willmanx said:

I believe my reply was quite topical to the discussion. In particular, his suggestion that the Progress Tracker should just be used as a measure of Social Hit Points by those who desire mechanics. I disagree with his assertion, because the level of abstraction required for Social Hit Points is antithetical to roleplay. That approach would be similar to the Body of Argument system in Burning Wheel, which requires the stakes of the conversation to be delineated clearly beforehand. In reality, social discourse doesn't usually work that way.

I don't play out social encounters as a simple combat but use this system instead.

1. Story mode round. The interaction is played out by roleplay
2. Encounter round where everyone can take one action: Play an action card, make a skill check
3. Story mode round.
4. Encounter round.
5. etc.

The pacing and time used for story mode isn't set in stone. A player may ask to play a card and then we enter encounter mode where everyone gets one action.

First the players announce their goal. Then I set up a progress tracker with a number of pieces depending on the difficulty (based on their renown with the person and other factors). If it's an opposed roll where the opponent may influence the players into doing something I set up a double tracked tracker with a neutral space in the middle. The tracker token can move durring both encounter mode and story mode. It's very free form but works well, so the cards become part of the role play. The players have to justify the usage of a card by their role playing in the previous story round.

The outcome determines the consequences. If the players were debating something and lose they have to follow whatevter consequence there is and play it out like they ended up agreeing with the person with whom they were arguing.

Gallows said:

Thats very like how I intent to do it, when we get to the more important Conversations.

Gallows said:

I think that format is fairly standard; I am not sure what breaking it out formally into story mode/encounter mode buys you. What am I not seeing?

For these critical encounters (that are run in some extent like "social combat" in the sense there is initiative and managed in the same manner in rounds) each action of the PC is justified by their roleplaying. Of course, where we seem to diverge is that my players may be playing a renowned golden tongued speaker and their rolling allows for greater strength than their roleplaying. Still, they have to describe what it is they're doing, the tack they are taking with their target, etc.

Herr Arnulfe said:

Oh sorry ! You misunderstood me : that was totally rhetorical. I was speaking to myself after disgressing about some questions concerning roleplaying.I also believe your reply was totally topical to the discussion and found it very interesting. That's why I quoted it.

As I see it, Warhammer push players and GM to create social challenges in Encounter Mode instead of playing these in Story Mode like in a lot of others rpgs. So I try to simulate some "Social encounter mini-game" rules like suggested in the Tome of Adventure to make it looks like a "combat encounter".

As usual, Gallows' suggestions quite fit to mine, and I think I would really enjoy to meet him in a game. Sadly, I'm in France

HedgeWizard said:

It's more of an explanation of how we do it than an actual system. I think we may be doing it in very much the same way. We also roll initiative for the encounter rounds. The reason we break it up is that only one round in encounter mode is allowed between each chunk of role playing. Or you could say that each encounter round consists of roleplaying first and then uring action cards and making rolls based on the role playing. One could use the action cards exclusively to represent the human interaction of course, but we're just trying to use them to support role playing.

I do like the list of modifiers though and copied that for future use. But social encounters aren't described that well in the book unless you run it exactly as combat without any role playing. Of course my players use social cards in combat as well without the need for role playing.

But we haven't yet settled on a social encounter system, because we feel it a bit lacking still.

I think we can safely say in answer to the OP that yes, its underdeveloped

Why not using stress as "social hit points" ?

Each success add 1 stress to the NPC (or a single check could only add 1 stress if it's too quick).

Each success rolled by the NPC add 1 tension to the party sheet.

When the NPC has more than 2xFEL in stress, you win the social challenge.

Silverwave said:

Noooo. You can be a lot more stressed than your "opponent" and nonetheless win the social duell.

willmanx said:

No worries!

willmanx said:

The thing about mini-games in RPGs is that they must either be:

1. fun (Gamist approach)

or

2. accurate reflections of the activity (Simulationist approach)

If an RPG mini-game can't achieve either of these goals, then there's no point in having it, IMO. The concept of using a Progress Tracker (or Body of Argument in BW terms) to keep track of the debate divorces the process from roleplay. Most people who've played BW will attest to the fact that roleplay grinds to a halt as soon as the Duel of Wits scripting sheets come out. This is because, unlike in real dialogue, there's no tangible outcome from each statement or rebuttal. They simply translate into "points" on the Progress Tracker (or Body of Argument).

