Which is exactly why DMs will benefit from better rules to guide social interactions. As the terrific RPer you clearly are, I take it you also meta-game earning XP from overcoming combat challenges by rolling successful hits that your tiny Elf is transparently incapable of?
-vk
The whole point of playing a charismatic socially adept character is to overcome encounters without engaging in combat challenges if you can at all help it. I have +12 bluff at 4th level vs. a 20th lvl ftr +2 sense motive, why would I ever engage his +30bab and 30ac vs. my +7bab and 17ac? I'll stick with the odds of by-the-book-rules bluffing a stupid fighter any day. The whole point of my rant was that writing mechanical rules to social interaction can be exploited beyond hope. At best they should be used as guidelines, but not totally relied upon. And to be totally honest, I can't remember the last time I had a character with a high bab. I tend to stick to more supportive roles. I've had my time in the limelight on the frontlines, I don't care for the hack n slash so much anymore. I'd rather be a CG priest, or bard, the stuff the newbies in my group shy away from.
The whole point of playing a charismatic socially adept character is to overcome encounters without engaging in combat challenges if you can at all help it. I have +12 bluff at 4th level vs. a 20th lvl ftr +2 sense motive, why would I ever engage his +30bab and 30ac vs. my +7bab and 17ac? I'll stick with the odds of by-the-book-rules bluffing a stupid fighter any day.
And therefore you don't want better constructed social rules? I'm sure I don't follow you here: is your argument that you so enjoy exploiting the present rules that you'd hate to see anything more robust?
krieg_69 wrote:
The whole point of my rant was that writing mechanical rules to social interaction can be exploited beyond hope.
I agree that we want well-conceived social rules, or is your contention that you know to a moral certainty that it is impossible to devise them? If so, how do you know that?
krieg_69 wrote:
At best they should be used as guidelines, but not totally relied upon. And to be totally honest, I can't remember the last time I had a character with a high bab. I tend to stick to more supportive roles. I've had my time in the limelight on the frontlines, I don't care for the hack n slash so much anymore. I'd rather be a CG priest, or bard, the stuff the newbies in my group shy away from.
Indeed, I feel the same way myself. If I was suiting myself, combat rules would be swift and deadly and social rules would be elaborate and highly nuanced. I would be able to develop my character through ten levels of play without touching a sword, should I like, and there would be rich mechanics fleshing out my progression arc.
Now, I'm going to take a bold step here and guess that your reluctance has nothing to do with how exploitable social rules may be, since it's lucidly obvious that combat rules can be just as exploitable, and it seems to me to be a safe bet that if they were you wouldn't jump ship to a fighter so as to exploit them.
You simply like social play that lets you have fun with role-play. Okay, fine, but are you also saying you like your combat to be all roll-play? I sense not. In fact, I doubt very much you are that special kind of schizophrenic who demands role-play with social interaction and roll-play with combat. Either you prefer role-play with both, or you just haven't seen social rules you liked very much.
Wel, I can understand where the fear of eliminating Role playing is coming from, as well as the cries of Elitist Role Players.
What you need is to find the middle ground.
I can only speak form experience, so, here goes...
My group consistes of 8 players, covering the gamut of styles. We got 1 definite rules lawyer, 4 role players, 1 hack n slasher, and 2 people who are alittle of everything. The role players are of varying degrees of skill. However, we do not penalize the hack n slasher or rules lawyer in social situations because their RP skills are not equal to the RPers. What we do is this. You can fully resort to the Charismatic skills (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff) or combine it with Role Playing. Usually, we RP the encounter out, then roll the dice. The die roll is used as a guid to determine the outcome. If the RP was bad and the roll good and the character is charismaic in origin, its still a good encounter. If the RP was good and the roll bad, the RP weighs in the characters favor. Helps to RP because it can compensate for a bad roll, but those who are not such good RPers can still do good in social situations.
