Viability of what I am attempting: Primarily social stat RPG

[Grand_Commander13]

I was doing a bit of forum surfing, and to make a long story short, I got it in my head that I wanted to make an RPG that revolved around social stats, relationships, and the like.  I, personally, think it would be fun to play in an RPG where my character's social abilities and mine were seperate.  Also, the manual will clearly state that the player still has to RP worth a dang if he wants to get the success he just rolled.  I right now have a list of fourteen different social skills the PCs could invest in, and everything is happy on that front.  I have no attributes, and I am not planning on putting any in.

The problem is, I'm pondering how to handle non-social skills like repair and navigation, and combat skills.  Since I'm aiming for a science fiction setting (slightly lower tech level than Star Wars, but with more of a gritty, dirty feel to it is what I'm thinking), there are so many skills I could include.

Now my problem is this:
Should I go ahead and make the rule book huge, and possibly dilute the RPG's focus as well, in the name of letting players play as characters who are not primarily focused on social skills?  I'm having a feeling that I'm going to have a lot of fun with this setting I'm making, so I think one solution to this would be to make this RPG for the socially inclined players, and another for people who would rather wing the RPing and get to combat (or other stuff, like flying the space ships) in the same setting.  Would it be cheap of me to do the two RPGs in the one setting?  Would it be cheap of me to basically cut out non-social skills?

I think this is a case where I have already come to a conclusion, but I'm not confident in it.  For what it's worth, that conclusion is that I should keep the RPG bare of all but the essentials for non-social aspects, and later make an RPG in the same setting where I fully explore the more traditional RPG model.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  I have a problem with not being able to make up my mind because I keep doubting the viability of my ideas, and my friend isn't much help.  "Well, do what you want to do."  That doesn't help me...

[Shreyas Sampat]

Um, yeah. We're not really here to reassure you that your design choices are good choices, apart from come cost-benefit model. As much as I like to see new games flower, that's not going to happen from "forum therapy."

So, I pose you a question:

You have two options you are weighing here, if I understand you correctly.
Option 1: Focus your mechanics strongly on social aspects.
Option 2: Include the same social mechanics, but extend the other game mechanics to about the same depth.

What goals do you have for your game? What benefits do you see in each approach, strictly intrinsic to the game? "People will like option X better." isn't an intrinsic benefit, so don't worry about that. Are there goals which one or the other approach will fail to address?

In short, why are you worried, for reasons completely internal to your design, that Option 1 isn't the option you want?

[Grand_Commander13]

I guess what is holding me back from doing the "right thing" (option #1) is this strange feeling that my RPG should strive to allow all types of characters.  Now that I've identified that, I think I can turn that into something reasonably useful...  But still, that's probably my problem:  I have difficulty shaking the desire to make "the RPG that does everything" even if I know that's not plausible.  I just feel as though my RPG isn't right somehow if it's limited in scope.  But I am very clear in what I want the scope to be.

Anyway, if I go down the direction of "what is best for the game," I cannot think of why option #2 would be the right choice (well, as far as cost/benefit is concerned).  The focus I first conceived is for it to be more of a character-interaction style game, so the non-social stuff is not important at all.

I guess that's all the help I really needed.  "Stick with the scope of your game" seems to be what my mantra needs to be for the immediate moment.

[John Burdick]

Just tell yourself you're writing the heart of your game. You'll add whatever fleshing out is needed after you try playing it. That might only amount to a couple paragraphs or might be many pages. Leave that question until you try playing the part that makes your game special.

Make the interesting part of your game. Play it. Evaluate the breadth of the rules based on play experience.

John

[Bill Masek]

Grand_Commander13,

You want the game to be about social interaction but you don't want to reduce what players can do.  This is a very valid concern and there are several ways of dealing with it.

The easiest is to make your setting one in which combat is irrelevant, in a bureaucracy setting or something similar.  This, however, is merely a slap-on Band-Aid solution.  I think you can do better.

You could make 'social' characters more effective. There many ways to do this.  You could make your damage system very lethal so that no body wants to risk a fire fight.  You could make the combative skills very expensive relative to the social ones.  Etc.

What would be more interesting is if the social stats in your game interact with the combative ones.  For instance, a player could scare those he's fighting to give them penalties to their rolls (if not total submission) or trick them into doubting they are doing the right thing, heck, a beautiful seductress type might distract them with her charms.  This would allow you to have you game revolve around social interaction without forcing players to do anything.

However, I personally think that the best way to do it would be to write your rules so that all conflicts are social in nature.  Fights are a matter of will power vs will power.  Combatants exchange banter and the battle reflects it.  Once a player is cowed they submit or are killed.

Best,
       Bill

[Alan]

Hi there,

Try this: a single resolution system for all activites, with no additional rules for combat.  In addition set up the reward system so players earn nothing for combat, but do earn things for engaging in social conflict.  Rewards might be advancement points or a resource that allows rerolls.  Heck, social conflict might earn reroll points even for combat.

[Grand_Commander13]

Some valid suggestions.

What I was considering was basically like DnD 3.X, except where you buy your BaB, and none of your skill levels are restricted by character level (I'm going with a point buy system), and where you roll 2d6 instead of 1d20.

High-lethality combat would be a good possibility, but I also have been considering the possibility of a character who is like a sergeant in the army; it'd be neat and with lots of potential for roleplay, but lethal combat would mess him up fast, even if the campaign focused around roleplay.

The whole deal with a single resolution for all activities seems too cinematic for the feel I'm trying to evoke.  I'm trying to get on the level of "rather realistic," and while some enemies may be fine being humiliated into submission, others would just shoot you for hurting their feelings.

