Social effects

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Ah' date=' the 'social = physical' argument again.[/quote']

 

The "abuse is abuse" argument, anyway.

 

As I see it, a player who wants his character to be a physical combat monster, and sinks a ton of points into physical combat abilities, envisions his character as having amazing physical combat abilities, pays the points for those amazing abilities and has every right to expect his character to achieve amazing results in physical combat.

 

Similarly, a player who wants his character to be a social conflictmonster, and sinks a ton of points into social conflict abilities, envisions his character as having amazing persuasive and similar social abilities, pays the points for those amazing abilities and has every right to expect his character to achieve amazing results in social conflict.

 

Your views seem to differ, and allow the social conflict character's abilities to be arbitrarily ignored where physical conflict will always be resolved objectively. This makes the social character a second class citizen whose abilities can simply be ignored at will.

 

I see games that, in order of preference:

 

- allow for powerful characters in all arenas of conflict, so the widest possible array of characters can be built, and will be efficient in their chosen arenas. Challenges can be resolved using an array of choices (eg. it is equally acceptable to argue the Supervillain out of his plans as it is to beat him into submission).

 

- allow for characters to be powerful in only certain arenas of conflict (eg. physical, but not social, conflict. The GM is up front and tells the players that social conflict will not be allowed to play as significant a role as physical conflict in resolving challenges. It will be necessary to beat the supervillain into submission, as he will not be persuaded out of his plans. Players know the ground rules, so they know they need lots of combat abilities, rather than beefed up social abilities, to impact the major challenges of the game.

 

- allow for characters to be powerful in only certain arenas of conflict (eg. physical, but not social, conflict. The GM doesn't tell the characters this - instead, he allows players to spend points in whatever area they wish. It will be necessary to beat the supervillain into submission, as he will not be persuaded out of his plans. Players aren't told the ground rules. The older ones have played long enough with this GM's style that they know they need lots of combat abilities, rather than beefed up social abilities, to impact the major challenges of the game. But a player who builds a highly social character won't be told this, and can just be frustrated by lack of impact until he gets the message and builds a combat monster like everybody else.

 

The third falls way below the first two, in my view. The game system should allow all types of characters to be effective, with their effectiveness dependent on where they chose to spend their points. The gamers should decide if there are some areas they prefer not to be the focus of the game, and agree to handwave those areas, with everyone aware of those ground rules up front so no one is tricked into wasting points on abilities which will be ignored in the game.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

The "abuse is abuse" argument, anyway.

 

As I see it, a player who wants his character to be a physical combat monster, and sinks a ton of points into physical combat abilities, envisions his character as having amazing physical combat abilities, pays the points for those amazing abilities and has every right to expect his character to achieve amazing results in physical combat.

 

Similarly, a player who wants his character to be a social conflictmonster, and sinks a ton of points into social conflict abilities, envisions his character as having amazing persuasive and similar social abilities, pays the points for those amazing abilities and has every right to expect his character to achieve amazing results in social conflict.

 

Your views seem to differ, and allow the social conflict character's abilities to be arbitrarily ignored where physical conflict will always be resolved objectively. This makes the social character a second class citizen whose abilities can simply be ignored at will.

 

I see games that, in order of preference:

 

- allow for powerful characters in all arenas of conflict, so the widest possible array of characters can be built, and will be efficient in their chosen arenas. Challenges can be resolved using an array of choices (eg. it is equally acceptable to argue the Supervillain out of his plans as it is to beat him into submission).

 

- allow for characters to be powerful in only certain arenas of conflict (eg. physical, but not social, conflict. The GM is up front and tells the players that social conflict will not be allowed to play as significant a role as physical conflict in resolving challenges. It will be necessary to beat the supervillain into submission, as he will not be persuaded out of his plans. Players know the ground rules, so they know they need lots of combat abilities, rather than beefed up social abilities, to impact the major challenges of the game.