By George I think vk's got it! I starteed in 2nd ed where there wasn't really any rules to govern social situations and there was rarely an issue. 3rd ed comes along and voila big XP with little danger. It reminded me of the old Skills and Powers from 2nd ed, which sucked BTW. Some of the skills in 3.x do have some advantage over non-weapon profs, but taking away from creative description of scenes, social and battle, I feel takes away some of what made d&d great in the first place. The 3.x combat rules are nearly as hideous as the social rules when compared to 2nd ed. I miss telling my DM, "I run up the fallen tree, do a flip over the orc and do a backward thrust with my longsword" and he replies, "the orc is completely surprised by your tactics, great description BTW, and ah, roll to hit" instead of "ok, first you need to roll a balance check to run up the log, followed by a jump check to get over him, then a tumble check to land it, oh you've moved through his threat range so he gets an attack of opportunity, and you've moved to much, so now it's the orcs turn." And if Star Wars is anything like 4th ed, it isn't going to change much for a player thats like to add a little pinache to his actions.
Not really. Think of a football game. The results are effectively "random" (enough for people to place wagers on the results at least), but you don't have to worry about Team A winning a game in the middle of the night while drinking in a bar. Nor is there concern that some fan in the stands will win the game instead of one of the teams. The contest has to be set up, and the "stakes" established. Thus, no matter how the "dice" land, the results are reasonable. It may be that the underdog unexpectedly wins in the end, but it's not like people will think that they've lost their minds if they see it happen.
Well, no. football isn't random in the same sense as something like roulette. There may be luck now and then, but mostly it has to do wtih a player's skill. A single player can make a great catch or fumble the ball that can change the course of the game. So at the end you feel as though as a player, you've failed. You weren't just screwed because you got unlucky.
That would be number 7 again. If it's not "fun", then obviously it wasn't needed for this encounter, and possibly it's not needed for this group. My point, as it has always been, isn't "if you're not using social rules then you're not having fun", but "social rules are a useful tool, much like combat, that CAN make games more fun".
I guess I've yet to see how they make games more fun.
The system will need a few other things that I don't want to get into yet. Here I just want to raise 'convictions' for argument.
The conviction system may work if you set it up correctly. But thus far given I've never actually seen a fully written up social system that I like, I'm not sure if it can be pulled off to the point that it works. But at the very least it takes into account the character's personality, so that's good.
On the other hand, having a non-magical compulsion enforced upon you, while game-mechanically the same, is different because the story says that you chose whatever action. Even if you were bullied or seduced, or bribed, you chose to do whatever it is they wanted rather than face the alternative (a beating, no sex, no money), and that does say something about your character as far as the story is concerned.
I like social mechanics. I think that PCs should be susceptable to them. But it has to make sense to the story and the character. Yes, sometimes characters change, or do things that they regret after a social encounter, but it should be because the player wanted to, and was ready to, explore that element of his character.
Yeah, this is pretty much one of the issues with social systems that I have. You basically are caught in two conflicting sides:
a) You want social systems to be able to change people's minds and get them to do stuff they wouldn't normally do.
b) You don't want social systems to mind-control PCs.
Those two things are in direct conflict.
As for unreasonable requests, no. Unless of course the opponent agrees to "unreasonable" stakes to begin with, but why would he do that? There's nothing that says he has to agree to ANY stakes that he's not interested in.
This part of the system I think is where it displays its flaws. I mean, really social systems are going to be so subjective from game to game, because some DMs may just have the NPCs reject all your offers. In fact, if you suck at social skills, you might as well just not get in a DoW at all. It's as though part of the movement and combat system just let creatures teleport away at will and escape any combat if they wanted to.
It's going to be odd, because social duels are more fought between people with social ability. So it's like impossible for the snake oil salesman to con some random schmuck, because the random guy just refuses to enter a DoW.
Also, the whole stakes thing still feels odd to me. In a lot of instances, there may not be anything to be gained by the other side. When you're trying to seduce someone who doesn't want to be seduced, there's really nothing in it for them to get into the DoW with you. The stakes system is extremely limiting.
Really, most of the time it seems you'd need to force the other side into a conflict, otherwise, they'll probably refuse, unless it's a situation of two social characters going at it. It sounds more like a mini-game that your characters use to settle disputes or something. Kind of like if two rival kings decided to play a game of chess to determine who the rules a territory. But both sides have to agree to come to the table and play for it to work out.
It also means that you've got some people playing high-stakes diplomacy, where you get two rival clerics, both socially skilled, trying to convert each other to their religion. And this duel is likely to achieve a greater effect than if the clerics were preaching to a crowd for new followers, simply because most of the crowd won't even agree to DoW them, since there's nothing for them to gain from it.
Well, each side would state his case in brief, then determine their Body of Argument ("hit points"), then agree to terms ("if you win, if I win"). The terms should be reasonable and achievable. At this point, either player may decide not to participate.
