Social effects

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

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

 

This is explained very well. Nice job.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Essentially we don't need new rules' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I'm well aware of the rules we have. I'm aware of how much they can do. To me they are a cup of instant noodles when what I want is a gourmet meal.

 

You may be able to do wonders with a cup of instant noodles. Kudos to you.

 

For those who might want something more substantial, new perspective just won't cut it. No matter how satisfying you find your cup of instant noodles, surely you wouldn't begrudge me my gourmet meal?

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

I'm well aware of the rules we have. I'm aware of how much they can do. To me they are a cup of instant noodles when what I want is a gourmet meal.

 

You may be able to do wonders with a cup of instant noodles. Kudos to you.

 

For those who might want something more substantial, new perspective just won't cut it. No matter how satisfying you find your cup of instant noodles, surely you wouldn't begrudge me my gourmet meal?

 

Sure - as long as we don't have to buy a gourmet meal when what most of us want are instant noodles, and as long as we don't have to provide it, knock yourself out.

 

Essentially, what you are suggesting is a major change to the way the rules work now. That's cool - this is a tinkerer's forum after all - but when a few people want to make major changes to the way the rules work, the first thing to think of is - "Is this the way the rules should work, or is it something that is best handled as a house rule or a supplement?"

 

I'm guessing that we're not going to see such major changes in 6E (in fact, COM is going away, suggesting that the social aspects will be downplayed in the next edition).

 

As a supplement, I'm guessing "The Ultimate Social Interaction System" would sell right up there with "Ultimate Roadkill Identification Guide", so an official supplement is probably not in the offing.

 

That leaves houserules. Why not actually draft some rules-specific ideas and throw them out there? You won't convince me to adopt them, no matter how artfully presented - I'm pretty much immune to persuasion on this topic - but you would doubtless get some some useful feedback on the concepts. You may end up with something you actually like enough to playtest.

 

cheers, Mark

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Sure - as long as we don't have to buy a gourmet meal when what most of us want are instant noodles' date=' and as long as we don't have to provide it, knock yourself out.[/quote']

In posting here I had expected to discuss what better Social Combat rules might bring to the game. I never expected to force anyone to use these rules and certainly wouldn't ask you to provide them.

 

I don't expect Social Combat rules to be a part of 6ER. That doesn't mean they wouldn't add a great deal to many HERO games.

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

I was part of the Great Social Conflict Debate (second only to the Great COM debate) which I believe may define 5th edition in the way the Great Linked Debate defined 4th.

 

Anyway. This morning while lying in bed waiting for my son to wake up and demand attention I was flicking through the disadvantage pages of the rulebook. I always liked the idea of using drains to 'add' disadvantages and, as such, all characters in my campaigns have all disadvantages at 0 points (so they do not disadvantage but they are available to be drained into full blown disadvantages).

 

Now, having given some thought to social conflict etc, I like the idea that there could be short lived changes to character attitudes inflicted over the short term. These would be less acute than power use but possibly more chronic.

 

There are lots of examples in fiction where the protagonists are convinced of some impossible for the reader to countenance belief that leads to actions that would not be rational beforehand being undertaken. How does HERO manage such things?

 

Well. How about using PRE attacks or a more developed option with some social manouevres to impose very limited disadvantages (only within the social type disads such as rivalries and psych limitations).

 

This would make characters believe certain things (The Blood foundation does good works) which might make them more vulnerable to more power related commands later on (Brother Blood is the saviour of the world and the sacrfice of Starfire is a necessary evil).

 

I would imagine the effects being limited to what you might achieve via 1x INT on Mind Control and be an all or nothing style transformation where the belief will be broken by the right evidence or by a friend being more successful in social conflict than the original attacker.

 

I haven't got a detailed mechanism as yet but I am looking to expand the current options to give players and GMs something more to work on when they are looking at situations where characters (PCs and NPCs conflict and neither player or GM want to concede ground).

 

 

Doc

 

Crazy idea, addressing the original topic.

 

In my marginal notes on social systems I am considering using Pre attack to do the lions share of the work regarding the types of social actions you can take in combat scale time. Basically, short, direct and simple. "Look over there! or "I'm not the general!" and "He went that way!" Distractions quick bluffs and other things meant to net some short term benefits roughly analogous to losing hesitating on an attack or losing a phase. Honestly of the mechanical effects would be similar just a matter of special effect.

