The Campaign Builder's Guild

I've been going over the idea of making a game system yet again and this means I have come to the issue that is social skills.
Some people argue they shouldn't exist; the player himself should argue his way out of situations. I have sympathies with the argument but do not agree with their conclusion. Of course players should be involved, a roll is not enough, but neither should the result of an in-game discussion be based solely on the eloquence of the player. A character might be good at rhetorics while a player isn't or vice versa, and this should be reflected in the rules.

So dice should be rolled. But based on what? A skill seems suitable at first, but a skill assumes you can learn and be taught. Some might learn a few rhetorical tricks, but how would you study conversation? So mostly it just depends on your natural wit and your charisma, things which are sometimes reflected in ability scores. Setting aside that I'm attempting to work around ability scores, we are faced with a less obvious problem if every social interaction depends on a charisma check: it's tedious. Social interaction should be half or more of a good roleplaying game; who wants to condense that into just one roll you have to repeat again and again? There wouldn't be much game or fun about that. Also, this hardly reflects the multitude of different social situations one might be faced with. As even D&D has admitted, there is a certain difference between using lies, logic, bribes, or threats.  

Extrapolating from the above social situations can then be handled in one of four ways: free-form (no dice), skill-based (e.g. D&D) or ability-based (a static charisma/wit). None of these have quite the appeal I'm looking for. As a second observation you can also handle it either as a singular event or a conflict (the latter is used in FATE, I believe). A singular event would require only a single roll, while a conflict treats a social event as a verbal combat of sorts. The latter might be an interesting approach, but I'm not quite certain how you'd go about doing it.
 
Another solution which is a little bland but better than pure skill/ability, would be to create proforma skills like Unhallowed Metropolis does. These skills would not be trainable, but they would give some fixed mechanics to add bonuses to. E.g. you could have a deception roll used to bluff, which is a simple roll vs. a difficulty with no bonuses added at first (maybe an ability score), but having 3 ranks in acting could let you add a small bonus and certain talents/perks/feats might add a significant bonus (for example you could have talents like Pokerface or Convincing Liar).

So how do you work your way around this? What are your thoughts on it?

Here's another slight variation. In World of Darkness LARP each character have a bunch of "traits" like "erudite", "educated", "hard-headed", and "forthright". All characters have different amounts of different types of traits in spheres of social, mental, physical.

When you want to challenge someone you tell them "I'm educated enough to know that you are lying when you talk about that historical event", throw rock paper scissors. If you lose, then you lose that trait for a day and you lose the challenge. OR you can retest and say: "well, I'm hard headed enough to keep arguing with you." and then try again. Or you can say "I'm going to overbid- I have 15 traits." If you overbid and have more traits, you win. If you overbid but have less, then you lose 2 traits permanently (I think.)

Something like that.

Quote from: Conundrum CrowI've been going over the idea of making a game system yet again and this means I have come to the issue that is social skills.
Some people argue they shouldn't exist; the player himself should argue his way out of situations. I have sympathies with the argument but do not agree with their conclusion. Of course players should be involved, a roll is not enough, but neither should the result of an in-game discussion be based solely on the eloquence of the player. A character might be good at rhetorics while a player isn't or vice versa, and this should be reflected in the rules.

So dice should be rolled. But based on what? A skill seems suitable at first, but a skill assumes you can learn and be taught. Some might learn a few rhetorical tricks, but how would you study conversation? So mostly it just depends on your natural wit and your charisma, things which are sometimes reflected in ability scores. Setting aside that I'm attempting to work around ability scores, we are faced with a less obvious problem if every social interaction depends on a charisma check: it's tedious. Social interaction should be half or more of a good roleplaying game; who wants to condense that into just one roll you have to repeat again and again? There wouldn't be much game or fun about that. Also, this hardly reflects the multitude of different social situations one might be faced with. As even D&D has admitted, there is a certain difference between using lies, logic, bribes, or threats.  

Extrapolating from the above social situations can then be handled in one of four ways: free-form (no dice), skill-based (e.g. D&D) or ability-based (a static charisma/wit). None of these have quite the appeal I'm looking for. As a second observation you can also handle it either as a singular event or a conflict (the latter is used in FATE, I believe). A singular event would require only a single roll, while a conflict treats a social event as a verbal combat of sorts. The latter might be an interesting approach, but I'm not quite certain how you'd go about doing it.
 
