Social effects

[Utech]

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?

 

All this is possible -- and far easier -- with Mind Control. So how's that working out for you?

 

If I tried this sort of obvious abuse in any game I've ever played in, I'd soon find myself an ex-player.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

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

 

That's not why I play at all!

 

I play to have fun.

 

I've often played games in which my character was under the influence of Mind Control, insanity, or something along those lines and had a new personality come to the fore. It was a blast! I got to do all sorts of cool things I hadn't planned on doing!

 

I remember playing a game in which another player had his PC Mind Controlled (or mental Transformed or something) so that he was programmed to kill my character. We had such a great time playing this out!

 

The idea that a change in your character's personality makes it impossible to play him is just silly and unsupported by my experience.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

1. What I'm looking for is not spelled out in the system. I think it would add to the system.

 

So...what are you looking for, that it can't be found in the system as it stands?

 

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.

 

Actually, no, it won't - it will instead explain exactly why that is exactly what I would do, and what I think is wrong with "social combat" or "hard coded social conflict" or whatever the bleep we're talking about.

 

I will admit that I often do build characters to be resistant to Mind Control and other forms of manipulation and domination. Higher than standard EGO, some Mental Defense, etc.

 

But I don't always buy Mind Control.

 

Despite some imbalances and imperfections - some of them quite aggravating - I happen to think we have a pretty good system. By and large, it's balanced, and you get what you pay for and pay for what you get. Obviously, that does vary depending on the game and who's running it. Breathe Underwater is a literal lifesaver in Atlantis, probably a waste of points on Arrakis.

 

So 50 points in Mental Powers and EGO, 50 points in Interaction Skills and PRE, 50 points in Technical Skills, and 50 points in Combat Skills, are all worth about 50 points, approximately, all other things being equal, etc.

 

Therefore, I have no particular reason to buy Mind Control unless that happens to be the character concept I want to run with.

 

But if you radically shift the balance to make Social Skills more effective than they are, 50 points in such skills is worth more than 50 points of anything else.

 

Similarly, if you were to say "I'm halving the cost of Mind Control" or "I'm rewriting the Mind Control chart to make it easier to control people, and I'm adding new abilities that weren't there before" then you would see me buying Mind Control - if I play that game at all.

 

So no, it doesn't answer any questions about why someone wouldn't invest in a lot of Social Skills if you make them more valuable than their point cost. It just answers the question of why I would do so.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Inquiring palindromedaries want to know - why does anyone think this is a good idea anyway?

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

That's not why I play at all!

 

I play to have fun.

 

I've often played games in which my character was under the influence of Mind Control, insanity, or something along those lines and had a new personality come to the fore. It was a blast! I got to do all sorts of cool things I hadn't planned on doing!

 

I remember playing a game in which another player had his PC Mind Controlled (or mental Transformed or something) so that he was programmed to kill my character. We had such a great time playing this out!

 

The idea that a change in your character's personality makes it impossible to play him is just silly and unsupported by my experience.

 

I assume you still had choices to make?

 

If not, I don't see how you had any fun. There's a reason Automatons are not recommended as Player Characters.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary, I choose you!

[Greywind]

Re: Social effects

 

Social combat requires that both the players and the GM are capable of quick thinking and rapier wit. Both often lacking in average players. Repartee often requires a nimbleness of thought, sarcasm and subtleness.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

I assume you still had choices to make?

 

Of course I did! Social Combat wouldn't take away those choices either.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

So...what are you looking for' date=' that it can't be found in the system as it stands?[/quote']

 

A more satisfying way to play out long, dramatic, cinematic social conflicts. One equal to the enjoyment I take from the playing out of long, dramatic, cinematic fights common to HERO games.

 

It would not change the balance of points nor would it make Social Combat more (or less) effective. In my opinion, it would make it more interesting.

 

You would not have to change your characters one whit.

 

If you wanted to take advantage of the Social Combat rules, however, you'd have to write up another character sheet for use in Social Combat. Your GM would give you guidelines for that.

[The_Patriot]

Re: Social effects

 

A more satisfying way to play out long, dramatic, cinematic social conflicts. One equal to the enjoyment I take from the playing out of long, dramatic, cinematic fights common to HERO games.

 

It would not change the balance of points nor would it make Social Combat more (or less) effective. In my opinion, it would make it more interesting.

 

You would not have to change your characters one whit.

 

If you wanted to take advantage of the Social Combat rules, however, you'd have to write up another character sheet for use in Social Combat. Your GM would give you guidelines for that.

