I am very frustrated about the lack of guidelines for running Social Encounters!?! The only information we have is that (1) Initiative is based on Fellowship, (2) Action Cards can be played, and (3) a loosely structured example is provide in "A day late, a shilling short".

How is the sequence of play?

Why are there no basic social action cards with standard actions with a recharge rate of 0 such as "Bargain", "Convince", "Impress", "Seduce", "Provoke" etc.?

What does it mean to Influence a target and is the effect different from the effect of a successful Charm, Guile or Intimidate check?

Does social Action Cards really matter?

Are skill checks social actions?

If skill checks are manoeuvres, how many can you attempt per round?

What other social manoeuvres can you attempt?

How do we best promote discussions, debates and disputes between players and NPCs, while we also have to play Action Cards and roll skill checks in a turn-based order?

I don't understand why we are not given a Social Encounter Sequence like the Combat Sequence (rulebook, p. 57-61). I believe it would have been much easier, if characters have "social strenght", "social toughness" and "social hit points" and chosen an agenda (not necessarily known to the GM) for what they try to obtain by engaging in a specific social encounter. I am just thinking laud here...

Hopefully, a future supplement will put some structure on Social Encounters because at present Chaos has won!

There are many RPG gamers who'd balk at a structured social conflict mechanic, so I can understand the reluctance by designers to deviate too much from a freeform approach. But I do see your point; once you've introduced a certain amount of structure, you might as well go all the way.

I've had to hack this... a lot to make it work for my group. They really need to come out with clearer guidelines for social encounters. Coming from a background of FATE, PDQ, and Burning Wheel this is a definite 'hole' in the current system. I'm hoping they help us out soon since I can't get the guys (and gals) to go back to winging it.

I've been working on a more formal social combat system, pulling from Burning Wheel, with a touch of the debate rules from Requiem for Rome. I'll post it once I have it better fleshed out.

I agree there needs to be greater clarity, and you've outlined some of the really core questions that need to be answered. I'd love to see this element clarified.

For myself, the vast majority of interactions (with merchants, guards, etc.) are handled with a single check (sometimes opposed), with degrees of success indicating how successful you are.

Anything that requires you to "influence" an NPC (i.e. you have to convince them to take action, they are motivated to not divulge something, coming to a hard bargain on something critical to the plot, etc.) is when we dip down into the "social combat" so to speak. I like to switch in and out of the free-form social encounters based on the scene (i.e. I don't want every social encounter to devolve into social combat).

Presently, I only allow one check per character; you either use a base skill or an action card. Results for base skills are something like:

1 success = +1 fortune to allies next check

2 successes = successfully influence the target

2 Boons = +1 fortune to your next check

2 Banes = +1 misfortune to allies next check

Chaos star = NPC regains 1 cunning.

I break it out that way because the social action cards typically have 1 success=influence, which thus makes them more valuable and worthwhile in these sorts of engagements (separate from the basic checks). Though I believe the rules specifically mention these basic checks equate to maneuvers, thus they operate in addition to the action card use (to perhaps modify the action card roll). However, since there are no basic social actions that everyone has, that just raises more questions.

You still have to define what "influence means." Most often for me in these larger encounters, a simple tracker is setup and influence means moving the marker 1 step per influence.

Excellent post, HedgeWizard. This is pretty much exactly what I planned to use until we get some greater clarification.

Why are there no basic social action cards with standard actions with a recharge rate of 0 such as "Bargain", "Convince", "Impress", "Seduce", "Provoke" etc.?

Because they can easily be included under the "Perform a Stunt" Basic action card.

What does it mean to Influence a target and is the effect different from the effect of a successful Charm, Guile or Intimidate check?

It depends on how you as the GM are running the Encounter. If you are using a track for how well disposed the NPC is to the group, Influence usually means to advance the track marker.Charm, Guile, or Intimidate may or may not advance the marker. More often, they provide bonuses to subsequent social rolls that do influence the NPC.

