Jump to content

Social effects


Recommended Posts

Re: Social effects

 

Here's a summation of some things I said in the great debate. I am in favor of mechanistic social interaction systems.

 

The problem with discussion which largely makes it pointless is that most of the opinions seem to have been formed by -bad- players and GM and are thus pretty extreme.

 

Not all games with social resolution mechanics are about the GM guiding their players around by the nose and never letting them make their own decisions. All "Pure roleplaying" systems are not the players always doing what they want to do regardless. The participants assume the opposition is supporting the abuse of the system. I am coming from a perspective of playing social characters to the best of my ability and investing a ton of points, skill slot whatever into being good at something and then having my success or failure reduced to GM/player fiat which was usually just being stubborn about "losing control of their character"

 

But those are the assumptions both sides of the issue usually go with. The GM can abuse any mechanics but that's not a guarantee that he will and resolution mechanics run both ways. Having played socially oriented characters who's skills were brushed off and nerfed to ineffectualness anytime I tried to use them I'll say that having actual rules aren't just a beat stick for the GM. It give structure and mechanics that the player of such character can point to and say 'Yes, I succeeded. What happens?" just as you can say that in physical conflict.

 

Not everyone that proposes such a system is looking for something to GMs (or glib PCs) can control PCs like robots. A structured system allows for social defense and some tactics (which generally lead to role playing and more diverse interaction. IMO). And also you can disregard it if you feel you don't need one. Social systems can help alleviate the social interaction version of "I shot you!/No You didn't!" objectively (dice can't play favorite while human can, even unconsciously) The players aren't generally even in the same headspace as their characters. They in a totally different setting, situation and state of mind playing a (when it comes to Hero highly tactical) game. They KNOW is usually up when the GM pulls out dice and most of them, IME, go on the defensive on some level where their character might be sitting in a bar having a drink and relaxing when a friendly looking person walks up to them and tries to start a conversation.

 

My ideals include negotiation in the outcome of social interaction based on the margin of success and the two players being a little mature about things. Sometimes your character will lose in various fashions after all and the intent of the social action

 

For (often used) example, an attractive woman (NPC or PC) approached a chaste PC and tries to pick him up. Her player succeeds but her margin of success isn't enough that the other player feels would compel him to violate that aspect of his personality. After some discussion, the player says his character is shaken up by how close he came to doing so and goes back to his room to reflect and maybe a take a cold shower which served the original intent of the social action which was to get him alone.

 

Not mind control, not taking the character out of the player's control but allowing Interactions skills to have meaningful impact on play. Besides, I really enjoy having my character surprise me or the coming up with reason they might act 'out of character" when suitably manipulated anf how they will react. If I wanted scenarios where I controlled every outcome or reaction I'd write a story. I don't think I'm the only gamer with this preference.

 

 

I don't think the two side can over come to an agreement on the issue, their perspective just seem too off. The best compromise for a generic game seems to be make social resolution mechanical optional. Use them or don't. It puts a bit more of a burden one those that want them if that system involves many additional mechanics since those won't be included in NPC designs by default though. OTOH, people that don't want them might find themselves pressured into it if they're the default but optional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Social effects

 

I think the problem I'm having with all this is that I see the current rules as being quite adequite for the system.

 

I feel much the same way. I use margin of success as a guide for how strong the theoretical effect is, but I haven't altered the basic mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

What about PRE attacks? Which can compel behavior but have solid, codified mechanical effects (lose of actions, reduced DCV, etc that can't just be ignored when GM or Player wishes), are "free" (every character has some degree of PRE besides PRE is cheap) and take 0 Phase in combat. While all but the simplest Interaction skills often several minutes to upwards of hours to work, you have to pay for, suffer large penalties for combat use (and officially have no mechanical combat effect) but effects can be ignored at will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

Something that I thought about earlier today.

 

What if Social Interaction was something more akin to a STR vs. STR contest?