How are HP determined? If you've got a stronger argument, does that make your HP greater? Or is the guy making baseless claims with no evidence on the same footing as the guy with a good case of evidence?
I mean what I'm trying to determine is that say you've got a court case, with two arguing lawyers. If lawyer A has a mountain of evidence and lawyer B has basically no case, then lawyer A only gets a single bonus die and that's it?
The whole point of playing a charismatic socially adept character is to overcome encounters without engaging in combat challenges if you can at all help it. I have +12 bluff at 4th level vs. a 20th lvl ftr +2 sense motive, why would I ever engage his +30bab and 30ac vs. my +7bab and 17ac? I'll stick with the odds of by-the-book-rules bluffing a stupid fighter any day.
This example is the problem with the 3e/3.5 system. If the skills system is going to be similar to Star Wars Saga (a pretty decent one at that), then the above, while still being possible, will be highly unlikely. Now, said 4th level character will get +5 to bluff for being trained in the skill, say another +5 for having the skill emphasis feat (or whatever it's called), +2 (1/2 your character level), and let's say a +4 due to high charisma = +16 for bluff or deception or whatever it will be called. Now, said stupid 20th level fighter will have +10 added to his Sense Motive (1/2 his character level), and let's say he's a little wise having a 14 wisdom, granting a +2 modifier = +12 to sense motive. While it's still possible for said 4th level character to outsmart the dumb 20th level fighter, it's not as likely. From my stand point, and you may not agree, this makes a good of sense.
I like the Star Wars Saga skill system, as it has a mechanic to reflect something that occurs in real life...the inadvertant acquisition of useless trivia knowledge.
Well, no. football isn't random in the same sense as something like roulette. There may be luck now and then, but mostly it has to do wtih a player's skill. A single player can make a great catch or fumble the ball that can change the course of the game. So at the end you feel as though as a player, you've failed. You weren't just screwed because you got unlucky.
Well, nothing is ever really random, even a die roll. There are just more factors going on than we can track. A football game is as effectively random as a properly weighted die roll. But if you prefer the analogy, I could also say that you will never get a result of BLUE 112 in roulette. The possible outcomes are limited to what makes sense in context.
I guess I've yet to see how they make games more fun.
Noting the fact that it may indeed not be more fun for you, I don't see why this is such a cognative leap. Do you see how a dice-based combat system can make combat fun? It works exactly the same way. Options, conflict, dice, tactics, resources, etc. Again, though, not "always more fun", but "fun for the same reasons".
Yeah, this is pretty much one of the issues with social systems that I have. You basically are caught in two conflicting sides:
a) You want social systems to be able to change people's minds and get them to do stuff they wouldn't normally do.
b) You don't want social systems to mind-control PCs.
Those two things are in direct conflict.
I'd say more indirect conflict, but yes, it's something you need to consider when designing such a system.
This part of the system I think is where it displays its flaws. I mean, really social systems are going to be so subjective from game to game, because some DMs may just have the NPCs reject all your offers. In fact, if you suck at social skills, you might as well just not get in a DoW at all. It's as though part of the movement and combat system just let creatures teleport away at will and escape any combat if they wanted to.
That's not a flaw, it's a feature. The "random inappropriate reactions don't happen" feature that everybody says social conflicts need. And yes, NPCs can just refuse to talk to you. Not everything can be solved by talking just like not everything can be solved by combat. But, just like the DM doesn't have to present you with combat challenges, he doesn't have to present you with social ones. However, he should, and usually does, because that's fun and what everyone is there for.
As for never entering a DoW, I should point out that a DoW is usually about something, and not engaging is effectively a loss. Think about it as refusing to engage the foes trying to empty the chest you're guarding. Sure, you don't get killed, but you don't hurt them either, and they still get the chest. The idea here being, if you're going to lose anyway, you might as well try to get a concession out of them. Also of importance, in Burning Wheel, you have to (with limited exception) actually use skills to improve them. Also, if you fight (verbally) and lose (or win) for something important to your character, you still get the equivelant of XP and Action Points as a reward. So there are plenty of reasons to go for it.
It's going to be odd, because social duels are more fought between people with social ability. So it's like impossible for the snake oil salesman to con some random schmuck, because the random guy just refuses to enter a DoW.
