Social effects

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

Serious discussions over what a detailed social system might entail are going on here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72348 . This thread inded seems to have devolved into a battlefield rather than any sort of meaningful discussion, so if you're looking for serious discussion then you might want to look there.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Serious discussions over what a detailed social system might entail are going on here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72348 . This thread inded seems to have devolved into a battlefield rather than any sort of meaningful discussion' date=' so if you're looking for serious discussion then you might want to look there.[/quote']

Thanks. I may just need to start an entirely new thread. No time at the present, though.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

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

 

For mocking me and my idea? No thanks.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

still learning the system thanks for your input

Absolutely. I think you may have had more invisibility on that Power than you needed. Don't have a book handy, though.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

The challenge is then to roleplay the character you have built' date=' not to opt out of it when it is inconvenient.[/quote']

 

Not "inconvenient" - when the player's idea of his PC's internal workings are different from the GMs. And that happens too frequently to put it down to "bad GM'ing" or bad play.

 

I've played in two games now that completely collapsed because the GM thought "it would be more appropriate" if a PC reacted in a certain way - and the player vehemently disagreed. In neither case was it a bad roleplayer, refusing to play their PC (in one case, quite, quite the opposite). Having seen it up close, I would agree that the reaction desired by the GM was out of character. And in at least one case, it wasn't a bad GM - it was funny, inventive GM that had run a group with rock-steady weekly attendance from the same 5 players for 4 years: there it was the game system that destroyed the game (in hindsight, we had two players who were heavily into "roleplay", so a game with a hard social system was a bad choice).

 

There are often times when the GM "sees" a totally different picture of what's going on than each player - when such a situation occurs regardinig the PC's motivations, I'll trust the player to know what he's doing. After all, it's his or her character.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

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.

 

The trouble comes when the NPC is THE GM's, THE GM's, THE GM's! Without having some sort of rule that binds everyone who decides to participate in the shared experience that is a RPG, you might as well ditch the social interaction skills we have already. We may be divided by a common language here though - have a look at my thoughts below.

 

I've read or seen any number of interviews with authors who say that a character they created - and that they are writing - does somthing that they find unexpected, or had not planned. Maybe you're a good enough role player to accomplish that anyway, but such moments of inspiration are rare - but very real.

 

I suspect that your concern is that any social resolution mechanism is going to spoil your enjoyment of the game, which is why you are resistant - and it could, easily, if the system is not written and handled right. However, I personally believe that:

 

1. Such a system also has the potential to substantially enhance your enjoyment of the game, and

 

2. You're already participating in a social resolution mechanism that may not be codified (and so is harder to discern the edges of) but is nonetheless very real. Your GM will present you with situations that you have to deal with, that do not have a solution you want, and you have to deal with that. Unless you are the GM you can not guarantee anything about your character: if you ignore social skill use and the GM needs you to, say, be in a certain location for the scenario to work, the GM will have to take other steps to get you there. A decent GM will be able to do that without you even noticing: at least with a dice roll you can see the mechanism of what is happening.

 

3. I'm not advocating a system which ignores role playing, but one which incorporates both random and role play elements. Ultimately you can decide not to participate, but that really does raise the question 'What am I doing here?' IMO. The joy of these games to me is not rolling dice - exciting as that can sometimes be - but seeing how people react in difficult situations. A good GM will always think of the drama of a scenario before the systems of the game - but a decently built system can help the drama rather than hinder it.

 

4. Systems bind all participants - you could well influence a NPC in an unexpected way, just as you might win a (physical) combat unexpectedly - this can work in your favour too.

 

5. I like Utech's idea about porting physical combat, but I am sceptical about it in practice - it could easily mean (as with netrunning in cyberpunk games) that there is too much splitting of focus and disruption to the game - but I have not tried it yet so I remain open to the possibilities.

 

Finally, let me ask you one: do you think that a system without a binding social interaction mechanic (and I'm assuming that even a binding social interaction system leaves a lot of wriggle room - it is not mind control by another name) - leaves you free to do what you like with your character? Or are you advocating a different system?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Not "inconvenient" - when the player's idea of his PC's internal workings are different from the GMs. And that happens too frequently to put it down to "bad GM'ing" or bad play.

