Jump to content

Social effects


Recommended Posts

Re: Social effects

 

What does this have to do with the essential point: everyone at the table has a job to do.

 

The player's job is to convincingly portray one character as an individual participant in a story. If he is a good player he knows he needs to husband the story along a little bit. The game-master's job is to provide a compelling story for player characters to participate in. If he's a good game-master he knows he needs to provide the kind of story his players want to participate in. If that basic understanding isn't then a set of rules as robust as the United States Code isn't going help. Most of the problems you are trying to fix stem from communication issues (as I read it). If the players don't buy off on the plot/scene then its not going to work, even if you mechanize them into irrelevance (take their job away).

 

 

I wouldn;t call it a job, perhaps a commitment. Portraying a character is not that difficult if the personality is constructed in a certain way. Some people are not open to the idea of playing a flawed character except as a characature, or do not have the skill to do so. You are right that codifying a social interaction system will not help if the problem is lack of role playing ability or somesuch but a social interaction mechanism is a useful tool: an NPC wants to seduce your character and gets him a little drunk and starts making physical advances. I draw the line at touching up my players for my art (well, most of my players :)). Anyway, the player has the problem of accurately portraying the effects of something that is inherently unpredictable, like drunkenness. A mechanical system, or a system of some sort, allows such interactions to take a course that might not have been envisaged by either party.

 

Perhaps a skill system based social interaction, that the PC can 'trump' with an appropriate disadvantage: I don't respond well to brazen physical seduction as I have Psych Lim: Shy.

 

When you trump a result like this, you record the fact so that you are then REQUIRED to act that way in future. You can even create a disadvantage on the spot (you get no points), but once you've declared a behaviour, it is part of you.

 

If nothing else it should encourage some consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Social effects

 

It took years to get to the point where I can pull off the sorts of games I pull off today. I got there by trial and error' date=' like most people. Our success is built on failures if you will allow the cliche. My main issue here is the desire to adjudicate rather than communicate. [/quote']

 

So there is nothing a system can do to help newcomers get the idea or even for experienced groups to run through to help through sticky patches?

 

Its like training wheels. New groups (players and GMs) might use the rules more often, more experienced groups less often as they negotiate (or trust) enough to abide by it.

 

Should a socially inept person be condemned to play socially inept characters all their gaming life?

 

My friend is completely incapable of roleplaying an interrogation - really awful. So should all his characters similarly be condemned to be unable to buy the interrogation skill, after all, the player cannot use it properly.

 

That sounds like tosh to me...

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I wouldn;t call it a job, perhaps a commitment. Portraying a character is not that difficult if the personality is constructed in a certain way. Some people are not open to the idea of playing a flawed character except as a characature, or do not have the skill to do so. You are right that codifying a social interaction system will not help if the problem is lack of role playing ability or somesuch but a social interaction mechanism is a useful tool: an NPC wants to seduce your character and gets him a little drunk and starts making physical advances. I draw the line at touching up my players for my art (well, most of my players :)). Anyway, the player has the problem of accurately portraying the effects of something that is inherently unpredictable, like drunkenness. A mechanical system, or a system of some sort, allows such interactions to take a course that might not have been envisaged by either party.

 

Perhaps a skill system based social interaction, that the PC can 'trump' with an appropriate disadvantage: I don't respond well to brazen physical seduction as I have Psych Lim: Shy.

 

When you trump a result like this, you record the fact so that you are then REQUIRED to act that way in future. You can even create a disadvantage on the spot (you get no points), but once you've declared a behaviour, it is part of you.

 

If nothing else it should encourage some consistency.

 

Remember This?

