Social effects

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

In the HERO System' date=' it is not the place of the [i']rules[/i] to prevent bad play.

 

Neither is it their place to prevent bad GMing. This is a circle game.

 

Besides' date=' 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.'[/quote']

 

You mean like the present mental powers/disad's system motivates disad's like Loyal to Teammates to impede mind control? You are assuming that a 'hard' mechanic necessarily incorporates modifiers as specific as "torch to the groin", rather than more broad categories such as "very motivating action", much like "very good soliloquy".

 

But if your proposal is 'equally bad' date='' then what is the point of changing to something different?[/quote']

 

All "equally bad" proves to me is that this line of reasoning should be abandoned in favour of looking at merits, as we have established that neither a 'hard' nor a 'soft' system is effective at preventing bad play, and that the rules do not prevent abuse anyway.

 

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

 

If I am gm'ing and a playet thinks a 3 point investment in a skill allows him to persuade the panties off a nun or convince Superman to embark on a life of crime, that will be rejected a lot faster.

 

First you say "we have the system - use mind control" and now you say "but I would not allow it".

 

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

 

Such use of a social conflict system is bad play (and bad GMing) just as much as using the combat system to kill off the PC's (or one's fellow PC's).

 

No' date=' 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.)[/quote']

 

OK, I'll say it one more time. If the GM used the system to run roughshod over the characters, rather than run a game enjoyable and challenging for everyone THEN HE IS A BAD GM BY DEFINITION in that game.

 

Further, any GM who lets a player spend significant points on any area, such as social skills, and then refuses to let him get value - accomplish cool or amazing things commensurate with other abilities of similar costs- with those points is also a bad GM.

 

"No, that's too important for you to persuade your way around it" is no better than "no, it's too important he get away, so he escapes" or any other variant of "no, your approach won't work because I have already decided the approach which will work and you can only succeed by doing it my way."

[Ice9]

Re: Social effects

 

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.

The DM exercises control over the PCs body externally, not their personality. Since in many games this is the only area the players really have control over, putting DM influence on it redefines the game. I mean, consider this:

 

DM: You stand at the gates of doom - hundreds of feet tall, carved of obsidian, and patrolled by legions of undead.

Player: I search through the shrubbery until I find the secret entrance tunnel, then I use the key I found in a ruined outpost to unlock it.

DM: What secret tunnel?

Player: Success! The one which now exists.

 

In some games, this is a perfectly valid thing to do, and the normal mode of play. In baseline HERO, it isn't. You can decide it should be, but that's something which changes significantly how the game works - not just a simple rules extension. The same thing applies to a "hard" social system which can compel the PCs to believe or feel a certain way - it's a significant change to the system, which does change the Player/DM dynamic.

 

Although I should note that I can think of at least three meanings for "social combat", only the third of which is going to bother people with "hard" effects:

1) Two parties trying to convince a third party (a courtroom, for example).

2) Two parties trying to persuade each-other.

3) One party trying to persuade another, who doesn't even want to talk to the first party.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Please believe me that I am not trying to trip you up but these two comments confused me.

 

One that it is not the place of the rules to prevent bad play:

In the HERO System' date=' it is not the place of the [i']rules[/i] 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.

 

The next that the rules made the GM bad:

That is because the villians cannot Persuade the heroes to help them rob the bank' date=' 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.)[/quote']

 

Personally I think that bad rules may allow abusive play and sometimes even encourage it. The best GMs overcome such rules and do not allow the worst outcomes. The best rules allow the players to recognise poor GMing and at least be able to point that out to the GM.

 

I haven't read Sean's rules yet - it is always worrying when he stops typing posts for a day - those fingers do not remain still - they are pumping out more text for a biggie!

 

 

Doc

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

I'm not sure I follow Vulcan's point. I know he dislikes "hard" social systems. That's not a problem. It just a preference like anything else. What I don't get is why he seems to trying to argue that hard social mechanics "in and of it self" are wrong and produce bad games by corrupting GMs down the dark path. There are many games with them, many people play and enjoy them on a daily basis (and many do not), some people even add harder rules to the games that lack them. Are these people all so stupid that don't realize they're constantly being railroaded and not having any fun or some kind of gaming masochists?