 

I've played in two games now that completely collapsed because the GM thought "it would be more appropriate" if a PC reacted in a certain way - and the player vehemently disagreed. In neither case was it a bad roleplayer, refusing to play their PC (in one case, quite, quite the opposite). Having seen it up close, I would agree that the reaction desired by the GM was out of character. And in at least one case, it wasn't a bad GM - it was funny, inventive GM that had run a group with rock-steady weekly attendance from the same 5 players for 4 years: there it was the game system that destroyed the game (in hindsight, we had two players who were heavily into "roleplay", so a game with a hard social system was a bad choice).

 

There are often times when the GM "sees" a totally different picture of what's going on than each player - when such a situation occurs regardinig the PC's motivations, I'll trust the player to know what he's doing. After all, it's his or her character.

 

cheers, Mark

 

This is a good point - but one that could be addressed, if not always solved, by a system of better defining the character int he first place. I see some amazing back-stories about characters, and all sorts of interesting factettes but rarely do I see, outside the very broad brush 'Disadvantages' section any discussion by a character, in advance of play, of the psychology of their character, at least not in a way that would allow others to get a handle on that psychology.

 

Sometimes a GM has to make decisions for a character (OK, so nothing happens for a few days. It's Thursday and you are in a coffee shop in downtown gabbing a cappuccino...) and sometimes the player will not agree with those decisions. I see that as an opportunity for discussion and definition. Most players would rightly be miffed if they were told: OK, so nothing happens for a few days. It's Thursday and you having an affair with Linda, and you've started using heroin intravenously...

 

Having said that I also know some players who would relish being thrown into that kind of scenario

 

My point is that a properly constructed social interaction system, using random rolls, avoids that sort of thing. I believe the system you use employs random rolls, but doesn't try and make life changing decisions with just one...if you have a 'story line' for social interaction where you can guide the way a social interaction is going at several decision points, then a player has the opportunity to avoid unwanted outcomes. They won't always be successful, but the possibility of failure (which can include any unwanted consequence) is a necessary part of any dramatic system. Their character might end up in bed with Linda shooting up, but at least they will understand, and perhaps accept how they got there.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Not "inconvenient" - when the player's idea of his PC's internal workings are different from the GMs. And that happens too frequently to put it down to "bad GM'ing" or bad play.

 

You know. That is where I started. Both the GM and the player have different ideas of what the character described on the character sheet would reasonably do under a particular set of circumstances.

 

Now, on one side it may be claimed that the GM dictating what is reasonable will ruin the player's enjoyment of the character. The other side of that is that the player being unreasonable (because the GM knows what his reasonable solution is) then that ruins the GMs enjoyment of the game.

 

It is certain that if neither gives way the game will be ruined.

 

The question was how to resolve such an impasse. In an RPG, that kind of the question is usually settled by dice. If the GM is not bad and the players are not bad and a proposed system is not bad then I cannot see how the outcome will be bad.

 

I've played in two games now that completely collapsed because the GM thought "it would be more appropriate" if a PC reacted in a certain way - and the player vehemently disagreed. In neither case was it a bad roleplayer' date=' refusing to play their PC (in one case, quite, quite the opposite). [/quote']

 

'vehement disagreement' does not suggest to me someone looking to progress the game. If the GM/player dynamic comes down to a black and white argument then I would suggest the problem is the dynamic.

 

Are you suggesting that the lack of a social resolution mechanic would have made this conflict better??

 

I would suggest that a longer association with this kind of mechanic would have made the player think harder about the character he had written down rather than the one that he is thinking about in his head - that he might look and think - well, is my reasonable reaction the only reasonable reaction? The GM obviously doesn't think so. It may make the GM think harder about what the character might do in a certain circumstance rather than trying to impose a solution on character and player.

 

I am seeing experienced players being put on the level of RPG noobies and not liking it. And an experienced GM misusing the system (just like we all used to do as teenage GMs, I presume) and getting into a will/will not argument with one of his players.

