Social effects

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

And yet you dont suggest that they simply scrap combat mechanisms because of this - surely with a good GM and good players there would be no need to detail this kind of thing - the GM would be able to adjudicate the results through good player description of their actions and the GM could describe what happened because of this???

 

You have yet to even acknowledge that an argument about the difference between quantitative physical reality and qualitative psychological reality was previously made. And it sits at the heart of this. Combat and its effects is a physically quantifiable thing. It is easily represented with numbers, which is what modeling and mechanics do. We can wax philosophical about the impression (qualia) it leaves us with, but hitting and missing, physical injury, blood loss, and nerve endings screaming out are all purely physical and quantifiable. The mechanics run on numbers. Numbers quantify. Perceptions, on the other hand, are formed largely of qualia and sit in that Hard Problem of Consciosness. What's the problem: qualia aren't quantifiable. They don't model well, which is why there is a tendency to leave them undefined. Nor does any of this take into account that the game requires skill on the part of both game-master and player. Both have to be good at their respective tasks for a good story to flow forth. Games run on consensus. Consensus takes maturity. The problems you describe flow from a lack of both that and skill. To overcome the human failings of the participants you are proposing to create a sorting algorithm of narrative flow. Once your algorithm is sophisticated enough neither game-master or player will need to show up. The algorithm will play by itself. I'd recommend improving skill in terms of role-playing and game-mastering instead.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

There are exceptions. The indy game "Dogs In The Vineyard" is explicitly designed to have lasting effects (including changes of attitudes' date=' behaviors and values) on characters. But of course the players know that going in.[/quote']

 

So, if the game has a social conflict resolution system, then social conflict resolution is a good thing? If they don't then it is not?

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

False dichotomy (IMO obviously)

 

If you were looking I proposed an alternative above: having players who wanted to role-play that kind of situation to start with. The goal is for everyone, not just the game-master, to have fun. Or am I wrong?

 

I think that with the proper tools it should be possible for a system to facilitate a GM to run this kind of thing rather than rely on their own social skills to do the job that the NPCs should be doing on the characters....

 

Like I said: at what point do you tell your players not to bother showing up because you now have an algorithm that will run their characters for them?

 

You have described two problems thus far: bad-role playing and limited game-mastering ability. Both can be better addressed by communication than mechanics (IMO).

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

And yet you dont suggest that they simply scrap combat mechanisms because of this

 

No. I'd just suggest he stay away from games with a lot of combat. Likewise, I would suggest a GM with an inability to make social conflict sing stay away from games with a lot of social conflict. In neither case, would extra rules attempting to address that deficit have been a good idea.

 

surely with a good GM and good players there would be no need to detail this kind of thing - the GM would be able to adjudicate the results through good player description of their actions and the GM could describe what happened because of this???

 

I have in fact, played in such a set up. It was unspeakably dull, because the players and GM had different perspectives and agreed to negotiate the outcomes. Never again.

 

It's one of those things which could, in theory work (maybe even work well) but in practice rarely does.

 

cheers, Mark

[The Main Man]

Re: Social effects

 

There are exceptions. The indy game "Dogs In The Vineyard" is explicitly designed to have lasting effects (including changes of attitudes' date=' behaviors and values) on characters. But of course the players know that going in.[/quote']

I'd imagined the Social Interaction (Combat is too implicative) System to be along the lines of Hit Locations, Impairment, Disabling, Knockback, etc.

 

These are rules that are not required and are implied that they must be announced when starting a new campaign.

 

I am kind of wondering where the whole "force players to do things" came from anyway.

 

I don't think that it was me...

 

 

But nonetheless, I think that the central point, the core, the crux of the "Social Combat/Interaction" debate is this:

 

How accountable are players supposed to be?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

I'd recommend improving skill in terms of role-playing and game-mastering instead.

 

That is almost insulting. It implies neither me nor my friends are good enough to roleplay and we should go take some courses before we deign to open our HERO rulebooks again.

 

I don't think you meant it that way but I would be uncomfortable with setting entry requirements for roleplaying...

