Talk:Social Combat (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

	Luigifan18 likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	I want to favor this, given that it makes social interaction more dynamic and engaging. But it's a bit confusing in regards to how it actually works.

Face Recovery

The complete lack of face recovery seems to relegate this mechanic to a one-off thing, at least until some story events have taken place to improve your status in the world (since the advancement from level and whatnot is pretty slow). And since anyone who engages in it is going to be reduced for a long long time, it seems unlikely that people would agree to it. Is this intentional?

Also, what's with the note about social group at the end? There's no mention of that concept anywhere else. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Regaining face is actually easy for the literate. Being praised for an action restores Face as per being shown support. Basically, if you do standard D&D group things and soak up the "your awesomes" at the end, you regain Face and may even go over.

As for the second concern, again obvious for the literate. You gain bonuses and penalties to face depending on who you hang out with- the closer your alignment matches those of your chosen social circles, the more face you gain. Thus, if a lawful good character is teased out of an orc camp, he can just hang around paladins to gain more Face.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 18:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Assuming people know what you are thinking and then writing accordingly has nothing to do with literacy (except, perhaps, your own). D&D articles are written in a specific style of technical writing. The reader has expectations of structure, style, and language used. As technical writing, when a specific term is used, it is expected that that term should be defined. This is a fundamental flaw I see in practically every article you produce. Sure, we can sift through and try to piece together what we assume you wanted to say. But we shouldn't have to. The wording should be clear enough that there is no ambiguity.

tldr; Don't accuse others of illiteracy when it is more likely that you are just a poor writer. --Aarnott 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

on 1- no comment, as the only relevant argument is due to a lack of WotC writing standards, and bad policy is no excuse for bad writing.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I never referenced WotC writing standards. I was specifically talking about this wiki's writing standards, although we certainly take a cue from WotC for how to present our work. We do that not because WotC writes work in the best way necessarily, although their writing style is certainly good quality, but because it is easier for the reader to understand the article.

The problem is that you seem to think that this wiki has articles written for the author's benefit only, which is not the case. You can store whatever garbage you want to write in a sandboxed area. Nobody is going to complain about that. When you publish something in the main namespace, you are agreeing to work to have that work meet the wiki's quality requirements (which includes writing in addition to balance and design). Our philosophy is to have a reader-centric wiki. The articles are there for other readers, not the author.

Now, when I talked about structure, style, and language as well as the concept of technical writing, I'm am addressing more general concerns, not even specific ones. D&D articles with rules text are technical writing. That's not a WotC thing or even a wiki thing, it's just the way rules text in any game works.

Here are some examples of places you just assume the author knows what you are talking about.

• "Title of Authority, minor" - Is this a spell, magic item, or literally an in-game title the person holds? We don't know because you assumed that the reader can read your mind. We will now spend a few minutes skimming the article to see if the term is actually defined, give up when we don't find it, and then assume that we need to Ad-Hoc the rule because it was poorly written.
• "On the flip side" - Are we talking about a coin? Casual language can be fine, but it is never as clear to the reader as a proper comparison word like "Alternatively" or "However".
• "At severe disadvantage -10 plus circumstance penalty (The inverse of Position of Control above)" - The text "Position of Control" never appears above. We have to guess that you meant "Position of Authority or control", which may seem pretty obvious, but it is yet another place where your rule might be misinterpreted. Also, there is no mention of a circumstance penalty that is added on. I, as a reader, am guessing that it is any of the other penalties above the "severe disadvantage", but I can't be sure because you have not been clear at all.