 

 

Having seen it up close' date=' I would agree that the reaction desired by the GM [b']was[/b] out of character.

 

So bad GMing rather than bad system?

 

And in at least one case' date=' it wasn't a bad GM - it was funny, inventive GM that had run a group with rock-steady weekly attendance from the same 5 players for 4 years: there it was the game system that destroyed the game ([b']in hindsight, we had two players who were heavily into "roleplay", so a game with a hard social system was a bad choice[/b]).

 

I'm not sure that follows. I think the people heavily into roleplay, unless what they are looking for is LARP or improv acting (and I think neither are bad if the group is willing to accomodate), can get more out of a system where there is a hard social system - it should allow a wider range of roles to be available.

 

There are often times when the GM "sees" a totally different picture of what's going on than each player - when such a situation occurs regardinig the PC's motivations' date=' I'll trust the player to know what he's doing. After all, it's his or her character.[/quote']

 

I'll trust the player to know what he intended the character to be. I'll trust the character sheet to show me what the player built (especially in HERO). I'll trust my GMs to know me, the player, and I'll trust my group to adjudicate reasonability.

 

I want a system I can trust to translate what is on the character sheet to provide me (the player) and my GM with a consistent interpretation of the character and what range of options might be reasonable under a range of circumstances.

 

Doc

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

Not "inconvenient" - when the player's idea of his PC's internal workings are different from the GMs. And that happens too frequently to put it down to "bad GM'ing" or bad play.

choice).

 

And yet many games survive these mechanics quite well. I've personally seen well over a dozen, heard about many more and played in many more. Strictly in my experience any trouble that has arisen hasn't been from the GM forcing an "inappropriate" reaction from the player its from the player getting mad about 1. His character doing something suboptimal/not tactical but, afaict, reasonable given the circumstances. In other words when it was inconvenient or 2. Just being plain stubborn and resisting the figurative "Man" trying to keep him down. IOW, bad play.

 

On the flip side, Using social reactions I've one incident with a player myself and that boiled down OOC matters effecting game play and in a way that's had been an issue before in games. I've certainly heard about GMs bulldozing PCs most often in games with light and no resolution for it at all so the GM could simply roll a die and declare an outcome, but some had been with more codified levels of social mechanics being abused.

 

But both sides are anecdotal evidence.

 

So I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone is really) that what we've called "hard" social mechanics are perfect, everyone needs to use them, etc. But I am saying they're not an objectively bad idea, some gamers enjoy them, not every game with them is a failure and tears groups apart. I think a set of rules like this could be a benefit to Hero System and allow for wider range of play styles for the universal toolkit. If a specific group feels they don't need that particular tool they can leave it in the box like Comeliness, Speed or Powers all together.

 

I'm not sure why this thread has become a battleground to prove that very idea of advanced social system will is a universally bad idea or will cripple any game which implements one. Nor am I, and I hope anyone else trying to cram the idea down anyone's throat. But from my end there seems to be focused effort to smother the subject in cradle that started on page 1 of the thread and now gone on for 300 posts seemingly getting more hostile and zealous with each post. When its really about nothing more than house rules. If you're not playing in someone's game the adopts them they have no impact on your play experience and this isn't a 6th edition forums so it's not a proposal proposal to Steve Long. Odds he'll never see this thread.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

....this isn't a 6th edition forums so it's not a proposal proposal to Steve Long. Odds he'll never see this thread.

 

Maybe I should invite him to come to the House of Commons, treat him to dinner in the Stranger's, ply him with drink on the Terrace and then get him to sign up to social resolution systems in blood, witnessed by a group of MPs.

 

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

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

 

The palindromedary has struck to the crux of the matter, I believe. If social conflict is, indeed, so easily ignored, why is this ease not apparent in practice. I know I stay on argumentative threads such as this far too long, and spend far too much time on them. Yet I continue to do so anyway.