Another solution which is a little bland but better than pure skill/ability, would be to create proforma skills like Unhallowed Metropolis does. These skills would not be trainable, but they would give some fixed mechanics to add bonuses to. E.g. you could have a deception roll used to bluff, which is a simple roll vs. a difficulty with no bonuses added at first (maybe an ability score), but having 3 ranks in acting could let you add a small bonus and certain talents/perks/feats might add a significant bonus (for example you could have talents like Pokerface or Convincing Liar).

So how do you work your way around this? What are your thoughts on it?

I am at work, but this is one that is near and dear to me.

I am not going to say my way is 'the' way at all.  I do it one way that works for me.
I see and talk to old schoolers who like to act out all of this, with maybe a reaction roll.
then there is GS, where we have a literal CC roll for every social meeting, and this is a preliminary roll to set the stage, though we eschew it for people who are known to each other.  It's not just a charisma check, its derived from Charisma, Appearance, and the skill 'Basic Social'.

For using skills, we use a 'Declare, Roleplay, Roll, Rollplay' cycle.  Players declare what skills they use, then they roleplay about 75% of the action before they get to roll (or roll and recover, as Jomalley says) and then act out the rest based on the roll.  And often, the use of a second skill or another players skill comes into play here.

Also, there are skills and more exact subskills.  Using a general skill or the parent skill of a subskill is normally much less potent than using a more specific skill.  here's a quick cut and paste to show where we are with the various skills and sub skills, though there are a lot more in artisan skills that can help.
[spoiler=current list of soc skills]
Basic Etiquitte 0.6 WI10-.006/CH13-.02 45 1-4 1   Gesture, Message, courtly manners, dining, heraldry, leisure sport  
Social Basic Leader 0.6 WI13-01/CH12-.03 45 2-5 1   Organize, exhort, military etiquitte 0
Social Basic Carnal 0.7 ST10-.02/WI12-.003/CH12-.015 40 2-5 1   Seduction,.control, flirt  
Social Basic social 0.7 WI10-.004/CH11-.02/AP13-.001 30 2-5 1   Social Dynamic, Friendship, Contact, Barrister, bribe, bluff, intimidate 0
Social Bribe 0.2 WI09-.01/CH13-.02 35 2-7 2 Basic Social   1
Social Heraldry 0.2 WI13-.025 30 2-11 2 Basic etiquitte   1
Social Bluff 0.2 IN08-.005/CH13-.02 40 2-7 2 Basic Social   0.5
Social Military etiquitte 0.3 WI09-.01/CH12-.02 20 2-9 2 Basic Leader   1
Social Flirt 0.3 CH10-.02/AP09-.02 30 2-9 2 Basic Carnal   1
Social Intimidate 0.3 ST16-.002/CH10-.024 40 2-9 2 Basic Social   0.5
Social Social Dynamic 0.3 IN13-.02 30 2-9 2 Basic Social rumor, recognize rumor 1
Social Friendship 0.4 WI10-.005/CH12-.02 20 2-11 2 Basic social bonding 1
Social Exhort 0.4 CH13-.025 25 2-11 2 Basic Leader Fight to oblivion 1
Social Organize 0.5 IN8-.009/WI10-.01/ 35 2-10 2 Basic Leader Chain of command, order 1
Social Barrister 0.5 IN13-.009/WI13-.1 5 '2-7 2 Basic Social International law/ 1
social Leisure sports 0.6 IN11-.005/cd11-.015 35 2-12 2 Basic Ettiquite social hunting, lawn bowl, lawn tennis, 1
Social Contact 0.6 WI13-.01/CH 12-.04 35 2-8 2 Basic Social Avoid Contact, Find 1
Social Fight to Oblivion 0.22 Ch14-.02 2 2-16 3 Exhort   0.2
Social Bonding
[/spoiler]

AS to a few more issues...
[blockquote=CC]skill seems suitable at first, but a skill assumes you can learn and be taught. Some might learn a few rhetorical tricks, but how would you study conversation? So mostly it just depends on your natural wit and your charisma, things which are sometimes reflected in ability scores.[/blockquote]
If we can believe a person can gain enough skill with weapons to fight dragons; believeing in the ability to better charm and dazzle should be easy.  
But I do believe that a skill is something that can be taught, and that develops.  I willl be the first to tell you that I believe public speakers and such get better and better as they experience more; their natural attributes help to start them off, but social interaction is something I really believe hones given practice. More than almost anything.  I mean, look at vocabulary choice alone...one does not learn more words by being smart, one learns through exposure and use.

And as to complication, I look at the type f game one wants to run.  A combat heavy game often has pages of rules and dozens of rolls in a combat.  Yet we look askance at a social heavy game due to the inclusion of 1/10 the amount of rolls that exists in a combat situation?  Rubbish.

Good post, CC.

