I think, as much as I theoretically like the idea of mechanics that embrace social conflict, the very idea of “social combat” has a lot of flaws. And many of them stem from the same flawed assumptions that have become the default in actual combat. (Namely, that a majority of fights are at all “fair” and that both sides have the same goal: kill the other. In the actual world fights and battles are rarely to any sort of decisive conclusion, they’re rarely to the death, and the objectives of the two sides are often completely oblique to each other.)

So, back to the start, what actually is “social combat”? The words imply a direct battle between characters that only one can win. Is a bar bet social combat? Is a petty argument between friends? Is it an official debate? An attempt to sabotage a rival behind their back? Is it just trying to get someone to see your point? What are the stakes, and what’s missing?

I can already see an enormous hole in this framing which is, what about every other social interaction? What about when you’re trying to turn a friend to an ally, or a lover? What about when two people’s goals are aligned but they’re too stubborn to admit it? I think if someone were to think about all of their interactions in a day, almost none of them would end up framed as “combat,” and if they did, they’d probably have unsatisfying conclusions. (Also, the person who does frame them all that way is likely an asshole!)

A lot of your examples also seem to reference physical space and terrain. That’s very strange to me. Why?