 

- allow for characters to be powerful in only certain arenas of conflict (eg. physical, but not social, conflict. The GM doesn't tell the characters this - instead, he allows players to spend points in whatever area they wish. It will be necessary to beat the supervillain into submission, as he will not be persuaded out of his plans. Players aren't told the ground rules. The older ones have played long enough with this GM's style that they know they need lots of combat abilities, rather than beefed up social abilities, to impact the major challenges of the game. But a player who builds a highly social character won't be told this, and can just be frustrated by lack of impact until he gets the message and builds a combat monster like everybody else.

 

The third falls way below the first two, in my view. The game system should allow all types of characters to be effective, with their effectiveness dependent on where they chose to spend their points. The gamers should decide if there are some areas they prefer not to be the focus of the game, and agree to handwave those areas, with everyone aware of those ground rules up front so no one is tricked into wasting points on abilities which will be ignored in the game.

 

And I think where we differ is that you see avoiding the third option as something the system should work to avoid, where I see it as something the particpants should work to avoid. Because regardless of how the rules are written, if the participants aren't working together to make a good game, then no amount of rules is going to 'make it all better.' Hence, my fighting anything that would make such a system the default for HEROs.

 

Can it be an option? Sure, that's great. And if I think it actually does work, I might even use it (much to my embarressment after my struggling so hard not to like it here ). But I don't think such a thing is what the HERO System should base itself on.

 

After all, the HERO System is - in spite of the ill-thought 'build anything, play anything' tagline - a system exquisitely modeled for resolving action-oriented stories, not hardcore social interactions.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

But having a separate character sheet for "social stuff" and then a character sheet for "everything else" simply creates a new and greater imbalance by emphasizing "social stuff" at everything else's expense' date=' and does nothing to change the disparity in emphasis between combat and everything else that isn't social.[/quote']

No. It does not change the balance at all. It changes the way social conflicts are played out. That's it.

 

That might even work if that's the emphasis you want' date=' except that I sincerely doubt that even people who want that much emphasis on "social combat" really want it to simply duplicate regular combat.[/quote']

I appreciate your sincere doubts, but there's no reason why your sincere doubts should prevent an idea from being out there and taken seriously by those who want to use them. Many people don't want to use the Bleeding or Knockback rules. They don't. Let's give everyone credit for being able to pick the rules they like and avoid the ones they don't, yes?

 

And if your solution is to create a character sheet for every conceivable activity

It's not. It's to use the combat rules to play out conflicts when you want the level of detail, nuance, drama, and cinematic excitement that the combat rules provide.

 

You could certainly create character sheets for other sorts of conflicts. But that's not what this thread was created to discuss. And not what I've discussed so far.

 

You seem to be very confused about what I'm suggesting. I'll try again...

 

For most circumstances, the current HERO rules for playing out social conflict work great. They are not, however, as detailed, nuanced, variable, dramatic, or cinematic as the combat rules. For playing out climactic scenes that take place on the social, as opposed to physical, combat level, I am suggesting using the combat rules.

 

If you are going to mock my idea, I'd appreciate it if you knew what you were mocking. As it is, you are the one who looks ridiculous because you are mocking something that does not exist. By all means, continue. Just don't misrepresent it as my idea.

 

You've stated that everyone would get the same points for the "social character," creating an inappropriate equality between all characters, who now have exactly the same number of points to spend on social stuff, instead of social stuff being on the same zero sum sliding scale that everything else is. It's no longer possible to surrender social effectiveness for some other aspect of character, nor is the social

specialist of any sort any longer viable.

Again, please read all of what I suggest, rather than cherry-picking the things you dislike.

 

I've suggested that a GM set guidelines on how many points players receive to write up their Social Conflict sheet. I've suggested two easy options:

1) Give everyone the same number of points.

2) Give each player points based on the number of points they devoted to Social Skills (and perhaps COM, EGO, and so on and so forth).

 

The first option is the only one you addressed. And mocked. The second handles all of your concerns.

