Skills Issues

[Lucius]

Do I think it is FAIR? No. But I do not think it unfair because the MECHANICS are unfair. I think it is unfair because giving the merchant a trading skill that the character cannot hope to resist is unfair. Let me posit a different scenario.


Then let me posit a different scenario.

Is it fair if a merchant with Trading <=13 sells your character a sword that was neither wanted, nor needed, nor fairly priced, just becuause the merchant walked up to you on the street and got a good roll?

You are saying that what is wrong with the situation is the overwhelming skill roll of the merchant character. That is not what is wrong. What is wrong is the idea that any character walking around minding their own business, with no intention of buying a sword, can be made to buy one anyway because of someone else's skill roll.

Now, if the character walks up to the merchant and asks about the price of swords and starts haggling, THEN you have a situation where Trading skill can come into play - possibly to the customer's cost (literally.)




Assume a Standard Supers game, 12DC maximum attacks, 25 maximum defenses.

I've already explained why physical combat is not the same as "social combat" so all of this is irrelevant.



If I write up my SuperPersuasion power as Mind Control, or Long Term Mental Transform, and it causes the character to think it was his own idea, and I define the SFX as "It really IS the character's idea." then it IS EXACTLY THE SAME as "It really IS the character's idea." That is the specific effect I am modelling with the power.

What gives you the right to decide otherwise?

Who's designing this character?


If you write up a Mind Control or even a Mental Transform power for your character, then you are designing your character.

But when you say

"It really IS the character's idea." (That is, the victim's idea)

Then what makes you think you are "designing YOUR character" and how can you say that what you're doing is not, rather, "playing MY character?"

In any case, if such a thing is to be permitted at all, you are at least going about it in the right way - that is definitely a Power, not a Skill.

Mental Transform is also a Power that's already in the game, so if that's the effect desired, I fail to see the need for adding more rules.

And finally:



What gives you the right to decide otherwise?


The fact that it's my character gives me the right to determine what the character decides. Not even Psych Lims are an exception to that - a Psych Lim is just a choice I've already made and committed the character to. The fact that it's not your character means you don't have that right.

It's simple, really, and it's fundamental.

In fact, thanks for asking the question.

Lucius Alexander

And this is my palindromedary. It's not your palindromedary, it's not the Supreme Court's palindromedary, it's not Steve Long's palindromedary....it's currently paraphrasing Gary Trudeau's Doonesbury but it's not HIS palindromedary either!

[nexus]

Who would object to a social interaction system sourcebook?

[Lucius]

So is the very idea of developed Social mechanics so deplorable that it cannot be allowed to exist even in a sourcebook?

That depends.

What I've said is:

1. A player's character belongs to that player, and the player makes choices for that character.

2. A Skill should have a chance of working when it is reasonable and appropriate for it to work, and not otherwise. I also acknowledge that there are going to be different opinions on what constitutes "reasonable and appropriate." It is even reasonable and appropriate that such differences of opinion exist.

3. A Skill is not the same as a Power. Stealth is not Invisibility, Persuasion is not Mind Control. I'll admit there IS a lot of overlap and this distinction can be fuzzy, and it's nowhere near as clear and important as the first point I raise above, but I DID say it.


Now, you tell me: Does that add up to "developed social mechanics are deplorable?" If so, then so be it. If not, then all I've done is set out some parameters of what such a system should NOT be.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is chewing it over.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Other Player: Your character gives my character all of his money.
You: What? No!
Other Player: {Rolls} Yes, he does, I made my Persuation Roll by 20! Cough it up. Oh, and also your hawt DNPC wife as well. {Rolls} 22! :ugly:
Other Player: My character kills your character and takes all his money.
You: What? No!
Other Player: {Rolls} Yes, he does, I hit your character for 30 BODY and 70 STUN against rPD. Oh, and I also grab your hawt DNPC wife and drag her away to my bedroom.

The problem here is an abusive player, not the system.


One of the problems I have with a Social Combat type of system (as I see it) is that if I don't specify every single aspect of a character's psyche beforehand on the character sheet, I become unable to decide upon a new facet if that decision would be an impediment to someone else's Skill Roll.
I adressed that problem a few pages back. My suggestion is to replace Psych Lims with a list of Values and Beliefs, which don't cost any character points. Instead, you pay a hero point whenever you want to use a Value/Belief to your character's advantage ("He has taken a vow of chastity, so he resists her advances"), but in return get a hero point whenever the Value/Belef works against the character ("He is a lecher and easily gives in to her feeble attemt of seduction").

Since Values/Beliefs don't cost character points, you can add them at any time, perhaps at the cost of an extra hero point. Perhaps characters can be allowed to play against their Values/Beliefs at a cost of a few hero points and starting the next session without any.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Is it fair if a merchant with Trading <=13 sells your character a sword that was neither wanted, nor needed, nor fairly priced, just becuause the merchant walked up to you on the street and got a good roll?

You are saying that what is wrong with the situation is the overwhelming skill roll of the merchant character. That is not what is wrong. What is wrong is the idea that any character walking around minding their own business, with no intention of buying a sword, can be made to buy one anyway because of someone else's skill roll.
Have you ever been to a market in the Middle East or North Africa? The traders there will walk up to you, offering rugs, brass coffee pots, etc., and they can be very persuasive. They rarely come right out and ask you to buy, but rather invite you in for tea and cake and then slowly build their sales talk. That's what good trading skills are about.

I'm also reminded of a scene from Asprin's Another Fine Myth. The demon Aahz convinces Quigley the demon hunter that he's really a human under a curse and then persuades him to buy a cheap sword with fake jewels for all he's got, including an excellent sword.

- Klaus

[nexus]

If social interaction systems with mechanical weight and accountability are so innately wrong why are the systems that include them played (some are fairly popular)? The players go into them expecting it and that sometimes their characters behavioral options will be limited or guided (or perhaps pay a penalty for doing as the player wishes instead). They find the an enjoyable part of the game.

Answer: there's nothing innately wrong with the idea, there's nothing wrong with not liking it either. Social Interaction mechanics are not to everyone's tastes but then again nothing is, some people find in depth tactical combat a turn off after all So ideally Hero System would offer an optional system or even systems (there have been multiple styles suggested) for social interaction as an expansions. If a certain GM or group doesn't want to use them, they simply don't have too. Another group that might be avoiding Hero System because they think it's "hack and slash" might find it a draw.*

It doesn't have to be: My way or the highway.

Hero System is about options and creating what you want. At least my ideal for it.

*The only real reason for including it in the core would be cash in on this possibility but that should be weighed against the fact that things in the core have somewhat more "weight" as far as being official.

[Hugh Neilson]

Persuation is limited by the fact that it is an interaction abiltiy, not a command ability. Attempting to use it does not compel the other person into interacting with you. A command ability (like Mind Control) would. Otherwise, I'd probably have already bought everything on QVC and converted to every religion on Earth. :rolleyes:

You need two things for Persuasion to work, the ability to interact and the skill itself. To the level of skill, I suggest that NO ONE in the real world has a Persuasion skill high enough to quickly and easily convert a typical person to a new religion. Some are definitely more persuasive than others, though. And some people are naturally more resistant to persuasion.

The ability to interact, however, is not synonymous with the target's willingness to listen and consider your position carefully. You can avoid interacting if you stay home, don't answer your phone and don't read your mail. It is not necessary that the target already be willing to undertake the action you are trying to motivate with your interaction skill. The chick at the fast food restaurant doesn't talk you out of buying lunch by failing a persuasion roll. She might talk your order up above what you planned on ordering if she has a good persuasion skill (leaving you tossing away food thinking "I know I can't eat that much - how did she talk me into Supersizing that Flabby Meal?").


Those are inanimate objects, not complex, self-willed characters.

Those skills are intended for use against inanimate objects. They work on nothing else. Interaction skills are intended for use against complex, self-willed characters. They work on nothing else. By the interpretation that a 29- interaction skill can never lead someone to do something they weren't going to do anyway, we make them work on nothing whatsoever. If that is the objective, they should simply be removed from the game, not left in for the unwary player who has visions of a suave character who can solve problems by talking, rather than fighting, to invest points in only to be told "sorry; those only work if the target wants them to work; only violence is a reliable solution".


Other Player: Your character gives my character all of his money.
You: What? No!
Other Player: {Rolls} Yes, he does, I made my Persuation Roll by 20! Cough it up. Oh, and also your hawt DNPC wife as well. {Rolls} 22! :ugly:


Other Player: My character kills your character and takes all his money.
You: What? No!
Other Player: {Rolls} Yes, he does, I hit your character for 30 BODY and 70 STUN against rPD. Oh, and I also grab your hawt DNPC wife and drag her away to my bedroom.

The problem here is an abusive player, not the system.

Klaus beat me to it.

To compare the two, one character spend 75 points on a suite of interaction skills, a high PRE and a number of skill levels with interaction skills. The second spent the same 75 points on a suite of combat skills and abilities. The second gets abilities that function reliably. The first gets abilities that are arbitrarily shut down. CONCLUSION: Only spend points on combat abilities as non-violent solutions will only be permitted to work when it's not important anyway. Violence will always work.

What a very heroic gaming experience!


I adressed that problem a few pages back. My suggestion is to replace Psych Lims with a list of Values and Beliefs, which don't cost any character points. Instead, you pay a hero point whenever you want to use a Value/Belief to your character's advantage ("He has taken a vow of chastity, so he resists her advances"), but in return get a hero point whenever the Value/Belef works against the character ("He is a lecher and easily gives in to her feeble attemt of seduction").

Returning to the current system, but that Vow of Chastity, the hypothetical Paladin saved a bunch of points limiting his powers, then got more points for the disadvantages. What gives him the right to whine when these limitations actually become relevant in the game? Aren't limitations SUPPOSED TO limit the powers? Maybe our strong-willed Paladin needs to invest some points in his strength of will instead of some more combat levels!


One of the problems I have with a Social Combat type of system (as I see it) is that if I don't specify every single aspect of a character's psyche beforehand on the character sheet, I become unable to decide upon a new facet if that decision would be an impediment to someone else's Skill Roll.

I am not the kind of person to build an entire PC psyche before any play has happened. I'd give such a game system a try, but more than a couple "gotchas!" and I'd very likely quit not just the game, but the game system as well.

This needs to be balanced against the abuse that the character **just happpens** to develop a new facet to his character that prevents the success of the interaction just begun. Facets that mysteriously disappear or become less pronounced when they become less advantageous.

Adding a new personality trait when it becomes convenient seems about as appropriate as adding an item to the character's equipment list because "of course, he would have one of these".


Then let me posit a different scenario.

Is it fair if a merchant with Trading <=13 sells your character a sword that was neither wanted, nor needed, nor fairly priced, just because the merchant walked up to you on the street and got a good roll?

Let's see..."Target doesn't want or need what you're selling" - let's call that -5, since it makes salesmanship difficult. "Unreasonable Price" - we'll call that -1 for every 10% over what it's really worth (or +1 for every 10% discounted), so let's say -5 again since it's a really bad price. So far, he needs a 3.

Now, he walked up on the street, so he's in an inappropriate venue - call that -3 (lack of proper tools), and he's trying to make the sale happen fast, taking a turn rather than 5 minutes, so that's 2 steps down the time chart. Call that another -4, so he needs a negative four?

Sorry, if you need a negative four, I'm calling that automatic failure.

Now, if he had a 29-, he could succeed on a 12 or less. Barring other modifiers.

Maybe my character doesn't care much about money, but values his time, so he pays for the stupid sword just to make the trader go away (or at least the merchant gets a positive modifier). But if he's a miser, or a pacifist, that would impose penalties.

And don't beggars persuade people out of their money for nothing but a good feeling in return? They tend to accost the donor, not wait for donors to come to them, too.


You are saying that what is wrong with the situation is the overwhelming skill roll of the merchant character. That is not what is wrong. What is wrong is the idea that any character walking around minding their own business, with no intention of buying a sword, can be made to buy one anyway because of someone else's skill roll.

What is wrong is the failure to consider modifiers, which would ensure that a reasonable skill roll would not have unreasonable results, or permitting an unreasonable skill roll.


Have you ever been to a market in the Middle East or North Africa? The traders there will walk up to you, offering rugs, brass coffee pots, etc., and they can be very persuasive. They rarely come right out and ask you to buy, but rather invite you in for tea and cake and then slowly build their sales talk. That's what good trading skills are about.

I'm also reminded of a scene from Asprin's Another Fine Myth. The demon Aahz convinces Quigley the demon hunter that he's really a human under a curse and then persuades him to buy a cheap sword with fake jewels for all he's got, including an excellent sword.

There you have both a real world and a source material example of interaction skills working on someone who has no intention of allowing them to affect him.


I've already explained why physical combat is not the same as "social combat" so all of this is irrelevant.

So, in your view, it is acceptable for the physical combat rules to be used to overwhelm the PC's, and I extrapolate from your comments below that using Mind Control or Transform to do the same thing using "persuasion" is OK, but it is a heinous crime to do exactly the same thing using an interaction skill.

I disagree. The problem is not which mechanics are used. The problem is that the mechanics are being abused to run roughshod over the players, and to make the game "no fun".


If you write up a Mind Control or even a Mental Transform power for your character, then you are designing your character.

But NOT if I buy a skill to very high rolls, apparently.


But when you say

"It really IS the character's idea." (That is, the victim's idea)

Then what makes you think you are "designing YOUR character" and how can you say that what you're doing is not, rather, "playing MY character?"

I am designing the ability my character possesses. He has the ability to cause you to make the decisions he wants - he brings you around to his way of thinking. That is the power. My character doesn't even know he's doing it - people just naturally agree with him, and do as he wishes.


In any case, if such a thing is to be permitted at all, you are at least going about it in the right way - that is definitely a Power, not a Skill.

Why would the mechanic matter? It is the result which is important. Will your players walk away from the table because their innocent character with a vow of chastity is persuaded by a skill roll to engage in sexual activities with a goat while being filmed for posterity, but be fine with the exact same result if it was achieved by Mind Control or Transform and congratulate you on a great game? The RESULT is important. The specific MECHANIC is not.


The fact that it's my character gives me the right to determine what the character decides. Not even Psych Lims are an exception to that - a Psych Lim is just a choice I've already made and committed the character to. The fact that it's not your character means you don't have that right.

So your right to decide what your character thinks trumps my right to define my character's abilities. If the right to make decisions for the character always falls exclusively to that character's player, then interaction skills should be eliminated. So should PRE attacks - how dare you suggest my character is scared. Nothing scares my brave, bold character. It is my right to decide how he feels, and he NEVER feels scared. So let's remove PRE attacks as well. May as well ditch PRE and COM entirely, since they should not actually have an effect.

But, of course, it's all right to achieve EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT as long as you buy it as a power instead of a skill or a characteristic. So let's move PRE and all the Interaction skills to the Powers section and now everybody can be happy :nonp:


That depends.

What I've said is:

1. A player's character belongs to that player, and the player makes choices for that character.

Does the character choose the actions of others or their results? An attempt to kill my character is an action of another character - a choice they have made - and I do not control the results. I do control how my character will react to this - defend himself, flee, etc. My success will be determined partially by the abilities of my character, and partially by the dice.

When another character chooses to use his persuasive skills to influence my character's decisions, this too is an action of another character - a choice they have made - and I do not, or at least should not, control the results.I do control how my character will react to this - defend himself (argue back), flee (stick his fingers in his ears and sing loudly), etc. My success will be determined partially by the abilities of my character (if your character is resistant to the persuasion of others, why do the abilities on his character sheet not reflect this?), and partially by the dice.


2. A Skill should have a chance of working when it is reasonable and appropriate for it to work, and not otherwise. I also acknowledge that there are going to be different opinions on what constitutes "reasonable and appropriate." It is even reasonable and appropriate that such differences of opinion exist.

When is it reasonable and appropriate for an interaction skill to work? Note that it has not worked if it merely causes the target to take actions he would have taken anyway. It only works when it changes the actions the target would have taken in a fashion that benefits the user of the skill.


3. A Skill is not the same as a Power. Stealth is not Invisibility, Persuasion is not Mind Control. I'll admit there IS a lot of overlap and this distinction can be fuzzy, and it's nowhere near as clear and important as the first point I raise above, but I DID say it.

If you have invested the same points in Stealth that you would invest to be invisible and inaudible, I suggest the two will be virtually indistinguishable in practice. In any case, imposing your will on my character's actions is, in my view, no more or less offensive whether done by spending 60 points on interaction skills or spending 60 points on Mind Control.


Now, you tell me: Does that add up to "developed social mechanics are deplorable?" If so, then so be it. If not, then all I've done is set out some parameters of what such a system should NOT be.

I think I would consider your objection being to "objective" social mechanics.

[Lucius]

I'm also reminded of a scene from Asprin's Another Fine Myth. The demon Aahz convinces Quigley the demon hunter that he's really a human under a curse and then persuades him to buy a cheap sword with fake jewels for all he's got, including an excellent sword.

- Klaus

I remember that scene. As I recall it, they had to knock him out and restrain him to get him to listen.

Lucius Alexander

I'm really a palindromedary under a curse.

[AnotherSkip]

Then let me posit a different scenario.

Is it fair if a merchant with Trading <=13 sells your character a sword that was neither wanted, nor needed, nor fairly priced, just becuause the merchant walked up to you on the street and got a good roll?

Actually 'Fair' has nothing to do with it. There are middle eastern merchants who's haggling skills are so good that you will spend a months rent on a pair of sandals if you get anywhere near them. It isn't fair and 'they' don't really care. Fair, 'claims of immunity', etc doesn't apply. Having either a pretty good trading skill AND a KS: Item Value skill or avoiding the market completely is your two options.

Your berzerker barbarian example falls apart because he Doesn't have enough experience with the problem of dealing with the fast talker. He should spend XP on the appropriate defenses.


I think the principle "making yourself hard to effect makes it hard for you to effect others" can be refined a little.

I propose that it be modified to something like "When you make yourself immune to a certain class or category of effects, you forfeit the ability to use those effects.".
Here I'll misquote you

As an example: If you purchase 100% Damage Reduction, Social, you may not use Social Powers. The character may HAVE Social Powers, but may only use them if
1. The 100% Damage Reduction is not in effect, or
2. The target has a similar power with similar special effect - i.e. is in the same "class of mind" or
3. A large Advantage is put on the Social Powers.

Now then should someone get 100% immunity to ANYTHING for free?

I may have to adjust this post later as I am getting kicked off.

[Doc Democracy]

I remember that scene. As I recall it, they had to knock him out and restrain him to get him to listen.

Which shows just how reluctant he would be to enter into any sort of bargain, never mind one so much to his disadvantage.

Social contests are no different from other contest - you do not have to fight, you do not have to talk.

If you can avoid the contest then there is now way the contest can go against you but there are drawbacks to that.

If you run away from a fight you are giving up whatever you might have been defending and your opponent can call you a coward.

If you run away from an argument your opponent can call you ignorant or claim that you do not want to discuss because you know your argument holds no weight. You give up whatever idea you are defending.

If you are in a social situation and refuse to interact then your opponent may use that against you. That might be fine and is a reasonable manouevre but not necessarily complete defence.

If you need to, or want to interact, then you interact and deal with the consequences physical or social.


Doc

[Lucius]

Which shows just how reluctant he would be to enter into any sort of bargain, never mind one so much to his disadvantage.

Social contests are no different from other contest - you do not have to fight, you do not have to talk.

If you can avoid the contest then there is now way the contest can go against you but there are drawbacks to that.

If you run away from a fight you are giving up whatever you might have been defending and your opponent can call you a coward.

If you run away from an argument your opponent can call you ignorant or claim that you do not want to discuss because you know your argument holds no weight. You give up whatever idea you are defending.

If you are in a social situation and refuse to interact then your opponent may use that against you. That might be fine and is a reasonable manouevre but not necessarily complete defence.

If you need to, or want to interact, then you interact and deal with the consequences physical or social.


Doc

I think you and I might be in agreement here.

Lucius Alexander

We can ignore the palindromedary's disagreement can't we?

[Markdoc]

Which shows just how reluctant he would be to enter into any sort of bargain, never mind one so much to his disadvantage.

Social contests are no different from other contest - you do not have to fight, you do not have to talk.

If you can avoid the contest then there is now way the contest can go against you but there are drawbacks to that.

If you run away from a fight you are giving up whatever you might have been defending and your opponent can call you a coward.

If you run away from an argument your opponent can call you ignorant or claim that you do not want to discuss because you know your argument holds no weight. You give up whatever idea you are defending.

If you are in a social situation and refuse to interact then your opponent may use that against you. That might be fine and is a reasonable manouevre but not necessarily complete defence.

If you need to, or want to interact, then you interact and deal with the consequences physical or social.


Doc


I think you and I might be in agreement here.

Lucius Alexander


Yep, I'd agree too (in fact, this is how I run my own games at present) with the caveat that physical and social interaction are in fact, slightly different.

To interact in physical contests, it is a requirement that you are present in the same "Physical space" (ie: able to interact with each other physically: Being on a high ledge will prevent physical combat with a swordsman, but not a rifleman, for example). To interact in social contests it is a requirement that you are present in the same "social space". That's not limited in time and space in the same way - you can engage in social contests over a telephone, even though one of you is in Shanghai and the other in Tierra del Fuego - or via ainsible, even if one of you is on Mars and the other orbiting the duplex star Kv2046 SC: as long as you agree to maintain "social contact". On the other hand if one participant responds to an attempt to launch social contact by only uttering random quotes from the Princess Bride, he's not "socially present" even if sitting right next to the person who is trying to extract information via his "Conversation, 30-" skill.

cheers, Mark

[Chris Goodwin]

In some of the newer ("indie") games that include social conflict or combat mechanics, there's an explicit stakes-setting involved. There's a bit of negotiation involved before rolling the dice. "If he succeeds at this Persuasion roll I'll go with him, but if he fails he'll let slip a bit of information I need." It's up to everyone involved to determine the extent of the result before the dice are rolled or the conflict entered into.

[Doc Democracy]

On the other hand if one participant responds to an attempt to launch social contact by only uttering random quotes from the Princess Bride, he's not "socially present" even if sitting right next to the person who is trying to extract information via his "Conversation, 30-" skill.

I'd expect someone with conversation 30- would be able to elicit more than even Monty Python quotes! :D

The person is sitting there and engaging - obviously looking to use a social dodge (quote Princess Bride in response to conversational gambits). He can hear and is responding - thus open to conversation.

If he happened to be also wearing ear-plugs then conversation is impossible...


Doc

[nexus]

Which shows just how reluctant he would be to enter into any sort of bargain, never mind one so much to his disadvantage.


And mind you that there was at least one poster in this discussion or the one that spawned it that advocated that even if a PC was tied and bound that the player could declare there was nothing that could be said or done to change their minds or get to the do something he (or more the player) didn't want to do. I don't think it was Lucius but I recall it coming up. I've heard that sentiment before in the discussion of social interaction so I thought it was worth mentioning

[nexus]

In some of the newer ("indie") games that include social conflict or combat mechanics, there's an explicit stakes-setting involved. There's a bit of negotiation involved before rolling the dice. "If he succeeds at this Persuasion roll I'll go with him, but if he fails he'll let slip a bit of information I need." It's up to everyone involved to determine the extent of the result before the dice are rolled or the conflict entered into.

Yeah, I've seen that a few times. Seemed like an interesting compromise.

[nexus]

If he happened to be also wearing ear-plugs then conversation is impossible...
Doc

I do think for some actions and skills there should be an allowance for non verbal communication which can be a fairly large part of social interaction, particularly public speaking and command. There would be penalties on being limited to it and something would be impossible (complex instructions for example). But I think there would some pretty stiff penalties for not having the ability to use it as well

For an example: See the Internet. :-D

[Doc Democracy]

Good Lord, have we moved from good thing - bad thing to discussing what might be necessary to make a social contest system workable?

:)


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

I do think for some actions and skills there should be an allowance for non verbal communication which can be a fairly large part of social interaction, particularly public speaking and command. There would be penalties on being limited to it and something would be impossible (complex instructions for example). But I think there would some pretty stiff penalties for not having the ability to use it as well

For an example: See the Internet. :-D

It is an interesting question - how effective is your conversation skill when applied through a medium such as telephone or internet....

Doc

[nexus]

It is an interesting question - how effective is your conversation skill when applied through a medium such as telephone or internet....

Doc

Judging from most threads... not very :D

A more serious answer is that its hard to say. Indirect communication also makes it much easier to hide your reaction. I imagine more than a few people have been convinced or at least made to consider an alternative POV online but find it easier to cover that up to save "face". Lying and fronting is really easy online.

And taking "Extra Time" is practically a given.

[BobGreenwade]

On the other hand if one participant responds to an attempt to launch social contact by only uttering random quotes from the Princess Bride, he's not "socially present" even if sitting right next to the person who is trying to extract information via his "Conversation, 30-" skill.Unless, of course, the movie-quoting individual has an autistic spectrum condition and that's how he gets a handle on verbal communication.