 

We've had a very similar discussion before. I think part of this may be: in a case where something about a character isn't explicitly established via disadvantage or past-play who gets to decide what is convincing for this character to do? Insofar as its not gross meta-gaming I think that decision lies with the player. Once something is established for a character, however, I think its fair to expect the player not just to live with it, but to play it. Per your suggestion above, or my suggestion in the linked post. Our suggestion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

Perhaps a skill system based social interaction' date=' that the PC can 'trump' with an appropriate disadvantage: I don't respond well to brazen physical seduction as I have Psych Lim: Shy.[/quote']

 

The only big issue I have here is that a disadvantage is providing defences - something that Steve might think about when writing sixth.

 

Social disadvantages are often used as defences to social and mental contests in the current system. I think that part of developing the whole social side of the system could remove this kind of anomaly...

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

So there is nothing a system can do to help newcomers get the idea or even for experienced groups to run through to help through sticky patches?

 

There is a big differences between a system that gives advice and a system that mechanizes the most critical function a player has: deciding what his character does for him.

 

Its like training wheels. New groups (players and GMs) might use the rules more often' date=' more experienced groups less often as they negotiate (or trust) enough to abide by it.[/quote']

 

I think its more important people know what their meta-role (their "job" is). That is the most critical thing. If they do then they have something to work towards. If they don't they are just thrashing in the dark.

 

Should a socially inept person be condemned to play socially inept characters all their gaming life?

 

There is a difference between acting a scene out and convincingly describing what the character does. I have a player who is not the most socially adroit fellow in the room. He has played socially adroit characters with moderate success because he's had some practice describing his characters actions and how he wants the character to come across. In turn, I describe is somewhat less absolute language how the non-player character comes across. And he plays it the best he can with an eye towards both pushing his character's agenda and the plot at the same time.

 

My friend is completely incapable of roleplaying an interrogation - really awful. So should all his characters similarly be condemned to be unable to buy the interrogation skill' date=' after all, the player cannot use it properly.[/quote']

 

I've never had much desire to cuff a player to a chair, grab a rubber hose, put a light in his face, and act out an interrogation. Again, if he can convincingly describe his characters general approach, technique, and what information he's going for that's all you need. You can either roll on that, or do the interrogation in parts requiring the player to decide how to change tack to get different pieces of information (or even figure out what the subject might know). That depends on player knowledge and skill. At no point do you have to be doing line by line dialogue. We've got a table and snacks, not a stage with costume.

 

If you have players who can do it line by line, great. If not, you can play to their ability level. And you can have players with different ability levels in the same group and play to both of them. The real issue is what to do if the player character rather than the non-player character is on the receiving end. In the case of an aggressive interrogation using force or drugs I'm inclined to leave it to a roll. More subtle social skills, however, I'd rather leave to a role. I can describe the impression an npc makes (usu. in language that gives some wiggle room) based on a die roll without dictating the player's actions to them.

 

We aren't talking about acting ability. We're talking about the ability to consider what the character knows and what they would do while trying to husband the plot a little. You can't mechanize that because its something that exists on the meta-level to start with. Its what the player is supposed to be doing. It takes time to build that skill. The best way for them to do that is to practice, practice, practice.

 

In the process of growth, you win some and you lose some. This is why I strongly recommend game-masters not marry their ideas and plots. Instead, I recommend using Schroedinger's gun and adjusting the plot to the players. If the players are trying to cooperate a bit then it should only result in cosmetic rather than major transforms to the plot. And, I've had players ask me: "dude, would I do X?" and suggest things more extreme than I was going for. I've also had them brightly declare they blew a roll and look for a way to screw themselves over. "I crush her to me in a passionate embrace right now!" (not knowing the NPC flubbed their role too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

So' date=' if the game has a social conflict resolution system, then social conflict resolution is a good thing? If they don't then it is not? :)[/quote']

 

No, more like "if the players agree to a game in which the rules include an explicit social conflict system, then that's okay."

 

If you sit down to play DiTV, you know what you're getting into. Characters are designed specifically to evolve as the various conflicts affect them. They can acquire (or lose or change the level of) mental, physical and social traits as events occur.

