Social effects

[Sean Waters]

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!

 

Some might consider a properly prepared steak (by which I mean a quality piece of meat properly cooked, not just 'tarted up') to be gourmet food. What I'm advocating is pretty much a way of building a character to better model social attitudes based, at least to an extent, on a personal morality. It is not a system that anyone would have to adopt any more than they have to adopt Psych Lims for their character.

 

What the dice roll does is produce a reading of your characters attitude towards a certain social situation at that time. You'd then be expected to accept that base attitude as what your character's attitude is, and role play appropriately from that point: if the dice say Roger is really keen on Sonia, the player has to work hard to construct a reason why Roger doesn't go off with her...or simply accept that he wants to and do it.

 

The idea is not to mechanise interaction - it is to provide the player with more information about how the character is feeling at that time about the situation, given that the player is not really there. They can then take the character wherever they want - but the reaction should logicaly follow. That is where the role playing comes in

 

Now I see no difference, for instance, between saying, 'An attractive woman approaches Roger' and 'A woman approaches Roger. He thinks she is attractive.', but that is a style thing - it makes no difference tot he principle behind the idea.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

Ah - OK. I misunderstood, my bad - I was looking at this as potential rules additions, which I hold to much more stringent "general acceptability/usability" criteria. For what it's worth, tho' I'm happy to share my own house rules, most of them don't meet that criteria! So I always identify them as "house rules", not rules change suggestions.

 

That said, I'm happy to discuss possible ideas. So how do you envisage this combat working? With Stat.s as is, or with entirely new stat.s?

 

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

Some might consider a properly prepared steak (by which I mean a quality piece of meat properly cooked' date=' not just 'tarted up') [/quote']

 

I dunno know about you but I like my food trampy.

 

"Look at this sauce she has on...she's asking for it..."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Oh' date=' dearie dearie me. I see that someone really doesn't have any idea what I'm talking about, do they?[/quote']

 

Actually, I think we have found something we have in common. Neither one of us knows what you're talking about.

 

I'll try explaining it this way. In our roleplaying group (and' date=' 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,[/quote']

 

First off, I am with Sean on this. The dice can provide an indication that what YOU THINK your character would do is not what the character actually decides to do in this case. People do things that seem out of character pretty frequently. Then we dig a little deeper and find out why. And personality - character - develops. Where there is a pressing in-character reason not to go along with the roll, there should be modifiers to the roll which reflect that.

 

or doing so would not be fun.

 

Some players find their character being Stunned or KO'd to be "not fun". Others find failure, even temporary failure, to be "not fun". Some find being Mind Controlled or PRE attacked to be "not fun". Still others find players who are entrenched in certain ways of playing their character (eg. "My character is a loner so he's not reachable as I go off on my little side quest") to be "not fun".

 

If the group finds any rule "not fun", they should change it. If a specific player finds a group's playstyle "not fun", he should find another group to game with. That should not be surprising to anyone. To clarify, as you seem unaware of this, no one will come to your house and fine you, imprison you or suspend your license to play the game because you fail to follow a rule in the game, whether it's a core rule or not.

 

This fits in with the rules which say (quote is taken from the Seduction skill' date=' 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 [i']going with it.[/i] Call it 'voluntarily relenting' if you will.

 

If you haven't figured it out by now, that's a quote I would ditch. There is no reason for PC's to be immune to seduction rolls. They are also characters with features, flaws and foibles. They may be resistant to seduction rolls, but nothing should make them immune.

 

It forces the highly seductive/persuasive/what have you character to buy a power with SFX of a skill instead of simply using the skill. Maybe I should buy "flight, only when touching a surface, requires a DEX roll with STR complementary" rather than Climbing, too.

 

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

 

Here we go again with "any system which actually mandates PC's follow the results of the resolution system will be immediately abused in the most irrational way possible".

 

I can already railroad your character by purchasing the ability using the mind control rules. Making PC's selectively immune to interaction skills DOES NOT prevent railroading. It forces a different mechanical approach. One which, I might add, has no modifiers for your character's personality and "in-character reasons".

 

Like, I suspect, everyone who would enforce skill rolls on PC's (and it doesn't matter for those who would not), I would provide Suave Steve's seduction roll against Penelope the Perfect Paladin and her Vow of Holy Chastity with a substantial penalty.

