social-centric mechanics

[woodelf]

Ok, don't shoot me, but this is, loosely speaking, a D20-based discussion.  Specifically, for our setting, Ogalepihcra, we want to include 3 complete sets of rules, each designed for a different style of play.  One of those will be loosely D20-based, designed for a larger-than-life heroic style of play.  (Though D&D players will likely be rather suprised at the definition of "heroic" being used.)  

At this point, nothing is set--so while i'll speak in the definite for everything below, consider it all to be planned changes, not definite changes. This means, feel free to tear this all the way down to the foundation (social-centric, instead of combat-centric, D20), and change everything else along the way.

Setting background: You can read about the rumel a bit at <http://www.tiltingatwindmills.net/rumel/rumel_con.pdf>.  So far, we don't have anything about the anaugi online.

Ok, so here's a summary of the major changes:
--> shift stats around a bit so we end up with 2 physical, 2 mental, and 2 social (instead of 3/2/1)
--> add combat skills to the skill list.  probably one for each group of weapons: blades, polearms, nets, bows, etc.  For the rumel, the only weapons they have are the net, stick (light club), and throwing stick, but the anaugi might have more.  Perhaps also a dodge or defense skill (or two).
--> Along with the shift to skills, pretty much the whole combat system goes out the window--it just becomes opposed skill checks, just like arm wrestling.
--> Hit die is race-based. Level increases hit points little or none. Weapons still do the same damages listed in the PH.
--> Critical has special effect, rather than increasing hps of damage. (just skipping over that for now.)
--> Classes no longer have BAB/Defense Bonus, hit dice, or the standard saving throws.
--> Instead, we're plugging in a whole social interaction system. So every class has a Base Influence, Base Reputation, and saves vs. Coercion, Proposition, and Persuasion.
--> Also, you gain a Popularity die with each level, which is rolled (once)  to generate your Popularity Points.
--> When someone "attacks" you, their Influence total is compared to your Reputation total (modifiers, feats, and a die roll come in here).  If successful, a save vs. the appropriate type of attack is made, and if that is failed Popularity is lost.  Critical hits instead decrease Reputation.  
--> The "tool" (technique) used for the attack affects either the attack or the effect--or maybe both.  The various techniques are gained via feats, much like the weapon/armor proficiency feats, and different classes start out with different feats.  Some techniques are better for some kinds of attacks (i.e., intimidation is great for Coercion, but not so good for Propositions).  These techniques are such things as bluff, intimidate, leadership, bribery, bargain, diplomacy, oration, seduction, and maybe bureaucracy or connections.
--> Many (most?) of the combat feats would be gone, 'cause they're unnecessary when you can just adjust your skill levels.  
--> A whole new class of social feats would show up--the mechanical equivalents of the nixed combat feats.
--> Still haven't figured out how damage is actually calculated.  The techniques could be weapon-equiavelents, with assigned ranges.  Or it could come from the defense save or degree of attack success, somehow.  Or something else.

So, feedback?  Obvious pitfalls?  Better ideas?

[ethan_greer]

Just my own personal, but I've never liked feats.  Why not include the social things like Intimidation, Bluff, etc. as skills, just like the new combat skills you propose?

I like all the other changes you have suggested.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi woodelf,

Are you familiar with the Influence rules in Fvlminata? They are reeeeally interesting, although the presentation is a bit hampered by the two authors' slight differences in how to apply them.

The "influencer" player actually states three possible general ways for the target to react, and the degree-of-effect roll gives the possible range of the three that the "influenced" player gets to pick from. Clearly, the better the degree-of-effect roll, the narrower the range.

Both my group and Jake Norwood's play of Fvlminata found these rules to be fun and fascinating, eclipsing most of the other aspects of the game.

You might also check out the Repartee rules in Lace & Steel, as well as the awesome Persuade/Rebuff system in The Dying Earth.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Review of Fvlminata is currently in prep.

[Mike Holmes]

--> shift stats around a bit so we end up with 2 physical, 2 mental, and 2 social (instead of 3/2/1)

Why not really tip it and go 1/2/3? BOD, INT, WIS, PRE, COM, WIT

--> add combat skills to the skill list.  probably one for each group of weapons: blades, polearms, nets, bows, etc.  For the rumel, the only weapons they have are the net, stick (light club), and throwing stick, but the anaugi might have more.  Perhaps also a dodge or defense skill (or two).