 

For instance, when the characters were social'ed into assisting a bank heists what the story behind it? What approach did the "villain" use? I use quote because in the WOD it's hard to tell who's a villain and who's a "hero" much of the time. Did the GM just roll some dice and declare you're doing it? Where any of the PC built to resist such manipulation (which is major part of the game, it's up front about that) or where they built around more "important" things like physical combat? Vampire is a game about social interaction and politics among age old undead manipulators after, physical combat is almost an afterthought (though many people run it like Shadowrun or Champions with fangs). What was the players' reactions to the situation? If they were not pleased did they make that clear to the gm and what did he do?

 

Talking PCs into criminals acts would be very different from talking PCs into criminals acts in a typical superhero game where it would be a major issue that would be difficult and probably take awhile with lots of manufactured evidence of how, for example, the bank was a front of major criminal and there was not time to investigate before they launched their nefarious scheme. Comparing GM a typical Vampire game to GMing a typical superhero game is kind of comparing apples and oranges except in the very broadest sense that some basic goals would be the same like everyone should have fun for example.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Hmm. As a GM I have very little doubt about my ability, with reasonable certainty, to put my PCs in a situation where the player will allow them to commit criminal acts. After all, I control the whole world apart from them.

 

Susan Blackheart, a terrorist, can quite easily, as part of a plot, arrange for evidence of the players involvement in, say, a drug importation, to be found by th epolice and they can then either go on the run or hand themselves in and trust to justice. If they go on the run they are already breaking the law.

 

If they hand themselves in, Susan visits them in chokey to tell them about her marvellous plan - with them out of the way there is nothing to prevent her from flooding the streets with a new designer drug, which causes almost instant addiction and - horrors - eventually kills.

 

It is going to be a rare player who tells me, "No, I trust to the justice system, and there are plenty of other heroes out there who can stop her."

 

Now that is not a hard coded dice system, but it is nonetheless me directly controlling the decisions of the players: they have not got much choice but to break out, stop Susan and clear their own names.

 

I suspect that many people who object to a hard control system wouldn't object to that kind of manipulation, because they retain the illusion of choice. It is an illusion though. At least a dice based system you can use role playing to mitigate or possibly even avoid the consequences. If a GM is going to force you into a corner, there's probably not much you can do about it.

 

I mean, as a GM I'm never going to say to a player, "This guy walks up and tells you you have to murder your wife, and I've rolled a 3 so you've got to."

 

IF I wanted to get a PC to do something that extreme I'd be a lot more subtle about it, believe me, but I could probably maneouvre most players into a situation where they would at least think about it.

 

Off the top of my head, wife acting weirdly over a period of time (she's being blackmailed or threatened by Susan Blackheart) and the player receives information that wifey is an undercover sleeper agent (again sent by Susan and not true), and you can get all the proof you need if you go to a certain spot at a certain time.

 

Going there you find a sniper rifle and, looking through the sights, you see wifey pointing a sniper rifle at the President who is giving a speech. In fact she's just been told to go there by her blackmailer and found the rifle, looked through and found it trained on Susan Blackheart who is the real assassin.

 

The idea is Wifey thinks the only way she can stop the assassination is to shoot Susan, but the sights on her gun are deliberately off. When Wifey fires, Susan will also fire, killing the President. All the PC knows is that he can apparently see his wife (who may be a sleeper agent) lining up a shot and the President is in the firing line.

 

I mean, it's not rocket science, but I'm manipulating the player, and the player probably knows I'm manipulating them and still has to find a way through with role playing.

 

Like I say I can probably get a PC into a position where shooting at their own wife is a real possibility, but I'm only going to do that if it makes for a good game, and I'm only going to use the results of a dice based hard social conflict system if it makes for a good game.

 

Trust me on this. At least with a dice based system, the player can feel that it is not simply the GM making their life a misery.

 

Oh, and bonus rep if any Doctor Who fan out there can tell me where the above scenario is derived from

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Oh' date=' and bonus rep if any Doctor Who fan out there can tell me where the above scenario is derived from [/quote']

 

Deadly Assassin?? Tom Baker on Gallifrey? Long time ago but it rings bells...

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Deadly Assassin?? Tom Baker on Gallifrey? Long time ago but it rings bells...

 

I believe you are correct.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

I believe you are correct.

