Week of Social, Part 1
The post this week was supposed to be skills and mechanics that built off of the existing SOCIAL rules. Unfortunately, those rules are really “guidelines” more than proper rules. The existing material doesn’t leave much room for skills, bonuses, etc.
So, this week I rebuilt the SOCIAL mechanics. The existing system on ikolith.com mostly focuses on reputation management. The reputation bonuses listed there could be repurposed to augment the new system if reputation is important in your setting, but that is totally optional.
I expect playtests to drive a lot of changes to SOCIAL mechanics in the future.
SOCIAL
Skills
Most SOCIAL skills consist of a social trait or strategy. For example:
Affability
To you, a stranger really is just a friend you haven’t met yet. You have a disarming cheerful earnestness.
Intimidation
You are frightening, imposing. You use explicit or implied threats to pressure others.
How much is this bonus, exactly?
Unless otherwise stated, using a SOCIAL skill adds +1 to your roll. For now, players can state they want to get +2 from one skill, and if they fail to use the skill “well enough” for a +2 (pretty subjective!) they get no bonus. All of these skills cost 5 SP. I’ll see if that cost seems like too much or too little during playtests.
A less subjective rule would allow players to simply buy 2 levels of the skill instead, but frankly that seems kind of boring!
SOCIAL Rolls
Not every social interaction will be resolved through rolling some kind of check or contest. Sometimes characters have the luxury of being able to resolve things through open, honest, good-faith dialogue. However, when time is limited, stakes are high, and people are watching, it’s time to start rolling some dice.
SOCIAL checks are resolved by following these steps:
Intent: State what you are trying to accomplish and what SOCIAL skills you want to use (limit of 3).
Attempt: Roleplay your attempt to persuade the other character.
Reckoning: The GM determines which skills you used successfully and awards bonuses.
Resolution: Roll the check, add your SOCIAL + awarded bonuses, compare to the opposing roll or DC.
I reckon that could work
Step 3, “Reckoning” is the core of the system. At this step the GM tells you what skills you were able to use successfully. This is extremely context specific!
If you are addressing a judge in a courtroom, Affability is likely a bad idea. The judge does not want to be pals, and the judge is not going to be convinced by your winning smile. However, Affability works wonders in a bar or while traveling. Additionally, while there is no mechanic keeping you from trying to use Affability and Intimidation in the same check, doing so convincingly is going to be very difficult.
This system prioritizes incentivizing intentional roleplay over consistency. The system awards good improvisation. While a character with Affability can be assumed to be generally friendly and kind, it’s still on the player to make sure that that trait is used in a way that makes sense. For the character to be socially effective, the player must be at least socially competent.
Some degree of consistency is sacrificed in this system in favor of flexibility and awarding good roleplaying. Remember that the use of the SOCIAL skills doesn’t have to be perfect, just convincing enough to award a bonus towards the check.
SOCIAL Contests
SOCIAL contests are pretty simple. Both characters state what they’re trying to accomplish and make their cases or have a dialogue. After the interaction, bonuses are awarded and the SOCIAL score is added. Finally, totals are compared.
SOCIAL Checks
The Easy Way to set DCs
Under the current system, players are able to get a +41 (remember, this is huge when using 2d6) through argumentation/SOCIAL skills, so bonuses to passive DCs should stay within the range of 1-4. Remember these are all being added to the passive score, so in this case we get 6 + SOCIAL + bonus. The “defender” in the check is called the “listener” here.
+0: The listener is neutral towards whatever you are to convince them of. They are actively listening and considering whatever argument is being proposed.
+1: The listener is skeptical.
+2 The listener has a strong resistance to your argument. Maybe you are asking them to act against their own best interest.
+3 The listener is extremely resistant to whatever you are saying. Maybe you are asking them to make some personal sacrifice or take on some very large risk.
+4 It’s a miracle the listener is even entertaining your outrageous nonsense! They should hit you right now for even suggesting that!
Levels above +4 and below +0 are left as an exercise to the reader. If you are going too far in either direction you should reconsider whether a roll is even appropriate.
A Harder Way
The listener writes down some set of concerns, sources of contention, etc. If the speaker effectively addresses those concerns during their argument, the concern is dismissed and the DC is lowered. This gives some incentive for players to really consider the context and their audience rather than trying to brute force the check. I would not use this method for every situation. I would only use it for very high DCs or very significant moments and NPCs.
Players can use the above process to determine the DC that an NPC will have to pass (subject to GM refereeing, of course). You can also just make every SOCIAL check rolled against a player into a SOCIAL contest.2
Leverage
Were you thinking “I would subscribe, but there are not nearly enough half-baked systems in this post”? Good news! I’ve got an entirely optional supplementary mechanic that I’m including only because it is so easy for me to remove or ignore down the line.
“Leverage” is just what it sounds like. When one character has leverage over another, they can ensure some kind of compromise even if they lose. If you successfully convince some guard to let you by even though you don’t have the right paperwork or whatever, he has Leverage and can extract a small bribe to let you through. Some NPC might tell you what they know in exchange for some smaller piece of information from you. If both characters have Leverage they can both secure some compromise in the event that they lose.
This is meant as a safety valve to keep SOCIAL checks from steamrolling narratively interesting interactions and exchanges. Characters can lose the exchange but still use their circumstances to secure a small win. “Small win” and even the concept of “Leverage” are, of course, very subjective!
End
The next post will be about Healing and Rest because I promised I would get that done so playtests can actually happen. After that, I’ll post “Week of SOCIAL, Part 2” which will include a list of simple trait-like SOCIAL skills as well as a couple of move-like skills.
GMs should, of course, feel free to award the usual sorts of ad-hoc modifiers (advantage, disadvantage, etc.) for exceptionally good or bad arguments, narrative purposes, etc.
The question of whether NPCs should be allowed to roll these sorts of checks against players is a contentious one. Do whatever works for your table, your players, etc. My two cents are that by allowing all characters to access the same toolset you broaden the scope of the threats your players can come up against. Think of SOCIAL checks as another kind of attack.
Persuasion isn’t mind control, but a good argument can still leave a character baffled or speechless. This can have consequences, especially if there is an audience of some kind present. The threat of NPCs making SOCIAL checks against players can also act as a sanity check on the effects of SOCIAL rolls. Players are incentivized to reign in the capabilities of SOCIAL mechanics instead of treating them as a sort of one-sided narrative superpower.