 

In that, where STR vs. STR does no direct damage as opposed to Energy Blast or the like, which would be analogous to buying Mental Powers for more direct effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

What about PRE attacks? Which can compel behavior but have solid' date=' codified mechanical effects (lose of actions, reduced DCV, etc that can't just be ignored when GM or Player wishes), are "free" (every character has some degree of PRE besides PRE is cheap) and take 0 Phase in combat. While all but the simplest Interaction skills often several minutes to upwards of hours to work, you have to pay for, suffer large penalties for combat use (and officially have no mechanical combat effect) but effects can be ignored at will.[/quote']

 

I do presence attacks the same way I do interaction rolls: opposed characteristics rolls with a margin of success. I adjudicate the results in a very similar way. I strongly prefer the granularity a margin of success gives me in that, instead of levels with absolute effects, I can feel how strong the result was in that moment and make a decision based on it. For major villains a horribly blown roll means they will hold phases (loss of initiative in of itself) and will probably look for a retreat or a fallback and regroup position. A minor failure will mean a change to more conservative tactics, taking cover, and the like. I allow characters to remove the effect if they spend a phase making a presence attack. For medium and minor characters I tend to have horribly blown rolls result in morale failure, while a minor failure would probably result in their hesitating (holding a phase) or looking for cover or a safer place to shoot from. I also consider past failures/successes in the current encounter impact future rolls. I let player characters adjudicate their own failed rolls - and have yet to have them just ignore them. I had one occasion where the players knew they had the opposition dead to rights in terms of mechanics and firepower, but the leader called a tactical withdraw because they were right at the center of the worst of it and blew their roll big time. Most of the rest of the group failed theirs by a narrower margin. They sat around talking about how hairy it had been and engaged in much more thorough planning for the next encounter - which led to the villains being trounced hard. What I'm seeing is that you've constructed the mirror argument. Both arguments are, in my opinion, based on the identical belief that someone (be it the players or the game-master) will abuse the system or will simply do their "job" badly. I guess what I'm advocating (perhaps naively) is trust, communication, and sincerity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I had a notion recently that the "I walk away/don't listen." issue could be resolved with what amounts to a Pre attack, probably modified (Comeliness or whatever replaces it would have an effect, for example). The aggressor in the social interaction could use it to try and capture/hold their target(s) attention, especially in they're deliberately trying to ignore them. It could also be used for things like the "beckoning glance from across a crowded room" and similar actions.

 

I recall it also came up in the great conflict the Pre attack modifiers should really be reworded to "appropriate action" not just "violent action" to add more flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I had a notion recently that the "I walk away/don't listen." issue could be resolved with what amounts to a Pre attack, probably modified (Comeliness or whatever replaces it would have an effect, for example). The aggressor in the social interaction could use it to try and capture/hold their target(s) attention, especially in they're deliberately trying to ignore them. It could also be used for things like the "beckoning glance from across a crowded room" and similar actions.

 

I recall it also came up in the great conflict the Pre attack modifiers should really be reworded to "appropriate action" not just "violent action" to add more flexibility.

 

A presence contest would be a good way to handle the effect you are talking about. I've used a broad application of the resistance talent to represents a character's ability to resist certain kinds of social influences. For instance, I have a character who already has an Ego Roll of 13- with Resistance [Faithful Husband] +4. In a heroic game where skills past 13- or 14- are rare that's a solid edge in such encounters. I do the same things to represent "presence defense." It allows for a large array of character specific defenses that still leave openings. I don't object to characters being influenced by interaction rolls and players having to take a roll into account. I just want to ensure players they have room to interpret how that influence plays out for their character. I want the game-master to have a similar power on hand for the major non-player characters. Lesser ones, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

A couple thoughts:

 

1) The OP was wondering about how to get a PC to believe something utterly and clearly false. That's easy: take the player aside and say, "Hey. I've got this great idea for a plot. Here's what I need you to do... (insert what you need him to do) ...So? What do you say? Will you go for it?"

 

If your player is interested, you're good to go. He'll roleplay the situation to the hilt because he's part of the plot. He knows why you want him to do certain things. The other players around the table may be confused at first, but they'll quickly guess that something is up. Then they'll handle their part of all this.

 

('Course you could get all the PCs in on things from the get-go, but I think it's more fun for the players to have that WTF moment.)

