Social resolution mechanics for Hero

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Do you need to stay in more?

 

I think that social mechanics have a dual role, sometimes, first to determine how a developed character acts in a given situation, e.g. if a PC makes a proposition to an important NPC that the GM had not considered, but the GM knows the basic preferences and prejudices of the given character, it is a matter of how, given who they are, would they react.

 

In the 'seduction scenario' however, social interaction is more being used to determine the personality and attitudes of the target: it may take several hours (but you can reduce that and take a roll penalty) and be an automatic -4, (but you can mitigate that by buying pink champagne and generally splashing cash) but the roll is not so much about persuading the person to have sex with you, as determining whether they are willing to at all.

 

If you assume that people attending singles bars are actually singles (and not there with friends they don't want to leave, or actually in a relationship and a bit reticent about the whole scene) and if you assume that they are looking for sex (and not just some drinks and laughs and a bit of a dance and maybe a snog), and if you assume that they find the character approaching them attractive, or at least the most likely prospect, then you've already done a lot of the ground work on the personal modifiers and the -4 may not apply - but then that is the point of the roll.

 

This sort of thing will always be a judgment call.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Well, I suppose one could apply situational modifiers(swanky nightclub, +1; singles bar, +2; infamous pick-up joint, +3; etc.; target is single, +0; target is "single and looking", +1; target is "single and looking for Mr/Ms. Right Now", +2), such that, if one is trying to pick up someone who's actively trying to go home with someone that night, at an infamous pick-up joint, the actual modified seduction attempt might be at +1, or perhaps -2 if the seducer is trying to close the deal in a hurry. Degree of inebriation might also influence the outcome(alcohol boosts libido slightly), as might the relative appeal of the seducer compared to "what else is on the menu".

[dmjalund]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Degree of inebriation might also influence the outcome(alcohol boosts libido slightly).

Don't forget beer goggles

[Ragitsu]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

This is a good proposal . Also, you need to be particularly sensitive on how your group feels about such mechanics (that is to say, how they envision roleplaying being divorced from the system). I do not know if what I just said was mentioned earlier, but I felt it worth saying all the same.

[Kristopher]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Personally, I'm leary of things that take role-playing control of the character away from the player.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Well, the intermediate way, I think, to deal with the "specialness" of PCs is to consider their normal set of reactions as a large "box", and a successful interaction skill use against them as shrinking the box a bit.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Personally' date=' I'm leary of things that take role-playing control of the character away from the player.[/quote']

 

Surely role playing is all about dealing with situations that the character has no control over: the villain attacks the character, pinning him to a wall, the NPC runs off with the suitcase full of money, the weather turns suddenly stormy and the boat starts to sink...the player can not suddenly say 'No, my character would never have gone out whene there was likely to be a storm and just re-write the scene.

 

Why is it that people seem happy to deal with physical situations that they have no control over - well - I say no control - they can attempt to influence the situation - but they are happy to let the dice and the GM determine the situation they are in and how it affects them - but are not willing to deal the same way with emotional or social situations?

 

I mean, any decent social interaction system is not going to hand 'Amazona, Princess of Purity' a requirement that she go on a killing rampage and slaughter innocents just because someone suggested she should and got a good persuasion roll. Amazona MIGHT be persuaded that the only way to save a bunch of innocents is to kill someone - in spite of her code against killing - but how she reacts to that and deals with it is still a matter for role playing.

 

Any good social interaction system would have to be relatively subtle, IMO, but there is no reason that players should not be placed in emotional/social situations in exactly the same way they are placed in physical ones, and expected to deal with them through role playing.

 

I suppose one answer is that PHYSICAL situations necessarily have to be abstracted by the system - you can't fly through the air and energy blast the villain really - but interaction systems can be 'entirely' role played - there is no good reason though why that is necessary - and I'm sure that everyone would agree that the choices you make in combat are a matter of role playing, so a system that involves a dice based PLUS role playing system is clearly something we are comfortable with.

