So, Im looking for opinions from anyone who likes mechanics involved in resolving social conflicts (debates, arguments etc). If you prefer to purely talk it out, thats fine, just not helpful for my purpose.

So I've been working on piecemeal for years and years (an RPG, fantasy heartbreaker) and the other day I had an inspiring moment to redo the social conflict mechanics.

So in the latest update I put them in under the heading "Experimental Argument Rules" and left the old ones in.

I was wondering if anyone here with an interest in social conflict mechanics (and any knowledge of other systems too) could give me a heads up on which one they prefer and why?

It can be downloaded at Pen and Paper Games, Independant and Small Press Section
http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/ ... .php?f=157

or at http://zzarchov.bravehost.com

I'd really appreciate some feedback and advice from anyone who likes social conflict resolution mechanics.

currently in place system:

Thoughts, this is an oldy thats just been in for awhile that orignally was inspired by mechanics (years ago) from the highlander card game thats morphed over the years through suggestions from the game group and reacting to specific problems.  Its clunky, and ok, but I think in my group it may be a "Sacred cow"

Elevator pitch:  A choosing of "verbal maneuvers" and rolling dice to determine how well you pull it off.  Rock Paper Scissors meets Dice Rolling.

Experimental System:

This was designed to mirror the combat system in place.  A choice of appeal, then a type of rebuttal (with different impacts based upon if you have momentum), a roll to "Seize momentum" (ie initiative), and then roll to "curry influence" which mirrors damage in many ways.  If you curry more influence than the importance of the issue , you convince the opponent. 

Obviously more "knobs and dials" than that but those are the stripped down elevator pitches.

Items of note:

Piecemeal is packaged in an alpha state rules viewer program,  there is a long list of reasons why Im doing it that way, not the least of which is to experiment with new mediums.  But I'll be posting that in the appropriate forum,  Here Im just hoping for evaluations and more importantly WHY you think one version is better than the other.

I may be alone in my opinion, but I've always felt social-interaction/conflict mechanics have no place in RPGs. I'm quite vehement on the issue, really, and will now begin ranting. I understand this isn't helpful to your purpose, but I feel it's important. My apologies:

The thrust of my many arguments is that the core of any role-playing game is the role-playing, being primarily concerned with dialogue and other character interactions. In brief, any mechanic that formalises this core into a clinical set of rules renders the activity of actively role-playing null and thus defeats the point of the game (Quod erat demonstrandum, or tautology, you tell me).

In the name of fairness or sportsmanship, game-elements such as the 'diplomacy roll' have been invented to facilitate social situations in which the player may have, for example, no working knowledge of bartering or international politics and so the interaction is largely abstracted. However, most all players (as human beings) have some notion of arguing a point or attempting to act in a persuasive manner and should be allowed to do so in a roll-playing environment, expositing their character's desires and opinions in a convincing manner for the entertainment for all and as doorway to further entertainment (plot and character development).

To suggest then that the fairly simple process of discussion and disagreement between characters of any sort should be quantified and paced as a simulated combat is a painful mockery of real expression and reduces the players and their characters into calculated algorithms. To imply my character thinks of a witty epigram denies me the opportunity to express my character freely, or, if I then did invent something pithy to say in concurrence with this event it would be effectively meaningless - pure colour to the expression of the rules.

Perhaps it's the inorganic nature of social conflict I find distasteful. Or the fact (opinion) that it's rarely fun, always dry and perpetually abstracted. Either way, I implore you to reconsider your ideas about these mechanics!

I'm on the opposite side of the fence from you M. Burrell. I can even rant about it, but that is a post for another topic.

I can't find the old card based system, and you haven't posted the new. Ican't tell what benefits the card based one has.

I would prbably prefer the newer version. Would also agree with one of your commentors that I prefer that social interaction die rtolls result in guidelines for action, not any sort of mind control. In unimportant situations, the storyteller will narrate a fairly strong result if desired. My own designs aim for instilling temporary values that are rewarded for workign with, and can counter the benefits from more permanant goals. In my current design working with your convictions gives you a chance for mechanical bonuses, and roleplaying accortding to your convictions earns you mojo in other ways.

There is no mandatory actions no.

As to not having a place in RPG's, I could agree with that but its very limiting in my mind to RPG's and with my personal gaming group (containing soldiers and MMA competitors) its fairly annoying to not be able to use their player skill in physical conflict and not being able to use their character skills in social.

As someone with a strong education in sales (and having someone I game with who majored in Psych, ug, thats another rant unrelated to game mechanics) I can tell you there is a vast difference between knowing the basics of human interaction and being a crazy human lie detector, or a profiler.  Far more so than knowing a how a sword works (the pointy end goes in) and being a fencer (Which is not to diminish fencing! there is still crazy, CRAZY skill involved there).

I also don't believe roleplaying means dialog.  I know this because roleplay does not just exist in terms of Roleplaying Games,  it involves both therapy and training (with no game). 

Besides, it then limits "heroic actions" to combat. A human with a pointy stick can now take down a 20 tonne flying super intelligent magical dinosaur that breathes fire... but you couldn't convince the emporer to buy your fine clothes that can only be seen by smart people.

I want to ensure that the talking character is to words what the fighting character is to dragon-slaying.  And that talking is just as involved and memorable as the fight with the dragon.  That when you convince  the villain his plan is flawed and he is not the savior but the true villain, its memorable.

Currently in either system if you convince someone they are wrong they can claim "Stubborn refusal" and ignore you, but when they act in a way they do not believe in they lose some of their "divine blessings" such as fate and destiny points (and other tweaks).

Thus alot of battles end in the cinematic manner of conversing with the Villain first, convincing him he's a mad fool, then battling it out.  Which is much more satisfying then just busting in the door (again) and opening fire immediatly.

If you do have interest in social mechanics, I'd love to have your opinions on the two methods though.

I see the pen and paper link broke, so here is that again:

http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=157

From what feedback I have recieved I threw up the new system, though the old one is still easily replacable if more results come in.