 

Therein lies the rub. It shouldn't require a separate character sheet in order for it to be seamless with the current system. The easiest and most elegant solution is to take the existing framework and build the social combat around it. With minor tweaks to the existing skills, characteristics, talents, perks, and powers a valid social combat system can be built. These minor tweaks are not a full blown rewrite, but rather reworded to follow through with what you want the system to do. An example of a minor tweak is that a character gains 1d6 for knowing the base skill and another 1d6 for every +1 skill level the skill has. Simple and elegant implementation of social combat.

 

EDIT: To further reinforce using the existing system in place have your Social Combat Value based upon Presence and use the same formula that ECV and OCV/DCV uses to determine the base SCV. A character with a presence of 18 would have a SCV of 6. The combat roll to determine if the social attack succeeds or fails would identical to the ones used by CV and ECV which is 11+Offensive Social Combat Value-Defensive Social Combat Value=base to hit roll. If the attack hits roll damage based off of the skill used in the attack using the above formula. The defense that could be used is 1 point of defense for every level in the skill.

 

SECOND EDIT: Picking up from where I left off....

 

The defense that could be used is 1 point of defense for every level in the skill or use EGO/5 where everyone gets Mental Defense. Social Combat is mental so Mental Defense would apply.

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

Yes, social skills should be roleplayed. The rules clearly state that. No, combat does not have to be roleplayed. RP in combat is part of the fun, absolutely, but I believe roleplay is not nearly as crucial to combat resolution as it is to social resolution, and I believe the rules support this.

 

I understand that you disagree and that you would like social resolution and combat resolution to be equally influenced by roleplay. I would not like that because, as a player, I need to have more control over my character in order to contribute to the story in the way that I desire to. Nobody else at the table, including the GM, has the insight to my character that I have and can resolve situations and decisions "in character" as accurately as I can. Every player has that relationship with their own character and the GM has that relationship with all the NPCs. "roleplay" is the trust that everyone is acting in character and making decisions for better or for worse, but more importantly for the story.

 

If that isn't happening then I might as well be playing Battletech. Without the Mechwarrior supplement.

 

 

Which brings me to the next part.

 

To me' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

First, "I'm a PC so I can do what others cannot" is not quite the whole story. A PC who states, by word or action, that they are immune to social skills would, I believe, widely be seen as roleplaying badly (if at all). That is up to player and GM to resolve. This means that, subtracting bad roleplaying, the current system is reasonable, yes?

 

Second, I see value in a more granular system (to adopt your term, which I like) as well, which is why I think it, or some form of it, should be considered for inclusion as an option. Some will like it, use it, and enjoy it, and I think the option is worthy of consideration. I'm open minded, and just because I don't want it doesn't mean that others wouldn't have fun with it or even prefer it, so where is the harm in including it as an optional rule?

 

 

I am still not sure why the existing rules cannot be used with very minor tweaks, actually.

A) Use the Resistance Talent to defend against social skills. The book specifically details this.

Houserule out the statements that Persuasion and Seduction should not be used on PCs, while ignoring the statement in the descriptions of other Interaction skills that recommend roleplaying out the results over using straight die roll results.

 

This would seem to allow equal application of social outcomes to all, based on die rolls, would still allow roleplay reactions to (but not ignoring of) die rolls, and situational modifiers could be adjudicated as needed. Wouldn't that fulfill what proponents of changing the system are asking for?

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Therein lies the rub. It shouldn't require a separate character sheet in order for it to be seamless with the current system. The easiest and most elegant solution is to take the existing framework and build the social combat around it. With minor tweaks to the existing skills, characteristics, talents, perks, and powers a valid social combat system can be built. These minor tweaks are not a full blown rewrite, but rather reworded to follow through with what you want the system to do. An example of a minor tweak is that a character gains 1d6 for knowing the base skill and another 1d6 for every +1 skill level the skill has. Simple and elegant implementation of social combat.

 

EDIT: To further reinforce using the existing system in place have your Social Combat Value based upon Presence and use the same formula that ECV and OCV/DCV uses to determine the base SCV. A character with a presence of 18 would have a SCV of 6. The combat roll to determine if the social attack succeeds or fails would identical to the ones used by CV and ECV which is 11+Offensive Social Combat Value-Defensive Social Combat Value=base to hit roll. If the attack hits roll damage based off of the skill used in the attack using the above formula. The defense that could be used is 1 point of defense for every level in the skill.

 

SECOND EDIT: Picking up from where I left off....

 

The defense that could be used is 1 point of defense for every level in the skill or use EGO/5 where everyone gets Mental Defense. Social Combat is mental so Mental Defense would apply.

That doesn't sound any simpler to me. It sounds like quite a pain. I'd rather write up a second character sheet and use the standard Combat RAW. Writing up characters and the Combat RAW are well known elements for most HERO players and GMs. What you are describing would be a new system to learn.

