Social effects

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Nothing's incromprehensible about it. Take a look at my Pat Benatar character for example' date=' levels with Ego rolls specifically to resist Interaction Skills.[/quote']

 

If you can simply say "interaction skills cannot persuade my Paladin to change his views", why would you need levels with ego rolls to resist such persuasion? Would not Jack from Legend (this week's popular advantage) be accurately simulated with similar social defenses that make it difficult to shake his trust in Lilly, rather than assert that Jack's player simply gets to decide that there is no wfay that Jack's faith in Lilly can be shaken, and thus he qualifies for blanket immunity to all social skills that might attempt or purport to do so?

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

Sorry, I meant to say "Paladin Benatar." Sheesh, I can't remember my own character's name....

 

What I have said is,

 

Skills work when and how it is reasonable and appropriate that they do so.

 

Now, that obviously does not mean "skills work even when it's unreasonable and inappropriate" which seems to be your (Hugh Neilson's) position (and if that's not your position, I don't see why you object to mine.)

 

And it also does not mean "Skills don't work" and I don't know why you (Hugh Neilson) seem to think it does.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

and an unreasonable and inappropriate palindromedary

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

 

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

 

Like Desolidification?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary buys Desolidification, Usable as Attack, Megascale to cover the planet....

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Sorry, I meant to say "Paladin Benatar." Sheesh, I can't remember my own character's name....

 

What I have said is,

 

Skills work when and how it is reasonable and appropriate that they do so.

 

But who decides when it is "reasonable and appropriate"? Me, based on my understanding of my character (who is, of course, stalwart, upright and 100% secure in all of his beliefs and opinions, and so should not be affected at all by social skills as he makes his own decisions and is above outside influences)? The GM, based on his understanding of the game world (and his knowledge that this con man could sell ice to the Eskimos on a premium rate 25 year contract, and thus can easily manipulate my character)? What happens when the subjective opinion of what is "reasonable and appropriate" collide? For physical combat, mental combat and PRE attacks, we have objective rules based on points spent, situational modifiers and dice results. But for social interaction, we toss in a "get out of objectivity free" card.

 

Now' date=' that obviously does not mean "skills work even when it's unreasonable and inappropriate" which seems to be your (Hugh Neilson's) position (and if that's not your position, I don't see why you object to mine.)[/quote']

 

When we are playing a highly realistic game, skills should be confined to what they can reasonably and at least semi-reliably accomplish in the real world. Their rolls should be confined to reasonable levels (a 14 seems quite high). In that same game, however, feats in other areas such as leaping through a plate glass window and emerging unscathed, single handedly defeating half a dozen armed street punks or deftly picking a security lock in a couple of seconds with a credit card would also be inappropriate.

 

As the game rises to a more cinematic structure, and starts to incorporate action movie reality (above), mystical or quasi-mystical powers (fantasy spells, The Force), quasi-scientific impossibilities (FTL drive, teleporters, disintegrator rays), wuxia level superskills, superpowers or any of the numerous backdrop elements used as an excuse for feats that are not possible in the real world, why should similarly impressive or 'real world impossible' feats not become possible with skills of ever-increasing levels.

 

A task that cannot be accomplished with a skill roll of, say, 17-, and setting that as the maximum real world skills can attain, is easily decided. Let's call that a -15 modifier and rule that, if you need less than a 3, the attempt cannot succeed. If we now move to the realm of SuperSkilled characters, someone with a 25- has a 50/50 chance of accomplishing a task that would, in the real world, be impossible.

 

Is that really so appalling in a game where other characters can also accomplish things like lifting tanks, conjuring fire from empty air or reliably reading minds?

 

And it also does not mean "Skills don't work" and I don't know why you (Hugh Neilson) seem to think it does.

 

If the skill can simply be waived away whenever its use would accomplish something the target wishes not be accomplished, then skills don't work. "No, he cannot be persuaded" is no more valid than "No, the lock cannot be picked" or "No, you can't hit him - he is too fast". Put the tools in place to build the effect. Let the gamers decide how mundane or fantastic their games will be. And give them the tools to objectively determine success or failure.

 

Because, in the end, game rules exist only to provide an objective structure to a subjective game of "let's pretend" so we can pretend that our hobby is more mature than that enjoyed by the five year olds in the back yard screaming "Bang I shot you - Fall down" and "no, you missed me".

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

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

 

Why buy and use a game I no longer have an interest in? There are a few minor things that I don't like about Hero and I houserule those, but I use it because the core of the system is overwhelmingly good. Change a major part of that to something bad and .. well, I have better things to do with my time than rewrite a game system.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

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?