 

Adding a dice or trait-based social conflict system to Champions may not sit well with players who want the basic, unmodified Champions experience where they get complete control over their characters' reactions (aside from mind control effects and the like).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

The only big issue I have here is that a disadvantage is providing defences - something that Steve might think about when writing sixth.

 

Social disadvantages are often used as defences to social and mental contests in the current system. I think that part of developing the whole social side of the system could remove this kind of anomaly...

 

Doc

 

Possibly :whistle:

 

My answer to that, of course, is don't call them 'disadvantages' :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I can describe the impression an npc makes (usu. in language that gives some wiggle room) based on a die roll without dictating the player's actions to them.

 

So why would a fleshed out social interaction model make you unable to to describe the effect an npc makes without dictating a player's actions to them??

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

Adding a dice or trait-based social conflict system to Champions may not sit well with players who want the basic' date=' unmodified Champions experience where they get [b']complete control over their characters' reactions[/b] (aside from mind control effects and the like).

 

No absolutes in HERO huh? :)

 

As you say, there are already mind control mechanisms and a pretty vague PRE attack system as well as a score of social interaction skills.

 

Why not make it all a bit more coherent?

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

Remember This?

 

We've had a very similar discussion before. I think part of this may be: in a case where something about a character isn't explicitly established via disadvantage or past-play who gets to decide what is convincing for this character to do? Insofar as its not gross meta-gaming I think that decision lies with the player. Once something is established for a character, however, I think its fair to expect the player not just to live with it, but to play it. Per your suggestion above, or my suggestion in the linked post. Our suggestion?

 

I was genuinely concerned that you'd found me arguing some completely contrary position :)

 

I think that character traits should be established by the player, most definitely, either at character creation or as they arise - and I think the player has a duty (if that is not too grandiose a term) to play any traits they have established consistently - and not just pick them up and put them down as they will (that's what the Acting skill is for :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

So why would a fleshed out social interaction model make you unable to to describe the effect an npc makes without dictating a player's actions tho them??

Doc

 

Until we have a social interaction system on the table to consider we only have the desired effects you described in your initial posts. The desired effects you were going for seemed (as I read it) to go a step beyond description, which relies on the player stepping up and making an honest attempt to do their job (as described), into dictating they take certain actions based on a mechanical function. If I do not understand what you want out of it please tell me what it is you want out of it. I've used margin of success for presence attacks for a long time. The same method could easily define how strong an impression is. Also, as I've said, insofar as it flows from an explicit character trait (disad) or something that has flown from the narrative about the character, I don't have a problem leveraging it with a bit more force. At that point convincing role-play requires consistency. If its something as of yet, undefined, though, I think the player needs to have the final say. Seduction is the classic example. If the non-player character comes on hot and heavy and makes a big roll but the character has no relevant personality traits established the player should make a call on how they perceive their character. But now we've established something about him the player needs to remain true to. I would, however, recommend they be required to state more than thumbs up or thumbs down. They need to articulate a reason. That gives us something to work with as opposed to a carte blanche thumbs down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

The only big issue I have here is that a disadvantage is providing defences - something that Steve might think about when writing sixth. Social disadvantages are often used as defences to social and mental contests in the current system. I think that part of developing the whole social side of the system could remove this kind of anomaly...

 

Doc

 

You could require they articulate a reason that could just as easily be used against them. Instead of: "I don't like blonds" you could require: "I don't like blonds - I prefer red heads." Or, instead of "he's not into the coming on strong hard play," you could require: "he prefers a woman of understated elegance." If you require the negative to be attached to a positive, or the defense be stated as a positive, then you have something you can nudge him with later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

In my original post I was positing that we might come up with a system that would achieve something like adding psychological disads or other social limitations.

 

I said that these might make later mind control stuff easier - lay the groundwork.

 

I never at any point indicated that the system would make characters take specific actions contrary to the players' desires. It might make them have to go about things differently - or it might indeed provoke the player into more extravagant concessions than you imagined.

