Difference between revisions of "Class: Mediator"

Revision as of 13:57, 25 April 2018

Ah, mediator. Social combat. Let's talk about this for a minute, shall we?

So a functional social combat system is one of the many "holy grails" of TTRPG design. There's been a whole lot of attempts at this sort of thing, and... ultimately, they all fall short.

While I could go into the various systems I've looked at - and there are quite a few out there, though they're less systems and more frameworks - let's talk about the "why" of doing this.

Phoenix Wright, or: Social Combat is the Game

One thing that I've started doing when contemplating these massive subsystems is this: what would a game with only this subsystem look like?

I've been taking this approach in my contemplations for exploration, lately, and honestly it's a really good idea. You want it to be fun, you want it to be engaging, you want it to be something that could be the whole focus of an entire campaign. If you're going to do that, the subsystem has to stand on its own: which means it needs to be every bit as complex and engaging as combat.

Ultimately I think what happens is that the variability of goal-states overwhelms the systems written for this sort of thing. Combat is simple: the goal is almost always the same, it's easy to understand, and it's easy to execute. Exploration is a bit trickier, but I think is ultimately doable, and a game with nothing but exploration would be... well, it's Ryuutama but without the weird Japanese feel going on, with more robust mechanics.

Social, though? What's the goal? What's the point?

Well, let's try to break it down. Combat's goal is "kill the other guy." Exploration's goal is "get from here to there." Social, then, might be "make people do what I want."

Bear with me, trying to consider a counterexample.

Reinventing the Wheel, or: We Already Did This

So it literally just occurred to me that we've already done this.

Yeah, Journey has a functional social combat system. It never really got all that fleshed out, but the core of it - the actual mechanics - are done, and having seen them in action before, it works out pretty well. There are some trouble spots, but maybe we can remedy those as we go, hmm?

What I'm stuck a bit on at the moment is how initiating social combat goes, and when it gets used, that sort of deal. Essentially, social encounters happen a lot more, and a lot more readily, than combat: we can't be getting into something this involved every time players want to haggle over the price of a sword, it would get absurd.

So what I'm thinking is that there is sort of like, an "opening salvo" you do for social combat: unlike combat where we roll for init when somebody draws their sword, we don't engage the social combat system until someone has made the first attack, and only if the target "survives" and you decide to try to push the issue.

Example: Bob the Bard wants to buy a sword at half price. He makes a social attack against Recette the Merchant; if he "hits" and reduces her $SOCIAL_HP to 0 or less, then he succeeds and we don't go into social combat. If he fails to bring Recette to 0 $SOCIAL_HP, he can either choose to stop pursuing that argument or press on into social combat.