Sure, it's unlikely, but it's not... nah, I won't say it. :)

[Klaus Mogensen]

YAdding a new personality trait when it becomes convenient seems about as appropriate as adding an item to the character's equipment list because "of course, he would have one of these".
It was recently discussed in the Equipment thread that it could be a good idea to allow characters to pay a hero point to have some item with them (e.g. a flashlight) that they might conceivably have, even if they hadn't stated it flat out previously. I think that it could be an equally good idea to allow characters to pay a hero point to have a value or belief that they might conceivably have, even if they hadn't stated it flat out previously. Of course, the value/belief would then have to be written down so it can inconvenience the character in the future.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

Who would object to a social interaction system sourcebook?

Believe it or not, I would find that acceptable.

I just don't want it in the core rules, so people won't forget that it is optional.

[PhilFleischmann]

I don't see how an Incredibly Violent Action is likely to make someone more inclined to believe that we come in peace and mean them no harm. That said, the PRE attack seems like a reasonable basis on which to construct a more detailed system for social conflict.
You bring up a very good point, one which has occasionally annoyed me over the years - the idea that its *only* violent actions that gain a bonus to PRE attacks. It really should be just about any kind of action, depending on what is appropriate for the situation, the target, and what the PRE attack is intended to do.. In the case of the berserker charging you, and gesture of "we come in peace" probably won't even be noticed, but an incredibly violent action might give the berserker pause.

But in the case of nervous, red-shirted starship crewmen who are afraid they're going to be ambushed any minute by horrible aline monsters and might be a little quick on the trigger, an Incredibly Peaceful Action might calm them.

Likewise, when you're trying to inspire courage in your troops, mindlessly punching a hole in a wall or ripping the head off a puppy isn't going to help win their confidence.

In short, the "Violent Action" bonus should be broadened to an "Appropriate Action" bonus.

[IndianaJoe3]

Good Lord, have we moved from good thing - bad thing to discussing what might be necessary to make a social contest system workable?

I think we're working on the system, but we haven't agreed on what the system's limits are. (I'm still of the opinion that the player is the ultimate arbiter of their character's attempted actions and reactions.)

Here's what I want to see:
GM (Ms. Vavoom made her Seduction roll by 15): "She's hot, she seems really into you, and you think she'd make it more than worth your while."

Horndog (but suspicious of the GM) PC (no Psych Lim): "Uh, not tonight. I have a, uh, presentation to give at 8 AM tomorrow. How about we exchange phone numbers and set a date up for later?"

What I don't want to see:
GM: "She made her Seduction roll by 15, you have to go up to her room."
PC: "No!"

[nexus]

The problem I see with the example that the -player- is always going to be suspicious of the NPCs motives even if the PC isn't or could be convinced to put that aside (Vavavoom over comes that situational penalties that are imposed) The instant the GM picks up dice and starts making a big deal about some thing* most players I know go on alert. It's not a GM vs Player attitude but just the fact the player isn't the character and is aware they're playing a game and games require conflict of some sort. And in rpgs dice generally mean conflict is coming and success by the GM is going to be "bad" for the PCs in some fashion.

One way to work around this could be to have innocuous or even beneficial use of social skills (Vavavoom is legitimately attracted to the PC with no ulterior motive or maybe wants to get him some place private to slip him some vital information) but that could lead to the game being slowed down if over used.

It's a thorny issue and I'm starting to think there is no right answer just different preferences.

Edit: *Like how most player's "spider sense" start tingling the moment the GM starts to describe the environment in greater detail than normal.

[ghost-angel]

You know, we had something like this come up in one of our games.
GM introduced a love interest for my Character, I was game so I went along with it. He was, as these things go, a double agent type looking to get an "inside" on the group.

The GM used the success level of his Seduction Roll to see how well he hid his true intentions - a sort of "just how much are you falling for him" kind of thing. And dropped hints here and there, really subtle ones because the bloody punk made it by 10, that mostly, I missed.

It was a big reveal. A really nice in game surprise. The character never did anything I wouldn't have had them do - given the information I had on hand. Which is the key to "social interaction/combat" is using Info On Hand to make decisions. . .

[Doc Democracy]

I think we're working on the system, but we haven't agreed on what the system's limits are. (I'm still of the opinion that the player is the ultimate arbiter of their character's attempted actions and reactions.)

the GM is essentially the window into the game world. It is the GM who describes the characters perception on the world. Players accept this for physical stuff but not for perceptions of people.

I think that players should be the arbiters of their characters attempted actions but if there is a PRE attack at present and the GM tells the player that the character is scared, then the player decides how to react to that. The GM can say whether he feels that action is appropriate. That comes to style of game you are playing.

What (from me) is being suggested here is a more finely grained system than PRE currently provides.

In the Horndog example, the GM should say to the player. This woman is smoking hot and you _know_ that this will be a night in a million. You have dreams about such a woman inviting you back to her room...

So, I would not require him to go up to the room but I would apply some disadvantage to him based on the fact that he had lost a contest.

If the player says he wants to ignore that then I might tell him that he is likey to be distracted for some time thinking about the woman - I would apply negatives to perception rolls or any other action that requires concentration (he is daydreaming about what might have been).

I might simply have consequent problems in similar social circumstances - when once he might have been ultimately confident in horndog situations, he has now a dent in his armour - he might not 'perform' next time he wants to.

Doc

[nexus]

In the Horndog example, the GM should say to the player. This woman is smoking hot and you _know_ that this will be a night in a million. You have dreams about such a woman inviting you back to her room...

So, I would not require him to go up to the room but I would apply some disadvantage to him based on the fact that he had lost a contest.

If the player says he wants to ignore that then I might tell him that he is likey to be distracted for some time thinking about the woman - I would apply negatives to perception rolls or any other action that requires concentration (he is daydreaming about what might have been).

I might simply have consequent problems in similar social circumstances - when once he might have been ultimately confident in horndog situations, he has now a dent in his armour - he might not 'perform' next time he wants to.

Doc

Even this would be an acceptable compromise for me. Any actual solid mechanical effects from failing social contest would be appreciated. I'd prefer they have something to do with the "attacker" was trying to accomplish.

To fall back on the ever popular Vavavoom example (Ever notice how discussions about social skills always come back around to seduction?)

If VV's goal was to get Horndog out of the way for awhile so her minions could do something nefarious without interference and she succeeds at her seduction/persuasion rolls then he doesn't have to specifically go out with her, to anything intimate, etc as she intended but might have to step outside to get some air or to a restroom to splash a little cold water on his face. VV's margin of success would determine how close Horndog's reaction should follow her intent. That would require some negotation and maturity on all sides of the screen.

Or for a less overworked example, if Slick Willie is trying to convince the security guard at a warehouse that he really does work there and needs to get inside to get something he left behind and makes his roll. The guard (who has the Psych Lim: Diligent employee: Com, Total, a -3 penalty for what Willie was trying to do, but he's just that good) might allow him in but insist on escorting him to his locker and unless Willie pulls off some more smooth talk (or eliminates/distracts the guard) will watch him like a hawk the entire time. A better tactic for Willie may have to try and convince the guard he saw some people trying to break in and for him to check it out (this probably wouldn't be penalized by the guard's psych lim, it might even get bonus) but the guard might also call the police before he does or something else depending on Willie's margin of success. I do think NPCs should probably get at least somewhat less slack on how they react in cinematic games to a degree the Gm feel is reasonable with "mooks" being as easy to steer around socially as they are to defeat physically.


...am I making any sense?

[Markdoc]

the GM is essentially the window into the game world. It is the GM who describes the characters perception on the world. Players accept this for physical stuff but not for perceptions of people.

I think that players should be the arbiters of their characters attempted actions but if there is a PRE attack at present and the GM tells the player that the character is scared, then the player decides how to react to that. The GM can say whether he feels that action is appropriate. That comes to style of game you are playing.

What (from me) is being suggested here is a more finely grained system than PRE currently provides.

In the Horndog example, the GM should say to the player. This woman is smoking hot and you _know_ that this will be a night in a million. You have dreams about such a woman inviting you back to her room...

So, I would not require him to go up to the room but I would apply some disadvantage to him based on the fact that he had lost a contest.

If the player says he wants to ignore that then I might tell him that he is likey to be distracted for some time thinking about the woman - I would apply negatives to perception rolls or any other action that requires concentration (he is daydreaming about what might have been).

I might simply have consequent problems in similar social circumstances - when once he might have been ultimately confident in horndog situations, he has now a dent in his armour - he might not 'perform' next time he wants to.

Doc

As noted in my earlier posts, that's pretty much exactly how I handle it now. I do not dictate the PCs actions based on NPC rolls (just as good rolls by the players do not dictate NPCs actions). However, there will be in-game consequences. I doubt I'd go so far as inflicting "performance problems" but the jilted lady could spread rumours about his lack or performance, he might confront an NPC who - via rumor - now thinks he's gay, etc.

But for me "She makes her roll by 5: you go up to her room" is simply unacceptable GM interference. Players who are really into playing their character will probably go anyway, in the circumstance described. Players who value tactical play over character behaviour will kick and scream and do anything to derail the liaison, regardless of the dice roll. Basically nothing is added to enjoyment of the game by adding another element of GM vs Player.

Interestingly, in HeroQuest - the system brought up as an example of social combat - they seem to be going the other way. Simon Phipps (one of the hard-core RQ'ers and an early developer/proponent of the HeroQuest rules) now has a page on his site entitled "Why HeroQuest doesn't work" a large part of which is that handling social interaction by dice rolling is either flavourless (short contests) or tedious (extended contests). Also, on one of the few active boards where the rules are discussed, I noticed a thread with general agreement on the importance of allowing players to opt out of contests they find "uninteresting". In other words, they are also finding that the element of compulsion in social interaction - however attractive from a game theory viewpoint - makes for unattractive gameplay.

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Good Lord, have we moved from good thing - bad thing to discussing what might be necessary to make a social contest system workable?

:)


Doc

I think so. But I would like the level of One True Wayism to go down a little more. Just because I or someone else prefers something one way doesn't mean that everyone has or should or that they're preferences are somehow objectively wrong. Plenty of people play and enjoy games with all forms of social interaction from pure role playing fiat to mechanistic compulsion. None of them are wrong.

[nexus]

More constructively, I'd like to some attention paid to how psych (and other limitations) interact with social skills and situations. Sometimes a psych lim should give penalty to some actions against the character. But psych lims shouldn't be Resistances you get points for. Just because a character took Vow of Chastity, they aren't immune to sexual/romantic Seduction, for instance. To some degree they should face some challenge to that Vow or it's not a Disadvantage worth points.

This could come into play with the idea I posted earlier. If Father Morgan falls prey to Romantic seduction attempt this is successful but not to a degree that violation of vows feels necessary, he could always be disturbed by his spiritual weakness and go to his chambers to pray for guidance.

and be vulnerable to the ambush that Seduction attempt was setting up.

[Doc Democracy]

As noted in my earlier posts, that's pretty much exactly how I handle it now. I do not dictate the PCs actions based on NPC rolls (just as good rolls by the players do not dictate NPCs actions). However, there will be in-game consequences. I doubt I'd go so far as inflicting "performance problems" but the jilted lady could spread rumours about his lack or performance, he might confront an NPC who - via rumor - now thinks he's gay, etc.

I am inclined to cause some penalty to the character though - they did lose. I am attracted by Nexus' spin - the NPC achieving the desired aim in another way - if the liaison was to distract the PC then having the PC go to the restroom to throw some water in their face after resisting his baser instincts - thus distracting him - is tidy. Again it takes a good GM to take advantage of everything offered that way...


But for me "She makes her roll by 5: you go up to her room" is simply unacceptable GM interference. Players who are really into playing their character will probably go anyway, in the circumstance described.

But she makes her mind control by 30, you go up to her room is not. :) Not really wanting answer there, just being mischievous.....



Players who value tactical play over character behaviour will kick and scream and do anything to derail the liaison, regardless of the dice roll. Basically nothing is added to enjoyment of the game by adding another element of GM vs Player.

That does not really intrinsically devalue social contests, it simply says that for such players it might not be the best way to structure the contest - instead of giving the non-super powered person skills that you instead make them a Jedi Master that can do it that way. If the players are happier with you rolling 12D6 Mind Control rather than some social contest and dictating their actions rather than dictating their perceptions, then do it that way - Maximum Game Fun is my mantra...


Interestingly, in HeroQuest - the system brought up as an example of social combat - they seem to be going the other way. Simon Phipps (one of the hard-core RQ'ers and an early developer/proponent of the HeroQuest rules) now has a page on his site entitled "Why HeroQuest doesn't work" a large part of which is that handling social interaction by dice rolling is either flavourless (short contests) or tedious (extended contests).

To be fair, Simon did have some personal issues with the company and we all know how that can play out! :-) Another thing is that quite a few RQers dont like HeroQuest (it is a complete turn around from the simulationist game they grew up with and this new narrative abomination stole their setting! :) ).

I think many of the people who dont like HeroQuest dont like the system for the same reasons regardless of whether it is social of physical contests that are being resolved. Too much narrative, not enough sim.

No-one was suggesting adopting a HeroQuest solution to social contests. If that is what I wanted then I would be playing HeroQuest and not wasting my time on these boards.... :D


Also, on one of the few active boards where the rules are discussed, I noticed a thread with general agreement on the importance of allowing players to opt out of contests they find "uninteresting". In other words, they are also finding that the element of compulsion in social interaction - however attractive from a game theory viewpoint - makes for unattractive gameplay.

Again. I would say that that thread would imply that players be allowed to opt out of contests both physical and social that they do not find interesting - it follows from the uber-narrative nature of the game.

Narrativists find compulsion in physical or social contests abhorrent because they are only interested in going where the story is interesting....


Doc

[Markdoc]

I think so. But I would like the level of One True Wayism to go down a little more. Just because I or someone else prefers something one way doesn't mean that everyone has or should or that they're preferences are somehow objectively wrong. Plenty of people play and enjoy games with all forms of social interaction from pure role playing fiat to mechanistic compulsion. None of them are wrong.

I'd agree that none of them are wrong. But none of them are mechanistic/simulationist games like Hero, either. All of the games that include social combat mechanisms that I can think of are narrative games which use variants on either retro-justification (roll the dice and then work out what actually happened later) or wager systems (the parties involved work out what constitutes an acceptable outcome to each party in advance and then roll see who gets how much of what they want). All such systems are by definition time-vague: a contest involving a single dice roll can be 2 seconds or a couple of weeks (or even years), depending on what it is.

This really is about as far from Hero system as you can get and I really think trying to graft such a system onto existing Hero mechanics would be a cold, hard mistake (not to mention a giant failure, sales-wise). The game is complex enough without adding another, entirely different way to approach any conflict and then trying to balance the points to buy those abilities and their use in combat. The alternative - to rewrite the core rules so that everything uses a different resolution system - moves the goalposts from "6E" to "a new system".

Still, maybe I'm wrong. Leaving the desirability of the issue aside for a moment, how would you approach social combat, in the context of phase-by-phase combat action and balancing points?

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Just because a character took Vow of Chastity, they aren't immune to sexual/romantic Seduction, for instance. To some degree they should face some challenge to that Vow or it's not a Disadvantage worth points.

I have found some of the attitudes to psych limitations disturbingly reflective of D&D alignment arguments (though obviously more sophisticated! :D )

Just because a priest takes a vow of chastity and breaks it, possibly under severe pressure, should not mean that the vow of chastity has to be removed from the character sheet nor have any more impact than temporary loss of chastity based powers.

If a priest has to remain chaste (though sex within marriage would often be considered chaste) to access his powers and fails in his bid to remain chaste, it might mean that the character has to undergo rituals to purify himself, or undertake a quest to prove himself worthy of a second chance or even (it seems unlikely but follows real world doctrine) simply demonstrate a proper level of penitence and sorrow to be forgiven his misdemeanor.

Too often these things are treated as so black and white by GMs and players alike that they might as well be playing lawful good paladins with a 14 year old GM.

I think we can manage something much better than that.

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Still, maybe I'm wrong. Leaving the desirability of the issue aside for a moment, how would you approach social combat, in the context of phase-by-phase combat action and balancing points?

While Nexus is considering that, what do you think of handling combat in a vague couple of rolls manner for contests that are not really that important to resolving the plot but may provide complimentary advantages or disadvantage depending on the resolution?

I think that we should have an alternative resolution mechanism for such things - it would provide shortcuts when you do not want a minor conflict to steal time from the things you want to accomplish that gaming night.

Doc

[Markdoc]

I am inclined to cause some penalty to the character though - they did lose. I am attracted by Nexus' spin - the NPC achieving the desired aim in another way - if the liaison was to distract the PC then having the PC go to the restroom to throw some water in their face after resisting his baser instincts - thus distracting him - is tidy. Again it takes a good GM to take advantage of everything offered that way...

Agreed - PCs should suffer some consequences when they lose a social contest, and I agree that the suggestions above are neat ones. However, they also illustrate how difficult it is to put any kind of hard and fast rules into practice: the variety of outcomes is literally infinite. A short term consequence might be possible, or a longer-term one might be more appropriate.


But she makes her mind control by 30, you go up to her room is not. :) Not really wanting answer there, just being mischievous.....

No, it's a fair comparison, so a fair point. However to get there she needs to invest a fair deal in Mind control and EGO. The base buy-in to reach that level of effect is high enough that it becomes a relatively rare event, and in addition, Mind control is a combat ability, with all the disadvantages that implies, including visibility, short duration, etc. Knowing that your character (or your companion's character) has been frog-marched up the stairs under control is going to have very different consequences the day after, to knowing that the PC in question went willingly. Different effects, different mechanism.


That does not really intrinsically devalue social contests, it simply says that for such players it might not be the best way to structure the contest - instead of giving the non-super powered person skills that you instead make them a Jedi Master that can do it that way. If the players are happier with you rolling 12D6 Mind Control rather than some social contest and dictating their actions rather than dictating their perceptions, then do it that way - Maximum Game Fun is my mantra...

Yep - and in practical terms, virtually every player I have had (or played with) is willing to go along with - and even roleplay - "You are forced to do X by the opponent's powers of Mind Control/Enchantment". Only a select few will happily go along with "Your PC has decided to do X of his own free will". Of course that might be because they are players who have chosen to join in a game using a simulationist system. :)


To be fair, Simon did have some personal issues with the company and we all know how that can play out! :-) Another thing is that quite a few RQers dont like HeroQuest (it is a complete turn around from the simulationist game they grew up with and this new narrative abomination stole their setting! :) ).

True enough, but I quoted Simon precisely because he was such a strong booster of the HeroQuest rules when the company first moved over to them. It may be that he is dissociating himself from them now that they have proven to be a commercial failure, but I suspect his reasons as stated are probably correct - if only because they match my own experiences. Social combat systems, where PCs quirks/powers and combat rolls dictate actions introduce a distancing element into roleplay and make the game feel more like boardgame, where you have your "counter" on the "board" and where you go/what you do is very dependant on abstract decisions and die rolls, and less on your personal whims.

Now I enjoy those kinds of game - I've played a lot of "social conflict" games like Junta and Down with the King - but the experience is somewhat different from Roleplaying and over an extended period of time (like a typical campaign), I agree with Simon that it becomes rather mechanistic and flavourless.


I think many of the people who dont like HeroQuest dont like the system for the same reasons regardless of whether it is social of physical contests that are being resolved. Too much narrative, not enough sim.

Agreed. But I not sure you can make a social combat system work in anything other than a narrativist system - which is why I am arguing strongly against its inclusion in Hero system: not against narrativist systems in general. Different goal, different tools.


Again. I would say that that thread would imply that players be allowed to opt out of contests both physical and social that they do not find interesting - it follows from the uber-narrative nature of the game.

Narrativists find compulsion in physical or social contests abhorrent because they are only interested in going where the story is interesting....

Again, I'm in total agreement - which is why I am so strongly opposed to including social combat mechanisms in Hero system. As I noted in an earlier post, for many things, the system used in HeroQuest works extremely well. Ironically, the only place where it consistently works poorly is for actual combat: you may remember the whole Hero Wars debate about "How does archery work?"

As an aside - and with hindsight - this is why our HeroQuest game failed. The GM was using the rules structure as though the contest system involved actual contests. If he had seen it as it actually is - a negotiation process - then the issue could have been avoided, by accepting that "I cease to be enraged at this person" was not an acceptable outcome to the player involved - or, in point of fact, to most of the players. That's where the "Opt out" pressure is coming from, among those who are still using the system. There are times - almost always involving direct conflict - when some options are simply unpalatable/implausible to one or more participants. In that case, it's better to simply skip them, rather than try to force a contrived solution.

This relevant to the ongoing discussion, I think. Narrative systems, by their nature are not really set up for handing interactions on a second by second basis: no-one want to narrate, blow by blow, a persuasion attempt that takes a full evening, in game. It's the result that's important, not the process. Hero system with its combat system is very much oriented to second by second interaction. Grafting a social combat system into that time frame is bound to produce results as useful as welding a chainsaw onto a skateboard. It may sound kewl, but I wouldn't want to use the result.

The only other alternative that I can see would mean scrapping the current combat system for something entirely different (probably not appealing to many Hero system players) or have social and physical combat operate on entirely different scales: in which case your indicated preference for things like "I talk him out of attacking me" becomes difficult or impossible to do.

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

I'd agree that none of them are wrong. But none of them are mechanistic/simulationist games like Hero, either. All of the games that include social combat mechanisms that I can think of are narrative games which use variants on either retro-justification (roll the dice and then work out what actually happened later) or wager systems (the parties involved work out what constitutes an acceptable outcome to each party in advance and then roll see who gets how much of what they want). All such systems are by definition time-vague: a contest involving a single dice roll can be 2 seconds or a couple of weeks (or even years), depending on what it is.


Off the top of my head I wouldn't call Exalted or Weapons of the Gods narrative (or "fluffy" games). Spirit of the Century seems to be somewhere in the middle. They have Social interaction mechanisms. Exalted is modeled exactly like the game's combat mechanism right down to ticks based actions (except the tick represent minutes instead of seconds), initative rolls and social Dodges (evading/ignoring your opponent's "attack") and Parries (counter arguments/debating it) and WOTG is allot like what Doc Democracy mentioned earlier where characters can either go along with results or they will suffer related penalties for a time. I don't recall what the time scale, if any, was for social actions. There is generally less need for precise time tracking for social activity.



This really is about as far from Hero system as you can get and I really think trying to graft such a system onto existing Hero mechanics would be a cold, hard mistake (not to mention a giant failure, sales-wise). The game is complex enough without adding another, entirely different way to approach any conflict and then trying to balance the points to buy those abilities and their use in combat. The alternative - to rewrite the core rules so that everything uses a different resolution system - moves the goalposts from "6E" to "a new system".

Still, maybe I'm wrong. Leaving the desirability of the issue aside for a moment, how would you approach social combat, in the context of phase-by-phase combat action and balancing points?


I'm not sure I would map social interaction to physical combat that closely. It has some positive aspects: a Stun like mechanism, for example, could represent some aspects of interaction pretty well. Wearing down your opponent through persistent argument, the ability to recover composure and willpower over time (which would explain why internet debates take so long there's plenty of time to take figurative Recoveries and come back fresh and fussing) but is lacking in other ways.

Like I said earlier, I don't really care for the term "social combat". It sets things up as adversarial from the beginning. What I'd like to see is a robust system that gives Interaction skills similar weight to physical skills in their proper situations. In a fight, I can't ignore a successful because I don't like it. The GM generally shouldn't just discount a character's successful Climbing or Stealth rolls and, IMO, Interaction skills should be subject to the same degree of respect since they cost the same. On a successful roll the character gets their intention, possibly modified by their margin of success.

There are a few options. For example Carrot or Stick (it costs something to blow off a social action or there is a reward for going along with it) Attacker determines Intent, Target determines how it's achieved based on margin of success (my earlier posts), stake setting (If I make this roll, Father Flanagan breaks his vows with VV but if I fail, she is humbled and shamed by his piety and will not try again for the scene and possibly suffer penalties to do so for awhile after).

[Markdoc]

While Nexus is considering that, what do you think of handling combat in a vague couple of rolls manner for contests that are not really that important to resolving the plot but may provide complimentary advantages or disadvantage depending on the resolution?

I think that we should have an alternative resolution mechanism for such things - it would provide shortcuts when you do not want a minor conflict to steal time from the things you want to accomplish that gaming night.

Doc

I have no strong opposition to it per se, but I am also personally totally disinterested in the concept. I don't see it as damaging the game (or even that difficult to add as an extra mechanism), but neither can I see myself ever using it. My own rule of thumb is that if the situation is meaningless, then I shouldn't be including it all, while if it has the potential for meaningful results, I'd rather play it out.

