Social effects

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

At the end of the day' date=' one of the rule systems must be the default. Why is it superior that your preferred approach not be the optional rule? You can still play your game if the rules say "Here is the hard-coded default rule, but some gaming groups prefer not to have PC beliefs resolved by the dice. In such games, you may prefer to reduce the impact of social skills on PC and NPC beliefs, or even eliminate them entirely".[/quote']

 

I don't know... how 'bout because the main rules for the game are already considered very complicated, and adding yet another layer of 'complicated rules' will drive even more new players away? Because a lot of players like the default rules as they are now? Because the rules as they stand are in the main book and substituting a more complex system would add even more pages in an already huge basic ruleset?

 

Take your pick there.

 

I believe the answer falls to your previously stated belief that players and GM's want to follow the default rules, and view a deviation from them as something they can attack. Perhaps those in favour of harder coded social resolution mechanics don't want players attacking them because they are a deviation from the core rules. In other words, perhaps the reason some of us want these as default rules are EXACTLY THE SAME as the reason you want your preferred approach to be the default, and the preferred approach of others as the optional rule.

 

In other words, it sounds you want a stick to whack players who don't 'roleplay' the way you think they should.

 

Or, under the hard social skill model, No, Jack's PLAYER determined in character creation that Jack is the type of guy who believes in the goodness of people in general, and Lily in particular. In light of that, he decided that Jack would take appropriate disadvantages, social defenses or whatever the system provides in this regard so that it would be difficult for him to be swayed by Lily's act, or by Puck's argument.

 

Similarly, perhaps Achilles' PLAYER determined in character creation that Achilles is virtually invulnerable. In light of that, he decided that Achilles would take appropriate defenses, resistances or whatever the system provides in this regard so that he would ve virtually invulnerable. He doesn't just get to declare "Achilles is virtually invulnerable, so I don't need to apply that damage against my defenses - it bounces off him". Some of us feel Jack shouldn't get an auto success to resist social skills either.

 

And once again you're insisting in equating the physical - which is quantifiable - with the social - which is NOT. Someone can act convinced without being convinced, and how the heck would the person doing then convincing be able to tell the difference? On the other hand, someone swings a sword and it's pretty obvious what the result of the swing was...

 

Sometimes, the heroic action isn't the pragmatic one. "I can't just kill her - she can still be saved from Evil's Dark Grasp". The Heroic option is often one that is less certain of success, but does not give in to the pragmatic view that the end justifies the means.

 

There is that, of course. Until Puck (the GM) makes another persuasion roll to force the issue - "You MUST kill her, Jack, there is no time to save her!"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

I don't know... how 'bout because the main rules for the game are already considered very complicated' date=' and adding [i']yet another [/i]layer of 'complicated rules' will drive even more new players away? Because a lot of players like the default rules as they are now? Because the rules as they stand are in the main book and substituting a more complex system would add even more pages in an already huge basic ruleset?

 

Take your pick there.

 

What existing very complicated and lengthy rules should be clipped to attract new players? We are discussing a single aspect of the rules in isolation (I thought), not the rules as a whole. We could pull an awful lot of the current "optional rules" out to adjunct books if the goal is to slim it down.

 

In other words' date=' it sounds you want a stick to whack players who don't 'roleplay' the way [i']you[/i] think they should.

 

Those are definitely other words. Too bad they aren't mine.

 

And once again you're insisting in equating the physical - which is quantifiable - with the social - which is NOT. Someone can act convinced without being convinced' date=' and how the heck would the person doing then convincing be able to tell the difference? On the other hand, someone swings a sword and it's pretty obvious what the result of the swing was...']

 

Where do we get this "physical is quantifiable" crap from? If I fall down the stairs, can three people look at me and tell whether a punch in the nose from my wife will KO me based on how much STUN I am down, or precisely how long it will take the BOD damage from the ankle I sprained on the way down to heal?

 

Someone can act hurt without being hurt. The rules already provide for a 1/2 phase to make a PER roll to assess whether a given person is actually unconscious or just playing possum, and provides no roll to assess how deeply KO'd they may be.

 

Similar rolls, with potential skill augmentation, would reasonably be used - and are now in many games - to determine whether the subject is truthful about his feelings. And some people are better "people readers" than others - ask any skilled poker player.