 

I'd argue that role playing is far more challenging and realistic if we do not have absolute control over teh thoughts and emotions of our characters - after all none of us have absolute control over our own emotions and thoughts.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Why is it that people seem happy to deal with physical situations that they have no control over - well - I say no control - they can attempt to influence the situation - but they are happy to let the dice and the GM determine the situation they are in and how it affects them - but are not willing to deal the same way with emotional or social situations?

 

Because in most cases, when the GM places the characters in a physical situation, the external environment is dictated by the GM - but he's essentially asking the players "OK, what are your characters going to do in response to this situation?". When he places them in a situation where PC actions are dictated (in part or whole) by die roll, now the internal environment is also dictated by the GM - he's essentially saying "OK, here's what your characters are going to do". Very, very, verrrry different situations, and not really analogous.

 

I'd argue that role playing is far more challenging and realistic if we do not have absolute control over teh thoughts and emotions of our characters - after all none of us have absolute control over our own emotions and thoughts.

 

Realistic, certainly. Challenging? Probably. But fun .... probably not. In that regard, it's like the discussions about realism in modelling death/injury. We could certainly make our physical simulations more realistic and challenging, if we wanted, but my experiences in that direction suggest that it's at the cost of fun.

 

cheers, Mark

[Kristopher]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Surely role playing is all about dealing with situations that the character has no control over: the villain attacks the character, pinning him to a wall, the NPC runs off with the suitcase full of money, the weather turns suddenly stormy and the boat starts to sink...the player can not suddenly say 'No, my character would never have gone out whene there was likely to be a storm and just re-write the scene.

 

Why is it that people seem happy to deal with physical situations that they have no control over - well - I say no control - they can attempt to influence the situation - but they are happy to let the dice and the GM determine the situation they are in and how it affects them - but are not willing to deal the same way with emotional or social situations?

 

I mean, any decent social interaction system is not going to hand 'Amazona, Princess of Purity' a requirement that she go on a killing rampage and slaughter innocents just because someone suggested she should and got a good persuasion roll. Amazona MIGHT be persuaded that the only way to save a bunch of innocents is to kill someone - in spite of her code against killing - but how she reacts to that and deals with it is still a matter for role playing.

 

Any good social interaction system would have to be relatively subtle, IMO, but there is no reason that players should not be placed in emotional/social situations in exactly the same way they are placed in physical ones, and expected to deal with them through role playing.

 

I suppose one answer is that PHYSICAL situations necessarily have to be abstracted by the system - you can't fly through the air and energy blast the villain really - but interaction systems can be 'entirely' role played - there is no good reason though why that is necessary - and I'm sure that everyone would agree that the choices you make in combat are a matter of role playing, so a system that involves a dice based PLUS role playing system is clearly something we are comfortable with.

 

I'd argue that role playing is far more challenging and realistic if we do not have absolute control over teh thoughts and emotions of our characters - after all none of us have absolute control over our own emotions and thoughts.

 

Who's looking for a "challenge"?

[Kristopher]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Because in most cases' date=' when the GM places the characters in a physical situation, the [b']external[/b] environment is dictated by the GM - but he's essentially asking the players "OK, what are your characters going to do in response to this situation?". When he places them in a situation where PC actions are dictated (in part or whole) by die roll, now the internal environment is also dictated by the GM - he's essentially saying "OK, here's what your characters are going to do". Very, very, verrrry different situations, and not really analogous.

 

 

Realistic, certainly. Challenging? Probably. But fun .... probably not. In that regard, it's like the discussions about realism in modelling death/injury. We could certainly make our physical simulations more realistic and challenging, if we wanted, but my experiences in that direction suggest that it's at the cost of fun.

 

cheers, Mark

 

In both cases, that pretty much covers what I was going to say.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Because in most cases' date=' when the GM places the characters in a physical situation, the [b']external[/b] environment is dictated by the GM - but he's essentially asking the players "OK, what are your characters going to do in response to this situation?". When he places them in a situation where PC actions are dictated (in part or whole) by die roll, now the internal environment is also dictated by the GM - he's essentially saying "OK, here's what your characters are going to do". Very, very, verrrry different situations, and not really analogous.