 

But if Steve instead bought, say, "You know you want me, babe" as 2d6 Mind Control,Cumulative (+1/2), 16x maximum (+1 - that's 192 maximum), Armor Piercing (+1/2), Penetrating (+1/2), IPE while building, (+1/4) IPE overall (+1/4) 40 AP; only to seduce targets with sex organs (-1), must use "target remembers and thinks it was their own idea" (-1/2), no mental awareness (-1/4), full phase (-1/2), must be within 4" (loss of LoS and limited range so -3/4) for 10 real points, then Steve needs only a few minutes to chat up Penelope. She is figuratively screwed now, and literally is only moments away.

 

Absent double hardened mental defenses (and look how cheap bumping up that Penetrating - very apt term in this context - would be), Steve will average a couple of points through every phase, so even if it only works on 10- because Penelope has a decent ECV, he's averaging a point a phase, or 5 points a turn with a SPD 2. That's 10 points a minute, so inside of 20 minutes, he's up to 192 points. With +20 for "remembers it as her idea" and +30 for "violently opposed", Steve has 142 points - if Penelope has a 23 EGO, that's 119 spillover, or -23 to her breakout rolls.

 

If she doesn't have mental defense, it's 7 points a turn, or 35 a minute, so we're talking just over 5 minutes to achieve the same result.

 

10 points would have bought Steve a 13 PRE, and a Seduction skill of 14-. I don't think that would have been quite as effective.

 

To summarize:

 

- abuse is not the issue, as the other rules can be abused.

- cost is not the issue, as I can get horrific levels of effect at very low cost from means other than social skills.

 

ASIDE: And I am using the rules as written. Now, if Seduction worked on PC's, you could tell Suave Steve the correct way to build this ability is to spend a lot more points on a very high Seduction roll, since the more expensive approach is typically correct. But Suave Steve wants a seduction roll that PC's can't handwave away.

 

Of course, thge GM might well prohibit this power because it will be abusive/no fun. But he can also prohibit a 29- Seduction roll, can't he?

 

Isn't that what we have now? Only the optional part of your statement isn't optional right now' date=' is it?[/quote']

 

So we don't have that right now, do we?

 

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' date=' so the players who want it can use it, and the players who don't want it [i']don't have to [/i]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.

 

All rules are optional. I don't have to use the SPD chart, PRE attacks or mental powers if I don't want to.

 

I've said repeatedly' date=' if you want it you can have it [i']as an option.[/i] 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?

 

Why can you not compromise?

 

And that is why we will always disagree about this subject. I see the roleplaying as the living' date=' beating heart[/i'] 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.

 

I guess we will always disagree. I see roleplaying as the living, beating heart of any role playing game. You should certainly role play in social conflict. But you should also role play in carrying on an investigation, dealing with simple flavour text and adventure hooks, and in combat. It should not be unique to social situations - it should permeate the entire game. That's why it is called a Role Playing Game, not a Tactical Game with Some Role Playing Sometimes.

 

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.

 

Just in case the above wasn't clear enough, that 10 point power is more than adequate to convince Superman to incinerate Lois Lane. Bump it up a bit and we can keep LoS range, so I only have to watch him speak at a press conference. I can make the maximum 384, or 768 if you want - another +1/2 doesn't bump the cost up much.

 

And I can define it as "Gee, he's persuasive" - my character, my choice of SFX. Abusive? Absolutely. And a lot cheaper than abusing binding interaction skills.

 

Bull. Right now' date=' Persuasion can be ignored by the player [i']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.

 

You seem to think only a more binding system of social skills is subject to abuse. Both approaches can be abused. Where is the fun when the player who invested points in social skills continually has their effects brushed off because the GM or the players don't want them to work?

 

Social skills seem the odd man out if the CAN'T be abused - pretty much everything else in the system can be.

 

For you. Other people do have different opinons.

 

Yes, they do. And the fact they may disagree with you does not necessarily mean they fail to understand your points, but could indicate they do not concur with your conclusions.

 

We are talking about making Persuasion (and such things) more binding' date=' 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![/quote']

 

And they can pay character points for being resistant. I find it hard to envision something "more resistant" than being able to say "bah! I find that out of character, so I will ignore it".

 

If that were abusive for some reason' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Apparently, some people can resist the urge to abuse anything except a social conflict resolution system, which would cause them to immediately use such a system to rape the rules, destroy the fun of the game and cripple Hero forever.

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

If you haven't figured it out by now' date=' that's a quote I would ditch. There is no reason for PC's to be immune to seduction rolls. They are also characters with features, flaws and foibles. They may be [i']resistant[/i] to seduction rolls, but nothing should make them immune.

