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...

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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!"

TonyLB wrote: 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.

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.

Overall, seems pretty cool.

Grand_Commander13 wrote: I don't know for sure if these motivations should be bought with character points or not, but I'm certainly leaning towards not.

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).

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.

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. ^_^

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.

Well, backing up never hurts, really.

The goal for the game is to focus mostly on social interaction, having skills for persuasion, lying, calming people down, inciting them to great deeds, etcs... As I said, I've thought of fourteen different skills in the social realm.

So, "social" means mostly the persuading, negotiating, etc... business. Also, I'm going to put in more general stats for marking how much people like you.

I want to map out stuff like "you are a well-known privateer who harrasses *X PLANET*'s shipping, so their enemies all react to you with a +2 bonus" kind of thing. "The chancellor is a staunch conservative while you are a moderate, so difficulty on all political-based Persuade checks are at +2 difficulty level, IF THEY ARE INNOCUOUS-SEEMING." Of course, if you advocated something he would be opposed to, the difficulty would already be set high or impossible.

All that stuff. This transfers over to the army situation so long as the players and GM know that the primary part of the game will be dealing with dissent in the ranks, interrogating enemy prisoners, and trying to convince the brass that they don't have a clue. A situation like in Starship Troopers 2 (minus the sex and aliens, but WITH turncoats and tough decisions to be made) would be ideal.

So... Now do I seem more coherent?

Grand_Commander13 wrote: So, "social" means mostly the persuading, negotiating, etc... business. Also, I'm going to put in more general stats for marking how much people like you.

I want to map out stuff like "you are a well-known privateer who harrasses *X PLANET*'s shipping, so their enemies all react to you with a +2 bonus" kind of thing. "The chancellor is a staunch conservative while you are a moderate, so difficulty on all political-based Persuade checks are at +2 difficulty level, IF THEY ARE INNOCUOUS-SEEMING." Of course, if you advocated something he would be opposed to, the difficulty would already be set high or impossible.

Well, the privateer example was something you either decided you wanted in your character's past, or something you decided to do in play. Logically, people would react differently towards you because of it.

Aside from that, the general idea, like I said, is to quantify a bunch of what is hand-waved normally. The only skills you have will be social skills, and the rest of your character will be those motivations, and a collection of people's opinions of your character after meeting or having heard of you. These will interact with your other social skills, and add a roll to determine random NPC's reactions to your presence (since they are no longer initially neutral).

Aside from that... Yeah, let me know if my thought process is still muddled.

GC, (Did you ever mention your name? I'm Christian :)

I think what could really help you at this point is to write out how play would go, blow by blow. That means, write what the GM would say, what the players would say, and how you see the mechanics work in that particular instance. Think about how you *want* it to work out, and make up a fake transcript of a perfect little tidbit of playing your game. That will help you immensely in figuring out how everything fits together.

What Christian said, plus my own response:

Grand_Commander13 wrote: Logically, people would react differently towards you because of it.

xenopulse wrote: GC, (Did you ever mention your name? I'm Christian :)

Okay, so I dawdled a bit. But here it is.

There are two players, who for the sake of simplicity will be RALPH (Mr. Smith) and JOSH (Mr. Jones).

Background: Ralph and Josh's characters are relatively important diplomats for their home planet of Hithia. They are sent to the nearby neutral planet of Plen to patch up relations that have been less than warm, lately. The last game session ended with their shuttle landing in the space port in Plen's capital, and they are ready to get to work.

GM: Okay, you and your security detail have landed. As you exit the shuttle, the Vice President is there to greet you. "Hello, hello, Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith. Welcome to Plen," he says in an amicable voice.

RALPH: I use Empathy. *rolls dice* With my bonus, I got a 14.

GM: *rolls dice for the VP's Forge Emotion check* He's obviously faking it.

RALPH: Okay. I extend my hand.

JOSH: So do I.

GM: He shakes both your hands.

