Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

[zornwil]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I agree...but I disagree. Peer pressure does not have consistent results. In a given peer group, a test group of ten similar subjects is placed. Some sunjects might be persuaded to drink liquor and kiss women, others might not. Stick the same sunjects in with different peers, and some might be persuaded to worship Jeebus, and some might not...and we have no way of knowing in advance if it would be the same people, different people or some weird overlapping venn diagram thing.

 

How does that square with social combat? To my mind, how you are and can be influenced is a very complex thing, based on a lifetime of observations and prejudices. We just don't have enough paper to accurately model that.

 

What aer the possible outcomes going to be?

 

Agrees

Disagrees but goes along anyway

Agrees but likely to change their mind soon

Disagrees

Disagrees but pretends to agree

Agrees but pretends to agree out of orneryness

 

...could be a long list...

 

I don't know enough about brainwashing to know if it works consistently, but if it does I'd suggest it is less of an application of social skill and more of a RSR mental transformation.

 

In fact that almost defines skills in Hero: stuff you do that you can't guarantee will work.

But I think the dice might provide of that variability, along with allowing for the inflection of psych lims. It seems to from experience. And most often, if someone is really going to dig their heels in, if it's not that important to the other party then it won't get pushed, so that puts off a lot of unrealistic outcomes. Finally, if one party isn't as strongly interested in pushing the conflict, it doesn't mean they don't get something out of it, such as a point granted or such, although I don't think anything of the above mechanics necessarily goes in this direction. I think you could go this way by allowing for partial victory for the side that loses but comes close (-1 to -2 or such).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Oh, I doubt I can prove you wrong. But I'll respond anyway.

 

So our hero comes across a beggar. He doesn't like beggars, so he ignores the chap and moves on. He has successfully run away from a combat. No worries.

 

Our hero stops at the next corner and waits for the signal to change. Another beggar walks over and starts his pitch. The beggar asks for some coin (Strike) and our hero murmurs something indistinct and waves him off (Dodge). The beggar explains that he's out of work and could really use some help (Strike) but our hero counters that the beggar ought to be out looking for a job instead of a handout (Block). Our hero has the initiative and goes on to point out that there is a "help wanted" sign in the window of a nearby store (Strike). The beggar is taken aback (Stunned). The beggar begins to cry (Drain Ego) but our hero is heart hearted (has Power Defense) and is unmoved. The signal changes and our hero walks on.

 

Our hero, we should point out, has a huge advantage over any beggar he comes upon. Our hero has strong defenses and is willing to counter attack with strong arguments. The beggar has a weak social position and very little ability to force our hero to do anything. The beggar, in other words, is built on considerably less social points than our hero. Sad, but true.

 

This is good stuff. I'm a good way to being convinced this just might work . My concern though, I suppose, falls into two parts;

 

1. Can you just ignore social combat? If so, there seems little point in engaging with anyone you don't want something from. If not then, whilst one beggar may not be able to defeat you, two...or three, probably will.

 

2. How do you deal with two seperate social situations at once. If your boss is putting pressure on you to finish the paperwork and your friend is putting pressure on you to go out for a drink, where does that leave you in the social combat stakes? Does each request have its own social stun pool?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

But I think the dice might provide of that variability' date=' along with allowing for the inflection of psych lims. It seems to from experience. And most often, if someone is really going to dig their heels in, if it's not that important to the other party then it won't get pushed, so that puts off a lot of unrealistic outcomes. Finally, if one party isn't as strongly interested in pushing the conflict, it doesn't mean they don't get something out of it, such as a point granted or such, although I don't think anything of the above mechanics necessarily goes in this direction. I think you could go this way by allowing for partial victory for the side that loses but comes close (-1 to -2 or such).[/quote']

 

Thing is that an ill considered approach or unappreciated argument can actually make you more entrenched in your position. There is a certain 'Dale Carnegie' sales patter than inevitably makes my blood boil. I bloody well won't buy whatever is being sold, even if I want it. It seems to me that with a 'combat' system, all you do is wear your opponent down. Practically, if you allow people to say 'well, I don't respond well to that argument', then the basis of social combat is that it can only work by consent, and logically, you can therefore only convince someone of something they either don't care about, or have alerady half decided to do anyway.

[nexus]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I agree with many of the point made but, like anything else in an rpg, you're not going to be able to simulate everything involved in Social Interaction accurately It's just too variable.

 

Physical Combat in Hero doesn't simulate everything. It's an approximation. Something have to be left up to common sense, drama, a bit of handwaving and reverse engineering when interpreting dice rolls.