 

Strawman argument. As I have said before, you're the only person suggesting that characters can dismiss social effects on a whim. What has been suggested is that people cannot be forced to interact socially. Very different thing.

 

 

When we discuss absolute invulnerability in Hero' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

Strawman argument II. No-one - apart from you - has made such a suggestion. As I have been at pains to point out, my example of martyrs was specifically a refutation of the suggestion that "anyone can be forced to do anything"

 

Obviously, that assertion's not true. However that doen't mean that "nobody can be forced to do anything" - observation suggests that's equally untrue. It's entirely possible that some martyrs were browbeaten by their mothers. So no-one else is suggesting that some people are immune to all social pressure - merely that there are cases where even the most extreme persuasion fails.

 

However, illustrating how clearly different social and physical interactions are different, that doesn't hold true in the physical realm. There are no people who are invulnerable to common attacks.

 

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

Why buy and use a game I no longer have an interest in? There are a few minor things that I don't like about Hero and I houserule those, but I use it because the core of the system is overwhelmingly good. Change a major part of that to something bad and .. well, I have better things to do with my time than rewrite a game system.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Fair enough I guess but I don't see why you'd have to rewrite anything in this case. If you don't like any social system developed unless it dramatically changes the nature of the game (which I don't see happening) just ignore it like the folks that hate Comeliness, Pre attacks or the general notion of Interaction skills at all do already.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Strawman argument. As I have said before' date=' you're the only person suggesting that characters can dismiss social effects on a whim. What has been suggested is that people cannot be [b']forced[/b] to interact socially. Very different thing.

 

No, he hasn't really. That "the player should be ultimate arbiter of what their character does, feels and thinks" has a been a major issue with some involved in this thread (and the ones that spawned it) this has included the ability to ignore social effects they "do not feel are appropriate/violates the character concept or would make it look stupid and weak* at no cost or penalty.

 

You specifically might not have said or hold that opinion but claiming it's never come up isn't accurate.

 

No one can be forced to interact socially if they avoid contact with social situations. Once you come in contact with other people, you can't simply take the approach that "my character sticks his fingers in his ears and chants LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA and refuses all attempts to interact with him". Try doing this in real life and see if you can just keep doing that against all attempts at interaction. An absolutely insane person could possibly do this - but they could not stop as desired.

 

You can go to a meeting, a party or a family reunion with no intention of interacting socially. If someone else wants to interact, his desire and yours come into conflict and your relative skills and resistances, not merely your desire, dictate the result.

 

Unless something has changed and I missed it, the rules currently indicate that social skill use should not be binding when used against PC's. Anyone have a current page reference?

 

Strawman argument II. No-one - apart from you - has made such a suggestion. As I have been at pains to point out' date=' my example of martyrs was specifically a refutation of the suggestion that "[i']anyone can be forced to do anything"[/i]

 

That may have been how you meant it but some of your posts have suggested the idea of "Social Immunity" very strongly particularly when you mentioned there being no such thing as Physical Invulnerability But... then bring up the thousands of incidents were even extreme social pressure has failed. It came across as you trying to illustrate "social invulnerability"

 

You seem to be claiming that the fact that people historically have resisted social skills, even to the point of martyrdom, indicates that some people cannot be affected by social skills. My interpretation is that some people have successfully resisted social skills to the point of martyrdom, which means that, in game terms, their resistance, their opponents' skills, the situational modifiers and the dice all combined to a success for them to resist those attempts. It does not mean such attempts could never succeed. It means they did not succeed.

 

I believe that, in game, there should be an objective mechanism to asses the success or failure of social skills, just as there is an objective mechanism to assess the success or failure of other efforts by the PC's and NPC's. I don't define "my character is accurate - his shots always hit" or "my character is tough - bullets just bounce off". I buy a high OCV/high defenses and resistant defenses. Then I interact with the DCV's and DC's that other characters have purchased.

 

Social abilities should work no differently. I should define the result I want, and purchase the abilities to get there. I then interact with the game world. I should not simply be able to jot down "Percy Paladin is chaste and no one can ever tempt him." I should be purchasing abilities which prevent such attempts to lead him down the wrong path succeeding.

 

I should be discussing my vision with my GM, for two reasons. First, is it appropriate/acceptable in this game? Second, how should I construct it to fit within his milieu? So:

 

- assuming the GM is OK with my accurate character, he would tell me the OCV I need to always hit (at which point I would expect to miss only on an 18, which would be explained away with external factors, not a flaw in the character's accuracy). If someone comes along with a DCV that makes it difficult for me to hit, the GM has broken our gaming contract.