[The_Patriot]

Re: Social effects

 

That doesn't sound any simpler to me. It sounds like quite a pain. I'd rather write up a second character sheet and use the standard Combat RAW. Writing up characters and the Combat RAW are well known elements for most HERO players and GMs. What you are describing would be a new system to learn.

 

Yeah those Presence Attacks and Normal Combat rules sure are tough to master. The system I proposed uses the existing presence attack rules and combat system that Hero uses.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

A PC who states' date=' by word or action, that they are immune to social skills would, I believe, widely be seen as roleplaying badly (if at all). [/quote']

 

I think that it would be the player stating that they are immune and while we are mostly (in this thread) arguing at extremes, I do not believe that any of us are experiencing the extremes being used to illustrate points - regardless of the glee with which antagonists are jumping on inappropriate exaggerations.

 

I think what you are likely to get is a player character in a social situation where they have some kind of interaction with GM controlled characters.

 

Now, if they use their conversation skills to find out, for example, some minor point of information about the character, his work, tomorrow's bank job etc. but this is not roleplayed out 'in full' such that the player utters the words, "Nah, John would never allow us to go with the safeties on" then the player says, my character would never have let that slip - it is not appropriate for your slick tongued journalists to draw that information out of my character unless you, the GM, can trick me into saying it.

 

So. If the GM is not skilled (or not more skilled than his players) then there is no way such things can be put into the game. If the GM is very skilled (or simply more skilled than his players)* then he can trip up his players all the time without even needing the modesty cover of having slick tongued journalists do it in game. "You said it! It will be the Gazette's headline tomorrow".

 

So, the system will not help imbalanced groups to have these kinds of interaction - not even for the small stuff - the people will have to learn to roleplay better. Nice message....

 

 

Doc

 

*I have run clubs for kids (12-16) for a long time and believe me, if you need to, you can tie them in knots. GM and player skill in social combat counts for a LOT, just not in game mechanics at present...

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

Actually' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

This was one of the weakness of the HeroQuest system, IMO. Because it abstracted conflict, a clever player could use virtually any skill, in either combat or social conflict, so the players tended to become one-trick ponies. We didn't have a "face man" in that group, but we saw the same effect in action in the infamous "talk down the charging berserker" - in that case, a social skill was used as a combat skill.

 

That's intentional in the system's design of course, but blurring the lines between social and combat interaction, which normally occur on quite different timescales, proved more than our group could swallow.

 

cheers, Mark

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Yeah those Presence Attacks and Normal Combat rules sure are tough to master. The system I proposed uses the existing presence attack rules and combat system that Hero uses.

Presence Attacks and Normal Combat rules are not tough to master. I suggest using them exactly as they are -- for Social Combat.

 

You suggest changes to them for Social Combat. That's not simpler.

[The_Patriot]

Re: Social effects

 

Presence Attacks and Normal Combat rules are not tough to master. I suggest using them exactly as they are -- for Social Combat.

 

You suggest changes to them for Social Combat. That's not simpler.

 

In other words, you agree with what my statement was about since I said the exact same thing. What I proposed is easier to handle then making people create two different character sheets and tracking both of them. Your method is more complex by the fact it uses dual character sheets while the one I proposed modifies the existing skill rules to give 1d6 for the base skill and 1d6 for every skill level in the skill to generate results on a table similar to the Presence Attacks one. Logically, there needs to have a defense against such attacks and Ego represents it quite well. The only change required is to give every character Mental Defense based upon the existing formula of Ego/5 for the purpose of defending against social attacks. It fits all on 1 character sheet and less record keeping is involved then your method.

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

I've tried to step back and just watch the thread but I have to say something about this. A "feral child" can have social defenses. Not being ingrained in civilization doesn't mean they can't have courage, willpower and conviction or just be stubborn (I am leader of pack!) Many such characters are actually somewhat more adept at resisting manipulation because their "instincts" like know BS when they smell it and see though the "facade of social games" so called civilized people play. It's Hero System almost everything can have many different sfx. In fact, you can make a case that high social skills don't necessarily make you better at resisting them. The con gets conned is a pretty common twist. They think they're totally in control and never think they might be the one getting played for once.

 

Tarzan, Sheena and other "King/Queen of the Wild" characters might be naive about the outside world and easy to trick in that way, at least the first time but in interpersonal relationships they can be quite on the ball (adept at spotting deception and following their instincts) if unpolished, feral and crass (No social skills except maybe raw Presence as an "Alpha" type). Defenses and the skills are not one in the same though the latter can be part of the former. Its archetype I've played and play and it's never felt to me that they have to effortless to manipulate. Can that be part of the concept, particularly for humor value (see George of the Jungle) but I don't feel its mandatory.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

A more satisfying way to play out long, dramatic, cinematic social conflicts. One equal to the enjoyment I take from the playing out of long, dramatic, cinematic fights common to HERO games.