 

PCs are not immune. The outcome should be roleplayed. I am not trying to be rude, just pointing out that there is a difference. A bit back in the thread, Markdoc made a post which emphasized this difference in his own method of handling social skills.

 

 

 

 

You know, the snarkiness of recent posts, from both viewpoints, really obscures the possibility of exchanging ideas and debating. In fact, a devolution to what I think of as "rudeness that would rarely, if ever, emerge around a gaming table but seems easily found on the internet" means that the rude part really gets in the way of the 'constructive exchange of ideas' part. We should be talking to each other the same way we debate a game idea with our gaming pals face to face, which does not seem to be happening in some of the recent threads.

 

If all this thread really is, with the cover peeled back, is a sandbox where we are grabbing at our little trucks and smacking each other's hands, then I'll go spend more time preparing for finals.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Ah - OK. I misunderstood' date=' my bad - I was looking at this as potential rules additions, which I hold to much more stringent "general acceptability/usability" criteria.[/quote']

I'd see this more as an optional addition. Much like the Wounding rules are now. A way to add more "grit" to social interactions than are currently spelled out in the game. I don't think it would take more than a half-page to spell out.

 

That said' date=' I'm happy to discuss possible ideas. So how do you envisage this combat working? With Stat.s as is, or with entirely new stat.s?[/quote']

I would want to keep things as simple as possible. Write up a second character sheet following your GM guidelines (point levels, caps, etc.) All sfx on the Social Combat sheet would simulate (what else?) social combat.

Examples:

Your RKA might have the sfx: Cutting Remarks

Your Desoldification might have the sfx: Tune Out

Naturally, you'd want to describe -- and roleplay -- those powers when you use them in Social Combat.

 

You might broadly think of PD as being defense against logic while ED is defense against emotion. The Characteristics might refer to your character as a social being -- is he strong, nimble, a tough customer, etc.

 

A combat map might show different positions from which to argue -- some providing cover or other bonuses. Movement Powers could help your character quickly move from one position to another. It might be possible to "pick up" something and throw it at your opponent (or beat him over the head with it) as a lawyer might chuck a legal precedent at his opponent.

 

You could potentially have Vehicles, AIs, Automatons and Followers -- though they would be conceptual and have no reality outside of Social Combat.

 

You might be able to "buy equipment" (or pay for it with points) that helps you to fight. Wielding the Bill of Rights might be quite useful...

 

Players and GMs would be free to let their imagination run wild determining just how their characters try to defeat others in Social Combat. Having another character sheet for Social Combat shouldn't bother anyone too terribly since many players have multiple character sheets for a single character right now (Multiform, Duplication, Vehicle, Automaton, AI, Base, Follower, etc.)

 

An interesting problem would be the intersection of Physical and Social Combat. In general, I'd say that Physical Combat trumps Social Combat -- but that's up to the GM and common and dramatic sense. You might have no trouble tying the Hulk up in logical knots, but that will just make Hulk mad. And when Hulk mad...

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

I would want to keep things as simple as possible. Write up a second character sheet following your GM guidelines (point levels, caps, etc.) All sfx on the Social Combat sheet would simulate (what else?) social combat.

Examples:

Your RKA might have the sfx: Cutting Remarks

Your Desoldification might have the sfx: Tune Out

Naturally, you'd want to describe -- and roleplay -- those powers when you use them in Social Combat.

 

How do you purchase those powers? Would you award two different points totals (one for social, one for physical?). That would mean everyone would be equally skilled, socially, though how they manifested that would differ. Or would you require people to buy social attacks out of their total point pool? The latter allows someone to be the suave con-man while the other is the incoherent thug, which seems more in tune with the source material. If you do this, how do you prevent socially skilled characters from hogging the limelight? By definition, social skills shine in social situations, while combat skills shine in combat. But if high social skills can also be used to define others actions, then they will likely shine in combat as well.

 

Secondly, what kind of time frame do you envisage social combat working in? If it's combat time, most situations are going to be resolved really fast, and the problem of limelight time is exacerbated. If it's much slower than the sort of situation we talked about earlier, where people use social skills in combat is essentially impossible. In Exalted, for example, physical combat time is ten times slower (IIRC) than social combat time, meaning essentially, you either do one or the other.

 

Thirdly, what are your opt-out options? Most games that feature social combat also allow PCs to opt out - the writers recognize that having your characters motivations dictated or altered doesn't make for a fun game, and they want to stay in business. To stick with Exalted as an example, you can ignore any social interaction by expending willpower (in some way the equivalent of BOD, in what you are suggesting, I guess, since you have a limited stock). Or you can state that a required action goes against your motivation (kind of like a Pysch lim) - in which case you can normally just blow it off.