 

- assuming the GM is OK with my bulletproof character, he would tell me the defenses I need to avoid being hurt by bullets. If someone comes along with a gun that can hurt me, the GM has broken our gaming contract.

 

- and, assuming the GM is OK with Percy's Perfect Chastity, he would tell me the social resistances I need to be beyond temptation. If someone comes along with social skills that can persuade me to break my vow of chastity, the GM has broken our gaming contract.

 

The GM may tell me that these concepts are not acceptable in his game, or I may discover the cost of achieving these levels is too great. In either case, I may have to settle for "very accurate, but sometimes misses", "very tough, but not completely bulletproof" or "very strong willed, but not immune to seduction".

 

Obviously' date=' that assertion's not true. However that doen't mean that "nobody can be forced to do anything" - observation suggests that's equally untrue. It's entirely possible that some martyrs were browbeaten by their mothers. So no-one else is suggesting that some people are immune to all social pressure - merely that there are cases where even the most extreme persuasion fails.[/quote']

 

Similarly, there are cases where even the most extreme resistances fail. A system where we just say "it is impossible for him to be persuaded" does not account for that possibility. A system that imposes penalties and bonuses could certainly allow for a character whose resistances are purchased to such a level that it will not be possible to persuade him, just as it is possible to purchase defenses to such a level that an attack cannot harm him. But neither should be a gimme. You want that level of resistance, pay for that level of resistance.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

When we discuss absolute invulnerability in Hero' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

Why does it always come down to the assumption that all players totally ignore NPC attempts to use Interaction skills on them every time? It's not the case in the games I GM; it's not the case in games I play, and I rather highly suspect it's not the case in the majority of games played!

 

Most of us play our characters as if we are not, in fact, immune to interaction skills. For us to claim immunity - even though it is expressly written into the rules - seems silly to us. We play, we interact, and only in the few cases where the roll makes our character not fun to play do we bring the 'get out of jail free' card. And in the end, is not having fun the whole point?

 

Are there munchkins who will play up their immunity unless there is a mechanic to 'force' them to do otherwise? Sure there are, I have no doubt of it. But to assume that because they exist, that all players play that way is at the very least highly insulting to the rest of us who take NPC Interaction skill rolls into account as we roleplay. It's a bit like sending a whole class to detention because one student misbehaves - you're punishing the whole group, when you really only need to punish the actual offender. And yes, a system that forces and controls my character without my input is, indeed, punishing me for bothering to show up to play.

 

If you have such a munchkin who cannot understand the concept of taking Interaction rolls into account when roleplaying, then the answer is to punish him through whatever means are appropriate (from witholding XP to banning him from the game), not to try and punish all the other players of the whole game by adding a stick you can whack any player with into the basic rules.

 

If one wants an optional rules system for 'hard' social interaction, that's fine with me. That way you can have your fun using it, and I won't have my fun impinged upon by it. But for the core rules - the rules that pretty much everyone uses and expcts to play with when they play HEROs - I think it is not appropriate.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

I would have to see this system and toy with it a bit before I would endorse it. But if this sort of philosphy was behind it, and worked into it, then maybe - just maybe - I could get behind it.

 

The point being that the sort of change that would ruin the character and make it totally unplayable should be very very very hard to do. Certainly for a single roll - or even a single set of rolls - it should be virtually impossible.

[Vulcan]

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.

 

To say that "She looks attractive" is appropriate. To say that "You think she looks attractive" is not. Because you're dictating to the player what his character is thinking, rather than let the player think for his character.

 

There are a couple of questions left unanswered before I can give you an real answer of my own. Is Roger currently single? Does he have disads like 'Womanizer' on his character sheet - or 'Compulsively monogomous?' Is he just here socializing, or is he shadowing someone - and does he have disads pertaining to that (Obsessed with Crimefighting vs. Easily Distracted)? In short, the situation is so vague that a simple yes or no is flat-out impossible.

 

Having said that, well, unless there was a compelling reason it would be out-of-character, I'd totally go along with the results of her seduction roll. (And if I was playing a womaizer, compelling reasons wouldn't stop him either! )

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

If you can simply say "interaction skills cannot persuade my Paladin to change his views"' date=' why would you need levels with ego rolls to resist such persuasion? Would not Jack from Legend (this week's popular advantage) be accurately simulated with similar social defenses that make it difficult to shake his trust in Lilly, rather than assert that Jack's player simply gets to decide that there is no wfay that Jack's faith in Lilly can be shaken, and thus he qualifies for blanket immunity to all social skills that might attempt or purport to do so?[/quote']

 

Because Jack is a feral child and had no opportunity to develop said defenses. They would be as out-of-character for him as being bulletproof would be for a normal. The only thing defending him in this case is his faith in Lily... which is determined by the player in the first place.