 

Hm, now what I'd say I'd like to see is a more satisfying way to play out long, dramatic, cinematic situations other than combat. A system for making skill use in general more complex (in a fun way) and interesting whether we're talking about saving a life with Paramedics or disarming a bomb with Demolitions or ferreting out what a gang is up to with Streetwise.

 

Why all this focus on Interaction Skills, specifically?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Transport Familiarity: Palindromedary

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Hm, now what I'd say I'd like to see is a more satisfying way to play out long, dramatic, cinematic situations other than combat. A system for making skill use in general more complex (in a fun way) and interesting whether we're talking about saving a life with Paramedics or disarming a bomb with Demolitions or ferreting out what a gang is up to with Streetwise.

 

Why all this focus on Interaction Skills, specifically?

 

That would be my fault. It's where I was focussing in the first place.

 

However, I agree. A system that allowed for longer dramatic skill use (whether or not it was interactive or with an inanimate object) would indeed be welcome.

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

You are correct that I don't see things as you do. Up to here, however, we are on the same page, more or less. It is the player's job to make choices for his character. What we disagree on is how that job manifests.

 

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

 

It is the player's job to choose what the character will attempt to do (within the parameters of that character's concept, obviously). It is NOT the player's job to decide the effectiveness of the character in carrying out those choices. That role falls to the dice, and the adjudication of the GM.

 

The player defines those areas in which his character is, and is not effective (in Hero, at least - in some games, that role is also assigned in whole or in part to the dice). This is done in character design. The player then navigates the character through the game milieu, and makes choices for the character. But he does not decide their outcome.

 

Player #1 might decide that his character, Shy Steve, does not want to go to the party. When Brash Ben, Player #2's character (and, as you have said, it makes no difference whether Ben is a PC or an NPC) shows up at the door, Steve tries to resist his pressure to come with him to the bar. But Brash Ben is very persuasive, and Shy Steve doesn't have much in the way of social resistances, so Ben is able to twist Steve's arm and get him to come along to the bar. Of course, Steve's player fully expects that Steve will be a wallflower all night.

 

As Steve sits nursing his Shirley Temple, a few ladies walk into the bar. One, a cute redhead, attracts Steve's attention. Ben sees Steve staring at this young lady, and encourages Steve to "reach down, find a pair and go talk to her". But, thinks Player #1, Steve is too shy. He can only admire from afar. Ben, however, continues to work on Steve, and builds up his nerve. Steve's not a bad looking guy. He has a terrific sense of humor. He's a great catch. And besides, Steve-arino, the worst thing she can do is say "no"!

 

Steve resists but, as we said, he lacks much in the way of social resistance, and finally, Ben builds up Steve's courage (a series of successful die rolls). So Steve's player imagines how Steve might approach this girl, and heads over across the bar. Meanwhile, Randy Roxy's player, #3, has made a PER roll and sees Steve headed her way (slowly, often halting and looking uncomfortable and out of place). Player 3 decides that, at the outset, Randy Roxy isn't really that interested in Shy Steve - just not her type. So Steve approaches, and she fully intends to shut him down.

 

The GM weights all the factors. Shy Steve doesn't have a lot of social skills, and the dice will reflect that. But his confidence has been built up by Ben's interaction rolls, so that offsets his shyness somewhat. Shy Steve's player decides that Steve would never focus the conversation on himself, so he decides that Steve would start with some opener about how he's pretty sure a "lady like you" wouldn't be interested in "an ordinary guy like me", but his buddy won't shut up unless he comes over and talks to her, so maybe she could do him a huge favour and just look like she's talking to him for a minute or two before she shuts him down and looks around for a guy who's in her league.

 

Well, Player 3 notes that Roxy is a "sucker for flattery", so unknown to Steve, he's punching the right buttons. But he's still a little nerd boy, not at all Roxy's type. With that known, there's another modifier to the dice in Steve's favor, so that means he ca actually succeed...on a 6 or less.

 

All the players expect Steve to get shut down by Roxy and Ben will have a good laugh. But the dice come up a 4. Roxy's taken a bit of a shine to the "nerd boy". And, looking again, if we restyle those glasses and dress the boy up a bit, he could be worth some time.

 

None of the players expected these results, but there they are. Steve could have rolled a 16 and stuttered, flabbergasted, ending the whole thing right there - it's probably what the player expected.

 

Could it be played out in the current system? Sure. But along the way, we have:

 

- No, Steve isn't interested in going to the bar; he's unpersuadable.