 

The most changes that would required for the current Pre rules is to make them more explicitly applicable to more than mostly violence and intimidation and inspiration. There should be some rules for the character's skills being complimentary, say Acting for a distraction type "attack" or Seduction/Comeliness for "Vamping" someone. Overall, I don't think this would be difficult and handled most ultra short term social interaction pretty well.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Why not actually draft some rules-specific ideas and throw them out there?

I did that many posts ago. Repeated them often...

 

You won't convince me to adopt them' date=' no matter how artfully presented[/quote']

Clearly. Is there a reason why you seem to intent on convincing others not to adopt them?

 

I'm pretty much immune to persuasion on this topic - but you would doubtless get some some useful feedback on the concepts.

I was hoping for useful feedback. Seem to have gotten a lot of "That's just dumb! You don't understand the rules! You'll destroy the game!" Too bad, that.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

In posting here I had expected to discuss what better Social Combat rules might bring to the game.

 

That might be interesting. So far, I haven't seen "better."

 

I was hoping for useful feedback. Seem to have gotten a lot of "That's just dumb! You don't understand the rules! You'll destroy the game!" Too bad, that.

 

Hm....I don't think I've seen a lot of "you don't understand the rules" here.

 

As for the rest of it, it might be useful feedback if you actually listened to it and realized that it should tell you something.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary explains that we are home for lunch due to highly unusual circumstances

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Crazy idea, addressing the original topic.

 

In my marginal notes on social systems I am considering using Pre attack to do the lions share of the work regarding the types of social actions you can take in combat scale time. Basically, short, direct and simple. "Look over there! or "I'm not the general!" and "He went that way!" Distractions quick bluffs and other things meant to net some short term benefits roughly analogous to losing hesitating on an attack or losing a phase. Honestly of the mechanical effects would be similar just a matter of special effect.

 

The most changes that would required for the current Pre rules is to make them more explicitly applicable to more than mostly violence and intimidation and inspiration. There should be some rules for the character's skills being complimentary, say Acting for a distraction type "attack" or Seduction/Comeliness for "Vamping" someone. Overall, I don't think this would be difficult and handled most ultra short term social interaction pretty well.

 

As a core mechanic, the concept of using the social skills (eg. Persuasion; Intimidation) as a form of "to hit" roll, and the PRE attack mechanics as a "damage" mechanism has a certain appeal. Absent a successful social skill use, you still get the PRE attack, but it's not directed. Perhaps this means it can have only short-term, non-subtle effects, where a successful "to hit" with your Skill roll would allow it to have longer term, more subtle effects.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

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! )

 

When I look at a woman, in reality, I form an assessment of whether she is attractive or not, and, just so I don't seem too shallow, lots of decent, caring, right on stuff too. But first, probably, whether she looks attractive, because, well, right at the start, appearance is probably all I can go on and there are a limited number of things you can reliably assess from appearance alone - your own opinion being foremost amongst them.

 

I do not decide if I want to find her attractive, or what I think about her attractieness, we just get a subjective assesment, BING! That's a bit of me I'm not consciously accessing. I can probably change my own initial assessment when I notice that mmm...mmmm....mole or that she has a twin sister and they do everything together. But the point is I look and I get a 'Yes/No/Whoah!' rating. It's just there.

 

Translating that to a game, the GM puts it there. I can see no difference but the obvious use of different words between saying 'I think she is attractive' and 'She is attractive'. Subjectively they are semantically identical.

 

What I do with that is another matter.

 

At the moment we are not deciding how Roger reacts to Sonia, we're just setting the ground state for her attempt to seduce him. However, you nail one point I was planning to come to: if the character does think that Sonia is attractive and he has nothing better to do and no good reason not to allow himself to be seduced, well, how do you decide if he goes along with it?

 

Well, all other things being equal, it makes sense to roleplay the most 'likely' outcome. It makes little sense to role play a less likely outcome...all other things being equal.

 

A womaniser on a stake out...is he going to give in to temptation or keep his mind on the job? You know what? I have no idea...and no real way of countering a psych lim by deciding that it is more important that I stick with the plan (assuming I have not got a 'does his duty' psych lim too), but the womaniser doesn't always go with every invitation. Isn't it better to have your whole personality defined as a series of ranked modifiers - whether you use them for rolls or role play? I say 'whole personality' - it is still a pretty crude tool - but a lot less crude and cartoony than what we have at present, perhaps.