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

Unless something has changed and I missed it' date=' the rules currently indicate that social skill use should not be binding when used against PC's. Anyone have a current page reference?[/quote']

 

Though I have lost my own rulebook, I have temporarily obtained a copy of the Fifth Edition rulebook. Fifth Edition, not the FRED, so when checking references and page numbers please note the version of the source.

 

I decided to start with the description of Skills. I found nothing in the Skills section on pages 26-30. Page 31 starts the descriptions of the individual skills, so I decided to look at all of the Interaction skills.

 

 

Acting (31-32): Nothing that seemed relevant.

 

Animal Handler (32-33): Nothing that seemed relevant (barring an animal PC, I suppose, but lets not get hung up on exceptions).

 

Bribery (33-34): First paragraph: "Characters should roleplay bribery attempts as much as possible, with the GM allowing a character to make Bribery rolls at crucial points in the bargaining to determine how much to offer, how subtle to be, and so on." Second paragraph: "If the Bribery attempt fails badly, or if the character attempts to bribe an incorruptible target, the potential bribee may call his superior or the police, arrest the character, or threaten him with a weapon."

 

Conversation (37-38): Third paragraph: "Although successful Conversation rolls indicate that a character is a witty and intriguing conversationalist, in general you shouldn't substitute this Skill for roleplaying. If a character makes clever or stupid statements, the GM should apply modifiers to the roll. You should roleplay most conversations without using Conversation rolls."

 

High Society (40-41): Nothing that seemed relevant.

 

Interrogation (41): Nothing that seemed relevant, with the possible exception of the end of the first paragraph which notes that "many uses of this Skill aren't very heroic; Interrogation is most often bought by villains in many campaigns." Also, the first paragraph refers the reads to the Resistance Talent, which offers resistance to Interrogation (and other social skills).

 

Oratory (45): First paragraph: "Oratory does not help a character argue--it's only useful when the audience isn't talking back. Characters who want to lie convincingly or argue effectively should buy Persuasion."

 

Persuasion (46): Fourth paragraph: "Persuasion is normally only used on NPCs; PCs are usually allowed more latitude with their decisions. However, a successful Persuasion roll should make a PC much more inclined to believe the speaker or do as he requests."

 

Seduction (48): Fourth paragraph: "This Skill is normally only for use on NPCs; a player should have more control over his character's actions. The GM may rule that Seduction can be used on a PC when it fits his Disadvantages or personality."

 

Streetwise (49): Streetwise is not included as an Interaction skill on the list back on page 31, though the first sentence of the Streetwise description states that it is an Interaction skill. Fourth paragraph: "Encourage players to roleplay this Skill as much as possible; it's a lot of fun."

 

Trading (51): Nothing that seemed relevant.

 

 

I found no other information that looked relevant, to me, in other sections of the book.

 

The descriptions for Bribery, Conversation, and Streetwise all recommend that usage of these skills be roleplayed as much as possible.

 

The description for Bribery indicates that one method of failure is to attempt to bribe an incorruptible target.

 

The descriptions for Persuasion and Seduction both indicate that these skills are not normally used on PCs and each provides an explanation as to why. Both explanations relate to the player having more control, or being allowed more latitude, over the character's decisions or actions. Each description notes 'rough' exceptions related to die roll success (Persuasion) or Disadvantages (Seduction). Both descriptions, in their entirety, seem to indicate that in limited circumstances a 'shared decision' between GM and player may be appropriate regarding usage of these skills.

 

To summarize and answer Hugh's question, the Fifth Edition rules indicate that roleplaying should heavily influence outcomes of social skill use, that die roll results should be taken into account when roleplaying decisions are made regarding social skill results, and that yes indeed social skill use (for some skills) should not be binding when used against PC's (along with an explanation as to why).

 

I want to be clear that I'm not trying to make a value judgement here on how anyone wants all this to work, but I don't think the present system is broken. Vulnerable to bad roleplaying? Sure, but only good roleplaying will resolve that, imo.

 

 

I believe that, in game, there should be an objective mechanism to asses the success or failure of social skills, just as there is an objective mechanism to assess the success or failure of other efforts by the PC's and NPC's. I don't define "my character is accurate - his shots always hit" or "my character is tough - bullets just bounce off". I buy a high OCV/high defenses and resistant defenses. Then I interact with the DCV's and DC's that other characters have purchased.

 

Social abilities should work no differently. I should define the result I want, and purchase the abilities to get there. I then interact with the game world. I should not simply be able to jot down "Percy Paladin is chaste and no one can ever tempt him." I should be purchasing abilities which prevent such attempts to lead him down the wrong path succeeding.