[zornwil]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Thing is that an ill considered approach or unappreciated argument can actually make you more entrenched in your position. There is a certain 'Dale Carnegie' sales patter than inevitably makes my blood boil. I bloody well won't buy whatever is being sold' date=' even if I want it. It seems to me that with a 'combat' system, all you do is wear your opponent down. Practically, if you allow people to say 'well, I don't respond well to that argument', then the basis of social combat is that it can only work by consent, and logically, you can therefore only convince someone of something they either don't care about, or have alerady half decided to do anyway.[/quote']

I'm not sure what to say besides from experience that hasn't been the case with such things in other systems. As you say, if someone's seriously resistant no matter what, the conflict will quickly move to physical or other such means, if the other party really wants to go there, and if it's worth going to that extreme (e.g., regular battle ("Stop robbing that bank, Mr. Evil! What's that, you say words won't convince you? Feel my fists!", torture ("Oh, indeed, you'll tell us what we want to know..."), etc.), then it's worth the conflict and worth the repercussions. But there's also tremendous ground in-between; just as in any social situation, there's lots of things we get "coerced" into doing, humans do have a wide bit of stuff we "don't 'really' care about" enough to force the issue beyond some point.

[zornwil]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I agree with many of the point made but' date=' like anything else in an rpg, you're not going to be able to simulate [i']everything[/i] involved in Social Interaction accurately It's just too variable.

 

Physical Combat in Hero doesn't simulate everything. It's an approximation. Something have to be left up to common sense, drama, a bit of handwaving and reverse engineering when interpreting dice rolls.

Thanks, that's a good way to put it.

[Utech]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

1. Can you just ignore social combat?

 

About as much as you can usually ignore physical combat. If our hero was walking down the street and the beggar threw a bottle at him, our hero could choose to run away.

 

2. How do you deal with two separate social situations at once. If your boss is putting pressure on you to finish the paperwork and your friend is putting pressure on you to go out for a drink' date=' where does that leave you in the social combat stakes? Does each request have its own social stun pool?[/quote']

 

I think it works the same way as having your character fight two opponents at once. You might defeat one and be defeated by the other. You might defeat both. You'd have one Social Stun score just the same way you have one Stun score for tracking physical damage.

 

Suppose Amazing Man stumbles upon Ogre stealing some paperwork in an office while Grond is stealing some beer from the pub next door, he might just end up fighting both at the same time. I imagine you'd have no trouble running that fight.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

About as much as you can usually ignore physical combat. If our hero was walking down the street and the beggar threw a bottle at him' date=' our hero could choose to run away.[/quote']

 

...and in Hero there is no penalty for running away from combat...

 

 

 

I think it works the same way as having your character fight two opponents at once. You might defeat one and be defeated by the other. You might defeat both. You'd have one Social Stun score just the same way you have one Stun score for tracking physical damage.

 

Suppose Amazing Man stumbles upon Ogre stealing some paperwork in an office while Grond is stealing some beer from the pub next door, he might just end up fighting both at the same time. I imagine you'd have no trouble running that fight.

 

I like your examples, they are so reasonable

 

AM fighting Ogre and Grond - well, yes, but AM is trying to do the same thing to both - KO them without being KO'd. I'm not sure social combat would be quite so straightforward. It would mean that the best tactic for a beggar would be to wait until he stumbled across an argument, hold an action, wait until someone was about to lose then rush in and ask for a dollar.

 

IME someone who has just been in an argument, far from being compliant with social requests, is usually in the opposite state of mind.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

AM fighting Ogre and Grond - well, yes, but AM is trying to do the same thing to both - KO them without being KO'd. I'm not sure social combat would be quite so straightforward. It would mean that the best tactic for a beggar would be to wait until he stumbled across an argument, hold an action, wait until someone was about to lose then rush in and ask for a dollar.

 

No, you're wrong!

 

Oh - and can I have a dollar? Wait, make that 10,000 dollars!

 

Do I get a bonus for a surprise attack?

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I agree with many of the point made but' date=' like anything else in an rpg, you're not going to be able to simulate [i']everything[/i] involved in Social Interaction accurately It's just too variable.

 

Physical Combat in Hero doesn't simulate everything. It's an approximation. Something have to be left up to common sense, drama, a bit of handwaving and reverse engineering when interpreting dice rolls.

 

I think this is a key point. If we want more "realism", we add more rules.

 

Social combat is inherently limited -- as you say' date=' you can influence someone's public behavior, but you cannot control their thoughts. You may be able to bluff & bluster your way past the party's bouncer, but that does not in any way prevent him from checking your identity later and having you ejected in an embarrassing (for you) display of bouncer diligence. You may be able to keep someone from going public with some bit of information by emphasizing the secondary effects to the person and/or their DNPCs, but they can "anonymously" leak the information later (unless you take other steps to prevent it). There is a fuzzy line between a social and a mental conflict -- it is up to the GM to decide where your desired effect lies.[/quote']

 

Combat could be up to the GM to decide as well, however we have chosen to apply more objective rules and less subjective rules. Subjectivity remains. Was that a "surprise maneuver"? When, precisely, does that character at -45 STUN recover?