 

Thoughts?

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

I'm utterly intrigued by the social combat idea Utech proposes. What happens when you kill your opponent (or KO them) is that a win?

 

Can you buy transform to change their arguments so that they agree with you?

 

The trouble with this approach to my mind might be that different arguments should have different impacts, whereas combat maneouvres (I am assuming different arguments or tactics are represented by different maneouvres: martial punch becomes snappy comback) are all pretty balanced whereas I would have though that some tactics should work far better against certain opponents.

 

I'd love to give it a go though.

 

 

...and then your hunted shows up (stalker ex) just when you're trying to shmooze, and the whole thing degenerates into a shouting match:)

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Social effects

 

 

Why can you not compromise?

 

I thought he was. His position seems to be hard rules are as sucky as he can imagine and will be bad for the game. All he wanted was the default that is in place stay that way and the hard rules become advanced or optional like disabling and impairing effects or hit locations. Seems like compromising to me.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

How do you purchase those powers? Would you award two different points totals (one for social' date=' one for physical?).[/quote']

Yes. Your GM would give you a pool of points to spend on your primary character sheet (the one used mostly for combat) and a pool of points to spend on your Social Combat sheet. These numbers could be totally different.

Examples:

1000 points for primary sheet, 75 points for Social Combat

75 points for primary sheet, 200 points for Social Combat

That would mean everyone would be equally skilled' date=' socially, though how they manifested that would differ.[/quote']

Basically, yes. Everyone would make choices about how their character functions as a social being. They might be quite aggressive, totally defensive, sneaky and manipulative, or what-have-you.

 

Or would you require people to buy social attacks out of their total point pool?

I wouldn't. But GMs would certainly be free to set that as their campaign guidelines -- perhaps determining the number of points for Social Combat on the number of points spent on appropriate Skills and/or Characteristics on the primary character sheet.

 

how do you prevent socially skilled characters from hogging the limelight?

The same ways you prevent combat monsters from hogging the limelight now.

 

By definition' date=' social skills shine in social situations, while combat skills shine in combat. But if high social skills can also be used to define others actions, then they will likely shine in combat as well.[/quote']

As I wrote above, I see combat trumping Social Combat -- so you couldn't normally just talk down someone who is Berserk. (Certainly not in a Phase!)

 

On the other hand, you could use Social Combat to manipulate someone into fighting someone they did not intend to fight or on ground they did not intend to fight on or for stakes higher than they had intended, etc. This manipulation would have to happen before combat began, of course.

 

Secondly' date=' what kind of time frame do you envisage social combat working in?[/quote']

Social Combat time. Considerably longer than normal combat in most instances. Depending on situation, it could be anywhere from a few seconds per Segment (marshalling your troops?) or a few minutes per Segment (presenting your case in court?)

 

where people use social skills in combat is essentially impossible.

Essentially, yes. But that's open to GM option, dramatic and common sense.

 

Thirdly' date=' what are your opt-out options?[/quote']

The same as normal combat.

 

Most games that feature social combat also allow PCs to opt out - the writers recognize that having your characters motivations dictated or altered doesn't make for a fun game' date=' and they want to stay in business.[/quote']

I disagree with your basic premise. Having your character's motivations dictated or altered can make a very fun game. You're still firmly in control of what your character does with his new motivations. This happens often with Mind Control in HERO, insanity in CoC, orders from higher-ups in Paranoia, etc. I've had a blast with it.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

I'm utterly intrigued by the social combat idea Utech proposes. What happens when you kill your opponent (or KO them) is that a win?

It's as much a win as it is with normal combat.

 

If you've killed your opponent in Social Combat, I'd apply the same basic logic as flows in the Transform rules. That is to say that the "killed" character is now transformed into something else.

Example:

Your hero wants to rally a group of terrified soldiers. He enters into Social Combat with them. He wins -- "killing" the lot. They are no longer terrified. Matter of fact, they're ready to follow your hero's orders! (At least as far as the conduct of this battle goes. They're not your slaves or anything.)

 

If you've KOed your opponent in Social Combat, you've momentarily prevented them from going on as they'd like. But they'll recover.

Example:

Your hero wants to rally a group of terrified soldiers. He enters into Social Combat with them. He knocks one out but the others flee. The ones who fled have not been changed -- they're still terrified. But the one who was knocked out is ready to fight for a little. If something really scary happens, he'll probably end up terrified again.