The high-lethality combat could work, I think, provided there was armor capable of keeping the character alive, or if character death was at GM discretion.  That way, you only die if you did something stupid.  Nobody is going to pick this RPG up with the intent of using it for hack and slash, so why too hard to make it impossible?

[TonyLB]

Make combat social.  Make repairing the space-ship social.  Put it all into the context of what you're trying to do with the game.

On Firefly for instance, Kaylee is never just fixing the ship because she feels like fixing the ship.  She's fixing the ship because the crew counts on her.  Or she's fixing the ship to improve her standing with Mal.  Or she's fixing the ship to avoid a confrontation with Simon.

So, if you've got social mechanics that let the players do interesting things with "don't let the crew down," and "get Mal to like me," and "avoid talking with Simon" then you're set.  Use those.

"I'm rolling to avoid talking with Simon.  And she'll do it by retreating to the engine room and overhauling the trans-stator pumps.  Wow... they're gleaming like new!"

[Grand_Commander13]

Make combat social.  Make repairing the space-ship social.  Put it all into the context of what you're trying to do with the game.

Now that is an interesting idea...

I see some serious potential with that.  I'm gonna need to take this ball and go run with it, but I can really have fun with the spirit behind this suggestion.  Thanks!  :-D

[Grand_Commander13]

Okay.  I took that ball.  I took that ball, ran with it, and now I'm back.  Here's my nicely organized brain dump, using that sergeant as an example.  What do you think?

-------------------------------------------

In combat, your performance is based on what motivates you.  A normal, disinterested person fighting because he has to will roll 2d6 on their attack roll.  A dedicated soldier fighting for his nation will roll 3d6 on their attack roll.  A true-blue sergeant fighting his way through enemy troops to save the men under his command will roll 4d6 on his attack roll.  Some weapons, due to their sheer power, give a flat bonus to this roll.

Basic defenses (meet or beat to hit):
Person not dodging: (-4 modifier)
Unarmored person dodging: 7
Light armor (like in Starship Troopers): 9
Medium Armor (Stormtroopers): 12
Power Armor (Fallout, baby!): 16

Perhaps add in some gradients, so on the character sheet, it would look like this:
Sergeant Collins
Motivations:
Men under his command (Protect; 2d6+1)
Men under his command (Inspire; 1d6+2)
Colonel Borgard (Be dependable; 1d6)
Planet Hithia (Serve; 1d6)

Obviously showing what they get in addition to the basic 2d6 for (Survival).  I don't know for sure if these motivations should be bought with character points or not, but I'm certainly leaning towards not.

[MikeSands]

Overall, seems pretty cool.

I don't know for sure if these motivations should be bought with character points or not, but I'm certainly leaning towards not.

Rather than generic character points, why not just say "You have 5d6 worth of relationships to allocate" (Or whatever number, but your example has 5. Plus those bonuses, however they map out).

[Grand_Commander13]

I think that will be something I can only decide after I playtest.  But it really seems like something the GM has to decide per character.  Some things (like being dependable for the Colonel) won't come into play as often as others (serve your home planet).

[xenopulse]

Grand_Commander13:

I definitely think that focusing on the motivations is the way to go. When I think about people in war, I know there are those who really don't want to be there and who barely contribute (or shoot in the air on purpose). Then there are the gung ho ones who actually try to be effective, and the difference is huge. There's that one scene in Band of Brothers as an example, where the one guy clears out several machine gun nests.

I am sure you'll go through several versions of rules before you get it just right for you, and yes, playtesting will be the main tool in that.

You can look at Riddle of Steel as an example that has detailed rules for different weapons, armor, skills, and tactics, but the passions and drives of those who fight matter more than any of those.

So, good luck with this project, it does sound promising.

[Grand_Commander13]

I still think it's silly how Tony gave me an idea, yet my output was nothing like his input.  Oh well, smart people like all of us are weird like that, right?  :-D

Anyway, I like how the motivation-based combat has potential to work out.  Before, everything seemed to lead to a situation where the combat was only thrown in because it was obligatory.  Now, you can not only play the politician, but also the mercenary who's taking on the evil space overlord gratis for some reason.  You can be the charismatic diplomat, or you can be the idealistic soldier.  It's so much more FUN sounding, and doesn't dilute anything at all.

I'll probably carry over the motivation mechanic when I make the more "traditional" RPG in the same setting, because it makes so much sense.  I really like that mechanic.

Thanks everybody, you have been wonderful counselors, advisors, and inspirations!

Ah, now I remember why I love this board.  ^_^

[timfire]

GC_13,

I would encourage you to take a step back for a moment to re-consider Shreyas' question: What goals do you have for your game?

You really need to sit down and develop a focused concept for your game. Though I admit that it's hard to interpret things over the web, it seems to me that you don't really know what direction you want to move the game in. You started this thread talking about "social" stats.

What does "social" mean? Seriously, that's not rhetorical. Do you want to base the mechanics around personal skills and attributes, like leadership, the ability to negoiate, the ability to inspire, etc.? Or is it going to be about relationships? Meaning, developing relationships grants certain mechanical effects when that relationship is involved (ie, you get bonus dice when a friend is in danger). What kind of relationship matters? Love, hate, trust, romance, family, military rank? You also started started talking about motivations, which isn't exactly the same thing as "social", many motivations are simply personal, and don't need to involve other people.

I bring this up as someone who struggles with focus themselves. I want to jump right into mechanics. But when you lack direction, things just don't work right. But when you know what you want, rules and whatnot come easy.

I bet that when you can answer those questions I brought up, you'll find that other stuff just starts falling in line.