 

Similarly, designing a social combat system to enhance objectivity would be workable in moving from "make your persuasion roll" to social CV's, maneuvers, attacks, defenses, stun and BOD. The bouncer is Stunned, and you are able to slip by him. But he may follow you to eject you. He is KO'd, so you're in. But he may check your credentials when he recovers. You do enough social BOD to kill him? That's it - you're a VIP in his mind until someone else changes the bouncer's attitude in a further social combat. The rules would need to be much more detailed than the bare bones framework we're setting out, but it could be done.

 

I have to ask whether that was really a social conflict' date=' rather than a mental one? It was an extended test, to be sure, as the Sith master wore down the young apprentice's resistance over time, but ultimately, the end effect was a change in Anakin's thoughts and beliefs. There may well have been complimentary social skill rolls along the way, to get the youth to verbally agree to small points that were eventually chained together to guide his thinking to a particular conclusion. The overall effect, however, was mental. In my opinion, anyway. [/quote']

 

I can respond that there were no mental powers (Mind Control, Mental Illusions) in play, so it was not a mental conflict. Or I can interpret it as mental conflict under different rules. I do not believe the present Hero System can accurately model that conflict, however, and I think it is the type of conflict our Social Combat system might wish to model.

 

I do agree that the final dice results of a social combat should be hidden -- the PCs only know the immediate results. I am not sure that a fumble mechanic is necessary. How a NPC responds to your failure is a function of his/her/its personality and how badly you failed.

 

The same is true of physical combat. I don't tell my players the defenses of their target, and I describe the scene in terms of what they perceive. "The villain falls to the ground" could mean he is KO'd, or that he is playing possum. Do you want to spend a half phase and try to see which it is? The bouncer may be fully defeated and now thinks you're a VIP. Or maybe he's just ducking the question to verify your credentials. Do you want to make a PER roll (against his acting skill, perhaps) to guess how convinced he is?

 

People are complying with social requirements every day. Why shouldn't the characters. Then again they aren't bound by it if society is not important to them. The barbarian doesn't care what the nobles think of him' date=' he is in a social tight spot, he leaves or pummels the culprit!... unless he is trying to negotiate a treaty or woo the noble damsel.[/quote']

 

And the nature of the campaign would determine how important social combat is. Just as the aged, feeble diplomat is a poor character choice for a dungeon-delving fantasy campaign or a mercenary action hero game, the socially inept barbarian is a poor character choice for a game where typical scenario goals include trying to negotiate a treaty or woo the noble damsel.

 

Besides most social conflicts are not about changing people but about how others perceive them and their actions. Social conflict in the short haul is to ridicule some one in public' date=' convince some one of some short term immediate action, increase or reduce reputation, etc..[/quote']

 

It doesn't really matter whether I persuade the other candidates that I'm the best man for the job. I need to convince enough of the voters.

 

Prolonged convincing and cajoling and manipulation SHOULD be able to change any character (PC or NPC). If a character is willing to regularly parlay and discuss or maneuver on an issue with anyone they should run the risk of being convinced of an issue no mater how strong the players stance. Social conflict always takes 2 just like a fight. You can "socially run or avoid" conflict just as you can physical. If you voluntarily or by inaction allow yourself to be exposed to an idea long enough even "Iron Mind Negotiator" should be convinced if he looses often enough. Its hard to believe in ideas you have no support for or ar repeatedly shown to be weak.

 

Once we accept that social conflict is important and appropriate for the game, I think we also need to accept this means there can be negative consequences to PC's if they lose in social combat. Just like we accept, in most games where physical combat is important, that the character may be KO'd, captured or killed as a result of a loss in combat.

 

Mind you the beggar would have an easier time convincing me to part with the cash if I'd just got some good news and was feeling generous, or just read a story on the plight of the homeless and was feeling guilty.

 

The point (I think) I'm trying to make is that even people's attitudes are very fluid. Whilst you can probably model how effective a punch is to a reasonable degree of accuracy, it probably doesn't matter that much if I'm in the mood for a fight or not - I still hit hard. The same simply is not true of social situations - and the degree of work to model the influence of timing, environment and such is, I believe, way beyond us.

 

You are welcome to prove me wrong

 

I refer you to Nexus' comment, above. Yes, in reality, attitudes are fluid. Do you think that your ability to solve a complex logic puzzle is the same, whether you are refreshed from a good night's sleep or exhausted from being awake 36 hours and suffering from a fever? Are your combat abilities identical under both circumstances? Yet the game provides no mechanics for the fluidity of our abilities to perform depending on our present state of health, or our mood. There is no penalty in combat for being distracted by concern about a sick relative or a conflict at work, but these are very real distractions that impact our ability to perform in real life. We simply have not modeled that added realism/complexity in the system.

 

Now here's an idea, for modelling personality; crude, inaccutate and incomlpete, but, hey, it just might work.

 

A lot of personality typing systems use dynamic opposites: introvert v extrovert, for example, or at least seperate points around a centre.