 

So why not just "kill" people in Social Combat every time? Mostly, because it's not nice. Not the sort of thing heroes do. There might also be time pressures, other social pressures, etc.

 

What about the bad guys? Most thugs don't kill people in regular combat. They won't "kill" in Social Combat either. Causes a lot of headaches. Makes them feel bad. But there are some real bad guys out there. Real sociopaths. They have no problem "killing" folks in Social Combat. And they do. So we have people who won't leave an abusive spouse; good people under the thumb of a tyrant; and lots and lots of agents for Dr. Destroyer.

 

Can you buy transform to change their arguments so that they agree with you?

With GM permission? Sure!

 

The trouble with this approach to my mind might be that different arguments should have different impacts' date=' whereas combat maneouvres (I am assuming different arguments or tactics are represented by different maneouvres: martial punch becomes snappy comback) are all pretty balanced whereas I would have though that some tactics should work far better against certain opponents.[/quote']

I think you'd find this working out exactly as you suggest. You might build a character who is immune to logical arguments (very high PD), deals poorly with emotional arguments (low ED and a Vulnerability to certain kinds of emotional arguments -- sob stories, perhaps), and who has certain religious views that are nearly impossible to shift (Desolidfication and/or Force Wall with Limitations and/or Armor with Limitations and/or Regeneration with Limitations, etc.)

 

You'd be foolish to try to get information out of a nun by trying to get her into bed. On the other hand, appealing to her Christian charity might just work a miracle and get you that information. Your EB with the sfx: "I'm one sexy man!" won't help you much. Your EB with the sfx: "What would the good Lord want you to do?" would be just about right.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

First off' date=' I am with Sean on this. The dice can provide an indication that what YOU THINK your character would do is not what the character actually decides to do in this case. [/quote']

 

And this is my whole point. If the dice can make decisions for my character, then what the heck am I even doing there? The character is mine - MINE MINE MINE! Do you understand that yet? My one and only job in the game is to make decisions for my character. That's IT. So when my job is pre-empted by dice, there is no reason for me to be there. Period.

 

All right, I give up. You don't get it, you're not going to get it - and incidentally proving that social coflicts can end without a binding result on either particpant; the ultimate proof that such a system is a MISTAKE.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Thirdly' date=' what are your opt-out options? Most games that feature social combat also allow PCs to opt out - the writers recognize that having your characters motivations dictated or altered doesn't make for a fun game, and they want to stay in business. [/quote']

 

My thought would be that you get the players to buy into the game. If they don't want to, then there is your opt out.

 

If the players buy in, then they play the game.

 

If you have a social contest system then you help the players build the characters they want, making sure that you help them ensure the strong beliefs etc within that character.

 

The challenge is then to roleplay the character you have built, not to opt out of it when it is inconvenient.

 

Doc

[ayinde]

Re: Social effects

 

so under your social combat idea i could have a power like this

dude just hear me out: Minor Transform 1d6, Improved Results Group (social fx; +1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Based On EGO Combat Value (Mental Defense applies; +1), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; its not a mind power its social; +1), Continuous (+1) (47 Active Points); Requires A Skill Roll (RSR Skill is subject to Skill vs. Skill contests; -3/4) cost 27pts

[sinanju]

Re: Social effects

 

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson:

First off, I am with Sean on this. The dice can provide an indication that what YOU THINK your character would do is not what the character actually decides to do in this case.

 

And this is my whole point. If the dice can make decisions for my character, then what the heck am I even doing there? The character is mine - MINE MINE MINE! Do you understand that yet? My one and only job in the game is to make decisions for my character. That's IT. So when my job is pre-empted by dice, there is no reason for me to be there. Period.

 

All right, I give up. You don't get it, you're not going to get it - and incidentally proving that social coflicts can end without a binding result on either particpant; the ultimate proof that such a system is a MISTAKE.

 

That's pretty much my view as well.

 

Using the Mind Control power to influence my character is one thing. Using "social combat" rules to dictate how my character behaves is another. I started a thread a while back about killing another PC when my character was mind controlled into attacking the rest of the team. I always make a point of doing my damnedest to follow my orders in such situations. No rules lawyering or obeying the command with devious literalness. I play along. I've been mind-controlled fair and square, and not going along with it is like cheating on admitting when my PC has been stunned or KOed.