 

Tom Baker was MY doctor. I have a huge gap in knowledge from early Peter Davidson to Christopher Ecclestone and David Tennant. (my son is a fanatic and watches these endlessly on YouTube and DVD.

 

 

Doc

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

Hmm. As a GM I have very little doubt about my ability, with reasonable certainty, to put my PCs in a situation where the player will allow them to commit criminal acts. After all, I control the whole world apart from them.

 

Susan Blackheart, a terrorist, can quite easily, as part of a plot, arrange for evidence of the players involvement in, say, a drug importation, to be found by th epolice and they can then either go on the run or hand themselves in and trust to justice. If they go on the run they are already breaking the law.

 

If they hand themselves in, Susan visits them in chokey to tell them about her marvellous plan - with them out of the way there is nothing to prevent her from flooding the streets with a new designer drug, which causes almost instant addiction and - horrors - eventually kills.

 

It is going to be a rare player who tells me, "No, I trust to the justice system, and there are plenty of other heroes out there who can stop her."

 

Now that is not a hard coded dice system, but it is nonetheless me directly controlling the decisions of the players: they have not got much choice but to break out, stop Susan and clear their own names.

 

I suspect that many people who object to a hard control system wouldn't object to that kind of manipulation, because they retain the illusion of choice. It is an illusion though. At least a dice based system you can use role playing to mitigate or possibly even avoid the consequences. If a GM is going to force you into a corner, there's probably not much you can do about it.

 

I mean, as a GM I'm never going to say to a player, "This guy walks up and tells you you have to murder your wife, and I've rolled a 3 so you've got to."

 

[Excellent Example Exposition Excerpted]

 

Exactly.

 

You shouldn't need a system that lets you say "I've rolled a 3 so you've got to"- sleep with this person, kill your spouse, rob a bank, stand on your head and recite nursery rhymes, whatever.

 

And if for some reason you think you do need that, there's Mind Control.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

When it comes to Mental Powers, the palindromedary is in a class by itself.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

Hmm. As a GM I have very little doubt about my ability, with reasonable certainty, to put my PCs in a situation where the player will allow them to commit criminal acts. After all, I control the whole world apart from them.

 

Susan Blackheart, a terrorist, can quite easily, as part of a plot, arrange for evidence of the players involvement in, say, a drug importation, to be found by th epolice and they can then either go on the run or hand themselves in and trust to justice. If they go on the run they are already breaking the law.

 

If they hand themselves in, Susan visits them in chokey to tell them about her marvellous plan - with them out of the way there is nothing to prevent her from flooding the streets with a new designer drug, which causes almost instant addiction and - horrors - eventually kills.

 

It is going to be a rare player who tells me, "No, I trust to the justice system, and there are plenty of other heroes out there who can stop her."

 

Now that is not a hard coded dice system, but it is nonetheless me directly controlling the decisions of the players: they have not got much choice but to break out, stop Susan and clear their own names.

 

I suspect that many people who object to a hard control system wouldn't object to that kind of manipulation, because they retain the illusion of choice. It is an illusion though. At least a dice based system you can use role playing to mitigate or possibly even avoid the consequences. If a GM is going to force you into a corner, there's probably not much you can do about it.

 

I mean, as a GM I'm never going to say to a player, "This guy walks up and tells you you have to murder your wife, and I've rolled a 3 so you've got to."

 

IF I wanted to get a PC to do something that extreme I'd be a lot more subtle about it, believe me, but I could probably maneouvre most players into a situation where they would at least think about it.

 

Off the top of my head, wife acting weirdly over a period of time (she's being blackmailed or threatened by Susan Blackheart) and the player receives information that wifey is an undercover sleeper agent (again sent by Susan and not true), and you can get all the proof you need if you go to a certain spot at a certain time.

 

Going there you find a sniper rifle and, looking through the sights, you see wifey pointing a sniper rifle at the President who is giving a speech. In fact she's just been told to go there by her blackmailer and found the rifle, looked through and found it trained on Susan Blackheart who is the real assassin.

 

The idea is Wifey thinks the only way she can stop the assassination is to shoot Susan, but the sights on her gun are deliberately off. When Wifey fires, Susan will also fire, killing the President. All the PC knows is that he can apparently see his wife (who may be a sleeper agent) lining up a shot and the President is in the firing line.