 

Perhaps we could dynamically create our character's personality as we go?

 

Whenever you make a choice, in game, a choice that dentoes a preference, you note it as a sort of personality profile. It could be as specific as beer v wine, it could be as general as doer v thinker. You could even assign a number to it, say 1 to 5.

 

Say you are 'beer v wine 3'. That means you like beer over wine, and it means that in a social situation where someone tries, for example, to get you to come out for a drink, if they suggest going out for a beer, they get +3 on the roll, and if they suggest going out for a glass of wine then they get -3.

 

You can set up as many of these as you like when you create the character, or just note them as they come up. Over time you'll gain a pretty comprehensive picture of people's preferences and what pushes their social buttons.

 

I never played the game, but this sounds a lot like Pendragon. It has a series of personality traits that you had to assign numbers to, and they determined your actions, or choice of actions, in certain situations. Bravery/Cowardice might require a roll to summon up the courage to engage the fire breathing dragon rather than spur your charger in the opposite direction.

 

I agree...but I disagree. Peer pressure does not have consistent results. In a given peer group, a test group of ten similar subjects is placed. Some sunjects might be persuaded to drink liquor and kiss women, others might not. Stick the same sunjects in with different peers, and some might be persuaded to worship Jeebus, and some might not...and we have no way of knowing in advance if it would be the same people, different people or some weird overlapping venn diagram thing.

 

How does that square with social combat? To my mind, how you are and can be influenced is a very complex thing, based on a lifetime of observations and prejudices. We just don't have enough paper to accurately model that.

 

A fall from the edge of the sidewalk to the street might, in real life, result in no more than a stumble, a twisted ankle, a broken ankle, a fall and a bruise, a broken hip or death as your skull shatters on the edge of the sidewalk. The same fall in Hero seems to have much less breadth of results. Again, Nexus' comment nails it. While I agree the issue exists for social conflict, it already exists for physical conflict.

 

And how do you resolve those issues in-game now? Well, PC's are just immune, and we subjectively apply interaction skills against NPC's. I don't see that model enjoying any superiority in the realism department.

 

I don't know enough about brainwashing to know if it works consistently, but if it does I'd suggest it is less of an application of social skill and more of a RSR mental transformation.

 

In fact that almost defines skills in Hero: stuff you do that you can't guarantee will work.

 

Under the present model, I tend to agree. A social combat model could replace that, however.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

No, you're wrong!

 

Oh - and can I have a dollar? Wait, make that 10,000 dollars!

 

Do I get a bonus for a surprise attack?

 

Ever watch a small child wait for Mommy to be distracted by dinner, the telephone, etc. before asking for a cookie? The same logic can be applied.

[jaws]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

 

...SNIPED ...

 

Now here's an idea, for modelling personality; crude, inaccutate and incomlpete, but, hey, it just might work.

 

A lot of personality typing systems use dynamic opposites: introvert v extrovert, for example, or at least seperate points around a centre.

 

Perhaps we could dynamically create our character's personality as we go?

 

Whenever you make a choice, in game, a choice that dentoes a preference, you note it as a sort of personality profile. It could be as specific as beer v wine, it could be as general as doer v thinker. You could even assign a number to it, say 1 to 5.

 

Say you are 'beer v wine 3'. That means you like beer over wine, and it means that in a social situation where someone tries, for example, to get you to come out for a drink, if they suggest going out for a beer, they get +3 on the roll, and if they suggest going out for a glass of wine then they get -3.

 

You can set up as many of these as you like when you create the character, or just note them as they come up. Over time you'll gain a pretty comprehensive picture of people's preferences and what pushes their social buttons.

 

The setup can even be dynamic: if a roll, that is modified, is made, then the player can chose to move that 'slider' toward the appropriate preference by one point, but they don't have to.

 

For instance, if you are persuded to go to a wine bar, by a gorgeous co-worker, despite egnerally preferring beer, that might change your perception of wine positively. You are now 'beer v wine 2'. Much more of this and you might beceom 'wine v beer'!

 

This is great! And is also the solution to some of your worries below. As you feel differently about different aspects and will react in a different way depending on how your personality has evolved.

 

How does that square with social combat? To my mind, how you are and can be influenced is a very complex thing, based on a lifetime of observations and prejudices. We just don't have enough paper to accurately model that.

 

What aer the possible outcomes going to be?

 

Agrees

Disagrees but goes along anyway

Agrees but likely to change their mind soon

Disagrees

Disagrees but pretends to agree

Agrees but pretends to agree out of orneryness

 

...could be a long list...

 

 

This is like asking us to consider chaos theory in our combats... "So you hit the guy with 50N of force of which the vectors are 39N horizontally and 11N vertical that gives us an arc of 25 degrees taking gravity in to account he will travel 2m and land on a stick that was accidentally kicked there during x and y's combat it was broken of at a 45 degree angle causing a puncturing wound on landing of an extra .032d6 + 1d6 of knock back this causes a butuerfly to scare and ..... 6 weeks later.... you see a tornado headed towards your camp, suddenly you remember the butterfly you scared a few weeks ago. blah blah blah...

