The Campaign Builder's Guild

Possibly? I don't know. I should probably take a good look at Diceless Amber or something hoary and venerable like that.

Amber doesn't really have anything like a deep task resolution system that could translate to social skills. The stats amount to "I have a 100 and you have a 50 so, you know, I beat you" (which isn't knocking the system at all. It works perfect for its setting).

If you want real deep diceless mechanics I recommend starting here.

EDIT: has anyone mentioned Burning Wheel? It has the Duel of Wits mechanic.

Burning Wheel actually looks fairly interesting. I'll take a deeper look at it sometime.

And Vreeg, I will surrender a few of my former arguments and agree that you can acquire talent at persuasion and the like through experience. My argument didn't really hold up in that case.  
But does it make sense to treat it as a skill on par with basketweaving? Now, Guildschool is notorious for its vast amount of skills, but that is also because it has a broader definition of skills than most games. In most games skills are things you can acquire through training and dedication. GS extends the definition to cover anything that will benefit from experience. While persuasion definitely falls into the latter category, does it fall into the former just as easily?

Also, I ask all of you, could anyone become a master orator? Are there limitations, or should it simply be considered a skill?

QuoteAnd Vreeg, I will surrender a few of my former arguments and agree that you can acquire talent at persuasion and the like through experience. My argument didn't really hold up in that case.
But does it make sense to treat it as a skill on par with basketweaving? Now, Guildschool is notorious for its vast amount of skills, but that is also because it has a broader definition of skills than most games. In most games skills are things you can acquire through training and dedication. GS extends the definition to cover anything that will benefit from experience. While persuasion definitely falls into the latter category, does it fall into the former just as easily?

Also, I ask all of you, could anyone become a master orator? Are there limitations, or should it simply be considered a skill?

Of course[/i] it's not true that anyone could become a master orator (aphasia and social phobias would be pretty severe roadblocks, for instance), but that's true of just about anything you could name. Your "or should it simply be considered a skill?" phrasing really makes me curious about where you've drawn the lines for what kinds of things you, in your system, consider appropriate skills, and why you draw those lines where you do.

After all, no matter what level of difficulty you aspire to-- from airy pulp adventure to gravelly Celtrician simulationism-- we all abstract and simplify things to some extent. It's part of the process of translating real (or realish) things into numbers and dice and game mechanics. CC, you seem curiously bent on a.) asserting that public speaking is unlearnable (or at least, notably less learnable than most other things), and b.) treating it differently in game mechanics as a consequence of its relative unlearnability. I've got to say, I can't find your angle, here. It strikes me as a dubious premise that leads only to knotty rules headaches.

(wee, post number 1600)
Oups, sorry LC, actually missed your post :/
When I bring up sparring it's because you have the ability to wake up in the morning, pick up a sword, find a friend, and go sparring. There is an element of choice here that allows you to train when you want to and as much as you want to. An argument is most often something you end up in against your will. It's the fewest who pointedly trains so they can become better at persuasion; this is often only achieved by virtue of a position that will see them getting into frequent arguments (merchants/politicians). This might seem like a minor problem, but it's still a discrepancy. Of course, it might very well be irrelevant, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the concept. This also has relevance considering your question of what I consider a skill, although that line hasn't been clearly drawn yet. But as far as the above arguments go I draw it at "abilities that you can freely choose to go train".    

I'm also sorry if I come across as unusually adamant... These are just things I've been considering and I thought it would be nice to get some other perspectives on the matter. Which you are all very kind to give, thank you! Generally, I'm just trying to convince myself that using skills for social interaction is a close enough abstraction.

Hmm, but my viewpoint might be easier to understand with some background. Namely, D&D. Which is perhaps a bad starting point as the system is inherently flawed in many ways (part of the charm and part of the issue). But nevertheless, I have always looked at e.g. a skill like bluff and thought "how the hell come this guy can just keep becoming better at lying?"
I realize that this might be mostly due to weak constraints on the number of ranks and a system set up for advancement well beyond the humanly possible. I just knew that if I made a system this would be an issue I'd like to avoid.

