Types of Social Conflict

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

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.

That kind of works, but you're assigning a large positive value (Argument DR) to a bunch of negative traits, such as Delusion, Fanaticism and whatever the inability to handle logic is. You could make such a system, but it wouldn't work the same as the rest of GURPS.

[(E)]

One social situation where you see a lot of personality estimations, social tactics and calculations happening is at an auction. While not particularly game related there are a lot of subtle influence attempts and judgement calls. This is more obvious when the auction in question is a regular event with seasoned vendors and purchasers.
Edit: there is also a similar element of social manipulation for want of a better term in many sports and athletic events.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by (E)

One social situation where you see a lot of personality estimations, social tactics and calculations happening is at an auction. While not particularly game related there are a lot of subtle influence attempts and judgement calls. This is more obvious when the auction in question is a regular event with seasoned vendors and purchasers.
Edit: there is also a similar element of social manipulation for want of a better term in many sports and athletic events.

Sure. The trouble is that there's a huge list of such situations. From one point of view, even combat could be so viewed: "A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind."

[sir_pudding]

You could generalize the rules for influencing the PCs into something like the penalties from inflicted control, and maybe have some way they affect NPC reactions. So influence in this case would be:
Attack roll=Influence Skill
Defense Roll=Will-based skill "parry"; other than Mental Strength, I am not sure what skills would be useful here generally, a case could be made for Diplomacy or Public Speaking, I suppose.
Damage roll= Influence Points or something, maybe based on IQ based "thr" with Training bonuses based on skill.

IP would inflict penalties to defense, and probably distraction penalties for simultaneous tasks or could be spent to make a modified Reaction Roll for NPC or to penalize actions for PCs.

I certainly wouldn't be very comfortable with using such a combative system for non-hostile interactions, though.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold

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.

I used to think this was all that was in there, but even before Social Engineering, the GURPS reaction/ influence subsystem was pretty well fleshed out. It's just not, as you say, all gathered up into a couple of chapters. It's spread throughout character creation (advantages and skills), the chapters on Success Rolls and Game Mastering, and the three-page reaction chart at the end of Campaigns in the Tables chapter.

I'm not saying it can't be made more robust, but it seems to me that there's more to it than just "a handful of skills".

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by (E)

One social situation where you see a lot of personality estimations, social tactics and calculations happening is at an auction. While not particularly game related there are a lot of subtle influence attempts and judgement calls. This is more obvious when the auction in question is a regular event with seasoned vendors and purchasers.
Edit: there is also a similar element of social manipulation for want of a better term in many sports and athletic events.

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.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Sure. The trouble is that there's a huge list of such situations. From one point of view, even combat could be so viewed: "A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind."

Pretty much, yeah. Historically only a comparatively small fraction(except in weird cases like Saipan where you really do Gotta Kill Them All)of any given army end up as casualties. Most flee or surrender especially if they know they can trust their opponents for reasonable treatment, and a decent ransom or exchange. In fact you can further that and say that the customs of war are also a device for making your enemy change his mind. If he knows you will treat him nice as a prisoner, have it in for his boss but not for his country in general, and you can in any case beat him up soundly you have gone a long way to convincing him to change his mind.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold

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?

I think those are general enough for not needing anything else, dont you think? I worked on a social interaction flowchart a few months ago and published it somewhere, and it is based on the same concepts exposed here, I didn´t come with anything else which cannot be reduced to one of those posibilities.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Brandy

I used to think this was all that was in there, but even before Social Engineering, the GURPS reaction/ influence subsystem was pretty well fleshed out. It's just not, as you say, all gathered up into a couple of chapters. It's spread throughout character creation (advantages and skills), the chapters on Success Rolls and Game Mastering, and the three-page reaction chart at the end of Campaigns in the Tables chapter.

I'm not saying it can't be made more robust, but it seems to me that there's more to it than just "a handful of skills".

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

[whswhs]

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.

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