Social Combat
Social Combat
To formulate dialectics clearly, one must consider it, without regard to objective truth (which is the object of logic), simply as the art of obtaining reason, which will certainly be easier if one objectively has reason. (Arthur Schopenhauer)
Social Combat refers to the attempt by characters to convince, force, or deceive NPCs or creatures controlled by the Narrator to do or say things they wouldn’ **t want to.
It may happen that players try to bribe a guard, obtain information diplomatically or through intimidation, get higher pay, deceive a merchant, or more simply whenever the “confrontation” or “conflict” is not through weapons but with words.
Although social combat may involve a multitude of situations, what all checks have in common is the method by which one wants to achieve the final result
, not through weapons but by trying to convince the opponent.
In these situations, two distinct approaches can be followed: on one hand, the Narrator evaluates the result based on what the players say; on the other, this system sets up rules as if it were a combat to establish who wins in the final test.
Each Narrator chooses the approach they prefer; let’ **s say that based on experience with the system and role-playing games in general, they might prefer one system or the other. For a neutral approach, using rules might be more appropriate.
Depending on whether the player uses more or less coercive methods, the opponent will resist accordingly. The player will perform an Opposed Check of Intimidate, Diplomacy, or Deception, and the opponent will try to resist with a Will Saving Throw with Charisma bonus. If one must resist coercion based on threats, counter with a Will Saving Throw with Strength bonus.
The Narrator, based on the NPC’ **s level, will determine how many consecutive successes are needed to convince them. As a general rule, 1 + 1 success for every two levels of the NPC is required. The number of successes can be modified based on convictions, promises, pacts, interpersonal relationships that the opponent has regarding the situation.
If all checks are won, the combat will be won and the information or request will be obtained. In case of Critical Success it count two successes.
In case of failure of the check, it can be retried with a -1 penalty if the consequences of failure don’ **t lead to a subsequent scene.
If the failure is critical, then not only is the check failed, but it will not be possible to make further attempts and the opponent will become even less friendly. Most likely, the Narrator will decide the evolution of the situation based on the original request and scene.
In case of Intimidation, most likely the player’ **s target will become hostile; in case of Deception, it’ **s possible that feeling deceived they will lie or say nothing. In case of Diplomacy, silence or a courteous refusal is more likely.
The Narrator should use these checks, whether positive or negative, to evolve the scene and enrich the adventure.
If there’ **s information you don’ **t want to give, set a higher difficulty. Remember that characters trust the result obtained, and if you start giving false information, they will no longer be able to trust the checks made.
You shouldn’ **t think that giving information is a problem; in the end, the players have earned it, and for you it’ **s a new opportunity to enrich the adventure.
He who will not reason is a bigot, he who cannot reason is a fool, and he who dares not reason is a slave. (William Drummond of Hawthornden)