 

But that's MIND CONTROL. It's generally short-lived by its nature, and has no lasting effect on my character (well, unless I ROLE-PLAY being horrified by what I've done while under the influence). If my PC was mind-controlled for an entire session, or an entire adventure, my enthusiasm would quickly wane. And that's essentially what "what you THINK your character would do turns out not to be what he actually does" boils down to.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

so under your social combat idea i could have a power like this

dude just hear me out: Minor Transform 1d6, Improved Results Group (social fx; +1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Based On EGO Combat Value (Mental Defense applies; +1), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; its not a mind power its social; +1), Continuous (+1) (47 Active Points); Requires A Skill Roll (RSR Skill is subject to Skill vs. Skill contests; -3/4) cost 27pts

If your GM approved it. I probably wouldn't at first blush. I might say, "What are the sfx for this Power in Social Combat? What are you doing to someone that cannot be detected but causes people to change over time. It doesn't sound like Social Combat to me, but I'm open to hearing you out. What are you Transforming someone into? This is a Minor Transform so I guess you'd be looking to change something minor -- for instance, you might be a chef who is able to convince people to try your recipes even though they don't normally care for gourmet food. What did you have in mind?"

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

But that's MIND CONTROL. It's generally short-lived by its nature' date=' and has no lasting effect on my character (well, unless I ROLE-PLAY being horrified by what I've done while under the influence). If my PC was mind-controlled for an entire session, or an entire adventure, my enthusiasm would quickly wane.[/quote']

I don't think your approach to Mind Control is any different from my approach to Social Combat.

 

I certainly wouldn't expect Social Combat to cause any more trouble to Players (or PCs) than they currently have with Mind Control, Transform, and/or being ordered to do something they'd rather not.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

All right' date=' I give up. You don't get it, you're not [i']going[/i] to get it - and incidentally proving that social coflicts can end without a binding result on either particpant; the ultimate proof that such a system is a MISTAKE.

 

I simply cannot understand what you're trying to illustrate here. Lord knows I've tried' date=' 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...[/quote']

 

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' date=' and he doesn't seem to be willing to accept it as anything [i']less[/i] 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...

 

Perhaps simply deciding not to partake in social conflict is less simple than some posters have suggested...

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

I'd see this more as an optional addition. Much like the Wounding rules are now. A way to add more "grit" to social interactions than are currently spelled out in the game. I don't think it would take more than a half-page to spell out.

 

 

I would want to keep things as simple as possible. Write up a second character sheet following your GM guidelines (point levels, caps, etc.) All sfx on the Social Combat sheet would simulate (what else?) social combat.

Examples:

Your RKA might have the sfx: Cutting Remarks

Your Desoldification might have the sfx: Tune Out

Naturally, you'd want to describe -- and roleplay -- those powers when you use them in Social Combat.

 

You might broadly think of PD as being defense against logic while ED is defense against emotion. The Characteristics might refer to your character as a social being -- is he strong, nimble, a tough customer, etc.

 

A combat map might show different positions from which to argue -- some providing cover or other bonuses. Movement Powers could help your character quickly move from one position to another. It might be possible to "pick up" something and throw it at your opponent (or beat him over the head with it) as a lawyer might chuck a legal precedent at his opponent.

 

You could potentially have Vehicles, AIs, Automatons and Followers -- though they would be conceptual and have no reality outside of Social Combat.

 

You might be able to "buy equipment" (or pay for it with points) that helps you to fight. Wielding the Bill of Rights might be quite useful...

 

Players and GMs would be free to let their imagination run wild determining just how their characters try to defeat others in Social Combat. Having another character sheet for Social Combat shouldn't bother anyone too terribly since many players have multiple character sheets for a single character right now (Multiform, Duplication, Vehicle, Automaton, AI, Base, Follower, etc.)

 

An interesting problem would be the intersection of Physical and Social Combat. In general, I'd say that Physical Combat trumps Social Combat -- but that's up to the GM and common and dramatic sense. You might have no trouble tying the Hulk up in logical knots, but that will just make Hulk mad. And when Hulk mad...

 

Basically, you are at least doubling the complexity of character creation, for no benefit except the humor value. So I'll milk the humor value.

