Social Combat: The Importance of Rules

[AstralFire]

As many of you (I hope?) noted, I'm working on a homebrew system that's meant to be extremely pick-up and play, and the majority of the rules are in regard to physical effects.

Up 'til now, I've eschewed putting in a social combat system because... frankly, I'm kind of ambivalent about them in general.

All of the ones I've seen tend to be extremely ad-hoc in play; any GM who sees something as a reasonable statement grants you a circumstance/equipment/whatever bonus or says it works or whatnot and what have you.

The best I've seen are systems that said "well, you say this and the GM decides it was good and therefore knocked off this much of the person's resolve" (which is determined in ad-hoc by the GM) "so you succeed!" Which is barely one step above free-form.

I can see a social combat system working well in a very complicated, rules-heavy game where everything is defined and metered. (It would have to be done -very- well, though.) But in a rules-light game, is there even a point?

[Elennsar]

I would say yes. There needs to be something to reflect "skilled characters" and something to put down ahead of what (generally speaking) "success" means.

Beyond that? Not necessarily.

The problem with lacking rules is that making it purely a subject for DM judgment puts a heavy burden on the GM, especially when a player is more (or less) charismatic/socially adept than their character.

Even assuming everyone trusts the GM's judgment, that's a little too much for me to consider reasonable.

I'd say its worth it. But its easier to justify for acts of diplomats than for haggling with an innkeeper to lower the price, if one is going rules light.

[EjoThims]

Other than bonuses/penalties beyond an individual's scope to represent (like myself trying to play a 40 Wis Cleric when I regularly stick forks in toasters to dislodge stuck bread  :-[), I don't really think it's worth it to have a detailed system for social interaction. All attempts I've ever seen to actually capture the complexities of such interactions have ended up more complicated than the worst combat rules.

[AstralFire]

I would say yes. There needs to be something to reflect "skilled characters" and something to put down ahead of what (generally speaking) "success" means.

In certain systems (mine), it's assumed that, to paraphrase 'Complete Scoundrel' - everyone has skill. And everyone can kill people, too. So anyone specializing in skills to the detriment of their combat may not really be of value to a party in the long-term.

The problem with lacking rules is that making it purely a subject for DM judgment puts a heavy burden on the GM, especially when a player is more (or less) charismatic/socially adept than their character.

This is my biggest concern, right here, when you get down to it. I'm not worried about those who are more socially adept than their character, I'm worried about penalizing those who are less so.

[Elennsar]

1) Right, but there are people who are (more than usually) savvy at social interaction and there are people who are merely able to avoid hurting themselves.

2) I'm not familiar with very rules light systems, so I'm unable to come up with much here. But there ought to be something to reflect how a "talented" (better than most characters, whatever that is) would do X (X being anything, in this case diplomacy) better...say, instead of a 60% chance, they have a 75% chance. Or 80%.

Nothing fancy. My main suggestion: An attractive offer (something the person being offered wants to accept) will be more likely to succeed. An unattractive offer (something the person offered doesn't want to accept) will be less likely.

Beyond that, this may be too rules light to go very far.