Does social Action Cards really matter?

It depends on what effect the PC is looking for. Yes, they can produce quite significant results over a simple skill check.

Are skill checks social actions?

They can be, I think. I'm a bit fuzzy right now. I suggest looking up how first aid during combat works, whether it uses a maneuver or an action. I think it might be a maneuver, though. Of course, in the end it's always entirely up the the GM's desire.

If skill checks are manoeuvres, how many can you attempt per round?

GM perogative, as with a lot of WFRP 3e. I'd personally only allow 1 skill check. They can do other manuevers, such as movement, etc.

What other social manoeuvres can you attempt?

Whatever the PCs can think of, really, that fits as a maneuver rather than as an action. Lighting a pipe, for example, would be a social maneuver. Sitting down in a chair, or standing up from a chair, is a social maneuver, etc.

How do we best promote discussions, debates and disputes between players and NPCs, while we also have to play Action Cards and roll skill checks in a turn-based order?

It depends on your group and how they play, and how you GM. Personally, I ask the active player for a brief "what do you say" and if they are using any skills or actions to accompany it. They roll, I give a short response on the results, then move to the next person in initiative.

I don't understand why we are not given a Social Encounter Sequence like the Combat Sequence (rulebook, p. 57-61).

I'm not sure what you mean. Social Encounters do have a sequence exactly like combat.
Roll Init
PCs and NPCs act in order of Init, including deciding which PC/NPC acts when.
PC/NPC uses skill/social action. Results are handled (usually adjusting an influence track)
Next PC/NPC in init order acts.
etc.
I don't know really what you're looking for. The (usual) objective of Social Encounters is to reach a certain level of 'influence' with an NPC. Bascially, you have a track laid out for the encounter, possibly having special spots on the track where 'sub-events' happen, or sometimes just a straight one with an end. The ultimate goal is for the PCs to get their marker to the end of the track, although often tracks have smaller (and increasing) points of success. You could also have a tug-of-war type track, although that risks a stalemate.

For example, the Emporer's Decree Social Encounter. The point was to convince the merchant to let them in the coach and give them the box. For the end (second) event Klaus gives the package freely to the PC. There is also an earlier first event space, where the PCs have convinced Klaus to let them in the coach, where they have a better chance of actually seeing where the package is being kept. Should Klaus's marker get to the end of the track first, he gives a take-it-or-leave-it position that he cannot be swayed from. So, while the PCs might not have gotten to the end first, if they reached the first event space and got in the coach, they might have seen where the package is. If this is the case, more unscrupulous PCs could still obtain the package without giving in to Klaus' demands by attacking him and taking the package by force (since they know where it is).

HedgeWizard said:

hedge,

I think your on to something. I'd like to see you write up a whole social encounter using this system just to read it.

Hedge posted his rules on another thread awhile back, and I've used a modified system of them for my own game. It works great!

Thanks for your answers, Dvang! I will like to make a few replies below.

Why are there no basic social action cards with standard actions with a recharge rate of 0 such as "Bargain", "Convince", "Impress", "Seduce", "Provoke" etc.?

Because they can easily be included under the "Perform a Stunt" Basic action card.

A: There are a couple of reasons why "Perform a Stunt" cannot replace basic social Action Cards. First of all, the descriptions on the card and in the rulebook say that the card is used to apply a skill in an unusual, dramatic or story-driven way - when the players engage in a very important social conflict, it is not necessarily very dramatic and stunt-ish; Second, "Perform a Stunt" doesn't have the Social trait, so it doesn't interacts with many other social Action Cards.

What does it mean to Influence a target and is the effect different from the effect of a successful Charm, Guile or Intimidate check?

It depends on how you as the GM are running the Encounter. If you are using a track for how well disposed the NPC is to the group, Influence usually means to advance the track marker.Charm, Guile, or Intimidate may or may not advance the marker. More often, they provide bonuses to subsequent social rolls that do influence the NPC.