In general, small unimportant combats take very little time to play through - but they do contain the seeds for unexpected upsets. Likewise, social interactions with a simple, limited goal, I tend to dispose of in one or two rolls, though they may expand to take on greater importance.

The biggest counter argument for me is the same one Simon used in his "Why Heroquest doesn't work" discussion: the simple contest has no flavour - at least partly because the PCs see no real importance it it: by using the simple contest the GM is announcing "This encounter is unimportant: let's get it over with and move on".

At that stage, it becomes useless clutter, IMO. If it's not important enough to play out, it's not important enough to actually bring into play and could just as well be narrated by the GM.

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term "Simulationist"*. As I understand it means a game that seeks to simulate either "reality" or a certain genre to a high degree of accuracy (at least that's how they use it on RPG.net). It has nothing to do with mechanical depth. You can have a rules lite simulationist game (Thrash 2.0 for example) or a mechanically dense Nar game (Burning Wheel) As such, it seems like a Sim game would have social mechanics. Characters in fiction, even "main characters ie PCs/Major NPCs) and people in the real world are conned, seduced, mislead, persuaded, etc to do sub optimal things all the time. The femme fatale, faceman, skilled grifter and Streetwise smooth talker are iconic archetypes that can be found all across genre fiction. Why would be sim games make them less desirable as PC or NPCs archetypes by arbitrarly limiting their ability to effect the game world?

*God knows, there seem to be a multitude of definitions for theory terns.

Hero System already does have some "Narrative" aspects in that meta game choices can affect game play and plotting in significant ways (varying by game style). For example pay points for a sword, even a perfectly normal one, you'll always have access to one in due order, get it as free equipment and it can taken from you if, when and for how ever long the GM's whim dictates it to be. Get your sickly aunt as a DNPC, she'll be threatened to some degree. Write her a background element or get her as a Contact or something, she'll rarely if ever be endangered by your adventuring career (and probably only once). Optionally, Hero Points even raise the possibility of Dramatic Editing which I've mostly seen in "Narrative" games.

Adding narrative element to Hero System isn't a doomed idea. I've added Quirks and Hero Points to some of my games and its worked out fine for instance, to my satisfaction. So maybe Retro justification Social skills could work. I've run combat with a similar technique in PBEM. "Okay, you hit him for 24 Stun and 8 Body and knock him out doing 5 knockback. Describe what happened."

[nexus]

While Nexus is considering that...

Mildly but I've largely put it aside* in favor of fleshing out the social interaction rules and making them more robust and effective, detail bonuses and penalties, expansion on the effects of psych lims and other disads, perhaps "manuevers" in the sense of stances, attitudes and tactics as they apply to social interaction. That's what I mean by a social interaction system giving the social side of role playing as much attention as the combat side in Hero System, not necessarily the same exact treatment just a similar level of "crunch" along with mechanical and narrative impact as combat. So it seems like it is as "important' as a fight scene.

Edit* In part due to the downsides of Exalted social combat system and some arguments presented across these two discussions. So I guess Interaction skills can work on the internet. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

While Nexus is considering that, what do you think of handling combat in a vague couple of rolls manner for contests that are not really that important to resolving the plot but may provide complimentary advantages or disadvantage depending on the resolution?

I think that we should have an alternative resolution mechanism for such things - it would provide shortcuts when you do not want a minor conflict to steal time from the things you want to accomplish that gaming night.

I think it makes sense to have "short form resolution" - which is presently the skill system - and "long form resolution"- currently the combat system - made more customizable. In many games, long form for combat only is workable. In others, short form may be appropriate for combat, and long form for more central conflicts. St. Elsewhere would not need detailed combat resolution - opposed "fistfight" rolls will do. But it needs more granular resolution to medical issues than "roll PS: Doctor at -3". Some games may need the more granular social resolution.

To me, what's short form and what's long form needs to be decided based on the campaign. In a political intrigue game where social is long form and combat is short form, players should not need to spend 80% of their points on combat-oriented abilities, but should be focused much more on social oriented abilities. The costs would shift relativistically.

This reduces the practicality of a host of options in the core rules. Combat remains, since it's a mainstay to most common genres. Social is common, but maybe needs to be mentioned, then relegated to its own sourcebook. Very specific new systems might belong in genre books and/or setting books. That "Advanced Hero" book seems more and more valuable.


Agreed - PCs should suffer some consequences when they lose a social contest, and I agree that the suggestions above are neat ones. However, they also illustrate how difficult it is to put any kind of hard and fast rules into practice: the variety of outcomes is literally infinite. A short term consequence might be possible, or a longer-term one might be more appropriate.

STUN and BOD in physical combat impose short and long term consequences. Using existing powers, Mind Control is short term and Transform is long term.


No, it's a fair comparison, so a fair point.

Thank you for that recognition. At the end of the day, we don't want one ability to be wildly mispriced by comparison to the other. However, I also want social skills to accomplish something - not just be flavour text for the target character. A character spending 75 points on social skills should get as much benefit in that arena as 75 points of combat abilities generates in combat, not simply be brushed aside because the combat monster doesn't wish to be influenced.


However to get there she needs to invest a fair deal in Mind control and EGO. The base buy-in to reach that level of effect is high enough that it becomes a relatively rare event, and in addition, Mind control is a combat ability, with all the disadvantages that implies, including visibility, short duration, etc. Knowing that your character (or your companion's character) has been frog-marched up the stairs under control is going to have very different consequences the day after, to knowing that the PC in question went willingly. Different effects, different mechanism.

Ok, what do we need to make this work? First off, interaction skills should face heavy penalties for haste. How long does Ms. VavaVoom need to work her magic? Let's say 20 minutes for an unmodified roll, and -2 for every step down the time chart. That's a -8 for accomplishing her goal in a single phase.

Second, the target agreed, so it was his own idea. That's +20 to the effect roll.

How to build? Well...

Mind Control: 1d6 = 5 base points. It's Cumulative (+1/2) with 4 doublings (+1) - a 96 maximum should do the trick. It needs to be IPE overall, including while building up (+1/4 for each, so another +1/2). That's a whopping 15 points, with no limitations. Let's make it quadruple penetrating so Hardened Mental Defenses can't neutralize it. It doesn't need Telepathic as she must communicate. That's 25 points. It has some limitations (no mental awareness; likely not LOS; some limits to what it can accomplish;must always have character think it's his own idea) but let's use 25 points for now. That's the same cost as a base skill (3) at +11, so a 22- roll assuming 10 characteristic.

Ms. VavaVoom wants the full 96 points of effect. PC can be assumes to have a 21 Ego, so even with a +30 "I don't wanna" and a +20 "remembered as his idea", he'll have -5 to the Breakout roll. Assuming no mental defense, that averages 27.5 "attacks". Call it 30. Assume Ms. VavaVoom has SPD 2, so she can use this 10 times a minute, so she needs all of 3 minutes alone with Our Hero, well under the 20 postulated above. If he has mental defense, she needs 96 attacks (average 1 point per), so 9.6 minutes.

It is not very expensive to buy this as a power.

Slap on another doubling for 2 points and she can double the time required to impose a further -19 to the Breakout Roll, for a total of -24. That's a LONG TIME under her control! It would be a 23- Seduction roll for the same cost.

A Mental Transform would be an alternative. It needs IPE and penetrating to impact characters with power defense, so it will be more expensive, but it will last forever as long as she stays in contact - no "breakout on a 3".


Yep - and in practical terms, virtually every player I have had (or played with) is willing to go along with - and even roleplay - "You are forced to do X by the opponent's powers of Mind Control/Enchantment". Only a select few will happily go along with "Your PC has decided to do X of his own free will". Of course that might be because they are players who have chosen to join in a game using a simulationist system. :)

Yet the SFX of the Mind Control I have constructed, SuperSocialSkills, would be perceived by the character no differently than the use of an actual social skill. How is it that changing the mechanic makes it more acceptable to the player? I suggest his acceptance is mechanistic, and not in any way based on good role playing.

I note that Cumulative Mind Control would seem a reasonable basis for a more involved social conflict resolution. That 25 point ability above will take some time to work, so a character wanting to achieve the effects in combat needs more dice, sacrificing some of the accumulation. Likely in a MP, so he can beef up the 25 point ability to the MP's active points to the level of his more powerful "combat social skill" power.

How do we develop a social combat skill around this? Perhaps the extent of the "mind control" social damage needs to vary with the success of the skill roll. Since shifting the time scale to roll in a single phase would impose a heavy penalty, none but the most skilled could Persuade a raging berserker in real combat time.


True enough, but I quoted Simon precisely because he was such a strong booster of the HeroQuest rules when the company first moved over to them. It may be that he is dissociating himself from them now that they have proven to be a commercial failure, but I suspect his reasons as stated are probably correct - if only because they match my own experiences. Social combat systems, where PCs quirks/powers and combat rolls dictate actions introduce a distancing element into roleplay and make the game feel more like boardgame, where you have your "counter" on the "board" and where you go/what you do is very dependant on abstract decisions and die rolls, and less on your personal whims.

One approach would be to first allow the player the opportunity to role play. If the response to "She has made her seduction roll by 15" is "I follow her to her room with little hearts flying about my head", no issue.

I could accept "I am sorely tempted, but I push her away. I rush out of the bar, head home and take a very long, very cold shower". The character has reasonably role played the effects of the very successful skill roll. But I would then need to accept this for the Mind Control as well as it is exactly the same effect. Just as I might decide a "dead" character is not, in fact, dead, but has suffered some other fate with a long-term component to it (he's alive, but he's lost his right arm, for example).

But if the player comes back with "My character has a headache" or "My character is not tempted", then perhaps the mechanics need to enforce better role playing. The player has clearly failed to do so.

[nexus]

One thing that strikes me as odd about using mental powers to simulate manipulation and persuasion is that it does force pseudo social interaction into a physical combat frame work. Hit rolls, resistance rolls, phases, etc. all come into play.

And some of the other baggage of mental powers bugs me when applied to social use but that's more a pet peeve.

[Markdoc]

Off the top of my head I wouldn't call Exalted or Weapons of the Gods narrative (or "fluffy" games). Spirit of the Century seems to be somewhere in the middle. They have Social interaction mechanisms. Exalted is modeled exactly like the game's combat mechanism right down to ticks based actions (except the tick represent minutes instead of seconds), initative rolls and social Dodges (evading/ignoring your opponent's "attack") and Parries (counter arguments/debating it) and WOTG is allot like what Doc Democracy mentioned earlier where characters can either go along with results or they will suffer related penalties for a time. I don't recall what the time scale, if any, was for social actions. There is generally less need for precise time tracking for social activity.

I wouldn't call Exalted a narrative system, true: it uses the WoD storyteller system - and seperates combat and social interaction into two different timescales, as you note. If you are going to try and "talk the Berserker down" then you'd better get ready to soak some damage. Physical combat and social interaction are not really designed to interact in Exalted and the social system presented is less detailed than that Hero system already has.

Weapons of the Gods is an even odder choice: It's not a narrative system, true, but it doesn't really have anything I'd regard as rules for social interaction either. Lores are more akin to Hero system disadvantages in many ways and Secret Arts and Extraordinary Techniques are essentially combat abilities. If anything, Weapons of the Gods is even more combat-oriented than Hero system (though of course, combat is less detailed). FWIW, as a wuxia geek, I'd love to run a campaign using these rules: maybe that should be my next game.

Don't own Spirit of the Century, so maybe you're right there.


I'm not sure I would map social interaction to physical combat that closely. It has some positive aspects: a Stun like mechanism, for example, could represent some aspects of interaction pretty well. Wearing down your opponent through persistent argument, the ability to recover composure and willpower over time (which would explain why internet debates take so long there's plenty of time to take figurative Recoveries and come back fresh and fussing) but is lacking in other ways.

Like I said earlier, I don't really care for the term "social combat". It sets things up as adversarial from the beginning.

Well, yes, but if you have attack rolls, defence rolls, and social hitpoints, it is going to be seen as an adversarial system. That's the nature of combat.


What I'd like to see is a robust system that gives Interaction skills similar weight to physical skills in their proper situations. In a fight, I can't ignore a successful because I don't like it. The GM generally shouldn't just discount a character's successful Climbing or Stealth rolls and, IMO, Interaction skills should be subject to the same degree of respect since they cost the same. On a successful roll the character gets their intention, possibly modified by their margin of success.

At this stage, then, I am not sure what you want. Hero system already has the possibility of building a useful character around social interaction - in fact, in my current game, a third of the characters have spent as much or more on their social skills as their combat skills and they would not have done that if it weren't useful.

As for other skills, one of the PCs has Stealth, 18-. Usually, I let him perform routine infiltration activities (I sneak close to the campfire) without a roll. However, I'd have no hesitation in saying "No" if he tried to "sneak" across an open, uncrowded plaza in full daylight. Stealth is not invisibility. He also has 16- in Climbing. Last session I said "The shaft is of slick, unjointed stone and wider than your arms can span. You cannot climb it." Climbing is not Clinging. Skills are enormously useful and relatively cheap, but they have their limits.

It's not a question of "If you don't like a result, ignore it". Certainly I have never said such a thing. My viewpoint is that you cannot force someone to interact socially if one participant refuses to participate - absent perhaps tying him up, so he cannot get away. And no-one at all has suggested that such refusal to participate should be without consequences - quite the opposite, in fact.

Khelsen can boost his PS: Merchant to 16- with his overall level. He often (usually, actually) makes ridiculously good bargains. But I'd have no problem saying "No" if he walked up to someone on the street and said "Buy this old shoe for 200 pieces of gold", regardless of what he rolled. PS:Merchant is not mind control.

Social interaction skills are terribly useful, but I see no reason they should be employable as combat tools in addition to their non-combat utility. After all, I would hesitate to suggest that someone use their 12d6 EB to add weight to a seduction attempt.


There are a few options. For example Carrot or Stick (it costs something to blow off a social action or there is a reward for doing so) Attacker determines Intent, Target determines how it's achieved based on margin of success (my earlier posts), stake setting (If I make this roll, Father Flannigan breaks his vows with VV but if I fail, she is humbled and shamed by his piety and will not try again for the scene and possibly suffer penalties to do so for awhile after).

You could do that - but now you are moving away from social combat to a narrative system, where the outcome is negotiated between participants. It's very different from the combat system and (IMO) doesn't play very well with it: it's not clear how you would negotiate an outcome where one participant wants to talk and the other to slash - perhaps "If you fail, you die". :)

Narrative systems tend to avoid such stark choices, given that you have the problem of what happens when the target suggests an unacceptable outcome (which is not unlikely in combat). That's why in general they perform poorly in games where combat is an integral component: you generally don't want to wager your PCs continued existence on a single dice roll unless it's a major story turning point.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

I'll tell you how I did it in HERO with my gamers when there was a fight they could no lose (and in fact probably could not take body from).

Dice off.

Highest straight 3d6 roll had the priviledge of taking out the cultist leader.

[Markdoc]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term "Simulationist"*. As I understand it means a game that seeks to simulate either "reality" or a certain genre to a high degree of accuracy (at least that's how they use it on RPG.net). It has nothing to do with mechanical depth.

Perhaps that's part of the difficulty. It is true that "Narrativist" and "Simulationist" are vague labels - and what they mean is the subject of much tortured debate on both .rpgnet and the Forge.

In general, though I think of a "simulationist game" as one with specific mechanisms designed to enforce adherence to whatever is being simulated. Hero system, since it has no over-arching theme, could be construed as "the Game of Heroic combat" - and it exists, as far as I can see to allow you to simulate whatever you want. I think "Narrativist games" are designed to facilitate telling shared stories. They can be rules dense (HeroQuest, which we have already discussed, is an example of a moderately rule dense Nar game - at least IMO) but at heart, in a Nar game, rules don't determine outcomes - instead they facilitate negotiation between GM and players or between players.

This is probably a sterile direction to head in, however, since man electrons have been wasted on GNS theory so far without any clear conclusion on what it means or even if it means anything at all :D

cheers,Mark

[Markdoc]

Mildly but I've largely put it aside* in favor of fleshing out the social interaction rules and making them more robust and effective, detail bonuses and penalties, expansion on the effects of psych lims and other disads, perhaps "manuevers" in the sense of stances, attitudes and tactics as they apply to social interaction. That's what I mean by a social interaction system giving the social side of role playing as much attention as the combat side in Hero System, not necessarily the same exact treatment just a similar level of "crunch" along with mechanical and narrative impact as combat. So it seems like it is as "important' as a fight scene.

Edit* In part due to the downsides of Exalted social combat system and some arguments presented across these two discussions. So I guess Interaction skills can work on the internet. :)

Yay! This I agree with wholeheartedly. Hero system already has pretty good bones for this IMO - certainly we've spent plenty of sessions - see my current game log - with players dicing off on social skills. That can be as tense as combat, in many ways.

The key to making it so is not rules, or even social hit points, but consequences. To take one example (since this is a game I have run with two groups, so I could compare how they tackled it) I ran an interlude in the last campaign called "Enlarging the Prince's Gate" where the PCs had to get a warrant from the Imperial court. The PCs were made very clear that violence was not an option and instead had to schmooze their way through wangling invites to parties, finding who to talk to, working out what was an appropriate bribe, etc. The last step - discreetly passing on bribes - involved in one game a secret assignation in a garden, in the other a covert meeting at the Opera. In the latter case, one of the players was literally sweating, in both cases tension was high because everyone know that saying the wrong thing or doing the wrong thing could at best set back their goal enormously, or at worst, get them all executed.

The concepts I favour for this, I've already laid out.
1. The degree of success of the roll should have some impact. Succeeding by a large amount means a very high degree of success, failing means a potentially negative consequence. Players need to know this in advance!

2. Use extended contests and opposed rolls - one of the good things I took from Heroquest. I rarely make the decision on extended/simple contests as GM - instead I offer the choice to the players. In the court example above, for example, the player with High Society could have tried to contact someone at court. I would have asked for an appropriate KS roll or perhaps high society roll, and then if they succeeded, said, "You know, outside contact is very rare. You can try it but you're going to have huge minus" The player then gets the choice: Cut straight to the centre - knowing that big failure = tragic results, or take it in steps? In the scenario outlined above, both groups opted to take a smaller risk (meaning smaller minus on the roll) by finding someone who knew someone, who could at as an intermediary.

How they did that demonstrates how hard it is to plan scenarios for social interaction skills. If a scenario includes a fight, virtually every group will have fight capacity. In this case, however, group 1 had a PC with a high PS:Poet skill. He attended some parties, demonstrated his virtuosity with the brush and got a connection to a member of court that way. Party 2 had no such high-falutin' skills. They frequented gambling dens until they found a court servant, helped him run up a debt he couldn't pay and then used him to identify a go-between. When it comes to social interactions, the GM has to be prepared to wing it.

3. Encourage complementaries. In general, I discourage players from simply "making a roll". They need to describe how they are making the roll. For some things, like combat, that's pretty easy - "I strike at him" or "I strike at his head" or "I wait until he turns the corner and strike him unexpectedly" or whatever. The description may well give a bonus or penalty. For skills like climbing, it's also pretty easy. "I climb the wall" gives a straight roll. "I search for a section of crumbling wall and climb there" might give a bonus on a successful Concealment roll - or might not, if the wall is well maintained.

For social skills, the same. "I seduce her" is acceptable, but gains no bonuses. "I use KS: Computing to hack her computer, find out what things she likes and seduce her" will - if successful - give a complementary bonus to the roll - or more conventionally, you could use Conversation or Persuasion. :D A failure in any of these might give negative effects, but what kind of negative effects is going to vary. A failure in conversation might make you look nosy or boring. A failure in Persuasion might make you seem creepy or arrogant. A failure in KS: Computing might result in an arrest warrant :D Given that how much progress you make depends on how well you succeed in the roll, the more complementaries the better - which means a PC might spend an hour of real time - and some weeks of game time - building up to an important roll.

This approach works well for us - and has worked well for me for three different gaming groups. It requires relatively little alteration of the system as it stands. It is also possible to make current skills more granular: I'm perfectly happy with High Society, but a game of Court-based intrigue might break it into several skills or supplement it with several skills.

In general, I expect social skills to work on a scale of minutes, not phases. So - to take the by now well-beloved example of the Conman and the Berserker - to talk a charging berserker down is going to take a -2 for going from minutes to phases, -3 for using a non-combat skill in combat and a -5 for the fat that the guy is both frothing at the mouth and screaming, plus the fact that he already hates the target of his charge. And in my game, the Berserker has to at least be willing to listen. If not, the Con man needs to try to persuade other people to help him or run away and try again under more propitious circumstances.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Thank you for that recognition. At the end of the day, we don't want one ability to be wildly mispriced by comparison to the other. However, I also want social skills to accomplish something - not just be flavour text for the target character. A character spending 75 points on social skills should get as much benefit in that arena as 75 points of combat abilities generates in combat, not simply be brushed aside because the combat monster doesn't wish to be influenced.

The combat monster has paid 75 points to be a combat monster. The social monster has paid 75 points to be a social monster. In combat, I would expect the social skills to be near useless, as I would expect the combat skills to be near useless in a social context. So no, the social monster should NOT expect to be able to dominate social interaction AND talk his way out of combat. He wants mad combat skillz, buy combat skillz (Mind control would seem appropriate, in this case).


But if the player comes back with "My character has a headache" or "My character is not tempted", then perhaps the mechanics need to enforce better role playing. The player has clearly failed to do so.

Long story short. If you are counting on rules to "enforce" roleplaying, you have already lost. Players will roleplay if they want to.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

One thing that strikes me as odd about using mental powers to simulate manipulation and persuasion is that it does force pseudo social interaction into a physical combat frame work. Hit rolls, resistance rolls, phases, etc. all come into play.

And some of the other baggage of mental powers bugs me when applied to social use but that's more a pet peeve.

Agreed - I would not use Mind Control when social skills would suffice. But social skills don't suffice when you move to combat mode - that's when I'd use Mind Control, if I wanted to force interaction.

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Yay! This I agree with wholeheartedly. Hero system already has pretty good bones for this IMO - certainly we've spent plenty of sessions - see my current game log - with players dicing off on social skills. That can be as tense as combat, in many ways.


Well it's good to see we can see eye to eye or close to it on some things. :)

PS: I was going to reply to your post about GNS but you're right. It would be quibbling over terms that are so vague and watered down that they are essentially useless in discussion (but great for arguments). I have a better idea where you are coming from now though.

[nexus]

Sorry. I posted this earlier and managed to delete most of it while making an edit.

:o


I wouldn't call Exalted a narrative system, true: it uses the WoD storyteller system - and seperates combat and social interaction into two different timescales, as you note. If you are going to try and "talk the Berserker down" then you'd better get ready to soak some damage. Physical combat and social interaction are not really designed to interact in Exalted and the social system presented is less detailed than that Hero system already has.


It doesn't use the WOD storytelling system. It uses a much more crunch heavy version (the Storytelling adventure system) hat is pretty different from the oWOD and nWOD neither of which aren't really considered Narrative systems They also have mechanics for social interaction that, ironically more ingrained into the combat system. They function like anything else in those systems with a detailed set of modifiers and use a "stick" system in that to brush off a successful social action against your character you have to spend WP which is an important commodity.

Long story short, Exalted is "Simulationist" game that has a definite "social combat" system. It's even what they call in the rule book. But you are correct that it doesn't function alongside the physical combat system and that's been a complaint even from major fans of the game. Due to the fact it fails to simulate a major aspect of the genre it's linked too, that people can debate, argue or even seduce amid clashing blades and Kung fu kicking.



Weapons of the Gods is an even odder choice: It's not a narrative system, true, but it doesn't really have anything I'd regard as rules for social interaction either. Lores are more akin to Hero system disadvantages in many ways and Secret Arts and Extraordinary Techniques are essentially combat abilities.


The game also allows those abilities to be used in the social arena. The –player- isn't compelled to make their character do anything specifically but if don't they'll suffer penalties to their actions. Its how Courtiers function and influence the game world by influencing others.



Well, yes, but if you have attack rolls, defence rolls, and social hitpoints, it is going to be seen as an adversarial system. That's the nature of combat.


Well first, I'm not calling for mapping social interaction to combat. The reason I find taking it as adversarial activity is that it makes players prone to taking it personally, like it’s the gm picking on them rather than a part of the story.



At this stage, then, I am not sure what you want


I want a developed and interesting system that makes social interaction have the same depth mechanically and tactically that physical interaction has. It doesn't have to follow them same model but posses a similar degree of development most importantly the ability to have undeniable impact that can't be ignored on the whim of a GM or player because they don't like the results.



As for other skills, one of the PCs has Stealth, 18-. Usually, I let him perform routine infiltration activities (I sneak close to the campfire) without a roll. However, I'd have no hesitation in saying "No" if he tried to "sneak" across an open, uncrowded plaza in full daylight. Stealth is not invisibility. He also has 16- in Climbing. Last session I said "The shaft is of slick, unjointed stone and wider than your arms can span. You cannot climb it." Climbing is not Clinging. Skills are enormously useful and relatively cheap, but they have their limits.


