@lithium said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
Nobody has said that social skills should change core concepts of your character with just a single dice roll.
I do want to say one thing but want it to be clear up-front that I'm not saying this to be contrary.
Apocalypse World can change your character entirely based on a single roll.
But here are the things:
- You decide to roll it.
- You decide to roll it knowing exactly what the risks are.
- The game hammers over and over again that you are playing to see what happens.
- You ultimately decide whether or not the roll changes the character.
It's a game for people like @Bobotron, where something horrific can happen without your explicit say-so, but it keeps the player in the pilot's seat at all times.
Here are the game's rules:
When you try to seduce, manipulate, bluff, fast-talk, or lie to someone, tell them what
you want to do, give them a reason, and roll+hot <2d6 + your Hot stat>. For NPCs: On a
10+, they'll go along with you, unless or until some fact or action betrays the reason you
gave them. On a 7-9, they'll go along with you, but they need some concrete assurance,
corroboration, or evidence first. Fir PCs: On a 10+, do both. On a 7-9, choose 1:
* If they go along with you, they mark experience.
* If they refuse, erase one of their stat highlights <bonus for succeeding in a stat roll>
for the remainder of the session.
What they do is up to them.
On a miss, for either NPCs or PCs, be prepared for the worst.
Seducing someone, here, means using sex to get them to do what you want, not (or not
just) trying to get them to fuck you.
Asking someone straight to do something isn't trying to seduce or manipulate them. To
seduce or manipulate an NPC, the character needs leverage, a reason: sex, or a threat,
or a promise, something that the character can really do that the victim really wants or
really doesn't want.
Absent leverage, they're just talking, and you should have your NPCs agree or accede,
decline or refuse, according to their own self-interests.
The assurance that the NPC needs should directly address the leverage the character is
using. The leverage is sex? The assurance should be sexual. The leverage is violence?
"Just promise you won't hurt me."
The whole process or needing and offering assurance can be explicit or implicit. Explicit:
"'Okay, I'll let you through,' he says. 'Just promise you won't tell Keeler it was me.'"
Implicit: "She takes your hand and nods toward the bed. 'After you,' she says."
When one player's character manipulates another, there's no need for special leverage.
Instead, the manipulating character simply gets to offer her counterpart the carrot, the
stick, or both. The carrot is marking experience, and the stick is erasing a stat hilight.
There. Boom. The game tells you that you do not have 100% control of your character, but you still retain agency.
I adore Apocalypse World because it's one of the very few RPGs I've ever read that will tell you how to play, and tell you that if you don't play it that way then you're not playing Apocalypse World and should play a different game.
This is something that has been done in games, and to players, in our hobby recently. Doing this takes time, but is absolutely worth it.