If it's just some random schmuck, why is the DM fighting it? As a matter of fact, that would probably just be a straight die roll. No point wasting time arguing with a schmuck.
Also, the whole stakes thing still feels odd to me. In a lot of instances, there may not be anything to be gained by the other side. When you're trying to seduce someone who doesn't want to be seduced, there's really nothing in it for them to get into the DoW with you. The stakes system is extremely limiting.
If the other side has nothing to gain, then it simply wouldn't be a DoW. It's like somebody saying "Meet me in the parking lot tomorrow so we can fight". I just won't show up. There's no reason to do so.
Really, most of the time it seems you'd need to force the other side into a conflict, otherwise, they'll probably refuse, unless it's a situation of two social characters going at it. It sounds more like a mini-game that your characters use to settle disputes or something. Kind of like if two rival kings decided to play a game of chess to determine who the rules a territory. But both sides have to agree to come to the table and play for it to work out.
YES! That's the trick! There has to be a conflict. Why don't those two kings just go to war? Obviously they don't want to, so they talk it out. They could easily chess for it, but that would, within the story, seem arbitrary (of course, it might be in character for those kings, so who knows?) Also, violence would, in the end, solve their problem. On the other hand, trying to get past a guard who is willing to fight you isn't a conflict (socially) because he doesn't care what you have to say. He'd just as soon stab you.
The consequences of not talking have to be worse than (or as bad as) talking, or the rewards have to be worth the risk (or both). If the kings don't talk, then it's war. If the guard doesn't talk, there's a fight (but that's fine with him). Of course, if the guard stands to gain a fat bribe out of the DoW, win or lose, then he might consider it.
It also means that you've got some people playing high-stakes diplomacy, where you get two rival clerics, both socially skilled, trying to convert each other to their religion. And this duel is likely to achieve a greater effect than if the clerics were preaching to a crowd for new followers, simply because most of the crowd won't even agree to DoW them, since there's nothing for them to gain from it.
The crowd isn't likely to warrant a DoW. It's just a crowd. It's more of an obstacle than a true interaction. The cleric makes his speeck and rolls Oratory or something, and it works or doesn't (perhaps scaled to the roll).
How are HP determined? If you've got a stronger argument, does that make your HP greater? Or is the guy making baseless claims with no evidence on the same footing as the guy with a good case of evidence?
I mean what I'm trying to determine is that say you've got a court case, with two arguing lawyers. If lawyer A has a mountain of evidence and lawyer B has basically no case, then lawyer A only gets a single bonus die and that's it?
That doesn't sound like a really big advantage.
HP are equal to your Will stat plus the results of a skill roll. That's it. And evidence is only worthwhile if people accept it. It can be marginalized, dismissed or even lied about. However, BW does allow for effective prep-work to make a serious difference by way of linked rolls or "fields of related knowledge".
The rules of the whole game interact quite a bit, so there are nuances here and there that tie into how the game works and the reward system, etc.
This part of the system I think is where it displays its flaws. I mean, really social systems are going to be so subjective from game to game, because some DMs may just have the NPCs reject all your offers. In fact, if you suck at social skills, you might as well just not get in a DoW at all. It's as though part of the movement and combat system just let creatures teleport away at will and escape any combat if they wanted to.
It's going to be odd, because social duels are more fought between people with social ability. So it's like impossible for the snake oil salesman to con some random schmuck, because the random guy just refuses to enter a DoW.
Look at it this way, if the social character doesn't have something that the person who sucks at social skills wants, be it a favor, item, or concession, what reason do they have to listen in the first place? Unless you want to give your social characters a magical ability to force people to listen to them, they need a bargaining chip to gain their target's attention. Some people are stubborn so-and-so's who won't change their minds unless you find a way to put pressure on them.
The snake oil salesman is a con artist, and con artists need a lure to get their marks to participate, usually a promise of easy money, sex, or even the idea that they are doing a good deed ("My son desperately needs a cure disease spell, can you spare 25 gold, oh noble hero?"). In this case, the snake oil salesman is offering a miracle remedy, and some people want to believe that they can make a quick buck/get laid/help someone out/solve all their health problems with a single potion, and so they leave themselves open to fall into the trap. Other people are born skeptics or have been fooled before and know better than to fall for that kind of trick again (and then again, some people never learn).
