Social Conflict System, How do you handle PC arguments? Options

[TheGothfather]

So, after running an SR4 campaign for over a year, and then in-between campaigns playing a one-shot Burning Wheel demo, I've become concerned about the lack of a decent social conflict system in Shadowrun.

Now, the point of this is not PC vs. NPC interaction - this kind of conflict (like Negotiations) can be handled easily by Opposed Tests. But PC vs. PC conflict is usually ignored by the rules. In most groups I've played in, social skills are not used against PC's, but rather, the conflict is roleplayed out, often without any clear resolution. So, I came up with this sort of unrefined system for settling arguments, inspired by the Burning Wheel. The following is geared toward one-on-one conflict. I'm still trying to figure out how multiple characters could work in this. Any and all feedback on this houserule would be appreciated.

Social Conflict Resolution

This system uses an Opposed Extended social skill test to determine the outcome of a social conflict between two characters. Note that it is intended to be used with both PC vs. NPC and PC vs. PC conflict. These rules assume that the optional rule which limits the number of rolls in an extended test to the amount of dice in the character's pool (e.g., a character with a dice pool of 8 can only make 8 rolls to reach the threshold) is being used.

1. Both sides of the argument must decide and agree to the terms of the argument. This is essentially stating, "If I win, you do this, and if you win, I'll do that. Once both sides agree to the terms, the conflict can begin.

2. Determine the threshold for the extended social skill test. This will be the sum of Will + Charisma. Appropriate augmentations from cyber/bioware, spells, or adept powers apply.

3. The conflict is handled by making an extended social skill test against the threshold determined in step 2. Any appropriate skill will work here, although Negotiation will probably be the most commonly used.

The only non-standard thing about this test is that instead of the interval being measured in time, it's measured in statements, with each roll being one statement. The statements are made by each side involved, and then the dice are rolled.

4. The conflict is resolved if one of the following happens: one character meets the threshold, thus winning the argument; both characters reach the threshold at the same time, in which case the argument is a stalemate, and they then have to agree on compromises; one character has run out of available rolls, and thus looses; or, finally, both characters run out of extended test attempts, and then, just as if both had met their thresholds, major compromises must be made and agreed upon.

5. Win, lose, or compromise. This part is fairly easy. The agreed upon terms are carried out in favor of the winner. This does not mean that the loser's mind is changed. He/she is still free to hold a grudge and seek revenge. In fact, the loser always has the option to escalate the conflict to combat. If the loser has generated any hits during the exchange, then he's earned some compromises. While the winner still gets what he wants, but he has to make some concessions, based on the margin of failure of the loser.

I don't think this is necessarily perfect, or even usable. It's just an idea, and, if anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear about it.

All edits are marked in red.

[deek]

This came up in our game in the second session (over a year ago). At that time, we all agreed that PC v. PC conflicts had to be resolved without dice...

I like what you are trying to do, but players don't like dice to determine what they can and can't do when reacting to other players...I'd be curious to see how this works through play, but I'm not sure many players are going to be okay with this type of system.

[Eryk the Red]

I'm with Deek on not liking dice controlling players like that, but I understand why it would be desirable sometimes. It's the same reason we allow social rolls to manipulate NPCs. I am an uncouth person. My character, however, is a skilled negotiator and conman. Other player is very clever. His character is uncharismatic and weak-willed. In player to player arguments and debates, the first player will lose. The character with those skills does not benefit from them.

I don't know how bad of a problem this really is (depends how you look at it), but it's weird that my character's charisma works on everyone in the world except for this select few. It's off-putting, especially since you wouldn't resolve player-to-player combat with an actual fistfight. You'd let the dice do it.

Luckily, this hasn't been an issue in my game. I've only felt the need to make social rolls between PCs when one PC lies to another, and the players both know the truth but the character might not.

[Eleazar]

It really all depends. I think dice should be used, because they help reinforce the type of character that was built. If I am doing a negotiation against the face of the team and I am a brute samurai, he is going to come out on top most of the time. Realize all the social modifiers would come into play too. The face might have a lot of dice, but depending on the situation he could have a heck of a lot of negative dice pool modifiers. People with low charisma and no social skills are easily manipulated in Shadowrun. That is just the way it is. Rolling the dice ensures that the PCs are role-played as they were built. Oddly enough, logic and intuition do not seem to play a role into how easily socially manipulated a PC is.

[TheGothfather]

[Fortune]

[TheGothfather]

[Fortune]

Then maybe the solution is to have a talk with your players out of game and explain the situation as you see it. They might not be aware of the problem, or at least not that it bothers you as much as it (possibly) does.

[PlatonicPimp]

This always comes up, and I think the reason most players hate letting dice rolls decide who wins is that it robs them of the chance to make their arguments. The system you describe gives each person the chance to make their arguments, with the dice only determining if the characters are swayed or not. (in fact, if the dice say that the character isn't swayed, but the player is, the player can change their mind anyway.) This gives everyone both the chance to convince each other IRL, and make use of their character's negotiating skills.

In fact, this seems an awful lot like the conflict resolution system from Dogs in the Vineyard. Are you familiar with that game?