 

Yes and no. The fact is, as Sean said, that we don't fully controlour own emotions. We've all, I expect, had moments in our past of "Why did I do/say that". Why should our characters be immune to this? Well, certainly, "fun". But it's no more fun to have the GM place unbeatable physical challanges in the way of the characters' success than it would be for the GM place unbeatable social challenges in their way.

 

I think this would need to be a more robust social conflict system than we have now to create a "fun" social conflict system. "One persuasion roll, it's a 6, so your character agrees to whatever has been requested" is neither dramatic nor fun, any more than "Grond rolls a 6 for his 'beat up the enemy" roll, so your character wakes up a few hours later, battered and bruised. What do you do next?".

 

As well, I can already dictate what the PC does by way of die rolls. We have mind control to alter his choice of actions and mental illusions to alter how he perceives his environment ("friends are enemies and enemies are friends"). If 100 points of Mind Control can rob the player of conrol over his character for an hour of game time (say), then the social conflict system should be structured such that similar loss of control should carry a similar 100 point cost. 3 points of Persuasion should not be able to accomplish what 75 points of mind control could not, but the same logic says that 100 points worth of "persuasion attack" should certainly be more useful than 75 points of mind control. Part of the challenge, however, would be a social conflict system which is sufficiently different from Mind Control and other mechanics to justify the existence of a separate system.

 

Realistic' date=' certainly. Challenging? Probably. But fun .... probably not. In that regard, it's like the discussions about realism in modelling death/injury. We could certainly make our physical simulations more realistic and challenging, if we wanted, but my experiences in that direction suggest that it's at the cost of fun.[/quote']

 

Again, I can pit characters against unbeatable physical challenges. I can give The Dark Sorcerer an 8d6 Killing NND, Does BOD, AoE Selective, with an OCV of 20, and he will kill the 75+75 point fantasy characters with a single spell. That's not "challenging", it's just abusive. For some reason, whenever the possibility of a social conflict system is raised, it is immediately opposed with the belief that the GM will use it to place similar unbeatable challenges in the path of the players, rather than using it to create interesting and fun challenges of a non-physical nature. If I can't trust the GM to focus on creating a fun game with interesting challenges, then the addition or removal of a social conflict resolution system doesn't change the fact that the game will not be fun.

[Kristopher]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Again' date=' I can pit characters against unbeatable physical challenges. I can give The Dark Sorcerer an 8d6 Killing NND, Does BOD, AoE Selective, with an OCV of 20, and he will kill the 75+75 point fantasy characters with a single spell. That's not "challenging", it's just abusive. For some reason, whenever the possibility of a social conflict system is raised, it is immediately opposed with the belief that the GM will use it to place similar unbeatable challenges in the path of the players, rather than using it to create interesting and fun challenges of a non-physical nature. If I can't trust the GM to focus on creating a fun game with interesting challenges, then the addition or removal of a social conflict resolution system doesn't change the fact that the game will not be fun.[/quote']

 

It seems, based only on my experience, that GMs who use mechanics to dictate PC actions also tend to be the GMs who would do the social equivalent of the Dark Sorcerer to their players.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Incidentally, it would be interesting to try to put together a filmography/videography/bibliography for social interaction skills. Hmm...thread idea!

[torchwolf]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Well' date=' the intermediate way, I think, to deal with the "specialness" of PCs is to consider their normal set of reactions as a large "box", and a successful interaction skill use against them as shrinking the box a bit.[/quote']

Building the Box:

Aside from designing a completely different system for social interaction, I personally feel that since the PRE Attack rules seem to be generally accepted, about this size of the box might be appropriate to the level of which player reactions might be influenced by Interaction Skills. The suggestions for Interaction Skill success (TUS p64-66) define this fairly well along approximately the same lines (and discusses the level of impact on PCs to some degree).

 

Reasoning from that, I'm thinking of a complementary modifier-based system here might be useful.

