Social Combat?

[Hywaywolf]

I agree completely. So its better to not have it at all or build a supplement. Thats why I suggested the The Song of Ice and Fire rules to rob. That game is built around diplomacy (social combat).

[Shenron]

Thanks for all of the replies. I am aware "social combat" is more of a new school idea and even the term social combat is a misnomer because traditionally it covers everything from arguments to seduction and lying.

I actually like the simple reaction roll idea. I have no experience with the Fire and Ice RPG but I have heard good things about it.

There was this one RPG (I really wish I could remember what it was called) that had one of the best social combat systems I have ever seen. It was actually based on roleplay and only came up in certain intense situations. For example, the party thief is trying to talk his way past a city guard and depending on the situation it is best out of 3 or best out of 5. The NPC and PC each have a round and depending on how they roleplay they get a varying bonus (that could also be a penalty) on the outcome roll and roll at the end of the "round". This goes back and fourth until best out of 3 or 5.

I think this could be awesome and interjected into Basic Fantasy.

It is really driving me nuts that I cannot remember that game.

[Dimirag]

You can ask somebody to make a wish to know that game's name, but beware, you could end up resting for at least a full year

[Hywaywolf]

I see the world Diplomacy used a lot for what you are talking about. Its getting your way without resorting to physical contact.

[Shenron]

You can ask somebody to make a wish to know that game's name, but beware, you could end up resting for at least a full year

Lol, yep. I am more of a Ring of Three Wishes guy myself.

I see the world Diplomacy used a lot for what you are talking about. Its getting your way without resorting to physical contact.

Exactly. I like to give myself more options then just hitting my problems with a sword or give my players more options them combat. A nice simple subsystem works like what I described works great unless your player just blows the situation out of the water with awesome role playing, then no roll(s) needed.

[Hywaywolf]

I am wondering if you and I are talking about the same thing. Social combat or diplomacy is whats used against PCs to overrule what a player actually wants to do. BFRPG already has rules in place for players to use against NPCs.

[Shenron]

I am wondering if you and I are talking about the same thing. Social combat or diplomacy is whats used against PCs to overrule what a player actually wants to do. BFRPG already has rules in place for players to use against NPCs.

I think we are talking about different things. I am more talking about my example for Players/NPCs to try to get what they want without resorting to combat or trying to seduce someone or whatever.

[SerGavin]

It sounds like a good idea. Is there any chance you could give us a better description of the idea?

[Hywaywolf]

Players/NPCs trying to get what they want without resorting to combat or trying to seduce someone describes old school style of playing. Players don't complete missions if they try to bull their way through every encounter. You can negotiate, intimidate, run, get sneaky, etc. Its all covered by the rules.


I never understood where the notion came from that old school gaming was just hack and slash.

[Dimirag]

On my first D&D campaign we somehow saved and spared a kobold name pik, in gratitude he followed us around, so we feed him, at one point we needed to go to a certain place, filled with kobolds, it resulted that they where part of pik's clan and an outside clan attacked him while he was searching for food, we managed to made them believe pik was an heroic kobold so they raised in status and as a thanks pik convinced the clan to let us move without a fight, we continued the adventure and no roll was made during that situation.