Now, as I understand it you're hoping to make the Social mini-game fun (#1) and not necessarily accurate (#2). This is where Burning Wheel went wrong, IMO - Duel of Wits wanted to be Gamist but the mini-game isn't particularly fun. In Duel of Wits, about half of the Actions are virtually useless unless the opponent has scripted a very specific Action themselves. There's very little tactical play in Duel of Wits, because few combinations are better than just scripting "Point, Point, Point".

So I guess what I'm saying is that the first thing people should do when houseruling Social conflict is decide whether the primary objective is Gamist or Simulationist. If the objective is Gamism, then go hogwild with the Progress Tracker, but make sure it's actually a well-balanced and entertaining mini-game that makes full use of Action Cards, Stress etc. If the objective is Simulationism, then ditch the Progress Tracker because it won't facilitate an organic discussion in which the participants react point-by-point and actually listen to what the other person is saying.

Interesting point.I'll try to better explain mine (and please excuse my english)...Even if I'm a 100% acting/roleplaying zealot, I think there must be "rules & rolls" during social encounters in games like warhammer because :

Concerning experienced/eloquent players :

If not, why should a smart-talking player increase his socials actions and Fellowship if a inspired chatty roleplay is ok ? He better should minmax the others, and that is not what I want in my dark gritty realistic vision of Warhammer (like in Barony of the damned V2). More over I think that "goldstar roleplayer" is intented to adapt his roleplaying to his character's traits, like an actor. And that character's traits are his stats. So an experienced player interpretating a low FEL character has to restrain his talking abilities to fit his character.

Concerning unexperienced/shy players :

together, those first two points allow unexperienced to really play a role different from his own regular attitude. Even if he's shy, he'll be able to play the party's diplomat because his character has got powers and good social stats.In game, as a GM, I will make that my NPCs and other PCs will be impressed by his character' s charisma and he won't have to speak a lot to influence others... So rules and roll makes the game fit to that player's (not character's) attitude.

I hope you see my point. I use to play recently with differents parties mixing experienced and beginner players. Stats, rolls and rules are the way things can be balanced and accepted by all at the table.

willmanx said:

I completely understand your points, and it's for these same reasons that I don't believe removing mechanics from Social Conflict altogether is a good idea. My reasons for why a Simulationist approach to running extended social conflicts should not use a Progress Tracker / Social Hit Points are twofold. Such abstractions remove the nuance and in-character decision-making (i.e. roleplay) from each minor exchange, and they require pre-defined overall objectives. In reality, the objectives of an extended social conflict shift constantly and shouldn't be pre-defined.

Example: you enter a social conflict with the objective of convincing the Merchant to loan you 100 GC. To achieve this, you Bluff and tell him you're actually a noble. You roll terribly. The merchant disbelieves your claim of nobility and accuses you of being a fraud. Suddenly your objective might have changed. Perhaps you're no longer trying to get the 100 GC. Instead you blackmail the Merchant, saying you'll expose his smuggling ring if he reports you as a fraud. You roll well on Intimidate, and he backs down. The Merchant then asks what you know about his smuggling ring, and you tell him that his criminal activities are well-known among local rogues. You pass your Gossip test. The Merchant now believes that you're an accomplished thief, and hints that he knows about a scandal in the Thieves' Guild. Now your objective might change again. Perhaps you're investigating a Chaos cult with ties to the Thieves' Guild, and decide to press the Merchant for more information. You fail your Inquire test. The merchant buttons up, but you're certain he knows more. You consider blackmailing him again, but decide it's not worth the risk of losing him as a contact. You leave the merchant's office without the 100 GC, but you've obtained some plot information instead, and a potential criminal contact.

The above exchange still uses die-rolls, but it doesn't use a Progress Tracker or Body of Argument. It allows for a more fluid rules implementation that follows alongside roleplay, rather than leading it.

Granted, running extended Social Conflicts without Social Hit Points / Progress Tracker / Body of Argument can be challenging. It relies on the GM having good social intuition (something not all gamers possess). The GM must be able to identify moments of conflict within the ongoing dialogue, call for tests when applicable, and modify the thrust of the conversation accordingly. If the GM has poor social intuition or abuses his powers of fiat, the players might actually find that a Progress Tracker at least offers some transparency.

I suppose one could say that die-rolls are crutches for less socially adept players, and Progress Trackers are crutches for less socially adept GMs. The difference is that occasional die-rolls don't impinge on roleplay, whereas Progress Trackers (Bodies of Argument) usually do.

