Rules for Social Interaction

>>51689730
Precisely because the last guy can develop those skills. It's not that hard, he got no excuse. It's not posible to learn magic and it's not desirable to learn to kill your friends.

>>51689765

But if you won't budge from your standpoint, during the debate or dispute, there is no progress. You can talk for hours and still no budge.

That is why I'm looking for something that breaks the status quo.

File: Social Combat.png (219KB, 715x501px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 715x501px

>>51689730
Ego is HP (add Cha bonus).
Burn is BAB (add Int bonus) .
Sass is AC (add Wis).

>>51689806
>You can talk for hours and still no budge.
Yes. and that's realistic.

>That is why I'm looking for something that breaks the status quo
Pathfinder where Diplomacy is literally mind control?

>>51689827

there is a combat problem that can be solved with your sword.
there is a magic problem that can be solved with your magic.
There is a social problem that can't be solved through social interaction because reasons.

If person A is better speaker that person B then he wins every argument. But if both person A and B create a knight with identical stats then they have combat rules that let them see who will win in the fight.

>>51689730
>I'm looking for good rules that can be used for social events and interactions.

Such interactions are ROLEplayed rather than ROLLplayed.

If you and your players are sperglords who already can't resolve social interactions through in-game discussions, a mechanic which imposes resolutions via die rolls isn't going to help. It will just give you austists something else to endlessly argue about.

>>51689876
>If person A is better speaker that person B then he wins every argument.
>I have no idea how debate works or what's the difference between opinions and facts
On the grounds of 4chan, I'm not even surprised.

File: Ribbon_explains.jpg (70KB, 265x275px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 265x275px

>>51689730
>You can play a beef barbarian if you are 5 feet tall. You can play a magic user even though there is no magic in real life. But god forbid if you want too play a person who tries to accomplish something through talk and you can't make good speeches on the spot. Oh the blasphemy. Why shouldn't the last guy have fun when you allow the first two to play something they want to play?

No matter how many times the barbarian picks up an ogre, the player won't get any stronger.
No matter how many spells the magic user casts, the player won't be able to cast any.
But, slowly, ever so slowly, the guy who is asked to make speeches learns from past errors and successes, and their skills grow and develop.

While it's fine to skip over that if you're really opposed to the idea, but don't you want to see people step out of their comfort zones and develop as both people and players?

>>51689981

Sure. After couple of months, year, few years. Unless he has inferiority complex and being beaten in debates makes him make characters that are "silent type".

>>51689730
>You can play a beef barbarian if you are 5 feet tall.
Manlets, when will they learn?

>>51689975

You really are a child. Let me simplify it. If person A is better at expressing himself (ergo better speaker) that person B (who has hard time expressing what he thinks) then person A wins every argument.

>>51690043
...no? That's pure Sophism, which even the Sophists didn't believe to the extremes you do.

Also, saying things like "ergo" work against you here.

>>51690131
>Also, saying things like "ergo" work against you here.

I'm sorry I developed some speech patterns through the years.

Even if person B makes a good argument person A has a good chance to make counterargument on the spot. You put person B in the same spot and he will freeze.

>>51690161
>I'm sorry I developed some speech patterns through the years.

As we all suspected, he's a sperglord.

>>51690256
Dude. Lay off.

>>51690256

Great contribution to the thread.

>>51690043
>You really are a child. Let me simplify it. If person A is better at expressing himself (ergo better speaker) that person B (who has hard time expressing what he thinks) then person A wins every argument.

You're forgetting the biases of the observer, which really decide 90% of arguments on the spot.

>>51690320


already covered. >>51689806

>>51690043
But that's false, unless you have a pretty weird idea of what is "winning" an argument. Most social skills in roleplaying are designed to force people to do things. This is not something with a better ability to express himself can do all the time with those who don't. In fact, it's uneducated people with no debate related background who are more likely to just repeat the same argument again and again, no matter that it's been debunked. You can't convince that people expressing yourself well.

>>51689730
Role playing games include playing roles.

But it's your game, autist--do whatever you want. D&D always had Charisma. Just roll a Charisma check and say "good" or "bad."

The five foot guy can describe attacking an orc. The non-wizard can describe casting a spell. The socially-inept sperglord can describe his social interactions.

>>51689765
Clearly you haven't met some of my friends.

>>51689806
>That is why I'm looking for something that breaks the status quo.

Violence. There's a reason people used (and uses) violence all the time to "convince" others. It does not mean that they don't have social skills, often they can perfectly convince others to be violent for them after all, but there's some things that simply cannot be resolved talking. Specially when you see the discussion as a fight between two arguments where only one is absolutely true.

>>51690406
They're bulky muscle wizards? That's pretty rad.

>>51689730
Gurps social combat/boardroom and curia

Fate - Diaspora has social combat
Vampire the Requiem - Danse Macabre has social combat
(I didn't play these games)

Songs of Ice and Fire had Intrigue system