Archtyrant Terevoth wrote:
Also, the whole stakes thing still feels odd to me. In a lot of instances, there may not be anything to be gained by the other side. When you're trying to seduce someone who doesn't want to be seduced, there's really nothing in it for them to get into the DoW with you. The stakes system is extremely limiting.
Like I said, if one side has absolutely nothing to gain then of course there shouldn't be a social conflict. You can't seduce a eunuch. Take the Three Musketeers, at one point Milady's brother takes her captive. Now, he knows that she's an evil, deceitful person, so the well is poisoned to begin with. Furthermore, he knows that she's tried to have him killed so she can take the entire inheritance, so there's nothing she can offer him that's worth the risk of letting an evil master manipulator who wants him dead loose. "...he knows me, he fears me, and knows what he has to expect of me if I ever escape from his hands. It is useless, then, to attempt anything with him." Instead she works on Lieutenant Felton, not with seduction or coin, because she quickly sees that these are not enough to overpower his loyalty to Lord deWinter, but by feigning religious martyrdom, since he is a religious man who values God more than any loyalty to mortal powers. It works so well that by the end of the week he's fanatically devoted to her and becomes accomplise to her escape and an assassin.
Or, to take another literary example, look at Sam, Frodo, and Gollum. Gollum never really fools Sam, because Sam has already made up his mind about what Gollum is and is too loyal to Frodo to let his guard down. Frodo on the other hand, needs to believe that Gollum can be redeemed and pities him, which gives Gollum ample stakes to manipulate.
Archtyrant Terevoth wrote:
It also means that you've got some people playing high-stakes diplomacy, where you get two rival clerics, both socially skilled, trying to convert each other to their religion. And this duel is likely to achieve a greater effect than if the clerics were preaching to a crowd for new followers, simply because most of the crowd won't even agree to DoW them, since there's nothing for them to gain from it.
Unless they're looking for spiritual illumination or have doubts about their current faith. In that case, they have the potential to find new meaning in their lives, which would be plenty to draw them in. Now, people who are thoroughly satisfied with their current faith (or lack thereof) really aren't going to be swayed by a cleric's attempts to convert them unless the cleric can challenge their satisfaction with the status quo first.
I'm not entirely sold on all the aspects of the Duel of Wits system (although we're still working with an incomplete picture, so I'm withholding judgement), but I like the stakes system because it allows for the dramatic situation where the silver-tongued manipulator finally gets cornered in a situation he can't talk his way out of. Otherwise you have the strange "mind control" situations you worry about where Thulsa Doon talks Conan into not killing him after all, or the Musketeers decide to let Milady go despite all of the people close to them she's killed. If you think about situations in the "play it out, DM decides" mode where there's no chance of one side being convinced, it's generally because one side or the other has no stake in the argument, and so the stakes system prevents those from ever reaching the portion affected by random chance and opening things up to weird effects.
Well, nothing is ever really random, even a die roll. There are just more factors going on than we can track. A football game is as effectively random as a properly weighted die roll.
Well, while there is physics involved in both, you're not supposed to be rolling the die in such a way that you're trying to load the outcome. Die rolling is a means to achieve randomness, where as in football, it's a result of player skill.
Noting the fact that it may indeed not be more fun for you, I don't see why this is such a cognative leap. Do you see how a dice-based combat system can make combat fun? It works exactly the same way. Options, conflict, dice, tactics, resources, etc. Again, though, not "always more fun", but "fun for the same reasons".
Well, the main difference is that most social systems cause you to lose out on options as opposed to getting options. See in combat or any physical test for that matter, the goals are simple and the situation is hard to describe. Regardless of how awesome a DM storyteller you are, it's going to be hard to offer the PCs any real description that's going to give them meaningful RP choices in a combat. It ends up boiling down to "I swing my sword at him." Now, you may choose to attack low or attack the guy's head or whatever, but there's no easy way to adjudicate that from a no rules standpoint. You either end up giving your PCs are a no-brainer decision "You see an opening in his lower defenses." "Ok, I attack his right leg." Or an arbitrary guessing game between DM and PC that amounts to rock/paper/scissors, which is no better than rolling a dice.
Now, social situations on the other hand are a bit different. You can slip subtle clues into the speech and such and set up social puzzles so that your characters can make meaningful decisions that aren't pitifully obvious or turn into blatant guessing games. It may require some detective work in terms of the PCs of course, but it's possible. Because your options matter. Unlike in combat, it doesn't all boil down to "I swing a sword at my foe." You have numerous approaches.