 

Or maybe I'm just rubbish at making interesting characters

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Sure - as long as we don't have to buy a gourmet meal when what most of us want are instant noodles, and as long as we don't have to provide it, knock yourself out.

 

Essentially, what you are suggesting is a major change to the way the rules work now. That's cool - this is a tinkerer's forum after all - but when a few people want to make major changes to the way the rules work, the first thing to think of is - "Is this the way the rules should work, or is it something that is best handled as a house rule or a supplement?"

 

I'm guessing that we're not going to see such major changes in 6E (in fact, COM is going away, suggesting that the social aspects will be downplayed in the next edition).

 

As a supplement, I'm guessing "The Ultimate Social Interaction System" would sell right up there with "Ultimate Roadkill Identification Guide", so an official supplement is probably not in the offing.

 

That leaves houserules. Why not actually draft some rules-specific ideas and throw them out there? You won't convince me to adopt them, no matter how artfully presented - I'm pretty much immune to persuasion on this topic - but you would doubtless get some some useful feedback on the concepts. You may end up with something you actually like enough to playtest.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Part of the problem with the instant noodle analogy is that all we have is a packet of instant noodles. If we had a cookbook and a few more ingredients we could do a lot more with them, if we wanted, maybe even something fit for a gourmet.

 

The basic rules in 5ER don;t spend enough time on this vital area of role playing. They don't cover extended rolls and interaction trees and properly accounting for various social factors. You don't need a whole book on it - as much dedcated space as PRE attacks would do it (and be space better spent IMO)

 

You can do a lot with them if you know how, but at the moment they are just instant noodles, and not that exciting.

 

Great.

 

Now I'm hungry.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

That might be interesting. So far' date=' I haven't seen "better."[/quote']

Horses for courses. Palindromedaries in your case. Ride on.

 

Hm....I don't think I've seen a lot of "you don't understand the rules" here.

Reread. You'll find them.

 

As for the rest of it' date=' it might be useful feedback if you actually listened to it and realized that it should tell you something.[/quote']

Or it might be useful if you posted more constructive feedback.

 

I'm listening. I've picked up quite a few interesting ideas. Not from everyone, though. Some people -- not saying you here -- seem intent on simply beating the idea to death rather than offering constructive feedback. Which is silly.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

And there you have it - if the rules are silly' date=' why are you opposed to changing them?[/quote']

 

Because the change you propose is very much a change for the worse, in my opinion. It's a bit like shooting someone with a 12-gauge to remove a tumor from their brain: "The operation was a sucess, the tumor was completely removed. However, the patient died from the side effects of the treatment...."

 

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

 

Oh, dearie dearie me. I see that someone really doesn't have any idea what I'm talking about, do they?

 

I'll try explaining it this way. In our roleplaying group (and, I suspect, most others) we generally go with the Interaction skill rolls of NPCs (or even PC's) unless a) there is a pressing in-character reason not to, or doing so would not be fun. This fits in with the rules which say (quote is taken from the Seduction skill, p48 of 5E) "This skill is normally only for use on NPC's; a player should have more control over his character's actions." Thus, we contol our character's actions by going with it. Call it 'voluntarily relenting' if you will.

 

In a 'hard' system like what you seem to want, there is nothing 'voluntary' about it. The skill roll is made; you will go along with it no matter what or you're breaking the rules and subject to whatever railroading the skill-using character decides.

 

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

 

Isn't that what we have now? Only the optional part of your statement isn't optional right now, is it?

 

Ultimately what we are arguing about isn't "Should there be a more detailed/binding social resolution system?" but "Should a more detailed/binding social resolution system be optional or not?" I think it should be optional, so the players who want it can use it, and the players who don't want it don't have to use it - or more likely, find another game to play. You, on the other hand, seem bound and determined to make it a core rule and shove it down everyone's throat whether they like it or not.

 

I've said repeatedly, if you want it you can have it as an option. Why are you so deadly opposed to that? Why does it have to be the default rule for you to accept it? Why can you not compromise?

 

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"?

 

This sounds suspiciously like some of the straw men who marched back and forth in the COM debate...

 

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.

 

And that is why we will always disagree about this subject. I see the roleplaying as the living, beating heart of the HEROs social system. Without the roleplaying - without the social interaction between the Player and the GM! - then there is no social interaction at all.

 

The rules allow Shy Sally to play the Faceman sucessfully. They are not supposed to totally replace roleplaying all together.

 

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.