That should be enough for a demonstration. In summary, you need to improve your writing quality and think about your intended audience (note: they are not you). --Aarnott 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

2. From a balance perspective, the Face concept is fundamentally flawed. "Your base Face rating is equal to the sum of your ability modifiers plus your level. If this would result in a zero, you have no standing normally and cannot participate meaningfully in social combat". For groups that generate ability scores randomly, this idea is just terrible. Not allowing players to participate in the game until the reach a requisite level is just bad design (I've had a -4 total modifier before, so that would be 5th level). I know you aren't keen on suggestions because you have some (unwarranted) superiority complex, it seems, but I'm going to list one anyways. The player contributes their highest mental ability score to their face value rather than looking at every ability modifier. Add some value times level (maybe 4 times level). Maybe even add 1 point per rank in social skills. Now everyone can contribute. Sure, the numbers are higher, but you can just adjust the math elsewhere. --Aarnott 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

On 2- the idea is that more impressive people have higher Face, right? And you need Face to participate in social combat. If you are a nobody (which takes a lot of work to be one, as I will demonstrate), then none one cares what you think. Simple, effective, and does not delegate or limit SC to the mental types. I put that in to get more people in on social combat, not just bards and wizards. Finally, even the PHB states "If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and reroll all six scores again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers is 0 or lower, or if your hioghest score is 13 or lower." Thus, if you are trying to play such a character, kudos to you, I would never shoot you down for that, but never ask for handouts.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I suppose all PCs will be able to participate... Well, sorta. It still doesn't fix the problem that Jimmy, the power gamer, who happened to roll all 18's will have a 25 face at level 1, whereas, Bobby, the casual player, who rolled a +0 total modifier will have a 1 face at level 1. Bobby obviously won't be able to contribute nearly as effectively as Jimmy, and will probably go play Smash Bros during any social combat. The single stat approach means that Bobby, who got a 15 as his highest stat, will start with 15 face from his stats opposing Bobby's 18. Bobby will probably put down the controller and actually play D&D with you. Which is really what any variant rule should aim for: more fun at the table. --Aarnott 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, this gets back to asking for handouts. If you are in a group that rolls stats randomly, you have excepted that stat will be *gasp* RANDOM, and you may have players with *gasp* different stats. You have accepted this, yet you whine still that lucky jim has all 18s. Just make sure his dice weren't loaded and get on with your life or find a point buy group.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparing extremes is a good way to test the boundaries of a game mechanic. Another example using point buy (32 points): 18,18,8,8,8,8 is one stat set (+4 +4 -1 -1 -1 -1 = +4) and 14,14,14,14,12,12 is the other (+2 +2 +2 +2 +1 +1 = +10). That's a 150% difference. But the core of the problem is that you are taking a departure from a traditional d20 way of doing things for something that has little gain (arguably less balanced) and makes even less sense. Dexterity has absolutely nothing to do with social skills. I am nimble, therefore I can convince you that I am right. lolwut? Strength and Constitution are similarly laughable (your justifications in the article are not even as good as the SRD justifications for lawful and chaotic alignments). Also, I feel lame using the word "laughable" because it is usually unwarranted when people use it, but in this case, I feel justified.

Yes, I understand you are trying to say that physical presence can play a role in a person's social standing, but that is covered by a skill: Intimidate. Really. Intimidate is your ability to convince your opponent of the significance of your capabilities. D&D is an abstract game. It bundles some things together in ways that aren't necessarily "realistic" but allow for better play. It's a game, not a simulation. And intimidate already covers exactly what you are trying to convey. --Aarnott 18:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Intimidate is a Charisma skill. Also, you seem to be confusing Face with social skill. It is a social health bar. All stats contribute because if you are perfect in every way you have higher social health. Just as noone made fun of Micheal Jordan in his day beacause of his athletic prowess, people are less likely to make fun of the quiet sword master.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 20:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

3. "If the score is negative, any support you lend has the oppisite effect; ie attempts to reduce enemy Face restores Face and attempts to boost ally Face depletes Face". Related to above, this is really stupid. Having a player contribute backwards is just silly. Metagamers will try to help the villan's arguments and they will get less effective helping their party as they gain levels. --Aarnott 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

On 3- nothing wrong with that. Setting up disreputable people to vouche for your enemies to detract support is a time honored and tested debate tactic. If we were to bring back Archetyper and he sided with you on this debate, you would either win over a longer period of time or lose more quickly. You call it metagaming, I call it politics as usual. In addition, to have a negative score you need to be a cowardly puke weasel with no friends and not enough sense to hang out with peers who share your views.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

