Social effects

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

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' date=' 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).[/quote']

 

You feel that mechanical out come of Pre attacks (loss of actions, hesitation, etc) should be ignorable?

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

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' date=' the other by bad game-masters. Whether they are or not is up to the personalities involved in the situation.[/quote']

 

Who's saying social systems can't be abused or that the quality of the players at the table won't effect their performance? The points of contention seem to be

 

1. Do hard social mechanics add value to the game play experience or are they an intrinsically flawed and unnecessary idea?

 

2. How powerfully should they be able to compel outcomes?

 

These two issues are mainly matters of game style and preferences not objective right or wrong. Which is why I'd keep such rules optional (and actually I'd like to see an optional simplified physical resolution system too at some point)

 

Any tool or aspect of mechanics can be abused by bad gamers. That's just a fact, that doesn't mean they HAVE to be or should be avoided or eliminated because of that possibility.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Social effects

 

You feel that mechanical out come of Pre attacks (loss of actions' date=' hesitation, etc) should be ignorable?[/quote']

 

To a certain extent. I wouldn't make a PC or major NPC lose more than half a Phase, or give them less than half DCV. Like it says under Wounding: "Player characters are assumed to be tough."

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

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' date=' cowed, and broken to start with? I've never seen it. [/quote']

 

 

I hope I'm not vexing you, I'm enjoying the discussion (with all concerned even when I'm disagreeing!).

 

When I asked the question, how do you know which one you are, would you have given the response if I had asked how do you know how strong you are or how difficult you were to hurt?

 

Things that are evident on the character sheet are easier for you and the GM to agree on what is and is not possible. If your character is a committed Jew or Amish or anyone with a strong moral code then it should be represented somewhere on the character sheet, alternatively your character could be of loose morals or a pleasure seeker. All of these things would give strong modifiers to social interaction resolution. They would be there on the character sheet.

 

In some circumstances, good GMs would simply accept that a well presented case against seduction would not even need a roll - just like I have allowed a brick character to describe to me how he waded through a bunch of mooks rather than play out the CVs and defences. Much more enjoyable for both of us.

 

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.

 

And yet we quantify and notarise some contests and not others. Even in play pretend we look to the rules when GM and player disagree on outcomes. If we wanted to simply play pretend we would need no rules or dice at all.

 

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."

 

If there is nothing on the character sheet or something quantifiable the the game becomes nothing more than "Is!", "Is not!". There would be similar disagreements about the effects of physical combat if the rules were not there to out players an GMs on the same page.

 

Dice can dictate completely inappropriate results at times. For instance' date=' 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..."[/quote']

 

The same GM could roll out someone with mental powers or drugs and achieve the same inappropriate results without social resolution - that is the GM being cruel. Inappropriate results come through the combat system as well.

 

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.

 

And while I reckon that social resolution systems should be able to colour perceptions and beliefs (temporarily mostly) they would never dictate actions. It would be for GM and player to state intents and interpret results.

 

 

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).

 

I think we disagree more on the philosophy and stuff than on the mechanical application of stuff in game...

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

...and the players should react appropriately

 

A good part of this argument is how GM and player come to agreement on what is appropriate...

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

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' date=' I am now compelled to play a Good Nazi Butcher until some chain of events comes along that allows him to reverse the effect? [/quote']

 

Hmmm. It would depend on lots of things. I'm not sure that one speech would or could turn things so drastically in 'normal' ways. With Saruman I might be able to see it.

 

I would also say that the effect the speech might have is to add to the modifiers when some other contest comes up - possibly on whether he should reveal some fact about the resistance people he knows. His actual actions should reflect the influences on the character and allow GM and player to agree on appropriate action.

 

 

Doc

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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)[/quote']

 

I must have missed that. Which post was it again? I want to take a look at it and see if I've been arguing against something I might have otherwise supported...

 

AND would apply equally to PCs and NPCs: you want to be able to ignore dice results? Fine NPCs can ignore yours too.

 

Sure. If what I'm trying to manipulate the NPC into doing is that far out of character for them, I have no problem with the attempt to manipulate them failing. That means I was too pushy and it didn't work - just like someone trying to push someone into a situation they really don't want to be in in real life often fails too. After all, seducing a nun should be really, really hard, or even practically impossible.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Social effects

 

A good part of this argument is how GM and player come to agreement on what is appropriate...

 

...and who is the final arbiter.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I'd have a really hard time getting into character roleplaying this scenario if I had to use mechaincs to 'abort to block' someone's haymakered Oratory roll...

 

I work around it for combat, because after all, combat must be defined by die rolls - this isn't the SCA or other combat recreation group, it's a roleplaying game. But for social interactions, I prefer to interact, rather than roll.

 

Okay, a lot of people seem to want a 'hard' social resolution system. That's fine - so long as it's optional. As soon as it becomes a hard-wired part of the game, I'm afraid the game really ceases to interest me.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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?

 

Because playing Craven the Coward is probably not going to be a whole lot of fun? Because I gave my character a 20+ PRE I expect him to not wet himself when he's being shot at? Because I didn't take the Abject Coward psych limit?

 

Long and short, this is the HERO System, not the WIMP System.

 

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?

 

Because there is a system in place already that works quite well? PRE attacks for shock value, Interactions skills for more lasting effects, neither are permanent, and both allow a certain amount of wiggle room for the player to make decisions for the character (PRE attacks may mean he cannot implement those decisions right away, though! ).

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

I'm absolutely against a system that ultimately dictates actions.

 

Seriously? The Combat section of 5ER is filled with things that dictate actions.

 

Your character is grabbed. Is it OK for you to say, "I didn't envision my character as the sort who could be grabbed. I'm going to ignore the fact that you used the Grab maneuver successfully"?

 

Your character is Stunned. Is it OK for you to say, "You can't make me miss a whole Phase just standing around. I didn't come here to play a game like that! I came here for action! Forget it. I'm not Stunned at all"?

 

An opponent successfully Blocks your attack. Is it OK for you to say, "What do you mean he can attack before me on the next Phase? No way! I didn't want to make an attack that could be blocked like that. I didn't build a character just to have his attacks blocked"?

 

The dice are rolled, your character's defenses subtracted, and he's dead. Is it OK for you to say, "Dead? Dead dead? What are you, nuts? This is my character. You can't just rule that I'm dead. Where's my say in the matter?"

 

Most players are willing to accept that things will happen in HERO games -- especially in combat -- that are beyond their ability to control. They surrender to it. They embrace it. They trust their GM not to take advantage of it.

 

Social Combat rules don't have to be any different. If you start out playing game in which the GM says, "There will be some very seductive temptations in this game. One of the things your character will have to do is try to resist them" then you are forewarned and should be ready to accept it when your character stumbles. Or fails.

 

Naturally, you don't have to play any game at all. Or use all the available rules in the rulebook. If I was told that the game would include the possibility of my character truly becoming a Nazi, I might be interested in playing through the process -- but would have no interest in playing the game once I had actually become a Nazi. I have played games in which my character went mad. Or died. Or became a zombie. Playing them up to that point was very interesting. Continue them? Of course not.

 

I didn't sign up to play a mad man in CoC -- just the part where he struggles with all his might to retain his sanity while learning the truth. The fact that my character failed is a disappointment. But the game rocked.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

I'd have a really hard time getting into character roleplaying this scenario if I had to use mechaincs to 'abort to block' someone's haymakered Oratory roll...

 

Why? Do you have a really hard time getting into character roleplaying an Abort to Block someone's haymakered Energy Blast? What's the difference? You blow your Block and maybe you lose the fight.

[Midspec]

Re: Social effects

 

You are overlooking the obvious solution to this quandry. Simply instruct the PC that social situation 'A' is not not what he believed and to RP accordingly. Sure the player might know that the situation is bogus, but that should not stop him him from playing his character as if the situation were genuine.

 

The mechanic behind the change in the situation is a moot point. As long as the GM is acting responsibly and has good reason to dictate this change, it should all be kosher. If the GM is not, the the player should find another GM.

 

if the player can't handle it, then the GM should find another player.

 

This is, after all a role-playing game. If the player needs incentive, offer bonus exp for playing the situation accordingly.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

So' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

And in my group, the players are on the lookout - for some really good roleplaying coming up! We find it a lot more fun to generally run with the NPC's skill rolls and allow them to suceed where it doesn't ruin our visualization of the character.

 

No matter how high your persuasion roll, you're not likely to persuade Wolverine to stop smoking, after all.

 

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.

 

Roleplaying goes on, the player rolls his Interaction skill, the GM judges the results based on the margin of sucess or failure, and more roleplaying ensues. I look at it as the system getting out of the way of the roleplaying, and it is an important feature of the HERO System to our group.

 

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"?

 

15+ INT perhaps? 15+ PRE? He lacks the Gullible Disad? I defined him as being a shrewd operator and built him appropriately?

 

Which brings up another point - how many points would a character have to spend to have reasonable social defenses in such a system? And wouldn't having to spend those points there make the character a wuss in a physical confrontation? Or are you advocating another round of 'point creep' which can result in bigger and more unbalancing Combat Monsters who go well out of their way to avoid even a hint of social conflict? (Or worse - social monsters who you simply cannot defeat because they talk you into doing yourself in...)

 

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.

 

A good GM tells the player 'your character is deeply affected by the PRE attack - he looses a phase. How do you react?' Then the player can RP what he feels is appropriate for the effect. "Shocked into inaction" is pretty common. "Stoically braces and stands up to it" is also pretty common. One character with who found everything funny would 'laugh it off' for a phase. "Cowering in fear" is pretty rare, because characters in our group tend to have PRE in the 20's and even if they are 'shocked,' they are rarely terrified.

 

But at all times, even though mecahnically the effects are the same, the player retains the ability to choose how the charcter reacts within the mechanics of the PRE attack.

 

And yes, the same thing tends to happen to NPC's as well.

 

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.

 

You're comparing physical - which is quantifiable - to social - which really is not. It's beyond apples and oranges to compare the two.

 

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."

 

So someone should be able to persaude Superman to support Lex Luthor for President then? That is the logical conclusion to where you're going with this.

 

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.

 

With wiggle room for things like character concept and situational modifiers. Yes, the current rules work quite well for that.

 

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.

 

You make a good point there. However, (Granted, in my experience rather than as a universal truth) even good GM's tend to use 'hard' social resolution systems to lead characters around simply because the option exists for them to do so.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Seriously? The Combat section of 5ER is filled with things that dictate actions.

 

Your character is grabbed. Is it OK for you to say, "I didn't envision my character as the sort who could be grabbed. I'm going to ignore the fact that you used the Grab maneuver successfully"?

 

Your character is Stunned. Is it OK for you to say, "You can't make me miss a whole Phase just standing around. I didn't come here to play a game like that! I came here for action! Forget it. I'm not Stunned at all"?

 

An opponent successfully Blocks your attack. Is it OK for you to say, "What do you mean he can attack before me on the next Phase? No way! I didn't want to make an attack that could be blocked like that. I didn't build a character just to have his attacks blocked"?

 

The dice are rolled, your character's defenses subtracted, and he's dead. Is it OK for you to say, "Dead? Dead dead? What are you, nuts? This is my character. You can't just rule that I'm dead. Where's my say in the matter?"

 

Most players are willing to accept that things will happen in HERO games -- especially in combat -- that are beyond their ability to control. They surrender to it. They embrace it. They trust their GM not to take advantage of it.

 

Social Combat rules don't have to be any different. If you start out playing game in which the GM says, "There will be some very seductive temptations in this game. One of the things your character will have to do is try to resist them" then you are forewarned and should be ready to accept it when your character stumbles. Or fails.

 

Naturally, you don't have to play any game at all. Or use all the available rules in the rulebook. If I was told that the game would include the possibility of my character truly becoming a Nazi, I might be interested in playing through the process -- but would have no interest in playing the game once I had actually become a Nazi. I have played games in which my character went mad. Or died. Or became a zombie. Playing them up to that point was very interesting. Continue them? Of course not.

 

I didn't sign up to play a mad man in CoC -- just the part where he struggles with all his might to retain his sanity while learning the truth. The fact that my character failed is a disappointment. But the game rocked.

 

Let's compare apples to apples, not apples to orangutans here, shall we?

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Why? Do you have a really hard time getting into character roleplaying an Abort to Block someone's haymakered Energy Blast? What's the difference? You blow your Block and maybe you lose the fight.

 

It breaks me out of the game world. I do not see that as an improvement.

 

Like I said, for combat I work around it. I didn't come to the gaming table to act out repeatedly beating up my friend the GM. (That's what Belegarth is for! ) I came here to play an action-packed role playing game. So for combat, mechaincs are a necessity. For roleplaying, I think mechanics just get in the way.

 

But hey, if that's what floats your boat, go for it. Just don't expect me to join you for it.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

You are overlooking the obvious solution to this quandry. Simply instruct the PC that social situation 'A' is not not what he believed and to RP accordingly. Sure the player might know that the situation is bogus, but that should not stop him him from playing his character as if the situation were genuine.

 

The mechanic behind the change in the situation is a moot point. As long as the GM is acting responsibly and has good reason to dictate this change, it should all be kosher. If the GM is not, the the player should find another GM.

 

if the player can't handle it, then the GM should find another player.

 

This is, after all a role-playing game. If the player needs incentive, offer bonus exp for playing the situation accordingly.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

When the GM dictates character reactions, then there is no reason for the player to be there. Dictating the character's reactions is the whole and entire reason the player is there. When the GM assumes that role himself, the player is totally unnecessary to the situation. And indeed, the GM should get rid of that player - and all the other players too, because what he wants to do it tell a story to my friends, not play a roleplaying game with my friends.

[Ice9]

Re: Social effects

 

I'd also like to point out how many times viewers watch a character uncritically accept something that they--the viewers--know, or have good reason to suspect, is obviously untrue. And the character does so because otherwise the plot wouldn't work. The technical term for this is an "idiot plot" because it only works when the character is an idiot.

This right here, is I think an important part of the disagreement, and a flawed metaphor.

 

When it comes to what the character thinks and feels, the player isn't the viewer, they're the writer. The question should be "how many times does a character act contrary to the writer's intent? And the answer would be: never. Conversely, the DM in this case is the viewer. While they might think a character deciding to ignore persuasion is lame, they can no more change it than angry Star Wars fans can vaporize Jar-Jar Binks.

 

Now I should note that the above is based on the "traditional" model of RPGs, where the DM controls the world and the PCs control their characters. Some RPGs share the control more uniformly - the DM can force motivations on the characters, and the players can force changes on the world (declaring a secret door to exist because you succeeded on the "enter the fortress" conflict, for instance). This works, because what influence the players lose from their character, they gain in the world.

 

But combining traditional "the DM controls the world" with "the DM can also control the characters" leaves the players as passive spectators - "viewers", if you will - which is not what most people want out of an RPG.

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

I'd also like to point out how many times viewers watch a character uncritically accept something that they--the viewers--know, or have good reason to suspect, is obviously untrue. And the character does so because otherwise the plot wouldn't work. The technical term for this is an "idiot plot" because it only works when the character is an idiot.

 

IMO, most of the time the viewers are being hypercritical. The character isn't an idiot, she just doesn't have the benefit of an audience omni perspective and awareness that she is in a story. She didn't see the cutaways to the villains lair and listen in on their plans, didn't see scenes that set up the lie, betrayal or whatever else that is going to happen. And don't have the comfort of having a list of who's the "good guy" and the "bad guy" laid out or completely stress and danger free place to sit and analyze the situation. Its an inability (for whaever reason) to separate being a part of a story from watching one. Everyone has made choices that, in retrospect were bad because they did have all the information involved. People get scammed, lied to, tricked and manipulated all the time because you -can't- have that kind of overarching perspective in the real world

 

but for some reason when it happens in fiction it's "being an idiot".

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

You make a good point there. However, (Granted, in my experience rather than as a universal truth) even good GM's tend to use 'hard' social resolution systems to lead characters around simply because the option exists for them to do so.

 

The option exists for them to do so already. Its called Mind Control and it's already faster and some what more effective then social skills (it can be cheaper). Pre attacks can have similar effective.

 

I am going to make a suggestion. it's not meant to tell you what you feel just laying the possibility out there

 

Maybe due to bad experiences with social rules before, you are somewhat more sensitive to its use and quicker to feel that it's "railroading" or leading the character around by the nose. I really can't see social rules as the "Dark side of the Force" corrupting all GM (and players...) they touch since they are actually pretty wide spread and popular in a number of games.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Let's compare apples to apples' date=' not apples to orangutans here, shall we? [/quote']

 

I have been. You keep dressing up my apples as orangutans.

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

But combining traditional "the DM controls the world" with "the DM can also control the characters" leaves the players as passive spectators - "viewers"' date=' if you will - which is [b']not[/b] what most people want out of an RPG.

 

The DM already exercises some control over the PCs in combat. With a decent DM, that doesn't cause problems at all. Social Combat would be absolutely no different.

 

Physical Combat:

GM: The goblin steps toward you, drool leaking from its anxious mouth. Eyes wide, he pulls back his black spear and...

Player: I'll try to Block that. I bring up the dagger in my left hand in an attempt to push the spear aside as it comes in.

(dice are rolled)

GM: ...and your dagger rises too slowly -- the spear plunges into your side!

(more dice rolled - defenses applied)

GM: It really took you hard. You're Stunned.

Player: I look down at the haft of the spear protruding from between two plates on my chest and grunt heavily. Soon as I get the chance to act, this gobbo is toast! Little help, guys?

 

Social Combat:

GM: The nobleman steps forward out of the shadows, the ghost of an evil grin flickering across his face. "Tell me," he demands, "why I shouldn't command you to go to Goblin Peak?"

Player: I take it that's an attack?

GM: Sure is.

Player: I'll try to block it. "A command? That's so unlike you. Something so easily traced to you..."

(dice are rolled)

GM: Success! The word "command" is turned aside. The next move is yours.

Player: Guys? Do we want this battle or should we run? I figure we've got to take this guy on eventually, but we don't have much to throw at him right now.

 

Naturally you could just talk through the Social Combat. But you can say exactly the same thing about the Physical Combat. We use mechanics for Physical Combat because we think they add to the fun -- not because it's impossible to roleplay without them! Applying precisely the same mechanics to Social Combat can add to the fun, too. If you'd rather not use them, don't. But don't start with this nonsense about Social Combat rules being inconsistent with roleplaying. They're no more inconsistent with roleplaying than the Physical Combat rules are.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

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' date=' the other by bad game-masters. Whether they are or not is up to the personalities involved in the situation.[/quote']

 

And a physical combat system can be abused as well. So, now that we have established that any and all systems can be abused, and that good gamers will not abuse them, let's get the tools in the toolkits.

 

I would also note that, typically, games have one GM and several players. The GM is typically a more experienced gamer than at least some of the players. Is it REALLY preferable to have a system more open to abuse by all those players, rather than one more open to abuse by the GM? The present system is easily abused by the GM - he has as many points as he wants. Should this also be eliminated?

 

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' date=' 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).[/quote']

 

So Gladiator received points for being able to avoid the detrimental effects of

the presence attack and continue fighting???

 

Because playing Craven the Coward is probably not going to be a whole lot of fun? Because I gave my character a 20+ PRE I expect him to not wet himself when he's being shot at? Because I didn't take the Abject Coward psych limit?

 

So what if you didn't give him a 20 PRE? What if you gave him a 2 PRE? You want to be resistant to PRE attacks because you want a character who is not easily intimidated, you buy PRE. You want a character who is not as vulnerable to social conflict? You buy appropriate defenses under the social conflict model.

 

Because there is a system in place already that works quite well? PRE attacks for shock value' date=' Interactions skills for more lasting effects, neither are permanent, and both allow a certain amount of wiggle room for the [i']player[/i] to make decisions for the character (PRE attacks may mean he cannot implement those decisions right away, though! ).

 

But I envision my character being unflappable under pressure - he would never hesitate due to surprise. The PRE attack breaches the social contract.

 

This is' date=' after all a role-playing game. If the player needs incentive, offer bonus exp for playing the situation accordingly.[/quote']

 

So it's not OK to have an in game mechanic that forces certain reactions, but it is OK to reward the player who kowtows to the GM (converts to fervent nazi ism, say, since that's our extreme example this time around) and, by extension, punishes the player who refuses to kowtow with less xp, and thus a less powerful character.

 

The point which seems completely missed here is that it is JUST AS ABUSIVE to kill the PC's with unbeatable opposition in physical combat, use mind control to dictate their actions or Transform them into frogs and leave them helpless to impact the game world as it is to use the "unbeatable social skill monster" to deny them the ability to ever control their character.

 

And it is NO MORE ABUSIVE to have control of that character abrogated by social skills than it is to have them be challenged, or even lose, in combat, be Mind Controlled or be Transformed into frogs and have to deal with challenges to return to their natural state and defeat their enemy.

 

15+ INT perhaps? 15+ PRE? He lacks the Gullible Disad? I defined him as being a shrewd operator and built him appropriately?

 

So build him appropriately. What about my character who has purchased high PRE and excellent social skills? How is it fair that your 8 PRE, 8 INT, 8 EGO Brute can simply say "Oh, I don't envision Grunt the Clobberer being persuaded by such an argument, so your 87 points spent on social abilities fails. Grunt clobbers the con man.

 

Which brings up another point - how many points would a character have to spend to have reasonable social defenses in such a system? And wouldn't having to spend those points there make the character a wuss in a physical confrontation? Or are you advocating another round of 'point creep' which can result in bigger and more unbalancing Combat Monsters who go well out of their way to avoid even a hint of social conflict? (Or worse - social monsters who you simply cannot defeat because they talk you into doing yourself in...)

 

I am advocating a system that requires balance, just like all systems. I can build an eggshell with a cannon under the present system or otherwise build a character who is indestructible and ineffectual.

 

You're comparing physical - which is quantifiable - to social - which really is not. It's beyond apples and oranges to compare the two.

 

It is? Can you tell me how many strikes a boxer must land on his opponent and expect to be accurate 19 times in 20? How is it that people die from falling in the kitchen, but survive a fall from a third story window? The physical world isn't all that quantifiable either - we accept compromises for the sake of game play.

 

So someone should be able to persaude Superman to support Lex Luthor for President then? That is the logical conclusion to where you're going with this.

 

I suspect that such a character goes well beyond the campaign limits. Should someone be able to slap Superman around like he's a 98 pound weakling? That's possible under the system - but it violates the campaign expectations, just like persuading him to campaign for Luthor.

 

And I can certainly persuade Superman to support Luthor for president. Transform - Person into rabid Luthor supporter - reversed by rubbing Luthor's head for luck. "Gee, his speech was persuasive - how can you not vote for this guy?"

 

Mind Control - one command - Support Luthor's bid for the presidency; target remembers and thinks it was his own idea. "Gee, his speech was persuasive - how can you not vote for this guy?"

 

Why do you assume that:

 

- players and GM's not abusing the system now will abuse a social conflict resolution system?

 

- extreme effects will be cheap or free?

 

You make a good point there. However' date=' (Granted, [b']in my experience [/b]rather than as a universal truth) even good GM's tend to use 'hard' social resolution systems to lead characters around simply because the option exists for them to do so.

 

If they use 'hard' social resolution systems to lead characters around, then they aren't good GM's - at least not in the context of that system.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Social effects

 

So Gladiator received points for being able to avoid the detrimental effects of the presence attack and continue fighting???

 

Yes, going against a target's Psych Lims does reduce the effects of a Presence Attack. Good luck getting him out of there when the fight starts going badly, though.

[sinanju]

Re: Social effects

 

IMO, most of the time the viewers are being hypercritical. The character isn't an idiot, she just doesn't have the benefit of an audience omni perspective and awareness that she is in a story. She didn't see the cutaways to the villains lair and listen in on their plans, didn't see scenes that set up the lie, betrayal or whatever else that is going to happen. And don't have the comfort of having a list of who's the "good guy" and the "bad guy" laid out or completely stress and danger free place to sit and analyze the situation. Its an inability (for whaever reason) to separate being a part of a story from watching one. Everyone has made choices that, in retrospect were bad because they did have all the information involved. People get scammed, lied to, tricked and manipulated all the time because you -can't- have that kind of overarching perspective in the real world

 

but for some reason when it happens in fiction it's "being an idiot".

 

I disagree vehemently. It certainly can be the case that the audience is relying on meta-textual knowledge. And in those cases, you have a point. But at least in my experience, most of the time it isn't. It's that the writers are having the characters act like they have room-temperature IQs in order to make their own jobs easier.

 

Smarter characters require that the writers be smarter--or at least work harder. It's much easier to have the characters be oblivious to danger, ignore basic precautions and take unnecessary risks. If the characters fail to communicate, so much the better...from the POV of the lazy writer, at least.

 

Yes, real people make stupid mistakes. But I'm not interested in watching idiots do stupid things and get into trouble as a result. If I were, I'd watch reality television. I want to see *clever* heroes facing off against *clever* villains.

 

Note that when I say "clever" I'm not demanding that everyone be a genius. I just want the characters to be at least as smart as the audience. If you asked a half dozen ordinary people, "in situation X, what would you do?" and they all come up with something easier and safer than your hero would choose to do...your hero is an idiot UNLESS you've clearly established ahead of time that it isn't an option, or that he's already tried it and it failed.

 

This does not require that the characters have "an omniscient point of view" or be aware that they're in a story or time to think in a stress-free environment. But even if it did, so what? Real life isn't carefully crafted to provide maximum drama and suspense, but fiction is. We could have a story be a series of unconnected events with no real point or climax and characters whose intelligence was suspect and their motives random, but then we'd be writing HEROES.

 

If a safe, comfortable audience can think of half a dozen safer and easier ways to deal with a threat than the character is choosing, they're going to find his behavior implausible--no matter how unrealistic their perspective--and that takes them out of the story. It's your job as the writer to make sure they can believe the character's motives and actions. Which means giving them plausible reasons for his behavior. Saying "but real people do such things sometimes" may be true--but it doesn't convince. Showing us WHY the character doesn't or can't do something easier or safer does.