 

Some groups that I have played in have great fun quite far along the gamist axis of the N/S/G graph.

 

Most of the arguments against this lie quite handily in the N axis - we shouldn't be trying to game social conflicts.

 

I do not accept there is a serious difference between social and physical and mental conflicts with respect to playing a game. In all three there is a conflict between what the player wants to achieve and what the GM is prepared to allow. In all these cases a game needs a way to allow the characters to resolve the conflict that is true to the characters, not to what the players or GM feels SHOULD happen.

 

We currently accept physical and mental models of conflicts but resist social models...I still dont see why.

 

 

Doc

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

So' date=' if the game has a social conflict resolution system, then social conflict resolution is a good thing? If they don't then it is not? [/quote']

 

No, it's more that that particular game is all about conflict (both social and physical). It's more of a wagering game and is not, as far as I can see, designed for long term roleplay. Though I now know several fans of the system, I don't know anyone who's run games that last more than a few sessions and given the way much of the conflict is abstracted, I assume that's intentional.

 

It's also a game which is happily ignored by the vast majority of players - even those who know it exists. It fills a specific niche: that doesn't mean all games could or even can take the same approach.

 

Another analogy - I enjoy playing Railway Baron. That doesn't mean I'd want to play a roleplaying game about being a railway baron, nor that I think all roleplaying rules should have a section on railways.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

I have in fact, played in such a set up. It was unspeakably dull, because the players and GM had different perspectives and agreed to negotiate the outcomes. Never again.

 

It's one of those things which could, in theory work (maybe even work well) but in practice rarely does.

 

But it is what you essentially suggest for social conflict...

 

 

Doc

[The Main Man]

Re: Social effects

 

While I get your analogy, TBF though everyone communicates with others but not everyone rides, runs, or builds railroads.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Going to step away for now - allow other people to talk.

 

I may even see some comments on a system for social resolution for people that want to talk about those kinds of rules rather than whether those of us who would like them should do so....

 

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

My favourite way to get players to believe the possibility that an evil organisation is actually doing good is to set up an 'obviously' evil organisation that actually is doing good. Let the players get their head round that for a while then hit them with an 'obviously' good organisation that is in fact doing evil. Then hit them with an obviously evil organisation that is actually doing evil, but in a subtle 'is she or isn't she?' kind of way. Now we want to sacrifice Starfire? Fine - don't just tell the players that Starfire needs sacrificing for the greater good, get in a villainous shapeshifter playing Starfire and have them do something evil where the PCs can see it.

 

Work that up for a few sessions (did you really see that?) and then have the shapeshifter 'confront' Brother Blood where the PCs can overhear but not interfere and boast of a secret plan to rule the world, possibly adding, for good measure that no one will ever believe Brother Blood when he tells them she has to be sacrificed as he has a reputation for evil.

 

I can think of ways to do it mechanically, from a Disadvantage VPP (J) to a 1 point IPE mental transform (goes off whenever you have a conversation with them), to expanded PRE attacks to all sorts of mind control chicanery BUT the problem with a mechanical approach is always that you will wind up tipping the player off that Brother Blood is in fact evil and Starfire shouldn’t be sacrificed simply because they are being mechanically forced to do a bad thing.

 

I love LOVE putting moral dilemmas in stories I write, and don’t go feeling that one has to be the right choice and one the wrong – it is perfectly acceptable – at least in a less than shiny four colour campaign – to have the player presented with a choice he HAS to make which will have bad consequences either way. If they can find a third route out of it, more power to them – if not then they have learned a lesson anyway, and it can make for a very dramatic storyline.

 

Hitler didn’t get into power by standing up in front of a crowd and shouting ‘let’s murder jews and gypsies’, at least not at first – he built up to the idea.