 

It's "pretty obvious" what the result of the sword swing was? You know whether the struck target is dead, mortally wounded, seriously wounded or just fell down from the force of the blow at a glance? You can assess precisely how many similar swings it would take to finish the job, or how many seconds it will take for him to bleed out? Now, if his head rolls over there, and he falls over here, that certainly seems obvious. I would suggest that, if the reply to your suggestion is a one fingered salute, you have a pretty good idea of the success of your persuasion roll. These are both extremes. Other results are far less obvious.

 

There is that' date=' of course. Until Puck (the GM) makes another persuasion roll to force the issue - "You MUST kill her, Jack, there [i']is no time[/i] to save her!"

 

And we have another persuasion roll, this time with, presumably, even worse negative modifiers. And, perhaps, a roll to assess the sincerity of the advisor. "Hey, why are you so gung ho to see bloodshed?"

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

Given that history is full of instances where individuals have chosen death - even gory agonizing death - over certain courses of action' date=' I feel strongly that there are plenty of instances where [i']some[/i] people cannot be forced to do certain things.

 

In a social resolution system the incidences were individuals never broke would be represented by people with strong resistance abilities, large negative modifiers to actions and failed attempts at skill use. Looking at it from a gaming perspective the victim "won" the social interaction and the "sfx" vary as always: the person dies under torture, their persecutors decide continued effort isn't worth it or the victim is becoming a martyr and inspiration to others to resist so much be dealt with, etc. History is also full of individuals that did convert or perform actions completely against their apparant nature under threat of death or even lesser reasons, of course

 

Social mechanics don't equate to "Every attempt at social skill use will succeed eventually" it would simply codify the results and what can (or can't) be attempted in specific situations to sharper degree than simply GM fiat. "If it has Ego we can break it" is no more automatically true than "If it has Body was can kill it". You TRY to do either but the mechanics and tactics/roleplaying involved will determine the outcome.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

In a social resolution system the incidences were individuals never broke would be represented by people with strong resistance abilities, large negative modifiers to actions and failed attempts at skill use. Looking at it from a gaming perspective the victim "won" the social interaction and the "sfx" vary as always: the person dies under torture, their persecutors decide continued effort isn't worth it or the victim is becoming a martyr and inspiration to others to resist so much be dealt with, etc. History is also full of individuals that did convert or perform actions completely against their apparant nature under threat of death or even lesser reasons, of course

 

Social mechanics don't equate to "Every attempt at social skill use will succeed eventually" it would simply codify the results and what can (or can't) be attempted in specific situations to sharper degree than simply GM fiat. "If it has Ego we can break it" is no more automatically true than "If it has Body was can kill it". You TRY to do either but the mechanics and tactics/roleplaying involved will determine the outcome.

 

I continue to find the disparity between social and physical rules amazing. If I want a character who is highly resistant to physical damage, I buy defenses. If I want a character who is difficult to affect with mental powers, I buy mental defenses. What is so incomprehensible about requiring a character who is envisioned to be highly resistant to social manipulation to purchase social defenses?

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

I continue to find the disparity between social and physical rules amazing. If I want a character who is highly resistant to physical damage' date=' I buy defenses. If I want a character who is difficult to affect with mental powers, I buy mental defenses. What is so incomprehensible about requiring a character who is envisioned to be highly resistant to social manipulation to purchase social defenses?[/quote']

 

Absolutely. That's why I advocate just using the Combat RAW for Social Combat.

 

Pick up Desolidification and you're more or less immune to most attacks. Pick up Damage Reduction and you can probably shrug off most attacks. You know the drill.

 

Your GM tells you how many points you can spend on your Social Combat character sheet (including Social Combat Disadvantages which may or may not be the same as those on your primary character sheet) and sets out guidelines. Everyone is clear on how their character might be vulnerable.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Half of me likes the idea of making PRE=STR, INT=DEX, EGO=CON (or whatever) and just porting over physical combat whole and intact: consistency in system design is a good thing.

 

However what I don't like about that is that you create a system where it is possible to have one side win with no realistic doubt at all, and quite easily.

 

Compare the physical combat capabilities of a 50 point character with a 'normal (8 CHAR) human. You don't even need 50 points: 15 STR (5 points), 11 DEX (3 points), 5 pd (2 points) and it is already no contest. 10 points.

 

So the other half thinks a different system is a better bet. Of course for 10 points you can buy +3 PRE, and Persuasion +2, which gives you a 14- roll. That's pretty funky but nowhere near as inevitable IMO as the first option.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Half of me likes the idea of making PRE=STR, INT=DEX, EGO=CON (or whatever) and just porting over physical combat whole and intact: consistency in system design is a good thing.

