Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-15-2018, 01:42 PM   #1
GreatWyrmGold
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Default Types of Social Conflict

I've been thinking about throwing together a deeper system for social interactions, combining ideas from The Last Word (a video game) and the optional verbal duel system for Pathfinder. I've got a vague outline of how I think it'll work, but I want to make sure that I can use it in essentially any situation which would normally be resolved with a simple reaction or social skill roll. (Aside from first impressions, of course.)

The first way to "categorize" social interactions would be distinguishing between situations where you're trying to convince the other party of something (such as haggling with a merchant) and when you're trying to convince someone else (such as a debate between prosecutor and defendant). This is ultimately a question of who the audience is, with a side of "in-debate stats can affect the outcome of one in different ways" for the former.

The second is to define what the two parties are trying to achieve. Combat statistics don't matter if one party refuses to fight, and social statistics don't matter if one party refuses to talk or listen. (Though the outcomes for the stubborn party are pretty much polar opposites...)
One party might be asking the other for a favor, either a binary favor (either your buddy trusts you with his car, against his better judgement, or he doesn't; either a soldier spares you, or he doesn't) or a scalable one (such as getting a loan from a buddy or giving a bribe to a guard). Alternatively, one might be trying to ask a third party for a favor and the other might be trying to convince the third party not to do so, but this is rarer.
One party might want to convince the other (or a third party) that a premise is true. Alternatively, they might try to convince the other to accept their viewpoint on a given matter, which is similar but distinct. (It's also theoretically possible for parties to attempt to convince a third party of their viewpoint, but it probably makes more sense for the third party to count as debating the first two.) Either way, this could probably be resolved using essentially the same mechanics as asking for a favor, just with different modifiers.
Or, of course, they could simply be trying to figure out who argues better. This is the case for everything from formal speech and debate leagues to members of such leagues making a wager on their day off. Arguably, this can also represent political debates.
Commercial situations would generally be something akin to scalable favors, but with more equality between the parties. After all, both parties want to make a deal, and are (in a sense) just asking each other to change the price they're charging/paying.


Is there any sort of social situation you can think of which couldn't fit into one of these categories?
GreatWyrmGold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 03:27 PM   #2
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Types of Social Conflict

I'm not sure what you're looking for, as GURPS Social Engineering already has rules for both A influences B and A and B compete to influence C. How does it fall short of what you want?
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 03:29 PM   #3
L.J.Steele
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Default Re: Types of Social Conflict

And if you wanted to go outside of GURPS, Hillfolk's social interaction mechanics look fascinating.
L.J.Steele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 05:56 PM   #4
GreatWyrmGold
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Default Re: Types of Social Conflict

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
I'm not sure what you're looking for, as GURPS Social Engineering already has rules for both A influences B and A and B compete to influence C. How does it fall short of what you want?
Imagine that combat didn't have three or four chapters in the core book devoted to it, and entire sourcebooks on rules for specific kinds of combat. Imagine that, instead, you had a handful of skills. If you get into a fight, you roll against an appropriate combat skill to see who wins, perhaps with some modifiers for describing good tactics. Maybe there are rules for partial victories, say beating off the opponent and getting wounded. Then a book comes along, but instead of providing a deeper system, it adds more details to the pre-existing system—when and how certain traits give you a bonus, ways to use other skills to get a bonus to fighting, and so on. Unless I've missed something, that's what GURPS: Social Engineering is.
I intend to make a system which is roughly comparable in depth to an RPG combat system, but designed to resolve social rather than physical confrontations.
GreatWyrmGold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 06:22 PM   #5
starslayer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Default Re: Types of Social Conflict

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
I intend to make a system which is roughly comparable in depth to an RPG combat system, but designed to resolve social rather than physical confrontations.
You have described GURPS: Social Engineering....
starslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 06:32 PM   #6
Refplace
 
Refplace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
Default Re: Types of Social Conflict

Quote:
Originally Posted by starslayer View Post
You have described GURPS: Social Engineering....
I dont think so.
Bill Stoddard specifically said he wasn't wanting to build a combat mechanic but to expand on the core rules. The Op said he wants a combat type system.
I have toyed with the Control Points system for other contested activities but I dont think it adds enough value for the complexity it adds, at least so far.
A series of Quick Contests could be enough. I am toying with something like that but its nowhere near ready for use.
__________________
My GURPS publications GURPS Powers: Totem and Nature Spirits; GURPS Template Toolkit 4: Spirits; Pyramid articles. Buying them lets us know you want more!
My GURPS fan contribution and blog:
REFPLace GURPS Landing Page
My List of GURPS You Tube videos (plus a few other useful items)
My GURPS Wiki entries
Refplace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 11:26 PM   #7
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Types of Social Conflict

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
I intend to make a system which is roughly comparable in depth to an RPG combat system, but designed to resolve social rather than physical confrontations.
I thought it was possible that might be what you were looking at. That option was actually proposed to me when I was working on SE, but I intentionally decided against it, not only because I felt my primary mission was to clarify and expand the already existing rules, but also because I didn't think it would work well, for several reasons.