 

Similarly, there are cases where even the most extreme resistances fail. A system where we just say "it is impossible for him to be persuaded" does not account for that possibility. A system that imposes penalties and bonuses could certainly allow for a character whose resistances are purchased to such a level that it will not be possible to persuade him, just as it is possible to purchase defenses to such a level that an attack cannot harm him. But neither should be a gimme. You want that level of resistance, pay for that level of resistance.

 

I believe that the mechanism used to assess success or failure in the social aspect of Hero is a mixture roleplaying decisions and die roll results. The degree to which each part, roleplaying and die results, is used will be determined by the desires and playstyle of the specific gaming group. This is not the same method of resolution as the one used in the combat side of Hero. This difference looks, to me, like a deliberate design decision.

 

I'd like to point out that I don't see any reason why anyone who wanted a firmer social combat system couldn't simply use the Resistance Talent, as presented in the book (page 65, description and sidebar), to defend against social skills. One could also ignore the statements in the book regarding PCs being allowed more control over their actions than NPCs as well, which would allow free usage of Persuasion and Seduction.

 

Is there some reason why this would not work, or is insufficient, for anyone who wanted to run a game where social outcomes were determined more by die roll results than the format laid out in the Fifth Edition ruleset?

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

One more thing to bear in mind when looking at social effects - PC vs. PC interaction.

 

Much has been said about GM's abusing a 'hard' system, and the comebacks seem to center around 'doing that makes you a BAD GM and therefore that is not a good argument. Nothing has been said about players making a hardcore social b*****d and taking control of the other PC's with his mad social skillz.

 

Remember, if the NPC rolls are binding on PCs, then PC rolls on PCs are just as binding! And now the potential for abuse depends not on how unreasonable the GM is, but how unreasonable the most unreasonable player at the table is!

 

I cannot see such an affair ending at all well. I see hard feelings, wrecked game nights, and lost friendships over it. Not what I would call a good time.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

One more thing to bear in mind when looking at social effects - PC vs. PC interaction.

 

Much has been said about GM's abusing a 'hard' system, and the comebacks seem to center around 'doing that makes you a BAD GM and therefore that is not a good argument. Nothing has been said about players making a hardcore social b*****d and taking control of the other PC's with his mad social skillz.

 

Remember, if the NPC rolls are binding on PCs, then PC rolls on PCs are just as binding! And now the potential for abuse depends not on how unreasonable the GM is, but how unreasonable the most unreasonable player at the table is!

 

I cannot see such an affair ending at all well. I see hard feelings, wrecked game nights, and lost friendships over it. Not what I would call a good time.

 

Actually, that's what I'd do if I bothered to play in such a game at all. Just spend all points on social skills, PRE, etc. If I need anything done, I can just talk someone into doing it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Trying it on the palindromedary

[ayinde]

Re: Social effects

 

you make a good point but the combat badass can already kill his fellow pc on a larc

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Much has been said about GM's abusing a 'hard' system' date=' and the comebacks seem to center around 'doing that makes you a BAD GM and therefore that is not a good argument. Nothing has been said about [i']players[/i] making a hardcore social b*****d and taking control of the other PC's with his mad social skillz.

 

See Mind Control, Mental Illusions, and Transform. While you're at it, consider how far one PC can control another with Entangle, Flash, Force Wall, Energy Blast, etc. etc. (not to mention powers like Teleportation bought Usable As Attack)

 

If this is a problem in a game already, adding one more element that can be abused won't change things much. If your players already play well together, you won't have anything to fear.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Actually, that's what I'd do if I bothered to play in such a game at all. Just spend all points on social skills, PRE, etc. If I need anything done, I can just talk someone into doing it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Trying it on the palindromedary

 

I take it that all of your characters currently dump all their points into Mind Control? If not, why would adding Social Combat rules suddenly change you as a player?

 

P.S. - Let me know how it works on the palindromedary.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

I would have to see this system and toy with it a bit before I would endorse it. But if this sort of philosphy was behind it' date=' and worked into it, then maybe - just maybe - I could get behind it.[/quote']

Glad to hear it. My Social Combat skill against you is slowly, slowly paying off.

 

The point being that the sort of change that would ruin the character and make it totally unplayable should be very very very hard to do. Certainly for a single roll - or even a single set of rolls - it should be virtually impossible.