 

However what I don't like about that is that you create a system where it is possible to have one side win with no realistic doubt at all, and quite easily.

 

Compare the physical combat capabilities of a 50 point character with a 'normal (8 CHAR) human. You don't even need 50 points: 15 STR (5 points), 11 DEX (3 points), 5 pd (2 points) and it is already no contest. 10 points.

 

So the other half thinks a different system is a better bet. Of course for 10 points you can buy +3 PRE, and Persuasion +2, which gives you a 14- roll. That's pretty funky but nowhere near as inevitable IMO as the first option.

 

Again, that's why I think you need a second character sheet. Game guidelines easily limit the number of points you sink into the Social Combat sheet.

 

One game might feature 1000 points for your main character sheet (mostly used for Physical Combat) and 75 points for your Social Combat sheet.

 

Another game might have the reverse.

 

Keep in mind that we already have a system where one side can win with no realistic doubt at all -- in Physical Combat. Nearly all PCs built in HERO can wipe the floor with normal 8 CHAR human. Part of what makes them heroes is that they don't. Why should Social Combat be different?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Again, that's why I think you need a second character sheet. Game guidelines easily limit the number of points you sink into the Social Combat sheet.

 

One game might feature 1000 points for your main character sheet (mostly used for Physical Combat) and 75 points for your Social Combat sheet.

 

Another game might have the reverse.

 

Keep in mind that we already have a system where one side can win with no realistic doubt at all -- in Physical Combat. Nearly all PCs built in HERO can wipe the floor with normal 8 CHAR human. Part of what makes them heroes is that they don't. Why should Social Combat be different?

 

To take an example from the comics: Batman.

 

Now Batman is a God of HtH combat, at least against mere mortals, and is terrifying to pretty much everybody, normal or not. In HtH combat he is never, ever going to lose in a straight fight against a thug, but the effects of his intimidation vary much more: they don't all surrender. Some attack wildly, some get a bit nervous, and some don't seem that bothered. The reason for that is that it would be boring if the thugs always surrendered.

 

The same thing applies to Hero: Batman would have a lot of points in social combat, at least as far as intimidation is concerned. Thugs would not have a lot of points to spend in social combat.

 

Of course I'm criticising a system I've not seen here - has anyone worked up some rules for porting physical combat to social combat, how has it worked and can I see them, please?

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

I continue to find the disparity between social and physical rules amazing. If I want a character who is highly resistant to physical damage' date=' I buy defenses. If I want a character who is difficult to affect with mental powers, I buy mental defenses. What is so incomprehensible about requiring a character who is envisioned to be highly resistant to social manipulation to purchase social defenses?[/quote']

 

If that was what you were asking for, no-one would cavil. And indeed, one can buy such resistance in the rules as written, so it's pretty much a non-issue. However, that's most emphatically not what you have been asking for: you have - over and over - asked for a social system that can compel actions. I refer you back to the, by now, infamous post about naked nuns and locker rooms.

 

That's what's generating resistance. If such a system were grafted onto Hero, I wouldn't GM Hero, simple as that.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

Agreed - but there are plenty of instances of people doing all sorts of stuff.

 

Again, that's a given. I was responding directly to your quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Waters

I tend to believe that anyone can be made to do anything, and an absolute in personality is an difficult to justify as invulnerability to physical attacks.

 

While history has yet to reveal anyone with immunity to physical attacks, it has thrown up many thousands of examples of people who are apparently immune - at least in some contexts - to social attacks.

 

So, no, I don't believe "anyone can be made to do anything" - in fact, I find such a belief slightly naive, no offence intended. It's just so very much contradicted by history or even by my own personal experience. Social and physical processes are not really equivalent. There really are people who will say "No. Not ever. Not even if you kill me and my family" - and mean it.

 

Edit: and in sad truth, this kind of personality doesn't even seem to be that uncommon....

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Again, that's a given. I was responding directly to your quote:

 

 

While history has yet to reveal anyone with immunity to physical attacks, it has thrown up many thousands of examples of people who are apparently immune - at least in some contexts - to social attacks.

 

So, no, I don't believe "anyone can be made to do anything" - in fact, I find such a belief slightly naive, no offence intended. It's just so very much contradicted by history or even by my own personal experience. Social and physical processes are not really equivalent. There really are people who will say "No. Not ever. Not even if you kill me and my family" - and mean it.