A: I cannot find anywhere in the rulebooks where guidelines for how Influence by Action Card works and how it relates to the effects of skill checks. I can of course make up some rules myself based on how it works in other RPGs, but to me it is not clear how it works in this game. Is the "social damage" on the opponent the same from a successful "attack" by a PC with Fel 5 as it is from a PC with Fel 2, or am I supposed to make my own rules here? On page 60 there is a list of guidelines for Combat Modifiers - why isn't there a similar list of guidelines for social encounters? Again, I can make my own or get a list from other RPGs.

Does social Action Cards really matter?

It depends on what effect the PC is looking for. Yes, they can produce quite significant results over a simple skill check.

A: Can they? It is really difficult for the players to see whether they really have an effect as there are no visual "social damage". Also, many social Action Cards provide an advantage to that players other Action Cards with social traits, but the social Action Cards are often very situational, so a player rarely have more than one or two that can be used in a given encounter.

Are skill checks social actions?

They can be, I think. I'm a bit fuzzy right now. I suggest looking up how first aid during combat works, whether it uses a maneuver or an action. I think it might be a maneuver, though. Of course, in the end it's always entirely up the the GM's desire.

A: Nowhere in the rulebooks does it say anything about normal skill checks as being played as "Action Cards" or having the social trait. On the contrary, on page 52 it says " Use a skill . As a manoeuvre, a character can use a skill to perform its normal function" and first aid is a manoeuvre.

If skill checks are manoeuvres, how many can you attempt per round?

GM perogative, as with a lot of WFRP 3e. I'd personally only allow 1 skill check. They can do other manuevers, such as movement, etc.

A: Nowhere in the rulebooks does it state that only 1 skill check is allowed per round. Again, is the GM supposed to make his own rules on something as fundamental as this?

What other social manoeuvres can you attempt?

Whatever the PCs can think of, really, that fits as a maneuver rather than as an action. Lighting a pipe, for example, would be a social maneuver. Sitting down in a chair, or standing up from a chair, is a social maneuver, etc.

How do we best promote discussions, debates and disputes between players and NPCs, while we also have to play Action Cards and roll skill checks in a turn-based order?

It depends on your group and how they play, and how you GM. Personally, I ask the active player for a brief "what do you say" and if they are using any skills or actions to accompany it. They roll, I give a short response on the results, then move to the next person in initiative.

A: This is what I really dislike!!! An important social encounter with intrigue, deception, persuasion, cunning and convincing attempts should give a heated and exciting dialogue where the players have to think fast. It shouldn't be "what do you say" - charm check - "what do you say" - charm check .... Therefore, the roleplaying debate of that round should in my opinion be a dialogue between the GM and all players. Then, they should be given Fortune and Misfortune dice based on there preformance and the Action Card they have chosen for that round. Then, all players and the GM should make their dice rolls in initiative order. Then, next round begins if noone has yielded. Exciting social encounters have good arguments and fast thinking and should allow all players to participate.

I don't understand why we are not given a Social Encounter Sequence like the Combat Sequence (rulebook, p. 57-61).

I'm not sure what you mean. Social Encounters do have a sequence exactly like combat.
Roll Init
PCs and NPCs act in order of Init, including deciding which PC/NPC acts when.
PC/NPC uses skill/social action. Results are handled (usually adjusting an influence track)
Next PC/NPC in init order acts.
etc.
I don't know really what you're looking for. The (usual) objective of Social Encounters is to reach a certain level of 'influence' with an NPC. Bascially, you have a track laid out for the encounter, possibly having special spots on the track where 'sub-events' happen, or sometimes just a straight one with an end. The ultimate goal is for the PCs to get their marker to the end of the track, although often tracks have smaller (and increasing) points of success. You could also have a tug-of-war type track, although that risks a stalemate.