 

Now the problem with that approach is you can’t get too into how damn clever you are being, because this is not a competition, it is a game, but the risk of getting too absorbed in manipulating players can be substantial. I write simple plots with tons of red herrings, and my regular players know I do that, so that is OK. I also react to what the players do and I never pass up a chance to carry things to extremes

 

Mind you some other players I know who would enjoy the game just as much if you said to them: Blood Brother wants to recruit your character to murder Starfire, and he’s got you believing it is for a greater good – they love the challenge of playing in that sort of situation – sort of deluding themselves.

 

An interesting way to let a character be evil, subtle and also to shake up the other players is to have the character kidnapped and held in stasis and replaced with a mimic (or have them mentally transformed/mind controlled/whatever). You take the player aside and tell them they have been replaced, give them the mimic character sheet and tell them their mission is to integrate with the team, not raise too many suspicions, but help to persuade the rest that Starfire really is evil (or for an interesting twist, the real Starfire has been replaced with an evil mimic, and it needs to be stopped which, obviously, is not true ).

 

Hmm. Anyway. That’s what I’d do.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

While I get your analogy' date=' TBF though everyone communicates with others but not everyone rides, runs, or builds railroads.[/quote']

 

Of course. I'm simply pointing out that what works well for one game does not necessarily work well for all games - even when it's the exact same group playing!

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

But nonetheless, I think that the central point, the core, the crux of the "Social Combat/Interaction" debate is this:

 

How accountable are players supposed to be?

 

Playing a character well is a specialized skill, just as game-mastering is a specialized skill. Not all players have the same skill-set or natural talent. Some players are better than others. Just as some game-masters are clearly better than others. What all players do have is a role to play. If someone else takes over the role they've just become an understudy - or unemployed actor. Players should play their characters 1) with an eye towards accurate characterization based on the information they have and the perceptions they have formed, and 2) an eye towards husbanding the story within that limitation. If players aren't doing that then the game-master should be talking to them about it, not preempting them. Also, if the game-master is failing to create the mood or create the right perception they can try the old "what I'm going for is..." (I've played along with GMs in such cases before). But what's more, the best way to get a player to do this is to run the kinds of stories they want to be playing in. If you are thinking "man this is cool!" and the player(s) is thinking "man this sucks" you've got a more fundamental problem than you realize.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

But it is what you essentially suggest for social conflict...

 

Yes! Exactly!

 

I do not regard social interaction and physical combat as analogous activities.

 

Social interaction is, ultimately, a question of negotiation and should be handled that way. Physical combat is not and shouldn't be - all IMO, of course

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

 

I do not accept there is a serious difference between social and physical and mental conflicts with respect to playing a game. In all three there is a conflict between what the player wants to achieve and what the GM is prepared to allow. In all these cases a game needs a way to allow the characters to resolve the conflict that is true to the characters, not to what the players or GM feels SHOULD happen.

 

Straight up question: If you get to run my character for me why should I come to your game?

 

Irrespective on my level of skill, that's my one job at the table.

 

If you're doing it for me I won't bother.

 

I can go read a book or watch a movie or write my own story.

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

I do not regard social interaction and physical combat as analogous activities.

 

Quoted for being the crux of a philosophical disagreement.

[The Main Man]

Re: Social effects

 

This reminds me of two things: two rather fundamentally nearly identical concepts: basic improv and selling in professional wrestling.

 

As in improv, when one actor suggests a part of the scenery or an event, it is better for the other to accept it as part of the reality and to move along so that they can further modify the reality without butchering or rewriting the other.

 

Similarly, in professional wrestling, when wrestler A applies, say, a Double Underhook Face Buster, then wrestler B should lay on the ground where he landed and act as if in pain, and continue to act like so throughout the rest of the match - his face and had have been thoroughly bashed! So if he struts around like there's nothing wrong he's going to look unprofessional.

 

These are concepts that I think lend a better understanding to role-playing in general.

 

It is understandable that when a player does not want to give into the words of an NPC that they may be doing good roleplaying where it logically runs with the character.

 

But a player who never allows NPC's, no matter what, to talk them into anything, regardless of skills being used, is simply being a bad roleplayer.

 

This is why a lot of internet wrestling fans do not like Lucha Libre or John Cena - they don't sell, and thusly it makes everything look stupid*.