Why not just a Combat Skill? That really alters the arena away from combat (while still enabling it if it should happen). Essentially think of Combat as just another (very crude) social skill. Persuasion via force.

--> Along with the shift to skills, pretty much the whole combat system goes out the window--it just becomes opposed skill checks, just like arm wrestling.

OK, now I'm really interested. This could get my vote for best d20 supplement in next year's Indie Awards if done right.

--> Hit die is race-based. Level increases hit points little or none. Weapons still do the same damages listed in the PH.

Skip it. HP = BOD.

--> Critical has special effect, rather than increasing hps of damage. (just skipping over that for now.)

Crit = you win, however you like. That's how I'd do it.

--> Classes no longer have BAB/Defense Bonus, hit dice, or the standard saving throws.
--> Instead, we're plugging in a whole social interaction system. So every class has a Base Influence, Base Reputation, and saves vs. Coercion, Proposition, and Persuasion.
--> Also, you gain a Popularity die with each level, which is rolled (once)  to generate your Popularity Points.

Excellent.

--> When someone "attacks" you, their Influence total is compared to your Reputation total (modifiers, feats, and a die roll come in here).  If successful, a save vs. the appropriate type of attack is made, and if that is failed Popularity is lost.  Critical hits instead decrease Reputation.

You've been reading the Social Conflict thread in the TROS forum, haven't you (if not you out to look at it). Cool.

--> The "tool" (technique) used for the attack affects either the attack or the effect--or maybe both.  The various techniques are gained via feats, much like the weapon/armor proficiency feats, and different classes start out with different feats.  Some techniques are better for some kinds of attacks (i.e., intimidation is great for Coercion, but not so good for Propositions).  These techniques are such things as bluff, intimidate, leadership, bribery, bargain, diplomacy, oration, seduction, and maybe bureaucracy or connections.

Some of these sound like skills. But, yes, some should definitely be feats.

--> Many (most?) of the combat feats would be gone, 'cause they're unnecessary when you can just adjust your skill levels.  
--> A whole new class of social feats would show up--the mechanical equivalents of the nixed combat feats.

Makes sense.

--> Still haven't figured out how damage is actually calculated.  The techniques could be weapon-equiavelents, with assigned ranges.  Or it could come from the defense save or degree of attack success, somehow.  Or something else.

All attacks do 1d6 for ease. Feats can increase or modify damage.

I'll be really interested to see what it looks like. Can you give us some example classes?

Mike

[woodelf]

Just my own personal, but I've never liked feats.  Why not include the social things like Intimidation, Bluff, etc. as skills, just like the new combat skills you propose?

I like all the other changes you have suggested.

Well, frankly, i'm not terribly keen on the combat feats in D&D--primarily because too many of them implicitly remove options, rather than create them.  But feats as implemented in most other D20 games are pretty cool, and live up to the promise--increasing the frequency of feat gain is also a very good idea, IMHO.

As for the social things as feats: the goal here is to turn D&D on its head.  We're *not* going for a purely skill-based RPG.  Instead, we want to make social activity the default action, which everybody can do.  In D&D, it is simply not possible to not get better at combat as you get more experienced--some classes increase more slowly than others, but they all increase.  So, for our setting, all classes get better at social, and there's nothing you can do about it.  Therefore, it needs to be built into the classes, not as skills--'cause as skills, you can forgo them for something else.  