 

The trouble comes when the NPC is THE GM's' date=' THE GM's, THE GM's! Without having some sort of rule that binds everyone who decides to participate in the shared experience that is a RPG, you might as well ditch the social interaction skills we have already. We may be divided by a common language here though - have a look at my thoughts below. [/quote']

 

I think this is key - my control over the character(s) is mitigated by the objective conflict resolution system.

 

I've read or seen any number of interviews with authors who say that a character they created - and that they are writing - does somthing that they find unexpected' date=' or had not planned. Maybe you're a good enough role player to accomplish that anyway, but such moments of inspiration are rare - but very real.[/quote']

 

Definitely seen this as well. And sometimes, reflection leads to a conclusion that the character would, or at least could, see things differently.

 

I suspect that your concern is that any social resolution mechanism is going to spoil your enjoyment of the game, which is why you are resistant - and it could, easily, if the system is not written and handled right. However, I personally believe that:

 

1. Such a system also has the potential to substantially enhance your enjoyment of the game, and

 

2. You're already participating in a social resolution mechanism that may not be codified (and so is harder to discern the edges of) but is nonetheless very real. Your GM will present you with situations that you have to deal with, that do not have a solution you want, and you have to deal with that. Unless you are the GM you can not guarantee anything about your character: if you ignore social skill use and the GM needs you to, say, be in a certain location for the scenario to work, the GM will have to take other steps to get you there. A decent GM will be able to do that without you even noticing: at least with a dice roll you can see the mechanism of what is happening.

 

3. I'm not advocating a system which ignores role playing, but one which incorporates both random and role play elements. Ultimately you can decide not to participate, but that really does raise the question 'What am I doing here?' IMO. The joy of these games to me is not rolling dice - exciting as that can sometimes be - but seeing how people react in difficult situations. A good GM will always think of the drama of a scenario before the systems of the game - but a decently built system can help the drama rather than hinder it.

 

4. Systems bind all participants - you could well influence a NPC in an unexpected way, just as you might win a (physical) combat unexpectedly - this can work in your favour too.

 

5. I like Utech's idea about porting physical combat, but I am sceptical about it in practice - it could easily mean (as with netrunning in cyberpunk games) that there is too much splitting of focus and disruption to the game - but I have not tried it yet so I remain open to the possibilities.

 

Key to me, I think, is that either social skills cost points and have effects that are not simply suggestions one may freely opt out of, or we will resolve such situations subjectively and not objectively, and not charge points for such skills.

 

My frustration comes from games where the glib player who directs no character resources to social skills and similar items gets a character who is as, or even more, effective in social situations than the character who has directed far more character resources to such abilities, but is not personally so glib. I see this in D&D where the guy with high Jump, Spot or Lockpick rolls gets to shine, but the guy with a high Diplomacy gets to "role play" the interaction, and is no more effective than the 6 CHA guy with no skill ranks giving the same speech.

 

You know. That is where I started. Both the GM and the player have different ideas of what the character described on the character sheet would reasonably do under a particular set of circumstances.

 

Now, on one side it may be claimed that the GM dictating what is reasonable will ruin the player's enjoyment of the character. The other side of that is that the player being unreasonable (because the GM knows what his reasonable solution is) then that ruins the GMs enjoyment of the game.

 

It is certain that if neither gives way the game will be ruined.

 

The question was how to resolve such an impasse. In an RPG, that kind of the question is usually settled by dice. If the GM is not bad and the players are not bad and a proposed system is not bad then I cannot see how the outcome will be bad.

 

Agreed. To me, the rules exist to provide an objective framework for resolving conflicts of desired results when PC's interact with their environment, NPC's and/or each other. We could play a much less objective game like "Bang - I shot you - you're dead" "No, you missed/it bounced off the badge in my coat pocket", but we choose a system with objective resolution.

 

I want a system I can trust to translate what is on the character sheet to provide me (the player) and my GM with a consistent interpretation of the character and what range of options might be reasonable under a range of circumstances.

 

An excellent summation.

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

The palindromedary has struck to the crux of the matter, I believe. If social conflict is, indeed, so easily ignored, why is this ease not apparent in practice. I know I stay on argumentative threads such as this far too long, and spend far too much time on them. Yet I continue to do so anyway.

