I have Been making steady progress on my physical combat system, skills and magic [sub](as well as something called 'actions' but never mind that)[/sub] 
Anyway I have been Keeping Social Combat in the back of my mind during the process of creating my physical Combat System mostly because I want them to be similar in feel (if not the actual mechanics themselves)
I could use some Feedback and Some Ideas on parts of the social combat design.

1st I will state that my system is based on 11 core characteristics. As much as Absolutely Possible. Some combination of them will lend itself to all aspects of the character that they govern. These numbers range from 1-10 --- whatever your number is -- that is your bonus. 1= - +1 (which isn't really a bonus at all)

2nd I will outline my Physical Combat system. As I do want them to act similarly.

Might - physical strength
Prowess - instincts
Precision - Control of body
Agility - quickness - balance
Forbearance - willpower - pain tolerance
Heartiness - healthiness - damage threshold
Perception - alertness - awareness
Knowledge - Things learned and recalled - memory
Reasoning - Ability to puzzle things out - creativity
Communication - ability to convey thoughts well - use etiquette - and empathy
Appeal - how ideal you appear. cleanliness - sense of fashion - comeliness - cheerfulness/glumness - confidence

these are the 11 core Characteristic that will drive everything.
There are purely physical things - such as might - purely social things - such as Communication - and some that work either way.
- Such as prowess

Physical Combat is driven by these derived stats.

Offensive modifiers
Melee- Prowess + (Knowledge + Precision/2) + Level Bonus
Ranged – Precision + (Might + Knowledge/2) + Level Bonus
1st line of defense
Dodge bonus – Agility + Perception
Parry bonus – Precision + Perception
Preservations [sub](saving throws)[/sub]
Mental –  (Knowledge + Reasoning /2) + Level Bonus
Reflexive – (prowess + Agility/2) + Level Bonus
Resistive – (Heartiness + Forbearance /2) + Level Bonus
Magical – (Forbearance + Perception/2) + Level Bonus
Spell Power – Level + Average of class prerequisites (+ spell level)

Armor value is decided by a chart. and breaks down in weapon-type defenses (vs. slashing, Vs. Piercing, etc)


an example of simple Combat. [sub]I say simple because I am leaving out 'actions'[/sub]
I will use 2 fighter type classes.

BOB vs SAM

SAM gets a higher Initiative roll (d20 +agility-armor penalty) and goes first.
SAM attacks BOB with a spear (1d10+might)
SAM is thrusting with the spear and not throwing it so he uses his MELEE BONUS and adds it to his d20 roll
BOB will try to defend --- hes wearing chainmail which slows down his DODGE - he uses a off hand dagger (+ to PARRY)
BOB rolls a d20 adds his PARRY BONUS
SAM's attack equals 30 [sub](MELEE BONUS=17 --- D20 roll=13)[/sub]
BOB's defense equals 27 [sub](PARRY BONUS=13 --- D20 roll=14)[/sub]
SAM makes it past BOB's 1ST LINE OF DEFENSE
BOB is wearing chainmail which has a value of 31 vs Piercing weapons.
SAM's attack does not cause damage to BOB's heath.
It does however leave a DING in BOB's armor [sub](so many dings = a rent --- so many rents lower the armor value)[/sub]


In Social Combat I'd like

To have the same feel .
Clearly it must be different.
Most social systems I have seen or played with
Do not have a pleasing mix of roleplaying with rollplaying.
Its either one or the other.

[glow=red,2,300](I'm running out of time - lunch break - may have to rush some thoughts here)[/glow]

I want apposing rolls. - d20+_____  vs  d20  +_____

I stead of weapons I want "social Tactics"
So far I have six.
Most of these need something added to them for them to work (roleplaying needs to be added)
Threaten with (need to state threat)
Plead
Make offer (must state offer)
Bait with (must state what the bait is)
Provoke (this is a reverse physiology - move ---- "you're too small to fight in the melee")
Order - must be higher in the chain of command.

Depending on the class you pick you will get a number of "points" to place on these "tactics"
The more points the better the character is at doing this.

your social bonus is made up of -- Communication + (Knowledge+Reasoning/2) + class/level bonus
[sub]you social bonus would act like the melee bonus did in my combat example above[/sub]

I need a defense system (using the 11 core characteristics)

and I think a disposition toward target system (using appeal in some way)
ex: friendly vs Hostile or Indifferent vs amiable.

Thanks in advance.

and sorry for any typos. I am out of time. no time to proofread.

Okay I have a little time left on my lunch break. I'll try to tidy up the last of my last post.

I didn't really get to mention the logic behind my idea for a social combat system.
The Idea is although at the gaming table its sort of played out like a physical combat.
it would use different terms.

I stead of weapons I want "social Tactics"

Most of these need something added to them for them to work (roleplaying needs to be added)

are we ever getting edit back? .. hahaha just look at this.

I am also your Lord and it is you I need to marry - not your daughter.

What makes it beneficial to choose one tactic over the other?  Are there particular times and situations?  Particular personalities?

Ar wrote:
What makes it beneficial to choose one tactic over the other?  Are there particular times and situations?  Particular personalities?

I have some ideas.