Lets say you feel that the Duke is a traitor to the king and want to uncover his treachery. Here are some choices you've got:
Pose as mercenaries asking to be hired for the Duke's fighting regimen, and subtly try to extract clues as to his plans.
Claim you're rebels to the king and want his help in overthrowing the king.
Go to the duke bringing word of a possible rebellion forming against the king to gauge his reactions.
Directly confront him on the matter.
Subtly infer that you might be against the king, seeing if you can draw information out without putting yourself at risk.
Have a female PC try to seduce the duke and posssibly get information out of him.
Merely eavesdrop the Duke's conversations with others to try to glean information before making your approach.
The list goes on and on, and I could keep out listing things right there.
And all those options are going to have real story advantages and drawbacks that are going to matter on not just how well you did at what you're trying but also what you did. Now the stakes system is about as close to what I've seen as trying to emulate all of these, but the problem is that in creating the stakes you effectively give out information to your PCs.
If your stakes are "If I win, the duke drops the ball and gives out some slip into his plans and if I lose, the duke has me thrown in the dungeon.", the PCs tend to know that the duke is a traitor simply from the stakes. Which sucks for a political intrigue game where you should constantly be guessing what the duke's real motives are.
That's not a flaw, it's a feature. The "random inappropriate reactions don't happen" feature that everybody says social conflicts need. And yes, NPCs can just refuse to talk to you. Not everything can be solved by talking just like not everything can be solved by combat. But, just like the DM doesn't have to present you with combat challenges, he doesn't have to present you with social ones. However, he should, and usually does, because that's fun and what everyone is there for.
Yeah, I can see that. And a part of me agrees, but I constantly find myself wondering, why have a system at all? I mean, basically the only reason you're able to start a social conflict at all is because the DM gave you the green light, so if your request is reasonable, why not just okay it from the start?
As for never entering a DoW, I should point out that a DoW is usually about something, and not engaging is effectively a loss. Think about it as refusing to engage the foes trying to empty the chest you're guarding. Sure, you don't get killed, but you don't hurt them either, and they still get the chest. The idea here being, if you're going to lose anyway, you might as well try to get a concession out of them.
Maybe I don't fully understand. I got the impression that you could just deny the DoW and not even care. Like if PCs went up to a guard and offered him stakes of "If I win, you let me through, if I lose, we leave." The guard could just decline it and he basically doesn't let you through, so the guard hasn't lost anything. Maybe I'm missing something there, but that's the way I interpreted it.
Also what happens if two sides want to get in a DoW but neither can agree to common stakes? Who is considered the loser there? It seems almost like you could run into Cops and Robbers style stakes setting.
"If I win, I get all his money and items, and if I lose, he gets this piece of string." "Screw that. How about if he wins, he get all your money and if you win, you get that rusty dagger on his belt."
If both sides are unreasonable it seems like it could be rather difficult.
If it's just some random schmuck, why is the DM fighting it? As a matter of fact, that would probably just be a straight die roll. No point wasting time arguing with a schmuck.
Well, because a lot of times you may want to argue with random schmucks. The fighter trying to raise an army to defend the village, the cleric looking for converts and the like. A lot of times in social situations, it's the random schmucks you care about influencing. You intimidate the random bandits into leaving without a fight for instance.
If the other side has nothing to gain, then it simply wouldn't be a DoW. It's like somebody saying "Meet me in the parking lot tomorrow so we can fight". I just won't show up. There's no reason to do so.
The problem is that so many social situations don't have anything to gain on one side.
Seduction: If the seducer wins he/she gets sex and some favors, if he loses, both sides just walk away with nothing.
Bluff: If you win, you convince someone of something, if you lose, you may lose credibility, but the other guy doesn't really gain anything.
Intimidate: Same deal. You choose between getting scared off or being unaffected. Why would you agree to that at all?
Begging for free equipment, healing, whatever: Again nothing to be gained, best thing that happens is that you just refuse the request.
Trying to resolve a misunderstanding: Paladin rushes around and finds your band of adventurers, thinking you're evil mercs under the service of the lich, he attacks. You try to convince him otherwise. If you win, he doesn't attack you and he doesnt' have to live with the guilt of attacking you. If he wins the DoW, he actually loses, in that he's slaughtering innocents.
Bribery: If you win the DoW against the bribe, you don't take it, but you're no better off than you were.