Silverwave said:

The problem with that is that social combat will then have the unintended consequences of driving people insane.

Also, you can walk into social situations with enough stress to lose in the first place.

Doc, the Weasel said:

True. Then, what about giving just tokens for each "social wound"? The Social Wound Threshold would be based on FEL. There should be some way to "heal" those social wounds during the encounter. This is just ideas, not thoroughly analysed game mechanics

As a GM, I arbitrate according to the needs of the scene and the plot and the player's interests. Often social encounters are quick, dirty affairs where no dice are thrown. There's a smaller, but still large class of encounters where a simple roll works (e.g. a single standard roll or an opposed roll). Sometimes on the complex social encounters a tracker is nice to gauge overall trend of the deal, and often, just as Herr Anulfe demonstrates, you want something completely free-from in terms of objective. In my opinion, any GM's goal will be learn how to utilize any of these, at the right time for the right scene with an eye towards the group's likes and dislikes.

Herr Arnulfe said:

Interesting, indeed.I looked for that bodies of argument from Burning Wheel (like suggested by someone up there) and I agree with your point.

In fact, Tome of Adventure propose A LOT a way to use a progress tracker, not only that Burning Wheel's way. You might do that with Warhammer's progress tracker, but I don't as I think I'm a "socially adept GM" .

In my social encounters , the game switches in the Encounter Mode. My progress tracker's lenght is often based on the NPC's FEL to represent his patience, his will to debate. At the end of this, you won't make him change his point. Inside the progress tracker, I run it loosy like in your example, to keep the conversation natural. So I don't structure it as a Burning Wheel Social Encounter. The "influence point" won by PCs or NPCs help to get who is more "charismatic", who takes on the other during the discussion.

Beside that, I run other social scene with or without roll, staying in "story mode" so to speak with Warhammer terms.

willmanx said:

So, using FEL as a measure of NPC patience, do you require the PCs to define the objective beforehand, or does the Progress Tracker apply to any of the PC's potential shifting objectives during the encounter? e.g. if the the PC starts off trying to get a 100 gc loan from the merchant, would the FEL track still apply when the thrust of the conversation turns toward blackmail and information-gathering instead?

I tend to reflect difficulty levels with modifiers instead of repeated tests, or in-game conditions which might or might not require die-rolls. For example, rather than requiring the PC to score FEL x successes to secure a loan, I might make it a Hard test. Failure by a small margin means the PC doesn't obtain the loan, but the door is still open, so he can try a different approach during the same extended social conflict. Alternately, I may decide that PCs who can demonstrate their assets for collateral purposes can obtain the loan automatically without a dieroll.

We were very sceptical about the idea of a rigorous structure for social encounters when we started playing 'A Game of Thrones' RPG. We used some of the same arguments as used in this thread - that it will interfere with good role-playing discussions, make things depend on die rolls rather than good arguments etc. However, we agreed to try it out. Now, we are glad we did because it has made social encounters much more interesting for us.

The structure is in fact not as rigorous has it looks like in the book, and when you know the rules it goes fast with die rolls. The example above by Herr Anulfe is no problem using structured social encounter system; in fact, it looks exactly a standard social encounter in a structured system. The players often start out with one objective and change it during the negotiations, and they almost always use a variety of tactics to influence their opponent.

As several people already have pointed out most social interactions can be handled with no or a single test; these simple social encounters do not use a structured system and these are not was this thread is about.

Standard social encounters are the ones where the intended outcome is physically or socially dangerous to your opponent or out of character; and they are most often between the players and a major NPC. They have long-term consequences for the story.

Complex social encounters are a series of standard social encounters that run for several sessions and the outcome has far-reaching consequences. Complex social encounters often involve a number a major NPCs. The players may try to influence Graf Boris to send his army to invade Nordland because they have been expelled by Theodore Gausser and now they want revenge. In order to influence Graf Boris they have to built a friendship to him and his advisors over a long period of time; and they may try to get his attention by a combination of heroic deeds and simple/standard social encounters.

As a GM, the structured system has made me think more about how to handle specific social encounters before play. In the last year I have worked a lot on the potential negative outcome of social encounters. Before I 'cheated' a bit by giving the players the same outcome no matter the result of their skill test in order to keep to story rolling, and they hated me for that because they felt that social skills became useless, especially compared to combat skills. Now, I make a 'dual' storyline and always prepare on how the players may turn a negative social encounter outcome to something less bad or see alternative solutions in order to keep them optimistic.