For example, the Emporer's Decree Social Encounter. The point was to convince the merchant to let them in the coach and give them the box. For the end (second) event Klaus gives the package freely to the PC. There is also an earlier first event space, where the PCs have convinced Klaus to let them in the coach, where they have a better chance of actually seeing where the package is being kept. Should Klaus's marker get to the end of the track first, he gives a take-it-or-leave-it position that he cannot be swayed from. So, while the PCs might not have gotten to the end first, if they reached the first event space and got in the coach, they might have seen where the package is. If this is the case, more unscrupulous PCs could still obtain the package without giving in to Klaus' demands by attacking him and taking the package by force (since they know where it is).

A: Based on the arguments above I don't believe that social encounters should follow the same one-player-in-focus-at-a-time sequence, which works fine for combat but ruins good social encounters.

- Some of those actions are normally skill checks, not actions, by the way. So they might not fall under Perform a Stunt. The Perform a Stunt card is, regardless of the fluff, made to cover any Actions (whether social or not) that don't have an action card for them. If a PC wants to "Seduce" as an action, rather than "Charm" as a skill check, then I would use the "Perform a Stunt" action card. As a GM, I'd happily give a temporary 'Social' trait to the Perform a Stunt card if the PC was using it for a Social Action. It just doesn't list Social on the card, because the card *can* be used for non-Social action purposes.

- Why do you need "social damage" to gauge the effects of cards? If you want PCs to see how well their social skills are working, and don't want to roleplay the effects, then make the Influence track available for the players to see. When they use their action card and get a success that influences the NPC, they can see you move the marker on the influence track. Also, keep in mind that the Social actions provide, by the very description on their cards, the concept of the results of the card. One social card one of my players has, (Twisting Words, I think it's called) if successful, forces the target to somehow embarass themselves when they're talking. There's no "social damage" to this, although it can make a significant impact to the roleplaying of the situation. If the conversation happens in front of the king (or someone important) for example, this could have serious reprecussions later in the story or to the influence of that NPC on other NPCs. Say the target admits (or his words get twisted so he seems to admit) infidelity, or a dislike of the important person, or that they have knowledge of a Chaos cult, etc. That's roleplaying material far beyond what a normal intimidate/charm/etc skill check will provide.

- Yep, most skill checks are maneuvers as I thought. However, as I pointed out above. If a player doesn't want to just Charm an NPC, but wants to specifically Seduce the NPC, I see no problem making that a Social Action requiring an opposed Fel(Charm) vs Discipline check, or somesuch, and use Perform a Stunt as the basis of the action. WFRP3e is designed to be played this way.

- A: Nowhere in the rulebooks does it state that only 1 skill check is allowed per round. Again, is the GM supposed to make his own rules on something as fundamental as this? Yes, pretty much, although I wouldn't say 'make his own rules' per se. Technically, a player could suffer a lot of fatigue and perform multiple skill checks in their turn. There really isn't anything too wrong with that, I suppose. I just suggested that I would limit it to one skill check. WFRP3e is more about the story and the adventure, than about the rules. The GMs are expected to tweak and change things to fit their group's playstyle and likes/dislikes, and in order to further the story while keeping the game fun to play.

- You certainly can run a Social Encounter like that if you like ... however I am confused. First you 'complain' about there not being enough structure to the Social Encounter Sequence, and once explained then now talk about how constrictive it is and give an example of a truly chaotic argument social encounter situation as what you desire. Those are quite coutner to each other. The important thing to take away from the sequence is that certain actions and skill checks take place in a certain order, so it isn't necessarily a matter of slapjack (ie, he who slaps his action card on the table while talking before everyone else gets to do their action first). What you seem to be talking about is not a Social Encounter at all. It is a Social situation, but has not devolved into an actual Social Encounter. This is fully supported in the rules. A social situation becomes a Social Encounter when the order of who plays what social cards matters and needs to be balanced for play. Just like there are sometimes situations where a PC can attack an NPC without resorting to an actual combat with initiative, rounds, etc. If you don't want to place an order on Social action cards, and have PCs/NPCs play as they need it, then do so and don't worry about making the situation a Social Encounter. If there is verbal sparring, with participants alternating speaking (as usually happens with a debate/argument barring the occasional talk-over), then a more structured Social Encounter setup is favored so all participants, for the most part, get an equal share of "time".

