Social Hitpoints

[elfandghost]

Thanks for the recommendation, great system!

Just one thing, with playing FATE recently I love the idea of 'social' or 'mental hitpoints' - this means that social characters are just as 'deadly' as physical characters. It also encourages role-play and non-combat encounters. The question is would it break the game to include 'social' or mental hitpoints. Easy to 'house-rule' but what are the chances of this making into the game system as written?

[imported_Rasyr]

I am not sure sure what "social hit points" are or how they would work (having never actually played FATE in any of its forms). So, I am sorry, but cannot answer that question about how including them would affect game balance.

However, I do know that the XP rules are designed to work with most types of encounters, both combat and non. There is no "combat" XP, only encounter xp, and we do not define what an encounter is (it could be trying to roleplay a social encounter just as easily as it could be a combat encounter or an encounter with a trap or puzzle that must be overcome.

[imported_Rasyr]

Just looked up some stuff about FATE...

I am still not completely sure how they would work. Unlikely that I would include such in the core rules, but perhaps something in a later supplement might happen (after more study on what they are and how they work --- I am a big fan of being able to tweak a system to fit the needs of the game --- I like options, just not in the core rules).

[harpy]

I'm not sure if the FATE approach would fit with your oldschoolish system, however...

Imagine you've got a second set of hit points that are more of your mental hit points.

Then break things down into rough equivalencies:

Charisma = Strength
Intelligence = Dexterity
Constitution = Wisdom

I'll ignore Willpower and Speed for the sake of the example.

So you have a social encounter where what is at stake isn't each party trying to kill each other, but instead whether or not a debate, argument or other social conflict is trying to determine who "wins."

Rather than in d20 when you would have a diplomacy roll that would resolve the whole situation, instead you'd lay out a detailed social combat system with various ways of attack the other party's position.  Intelligence would in general be your to hit bonus, Charisma is your damage bonus, and Wisdom would explain how many social hit points you have.

The whole system would be intended for those people who want to game out what traditionally is a roleplaying moment.  Instead of trying to convince the Emperor that his smooth talking Vizier is corrupt and plotting his downfall through normal roleplay conversations, relying on player skill to talk their way through things, instead you'd have the conversation play out like a combat encounter.  Who ever gets their social hit points whittled down first would end up losing the argument.

The problem with social conflict is that the equivalencies work up to a point, but then the analogy to physical combat starts to fall apart.  There might be solutions to that, but it would require a lot more brainstorming and vetting out details and subsystems.

[imported_Rasyr]

Couldn't that be replicated using the current rules for Influence skill and Saves?

Give a Social Hits equal to Will stat (not bonus). Each failed Save subtracts influencer's Will stat bonus from this. hitting zero means convinced... Success on the Save reverses one of the subtractions.

Just a suggestion..

[Right Wing Wacko]

Couldn't that be replicated using the current rules for Influence skill and Saves?

Yes, I believe it could.

[gamewizard]

I'm not trying to start a flame war BUT:

I'm not sure that I like the proposal to add Social Hit points. Not to sound too much like "GET OF MY LAWN" but I don't think adding this to Novus would make the game nothing but a series of dice rolls. If I understand the FATE system correctly the rolling continues until the one or the other has lost all their Social Hit points.

We used to Roleplay through situations like that. The non-combat and non-skill based part of the game was done by actual communication between the players.

The current direction of Novus is very old school and allows for social interaction on the part of the players. Adding some sort of game mechanic to create a social environment takes away from Novus.

I'm not trying to put the FATE system down, but if I want to play the FATE system, I know where to go to play it.

[imported_Rasyr]

If Social Hit Points were to be added, they would only be added as an option of sorts, and not in the core rules (as I prefer to have no options given in the core rules themselves). And even then they would only be for those who wanted to include them.

[markc]

IMHO it is simply sifting combat away from swords to words. And IMHO it is often not as dangerous as the swords combat.

MDC

[Zyax]

What we are talking about here is social conflict. Some players are not good at roleplaying and thus avoid roleplaying situations. It has been my experience that if social conflict is to be left as strictly a roleplaying device, then those that can roleplay well and can express their ideas better than others generally will win the conflict. Highly unfair and frustrating to those that can not. My solution is that there is no social hitpoints, only a Body of Argument. Each combatant rolls his Body of Argument before each conflict and then let the conflict begin.

Body of Argument= 2d10+ Wisdom Bonus+ Intelligence Bonus+ GM Modifiers.

Conflict consists of Influence vs. Influence with the winner removing the amount that he won by from his opponents Body of Argument. Who ever reaches 0 first loses. I would also apply Boon Points and use the Combat Boon Table, but describe the effect in a social context. Between each roll if someone wishes to roleplay, so much the better and if done well.....then a bonus to his influence roll. This allows those that cannot roleplay well a fighting chance at winning a social conflict. The Emperor's evil Vizier is now someone to reckon with. He would probably have a high bonus in both Wis and Int, not to mention a high Influence skill (he is the Vizier after all). The random 2d10 roll for the Body of Argument means that victory is not assured.

We have used this in our Novus Middle Earth game for important situations and found it to be exciting, inspiring and highly narrative.

[imported_Viktyr Korimir]

If I understand the FATE system correctly the rolling continues until the one or the other has lost all their Social Hit points.

It's not a matter of "losing all your hitpoints", it's a matter of taking a hit that you don't have a corresponding health level to absorb. If you've got 5 boxes, you can survive one 5 point hit and will lose if you take another. On the other hand, if you take two 3 point hits, you mark off your "3" box and your "4" box and you can keep marking boxes until you take a hit you don't have a box for.

Then, like physical combat, it continues either until one party wins or one party surrenders. The difference is that if you surrender, you get to describe the terms of your loss (within reason), while if you lose outright, the winner gets to describe the terms.

It works well in FATE, but in Novus I think it would be too slow and would detract too much from the action.

[Arioch]

It's not a matter of roleplaying vs rollplaying (nor of people's skills in roleplaying imho), in any game with social "combat" you roleplay social interactions as much as you would in any other rpg. Throwing dice and having detailed rules for it doesn't reduce social interactions to a "series of rolls", much like having detailed rules for combat doesn't make it a series of "I hit him, I miss, I miss...". Quite the opposite, imho it greatly enhance the chance for good roleplaying in those situations.

OTOH, I don't think that it would be a good idea introducing similar rules in Novus. They work well in games focused on intrigue and social interactions, but as Kormir said, Novus is more action-oriented.

[Right Wing Wacko]

I agree with Arioch.