In my present game system, I have a resolution mechanic that is applicable to any type of conflict resolution. However for things such as combat, the mechanics are expanded, outlining more details. Why? Because I like my combat crunchy. Instead of leaving all the little details to be handled in the narrative, the system has many of them in place, and covered with additional mechanics (damage type, armor, hit location, etc.).

The nature of the core resolution mechanic got me thinking about applying the same level of "crunchiness" to social conflicts. On a basic level, they are the same thing (in terms of how the system sees them), but what about the details? Are there analogues to things such as hit location or damage types in social conflicts? Are there issues of time scale that will make this impractical (a debate can be over very quick, whereas action/reaction in political machinations are on the order of days or weeks)? The other issue to consider is if it is even desirable. Maybe it is more engaging for some players to simply "role-play it", with one or two appropriate skills rolls tossed in if needed.

The reasoning for trying to incorporate this is because I like the way I can scale the level of detail with the base mechanics from a broad conflict to task by task resolution. If the game will add details to combat, why not other areas? Choosing the level of detail that game play will engage in seems to come down to the specialization of character's abilities, and actively opposed conflicts. If I focus a game on politics instead of physical conflict, there will be a lot of detailed skills relevant to this. However, unlike combat, there are no other mechanics beyond standard skill rolls and narration of the outcome. Should there be? Maybe playing out political conflict with opportunities for tactical details nearly on par with crunchy combat systems might be more entertaining than narrating the result of a "Campaigning" roll, but I haven't seen that in action yet.

I am interested in some feedback regarding games with high level of crunchy in-game social interaction, and how they actually work out during play.
Pointers to previous threads discussing this, good game examples, and general opinions are welcomed.

-Al

Note to self - learn how to properly use the Search function!

Turns out that the TRoS forum covered this idea in great detail. That would be about as crunchy social mechanics as I could ever want. It also seems that the interest was high enough to warrant the effort. Based on the discussion on those threads, it looks like fortune in the middle will alleviate most of the issues of role-play versus roll-play that such mechanics could introduce.

Since the extra complexity seemed justifieable, I went ahead and wrote up the mechanics for a crunchy social conflict resolution (my system, not TROS; not familiar enough with it to tackle that sort of project). I was hesitant to make extra additions to my system. The last thing I want is a system that feels like it has a core mechanic with dozens of pasted on auxilary rules. However, after morphing the combat system, which itself is just the base resolution mechanic with bonus details, into a social conflict clone, it does not seem disjointed from the rest of the system at all. If anyone is still following the TROS social combat project, and is interested in my take on this, I can post it in the design forum. Otherwise I would still like to keep this thread open to address the more general issues. I still have a couple of them.

1) The pros and cons of keeping the crunchy social mechanic distinct from physical combat, or making a clone of the combat mechanics (this is the route I went with since the less subsystems the player needs to learn the better, IMO).

2) When employing FitM, I get away from the problem of a description of events that has to be retrofitted based on dice results. But might there be any issues if the player is already engaged in in-character dialoge and needs to transition into a social contest? Could jumping into OOC declaration diminish the scene? I don't want to end up with the problem that FitM so neatly avoided, in that the scene moves along with a certain tone, and then is jarred by the dice in a different direction.

-Al

PS I don't consider posting to myself good etiquette, but I wanted to point out that I found the TROS posts which most likely would have been the suggested reading material.

I think that it would be cool to just have a Crunchy system for everything. It's ironic, but it's hard to describe these sorts of things in terms that aren't combat related. But that's because we use combat terms in everyday life to describe every conflict. But it might help to genericise a bit, in order that the game not take on a cast that's not intended.

Thus if you have a Parry maneuver in the combat system, you could call this an Active Defense or somesuch. Dodges are also Active Defenses, just without a tool. For a Social conflict, an Active Defense could be to artfully maneuver out of the room, or to use a mask to ward off an insult (this being the "equipped" example).

So, unless you intend Social and Physical conflicts to have some sort of primacy in the game, I'd suggest going with a generalized system. OTOH, if these two things merit special discussion and mechanics of their own, then I'd think that two separate add-ons would be appropriate.

Mike

PS I don't consider posting to myself good etiquette, but I wanted to point out that I found the TROS posts which most likely would have been the suggested reading material.

Brassel, the original topic is http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5276 with follow ups http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6460 and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7955.

The thread was about taking all the details, depth, and Spiritual Attributes + extensive tactics crunchy goodness of TROS, and translating it to "social combat".

I think that it would be cool to just have a Crunchy system for everything.

ks13 wrote: I was having a tough time picturing a system that could have equal, very crunchy detail for everything. The big factor, for me at least, between keeping a simple rule/resolution and doing something more involved is the possibility of "harm" being inflicted on the character. When it comes to causing damage to characters, some players prefer more details in the system. I see three areas for damage: mental/emotional, physical, and social. Here "harm" can be anything from failing to close a deal, to being killed. As is common in many game systems, I have already been adding layers for physical conflict. The "damage system" became readily adaptable for psychological harm. The only thing I had left was the social part. I kept the same mechanics as combat (functionaly speaking), and redefined the terms for application in social conflicts. As Mike points out, there is the equivalent to a Dodge or Parry for social conflict, just with a different name and interpretation.

So I thought that I was finished there. I have the expended resolution for all 3 types of harmful conflicts (as far as the characters go), why would I need more? Then it hit me. How about mass combat rules, or vehicle rules? Could I use the same approach? Probably. This might be where Mike was going about having everything with a crunchy resolution.

There are 5 types of conflict situations (each with a corresponding die pool): Physical, Mental, Social, Spiritual, and Martial.

Brassel wrote:

There are 5 types of conflict situations (each with a corresponding die pool): Physical, Mental, Social, Spiritual, and Martial.

Where do you draw the line between martial and physical conflict?