gamegrene.com

An example of "social combat" from my own game. This happened.

*player is making Intimidation roll as per True20 (which is no different in this regard than d20 rules)*
GM: As you raise your voice and lean in and give him 'the eyes' the three friends he has with him step closer and tense up. "You see these guys with me!? Who do you think you are to come in here and treat me like this!?"
*the player actually passed his roll against the NPCs Sense Motive based on paper, but I gave a +3 bonus to his roll to resist because of his three friends and so he ended up resisting the intimidation attempt*
Player: "Who, these guys? I crap bigger than these guys!" *the character reachers across the table, grabs the NPC by the shirt, and punches him in the face. Attack roll, Toughness saving throw (this is True20 stuff, you don't roll for damage), and the NPC is bruised. The PC has a strength of 4 (the True20 equivalent 18 from d20) so I mentlaly note to give him a +4 bonus on his next Intimidate roll if he makes one. The other PCs half drawtheir swords...something the NPC bodyguards do not have. There are two other PCs so I mentally add another +4 to the forthcoming roll (1 for each PC and one for each sword). He does indeed make this Intimidate roll and absolutely stomps on the resistance check* "Call off your chumps or none of you are walking out of here!"
GM "Okay, okay!" *he motions for his men to back off, which they gladly do* "Just tell me what you want!"

There's no real difference betwen "normal" combat rules and "social" combat rules. At least not for us. It actually IS a unified system because it all relies on the exact same mechanic...one die roll with one system of modifiers up or down, one die roll to resist with the same system of modifiers up or down; coupled with a scale of descriptors instead of a tally of numbers to determine"damage". As soon as we removed hit points we stopped needing different sets of rules for different situations. Hence, in my own experience, the issue doesn't lie with social interaction rules in most systems...it lies with the standard combat rules and their inability to realistically depict how combat actually works in real life. Making social interaction more like any given system's combat mechanics to find a unified theory is only spreading the problem around to other areas that were previously not infected. The disparity between social and standard combat is a symptom of a larger problem in my eyes, and making interaction more like standard rules' handling of swordplay only makes it all bigger, bulkier, more involved, and hence less immersive on the larger scale.

That's just me. You all know where I stand on throwing rules at a problem and hoping that will make it go away.

I forgot that I wanted to say something about this:

"If we have a pass-or-fail roll (on a d20 lets say) then I am able to win the encounter with a roll. That isn't really so bad. What I don't like is:

No partial success.
The difficulties don't scale.
They aren't tied to the choices/narrative.
Don't suffer a capricious GM."

You're absolutely correct in what you say and how it can be abused. Maybe not abused per se...more like "maligned". No, that's not it either. What I'm trying to say is that this, to me at least, is a prime example of the person using said rules just letting the rules think for them and not applying any degree of extrapolation at all to what those results acutally *mean*.

Perhaps I can illuminate this better with an example. WIth standard roll vs. DC results in the d20 system most game deisgners (and therefore most GMs) set a DC and you either pass or fail. In my opinion this is a critical failure on the part of the person using the rules...not the rules themselves. The best I've seen it handled is with Gather Information rolls in most published d20 adventures. There is in fact a scaling difficulty that allows partial success; DC 5 you learn this, DC 10 you learn that plus this, DC 15 all that plus more, DC 20 everything plus this too. Yet this extrapolation of the mechanic is completely ignored in all other applications of the rules function. Take for example a Jump roll...it's a DC 14 to cross the gap between two buildings as a PC chases an NPC across the rooftops. You pass, you make it. You fail, you fall. This, to me, is just lazy gamemastering. Since it's written that way it's what most do and they see a flaw in the rule. It *should* be more like this: DC 10 you make it but you're hanging off the ledge by your fingers, DC 12 you crossed the gap clumsily and the person you're chasing gets ahead a bit, DC 14 you're even, DC 16 you actually gain on them a bit...DC 20 you cross the gap and land on them, tumbling them to the ground under you.

This doesn't have to be mapped out on paper ahead of time either...just determine, on the fly, what the bare minimum for "success" is (in this case 14) and extrapolate from the result when it happens. It takes thought though to determine this sort of thing, especially on the fly...something most would simply rather not do.