- No, Steve is much too shy to introduce himself to the redhead - he's unpersuadable.

- No, Steve isn't Roxy's type. She just shuts him down.

 

We also have Steve's player making the choice to try to resist Ben's arm twisting, both to come out in the first place and to talk to Roxy. And he makes the choice on how he will approach her, and she makes the choice on how open to conversation she is. And we apply modifiers, and apply the objective resolution system to assess the results.

 

To the question "what is the player there for if not to make the character's choices", clearly he is there to make the character's choices. But he is not there to dictate the results of those choices. That is the role of the dice. If the player could dictate the success or failure of the actions chosen, we would not have dice, but simply an ongoing storytelling monologue or improv dialogue. Between the two lies the RPG.

 

But what you' date=' 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, [i']and someone other than that character's player would usurp the right of making those choices.[/i]

 

Social skills are, in my view and real world experience, a powerful tool. We might imagine, in a game, a character who has vast mental powers and can control a character's actions. We might imagine one with vast physical powers, who can move mountains. Mystical powers are in the realm of our imagination. We envision the game allowing character to have amazing powers of all description.

 

Why then should our imaginations come up short at the suggestion a character might have vast powers of persuasion? And why would we balk at allowing the player who has invested substantial points into his vast powers of persuasion being just as effective in the social realm as a character who spent the same points on combat abilities has in the realm of physical conflict?

 

That's not why I play at all!

 

I play to have fun.

 

I've often played games in which my character was under the influence of Mind Control, insanity, or something along those lines and had a new personality come to the fore. It was a blast! I got to do all sorts of cool things I hadn't planned on doing!

 

I remember playing a game in which another player had his PC Mind Controlled (or mental Transformed or something) so that he was programmed to kill my character. We had such a great time playing this out!

 

The idea that a change in your character's personality makes it impossible to play him is just silly and unsupported by my experience.

 

To add to this (and I wish I could rep Utech, but apparently I have done so too recently), often the most fun games involve something unexpected. The character unpredictably losing a social conflict when this seems to fly in the face of the character's personality can be just such an unexpected event, which challenges the players' preconceptions and makes them really think about their characters' reactions.

 

Will Shy Steve wake up tomorrow feeling more confident (and maybe his player will look at Steve's confidence growing over time, and putting some xp into social skills, because the dice have pointed Steve's growth in an unexpected direction)? Will Roxy, in the cold light of day, think "What had I been smoking to look twice at that guy", or will she be enamoured of Steve, and straighten up her own act? Will Steve's new found confidence fade, so he's too scared to use that phone number he got last night. And what about Ben? Where did Ben go after Roxy and Steve started dancing? Tune in tomorrow...

 

So...what are you looking for' date=' that it can't be found in the system as it stands?[/quote']

 

A lot of this is covered below. I'm looking for an option for more granular, step by step resolution of skills as an option, particularly one for games where conflict focuses on areas other than the physical combat model. I'm looking for a social conflict resolution system that's not "make an opposed roll and we're done here".

 

Extrapolating from that, resolving medical conflicts (This episode centers around Dr. McCoy/Bashir/Franklin working to cure a mysterious illness before it takes the lives of all aboard), legal conflicts or whatever conflicts with a single skill roll lacks drama and excitement. Let's provide objective resolution options for games that don't center around physical combat. And let's provide options for combat resolution that ARE simple opposed rolls.

 

In games centering around social conflict, we might see very little spent on physical combat, and a lot more spending options for granular social resolution. And we might start the game out saying "guys, this will be a social game, so use the detailed Social Rules and the short form Combat Rules in building your characters."

 

But if you radically shift the balance to make Social Skills more effective than they are' date=' 50 points in such skills is worth more than 50 points of anything else. [/quote']

 

Let's assume someone bought a 15 PRE and a 38- Persuasion skill for 60 points. Tell me how this would be as effective as, say, 4d6 Mind Control, Cumulative (+1/2), 16x maximum effect (+1), 0 END (+1/2). They both set out to get others to do what the character wants. They both cost 60 points. They should be equally effective. And that Mind Control is pretty effective if you can talk to someone for a minute or so!

 

A more satisfying way to play out long' date=' dramatic, cinematic social conflicts. One equal to the enjoyment I take from the playing out of long, dramatic, cinematic fights common to HERO games.[/quote']

 

This is it exactly. Long, dramatic, cinematic resolution of non-physical conflicts.

 

Yes' date=' social skills should be roleplayed. The rules clearly state that. No, combat does not have to be roleplayed. RP in combat is part of the fun, absolutely, but I believe roleplay is not nearly as crucial to combat resolution as it is to social resolution, and I believe the rules support this.[/quote']

 

It seems circular to justify rejection of changes or augmentation of the rules with what the rules presently say. The rules say "these abilities should be used with a good helping of role playing". Maybe that should be pulled from the discussion of various skills and provided as an overview that these rules are just mechanics to resolve, objectively, situations that should arise as a consequence or role playing.