 

Sure. That's fine. That's even great. I won't be playing in those games because they would bore the heck out of me - but that's just me. I'm sure there are others who would be delighted with that so I'm fine with a set of optional rules to suit them.

 

However, the core of the HERO System is that it duplictates the sort of physical action seen in comic books and action movies. It's at it's core a physical system. That is what it does best, and for the most part the players of the HERO System not only expect that, but actually play it for that reason.

 

That's why such a detailed and binding (objective, if you will) social system should be an optional rule. It does not fit smoothly in with the core of the game.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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....

 

Totally agreed and repped.

[Vulcan]

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.

 

Now you're talking about POWERS, which are literally worlds different from SKILLS. It's not in the same ballpark, it's not in the same league, it's not even the same f*****g sport! (I always wanted to use that quote... ) I don't care if you have Persuasion at 300-, you're not going to convince Superman to kill Lex Luthor.

 

Mind Control him if you want to do that. That's what it's for. That's why it uses different rules. That's why you generally get two separate breakout rolls before you actually have to act on a Mind Control. Because when all the rolls are done, you now do as you are commanded. That's why it's a POWER, not a SKILL.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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']

 

Then make your adaptations. Make a variant of the physical rules for your game to use for such things. Heck, get it published as an optional rule for 6E for all I care.

 

I don't think such a thing would be interesting myself, and I suspect at least half the HEROS players would agree - otherwise they would play systems with more robust Social systems.

 

That's why it should be an optional rule.

 

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

 

Bull. Right now, Persuasion can be ignored by the player when he feels it would not be fun to play along. Make the system 'objective' and now he has no choice but to play along even though he's not having fun anymore. That is what makes those points in social skills more valuable than anywhere else - they allow the player to continue having fun.

 

In my opinion, it would make it more interesting.

 

For you. Other people do have different opinons.

 

You would not have to change your characters one whit.

 

We are talking about making Persuasion (and such things) more binding, aren't we? If they are more binding, you bet your bottom dollar that people are going to change their characters to make them more resistant to it!

 

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.

 

Just what the game needs - more paperwork!

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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".

 

What a way to punish your players. Good job there. Not!

 

I simply cannot understand what you're trying to illustrate here. Lord knows I've tried, but I just can't. Maybe it's time for me to stop beating my head against the wall, it's giving me such a headache...

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

Got me on that one.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

At the moment we are not deciding how Roger reacts to Sonia' date=' we're just setting the ground state for her attempt to seduce him. However, you nail one point I was planning to come to: if the character does think that Sonia is attractive and he has nothing better to do and no good reason not to allow himself to be seduced, well, how do you decide if he goes along with it?[/quote']

 

At that point, what's to decide? If there are no pressing reasons not to, then most guys will totally go for it. And that ends that debate right there.

 

A womaniser on a stake out...is he going to give in to temptation or keep his mind on the job? You know what? I have no idea...and no real way of countering a psych lim by deciding that it is more important that I stick with the plan (assuming I have not got a 'does his duty' psych lim too), but the womaniser doesn't always go with every invitation. Isn't it better to have your whole personality defined as a series of ranked modifiers - whether you use them for rolls or role play? I say 'whole personality' - it is still a pretty crude tool - but a lot less crude and cartoony than what we have at present, perhaps.

 

Isn't 'a series of ranked modifers' just a clumsy way of referring to Psychological Limitations?

 

Besides, if the character has the Womanizer Psych Limit, he actually has to make an EGO Roll to stay on task and not take the lady up on her offer... assuming the player doesn't just relent.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Part of the problem with the instant noodle analogy is that all we have is a packet of instant noodles. If we had a cookbook and a few more ingredients we could do a lot more with them, if we wanted, maybe even something fit for a gourmet.

 

The basic rules in 5ER don;t spend enough time on this vital area of role playing. They don't cover extended rolls and interaction trees and properly accounting for various social factors. You don't need a whole book on it - as much dedcated space as PRE attacks would do it (and be space better spent IMO)

 

You can do a lot with them if you know how, but at the moment they are just instant noodles, and not that exciting.

 

Great.

 

Now I'm hungry.

 

Sure, we can increase the options for those who want it. I just don't want someone shoving their gourmet meal down my throat; I hate gourmet food. Give me a simple, unseasoned steak any day!

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Now you're talking about POWERS' date=' which are literally worlds different from [b']SKILLS. [/b]It's not in the same ballpark, it's not in the same league, it's not even the same f*****g sport! (I always wanted to use that quote... ) I don't care if you have Persuasion at 300-, you're not going to convince Superman to kill Lex Luthor.

