Talk:Social Combat (3.5e Variant Rule)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)