 

 

 

 

 

*Granted, Lucha Libre isn't about selling, since there's no need to sell a move that actually hurts.

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

 

These are concepts that I think lend a better understanding to role-playing in general.

 

I don't disagree. At the same time, you're talking about people who are willing participants in creating a mutual piece of performance art. That requires give and take on the part of all participants. The players first job is to play their character (hopefully well), but with the knowledge that there is a story they should be husbanding along within the limitation of that character. The game-masters first job is to create and push the story forward, but with the knowledge that there are characters in it that he doesn't have control over who may force his to adapt the story to keep it on the rails. If that basic willingness (stemming from interest) doesn't exist, or a recognition of the job one has is missing, then all the rules in the world won't fix it. What I'm seeing is a communication issue. If the game-master feels the players aren't being reasonable they need a time out and a face-to-face. But that's a two way street. Sometimes a game-masters pet idea for a story doesn't fly with the players. Sometimes what he wants them to do holds no interest for them. In both cases the party creating the problem needs to own it and fix it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Straight up question: If you get to run my character for me why should I come to your game?

 

Irrespective on my level of skill, that's my one job at the table.

 

If you're doing it for me I won't bother.

 

I can go read a book or watch a movie or write my own story.

 

Interesting point, but my view, when I'm playing, is not that this is MY character and I'll do what I want to, cry if I want to...but that this is a character in a game. I know things the character doesn't. I make decisions based not on what I want to do but on what I think the character would do (informed, of course, by my own agenda, which includes an appreciation of the overall story and the part others play in it).

 

Part of what I know that my character doesn't know is that it is all a game that I'm playing with friends. I've chosen to hand over a large part of the control of my character to the GM anyway - in terms of narrative, and even life and death.

 

I've seen people who can take a character being shot and dying with relative equanimity bridle and froth at the thought of being mind controlled NO WAY is that EGO +10 - I'd never do that - it's EGO +30, maybe higher....

 

Real role playing is getting into character (or at least having your character react appropriately and consistently), and real characters are manipulated - subtly or otherwise - all of the time. I have no problem with the GM doing that either by suggestion (which I'd prefer) or fiat if absolutely necessary. That does require trust and a certain ability to appreciate the entire narrative, not just your own bit of it. Of course there are degrees of everything - if the GM dictates your actions all the time that's no fun, but I don't know any GMs who do that. Not directly.

 

An example.

 

Myriad is standing on the street when he sees a burning building. He rushes over to help and hears a scream. The GM describes the almost physical barrier that the heat presents. He declares that he will dash in and look to see if anyone needs saving. Which, if any, of the following is a valid GM response?

 

1. OK, you rush in, the heat starts blistering your skin, but you push on deeper...take (rolls) 4 Body and 16 stun.

 

2. OK, you start to move forward but the heat is immense: make an EGO roll to continue.

 

3. You move forward but the heat is unbearable - you can not make yourself run into the building.

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

Interesting point' date=' but my view, when I'm playing, is not that this is MY character and I'll do what I want to, cry if I want to...but that this is a character in a game. [/quote']

 

What does this have to do with the essential point: everyone at the table has a job to do.

 

The player's job is to convincingly portray one character as an individual participant in a story. If he is a good player he knows he needs to husband the story along a little bit. The game-master's job is to provide a compelling story for player characters to participate in. If he's a good game-master he knows he needs to provide the kind of story his players want to participate in. If that basic understanding isn't then a set of rules as robust as the United States Code isn't going help. Most of the problems you are trying to fix stem from communication issues (as I read it). If the players don't buy off on the plot/scene then its not going to work, even if you mechanize them into irrelevance (take their job away).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

We disagree where' date=' exactly?[/quote']

 

Disagree? Certainly not!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

I think any social interaction resolution system would have to be based, at least in part, on judgment, not just dice rolling.

