Steve Jackson Games Forums - Social Conflicts

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)

- The Fantasy Trip: House Rules (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=101)

- - Social Conflicts (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=158112)

Re: Social Conflicts

Sorry maybe my assessment sounded a bit harsh.

Re: Social Conflicts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne (Post 2185996)

Sorry maybe my assessment sounded a bit harsh.

No offense at all!

I thought maybe I didn't express my intent very well.

Re: Social Conflicts

Quote:

Originally Posted by zot (Post 2185995)

That's totally fine, even if my proposed social conflict system gets adopted -- GMs have complete discretion about when to role play and when to go to the dice. A GM would never be forced to use social conflicts at all.

I don't think it's fair, however, to characterize this idea as leaving this sort of thing to a dice roll. It's a way to allow the players to attempt to "initiate social combat", but only when appropriate, not at all as a substitute for role playing. I've been running social conflicts like this for maybe 10 years and I'd say we probably do one social conflict every other session -- it's far from turning RPGs into board games.

One function of social conflict mechanics is that players get to go to the dice as a recourse when they feel that their characters' in-story social actions aren't lining up with how they've been able to express them or when they feel a disconnect between their intentions and how the GM is running a scene.

Another is that the GM can initiate a social conflict when they feel such a disconnect, like if they can tell a player is getting frustrated.

Something unexpected came out of doing social conflicts when we started doing them the way I describe in the proposal... they turned out to be a lot of fun and filled with good role playing!

It's also worth pointing out that having systems like this available is absolutely crucial to solo gaming -- which is very hard to do in an RPG as it is, but which mechanisms like this can make very much easier. Combine this with something like what I'm told the Gloomhaven "out-of-dungeon" system is, and you have the beginnings of a "solo sandbox" campaign that you could actually play if no one else is around or available...

Re: Social Conflicts

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2186115)

I'm seriously, seriously interested in the out-of-dungeon framework!

Re: Social Conflicts

Quote:

Originally Posted by zot (Post 2186186)

I'm seriously, seriously interested in the out-of-dungeon framework!

Me too, but I still think it's a bit pricey for what you're getting. Oh well, if I get a big Christmas bonus that doesn't have to go on house repairs, maybe I'll pop for it! ;-)

Re: Social Conflicts

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLV (Post 2186236)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zot (Post 2186186)

I'm seriously, seriously interested in the out-of-dungeon framework!

Me too, but I still think it's a bit pricey for what you're getting. Oh well, if I get a big Christmas bonus that doesn't have to go on house repairs, maybe I'll pop for it! ;-)

I meant for TFT. I have played Gloomhaven at a friend's place, although not the out-of-dungeon part yet. They asked me my impressions afterwards and after I thought about it for a while, I told them it would have been a lot more fun with Melee and Wizard rules! Seriously, I think TFT could totally outdo Gloomhaven for fun factor.

To clarify a bit more: I think an out-of-dungeon framework for TFT would be fantastic.

Re: Social Conflicts

No, I know you meant that -- I was thinking more in terms of buying it for an examination of the rules and cards to see if I could do better for myself. I can always sell the game on Amazon (at a loss) afterwards.

I'm interested in ideas for the framework, not necessarily that particular framework, if you follow my thought train here...

Re: Social Conflicts

There is no Talents for Persuation, only the only the players ability to sway the GM and not all players are good at that; so a bigger Reaction table wouldn't hurt. 2d or 3d instead of 1d. With a bigger range, a +3 for talents and good role playing wouldn't scew the results and it would all for more modifiers overall.

Also increase the overall scope of some of the interaction talents or increase the number. One example id Diplomacy.

Quote:

DIPLOMACY (1). Allows the leader of a party to command a party
containing members of races hostile to him or each other; allows a
character to attempt to talk to a member of a hostile race without
an automatic minus on the reaction roll.

It a tacticle wargame, this is sufficient, but in a real role playing game it's not worth the 1 point it costs because it means that the other characters are mindless drones instead of players. It should have more use than just making sure the other players can't play their own charactesr.

Re: Social Conflicts

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinJ (Post 2186703)

Exactly. You could say that my social conflict system really just amounts to more detailed reaction rolls, more detailed rules for how to apply them to more than just first impressions, and, importantly, a way to use more than one roll in a conversation, essentially giving a character a chance to "climb out of the hole" they dug with their first impression or improve on it even if it was good.

The rules themselves really aren't very large -- they'd probably fit on the front and back of an index card.

Re: Social Conflicts

Well, the social interaction rules in ITL were always a bit on the vague side. I assumed that was because the players were expected to role-play the situation; but I honestly think that having a bit more structure would make role-playing easier for everyone, especially the GM, who can thus avoid falling into the trap of always having NPCs react in similar fashions...

You could think of it as a "cue" for your acting improv, rather than as "roll-playing."