 

Edit: and in sad truth, this kind of personality doesn't even seem to be that uncommon....

 

cheers, Mark

 

No offence taken

 

I think that there are plenty of examples of physical immunity: people get shot at and it misses.

 

I think that is analogous to a social interaction: in many cases people might be willing to die, or have their families die for a cause - that is the equivalent of a social attack 'missing', but you tell me what they are willing to die for and I can point you int he direction of a threat that may well be effective, or at least a social strategy with a much better chance of 'hitting'.

 

Willing to die for God? OK, no point threatening them in the temporal world (i.e. no threats that would bring that sort of social effect into the realm of the possible), but beat the hell out of them, starve them and give them minimal fluids, and maybe a mild hallucinogen then start talking to them as if they are having a 'vision'. You make them believe you are God, doing some sort of 'Hey, Abraham, kill your son for me, would you?' stunt and all kinds of things might well be possible. It worked with Joan of Arc. As mentioned above, what may not be accomplished by direct means may be accomplished by indirect means.

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

That's what's generating resistance. If such a system were grafted onto Hero, I wouldn't GM Hero, simple as that.

 

Why not just not use that aspect of the system? I do that with some of it as it stands.

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

Again, that's a given. I was responding directly to your quote:

 

 

While history has yet to reveal anyone with immunity to physical attacks, it has thrown up many thousands of examples of people who are apparently immune - at least in some contexts - to social attacks.

 

Or, since we have no way of seeing the "dice rolls" or "character sheets" in reality, they were very hard to hit, the "attackers" had low skills, the situational modifiers were high or their "defenses" were. Just because social "attacks" tended to fail against them and we don't know ALL of them did just the ones important enough for history to record. If anyone ever managed to talk them into changing their mind on anything, they're not Immune just resistant too them and possibly only about certain things.

 

As far I know there has never been anyone that has been shown to be totally immune to social pressure, manipulation, torture and persuasion in all its myriad forms History gives us thousands of thousands of example of people failing to live up to their loyalties, converting under pressure or being convinced to do wrong or even appalling things (or at least allow them to happen) too.

 

And of course, these are just the things history recorded. There's uncountable untold stories that go either way. History basically seems to say "It depends" and in rpgs generally the rules work out those kinds of situations. That my opinion at least.

 

So, no, I don't believe "anyone can be made to do anything" - in fact, I find such a belief slightly naive, no offense intended. It's just so very much contradicted by history or even by my own personal experience. Social and physical processes are not really equivalent. There really are people who will say "No. Not ever. Not even if you kill me and my family" - and mean it.

 

Edit: and in sad truth, this kind of personality doesn't even seem to be that uncommon.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Your experiences have been very different from mine. I've seen many people that -say- stuff like that but when it's tested, tend to crumble or it's never actually tested. But that's really neither here nor there as far discussing game mechanics.

 

Overall I agree with Sean's summation. Some social "attacks" miss, some bounce of "defenses", etc. Nothing is guaranteed. But in Hero System you have to expend points to be exceptional in a area. If you want to be exceptionally resistant to social manipulation the player the should have to invest something. To make that worth it, Social attacks would have to have weight because if they can dismissed out of hand anyway most players won't waste points getting a defense.

 

It would be like the GM saying you can ignore Stun and Body Damage from attacks at any time when you don't feel its appropriate. I'd imagine in most games with all but the most hardcore "I build to concept" type of players expenditures on Defenses would see a rapid drop off.

 

As it stands, Interaction skill border on being a sfx. You can use them but they can be dismissed for whatever by PC or NPC even a whim. A major assumption within this thread appears to be that if it was other wise, the GM would be jerk about them though I've seen more GM denying PCs what they've invested in as far as Interaction skills go because they threaten the plot train than leading the PCs around by the nose with them.

 

Which isn't to say it can't or doesn't happen, that's just been my experience.

 

I do think any good social system should have some way to reflect things the character feels very strongly about and is thus difficult to budge on (and conversely easier to manipulate with if they're used as leverage. Say someone that values his family above all else would be easier to motivate if they were threatened or would be helped by going along with an offer but extremely difficult to persuade to hurt, abandon or portray them).

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

I think that there are plenty of examples of physical immunity: people get shot at and it misses.

 

Isn't that just a physical attack missing, where immunity would be more like bulletproof (in this example of someone being shot at), as in the bullet hits and the target is unharmed by a successful attack?