 

And what kind of characters do you expect to get?

Exactly the characters we see now. Again, my suggestion does nothing to change game balance or the way characters are originally designed. You'd buy Conversation for exactly the same purposes you do now. The only thing my suggestion does is utilize the combat rules for playing out social conflict in situations in which that would be more exciting for everyone.

 

Since you can't imagine any situation in which that would be more exciting, you'd never have to use them. No worries.

 

you are basically saying "Here is

a character that exists only to fight. It literally does not appear

until social combat, and conveniently vanishes after social combat."

Exactly! Just as the Conversation Skill is a Skill that exists only to converse. It literally does not appear until social conflict and conveniently vanishes after social conflict.

 

Personally I'd sink all my points into SPD, Lightning Reflexes, and a Vehicle with Extradiminsional Movement, Usable as Attack, Megascale, Back to the Normal Game Dimension, so we can go back to actually, ya know, interacting socially, or if necessary go to real

(i.e. regular) combat.

As your GM, I'd say, "We are interacting just as socially as we were before. As necessary we'll go to regular combat. If you don't want to make important social conflicts more nuanced, exciting, dramatic, and cinematic . . . well, we'll ask you to leave when we go to those scenes. Everyone else is interested in giving it a try."

 

Nor is combat an exceptionally accurate or useful paradigm for social interaction. Combat (in Hero anyway) usually ends with one or more parties as clearly the victor - social interaction usually does not.

But it works great for some social interactions. Exactly the sort I'm interested in using the combat rules for.

 

Now, if you've got a social conflict which is better played out using other rules, more power to you! Enjoy! I've never suggested using combat rules for every social interaction nor that combat rules are always the best way to play out social interaction.

 

Social interaction is more often about coming to

mutually satisfactory (or at least mutually minimally dissatisfactory)

agreements (Trade, Bribery, Seduction,) people learning about, that is,

getting to know each other and building trust (Conversation,

Seduction,)"fitting in" and reducing social friction or the chance of

standing out (High Society, Streetwise, Conversation, Bureaucratics,)

gaining information rather than persuading to action (Conversation, High

Society, Streetwise, Bureaucratics, Interrogation,) and even if it is

about getting someone to do something, there is an infinite scale of

resistance between "I was wondering when you'd ask, I'm happy to" and

"Over my dead body." But if you turn social interaction into some kind

of fake combat, then actual reasons, logic, realistic motivations, and

everything that makes social interactions between characters, well,

->social interactions between characters<- gets pushed out the window by a win or lose tactical exercise in which every character will

automatically give all they've got to win the encounter - just like any

other combat. Things that should be easy become hard, things that should

be hard become easy, and things that should be impossible become

possible. And everything becomes absurd.

Honestly, I don't know how to respond to you. You're simply being absurd.

 

Most importantly: In the RAW, you can gain bonuses to your Conversation, Bribery, etc. rolls by roleplaying well. What I've suggested makes no change to that at all. You roleplay your charcter just a you do now. If you play well, you get bonuses to your rolls.

 

The only thing that changes, is that you now have more options for playing out the encounter. Options that greatly expand the detail, nuance, excitement, drama, and cinematic qualities of the encounter.

 

Quite important: I've never suggested that social interactions between characters should disappear.

 

Less importantly: It is certainly possible to play out a combat in which both sides are injured. Both sides take losses. Neither side gets exactly what they want.

 

When I made fun of this idea' date=' I was treating it as seriously as it deserves to be treated.[/quote']

No. You were making fun of an idea that does not exist. If you had considered my idea, that would be another matter. Instead, you set up a series of straw men and label them as my idea before knocking them down.

 

Please stop.

 

Right now I think I'm being as nice' date=' and respectful, as I can be.[/quote']

If you want to be really nice and respectful, you could try one of these:

1) Seek to understand what I'm talking about before posting constructive criticism.