 

Either maybe list character writeups with modifiers based on their psychology and personality (I think Sean Waters has written up some ideas for this):

 

Example:

Psychological Lim/Comp: Patriotic (Common[+1], Strong[+1])[-2 vs Interaction based on Patriotism]

This character would then suffer -2 vs Interaction Skills against him defined as the Interactor attempting to play to this sense of Patriotism

Charm/Seduction: "Yes, I also believe our great country has a magnificent destiny to fulfill, leading the world into the future."

Conversation: "Let's talk some more about WW2 over a beer!"

Oratory: "We must save our very nation from this threat!"

Persuasion: "I've heard that Sam there were connected to a radical group in college..."

etc.

 

 

Other possibilities, like categorizing NPCs by initial attitude (modifiable by Interaction Skills; primarily Charm/Seduction or Persuasion):

Hostility (-3 to -5)

Suspicion (-1 to -2)

Neutral (+0)

Friendly (+1 to +2)

Admiration (+3 to +5)

 

Defining, say, the stereotypically "suspicious-of-outsiders" villagers living near the vampire's castle as initially Suspicious, modifying all Interaction attempts by -1 or -2 until the character manages to befriend them somehow, usually by first finding out what buttons to push (praising the local cuisine or beverage, hinting on ancestry connected to the locals, feigning interest in locally popular pastimes, etc.)

 

The same would then apply to PCs, often using the Suspicion attitude if the players tend to be suspicious acting in character (Out-Of-Character being beyond this discussion).

[megaplayboy]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Well, to expand a bit on the "box" metaphor, when a player writes up their PC, including any psych complications and whatnot, including their mental stats , rep and any other modifiers, describes their backstory and personality, and then over the initial months of the campaign RPs out the character acting and reacting in various situations, the player has essentially defined the size, position and scope of the roleplaying "box" their PC is operating in. They have full freedom of action, within that box, to dictate their character's actions.(for metaphorical purposes, at this point the box is the size of a CostCo or shopping mall) If they go outside that box, they had better have a good explanation for it, or else risk losing an xp for playing out of conception. Now, in a social interaction, the GM applies appropriate situational and attitudinal modifiers to any attemped social skill use vs. a PC, AND gives the PC an opposed roll(an opportunity to resist the effects of a successful skill roll). If the PC makes the roll by lots, they have tons of leeway to decide their character's reaction, because they successfully resisted the skill. If the PC barely makes the roll, perhaps that's a slightly smaller range of reactions(the box is now the size of a drugstore), since they barely resisted the skill. If the PC barely misses the roll, the box is narrowed a little more(the size of a shoe store or barber shop), such that the PC's reactions reflect (at least somewhat) the effects of the successful skill attempt. If the PC misses by a lot, then that box is smaller still(the size of an efficiency apartment). If the PC misses by lots and the NPC or other PC rolled a critical success, then the box is the size of a Fotomat. If the PC rolled a crit fail (18) against a crit success, then that box is the size of a phone booth.

The PC starts with a range of reactions and actions the size of a large warehouse, and only at the most extreme end of results does this range narrow to the equivalent of being under an irresistable compulsion to comply fully with the effects of the skill use.

On top of that, if a PC has a strong or total commitment psych lim, it may be near-impossible for certain types of skill use to ever achieve success(trying to bribe someone with the psych lim Incorruptible, e.g.)

 

 

Wrt skill use on NPCs, they don't really have a "box" so much as a list of options, and the more successful the skill use is, the narrower the list of options becomes, until there's only one item left.

[torchwolf]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

On the "box" terminology:

Designing a character with less than demi-godly Characteristics might also constitute a "box", in that it limits the character to what he can do. A completely limitless character is boring.

 

Back to the issue:

Undoubtedly, established personality traits should be almost or as important as Psychological Limitations/Complications when judging modifiers and reasonable responses, both for NPCs and PCs, constituting the "box".

 

Any resistance rolls made by PCs vs Interaction Skills I assume would be EGO Rolls.

 

If a PC has some Interaction Skills of their own those might be Complementary Skills to the EGO Roll.