RALPH: As we're shaking, I say "Well thank you for the warm welcome Mr. Williams, but I believe we have work to do."

GM: He seems relieved that he no longer has to appear happy to see you, but maintains a neutral disposition. He says "That is true, that is true. Come, walk with me." As you walk, he puts his arms behind his back and talks some more. "I believe you will find the accomodations we have prepared for you quite comfortable. There will be a dinner tonight where you will be introduced to everybody, and we will get right to work first thing in the morning."

JOSH: "Excellent. I look forward to working with you all." *rolls* I got a 10 for my Lie check.

GM: *rolls* If he notices, he doesn't give you any indication.

RALPH: "I, too, look forward to patching up relations." No lie check there.

GM: Alright then. He takes you to your suites. They're quite nice, and all that. Later that night, you are driven in a limosine to the presidential mansion for the dinner party. The President, Vice President, and the entire cabinet are there, as well as some assorted senators and representatives. *looks right at Josh* Senator Perkins is there.

JOSH: Oh jeez, not him. I hope we won't have to work with him.

RALPH: He's the head of their foreign relations committee; I think it's time to make nice.

JOSH: Yeah. Okay, I grit my teeth, straighten my collar, and approach Senator Perkins.

GM: He's currently talking with a few of his party's officials who are also attending the party. He notices you, and you can clearly see how annoyed he is.. "Ah. Hello, Mr. Jones," he says tersely.

JOSH: *rolls* Ouch. I only got a 7 for my Presence roll.

GM: That's not going to cut it. After your previous dealings with him, you need at least a 15 to impress him.

JOSH: I know, I know. Fine. I extend my hand. "Hey there, Senator Perkins. I'm just... Hoping you're not still upset about the wheat tariff, are you?" (GC13's note: He's playing according to the roll.)

GM: He extends a deliberately limp hand and briefly shakes yours. "Not at all," he says coldly. *the GM slides Josh a story token for roleplaying his terrible failure well* (GC13's note: Story tokens are something you get for roleplaying a poor roll well, and you redeem them for +1 on a roll, after you see your roll. They do not carry over from session to session.)

RALPH: Don't worry Josh, I have your back. I'm making a Presence roll too. *rolls* 11.

GM: Okay. You've made him think you're worth your salt. Go.

RALPH: (GC13's note: Now roleplaying his Presence roll.) "Excuse me Senator Perkins, but I believe it's been awhile since we've last talked." I extend my hand.

GM: He gives you a good, firm handshake and remarks, "So do they still have you babysitting Jones here?" he asks with a bit of a chuckle.

RALPH: I chuckle politely. "Did you think they'd let him out on his own?"

GM: He laughs.

JOSH: Very funny.

RALPH: Don't worry, I've got this. (To GM) I roll a Perusade check to make him not think Josh isn't so bad.

GM: Okay. Base DC is 10, +5 for Josh's deep-sixing of Perkins' free trade pact, +2 because of Josh's personal insults in the process of doing it.

JOSH: Okay, in my defense, I DID get Mo re-elected with those speeches.

RALPH: Yeah, I know. Anyway, I roll an 18.

JOSH: You could sell ice to an eskimo, I swear...

RALPH: But this is working out for you. "Now don't be too hard on Jones. He knows how to learn from his mistakes. And between you and me, I think his new medication is working," I add with a chuckle.

GM: Alright. Josh, Perkins is only at -4 for you now, instead of -7. He chuckles at the joke. "Well, everybody does deserve a second chance. I'll tell you what. Get those government food subsidies of yours cut back, and we're square. Sound good?"

JOSH: *rolls* I roll a 16 for my Negotiate check. "Would you be willing to drop the titanium tariff in return?"

GM: 16, huh? He doesn't want to tangle with you right now. "Well, maybe. But what are we talking about business so much for anyway? There will be plenty of that tomorrow. Now, I have some more people to talk to." With that, he leaves.

You know, I could write out the whole session of them hobnobbing with Plen's politicos, but I think you get the point.