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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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

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

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.

I don't like using dice to determine a players actions. It feels disempowering. It's okay that they fail to fool the guard or pursade the johnson, but they can certainly try.

However I also try and create an agenda for the players and a reason to co-operate, and have a big OOC conversation about the merits of this approach and their need to make characters that can and do work within that borgian framework. And if there is an RP conflict where your character 'would' do something disruptive to said borgian unity, don't even if it's 'OOC' for that character.

What are they arguing about anyway? That would be an important fact to know!

I wouldn't want to use dive to resolve PCvPC arguments, not least because the hour-long decisions about whether to bribe the guards or kill them give me no end of amusement (and prep time!). But perhaps you could give people bonus dice on the social skill check based on the arguments they present IC, and only use dice to resolve it in case of an absolute deadlock.

People trying to force fellow players to go along with their plans are not welcome at my table. Regardless of method, dice and discussion are the same here.

Next thing we know theres a system do decide which kind of food is ordered...

One thing to keep in mind, SR4 is not a LARPing game, dice are an integral part of it.

To me the role playing part of such social interactions is a small part, ie modifies the dice test in a minor way.

Whose role playing is better is a entirely subjective matter, so determining the better role playing is better is entirely up to the POV of each player. I have played with players that thought they were god's gift to role playing, but to me they were not.

Because a player is a better debater/arguer is totally unfair to those that are not.

If you build a character with out any social skills that character "Should" be poor at social interactions.

Players that spend the bps to have the social skills "should" gain from those efforts. Yes the social character "could" have other players characters do things they do not wish, but again the good debater/arguer could do the same.

WMS

I think this whole discussion comes down to one question: are the players in control of their characters or are the characters in control of their players?

Some people think that the character sheet needs to show every iota of information about a character, and in SR4, that simply isn't the case. Are the characters brave? No, the characters do what the players tell them to do. Are the characters smart? No, the characters are only as clever and cunning as the players are (or are not, as the case may be). Intuition and Logic may let the character spot something fishy about a hinged "Welcome" mat, but only the player can decide if he wants to step on it.

Logic, Intuition, and Charisma are only in-game measures for certain skill rolls, they do not dictate how clever, wise, persistent, or brave a character is. That is for the player to decide and roleplay out. Charisma + Negotiation would dictate how low a character can talk a character (player or non-player) into lower his price, but it will never decide whether or not the character will actually buy the item at that price.

Mundane dice rolls should never dictate whether or not a player agrees with another player or even with a non-player. That's a roleplaying decision, not a roll-playing decision.

OK an example then

Character A has no social skills what ever, but the player is a world class debater/arguer.

Character B has some social skills, but the player is about average at debating/arguing.

Character C has tons of social skills, but the player is below average in debating/arguing skills.

All three characters are trying to decide a course of action, ie Character A wants plan A, Character B wants plan B, and Character C wants plan C. All three plans are exclusive to each other.

Character A due his player world class debating/arguing skills puts on a fairly effective debate/argument regarding plan A.

Character B does a average job of presenting his reasons for plan B.

Character C puts forth a very weak argument for plan C.

None of the three players will concede that the other characters/players won the debate/argument. None of the three players agree that the others RPed better than themselves.

So which plan gets implemented?

FYI do not go there about players without the skills for the character should not play that character argument. This is a game in which players can play someone much different than they are in RL. It is role playing game not LARPing.

To me as GM all three characters/players will roll the dice to decided the matter.

I would apply the penalties for character A being unskilled but give him a few dice due to his excellant argument. But also a warning about playing his character not himself.

Character B would roll his dice, with no modifier

Character C would roll his pile of dice, with a minor modifier to the total dice rolled. I will not severely penalize a character due to his players dearth or lack of verbal skills.

Who wins the debate/argument regarding the three plans, more than likely Character C, due his players building his character to do exactly that.

WMS

Just want to chime in: In my game we resolve discussions without any use of dice. However, to some degree the players take account of the respective character's social skills/charisma, as well as thinking of their own mental stats when they agree/disagree to a proposal.

For instance, the party face often comes up with poor plans (well used to when his logic was 1), then after the other PCs accept the plan the face player says "no! you weren't supposed to agree to the plan!"

The party hacker is very bright (and so is the player), but alot of his plans are ignored, at least until the face comes with the exact same plan and takes credit for it

Likewise the characters with low willpower tend to accept other's proposals more readily.

It's not foolproof, and quite often players underplay their PCs social and mental merits or lack of them, but at least there's no need to start rolling dice on how to do a run. If we did, the face would automatically decide everything... And really, players want to decide how their character acts. Only a few reasons exist to take away the player control: Mind affecting magic, failing composure checks, being intimidated.

Even when negotiation, I never force the PCs to take a job for a certain pay even if the Johnson has 10 net hits on the bargain roll. However, I tell them it's take it or leave it. Usually they decide on a job before negotiating though, although they may, just as the Mr. J has a max price, have a minimum price.

For PC to PC interactions, if you're going to take in to account skills and/or dice rolls, it really should only happen when all other things are equal. If the face has a crappy plan, no amount of charisma is going to make the street sam with small unit tactics think it's a good idea, whether or not said street sam can articulate his issues with the faces plan. Any sort of system that requires the player of said street sam to fall in to line with the faces plan is going to feel wrong to everyone involved.

When it comes to planning a run, the skills that will matter are tactics and combat experience. If one PC has them, the others will have learnt the hard way to listen to what he has to say, whether or not he says it in a particularly expressive way.

The only time charisma should matter is when there is an impasse. If the face and the sam both have the skills and combat experience, and the group can't decide, then the roleplaying (or the roll of the dice) should give the face the chance to come out ahead and have his plan chosen. But if one plan is obviously better than the other, the better plan will win out.

Yes, things don't work that way when dealing with people you don't know or with crowds, when bad social skills can stop the conversation getting to the point where you can lay out your ideas, but for a group of people that have ran with each other in the past, bad social skills aren't a game stopper. They either know you've got other skills to make up for your bad social skills (because you've demonstrated them in the past) and so will give you an ear for that reason, or they think you have no skills and bad social skills (in which case, you wouldn't be part of the group)

Wow, people seem to be stuck on the "follow the face's plan" idea. Is the only social conflict in your games planning out how to do the run?

A possible outcome not mentioned so far: the PCs, after some amount of talking, realize that neither is going to persuade the other, and some variation of "I won't stop you, but I'm not involved and I won't help you" ensues.

In the game I'm in, the team scored some loot, and loaded it all into my troll rigger's Bulldog van. Then we had some questions about fencing it. A buyer with links to Sons of Sauron offers a great price on the guns, while a dwarf warren that the Sons are about to attack (for sheltering ork refugees, whom the SOS now consider "race traitors") offers all their $$ which ain't much.
The face PC says "get the most nuyen, that's all I care about".
My PC is *never* gonna sell arms to SOS.
Deciding factor: the loot is *in his van*. He drives it to the dwarf warren, unloads guns, takes cash, delivers cash to his teammates.
If the face's player says IC "well, gimme a bigger share so that you get less money for following your ideals, but I get the same amount either way", and OOC "my face is really persuasive, (rolls double handful of dice) six hits", then perhaps I'll say "I guess my PC wants to keep you happy and gives you the money." It's consistent with my concept of the character: after all, I just made a point that money isn't his primary motivation, so sure, he'd go along with the face's puppy-eyed request.

Which PCs are pure mercenaries, and which have loyalties to a person, a community, or an ideal, can be a good story point, and IMHO more important that tactics eg frontal attack vs. sneaky.