 

What I would like is a more coherent coming together of all the social interaction material already within the system to provide a better framework for players and GMs to work through the places where they disagree on things related to social interactions between PCs and NPCs. Not social interactions between players and GMs - no rules help that.

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I'm mixed.

 

On the one hand, I agree that the player should be the ultimate arbiter of their character's internal behavior and its external expressions. On the other hand, having game mechanics for socially adept characters to be effectively played by less adept players would be highly valuable.

 

I think that the key lies in not taking that arbiter's role away from the player. Instead, such rules should focus on empowering the character to do what the player cannot.

 

Perhaps (and this may be a 6e idea too late in the process) NPCs should not be treated as "GM run PCs" in the sense that NPCs have all of the same game mechanics available to them as the PCs do, but only those game mechanics appropriate to NPCs. Then, you could have Social rules that PCs can use when dealing with NPCs, but that cannot be used against the PCs by the NPCs.

 

On the other hand, that might be... messy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

Then, you could have Social rules that PCs can use when dealing with NPCs, but that cannot be used against the PCs by the NPCs.

 

On the other hand, that might be... messy.

 

 

It is the current situation with things like persuasion.

 

I am pretty much dead against this. If the player is the ultimate arbiter of what the PC can or cannot be persuaded to do (regardless of skills and abilities) then the GM has to be the ultimate arbiter of what the NPC can or cannot be persuaded to do.

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I used to play a lot of Pendragon games, and never found that having rules for personality traits and social interaction interfered with roleplaying. Quite the contrary, in fact, as having as established structure of rules to guide what state the character is currently in acts as a set of cue cards, if you will.

 

I'd like to see a well assembled social interaction system done HERO style.

 

This IS a toolkit, innit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

No absolutes in HERO huh? :)

 

As you say, there are already mind control mechanisms and a pretty vague PRE attack system as well as a score of social interaction skills.

 

Why not make it all a bit more coherent?

 

 

Doc

When I first brought up the idea, that's what I was mostly thinking of: reorganization

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I used to play a lot of Pendragon games, and never found that having rules for personality traits and social interaction interfered with roleplaying. Quite the contrary, in fact, as having as established structure of rules to guide what state the character is currently in acts as a set of cue cards, if you will.

 

I'd like to see a well assembled social interaction system done HERO style.

 

This IS a toolkit, innit?

 

That's the beauty of the Advanced Player's Guide that's in the works: toolkitting the system itself.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I'm mixed.

 

On the one hand, I agree that the player should be the ultimate arbiter of their character's internal behavior and its external expressions. On the other hand, having game mechanics for socially adept characters to be effectively played by less adept players would be highly valuable.

 

I think that the key lies in not taking that arbiter's role away from the player. Instead, such rules should focus on empowering the character to do what the player cannot.

 

Perhaps (and this may be a 6e idea too late in the process) NPCs should not be treated as "GM run PCs" in the sense that NPCs have all of the same game mechanics available to them as the PCs do, but only those game mechanics appropriate to NPCs. Then, you could have Social rules that PCs can use when dealing with NPCs, but that cannot be used against the PCs by the NPCs.

 

On the other hand, that might be... messy.

 

I think that you have inspired a possibly new perspective: how would such a system work between two players, no GM involved?

 

A GM-to-player interaction would just be an extension of it.

 

:think:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

Here's something that I stumbled upon but admittedly I have not listened to yet:

 

From the podcast "Have Games Will Travel" episode from 09/06/07 entitled:

 

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Social Combat Mechanics

 

Once again - I have not listened to this myself yet, but I figured that since I just now discovered it in the archives that it could not hurt to share it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

My PC, a minor noble in the Imperium, is in a situation where he has boarded a Navy warcraft. He insists he is bringing a matter of urgency to the Imperium, the Navy insists that it is arresting him for being in a restricted area.