Also, there is the subject of how far you can take a skill:
If we take e.g. lies, there seems to be so few levels of advancement after all... Keep your face still, your voice steady, and avoid a few choice subjects and you should be okay.
But that might be a too idealized way to look at lying. After all, the lies might be quite a deal better if they are hooked in reality, touch on subjects close to the target, involve accurate portrayals of emotion and so on.  
What do you think?

But unless there are some new comments on the above, let's say we've settled for social interactions as skill (I'm all for avoiding "knotty rules headaches" if possible). That brings us to a new problem:
how many skills do you need to portray interaction? Should one go with the trifecta of bluff, diplomacy, intimidate or are there more apt constructions?

Quote from: Conundrum CrowBut as far as the above arguments go I draw it at "abilities that you can freely choose to go train".

Interesting definition, especially considering you used sparring with swords as an example. Consider the prestigious qualities attributed to swords (throughout pretty much all cultures that used them) and the fact that in times when swords were still relevant weapons, the vast majority of people would simply not have much time to waste on something like sparring (which you'd have to do a *lot* to become truly good in any kind of martial skill). I would argue that swordsmanship in many cultural contexts would be precisely the sort of skill that one cannot learn much of without a virtue of a position that affords one with the leisure, funds, and access to formal instruction (not to mention social "licence" to dabble in such practice).

A peasant in a medievalesque setting might never be able to learn much in the way of swordsmanship no matter how much he may want to, while a nobleman of the same setting might have been brought up learning it even if he didn't care much for it.

Why couldn't we view the learning of conversational/oratory skills in a similar light? Maybe one can only learn these by being thrust into a position that provides natural practice aplenty, or maybe there are avenues of formal instruction, or maybe sitting down with your friend to play some games of verbal "sparring" is a poppular pasttime activity? Ultimately that's all up to the cultural context to determine.

Quote from: Conundrum Crowhow many skills do you need to portray interaction? Should one go with the trifecta of bluff, diplomacy, intimidate or are there more apt constructions?

That's just a matter of how detailed and complex you want the system to be. You could continue to break down the skills to ever more narrowly defined ones (at least till you hit the limits of imagination) but that comes at the cost of greater complexity.

It might actually be a relevant point that different upbringings grant access to different skills, but the slightly improvised definition should probably have been: "abilities you can freely choose to go develop assuming you have the necessary equipment".

my point was that you can pick up your sword and go train without real conflict and consequences. Social skills could more or less only be taught in a real conflict. The latter is dependent only on experience while the former also benefits from time/training.  
 

Quote from: Jade FATE social skillsPrimary Social Skills:

Rapport: The basic, all-purpose, "get things done" social skill, for when you're acting on the level (i.e., when you wouldn't be using Deceit or Intimidation instead). Use it to make friends, defuse fights, seduce hotties, make persuasive arguments, perform negotiations, etc.

Deceit: The skill for being not-quite-honest. Use it to lie, but also to deceive in other ways (disguises, false identities, elaborate con jobs, etc.) Adroit use of a good Deceit skill can really foul up somebody who tries to read your aspects with Empathy; you can gain some pretty great advantages by allowing them to get an inaccurate picture of personality in that way.

Intimidation: The skill for forceful interaction. Use it to scare people, sure, but also to win a defiant staring contest, to interrogate, to provoke others to anger, and to avoid unwanted bothering by being too unnerving to approach. A blunt tool, but a powerful one.

Empathy: The "reading the social currents" skill. Doesn't do much by itself, but it has two important social functions: 1.) determining social initiative (empathetic characters know just when to speak up and when to shut up, so they often go first in social scenes), and 2.) allowing you to read other characters' aspects (which provides various powerful advantages when dealing with those characters in later actions).