 

Mind Control him if you want to do that. That's what it's for. That's why it uses different rules. That's why you generally get two separate breakout rolls before you actually have to act on a Mind Control. Because when all the rolls are done, you now do as you are commanded. That's why it's a POWER, not a SKILL.

You certainly enjoy shouting. If you'll quiet down, perhaps you'll be able to understand what I've been posting. I'm talking about Social Combat using all the current Combat rules. That would mean using Powers (that's POWERS for the hard of hearing).

 

You also might want to consider that using the RAW, I can purchase the Mind Control Power with the sfx: Really Persuasive. Purchased at a high enough level, I could certainly persuade Superman to kill Lex Luthor.

 

If that were abusive for some reason, I wouldn't. Not because I couldn't, but because I don't like to abuse the rules. Nor would I abuse Social Combat rules.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Sure' date=' we can increase the options for those who want it. I just don't want someone shoving their gourmet meal down my throat; I [i']hate[/i] gourmet food. Give me a simple, unseasoned steak any day!

 

You seem to be under the misimpression that you would be somehow forced to adopt these rules. I promise that you won't be. I certainly have no interest in forcing anyone to do use the Social Combat rules -- nor do I have any interest in forcing anyone to use the Wounding rules, the Knockback rules, the Brace Maneuver, the Force Wall Power, the Strength Characteristic or anything else you might find in the rulebook.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

We are talking about making Persuasion (and such things) more binding' date=' aren't we?[/quote']

I'm not. I'm talking about a system of Social Combat as rich, dramatic, cinematic, and nuanced as the current physical Combat rules.

 

How binding you make the rules is entirely up to individual GMs and their players. As always.

[Greywind]

Re: Social effects

 

Sounds like a "role-playing" situation to me. Not a combat arena.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

You seem to be under the misimpression that you would be somehow forced to adopt these rules. I promise that you won't be. I certainly have no interest in forcing anyone to do use the Social Combat rules -- nor do I have any interest in forcing anyone to use the Wounding rules' date=' the Knockback rules, the Brace Maneuver, the Force Wall Power, the Strength Characteristic or anything else you might find in the rulebook.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. And in fairness, I apologize for getting cranky with you. There is one other person in this thread who has been (or at least seems to be) pushing for a 'objective' social resolution system to be the 'default' rule for HEROs, and it's starting to get to me.

 

Mabe I just need to walk away from this one. He's not going to convince me that such a system needs to be the default rule, and he doesn't seem to be willing to accept it as anything less than a default rule. Rather than keep beating my head against his brick wall, I should just let him beat his head against the brick wall of Steve Long if he should push it for publication...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

At that point' date=' what's to decide? If there are no pressing reasons [i']not[/i] to, then most guys will totally go for it. And that ends that debate right there.

 

Not necessarily, although I appreciate your position on the matter Sometimes you might not be in the mood, for no clear reason; you might be tired, for example. A role playing approach will probably not catch that, a dice based approach might as it models a range of possiblities, from most to least likely.

 

 

 

Isn't 'a series of ranked modifers' just a clumsy way of referring to Psychological Limitations?

 

Besides, if the character has the Womanizer Psych Limit, he actually has to make an EGO Roll to stay on task and not take the lady up on her offer... assuming the player doesn't just relent.

 

No, Psychological Limitations are a restricted way of modeling the rich panoply of human experience and nuance. Most psych lims have very limited application, and so help you not at all in more general situations: if you do not have a psych lim that notes your attitude towards casual sex, then how you react is arbitrary and likely to be inconsistent. Of course we are never going to get close to actually modeling a human psychology in a rpg, but we can certainly get closer than we do (even though Hero already makes much more of an effort in that direction than most other games).

 

I never did understand why an EGO roll was appropriate for psych lims anyway: someone with a high EGO and an ingrained attitude is less likely to change it in any given situation, not more. It also assumes that your attitudes are not modified by situation (if they are - if you can, say, overcome your impulsiveness because it is bad for the team, the lim becomes a lot less restrictive) and if not modified by situation become unrealistic. A womanizer in a life and death situation (flirt or live) is going to have a whole different perspective than one just sitting in a bar looking for opportunities.

 

In any even Psych Lims already tell your character what to do, what they are thinking, what their attitudes are - why is that so much more acceptable than a more developed system with inherently more flexibility and wiggle room?