2) Simply post, "I'm not interested in this idea" and be done.

3) Ignore the thread.

 

See' date=' I told you that you wouldn't like it any better if I got serious.[/quote']

I'll know you're serious when you make an honest effort to understand what I'm suggesting and then react to what is there rather than what is not.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

But I have a higher opinion of Utech than of the proposal he put forward here' date=' and decided to give him the courtesy of a more serious post that would let him know that, yes, I was willing to give some serious thought to his proposal.[/quote']

You have a sad way of showing your high opinion.

 

In the future, please give me the courtesy of seeking to understand my idea. If you then disagree with it, please do so in a constructive manner. Please do not misrepresent my idea and then mock the misrepresentation. That is neither respectful nor intellectually honest.

[schir1964]

Re: Social effects

 

I haven't thoroughly read the entire thread so my thoughts below will be generic in nature based on my campaigns and is not in response to any particular idea or post.

 

Player Control: The player has 100% control over their character's actions and choices not withstanding any specific control given up by the player with Limitations/Disadvantages and so forth.

GM Control: The world, environment, and all other characters outside of the Players. These characters must abide by the same restrictions as the player's characters concerning Limitations/Disadvantages.

 

A player can choose to change a character's actions at will (regardless of whether it is out of character for that character from prior experience or on the character sheet) and will suffer the consequences of those actions/choices as appropriate in a consistent manner. In other words, a player can have his character act bizarre, erratic, or even schizophrenic if they want to, but the world and the other characters in that world will react accordingly as deemed appropriate by the GM.

 

Using this system, no Social Mechanic is required or even needed to resolve such conflicts of behavior or interaction.

 

I don't like PRE for the very fact that if applied consistently it violates the Player/GM Control as defined above. However, I've rarely seen this rule applied consistently and it then just violates the GM Control portion defined above.

 

Interactions skills likewise violate these definitions if applied consistently. They actually allow a chance of success even if logically there should not be any chance of success.

 

Example: Using conversation to glean information is only logical if applied in the appropriate setting where there is no perceived conflict between the attacker and the target. If a character is at a party and blends in with the guests, then this skill has a chance of success. In other words, a friendly environment is presumed. However, if the same skill is attempted by a stranger who walks up to a guard post in restricted area vs a diligent guard, then there should be no chance of success regardless of the dice roll.

 

Now when a skill should or should not be used is completely within the control of the GM regardless of what skills the Player possesses. This is what mucks things up a bit because it now blurs the line of the Player/GM Control and it is inevitable that a violation of that definition will occur.

 

Either the player can use the character's skills at any time with the chance of success that roll provides, or the GM controls the skill and controls when such a chance of success may be available. Either of these would be consistent. If it is the latter, then why as a Player waste points on a skill that the Player doesn't control.

 

I prefer to let the players run their characters while I run everything else. Social interactions are resolved through game play not through the mechanics.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Now this does not mean that a social conflict mechanic could not work for those who would like such a mechanic. This is akin to those who like to randomly roll up characteristics vs those who like to purchase their characteristics with points. Neither is inherently wrong or bad, but each may be preferred over the other by the person's own likes/dislikes concerning RPGs.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Zed-F]

Re: Social effects

 

Hello, Andy!

 

I've taken a look at your idea and had a couple thoughts. The first thing that struck me is that this is not a lot unlike building extra characters to go into the Matrix, for instance, in a cyberpunk game, or building Astral Form avatars in a mystic game. As such, I think it could have some potential. There are a couple other thoughts I had, as well, but I don't think these will surprise you.

 

1) I don't think your proposed idea is the right way to handle most social interactions. Most social interactions should continue to be resolved quickly, using the existing skill system, because they are not really a major point of dramatic tension -- they're just bumps in the road toward the next major point of dramatic tension. The best time to pull out an idea like this is in the classic courtroom drama setting, or some similar large set-piece event, where all the PCs are present and can contribute -- just like you might choose not to play out incidental combats where the Dark Vigilante character is roughing up a couple mooks as part of his usual information-gathering methods.