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

If that was what you were asking for' date=' no-one would cavil. And indeed, one can buy such resistance in the rules as written, so it's pretty much a non-issue. However, that's most emphatically [b']not[/b] what you have been asking for: you have - over and over - asked for a social system that can compel actions. I refer you back to the, by now, infamous post about naked nuns and locker rooms.

 

That's what's generating resistance. If such a system were grafted onto Hero, I wouldn't GM Hero, simple as that.

 

cheers, Mark

 

This has been my understanding as well, that the social system being debated would involve compelling actions from one who lost a social combat.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Isn't that just a physical attack missing' date=' where immunity would be more like bulletproof (in this example of someone being shot at), as in the bullet hits and the target is unharmed by a successful attack?[/quote']

 

Well, it depends how you look at it...you might define it as not taking damage from an attack, and not worry too much about the mechanism. Someone who has +10 DCV is all but bulletproof (although not grenade proof!)

 

I'm happy with social defences too, but I think in many cases someone who has social defences will probably be resistant to social situations, so probably not that great at social situations themselves, although there are always exceptions.

 

Someone who is 'defensive' in social situations is possibly hard to influence but also unliklely to successfully influence others.

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

Well, it depends how you look at it...you might define it as not taking damage from an attack, and not worry too much about the mechanism. Someone who has +10 DCV is all but bulletproof (although not grenade proof!)

 

I'm happy with social defences too, but I think in many cases someone who has social defences will probably be resistant to social situations, so probably not that great at social situations themselves, although there are always exceptions.

 

Someone who is 'defensive' in social situations is possibly hard to influence but also unliklely to successfully influence others.

 

Hhmm... To an extent I agree and disagree. I prefer to avoid describing 'taking no damage' as 'missing' when I run a game because it can provide different information to the player/character, but I suppose at that point the topic breaks down into specifics like power construction and SFX, and from there I think it all becomes personal preference to a given GM. It's all good.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

If that was what you were asking for' date=' no-one would cavil. And indeed, one can buy such resistance in the rules as written, so it's pretty much a non-issue.[/quote']

 

So we have two characters, one of whom is highly resistant to social skills because he spends 50 character points on various abilities to help him resist them, and a second who dismisses them with "I don't envision my character being persuaded/intimidated/seduced/influenced". Both are equal in social resistance (the second is likely superior as the first clearly accepts the possibility of being affected by social skills), and one has 50 more points to spend on other things.

 

I don't get immunity to fire by background. I spend points. Why should I get immunity to seduction or persuasion by background, rather than by points?

 

While history has yet to reveal anyone with immunity to physical attacks' date=' it has thrown up many thousands of examples of people who are apparently immune - at least in some contexts - to social attacks.[/quote']

 

When we discuss absolute invulnerability in Hero, people are quick to point out that, in much of the source material, characters we thought were "invulnerable" turn out to only be highly resistant, and are affected when a strong enough source of the thing they were "invulnerable" to comes along. Yet we can come up with no explanation for people who have resisted social coercion other than that they are completely immune to it?

 

How is a hotter fire easier to imagine than a more persuasive con man?

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

This has been my understanding as well' date=' that the social system being debated would involve [i']compelling[/i] actions from one who lost a social combat.

 

I'm terribly sorry if I have not made myself clear. I'll try to fix that.

 

Since I envision HERO Social Combat working like HERO Physical Combat, it would have similar outcomes.

 

You can kill someone in physical combat -- compel them to lack actions forevermore. I've rarely found this happening to PCs in HERO games. When it does, it's either a major event or the campaign guidelines make it clear that death is likely.

 

You can totally change someone's behavior in social combat -- compel them to change their fundamental beliefs about something; in a sense, die. But I would not expect that to happen to PCs in HERO games often at all. When it would happen, it would be either a major event or the campaign guidelines would make it clear that the death of ideas is likely. To utterly change someone's fundamental beliefs would require "killing" them through Social Combat. Rendering them "unconscious" would not be sufficient. (This is not unlike the reasoning behind Transform.)

 

What about NPCs? They'd work out pretty much the same way they work out with physical combat. Heroes don't go around changing people's fundamental beliefs just for kicks! But you might have a Batman-like (or Ghandi-like?) campaign where our heroes are able to convince goons to change their ways.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

I haven't caught up yet, but I'm popping in to make a couple observations....