For a rule of guidance during social encounter (not every scene with social interactions), my GM's call is to require a number of influence equal to the NPC's FELLOWSHIP to win the encounter. I make them roll opposed FEL checks (see p.58 rulebook to set the difficulty), backboned by a good roleplay (adapted to the PC's capacities, not every character is chatty)

I usually build a tracker with two tokens : one counting PC's successes and one counting PC's failures + NPC's successes.

Sometimes I use Willpower (intimidation) or Intelligence (pure debate), but I prefer to keep FEL as THE major characteristic during social encounter to make it a Super-chara as the other are.

willmanx said:

That's a nice little guidline that I hadn't thought of. I think I'll be using that.

willmanx said:

I like the use of the Fel threshold, though I would will likely use WP as the characteristic if the NPC is opposed to their actions.

I have been noodling something fairly formal or involved but still quick by cribbing from Green Ronin's ASOIF (Game of Thrones) RPG. There, your disposition towards the target, and theirs towards you, modifies the encounter. They also have a sense of Social Defense (armour more or less) which is akin to the necessary successes. The challenge is to create something that is quick to develop on the spot, but captures some decent amount of intricate interaction. If I ever get over this massive hump at work and have time to develop it, I will share.

Indeed, there are some nice social encounter rules in the Song of Ice and Fire RPG.

willmanx said:

I like these guidelines. I'll try them out next time.

HedgeWizard said:

My point with starting this thread was to highlight the (IMO) lack of guidelines for how social encounters in WFRP 3rd are designed to work together with the use of action cards and skill checks.

However, we also used a primarily ASOIF RPG modified version with three levels of social encounters (simple, standard and complex). Our gaming sessions are heavily intrigue-based, mainly inspired by The Enemy Within. Here are my GM notes without any details:

Social Encounter
1. Type and Composure (set up progress tracker or tokens)
a. Simple = WP (A single round)
b. Standard = WP x 3 + 1 per Discipline trained
c. Complex = A number of successful standard social encounters or deeds (default is until Friendly disposition is obtained)
2. Environment
a. Location
b. Participants
3. Objective
a. Friendship
b. Service
c. Information
d. Deceit (mask intentions)
4. Disposition (<FF> to <MM>)
a. Friendly (<FF>)
b. Amiable (<F>)
c. Indifferent
d. Dislike (<M>)
e. Hostile (<MM>)
f. Circumstantial
i. Allied family (<FF>)
ii. Attractive (<F>)
iii. Known for honor (<F>)
iv. Known to be just (<F>)
v. Ugly (<M>)
vi. Known to be cruel (<M>)
vii. Distant origin (<M>)
viii. Different race (<M>)
ix. Antipathy against religion (<M>)
x. Known to be treacherous (<MM>)
xi. Enemy family (<MM>)
5. Initiative (Fel)
6. Choose actions. Each participant has only 1 action (either a, b or c).
a. Action Card
b. Skill check
i. Charm (Fel) vs. Charm
ii. Guile (Fel) vs. Intuition
iii. Intimidate (St or Fel) vs. Discipline
c. Assist an ally (support <F>)
7. Role-playing (<FF> to <MM>)
8. Roll dice

If target is Influenced by an Action Card, the target is influenced by Fel or St, whichever is relevant.
If target is Influenced by a Skill check, the target is influenced by 1.
<Boon> Grant <F> to next PCs social action
<Boon> Influence target by 1
<Boon Boon> Recover 1 stress
<Sigmar's Comet> Influence target by 1
<Bane Bane> Suffer 1 stress
<Chaos Star> You loss 1 influence
9. Repeat or Defeat
a. If Composure is reduced to 0 or less, you are defeated
b. If Distressed, you are defeated
10. Resolution
The consequences of defeat depends on the winner’s objective, disposition, roleplay and social actions, but the GM should have formulated before the encounter takes place.