First off, if Archetyper agreed with me on this debate, that wouldn't matter. That's a bad example. However, I do understand what you mean. Indeed, it is a form of debate sabotage to have someone less respected argue on behalf of the opposing side. I'd consider that part of the preparation phase of social combat and it would be done by a skillful (or tricky at least) speaker. And really, it takes some skill on your part to manipulate things so that someone is working for you on an opponent's side and doesn't know it. Otherwise, it takes some skill on the saboteur's part to actually know they are destroying the opponent's position by supporting them and not to get revealed. So the whole "negative addition" makes no sense. It is a penalty on the opponent that is given by a character with a positive social skill capability (with either method I described). --Aarnott 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is easy to get a negative provided you are someone with no friends, come across as a weasel, and refuse to be with like minded people. I can actually picture a social sneak who specializes in maintaining a low face just to make his "friends" lose debates. Think of the Nazis in modern internet terms: noone wants to be asociated with them, you are losing the debate if you accuse others of being a member, and it is just accepted that any argument that uses such accusations is damaging to your case if you support them or esteem boosting if the little flamer attacks you with them. It makes perfect sense.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"I can actually picture a social sneak who specializes in maintaining a low face just to make his "friends" lose debates". Which is exactly what I suggested as a skilled character making their opponents lose. The only situation I see where a person would be "negatively" adding to a debate is when they just happen to be there out of happenstance (ie. DM fiat) and really to make their friends look bad. However, that is more of a circumstance penalty than needing some weird mechanic of negative additions. The worst of it is that the negative additions become less drastic as level increases. This system is about as backwards as having a negative Strength modifier allow a character to deal negative damage and heal opponents (please say you haven't written that as a houserule on this wiki somewhere -- I haven't read everything you have written). --Aarnott 18:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

4. "There are also circumstancial bonuses to Face that grant temporary Face points at the begining of social combat..." Some of these listed things could use a definition. This is technical writing, not a session of mind-reading. --Aarnott 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

On 4- Terms are left vague because they change constantly. If I present my self as the High Emperor and Chancellor of Iceland and Mars, that will mean something way different to a retarded person than it will to you, just as a Don may not give a shit if you are Mayor or your Holy Knight of the Realm badge will get you eaten first in a goblin camp.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. This is a good example of how you don't get it. Instead you should be writing: "The following are examples of circumstantial bonuses to Face that grant temporary Face points at the beginning of social combat. Your DM should use these examples as a reference to determine what bonuses to give each participant in the social combat". That's an example of defining terms. In this case, you would be telling us that the circumstantial bonuses are made up by the DM, but also have a handy reference for the DM to gauge actual values they should use (like skill check DCs). --Aarnott 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean like what you are flaming right now? I have already had from the beginning examples of what can grant face bonuses. When you whined about them being vague, I added extensions for examples. So do I now go back and give examples of my eamples of my terms?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"You mean like what you are flaming right now?" -> I'm not sure what that statement is supposed to mean. You didn't really contextualize it. Either way, I should be clear that I don't have some personal vendetta against you. I am just being a bit more active in making sure the quality of articles are up to snuff right now. It's something admins and dedicated users do when they have time.

One thing I wonder is: do you understand that the talk page is not where you should be clarifying things? The actual article is unclear and needs to be fixed. If you really think the article is clear, I'm telling you straight up that it isn't. Look at the skill DC lists of examples for an example of something acceptable. They give specific examples of situations that skill can be used. They also provide lists of modifiers with specific examples. A DM is suggested to base their DCs on this table. --Aarnott 18:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

5. Preparation: you should really list when preparation happens. Is this sizing your opponent up right before you start the social encounter? Is this ahead of time gossiping with the King's guard? --Aarnott 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