Could have sworn we've had similar discussions before, but I can't find the threads.

Quotes a second observation you can also handle it either as a singular event or a conflict (the latter is used in FATE, I believe). A singular event would require only a single roll, while a conflict treats a social event as a verbal combat of sorts. The latter might be an interesting approach, but I'm not quite certain how you'd go about doing it.

aspects[/b], though. Whether your various social skills are great or pretty poor, your aspects color those interactions. A character with a "Liar" aspect is going to tend toward different types of social interactions than a character with aspects like "Heart of Gold" or "Marked for Death" or "Ladies' Man" or "Famous" or "Hideously Scarred".

This doesn't get to the real heart of your question ("how do we represent social interactions in a game?"), but I think it does a pretty good job handling the ancillary issue ("how do we easily differentiate between a broad range of types of social interactions?")

I also like that Fate uses the same dynamic for interactions, social or violent...

QuoteSocial interaction should be half or more of a good roleplaying game; who wants to condense that into just one roll you have to repeat again and again? There wouldn't be much game or fun about that.

This jumped out at me when reading your post again. You definitely want to take a good look at FATE, I think. With about as many social character stats as physical ones (in some variants, perhaps more?), it's got your variety angle covered.

Another interesting example of blending description with dice is the system you see in Scion. All your actions (social, combat, whatever) have your regular dice pools, but you get a bonus (and a recharge of some of your expendable intangible resources) depending on how interesting and cool your description of your character's attempted action is. So if two hypothetical characters attempt the exact same action, and one just says "I try to inspire the whole crowd" while the other jumps up and actually delivers his character's monologue on pride and patriotism, the more dramatic character actually gains a measurable benefit making his success more likely. It's a great way to incentivize players doing more interesting things.

(Another notable point about Scion's social system is the huge number of special social powers that are available to characters, although these are typically all pretty supernatural and over-the-top, because that's the kind of game it is.)

I always thought it would be cool to have no social skills in a setting. Personally, I like less crunch and I think dice rolling takes away from story. plus, it's the roleplayers responsibility to just that: role play. Even if someone that is devilishly charming and charismatic in the real world (ie, myself), if they are playing Big Thork Skull-Crusher, they should play like him. plus, it's not like most people are terrible in thinking rhetoric, its just the application, which is often around strangers, groups, or, god forbid, women. roleplaying amongst friends should not be a high-stress environment.

The idea of having a lot of small personality traits that can be spent to influence a conversation isn't bad. In fact, it seems to be a bit akin to a simplified version of FATE's aspects, which are great.

Using a reaction roll to "set the stage" is not a bad idea, I believe GURPS does this as well. And I like how GS mixes roleplaying and dice, even if the process seems a bit arcane at first glance (but I assume it quickly becomes an intuitive process). But, seriously, what skill is Fight to Oblivion?? :p
As to the whole discussion about learning vs. natural skill, I will make the argument that even if experience hones your abilities to a degree they are inherently limited by natural charisma/wit; some are cut out for it while others aren't. And yes, this might be said to be the case for many skills and abilities, but in fighting you can spar and if you are a basketweaver you can keep weaving baskets knowing that the process won't change.
Every single conversation, discussion, or argument has few if any things in common with other conversations. They are in many way unique because they detail different subject matter, different arguments, different background knowledge, different motives. You can get some pointers, but there is no learning conversation. There can only ever be a fixed amount of different swordfighting stances and attacks, but there are billions of words.    
Imagine a shy, bookish person who has studied every principle of rhetorics. Could he really hold himself up in a discussion against a charismatic politician?
(these are not arguments that I will stubbornly defend to my death, so please feel free to try to convince me that this is not how it'd work)

I'm a fan of many elements in FATE, including aspects, so I will definitely mine that system for thoughts before I fully design my system (and I will probably steal aspects altogether). Adding bonuses because of good roleplaying is also a good incentive for the players. Currently, when playing Pathfinder or similar systems, I like to see social rolls as a kind of lens through which you view (i.e. hear) the words spoken by the player. So a bad speech viewed through a good lens would yield a better speech as far as the ears of the nearby NPC's goes.

And Leetz, I usually agree with you on most things, but I believe you are seeing that problem from the wrong angle. It's not that a charismatic person can't play Big Thork Skull-Crusher, it's that an uncharismatic/shy/otherwise not socially gifted person wouldn't be able to play Supreme Chancellor Rhetorica Brillantia.        
You are probably right when you say that stress has an influence, though. And I do believe that most people can deliver a good speech given some peace and time to think. But that doesn't mean they will have the time to think about good responses in the middle of the game; that requires wit. Actually, even a charismatic person might have trouble if he is supposed to play the best debator within the Mekaeran Courts or something like that.  