An unscrupulous NPC is more susceptible to a bribe.
A cowardly NPC is more susceptible to a threat.

Therefore, your tactics could challenge an NPC's attributes.  Forbearance determines overall resolve.  A threat challenges might.  A bluff challenges perception or knowledge.  Seduction challenges appeal (someone low in confidence or attractiveness is easily swayed through sex).  Quick talking challenges communication.  I don't know if you've ever observed a quick talker in action (I was on the receiving end once), but they operate by confusing the living shit out of you and exploit your inability to follow along - like when you're giving them back change.  It's easy to confuse someone when it comes to things like numbers. 
I would also conjecture that high scores in certain attributes can affect you inversely.  For example, if you are a very empathetic person (i.e. high communication), someone who pulls off the desperation act well could easily cloud your judgment.  There are also quite a few idiots in the world who are absolutely immune to a rational argument, or if you make a witty insult against them, it might fly over their heads.

This is great. I was considering Making Certain tactics work better against certain Defenses (and vice versa). It seemed like it was going to get complicated but I think youve shed some light on how to simplify it.

An unscrupulous NPC is more susceptible to a bribe.
A cowardly NPC is more susceptible to a threat.

Hi Brent,
I'm glad you're doing this, 'cause interesting social combat is rare.

I don't have any specific thoughts at present, but I want to strongly, strongly recommend that you check out <I>The Burning Wheel by Luke Crane. It's Duel of Wits system is pretty much what you describe wanting -- a social combat played out in a series of different maneuvers with distinct effects. Reading it, or at least reading up on it, should give you some insights. I imagine there will be things DoW that make you go, "Hey, that's what I want," and you can appropriate them, as well as things that make you go, "No, I don't want it like that at all," but that's good too because it gives you perspective on how you want it to be different.

-Marshall

A personality matrix would not benefit this method.  There is no need to make it all messy like that.  For example, a GM can just decide in his head that his NPC is unscrupulous and model the NPC's attributes to reflect that: a low forbearance score.  A bribe might directly challenge forbearance, as having integrity requires a strong will.  

Have you looked at  " The Dying Earth" RPG? It might give you some ideas...can't recall the specifics but one aspect of the game delt with "Trumping" styles of delivery, Obfuscation trumps Flatery or somesuch thing...might be able to cull for some inspiration!

Great stuff all!

Okay i've worked on some things
I am still not done but wanted to see what you guys thoughts were on my progress.

I Still need to outline how tactics work.
Also, This is not worded as will be in the final "core rules" book or whatever. This is a stripped down outline. Something that once ready I can Playtest.
if there are any questions .. ask away.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
[font=Courier new]
Social Conflict

Initiative    Social Initiative      Communication + d20
Resolve        Social Hit points      Forbearance
Argument      Social Attack          Communication + (knowledge + reasoning)/2
Composure      Social Defense        Reasoning + Communication
Tactics        Social Weapons        Threaten with
                                      Plead
                                      Make offer
                                      Bait with
                                      Provoke
                                      Order

Advantage:
A player with the best position has Advantage.
Position: Weak|Equal|Strong
Equal Position – Suggests that neither side of the argument is stronger than the other.
Weak/Strong Position – Apposing Strengths of arguments.  This can be gained during the course of the Conflict or a conflict can begin with either.  Ex: The interrogation of a man tied to a chair. – The interrogator’s position is strong while the tied man’s is weak.
Changing Position (gaining advantage) – You can strengthen your position by having twice the Resolve as your opponent.
Disposition:  Hostile|Indifferent|Amiable
Hostile Vs Amiable – Hostile takes advantage 1 degree (weak to equal – or equal to Strong)
[sub]*see Tactics for How disposition influences Tactic effectiveness. [/sub]
Weak Stances:
Defensive – Sacrifices Arguments to Increase Composure. (point for point)
Incredulous – Sacrifices Composure to increase Arguments (point for point)
Evasive – Lose attack completely for an invulnerable defense
Strong Stances:
Stringent – Adds a +3 to Argument Rolls
Prudent – Adds a +3 to Composure Rolls
Reckless – Lose defense completely for an unavoidable attack.
[/font]

an example of a Social Conflict.

Paris- Noble Mother Vs. Vern- Lord Marshall of the kings army

Paris' goal - To Force Vern to protect her son from harm by not letting him fight in the vanguard
Vern's goal - To place men where they will be most advantageous.

Both Parties are Indifferent towards one another.
Neither Party Has Advantage

--Paris wins initiative--
She argues (attacks) that her son is too young and inexperienced to fight on the front lines.
She uses the plead tactic (this can be of course role played out " he is just too young" etc)
Her roll Defeats Verns Composure. [sub]She has used most of her points on Plead in her character build as she is a non manipulative woman in general. [/sub]
He loses enough Resolve to Move his position to Weak and Allow Paris Advantage
He affects the defensive stance and argues (attacks) that he will place his best knight at her sons side (make offer tactic)
His roll Does not Defeat her Composure (she has effected a Dubious Stance adding a defensive bonus to her composure)
re-Initiative - Vern Wins this time.
He is frustrated by the woman stubbornness and chances stances from Defensive to Incredulous and beefs up his attack (at the expense of defense.)
His Argument (attack) that he is Lord Marshall and not accustomed to being questioned by nattering mothers. (order tactic - in this case hes pulling rank)
his Roll defeats her Composure dealing stiff damage [sub](order is where his character has piled his points - being a commanding officer)[/sub]
Position is returned to equal ( Paris' resolve is no longer twice Vern's)
She tries once again to plead for her sons safety (after considering conceding to his offer)
Her roll does not defeat his Composure.
Re-initiative  - Vern wins initiative
He Claims that his matter is settled (order tactic)
His attack Succeeds and reduces her composure to 0 or below
She nods with tears in her eyes and turns away wishing that she had taken his offer.