On 5- It is as it reads- preparation. A knowledge check you made five years ago on the virginity of the dukes daughter helps just as much as talking to the Dukes wife seconds before. Bullets fire the same, doesn't matter when you got them.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Write something to that effect. It is unclear, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. --Aarnott 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As I just did after my last post. At this point I'm doubting your capacity for editing...--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you wanting me to edit your article to fix the mistakes? The actual article is unclear and needs to be fixed. --Aarnott 18:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

6. Challenges: as written, if the King challenges me to a debate and I refuse, he loses face equal to the difference in our face scores (that is, his face score now equals mine). Hopefully you are at least smart enough to see the problem there. --Aarnott 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

On 6- If the king challenges you to a debate, he is already losing the game of politics badly. The king has titles, advantages of court and power, sometimes fortified location, must be high level in most D&D games, and has followers to boost his Face on demand. If you and the king are in a position where he is losing face and not you on the challange, then you are dealing with a weak king of failing power, or you are already far surpasing him in ability. Think Moses v Pharoh for an idea of what kind of stuff needs to happen for your suggested outcome.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"The challenge is an action taken that demonstartes the wish to begin social combat, ie "fighting words" are spouted or a deal is proposed". Okay. How about when the king proposes that you go slay the dragon for a bunch of treasure. This sort of thing can be a negotiation. Maybe you want a bunch of treasure plus the King's daughter. So social combat starts, initiated by the king's request. You refuse to participate and he loses Face. I then reopen negotiations, starting social combat on an equal footing with the king. With good luck, I'll be able to get much more that he initially offered. ie. Broken mechanic. --Aarnott 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if you are powerful enough where that is the case, do that. Good tactic. If you have less face than the king, you lose more face and become even weaker, so don't do that. Why is this confusing you?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So, in Spaz-land, when the king wants you to do a quest to slay the dragon, he has a non-affiliated peasant say "By the way, if you don't ask the king about dragons, he'll probably have you executed." As far as I can tell, your definition of "powerful enough" is "powerful enough to not be the first person to speak". --Foxwarrior 00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

... (checks language settings) ... (rechecks article) ... Yeah, I'm still not getting where you are getting that from. The king can challenge whoever he wants with no (likely) reprecussions, but anyone challenging him must be powerful to get an answer. Why this is confusing people, I have no clue. My editor gets it, my writer friends get it, the retarded kid next door understands it completely. I'm done arguing this, so let me make it painfully clear- People of high status do not lose face for backing down from a lesser mans challenge, but the reverse is not true. Any further comment arguing the point I will chaulk up to willful stupidity.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 01:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Man that pronoun was terrible. --Foxwarrior 01:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"(checks language settings)" -- are you ESL? If so, perhaps not being so oppositional against people wanting to clarify the text you publish would be a good idea. Otherwise, I'm curious if the "retarded kid next door" is your "editor" :P. Luckily Foxwarrior corrected it for you. Check the history and then you might realize why there was a bit of confusion (unless you actually are ESL, in which case, I do understand the pronoun misuse). --Aarnott 18:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is enough for now. Understand that I have several issues with the rest of the article, but I have a suspicion you aren't even going to clean up what I have already commented on, so there isn't much point enumerating each issue. --Aarnott 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The system works as is, however it appears I need to write this more clearly. Adieu.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? You're going with "literate" insults? Right, let's talk about what "at least until some story events have taken place to improve your status in the world" means then, since you seem to not be reading either. It includes all of the things that you mentioned, gaining power, being renowned, and having people stand around telling you how awesome you are. It was clear that you could go gain power or complete stuff that people would appreciate to recover your Face, but then the recovery section states "Once lost in a social circle, Face is difficult to regain" and you talk about power and great deeds and whatnot. And when I ask you about that in here, you tell me that I really just need to hire a bard or a cheering section. There's nothing difficult about what you propose at all, and it's a damn site easier than the examples and setup you have in your last section suggest. If you're inability to write clearly and coherently leads to people misreading your work and second guessing your intentions, that's your fault, not the reader's. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant that it's hard for average people – namely, NPC commoners – to regain lost Face. Not so much for adventurers (read: PCs). --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)