Taking this into social interaction the same can be done rather easily. The gap between the succesful roll (lets say it's a Diplomacy roll) and the resisting roll (Sense Motive) determines the degree of success. Instead of just a switch labeled "yea or ney" you now have a way to determine degree of success. Of course, it requires the GM to be able to do that on the fly and to roleplay the results, but that's sort of the point I think. Many little add ons for the d20 rules system allow for "skill stunts" but I generally don't use any of them because I expect that from my players; it's table stakes, it's the bar for entry to sit in that chair to begin with...it's really their one and only job and I expect them to do it without being poked from behind with the spear of the rules system. I expect them to think outside of the box and not rely on the rolls to spark their creativity. If I had different players I would probably consider using those little bits and add ons...in an egalitarian world. I'm not very egalitarian though and I would simply rather not run for those type of players. True20 uses a system built right in from first concept (with supporting Feats) that allows for the stunts and tricks with skills based on degree of success and when we were learning the nuances of that rules system we as a group got to that part and went..."Wait, what? We already do this. Let's skip this chapter and ignore those Feats because they waste our bloody time and are here for people who just can't come up with this sort of thing on their own."

Essentially, I encourage players (and they encourage each other) to voluntarily modify their DC up or down to achieve the desired result. Instead of "Can I make an Intimidate roll?" I find they are more often not asking, but stating, like so; "I make an Intimidate roll, my goal is to have him cowering and weeping, not just agreeing. I want him ot pee in his own boots, not just hand over the keys." They've set the terms for degree of success, because if cowering is a gap between roll and resist of 10, then surely a gap of 5 is still a success...just not the precise success they hoped for.

You're also bang on correct that capriciousness can be a factor; if the GM is a bone head. The sudden changes of mood or behaviour that capriciousness characterizes have no place in a good GM. If the people at the table can't trust each other to do what's right to further the enjoyment of everyone at the table then I question why they're social engaged to begin with; which opens a whole new can of worms on the topic of "social combat". I won't say that complicated or overly involved rules for social interaction aren't necessary because that arguement leads nowhere; if it works for you keep it up. I will however state that if the rules used are required solely to make sure everyone is being "fair", then the *real* social combat runs much deeper than something in the game and extends to the push and pull of those actually playing it.

I don't think anyone could successfully argue that any set of game rules can fix that paricular bit of social inadequecy. Rolepalying shouldn't be a contest, and if a group feels more rules or more specific rules are required, not for the actions *in* the world of the game, but rather to control the actions of those sitting at the table *out* of the world of the game...they have far far bigger problems.

This stuff is all just awesome. Just wanted to put that out there. Now to my thoughts-

It's clear to me, at least, that True20Scott is better than standard d20. But it does still come down to an essential problem, which Gil mentioned, that problem being that success is achieved all at once or not at all. One can absolutely stack the deck in one's favor, but it all comes down to a single die roll. To go back quickly to our discussion on the thematic emphases of different games, this encourages do or die playing and emphasizes dramatic, pivotal moments. Which is certainly not a bad thing, if that's what you want, though I think d20 overemphasizes these things even for its purposes. This, inevitably, brings a particular feel to the game. It's because of this that most d20 makes a very big difference between social rolls and combat rolls, if it values the former at all. Anybody who's built a relationship over time knows that trying to represent such a thing with a single roll is just nonsensical - they take time, especially if you have a particular agenda. Some nights are a success (right, boys? :P ) and some aren't. That's why that emotional scale (which I find just as sloppy as hp) was invented, to try to represent multiple successful attempts.

I think what Gil's system brings that's really interesting is a gradual success, which does more accurately reflect reality. It's not that you can't do the things he mentioned in other systems, but that his system encourages these things, even makes them necessary. Like Chess, he's built strategic thinking into the game, by making success gradual. It's not about tripping your opponent - it's about gaining an advantage to be used in the future. While I found feats useful in d20 (I don't know True20, so I'm speaking to d20), they were clumsy and often seemed thrown out there. The point was still always to just hit the guy. Also, the game actively discouraged this strategic thinking - it was easier and usually better to just attack your opponent, instead of trying the stupid complexity of grappling or tripping, activities that are really no more difficult than pulling off a successful hit on a skilled opponent. But the game gives one more weight than the other.