This is a cool approach Necro... how are you going to track resolve etc, on a sliding scale,perhaps a turn of the dice(0-10)?

Skofflox wrote:
This is a cool approach Necro... how are you going to track resolve etc, on a sliding scale,perhaps a turn of the dice(0-10)?

Necromantis wrote:

Skofflox wrote:
This is a cool approach Necro... how are you going to track resolve etc, on a sliding scale,perhaps a turn of the dice(0-10)?

I must admit that I am not sure what you mean by "a turn of the dice (0-10)"
I am intrigued though. Care to explain?
*snip*

Why is there an "initiative" consideration,what benefit does going first have in this regard.

Using a d20 to establish/mod init. seems to be a large variable factor thereby potentialy negating a high communication score.

just meant using a d. (10 sided or whatever the scale required) as a means of tracking resolve so players can easily pick up the opp. state of resolve which can be tricky to rep. via purely roleplaying means. I prefer this sort of thing over keeping track on paper.

Would there be a way to strengthen resolve depending on the tactic/approach of the attack without resorting to a roll?

Do you plan on expanding the tactics available?

I really admire the simplicity and elegance of this system your developing. Using the same basic mechanics for social interactions and combat is a huge triumph of design, especially when the mechanics are well-tuned and allow for real choice. I'd love to see someone (with a better grasp of statistics than I) run the numbers on the effectiveness of various tactics, just to make sure that they're balanced. One more thing that I'd like to see addressed though is a problem that I've seen discussed with 4th edition skill challenges used for social situations: how to represent definitive conversation-ending moves that might either unbalance the game if their given mechanical support or cause the conversation to go on and on unnaturally because the player hasn't worn down his opponent's social HP.

Mike Mearls put it very aptly when he said "When Conan bribes the corrupt guard with a pouch of pilfered gold, the conversation doesn't go on for 4 more rounds because Conan hasn't gotten enough successes. The greedy scumbag pockets the gold and Conan goes back to rescuing well-endowed women." While obviously your game is probably of a different genre than the example, I'm wondering how your system plans to address these sorts of maneuvers.

I kind of play tested my social combat system last night with my wife. We only played out one scenario (which is why I said kinda of)
I found that ending the conversation is much much easier considering my incorporation of role playing into the dice rolling.
There were a couple of times that My wifes Shaman used the "make offer" tactics and Truthfully My Reaver [sub](a class that believes that the strong rules the weak - and can take what they want from them - if you can protect what you have  - you deserve to have it taken)[/sub] would have taken it.

I haven't given much thought about ending a Social combat early (while both combatants still have Resolve/HP) until the mini-test last night.
To which I think that the "make offer" tactic is highly effective at forming compromises.
For the Conan example you referenced I believe that "Bribe" would fall under the "make offer" tactic .. if the guard takes the offer he has been bribed and the social combat is ended.
Another way a social combat may end early is for one of the Social combatants to start a physical one. effective switching the argument to a fist-fight or armed combat.
the only other way I see right now is "walking away"
Walking away (if they can -- guards -- held -- etc) would also end the conversation.. but in truth I think it would just postpone it. The matter will not be settled. So when/if the argurment starts up again, the person that walked away would have to begin play with a weak stance.

I really appreciate the praise.
I think my game has the potential to be really cool. Considering that I just started this project as a way to "fix" things I didn't like about my biweekly AD&D 2e game.
Its a lot of work though. I think once I iron out the kinks in social combat I will have the mechanics down.
Then I have the enormous task of:
coming up with 10 actions a piece[sub]class specific special moves - anything from copy scroll to impale to create totem etc[/sub] for 20 classes
writing hundred of spells
and of course churning out all types of monsters and creatures and tribes of humans and demihumans. My goal is to be done by Christmas. (I doubt it though) :)

Necromantis wrote:
To which I think that the "make offer" tactic is highly effective at forming compromises.
For the Conan example you referenced I believe that "Bribe" would fall under the "make offer" tactic .. if the guard takes the offer he has been bribed and the social combat is ended.
Another way a social combat may end early is for one of the Social combatants to start a physical one. effective switching the argument to a fist-fight or armed combat.
the only other way I see right now is "walking away"
Walking away (if they can -- guards -- held -- etc) would also end the conversation.. but in truth I think it would just postpone it. The matter will not be settled. So when/if the argurment starts up again, the person that walked away would have to begin play with a weak stance.

I just want to point out that this is gold.