QuoteBut, seriously, what skill is Fight to Oblivion??

As to the whole discussion about learning vs. natural skill, I will make the argument that even if experience hones your abilities to a degree they are inherently limited by natural charisma/wit; some are cut out for it while others aren't. And yes, this might be said to be the case for many skills and abilities, but in fighting you can spar and if you are a basketweaver you can keep weaving baskets knowing that the process won't change.
Every single conversation, discussion, or argument has few if any things in common with other conversations. They are in many way unique because they detail different subject matter, different arguments, different background knowledge, different motives. You can get some pointers, but there is no learning conversation. There can only ever be a fixed amount of different swordfighting stances and attacks, but there are billions of words.
Imagine a shy, bookish person who has studied every principle of rhetorics. Could he really hold himself up in a discussion against a charismatic politician?
(these are not arguments that I will stubbornly defend to my death, so please feel free to try to convince me that this is not how it'd work)[/quote]get[/i] charismatic. Particularly if he's practicing it frequently. (Which he should be-- you wouldn't expect Jim Fumblefingers to learn swordplay out of books alone, I suppose. He has to get in there and spar, just like your rhetorician. In fact, I'm not sure why you specifically bring up sparring to practice fighting and argument to practice rhetoric as if they were different things-- they seem pretty much equivalent to me.)

I disagree with you about the infinite variety of conversations. Conversations have lots in common with other conversations. There is a finite (and pretty small) number of ways of speaking-- once you get the hang of them, everything else more or less boils down to 1.) your command of facts and 2.) audience awareness.

Consider writing an advertisement for a certain brand of soap, and consider writing a politician's campaign. Same essential thing. In both cases, I may call upon facts to explain why my chosen soap/politician is the best one, or I may use imagery and emotionally-laden language to beguile you, but the process is the same for each product and I have the same palette of rhetorical colors at my disposal. Just because there are an infinite number of things I might try to persuade you about, doesn't mean that I have to relearn conversational skills for each, or that there's no such thing as "generally learning to be more persuasive."

Examples of this sort of transfer are all over language. Just because there's no obvious thing in common with the subject matter between 1.) negotiating a peace treaty between warring countries and 2.) settling a dispute with my cranky neighbor about where we park on the street in front of our houses, doesn't mean I wouldn't use the same conversational framework and set of verbal skills for each. The "there are billions of words" angle is a misdirection, because when you want to make a point that's well-understood by your audience, it's usually best to avoid all the unusual and esoteric vocabulary your audience is less likely to be familiar with.

I dunno, man. In general, I've been moving away from the strict dichotomy between innate/nonlearned attributes and learned skills, lately. I'm just not sure they're always as necessary as folks of our hobby often seem to assume they are. But if you're going to draw some sort of distinction between "things you can learn" and "things you can't learn", it seems pretty clear to me that conversational skill should belong to the former category.

Quote from: Conundrum CrowThe idea of having a lot of small personality traits that can be spent to influence a conversation isn't bad. In fact, it seems to be a bit akin to a simplified version of FATE's aspects, which are great.

Using a reaction roll to "set the stage" is not a bad idea, I believe GURPS does this as well. And I like how GS mixes roleplaying and dice, even if the process seems a bit arcane at first glance (but I assume it quickly becomes an intuitive process). But, seriously, what skill is Fight to Oblivion?? :p
As to the whole discussion about learning vs. natural skill, I will make the argument that even if experience hones your abilities to a degree they are inherently limited by natural charisma/wit; some are cut out for it while others aren't. And yes, this might be said to be the case for many skills and abilities, but in fighting you can spar and if you are a basketweaver you can keep weaving baskets knowing that the process won't change.
Every single conversation, discussion, or argument has few if any things in common with other conversations. They are in many way unique because they detail different subject matter, different arguments, different background knowledge, different motives. You can get some pointers, but there is no learning conversation. There can only ever be a fixed amount of different swordfighting stances and attacks, but there are billions of words.    
Imagine a shy, bookish person who has studied every principle of rhetorics. Could he really hold himself up in a discussion against a charismatic politician?
(these are not arguments that I will stubbornly defend to my death, so please feel free to try to convince me that this is not how it'd work)

I'm a fan of many elements in FATE, including aspects, so I will definitely mine that system for thoughts before I fully design my system (and I will probably steal aspects altogether). Adding bonuses because of good roleplaying is also a good incentive for the players. Currently, when playing Pathfinder or similar systems, I like to see social rolls as a kind of lens through which you view (i.e. hear) the words spoken by the player. So a bad speech viewed through a good lens would yield a better speech as far as the ears of the nearby NPC's goes.