Now the problem is that all these things are important things to resolve. DoW works well it seems for opposed things in front of a crowd, but for the kind of social situations that come up all the time in D&D. It's not so great.
On the other hand, trying to get past a guard who is willing to fight you isn't a conflict (socially) because he doesn't care what you have to say. He'd just as soon stab you.
Well presumably the guard lets some people in, so the goal is tricking the guard, and the guard is trying not to be tricked. If I'm trying to sneak illegal drugs by US customs, the customs guy cares what I'm saying, because it's his job to analyze my story and see if he should let me in or not. He doesn't necessarily want to just have me arrested without reason.
The thing is that he doesn't really know in this case that he's engaging in a DoW. It's where I said that you may actually give up information by announcing stakes or announcing there is a DoW, since for the most part.
The consequences of not talking have to be worse than (or as bad as) talking, or the rewards have to be worth the risk (or both). If the kings don't talk, then it's war. If the guard doesn't talk, there's a fight (but that's fine with him). Of course, if the guard stands to gain a fat bribe out of the DoW, win or lose, then he might consider it.
Well giving him the bribe when he won the DoW seems really stupid. "I'll give you this 100 gp, and you let me through." Somehow the guard ends up with the gold and the PCs are walking away from the castle wondering what happened. That doesn't even make any sense from a storytelling point of view.
Now I mean, I guess it could be where the bartender just pockets your bribe and then doens't tell you anything, but would he have to even do a DoW to do that? Couldn't he just take the bribe and decide not to let you in? Or does the system prevent him from doing that?
The crowd isn't likely to warrant a DoW. It's just a crowd. It's more of an obstacle than a true interaction. The cleric makes his speeck and rolls Oratory or something, and it works or doesn't (perhaps scaled to the roll).
Ok I suppose that can work. Though at this point, it's just kind of an arbitrary DM decision as to what roll means what.
The snake oil salesman is a con artist, and con artists need a lure to get their marks to participate, usually a promise of easy money, sex, or even the idea that they are doing a good deed ("My son desperately needs a cure disease spell, can you spare 25 gold, oh noble hero?"). In this case, the snake oil salesman is offering a miracle remedy, and some people want to believe that they can make a quick buck/get laid/help someone out/solve all their health problems with a single potion, and so they leave themselves open to fall into the trap. Other people are born skeptics or have been fooled before and know better than to fall for that kind of trick again (and then again, some people never learn).
The problem is that in the case of a bluff, the "lure" is illusory, such that even if you win the social contest, you merely dispel his bluff, and gain nothing. You're not dueling for a cure to a disease or to really save someone, you're just dueling to not be conned and if you win, you don't get anything besides defending against a con, which you could do by simply ignoring the other guy.
Instead she works on Lieutenant Felton, not with seduction or coin, because she quickly sees that these are not enough to overpower his loyalty to Lord deWinter, but by feigning religious martyrdom, since he is a religious man who values God more than any loyalty to mortal powers.
See I want a social system that takes this stuff into account, because that's cool if you as PCs have to find out what makes an NPC tick so to speak and the way you can manipulate him.
Or, to take another literary example, look at Sam, Frodo, and Gollum. Gollum never really fools Sam, because Sam has already made up his mind about what Gollum is and is too loyal to Frodo to let his guard down. Frodo on the other hand, needs to believe that Gollum can be redeemed and pities him, which gives Gollum ample stakes to manipulate.
Here's the problem. See, in a social system, the fact that Frodo believes Gollum is because Gollum succeeded on his bluff check against him, but not against Sam. Nobody really goes into a situation wanting to be conned. Certainly Frodo's personality makes him more susceptible to being tricked, but on a mechanical level, it isn't Frodo's players choice to get into a social contest with Gollum, because again, he has nothing to gain. Win and you're not tricked, lose and you're tricked.
If you think about situations in the "play it out, DM decides" mode where there's no chance of one side being convinced, it's generally because one side or the other has no stake in the argument, and so the stakes system prevents those from ever reaching the portion affected by random chance and opening things up to weird effects.
As I said before, this system just doesn't work well for most social situations that are likely to come up in D&D.
In fact the scope of stuff it works on is very limited. It sounds like a nice system for an RPG like vampire: the masquerade, and I might consider adopting it or something like it there, but for a heroic fantasy game, it just doesn't seem like you'd be using it much.