 

2) Making up new character sheets is not hard for some, but for others it can be a relatively agonizing or labour intensive process. Even if everyone is comfortable with the idea of making extra sheets purely for social combat, there will probably be some confusion as to how to go about doing it and what guidelines should be followed. The GM will potentially have a lot of planning and thought to do to smooth this out as much as possible for the PCs. Moreover, the exact circumstances of the setting may have an influence on exactly how each character could be allowed to build their 'Social Interaction Avatar', so these sheets may need to be altered and customized for each such 'Social Interaction Battle.'

 

3) One thing to watch out for is that there will likely be differences between what the player can think of saying/doing, and what the character can think of saying/doing; presentation here is critical. Oftentimes the character relies on skills for knowledge/ability that the player does not posess, but in the context of a social battle where a character can be 'knocked out' of an argument... what happens if the player still has ideas and wants to contribute? Ideally, whether the players are winning or losing a social battle, you'd want the battle to be played out in a dramatic fashion, not have one PC who happens to be low on social skills get knocked out early and have to sit around waiting for it to end for a long time. A lot of thought might need to go into codifying the meta-game for this so that the level of social force that is applied after the combat is over feels right and appropriate.

 

Given that the premise is

• experimental,
  
• potentially time-intensive to set up,
  
• potentially disruptive to the game if not well done, as some players will be more sensitive to the idea of their characters' feelings/thoughts being adjusted in this manner than others,
  

I think it seems fair to say, approach with caution. That said, given sufficient caution about when to use such a system, player buy-in beforehand, and preparation, it could be an interesting experiment. It certainly seems worth trying out -- I would be willing to do so -- and if it doesn't work well, that's a lesson learned.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Hello' date=' Andy![/quote']

Howdy!

 

1) I don't think your proposed idea is the right way to handle most social interactions.

That's exactly what I proposed. The only reason to appropriate the combat rules for a social conflict is when you want to play out a longer, more nuanced, detailed, dramatic, cinematic scene. Things like:

 

Courtroom Drama: Maybe the PCs are on trial. Maybe they are witnesses for the prosecution or the defense -- or both! Maybe some are in Secret ID and others are not. Maybe all those positions are mixed up... It could be a real courtroom; an attempt at impromptu frontier justice; an alien courtroom; a trial set up by the gods; etc.

Rally the Troops: Maybe the aliens have invaded and our PCs need to convince world leaders to stop arguing at the UN, join together and fight! Maybe the Spartans are ready to throw in the towel and our PCs need to convince them that 300 is enough. Maybe it's St. Crispin's Day. Maybe the Eloi need to be taught to fight the Morlocks.

 

Complex Negotiation: Maybe our PCs need to navigate court intrigue. Maybe our Dark Champions heroes need to strike a deal with a crime boss, or the police, or both!

 

(I'll cut this short since my son is clamoring for the computer:) -- but you get the idea.)

 

 

2) Making up new character sheets is not hard for some' date=' but for others it can be a relatively agonizing or labour intensive process.[/quote']

That's true. But you could say the same about a lot of optional rules. Most groups I've played with don't use the Wounding rules, for example. They could, but they don't.

 

As you point out, GM planning is important before a battle. But it always is, yes?

 

Moreover' date=' the exact circumstances of the setting may have an influence on exactly how each character could be allowed to build their 'Social Interaction Avatar', so these sheets may need to be altered and customized for each such 'Social Interaction Battle.'[/quote']

I don't think the circumstances need change the avatar. Rather the circumstances change the map. Circumstances (terrain) naturally favor certain avatars.

 

In addition, there might be "environmental factors" that come into play -- roughly akin to icy conditions or rain or fog.

 

3) One thing to watch out for is that there will likely be differences between what the player can think of saying/doing' date=' and what the character can think of saying/doing; presentation here is critical.[/quote']

This is exactly the situation we have now, of course.

