Owing to my gaming heritage, I've never ran a system where social encounters had codified mechanics. Warhammer 3e is not like that, and its an aspect of the system I really like. However! I have one problem.

How do you put situations in where they will be resorted to as easy as combat encounters? As I see it, arguing over the price of a tankard of ale does not need to be in encounter mode, but story mode. However, something with higher stakes - say hostage negotiation - would certainly become encounter mode. Yet I don't see it happening as much. Those high stakes, do or die situations I'm having trouble imagine as being frequent as combat. Or at least as an easily seen option by my players. Part of that, I imagine, will require some retraining on my part.

But I digress.

What are some examples of social encounters you have done? What I'd like to see is something that really benefits by being ran in encounter mode. Where success or failure is going to contribute in a very large way to story.

• Arguing a case for the magistrate - Perhaps your buddy was caught with some warpstone in his pocket. Why shouldn't he turn him over to the witch hunters?
• Hostage negotiation - A princess named, say, Peach, was captured by some really unsavory sorts. But they've got a problem, one the group can perhaps rectify. Can you convince the bandits before they flee or decide to kill you?
• A formal banquet - The adventuers are trying to get a corrupt noble to reveal his true colors, through trickery or what have you. Can the party complete his transformation before everyone is too drunk to notice?
• Boy is it cold...- The group is stuck high on a mountain pass, when they find the outpost an outpost of Dwarven Rangers. Can they talk their way in before they get tired of you, or before the snowstorm makes it impossible to talk clearly?

It seems to me they should be less frequent than combat, but when resolved, a social encounter will have some very real effects upon the current campaign.

Also, what are some ways to get non social players involved? And actually contribute, without hamming it up?

I've found that the progress tracker is absolutely crucial in social situations. D&D was on the right track with the "2 successes before 3 failures" approach and WFRP has perfected that.

The progress tracker, when used, allows the non-heroic characters to actually be used to their potential..otherwise they're always going to be second best to whatever the "loudest" player at the table is.

jh

Emirikol said:

I have to disagree there. If the loudest player is dictating action, the GM is doing something wrong.

Also, I realize the progress tracker is crucial. What I'm looking for is examples of where social encounters have been used successfully, and not over something like bargaining over the price of a pint of ale. That's too easy. If you use make it into a social encounter in such situations, the game is going to come to a screeching halt whenever there is any disagreement. Not that you proposed that. But just to be clear what I am looking for here.

In Eye for an Eye I put in a social combat where the PC's were trying to convince Lord Aschaffenberg that there really was a chaos cult in the basement, whilst Gregor Pierrson was trying to undermine their position (they didn't suspect him at the time).

For me it was the most difficult aspect to get into for this new edition: at first all my GM attempt to sort socials conflicts in this manner felt a bit akward, compared to a plain roleplay debate. Now i quite enjoy them, but only whit the right tweakings!

One of the most successfull attempts for me was when my players asked the sigmar priest in stromdorf to keep the stones in the temple's crypt. Of course this could be something that mess up the campaign, since the written text assume that stones are kept in the mage room, but nevertheless i chosed to play it as a social conflict. PC reached the end of the track before the priest, so he accepted the players request.

I feel that the correct manner to handle those conflicts rests in those pivot points:

1. state clear in ur mind 2 outcomes: the complete success, should the player reach the end before the npc token (this is usually what the players ask for); and the partial success, should the players reach the middle point before the other token reach the end. (in my example, a partial success would had been the priest keeping the stones only for few days, or asked the PC to buy an appropriate lead chest to confine them!)

2. keep the encounter very short, otherwise players or gm risk to run out off arguments to roleplay whit before it ends! to ensure this i've learned to keep the track between 5-7 spaces, and allow the tokens to advance more than once for every dices roll. As a rule of thumb i advance the NPC token once per round, +1 for chaos stars, + 1 for a PC's failure roll, +1 if NPC succeed in an appropriate social action. The PC token advances one space for a succesfull attemp, +1 for a triple success roll, +1 if the action states "u influence the target".

There are no social basic actions that all players start with, which is an issue. Every player should have one or two basic actions. You could always allow players to simply a free social action at character creation, so there is at least something they can do... just like everyone gets basic melee and ranged attacks.

There sure is a Basic social action card. It's called "Perform a Stunt", Gallows (as you well know )

The player makes their speech, which gives the idea of what the Stunt is trying to accomplish and what it represents.

I dont think that's the case: the system/adventures seems to imply that u can manipulate the progress tracker also whit charm/guile/intimidate checks, so no need for an action at all!

IMHO is quite the opposite: a full combat warrior could still have an edge over a social character, if in the hands of a cunning player....if we are in encounter mode, he can use a manoeuvre to attemp one of those simples skill checks, and then use "asses the situation" to provide himself bonuses!!

That's why i tend to give more weight to "you influence the target" actions, so that social characthers really shine in social struggles.

Smilodoner said:

I'm serious. Some players are just dominating and not all GMs are perfect enough to have absolute control over this stuff. Some characters may fit a 'dominating' position more too. Watchman characters (players) may feel they need to lead investigations and drag the other PCs around with them. In the BRight College in Altdorf, sometimes a character may decide that because he's the wizard, he may want to do all the talking. In all three cases above, other "social" characters get left in the cold. Now, the tracker doesn't have to be a mechanical game-throw-in, but I think it serves an awesome purpose of having the GM on track and the players understanding that the Gm isn't just winging it..when he wings it too much, players will detect that and personalities will come through more than what their characters can/should actually be able to do.

It's the old argument of, Smart Character/stupid player..how do you roleplay that?

jh

Emirikol said:

hehe, I've allways found dumb character/clever player, combined with poor roleplayer, even worse. Nothing worse than having the dumb fighter come up with smart stuff all the time, and the player who keeps using meta knowledge...

Atleast the first one the GM can regulate by letting him roll Int and give him hints if he succeeds.

dvang said:

Of course I do

The name just suggests something of a physical nature. But I guess there is a natural limit to the number of different social action cards they can make unless they become very specific. I've house ruled to make social action cards very desirable, by giving players a +1 to their active characteristic when using a social action card. I really like the idea behind the social actions, but they just haven't felt like a natural part of our campaign. Players have used them, but we haven't run social encounters with initiative like suggested in the rules.