Example: Using Charm/Seduction vs a PC with that Skill, might play out differently depending on how the GM wants to handle it be either a Skill vs Skill contest, the PC being allowed a PER or INT Roll to figure out he's being played, or the PC's Conversation Skill acting as a Complementary Skill to EGO Roll to resist the effects of this ("Wait a minute - this girl is acting the way I would usually go about sleazing my way into a crime mob"). The PC might of course just play along if the EGO Roll is made, just to see where it leads.

Effects of successfully using Charm/Seduction on a PC would usually not be very useful (as the player would probably find it a bit artificial to suddenly become much more friendlier toward the NPC) but could easily amount to giving the NPC a bonus to further Interaction Rolls to some more specific purpose (Persuasion perhaps being most common), unless the PC realizes that he's been manipulated.

 

My personal preferences as a GM, for comparison (YMMV as this is my personal style of doing it):

The general guideline I usually use in my games when a PC influences an NPC is to shift the way I roleplay the NPCs attitude:

A guard being subject to a Conversation attempt might say things I know he wouldn't really say, or a successful Persuasion might cause an NPC to become very agreeable in the way I portray him or her.

The other way around, I usually attempt to come across as more reasonably putting forth suggestions in case of an NPC successfully using Persuasion on a PC, only resorting to any die rolling if the player has a really strong psychological motivation for agreeing and the player didn't catch on; I would comment out-of-character or write a note about "Say, doesn't this come really close to your character's views on this issue?". Very seldom are any dice required for these things to work though, but then again my players are very fond of playing out interaction - so much so that I occasionally have to ask for Rolls instead to keep the action going forward.

Again, Conversation is usually pretty well suited for making a Skill Roll instead of playing it out, IME.

The point I am trying to make here is that it's a huge difference between requiring a Roll and encouraging a Roll if it seems appropriate. If a player should refuse to go along it is their prerogative, and I would rarely resort to penalizing EXP for that, but I would certainly not award extra for roleplaying in that case.

 

I personally might not feel the need for an extensive social resolution system in most cases, but there are times when it might be useful, and the subject is certainly interesting.

 

YMMV.

 

 

NOTE: This is usually also how I ended up handling COM under 4e - like a Persistent Interaction Skill acting akin to Charm/Seduction, by increasing or decreasing favorable responses to that effect. I usually assumed that everyone made a default Roll of 11, and Rolled if it became especially important (every +/-2 or the Roll causing +/-1 Interaction modifiers). This is why I suggested elsewhere that it could be reintroduced to 6E as an Everyman Interaction Skill (Personal Appeal?) at 11-.

[Ice9]

Re: Social resolution mechanics for Hero

 

Why is it that people seem happy to deal with physical situations that they have no control over - well - I say no control - they can attempt to influence the situation - but they are happy to let the dice and the GM determine the situation they are in and how it affects them - but are not willing to deal the same way with emotional or social situations?

There are two factors:

 

1) High Danger, Limited Options

When you see an army of demons coming, you can run away, and if you do fight them, you'll hopefully have the rest of the party there to help. In a social situation, it's hard to tell who the major threats are, and the rest of the group often isn't there to help. There are combat situations that work like this - an espionage situation with a lot of assassination, for example - but most don't.

 

2) More Lasting Effects

If you get knocked out in combat, but your allies drag you to safety, you have zero lasting effects to the character. There are permanent injury rules, but they aren't popular, because most people don't want to be playing the amazing one-legged one-armed knight. Many social combat systems, however, have significant lasting effects, which are difficult to avoid. If your character is convinced to slaughter some innocent villagers, or give his sworn foe a bag of gold and let him go, or otherwise betray everything he thought he stood for, that's a significant change to the character. And it means the player may no longer enjoy playing that character, just like they might not enjoy playing a swashbuckler who loses a leg.

 

I'm not saying all social combat systems have these problems. But many of them don't make enough of a distinction between "you lose this particular conflict and suffer setbacks" and "your character concept has been altered". The difference should be more than a modifier.