Now, feats vs. class abilities?  Well, that's a little more nebulous.  Here's the reasoning.  First, i was thinking of weapon proficiency in D&D3E--in theory, anybody can fight , but to use any particular weapon without handicap requires a feat.  And what differentiates the classes, in this area, is that they get different groups of weapons for free, without actually spending a feat slot.  Then, we were thinking about the various ways in which one addresses a social situation: you can bluff, seduce, intimidate, impress, or distract the guard (probably other techniques too, but i'll stop at that).  Well, all of those, ultimately, are about using your social abilities to get someone else to do what you want--all that differs is the means.  Likewise, a sword, bow, axe, and hammer are different means to the same ends (battering someone).  And the analogy seems better than that--in both cases, some tools are better in some situations, other in other situations (if you're an overweight hairy man in battered armor, seducing the straight male elf guard of aristocratic upbringing is probably not your best course of action).  So, rather than have the various techniques be virtual skills, and thus at various levels, the thought was to basically make them binary abilities: either you know how to seduce, or you don't.  If you know how, you're basically just leveraging your general social wiles, and, for you, it's different mostly in the details from, say, intimidation (assuming you know how to do that, too).  Of course, much like Power Attack, Expertise, Weapon Finesse, & Cleave in D&D, there'll be ways of differentiating, so that you *can* be better at, say, intimidation, by spending a feat.  [great cleave analogue:your attack is so devestating that not only do you overwhelm your foe, but those who are associated with her suffer damage, too.]

[woodelf]

Hi woodelf,

Are you familiar with the Influence rules in Fvlminata? They are reeeeally interesting, although the presentation is a bit hampered by the two authors' slight differences in how to apply them.

The "influencer" player actually states three possible general ways for the target to react, and the degree-of-effect roll gives the possible range of the three that the "influenced" player gets to pick from. Clearly, the better the degree-of-effect roll, the narrower the range.

Both my group and Jake Norwood's play of Fvlminata found these rules to be fun and fascinating, eclipsing most of the other aspects of the game.

You might also check out the Repartee rules in Lace & Steel, as well as the awesome Persuade/Rebuff system in The Dying Earth.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Review of Fvlminata is currently in prep.

I'm already planning on rereading Lace & Steel.  I've read Dying Earth, but am actually drawing more of this from Aria--*awesome* social-interaction rules in that one.  

As for Fvlminata, let me see if i understand: Sue wants Tammy to wash her car for her.  Sue['s player] decides that the three possible outcomes are:
1) Tammy is glad to help out, and sees it is a favor to a friend
2) Tammy does it, but grudgingly, and Sue now owes her
3) Tammy feels put-upon, and not only refuses to do it, but has a negative reaction towards Sue

Sue's player makes an Influence roll (is Influence more akin to a skill, or a resource?).  If she rolls really well, she can pick which result occurs, though Tammy's player still gets to roleplay the details.  Perhaps Sue's player picks #2, 'cause it's more interesting.  
If she rolls poorly, Tammy can pick any of the three results, and still gets to customize them.  In between rolls have an in-between spread.  

Did i understand you rightly?  At least in the gist of it?

[woodelf]

--> shift stats around a bit so we end up with 2 physical, 2 mental, and 2 social (instead of 3/2/1)

Why not really tip it and go 1/2/3? BOD, INT, WIS, PRE, COM, WIT

Right now, we're looking at Physique, Agility, Intelligence, Perception, Charisma (purely-social attribute), & Spirit (aura, willpower--and interacts with the magic, which is all about spirits/ghosts).  My initial reaction is that Wit is---hmmm, it doesn't feel right to me, but i can't think of any real reason why not.  Certianly something to think about.

--> add combat skills to the skill list.  probably one for each group of weapons: blades, polearms, nets, bows, etc.  For the rumel, the only weapons they have are the net, stick (light club), and throwing stick, but the anaugi might have more.  Perhaps also a dodge or defense skill (or two).

Why not just a Combat Skill? That really alters the arena away from combat (while still enabling it if it should happen). Essentially think of Combat as just another (very crude) social skill. Persuasion via force.

Believe me, we've actually considered going this way.  Eliminate hit points entirely--leave physical harm in the realm of RPing (much as social harm is in most RPGs)--and measure the damage from physical attacks in terms of Popularity/Reputation/Influence: It's far more important that you were seen to be bested by this street urchin than it is that you were physically wounded.  However, i'd be really tickled if this system actually interacted with most other D20 games--so that you could plug one of these characters into a game with a M&MM super and a D&D adventurer and a Spycraft agent, and the interactions would make sense.  For that reason, having physical attacks do physical damage will probably be retained.  But for our cross-genre anime gradeschool game...

