Verbal Combat

"Lance Berg" <emporer.RemoveThis@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:uoqdnZcONKdXQRPZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@dejazzd.com...
> More thinking on the whole "Babel II" idea; I remember reading some rules,
> ages ago, for a game which used similar mechanics for both melee combat
> and a form of verbal combat.

Heh. D&D, Judges Guild version. Offensive Locution. pp 14. Ready Ref Sheets.
circa 1978.

Re,
Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat 

Lance Berg wrote:
>
> The whole "and you use the same system" to settle a battle of wits angle
> stuck in my mind as much as anything else though.

Torg/Masterbook has something slightly similar. There are certain
skills (Taunt, Test (of Wills), Trick, Intimidation) that can be used
as a combat action, in most cases resisted by the Willpower skill or
Mind attribute. The degree of success determines how hampered your
opponent is.

Brandon
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat 

Lance Berg wrote:
> More thinking on the whole "Babel II" idea; I remember reading some
> rules, ages ago, for a game which used similar mechanics for both melee
> combat and a form of verbal combat.
>
> You know, rapier sharp wit, ripostes and parries and so on and so forth.
>
> Haven't put much thought into this yet, and I don't remember much about
> it, but I wonder if it might be possible to adapt the GURPs combat
> mechanics in a similar way to make a system for dealing with arguements
> and debates and other disagreements... or perhaps even for more ordinary
> forms of communication; plays, poems, song lyrics (and even musically,
> songs, dance, etc.), and also to linguistic translation problems (see, I
> started to drift off topic but managed to pull back into the main stream
> of thought!)

One actual problem (as opposed to bunches of non-problems which a lot of
people get all fired up about) with mechanics for verbal combat is that
it is often extremely unclear which real world-phenomenon it is that
"verbal combat hit points" represent.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat 

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:47:43 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter DeleteThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>Lance Berg wrote:
>> More thinking on the whole "Babel II" idea; I remember reading some
>> rules, ages ago, for a game which used similar mechanics for both melee
>> combat and a form of verbal combat.
>>
>> You know, rapier sharp wit, ripostes and parries and so on and so forth.
>>
>> Haven't put much thought into this yet, and I don't remember much about
>> it, but I wonder if it might be possible to adapt the GURPs combat
>> mechanics in a similar way to make a system for dealing with arguements
>> and debates and other disagreements... or perhaps even for more ordinary
>> forms of communication; plays, poems, song lyrics (and even musically,
>> songs, dance, etc.), and also to linguistic translation problems (see, I
>> started to drift off topic but managed to pull back into the main stream
>> of thought!)
>
>One actual problem (as opposed to bunches of non-problems which a lot of
>people get all fired up about) with mechanics for verbal combat is that
>it is often extremely unclear which real world-phenomenon it is that
>"verbal combat hit points" represent.

When your willpower hits 0 the other person wins.

Not an idea that would ever catch on generally.
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat 

Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:

> Lance Berg wrote:
>
>> More thinking on the whole "Babel II" idea; I remember reading some
>> rules, ages ago, for a game which used similar mechanics for both
>> melee combat and a form of verbal combat.
>>
>> You know, rapier sharp wit, ripostes and parries and so on and so forth.
>>
>> Haven't put much thought into this yet, and I don't remember much
>> about it, but I wonder if it might be possible to adapt the GURPs
>> combat mechanics in a similar way to make a system for dealing with
>> arguements and debates and other disagreements... or perhaps even for
>> more ordinary forms of communication; plays, poems, song lyrics (and
>> even musically, songs, dance, etc.), and also to linguistic
>> translation problems (see, I started to drift off topic but managed to
>> pull back into the main stream of thought!)
>
>
> One actual problem (as opposed to bunches of non-problems which a lot of
> people get all fired up about) with mechanics for verbal combat is that
> it is often extremely unclear which real world-phenomenon it is that
> "verbal combat hit points" represent.
>
Of course, much the same could be said of regular hit points.

In real combat (OK, in hard contact Tae Kwan Do sparring, which is as
close to real as I've gotten) I can take dozens upon dozens of light
hits, or even medium, bruising hits. On the other hand, I can be
disabled with only one or two real blows; most combat seems to be a
matter of trying to get the job done, of disabling limbs which reduces
options, and of worrying, not about accumulating damage, but of running
out of steam. If you take a good hit and manage to keep going, usually
it wears off pretty fast.

Does verbal combat work the same way? Isn't there a difference between
debate and "the dozens", or even than argument? And how about flirting?

I like the suggesting someone made of somehow relating hits to
willpower, so that you just gradually can't keep resisting the other
person. Not a bad parallel to hit points, if hit points are valid in
the first place.

Lance
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat 

David Johnston wrote:
> <peter DeleteThis @sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>One actual problem (as opposed to bunches of non-problems which a lot of
>>people get all fired up about) with mechanics for verbal combat is that
>>it is often extremely unclear which real world-phenomenon it is that
>>"verbal combat hit points" represent.
>
> When your willpower hits 0 the other person wins.

But *which* real-world phenomen is being simulated by a willpower
dropping to zero? I'm extremely *not* sure about the answer to that
question, and I suspect that neither are you.