Gm wise I'd call most of those insanely difficult rolls, such that no one without an inhuman level of skill could pull them off and if I didn't want them to happen in a game. I'd cap before that point. That's a difference of opinion.



It's not a question of "If you don't like a result, ignore it". Certainly I have never said such a thing. My viewpoint is that you cannot force someone to interact socially if one participant refuses to participate - absent perhaps tying him up, so he cannot get away.


This is the main point of disagreement I think. I do believe that someone can create interaction when the target isn't willing. Part of the skills is the ability to get someone to pay attention, even to start in on them without them even knowing what you're doing it. It's more difficult (in Exalted Social combat terms it's a Social Dodge) but not by any means impossible so I don't feel that should be an automatic shut down.

You may not have said anything about being able to ignore social rolls you don't like but others certainly have. I remember posts about the player of a character tied in a chair and being tortured has a right to say "Nope, nothing they do to me can break me." Sure there would be consequences, but I don't think that makes up for giving out complete immunity to a section of game and possibly a character's schtick.



But I'd have no problem saying "No" if he walked up to someone on the street and said "Buy this old shoe for 200 pieces of gold", regardless of what he rolled. PS:Merchant is not mind control


See, I don't think someone with 16- or less skills are getting someone to buy something WOULD just walk up with an old shoe and demand allot of money for it. They'd come up with a story about how it was magical, a rare antique, or how they're children were starving and if only they could get some money…

Depending on how good their roll was, they might get what they asked or at least some cash or something...



Social interaction skills are terribly useful, but I see no reason they should be employable as combat tools in addition to their non-combat utility.


Who's saying the should be "combat" tools? I want them to be useful tools for doing what they're supposed to do. You could USE them in combat to some things if you're good enough to pull it off. But you can us an EB outside of combat to do things too if you are creative and it's sfx.

And, IME, social skills aren't terribly useful even in their venues because too often players balk at –anything- or any use of them and GM shut them down because they've defined them too narrowly, too literally or too restrictively because, in the end, Interaction and dealing with people can have much longer term affects on the game that punching them in the face.

And the makes some people uncomfortable.

You and the people you've played with may not ever have run into the issue, but others certainly have. I'd risk saying your something of a minority.



You could do that - but now you are moving away from social combat to a narrative system, where the outcome is negotiated between participants. It's very different from the combat system and (IMO) doesn't play very well with it: it's not clear how you would negotiate an outcome where one participant wants to talk and the other to slash - perhaps "If you fail, you die". :)]


I'm not sure what you're calling "narrative" systems, Paying a Hero Point (or some other token) to resist isn't particularly "Narrative" any more than paying one to shrug off being Stunned by an attack is. Getting a token (HP,exp, whatever) is just a passive reward system to encourage the player to accept the roll against them.

Letting the target select how the character reacts limited by the fact the failed the rolls so the intent of the action should still take place is a compromise between the "I don't care what you rolled, my guy wouldn't do that" and "I made the roll, do exactly what I say" extremes.

Negotiating is the closet to "Narrative" but that isn't retroactive, you're plotting what could happen on success of failure so neither side feels like they either everything to gain or nothing to lose or may as well not even try because they can't succeed. It's not perfect but nothing is. In the case of trying trick, wheedle or plead for someone not to kill you, the only negotiation indeed might be "If I succeed your character backs off or listens to me for a bit and if I fail, combat continues." Some times it takes maturity and GM calls to make systems work right but IMO an interesting interaction or a tense die roll is better than a cut and dried "You can't do that."



Narrative systems tend to avoid such stark choices, given that you have the problem of what happens when the target suggests an unacceptable outcome (which is not unlikely in combat). That's why in general they perform poorly in games where combat is an integral component: you generally don't want to wager your PCs continued existence on a single dice roll unless it's a major story turning point.


Well, you're not wagering your character's life on a single die roll. Failure could mean combat continues as normal not "You die." That doesn't mean automatic death more than it did before Bartford attacked and at least Fennwick had a chance to see his specialty could save him.

Or he could punch a bystander to make a Pre attack and pray :D

Edit: I have no problem with the negotiation or whatever being cut and dried or even lopsided in this case. The talky guy is on the combat guy's primary turf and at a disadvantage.

[nexus]

Long story short. If you are counting on rules to "enforce" roleplaying, you have already lost. Players will roleplay if they want to.


True nothing can make someone role play if they don't want too, at the very least they can leave the game. I think you'd agree rules can facilitate, reward and encourage role play though?

I consider Interaction skills to be difficult under most combat conditions just like other noncombat skills and using some combat abilities as limited use outside of combat conditions. But I don't draw a sharp distinction between Combat and Social or Everything Else. In an rpg you should be role playing even the middle of battle, IMO, and any chance to interact is a chance to use Interaction skills though it might be extremely difficult. The current Hero System rules already enforce that in large part

[nexus]

I think that several of us might be closer to agreement than it seems. The primary areas of contention seem to be

When are social skills applicable, heavily penalized or inapplicable

And

How binding their results should be with the "No at all" and "Totally" as the extreme ends.

[Vulcan]

You know, we had something like this come up in one of our games.
GM introduced a love interest for my Character, I was game so I went along with it. He was, as these things go, a double agent type looking to get an "inside" on the group.

The GM used the success level of his Seduction Roll to see how well he hid his true intentions - a sort of "just how much are you falling for him" kind of thing. And dropped hints here and there, really subtle ones because the bloody punk made it by 10, that mostly, I missed.

It was a big reveal. A really nice in game surprise. The character never did anything I wouldn't have had them do - given the information I had on hand. Which is the key to "social interaction/combat" is using Info On Hand to make decisions. . .


*Dingdingding* We have a winner!

It's about the roleplaying, not the rollplaying. I don't see the need for a whole bunch of new rules to determine this sort of scenario will work; the ones we have work just fine - so long as people are roleplaying.

[Vulcan]

But if the player comes back with "My character has a headache" or "My character is not tempted", then perhaps the mechanics need to enforce better role playing. The player has clearly failed to do so.

Empahsis mine - and it is that exact part of the statment that I have the greatest problem with. Because at the end of the day, the mechanics cannot enfore rolepaying, they can only enforce rollplaying. Either the player roleplays his character, or the dice roll and determine what the character does - and that's not roleplaying in any form.

Most of the people I've played with have been pretty good about roleplaying. There have been a few over the years who have been real trolls, others who refuse to roleplay anything reasonably, and the occasional 'I don't wanna' type. Guess what? We don't play with them anymore, because their version of roleplaying doesn't mesh well with ours. We don't need the mechainics to enforce - or even to teach - roleplaying. We can do it just fine ourselves.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, yes, but if you have attack rolls, defence rolls, and social hitpoints, it is going to be seen as an adversarial system. That's the nature of combat.

This is why I refer to a social conflict resolution system, rather than social conflict. Like Nexus, I want the option of a rich system that allows for drama, tactics and social maneuvering, rather than a single die roll and we move on. A system as rich as our current combat system, not identical or analogous to it.


As for other skills, one of the PCs has Stealth, 18-. Usually, I let him perform routine infiltration activities (I sneak close to the campfire) without a roll. However, I'd have no hesitation in saying "No" if he tried to "sneak" across an open, uncrowded plaza in full daylight. Stealth is not invisibility. He also has 16- in Climbing. Last session I said "The shaft is of slick, unjointed stone and wider than your arms can span. You cannot climb it." Climbing is not Clinging. Skills are enormously useful and relatively cheap, but they have their limits.

So what's the difference between having an 18- and a 28-? At what point does the near-impossible become achievable. Who was Vlad Taltos' buddy that no one ever noticed until he spoke?


It's not a question of "If you don't like a result, ignore it". Certainly I have never said such a thing. My viewpoint is that you cannot force someone to interact socially if one participant refuses to participate - absent perhaps tying him up, so he cannot get away. And no-one at all has suggested that such refusal to participate should be without consequences - quite the opposite, in fact.

How does one escape participation? Fleeing the field, sure. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting so you can't hear? I suppose so, although social interaction also has nonverbal components. But just deciding "No, my character cannot be persuaded?" Not good enough.

One other matter. Why is it that the naysayyers are insistent that the system will immediately be taken to ludicrous and unfair extremes? "Buy this shoe with a hole in it for 200 gold coins - I have a 16- merchant skill" is a good example. Now, maybe a guy with a superhuman level of skill might pull it off - and maybe we need better definitions of what a superhuman level of skill CAN pull off, and what the penalties for such attempts are. But Hero should be able to handle characters at all levels, even "extreme skill" levels. What does the guy with Stealth 18- gain by buying it up to 23-?

[Vulcan]

Agreed - I would not use Mind Control when social skills would suffice. But social skills don't suffice when you move to combat mode - that's when I'd use Mind Control, if I wanted to force interaction.

cheers, Mark

Which is how I do it when I want a conman so slick, he can talk a raging barbarian down from a bererk - when he's the one the barbarian wants to kill! (Or a Casanova type so seductive, he can seduce an opponent mid fight...:D)

Because combat skills are useful in combat, and noncombat skills.... are a lot less useful in combat.

[nexus]

Agreed - I would not use Mind Control when social skills would suffice. But social skills don't suffice when you move to combat mode - that's when I'd use Mind Control, if I wanted to force interaction.

cheers, Mark

I guess that's just is just a difference we'll never see eye to eye on. I don't like drawing a distinction between "combat mode" and "Talk mode". It feel artificial and too unlike my experience in real life and a great deal of fiction. I'm not saying You're Wrong!. The idea just doesn't work for me.

[nexus]

Because combat skills are useful in combat, and noncombat skills.... are a lot less useful in combat.

Which is why the suffer at least a -3 penalty hen used in combat and often a lot more if you want to complete the task in a reasonable (IOW Before you are killed/the bomb goes off/the villains get away) amount of time. Cinematic characters like those Hero creates can pull these things off from time to time because they're just that damn good. :)

[Vulcan]

Which is why the suffer at least a -3 penalty hen used in combat and often a lot more if you want to complete the task in a reasonable (IOW Before you are killed/the bomb goes off/the villains get away) amount of time. Cinematic characters like those Hero creates can pull these things off from time to time because they're just that damn good. :)

Maybe I should have put the word 'reliably' in my post...

[nexus]

One other matter. Why is it that the naysayyers are insistent that the system will immediately be taken to ludicrous and unfair extremes? "Buy this shoe with a hole in it for 200 gold coins - I have a 16- merchant skill" is a good example.

This is true. Now the character in question might come up with a better approach (trying to con the mark into thinking the rotten shoe is something important, for example) but that is going to take more time, more skill rolls including at least one to get the mark to hang around long enough. It's not a one roll, auto win unless the GM is a jerk.

And no rules or lack of them can stop that.

I think at least some of the contention is coming from bad experiences with just that kind of GM (or players for the extremists on the other side of the issue).

[nexus]

If I can be forgiven for using a highly comedic example, here's a character that I would consider to have a Power that mimics an extreme Interaction skill. He was featured on American Dad last night

The guy could sexually seduce any woman at all....with a look. Didn't even have to speak, just a look and some suggestive body language and they'd jump on him in about 3 seconds. This worked on several armed POW guards in a row and they continued to follow him loyally for some time afterwards. It never failed.

Stan: "He porked our way out 200 miles of hostile guerrilla filled jungle. The man's hips never stopped moving. It was magnificent!"

I'd call that an ability that would require a Power (Among other things) :D

More seriously, I think Hugh Neilson has a good idea. More definition of just what is possible for a extreme or inhuman amount of skill would be helpful.

[Netzilla]

Because combat skills are useful in combat, and noncombat skills.... are a lot less useful in combat.

What I find interesting in all of this is that pro fighters will actually talk to each other during a fight. They'll throw around insults, taunts and other distractions while trading punches, working the clinch and so forth. They do it to try to get in the other guy's head and take him off his game. Here's the thing, it actually works. I've even had it done to me. Bouncers I've known have had whole arrays of things to say in order to distract someone spoiling for a fight ('Do you have the time' is a common favorite). They ask the question and make their move while the other guy is standing there with a dumb look on their face. Cops will do the same thing if they're in speaking distance to distract someone hostile long enough so they can draw their gun.

Now, none of this is talking down a raging berserker, but it is throwing someone off while they're intent on knocking your block off (or worse in the case of cops) with no interest in listening to a word you say. I don't think any of these folks have Mind Control (or any interaction skill in excess of 13-). So, it seems there is some case for using social skills in the middle of combat. It might not work all the time, but it does often enough to be a common tactic. The fact that it doesn't work all the time is why you'd have to make the skill roll.

[The Main Man]

What I find interesting in all of this is that pro fighters will actually talk to each other during a fight. They'll throw around insults, taunts and other distractions while trading punches, working the clinch and so forth. They do it to try to get in the other guy's head and take him off his game. Here's the thing, it actually works. I've even had it done to me. Bouncers I've known have had whole arrays of things to say in order to distract someone spoiling for a fight ('Do you have the time' is a common favorite). They ask the question and make their move while the other guy is standing there with a dumb look on their face. Cops will do the same thing if they're in speaking distance to distract someone hostile long enough so they can draw their gun.

Now, none of this is talking down a raging berserker, but it is throwing someone off while they're intent on knocking your block off (or worse in the case of cops) with no interest in listening to a word you say. I don't think any of these folks have Mind Control (or any interaction skill in excess of 13-). So, it seems there is some case for using social skills in the middle of combat. It might not work all the time, but it does often enough to be a common tactic. The fact that it doesn't work all the time is why you'd have to make the skill roll.

There's a reason why the UFC (and most martial arts promotions in general) do not allow s***-talking during fights.

[The Main Man]

I'm kinda liking the idea of "negotiation."

It sounds similar to how a GM decides the degrees of success in FUDGE except that the players have input.

[Lucius]

To compare the two, one character spend 75 points on a suite of interaction skills, a high PRE and a number of skill levels with interaction skills. The second spent the same 75 points on a suite of combat skills and abilities. The second gets abilities that function reliably. The first gets abilities that are arbitrarily shut down.

And your Combat Driving won't help if there's no gas in the tank.
If “Skills work when it is reasonable and appropriate and not otherwise” means “arbitrarily shut down” then everybody's skills get “arbitrarily shut down” sometimes.



CONCLUSION: Only spend points on combat abilities as non-violent solutions will only be permitted to work when it's not important anyway. Violence will always work.


I'm not sure what drives you conclusion that “violence will always work.” That may be true in a dungeon crawl, but I suspect it's not true in most games.



So, in your view, it is acceptable for the physical combat rules


No, in my view the physical combat rules, and everything to do with physical combat, including hypothetical examples of combat, is completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. It is also my view that they remain irrelevant no matter how many times you bring them up.



But NOT if I buy a skill to very high rolls, apparently.


Certainly you're still designing your own character when you assign skill rolls. What makes you think otherwise?

If you try to buy skills for my character, however, you're no longer designing your own.



Does the character choose the actions of others or their results? An attempt to kill my character is an action of another character - a choice they have made - and I do not control the results. I do control how my character will react to this - defend himself, flee, etc. My success will be determined partially by the abilities of my character, and partially by the dice.


If this is your thinking - “I do control how my character will react” to what another character does or attempts – then we have no disagreement.



If you have invested the same points in Stealth that you would invest to be invisible and inaudible, I suggest the two will be virtually indistinguishable in practice.

Okay, here we have a disagreement.

Approximately equal in value to the character, yes.

Virtually indistinguishable, no.

For example, in some ways Stealth (At very high rolls) may be actually superior to Invisibility. It works by default on all senses, although I'd assume it takes a penalty against exotic senses the stealthy character does not possess, especially if the stealthy character doesn't know about them. But I don't need the nose of a bloodhound to know tricks to disguise my scent, nor do I need to possess infrared vision to know a trick or two for concealing my heat signature. A character with a Stealth roll of <=29 probably knows a great many tricks for remaining undetected.

Contrariwise, if the stealthy character needs to get across a well lit room that's under video surveillance, and because one alarm has already been tripped there is certain to be at least one alert guard watching the monitors – well, Invisibility to Sight might be a lot more useful than Stealth just then.



In any case, imposing your will on my character's actions is, in my view, no more or less offensive whether done by spending 60 points on interaction skills or spending 60 points on Mind Control.


Oh wait – are we talking about imposing my will on your character's actions?
I thought we were talking about my actions imposing on your character's will.

I don't think we're even in agreement about what we're disagreeing about.

Perhaps there's a case to be made that controlling another character's actions with Mind Control is “offensive.” If you think so, you can certainly forbid the power if you're running the game.

But if Mind Control is allowed, it can be used to control a character's actions. Says so in the book. It can even make the character think it's their own idea. Says that in the book too.

What I don't remember it saying is that it becomes the character's own idea. That's what you've said, and that's what I've objected to. Writing something down on your own character sheet (regardless of what you've written) doesn't make someone else's character your own character to play.

The way I see it is, Mind Control already gives you a lot of power over another character. Why do you feel a need to have even more? And in particular, why do you feel a need to have even more from a Skill?

Lucius Alexander

When it comes to minds, the palindromedary is in a class by itself.

[nexus]

I think I should clarify that when I call for the intent of an Interaction skill use to be in the open I don't mean that the motive for it has to be. VV might be trying to get the hero to come back to her room or leave with but the reason doesn't have to be revealed. It could be a trap and she's bored and he's handsome.

Of course, many time the rp will make the intent pretty clear if the player wants to describe/rp the skill use.

[The Main Man]

Regardless of the development of a more granular social interaction system or not, the core rules should probably point out that rolling dice is for creating tension.

Situations that do not call for tension could be "Standard Effected" and the PC's go on with their day.

[nexus]

Yep, my personal opinions on when to roll dice is only when the results of success or failure would be entertaining or interesting or when it seems like the only fair arbiter is chance for a particular situation.

[Markdoc]

This is why I refer to a social conflict resolution system, rather than social conflict. Like Nexus, I want the option of a rich system that allows for drama, tactics and social maneuvering, rather than a single die roll and we move on. A system as rich as our current combat system, not identical or analogous to it.

In that case, we are getting closer to agreement. A "social combat system" was what was specifically ducussed earlier with "social hit points" being mentioned. The comparison with physical combat and the amount of "ruleage" invested further built that impression

"Social combat systems" do exist - I've played games with them. And as I've pointed out, they really operate in a way totally different to Hero system's "blow by blow" combat - in ways that I am really not interested in changing Hero system towards (primarily making it far more abstract).

On the other hand, I have repeatedly pointed out I think that expansion on the social aspects of skills (and skills generally) would be a good thing. But that's a whole universe away from a social combat system or even a "a social interaction system as intensive as the current combat system".

It's pretty theoretical goal, but saying "If someone wants to play Legal Hero or Gray's Anatomy Hero, they should be able to" misses the point. Nobody actually wants to play Legal Hero or Gray's Anatomy Hero. If a vast amount of text and effort is going to be invested in such a system, it has to actually offer something the system currently doesn't - and which most people will actually want to buy and use.


So what's the difference between having an 18- and a 28-? At what point does the near-impossible become achievable. Who was Vlad Taltos' buddy that no one ever noticed until he spoke?

The near impossible starts to become possible around 18-, IMHO. Having 23- just makes that easier. Neither 23- nor 50- makes the impossible possible.


How does one escape participation? Fleeing the field, sure. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting so you can't hear? I suppose so, although social interaction also has nonverbal components. But just deciding "No, my character cannot be persuaded?" Not good enough.

Agreed - as I have said multiple times, that's not what I am suggesting. However saying "I refuse to interact with this person - not listen to him, not talk to him, I want noting to do with him" ... that should be an option.


One other matter. Why is it that the naysayyers are insistent that the system will immediately be taken to ludicrous and unfair extremes? "Buy this shoe with a hole in it for 200 gold coins - I have a 16- merchant skill" is a good example. Now, maybe a guy with a superhuman level of skill might pull it off - and maybe we need better definitions of what a superhuman level of skill CAN pull off, and what the penalties for such attempts are. But Hero should be able to handle characters at all levels, even "extreme skill" levels. What does the guy with Stealth 18- gain by buying it up to 23-?

He gains +5 on his skill roll. That's all. When stealth rolls are not applicable, it counts for nothing. Stealth doesn't cease to be Stealth because you spent 2 or 4 more points on it.

As for why people are wary about it being taken to extremes, it's mostly because you started with extreme examples. That hardly builds confidence.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

If “Skills work when it is reasonable and appropriate and not otherwise” means “arbitrarily shut down” then everybody's skills get “arbitrarily shut down” sometimes.

When you have the vehicle and there is gas in the tank, you determine the penalties for trying to put the vehicle through a particularly complex maneuver, you roll the dice and you succeed or fail.

When you are in proximity with another character and you want to use your interaction skills to, say, persuade them to co-operate with you, you should again determine the penalties for trying to persuade this person to take an action they are not inclined to take, roll the dice and succeed or fail.

"The car doesn't feel like going up on two wheels to get through the constrained space" or "the guy doesn't want to, so he doesn't pay attention to you" are both arbitrarily shutting down the skill. In both cases, the character's skill and the appropriate penalties should determine the results, not the desire of one side or the other that a success take place.


I'm not sure what drives you conclusion that “violence will always work.” That may be true in a dungeon crawl, but I suspect it's not true in most games.

"I don't envision my character being seduced, so therefore it automatically fails" is precisely as legitimate, in my view, as "I don't envision my character being hit, so therefore he automatically misses". If your character is highly resistant to interaction skills, he should pay the points for that resistance the same way a character who is hard to hit pays for DCV.
Certainly you're still designing your own character when you assign skill rolls. What makes you think otherwise?


If you try to buy skills for my character, however, you're no longer designing your own.

I am not designing a character with a 33- Persuasion skill roll, or a Mind Control power, or a Transform power. Those are mechanics intended to simulate the character. I am designing a character who possesses amazing ability to persuade others - they go along with what he requests willingly, not because they are somehow forced to do so. His ability changes their minds, just like a 10d6 attack changes their bodies.


If this is your thinking - “I do control how my character will react” to what another character does or attempts – then we have no disagreement.

Control over reactions is limited. In physical combat, I control what I try to do. I don't control whether I succeed. I might miss, be hit, be knocked out or be killed.

In a social context, I could see Persuasive Pete coming down the street, duck into an alley and run away because I know if he gets into interaction range, I'll end up doing what he wants, based on prior experience. But once I choose to get within speaking distance, I can only control the fact that I *try* to resist his persuasiveness. I cannot control whether I succeed. There, Pete's skills, my resistances and the dice control the outcome.


Approximately equal in value to the character, yes.

Virtually indistinguishable, no.

For example, in some ways Stealth (At very high rolls) may be actually superior to Invisibility. It works by default on all senses, although I'd assume it takes a penalty against exotic senses the stealthy character does not possess, especially if the stealthy character doesn't know about them. But I don't need the nose of a bloodhound to know tricks to disguise my scent, nor do I need to possess infrared vision to know a trick or two for concealing my heat signature. A character with a Stealth roll of <=29 probably knows a great many tricks for remaining undetected.

Contrariwise, if the stealthy character needs to get across a well lit room that's under video surveillance, and because one alarm has already been tripped there is certain to be at least one alert guard watching the monitors – well, Invisibility to Sight might be a lot more useful than Stealth just then.

It certainly would be. But a character with Stealth in the 29- range, as you suggest, knows a lot of tricks. In the extreme case you posit, knowing enough tricks seems unlikely (lots of penalties, to say the least). But he may know something about that video surveillance's arcs of coverage that a less stealthy individual would not.


Perhaps there's a case to be made that controlling another character's actions with Mind Control is “offensive.” If you think so, you can certainly forbid the power if you're running the game.

I don't find social skills affecting my character offensive either. My character isn't immune to persuasion any more than he is immune to bullets - unless I shell out the points for appropriate abilities to make him functionally immune.


But if Mind Control is allowed, it can be used to control a character's actions. Says so in the book. It can even make the character think it's their own idea. Says that in the book too.

And we are writing the new book. I want to see the new book discuss how social skills can impact player characters and NPC's alike. No free ride,


What I don't remember it saying is that it becomes the character's own idea. That's what you've said, and that's what I've objected to. Writing something down on your own character sheet (regardless of what you've written) doesn't make someone else's character your own character to play.

The special effects of my power are mine to choose. If the special effects of my character's Mind Control (which must always use "target remembers and thinks it was his own idea") are that it WAS his own idea, then the SFX of my powers govern. The mechanical result - "target remembers and thinks it was his own idea" - is perfectly consistent, as the target should remember, and it was his own idea.


The way I see it is, Mind Control already gives you a lot of power over another character. Why do you feel a need to have even more? And in particular, why do you feel a need to have even more from a Skill?