[TheGothfather]

Well, it's not so much of a problem, as it is a failing that I see in the system. The mechanics don't bolster the roleplaying, and vice-versa. I think that players in an RPG often forget the G part when it's inconvenient.

Also, something like this could create much more opportunity for good RP action at the table - remember, this isn't designed as a mind control rule. The loser doesn't have to like it, even though he's agreed to it. Hell, he can always escalate to violence if he wants a way out.

[TheGothfather]

[Simon May]

For most arguments and conversations, bet they PC v. NPC, or PC v. PC, I generally prefer to role play it out. That being said, sometimes you need a clear victor to be able to move on. In those case, I have the characters involved make rolls. It does occasionally happen between PCs who simply can't agree, and doing it that way keeps a serious fight from breaking out.

[DTFarstar]

I am mostly against using dice to resolve PC conflicts for two reasons, I have played with some real idiots who would build social characters and then try to use then to force the rest of us to go along with their really stupid ideas. Ideas even their character would know were stupid, but that they thought were brilliant.

The second reason is simply this - I am a clever and charismatic player and if we let dice start deciding PC to PC arguments then I might actually stop winning all of mine, which would make me sad.

I once had a GM(DM actually, this was DnD) who would give modifiers to your in game roll for how persuasive you actually were in your argument and your portrayal of your character. I don't think I lost a single diplomacy or bluff check the whole campaign(Spanning some 14 levels) and I think I put like 8 skill points total into them. It was a nice little fringe benefit.

Chris

[TheGothfather]

[Glyph]

I think the biggest problem with SR's social skill system is that it assumes someone who doesn't have high social skills is more easily manipulable by social skills, which isn't always true. A lot of times, the most anti-social people can be the hardest to convince to do something - and it's not because they have "high Willpower", either.

I can live with the flaws of the system when it is used to quickly simulate things like negotiating pay from the Johnson, blending in at a go-ganger rave, and so on. But it breaks down more for me in player vs. player mode, where everyone else suddenly goes along with whatever the face wants to do.

Unfortunately, although your system is very well-thought out and fairly balanced, it is still going to almost insurmountably favor the face. It's like resolving conflicts by having the face get in a target shooting contest, pitting his 7 dice against the sammie's 18 dice. Only the other way around.

It's a thin line to walk, I know. You want people to be able to roleplay their own characters, without them being bigfooted by the social skill monsters. But on the other hand, someone who allocates a lot of points to social skills should get what he or she paid the build points for.

Ultimately, my recommendation would be to let the players roleplay their interactions out. The rules don't convey all of the subtle nuances of actual human interaction. Leave them out unless the game bogs down and some kind of quick resolution is needed. Penalize bad roleplaying, though. As Fortune pointed out, a Charisma: 1 character who is glib and smooth is not a good roleplayer. If he can win the argument while talking and acting like a troll with an abrasive manner and a crude sense of humor, that's different.

[Nikoli]

How about this, for every die in your pool, you get 5 seconds to state your arguement. No more.
The face gets time to make a good arguement (as is their talent) while the unsocable lout has to stammer it out in about 15 seconds or less.

[Wounded Ronin]

[Nikoli]

To me it would give the better of both worlds. Your skill investment means something and your personal skill is mimalized yet not trivial.

[Jack Kain]

Charisma has nothing to do with a good argument. You can convince someone with a bad argument using good charisma or say conning them. So the face may to totally flat wrong and an idiot in this matter who has no idea what he's talking about. But because he's charismatic he convinces someone.

But a good argument is constructed logically. And if you think it isn't maybe you should take Logic class in collage as you obviously need it.

Lets look at this, argument you have the Elf Face vs the Troll there arguing over how to get into the compound. The Elf Face Adept (who rolls 20 Dice on social skills) says they should go in from the left because he's left handed.

The Troll who rolls (4 dice on social skills) knows for a fact the other side is filled with traps such as pits filled nanowire and hidden gun emplacements, because when he beat the crap out that guard earlier he stole the security layout.

Should that argument be decided on a social skill test or based on how good the actually argument is?

Only magic should take away a character free will. If I had a GM who imposed this system on me. I would leave the table and not play with them again. Its like the same immaturity of D&D players who try and use there awesome charisma skills to sleep with NPC's or even other PC's.

[Riley37]

[Nikoli]

I never said arguements needed to contain logic, and often the more heated the arguement, the less logic to be made use of. Now a discussion is an entirely different matter.

Given that said troll likely has at best equal logic att. to the elf face, his best bet is to simply say, "Here, I got this of that guard over der what I mugged the crap out of."

[Glyph]

I'm with Jack. There should be no need of a "system" for resolving PC disagreements. They already have one. It's called "roleplaying".

[TheGothfather]

Wow... I go out for a few hours and get a lot of good responses! Awesome!

[TheGothfather]

[Glyph]

Well, you know your group, so maybe they need some kind of system.

I will say that I like your system a lot better than how some GMs rule on social skills. Judging by previous threads on the subject, some GMs treat social skills like mind control, letting the face get nearly any result with enough successes.