 

2) I am very curious why so many people have no trouble at all letting some dice determine whether or not their character is hit and killed, but shudder at the thought of letting some dice determine whether or not their character is successfully hit on or lied to. To me it is a logical inconsistency I just can't fathom.

 

I certainly don't advocate using Social Combat rules for every social interaction. Just as I don't advocate using the Combat rules for every physical altercation. What I say is that if you enjoy the tactics of combat, the random dice-rolls of combat, the surprises of combat, and the ultimate victory of combat . . . why, then you would enjoy a Social Combat that employs all of the same Powers, Skills, tactics, rolling of dice, surprises, drama, etc. Wouldn't you? Why not?

 

The only difference between a fully realized Social Combat system and the current HERO Combat system would be that no one is physically injured. That's it. The game lives on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

A couple thoughts:

 

1) The OP was wondering about how to get a PC to believe something utterly and clearly false. That's easy: take the player aside and say, "Hey. I've got this great idea for a plot. Here's what I need you to do... (insert what you need him to do) ...So? What do you say? Will you go for it?"

 

If your player is interested, you're good to go. He'll roleplay the situation to the hilt because he's part of the plot. He knows why you want him to do certain things. The other players around the table may be confused at first, but they'll quickly guess that something is up. Then they'll handle their part of all this.

 

('Course you could get all the PCs in on things from the get-go, but I think it's more fun for the players to have that WTF moment.)

 

2) I am very curious why so many people have no trouble at all letting some dice determine whether or not their character is hit and killed, but shudder at the thought of letting some dice determine whether or not their character is successfully hit on or lied to. To me it is a logical inconsistency I just can't fathom.

 

I certainly don't advocate using Social Combat rules for every social interaction. Just as I don't advocate using the Combat rules for every physical altercation. What I say is that if you enjoy the tactics of combat, the random dice-rolls of combat, the surprises of combat, and the ultimate victory of combat . . . why, then you would enjoy a Social Combat that employs all of the same Powers, Skills, tactics, rolling of dice, surprises, drama, etc. Wouldn't you? Why not?

 

The only difference between a fully realized Social Combat system and the current HERO Combat system would be that no one is physically injured. That's it. The game lives on.

 

I owe you rep.That reflects my original point: social interaction as being just as vibrant as combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

Such a suggestion does sound something like a STR vs. STR contest in that players would roll PRE attack dice versus each other and then look at the difference.

 

That is if I understand you.

 

You understand me. That's how we do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

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

 

Ah, but this is where we disagree, and why I found HeroQuest to ultimately be unplayable. Not all game conflicts are contests, IMO, and not can - or should - be resolvable in the same way.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I think the problem I'm having with all this is that I see the current rules as being quite adequite for the system.

 

Sure, the Interaction skills are not completely binding on PC's. Guess what? That's actually a good thing. Otherwise the GM can just make a roll, and the PC's blithely have to follow the Pied Piper down the plot railroad whether it makes sense for their conceptualization of their charcter or not.

 

Now if a player is flat out ignoring every roll the GM makes (GM: "She made her Seduction roll by 10, what are you doing to do?" Player: "Yawn and ignore her.") then the player is not doing his job. The player's job is to play his character, based on his visualization of it, in the world that the GM has created and is running. And sometimes, that is going to run a bit counter to the character's best interests. So the player needs to be ready to roll with it - even run with it if he thinks it will be fun - much of the time, in the interest of fair play. That way when he digs in his heels at something he percives as important about his character (going back to the original example - GM: "She makes her Seduction roll by 10, what are you going to do?" the player - whose character is happily married and very dedicated to his wife - now has the wiggle room to stammer out an apology and run home to his wife... or maybe go along with the seduction because he thinks it might be fun to play out some of the tension that would bring to his charcter's relationship to his wife) then the GM can understand and let it ride, because he was a good sport about the last several times the Interaction skill rolls turned against him.

 

All that would be lost if the GM says "She made her Sedction roll by 10, you are heading over to her place to get laid."