 

In my ideal system there would be a system to determine the results of engagement/disengagement. But that might be overkill since drawing someone into a discussion, debate or argument could simply be another type of social action. Perhaps something like a Pre attack with skills like Conversation or Seduction complimentary.

 

I'll reply to your earlier post on social skills "to hit" and Pre based "damage" as soon I can dig it up.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

I think that a successful PRE attack could make someone hesitate and facilitate the use of social skills...

 

It was this kind of thing that I was hoping to explore - where do PRE Attacks sit? How do they fit together? Can they be combined with favours, contacts etc? It is possible to influence people's personality by using transform to add disadvantages, could that be intergrated in some fashion for more fantastic genres?

 

I wasn't intending to debate the rights and wrongs of the system but what might be potential systems to make HERO more coherent about social interactions.

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

I'm going to walk the dog and think about PRE attacks...

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

For mocking me and my idea? No thanks.

 

Well, I thought it was amusing....

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

The trouble comes when the NPC is THE GM's' date=' THE GM's, THE GM's! [/quote']

 

When the GM decides that a player's Persuasion attempt would result in the NPC acting out of charcter, I have no problem with him saying "No." Just like I don't have problems with any other GM ruling that doesn't preempt my perogative to play my character.

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

I might be in the minority here but I think social skills should have a chance to work in combat situations. Any attempts would be incredibly difficult from the penalty for rushing if nothing else so wouldn't be the optimal choice but reasoning, manipulation, etc can be used and have effects in "combat". Basically I don't see combat and roleplaying as distinct situations in the game world. Combat is just a situation were a more precise and granular measure of time is required.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

When the GM decides that a player's Persuasion attempt would result in the NPC acting out of charcter' date=' I have no problem with him saying "No." Just like I don't have problems with any other GM ruling that doesn't preempt my perogative to play my character.[/quote']

 

How far can one take this? Are you OK if your character never has any meaningful impact on the game world, but he can do whatever he wants? "I attack him" "You miss" "But it's AoE" "Oh, then it plinks off" "But it's an NND" "Oh, then he has the defense."

 

Regardless of the system, a good GM is going to see to it that the PC's are effective and get value for their points. "No, your skills never work if it would impede my vision of the plot" is not good GMing, any more than "The villain still manages to escape because he will appear in Scene IV" or "No, your resurrection power mysteriously fails because this is a murder mystery. BTW, your Telepathy is acting funny, so don't expect much from that either".

 

I might be in the minority here but I think social skills should have a chance to work in combat situations. Any attempts would be incredibly difficult from the penalty for rushing if nothing else so wouldn't be the optimal choice but reasoning' date=' manipulation, etc can be used and have effects in "combat". Basically I don't see combat and roleplaying as distinct situations in the game world. Combat is just a situation were a more precise and granular measure of time is required.[/quote']

 

I agree. Demolitions is hard to perform in combat, but we see it in the source material and, in game, we would apply penalties for rushing, and probably for distractions, and allow the character to make the attempt. And we allow the character who bought a high Demolitions roll to shine when he succeeds in a near-impossible feat, despite these huge penalties. Why is a character with a high social skill roll less entitled to shine - to accomplish feats impossible to lesser men?

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

How far can one take this? Are you OK if your character never has any meaningful impact on the game world' date=' but he can do whatever he wants? "I attack him" "You miss" "But it's AoE" "Oh, then it plinks off" "But it's an NND" "Oh, then he has the defense."[/quote']

 

Wow. Just how far can you twist my words? You've already twisted them beyond anything that any sane person would ever consider, I'm seriously curious - how much farther you can go?

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

For mocking me and my idea? No thanks.

 

I wasn't mocking you; I was mocking your idea.

But okay, I'll take the idea seriously for a change. You won't like that

either.

 

It's true that the "status quo" tends to emphasize combat.