I think Gil's right, to a certain extent, when he says Scott has to effectively overlay imagination when using True20. This is something you have to do whenever you play a roleplaying game (it's kind of the point), but the question becomes how much does this action detract from the power of the imaginative construct and how much does it all attention to itself, thus distracting from the drama. I guess to put it more succinctly, how natural is the meeting between rules and imagination? I find that most games fail miserably at this, mostly because rules try to overcome and limit the imagination. d20 is a great example. You can describe yourself jumping off a wall to deliver a spinning roundhouse kick to your opponents face, but that simply becomes an attack roll, perhaps with a jump check that develops into a plus 2 bonus. If you want to do more than attack, you have to take feats and so on to accomplish it. I'm really not certain, having not played either, that Scott or Gil's systems help with this.

I know I always go back to it, but I think Dogs in the Vineyard is really useful here, especially when it comes to something like Gil's thoughts on tactics. You'll have to refer to my previous posts concerning this system to really get what I'm saying here, but the jist of it is how freeform the game is. You don't have a "guns" skill or a "swords" or a "combat" or whatever. If you want to be good at guns, you write down you are, with however many dice you want to have attached and described however you like. It could be you're amazing with a rifle, but not so good at pistols, so you write "rifle expert" or something more clever. This does two things. It puts things very clearly in the players hands, to actually build their characters, less in a framework (Bob the Fighter) or more however you wish. It also tells you what the players find interesting, as the game very directly encourages you to give dice not necessarily to what you're good at, but what is interesting or important to you. So you might have a really good gun, but you put far more dice on your family pendant, because that's more important to you. Another really interesting thing is how much this relies on the already existing social dynamic among the group. The players and the GM figure out what's ok, when something is too broad or too specific. The game is flexible. My previous posts talk more about the strategic elements of the game, which I find to be useful.

I think there's something interesting stuff here regarding verisimilitude. Just how useful is that, anyway? Do we really need combat to be accurate when fighting dragons? Or is it more of a case by case basis?

Regarding the group vs. the rules - Absolutely, the onus always lies on the group. My group just got done making D&D 4e an incredible, character driven journey of redemption, betrayal, and all that other juicy stuff. We made it work for us, though I think it fought us most of the way. I wish more groups found that as self-evident as you and I, Scott. The roleplaying is always dependent on the group.

But how much can you ask from the rules regarding an accurate depiction of social environments? I think there's a lot of interesting potential there, though I'm totally at a loss for how that could be explored. I'm not a really rules-focused GM, once I've picked a system. I do like Gil's thoughts here.

I actually tend to go even lighter on the rules than you do, Scott, in social stuff, based on your comment. I generally don't have players roll anything until it's a clutch moment and there's a potentially for something to go either way. Usually, the only "skill" or whatever I use in social situations is Bluff, cause it would be stupid to expect my players to get a lie past me when I clearly have more knowledge than any one character in the game. Other than that, tense situation or not, we roleplay it out, just because I find that more natural and I have yet to find any game that can augment that satisfactorily.

Anyway, I've got to go for now. I'll finish this comment later

"If there is failure, it comes from both. A good group can overcome a bad game, but why bother with a bad game at all?"

-Exactly. Why bother. I don't feel I have a bad set of rules. I don't fight it. It works fine. There's nothing to "overcome". I'm sorry that for you there is.

More and more this is starting to feel like a debate about which is a better rock band; chewing gum or lizards?

I remember when I was this philosophical about all the things behind the scenes in roleplaying, and even when it seemed I was in agreement with someone on one thing I'd find some new hair to split just for the sake if it. Now I just like to run great campaigns and talk about the methods of storytelling because I'm all out of rules debates; mainly because I'm all out of concern for the rules. Once you have something that works perfect for you and you don't feel you need to keep looking for the holy grail you'll know what I mean.

And this isn't me talking down to you or being arrogant or aloof; I think it's just me noticing we aren't even really speaking the same language.

