Social Combat for Into the Odd

Into the Odd Social Combat

For Into the Odd, Electric Bastionland, Cairn, and similar games. This is completely unplaytested, but it was bouncing around my head after some discussion in the NSR discord and I wanted to take a crack at writing it down.

I reference WIL specifically here, but swap out with CHA for Electric Bastionland (or whatever other ability might be appropriate in your system of choice).

Goals

Combat prowess in Into the Odd is mostly not dependent on a character's stats. Instead success in combat is determined by your choice of weapons, your tactics, getting the drop on your enemy, and the choice of whether to engage in the combat in the first place.

I wanted to know what a social combat system with similar ideas would look like. A way where your success is based on your arguments, rhetoric, strategy, knowledge and knowing when to fight it out and when to cut your losses. I want something that's freeform enough to not get in the way of good conversation and debate, but mechanical enough to allow the GM to "disclaim" having to simply choose when an argument is good enough, or when a character will capitulate.

Set Stakes & Resilience Points

Decide what each side stands to gain or lose.

Arguments are not mind control, you can argue people into giving ground, compromising, or retreating from a situation. However without significant leverage you cannot argue people into acting against their own self interest.

The more a side stands to lose, the greater the effort required to push them to that point. Resilience Points (RP) is a measure of how much they will resist Capitulation.

If it's something small their RP is a d6.

If it's something significant their RP is 2d6.

If it's something they would only barely consider their RP is 3d6.

Remember that both sides must have something they stand to lose.

The RP is shared across all members of the side of an combat. Roll the RP as combat begins.

Choose Leaders

A single character should take the lead for each side of an combat. Their WIL is used during the combat.

Set Social Armor

Social Armor represents any situation or environment in which one side might be shielded from full social consequences.

If one side's leader is in a significantly elevated social position compared to the other, that side should gain a point of Social Armor. This will change based on the setting of the combat. In court, a Noble would have Armor when arguing with a Commoner, the opposite might be true if the setting is instead in a bar or back streets.

Other factors that can mitigate Social Damage should also be represented with armor. For example having the audience of the combat supporting one side or the other.

Combat

Combat proceeded with each side taking turns. If it's not obvious which side should go first (social precedence, ambush, etc) the leaders of each side should make an opposed WIL Save.

On a side's turn, they may make an Argument and individual members of the side may make Gambits.

An Argument attacks the opposing RP directly. When you make an argument, roll a d6 as its damage.

Argument Modifiers

If an argument is based off of previously undisclosed information, attacks from an unexpected direction, uses the opponent's points against them, relies on some external leverage, or is otherwise advantaged it is enhanced. When your argument is enhanced roll a d12 in place of the normal die.

If an argument is similar to a previous point, has already been rebutted by the opponent, is a weak point lacking leverage, undercuts your own previous arguments, or is otherwise disadvantaged it is impaired. When your argument is impaired roll a d4 in place of the normal die.

Damage

Roll the argument's die, subtract any Social Armor, and deal the remaining to the opponent's RP.

Capitulation

If there is damage in excess of the opponent's RP, it is dealt to the leader's WIL. They must then make a WIL Save to avoid Capitulation.

If the leader fails the WIL Save, they Capitulate and receive one additional turn of combat. During that turn if they are able to force their opponent as well, the Combat ends in a Compromise. An agreement is reached that benefits both parties, or at least disadvantages both equally based on their initial stakes.

If they are unable to force the opposing party to Capitulate during the extra turn, they have been utterly routed and lose whatever they have staked on the combat.

Gambits

Members of each side may make Gambits to try and shift the argument in their favor. This could include shifting the audience to their side, thereby gaining Social Armor, uncovering or revealing information or evidence to advantage arguments, or any other actions that seem reasonable.

If there are risks inherent in a Gambit, they require a successful Save as usual.

Final Thoughts

 I suspect simultaneous turns would work better mechanically, and avoid the awkward "extra turn/parting shot", but also going back and forth matches the flow of an argument or debate more closely.

I'm not convinced I've achieved the goals I set out, but I think more theory crafting should wait until I actually try the thing. I plan to test it in one of my games if the opportunity arises, and I'll revisit this when I do so.