>system claims to be designed for investigative, social, or

>>51802948
Because people think that you should just be able to roleplay all social stuff and the GM should be able to handle stuff like investigation and exploration, so the only thing that needs rules is combat (and of course you need detailed combat rules because combat is important)

>>51802948
What systems are you talking about?

>>51803096
CoC, most d20 material, Dark Heresy, WFRP.

>>51803096
4e D&D

>>51802948
I've always felt social combat got in the way of roleplaying more than anything else, tbqh.

>>51803204
How?

File: why.jpg (11KB, 221x228px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 221x228px

>>51803218
>There are people so autistic that they need actual RULES for socialy interacting while playing a tabletop rpg

>>51803218
Because he'd actually have to invest character points into being socially competent instead of just brow-beating his GM into giving him what he wants

>>51803502
No, we need rules for when the party turns on itself, so in-party conflict can be resolved by something other than a bloodbath that ends with half the play group rage-quitting.

And don't you tell me that doesn't happen.

>>51803135
>CoC
Yeah, gotta agree here. The foundation is old and it shows. It gives you a lot of skills and then almost free reign on how to apply this.
If you want something that's more focused and less freeform, try Gumshoe / Trail of Cthulhu

>most d20 material
No, just no. Anything that's based on the d20 engine (e.g. 3E D&D) will not work. Where you got the idea from that any of these systems are built for non-combat, I can't tell, but it's not what they're made for.

>Dark Heresy & WFRP
They're also based on pretty much the same d100 system as CoC, so the same applies here. However, you do have the Warhams flavour, which means people are probably expecting more combat than when you go with CoC. But yeah, the same "here, have these skills now free ball it" as with CoC.
Ultimatively, it's also a strenght of these systems. The players are never locked out of anything and can always try different schemes.

It's probably memetastic, but if you want to check out a system which treats social combat as just as important as weapons, try Dogs in the Vineyard. I've played it a few times now and although I'm not 100% sold on it, it certainly gives a completely different and fresh angle on how you play and treat situations.

>>51804710
Sounds like a job for Legends of the Wulin or Apocalypse World

>>51803502
>>51803056


This, really.

I don't quite understand why people think "social combat" needs more than the basic Persuasion/Bluff/Empathy/Intimidate skills and abilities almost all games articulate.

Even if you don't have a silver tongue coming up with the right or wrong thing to say in a given situation is not difficult. You shouldn't need ten pages of rules explaining how social interactions work. And frankly, making up a bunch of nonsense rules for talking to people won't solve anything because poor non-combat encounters in games are almsot entirely the fault of players with no social understanding out of character.

>>51803135
Dark Heresy may not have in depth social rules but Rogue Trader has enough to satisfy any autist.

>>51805619
What are you talking about?

>>51804710

Having social rules which allow one or two players to just browbeat the others into submission is not really any different than them killing each other. It doesn't actually solve whatever tension got there. All it does is inform the rest of the group there is someone who can mechanically stunt their player agency.

If your players are at each others' throats to the point where there's a non-zero risk of PvP occurring then there's something seriously wonky with the group. No amount of game mechanics will fix that.

>>51804722
Trail also suffers pretty heavily from this though.

As for Dogs in the Vineyard, it treats social situations as an extended form of combat (Or really, vice versa) with the player able to escalate the conflict to the next level.

File: 1480310166139.jpg (28KB, 303x302px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 303x302px

>>51804710
That doesn't happen.
When you're smart enough to avoid playing with autists.

>>51805582
Good social rules give the GM a framework to create an otherwise rather unclear encounter. You don't need super specific rules for how to convince/bluff/intimidate someone and what modifer gives what, but the GM needs to put a starting point somewhere and a clear indication on what failed rolls bring about (if they even come up at all).
Sure, you're playing make believe anyway, but especially for inexperienced GMs, having a good set of, well, let's rather call it advice, instead of rules, can be extremely helpful. If this means you have actual rules to back that up or not is secondary, but solid rules for non-combat encounters are also a big plus

>>51805940
If you can't spot the autist. It's you. /spoiler]

>>51805582
Because I want to be able to run a slander campaign against my enemies and have that be as mechanically detailed as hitting a dude with an axe.

>>51806085

What you're suggesting sounds basically like a crash course in social communication for GMs too autistic to understand how a person would react to a given situation. Which I guess could be useful.

But it doesn't really fall under the umbrella of what OP's acting.

>>51802948
I feel like people's issue is that they think all social interaction in games should be under the "roleplaying" umbrella, when what people are asking is that there be some "game" to their game.
I say this not as an autist, but sometimes I do want to have some mechanical interaction and stuff to do so we're not just freeform talking and/or spamming Charisma checks at NPCs to give us stuff.
For cases where social interaction is complex, such as courtly etiquette, interrogation, investigating, negotiation, parley, and other scenarios, letting your nerds put their foot in their mouths (because they usually don't understand how such a scenario actually works) isn't always the best idea. I mean, have you seen PCs try to interrogate a prisoner? Sure, rolling Intimidate or Persuasion solves the problem, but it's a mechanically weak solution, and it puts a lot at stake for a single die roll. What if we resolved combat as a single die roll? Most people would be up in arms, but it's an analogous situation.
Basically, rules for social interaction allow the game to create scenarios with risks and stakes that can be meaningfully quantified within the game logic, and not whatever rationale your GM functions under. Many GMs think they have a mind for politics and can run political heavy games, when their background is mostly watching West Wing reruns or the Netflix House of Cards.

>>51806422
Not only that, but there's also GMs that are better at preparing stuff than improvising it. They also benefit greatly from social encounter design rules.

It also cuts down on "unnecessary" rolls. Maybe you had an ok argument, but fitting argument for what the GM prepped. Now he just needs one quick look and can skip that roll.

People aren't always at the top of their game - sometimes it's the GM, sometimes it's the players. A solid structure smoothes this over.
There's simply no downside to having it availiable.

For example, I was quite impressed with how Dogs in the Vineyard handled encounter design. It was quick and to the point. The resolution mechanic is a bit too meta for my tastes, but determining what's at stake is very helpful in non-combat encounters (other stuff than social, too), because everyone knows when they need a new approach to the situation, instead of durdling around and just throwing out ideas