01-15-2018, 01:42 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Oct 2011
|
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? |
01-15-2018, 03:27 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
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. |
01-15-2018, 03:29 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: Types of Social Conflict
And if you wanted to go outside of GURPS, Hillfolk's social interaction mechanics look fascinating.
|
01-15-2018, 05:56 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Oct 2011
|
Re: Types of Social Conflict
Quote:
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. |
|
01-15-2018, 06:22 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Dec 2006
|
Re: Types of Social Conflict
|
01-15-2018, 06:32 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
|
Re: Types of Social Conflict
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 |
01-15-2018, 11:26 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Types of Social Conflict
Quote:
* 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. |
|
01-15-2018, 11:55 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Meifumado
|
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! |
01-16-2018, 12:33 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Types of Social Conflict
Quote:
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. |
|
01-16-2018, 11:31 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Types of Social Conflict
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.
|
Tags |
question, social |
|
|