Gil - amen as regards the d20 stuff. I'd love to hear your thoughts, however, on what we were discussing a little before, regarding the value of verisimilitude. I certainly like the idea of being able to replicate the real experience of combat in my games, but how useful is that really, when we get to the nitty gritty of telling stories? When I watch Star Wars, I don't care that lightsabers are scientifically impossible. They're lightsabers, man.

I think this problem especially comes out when talking about rules for social interaction (how's that for making sure we don't jack this thread - I used the thread name, bitch! :P ). Just how verisimilar do I want this to be? To continue with my pulp example, mostly because this is the genre where verisimilitude is least useful, I don't want it to be "real" in terms of obeying the laws of gravity and such when playing that. If I'm the pilot with a girl in every city, I don't want that to be realistic. I want to walk into a bar and have a woman within five minutes, tops. I'm not going to argue pulp is a deep genre, but the fun of it is not depth in this instance, but exercising genre tropes.

That's another interesting question - how closely are depth and verisimilitude related?

Vox was awesome. I'm so sad it didn't last. I really need to get that email sent to you concerning testing your system, though I'm not sure when I'd actually get a chance to test it lol. But I definitely wanna look it over at least. I think we've actually talked about testing your system before... *face palm*

From the wikipedia: "The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory." Sounds like gamegrene to me lol. I think I prefer your use of the word consistency to verisimilitude - generally, verisimilitude supposes an attempt at replicating reality, which I don't think gaming is. Gaming is a construct meant to allow collaborative storytelling. It has elements of verisimilitude, especially modern or historical games, but it's not the important thing. I would say the concept is best defined as "consistency in verisimilarity." I could of just made up that last word, but it works. You have to choose what level of realism you're going for, and stick to that. A good example of failing this is the very popular Final Fantasy series, especially 7, which happens to be my favorite. It's a tired example, but all throughout the game you can use Pheonix Down to revive fallen friends. And then when the plot kills off a character, no amount of Pheonix Downs can save the day. Now I loved that game, but that's a pretty glaring problem.

It seems to me everything you're saying about D&D falls under the same problem. They aren't consistent about the verisimilitude. Thoughts?

I can agree with almost your entire list of contrivances, which is why I switched from d20 to True20 after reading the rules (which I was quite resistant to do at first...I didn't need to switch from one flawed system to another and didn't realize how profound the subtle differences were until I read it and then started using it. It's a very different feel and experience). The only ones on your list that remain are:

-Turns (which I've always handled in a more abstract way anyway, allowing for the fact that the Turn breaks it down into "who gets to talk now and describe their action first based on how fast they are" instead of "this is the order this happens in. I remove the "stand in a line and step forward to act" feel that Turns instill by assuming that it's all pretty much happening at once. What Turns accomplish, for us, is giving the advantage to those who chose to make faster characters. Myu players make extensive use of the Readied Action so they can make an "if/then" statement about how they react to the chaotic nature of frantic situations.)

-Feats (though all "class abilities" are now reduced to Feats as well by the removal of classes for the far simpler and more logical Roles of Warrior, Adept, Expert. Feats feel very different in True20 than in d20. Truly, many of them if not most are still combat related but a fair number of them allow for some very excellent character types not possible with d20. And the fact that you get one at every single level instead of every three makes it easier to shape your character to situations as they happen. Anything you can do with a Feat you can do without it...having the Feat just means you can do it second nature instead of having to put effort into preplanning and arranging for positive modifiers. It allows those without the Feat to exert the effort mentioned by others, and it provides those with the Feat the chance to shine in their chosen fields of expertise. I find it fairly representative of "real life" in that IU can write a contest winning story in 45 minutes while others might slave over it for a week. Essentially, I don't even make a Craft (story) roll; someone withouot the Feat I have in that regard has to spend time and effort in the form of rereading and editing to influece their "blind roll" to accomplish what to me is a simple task.)

-Stats (though they're broken down to simpler numbers; they're represented by the modifier so that 10-11 becomes 0, 12-13 becomes 1, etc. I find that Stats don't take away form the feel of things. Often I need to know who is smarter, who is stronger, and who is more socially imposing/inviting and Stats let me do this without splitting apart every hair...that's what Skills are for, and why Stats modify SKills.)