 

 

A properly constructed social interaction system would allow for the wiggle room you mention (I've actually suggested a system a couple of pages back that allows for this despite being dice based, and no one commented on it) AND would apply equally to PCs and NPCs: you want to be able to ignore dice results? Fine NPCs can ignore yours too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

 

2) I am very curious why so many people have no trouble at all letting some dice determine whether or not their character is hit and killed, but shudder at the thought of letting some dice determine whether or not their character is successfully hit on or lied to. To me it is a logical inconsistency I just can't fathom.

 

I don't see them as even remotely analogous.

 

As the matter is rooted in gaming philosophy I hope I can be forgiven for being philosophical. I would explain it thus:

 

We can't control the laws of nature. We can't control what life does to us. We can't control the actions of others. We know when we go out the door there is a (hopefully) statistically anomalous possibility that someone may attempt to mug, rape, or murder us. Or a drunk may come careening into us, or a steel girder may fall on us. And while luck, education, and training may push the odds in our favor, we may meet our match. A situation or person our skills can't overcome. That's the kind of world we live in. Its amoral and unsympathetic. The one thing we can do in this life is decide what to do with the situation in front of us. The one thing we can do is define ourselves with our choices. That is our most basic sacrament. I think anyone who isn't inflated with machismo is aware of this.

 

When the player sits down with his character he's instinctively aware that his meta-role creates a roughly analogous situation for his character to his own. He can't control the scenario the game-master throws at him, he can't control what anyone else in the world does, and no matter how good his character is he can't control how the dice fall in a fight. It may be that its his character's day to get hit with a falling girder. Player and character have something in common: existential frailty. The one thing the player can do is define their character via actions. The one thing the player can do is decide what the character does with the situation in front of him. That's something else he has in common with his character: the moral ability and right to define yourself with choices, or in that six degrees off planet earth gaming milieu: to decide who your character is.

 

If the system undercuts the players ability to define his character through their choices then the system has essentially betrayed the player's role in the game. Its also, I believe, one of the reasons mental illness is such a strong taboo and frightening subject in the real world. That our mind, our one safe-haven of self-definition, would betray us and rob us of the self-determination rooted in rationality is horrifying. In the end, choice is sacred ground. Some people feel having dice replace decision making would be no different that forcing mechanical schizophrenia on their character. Let alone render them irrelevant to the play experience.

 

I will leave you with a parable. A highly gifted boy with many fine qualities was subjected to pervasive physical and psychological abuse by his father. As he got older it became worse and worse. He was ritually stripped of his dignity on a daily basis. He was hospitalized more than once. Its became obvious the father was trying to destroy his personality. To break his will. The boy's one refuge was books. As he was coming into manhood he read the Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber by Ernest Hemingway. He paraphrased the story thus: "Its better to die a man than live a child's life." It was a story about choice. One of the finest such stories ever written.

 

This was not an overly dramatic reading for this boy all things considered. A week later his father tried to kill him and nearly succeeded. He was beaten so badly bones were broken, blood was everywhere, nerve damage was done to an eyelid. He was told to stay down or he'd be killed. He knew it wasn't a joke. And yet he forced himself to his feet. He stood up because he was making the most definitive choice of his life. And in making eye-contact with his father a moment passed between them. His father saw, no matter what, he would never have the moral victory. He could kill his son but he could not rob him of his choice to rise, stand, and face his death with dignity. What happened to the boy?

 

I will simply say this: the only choice we have in this story of ours is what we do, not what happens to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

It is the current situation with things like persuasion.

 

I am pretty much dead against this. If the player is the ultimate arbiter of what the PC can or cannot be persuaded to do (regardless of skills and abilities) then the GM has to be the ultimate arbiter of what the NPC can or cannot be persuaded to do.

 

Right. And I am absolutely good with that. I see persuasion - or any other social skill - is a means to influence - but not control a character's actions. I interpret the rolls (and degree of success) as a guide to how much and how accurate the information I feed a player should be, and also how much pressure I should apply to the player/NPC.