 

So, what does Social Deduction mean? What can Social Security Systems

do? What can Social Systems Operations operate? What kind of structures

can I blow up with Social Demolitions? Are the same Powers and Modifiers

allowed, or would something like Social Energy Blast, Explosion, No

Normal Defense, Continuing Charges (Gas Attack) be considered Socially

Unacceptable, or even Anti-Social? I'd like to know about Social

Computer Programming. What's a Social Computer? Or for that matter, a

Social Automaton? Do they require Social Programs? How about a Social

Vehicle - would that require Social Combat Driving? Do I have Social

Dependent Non Player Characters that differ from my Regular Dependent

Non Player Characters? I want a Social Base, and I want to stock it with

some Social Followers. What good are the Social Sciences? Social

Engineering? Social Physics? Social Sociology? If I have Social Science:

Medicine, Social Paramedic, and Social PS: Physician, can I cure a

Social Disease? Do I need a Social Perk: License to Practice Social

Medicine? What if my regular character sheet has a Psych Limit that

makes me opposed to Socialized Medicine? If I took the right Social

Immunities from Social Life Support can I avoid the Social Disease in

the first place? What about Social Class? Do we need Social Class of

Mind rules for Social Mental Powers? Please explain Social Swinging. Is

it anything like what it sounds like? What about Social Transformation -

is it divided into Social Physical Transform, Social Mental Transform,

and Social Spiritual Transform? What SFX would justify Social Growth and

Social Shrinking? Just what the heck is Social Density Increase? If I

have Social Longevity, does my Social Self endure after - what do we

call it? My "Regular Self?" dies? If I don't take Social Longevity but

do take regular Longevity, does my Social Self cease to exist at a

certain point even though my other character sheet carries on? What

would be the implications of that? What's a Social Physical Limitation?

For that matter, what's a Social Social Limitation? Can Social Life

Support: Breathe Underwater keep me from drowning in Social Water -

whatever that is? Can a Social Berserk be triggered in Regular Combat?

How about a Regular Berserk in Social Combat? How does a Social PREsence

attack work? When would I use that, as opposed to regular PREsence

attack? Does Social Bump of Direction mean I know where this

conversation is going? If I buy my Social Ego Blast on a Social Obvious

Accessible Focus, I assume it can be "grabbed" in Social Combat - can it

be grabbed in regular combat? For that matter, is it Obvious in regular

combat? Does it exist at all in the "real world" of the character sheet

used for everything else except "Social Combat?" If I want a Focus that

can be grabbed in both kinds of combat, is that an extra Limitation? How

do Social Interaction Skills differ from Regular Interaction Skills? I'd

love to see Social Animal Hander in action, for example.

 

All of the above questions are rhetorical of course - I don't expect

sensible answers because I don't think sensible answers exist, because

the idea is not sensible in any way to begin with.

 

And in case you happen to think I am not being fair to your idea, be

assured that I am more than fair. Are you willing to take my word for it

that your proposal has glaring weaknesses I have not even touched on

yet, or would you prefer for me to point them out to you? Personally,

though, I'd rather drop it here. I think everything that needs to be said -

and that goes for the whole thread - has been said. I only stooped to

posting this because it was too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

But I think I just shot the bottom out of the barrel.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks the poor fish are about pureed now.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

And this is my whole point. If the dice can make decisions for my character' date=' then what the heck am I even doing there? The character is mine - MINE MINE MINE! Do you understand that yet? My [i']one and only job in the game[/i] is to make decisions for my character. That's IT. So when my job is pre-empted by dice, there is no reason for me to be there. Period.

 

All right, I give up. You don't get it, you're not going to get it - and incidentally proving that social coflicts can end without a binding result on either particpant; the ultimate proof that such a system is a MISTAKE.

 

I'd already given up on him. He either doesn't get it or refuses to.

 

I'd put him on ignore, actually, except that on other topics his contributions are too valuable for me to give up seeing them.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks the ultimate proof actually consists of walking away.

[ayinde]

Re: Social effects

 

well utech to tell the truth i read one of the ideas posted hear about social combat. wile i don't care for an all included rule about social interaction I'm OK with a guide line. the power i created was for a character with a way with words ,the reason i made the power invisible was that someone with mind powers wont detect it. as written the power could be used to rally frightened troops or com a normally high strong person ,you cant make someone kill but you could egg on a fight ,you might be able to convince a cop to let you go and trust that your doing the right thing ,make a jury think someone is guilty

you get the idea....keep in mind this is a super skill i may have wrote it wrong

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Basically' date=' you are at least doubling the complexity of character creation,[/quote']

I don't think so. Many people keep a second character sheet for Multiform, Duplication, Vehicles, Automatons, AIs, Followers, Bases...

 

for no benefit except the humor value.

