So has anyone done any work on social "combat" house rules? Something to make persuasion or interrogation scenes more like drawn out combat scenes?

Well, to get the ball rolling then...

I was thinking maybe something like this. Double WillPower for your "Social Wound Threshold". Then maybe use Intelligence for your "Social Soak". Fellowship is obviously your attack skill and the social action cards work pretty much as is.

Fellowship would be your base damage upon success. 3 hammers give you +2, like a basic melee attack.

Its then easy to throw in active defense cards that would work like their melee cousins.

There's a jumping off point, thoughts?

Our basic rule is that when you use a social action cards, your active characteristic counts as being one higher.

For the actual end result I use various trackers depending on what the players are trying to do and how the NPCs react.

That sounds good Gallows, and is very clean. One thing that it does that i would really like to move away from though is that it still leaves a lot of the outcome up to the GM to either grant or deny. Id like to take as much of that out as possible and just have hardcoded stats to overcome, much like physical combat with some back and forth. Something to really focus on the social conflicts in the same way.

We just use a tracker. Arguments and skill checks adjust the tracker. Action cards effect the tracker in various ways or extend the argument outside the original scope.

donbaloo said:

So you're thinking of something like regular hitpoints with social actions instead. You could use a tug of war tracker or set up a mental resistence tracker (social hitpoints). Then when using a social action you could rule that successes make the action succeed and any boons add to the social damage done, moving that persons tracker towards losing the social fight. You could even add fellowship to the damage and use willpower for social soaking.

I do think the social system of wfrp is only half finished. It feels like they wanted to make it like regular combat, but something is missing.. I think I'll spend a couple of days and dig into the system and see if I can find something that is simple but exciting and making sense.

Having reviewed the social combat I think my rule about adding one to the active characteristic is a bit unbalanced. I think during my next campaign I will demand that players use an action every time they try to do something to someone using mental skills. Of course they can always use "Perform a stunt" if they don't have a social action card, but this will reduce their active characteristic by one. I want to make social actions more valuable. In combat it's given, because players can only attack if they use an action. I will expand the system to social interaction (whenever encounter mode is needed... not for everything - but whenever it's important), so important social interactions will be run in encounter mode and require the use of action cards.

The encounter mode will have an extra component compared to regular combat. First a player/NPC plays an action and makes the check as normal. Then the result is roleplayed by the player/GM, and the influence tracker is moved.

I'll be using a tug of war tracker where the token starts in the middle and you have to move it to your opponents side. The number of spaces on each side will start at the persons willpower, but extra spaces could be added based on natural resistance or difficulty (a human trying to influnece a dwarf for instance). Each time you influence the target you move the tracker one space.

I use the tracker only with the Willpower rule everybody else seems to use for the # of rounds or # of spots on success tracker.

Here are the events I would use a tracker for:

* convincing someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise do (enter suspected danger)

* reveal a secret

* spend money on the PCs

* let the PCs borrow something

* intimidate to flee a combat

* haggling over an illegal item

Here's when I would go with a plain old skill check pass/fail:

* General rumor (each success); one black if the PCs aren't local

* General haggling

Here's when I wouldn't use ANY skill check:

* Casual conversation

This leaves the PCs open to multiple tries with each possibly resulting in stress. It really helps the non-combat PCs shine because you can get some 2 fellowship yahoo trollslayer frustrated pretty quickly

This has me wondering when we should check the person's FEL against INT or WILL

jh

Alright, good to see some discussion!

Yeah Gallows, that's the sort of stuff that Im talking about. I feel exactly the same way, like the system is about halfway there on some good social conflict mechanics.

Emirikol, your list is pretty much exactly the way I run things. Never roll for anything unimportant. I the dice get rolled its because something interesting is happening. And I also agree with both you and Gallows, a full fledged social system doesnt need to be used every time. A simple check will often do the trick. But if the situation is about to drastically change then I think it would be nice to have a combat like exchange.

As I mentioned above, my first instinct is to use willpower as the basis for social "wound threshold". Make attacks with Fellowship and action cards. I really like the idea of maybe using Intelligence for soak. I see intelligence as perhaps being how well you can comprehend exactly what your opponent is saying and being able to retort while your willpower is simply how much mental stamina you have for the discussion.

I would like to see it flow like a combat. If the PC wants to convince the NPC to do something they would rather not do, or convince them to divulge information...it should be a back and forth. The one that wins gets their way.

I think the social cards would already fit pretty well with the idea. An like i mentioned, I could even see making some active defense cards as well for social combat.