 

For example you could do a social interaction as follows:

 

1. Character 1 declares social interaction intent.

 

2. Character 2 declares whether they will comply. If so, just do it.

 

3. Character 2 declares their social interaction intent (which might just be resisting Character 1), both characters list the factors in their favour. The GM assigns each a roll modifier. 'Cold calling' warrants a substantial penalty to social interaction, usually.

 

4. Each player declares their social interaction strategy:

 

Aggressive trumps Passive

Passive trumps Persuasive

Persuasive trumps Aggressive

 

Trumping gives you a +2 roll modifier*

 

5. Each player rolls an appropriate social skill or a PRE roll at -3 if they do not have an appropriate social skill, with all relevant modifiers.

 

On a tie they can both reroll if they agree to. If not the social interaction ends.

 

If the loser does not comply with the social interaction intent (in the opinion of the GM) of the winner they get no roleplay bonus XP that session. If they manage to comply with the intent but somehow turn the situation to their advantage they may get roleplay bonus XP.

 

Obviously a bit of a problem if one character is an NPC, but GMs are known for their scrupulous fairness.

 

 

 

 

*OK, it is Rock Paper Scissors

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

I do not regard social interaction and physical combat as analogous activities.

 

Nor was I suggesting analogous mechanisms to deal with them....

 

Social interaction is' date=' ultimately, a question of negotiation and should be handled that way. Physical combat is not and shouldn't be - all IMO, of course [/quote']

 

A contest in a game is a contest in a game.

 

Fighting is not resolved by rolling dice. Arguing is not resolved by rolling dice.

 

A contest in a game is mostly resolved by rolling dice. I recommend it. I like rolling dice...

 

 

Doc

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

That is almost insulting. It implies neither me nor my friends are good enough to roleplay and we should go take some courses before we deign to open our HERO rulebooks again.

 

I don't think you meant it that way but I would be uncomfortable with setting entry requirements for roleplaying...

 

I never suggested anything of the kind. I have been gaming for close to thirty years and game-mastering for just over twenty. I was not terribly good at it when I began. It took years to get to the point where I can pull off the sorts of games I pull off today. I got there by trial and error, like most people. Our success is built on failures if you will allow the cliche. My main issue here is the desire to adjudicate rather than communicate.

 

If your players aren't willing to play their characters in a way that is convincing while remembering to husband the plot a little, or you are set on running the plot a certain way irrespective of how your players are reacting to it, you aren't going to succeed no matter what you do. You have to be working together. Each of you has a job. Everyone has to be up front about the kind of play experience they are looking for.

 

Most of the problems you've described are, in my opinion, player problems. If they are paranoiac about every non-player character they meet and won't go along with anything the game-master advances then they aren't doing a very good job. By that same token, the game-master has to keep in mind that building a plot where a PC needs to do X to keep things going doesn't make it convincing for them to do so just because he thinks it'd be cool.

 

The other thing you keep mentioning is the trope of the audience knowing something the characters don't. It simply doesn't work in terms of suspense because the players are the audience. Once they've figured it out, notions of good role-playing aside, the jig is up. Asking them to play it pro forma is asking for trouble. Not because they are necessarily bad players, but because its pretty boring to do so.

 

I've been in games where I played along because other players hadn't kopped the big-lie and there wasn't enough in-game information for my character to act on. But once we all knew it was just a drag because we were all sitting their going: "alright, so our character's don't know, but how many more sessions do we have to play out the game-master's puppet in a scripted campaign routine before he gives us enough information to freaking move forward with?"

 

The same goes for a scene where the game-master forces a pro forma action you don't want to take on you. You might do it for the sake of the plot, but you're still wondering when he's going to give you your character back.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Straight up question: If you get to run my character for me why should I come to your game?

 

Straight up answer. I'm not running your character. You get to do your job - I'm just giving you more information on which you can base your actions.

 

As GM, I tell you the guy is convincing and the character believes what he says. The player does not. Do you allow the player to negate the NPCs talents as a conman simply because the player says he does not believe him?

 

If so, then do the players accept the same result when the NPC sees through their ruse even though they rolled 3 on their Bluff skill?

 

Doc