Skills Issues

[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....

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! )

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."