 

Role playing is not crucial to combat resolution, and it need not be crucial to any other conflict resolution. These can, and should, be reduced to mechanics. But role playing is what brings these mechanics to life, and gives them a purpose for existing. And that is in every part of the game - including combat.

 

I understand that you disagree and that you would like social resolution and combat resolution to be equally influenced by roleplay. I would not like that because' date=' as a player, I need to have more control over my character in order to contribute to the story in the way that I desire to. Nobody else at the table, including the GM, has the insight to my character that I have and can resolve situations and decisions "in character" as accurately as I can. Every player has that relationship with their own character and the GM has that relationship with all the NPCs. "roleplay" is the trust that everyone is acting in character and making decisions for better or for worse, but more importantly [i']for the story[/i].

 

This is true whether we're discussing social or physical combat resolution. "Role playing" is bringing my character, with his own personality and background, to the table. "Game" is resolving his successes and failures with an objective and mechanical system, rather than a "let's pretend" group improv reaching a consensus as to what will happen.

 

In many cases, the group may have a consensus and need no die rolls to play out the scene. Randy Andy and Sexy Sue may determine that a hookup is inevitable - no need to roll dice. The GM and I may agree that UltraMan will not have any difficulty dealing with a street punk, so we don't need to roll anything to resolve the combat.

 

But when the desired results are not agreed, and the end result is not plainly obvious, we move to the "game" and objectively resolve the conflict using the framework of the rules. Social resolution should have this resolution available, rather than a degeneration into "neither player/character will back down, so the game winds to a halt".

 

I think that it would be the player stating that they are immune and while we are mostly (in this thread) arguing at extremes, I do not believe that any of us are experiencing the extremes being used to illustrate points - regardless of the glee with which antagonists are jumping on inappropriate exaggerations.

 

I think what you are likely to get is a player character in a social situation where they have some kind of interaction with GM controlled characters.

 

Now, if they use their conversation skills to find out, for example, some minor point of information about the character, his work, tomorrow's bank job etc. but this is not roleplayed out 'in full' such that the player utters the words, "Nah, John would never allow us to go with the safeties on" then the player says, my character would never have let that slip - it is not appropriate for your slick tongued journalists to draw that information out of my character unless you, the GM, can trick me into saying it.

 

So. If the GM is not skilled (or not more skilled than his players) then there is no way such things can be put into the game. If the GM is very skilled (or simply more skilled than his players)* then he can trip up his players all the time without even needing the modesty cover of having slick tongued journalists do it in game. "You said it! It will be the Gazette's headline tomorrow".

 

So, the system will not help imbalanced groups to have these kinds of interaction - not even for the small stuff - the people will have to learn to roleplay better. Nice message....

 

 

Doc

 

*I have run clubs for kids (12-16) for a long time and believe me, if you need to, you can tie them in knots. GM and player skill in social combat counts for a LOT, just not in game mechanics at present...

 

IOW, and I agree 100%, give me a system where Stuttering Stu can play a suave ladies' man and con artist, and be as convincing and successful as if Stue were one himself. I don't need superpowers to play a superhero and I should not need vast social skills to play a character who possesses them.

 

Hm, now what I'd say I'd like to see is a more satisfying way to play out long, dramatic, cinematic situations other than combat. A system for making skill use in general more complex (in a fun way) and interesting whether we're talking about saving a life with Paramedics or disarming a bomb with Demolitions or ferreting out what a gang is up to with Streetwise.

 

Why all this focus on Interaction Skills, specifically?

 

That would be my fault. It's where I was focussing in the first place.

 

Probably (to both Lucius and DD) because, next to physical combat, social conflict is the most common arena in a game crossing many genres where we need to resolve conflict. That makes it the logical next arena to be fleshed out in this regard.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

Hm, now what I'd say I'd like to see is a more satisfying way to play out long, dramatic, cinematic situations other than combat. A system for making skill use in general more complex (in a fun way) and interesting whether we're talking about saving a life with Paramedics or disarming a bomb with Demolitions or ferreting out what a gang is up to with Streetwise.

 

Why all this focus on Interaction Skills, specifically?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Transport Familiarity: Palindromedary

 

That would be my fault. It's where I was focussing in the first place.

 

However, I agree. A system that allowed for longer dramatic skill use (whether or not it was interactive or with an inanimate object) would indeed be welcome.