For great benefit. To me. Obviously not to you. If you have nothing more to add then "milking humor value", please go away and let me discuss this with people who take it seriously.

 

I could answer all of your questions. You could answer them for yourself if you cared to think about it. But it's clear that you don't. So, again, please go away. I look forward to exchanging ideas with you on another topic on another thread.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

well utech to tell the truth i read one of the ideas posted hear about social combat. wile i don't care for an all included rule about social interaction I'm OK with a guide line. the power i created was for a character with a way with words ,the reason i made the power invisible was that someone with mind powers wont detect it. as written the power could be used to rally frightened troops or com a normally high strong person ,you cant make someone kill but you could egg on a fight ,you might be able to convince a cop to let you go and trust that your doing the right thing ,make a jury think someone is guilty

you get the idea....keep in mind this is a super skill i may have wrote it wrong

I think we're working on two different things. Your super Skill would fit well with the current rules. It fits less well with the Social Combat rules I'm suggesting.

 

That said, I think you've written up something interesting.

[ayinde]

Re: Social effects

 

still learning the system thanks for your input

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Basically, you are at least doubling the complexity of character creation, for no benefit except the humor value. So I'll milk the humor value.

 

So, what does Social Deduction mean? What can Social Security Systems

do? What can Social Systems Operations operate? What kind of structures

can I blow up with Social Demolitions? Are the same Powers and Modifiers

allowed, or would something like Social Energy Blast, Explosion, No

Normal Defense, Continuing Charges (Gas Attack) be considered Socially

Unacceptable, or even Anti-Social? I'd like to know about Social

Computer Programming. What's a Social Computer? Or for that matter, a

Social Automaton? Do they require Social Programs? How about a Social

Vehicle - would that require Social Combat Driving? Do I have Social

Dependent Non Player Characters that differ from my Regular Dependent

Non Player Characters? I want a Social Base, and I want to stock it with

some Social Followers. What good are the Social Sciences? Social

Engineering? Social Physics? Social Sociology? If I have Social Science:

Medicine, Social Paramedic, and Social PS: Physician, can I cure a

Social Disease? Do I need a Social Perk: License to Practice Social

Medicine? What if my regular character sheet has a Psych Limit that

makes me opposed to Socialized Medicine? If I took the right Social

Immunities from Social Life Support can I avoid the Social Disease in

the first place? What about Social Class? Do we need Social Class of

Mind rules for Social Mental Powers? Please explain Social Swinging. Is

it anything like what it sounds like? What about Social Transformation -

is it divided into Social Physical Transform, Social Mental Transform,

and Social Spiritual Transform? What SFX would justify Social Growth and

Social Shrinking? Just what the heck is Social Density Increase? If I

have Social Longevity, does my Social Self endure after - what do we

call it? My "Regular Self?" dies? If I don't take Social Longevity but

do take regular Longevity, does my Social Self cease to exist at a

certain point even though my other character sheet carries on? What

would be the implications of that? What's a Social Physical Limitation?

For that matter, what's a Social Social Limitation? Can Social Life

Support: Breathe Underwater keep me from drowning in Social Water -

whatever that is? Can a Social Berserk be triggered in Regular Combat?

How about a Regular Berserk in Social Combat? How does a Social PREsence

attack work? When would I use that, as opposed to regular PREsence

attack? Does Social Bump of Direction mean I know where this

conversation is going? If I buy my Social Ego Blast on a Social Obvious

Accessible Focus, I assume it can be "grabbed" in Social Combat - can it

be grabbed in regular combat? For that matter, is it Obvious in regular

combat? Does it exist at all in the "real world" of the character sheet

used for everything else except "Social Combat?" If I want a Focus that

can be grabbed in both kinds of combat, is that an extra Limitation? How

do Social Interaction Skills differ from Regular Interaction Skills? I'd

love to see Social Animal Hander in action, for example.

 

All of the above questions are rhetorical of course - I don't expect

sensible answers because I don't think sensible answers exist, because

the idea is not sensible in any way to begin with.

 

And in case you happen to think I am not being fair to your idea, be

assured that I am more than fair. Are you willing to take my word for it

that your proposal has glaring weaknesses I have not even touched on

yet, or would you prefer for me to point them out to you? Personally,

though, I'd rather drop it here. I think everything that needs to be said -

and that goes for the whole thread - has been said. I only stooped to

posting this because it was too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

But I think I just shot the bottom out of the barrel.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks the poor fish are about pureed now.

 

Someone please Rep Lucius for this! And his palindrmedary too!