Fantasy RPG with social mechanics?

Class systems, you mean? Those supposedly force you to either take a mage or cooperate with people.

>>52616383
Help me fa /tg/ us!

One of my group is a dice nut and quickly loses interest in a session if there aren't a heap of dice rolls. We've been playing 3.x and 5e, but we're getting to a point where the campaign and players are calling for a little more subtlety/ politicking.

The times we've tried, he picks fights with npcs just to get combat rolling again.

I like the old WoD system, as everything pretty much rolls the same combat, social, and skills, but I don't think it does a good job with fantasy stuff.

Any systems the hive mind can suggest? GURPS might be too complicated, but I'm short on experience in other systems.

>>52616450

Sorry for the first post fail! For further info and to stave off trolls: no we can't kick the guy from the group. He's fun to play with, when he's engaged in the game.

>>52616383
>>52616450
A Song of Ice and Fire RP, it has social combat work fairly well

Burning Wheel, obviously.

It's neck-deep in politics and has a social combat system that's every bit as complex as actual combat.

File: Adventurer Conqueror King System.jpg (628KB, 900x1165px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 900x1165px

>>52616383

>>52616383

Hillfolk is a game using what Robin Laws calls "the Drama System," a set of rules for social narrative type stuff. Supposedly you can bolt it straight on top of whatever other system you're using.

>>52616383
Reign? It has tons of socially dynamic options available to PCs.

>>52616946

This game, while pretty good, has no detailed social mechanics whatsoever.
It has reaction rolls and a diplomacy proficiency (as seen in AD&D 2e onward,) which is essentially a "skip" button for social encounters, not a dedicated social mechanic.

>>52617450
>essentially a "skip" button for social encounters, not a dedicated social mechanic.
I exclusively play 2nd edition ad&D, and if you use any proficiency as a skip button for social interactions (or anything that isn't a direct game mechanic, like open locks or whatever) then bottom line: your DM sucks.

>>52617579

Roleplaying out encounters is fun but it's not a social mechanic, and "roll your diplomacy proficiency and see what you got" is the most cursory and least detailed method of building a social mechanic.
It's the game saying "this is not important or vital enough to have detailed rules for." You can tell yourself otherwise, but you're only fooling yourself.

>>52617450
>which is essentially a "skip" button for social encounters

Except that it isn't unless your GM has no idea how to use them.

Reaction rolls are most often used to decide an NPCs' initial disposition toward one or more PCs, which informs the tone of roleplay. Even if someone gets a 12+, players still need to actually convince NPCs to do what they want through roleplaying. Having a good initial reaction roll just means the NPC is inclined to like and trust a character more than usual.

And it's only supposed to be used when the reaction isn't obvious to the GM: if a PC walks up to a father carrying the head of his only daughter, or demands that a merchant give away his entire stock for free, then the GM already knows how the NPC will respond to that and no roll is necessary.

It's as much as "skip" button for social encounters as an initiative or attack roll is for combat encounters. A good reaction roll can make things much easier, and make uncertain situations lean in a PC's favor. But players still need to use their heads and roleplay to make things happen.

>not a dedicated social mechanic.
Reaction rolls are a social mechanic. They're a flexible tool that GMs can use when needed to decide social outcomes that are not certain. They present a sensible range of possible outcomes that are easily tailored to each situation, which is

>>52618526
>They present a sensible range of possible outcomes that are easily tailored to each situation, which is probably all you really need from a social system.
fixed it for me

>>52618526
>It's as much as "skip" button for social encounters as an initiative or attack roll is for combat encounters.

Except that then you go on to use the detailed combat rules, for which there is no analog among the social skills, which is exactly what I'm pointing out.
I'm sorry that you don't like my phrasing, but those mechanics are meant to solve the mechanical end of the social encounter in the simplest and quickest way possible. A better analogy would be if you did combat as just an initiative roll and then you roleplayed out what that meant for the outcome of the battle. If I called doing that a "skip button" for combat, maybe you'd see what I mean?

>>52618619
>for which there is no analog among the social skills

The analog is roleplaying and using rules constructs such as reaction rolls to resolve situations where outcomes are uncertain.

Entire conversations aren't so easy to model adequately with game rules. That is why they need versatile tools like reaction rolls that are easily adapted to situations the designers cannot predict. That can allow people to roleplay as freely as possible while still resolving uncertain situations in a way that's fair and consistent. Trying to force conversation through an intricate rules structure will just get in the way of roleplaying.

>those mechanics are meant to solve the mechanical end of the social encounter in the simplest and quickest way possible
That is true. The idea is to adjudicate social encounters while letting people roleplay as much as they wish (and take that roleplay into account as appropriate) without crushing conversations under the weight of a lengthy minigame. Among the systems I have seen, reaction rolls are the most effective and elegant way to handle that.