 

 

Doc

 

For that I recommend using Hero system, pretty much as-is, in in much the same way I suggested you can for social interactions - in other words, break each "event" down into multiple skill rolls.

 

One important point, however - when you do this, the GM needs to be aware that each skill roll is a chance to fail and that if you load an encounter up with them, the PCs will eventually fail. To counter this, the GM either needs to give significant bonuses (or smaller penalties) to make each sub-task easier or make sure each subtask is not pass/fail, but moves the odds of probability back and forth, so that PCs have a chance to recover from a failed roll.

 

Essentially, what I tend to do as a GM is to tell the players that hey can go for a straight roll but the penalty will be nothing/trivial/substantial/overwhelming and then let them decide whether to just tackle it head-on, break it down into subtasks, or try and wangle up some complementaries. I'm usually pretty open to players suggesting subtasks.

 

Even a simple action like "climb the cliff" can be handled like this, where a really difficult climb can be broken down into "ascents" of different difficulty. Will the PCs choose the one roll at -4 to climb the sheer face or try to work around the face by a series of short climbs (at -2) around the corner to see if they can find a better route?

 

This gives the GM the option of choosing "short resolution" or "long resolution", (and shifting back and forth between them) as suits the dynamics of the game, without necessarily tipping the players off which is which. For example , in the cliff climb example, if it turns out that the players are less than enchanted with a blow by blow climbing expedition, the GM can always go "and on rounding the corner you see a chimney that provides an easy route to the top, that was hidden from the ground" - and move right along. It also gives the players some input as to how they would like to handle things, since they can always opt for a more detailed resolution should they want to play it out. That way the system provides a high level of granularity when required, and - equally importantly - doesn't inflict it unnecessarily, when not required.

 

Essentially we don't need new rules, so much as GM's need a new perspective on the rules we have, IMO. I'm keen - as a GM - on skill heavy/social interaction heavy games, so like being able to facilitate that, and this approach is very flexible and non-intrusive, in that regard.

 

And for what it's worth, using this approach I have actually done what some posters here have talked about - run a court case over the span of an entire afternoon and evening's play. Brian (Sir Ofeelya on the boards) was one of the PCs and can give his opinion, but at the time, I thought everyone seemed to feel it was great fun and it worked really well, from the GM's point of view. The speech by one PC as to why he was not guilty of murder went down in game history

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

One important point, however - when you do this, the GM needs to be aware that each skill roll is a chance to fail and that if you load an encounter up with them, the PCs will eventually fail. To counter this, the GM either needs to give significant bonuses (or smaller penalties) to make each sub-task easier or make sure each subtask is not pass/fail, but moves the odds of probability back and forth, so that PCs have a chance to recover from a failed roll.

 

Essentially, what I tend to do as a GM is to tell the players that hey can go for a straight roll but the penalty will be nothing/trivial/substantial/overwhelming and then let them decide whether to just tackle it head-on, break it down into subtasks, or try and wangle up some complementaries. I'm usually pretty open to players suggesting subtasks.

 

This is not HERO as written (though it is pretty close).

 

I think that I would like this detailed out for people. Essentially you could be using skills that would set things up for the final roll. So any one interaction in the group adds modifiers (-4 to +4) based on success that build to a final resolution.

 

Obviously this could work itself up into a self-sustaining mountain of supplementaries and so you might want to limit the number of skills that might be used over any one period of time. You might want to use a one-off skill that allowed you to use more skills - persuade someone to give you a minute to listen to them.

 

 

Doc

 

EDIT: Cross-posted to the thread where we were talking mechanics rather than belief systems.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

This is not HERO as written (though it is pretty close).

 

I suppose that's a fair comment, although nothing in the rules contradicts such an approach - it's just not detailed out.

 

I think that I would like this detailed out for people. Essentially you could be using skills that would set things up for the final roll. So any one interaction in the group adds modifiers (-4 to +4) based on success that build to a final resolution.

 

Obviously, I agree. This is in fact, pretty much how I run things, with the difference that there is no limit (positive or negative) to the modifiers I assign. It is entirely possible that clever skill use might lead to a situation where the original difficulty no longer requires a roll (in other words, the bonus is so high that failure becomes unreasonable).

 

As I noted, until we started having this discussion, it never occurred to me that GM's would not approach skills like this.

 

Obviously this could work itself up into a self-sustaining mountain of supplementaries and so you might want to limit the number of skills that might be used over any one period of time. You might want to use a one-off skill that allowed you to use more skills - persuade someone to give you a minute to listen to them.