Anyway, as for multiple combat skills: three reasons.  One, for the society in question, combat is sufficiently peripheral that it seems more "realistic" that even someone who had learned to fight in one way wouldn't be very good fighting differently.  Two, it spreads the points around--it takes more points to be good at combat, hopefully discouraging it.  But i can see the argument that allowing those who want to be good at combat to do so, without using a lot of their points, would make sense, because it'd be just a "flavor" skill, anyway, and not affect balance.  Three, it's very much in the character of D20 to have skills more broken up the more "important" the activity (cf. "spot" and "listen").  Oh, wait, that's an argument for lumping combat.  Definitely something to think about.

--> Along with the shift to skills, pretty much the whole combat system goes out the window--it just becomes opposed skill checks, just like arm wrestling.

OK, now I'm really interested. This could get my vote for best d20 supplement in next year's Indie Awards if done right.

--> Hit die is race-based. Level increases hit points little or none. Weapons still do the same damages listed in the PH.

Skip it. HP = BOD.

Maybe.  Two *very* different races in the setting, and differentiating them makes sense, but their body/physique scores might not do it.  (One is people is somewhat spider monkey-like, with a heavy one weighing a couple kilos; the other is amphibious, reptilian, ancestrally predatory, and probably 100 kilos on average--having them equally resistant to physical trauma goes beyond abstraction int oth e realm of the absurd, for me.)

--> Critical has special effect, rather than increasing hps of damage. (just skipping over that for now.)

Crit = you win, however you like. That's how I'd do it.

Hmmm... might do that.  It was actually planned that it ties into their belief system--a crit means you've drawn blood.  And when they bleed, they lose their souls, which is Very Bad(TM)

--> When someone "attacks" you, their Influence total is compared to your Reputation total (modifiers, feats, and a die roll come in here).  If successful, a save vs. the appropriate type of attack is made, and if that is failed Popularity is lost.  Critical hits instead decrease Reputation.

You've been reading the Social Conflict thread in the TROS forum, haven't you (if not you out to look at it). Cool.[/quote]

Nope.  I'll go check it out.

--> The "tool" (technique) used for the attack affects either the attack or the effect--or maybe both.  The various techniques are gained via feats, much like the weapon/armor proficiency feats, and different classes start out with different feats.  Some techniques are better for some kinds of attacks (i.e., intimidation is great for Coercion, but not so good for Propositions).  These techniques are such things as bluff, intimidate, leadership, bribery, bargain, diplomacy, oration, seduction, and maybe bureaucracy or connections.

Some of these sound like skills. But, yes, some should definitely be feats.

See my other response on why, tentatively, they are mostly-binary abilities, rather than skills.

--> Still haven't figured out how damage is actually calculated.  The techniques could be weapon-equiavelents, with assigned ranges.  Or it could come from the defense save or degree of attack success, somehow.  Or something else.

All attacks do 1d6 for ease. Feats can increase or modify damage.

Maybe.  Maybe a simple chart, with, say, 4 levels of damage, and you cross-reference what you're using with what you want to accomplish (using seduction to scare someone isn't as easy as using intimidation or connections; using intimidation is less effective at winning someone to your side than seduction or flattery) to determine which one it is.  I'm seeing it as relatively painless--certainly no more intimidating than the weapons chart in the PH.

I'll be really interested to see what it looks like. Can you give us some example classes?

Mike

Sure, but i'm not sure how much sense these'll make on their own.  You should really give the con flyer (linked in my first post) a look-see to have some basis in the society in question.

Probable classes:
Provider (farmer/gatherer/trapper--don't really hunt)
Weaver (pretty much all art & technology is weaving based, from decorations, through clothes and tools, to architecture)
Bureaucrat
Guardian (closest they get to a warrior class--more like a cross between hunter (for protection, not food) and police)
Trader
Matchmaker (as in romance)
Entertainer
Chosen One (someone touched by the spirits, and thus destined to become a shaman or outcast)

Probable "prestige" classes (most of which will have entry requirements that can be met by a starting character):
Rememberer
Shaman
Soulless One (society apart, also sort of like untouchables)
Walking Dead (death is more a societal construct than a biological fact...)
Magistrate

As for the details (i.e., which ones get the "fast" progression of Base Influence, which have which social techniques available at 1st level, etc.)--that's exactly what we haven't gotten around to, yet.  I need a slightly more-solid system, first, before i can start meaningfully parcelling out the nifties among the classes, and then refining the system.