 

But having a separate character sheet for "social stuff" and then a

character sheet for "everything else" simply creates a new and greater

imbalance by emphasizing "social stuff" at everything else's expense,

and does nothing to change the disparity in emphasis between combat and

everything else that isn't social.

 

That might even work if that's the emphasis you want, except that I

sincerely doubt that even people who want that much emphasis on "social

combat" really want it to simply duplicate regular combat.

 

And if your solution is to create a character sheet for every

conceivable activity - "you get a character sheet for Demolitions, and

the bomb has a sheet with points based on how hard it is to disarm, and

you can fight it out" - well, you might at least put an end to me

mocking your ideas, because you'll be making them look plenty ridiculous

on your own. I'll just stand far away, because even I have limits to the

amount of sheer silliness I'm willing to be associated with. And I'm

open to something more interesting than "Make a Mechanics roll at -2 to

get the jeep working again" but not something as bizarre as "In The

Mechanic Zone, the jeep takes the form of a small but fierce dragon.

It's about to claw you, do you abort to a Dodge or Block?"

 

You've stated that everyone would get the same points for the "social

character," creating an inappropriate equality between all characters,

who now have exactly the same number of points to spend on social stuff,

instead of social stuff being on the same zero sum sliding scale that

everything else is. It's no longer possible to surrender social

effectiveness for some other aspect of character, nor is the social

specialist of any sort any longer viable. Instead of one member of a

team being a leader or spokesperson, better at communication or

negotiation than the others because they spent the points for it, every

player character is now equally charismatic, if (presumably) in

different ways. I predict the biggest fans of greater social emphasis,

who are probably the ones who load up on PRE based skills and still

don't think they're getting enough for their points, will be the most

frustrated at this. Followed by those who normally DON'T spend points on

such skills at all, finally followed by everyone else in the order in

which they realize that this doesn't model reality, doesn't model the

"cinematic" reality of any genre, and doesn't fit in well with the rest

of the system and how it works. That's assuming, of course, you get

anyone to play it at all.

 

And what kind of characters do you expect to get? Except for the worst

sorts of combat wombats, a normal character is designed with the

expectation that it will be played constantly, in all kinds of

situations. Not only are you making normal Interaction skills obsolete

("Why buy Conversation? We don't talk to people anymore, we just fight

them") for the regular characters, but you are basically saying "Here is

a character that exists only to fight. It literally does not appear

until social combat, and conveniently vanishes after social combat."

Such "social" characters will be totally combat optimized, because there

is literally no reason to spend points on anything else, especially

"social stuff." You can't even ask "what does this character do when

it's not fighting?" or "What can this character do besides fight?"

because these secondary "social" characters don't even exist except in

combat. Personally I'd sink all my points into SPD, Lightning Reflexes,

and a Vehicle with Extradiminsional Movement, Usable as Attack,

Megascale, Back to the Normal Game Dimension, so we can go back to

actually, ya know, interacting socially, or if necessary go to real

(i.e. regular) combat.

 

Nor is combat an exceptionally accurate or useful paradigm for social

interaction. Combat (in Hero anyway) usually ends with one or more

parties as clearly the victor - social interaction usually does not. I'm

reminded of political debates, for example, where the debate is usually

followed by MORE debates over who "won" the encounter. Even in the case

of such obvious conflict, it is possible for both participants to walk

away thinking they "won" - or that neither did. More to the point,

social interaction is not always conflict. In fact, if it does come to

head to head outright conflict, the most likely outcome is a draw as

neither is willing to give ground - and can't be "forced" to short of

physical violence. Social interaction is more often about coming to

mutually satisfactory (or at least mutually minimally dissatisfactory)

agreements (Trade, Bribery, Seduction,) people learning about, that is,

getting to know each other and building trust (Conversation,

Seduction,)"fitting in" and reducing social friction or the chance of

standing out (High Society, Streetwise, Conversation, Bureaucratics,)

gaining information rather than persuading to action (Conversation, High

Society, Streetwise, Bureaucratics, Interrogation,) and even if it is

about getting someone to do something, there is an infinite scale of

resistance between "I was wondering when you'd ask, I'm happy to" and

"Over my dead body." But if you turn social interaction into some kind

of fake combat, then actual reasons, logic, realistic motivations, and

everything that makes social interactions between characters, well,

->social interactions between characters<- gets pushed out the window by

a win or lose tactical exercise in which every character will

automatically give all they've got to win the encounter - just like any

other combat. Things that should be easy become hard, things that should

be hard become easy, and things that should be impossible become

possible. And everything becomes absurd.