 

You generalize and use your excellent idea on the personality profile to give general indications and directions. As i Mentioned. Unless it is for very specific and short term actions social interactions will only give general feelings and ideas unless there is prolonged exposure to ideas.

 

Even prolonged exposure will not convince an person violently opposed to something unless the character willingly complies and concedes certain pivotal points. So you personality profile of hates orcs vs loves orcs -5 will not change unless something like "orc saves your life" even if you are forced to live in a camp full of "orc huggers for years" in fact you will probably only hate them more and reinforce it many times over.

 

However if you hear all the stories of these people whe were saved, fed, clothed, befriended, raised by this great clan of orcs, you may willingly concede that at least that clan of orcs may not be so bad after all. You run in to them and it only confirms the point... then you run in to another (however unlikely) group of orcs in the desert just before you pass out from sunstroke and awaken nursed back to health by this other clan who then promptly provides supplies and ejects you from their camp.

 

Hey maybe it isn't just that clan, orcs may not be THAT bad after all. Hat orcs 3... so nex time your party runs in to an orc at the tavern you probably wont walk up to him and spit in his face and tel him there isn't enough room in the tavern for both of you. You wont sit with your back to him either though.

 

This is good stuff. I'm a good way to being convinced this just might work . My concern though, I suppose, falls into two parts;

 

1. Can you just ignore social combat? If so, there seems little point in engaging with anyone you don't want something from. If not then, whilst one beggar may not be able to defeat you, two...or three, probably will.

 

What some one else said... i think it was Utic the rational

 

2. How do you deal with two seperate social situations at once. If your boss is putting pressure on you to finish the paperwork and your friend is putting pressure on you to go out for a drink' date=' where does that leave you in the social combat stakes? Does each request have its own social stun pool?[/quote']

 

Same as a mental combat I guess if you have conflicting "social influences" you will go with the strongest one. Of course if they are conflicting you PROBABLY agree with one more than the other so it gets bonuses and will probably win out. We always take the path of least resistance in situations like this.

 

Thing is that an ill considered approach or unappreciated argument can actually make you more entrenched in your position. There is a certain 'Dale Carnegie' sales patter than inevitably makes my blood boil. I bloody well won't buy whatever is being sold' date=' even if I want it. It seems to me that with a 'combat' system, all you do is wear your opponent down. Practically, if you allow people to say 'well, I don't respond well to that argument', then the basis of social combat is that it can only work by consent, and logically, you can therefore only convince someone of something they either don't care about, or have alerady half decided to do anyway.[/quote']

 

Read your social profiling idea. Use limitations. Use your characters in game history... what does he dislike or react aggressively towards. Grand rule of GMs "know your players". Unless obviously or stately different assume most character traits are only reflections of the player as is generally the case. So if the player HATES 'Dale Carnegie' sales patter then assume the character would to unless it has been demonstrated otherwise in game... even with different characters. Players usually define characters on Highlights and differences from their own personality.. everything else is pretty much the player.

 

AM fighting Ogre and Grond - well, yes, but AM is trying to do the same thing to both - KO them without being KO'd. I'm not sure social combat would be quite so straightforward. It would mean that the best tactic for a beggar would be to wait until he stumbled across an argument, hold an action, wait until someone was about to lose then rush in and ask for a dollar.

 

IME someone who has just been in an argument, far from being compliant with social requests, is usually in the opposite state of mind.

 

Unless stressing the same topic social combats should be taken separately, just like different transforms. If they have similar ground consider bonuses and penalties based on how the other argument is going.

 

If you have just been soundly defeated in a social situation such as the guy that keeps showing up every week trying to sell insurance and you have let him in the door a few times just because you were bored and needed some distraction eventually convinced you and you bought his insurance... so he tips off his investment friend who knocks on your door a day later and has a bonus to convince you on investing for your own future as insurance is money you wont get to enjoy while alive. Of course if you are overspent because of insurance you just bought you will probably have a decent bonus to resist this guy as well.

 

Just like in physical combat Situational bonuses and penalties.

 

I am loving this thread it is really a good exercise...

 

Sean, it is like what is happening here... we have already STUNNED you as you have conceded this might actually work and even provided ideas so your BODY is wearing thin.

 

You could have just left the thread and remained in your happy position of "anti-social bliss" . However you continued to expose yourself to our ideas and not only that but provided argument we could counter strike and over time... you will join "THE SOCIALSIDE" (read as if I had scuba gear on and had my head in a can)

 

Signed: The Sean Waters Comentator...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

A simple roll has the advantage that you can succeed, or fail. If you fail by enough, or at all, the GM might say that you can't make another attempt.