[woodelf]

All attacks do 1d6 for ease. Feats can increase or modify damage.

Like unarmed attacks in D&D?  That's a point in its favor, antecedent-wise.

[Mike Holmes]

All attacks do 1d6 for ease. Feats can increase or modify damage.

Like unarmed attacks in D&D?  That's a point in its favor, antecedent-wise.

Sorta. But then, by that analogy, you're back to Feats being weapons or something and having different ratings. I'm sure there are a number of ways to work it.

Your thoughts on the other post all seem well thought out. This could be a big thing, IMO.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi woodelf,

You almost have the Fvlminata example right, but not quite.

The thing to realize is that all three outcomes represent the result of a successful Influence attempt. None of them will occur if the basic Influence roll fails in the first place. So all of them represent versions of success.

It might read more like:

a) Tammy happily washes the car and is pleased that Sue asked her as opposed to, say, Amanda.

b) Tammy washes the car, but Sue has to drop off Tammy's mail at the post office.

c) Tammy washes the car but gives Sue an ultimatum about "friends don't treat friends like servants" and quite likely bad-mouths Sue at the next get-together of the neighborhood action group.

Again, the range of these options for Tammy's player is only valid insofar as Sue's player makes the Influence roll in the first place. If she fails it, then all three options go "poof" away, and Tammy doesn't wash the car at all, and is free to react as Tammy's player sees fit.

When two characters are using Influence on one another simultaneously, this can get interesting - the rules are quite clear about how only one of them will actually succeed, but if you don't get the initial success/fail concept for one roll, then trying to play and arbitrate the mutual attempts is impossible.

Best,
Ron

P.S. All of these presupposes that the group is OK with player-characters using Influence on one another. My own group and Jake's group both like this a lot, but the second edition of Fvlminata recommends or even dictates (not sure) that Influence may only ever be used by player-characters on NPCs.

[Valamir]

Yeah, player vs player influence would almost require a hefty degree of target player editing of the 3 choices to make sure that they also fit within the players character concept (for instance Tammy might be the type to bad mouth but has something more subtle in mind).  For a group where everybody has full buy in to each others characters this wouldn't be so much of a problem because everyone would already have a pretty good idea of what "the character would do", but for groups with more proprietary views of the character sheet in order for something like this to work there would need to be some formal editing rules in place.  Or even reverse who gets to pick the 3 responses with the GM ensuring that it is Good, Better, and Best and not a stealth "no".

[szilard]

Interesting....

So, basically, when someone goes up a level they will gain Popularity Points instead of Hit Points and something like a base Influence bonus instead of an Attack bonus?

So levels actually correspond to something like social status?

If I'm right here, is it possible to gain or loose levels quickly?

Stuart

[woodelf]

Interesting....

So, basically, when someone goes up a level they will gain Popularity Points instead of Hit Points and something like a base Influence bonus instead of an Attack bonus?

So levels actually correspond to something like social status?

If I'm right here, is it possible to gain or loose levels quickly?

Stuart

The intention is that it's more than just social status--it's more like social experience or savvy.  Analogously, while you can suffer a crippling blow in D&D (i.e., have a permanent reduction in hps--ok, i don't actually know if this is possible anymore, but i think poisons and the like can do it--without losing a level), that doesn't affect your overall skill in combat.  Similarly, here, you can rapidly gain and lose status, but that doesn't necessarily correspond to level.  

But you raise a good point that i hadn't thought about before--definitely have to think about that.  My initial reaction is that it's part of the abstraction (for good and ill): In a socially-rigorous society, you *can't* gain or lose status all that easily or quickly--it takes something really devestating (analogous to the negative levels of undead attacks). But, in short, no, the idea isn't to make levels themselves a more fluid quantity.  the hit-point analogue probably *will* be more fluid, however. As you point out, social status can fluctuate fairly easily, and possibly permanently, while hps in D&D are assumed to only change temporarily (i.e., until healed), except for level gains.