Presence: A passive social skill, the social equivalent of the Endurance/Stamina/Constitution-type stats that you see in a lot of systems. Presence represents the strength of your reputation, self-image, and general aura of don't-firetruck-with-me, so characters with high Presence are much tougher targets for social attacks. Also used for general leadership ability and commanding underlings, so important for charismatic infantry commanders and mob bosses, etc.

Contacting: The "it's not what you know, it's who you know" skill. Having a good Contacting score is a convenient way to abstract out having lots of friends and lots of favors owed, and making a Contacting roll is a convenient way to abstract out "asking around in town" for information. In a way, it's like a social perception skill; in another way, it's like Rapport, but for large, vaguely-defined groups of no-name NPCs. Contacting is for getting the local news, hearing rumors (or starting them), and generally being aware of social things that are happening.

Skills with Some Social Applications:

Resolve: The willpower skill. Used to defend against a lot of things that brute-force attack the brain-- including Intimidation.

Bureaucracy: Skill for dealing with organizations, whether you're trying to cut City Hall's red tape, defend yourself in court, or command your vast industrial empire. Social insofar as an organization is made up with people and their interactions. If you're the head of an organization, your Bureaucracy skill determines how well it operates under your leadership.

Art: A catchall creativity skill which includes things like music and poetry, which have niche but powerful social functions: the right kind of artistic atmosphere can place aspects on the whole scene, which may drastically alter the course of a social encounter. In the form of satire, eulogy, and other pointed and direct applications, can even be used as a direct social attack, by making an individual the object of ridicule (or, of course, of respect).

Resources: Hey, money talks. If you feel like a little bribery, Resources can stand in for certain types of other social rolls.

[/spoiler]

As has been noted well by the glowing wax-stick, we all simplify and abstract.  No matter how complex the sysytem, it cannot mirror the real life complexity of what really goes into the success of a task, especially an interpersonal one.  At it's most top-down analysis, we are talking about 2 skill sets.  The understanding of soclal positioning/relationships and communication.  

And after we understand it, we amplify it and use our ruleset (our in-setting physics engine) to transform these into the games we want to create.  For example, if we want a system that is combat heavy, our physics engine will have a lot more rulese dedicated to comabt stunts then social stunts, or vice versa.  The power growth curve is another place this matters, and opposed abilities.

I tried a Social Combat variant in my last version of Echoes of Dreams (the one on the wiki). I and my players found it didn't work as well for us as we hoped. We preferred to mostly roleplay out the debate and then settle it with one roll and move on, rather than trying to play out a series of rolls designed to mimic combat. Something that was neat in theory, wasn't enough fun in practice--at least for us.

Another problem with lies. It goes saying that Acting as a skill is a way of conveying fabrications and a skilled actor would probably be a good actor.
But are the skills inherently intertwined? Should they be collapsed into a single skill, acting, or are they somehow different? Even if actors make liars I'm not sure liars make actors. And it just bothers me that any player character who wants to be good at lying could apparently replace his adventuring career with a theater role. So my intuition says, no, they are different, but I can't avoid that there is some significant overlap...    

Quote from: Conundrum CrowAnother problem with lies. It goes saying that Acting as a skill is a way of conveying fabrications and a skilled actor would probably be a good actor.
But are the skills inherently intertwined? Should they be collapsed into a single skill, acting, or are they somehow different? Even if actors make liars I'm not sure liars make actors. And it just bothers me that any player character who wants to be good at lying could apparently replace his adventuring career with a theater role. So my intuition says, no, they are different, but I can't avoid that there is some significant overlap...    

CC, that is one of the things I was saying.
There is an assumed imperfection due to complexity that must be dealt with.
And there are very clear ways to handle it.

The first thing you do to avoid overlap is to create both skills seperately, so that you can clearly say to a player that since he is 'lying' more than 'acting, you will give him  a bonus to lie for his acting skill, but it will be reduced, becuase it is a complimentary skill but not exactly the skill in question.  Without defining both skills, you can't say this.  This is one of the advantages of having a large skill list.  You can tell the player clearly where something is the skill in question or not, becasue there are enough skills to avoid the question whether something is the right skill or not if it is pretty clearly defined.