 

in the context of a social battle where a character can be 'knocked out' of an argument... what happens if the player still has ideas and wants to contribute? Ideally' date=' whether the players are winning or losing a social battle, you'd want the battle to be played out in a dramatic fashion, not have one PC who happens to be low on social skills get knocked out early and have to sit around waiting for it to end for a long time.[/quote']

I don't think this is all that different from the current situation with physical combat. I certainly wouldn't mind, for example, players who have their character knocked out contributing by suggesting things to the other players.

 

Given that the premise is

• experimental,

Got me there.

 

• potentially time-intensive to set up' date='[/quote']
  

  Could be. Not much more for people familiar with the game. The GM has a lot of prep work, but he always does.

   

  • potentially disruptive to the game if not well done' date=' as some players will be more sensitive to the idea of their characters' feelings/thoughts being adjusted in this manner than others,[/quote']
    

    Certainly such players shouldn't join a game using these optional rules! If you dislike Knockback, unconsciousness, the Strength Characteristic and feel they unfairly impact your character, you shouldn't play in a game that uses those things.

     

    It certainly seems worth trying out -- I would be willing to do so -- and if it doesn't work well' date=' that's a lesson learned.[/quote']

    I'm very happy to hear that! I'll have more time to work on that in a week or so.

[Zed-F]

Re: Social effects

 

I agreed with most of your comments -- mainly I just wanted to emphasize that any use of this system should be handled at least as carefully as a full combat scenario, and you've been on-board with that since the beginning.

 

The only part I wanted to draw further attention to is this:

 

Certainly such players shouldn't join a game using these optional rules! If you dislike Knockback' date=' unconsciousness, the Strength Characteristic and feel they unfairly impact your character, you shouldn't play in a game that uses those things.[/quote']

 

...which I feel is a bit of an over-simplification. There is a significant difference in baseline player expectations regarding how they can be influenced with social characteristics versus physical characteristics. Pretty much everyone expects physical combat and understands how it works, more or less. Not everyone expects social combat rules or will find it easy to understand the implications when presented with them. People are more likely to be willing to give it a go and subsequently decide it's really not their cup of tea. Or the GM might find it easier to introduce such rules as an experiment in an existing game, rather than constructing an entirely new game just to test them out. Some of the players might similarly find it's not as much to their liking as they thought. As the other posters on this thread make clear, there are plenty of reasons why they might find that it's not, and they might only discover it during play. As a consequence it behooves the GM to be extra-sensitive about communicating with the players regarding expectations and how they think it's going.

 

That said, none of the above should be an insurmountable barrier to good execution, nor does it in any way invalidate the concept. We've already agreed that a substantial amount of care would need to go into making a social combat scenario work; this is just one more aspect.

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

There seems to be something of a assumption in this thread. Yes, there are people that clearly have no interest in the type of social system that Utech is suggesting, apparently would react with extreme negativity. But there are many that would be. As has been pointed out on this thread there are plenty of rpgs that have similar rules that are played and enjoyed by many gamers. So the idea of them itself is certainly not anathema to enjoyable play. It's a preference like there are some people that detest combat in rpgs and it falls on the both the players and GMs to be clear about what they want to see and what they would enjoy to make for enjoyable play.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

You could quite easily flip the expectations and have physical combat determined by an opposed roll and social 'combat' determined by something like the current combat rules.

 

That would certainly give a very different emphasis and feel to the game.

 

Whilst it would not be to everyone's liking (just as games that emphasise conversation and role play are not to everyone's liking) it is the sort of option that a toolkit system could easily incorporate.

 

There are various ways in which we could 'do' conflict resolution, from short form to painstaking detail and it might be quite nice to have the option: you don't always want to be bothered spending 40 minutes wading through 2 dozen guards, but you don;t want to determine the outcome of an entire campaign with 'You rolled a 9? Cool! You win!'.