I'm not great at gamemastering social situations, at least ones in which there's a kind of verbal combat taking place. I have tried, but I'm just not a quick enough social thinker to be really adept with these sorts of scenarios in gamemastering. I can do ok if it's a pretty simple scenario where the rules of interaction are pretty well-defined, and of course I am better at it in situations where I am thoroughly familiar with the background material and personalities of the players (used in this sense to mean "the people I am trying to instantiate through my gamemastering," rather than the actual players of the game). But even though I'm not particularly good at role-playing these kinds of verbal altercations, I'd like for them to exist and be enjoyable for my players. And I would like my players to have options aside from combat that can resolve conflict or determine an outcome.
I jotted some of these ideas down a while back and it came to the fore again as I've been wondering about non-violent conflict resolution. I've recently been looking at Max Cantor's wonderful Maximum Recursion Depth. The system presented in that book gives you multiple paths for engaging in and resolving conflict aside from the purely physical, and it's exceptionally intriguing - the idea of propriety in particular as it is presented there is fascinating. The rules there also solve some problems for me as a GM in that, while it certainly can be enjoyable to role-play the exchange between a snooty, nasty courtier and a PC, sometimes I am simply not up to the verbal challenge. It's nice to be able to potentially set the tone with role-playing, but then have some mechanics to resolve the conflict!
As a result mostly of my own limitations but also seeing systems like this, I've been thinking about implementing a system for a so-called "war of words." Here are some rough ideas to be play-tested. These could be used for anything from determining who is embarrassed at court or to getting information from someone at a party who is resistant by using the rules of propriety to make them look foolish if they don't.
Here are the basics:
A character's Social AC = 10 +/- WIS modifier +/- Defense Mode modifier
A character's Social HP = 10 +/- CHA modifier +/- INT modifier
Social "To Hit" = d20 +/- CHA modifier +/- Attack Mode modifier
At the beginning of a round of social combat, each character secretly selects a target, a defense mode, and an attack mode. As you can see on the tables below, certain Defense Modes are more effective against certain Attack Modes and vice versa. So, as one friend pointed out, a bit like Rock Paper Scissors.
At some point I may add some additional "moves" to this - pointed questions (weak against "missing the point"?), twisting words, verbal acrobatics, splitting hairs, etc.
So here's an example of play, let's say Duke Stephen LeStrange the Snooty Noble is trying to embarrass Grimblegorn at the Feast of Kings so that the king provides backing for his plan to send the city guard to quell bugbear attacks. Grimblegorn has volunteered the services of himself and his adventuring companions for the task. Stephen doesn't want them to succeed (or even get a chance to succeed) both because there is reward money at stake and because he is in charge of the City Guard and will win influence if they are ultimately the ones who end the threat. So he begins insulting Grimblegorn's plans while boosting his own...
Stephen has a CHA modifier of +3, a WIS modifier of -1, and an INT modifier of +1
This gives him a base Social AC of 9 and Social HP of 14
Grimblegorn has a CHA modifier of +1, a WIS modifier of +3, and an INT modifier of +2
This gives him a base Social AC of 13 and Social HP of 13
In the first round, Stephen (who has selected Grimblegorn as his target) chooses an attack mode of Cutting Remarks and a Defense Mode of Evasive Answers.
Grimblegorn has chosen an Attack mode of Sharp Tongue and a Defense Mode of Witty Riposte
Stephen rolls d20, getting a 6, adds his CHA bonus (+3) but his attack mode gives him no special additional modifier to hit - his total to hit is 9. Grimblegorn's Social AC is 13, so the attack fails.
Grimblegorn gets a free second attack because his attacker missed and he chose Witty Riposte as his defense mode. So he rolls d20 twice, once attacking with his Sharp Tongue, getting a 8 and once with his Witty Riposte, getting a 15. The roll for his Sharp Tongue attack is modified by his CHA bonus to 9, which would usually just hit, but Stephen has chosen Evasive Answers, which gives him an extra +1 AC versus Sharp Tongue - so the attack misses! Grimblegorn's second attack fares better, even without the modifier it would hit, so he does d4 damage, rolling a 3, and takes Stephens Social HP from 14 to 11.
In the next round, Stephen has chosen a Barbed Jest as his attack, and Deflecting Blame as his defense mode. Grimblegorn goes for an all-out Verbal Assault for his attack and choses to Avoid the Issue for his defense mode.
Both roll d20, Stephen scores a modified total of 13 for his attack, hitting Grimblegorn for d4, rolling a 2, reducing Grimblegorn's Social HP to 11. Grimblegorn, in turn, rolls a 19 on his Verbal Assault, but even with the -2 modifier, it's good enough to hit, and he does d8 damage, rolling a 7 and taking Stephen's HP to 4.
In the next round, Stephen chooses a Tongue Lashing for his attack and Avoiding the Issue for his defense. Grimblegorn chooses a Blunt Statement for his attack and Thick Skin for his defense. Stephen rolls a 9, but modifies it - +3 for his CHA and a further +3 against Thick Skin means he gets a 15 which is more than Grimblegorn's Social AC of 13. Stephen does d6 damage, rolling a 4 and taking Grimblegorn's Social HP from 11 to 7, but Grimblegorn rolls a natural 20 on his blunt statement - even before the modifiers this is a success and a critical hit! He rolls his d6 damage, scoring 5, then doubles it for the critical, doing 10 points of damage, which takes Stephen from 4 to -6, and so Stephen is defeated and Grimblegorn is granted a chance to end the bugbear dilemma before the King orders Stephen's City Guard to do so.
Thanks for the shoutout!
ReplyDeleteThis is a cool system, both in how it instantiates social encounters like combat, but also I like the rock-paper-scissors element.
Usually when Players in my games do social conflict, they're still formulating whatever argument they're trying to make, but the PROpriety Save or PRO Damage in Conflict is a way of arbitrating uncertainty, like whether or not they're actually convincing, adding randomness or repercussions, etc.
Some people, particularly in OSR-adjacent circles, might be a little uncomfortable with removing roleplay entirely from social conflict, but at least here you're reworking it in a way where the tactics of this social conflict are interesting in themselves.
Not that this is super crunchy by any means, but it's tactical enough to where I could imagine it might be difficult on working memory to track both the roleplay/argumentation per se and the social conflict mechanics, maybe not, but if that were the case, it might be worth considering ways to frame things at the beginning or end.
Like even if the conflict itself ends up being this tactical social combat system, maybe there are ways where creating stronger arguments or setting up more favorable circumstances at the onset provides some bonuses, or creates more points of interaction in the social "environment". It could also maybe break up in phases too if several points are being argued.
As I'm writing this up, I'm liking this idea of creating the social space in the same way you would fill out the space of a regular combat encounter or any physical interaction like a dungeon or hex crawl, but not sure if or how specifically to tie it into what you're doing, but it was definitely inspired by your ideas here and feels like a logical extension of it imo.
I am reminded of many games where the pace of dialogue had a slow, 'stagey' quality, where each player was quietly begging the others 'Say something, interrupt me, this could go south any moment, I'm giving you room....' If this is typical, I can see the 'playing a card' aspect of the War of Words working quite well.
ReplyDeleteYou have absolutely nailed it, lol. "Please for the love of god, someone take over here!" It's not too bad when it's just the player but when it's both player and DM gawping at each other, something like this might be handy!
Delete