* Any such system of social mechanics would need to apply as much to an NPC influencing a PC, or a PC influencing another PC, as to a PC influencing an NPC, just as with combat mechanics. But if your rules say, in effect, "win this series of rolls representing a social transaction, and the other party does what you want"—if influence = mind control with special effects—then players are going to be really unhappy to have that done to their characters. It's okay for telepathic mind control, or drugs, to take away a PC's free will; it's not okay when flirtation, or blarney, or reasoned discussion, does so. (Standard GURPS deals with this by saying that losing an Influence roll subjects a PC to a penalty to the next action that goes against the persuader's wishes, equal to the persuader's margin of victory. I think that works pretty well.)

* A system of social contest mechanics comparable to combat mechanics would presumably have some analog of hit points, or of control points in Technical Grappling. Call them will points, maybe. But while all three of these are abstractions, hit points are the least abstract, and will points the most abstract. We can easily see someone being battered or cut or burned; but inner strength of will and its erosion are hard to quantify or visualize.

* Extending from that, if you're trying to injure someone, or to forcibly restrain them, that's a physical goal, reflecting the shape of the human (or other) body, and there are physical means of achieving it, which can be cataloged. You can talk, for example, about all-out, committed, defensive, telegraphic, or deceptive attacks, and about feints. But the goal with social interaction is to get someone to decide in your favor on any of a vast range of questions or emotional issues. The specific arguments you use are going to depend on the specific points at issue. If you reduce everything to a list of rhetorical maneuvers, ignoring the content of the conversation, then you've made everything really abstract and lifeless. I read the social mechanics system in Hero Wars, which worked that way, and it struck me as something I wanted to avoid.

* In other words, you can do a physical fight purely as a series of tactical maneuvers, in which bodily integrity and freedom from restraint, life and physical liberty, are at stake; and then the issue is both clear and dramatic. But what's at stake in a debate, or a flirtation, or a haggle, depends on the goals and beliefs of the participants; and if you look only at the tactics of the negotiation, you lose much of the drama that comes from knowing what the matter of the dispute is. The first case is action; the second is drama.

Or, at least, that's how it seemed to me, and that's why I didn't attempt to come up with the kind of system you're describing.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 11:55 PM   #8
Daigoro
 
Daigoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Meifumado
Default Re: Types of Social Conflict

To further the case against argument as combat- in combat, there may be opponents who are undefeatable, but they would be considered extremely powerful and be built on lots of points. And a powerful opponent may eventually yield to a series of powerful attacks.

However, sometimes it's impossible to win an argument against someone like a Flat-Earther, but that would imply that they're an "argument monster" with lots of points in their skill of argument. And you may not win the altercation regardless of how powerful or persuasive your arguments are.

Therefore, the two styles of interaction aren't really equivalent.
__________________
Collaborative Settings:
Cyberpunk: Duopoly Nation
Space Opera: Behind the King's Eclipse
And heaps of forum collabs, 30+ and counting!
Daigoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2018, 12:33 AM   #9
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Types of Social Conflict

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigoro View Post
However, sometimes it's impossible to win an argument against someone like a Flat-Earther, but that would imply that they're an "argument monster" with lots of points in their skill of argument. And you may not win the altercation regardless of how powerful or persuasive your arguments are.
There are also cases where it's not a question of argument but of persuasion: getting the prison guard to unlock your cell, or the devoted husband or wife to have an affair, for example.

It's easy to imagine that if you just have the right persuasive techniques, you can overcome anyone's resistance, and get them to do what you want, whether you're a salesperson, a seducer, or a preacher. But that really isn't possible. It depends on the beliefs and desires of the target person whether you even have a chance of persuading them. And that's part of why the purely technical or tactical approach that works for fighting doesn't make as much sense here.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2018, 11:31 AM   #10
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: Types of Social Conflict

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigoro View Post
However, sometimes it's impossible to win an argument against someone like a Flat-Earther, but that would imply that they're an "argument monster" with lots of points in their skill of argument.
They don't have to be skilled, just steadfast in their belief. To continue the analogy, they have lots of Argument DR protecting their Flat-Eartherism. (Other topics may not be so armored.) But that doesn't mean they have high debate skills, any more than a guy standing there in double layered power armor must be a skilled swordsman. To change their mind, you either need an argument so powerful they can't ignore it (lots of "damage") or else be so highly skilled yourself as to succeed while targeting the chinks in their belief armor.
Anaraxes is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
question, social

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.