It allows more flexibility to make YOUR character instead of the character types that some designer imagined. The Expert for example; I've seen it used to make an amazing fencer (without the Fighter trappings that you don't need if this is your chosen style of fighting, nor the Rogue's murderer/thief abilities you just aren't going to use). It makes Feats work in a much more fluent way so they do what I think they were intended to do from the start. An Adept could be a scholar who knows the knacks of psychologically manipulating situations (thus recreating the "Enchanter" type wizard without all the arcane subtext; or he could be a raging cyclone of destruction who shoots lightning from his eyes and fire from his mouth if the player choses that. Neither has to bow to the implied setting of a designer, nor to the concessions and trappings of the whole "it's this kind of fantasy...no, it's that kind of fantasy" that the traditional d20 rules hoists upon the gaming group. What Feats do for Experts (or Warriors), Powers do for Adepts. Every level an Adept can take a Feat or a Power, whatever they want to do. Powers work like Skills in practice; there's a role to use them, allowing effort (and your chosen spellcasting stat) to influence the event instead of the fire-and-forget spell system of d20. Moreover you don't "forget" them once they're used...instead they have a fatigue system attached to some (though not all) of them. You could literally cast yourself to death if you wanted to (or had to). All the choice and freedom lies in the hands of the player instead of the GM.

So given all of that I can easily concede that there are absolutely rules sets that can influence tone and style of play more than I give them credit for; I just find that they influence the feel of the system more than the feel of the setting.

I realized when I was preparing for my current campaign I found myself working in an add-on set of rules for the trust of the town that is central to the action. It still boils down to the trust score summing up a set of fluid modifiers for social interactions etc...I just didn't really realize that I do in fact do this; that being using rules to enfluence tone. I just do it in a soft enough way that even I wasn't aware I do it. The modular nature of the rules I *do* use (those being a set of modifiers applied to one die roll) makes it easy to *not* see that I am in fact flexing and changeing them to affect tone. Which is how I like it...if it's invisible to me then I know it's invisible to the players. This is the crux of my "effect not method" stance. It's not important to examine the relationship between the two, it's more important instead to examine the fact that if the method is sound then it canishes and you can focus on what's truly important...the effect.

The "plot chip" is a perfect example of me inserting a rule (that isn't really a "rule" by strictest definition) to influence tone. I'll be going into detail on that in the next Sustained Storylines piece, but in brief it is a very small stack of red chips the players have (I freakin' LOVE poker chips) that PCs can use to insert their own bits into the plot or narrative without my prior knowledge or "approval". It allows them to twist and control the storyline in crunch-time situations...so far they use them most frequently in social interactions, not physical ones as I at first thought would be the case.

Screw it; as this is the Rules For Social Interaction thread, I'll give a bit more detail here.

I at first saw them being used by the players to do things like make sure a cab comes around the corner just when they need it to follow the badguys because their engine was tampered with and they failed their roll to fix it quickly and give chase. One newer player ot our group thought they meant he could toss one at me to insert a chandelier he could swing from; he quickly ofund out that if he wants to swing on a chandelier that there is a chandelier...if it's awesome, I say yes almost always. They're more for things like "ah crap, we're boned...{player tosses red chip at GM}...the city guard patrol comes to the end of the alley right NOW" or "Being a bit of rookie the acolyte of the Filth God forgot to refill his spell component pouch this morning".

They let the players take the reins of the story from me in a major way, though still a quantifiable one because they opnly have so many of these chips...one each for each session.

What they end up being used for is more like this "this particular NPC has no chance in this interaction because I was friends with his father and he grew up looking up to me...there's no way he'd even try to argue the point" or "I slept with this female NPC six months ago and she fell in love with me, I don't need to roll to seduce her this time". Those aren't examples that have come up in game...they're just hypotheticals.