 

You can fail even if you have a 20 PRE, 20 INT and 20 EGO against someone with 10/10/10. You'll generally succeed, but there is a real chance of failure.

 

That, to me, is realsitic enough.

 

Convert that to 20 STR/DEX/CON and fight a normal, and you'll never lose: the length of the combat, the numbers involved, it means that the chance of actually losing is TINY.

 

That is unrealistic.

 

The added complexity of 'social combat', certainly if modelled on physical combat, will make the superior party a cert, vastly skewing the odds in their favour.. It is just a matter of hitting them hard enough and often enough.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

..............

Sean, it is like what is happening here... we have already STUNNED you as you have conceded this might actually work and even provided ideas so your BODY is wearing thin.

 

You could have just left the thread and remained in your happy position of "anti-social bliss" . However you continued to expose yourself to our ideas and not only that but provided argument we could counter strike and over time... you will join "THE SOCIALSIDE" (read as if I had scuba gear on and had my head in a can)

 

Signed: The Sean Waters Comentator...

 

 

There's truth in that, but then I'd argue it is because I'm willing to be persuaded by rational thought and argument - a facet of my personality. If you approached me with arguments about 'have faith' or such, it wouldn't be working.

 

To model that you would need some sort of Social Manouvres and defences:

 

Rational Argument: +2d6 social damage +2/-0 NB added damage only affects someone with 'respects logic' personality type

 

Spurious Logic....

 

Force of Personality....

 

That's going to get real comlpicated real quick. Still, show me how it might be done and I'll wave the banner too

[nexus]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

There's truth in that, but then I'd argue it is because I'm willing to be persuaded by rational thought and argument - a facet of my personality. If you approached me with arguments about 'have faith' or such, it wouldn't be working.

 

To model that you would need some sort of Social Manouvres and defences:

 

Rational Argument: +2d6 social damage +2/-0 NB added damage only affects someone with 'respects logic' personality type

 

Spurious Logic....

 

Force of Personality....

 

That's going to get real comlpicated real quick. Still, show me how it might be done and I'll wave the banner too

 

I think the above might fall under how the "attack" is described or role played similar to surprise manuvers. That's where psych lims, character background Gm and player discretion would come into play. OR the player would just say "I try to Persuade X of Y" just like you can say "I use my Strike manuver". No bonuses, no penalties.

[jaws]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

There's truth in that, but then I'd argue it is because I'm willing to be persuaded by rational thought and argument - a facet of my personality. If you approached me with arguments about 'have faith' or such, it wouldn't be working.

 

To model that you would need some sort of Social Maneuvers and defenses:

 

Rational Argument: +2d6 social damage +2/-0 NB added damage only affects someone with 'respects logic' personality type

 

Spurious Logic....

 

Force of Personality....

 

That's going to get real comlpicated real quick. Still, show me how it might be done and I'll wave the banner too

 

I think the above might fall under how the "attack" is described or role played similar to surprise manuvers. That's where psych lims' date=' character background Gm and player discretion would come into play. OR the player would just say "I try to Persuade X of Y" just like you can say "I use my Strike manuver". No bonuses, no penalties.[/quote']

 

"SHAZAM" you have jsut created the basis for social combat LOL. You previous Idea of Traits with their opposites based on a center combined with the already existing SFX mechanic where SFX is logic, reputation, faith, emotional, knowledge, confusing blabberskype, or something like that. We already deal with interaction of strange SFX all the time and how they work together as well as their secondary effects.

 

I say create basic GENERIC maneuvers as they already exist (no martial arts) that are modified by the personality traits. So if you are Logic +2 vs faith and some one tries:

 

"I think it works the same way as having your character fight two opponents at once. You might defeat one and be defeated by the other. You might defeat both. You'd have one Social Stun score just the same way you have one Stun score for tracking physical damage.

 

Suppose Amazing Man stumbles upon Ogre stealing some paperwork in an office while Grond is stealing some beer from the pub next door, he might just end up fighting both at the same time. I imagine you'd have no trouble running that fight."

Strike at SCV +2 but if they try the....

 

"well social interaction is defined by the spirit of the person and when there are 2 or more spirits working in conjunction to obtain a result god is there and that will strengthen the argument providing bonuses. And since he is involved you should obviously be convinced"

 

Strike at approach is SCV -2

 

Then play with complementary skills for additional modifiers... surprise maneuvers etc...

[StGrimblefig]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I disagree. Brainwashing/indoctrination is well-documented. There is also religious conversion. Political conversion. Peer pressure. Trends. A culture of consumerism that convinces people to buy things they do not need and cannot afford. Power corrupts. Sweet talk can get you far. Bullied children can be made to feel that they truly are inferior; ugly; stupid; worthless. A great coach can turn a bunch of losers into the Bad News Bears!