I use the tracker. Either skill checks for the static difficulty tests or actions when testing against opposing character can advance the tracker. The opponent's arguments (skill checks or actions) or wasted time (failed checks) can make the tracker go backwards. Our rule is that the tracker can only move maximum of one step in either direction per round. This way also the "social buff" actions become valuable and the tracker won't rapidly jump to some direction. Perform a stunt is used as a basic action that can be used in any circumstance but usually with higher difficulty modifier compared to more specialized actions.

Gallows said:

I'm really expecting them to build up the social "combat" system in the eventual Slaanesh expansion...well I REALLY hope they do! But we won't be seeing that one before the end of this year I think...

sinkarna said:

Anyone want to bet on sometime around Valentines day 2012? It'd be fitting...

This is a really intriguing concept and I agree with what several people have said, it seems like there was some plan to have social combat system that was only halfway implemented.

You could use Fel=St WP=To and Int=Ag. Then make a set of basic combat actions for social combat. Soyou'd end up with something like this:

"Melee Strike" = "Argument"

"Ranged Shot" = "Clever observation"

"Dodge" (Ag 3+) = "Dismissal" (Int 3+)

"Block" (Th 3+) = ""Unfazed" (WP 3+)

"Parry" (St 3+) = "Counterpoint" (Fel 3+)

Assess The Situation and Guarded Position could stay pretty much as they are. Not sure about including Ranged Shot, since including melee-vs-ranged seems like taking the "combat" part of "social combat" too far.

You can now play out a standard melee combat, just using the social actions instead.

Outside of trackers like yall use, I started using a tracker for otherwise using social skills in story mode. X amount of attempts will reveal a plot hook, a prepared NPC, a short story excursion that can be revealed in story mode. For instance a recent one in an episode I ran was X amount of social attempts would reveal a corrupt NPC Burgher that could then be either coerced into giving up the goods or some sort of other justice worked out if the party is so inclined. Sort of like an "achievement unlock" in a video game.

The only place I have ever really had tense scenes when it comes to social challenges is in situations where there is a significant argument going on. Trying to convince a Witch Hunter band not to burn down a seemingly innocent village.

Some great suggestions in here for sure.

I've tried a few social combat ideas in our games, some as complex as what was in the ASOIF (Game of Thrones) RPG, to a variety of looser run ideas. My goal in every case was to highlight how awesome the Social Action cards are (in comparison to just Fel checks or Perform a (social) Stunt). What I ended up settling on is the following:

The key is whether you successfully influence your target. Straight Fel checks & Perform a Stunt will succeed per

• • 1 success = gain Fortune to your next roll (or assign misfortune to target's next check)
• • 2 successes = Successfully influence your target
• • 1 comet = Successfully influence major and/or target takes 1 stress

Thus it takes 2 successes to influence your target, whereas most of the Social Actions successfully influence on 1 success. There are no benefits for boons, or other die outcomes (beyond recover stress) as this further enhances the value of the social action cards without gimping players without them, or boosting the success rate of those with them.

I classify encounters in 2 main ways:
1. Light encounters (bargain with a shop keeper, gossip checks for news & rumors, etc.)
2. Negotations

Light social encounters are single check versus target's willpower (in most cases).

Negotiations work like this:

Set a tracker length = to NPCs WP + WP training/Cunning

PC tracker moves 1 step for each successful influence. Also, place 1 Fortune die (or equiv marker) on each space. These are used in the Final Argument step (if one is allowed).

The NPC tracker will move 1 step at the start of their turn (this makes social iniative a little more important). NPC successes result in adding a Misfortune die to the tracker (used in the Final Argument if one is allowed). Major NPC successes might push their marker 1 additional step.

If the PC marker reaches the end first, they have successfully negotiated the NPC to agreement. If the NPC marker reaches the end first, the negotiation period is ended with the following results:

• If the PC marker is 50% or greater to the end, the lead PC can make a Final Argument to persuade (See below).
• If the PC marker is less than 50% to the end, then the NPC has successfully influenced the PCs (or has simply ended the conversation).

the 'Final Argument' dice pool is configured as normal, BUT you add in additional dice as assigned by the Negotiation tracker (adding in assigned Fortune / Misfortune)

Some thoughts on how to handle groups of PCs on 1 NPC:
- it automatically puts the NPC at unease or the defensive* - add 1 misfortune to PC checks.
- Only 1 PC can influence the tracker; other PCs participating modify the lead PCs checks and/or the NPC checks