This is no change from the current rules whatsoever. Consider how often your favorite PC is faced with death (which sure would make him totally unplayable) based on a single roll or a single set of rolls.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

See Mind Control, Mental Illusions, and Transform. While you're at it, consider how far one PC can control another with Entangle, Flash, Force Wall, Energy Blast, etc. etc. (not to mention powers like Teleportation bought Usable As Attack)

 

If this is a problem in a game already, adding one more element that can be abused won't change things much. If your players already play well together, you won't have anything to fear.

 

Which brings us back around to the question - if what is wanted is what's already in the system, why change?

 

I take it that all of your characters currently dump all their points into Mind Control? If not, why would adding Social Combat rules suddenly change you as a player?

 

P.S. - Let me know how it works on the palindromedary.

 

See above. Either

 

1. What's being agitated about is pointless, because it can already be done with what's in the system, or

 

2. What is desired is something that somehow exceeds the powerful options already in the system - and if it's better at pushing people around than Mind Control, I want to be the pusher, not the pushee.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to be the pushmi-pulyu

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

you make a good point but the combat badass can already kill his fellow pc on a larc

 

Kill a man today, you can only loot his body once.

 

It's more profitable to hit him up every time he gets his hands on some money.

 

"Hey buddy, can you spare a couple hundred dollars from this paycheck again?"

 

"Time to divide the treasure. Same as last time you all get one twelfth to split between you."

 

Kill a man today, you can ravish his lovely wife and nubile daughter.

 

It's more fun to have either, or both at once, any time you want to and with the eager cooperation and full approval of everyone involved.

 

"Sure, we can have a party again tonight....I picked up a couple new friends even more agile than your wife, I'll bring them too. Maybe I'll even let you have one, you're such a swell guy."

 

Kill a man today, and you fight a dragon tomorrow without him backing you up.

 

It's safer to have a small army of followers you didn't have to pay points for between you and the dragon, just in case you know - just in case you somehow fail to talk the dragon into letting you just take the treasure and go.

 

"That seems reasonable, doesn't it? I knew you'd see it my way. Remember, if the dragon's unreasonable, don't break and run until you see I've already gotten out. "

 

edit - besides, you may have a point that "combat badass can already kill" but that can change - I distinctly remember, in the thread before this one, discussion of letting the "con man" talk the "combat badass" out of a berserk rage in the middle of combat. He could try getting me in my sleep, assuming I haven't already brought him around to accepting the idea that I make all his decisions, but I'd be awake before he gets through the bodyguards first and then the concubines I'd be surrounded by.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is horrified....it looks like this idea is unleashing Lucius Alexander's Inner Munchkin....what have they done?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Why does it always come down to the assumption that all players totally ignore NPC attempts to use Interaction skills on them every time? It's not the case in the games I GM; it's not the case in games I play, and I rather highly suspect it's not the case in the majority of games played!

 

Most of us play our characters as if we are not, in fact, immune to interaction skills. For us to claim immunity - even though it is expressly written into the rules - seems silly to us.

 

And there you have it - if the rules are silly, why are you opposed to changing them?

 

Are there munchkins who will play up their immunity unless there is a mechanic to 'force' them to do otherwise? Sure there are' date=' I have no doubt of it.[/quote']

 

They are following the rules as written. You are the one ignoring them to suit your preferences.

 

If one wants an optional rules system for 'hard' social interaction' date=' that's fine with me. That way you can have your fun using it, and I won't have my fun impinged upon by it. But for the core rules - the rules that pretty much everyone uses and expcts to play with when they play HEROs - I think it is not appropriate.[/quote']

 

We could also have an optional reduction or elimination of the impact of social skill results on PC's.

 

I would have to see this system and toy with it a bit before I would endorse it. But if this sort of philosophy was behind it' date=' and worked into it, then maybe - just maybe - I could get behind it.[/quote']

 

I like the philosophy itself - with analogous results to "stunned", "KO'd" and "killed" being higher levels up the social resolution results. Anything long lasting should be harder to accomplish, and the more extreme the result, the more difficult the requirement.

 

Of course, one could base this on Mental transform - 15 points per die is enough to change someone completely, and it's even cumulative. Perhaps it is based on attacking Ego rather than BOD, and we need a social defense system. Right now, I can buy a Mental Transform at 15 points per die, attack you a few times and you are Transformed to someone who firmly believes in, and will vocally support, a very rigid social conflict resolution system, arguing for something more hard wired than I would propose.

 

To say that "She looks attractive" is appropriate. To say that "You think she looks attractive" is not. Because you're dictating to the player what his character is thinking' date=' rather than let the player think [i']for [/i]his character.

 

Could you split that hair any finer? Is an appropriate response to "She looks attractive" "no, my character thinks she looks like a warthog with mascara on"?