What the players have ended up doing is using these little bits of major control they can exert almost like the automatica successes in investigative scenes in the GUMSHOE system (which we took for a test spin for a twisted bit of horror I ran for them during the summer).. We hated the rest of the system and found that what it gained in some areas wasn't enough to make up for what it lost in so many other areas. Still, there were tiny conventions that exist outside the crunchy bits of most rules systems that we hung onto because they resonated with us as storytellers. I mentioned earlier in the conversation that when I *do* come across elegant little bit of that or this that I will adopt them if I think they add something to the experience. While I don't feel they are necessary they can in fact add something...as long as they stay out of the way. I could remove them and stick to the stripped down version of True20 I use and the story wouldn't suffer; their absence wouldn't hurt anything or make the experience less enjoyable.

The craftiest use I've seen for the little red plot token so far was a player stating that an NPC was a long term choldhood friend they hadn't seen in years but was still on good terms with. It was supposed to be a difficult social interaction that slowed them down and challenged their verbal finesse (whether through roleplaying or rolling dice I didn't care); instead it was just them running inot an old friend. "Hey! Lorimer! I didn't know you worked at the hall of records...how's Suzi doing? You two have kids yet? SIX OF THEM! Man, you've been busy. Look...I know you aren't supposed to do this, but can we have a peak at the land titles for that old fort on the hill?"

When they started using them mainly in social situations I was a bit surprised, but in retrospect it casts something into focus...the fact that they seldom use them for what I originally intended, but instead use them to exert effort upon the plot when engaged in "social combat" illustrates that they find the rules handle those other situations just fine and they're perfectly comfortbale with letting preplanning and strategy to influence the modifiers on a random die roll control their success or failure; it's in the social situations that they'd rather NOT use the rules as they are and just roleplay through it...and when they can't for whatever reason they'd rather not roll the die, they instead just twist the plot to their advantage and achieve their success that way.

Of course, later when they wish they hadn't spent them all on manipulating the storyline at the hall of records so that they could use one of them to ice up the awning across the alley that the NPC thief who broke into their room while they slept is leaping to grab during his escape they inevitably say things like "I should have just made a Diplomacy roll on that guy! Now this jerk is getting away with our whatever!" But that's the nature of trying to strategically use limited resources....

One thing I will mention is the "rubber heroes" syndrome. I hate it too. This is why I'm all for the True20 system of damage. It doesn't care what level you are at all...if you fall off a cliff you will die. Plain and simple. A bear will probably kill your 18 level character if you don't act wisely and keep your distance. Your armor doesn't make it harder to hit you, it makes it easier for you to pass your Toughness saving throw...but a bear is really strong. There's no amount of metal you could reasonably clad yourself in that is going to tip the scale in your favor if you are dumb enough to engage in close quarters hand fighting with a bear. Likewise for social interaction; you would have to be well trained ( a choice you would make not just at the start, but as your character develops; thus representing the effort of training and life focus) or very well prepared (another choice you would make by getting ready for the encounter prior to the encounter by digging up dirt, doing your research, whatever; thus representing the effort of legwork to influence a situation) to pull one over on the town counsellor...that type of encounter, after all, is what he does *for a living*.

Like the bear, he's going to be very very good at it.

"That's what I've been trying to say all along. And I'm not going to be humble about it either - that's what I've BEEN saying all along. "

-Just let it go friend.

"Can they stack up on plot chips? Like if I don't use it this session I get to keep it?"

-Absolutely not. They each get one chance each session to introduce their own twist outside of what players are normally able to add narrative-wise. I don't have players that would *intentionally* abuse that if they *could* stack them up over time...but a loaded gun is a loaded gun, especially if it's cocked and the safety is off. And with the plot chips the safety is most certainly off.

I came up with it on my own. Perhaps somewhere in one of the thousands of roleplaying games I ahven't read it exists in some form or other but I've never seen it.

At some point in the past we had a couple of new players in our group. To encourage them to act outside of the list of actions they perceived the game "allowed" them, I introduced a little stack of blue chips for each player each session. When someone did something truly awesome the other players were allowed to reward that awesome idea with a blue chip that represented 50 XP (we were still using the basic d20 ruels at the time). It worked marvelously. Whne you do something really cool and the other four players all toss you a chip it just plain feels good. 200 XP is a drop in the bucket, but even that small motivator got the new players thinking the way the rest of the group did. When I transitioned ot True20 after finally reading it and going "Oh! It's d20, but good..." I had no way to use the blue chips because there are no experience points in True20...but the players had fallen madly in love with them.