I think this is a question of definition. Remember the Hero mantra: Reason from effects. The way I see it, anything that changes/controls a person's thoughts is a mental conflict/ability. It can be helped by using complimentary social skill rolls, but the end effect is still mental.

 

Of your examples, I think that Peer Pressure is the only one that I would classify as a social action, as it involves getting a person to "go along" with an activity regardless of what they actually believe about it.

 

 

If you're willing to accept that a character can be killed in physical combat' date=' you should accept that the same character can have their thoughts changed in social combat.[/quote']

First of all, I do not see the connection between reducing the BODY characteristic to zero and changing a person's thoughts with a non-mental action. Second: if this is the case, why would anyone buy any mental powers, when a decent ability with the social skills is so much less expensive?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

OK, we can argue about whether this is ever going to work forever or we can try something and see. I'm still not at all convinced, but, maybe with a little spit and polish, you never know...

[Utech]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

I think this is a question of definition. Remember the Hero mantra: Reason from effects. The way I see it' date=' anything that changes/controls a person's thoughts is a mental conflict/ability. It can be helped by using complimentary social skill rolls, but the end effect is still mental.[/quote']

 

Surely you agree that it is possible for people to be seduced without the need for mental powers. I've seduced others. I've been seduced. I'm pretty damn sure that no mental powers were in play.

 

In the past, I've convinced others that my idea is a better one than others on offer. Others have convinced me that their idea is better than mine. No mental powers in play.

 

Through study and discussions with people in the know, I've had my world views changed. No mental powers in play.

 

HERO has tools to model this sort of interaction (aka conflict), but the tools are few and crude. I'm not just interested in modeling the effect of convincing someone of something. I'm interested in adjusting the current combat rules for social combat.

 

Of your examples' date=' I think that Peer Pressure is the only one that I would classify as a social action, as it involves getting a person to "go along" with an activity regardless of what they actually believe about it.[/quote']

 

Perhaps that's the sticking point. I consider all of my examples to be social conflict.

 

I think that social conflict occurs any time one person wants another to adjust his behavior. This may or may not involve changing the target's beliefs. It certainly could.

 

First of all' date=' I do not see the connection between reducing the BODY characteristic to zero and changing a person's thoughts with a non-mental action.[/quote']

 

That's because no such rules exist right now. We're working on that.

 

Second: if this is the case' date=' why would anyone buy any mental powers, when a decent ability with the social skills is so much less expensive?[/quote']

 

The social skills/powers/talents would be costed (or recosted) appropriately for such a system.

 

Currently they are costed appropriately for the rules as written.

[StGrimblefig]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

This is good stuff. I'm a good way to being convinced this just might work . My concern though, I suppose, falls into two parts;

 

1. Can you just ignore social combat? If so, there seems little point in engaging with anyone you don't want something from. If not then, whilst one beggar may not be able to defeat you, two...or three, probably will.

Well, technically, you can ignore any form of combat, but there may be consequences. If you ignore the ganger with a knife coming at you, the consequences may include physical damage, blood loss, and maybe even death. If you ignore the pleas of the beggar on the corner, the consequences are much less dire (for you). If you ignore your boss's demand to finish the paperwork today, the consequences may include lower status within the work environment, lowered or no raises, up to maybe even loss of inclusion in the work environment (i.e. firing).

 

2. How do you deal with two seperate social situations at once. If your boss is putting pressure on you to finish the paperwork and your friend is putting pressure on you to go out for a drink' date=' where does that leave you in the social combat stakes? Does each request have its own social stun pool?[/quote']That is a good question. If your boss and your friend are in the same room at the same time, both trying to pressure you to follow them, then I would think that it depends a lot on the social status of the two of them. Your boss obviously is your superior in a particular social environment (the workplace). If your friend is also a member of that same environment, what is his status within that group? If he is of higher status than your boss, he may be able to get your boss to back down (in a separate social conflict) and accept the paperwork later (thus avoiding your own conflict with your boss), but that does not preclude your boss holding a grudge against you for it. If your friend is at the same level as you (or lower) then your boss is more likely to get your friend to back down (again, a separate conflict) and you are on your own trying to get your boss to accept the paperwork later. If your friend is not a member of the same workplace environment, then it is up to you to weigh the consequences of either choice and decide accordingly. In a way, it becomes more of a social conflict between the two others, with your preferences being used as modifiers.

 

If the two are not in the same room, then it is two separate social conflicts, with the result of the first one acting as a (possibly large) modifier to the second.

 

In my opinion, of course.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

You can fail even if you have a 20 PRE, 20 INT and 20 EGO against someone with 10/10/10. You'll generally succeed, but there is a real chance of failure.

 

That, to me, is realsitic enough.

 

Convert that to 20 STR/DEX/CON and fight a normal, and you'll never lose: the length of the combat, the numbers involved, it means that the chance of actually losing is TINY.

 

That is unrealistic.