 

Because Jack is a feral child and had no opportunity to develop said defenses. They would be as out-of-character for him as being bulletproof would be for a normal. The only thing defending him in this case is his faith in Lily... which is determined by the player in the first place.

 

And the player should be able to purchase social resistance based on his faith in Lilly. And why is it out of character for a feral child to be resistant to social skills? Unfamiliar with them, sure, but natural defenses hardly seem impossible. "I do as I see best, as I have always done"

 

Though I have lost my own rulebook, I have temporarily obtained a copy of the Fifth Edition rulebook. Fifth Edition, not the FRED, so when checking references and page numbers please note the version of the source.

 

Bribery (33-34): First paragraph: "Characters should roleplay bribery attempts as much as possible, with the GM allowing a character to make Bribery rolls at crucial points in the bargaining to determine how much to offer, how subtle to be, and so on." Second paragraph: "If the Bribery attempt fails badly, or if the character attempts to bribe an incorruptible target, the potential bribee may call his superior or the police, arrest the character, or threaten him with a weapon."

 

Conversation (37-38): Third paragraph: "Although successful Conversation rolls indicate that a character is a witty and intriguing conversationalist, in general you shouldn't substitute this Skill for roleplaying. If a character makes clever or stupid statements, the GM should apply modifiers to the roll. You should roleplay most conversations without using Conversation rolls."

 

Interrogation (41): Nothing that seemed relevant, with the possible exception of the end of the first paragraph which notes that "many uses of this Skill aren't very heroic; Interrogation is most often bought by villains in many campaigns." Also, the first paragraph refers the reads to the Resistance Talent, which offers resistance to Interrogation (and other social skills).

 

Persuasion (46): Fourth paragraph: "Persuasion is normally only used on NPCs; PCs are usually allowed more latitude with their decisions. However, a successful Persuasion roll should make a PC much more inclined to believe the speaker or do as he requests."

 

Seduction (48): Fourth paragraph: "This Skill is normally only for use on NPCs; a player should have more control over his character's actions. The GM may rule that Seduction can be used on a PC when it fits his Disadvantages or personality."

 

Streetwise (49): Streetwise is not included as an Interaction skill on the list back on page 31, though the first sentence of the Streetwise description states that it is an Interaction skill. Fourth paragraph: "Encourage players to roleplay this Skill as much as possible; it's a lot of fun."

 

I want to be clear that I'm not trying to make a value judgement here on how anyone wants all this to work, but I don't think the present system is broken. Vulnerable to bad roleplaying? Sure, but only good roleplaying will resolve that, imo.

 

I believe that the mechanism used to assess success or failure in the social aspect of Hero is a mixture roleplaying decisions and die roll results. The degree to which each part, roleplaying and die results, is used will be determined by the desires and playstyle of the specific gaming group. This is not the same method of resolution as the one used in the combat side of Hero. This difference looks, to me, like a deliberate design decision.

 

Are social skills unique that they should be role played? I expect more out of players in combat than

 

[Monotone]I try to hit him with my attack.

 

I roll damage.[/monotone]

 

But I don't believe the success or failure of physical combat should be influenced any more - or any less - by role playing concerns than social combat results should. How large a bonus (penalty) will you give a well-described and role played (poorly thought out and described)combat action? I suggest the same size bonus (penalty) should apply to social conflict - no more and no less - with the result then resolved with an objective system.

 

One more thing to bear in mind when looking at social effects - PC vs. PC interaction.

 

Much has been said about GM's abusing a 'hard' system, and the comebacks seem to center around 'doing that makes you a BAD GM and therefore that is not a good argument. Nothing has been said about players making a hardcore social b*****d and taking control of the other PC's with his mad social skillz.

 

Good thing he can't do that with Mind Control, Mental Illusions or physical threats under the current model, huh? Why do we assume everyone becomes a b*****d with social conflict if they aren't one already?

 

It seems two faced for people to suggest "if people don't role play under the current model, don't game with them" and then suggest that bad players will abuse a more objective resolution system. How about "if your players will abuse a more objective resolution system, don't game with them"?

 

To me, I think the present system (with "I'm a PC so I can do what others cannot" subtracted) would be a reasonable resolution mechanism. However, I would also see value in a much more granular system, to the detail of the physical combat system, for games where social interaction, and not physical combat, is the core conflict resolution system. In a game of diplomacy and court intrigue, for example, one might use the Granural social resolution system, but reduce physical combat to opposed skill rolls in such skills as "swordplay", "pugilism" and "brawling". Physical combat will not be the focus, so make it easily and quickly resolved.

[Greywind]

Re: Social effects

 

Kill a man today, you can only loot his body once.