I decided to use them instead to let players provide themselves bonuses to their rolls...the blue chips now represented a +2 of extra effort. Spend them over time, spend them all at once...not up to me, do what thou wilt.

When I began the short little horror campaign (and it was *truly* horrific...not just pulpy "horror") I saw the immense potential for imminent and sudden grisly death around every corner and turn; it was just a little summer campaign for those not taking a couple months off to camp and such and so I didn't see the need to kill them all the time; I wanted the same characters to live thorugh the ordeal. Initially I thought it would just allow us to start playing right away without taking the time to develop fully the characters' attachments to the world...a way for them to, on the fly, decide one thing each session they could control that I could not and through that tell abit of the story about their characters in a way that helped them right at that moment. Also, I wanted to put into their hands the ability to save their own asses when they were in too deep. I let them keep the blue chips but reduced them from 5 to 3 per session, and introduced the single red token as well. The very first one used was for a cab at a desperate moment. Some blackmetal groupies (oh no! a coven of wannabe satanists in over their head with the BBEG!) were leaving a concert in a crappy little dive bar and the PCs had arrived on a bus. How to keep up with the van full of dyed black misfits? My girlfriend plunks her red chip on the table and says "a cab comes around the corner right now...like, RIGHT NOW".

Leon, the cab driver, became a major major NPC in the campaign due to what he saw that night when they asked him to wait on the curb outside the house they trailed the witches to. Had it not been for the red chip there would have been no Leon, no conspiracy of cab drivers against him, no bailing him out of jail when he attacked another cabbie at a hospital while he waited for the PCs in the parking lot, no arguement on the stoop of his little ghetto crib with his wife and sister that prompted one PC to let him stay at their house, and ultimately no driving gunfight with government agents on the freeway leading to Leon crashing his car into a burger joint. Yes yes...I did the rest of it...but he wouldn't have even entered my mind had it not been for that one use of a red chip in the first session.

After that first session...the players were sold. I've never ever seen a group feel like they had so much control over their fate as I have every session in any short or long campaign since. I'll cover this in more detail later, but for anyone that wants to use this sort of thing right away I'll say this; you can do what you want, but I explain it to players like so:

"With this chip...you get one every session and if you don't use it you can't keep it for next time SO USE IT...you get to insert plot points. You cannot use it to tell me the NPC drops dead or to make his gun misfire; but you *can* have a fly land on the sniper's nose at the critical moment so his bullet wings the president instead of blowing his head off, or to dealy the president taking the podium because he gets a call that his child has been in a car accident. You can't make an NPC just drop his sword...but you *can* make his hand slippery on his sword hilt because you remind him of his fater who used to beat him. You could put him off his game today because his mother died last night. Automatic success at picking a pocket? No. A drop dead gorgeous woman walks by right when you need a distraction to pick that pocket? Yes. Guard doesn't see you? No. Guard has narcolepsy and is asleep? Yes. Basically...it has to be a plot point that gives you an advantage, not just an advantage with no real reason. If you can't flesh it out, *I* have to be able to flesh it out. It has to mean something."

Inevitably they ask a lot of questions the first few times they want to use it. It's really up to GM if the answer is "yes" or not. But the saftey truly is off...prepare to hand over a large chunk of what goes on in your setting. It's fun though; when I plan for it to be raining because it makes something harder and they tell me it clears up it's really cool. As GMs we twist the plot all the time to see them react to it...it's fun to feel that same unpredictability, albeit in small and controlled doses. Moreover it empowers the players to take part in shaping not just an encounter...but the world itself.

Leon is proof of that.

"I could do as most of you guys say and simply give her a bunch of bonuses and have her roll. But why? Why cheapen her gaming experience?"

-I'm confused now. I don't know where anyone said "just give them some bonuses". Each of us is searching here for the way to do the *opposite* of cheapening the experience; six blind men describing an elephant as it were. I agreee with everything you're saying; I just don't understand how it's any different really form what everyone else is saying.

"Social combat adds a whole new layer of story to the game that I really love. Try it, you might like it."

-I think we all have in our own way, and do.