 

I mean, it's not rocket science, but I'm manipulating the player, and the player probably knows I'm manipulating them and still has to find a way through with role playing.

 

Like I say I can probably get a PC into a position where shooting at their own wife is a real possibility, but I'm only going to do that if it makes for a good game, and I'm only going to use the results of a dice based hard social conflict system if it makes for a good game.

 

Trust me on this. At least with a dice based system, the player can feel that it is not simply the GM making their life a misery.

 

Oh, and bonus rep if any Doctor Who fan out there can tell me where the above scenario is derived from

 

Wait - I thought you were in favour of a hardcoded social system. Now you're saying you don't need it?

 

I agree, of course. Running the game as you suggested would be good GM'ing - and probably great fun for the players as well. Telling a PC "Go ahead and shoot her - you've been persuaded" would drain the fun out it in an instant.

 

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

I mean, as a GM I'm never going to say to a player, "This guy walks up and tells you you have to murder your wife, and I've rolled a 3 so you've got to."

 

Neither would I; I don't think the majority of people advocating a social mechanics system would either. That's another extreme examples that no one is really suggesting be the norm. It is the bad way some GMs have abused "loosey goosy" social rules because those system had no moderation but binary pass/fail which works well enough with most physical actions but generally isn't the way to go with subtler abilities.

 

A decent developed system would make "Random Stranger walks up to you and in one simple declarative sentence tells you to murder a loved one." be all but impossible or require a level of ability that is actually supernatural and probably best represented in Hero with a Power unless the campaign is using Extreme Skill use or a similar rule.

 

Why is this meme that social mechanics will turn everyone into a asshat with no common sense, a tyrant or will lead to automatic abuse and instant failure. It's okay to railroad the players with Mind Control or "plots" that go off without a hitch (planting evidence and such requires skill use, could be detected by various means, etc but it will be assumed all that succeeds) until they're allowed to find out about the scheme and finally react to the loaded deck that's been dealt but for an NPC to use Skills to influence PCs actions is innately wrong and instant bad fun?

 

It's okay to railroad the PCs one way manipulating the background and assuming Skill rolls and I would imagine limiting their actions (What if a PC takes the bold approach of talking to his wife and trying find out what she's acting so strangely? Wouldn't a well connected Streetwise PC have a chance of catching wind of Susan's schemes or if someone has contacts and influence in Police Department).

 

I agree, of course. Running the game as you suggested would be good GM'ing - and probably great fun for the players as well. Telling a PC "Go ahead and shoot her - you've been persuaded" would drain the fun out it in an instant.

 

I agree, it would. And it would be a crap social interaction system that set it up that way and a pretty lame GM that handled it that way.

 

A good social system is going to make that fundamental a change take a long time, eroding the target's trust and affections in his spouse, planting the seeds of doubt and suspicion in his head and manipulating his reactions towards rage. Exalted social system models this pretty well with it's Intimacy mechanics for example.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

I am perfectly capable of arguing a point in such a way that no one has any idea what I think

 

I am in favour of a hard coded system. The point of the example was that a hard coded system is no more mind controlling the character than clever GMing, and, of course, no less - it is just harder to see the strings if the GM dresses it all up with a plausable story but the beginning and end result are the same: the character is happily married but ends up taking pot-shots at his wife.

 

I'm a pretty good GM (at least I like to think I am) and I use a lot of social control mechanisms in my GMing, but just because I can do it doesn't mean everyone can or should have to. I delight in presenting moral mazes to players, just to see which way they will go. Whilst there are many players who love going through the suspecting Wifey/what do I do quandry, there are many others who just want to cut to the chase and beat the hell out of Susan Blackheart and, as far as they are concerned that's why they turn up on a Tuesday night. Neither is right or wrong, enjoying the science of combat more than the art of role play doesn't make someone a bad player (maybe they are a bad role player, but that is something different again).

 

A proper system needs the possibility of both, but let us not fool ourselves and think that, just because someone is being subtle, we are not being controlled - in fact the GMed approach is far moe insidious than the more open method of rolling the dice.

 

Even if I'm running a hard coded system I'm not going to create a villain with Persuasion 37- and make someone murder their wife without any explanation, but I'm I've a group who really enjoy combat more than role play, I can roll the dice and give them the explanation above as to how they got into that situation, and then cut to....and now you finally face Blackheart...she has a lot to pay for...Segment 12, who has the highest DEX?