I don't believe "target remembers and thinks it was his own idea" is any different in power than "the command becomes the target's own idea".

I am curious what benefit you feel SHOULD be granted by an interaction skill used against your character. The right to say "well, he made his roll by 10, but you just go ahead and do whatever you feel like"?


In that case, we are getting closer to agreement. A "social combat system" was what was specifically discussed earlier with "social hit points" being mentioned. The comparison with physical combat and the amount of "ruleage" invested further built that impression

I'd say similar level of depth, but similar mechanics are far from essential.


On the other hand, I have repeatedly pointed out I think that expansion on the social aspects of skills (and skills generally) would be a good thing. But that's a whole universe away from a social combat system or even a "a social interaction system as intensive as the current combat system".

How intensive we can get depends on how much work goes into the system.


It's pretty theoretical goal, but saying "If someone wants to play Legal Hero or Gray's Anatomy Hero, they should be able to" misses the point. Nobody actually wants to play Legal Hero or Gray's Anatomy Hero. If a vast amount of text and effort is going to be invested in such a system, it has to actually offer something the system currently doesn't - and which most people will actually want to buy and use.

In many science fiction settings in the source material, we see the character working feverishly on a medical problem. Recreating this in Hero comes down to "roll your Medical skill", with either success or failure. Or "oh, you could solve it if you had a sample of the venom - move to a search and combat solution now".


The near impossible starts to become possible around 18-, IMHO. Having 23- just makes that easier. Neither 23- nor 50- makes the impossible possible.

Then let's set an official cap on how high the roll can go before it can do everything possible on a 17-. What are the maximum penalties that can be overcome with a skill roll?


Agreed - as I have said multiple times, that's not what I am suggesting. However saying "I refuse to interact with this person - not listen to him, not talk to him, I want noting to do with him" ... that should be an option.

That should be an option only if the character can make it happen. You can try to ignore someone in the same room with you, but that's not guaranteed to succeed. It imposes more penalties. The person now needs to capture your attention. That's easier if you are paying attention, tougher if you're bored and your mind is wandering, and even tougher if you are actively trying not to listen or be persuaded. But it falls short of impossible.

Now leaving the room so he can't communicate with you, not taking his calls, not reading his letters? Now there's nothing he can do - he can't get into "social conflict range".

[nexus]

"I don't envision my character being seduced, so therefore it automatically fails" is precisely as legitimate, in my view, as "I don't envision my character being hit, so therefore he automatically misses". If your character is highly resistant to interaction skills, he should pay the points for that resistance the same way a character who is hard to hit pays for DCV.
Certainly you're still designing your own character when you assign skill rolls. What makes you think otherwise?


Exactly. As I've explained before. It's not "violence always works" its combat skills are always applicable when performing their appropriate function. If they are successful or not is another story. And their function can be performed at anytime. Characters can start a fight at practically anytime they desire. There might be consequences and dire ones but they skill will function as intended. The target of an attack cannot just say what amounts to "I don't feel like being attacked right now" and ignore them which some people in the discussion appear to advocating for Interaction skills.

Trying social interaction in an inappropriate situation will also have consequences. For one thing performing them in a fight is very difficult, impractically so for most characters in any sort of normal skill range which provides a mechanical "simulationist" reason why most characters don't try it until before or after a battle except out of desperation (our friend Fennwick).

Not wanting to interact at all, IMO, would be a strong negative modifier analogous to (but NOT MECHANICALLY IDENTICAL TOO before anyone jumps on the Social combat value thing) Dodging and dumping all your Skill levels in DCV in combat which can make you incredibly difficult to effect but doesn't make you immune. If the player wants their character to be functionally immune to a major part of the game then they should invest points in something to represent that. You can certainly avoid social interaction all together and you can avoid combat all together but it has to be set up. I don't think it should just be a switch a player can pull arbitrarily for one and not the other*.

If you see the smooth talker that always manages to talk you into trouble, you can slip out of the room, same as if you see the guy that always tries to rough you up and break your face. But once engaged by either, it's more difficult to just shut down the conflict. You can flee a fight, but your opponents can chase you. You can walk away from a conversation but the other guy can follow and nag you. Role playing and tactics can handle either situation. IMO, that's more interesting and engaging than just saying "No, can't happen."

*Unless it is part of the design goal of Hero System that Interaction is a less important of the game than Combat. Which is fine (if personally disappointing) but should be made explicit and perhaps Interaction skills should be a little cheaper or lumped a one or two things, IMO

[The Main Man]

All right, here's a question: What's the point of Resistance then?

[Vulcan]

Now leaving the room so he can't communicate with you, not taking his calls, not reading his letters? Now there's nothing he can do - he can't get into "social conflict range".

Here's an example of how social combat fails because someone stops interacting with the person trying to persuade them. I'm going to ignore you from now on. Good luck trying to persaude me now.

[The Main Man]

Here's an example of how social combat fails because someone stops interacting with the person trying to persuade them. I'm going to ignore you from now on. Good luck trying to persaude me now.

How exactly is that a "failure" as opposed to the current usage of Interaction Skills?

[Vulcan]

All right, here's a question: What's the point of Resistance then?

Allows you to get a bonus on your ego roll to resist being interrogated.

When his character is interrogated, a roleplayer will play out how his character will react to the situation. He may lie, he may tell some of the truth, or he may spill his guts, depending upon the player's vision of the character. If I'm playing Wolverine, and (by a miracle) you make the interrogation roll, I'd have him tell you something that would take time to confim. If I'm playing Leisure Suit Larry, I'd have him spill his guts.

Why do the two react differently? Because they're two different people, and I'm roleplaying them accordingly.

If the GM can make a roll and tell me what my character does (as opposed to what happens when he gets shot at), then what am I even there for? :thumbdown

[Vulcan]

How exactly is that a "failure" as opposed to the current usage of Interaction Skills?

Illustrating a point: if one ignores the person attempting to persuade, then it fails to matter how much 'persuasion skill' one has, or 'how much he made the role by.' You. Still. Fail.

[The Main Man]

Illustrating a point: if one ignores the person attempting to persuade, then it fails to matter how much 'persuasion skill' one has, or 'how much he made the role by.' You. Still. Fail.

So are you saying that Interaction Skills are effectively unnecessary?

[The Main Man]

Allows you to get a bonus on your ego roll to resist being interrogated.

When his character is interrogated, a roleplayer will play out how his character will react to the situation. He may lie, he may tell some of the truth, or he may spill his guts, depending upon the player's vision of the character. If I'm playing Wolverine, and (by a miracle) you make the interrogation roll, I'd have him tell you something that would take time to confim. If I'm playing Leisure Suit Larry, I'd have him spill his guts.

Why do the two react differently? Because they're two different people, and I'm roleplaying them accordingly.

If the GM can make a roll and tell me what my character does (as opposed to what happens when he gets shot at), then what am I even there for? :thumbdown

Why would you spend points on Resistance if you do not even seem to believe in Interaction Skills?

IOW, if you believe that Interrogation is invasive, then why would you waste points on Resistance if you are going to disagree with any result?

[nexus]

Here's an example of how social combat fails because someone stops interacting with the person trying to persuade them. I'm going to ignore you from now on. Good luck trying to persaude me now.

Even with "social combat" or detailed social interaction system you can still avoid interaction you just can't automatically ignore it when it starts. Just like I could avoid a fight but once its on I can't just ignore it I can refuse to engage (ie fight back) and Dodge like I've never dodge before but there is not free method by which I can just make it end.

[Vulcan]

So are you saying that Interaction Skills are effectively unnecessary?

PLEASE do not try to put words in my mouth, especially when they are so spectacularly NOT WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. :mad:

I'm saying that Hugh is not going to persuade me to his point of view. Incidentally, if the real world had a social combat system, he could roll some dice and say 'yes I did' and magially I would agree.

The Interaction skills are a guideline and a tool that assist roleplaying, and as such are a valuable addition to the game. I've been saying that ALL ALONG! A mechanic that forces character reactions is, in my opinion, NOT a valuable addition to the game.

In the spirit of cooperation, I am willing to conceed that there are people who think that such a mechanic is a good thing, and that perhaps such a system being an (VERY) optional part of the HERO System is not so terrible. I would be satisfied - nay, even happy - to see such rules, in a book of advanced optional rules. They do not belong in the core rules, and that is my position.

[nexus]

Illustrating a point: if one ignores the person attempting to persuade, then it fails to matter how much 'persuasion skill' one has, or 'how much he made the role by.' You. Still. Fail.

What your describing is avoiding the conflict all together. If you are interacting with person, talking them either on the phone, in person, letter writing or whatever. You can't just "utterly ignore them" unless you can somehow completely shut off your sense and thoughts to any outside influence whatsoever. Part of the art of dealing with people is getting them to listen to you when they don't want too, pushing their buttons in some fashion until they want to engage or starting in before they know it. If this was not possible in the real world there would be no point to much advertising, debate or public speaking training since anyone and every could just tune it out instantly

[Vulcan]

Why would you spend points on Resistance if you do not even seem to believe in Interaction Skills?

IOW, if you believe that Interrogation is invasive, then why would you waste points on Resistance if you are going to disagree with any result?

Try reading the post!

One character stalls for time, the other TOTALLY RELENTS AND TELLS THE INTERROGATOR EVERYTHING. How did you get 'you are going to disagree with any result' when one of the two examples I gave agreed with the results of the die roll?

[nexus]

I'm saying that Hugh is not going to persuade me to his point of view. Incidentally, if the real world had a social combat system, he could roll some dice and say 'yes I did' and magically I would agree.


No. He couldn't. Interaction skills do not automatically succeed even if you have a high skill roll. Apparently he isn't able to overcome the sizable penalties imposed by communicating over the internet, perhaps you have "Stubborn" +5 to Ego rolls tp resist Persuasion.

[nexus]

If the GM can make a roll and tell me what my character does (as opposed to what happens when he gets shot at), then what am I even there for? :thumbdown

If I can buy a skill and my level of ability, success or failure is totally fiat driven, based on what the target's player feel is appropriate... Why did I pay points for it? If I can completely decide how my character reacts to any social situation why invest in things like Ego, Pre, etc? Might as well just drop the pretense that skills, etc mean anything mechanically. Why are Pre attacks even a part of the game?

If things are going to run that way in a game, I'd prefer the GM just say up front "Interactions Skills aren't really important" and be done with it rather than let people sink points into things that are going to limited to the point of near uselessness for no discount.

[The Main Man]

PLEASE do not try to put words in my mouth, especially when they are so spectacularly NOT WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. :mad:
http://www.geocities.com/vibestothemax/chill_pill.jpg



I'm saying that Hugh is not going to persuade me to his point of view. Incidentally, if the real world had a social combat system, he could roll some dice and say 'yes I did' and magially I would agree.

Or he could roll his dice and fail. The door swings both ways.

Or he could roll his dice, and, much like Mental Powers (skating on thin ice I suppose), there are degrees of success in which the user's "successful" roll may not even be sufficient for the desired effect.

The idea is in its infancy but you seem to know what it will be already.

It's interesting that you just admitted that you are being close-minded.


The Interaction skills are a guideline and a tool that assist roleplaying, and as such are a valuable addition to the game. I've been saying that ALL ALONG! A mechanic that forces character reactions is, in my opinion, NOT a valuable addition to the game.

I don't need to pay points to throw a punch or to pick up an apple or to talk.

If Interaction Skills are only guidelines to interaction and nothing more then they should be free.



In the spirit of cooperation, I am willing to conceed that there are people who think that such a mechanic is a good thing, and that perhaps such a system being an (VERY) optional part of the HERO System is not so terrible. I would be satisfied - nay, even happy - to see such rules, in a book of advanced optional rules. They do not belong in the core rules, and that is my position.
Fair enough on that front.

[Vulcan]

(takes several deep breaths....)

Okay, people, this is really starting to piss me off.

I am willing - happy, even delighted - to see a social combat system in the rules, so long as it is clearly optional and not in the core rules.

Beyond that point... well, what the h#!! do you want out of me!

I like the current mechanics for social interaction in the HERO System. Interaction skills, PRE attacks, and even super-skill Mind Controls all have their place to support the ultimate social interaction tool of all...

ROLEPLAYING!

Anyone else remember that? This is a Role Playing Game?

IF the die roll makes the Role Playing irrelevant, then we eliminate the Role Playing and are left with just a GAME.

If this is the change you want to make in your games, be my guest! I'm not going to come to your place and MAKE you role-play character interactions, you can roll dice to your heart's content.

I just don't want the HERO System as a whole to go that route. It would then be a GAME, and I've got plenty of those that are quicker and easier to play. HEROCLIX, for example...

Edit: Signing off this discussion for a while to get my temper back under control.

[The Main Man]

Even with "social combat" or detailed social interaction system you can still avoid interaction you just can't automatically ignore it when it starts. Just like I could avoid a fight but once its on I can't just ignore it I can refuse to engage (ie fight back) and Dodge like I've never dodge before but there is not free method by which I can just make it end.

I do not particularly see a problem with Social Interaction being avoidable.

You do not even need to run away - what if you do not speak the same language?

Besides, the GM can always assign a reputation to a character that they always plug up their ears at the slightest sound of someone else's voice - I'd find that person rather unappealing if I met them myself.

[nexus]

Beyond that point... well, what the h#!! do you want out of me!


Um, man you keep posting about how wrong everyone that thinks a detail system would be, pointing out flaws. What do you expect of them? To just smile and nod? You don't like the idea, you've established that but you seem to want to convince "us" to your POV too.

... you could just ignore us. Why do you feel compelled to engage? :)




ROLEPLAYING!

Anyone else remember that? This is a Role Playing Game?

IF the die roll makes the Role Playing irrelevant, then we eliminate the Role Playing and are left with just a GAME.

If this is the change you want to make in your games, be my guest! I'm not going to come to your place and MAKE you role-play character interactions, you can roll dice to your heart's content.


Annnnnd we're back to the "rollplayer" cheap shots. I guess you choose to ignore the discussion about using Interaction to enhance role playing such negotiation, scale success and tempering the results to the character's persona or how the "tactics" employed in social equate to role playing and setting up interesting situation. There's no social mode and role playing mode. All they role play can be enhanced and facilitated by the mechanics.

[The Main Man]

(takes several deep breaths....)

Okay, people, this is really starting to piss me off.

I am willing - happy, even delighted - to see a social combat system in the rules, so long as it is clearly optional and not in the core rules.

Beyond that point... well, what the h#!! do you want out of me!

I like the current mechanics for social interaction in the HERO System. Interaction skills, PRE attacks, and even super-skill Mind Controls all have their place to support the ultimate social interaction tool of all...

ROLEPLAYING!

Anyone else remember that? This is a Role Playing Game?

IF the die roll makes the Role Playing irrelevant, then we eliminate the Role Playing and are left with just a GAME.

If this is the change you want to make in your games, be my guest! I'm not going to come to your place and MAKE you role-play character interactions, you can roll dice to your heart's content.

I just don't want the HERO System as a whole to go that route. It would then be a GAME, and I've got plenty of those that are quicker and easier to play. HEROCLIX, for example...

Edit: Signing off this discussion for a while to get my temper back under control.

While I and all the rest of us are sure that you are sure that we are not trying to piss you off, there is the faintest possibility that others may be disagreeing not because they want to rollplay but because they do not see the idea as detrimental to the system, optional or not.

So Interaction Skills as a guide are okay with you, but how do you handle PRE attacks?

Take your time to reply.

[nexus]

I do not particularly see a problem with Social Interaction being avoidable.


I don't have a problem with it being avoidable, I suggested a few ways. Any situation can be. I have an issue with the ability to just wave it away. With it being ignorable at a whim



You do not even need to run away - what if you do not speak the same language?


That would be a big penalty but there is body language, gesture, expression and tone of voice to consider. I've managed to communicate desires to people that didn't speak my language and I don't think I have some limited form of Telepathy, for example.

The scope and depth of communication/interaction would also be pretty restricted.



Besides, the GM can always assign a reputation to a character that they always plug up their ears at the slightest sound of someone else's voice - I'd find that person rather unappealing if I met them myself.

A character that constantly avoids battles by hiding and ducking their opponents is going to get a reputation as a Coward. I don't think plugging your ears and screaming LALALALALA (or whatever "totally ignoring someone" means) is automatic system for avoiding interaction. I'd see it as a bad failure on the part of the active partner...or the target being a real weirdo.

[nexus]

As far as "eliminating" role playing, I suggested a system where Interaction skills would be more like Tactics and Deduction. The player would get some information from the target's player on what they would have to do or say to get the result they're looking for or something close to it. It's more honor system and has obvious problem but it would something.

[Hugh Neilson]

Allows you to get a bonus on your ego roll to resist being interrogated.

When his character is interrogated, a roleplayer will play out how his character will react to the situation. He may lie, he may tell some of the truth, or he may spill his guts, depending upon the player's vision of the character. If I'm playing Wolverine, and (by a miracle) you make the interrogation roll, I'd have him tell you something that would take time to confirm. If I'm playing Leisure Suit Larry, I'd have him spill his guts.

I suggest that, in order to lie under interrogation, you first need to resist the Interrogation roll. Why did the character performing the interrogation pay for skills? So he would have a better chance of getting your character to lie to him?

Wolverine has a much higher Resistance than Larry - therefore, he can hold out and lie, where Larry spills his guts.


I'm saying that Hugh is not going to persuade me to his point of view. Incidentally, if the real world had a social combat system, he could roll some dice and say 'yes I did' and magically I would agree.

Just like if the real world had a physical combat system, my 7 year old son could just roll some dice and magically beat up a bar room full of Hell's Angels? Some rolls are more difficult than others. Some will require a much more skilled individual than others. And guess what? Some things are impossible at any skill level in the real world - as opposed to the cinematic world.


The Interaction skills are a guideline and a tool that assist roleplaying, and as such are a valuable addition to the game. I've been saying that ALL ALONG! A mechanic that forces character reactions is, in my opinion, NOT a valuable addition to the game.

So is your Wolverine clone more likely to spill his guts if the interrogator has a 25- skill than if he has 15-? Not from your comments to date. With that in mind, what purpose does the difference in skill rolls serve? If we remove them, either character can threaten violence, and Larry will fold while Wolvie says "give it your best shot". Success and failure are solely driven by the desires of the player, with no possible variance.

In such a structure, just eliminate interaction skills entirely - points spent on them do nothing.



One character stalls for time, the other TOTALLY RELENTS AND TELLS THE INTERROGATOR EVERYTHING. How did you get 'you are going to disagree with any result' when one of the two examples I gave agreed with the results of the die roll?

No. You decided that Larry would fold. You decided that Wolvie would not. You are deciding whether the interrogator succeeds or fails. You have allowed no possibility that Wolvie could lose this social contest, and it costs him precisely nothing to gain this immunity.

If you want to role play a tough guy, then pay the points to be tough. Just like you have to pay the points to be skilled in combat, resistant to damage, or skilled at breaking down those resistances as an interrogator.


If things are going to run that way in a game, I'd prefer the GM just say up front "Interactions Skills aren't really important" and be done with it rather than let people sink points into things that are going to limited to the point of near uselessness for no discount.

I agree - if you don't want the skills to be effective, they should not be purchased by anyone. Don't waste your points, because the skills will not dictate the results.


I like the current mechanics for social interaction in the HERO System. Interaction skills, PRE attacks, and even super-skill Mind Controls all have their place to support the ultimate social interaction tool of all...

ROLEPLAYING!

Anyone else remember that? This is a Role Playing Game?

IF the die roll makes the Role Playing irrelevant, then we eliminate the Role Playing and are left with just a GAME.

If this is the change you want to make in your games, be my guest! I'm not going to come to your place and MAKE you role-play character interactions, you can roll dice to your heart's content.

I just don't want the HERO System as a whole to go that route. It would then be a GAME, and I've got plenty of those that are quicker and easier to play. HEROCLIX, for example...

In my little world, role playing does not end when conflict is resolved by the dice. I, and my players, role play in combat. We role play our characters' reactions to things that go right, and things that go wrong. We can role play how our character reacts to being persuaded out of his cherished moral beliefs. We can role play the reaction of the supposed "tough guy" when he breaks under pressure. Your claim that "the player decides whether interaction skills work" is somehow superior role playing. It is merely constraining the experiences you role play your character through.

[The Main Man]

I don't have a problem with it being avoidable, I suggested a few ways. Any situation can be. I have an issue with the ability to just wave it away. With it being ignorable at a whim




That would be a big penalty but there is body language, gesture, expression and tone of voice to consider. I've managed to communicate desires to people that didn't speak my language and I don't think I have some limited form of Telepathy, for example.

The scope and depth of communication/interaction would also be pretty restricted.
Good call. I was even going to correct my post seconds afterwards, but boy did the lazy bug bite me then.



A character that constantly avoids battles by hiding and ducking their opponents is going to get a reputation as a Coward. I don't think plugging your ears and screaming LALALALALA (or whatever "totally ignoring someone" means) is automatic system for avoiding interaction. I'd see it as a bad failure on the part of the active partner...or the target being a real weirdo.
OT1H, a character plugging their ears could be construed as failure on the active participant (fair enough and makes sense for a particularly poor roll) but OTOH if a player is doing it... then the character is doing it. Right? If you get what I'm saying...

[nexus]

OT1H, a character plugging their ears could be construed as failure on the active participant (fair enough and makes sense for a particularly poor roll) but OTOH if a player is doing it... then the character is doing it. Right? If you get what I'm saying...

I think I do.

[Lucius]

"The car doesn't feel like going up on two wheels to get through the constrained space" or "the guy doesn't want to, so he doesn't pay attention to you" are both arbitrarily shutting down the skill.

Well, if you actually do believe that those two situations are similar, and make no distinction between a vehicle and a character, you should have no problem with me saying “Your Persuasion skill doesn't work on my character because my character is out of gas.”

Although it would be amusing to see you trying to refuel a character....

I'm going to explain this one more time.

Every character is somebody's character to play – whether it's a player's player character, or another character being played by that hardworking longsuffering person who usually isn't counted as a “player.”

If a character is a player character, then it's that player's character to play. You can't change that based on what you write on your own character sheet, no matter how many points you spend, no matter what Skills and Powers you have, and no matter what words you write down on your own character sheet. It's simply not your character.

If you want to think that makes social skills useless, you're welcome to that belief. You don't have to buy them for your characters.



If the GM can make a roll and tell me what my character does (as opposed to what happens when he gets shot at), then what am I even there for? :thumbdown

Actually, to be precise : if the roll was for, say, Mind Control, then another player – or the Game Operations Diretor – CAN tell me what my character does.

What they CAN'T do is tell me what my player character decides to do. Not even the G.O.D. has that right, and as much as I sincerely respect them, neither do Nexus or Mr. Neilson.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary, having found no rules to forbid it, secretly writes down on its character sheet that every other character belongs to it too.

[Vulcan]

Okay, had some time to cool down and I see that nexus is right, I have been a bear lately in this discussion. My apologies to all.

So instead of ranting about 'social rules bad!', I'm going to explain my experiences in 'social combat systems', and hopefully that will illustrate my fears for one in the HERO System.

I play with a pretty good bunch of guys. The ones who actually run games are generally pretty good (leaving out out current Champions GM, but he's not one of the ones I'm going to be talking about here). The stories are engaging and fun, with plenty of wiggle room for the players to be players.

Right up until we play a game with a social combat system - the WOD 'Vampire' game.

As soon as we started Vampire, it seemed like everyone and their dog could endlessly manipulate the PC's thoughts and beliefs (and I'm not just talking about Dominate and Presence here, this is just about the skill system!). If we tried to buck the plotline, someone would presently be along to talk us back onto it, our character's preferences regardless. And the PC' were helpless to resist.

This happened not once, but three times with three separate GM's. All of whom had run other games with no such railroading tendencies. And not one of them could see it while they were running. "They're just trying to talk you into it!" was the mantra. And once the die rolling was done, away we went, whether we wanted to or not...

(And before it starts, I'll say it now: These were not guys who are bad GM's. They have proven their GMing skill before and since the few times we tried to play Vampire. So be forewarned, I will tolerate no slights against them, you will be reported for an inflammitory post, for I will have to assume you're trying to start a fight with me about the quality of my friends.)

Perhaps it is an artifact of the Vampire game world, but to me, it seems like the GM having the tools to socially railroad the characters somehow makes it more acceptable than doing it physically. After all, you're just being talked into it, not forced into it, right?

So. There's my experience, and my fears, about social combat systems. I assume that many of you have not had the same bad experiences with social combat systems that I have had.


Now, having said that, let's approach the issue from a different way. How do we come up with a social combat system (or conflict system, or whatever you want to call it) that I can live with?

Right now the system has three social resolution systems that are only vaguely related - Interaction Skills, which are PRE based; PRE attacks; and super-skill Powers that almost always 'require an interaction skill roll.' Can we do something to combine the three, streamline things a bit? If not, then we need to come up with something completely new. The one thing I ask - the one thing - is that the player never looses the ability to decide what his character thinks and wants, even if the rolls 'persuade' him to grudgingly go against them.