 

When I made fun of this idea, I was treating it as seriously as it

deserves to be treated. Perhaps you don't think I was treating YOU as

seriously as you deserve to be treated, in which case I'm sorry. I admit

that wanting to laugh at the idea - because it is an unintentionally

very funny idea - was a bigger motivation than the forlorn hope of

helping you. But the biggest favor I can imagine doing for you is

helping you see how ridiculous this idea is. I know that what you want

is for people to say this is somehow a good idea. Unfortunately, I'm not

good at lying. Nor do I think that lying to you would be a nice thing to

do no matter how much you might like it. Right now I think I'm being as

nice, and respectful, as I can be.

 

See, I told you that you wouldn't like it any better if I got serious.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reflects that it reaches the same conclusion, with fewer laughs.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Lucius

 

Wouldn't it have been easier, even the first time, to simply say

 

"I think it is an unworkable idea - not one I'd use or think is feasible"

 

You seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time combatting an idea that no-one will ever force you to use...

 

 

Doc

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

Lucius

 

Wouldn't it have been easier, even the first time, to simply say

 

"I think it is an unworkable idea - not one I'd use or think is feasible"

 

You seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time combatting an idea that no-one will ever force you to use...

 

 

Doc

 

Oh, I'll freely admit that I gave the idea far more time than it deserves.

 

The one thing it does have going for it, though, is being hilarious, and my first post was a lot of fun.

 

But I have a higher opinion of Utech than of the proposal he put forward here, and decided to give him the courtesy of a more serious post that would let him know that, yes, I was willing to give some serious thought to his proposal. And an offhand "that's an unworkable idea" would hardly demonstrate that. It's pretty obvious that Utech would simply blow off an unsupported opinion and ignore it, nor do I blame him for that. I don't expect him to simply take my word for it. So I took the trouble to look at some of the problems with the idea, and articulate just what is wrong with it and why it's such a lousy idea. I think well enough of Utech to think he can distinguish between an unsupported offhand opinion and a well-reasoned analysis.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Riding the palindromedary for exercise.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Lucius

 

Wouldn't it have been easier, even the first time, to simply say

 

"I think it is an unworkable idea - not one I'd use or think is feasible"

 

You seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time combatting an idea that no-one will ever force you to use...

 

 

Doc

 

Whatever do you mean? Isn't it your position that a 'objective' social system should be part of the default rules?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

When the GM decides that a player's Persuasion attempt would result in the NPC acting out of charcter' date=' I have no problem with him saying "No." Just like I don't have problems with any other GM ruling that doesn't preempt my perogative to play my character.[/quote']

 

Wow. Just how far can you twist my words? You've already twisted them beyond anything that any sane person would ever consider' date=' I'm seriously curious - how much farther you can go? [/quote']

 

I agree you are

 

If it's OK for the GM (or the player) to neutralize a character based around amazing social skills by saying "no - success with those abilities would not be consistent with my conception of the target", it should be equally OK for the GM (or the player) to neutralize a character based around amazing physical combat abilities by saying "no - success with those abilities would not be consistent with my conception of the target".

 

Both favour the "attacker" being neutraziled to satisfy the conception of the "defender's" character.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

I agree you are

 

If it's OK for the GM (or the player) to neutralize a character based around amazing social skills by saying "no - success with those abilities would not be consistent with my conception of the target", it should be equally OK for the GM (or the player) to neutralize a character based around amazing physical combat abilities by saying "no - success with those abilities would not be consistent with my conception of the target".

 

Both favour the "attacker" being neutraziled to satisfy the conception of the "defender's" character.

 

Ah, the 'social = physical' argument again.