 

What I think would be helpful is a guide for players and GMs on how to adjudicate these kinds of interactions - including interaction with PRE rolls, perhaps some comments on situational bonuses, etc. I don't want things like a table of concrete bonuses (for example) because that leads inevitably to things like "Try Torch to the groin: that gives the best modifier" - which are not applicable to all social situations (a seduction roll, for example :D)

 

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I will simply say this: the only choice we have in this story of ours is what we do' date=' not what happens to us.[/quote']

 

While I very much appreciate the thought and time you invested in your post, I'm afraid it's misplaced. A complete Social Combat system would in no way take away your choice of what to do. It would provide mechanics for resolving what happens. This is precisely what happens in Physical Combat.

 

I cannot control all aspects of what happens to my character in Physical Combat, but that does not bother me. I make what choices I can and accept that not everything will go precisely to my satisfaction. More, I find the lack of certainty exciting! I enjoy the cinematic sweep of the HERO Combat rules.

 

And I can't imagine that I'd feel any differently about a game session that ended up with the same combat rules being used to run something other than a physical fight. Maybe our heroes need to win a court case against the villains. We play it out according to HERO combat rules, but with different character sheets -- ones that reflect our Social Combat abilities rather than our ability to kick physical ass. We use the Speed Chart. We use Maneuvers. We use Powers and Skills. Some fall. Others press heroically on. Eventually we win our Social Combat and the court case! No one was physically injured. No scenery was destroyed. But we had every bit as much excitement as we'd have had if we were trying to prevent a bank robbery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

What I think would be helpful is a guide for players and GMs on how to adjudicate these kinds of interactions - including interaction with PRE rolls' date=' perhaps some comments on situational bonuses, etc. I don't want things like a table of concrete bonuses (for example) because that leads inevitably to things like "[i']Try Torch to the groin: that gives the best modifier[/i]" - which are not applicable to all social situations (a seduction roll, for example :D)

 

It is amazing considering how many words we have spent on arguing about this that we are probably not that far away in practice. :)

 

I don't think I would like such a chart either - it could never be comprehensive enough or, if it was, would be too long to use.

 

I think there are too many disparate ways to influence actions and beliefs - I would like it better codified with respect to the mechanics available in this and then a really good few pages spent on how to run social conflict. I haven't counted but I'll bet there is a lot more space devoted to physical conflicts than to social ones. What does that say about the system?

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

I used to play a lot of Pendragon games, and never found that having rules for personality traits and social interaction interfered with roleplaying. Quite the contrary, in fact, as having as established structure of rules to guide what state the character is currently in acts as a set of cue cards, if you will.

 

I'd like to see a well assembled social interaction system done HERO style.

 

Will rep when able. I was about to quote Pendragon as my first introduction to rules for social interaction.

 

I found that it better defined the role I was to play as my job in the game. I could see better what might be defined for me in that role and what I might want to change about the character and look for ways to accomplish that.

 

One of my characters had a very low Brave characteristic. That was not what I wanted to play initially but it led to me making lots of actions that reflected that - avoiding places where the GM might require Bravery rolls and functioning on a very different plane - the plane of the character in front of me rather than the idealised version in my head. I also went out of my way to enhance that characteristic when I could - when he died he was honoured by Arthur who erected a monument to his brave actions in the battle where he met his doom. A proud moment and one better savoured because he had to work to achieve that bravery.

 

Now in HERO you start from a different place - if you want a brave character then you would build that. If you didn't build it into the character then why should you expect him to be brave?

 

It should allow (not demand) another level of detail to be played. The system has many basic mechanisms that could be used - Markdoc has in many places indicated where and how he has used them and Vondy has indicated that with experience comes the ability to use them more effectively. Why not have a better designed set of mechanics instead and some detailed guidance on how to use those for new players and GMs?

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

And while luck' date=' education, and training may push the odds in our favor, we may meet our match. A situation or person our skills can't overcome. That's the kind of world we live in. Its amoral and unsympathetic. The [u']one thing[/u] we can do in this life is decide what to do with the situation in front of us. The one thing we can do is define ourselves with our choices. That is our most basic sacrament. I think anyone who isn't inflated with machismo is aware of this.

 

See. I think it is machismo to think that our choices and decisions (despite our best intentions and skills) are not influenced by others.

 

In a game situation the factors that would influence a character are unlikely to have the same influence on the player of that character and the system as it stands gives little guidance to the player on how much those influences have accomplished. The player can say - I see through it all - I refuse to submit.

