Types of Social Conflict

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That's at least the central request, and it's what my long comment was mainly addressing.

Then you only need to swap HP to Will and ST to IQ, with the different skills adapting each to a different combat skill as prefered, and from then on it is all the same :)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Then you only need to swap HP to Will and ST to IQ, with the different skills adapting each to a different combat skill as prefered, and from then on it is all the same :)

No. You don't generally talk people to death in order to buy a car or sign a peace treaty.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

No. You don't generally talk people to death in order to buy a car or sign a peace treaty.

Of course not, but the "combat" as per se has the target of killing or putting down your enemies. For social you just need to specify a target, then if you "talk them to death" you get to fulfill it, otherwise you end up willingly accepting the other part terms xDD

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I think what the OP wants, and the existing system lacks, is an attack roll/defense roll/damage roll system.

Has the OP been this specific? They said "...roughly comparable in depth to an RPG combat system..." (my emphasis) and they made reference to The Last Word and Pathfinder, neither of which, to my knowledge, uses that specific set of mechanics.

Either way, I can see the appeal that a system for social interactions with a more robust set of interaction mechanics might have for some gamers. I'm not denying that. :)

I'm just saying that the GURPS system actually has quite a bit in it, even if it isn't to the taste of the OP.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Of course not, but the "combat" as per se has the target of killing or putting down your enemies. For social you just need to specify a target, then if you "talk them to death" you get to fulfill it, otherwise you end up willingly accepting the other part terms xDD

Then "damage" in this case doesn't inflict injury but is another kind of effects roll. Which is significantly more than just "from then on it is all the same".

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Of course not, but the "combat" as per se has the target of killing or putting down your enemies. For social you just need to specify a target, then if you "talk them to death" you get to fulfill it, otherwise you end up willingly accepting the other part terms xDD

But that's the other thing about this. You can hit somebody, and keep hitting them, and eventually they'll stop fighting, lose consciousness, and/or die. But if you keep "persuading" someone, you don't necessarily increasingly wear down their unwillingness until they say yes because your persuasion has added up. In fact, the salesman or the seducer who won't take No for an answer is a deeply negative figure, and one who in the real world is likely to provoke anger and resentment. So I don't think this model of "keep inflicting Will damage until they say Yes" is realistic; in fact I think the Quick Contest model better fits how things actually work in this case.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Brandy

Has the OP been this specific? They said "...roughly comparable in depth to an RPG combat system..." (my emphasis) and they made reference to The Last Word and Pathfinder, neither of which, to my knowledge, uses that specific set of mechanics.

I don't know those systems. When I took part in discussion of GURPS SE on a non-SJG forum, I was seeing people ask explicitly for a set of social mechanics modeled to work like combat mechanics. And I've seen that kind of approach in Hero Wars, at least.

[Micahel Silverbane]

Originally Posted by whswhs

But that's the other thing about this. You can hit somebody, and keep hitting them, and eventually they'll stop fighting, lose consciousness, and/or die. But if you keep "persuading" someone, you don't necessarily increasingly wear down their unwillingness until they say yes because your persuasion has added up. In fact, the salesman or the seducer who won't take No for an answer is a deeply negative figure, and one who in the real world is likely to provoke anger and resentment. So I don't think this model of "keep inflicting Will damage until they say Yes" is realistic; in fact I think the Quick Contest model better fits how things actually work in this case.

Something with a little bit more granularity than the Quick Contest might be something along the lines of D&D 4e's Skill Challenges, where you have to get X successes (or wear down the target's Reluctance Points) before you get Y number of failures.

There might be some other, derivable, "willingness to put up with this conversation" that could be worn down, along with each "attack on the reluctance" such that some techniques Use BaffleGab may risk more "end the conversation damage" for the possibility of a higher "get what you want". This may be different for different people, depending on their other traits (you don't want to Talk Down To someone who has the Bad Temper disadvantage, or whatever).

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Speaking of that, they started the Solar Queen series with an auction for a temporary monopoly of a newly discovered planet. That was one of the more interesting parts.

Auctions would go well in a Free Trader campaign. You can jazz it up by using colorful tradtions like using a candle as a timer(that is an old tradition but I think it is still used for coffee merchants).

Other types of negotiation are just as interesting. Managing a diplomatic conference. Or soliciting a spy. And there is plenty of traditional chrome that goes with such transactions.

Maybe a worked example would help the OP see how Bill's Social Engineering works, and he can use that to discuss what he wants to do, differently?

Suggestion: the dinner scene in the book, Dune.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

Suggestion: the dinner scene in the book, Dune.

It's a while since I've reread Dune, but I'd be interested to see someone else work it out.