 

The added complexity of 'social combat', certainly if modelled on physical combat, will make the superior party a cert, vastly skewing the odds in their favour.. It is just a matter of hitting them hard enough and often enough.

 

Should we then also reduce Physical Combat to a skill roll, making failure under your example more likely?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

Should we then also reduce Physical Combat to a skill roll' date=' making failure under your example more likely?[/quote']

 

We could, but I think that misses the point. Whilst all sorts of things can affect combat, and can be broadly simulated with roll penalties, I'm of the opinion that social combat if far more random.

 

Two salesmen, both experienced, both selling the same product at the same price, approach (seperately) two people of similar type who are willing to hear the schpiel.

 

The 'targets' are not socially adept as the salesmen.

 

Inevitably if you use the combat rules, or something like them, the salesmen will win every time.

 

That is not realistic.

 

In physical combat, superiority in characteristics and skill almost always does (in fisticuffs, anyway) result in victory. A polished social performance doesn't always guarantee 'victory'.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

We could, but I think that misses the point. Whilst all sorts of things can affect combat, and can be broadly simulated with roll penalties, I'm of the opinion that social combat if far more random.

 

Two salesmen, both experienced, both selling the same product at the same price, approach (seperately) two people of similar type who are willing to hear the schpiel.

 

The 'targets' are not socially adept as the salesmen.

 

Inevitably if you use the combat rules, or something like them, the salesmen will win every time.

 

That is not realistic.

 

In physical combat, superiority in characteristics and skill almost always does (in fisticuffs, anyway) result in victory. A polished social performance doesn't always guarantee 'victory'.

 

How do we know that the same difference in social skills does not make victory a virtual certainty? Real people don't come equipped with character sheets. A human with, say, 20 STR, 20 DEX and 20 CON will certainly win, pretty much every time, in physical combat against one who has all 8's. But this is an absolute peak human, not a typical street punk, police officer or even career military man. Why shouldn't a "peak human" from a social perspective be equally overwhelming against Joe Average? These peak social humans should be no more common than a peak physical human.

 

When I hear some of the scams skilled con men are able to pull off, it seems pretty clear we can be taken in. When I read about experienced business people falling prey to emails from Nigeria, investments in farms that will crossbreed rabbits and snakes so they can collect the fur when they shed their skins and avoid animal rights issues, or some of the tax shelter scams that come out of the woodwork every year, I'm amazed at what people can be persuaded to buy in to.

[zornwil]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

It's also easy to win every "social" conflict by just having a high Mind Control, too. And a general issue (and feature) of HERO is that there's a number of "one punch" ways to do things but also a lot of "undefeatable" defensive constructs. I think the trick is more in balancing this and assuring that social conflicts have the right barriers/defenses.

 

Also, I'd like to point out something about social conflicts: very often, the issue isn't that someone will win, but rather HOW they win - just as with physical conflicts. A conflict system is very much about shaping how and what it means. For me, the most important part of the stakes-based conflict I've seen that merges social and physical seemlessly is that in a given conflict the aspect of what approach people take and how they take it and what incremental gains they make, even if they lose a conflcit, is key to RPGign moments. You can get small or tangential concessions that are meaningful later ("He respects you now, even though he won't do what you say."). Also, the process of playing out the social conflict should mesh with, not divorce from, the dialogue and roleplaying, so that it's enjoyable. it isn't just resolving the conflict - it's the "how" and "what" to resolving it that's of value.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social versus Physical/Mental Conflicts

 

How do we know that the same difference in social skills does not make victory a virtual certainty? Real people don't come equipped with character sheets. A human with, say, 20 STR, 20 DEX and 20 CON will certainly win, pretty much every time, in physical combat against one who has all 8's. But this is an absolute peak human, not a typical street punk, police officer or even career military man. Why shouldn't a "peak human" from a social perspective be equally overwhelming against Joe Average? These peak social humans should be no more common than a peak physical human.

 

When I hear some of the scams skilled con men are able to pull off, it seems pretty clear we can be taken in. When I read about experienced business people falling prey to emails from Nigeria, investments in farms that will crossbreed rabbits and snakes so they can collect the fur when they shed their skins and avoid animal rights issues, or some of the tax shelter scams that come out of the woodwork every year, I'm amazed at what people can be persuaded to buy in to.

 

The Nigeria thing relies on millions and millions of emails going out and a few desperate or greedy people actually falling for it. Ditto an awful lot of con games. Yes, some people will buy into anything but:

 

1. The people who do buy are not necessarily idiots (except in hindsight); they could be socially adept themselves but perhaps desperate; they may be on the verge of bankruptcy and not clearly thinking.

 

2. Only a very small percentage actually DO fall for this stuff.

 

3. This isn't really social conflict, any more than the National Lottery is.

 

I've suggested some concrete rules for social combat; a basic, but workable adaption of the combat rules. Is this what people are talking about?

 

I'm also drafting a more detailed skill based system I'll post when I'm done with.