 

So, what do I think, what do I believe and how am I using that to manipulate you into fulfilling my own nefarious ends, eh? EH?

 

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Deadly Assassin?? Tom Baker on Gallifrey? Long time ago but it rings bells...

 

 

Doc

 

You are quite right, but you'll have to wait for the rep, as you have been making far too much sense lately.

[Lucius]

Re: Social effects

 

Oh, and bonus rep if any Doctor Who fan out there can tell me where the above scenario is derived from

 

I'm not a Doctor Who fan, but it reminds me of the climax of the movie Legend.

 

Princess Lilly is holding a sword, apparently about to sacrifice the last unicorn.

 

The hero, Jack, lurking above with a bow, with his friend and faerie mentor urging him to shoot before it's too late, whispers "I trust you, Lilly. I will always trust you." And shoots the villain, just as Lilly swings the sword at the chains binding the unicorn and cries "Run!"

 

If my character were in the position you described?

 

"I shoot towards the podium, but aiming for a window a couple stories up on the building the president is standing in front of, praying there's no one behind that window. I know that at the sound of the shot and shatter, the Secret Service will tackle the president and get her under cover. "

 

It's your job as a Game Operations Director to put the characters in situations where they have to make decisions. It's not your job to make those decisions - and I think you (Sean Waters) understand that, because the scenario you describe does NOT involve usurping the player's right to make choices for the character.

 

If a "social combat system" or "hard coded social mechanics" or whatever the *bleep* you (several of you) are all talking about also does not involve such a usurpation - well, fine. What are we arguing about?

 

If it DOES involve such a usurpation - why are you (those proposing a whatever the *bleep*) surprised? You can't reasonably expect such a proposal to encounter anything but resistance and rejection. What makes you think it could possibly be accepted?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to spend 350 points on Persuasion

[nexus]

Re: Social effects

 

A so called "hard" social interaction system, IMO, should be designed to facilitate the judgment of social/personality conflicts just the other system determine the outcome of their specific types of conflict (combat, physical, etc) in a (mostly) objective fashion. It shouldn't be used as a new toy to drag the PCs around by the nose or remove any choices in the game by having amazingly skilled NPCs pop up and guide them along.

 

Yes, the GM can set up scenarios that place the players in specific conditions but that is a meta game issue, the GM creating an adventure thus not really handled by the mechanics at all. Social mechanics would be in game, used as part of character (PC or NPC) motivation and goals as a tool written down on their character sheet and handled by the dice, just another mechanic in the tool kit that should be used with the moderation and forethought as any other.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Neither is it their place to prevent bad GMing. This is a circle game.

 

Bad play encompasses both bad players and bad GM's. If I hadn't intended to include bad GM's, I would have just said 'bad players.'

 

You mean like the present mental powers/disad's system motivates disad's like Loyal to Teammates to impede mind control? You are assuming that a 'hard' mechanic necessarily incorporates modifiers as specific as "torch to the groin", rather than more broad categories such as "very motivating action", much like "very good soliloquy".

 

Well, if it's going to be a specific and encompassing 'hard' system, then it's going to have specific examples for modifiers, isn't it?

 

Otherwise it gets vague and both the GM's and the players can nerf the system through 'soft' interprettions, and that isn't what you seem to be looking for.

 

All "equally bad" proves to me is that this line of reasoning should be abandoned in favour of looking at merits, as we have established that neither a 'hard' nor a 'soft' system is effective at preventing bad play, and that the rules do not prevent abuse anyway.

 

The rules are not supposed to prevent abuse - that is the job of the participants, because what I might find abusive might just be the way you play. And so long as you are having fun and I don't have to put up with it, that's fine. But that's why (for example) Transimensional has a Stop Sign on it, because it can be abused (for exampe, I EDM to another dimension and use Transdimensional attack to fight from a position of total immuntity...),

 

At any rate, if the rules you are proposing cannot even claim to be better that the rules that exist... what's the point?

 

If I am gm'ing and a playet thinks a 3 point investment in a skill allows him to persuade the panties off a nun or convince Superman to embark on a life of crime, that will be rejected a lot faster.

 

First you say "we have the system - use mind control" and now you say "but I would not allow it".