I hope they make some sense to other people. These rules work fine for us, but the implementation of Action Cards could be improved.

great list Allavandrel!

I also like the SoIaF Social "Combat" Rules, I also have the RPG Book.
You save me a lot of mental work. Thanks.

The only thing I'm changing in when playing with my group is that a hostile condition is not <mm> but rather <mc>

I don't think you need formalised social engagement rules - there are far too many complex social situations to be represented.

A social encounter is an attempt to reach a goal with a person or group - use a tracker.

The situation is really down to the GM, and he can request rolls accordingly.

I would say it would usually be an opposed skill check with any of the mental traits (usually FEL or WP) dependent on the situation.

Convincing a farmer to give you directions - FEL vs. FEL

Seducing a local noble - FEL vs. WP

Winning a public debate INT vs INT

There is no substitute for roleplaying however - almost any social encounter can be managed without rolling a single dice, and it certainly doesn't need cards, maneuvers and actions.

Zagor said:

Some people disagree with this statement. Ergo, this thread.

Then perhaps a roleplaying game is not for them..?

Zagor said:

Perhaps. Everyone seems to have a different definition of what "roleplaying" is, though.

This topic already derailed this other thread , and I don't think we should rehash it here.

True enough, and i won't derail any further

As a roleplayer of 20 years i would encourage people to work within the system for social interactions though - hopefully either their own imaginations or some of the ideas presented here will allow them to adequately represent social situations.

I don't believe it needs to be mechanically more complex than an opposed skill check moderated by a tracker for success, especially given the narrative nature of the game as i suspect this would tend to slow gameplay (which is anithesis to this new way of playing) but i guess the ultimate benefit of a roleplaying system is freedom and flexibility. Your game, your rules.

Just don't be afraid to change what you don't like, use what you do and have the confidence to give something a whirl - the worst that can happen is it doesn't quite work how you intended and you have to try something else.

Zagor said:

Why bother roleplaying at all, if the result just boils down to a skill test anyway? No, in order to properly integrate social mechanics with roleplay, the rules must follow alongside the ebb and flow of conversation, using skill tests (or Action Cards) to mediate conflicts of opinion at various points throughout the dialogue. Each die-roll must meaningfully represent something that was said in-character, and each outcome must represent a particular NPC bias that's been reinforced or overcome in-character.

Unless of course the matter is of little importance or interest to the plot and players, in which case you may just resolve the dispute with a single Opposed test, rather than waste everyone's time with a drawn-out roleplay scene.

Herr Arnulfe said:

Since everybody has got his point about what "roleplaying" is and I would add mine depends on the RPG I'm playing also , I agree there's no absolute deal about that subject.

Only sith deal in absolute, and there's no sith in Warhammer, sir.

Beside one day we could have a valuable debate around that with interesting questions (How do you play super-intelligence, Sherlock Holmes style, with only roleplay when you're not sherlock holmes ? Does your GM agree you roleplay smartly when your character has Intelligence 2 ? Are answers to whose questions the same for any RPG ?- etc...).

Ok, back on track in this thread :

Check my proposition above about light ruling Social Encounter and I mean "Encounter" not every social interaction roleplayed. You may get the needed success by roleplaying and/or dice rolling.

• For a rule of guidance during social encounter (not every scene with social interactions), my GM's call is to require a number of influence successes equal to the NPC's FELLOWSHIP to win the encounter. I usually make them roll opposed FEL checks (see p.58 rulebook to set the difficulty), backboned by a good roleplay (adapted to the PC's capacities, not every character is chatty)
• I usually build a tracker with two tokens : one counting PC's successes and one counting PC's failures + NPC's successes.
• Sometimes I use Willpower (intimidation) or Intelligence (pure debate), but I prefer to keep FEL as THE major characteristic during social encounter to make it a Super-chara as the other are.