)