So can it be done?

[The Main Man]

Okay, had some time to cool down and I see that nexus is right, I have been a bear lately in this discussion. My apologies to all.

So instead of ranting about 'social rules bad!', I'm going to explain my experiences in 'social combat systems', and hopefully that will illustrate my fears for one in the HERO System.

I play with a pretty good bunch of guys. The ones who actually run games are generally pretty good (leaving out out current Champions GM, but he's not one of the ones I'm going to be talking about here). The stories are engaging and fun, with plenty of wiggle room for the players to be players.

Right up until we play a game with a social combat system - the WOD 'Vampire' game.

As soon as we started Vampire, it seemed like everyone and their dog could endlessly manipulate the PC's thoughts and beliefs (and I'm not just talking about Dominate and Presence here, this is just about the skill system!). If we tried to buck the plotline, someone would presently be along to talk us back onto it, our character's preferences regardless. And the PC' were helpless to resist.

This happened not once, but three times with three separate GM's. All of whom had run other games with no such railroading tendencies. And not one of them could see it while they were running. "They're just trying to talk you into it!" was the mantra. And once the die rolling was done, away we went, whether we wanted to or not...

(And before it starts, I'll say it now: These were not guys who are bad GM's. They have proven their GMing skill before and since the few times we tried to play Vampire. So be forewarned, I will tolerate no slights against them, you will be reported for an inflammitory post, for I will have to assume you're trying to start a fight with me about the quality of my friends.)

Perhaps it is an artifact of the Vampire game world, but to me, it seems like the GM having the tools to socially railroad the characters somehow makes it more acceptable than doing it physically. After all, you're just being talked into it, not forced into it, right?

So. There's my experience, and my fears, about social combat systems. I assume that many of you have not had the same bad experiences with social combat systems that I have had.


Now, having said that, let's approach the issue from a different way. How do we come up with a social combat system (or conflict system, or whatever you want to call it) that I can live with?

Right now the system has three social resolution systems that are only vaguely related - Interaction Skills, which are PRE based; PRE attacks; and super-skill Powers that almost always 'require an interaction skill roll.' Can we do something to combine the three, streamline things a bit? If not, then we need to come up with something completely new. The one thing I ask - the one thing - is that the player never looses the ability to decide what his character thinks and wants, even if the rolls 'persuade' him to grudgingly go against them.

So can it be done?

Sounds like you did indeed have a bad experience. My condolences.

As far as the three vaguely related elements - that's what I've been thinking should be done as-is: streamline them into a more coherent process than it currently is.

I think that PRE Attacks could become more analogous to Mental powers in that they instead have a gradual system of effect that must be determined before someone even rolls.

But I think that before one even makes their PRE attack they must make a PRE Roll of some kind, preferably an appropriate Interaction Skill roll.

So if a character is making an Interrogation Roll, they could have a gradual chart (EGO/PRE even, EGO/PRE +10, etc) that gives a gauge of what can happen in the first place.

I think that an "Intimidate" skill could be introduced for making... well, intimidation-based PRE attacks.

All of the modifiers that are currently relevent to PRE Attacks could still apply, but I'm not sure if they should apply to the dice or to the Interaction Skill.

It could be compared to a character who makes their attack roll, but they do not do a lot of damage - in this case, the character may have an insane Seduction skill, but their actual PRE dice may be rather lousy - a good roll will, at best, generate maybe a few more dice.

I'm still thinking things over from there - the train of thought seems to have made an emergency stop.

[ajackson]

Right up until we play a game with a social combat system - the WOD 'Vampire' game.
Social combat system? WoD? News to me. WoD is filled with mind control options, and within the Vampire setting it seems pretty much expected that older vampires come along and manipulate neonates into doing what they want done, but I don't recall ever coming across something that could reasonably be called a social combat system.

[Doc Democracy]

If a character is a player character, then it's that player's character to play. You can't change that based on what you write on your own character sheet, no matter how many points you spend, no matter what Skills and Powers you have, and no matter what words you write down on your own character sheet. It's simply not your character.

You dont change things by writing them on your character sheet but we do change them through game mechanics all the time.

We decrease and increase characterstics in a variety of way - most often STUN and BODY! :D We also change powers and abilities (for example through the use of flash or entangle type powers) and even (in some games) add and remove disadvantages...

So the character sheet is NOT inviolate. It changes. Often at the insitgation of the actions of another character.


Doc

[Markdoc]

As far as "eliminating" role playing, I suggested a system where Interaction skills would be more like Tactics and Deduction. The player would get some information from the target's player on what they would have to do or say to get the result they're looking for or something close to it. It's more honor system and has obvious problem but it would something.

Part of the problem, I think was that I earlier had the impression you (and several others) wanted a social combat system. That - by definition - is a system where results are at least partially hardwired: people have social defences, social resistance (like Hit points) and when you have won a social combat, you get to dictate, pretty much, the outcome. Hugh emphasized that impression by choosing examples of mind control-like situations where persuasion was used to force people to undertake activities that simply wouldn't happen under any rational analysis (The nun and her novitiates stripping off and offering themselves to strangers in a locker-room, for example). That kind of "taking control of other character's actions" is a feature of "social combat".

In contrast, what you are describing above is exactly how I run social interaction using the existing rules. It doesn't require any changes to the existing system - but over time I have come to realise that not every GM uses the system to to its current potential. I was suprised how many posters we had who said "Huh. COM. Never use it." Or "Does nothing, costs nothing." For these GM's, OK, a social interaction system of any sort isn't going to be much use.

For everyone else, however, an expansion of what you wrote above is exactly what I originally said I think the system needed - so we're in total agreement here. An expansion on how to use the existing system is the best of both worlds. It lets GMs who want to weight social interaction more equally with combat do so. It doesn't add a mostly useless - and possibly interfering - extra layer of rules on what's already a pretty rules-intense game.

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

(And before it starts, I'll say it now: These were not guys who are bad GM's. They have proven their GMing skill before and since the few times we tried to play Vampire. So be forewarned, I will tolerate no slights against them, you will be reported for an inflammitory post, for I will have to assume you're trying to start a fight with me about the quality of my friends.)

[...]

Perhaps it is an artifact of the Vampire game world, but to me, it seems like the GM having the tools to socially railroad the characters somehow makes it more acceptable than doing it physically. After all, you're just being talked into it, not forced into it, right?

Not looking to dis your friends but this is a GM artefact. Possibly because the setting encourages it (and this is another thing that needs to be cleared within a group before they play a setting) and partly because there may be that very thought in their head 'it is OK to coerce socially rather than physically'

I would say that any coercion of players is bad - I usually refrain from Mind Control villains unless I am ready for the players (not the characters) to kill that villain as soon as they can.

If the GM is using higly skilled NPCs to make the characters do certain things then, unless very skillfully handled, it will cause resentment. It sounds as though the difference in skills was so great that your characters had no chance of victory - which removes things from social combat to social coercion.

You see this kind of distinction all the time in real life. My wife is a Big Brother addict and I see it there. Housemates will get swiftly disciplined for physical intimidation and bullying but social bullying and intimidation is accepted for much longer periods of time.

i couldn't go on the show simply for the reason that I would hit someone.


The one thing I ask - the one thing - is that the player never looses the ability to decide what his character thinks and wants, even if the rolls 'persuade' him to grudgingly go against them.

I'm not sure that can be done in a simple way. If the character believes that killing is wrong - he has it as a psych disad, it is possible that someone might convince him that the multiple child molester who always escapes from prison deserves to die. It might prove impossible to convince him to pull the trigger but possibly enough to turn around and allow someone else to do it. it might be easier to convince him if he had a competing disad of protective of children.

Now, I think that the player might not want the character to concede to this - to be pure to his ideals - but the combat system indicates that he is convinced (at that moment) that the villain does indeed deserve to die.

The roleplaying opportunity is in how the character reacts to this. Does he coldly turn his back. Does he force himself to watch and say "Do it!". Does he stand with tears running down his cheeks. Does he subsequently report himself and his colleague to the police, knowing the man deserved to die and thinking that it was OK to kill him are two different things....

Long term the character has to react to the event. It should be major (if it involves a character going against disads) and the player and GM should work together to deal with this.

The whole point of roleplaying (to me) is the drama of it and if the drama is simply around the physical combat then it is lessened. If the beliefs of the player cannot be challenged through the possible beliefs of the character then the potential of the game is lessened.

IMO.


Doc

[steamteck]

As far as "eliminating" role playing, I suggested a system where Interaction skills would be more like Tactics and Deduction. The player would get some information from the target's player on what they would have to do or say to get the result they're looking for or something close to it. It's more honor system and has obvious problem but it would something.


Seems to me just like psychological limitations interacting with each other a system as envisioned might foster some entertaining and unexpected roleplaying.

[Lucius]

You dont change things by writing them on your character sheet but we do change them through game mechanics all the time.

We decrease and increase characterstics in a variety of way - most often STUN and BODY! :D We also change powers and abilities (for example through the use of flash or entangle type powers) and even (in some games) add and remove disadvantages...

So the character sheet is NOT inviolate. It changes. Often at the insitgation of the actions of another character.


Doc

I'm reminded of a discussion long ago in which someone was asking how to give a character the power to change another character's name.

Someone else said it would be a small Cosmetic Transform because you're just changing what's written on the character sheet under "name."

While I don't agree with that assessment, I never said the character sheet was "inviolate." I said the principle that a player's character is that player's character was inviolate. In fact, when I put it that way, it's a tautology....

Lucius Alexander

A palindromedary is a palindromedary.

Lucius Alexander

[Doc Democracy]

I said the principle that a player's character is that player's character was inviolate.

I'm not sure that you can argue with that particular statement! :)

I think what is at stake is whether you can convince the character of something without, at the same time, in real life, convincing the player.

If you change the character's strength then you are indeed changing that player's character - no effect on the player. When you change the character's perspective on an issue then you are alos changing that player's character - no effect on the player.

Pro-social contest indicates there is no difference between those situations.

Anti-social contest indicates there is indeed a crucial difference between those and the system should not encourage such a thing.


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

I was suprised how many posters we had who said "Huh. COM. Never use it." Or "Does nothing, costs nothing." For these GM's, OK, a social interaction system of any sort isn't going to be much use.

Maybe this is part of the way to resolve the COM issue. You have COM and PRE featured in a part of the book entitled social interaction in HERO which takes those two concepts (possibly expands them slightly) and demonstrates options and uses and how to resolve social contests in game and how to use the system to its fullest. That section might help by givingthose that want a social contest system something to work from and a couple of extra tools, it would also give both COM and PRE more of a reason to survive and thrive in a sixth edition???


Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, if you actually do believe that those two situations are similar, and make no distinction between a vehicle and a character, you should have no problem with me saying “Your Persuasion skill doesn't work on my character because my character is out of gas.”

If your character is sleeping, social conflict is going to be tough to resolve. The fact is that people get manipulated into doing things they had no intention of doing. Skilled salesmen, con artists, Internet email scammers, advertising, manipulative "friends", simple peer pressure and numerous other examples exist. Some people are more resistant, and others are less resistant, to these influences.

If you want your character to be more resistant, that should carry a cost. Just like being more resistant to mental powers, or more resistant to damage from fire. If you want your character to be less resistant, you likely take a Vulnerability or Susceptibility - some form of disadvantage - and get points for having less resistance to such influences than whatever is set as the default.


Every character is somebody's character to play – whether it's a player's player character, or another character being played by that hardworking longsuffering person who usually isn't counted as a “player.”

If a character is a player character, then it's that player's character to play. You can't change that based on what you write on your own character sheet, no matter how many points you spend, no matter what Skills and Powers you have, and no matter what words you write down on your own character sheet. It's simply not your character.

That's odd. If you don't write "missing left arm", and my AxeMan character hits you in the arm with a sufficiently disabling wound, I believe loss of the arm is a possible in-game result. That seems to be a change in your character. You can pick up any number of disadvantages - Hunted and Reputation come to mind - in play, without wanting them or having chosen to place them on your character sheet. You can lose perks like Followers in play. So the theory that nothing can change your character seems to hold little weight in practice.

And yes, I can define my character's powers. I can take a Transform that permanently blinds a target (an example in the book, IIRC). I could take a Transform that changes his beliefs ("Democrat to Republican", for example). My example of a Mind Control that changes the target's thought processes so that, for that point in time, he believes in what I want him to believe in is only one small example.


If you want to think that makes social skills useless, you're welcome to that belief. You don't have to buy them for your characters.

If social skills have no impact on the desired actions of the target characters, what purpose do they serve?


As far as the three vaguely related elements - that's what I've been thinking should be done as-is: streamline them into a more coherent process than it currently is.

I think that PRE Attacks could become more analogous to Mental powers in that they instead have a gradual system of effect that must be determined before someone even rolls.

But I think that before one even makes their PRE attack they must make a PRE Roll of some kind, preferably an appropriate Interaction Skill roll.

So if a character is making an Interrogation Roll, they could have a gradual chart (EGO/PRE even, EGO/PRE +10, etc) that gives a gauge of what can happen in the first place.

I think that an "Intimidate" skill could be introduced for making... well, intimidation-based PRE attacks.

All of the modifiers that are currently relevent to PRE Attacks could still apply, but I'm not sure if they should apply to the dice or to the Interaction Skill.

Perhaps the level of success of the interaction skill should have an impact on the level of PRE attack dice. At that point, making all modifiers to the skill would still seem effective.

Or perhaps we eliminate the PRE attack and resolve all social skills by opposed rolls. The more you win by, the greater the effect. The Intimidate skill replaces the PRE attack table.

We then start replacing PRE attack modifiers with social maneuvers. "Incredibly Violent Action" becomes a "Social Haymaker". How often in the source material does a character present his "social antagonist" with the opportunity to go ahead and kill him? That seems like a high impact, high risk maneuver similar to a haymaker in physical combat.

Of course, if we take the "my character can never be influenced by social conflict mechanics" approach, then this is a stupid move, since the answer will be "My character is uninfluenced, so he goes ahead and kills the guy."


Not looking to dis your friends but this is a GM artefact. Possibly because the setting encourages it (and this is another thing that needs to be cleared within a group before they play a setting) and partly because there may be that very thought in their head 'it is OK to coerce socially rather than physically'

I would say that any coercion of players is bad - I usually refrain from Mind Control villains unless I am ready for the players (not the characters) to kill that villain as soon as they can.

If the GM is using higly skilled NPCs to make the characters do certain things then, unless very skillfully handled, it will cause resentment. It sounds as though the difference in skills was so great that your characters had no chance of victory - which removes things from social combat to social coercion.[/quote]

It's interesting that so many posters think a social conflict system would make it acceptable to run roughshod over the players. A character who can simply dictate the characters' actions through outrageous social skills seems, to me, no more acceptable than one who possesses mental powers such as Mind Control at a level the PC's can't hope to resist, or physical combat powers which render the PC's helpless.

No more acceptable, but also no less acceptable. In all cases the GM places the characters in a no win situation.

In fact, in the source material, that unbeatable powerhouse in physical combat often seems to be defeated by social means, rather than physical means. That's another means of attacking the target's weaknesses rather than his strengths. The game system should be able to accommodate this source material result.


I'm not sure that can be done in a simple way. If the character believes that killing is wrong - he has it as a psych disad, it is possible that someone might convince him that the multiple child molester who always escapes from prison deserves to die. It might prove impossible to convince him to pull the trigger but possibly enough to turn around and allow someone else to do it. it might be easier to convince him if he had a competing disad of protective of children.

Now, I think that the player might not want the character to concede to this - to be pure to his ideals - but the combat system indicates that he is convinced (at that moment) that the villain does indeed deserve to die.

The roleplaying opportunity is in how the character reacts to this. Does he coldly turn his back. Does he force himself to watch and say "Do it!". Does he stand with tears running down his cheeks. Does he subsequently report himself and his colleague to the police, knowing the man deserved to die and thinking that it was OK to kill him are two different things....

Long term the character has to react to the event. It should be major (if it involves a character going against disads) and the player and GM should work together to deal with this.

The whole point of roleplaying (to me) is the drama of it and if the drama is simply around the physical combat then it is lessened. If the beliefs of the player cannot be challenged through the possible beliefs of the character then the potential of the game is lessened.

That sums up the benefits, in dramatic storytelling and pure roleplaying terms, of a social conflict system. People's minds can be changed. Their beliefs can be challenged, and even overcome, sometimes for short terms and sometimes long term. The game does not presently allow for that.


I think what is at stake is whether you can convince the character of something without, at the same time, in real life, convincing the player.

If you change the character's strength then you are indeed changing that player's character - no effect on the player. When you change the character's perspective on an issue then you are alos changing that player's character - no effect on the player.

Pro-social contest indicates there is no difference between those situations.

Anti-social contest indicates there is indeed a crucial difference between those and the system should not encourage such a thing.

Nicely summed up.

I think that, in addition to a social conflict resolution system, 6e should provide a discussion of the various levels of social conflict resolution in the game. The fact that some players consider such coercion/manipulation/control of their characters to be part of the role playing opportunity, while others consider it a violation of the social contract, should be discussed. The players and the GM need to be on the same page as to how these mechanics will be used in the specific game, and what the effects can be. This is no different than other campaign ground rule discussions like level of lethality, expected character motivations ("no evil characters", for example) or genre conventions ("no elves or dwarves in our modern action game"; "no telepathy or other powers which would invalidate mystery scenarios").

The fact that this can be a hot button for some players should be addressed. It's hardly unique in that regard. Some games frown on PC vs PC antagonism, while others thrive on it. Some games view killing a PC as virtually unacceptable while others see it as business as usual. And some see social conflict applying to PC's as offensive, while other see it as perfectly reasonable. When differing assumptions meet, the result is generally not a good game for everyone.


Maybe this is part of the way to resolve the COM issue. You have COM and PRE featured in a part of the book entitled social interaction in HERO which takes those two concepts (possibly expands them slightly) and demonstrates options and uses and how to resolve social contests in game and how to use the system to its fullest. That section might help by givingthose that want a social contest system something to work from and a couple of extra tools, it would also give both COM and PRE more of a reason to survive and thrive in a sixth edition???

I think the issues are definitely linked. If I want my character to be tough to impress, and we start the game with a PRE attack that leaves my character shaking in his boots, I may be opposed to PRE attacks affecting player characters. For some groups, the answer may be "PRE attacks do not affect PC's", or "do not affect PC's or significant NPC's" or even "No PRE attacks". For others, it may be "if you want to resist PRE attacks, buy up your PRE, your EGO or PRE defense" or even "your character will win sometimes and lose other times - suck it up and quit whining".

PRE attacks, COM defining how attractive my character finds someone, and social skills that can persuade my character to a course of action I considered inappropriate for him to take are all social influences on the character. The game should provide these mechanics. It should also provide guidance on their use in the game, and consider the possibility of gaming groups who prefer not to use such mechanics in their games.

That decision needs to be made up front and clearly communicated. The players should know up front that interaction results will not be decided by skills and mechanics, but purely by whether the GM or the player thinks the target character would be swayed, based wholly on how the players describe their actions. They then know that, in this game, points spent on interaction skills are simply wasted.

I've seen similar issues where the GM decides that investigation matters will be resolved by what the players decide their characters are looking for, and skills like detective work, deduction or forensics do not enter into success or failure. Those skills become wasted points, and the player who invested points in them quickly becomes frustrated because the player who paid no points is more successful with investigation activities than he is.

A lot of game systems, especially older ones, had mechanics only for combat, with everything else dictated by player actions and GM interpretation. I'd like Hero to provide the option of a more objective (and objective generally comes down to mechanics) resolution system.

As for whether it is "optional", I return to the basic premise of the Hero rules - ALL rules are optional. But let's see the rule book provide guidance on which rules may cause problems and why.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's a definite hot button issue. I don't understand the assumption that inclusion of a social conflict system equates to PC's being lead around by rings in their noses. The assumption that this facet of the system would automatically be abused confuses me - the rest of the system is already easily abused, and as players and GM's, we adhere to the social contract to not abuse it.

Why would a social conflict resolution system be different? How would the mere inclusion of a system in the rules so change the beliefs of GM's and players regarding fair play versus unbeatable opposition?

[Hugh Neilson]

Every character is somebody's character to play – whether it's a player's player character, or another character being played by that hardworking longsuffering person who usually isn't counted as a “player.”

If a character is a player character, then it's that player's character to play. You can't change that based on what you write on your own character sheet, no matter how many points you spend, no matter what Skills and Powers you have, and no matter what words you write down on your own character sheet. It's simply not your character.

This is an immovable object/irresistable force paradox. If I write on my character sheet that my character is impossible to persuade - his personal beliefs are unshakable - and you write on yours that your character is almost supernaturally persuasive, one of us is not getting to play his character. Either yours can't persuade mine or mine can't resist yours. The problem is that we both have an "absolute", neither of which is statted out.

With an actual social conflict system, we still have the discrepancy in our vision for the characters, just as if we both decided our characters would be "the smartest person in the world". All we can do is move to a bidding war with one of us buying up the ability to persuade and the other buying up resistance to being persuaded.

The better approach, to me, is for the competing schticks to be recognized up front, and a decision made as to which player will play a different character in this game to avoid stepping on the other's schtick.

[Markdoc]

I'm not sure that you can argue with that particular statement! :)

I think what is at stake is whether you can convince the character of something without, at the same time, in real life, convincing the player.

My experience says yes you can - but to do that, you have to convince the PCs player that the PC should be persuaded. Just dumping "Your PC is persuaded" on the player is, in my experience, the path to a world of GM'ing pain and ugliness. And lord knows, I've seen it happen.

Point in case. Earlier in the current FH game, I persuaded (technically, seduced :)) a young handsome PC into sleeping with an old and verrrry ugly witch (using illusion as a cover). Now the player was (quite rightly) highly suspicious, but simply by playing on his PC's Psych Lims and using social interaction skills, I was able to convince the player that his PC had no reason to be against the idea. So - still with lingering suspicions - he went along with it. When his PC woke up the next morning to find a bespotted, wrinkled, crone drooling onto the pillow next to him, the PC (and the player) were repulsed. Yay! Score one for the GM! However, the player was not angry and the PC was rueful/repulsed/shamed.

Had the PC been mind-controlled into his actions, the player (and the PC) would have been angry at the witch. Fair enough. Had I simply said "She makes a successful seduction roll: you go to her bedroom" the player would have been angry with me (and quite rightly so, IMO).

Essentially the way I treat these kinds of social interactions is with an opposed roll - if one or both parties lack the necessary skill or an applicable substitute, then they simply roll a FAM. How much the PC fails or succeeds gives me a licence for how much pressure I can bring to bear on the PC.

As far as the opt-out option goes, if the witch had turned up in her monstrous, non-illusory form, it doesn't matter how high her Seduction skill roll was, the player - and thus the PC - would have been repulsed and refused to participate. High skill rolls serve, IMO, to remove obstacles (negate penalties). They don't serve to turn a skill into something supernatural, capable of turning someone's head completely inside out.

I can (and do) also play with the player's understanding of the situation, however. Another - much earlier - seduction attempt against the same PC (it's his fault for having a high COM!) was by a woman with both high Acting and Seduction rolls. In that case (knowing as GM that the player was suspicious) I ruled that the high success scored by the seductress let her know the PC was supicious - and so pitched it to the player as "You're pretty certain she's trying to seduce you. But with that roll you can see through her attempts (GM lie - she made her acting roll :D) - in truth, it's a pretty clumsy attempt: you don't think she's done this sort of thing before" That line put the player - and thus the PC - off his guard, and made the seduction attempt possible - plausible even: the player (and thus the PC) thinks he's the one taking advantage.

In other words, I run this exactly as Nexus suggested. A high success with Seduction or Persuasion does not give mind control. I cannot - and will not - force the PC to comply. But just like Tactics or Deduction, it gives the NPC - or the PC - more information, more levers to play with, more options. As a GM, a higher success gives me more freedom to bring GM knowledge into play (interpreted as reading body language, putting together hints, etc: not learning something they had no way of knowing about).

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

"She makes a successful seduction roll: you go to her bedroom"

It is the second part of that statement that makes it wrong. You could say "She makes a successful seduction roll; your character is strongly swayed to going along - what do you think he would do?"

That is it on simple gamist terms and opens up the negotiation...


Doc

[Markdoc]

It is the second part of that statement that makes it wrong. You could say "She makes a successful seduction roll; your character is strongly swayed to going along - what do you think he would do?"

That is it on simple gamist terms and opens up the negotiation...