 

It's more profitable to hit him up every time he gets his hands on some money.

 

"Hey buddy, can you spare a couple hundred dollars from this paycheck again?"

 

"Time to divide the treasure. Same as last time you all get one twelfth to split between you."

 

Kill a man today, you can ravish his lovely wife and nubile daughter.

 

It's more fun to have either, or both at once, any time you want to and with the eager cooperation and full approval of everyone involved.

 

"Sure, we can have a party again tonight....I picked up a couple new friends even more agile than your wife, I'll bring them too. Maybe I'll even let you have one, you're such a swell guy."

 

Kill a man today, and you fight a dragon tomorrow without him backing you up.

 

It's safer to have a small army of followers you didn't have to pay points for between you and the dragon, just in case you know - just in case you somehow fail to talk the dragon into letting you just take the treasure and go.

 

"That seems reasonable, doesn't it? I knew you'd see it my way. Remember, if the dragon's unreasonable, don't break and run until you see I've already gotten out. "

 

edit - besides, you may have a point that "combat badass can already kill" but that can change - I distinctly remember, in the thread before this one, discussion of letting the "con man" talk the "combat badass" out of a berserk rage in the middle of combat. He could try getting me in my sleep, assuming I haven't already brought him around to accepting the idea that I make all his decisions, but I'd be awake before he gets through the bodyguards first and then the concubines I'd be surrounded by.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is horrified....it looks like this idea is unleashing Lucius Alexander's Inner Munchkin....what have they done?

"A friend in need is a pest." ~ Fafhrd

 

"And then I thought to myself 'why should I split it TWO way?'" ~ Gray Mouser

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Either

 

1. What's being agitated about is pointless, because it can already be done with what's in the system, or

 

2. What is desired is something that somehow exceeds the powerful options already in the system - and if it's better at pushing people around than Mind Control, I want to be the pusher, not the pushee.

 

1. What I'm looking for is not spelled out in the system. I think it would add to the system. It can be done with the system -- by adapting the current Combat rules for Social Combat. I consider that a strength.

 

2. What I desire would be different from Mind Control. It would be considerably less powerful than Mind Control without Limitations.

 

As for being the pusher rather than the pushee, I take it that you do currently have all your characters put all their points into Mind Control. How's that working out for you?

 

If you don't put all your points into Mind Control you must have some reason for that. I'd love for you to explain -- it would answer your question about why people wouldn't sink all their points into Social Combat.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

Could you split that hair any finer?

 

I can.

 

I don't expect you to get this, Mr. Neilson; I suspect you never will get it. But it's vital and fundamental.

 

Every character is someone's character to play. Every player has one or more characters.

 

This is so fundamental, it transcends the distinction between "Player Character" and "Non Player Character." For this purpose, you have players with one character apiece, and one player with a lot of characters. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a "Non Player Character" any more than there is a "Non Character Player." If you're in the game, you have a character. If a character is in the game, it has a player.

 

It is every player's right and role to make choices for their characters.

 

This is what a role playing game is about. We play to make choices for our characters and to see those choices as effective.

 

Many things can restrict the choices available. Famously, for example, a dead character's choices might be restricted to: lie around and do nothing, or lie around and not do anything? That is why, rather than play a corpse, most players would generate a new character at that point. Similarly, a character under Mind Control might (temporarily the player would hope) have no choices to make, as the character carries out actions dictated by another. I'll point out that some people are very uncomfortable with Mind Control for this very reason - it can leave a character with no choices to make, and the only reason the player is there is to make choices. Take that away and the player will start to wonder why he showed up.

 

But what you, Mr. Neilson, first proposed in that previous thread was worse than a character without choices. Hopefully you have already seen your error and abandoned that extreme position, but I admit I would like to see you formally repudiate it. What you suggested was a situation in which a character has choices to make, and someone other than that character's player would usurp the right of making those choices.

 

As I asked at the time, how can you expect such a suggestion to meet with anything other than immovable resistance and emphatic rejection?

 

I'm sorry if you think that, in order to be worth anything at all, Interaction Skills have to do (at least) the work of Mind Control (if not more.) Most of us, including myself, have characters with such skills, have met many characters with such skills, and have found them valuable and useful for what they are - skills, that work when and as it's reasonable and appropriate, and not otherwise. If you really think your characters need Mind Control, Mental Transform, etc to be effective, then I suggest you just purchase it for them, rather than tackling the impossible task of talking everyone into allowing Skills to do the same thing. You might as well take up seducing nuns.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

This is my palindromedary. It's not your palindromedary, it's not Steve Long's palindromedary, it's not the Supreme Court's palindromedary....