 

No, I wouldn't allow it (granted, from my Point of View) to be abused. Super-skill builds are not supposed to go into MP's because then they get too cheap for the effect they are giving. Granted, nothing in the rules prevents this, but then, that's the job of the GM, isn't it?

 

Much use of a social conflict system is bad play (and bad GMing) just as much as using the combat system to kill off the PC's (or one's fellow PC's).

 

Then why does the social system need to be 'hard' in the first place?

 

The point of a hard social system is for one character to be able to force a certain type of reaction out of another character regardless of the intent of the player of that character. In short, it not only makes the abuse possible, but the abuse is almost the whole point of it!

 

OK, I'll say it one more time. If the GM used the system to run roughshod over the characters, rather than run a game enjoyable and challenging for everyone THEN HE IS A BAD GM BY DEFINITION in that game.

 

Further, any GM who lets a player spend significant points on any area, such as social skills, and then refuses to let him get value - accomplish cool or amazing things commensurate with other abilities of similar costs- with those points is also a bad GM.

 

"No, that's too important for you to persuade your way around it" is no better than "no, it's too important he get away, so he escapes" or any other variant of "no, your approach won't work because I have already decided the approach which will work and you can only succeed by doing it my way."

 

So rolling some dice and saying 'the dice say you're going to do it that way' is somehow better?

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Please believe me that I am not trying to trip you up but these two comments confused me.

 

One that it is not the place of the rules to prevent bad play:

 

 

The next that the rules made the GM bad:

 

The rules of Vampire - specifically the granite-hard social rules - make that sort of thing the norm. Heck, it's even encouraged in one of the books!

 

That's why I don't play Vampire any more, and I resist attempts to bring such things into HEROs.

 

Personally I think that bad rules may allow abusive play and sometimes even encourage it. The best GMs overcome such rules and do not allow the worst outcomes. The best rules allow the players to recognise poor GMing and at least be able to point that out to the GM.

 

I haven't read Sean's rules yet - it is always worrying when he stops typing posts for a day - those fingers do not remain still - they are pumping out more text for a biggie!

 

 

Doc

 

You should go check it out. It's pretty well thought out and manages to be thorough without becoming too 'hard.'

 

On the other hand it also looks a bit cumbersome for my tastes - but then, I think the 'fast and loose' system of the current rules works perfectly.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Hmm. As a GM I have very little doubt about my ability, with reasonable certainty, to put my PCs in a situation where the player will allow them to commit criminal acts. After all, I control the whole world apart from them.

 

Susan Blackheart, a terrorist, can quite easily, as part of a plot, arrange for evidence of the players involvement in, say, a drug importation, to be found by th epolice and they can then either go on the run or hand themselves in and trust to justice. If they go on the run they are already breaking the law.

 

If they hand themselves in, Susan visits them in chokey to tell them about her marvellous plan - with them out of the way there is nothing to prevent her from flooding the streets with a new designer drug, which causes almost instant addiction and - horrors - eventually kills.

 

It is going to be a rare player who tells me, "No, I trust to the justice system, and there are plenty of other heroes out there who can stop her."

 

Now that is not a hard coded dice system, but it is nonetheless me directly controlling the decisions of the players: they have not got much choice but to break out, stop Susan and clear their own names.

 

I suspect that many people who object to a hard control system wouldn't object to that kind of manipulation, because they retain the illusion of choice. It is an illusion though. At least a dice based system you can use role playing to mitigate or possibly even avoid the consequences. If a GM is going to force you into a corner, there's probably not much you can do about it.

 

I mean, as a GM I'm never going to say to a player, "This guy walks up and tells you you have to murder your wife, and I've rolled a 3 so you've got to."

 

IF I wanted to get a PC to do something that extreme I'd be a lot more subtle about it, believe me, but I could probably maneouvre most players into a situation where they would at least think about it.

 

Off the top of my head, wife acting weirdly over a period of time (she's being blackmailed or threatened by Susan Blackheart) and the player receives information that wifey is an undercover sleeper agent (again sent by Susan and not true), and you can get all the proof you need if you go to a certain spot at a certain time.

 

Going there you find a sniper rifle and, looking through the sights, you see wifey pointing a sniper rifle at the President who is giving a speech. In fact she's just been told to go there by her blackmailer and found the rifle, looked through and found it trained on Susan Blackheart who is the real assassin.