Yep, that would be fine too - if it were a simple, random encounter in a bar, I might even pitch it so baldly. But of course that opens the "opt out" door :D The player says "I stay with the rest of the group".

cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

This is an immovable object/irresistable force paradox. If I write on my character sheet that my character is impossible to persuade - his personal beliefs are unshakable - and you write on yours that your character is almost supernaturally persuasive, one of us is not getting to play his character. Either yours can't persuade mine or mine can't resist yours. The problem is that we both have an "absolute", neither of which is statted out.Juggernaut vs the Blob. :)

[nexus]

It's a definite hot button issue. I don't understand the assumption that inclusion of a social conflict system equates to PC's being lead around by rings in their noses. The assumption that this facet of the system would automatically be abused confuses me - the rest of the system is already easily abused, and as players and GM's, we adhere to the social contract to not abuse it.

Why would a social conflict resolution system be different? How would the mere inclusion of a system in the rules so change the beliefs of GM's and players regarding fair play versus unbeatable opposition?

I think allot of it comes from bad past experiences and obnoxious GMs that have used Monster NPCs in various forms to steer the players around. You'll seem a similar reaction in players where GM's have physically builled the PCs around but that usually involves making extremely "buffed" characters so they can fight back.

But many games either don't have many ways to socially "buff" a character or the player feels that doing so would make their PC too deficient in the physical arena. There's also a strong tendency to consider your PC to be "you" or an extensive of yourself. Altering the character's mind is akin to change to the player's mind while physically assaulting the character (and thus humiliating, intrusive, etc) can't be confused with physically assaulting the character. Though some players have a strong reaction to maiming and disfiguring their characters which seems related.

Now some of the people posting seem to have there really great groups that are all on the same page about role playing and social interaction so these situations never or rarely come up. That's great and I don't have a problem with that or want anyone to be forced to adapt something that they found cumbersome or unnecessary. What I'd like it a system for those of us that want to bring some consistent, mechanical definition to determining the affect of Interaction skills on characters, PC or otherwise.

[Klaus Mogensen]

The main opposition to a "social combat system" seems to be that it could force characters to do things their players wouldn't want them to do, and that would be violating the players' control.

However, without such a system it is still possible for a GM to have a bunch of thugs attack and rape a female player character. I assume that would make most players feel violated as well. My point is, any halfway decent GM would never force any PC into a situation the player isn't okay with, with or without a social combat system. An evil GM can find ways to violate player trust, with or without a social combat system.

- Klaus

[Doc Democracy]

Yep, that would be fine too - if it were a simple, random encounter in a bar, I might even pitch it so baldly. But of course that opens the "opt out" door :D The player says "I stay with the rest of the group".

And that is where the negotiation begins. :)

It is here that I begin to outline what I think are the options for the player, taking into consideration the results of the contest...

We've been over this but I think that the character is going to have some drawbacks from not following its strong desires that will come out in different ways (like distracted -2 on PER and other INT based skills).

A negotiation, not an imposition.


Doc

[nexus]

The main opposition to a "social combat system" seems to be that it could force characters to do things their players wouldn't want them to do, and that would be violating the players' control.

However, without such a system it is still possible for a GM to have a bunch of thugs attack and rape a female player character. I assume that would make most players feel violated as well. My point is, any halfway decent GM would never force any PC into a situation the player isn't okay with, with or without a social combat system. An evil GM can find ways to violate player trust, with or without a social combat system.

- Klaus

It's a very adversarial (and some would say "gamist") stance to have but unfortunately, it's not without precedent. Particularly when you take into account many older games didn't have any form rules or development for social interaction at all beyond maybe a Charisma type attribute. GMs or particularly obnoxious PCs would just roll or declare the use of this and guide PCs around by the nose with it often into traps or strip them of gains....seemingly at no additional effort or cost and with no defense. At least spells and powers took investment in resources, had limit and a "saving throw" at the very basic.

[nexus]

And that is where the negotiation begins. :)

It is here that I begin to outline what I think are the options for the player, taking into consideration the results of the contest...

We've been over this but I think that the character is going to have some drawbacks from not following its strong desires that will come out in different ways (like distracted -2 on PER and other INT based skills).

A negotiation, not an imposition.


Doc

Would you think the intent of the social action should be taken into account as well or would imposing some form of penalty or impact be enough?

[ajackson]

If there's a demand for a social combat system (which is, in fact, appropriate for certain genres -- if you're all playing courtiers, the social duel is just as meaningful a concept as the physical duel), it should probably be in the form of 'attack to deliver consequence of type Y', in many cases with special such as 'you may choose an action the target may take to negate this consequence'. In most cases, it should be possible to retire from the field rather than succumb -- in the seduction example, 'losing' could simply mean that you're too flustered to keep doing what you're currently trying to do, and perhaps flee the scene. It's also possibly useful to have the social equivalent of hit points. The trick is, really, to have consequences for losing a social encounter that are real, but don't leave the player with the feeling that they are no longer playing their own character.

[Doc Democracy]

Would you think the intent of the social action should be taken into account as well or would imposing some form of penalty or impact be enough?


I think it depends on how on the ball you are. If you can achieve the intent without getting the detail then all to the good.

:)

Doc

[Vulcan]

Social combat system? WoD? News to me. WoD is filled with mind control options, and within the Vampire setting it seems pretty much expected that older vampires come along and manipulate neonates into doing what they want done, but I don't recall ever coming across something that could reasonably be called a social combat system.

In WOD the social skills are(were? it's been several years...) rolled in exactly the same way as the combat skills. The only difference is that little 'damage chart' for physical combat. The rules state that sucess in social skills mean the target has been sucessfully manipulated and do what the manipulator directs.

[Lucius]

So the theory that nothing can change your character seems to hold little weight in practice.

The theory that "nothing can change your character" is a pretty silly theory. Offhand, I don't know anyone that subscribes to it. Nor do I understand why you're talking about it.

I think you and I are just talking past each other here.

edit: I'd go talk to MarkDoc instead but as far as I can tell I think we'd just be in complete agreement.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary asks me why I perpetuate the conversation.

[The Main Man]

I think that the semantics are being mixed up here: plenty of things can change the character but the argument is whether or not the character's choices can be changed against the player's whims.

[Lucius]

If social skills have no impact on the desired actions of the target characters, what purpose do they serve?


They serve the purposes they are meant for - which is not to be a form of Spiritual Transform.

Ask MarkDoc. He seems to get it, and can probably explain it much better than I can. I've already broken it down to be as basic as I can make it and you and I seem to just be talking past each other, refueling characters and having cars raise objections to the way they're driven and so forth. Besides, this isn't a forum for us, we're supposed to be trying to help Mr Long.

Lucius Alexander

Animal Handler: Palindromedaries and Backandforthtrians

[AnotherSkip]

Right up until we play a game with a social combat system - the WOD 'Vampire' game.

As soon as we started Vampire, it seemed like everyone and their dog could endlessly manipulate the PC's thoughts and beliefs (and I'm not just talking about Dominate and Presence here, this is just about the skill system!). If we tried to buck the plotline, someone would presently be along to talk us back onto it, our character's preferences regardless. And the PC' were helpless to resist.

This happened not once, but three times with three separate GM's. All of whom had run other games with no such railroading tendencies. And not one of them could see it while they were running. "They're just trying to talk you into it!" was the mantra. And once the die rolling was done, away we went, whether we wanted to or not...

Right now the system has three social resolution systems that are only vaguely related - Interaction Skills, which are PRE based; PRE attacks; and super-skill Powers that almost always 'require an interaction skill roll.' Can we do something to combine the three, streamline things a bit? If not, then we need to come up with something completely new. The one thing I ask - the one thing - is that the player never looses the ability to decide what his character thinks and wants, even if the rolls 'persuade' him to grudgingly go against them.

So can it be done?


The first point is I suspect no one on your team had a 10 Willpower, Blase' & Iron Will did they?
all high defenses for social combat. (and equal to maxing out your campaign for PRE and buying a few talents on top too.)
probably about 20 points in advantages for WOD characters but doable and necessary in some cases for telling powerful NPC's no. WOD does have a problem with "the GM can have this but it is broken for everyone else'. Which is what is Wrong for WOD and good about HERO IMNSHO.

Secondly if it was never made clear 'this isn't ok' by the group any GM will make these mistakes.

Thirdly as much as you want to, based upon you reactions, I really Don't think there is a way to put social combat in a 'do not open box'. people do get manipulated into things that they really don't want to all the time. (See the Angelina Jolie pic Changeling for an example of 'normals' jacking each other over).

Even if we could it would damage alot of roleplaying because what is good for some is good for others. But blocking important concepts from everyone because some people feel it isn't fair is blocking those parts of the game and flies in the face of many forms of media we do use for inspiration.

For example No one is really going to "beat" Dr. Manhattan.
But socially combatting him is possible. By convincing him that
1. humanity should be saved
2. and that this is the way to save humanity.
we have Watchmen

Tokyo won't win against the monster of the week but if Japan sends a few adventurers to convince Godzilla to save Tokyo from the Alien menace then Tokyo wins.
(the adventurers won't win in combat against either creature but by allying with Godzilla they 'win' the battle).

neither of these scenarios wold be possible without social combat.

Now then I agree that in any case a GM is being bad when they railroad the players for any reason so completely that there is no way for the players to avoid it. But there are ways to manipulate the players without just making it random dice rolling.

the Elder vampiers could have used carrots more than sticks.



and I think that your characters were grudgingly going against what they wanted, but the explanation wasn't there.

[The Main Man]

I do think that social interaction can be had both ways.

Combat currently presents basic rules (roll to attack, roll for damage) and advanced rules (Hit Locations, Knockdown/back, Optional Maneuvers, etc).

Since the discussion has been over social interaction expansion on the level of combat, why not use such a model as laid out by combat?

We could have it both ways!

[Markdoc]

The main opposition to a "social combat system" seems to be that it could force characters to do things their players wouldn't want them to do, and that would be violating the players' control.

However, without such a system it is still possible for a GM to have a bunch of thugs attack and rape a female player character. I assume that would make most players feel violated as well. My point is, any halfway decent GM would never force any PC into a situation the player isn't okay with, with or without a social combat system. An evil GM can find ways to violate player trust, with or without a social combat system.

This is actually a pretty good example - and I actually had two players in my California group who had fled their previous group because of a GM-orchestrated "PC Rape". The difference, I think is that most players and GMs would consider PC rape to be abhorrent under almost any circumstances, whereas many would consider "unwilling PC seduction" to be OK - despite the fact that to the player involved, they may not seem that different.

Yes, it's a simulation, but it's also supposed to be fun.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

And that is where the negotiation begins. :)

It is here that I begin to outline what I think are the options for the player, taking into consideration the results of the contest...

We've been over this but I think that the character is going to have some drawbacks from not following its strong desires that will come out in different ways (like distracted -2 on PER and other INT based skills).

A negotiation, not an imposition.

Yeah, I'd be cool with that. I prefer to inflict social penalties (in other words, consequences to the actions, rather than in-game penalties) but the latter could easily be justified.

cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

I'm wondering why those opposing the presence of a "social combat" system assume that its presence means that players' choices will be violated. There's no move, nor even a suggestion, that it be so tightly integrated into the game that NPCs even occasionally, let alone regularly, force PCs to do anything.

PCs are already as subject as NPCs to Presence Attacks, Mind Control and similar Powers, and Interaction Skills (most notably Conversation, Persuasion, and Seduction). The GM is already encouraged to use them judiciously at most. If these things are standardized and streamlined into an easy-to-use system for people who want it under the right circumstances, what, really, is the harm?

[bwdemon]

It comes back to metagaming. You may not want your character to be talked into or out of a given thing, but that's not necessarily appropriate under all circumstances. The character may be easy to talk into doing something or out of doing something by virtue of their stats. That's the job of the stats, after all, to illustrate a characters abilities and options. I'd really like it if NPCs didn't fight my characters or just rolled over and gave up, but those aren't likely to happen either.

From the GM side, you probably shouldn't drop a nuke on a character, screwing them over with an attack so large and damaging that it could not be avoided and resulted in certain death. That's likely to get people to leave the game. Similarly, you should avoid social nukes. If you want to keep the game going and interesting, then it pays to know the limits and stay within them. It might also be important to illustrate that treating anything as a "dump stat" may result in the character having a significant vulnerability.

[nexus]

I think it depends on how on the ball you are. If you can achieve the intent without getting the detail then all to the good.

:)

Doc

I do think that the result of the roll should be fitting to the intent of the roll. The "target" should be willing to give a little too. Like my earlier example. If the temptress goal was to distract the hero (a pious knight) and get him out of the room, succeeds at her roll(s) but not by enough to that the hero's player feels he should do precisely what she wants (come with her to room and engage a night of passion) then he could have his character be so flustered that he returns to his chambers to pray and mediate on his weakness in the face of temptation (or just to get some air and take a cold shower). The integrity of both characters is maintained.

I realize that this wouldn't be so clean cut in some situations but I think a mature group that coming together to have fun should be able to negotiate something that works.

Edit: I also think GMs should pay more attention to the intent of PC's rolls in that regard. PCs are, in the end, the stars so should have an impact on the game when their specialties come to bear.

[Vulcan]

The first point is I suspect no one on your team had a 10 Willpower, Blase' & Iron Will did they?

Asuming that a GM would allow that combo, Blase' works against Presence, and Iron Will works against Dominate. Neither do diddly-squat for social skill resoultions. And while one could blow willpower to ignore social skill resolutions, there are many more important things to blow it on (resisting frenzy, resisting feeding on random mortals, that kind of thing).


all high defenses for social combat. (and equal to maxing out your campaign for PRE and buying a few talents on top too.)
probably about 20 points in advantages for WOD characters but doable and necessary in some cases for telling powerful NPC's no. WOD does have a problem with "the GM can have this but it is broken for everyone else'. Which is what is Wrong for WOD and good about HERO IMNSHO.

Secondly if it was never made clear 'this isn't ok' by the group any GM will make these mistakes.

Thirdly as much as you want to, based upon you reactions, I really Don't think there is a way to put social combat in a 'do not open box'. people do get manipulated into things that they really don't want to all the time. (See the Angelina Jolie pic Changeling for an example of 'normals' jacking each other over).

Even if we could it would damage alot of roleplaying because what is good for some is good for others. But blocking important concepts from everyone because some people feel it isn't fair is blocking those parts of the game and flies in the face of many forms of media we do use for inspiration.

For example No one is really going to "beat" Dr. Manhattan.
But socially combatting him is possible. By convincing him that
1. humanity should be saved
2. and that this is the way to save humanity.
we have Watchmen

Tokyo won't win against the monster of the week but if Japan sends a few adventurers to convince Godzilla to save Tokyo from the Alien menace then Tokyo wins.
(the adventurers won't win in combat against either creature but by allying with Godzilla they 'win' the battle).

neither of these scenarios wold be possible without social combat.

Now then I agree that in any case a GM is being bad when they railroad the players for any reason so completely that there is no way for the players to avoid it. But there are ways to manipulate the players without just making it random dice rolling.

the Elder vampiers could have used carrots more than sticks.



and I think that your characters were grudgingly going against what they wanted, but the explanation wasn't there.

Now you see, that kind of thing is exactly why I don't like the idea of any more rules for social combat. The HERO System has rules for social interaction, and I think they work well.

But I'm willing to take a look at proposals for a HERO social combat system, to see what it might look like. As soon as someone posts one...

[AnotherSkip]

Asuming that a GM would allow that combo, Blase' works against Presence, and Iron Will works against Dominate. Neither do diddly-squat for social skill resoultions. And while one could blow willpower to ignore social skill resolutions, there are many more important things to blow it on

this paragraph points out all of the things that I feel point you in the wrong way.

1. Willpower usually is the tn for the d10 roll in social/mindcontrol situations, if the Gm doesn't allow any PC a 10 Willpower you are going to be hosed sooner or later especially in Vampire.
2. the bolded part shows where you/your teams priorities are, you would RATHER get hosed by being talked into things by the NPC's than 'the many more important things to blow it on'.

[Vulcan]

this paragraph points out all of the things that I feel point you in the wrong way.

1. Willpower usually is the tn for the d10 roll in social/mindcontrol situations, if the Gm doesn't allow any PC a 10 Willpower you are going to be hosed sooner or later especially in Vampire.
2. the bolded part shows where you/your teams priorities are, you would RATHER get hosed by being talked into things by the NPC's than 'the many more important things to blow it on'.

There is that, of course.

In general, I cordially loathe the WoD system. There is literally nothing in it that I think the HERO System does not (or could not) do better.

[AnotherSkip]

There is that, of course.

In general, I cordially loathe the WoD system. There is literally nothing in it that I think the HERO System does not (or could not) do better.

Oh I agree. definately.

Hero is the better system for many reasons :thumbup:

[Lucius]

neither of these scenarios wold be possible without social combat.


Why wouldn't they be?

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary considers nominating "social combat" as Oxymoron of the Week.

[IndianaJoe3]

Time to post my last thoughts on Skills.

Animal Handler: This now costs 3/2, and covers all forms of husbandry in a general manner. Characters should take appropriate Familiarities that reflect which kinds of husbandry they use. There is a -2 penalty for attempting an Animal Handler roll when the character lacks the appropriate Familiarity.

⚠Cramming: May now be purchased with higher skill rolls. For 15 points, a character may acquire a basic skill (11-) in any Background Skill, or 4 points (native speaker) in any language.

Forgery: Each category is a PS, and each subcategory is a KS.

Gambling: PS: Gambler is used when trying to find legal gambling, and is a complementary roll to Streetwise when trying to find illegal games. It is also used when interacting with casino employees (getting comps or credit, getting favorable rulings, or deflecting suspicion). Individual games are handled with KS. SS: Mathematics is frequently complementary.

Interrogation: Gamemasters who want a more realistic game may wish to impose a penalty for interrogators who torture, and/or give false information on a failed roll.

Intuition (INT): The art of passive people watching. Intuition is used to contest Conversation, Manipulation (Seduction), Oratory, and Persuasion. In some cases, it may also be used to contest Acting or Disguise. The character does not need to be the target of the skill attempt to realize that someone is trying to manipulate someone else.

Navigation: Navigation now costs 3/2, and covers all forms in a general manner. Characters should take appropriate Familiarities that reflect which kinds of Navigation they use. There is a -2 penalty for attempting a Navigation roll when the character lacks the appropriate Familiarity.

Practical Skill: Similar to Professional Skill, only without the implied career.

Seduction: Seduction is now called, “Manipulation”. It is otherwise unchanged.

Survival: Survival now costs 3/2, and covers all environments in a general manner. Characters should take appropriate Familiarities to reflect the environments they are familiar with. There is a -2 penalty for attempting a Survival roll when the character lacks the appropriate Familiarity.

Weaponsmith: Now handled by more general Professional Skills.

[The Main Man]

My final $.02 on Skills:

Combat should become more like a highly expanded skill (I understand that future HERO supplements are in fact going to be headed somewhat in this direction?), leaving the door open for other skills to be expanded like so.

Combat Value and the DEX bonus should be one and the same calculation.

I think that a compromise of DEX (or EGO as it may be)/4 would suffice - more granularity for Skills, and stock in CSL's goes up.

The base for Skills and Combat becomes 11.

Skill levels could cost roughly a point less each to make them more viable versus sheer CHAR calculations.

I still feel that Social Interaction could be better organized and become a better oiled machine in terms of mechanics, but I will say that I agree that they should only help role-playing.
Also, "Social Combat" really is not a good term.

[Hugh Neilson]

My final $.02 on Skills:

Combat should become more like a highly expanded skill (I understand that future HERO supplements are in fact going to be headed somewhat in this direction?), leaving the door open for other skills to be expanded like so.

Combat Value and the DEX bonus should be one and the same calculation.

CV (or OCV and DCV) should be available for independent purchase


Skill levels could cost roughly a point less each to make them more viable versus sheer CHAR calculations.

Skill levels need to be repriced to make them a viable option. Characteristics should carry a cost similar to the sum of their parts.


I still feel that Social Interaction could be better organized and become a better oiled machine in terms of mechanics, but I will say that I agree that they should only help role-playing.
Also, "Social Combat" really is not a good term.

I prefer the term "conflict resolution". Combat is a very detailed resolution mechanism for physical conflict resolution. More detail on social conflict resolution is desirable. Players should not be able to avoid spending points to be effective in social situations by applying their personal characteristics any more than a skilled martial artist player should get automatic martial arts for their character at no point outlay.

The possibility of other types of conflict resolution being expanded for certain types of games merits a mention, but any expansion of this for specific types of conflict belongs in an Advanced book or setting/genre books where such conflict is common and significant. The more detailed/granula social conflict resolution system could also be in the advanced, rather than the core, rules.

[Maethalion]

"RE-Coupling of Skills"

Hero already has a fairly universal skill system, which is not obvious at first that it is not tied to the characteristics.

0pt 8- Everyman
1pt 8- Familiarity
2pt 11- Knowledge Skills (tied to GEN)
3pt (13-) Knowledge Skills (tied to INT 18) for a Heroic Setting
3pt (15-) Knowledge skills (tied to INT 28) for a superheroic setting

The skill system as it is now runs off of 9 + Characteristic/ 5, with some exceptions.

What you could do is the following:
0pt 8- Everyman
1pt 8- Skill Training
2pt Skill Level +1 to Skill

Characteristics Add a bonus to the appropriate skills like they do to base skills now: +[Characteristic]/5

So, now what you have:

0pt 8- Everyman
1pt 10- Skill Training (INT 8, +2)
3pt 11- Skill Training (INT 8, +2) Plus 1 Skill Level
-or-
1pt 11- Skill Training (INT 13, +3)
3pt 13- Skill Training (INT 18, +4) Plus 1 Skill Level
13pt 18- Skill Training (INT 18, +4) Plus 6 Skill Levels

It's pretty much the same mechanic (& Points) that exists now, but it makes it the same explicit rule for all skills instead of having ones tied to a characteristic and ones that aren't be different.

In addition, all skills aught to have a characteristic tied to them, even if the characteristic is left "Up to the Character" as the case is for general skills now (if you buy the 3pt version, which as shown above, uses the new mechanic to achieve the same cost and benefit). The distinction that FREd makes on skills that are based on training alone, and skills that are based off of natural aptitude and training is a little to arbitrary.

FREd:

Character A
-5pts INT 3
9pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
---
4pts

Character B
10pts INT 18
9pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
----
19pts

Character C
20pts INT 28
9pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
-----
29pts

Proposed Idea:

Character A
-5pts INT 3
18pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
-----
14pts

Character B
10pts INT 18
13pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
----
23pts

Character C
20pts INT 28
9pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
----
29pts

So what it does is reward characters with High Characteristics the ability to be more Generalists, and makes the cost of high skills higher, while keeping low skills relatively cheap. The effect is amplified when you're dealing with more than one skill:

FREd:

Character A
-5pts INT 3
9pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
9pts KS: Microbiology (18-)
9pts KS: Nuclear Medicine (18-)
9pts KS: Computer Science (18-)
---
31pts

Character B
10pts INT 18
9pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
9pts KS: Microbiology (18-)
9pts KS: Nuclear Medicine (18-)
9pts KS: Computer Science (18-)
----
46pts

Character C
20pts INT 28
9pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
9pts KS: Microbiology (18-)
9pts KS: Nuclear Medicine (18-)
9pts KS: Computer Science (18-)
-----
56pts

Proposed Idea:

Character A
-5pts INT 3
18pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
18pts KS: Microbiology (18-)
18pts KS: Nuclear Medicine (18-)
18pts KS: Computer Science (18-)
-----
67pts

Character B
10pts INT 18
13pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
13pts KS: Microbiology (18-)
13pts KS: Nuclear Medicine (18-)
13pts KS: Computer Science (18-)
----
62pts

Character C
20pts INT 28
9pts KS: Astrophysics (18-)
9pts KS: Microbiology (18-)
9pts KS: Nuclear Medicine (18-)
9pts KS: Computer Science (18-)
----
56pts

Under FREd, you can see that you get a discount for not being smart for taking skills that are obviously INT-related. Under my new proposed idea, being smart gives you a discount. Granted, it's more of an argument about skills which don't have characteristics instead of an argument for my proposed system, but I hope it makes my case.

There already is a universal skill rule - just make it apply to *all* skills and have characteristics provide bonuses to skills instead of the skill being figured off the characteristic.

The same could also be said of Perception. Which aught to be treated as a skill in its own right and gets bonuses from INT instead of being a "figured characteristic" for INT.

[AnotherSkip]

Why wouldn't they be?

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary considers nominating "social combat" as Oxymoron of the Week.

AnotherSkip nominates "Palin Dromedary" as Oxymoron of the week.

:thumbup:

[BobGreenwade]

One other thing... regarding Ventriloquism.

I was a bit surprised that even in The Ultimate Skill there was no mention of realistic ventriloquism. In reality, ventriloquism is nothing more than speaking without moving your lips; the effect of one's voice coming from another location is just an illusion, similar to the tricks done by sleight of hand. The concept of making one's voice literally sound like it's coming from another location without a trick of visual misdirection is decent as a cinematic trick, since it occurs that way so often in fiction, but at least some mention should be made of what real-world ventriloquism actually is and does.