 

How would the game provide for the (admittedly extreme) example of Saruman in the Lord of the Rings or the influence of Sauron over Saruman and Denethor through the palantir - an influence resisted heroically by Aragorn. Right now if Denethor was a PC he could simply say - "nonsense! I don't listen to him..."

 

The boy in your parable was brave. His bravery could have been innate, tempered through indifference to pain after long experience or inspired by desperation. Whatever, he was brave. There are a lot of women out there who make the other choice, stay down and dont tell anyone. How do you know which category your character comes into.

 

The Ultimates backstory with Wasp is excellent here in that a very brave superhero is abused by her husband in a way she would never allow a villain to. Where does the system allow for that.

 

Good GMs and players can achieve beyond what the system facilitates but I would like my system of choice to facilitate where it currently does not. The balance between codifying old mechanics, introducing new ones and providing extensive guidance on their use is what I was hoping to discuss - not whether it is an abomination. :)

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

While I very much appreciate the thought and time you invested in your post, I'm afraid it's misplaced. A complete Social Combat system would in no way take away your choice of what to do.

 

Until such time as we have an actual social combat system to discuss you cannot make that assertion. The initial posts in this thread indicated an ability to dictate the beliefs of player characters, and to some extent, actions. Other posts have indicated a desire to be able to force characters to do things, and there have been references to the Dogs in the Vinyard system which has strong compulsion built in. This is one of the things we're debating in this thread. As such, there is nothing misplaced about it. The fact that you envision a system that take away choice (like: "you go to bed with her" from previous posts) doesn't mean others don't want exactly that - or that its out of scope for this thread. I addressed my philosophy of the issue and I stand by it. I am strongly opposed to any social combat system that includes strong compulsion of player characters (or main villains). If we are talking about something with interpretive results running off of margin of success or some such I'm more open to the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

And a social contest resolution system just provides a different way that a GM might railroad players, it does not suddenly introduce the possibility.

 

As a player, I have trust issues....it isn't to do with the GM, though I trust some more than others. It is, IME, common among players to distrust the motives of NPCs, especially ones recently introduced by the GM, regardless of the provenance of those NPCs.

 

The player encounters salespeople and random NPC's every day. However, we don't play out these mundane events, because we don't want to play out the mundane aspects of the characters' lives. We want to play out the exciting actions relevant to the adventure.

 

So, when I go buy a pair of shoes, I am not on guard that the shoe salesman may actually be a retired Ninja about to bring me into a battle between rival martial arts gangs secretly battling for control of my city's drug trade. But when the GM starts vividly describing my character's trip to the shoe store, I have a pretty good idea that this is not just a typical purchase of shoes. And that means I as a player am on my guard, where my character would have no reason to be.

 

So you rolled a few dice and told the player that he would not be successful - if the dice had fallen the other way then the NPC would have accepted the situation?

 

How do you try to bully the man? And would such bullying be open to the NPC as well?

 

So there are dice rolling mechanisms open to the player but nothing binding on his character, just on the NPCs?

 

The end result that I would suggest is being able to say to the player that there is no way the NPC will back down despite his very best efforts - and have that not feel as if it is simply by GM fiat regardless of the character's abilities.

 

Nor are they fantasy fulfillment.

 

Players currently can ignore the character's pain, embarrassment or anything else as long as they get the action the player wants.

 

This plays along with the pain ray thread. The character feels pain, the player decides the character is big and strong enough to brave the pain and keep charging the barricade. The character feels more pain than any mortal should be able to ignore. Big deal - victory is just around the corner - the player decides the character will ignore that pain and keep going.

 

Currently the player has a big veto that does not go along with the 'role' playing idea - they can decide on a whim to ignore the role and play the game rather than the role whenever they want.

 

If skills such as persuasion and seduction do not persuade or seduce then why spend points on them?

 

This is a major point of disagreement - do the players get the ability to use social skills to accomplish things NPC's could not? I agree they should not get "PC immunity". The skills should work the same way regardless of the target, although the modifiers may be very different.