 

When Sir Gabriel gets on board the vessel he takes the attitude of how he should be treated by the crew and for some time the GM is cool with that. Sir Gabriel will not however surrender his weapons to the junior members of the crew. The junior member of the crew will not allow Sir Gabriel to meet the captain until he has surrendered his weapons.

 

Now, meta-game, I am trying to establish Sir Gabriel as someone to be reckoned with socially, not outside the background of the game nor the character. This is an important point in the game. The GM does not want to roll over and let me walk over his NPC without reason, I don't want Sir Gabriel to lose face without reason. Neither of us wants to push it to physical violence (and possible character death).

 

How do we resolve it? (I've kept it system neutral to allow a variety of responses to this if possible). To me this is a prime example of where a social conflict resolution would be useful. It is too important for a single dice roll - the implications of success or defeat will resonate through the rest of this campaign arc.

 

Doc

 

I'll be commenting on this (via editing) shortly, but I want to read the whole thread first...

 

Edit: Nevermind, Markdoc covered it quite completely in post #16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

It is understandable that when a player does not want to give into the words of an NPC that they may be doing good roleplaying where it logically runs with the character.

 

But a player who never allows NPC's, no matter what, to talk them into anything, regardless of skills being used, is simply being a bad roleplayer.

 

Exactly. And a 'social resolution system' that forces his character to react in specific ways at the GM's whim is not going to solve that. The problem there is with the player, not the game system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

 

I am pretty much dead against this. If the player is the ultimate arbiter of what the PC can or cannot be persuaded to do (regardless of skills and abilities) then the GM has to be the ultimate arbiter of what the NPC can or cannot be persuaded to do.

 

Perhaps I should not share this, but I have drama levels for character importance and apply the effects of interaction rolls accordingly. For major villains and NPCs I use the results of interaction rolls as a guide, but consider the character and situation and decide for myself just how much influence a success has. If it does go against my perception of the character or will cause story problems I try to give a success some limited measure of success, but have been known to "just say no." For characters of medium importance I do what the roll says unless its insanely out of established character or will lead to game-meltdown. I'm pretty good at dealing with the unexpected so I've almost never said no. And for minor characters I just go with the roll. Who freaking cares? In terms of PCs I expect my players to do the same thing I do with major NPCs. They decide how much effect it has. As a rule they have applied the same standard I do: a successful role should have some amount of effect (unless they are adamantly opposed to it for some reason). And a few of my players just "go with the roll" because they trust me and want to see what happens (they treat their characters like my medium importance characters). Its up to them, but the more we use the system the looser and more accepting they have become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I think the problem I'm having with all this is that I see the current rules as being quite adequite for the system.

 

Sure, the Interaction skills are not completely binding on PC's. Guess what? That's actually a good thing. Otherwise the GM can just make a roll, and the PC's blithely have to follow the Pied Piper down the plot railroad whether it makes sense for their conceptualization of their charcter or not.

 

Now if a player is flat out ignoring every roll the GM makes (GM: "She made her Seduction roll by 10, what are you doing to do?" Player: "Yawn and ignore her.") then the player is not doing his job. The player's job is to play his character, based on his visualization of it, in the world that the GM has created and is running. And sometimes, that is going to run a bit counter to the character's best interests. So the player needs to be ready to roll with it - even run with it if he thinks it will be fun - much of the time, in the interest of fair play. That way when he digs in his heels at something he percives as important about his character (going back to the original example - GM: "She makes her Seduction roll by 10, what are you going to do?" the player - whose character is happily married and very dedicated to his wife - now has the wiggle room to stammer out an apology and run home to his wife... or maybe go along with the seduction because he thinks it might be fun to play out some of the tension that would bring to his charcter's relationship to his wife) then the GM can understand and let it ride, because he was a good sport about the last several times the Interaction skill rolls turned against him.

 

All that would be lost if the GM says "She made her Sedction roll by 10, you are heading over to her place to get laid."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...