Social Interaction in GURPS Fourth Edition

(All page numbers refer to GURPS Fourth Edition Basic Set: Campaigns.)

In a social conflict, you have two sides: the predator and prey (to use Spycraft terminology). The rules build off of the Influence Rolls rules (p. 359) and Reaction Rolls (p. 494).

Phase 1: Initiating a Social Conflict

At the start of the conflict, the predator determines the stakes of the social conflict, from the point of view of the prey. In the example from last issue, where the PC was trying to get the guard to let him in, the stakes would be: "Does the guard let me in without a badge?" (I phrase my stakes as questions, thanks to the influence of Dogs in the Vineyard, but you could also phrase it as a statement.)

Second, determine the prey's Reaction to the predator. If the reaction is enough convince the prey to do what the predator wants, there is no Conflict. For each category below what the predator needs, he has a -1 penalty to all social attack rolls. If the prey's Reaction changes in the middle of the Conflict, adjust the penalty.

Both participants have a number of Resolve Points equal to their Will. Resolve Points are much like Hit Points for social situations - they are removed or regained during a social conflict similar to how HP can fluctuate in a physical combat.

Finally, set up the scene and initial situation. Essentially, the GM describes the scene and participants right up to the moment one of the characters starts to talk or do something, just like in any other role-playing driven scene.

This should only be done if a real back-and-forth is likely to happen. If you're attempting to seduce someone, setting up a conflict will be equally pointless if they're a eunuch or if they're lecherous and without a reason to resist. Similarly, if the scene is meant to be glossed over, a simple Influence Roll (or, better yet -- at least in my opinion -- the GM just saying 'yes') is enough to continue. However, if the person you're trying to seduce has been ordered to protect the missile silo, but wants to take you up on your offer, then there's a conflict!

Phase 2: Conflict!

A Social Conflict is handled by a number of attacks against the prey's better judgment or reason to deny the predator. If time matters (such as a race against the clock or while combat is occurring elsewhere), each attack takes a number of rounds, based on the skill used.

There are several Influence skills that can be used against someone during a Social Conflict attack: Diplomacy, Fast-Talk, Intimidation, Savoir-Faire, Sex Appeal, or Streetwise. In certain situations, the GM may allow other skills to work as Influence skills, as per Influence Rolls on p.359. Normally, the predator will be using this, but there are occasions when the prey is able to aggressively fight back, in which case the roles reverse, at least temporarily.

The prey makes a roll against half his Will (dropping all fractions) + 3. If the prey has the same skill the predator is using, he can substitute it for Will (e.g. half of Sex Appeal + 3). Finally, if the prey has a relevant disadvantage with a self-control number, his defense cannot be higher than. For example, someone with Lecherousness (12) cannot have a defense higher than 12 against someone using Sex Appeal.

Depending on the situation, the predator and prey may try to use Psychology (subject to GM discretion) to boost their roll. Roll against Psychology before the attack or defense roll. If it succeeds, you get +2 to your roll; otherwise, you get -2.

The predator and prey treat the contest as a Quick Contest Resistance Roll (p. 348). If a participant is using Diplomacy, they may roll twice and use the best roll, reflecting the relative safety of Diplomacy. This only applies to the Diplomacy roll or Diplomacy-based defense, not the optional Psychology roll.

If the predator succeeds, he rolls and applies Impact - the Social Conflict equivalent of damage. Subtract Impact from the prey's Resolve Points. If he critically succeeds or the prey critically fails, double the Impact. On the other hand, if the prey critically succeeds or the predator critically fails, the prey rolls Impact and recovers that amount. Any recovery beyond his maximum Resolve Points (equal to Will) applies the remainder as Impact against the attacker.

Particularly clever ideas from the players may give a +1 bonus to Impact, or +2 for particularly entertaining or provoking ideas. (Yes, this is a blatant attempt to encourage and reward role-playing.)

Phase 3: Concluding Conflict

Prey reaches 0 Resolve Points: If the prey reaches 0 Resolve or less, his Reaction to the predator increases by one category (i.e. neutral to good). The predator may "push his luck" and continue, causing an additional Reaction increase for each full increment of the prey's Will his Resolve is reduced to (i.e. at -Will, -2xWill, etc.) However, should the prey recover enough Resolve to undo a Reaction increase, his reaction will decrease by two levels rather than just one, and may cause the conflict to stop altogether.

Predator reaches 0 Resolve Points: The Social Conflict is over should the predator reach 0 Resolve or less. Depending on the situation, the prey may keep his current Reaction or revert to his previous Reaction or worse.

Distraction: Should an event break the mood by causing the prey to react to something external to the conflict (such as an alarm or a gun fight), the Social Conflict may be over. Depending on the situation, the prey may keep his current Reaction or revert to his previous Reaction or worse. The predator may attempt a Fast-Talk roll to keep the prey from turning his attention elsewhere, using the difference in Reaction penalty and any other penalty for the situation, as the GM sees fit.

Any time: At any time, the predator can stop the Social Conflict, leaving the prey with the new Reaction temporarily. If this is enough to achieve what's at stake, the predator succeeds. In any case, the new Reaction (positive or negative) is temporary - though it may become permanent if the prey is inclined and is not given a reason to change his new opinion.

Return to the article