 

 

I would classify "you lost the social conflict, and you agree with him that the only solution is for you to shoot your wife through the head" as usurption. However, I would classify "you lost the social conflict, and your trust in your wife has been deeply shaken - you believe that she is making an attempt to assassinate the president" as setting consequences for losing a conflict. Those consequences restrict your alternatives (just as being stunned in physical combat, mind controlled or affected by a PRE attack restrict your alternatives) but the decision of how to proceed given those restricted alternatives remains yours. Sometimes, your alternatives may be severely restricted (you are KO'd at -15 STUN - your only action can be a recovery at PS 12).

 

Mr. Neilson, I'm glad you seem to be moderating your position. I'm not sure this is actually that far from what I've been saying. You started out (on another thread) basically saying that not only is it a good idea for one player to make decisions for another player's character but to be able to do so on the basis of an interaction skill - as if a skill can do what even Mind Control doesn't.

 

Why, then, is it offensive to have a system that REQUIRES, rather than REQUESTS, good play?

 

Well, I can start with the point that nothing I've seen so far proposed looks to me like "a system that REQUIRES good play." Or even encourages good play. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

Then, even if for the sake of argument I grant the above point, I have to ask if it's really true that you don't understand how a request can be inviting and encouraging where a requirement can be offensive and unacceptable??

 

 

And finally - we're talking about a Role Playing Game. If it's required, by definition it's not "good play."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

House of the Palindromedary

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

This has been my understanding as well' date=' that the social system being debated would involve [i']compelling[/i] actions from one who lost a social combat.

 

And thus the main misunderstanding as far as I can see.

 

People believe that social combat should be able to compel beliefs and perceptions, the actions that derive from those beliefs and perceptions are under control of theh player and mixed up with whatever other beliefs and perceptions they also have.

 

THAT is the roleplaying challenge.

 

 

Doc

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

In other words, it sounds you want a stick to whack players who don't 'roleplay' the way you think they should.

 

Those are definitely other words. Too bad they aren't mine.

 

Aren't they?

 

Why, then, is it offensive to have a system that REQUIRES, rather than REQUESTS, good play?

 

Who gets to define "good play?"

 

I continue to find the disparity between social and physical rules amazing.

 

I continue to find your conflation of the two concepts amazing. Do you really not see a difference?

 

If I want a character who is highly resistant to physical damage' date=' I buy defenses. If I want a character who is difficult to affect with mental powers, I buy mental defenses. What is so incomprehensible about requiring a character who is envisioned to be highly resistant to social manipulation to purchase social defenses?[/quote']

 

Nothing's incromprehensible about it. Take a look at my Pat Benatar character for example, levels with Ego rolls specifically to resist Interaction Skills.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that today seems to be the day for reminding Hugh Neilson of what he already said....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

I'm pretty sure than no one here is suggesting that we mechanise reaction through any system, be it dice based, card based, role play based or any other.

 

What we are arguing about, as far as I can see, is this: is it OK for a system to tell a player what his character thinks?

 

Let me clarify, hopefully, with a multi-stage example: Sonia Kneeburn is keen to seduce Roger Regularly. Sonia makes her approach.

 

Is it OK for the GM to tell Roger's player that his character thnks that Sonia is attractive*?

 

Does anyone think that is a bad thing?

 

 

 

 

* Sonia is a willowy blonde with symetrical, regular features and a cheeky smile. Roger has a history of blonde willowy girlfriends in any event, but, frankly, Sonia is model material in any event. I'm not suggesting any particular mechanism here, informing the GM's statement, I'm just asking if he shouldn't be saying that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

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

 

 

Nothing's incromprehensible about it. Take a look at my Pat Benatar character for example, levels with Ego rolls specifically to resist Interaction Skills.

 

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

 

 

I'm not getting the EGO roll thing. If someone tries to convince me that you don't defibrillate someone who is flatlining, do I make an EGO roll, and if I succeed, I don't believe them, assuming I don't know one way or another?

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

I'm pretty sure than no one here is suggesting that we mechanise reaction through any system, be it dice based, card based, role play based or any other.

 

What we are arguing about, as far as I can see, is this: is it OK for a system to tell a player what his character thinks?

 

Let me clarify, hopefully, with a multi-stage example: Sonia Kneeburn is keen to seduce Roger Regularly. Sonia makes her approach.

 

If nothing else we're getting a slew of interesting NPC names out of this thread.