And Leetz, I usually agree with you on most things, but I believe you are seeing that problem from the wrong angle. It's not that a charismatic person can't play Big Thork Skull-Crusher, it's that an uncharismatic/shy/otherwise not socially gifted person wouldn't be able to play Supreme Chancellor Rhetorica Brillantia.        
You are probably right when you say that stress has an influence, though. And I do believe that most people can deliver a good speech given some peace and time to think. But that doesn't mean they will have the time to think about good responses in the middle of the game; that requires wit. Actually, even a charismatic person might have trouble if he is supposed to play the best debator within the Mekaeran Courts or something like that.  

Again, I can agree to some of this, and can address those things, and disagree with part as well.

First off, Fight To Obvilvion is a social skill, and deals with influence.  It is a sub skill of exhort, which is under the basic leader catagory.  Exhort allows a user to increase the chance to hit for all the allies within range of the leader's voice.  Fight to Oblivion actually allows a leader's followers within range to fight into negative hp (the ability determines how far into negatives they can go).  

I agree that attributes heavily affect skills, as well.  In GS, attributes can give a bonus onto a skill as well as give a substantial bonus onto the EXPMOD (which determines the speed a skill improves).  For example, most guilds that are ok at teaching basic leader will give about a .4 to .5 as the EXPMOD for that skill (as compared to .15 for trying to learn it without a teacher)  However, a character with a 17 WIS and 17 CHAR will have +.19 added to their EXPMOD (bringing it to .59-.69, a tremendous jump in the speed that the ability is gained) as well as a +9% to the skill itelf.  So I very carefully include the affect of attributres into every single skill in GS (though good roleplayers always win, somehow...it's a mystery, Charlie Brown).

As to the ability to learn rhetoric, speaking and speechwriting, influence and oratory, and the limitations of learning same, I think you are sadly mistaken.   Much like acting, these skills do increase and deepen with study and practice.  Do not forget the hellenic schools devoted soley to oratory and rhetoric.  Do not forget Demonstheses limitations of stuttering and shyness that were overcome through study at these schools.  
Personally, I have a player whom I have known for decades, who has little charisma, and who has a habit of speaking too quickly, and other social awkwardness.  Yet through study and practice (lots of practice), he has become an effective public speaker and an excellent debator.  The key factor being that much of this skill was learned and honed through practice.
   

QuoteDo not forget the hellenic schools devoted soley to oratory and rhetoric. Do not forget Demonstheses limitations of stuttering and shyness that were overcome through study at these schools.

Not that people really speak in a Hellenic style anymore (as far as I know? maybe they do?), but I still think it'd be interesting to grab a book at the library and read up on these classical techniques.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

QuoteDo not forget the hellenic schools devoted soley to oratory and rhetoric. Do not forget Demonstheses limitations of stuttering and shyness that were overcome through study at these schools.

I've had a couple of thoughts about what I would do if I was every to create another full-on campaign setting.  I have been playing with a bronze-age ideas, and with the way rhetoric and science was taught, it is really perfect for me.  But I don;t think much will come of it, as Celtricia is still going full-bore and I don't have Llum's talent for multiplicity.

The whole point behind using stats and random number generation for ANYTHING in RPGs is to avoid the "you can't do that" - "yes I can" line of arguments. If you think that such mechanics are unneeded when it comes to social/political interactions, why would you think it's still needed for combat? After all, we're perfectly capable of describing the awesome battle-prowess of our imaginary heroes, down to the gory little details.

Why should I have to roll to see whether I manage to slip poison in the king's drink unnoticed, but not have to roll to see whether the angry peasant mob is roused up by my words enough to storm the chancellor's manor?

Quote from: GhostmanThe whole point behind using stats and random number generation for ANYTHING in RPGs is to avoid the "you can't do that" - "yes I can" line of arguments. If you think that such mechanics are unneeded when it comes to social/political interactions, why would you think it's still needed for combat? After all, we're perfectly capable of describing the awesome battle-prowess of our imaginary heroes, down to the gory little details.

Why should I have to roll to see whether I manage to slip poison in the king's drink unnoticed, but not have to roll to see whether the angry peasant mob is roused up by my words enough to storm the chancellor's manor?

Word. This is why I like systems that treat every kind of action with the same mechanics.

Though I really would like to try a super-stripped-down system sometime, without stats or rolls for anything, just to see what that'd be like.

Wouldn't that just be free-form narrative LC?