Secondly, your issue of replacement or similar skills is nothing new in skill-based game design.  You just have to assume it and plan for it.  In my case, I take advantage of this to assume high-intelligence for my PCs and it gives this GM the ability to, 'Say Yes' more.  One of the reasons GS skills are so low is the assumed affect of addition, as well as the assumed difficulty level.
From The GS Skill Use Page
"The Clever use of Addition
The GuildSchool game is set up to encourage the clever use of skills.  This often manifests itself as players asking for a bonus on a skill CC or skill use due to a related skill. Since this is a skill based system, one based on thinking players, this is not a thorn in the GM's side.  Rather, this is something that has to be adjudicated personally, situation by situation, but try to encourage the players thinking.  I say this clearly; this is a way to award players for thinking, and should be encouraged.

The system is built to do this.  There is a lot of skill overlap by design.  Basic Outdoor and Basic Forester seem very similar and are indeed complimentary and meant to be used in a skill stacking situation.  Basic Forester is an artisan skill, and as such is a lesser knowledge involving the mundane aspects of this skill, whereas the Esoteric skill of Basic Outdoors includes powers and knowledge of how the House of Earth affects trees, the treants, tree spells, etc.  The social skills have a designed overlap built to encourage the creative player."

To Lie in GS, the main skill would be Bluff, the dropdown of Basic Social.  A player could add, by the spelled out rules in GS, 25% of an acting skill onto the Bluff skill.

I'm on the side of Acting and Lying being different skills. LV's synergy idea is the most realistic way to show they are related; my only hesitation would be how complicated you want the rules to be. I once used fractional percentages of synergistic skills, but later discarded the idea because I felt the benefit gained (realism) was outweighed by the additional overhead. So it depends on your preference.

CC, I agree with you that leaving social skills entirely in the hands of players is unfair. You do not leave combat skill in the hands of players; the players get control of tactics (what actions to take, which powers to use), but a player doesn't have to tell you exactly how there character swings a sword to score a successful hit. Some players just aren't as charasmatic and charming as they want to play; I have one player in particular who has loved playing charming characters, but he isn't gregarious himself at all.

One of the first things that can help me to help you would be what sort of skill system you want to have in the first place. Do you want just a cumulative modifier system (like d20) where bonuses to a skill don't matter whether they come from an ability score or a skill point? Or maybe you want another system?

L5R uses a system of Roll and Keep. I forget which direction it goes (I seem to recall always being wrong), but I believe it was you roll a number of dice equal to your Attribute+Skill, but you only keep a number equal to your Attribute. So being skilled increases the average result, but it does not increase the maximum result.

Another way you could do it would be to have your Attribute determine the max number of points you could put into a skill in the first place, possibly in addition to a natural bonus from the Attribute. This would mean you'd have to have some Charisma to be a good diplomat. This was something I have considered doing to make pricing ability scores in point-based systems a bit more fair, so attributes with many skills aren't tentatively balanced vs. attributes with non-skill abilities (the ever present "charisma sucks" type arguements).

Does this help you a bit?

Thanks for the replies!
Currently the system operates with skills ranking form 1 to 10 and a Rank+1d6-1d6 resolution system. I also operate without ability scores, which makes this slightly more difficult (instead I will use traits and aspects, the latter taken from FATE).
A system I could use to provide the needed synergy could be my Talents: in the system a skill is not just a numerical stat, every rank also grants you a single Talent - an expansion of the skill. So a person with Acting could take Convincing Demeanour as one of his Acting Talents and this would confer a bonus to the Bluff skill. This makes the bonuses more static than what Vreeg suggests, but also less of a hassle to calculate.
I do like systems like the Roll and Keep though, where there  are multiple influences on a roll. Makes the basic resolution system a bit more interesting than a single tumbling die. But I haven't come up with one I really want to include yet, and I do like my current resolution system so that'll have to wait.