> Not an idea that would ever catch on generally.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat 

Lance Berg wrote:
> Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
>> One actual problem (as opposed to bunches of non-problems which a lot
>> of people get all fired up about) with mechanics for verbal combat is
>> that it is often extremely unclear which real world-phenomenon it is
>> that "verbal combat hit points" represent.
>>
> Of course, much the same could be said of regular hit points.

Um, no. Outside of D&d-land, hitpoint loss represents actual physical
injury. It's that simple. Whereas verbal combat "damage" is *not*
simple. Kindly point to the real-world phenomenon which you intend
verbal combat damage to represent.

> In real combat (OK, in hard contact Tae Kwan Do sparring, which is as
> close to real as I've gotten) I can take dozens upon dozens of light
> hits, or even medium, bruising hits. On the other hand, I can be
> disabled with only one or two real blows; most combat seems to be a
> matter of trying to get the job done, of disabling limbs which reduces
> options, and of worrying, not about accumulating damage, but of running
> out of steam. If you take a good hit and manage to keep going, usually
> it wears off pretty fast.
>
> Does verbal combat work the same way? Isn't there a difference between
> debate and "the dozens", or even than argument? And how about flirting?

Also what about attacks that are not directed at the person at all, but
at the person's reputation, slash public image.

> I like the suggesting someone made of somehow relating hits to
> willpower, so that you just gradually can't keep resisting the other
> person. Not a bad parallel to hit points, if hit points are valid in
> the first place.

I think that if you want to go that route, you should increase the
numbers (so that you're not working with a 10-is-average scale) and
allow characters to have DR vs specific kinds of verbal injury.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat 

On 14 Jun 2006 22:02:54 -0700, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Lance Berg wrote:
>>
>> The whole "and you use the same system" to settle a battle of wits angle
>> stuck in my mind as much as anything else though.
>
>Torg/Masterbook has something slightly similar. There are certain
>skills (Taunt, Test (of Wills), Trick, Intimidation) that can be used
>as a combat action, in most cases resisted by the Willpower skill or
>Mind attribute. The degree of success determines how hampered your
>opponent is.
>
>Brandon


the most ancient verbal combat skill i can think of is from a game
called the aecheron game system and it goes back to the 80's. they
had a skill called foul mouth speech which could literally flatten
your foe if you were good enough. i actually managed to emit a brief
speech so incalculably foul the knight charging my archer fell off his
horse and then broke his neck hitting the ground. i've always been
strangely proud of that feat
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat 

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:55:05 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter.DeleteThis@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> <peter.DeleteThis@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>One actual problem (as opposed to bunches of non-problems which a lot of
>>>people get all fired up about) with mechanics for verbal combat is that
>>>it is often extremely unclear which real world-phenomenon it is that
>>>"verbal combat hit points" represent.
>>
>> When your willpower hits 0 the other person wins.
>
>But *which* real-world phenomen is being simulated by a willpower
>dropping to zero? I'm extremely *not* sure about the answer to that
>question, and I suspect that neither are you.
>
>> Not an idea that would ever catch on generally.


i would think that usenet would provide no shortage of examples of
people with infinite numbers of verbal hit points. you can score
points on some folks all the day long and they will never even
understand just how witty you are.
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat 

Lance Berg wrote:
> Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
>
> > Lance Berg wrote:
> >
> >> More thinking on the whole "Babel II" idea; I remember reading some
> >> rules, ages ago, for a game which used similar mechanics for both
> >> melee combat and a form of verbal combat.
> >>
> >> You know, rapier sharp wit, ripostes and parries and so on and so forth.
> >>
> >> Haven't put much thought into this yet, and I don't remember much
> >> about it, but I wonder if it might be possible to adapt the GURPs
> >> combat mechanics in a similar way to make a system for dealing with
> >> arguements and debates and other disagreements... or perhaps even for
> >> more ordinary forms of communication; plays, poems, song lyrics (and
> >> even musically, songs, dance, etc.), and also to linguistic
> >> translation problems (see, I started to drift off topic but managed to
> >> pull back into the main stream of thought!)
> >
> >
> > One actual problem (as opposed to bunches of non-problems which a lot of
> > people get all fired up about) with mechanics for verbal combat is that
> > it is often extremely unclear which real world-phenomenon it is that
> > "verbal combat hit points" represent.
> >
> Of course, much the same could be said of regular hit points.
>
> In real combat (OK, in hard contact Tae Kwan Do sparring, which is as
> close to real as I've gotten) I can take dozens upon dozens of light
> hits, or even medium, bruising hits. On the other hand, I can be
> disabled with only one or two real blows; most combat seems to be a
> matter of trying to get the job done, of disabling limbs which reduces
> options, and of worrying, not about accumulating damage, but of running
> out of steam. If you take a good hit and manage to keep going, usually
> it wears off pretty fast.
>
> Does verbal combat work the same way? Isn't there a difference between
> debate and "the dozens", or even than argument? And how about flirting?
>
> I like the suggesting someone made of somehow relating hits to
> willpower, so that you just gradually can't keep resisting the other
> person. Not a bad parallel to hit points, if hit points are valid in
> the first place.
>
> Lance

I think I would probably go with IQ, with "hit points" representing the
number of arguments or angles you can come up with in a short time
period to debate with. When they're exhausted, your done.

Actually, I wouldn't go with IQ, I believe social situations should be
role played and not diced. It usually causes a lively argument when I
say that, but hey, it's been quiet around here.
 >> Stay informed about: Verbal Combat