 

Just as a gun does 2d6 KA against whomever it hits, although the PC might be better able to avoid being hit, or more able to weather the damage. If the PC leaves himself with a 3 DCV and no defenses, a handgun will be as fatal to him as to any other mere mortal. Why should a PC with no investment in social abilities or defenses be able to arbitrarily declare "my character is too shrewd to fall for that"?

 

No. The NPC in this case had very firm' date=' very clear orders and a good idea of the consequences if he disobeyed. Short of directly threatening his life, he was not going to give way.[/quote']

 

Yet, in the source material, characters whose lives are threatened do decide to act contrary to orders, even at the risk (sometimes cost) of their lives. This threat provides a modifier - perhaps even one which renders success impossible at the skill level possessed by the opponent unless he can bring some positive modifiers to bear - but does not, or should not, hard wire the mental processes of the guard. Hardwired mental processes are the domain of automatons.

 

Depends how it's done. Conversation and Persuasion are for the most part, "soft" social skills, IMO. Interrogation and PRE attacks are for the most part "hard" social skills. Using a PRE attack (depending on context) will usually - but not always - be seen as bullying: but in some contexts, it can be seen as inspiring, instead. Interrogation for example, could be used in a soft fashion, if the PC in question was playing "good cop". Persuasion could be seen as bullying, if the PC kept pushing the same points over and over. Just like in real life, what constitutes bullying is highly context dependant.

 

And yes, such bullying could be open to an NPC as well.

 

Yet in many games, telling the player "your character is deeply affected by the PRE attack - he cowers and loses a phase" would be taken very poorly. How dare you dictate to me that my brave and daring character is cowed - he would not be cowed by such a threat, but galvanized to further action."

 

In dictating that I hesitate, you/the PRE attack rules have removed my control over my character. I thought that your opposition to social conflict mechanics was specifically based on the presumption the player's control should not be removed.

 

Nope' date=' as I have said over and over in precursor threads, I believe strongly that the rules should apply more or less the same to PCs and NPCs. The difference is, that I make the decision for NPCs, the players make them for PCs.[/quote']

 

Another key area of disagreement is what constitutes "making decisions" for the characters. In combat, I decide I will try to knock out a specific opponent. The dice decide whether I am successful in hitting my opponent and, if so, the extent to which I damage him. I decide I will attack Target X. The dice decide the effects of my attack. I also decide I will dodge Target Y. The dice again decide my success.

 

Some posters seem to feel that the player must decide the results of interaction attempts against him. I disagree. It would be just as legitimate to classify the player's decision as "I attempt to avoid being swayed by the senator's speech". The dice will then determine if I was successful in avoiding being swayed by the senator's speech. Perhaps I will be - I should have some decent modifiers, and I hopefully built my character to be resistant to such effects if that is how I envisioned him. But, perhaps, I will not, and my character walks out with the cliched statement of "I came here ready to disagree, but the senator convinced me - I now support his bid for re-election."

 

A properly constructed social interaction system would allow for the wiggle room you mention (I've actually suggested a system a couple of pages back that allows for this despite being dice based' date=' and no one commented on it) [b']AND would apply equally to PCs and NPCs: you want to be able to ignore dice results? Fine NPCs can ignore yours too.[/b]

 

I agree - either the rules apply or they do not. And, if everyone can ignore the results of these skills, then we may as well get rid of them. We now have a situation where the player's social skills dictate his character's success in interaction.

 

Maybe the same players should have to role play their characters' acrobatics and their resistance to pain. I accept that I am not my character. My character does things that I, as a player, know are poor decisions because, based on his personality, those are the things he would do. If my character is affected by social interaction, that is no different from being affected by combat.

 

And if the GM designs his NPC's so that our player characters are lead around by the nose due to NPC's with unbeatable interaction skills, then I will quit the game at about the same time I would quit a game where the GM designs his NPC's so that our player characters are consistently unable to succeed in the game due to NPC's with unbeatable combat abilities.

 

While I very much appreciate the thought and time you invested in your post' date=' I'm afraid it's misplaced. A complete Social Combat system would in no way take away your choice of what to do. It would provide mechanics for resolving what happens.[/quote']

 

This is a key point of disagreement, as noted above. I agree that my control over my character is limited to deciding what he will attempt, not whether he will succeed. Whether that attempt is to "beat down the three armed guards" or "resist the Senator's persuasion".