 

I'm not sure that's necessary - as is probably obvious by now, I like to engage player interaction. To employ a complementary, the player needs to come up with some way to employ that complementary. In some cases - a COM roll to complement seduction, for example - might be simple, and require little time. Va Va Voom! For another (say a KS: Engineering roll to try and add to piloting roll on a starship) might take (for example) a couple of phases (I divert power from the shields to the engines!) or 5 hours (I modify the engines to provide greater thrust!) The exact time and utility will be defined by player calls and the GM's estimate of how likely that is.

 

And in other cases, of course the GM can simply rule the complementary out - a COM roll might not be useful if you are trying to seduce the Vulcan ambassador.

 

Indeed, it might be harmful ("Your attempt to sway me with your physical proximity is illogical. Are you not aware of Vulcan mating ritual?".

 

Players will rapidly be weaned off the "mountain o' complementaries" approach when they realize that every failure can add a penalty. They tend to go for the one or two (or three) where their odds of success are best. Unless they are desperate - in that case they'll bounce about like gerbils in a concrete mixer, seeking any bonus .... and that's good. That induces exactly the behaviors, I want as GM: player involvement, players thinking about inventive skill use ... players buying their PC more skills in future

 

cheers, Mark

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

In other words' date=' you agree with what my statement was about since I said the exact same thing. What I proposed is easier to handle then making people create two different character sheets and tracking both of them. Your method is more complex by the fact it uses dual character sheets while the one I proposed modifies the existing skill rules to give 1d6 for the base skill and 1d6 for every skill level in the skill to generate results on a table similar to the Presence Attacks one. Logically, there needs to have a defense against such attacks and Ego represents it quite well. The only change required is to give every character Mental Defense based upon the existing formula of Ego/5 for the purpose of defending against social attacks. It fits all on 1 character sheet and less record keeping is involved then your method.[/quote']

 

If that's all you're suggesting, your system fails to do what I want a Social Combat system to do. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your original idea.

 

My method is not complex. It requires a second character sheet. Few regular HERO players would have difficulty writing one up. After writing up the new sheet, you're able to engage in Social Combat that is equally as complex, nuanced, dramatic, and cinematic as Physical Combat.

 

Your method does not require another character sheet but it also does not provide for all the advantages my method does.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Hm, now what I'd say I'd like to see is a more satisfying way to play out long, dramatic, cinematic situations other than combat. A system for making skill use in general more complex (in a fun way) and interesting whether we're talking about saving a life with Paramedics or disarming a bomb with Demolitions or ferreting out what a gang is up to with Streetwise.

 

Why all this focus on Interaction Skills, specifically?

 

Because that's the focus of this thread. I'd be quite open to using the Combat rules for the use of any Skill.

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

I think that it would be the player stating that they are immune and while we are mostly (in this thread) arguing at extremes, I do not believe that any of us are experiencing the extremes being used to illustrate points - regardless of the glee with which antagonists are jumping on inappropriate exaggerations.

 

I think what you are likely to get is a player character in a social situation where they have some kind of interaction with GM controlled characters.

 

Now, if they use their conversation skills to find out, for example, some minor point of information about the character, his work, tomorrow's bank job etc. but this is not roleplayed out 'in full' such that the player utters the words, "Nah, John would never allow us to go with the safeties on" then the player says, my character would never have let that slip - it is not appropriate for your slick tongued journalists to draw that information out of my character unless you, the GM, can trick me into saying it.

 

So. If the GM is not skilled (or not more skilled than his players) then there is no way such things can be put into the game. If the GM is very skilled (or simply more skilled than his players)* then he can trip up his players all the time without even needing the modesty cover of having slick tongued journalists do it in game. "You said it! It will be the Gazette's headline tomorrow".

 

So, the system will not help imbalanced groups to have these kinds of interaction - not even for the small stuff - the people will have to learn to roleplay better. Nice message....

 

 

Doc

 

*I have run clubs for kids (12-16) for a long time and believe me, if you need to, you can tie them in knots. GM and player skill in social combat counts for a LOT, just not in game mechanics at present...

 

You are correct, I used the word 'character' when I should have used the word 'player.' Also, I would hope that nobody arguing for either viewpoint is experiencing the extremes that both sides are presenting because the extremes seem to come down to bad playing and bad GMing. The less of that the better, for everyone.

 

Regarding a game where the GM's social abilities dwarf those of the players, or the reverse, this is a good situation to look at. Here, the GM should recognize this and make allowances for it. Essentially, for me this falls into the category of adjusting playstyle to suit a specific gaming group. The specifics of those adjustments would depend on the example. I would guess that a group of 12-16 year olds led by a far more skilled GM is probably closer to an exception than the norm (if we had a scale), but situations like this are why I think a 'firmer' system has merit as an optional rule. I see that it has a use and a place (which I've expressed in earlier posts as well). What I do not want is to lose the current system, which I believe works well as the default.