D&D pretty much has combat mapped out super-thoroughly. It's huge part of the rules.
And there's a be a lot of online discussion about "how to make combat more interesting" and breaking down Monsters and units into roles - like Skirmisher, Anchor, Hammer, Anvil, Tank, what-have-you (there's lots of competing terminology here).
And there's been a lot of discussion about making your "bad guys" have nuanced tactics: they'll behave this way, until they take this amount of damage, or this other thing happens, at which point they'll behave this way. If this opportunity arises, they do that. And I think that kind of pre-design is a good idea, and very useful for running dynamic and interesting combats.
We've got a body of theory and discussion about combat encounters.
But what about social encounters? What about intrigue? I've never seen anything analogous for "social conflict".
The way I'm kind of picturing detailing out a NPCs "social tactics", is something like this:
The Vizier
Motive: The Vizir wishes to conceal his connections to the northern rebels, as such he will want to block the Party from gaining a Royal charter for the expedition to the white crest mountain range to gather intelligence as to where the rebels are gaining their support.
Tactical Style: Manipulator ( instead of something like Tank, here ). The Vizir will not directly confront the Party, but use rumor and innuendo as an indirect social attack against them.
Possible Tactics
The Vizir will first oppose the Party's petition before the King, arguing on basis of cost, the trustworthiness of the Party, and the dangers of having an official state sanctioned Military expedition so close to the borders of Gilder.
If the Vizir is unsuccessful in convincing the King ( i.e. The party manages to successfully counter the arguments, present balancing arguments, or add enough incentives to the King to sway his decision ) the Vizir will attempt to influence several of the court Nobles into opposing the expedition
etc.
Contrast this with "the blackmailer" who would use Investigative skills to dig up "dirt" on one or more of the Party members and pressure the party to withdraw their expedition, or "the corrupter" who would attempt to bribe the Party, or possibly other Nobles to block the Party's petition in the King's court, "The gossip" who uses slander and innuendo to tarnish the Party's reputation, so that the King will not even entertain hearing the Party's petition, etc.
As good combats use multiple types of units in conjunction for more interesting strategies, imagine the Vizir hiring the Blackmailer, or the Vizir using his skills at manipulation to motive "the corrupter".
And such social opponents would have to have limits past which they will no go ( the Vizir would never stoop to using actual hired assassins, or attacking the King's reputation as part of a social tactic ), and secrets, which can be used to put pressure on social opponents, and/or weaknesses ( or perhaps even vices ), which can be used to "buy off" social opponents. As a weakness, maybe The Gossip is greedy, and can be bought off with gold. Or for vices, maybe the Party can uncover the secret that the Gossip has an illegitimate daughter, and threaten to expose that secret, the Gossip will back off. Secrets of one NPC could even be relevant to another social party! If the Party uncovers that The Corrupter is having an affair with The Gossip's illegitimate daughter - do they blackmail The Gossip, or expose The Corrupter to make The Gossip an ally, or blackmail The Corrupter?
The Party might even have allies! The Baron of Fned has a good reputation at court, and will speak on behalf of the Party - greatly reducing the negative effects of the Vizir. Or the Party rogue might leverage their contact with the local thieves guild, to likewise dig up Secrets, Weaknesses, or Vices on their opponents.
Now I'm NOT interested in making a complex set of rules for "social combat". I can't really see that working smoothly, and that's party supposed to be the domain of role-playing.
But what I'd like to come up with is a way of detailing out social conflict capabilities, tactics, and tendencies for NPCs.
I think what I want to eventually come up with is:
A robust way of modelling "social conflict" capabilities, tactics, limits, and weaknesses of NPCs.
A list of possible "social tactical roles" ( The Gossip, The Corrupter, The Manipulator )
A list of possible "social tactics" ( Slander, Bribery, Blackmail )
A list of possible "social tools" that the Party might be able to use ( Secrets, Weaknesses )
Has anyone seen anything like this, or have any suggestions as to what tactical roles and tactics might go into such lists?
This is all sort of nebulous right now - I'm sure the overall structure can be improved as well.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
D&D pretty much has combat mapped out super-thoroughly. It's huge part of the rules.
And there's a be a lot of online discussion about "how to make combat more interesting" and breaking down Monsters and units into roles - like Skirmisher, Anchor, Hammer, Anvil, Tank, what-have-you (there's lots of competing terminology here).
And there's been a lot of discussion about making your "bad guys" have nuanced tactics: they'll behave this way, until they take this amount of damage, or this other thing happens, at which point they'll behave this way. If this opportunity arises, they do that. And I think that kind of pre-design is a good idea, and very useful for running dynamic and interesting combats.
We've got a body of theory and discussion about combat encounters.
But what about social encounters? What about intrigue? I've never seen anything analogous for "social conflict".
To be honest, I'm kind of riffing off an Angry DM article on how to structure social encounters: https://theangrygm.com/systematic-interaction/
The way I'm kind of picturing detailing out a NPCs "social tactics", is something like this:
The Vizier
Contrast this with "the blackmailer" who would use Investigative skills to dig up "dirt" on one or more of the Party members and pressure the party to withdraw their expedition, or "the corrupter" who would attempt to bribe the Party, or possibly other Nobles to block the Party's petition in the King's court, "The gossip" who uses slander and innuendo to tarnish the Party's reputation, so that the King will not even entertain hearing the Party's petition, etc.
As good combats use multiple types of units in conjunction for more interesting strategies, imagine the Vizir hiring the Blackmailer, or the Vizir using his skills at manipulation to motive "the corrupter".
And such social opponents would have to have limits past which they will no go ( the Vizir would never stoop to using actual hired assassins, or attacking the King's reputation as part of a social tactic ), and secrets, which can be used to put pressure on social opponents, and/or weaknesses ( or perhaps even vices ), which can be used to "buy off" social opponents. As a weakness, maybe The Gossip is greedy, and can be bought off with gold. Or for vices, maybe the Party can uncover the secret that the Gossip has an illegitimate daughter, and threaten to expose that secret, the Gossip will back off. Secrets of one NPC could even be relevant to another social party! If the Party uncovers that The Corrupter is having an affair with The Gossip's illegitimate daughter - do they blackmail The Gossip, or expose The Corrupter to make The Gossip an ally, or blackmail The Corrupter?
The Party might even have allies! The Baron of Fned has a good reputation at court, and will speak on behalf of the Party - greatly reducing the negative effects of the Vizir. Or the Party rogue might leverage their contact with the local thieves guild, to likewise dig up Secrets, Weaknesses, or Vices on their opponents.
Now I'm NOT interested in making a complex set of rules for "social combat". I can't really see that working smoothly, and that's party supposed to be the domain of role-playing.
But what I'd like to come up with is a way of detailing out social conflict capabilities, tactics, and tendencies for NPCs.
I think what I want to eventually come up with is:
Has anyone seen anything like this, or have any suggestions as to what tactical roles and tactics might go into such lists?
This is all sort of nebulous right now - I'm sure the overall structure can be improved as well.
Ideas anyone?
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.