 

I decide what my character tries to do. The rules adjudicate his success or failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

 

The boy in your parable was brave. His bravery could have been innate, tempered through indifference to pain after long experience or inspired by desperation. Whatever, he was brave. There are a lot of women out there who make the other choice, stay down and dont tell anyone. How do you know which category your character comes into?

 

 

Because its your freaking character. Its not the game-masters character. Its not the another player's character. Its your character. Because your the one who envisioned him in the first place. Because you built him. Because its up to the player whether they want to play someone who stands up for themselves or not. Who sets out to play a character who is beaten, cowed, and broken to start with? I've never seen it.

 

People want to play strong protagonists. Characters tend to be idealized types. The fact that the dice could change that about their character is robbing them and ruining their character concept. They have a right to decide whether or not they go down fighting. There is nothing realistic about a role-playing game. Player characters are not statistically normative. They're invariably heads above the rest to start with. Its play pretend.

 

My point is that at the crux of our disagreement is the line I put in Bold Text. To me it seems self evident that player characters are defined by their players. If they play them badly and won't take the whole situation or group nature of the game into account that's a separate problem. They should be playing their role. That may mean falling prey to something the player wouldn't or knows is a bad idea because its in character to fall prey to. But it may also mean saying: "this would be totally out of character."

 

Dice can dictate completely inappropriate results at times. For instance, let's say you had a character who was both a devoutly orthodox jew and loving husband. I mean a really committed man. These aren't written on the sheet as the player didn't take points for them. But these are things established about the character. So now the GM trots out his favorite Jessica Alba clone non-player character with the big Seduction roll and says: "wouldn't it be cool..."

 

Maybe the player doesn't think that's cool. Maybe he thinks its tosh.

 

Or maybe he thinks its just plain out of character.

 

That's why I've said I'm all for a system that allows results to be interpreted by the player (or for major non-player characters the game-master), or exerts pressure while allowing them to continue making their own choices, but I'm absolutely against a system that ultimately dictates actions. I don't actually think we disagree all that much on this point as I see eye to eye with markdoc and the two of you don't seem to disagree too much (the post you were responding to was answering a question someone else posited).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

 

I decide what my character tries to do. The rules adjudicate his success or failure.

 

So when I'm running my WWII Wermacht Officer who has become entangled with the resistance and he loses a social contest when listening to the Fuhrer's glorious speech, I am now compelled to play a Good Nazi Butcher until some chain of events comes along that allows him to reverse the effect? I'm now required to play this farce out even though I the player know its not dramatically appropriate or something I'm even remotely comfortable with. I now have to have my character say "gosh, I beleive old Adolf, he's such a powerful speaker?" People did do that in real life, but do the protagonists headlining our stories do that? I'd rather role-play the characters inner turmoil over how he finds himself torn by duty to fatherland and conscience and the fact that the nation seems to have gone mad around him, or how he knows the Fuhrer personally and due to his magnetism wants to believe him but must do what is best for Germany despite it (going against him). That may just be me. The point of this extreme example is to point out that a social combat system with strong compulsion built in is just as flawed and open to abuse as a system that has no compulsion built in. Both extremes can be abused. One by bad players, the other by bad game-masters. Whether they are or not is up to the personalities involved in the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Social effects

 

That's why I've said I'm all for a system that allows results to be interpreted by the player (or for major non-player characters the game-master)' date=' or exerts pressure while allowing them to continue making their own choices, but I'm absolutely against a system that ultimately dictates actions.[/quote']

 

QFT. I see it as a violation of a social contract when the GM dictates a PC's reactions. The GM is supposed to describe the situation, using the game mechanics as necessary (i.e, "Blowtorch got 35 points of effect on his PRE attack when he sliced the tank in half in one shot."), and the players should react appropriately (Ferret dives behind the nearest cover, but Gladiator (PsL: Must challenge strongest opponent) shouts, "Finally! A worthy opponent!" and wades into battle).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...