[The Main Man]

One other thing... regarding Ventriloquism.

I was a bit surprised that even in The Ultimate Skill there was no mention of realistic ventriloquism. In reality, ventriloquism is nothing more than speaking without moving your lips; the effect of one's voice coming from another location is just an illusion, similar to the tricks done by sleight of hand. The concept of making one's voice literally sound like it's coming from another location without a trick of visual misdirection is decent as a cinematic trick, since it occurs that way so often in fiction, but at least some mention should be made of what real-world ventriloquism actually is and does.

Fair enough assessment.

Ventriloquism, when played cinematically, is fun. :)

[ajackson]

I was a bit surprised that even in The Ultimate Skill there was no mention of realistic ventriloquism.
Possibly because it's insufficiently interesting to be important as a distinctive skill? Realistic ventriloquism is just a part of a professional skill, and lacks significant adventuring applications.

[rjcurrie]

Possibly because it's insufficiently interesting to be important as a distinctive skill? Realistic ventriloquism is just a part of a professional skill, and lacks significant adventuring applications.

It might be worth a sentence pointing this out.

[Balabanto]

Ventriloquism and Mimicry have caused more chaos in my games than just about anything else. Yeah. It's good stuff.

[Vondy]

Yep, that would be fine too - if it were a simple, random encounter in a bar, I might even pitch it so baldly. But of course that opens the "opt out" door :D The player says "I stay with the rest of the group".

cheers, Mark

Or, as she turns to pick up her purse, he looks at his friends makes a "I'm the man face," while pointing at her, and scoots her out with a hand on the small of her back while his friends become suspicious and say... "hey, wait a minute..." and the comedy of errors as they assume something is up ensues. ;)

[Vondy]

Now some of the people posting seem to have there really great groups that are all on the same page about role playing and social interaction so these situations never or rarely come up. That's great and I don't have a problem with that or want anyone to be forced to adapt something that they found cumbersome or unnecessary. What I'd like it a system for those of us that want to bring some consistent, mechanical definition to determining the affect of Interaction skills on characters, PC or otherwise.

I'm all for this except for one thing: unless it has a massive OPTIONAL RULE tag on it people will assume its obligatory to use it and those of us who want nothing to do with it will get an incessant "you're doing it wrong" whine on the boards, as well as from a certain breed of player who must have mechanics rule everything even when they 1) become cumbersome for speed of play, or 2) make no sense in the absence of the "applied effects test," or 3) don't fit the groups play-style and dynamic. And, IME, even in great groups, you've usually got one of these. They seem generally unavoidable. So, mechanize social interaction away if it blows your skirt up around your ears, but please don't have it be a part of the default rules and label it...

OPTIONAL RULE

[Doc Democracy]

I'm all for this except for one thing: unless it has a massive OPTIONAL RULE tag on it people will assume its obligatory to use it and those of us who want nothing to do with it will get an incessant "you're doing it wrong" whine on the boards, as well as from a certain breed of player who must have mechanics rule everything even when they 1) become cumbersome for speed of play, or 2) make no sense in the absence of the "applied effects test," or 3) don't fit the groups play-style and dynamic. And, IME, even in great groups, you've usually got one of these. They seem generally unavoidable. So, mechanize social interaction away if it blows your skirt up around your ears, but please don't have it be a part of the default rules and label it...

OPTIONAL RULE



You know, most of that rationalisation also works for physical combat as well...

[ajackson]

As far as social skills vs PCs go, I would like to see a rule on interaction of social skills with psych lims -- probably something like:


Social Skills vs Psych Lims: it is possible to use a social skill to cause someone to automatically succeed or fail at resisting a psych lim. Roll skill vs ego; success controls the outcome. Modifiers: if trying to force failure, +5 for irrational, +10 for total. If trying to force success, -5/-10.

Note that forcing someone to succeed at resisting a psych lim does not compel any behavior, it just suspends the effects of that psych lim.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm all for this except for one thing: unless it has a massive OPTIONAL RULE tag on it people will assume its obligatory to use it and those of us who want nothing to do with it will get an incessant "you're doing it wrong" whine on the boards, as well as from a certain breed of player who must have mechanics rule everything even when they 1) become cumbersome for speed of play, or 2) make no sense in the absence of the "applied effects test," or 3) don't fit the groups play-style and dynamic. And, IME, even in great groups, you've usually got one of these. They seem generally unavoidable. So, mechanize social interaction away if it blows your skirt up around your ears, but please don't have it be a part of the default rules and label it...

OPTIONAL RULE


I don't see this as any different from every core rule. I am sure you modify these extensively, and are perfectly capable of dealing with any player's attempts to browbeat you into a mechanical application where not appropriate for any of the above reasons.

With that in mind, however, perhaps the book should start with the traditional introduction, then contain a section on "Mandatory Rules". It would read more or less as follows:



PART I
MANDATORY RULES


These are the rules that must be followed to play a game under the Hero system. If you aren't following them, you're doing it wrong!

1. The purpose of the game is to have fun. If a rule interferes with that fun, the rule should not be followed in your game.

2. There are no other mandatory rules.

Ideally, this will be on a left hand page. The facing right hand page should have a nice graphic and the words



PART II
OPTIONAL RULES

[Vulcan]

Most players of any game use the core rules entodo and add optional rules to suit their taste. A new rule that is likely to be ignored by a large portion of the existing players should probably be an optional rule.

I have no problem with you having your social combat system. I just don't want it to be the default rule for the HERO System - at least, not until I've gotten a good look at it and seen how easily it can be used aganist the players (as opposed to against the characters, which is a different issue entirely).

Incidentally, I'm still waiting to see a proposal for a social combat system. Thus far proponents have merely been saying 'Oh, we totally need a social combat system', but no one has put forth even the basics of one for us to look at. Until I can see one peruse it and see how it would fit into my games (both as a GM and as a player), and see how (or even if) it is superior to the current systems in place, I have to base my opinions on the ones I have seen in other games - which, in my opinion, do not work for me.

[Doc Democracy]

Incidentally, I'm still waiting to see a proposal for a social combat system. Thus far proponents have merely been saying 'Oh, we totally need a social combat system', but no one has put forth even the basics of one for us to look at. Until I can see one peruse it and see how it would fit into my games (both as a GM and as a player), and see how (or even if) it is superior to the current systems in place, I have to base my opinions on the ones I have seen in other games - which, in my opinion, do not work for me.

You know. I'd be interested in what a real professional game designer like Steve would come up with more than any of our own amateur ramblings - especially when he is tinkering with the whole system.

As it happens my own group is exploring social contests and found at least two places in our last game where a social contest system would have made it easier for me and the GM to agree on the way forward.

I wanted to establish something in-game and the GM wasn't for shifting his NPCs attitude. Either I climbed down or he did and nothing in-game helped us to resolve it. After the game we had a good talk about the situation and are looking to put mechanics in place that would help this - it currently looks something like, when we come to a thorny place where neither the player or GM is willing to go with the flow - then we step out of game. The player indicates his intent with his current actions, the GM indicates the barriers to that with the NPC. We then decide on appropriate skill choices and carry out the contest - both of us bound to the results of the contest.

As yet we haven't decided on the mechanics of the contest as the system is not particularly detailed on this front (Traveller) but we are looking for something to bolt on.

In the five or six hours we played we could have had one contest - and it would have lasting consequences in game depending on how it turned out as it will make the characters more or less influencial in a particular social group.

If we were playing HERO then we'd be trying to resolve it for that system. I dont have time to do it for two systems at once. :)


Doc

[nexus]

Incidentally, I'm still waiting to see a proposal for a social combat system. Thus far proponents have merely been saying 'Oh, we totally need a social combat system', but no one has put forth even the basics of one for us to look at
.

Proponents have been suggesting more developed mechanics for social resolution not necessarily a "social combat system". That has been at least a large part something brought up by those antagonistic to the idea of expanded mechanics for Interaction skills and social situations*. I can definitely say that I am not advocating "social combat" or modeling any expanded social interaction rules on the physical combat model and I don't think anyone else is insisting on that (I won't discard it as possibility though). What you've said is therefore a sweeping generalization and not a very accurate one.

I, personally, have made suggestions for how the expanded rules might work or directions that could grow in but not a full system because I am not a professional game designer, I'm not being paid to do so and anything I whipped up on a moment's notice to post in the comment thread likely wouldn't be very good. This is a thread for suggested improvements for Hero System 6th Edition not to write it. That will be up to Steve Long and anyone he brings in. Any suggestions seen in a thread like this would be sketchy, Not play tested and bare bones at best and probably wouldn't even show up. Not something to base an opinion on.

Most are not arguing for any expanded mechanics to be "mandatory" (at least no more than anything else is), some (myself included) have concede that such rules could be included in a expansion published at a later date.

*There are already "mechanics" for social interaction what most of those advocates for expansion are saying is that feel they are too vague and fiat driven to be useful for making Interaction skills as interesting and developed as physical combat.

[AnotherSkip]

I'm all for this except for one thing: unless it has a massive OPTIONAL RULE tag on it people will assume its obligatory to use it and those of us who want nothing to do with it will get an incessant "you're doing it wrong" whine on the boards, as well as from a certain breed of player who must have mechanics rule everything even when they 1) become cumbersome for speed of play, or 2) make no sense in the absence of the "applied effects test," or 3) don't fit the groups play-style and dynamic. And, IME, even in great groups, you've usually got one of these. They seem generally unavoidable. So, mechanize social interaction away if it blows your skirt up around your ears, but please don't have it be a part of the default rules and label it...

OPTIONAL RULE


Personally i think it works for the whole book. (IIRC Steve does too)

[Markdoc]

I don't see this as any different from every core rule. I am sure you modify these extensively, and are perfectly capable of dealing with any player's attempts to browbeat you into a mechanical application where not appropriate for any of the above reasons.

You are - either deliberately or not - completely missing the point. Yes, every GM modifies the core rules slightly. That's a completely different situation from optional rules like impairing or bleeding or LTE, which many GM's never use, and most players don't even know exist.

It would be a totally different situation if those rules were not clearly labelled optional.

Saying "All rules are optional, so just dump in any old thing in the book - GM's can choose what they use" essentially means you are providing a "build your own game system" toolkit, not Hero system. The latter sells. The former, not so much.

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

It would be a totally different situation if those rules were not clearly labelled optional.

At the very least, I think 6th edition should beef up the current options for social interaction and when (and how) the GM should resort to dice rolling.

I think there would be a place for advanced options that were indeed optional as you look at it. However, rules for social interaction using current skills, PRE and COM in a more codified form should IMO be core to 6th edition...


Doc

[The Main Man]

At the very least, I think 6th edition should beef up the current options for social interaction and when (and how) the GM should resort to dice rolling.

I think there would be a place for advanced options that were indeed optional as you look at it. However, rules for social interaction using current skills, PRE and COM in a more codified form should IMO be core to 6th edition...

Doc
To me, it's rather in the spirit of steamlining.

[Vondy]

You know, most of that rationalisation also works for physical combat as well...

Well, there are a lot of OPTIONAL rules in the (physical) combat system already - and they are clearly marked as such. That was the point. This sort of addenda should follow the same pattern.

[The Main Man]

I think that that's fair enough a request.

[Vondy]

Saying "All rules are optional, so just dump in any old thing in the book - GM's can choose what they use" essentially means you are providing a "build your own game system" toolkit, not Hero system. The latter sells. The former, not so much.

cheers, Mark

I use it the latter way at times, but I do think having "core mechanics" that someone can take and run a game with "out of the box" is necessary. The combat rules has a clear distinction between its basic/core mechanics and its optional ones. There is no reason the characteristics, skills, and powers sections can't be organized the same way. More robust social resolution mechanics could simply be headed as optional under interaction skills. I suspect this is what you are thinking, anyways. ;)

[Doc Democracy]

I use it the latter way at times, but I do think having "core mechanics" that someone can take and run a game with "out of the box" is necessary. The combat rules has a clear distinction between its basic/core mechanics and its optional ones. There is no reason the characteristics, skills, and powers sections can't be organized the same way. More robust social resolution mechanics could simply be headed as optional under interaction skills. I suspect this is what you are thinking, anyways. ;)

That is why I think that the main rulebook should have a section which displays how the ruleset could be used for a game with suggested rules to have in and to leave out to meet the requirements of a particular game.

It should walk the novice GM through the process of making a game to play straight out of the box.

I suggest that the style of game that it displays be a four colour superhero game (Champions they might call it :) ) as that is the historic roots of the game.

Each genre book should do the same thing, providing a walk through for one specific genre to provide purchasers with another game to play straight off that makes it easy for the run and to point to and say "I'm running with this set of the rules".

Some of those might include strong social contest rules, some might not. I would suggest that a four colour superhero game would have very stripped down skills, never mind stripped down social contests...

Doc

[The Main Man]

I like that idea.

It would give each setting its own eccentricities.

[Markdoc]

At the very least, I think 6th edition should beef up the current options for social interaction and when (and how) the GM should resort to dice rolling.

I think there would be a place for advanced options that were indeed optional as you look at it. However, rules for social interaction using current skills, PRE and COM in a more codified form should IMO be core to 6th edition..

Yep - I asked for the latter in my very first post on the issue.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

You are - either deliberately or not - completely missing the point. Yes, every GM modifies the core rules slightly. That's a completely different situation from optional rules like impairing or bleeding or LTE, which many GM's never use, and most players don't even know exist.

It would be a totally different situation if those rules were not clearly labelled optional.

Saying "All rules are optional, so just dump in any old thing in the book - GM's can choose what they use" essentially means you are providing a "build your own game system" toolkit, not Hero system. The latter sells. The former, not so much.


At the very least, I think 6th edition should beef up the current options for social interaction and when (and how) the GM should resort to dice rolling.

I think there would be a place for advanced options that were indeed optional as you look at it. However, rules for social interaction using current skills, PRE and COM in a more codified form should IMO be core to 6th edition...


Well, there are a lot of OPTIONAL rules in the (physical) combat system already - and they are clearly marked as such. That was the point. This sort of addenda should follow the same pattern.

First off, my desire (not shared universally by any stretch) is for a social conflict resolution mechanism which falls into the core rules. Not "roll Persuasion if you want, but the target, PC or NPC, need not abide by any results of that roll", but "these are the default rules for how these skills work".

Second, based on what we now know of the planned rule structure, I would like to see the core rules contain just that - the core, default, "run it out of the box" Hero system rules. Optional rules - even optional rules that have been with us a long time, like Bleeding, LTE, Impairing and Disabling, and Hit Locations - should be in the Advanced Players' Guide.

This will make for some tough choices (should the core rules include Knockback or Knockdown as the default, or are both sufficiently "core" to belong in the core book; are Hit Locations common enough to belong in the core; should hit locations be the default, even if generalized damage is used; etc.).

The core rules should be enough to run a game and handle common situations in some fashion. Social conflict is a common situation. Impairing, disabling and bleeding are add-ons to a system that already handles physical combat, and are not core rules. There are doubtless a lot of add ons which could be incorporated to resolving social conflict which would also belong in the APG. But don't give me half a game. The core rules should be sufficient to build what you want to build and run what you want to run.

ADDENDUM: The martial arts maneuver building rules belong in the core rules. If that means no one will buy a 6e UMA, then don't publish a 6e UMA.

[Vulcan]

First off, my desire (not shared universally by any stretch) is for a social conflict resolution mechanism which falls into the core rules. Not "roll Persuasion if you want, but the target, PC or NPC, need not abide by any results of that roll", but "these are the default rules for how these skills work".

And I do not want such a thing in the core rules, because I want to be the final arbiter of my character's actions, not the dice. I am willing to be reasonable when it comes to NPC skill rolls - up to a point. But when my character is forced by the system to react in a manner out of character for an extended period of time... I don't think so.

So we have an enpass. You want it to be the default option, and others do not. Steve will have to decide which one of us to cater to - at the risk of the other group deciding not to purchase the new edition.

Personally I think having it as an optional rule is a good idea. That way you have your rules, and I don't have to live by them. That way we can both have at least some of what we want. ;)


Second, based on what we now know of the planned rule structure, I would like to see the core rules contain just that - the core, default, "run it out of the box" Hero system rules. Optional rules - even optional rules that have been with us a long time, like Bleeding, LTE, Impairing and Disabling, and Hit Locations - should be in the Advanced Players' Guide.

Here we agree.


This will make for some tough choices (should the core rules include Knockback or Knockdown as the default, or are both sufficiently "core" to belong in the core book; are Hit Locations common enough to belong in the core; should hit locations be the default, even if generalized damage is used; etc.).

The core rules should be enough to run a game and handle common situations in some fashion. Social conflict is a common situation. Impairing, disabling and bleeding are add-ons to a system that already handles physical combat, and are not core rules. There are doubtless a lot of add ons which could be incorporated to resolving social conflict which would also belong in the APG. But don't give me half a game. The core rules should be sufficient to build what you want to build and run what you want to run.

Of course, there are already three separate options for social conflict resolution in the core rules already (PRE attacks, Interaction Skills, and Limited Powers). The fact that you find them less than satisfactory does not mean they do not exist. A fourth system in the core rules would just confues things even further.

Now some streamlining of the three existing systems would not be a bad thing. Just don't remove the 'Player' from the Player Character.


ADDENDUM: The martial arts maneuver building rules belong in the core rules. If that means no one will buy a 6e UMA, then don't publish a 6e UMA.

... debatable.

Not all that many GM's actually use the martial arts maneuver building rules. And I've purchased the UMA and both editions of Ninja HERO - not for those rules (I don't particularly think they're needed, but some people swear by them, so why not let them have it? :D), but for all the other material included in the book.

[Hugh Neilson]

So we have an enpass.

I did not expect any agreement. As I said, my view is that the system should have an overall social conflict resolution system. Such a system belongs in the core rules, in my view, as social conflict is a common issue crossing genres.


Of course, there are already three separate options for social conflict resolution in the core rules already (PRE attacks, Interaction Skills, and Limited Powers). The fact that you find them less than satisfactory does not mean they do not exist. A fourth system in the core rules would just confues things even further.

Now some streamlining of the three existing systems would not be a bad thing. Just don't remove the 'Player' from the Player Character.

Rationalizing the three disparate systems should be the objective of a social conflict resolution system, whether that means tying them together, or eliminating some or all in favour of a cohesive whole. IIRC, we had PRE attacks from 1st ED, while both Interaction Skills and Limited Power Superskills came along later. The system needs to be developed as a whole.

To the last, we already know we disagree as to the extent to which making PC's subject to social conflict resolution would be inappropriate.


Not all that many GM's actually use the martial arts maneuver building rules. And I've purchased the UMA and both editions of Ninja HERO - not for those rules (I don't particularly think they're needed, but some people swear by them, so why not let them have it? :D), but for all the other material included in the book.

Maneuver construction is the sole construction system not incorporated in the current core rules. If we removed the base rules, the vehicle rules or the automaton rules, however infrequently they may be used, from the core rules, there would be a type of construction not covered in the core rules, and its absence would be inappropriate. Martial Arts Maneuvers construction rules are conspicuous by their absence in the core rules. This should be fixed as we move forward into a new edition.

I am not saying people would not buy the UMA books; I am saying that one common reason for excluding these rules from the core rules is to give people a reason to buy UMA. The same logic would say to leave the base rules out and put them in Ultimate Base (since it will be one of the first 6e releases, this seems especially tempting), leave the vehicle rules for the 6e Ultimate vehicle, and hey - why not just have sample powers and leave the power construction rules for The Ultimate Power?

[Chris Goodwin]

Maneuver construction is the sole construction system not incorporated in the current core rules. If we removed the base rules, the vehicle rules or the automaton rules, however infrequently they may be used, from the core rules, there would be a type of construction not covered in the core rules, and its absence would be inappropriate. Martial Arts Maneuvers construction rules are conspicuous by their absence in the core rules. This should be fixed as we move forward into a new edition.

I am not saying people would not buy the UMA books; I am saying that one common reason for excluding these rules from the core rules is to give people a reason to buy UMA. The same logic would say to leave the base rules out and put them in Ultimate Base (since it will be one of the first 6e releases, this seems especially tempting), leave the vehicle rules for the 6e Ultimate vehicle, and hey - why not just have sample powers and leave the power construction rules for The Ultimate Power?

It would probably be more appropriate to provide rules for constructing Martial Arts maneuvers using existing Powers. It wouldn't be out of the question, in certain campaigns, for Martial Arts maneuvers to have their Real Cost divided by 3, similarly to the way spells have their cost divided by 3 in some campaigns.

[The Main Man]

ADDENDUM: The martial arts maneuver building rules belong in the core rules. If that means no one will buy a 6e UMA, then don't publish a 6e UMA.
I agree that the martial maneuvers construction rules should be in the core rules.

Similarly, if Skill Levels were indeed reduced by a point then maneuvers would become much more logical to the rest of the system.

The martial arts packages themselves can either be in a new Ninja HERO or "Book of Martial Arts" which would make for quite a dandy volume if I say so myself.:)

[Volcilord]

Knowledge Skill: Style of Martial Art that uses END by strength use, and a Cosmic Power Pool would readily add levitation to a comic book style martial artist. Finding the active points total plus the maneuver cost for martial maneuvers, would keep such characters from paying an overprice over the growth power with brute strength to have a cosmic power pool in use. Style of martial art is a 10 point distinctive feature disadvantage. +2 DCV for 10 cost allows a cosmic power pool user to use 20 points of growth instead of a martial art, with reach equal to a polearm.

[The Main Man]

This relates to how I've thought that martial arts could be more freeform through allocation of CSL's which can be used to simulate Elements or so.

OTOH, Martial Maneuvers could be looked at as constructs that can be more or less, which is already partially true.

[JmOz]

wanted to get this idea in before they are locked down

broad groups of skills being reintroduced as a cost saver package thingy

So you would have 8 point skills
that include 2-3 broad 5 point skills
that would each cover 2-3 normal 3 point skills
Each having 3-5 subskills (at 2 points)

A similar idea is in the Ultimate skill, would like to basicaly see it expanded, and fit into the 2/3/5/8 cost scheme

please ignore the title of this post...it was suppose to go into the chat window...

[JmOz]

Another idea I would advocate is the merging of Skill Levels, CSL's, and PSL's

[The Main Man]

Another idea I would advocate is the merging of Skill Levels, CSL's, and PSL's

As a Combat/Skill consolidation advocate, your suggestion plays a part.

[Hugh Neilson]

wanted to get this idea in before they are locked down

broad groups of skills being reintroduced as a cost saver package thingy

So you would have 8 point skills
that include 2-3 broad 5 point skills
that would each cover 2-3 normal 3 point skills
Each having 3-5 subskills (at 2 points)

A similar idea is in the Ultimate skill, would like to basicaly see it expanded, and fit into the 2/3/5/8 cost scheme

please ignore the title of this post...it was suppose to go into the chat window...

I like this and I think it's reasonable. For 8 points covering 3 5 point areas, you only get to add to one at a time. I could buy a Multipower of 3 5 point slots for 8 points.

[IndianaJoe3]

Another idea I would advocate is the merging of Skill Levels, CSL's, and PSL's

How would CSLs and PSLs be handled? Would they be purchased as Skill Levels with a Limitation, or simply listed as one of the things you can do with a 2/3/5/whatever point Skill Level?

[The Main Man]

I think (at least for CSL's) he means the latter.

I would.

[Klaus Mogensen]

So you would have 8 point skills
that include 2-3 broad 5 point skills
that would each cover 2-3 normal 3 point skills
Each having 3-5 subskills (at 2 points)
Another option is this (sticking to the current price scheme):

2 points get +1 with a single skill or maneuver
+1 point adds two skills or maneuvers
In other words, 3 points covers 3 skills, 4 points covers 5 skills, 5 points covers 7 skills, etc. An 8-point levels would thus cover 13 skills - quite broad.

- Klaus

[JmOz]

How would CSLs and PSLs be handled? Would they be purchased as Skill Levels with a Limitation, or simply listed as one of the things you can do with a 2/3/5/whatever point Skill Level?

"If you can only use the skill level to remove a specific penalty reduce the type by one collum"

[Steve Long]

Hey folx! It's time for me to start reading all the 6E threads, and that means I need to lock them.

Hopefully 15 months has been plenty of time for anyone who wanted to have a say, to have a say. ;) So please, don't start up other threads to try to continue discussions, send me PMs with points you "just have to make," or anything like that. It's time for y'all to sit back, relax, have a frosty beverage, and let me get 6E written. ;)

We definitely appreciate everyone's interest, participation, and ideas! I'm looking forward to reading the posts and seeing what nuggets of wisdom lurk therein. I have no doubt 6E is going to be even better than it would have been because of our fans' enthusiastic efforts at providing us with input and suggestions. :hex: