Social effects

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

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

 

So the problem is poorly drawn characters. In fiction the reader sees poorly drawn characters as idiots. In an RPG poorly drawn characters are subject to attacks that make them look like idiots (see glass-jawed ninjas as well as those who are persuaded to do stupid things).

 

If you build your character appropriately then there is nothing to fear from a social conflict resolution system.

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Yes' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

So who should be MORE affected by a 20d6 PRE attack:

 

- a character who has purchased a 50 PRE (average effect PRE +20)

 

- a character who has sold back to 5 PRE, but is Overconfident?

 

I have no problem with the results of the PRE attack being role played. This is appropriate. But so is the application of the MECHANICAL impact of the PRE attack.

 

To return to your example, the Ferret's reaction could appropriately be "WOW - that guy is powerful", hesitating for a phase and, as soon as possible, aborting his NEXT phase to dive for cover

 

Gladiator, appropriately, could stand impressed for a phase during which he draw a deep, satisfied breath and exclaims ""Finally! A worthy opponent!" and then wades into battle on his next phase because he lost a phase due to the PRE attack.

 

If Gladiator wants to be resistant to the PRE attack, he should pay for it just like everyone else.

 

In other words, why he loses a phase is a special effect which the player should be able to select for role playing reasons. But, mechanically, he loses the phase. Just like you can explain the reason your shot went wild on an 18, or the mook with a gun caught a break rolling a 3, but the dice rolls still dictate whether the attack hit.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

You seem to think you are either Hector the Hero or Craven the Coward. If you gave your character 20+ PRE then you have built bravery into him - he will be braver than most. Doesn't mean he is always brave (no absolutes in HERO).

 

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 you have said that interaction skills cannot persuade or seduce if the player decides they are inappropriate actions, so they are not in place to impose even temporary changes to character behaviour.

 

I cannot remember anyone proposing permanent changes to character behaviour through social conflict resolution...except for those opposed to such things.

 

 

Doc

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree here. But since it seems like we're quibbling over frequency of extreme or other more than anything else and it's not precisely on topic lets just agree to disagree, if that's all right with you?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

 

And what about those situations where the GM thinks that you not allowing a skill roll to succeed ruins his visualisation of his character, or where the GM decides not to allow your skill roll to succeed because it ruins his visualisation of his character when not succeeding ruins the visualisation of your character?

 

No matter how high your persuasion roll' date=' you're not likely to persuade Wolverine to stop smoking, after all. [/quote']

 

I'm pleased you are finding lots of places where absolutes are fine for HERO.

 

 

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

 

And you have to trust the GM not to bring in characters where such levels do indeed mean that the character is a shrewd operator or would have told you at the beginning of the character creation that you needed more than that to be effective. Trust issue - just like he'd have told you that you'd need more than 10D6 if you wanted to be point man in dealing damage.

 

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?

 

This is actually how I got into the whole social combat thing on the 6th edition boards...

 

The way the contest system for the current system is set out means that you either have to leave holes in your defences or spend a lot of points to be completely defended.

 

However, in this instance I think a lot of points are already spent on social skills - they just aren't applied in a coherent fashion...

 

 

(Or worse - social monsters who you simply cannot defeat because they talk you into doing yourself in...)

 

As opposed to the current situation for PCs who can never be talked out of an action that they are set on doing because they will simply beat you up until you stop talking...

 

But at all times' date=' even though [i']mecahnically[/i] 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.

 

I haven't actually seen any proponents of social conflict resolution argue that this would not be an acceptable end point for such things...just that the breadth of responses is widened from that provided by PRE attack.

 

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.

 

Didn't that happen in the comic? I'm sure Luthor was president and Superman worked on his behalf (so supporting him in that office, even if he did not campaign for him to get there)

 

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.

 

I think Hugh answered this but this does mean that the GM is not good at using such systems. Doesn't mean they become a bad GM but if what they are doing is annoying the players then they are doing a bad job. Good use of the system should be similar to resolving any conflict in the game...

 

 

Doc

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

In Your Opinion, anyway.

 

Sure, we could roll out attacks, blocks, and damage rolls for every other line of conversation in a roleplaying setting. I have a feeling that would make the game really drag on. And then you get the guys who optimize their character, and always do the exact same thing 'because it gives the best bonues.

 

Really? The best bonuses? In a roleplaying situation? Sounds to me like someone is still wargaming, not roleplaying. If that's what you want, sure, go ahead. But don't dress it up as something it's not. (Note that this is taking about someone who minmaxes when they should be roleplaying, not necessarily someone who uses a 'hard' social combat sytem in the first place.)

 

Can someone roleplay with such a detailed system in place? Sure, and for the right personality they'll even have fun doing so. But I think if you look even among the people who want a social conflcit system you'll find that one based totally on the physical combat system won't get much support.

 

Physical combat is a tactial exercise, modified by roleplaying. Turning the roleplaying itself into a mechanical exercise... would be a niche market, I think.

 

 

However, I could be wrong. Please, write one up and share it, and who knows? Maybe I'll even like it and admit I'm wrong. All you have to do is persuade me by your work...

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

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

 

No, he spends the phase at 0 DCV and making a soliloquy. Mechanically he's affected the same as everyone else. Roleplaying he takes it as a challenge and reacts appropriately.

 

So what if you didn't give him a 20 PRE? What if you gave him a 2 PRE?

 

Then I'd expect him to be a wimp and RP him appropriately. And be not-at-all-surprised when he gets PRE attacked into uselessness, just like I'd expect a charcter with a 2 PD to get pimp-slapped into unconsciousness.

 

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.

 

That's what PRE is for, isn't it? Or are we talking about theorectical 'social defenses' for the as-yet unseen social conflcit system?

 

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

 

Then (as the player for Gladiator did above) you come up with another reason he looses an action. Rolls on the floor laughing at the absurdity, if nothing else.

 

Or just buy more PRE next time, if it bothers you that much. Or PRE, Defense Only (-1).

 

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.

 

That depends on the situation, I would imagine. If the two just bump into each other and they start talking, then sure, Grunt the Clobberer will probably be persuaded - unless maybe ConMan is trying to convert Grunt to pacifism. On the other hand, if ConMan has conned Grunt out of everthing he had, including his wife and family, and Grunt is Berserk and coming for payback, he's not going to listen to ConMan's fancy words, and ConMan had better start dodging rather than talking.

 

If Grunt's player is playing his character appropritately, then there should be no problem. If he isn't, then he's guilty of abusing the system and is no better than the GM who sets the PC's up against a villian they cannot even hurt, much less defeat.

 

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.

 

I suspect statistical analysis will show the people who die falling in the kitchen break their necks or crush their skulls on the edges of counters, while the guy who falls from the third-story window and survives merely landed more-or-less on his feet. Broken bones, sure, but not dead.

 

Look, it has been quantified.

 

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.

 

And if a player consistently ignores the result of the current social resolution system, they aren't good players - at least not in the context of this system.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

You seem to think you are either Hector the Hero or Craven the Coward. If you gave your character 20+ PRE then you have built bravery into him - he will be braver than most. Doesn't mean he is always brave (no absolutes in HERO).

 

No, he likely won't be. But I'll at least grant him bladder control until something like Cthulu shows up...

 

Can he be surprised, shocked, or jolted out of an action by a scary PRE attack? Sure. Can he be intimitated? Let's see the situation, perhaps he will be. Will he grit his teeth and act like a hero afterwards, no matter how scared he is (barring Mind Controls to the contrary)? Yes, because that's what a real hero does. He controls his fear, rather than let the fear control him.

 

Like I said, a scary PRE attack can jolt him out of an action. I, as the player, decide whether he acts heroically or unheroically. The dice don't tell me my character 'runs screaming like a little girl.'

 

But you have said that interaction skills cannot persuade or seduce if the player decides they are inappropriate actions, so they are not in place to impose even temporary changes to character behaviour.

 

If a system can force charcter attitudes and actions, sooner or later it can force inappropriate attitudes and actions. You really can't make Wolverine act scared - he may hesitate in the face of PRE attack, but he's not going to act scared. Period.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

And what about those situations where the GM thinks that you not allowing a skill roll to succeed ruins his visualisation of his character' date=' or where the GM decides not to allow your skill roll to succeed because it ruins his visualisation of his character when not succeeding ruins the visualisation of your character? [/quote']

 

That's... so twisty I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it.

 

If you're saying what I think you're saying - that (for example) I think my "Don Juan" concept would be ruined because a faithful wife didn't fall for his advances the first time he tried to seduce her, because the GM thinks it would ruin his concept of the faithful wife... I don't think so. I've been playing for quite some time and I think I can safely say that it has never come up in any game I've been in.

 

May have inspired the player to buckle down and try something else to achieve his goal, granted, but never in my experience has a concept been ruined by an Interaction skill roll resisted for good reason.

 

Whereas three concepts of mine - out of three played - were ruined by 'Interaction skill rolls' in games where the social skills were absoulte.

 

I'm pleased you are finding lots of places where absolutes are fine for HERO.

 

 

That's in the nature of Wolverine, not the nature of the HERO System. I thought the 'no absolutes' meta-rule referred to, well, things actually in the rules...

 

And you have to trust the GM not to bring in characters where such levels do indeed mean that the character is a shrewd operator or would have told you at the beginning of the character creation that you needed more than that to be effective. Trust issue - just like he'd have told you that you'd need more than 10D6 if you wanted to be point man in dealing damage.

 

Granted.

 

This is actually how I got into the whole social combat thing on the 6th edition boards...

 

The way the contest system for the current system is set out means that you either have to leave holes in your defences or spend a lot of points to be completely defended.

 

However, in this instance I think a lot of points are already spent on social skills - they just aren't applied in a coherent fashion...

 

Personally I think otherwise, but sure, I can see how you would have a different opinion.

 

As opposed to the current situation for PCs who can never be talked out of an action that they are set on doing because they will simply beat you up until you stop talking...

 

If that's appropriate for the character in question, yes. Frankly I doubt most of us play such... antisocial characters - the point of the game is roleplaying, after all, which is hard to do if your character doesn't interact with anyone.

 

I think Hugh answered this but this does mean that the GM is not good at using such systems. Doesn't mean they become a bad GM but if what they are doing is annoying the players then they are doing a bad job. Good use of the system should be similar to resolving any conflict in the game...

 

You may be right there. But the proponenets of a 'hard' social conflict system always seem to trot out the 'PC's can ignore the roll all the time' argument. And a player who does that is just as quilty of being a bad player as the GM who uses such a system to railroad his players is of being a bad GM.

 

So we're both looking at bad participants in the game as our reasons to support/oppose a 'hard' social conflict system. Perhaps our argument isn't about the system, it's about the bad participants...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

That's what PRE is for' date=' isn't it? Or are we talking about theorectical 'social defenses' for the as-yet unseen social conflcit system?[/quote']

 

We are discussing your resistance to a social conflict system. In any such system, there will be offensive and defensive abilities. If you envision your character as resistant to social conflict, you buy the appropriate abilities to realize that vision in character design. Just like you buy defenses from other forms of conflict if you envision your character being tough to affect in those forms of conflict.

 

And, if the opponent is envisioned as being good enough to get through your defenses, he buys higher attacks. Right now, there is no way to realize on that character who is good enough to get through your resistance to social skills, since you can simply declare them ineffective.

 

Or just buy more PRE next time' date=' if it bothers you that much. Or PRE, Defense Only (-1).[/quote']

 

Excellent advice. And if you don't envision your character being easily manipulated by social abilities, I expect you would buy more resistance to them next time, in whatever form a social conflict system's defenses take.

 

That depends on the situation' date=' I would imagine. If the two just bump into each other and they start talking, then sure, Grunt the Clobberer will probably be persuaded - unless maybe ConMan is trying to convert Grunt to pacifism. On the other hand, if ConMan has conned Grunt out of everthing he had, including his wife and family, and Grunt is Berserk and coming for payback, he's not going to listen to ConMan's fancy words, and ConMan had better start dodging rather than talking.[/quote']

 

Seems to me ConMan would be taking a lot of penalties in the latter case, making it much less likely he will succeed. However, as Doc D says, if it's impossible, that's an absolute. Something we don't really want in Hero, right?

 

If Grunt's player is playing his character appropritately' date=' then there should be no problem. If he isn't, then he's guilty of abusing the system and is no better than the GM who sets the PC's up against a villian they cannot even [i']hurt, [/i]much less defeat.

 

If the GM is using a social conflict system to sets the PC's up against a villain they cannot even resist, much less defeat, he's just as bad. Yet

this possibility seems the primary objection to a social conflict resolution system.

 

I suspect statistical analysis will show the people who die falling in the kitchen break their necks or crush their skulls on the edges of counters' date=' while the guy who falls from the third-story window and survives merely landed more-or-less on his feet. Broken bones, sure, but not dead.[/quote']

 

No one in Hero can die from a 1 meter fall. We compromise reality's wide range for the sake of playability.

 

No, he likely won't be. But I'll at least grant him bladder control until something like Cthulu shows up...

 

Can he be surprised, shocked, or jolted out of an action by a scary PRE attack? Sure. Can he be intimitated? Let's see the situation, perhaps he will be. Will he grit his teeth and act like a hero afterwards, no matter how scared he is (barring Mind Controls to the contrary)? Yes, because that's what a real hero does. He controls his fear, rather than let the fear control him.

 

Unless I buy my intimidation as Mind Control, Single Command "Fear Me", Telepathic, target remembers actions and thinks they were his own idea, and define that (realizing MY vision of MY character) as "He scares the crap out of people".

 

For you to claim your character wasn't really scared is, at best, acting on metagame knowledge. Your character REMEMBERS being scared. He BELIEVES it was his own idea. This mechanic IMPOSES A BELIEF OF THE CHARACTER whether the player wants his character to have that belief or not.

 

Like I said' date=' a scary PRE attack can jolt him out of an action. [i']I[/i], as the player, decide whether he acts heroically or unheroically. The dice don't tell me my character 'runs screaming like a little girl.'

 

Unless I buy my intimidation as Mind Control, Single Command "Run screaming like a little girl", Telepathic, target remembers actions and thinks they were his own idea, and define that (realizing MY vision of MY character) as "He scares them so badly they run screaming like a little girl".

 

If a system can force charcter attitudes and actions

 

Which mind control can.

 

' date=' sooner or later it can force [i']inappropriate [/i]attitudes and actions.

 

Which it can.

 

You really can't scare Wolverine - he may hesitate in the face of PRE attack' date=' but he's not going to [i']act[/i] scared. Period.

 

There's that absolute again. I suggest rather that he has not yet encountered the character who possesses enough intimidation to make him act scared. Perhaps the campaign guidelines are such that he never will. Or perhaps not.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

You may be right there. But the proponenets of a 'hard' social conflict system always seem to trot out the 'PC's can ignore the roll all the time' argument. And a player who does that is just as quilty of being a bad player as the GM who uses such a system to railroad his players is of being a bad GM.

 

So we're both looking at bad participants in the game as our reasons to support/oppose a 'hard' social conflict system. Perhaps our argument isn't about the system, it's about the bad participants...

 

Then why the rigid resistance to a 'hard' social conflict system? Either structure is abusable, so it should make no difference which one is selected. Or do you view the abusive GM as being more common than an abusive player?

 

Can he be surprised, shocked, or jolted out of an action by a scary PRE attack? Sure. Can he be intimitated? Let's see the situation, perhaps he will be.

 

In a social conflict system, the dice tell us whether this situation intimidated him - an objective, rather than subjective, resolution. Just like the dice tell me whether my character, who I envision as tough and handy in a fight, has met his match at this time, freeing (or denying) me from making that decision subjectively.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

And' date=' if the opponent is envisioned as being good enough to get through your defenses, he buys higher attacks. Right now, there is no way to realize on that character who is good enough to get through your resistance to social skills, since you can simply declare them ineffective.[/quote']

 

Yes. Although I note that doing so excessively or for no good reason makes you a bad player.

 

Seems to me ConMan would be taking a lot of penalties in the latter case, making it much less likely he will succeed. However, as Doc D says, if it's impossible, that's an absolute. Something we don't really want in Hero, right?

 

The one absolute that should be in the HERO System is that the PC is under the control of the player. If the GM can take control of the PC, then what is the player there for?

 

If the GM is using a social conflict system to sets the PC's up against a villain they cannot even resist, much less defeat, he's just as bad. Yet this possibility seems the primary objection to a social conflict resolution system.

 

And the equally bad player who inappropriately resists every Interaction skill that comes their way is the primary objection to to not having a 'hard' social conflict system (as opposed to the 'soft' social conflict system currently in the HERO System).

 

We're both talking about bad participants here. We're just arguing over which one is worse, and needs to be reigned in by the rules more.

 

No one in Hero can die from a 1 meter fall. We compromise reality's wide range for the sake of playability.

 

Granted.

 

Unless I buy my intimidation as Mind Control, Single Command "Fear Me", Telepathic, target remembers actions and thinks they were his own idea, and define that (realizing MY vision of MY character) as "He scares the crap out of people".

 

For you to claim your character wasn't really scared is, at best, acting on metagame knowledge. Your character REMEMBERS being scared. He BELIEVES it was his own idea. This mechanic IMPOSES A BELIEF OF THE CHARACTER whether the player wants his character to have that belief or not

 

Unless I buy my intimidation as Mind Control, Single Command "Run screaming like a little girl", Telepathic, target remembers actions and thinks they were his own idea, and define that (realizing MY vision of MY character) as "He scares them so badly they run screaming like a little girl".

 

There's that absolute again. I suggest rather that he has not yet encountered the character who possesses enough intimidation to make him act scared. Perhaps the campaign guidelines are such that he never will. Or perhaps not.

 

Yeah, but that's a power, and likely a lot more expensive than a 3-5 point skill. Unless it's bought as a 'super skill' in which case there is that 'Requires Skill Roll' limitation, where you take a -1 penalty to the roll for each 10 AP of power, which can make the roll really unreliable unless you also spent a boatload on the skill...

 

Oh, wait, I mentioned this in my arguements against needing a new social conflict system back in the 6E thread - we already have this mechanic, it's been tested extensively and is not abusive, so why do we need a new one?

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Then why the rigid resistance to a 'hard' social conflict system? Either structure is abusable' date=' so it should make no difference which one is selected. Or do you view the abusive GM as being more common than an abusive player?[/quote']

 

In my experience with games that have a 'hard' system, that is the case. Players in a 'soft' system are more likely to go with the roll. GM's with a hard system are more likely to USE it.

 

In a social conflict system, the dice tell us whether this situation intimidated him - an objective, rather than subjective, resolution. Just like the dice tell me whether my character, who I envision as tough and handy in a fight, has met his match at this time, freeing (or denying) me from making that decision subjectively.

 

And that is true in the existing 'soft' social interaction system that exists now. If you want 'hard' effects, buy Mind Control with appropriate limitations... and pay the extra points for it.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

I think what some of you are looking for is Spiritual Transform.

 

If a game character has such a thing as a "soul" then I maintain that a character's soul can be nothing other than the person playing the character.

 

Note that I'm not making any distinction between "PC" and "NPC" here. It's just that one person at the table plays lots of characters and the other people are probably only playing one each. But every character is someone's character to play.

 

If you want to be able to make decisions for a character that's not your character to play, you're trying to change the nature of that relationship between player and character and if Spiritual Transform applies to anything, that would be it.

 

Now, if you DON'T actually want to make decisions for characters that aren't your own - and I think most of you have disavowed that desire, even if you then turn around in the same post and make proposals that contradict that - then the system already has

 

Social Skills

 

PREsence

 

Mind Control

 

Mental Illusions

 

Mental Transform

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I just don't see what tools you think you need that you don't already have.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I need a palindromedary, but I have a palindromedary, so it's all good.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Social Skills

 

Can a character be persuaded of something if the player is not?

 

PREsence

 

A blunt instrument that may allow you to make someone hesitate.

 

Mind Control

 

So a high EGO is the key to not being persuaded, seduced, conversed or any other social skill?

 

Mental Illusions

 

Not sure how this works but again - high EGO is the way forward?

 

 

Mental Transform

 

Hrrm. So everything is a power - any attempt to change someone's mind requires powers rather than skills? Why have the skills then?

 

 

I'm sorry, I just don't see what tools you think you need that you don't already have.

 

A coherent set of mechanics that relate to each other and make sense next to each other....

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Yes. Although I note that doing so excessively or for no good reason makes you a bad player.

 

So how is a mechanic that prevents bad play itself a bad mechanic?

 

And the equally bad player who inappropriately resists every Interaction skill that comes their way is the primary objection to to not having a 'hard' social conflict system (as opposed to the 'soft' social conflict system currently in the HERO System).

 

"Equally bad" is not a sufficient basis, in my view, for retention of the current system.

 

Yeah' date=' but that's a power, and likely a lot more expensive than a 3-5 point skill. Unless it's bought as a 'super skill' in which case there is that 'Requires Skill Roll' limitation, where you take a -1 penalty to the roll for each 10 AP of power, which can make the roll really unreliable unless you [i']also[/i] spent a boatload on the skill...

 

Slap that power in a 60 AP multipower, and it's probably limited as to commands, doesn't grant mental awareness, is much shorter range than LoS and requires the ability to speak and be understood. I can get the Mind Control for 3 points or less. For 60 points, it can be 6d6 Cumulative MC, x4 max. I can have you at pretty much any level inside of a turn. That seems a lot more powerful than "Persuasion 11-".

 

Further, that 3 point skill is not sufficient to overcome the substantial negative modifiers that would apply to the out of character actions you are afraid of. I will agree with you that if the system is going to allow a 3 point expenditure to make a character the God of Persuasion, it would be a bad system. Why do you assume that would be the result?

 

Oh' date=' wait, I mentioned this in my arguements against needing a new social conflict system back in the 6E thread - we already have [i']this[/i] mechanic, it's been tested extensively and is not abusive, so why do we need a new one?

 

IIRC, you also agreed that the MP issue voided your cost argument.

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

 

You may be right there. But the proponenets of a 'hard' social conflict system always seem to trot out the 'PC's can ignore the roll all the time' argument. And a player who does that is just as quilty of being a bad player as the GM who uses such a system to railroad his players is of being a bad GM.

 

So we're both looking at bad participants in the game as our reasons to support/oppose a 'hard' social conflict system. Perhaps our argument isn't about the system, it's about the bad participants...

 

 

This is my basic take on the entire discussion.

[Vondy]

Re: Social effects

 

In my experience with games that have a 'hard' system' date=' that is the case. Players in a 'soft' system are more likely to go with the roll. GM's with a hard system are more likely to USE it.[/quote']

 

I'm a typecast game-master. I believe your observation is correct. My game-mastering career started because of bad game-masters and my style evolved from not wanting to be "That GM." It also evolved from the notion that successful games flow from the people at the table not the rules in the book. The rules assist us, but we're still responsible for running fun games and playing convincing characters. The book can't do that for us.

 

 

 

And that is true in the existing 'soft' social interaction system that exists now. If you want 'hard' effects' date=' buy Mind Control with appropriate limitations... and pay the extra points for it.[/quote']

 

Dark Champions and Pulp Hero are full of nifty examples. They're called: Super-Skills.

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

So how is a mechanic that prevents bad play itself a bad mechanic?

 

I don't see how a hard (or fixed, or whatever name everyone agrees on) social system prevents bad play. In my experience, bad play is prevented by other players and/or the GM helping the 'bad player' learn to play better. No game system I have ever seen has prevented bad players or GM's from participating. Just saying.

 

"Equally bad" is not a sufficient basis' date=' in my view, for retention of the current system.[/quote']

 

Neither is "equally bad" a sufficient basis, in my view, for revision of the current system. If both options are equally bad then it does not seem that revision would lead to improvement, unless this discussion results in a 'less bad' direction to consider (which would be constructive and excellent). If both sides are using bad players/GM's as points to be made then I come back to my thought above that game systems don't prevent bad play.

 

 

 

In my view/experience, the lack of a rigid nature in the social side of Hero is what makes it open to a variety of play styles and is an intentional design feature. I believe that this is where an individual campaign develops its flavor, in how that specific campaign (that group of GM/players) uses their own creativity and play style to fill in the intentionally gooey/vague social framework that Hero provides.

 

In fact, that gooey social structure allows Group A to play a Hero game essentially as a miniature combat game with little to no RP involved, Group B to play a mix where storytelling and combat balance, and Group C to play a game where combat is infrequent.

 

The base system supports all of that, at least in my view, but all of it depends on the desires of the specific group that is using the toolkit.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

I don't see how a hard (or fixed' date=' or whatever name everyone agrees on) social system prevents bad play. In my experience, bad play is prevented by other players and/or the GM helping the 'bad player' learn to play better. No game system I have ever seen has prevented bad players or GM's from participating. Just saying.[/quote']

 

Nether does a soft (and I agree - pick any name) system prevent bad GMing. Especially when he can simply replace the skills which the players ignore (whether rightly or wrongly) with power constructs they cannot ignore. When dealing with the GM, it makes no difference whether the ability costs 3

points or 3,000 - the GM has as many points as he needs to generate the desired construct.

 

Neither is "equally bad" a sufficient basis' date=' in my view, for revision of the current system.[/quote']

 

Which system? Skill rolls? PRE attacks? Superskill based on mind control? I concur with Doc D that rationalizing these disparate mechanics into a coherent whole is a worthy goal which easily justifies revisiting the current system.

 

In my view/experience' date=' the lack of a rigid nature in the social side of Hero is what makes it open to a variety of play styles and is an intentional design feature. I believe that this is where an individual campaign develops its flavor, in how that specific campaign (that group of GM/players) uses their own creativity and play style to fill in the intentionally gooey/vague social framework that Hero provides.[/quote']

 

You know, I don't believe I've ever seen someone tout Hero as a game of gooey and vague mechanics before. Why should the group who wants structure be denied that structure?

 

In fact' date=' that gooey social structure allows Group A to play a Hero game essentially as a miniature combat game with little to no RP involved, Group B to play a mix where storytelling and combat balance, and Group C to play a game where combat is infrequent.[/quote']

 

Combat and role playing are not mutually exclusive. Characters do not stop being individuals with personalities, quirks and foibles and become tactical drones simply because they have entered physical combat. Certainly not in my games, or any games I have experiences with real role players.

[rauer]

Re: Social effects

 

Well. I typed out a nice, pretty response and then my IE crashed and ate it. My fault for using Windows, I suppose.

 

Nether does a soft (and I agree - pick any name) system prevent bad GMing.

 

I think we, and perhaps everyone, are agreeing on this. Systems don't prevent bad GMs/players from being, well, bad.

 

You know' date=' I don't believe I've ever seen someone tout Hero as a game of gooey and vague mechanics before. Why should the group who wants structure be denied that structure?[/quote']

 

I was comparing the social side of Hero to the combat side of Hero. In comparison, yes the social side is murky, 'gooey', flexible, and relies far more on judgement calls than the combat side.

 

Combat and role playing are not mutually exclusive. Characters do not stop being individuals with personalities' date=' quirks and foibles and become tactical drones simply because they have entered physical combat. Certainly not in my games, or any games I have experiences with real role players.[/quote']

 

I didn't claim that the two are mutually exclusive and I certainly hope that nobody think so. I was trying to point out that the flexibility of the current system allows it to be adapted to a wide range of playstyles, essentially 'built to suit one's needs.'

 

 

 

You also mentioned denying structure to those who might want it. That is an excellent point. My answer is that, in my opinion, the structure is built by the gaming group to suit their needs. I see Hero as providing an 'out of the box' combat system along with an explanation for how it works and guidelines for a social system along with encouragement for the gaming group in question to customize this part to suit their needs.

 

I don't see that arangement as a problem, but at the same time I don't see a problem in providing something along the lines of the optional rules which already exist in some areas of Hero to give more 'social structure' to those who want it.

 

I do want to repeat that, in my opinion, a given group's playstyle is what fills in that 'social structure,' and I think that is generally a good thing.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

So how is a mechanic that prevents bad play itself a bad mechanic?

 

In the HERO System, it is not the place of the rules to prevent bad play. Otherwise every option in the rules that could used in an abusive manner would be removed or have pages of special exceptions. Why? Because one man's 'bad play' is another's 'good clean fun.'

 

Preventing bad play is the job of the GM and the players, because the definition of bad play changes from group to group.

 

Besides, a 'hard' mechanic results in bad players taking actions that get them the most bonuses to what they are doing, not 'what would be in character.'

 

"Equally bad" is not a sufficient basis, in my view, for retention of the current system.

 

But if your proposal is 'equally bad,' then what is the point of changing to something different?

 

Now if I saw a specific mechanic that looked better than what we have now, then I would be interested in taking a closer look, maybe playing with it a bit in miniseries games, see if there are any big flaws in it waiting to happen. But changing things just to change things without regard to improvement does not strike me as all that great an idea.

 

Slap that power in a 60 AP multipower, and it's probably limited as to commands, doesn't grant mental awareness, is much shorter range than LoS and requires the ability to speak and be understood. I can get the Mind Control for 3 points or less. For 60 points, it can be 6d6 Cumulative MC, x4 max. I can have you at pretty much any level inside of a turn. That seems a lot more powerful than "Persuasion 11-".

 

If I am GMing a game and a player comes to me with that 'super-skill' in a MP, without 'Requires Skill Roll' and their character not being a mentalist, they are not going to get my approval. YMMV, of course.

 

Likewise, I would not do it as a GM, either.

 

Further, that 3 point skill is not sufficient to overcome the substantial negative modifiers that would apply to the out of character actions you are afraid of. I will agree with you that if the system is going to allow a 3 point expenditure to make a character the God of Persuasion, it would be a bad system. Why do you assume that would be the result?

 

Because that tends to be the result in other systems with a 'hard' social conflcit system. Social skills cost no more than other skills, and can be used as a blunt intrument to force PC's to do the bidding of other people in the game, period.

 

IIRC, you also agreed that the MP issue voided your cost argument.

 

True enough.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

You know' date=' I don't believe I've ever seen someone tout Hero as a game of gooey and vague mechanics before. Why should the group who wants structure be denied that structure?[/quote']

 

I think you are lumping the whole rules together there. The 'social' rules are, indeed, quite 'soft', while the physical rules are very much a 'hard' system. That is likely deliberate, as a 'soft' system of rules can be stiffened up for different styles of gameplay fairly easily with house rules that work for that group. 'Softening' a 'hard' system of rules is much harder, because it involves ignoring large sections of the existing rules - which could result in unintended changes to the balance or feel of the game.

 

Don't believe me? Try making a 'soft' version of the HERO System combat rules. See how it goes. On the other hand, if you want a 'hard' version of the HERO System social rules, try converting base skill rolls into PRE attack dice (11- = 2d6, each +/-1 adds/subtracts a die), and apply the PRE attack chart. Houserule up some stuff to cover the vague spots and away you go.

 

Combat and role playing are not mutually exclusive. Characters do not stop being individuals with personalities, quirks and foibles and become tactical drones simply because they have entered physical combat. Certainly not in my games, or any games I have experiences with real role players.

 

No, it does not. That is because the villians cannot Persuade the heroes to help them rob the bank, like once happened in a Vampire game I watched. (Yes, it was done with skills, not Dominate. And the GM for that game runs one heck of a Champions game, so he wasn't a bad GM, just using a bad system.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

I've been having a think about this and I think I've got a solution - it is a hard coded system based on skill rolls - so it is easy and familiar - applies to all characters, PCs and NPCs, but doesn't allow extreme manipulation fo the character if they don't want a character that can be manipulated that way - but IMO it is much more fun to have a character who can. You do this with Disadvantages (we have SO got to change that label): you buy personality traits that give you 'vulnerabilities' to certain ypes of social approach - for instance if you take the 'greedy' trait, you will be willing to do things for money that other people would not - not just be MORE likely to do them (although there's that too).

 

It does allow relatively trivial manipulation of a character against their will, but I think that is realistic: if someone is distracting you then the possibility that you are going to be distracted should be real. However you can build a character who is very hard to manipulate socially, even in trivial ways. You retain executive control.

 

The system also makes social skills SLOW - it is not the sort of thing you could ever contemplate doing in a combat situation - with some limited exceptions, like giving orders - unless you had a God-like PRE (or INT or COM). Generally to get anyone to do something they don't already want to do is going to take some time - minutes at least, maybe even days of working on them. A lot can happen in that time. That helps distinguish it from powers which are FAST.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

A coherent set of mechanics that relate to each other and make sense next to each other....

 

 

Doc

 

Feel free to propose something, if you find the current rules incoherent.

 

I agree with Amadan ni Briona that Pendragon's system looks intriguing, but I never played it. Nor am I convinced something like it would work in Hero - but I don't know that it can't.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reflects that what makes some of us nervous about the idea of a new edition is that the current rules are so good, it's reasonable to fear that change is too likely to be for the worse.....