So, for some time now I've been mulling over an idea for social encounters and social interaction with NPCs.

Usually, these encounters are solved using one, or more, social skill checks, and la-di-da ... moving on to action.

Social combat is also something that has been elaborated on in various places, more or less successfully, more or less enjoyable.

I have been thinking more on the nature of NPCs and their strengths and weaknesses, regardless of characteristic or skill ranks.

I've been considering to make some NPCs will be more open to emotional arguments, others to rational and logical arguments, and some to arguments based on values and character (either their character or the PCs character). So, pathos, logos, and ethos. Of course there's also kairos, telos, and topos. But let's not get carried away...

For most NPCs this system is basically just adding a cumbersome quality to the gaming, which isn't the desired goal. Yet, for some NPCs, I think this could add a nice touch to role-playing and challenge the players in new and different ways, that - I believe - can generate more interesting and enjoyable experiences.

So, I'm devising a "system" where NPCs may have a status on one or more of the three types of arguments. This status is either +, 0, or -. Most NPCs will by default have 0 in all three, which means it doesn't come into play. We know where our players have a strength or weakness, what player is more susceptible to rational arguments, and we know our players' strategies and tendencies when it comes to the types of arguments they use. This may then be rewarded with some NPCs, and make other NPCs more challenging.

The idea, is that a NPC with +logos, will be more susceptible to this type. Providing players a bonus on a check, and/or more information on a successful check. Players may be explicit on what they are trying to convey and how, or they may roleplay it (where you the GM interpret and define what strategy they are using). If the same NPC has -pathos, and the players are making emotional arguments, they get a penalty, or less/poorer information on a successful check.

This may also add roleplaying cues and inspiration to the GM in the moment, as the susceptibility may also imply what strategies they will use.

If it comes up often in your games or you have a campaign that relies on social skills heavily (a political story?) It would be useful to develop such a system.

In my games it's often enough that i know the NPCs motivation and maybe I think about beforehand what would trigger them or appeal to them and give out boost or setback according to it or revealing these informations for advantages. I don't feel I should complicate it even more.

Keeping things simple lightens the workload of preparing a session and makes it more smooth during gameplay.

However I should probably add, that I like to flesh out only the major plotpoints and NPCs and come up with the rest on the fly reacting to my players.

I used to plan everything meticulously but found out as I gained experience (I'm still like GMing for 4-5 years, not really a senior) was a lot of unnecessary energy.

I do something somewhat similar in regards to emotional/logical/moral, but it's generally just used for adding Boost or Setback to the social checks based on the argument made (and is pretty passive. I don't think a lot about it). A more moral character is going to add Setback to attempts to bribe, for example, while a more emotional character is going to add a Boost to attempts to rile them up, etc.

I do generally reserve this for "major" NPCs rather than every NPC they come across, as the minor NPCs I prefer to keep a blank slate, easily moldable by the dice results. For example, failing to bribe that customs official, maybe he's a particularly moral sort.

I think it comes down to how important are social encounters to both your campaign and most importantly to your players?

If your players a generally fine with social encounters being fairly quick, with only a few dice rolls to reflect interacting with or influencing some key NPCs and a bit of role-playing before getting into what they view as the "real meat" of the game (usually some form of combat based upon what I've experienced over the decades), then that's fine.

I've heard a great many horror stories of campaigns where the GM wanted some great socio-political thriller campaign with lots of intrigue and social dynamics, only to have it either fall apart when the players sought more traditional RPG solutions, or simply die off when the players decided that said campaign just simply wasn't any fun.

If social encounters and intrigue are going to be the main pillars of your campaign, make sure that your players are fully on board with that before you go too deep down the rabbit hole in terms of creating new rules to cover something that you may not really need to delve too deep into.

Personally, I'd just include tidbits of what relevant topics a given major NPC feels strongly about (good or bad), and just simply hand out a boost die or setback die to the PC's social skill check when those topics come up in the discussion. For instance, trying to argue a case for droids' rights to an Imperial judiciary that fully likes droids is going to result in a boost die or two, while making the same case to a Rebel commander that despises droids is going to net one (or more) setback dice.

Have you tried the social encounter rules from Genesys?

You seem to be describing something like this:

https://theangrygm.com/systematic-interaction/ (scroll down to Keeping Social Score)

Probably the most important thing you can do in a social encounter is define what the NPCs really want (including any side-needs that could affect the whole).

On 10/14/2020 at 7:13 AM, Jegergryte said:

I've been considering to make some NPCs will be more open to emotional arguments, others to rational and logical arguments, and some to arguments based on values and character (either their character or the PCs character).

I'm not sure the long term usability and value of cataloging and charting it all. I just add a note to my NPCs when it's important (and to shake things up): "doesn't like being told what to do, but blushes at flattery". Then I can add setback or boosts (or even upgrades/downgrades) as needed in the context of how the PCs are approaching the character.

Do you anticipate that the PCs will say something like, "I'm going to attempt to Charm the NPC, making a number of logical arguments why he should agree with us." Or would it come out of a role playing event where you as the GM would determine that they had used logical arguments? Or both, but if both is one preferred?

6 hours ago, whafrog said:

You seem to be describing something like this:

https://theangrygm.com/systematic-interaction/ (scroll down to Keeping Social Score)

Probably the most important thing you can do in a social encounter is define what the NPCs really want (including any side-needs that could affect the whole).

I'm not sure the long term usability and value of cataloging and charting it all. I just add a note to my NPCs when it's important (and to shake things up): "doesn't like being told what to do, but blushes at flattery". Then I can add setback or boosts (or even upgrades/downgrades) as needed in the context of how the PCs are approaching the character.

I'll have a look at that tanks.

I guess my perspective is that if I know their general weakness and strength, it's easier for me to keep track and add depth. I've made a random way of generating the their rhetoric stance or status or whatever one could call it. I mean, one could make an argument that when it comes to certain topics, people are more susceptible to pathos, whereas in others they're more susceptible to logos, and so on.

I do not intend to cataloguing and charting everyone and everything.

4 hours ago, RickInVA said:

Do you anticipate that the PCs will say something like, "I'm going to attempt to Charm the NPC, making a number of logical arguments why he should agree with us." Or would it come out of a role playing event where you as the GM would determine that they had used logical arguments? Or both, but if both is one preferred?

Kinda? Some players are more descriptive, some are more "in character". Neither is preferred, but I would like to reward players for their chosen tactic at times, but at other times I'd like to challenge them more if they keep choosing the same rhetorical tactic. One of my players is very much the logos, two are very much the ethos, with those two also having more of the pathos going on. In some cases, this should be rewarded and give them a bonus, in other instances, this should, or at least could, make things more difficult for them.