 

The idea is Wifey thinks the only way she can stop the assassination is to shoot Susan, but the sights on her gun are deliberately off. When Wifey fires, Susan will also fire, killing the President. All the PC knows is that he can apparently see his wife (who may be a sleeper agent) lining up a shot and the President is in the firing line.

 

I mean, it's not rocket science, but I'm manipulating the player, and the player probably knows I'm manipulating them and still has to find a way through with role playing.

 

Like I say I can probably get a PC into a position where shooting at their own wife is a real possibility, but I'm only going to do that if it makes for a good game, and I'm only going to use the results of a dice based hard social conflict system if it makes for a good game.

 

Trust me on this. At least with a dice based system, the player can feel that it is not simply the GM making their life a misery.

 

Oh, and bonus rep if any Doctor Who fan out there can tell me where the above scenario is derived from

 

The smart husband pulls a 'Living Daylights' and spares his wife... but then, not everyone is smart, are they?

[Utech]

Re: Social effects

 

Gone for a couple of days and I'm honestly shocked to find this still going strong. Looks like positions are well-entrenched and the battle cannot be won by either side.

 

I withdraw.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

End of the day if a player really doesn't want to be told if their character believes someone they are talking to, there's no point in forcing them, but I do think they are missing out on some interesting new experiences.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

End of the day, if the GM is telling me what my character feels/does, then what am I even doing there?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

End of the day' date=' if the GM is telling me what my character feels/does, then what am I even doing there?[/quote']

 

Interpreting the world and guiding the characters actions based on what that character sees and believes to be true...and the guiding principles built into the character.

 

 

Doc

 

(PS Sean said being told that the PC believes what someone has said - you interpreted that as being told what the character feels/does. Those are three different things)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

End of the day' date=' if the GM is telling me what my character feels/does, then what am I even doing there?[/quote']

 

Well...look at it his way.

 

If a GM tells you that Jimmy is pointing a gun at you and his finger is tightening on the trigger and he looks angry, you get a choice about what you DO, but if everything about the situation would make someone in your position believe that they are about to be shot, it would be a poor GM who didn't convey that information to you.

 

Now to me there is no practical difference, in the vast majority of cases, between a GM giving the description above OR saying 'You believe Jimmy is about to shoot you' OR 'It looks like Jimmy is about to shoot you'. It makes no difference if the GM tells you that because it is part of the exposition or because he asked you to make a PER roll, which you didn't blow*.

 

Of course if you think the GM is lying to you or that you only think that because of a bad dice roll, you can choose to stand there and do nothing, but then, of course, you are metagaming, not role playing at all.

 

Real people in real situations sometimes read it right and sometimes read it wrong. From a character point of view they are a real person in a real world. You are happy to get information about sensory impressions, how is getting information about emotional impressions, or summaries of various impressions any different.

 

If the GM tells you that as you enter the warehouse 'something doesn't feel right', is that usurping your 'right' to make your own decision about whether something 'feels' right or not?

 

There are even situations where I have no problem with a GM telling me what my character will do. Perhaps we are having a macho competition with a street gang leader and we both put our hands in boiling water. The GM tells me I have to make an EGO roll for my character to hold their hand there, and the gang leader does the same. If I fail I pull my hand out.

 

Is that wrong? I don't think so.

 

As with anything it is a matter of sensible application. If I get to the end of the street and decide to turn right and the GM rolls and tells me I have to turn left, I'll be understandably upset. OTOH if I step out into the street and the GM tells me I jump back onto the pavement as a black sedan comes out of nowhere and nearly hits me, I'm not going to complain that I wanted the choice of being knocked down.

 

I suppose the point I'm aiming at is that the world interferes with people all the time, beliefs and understandings, perceptions and even reactions are not always conscious.

 

I agree that a player should control the conscious aspects of a character, the things they could actually control if the player WAS that character, but not the external and subconscious aspects, which they would have no, or extremely limited control over.

 

This is where things become difficult, of course, with social skills. If the GM CAN tell you what your feeling about something is - and sometimes that is inevitable - because most GMs don't come with the power Mental Illusions' to fully convey the experience to you - and emotional context can be vital - then you need to consider how that will affect your actions. You shouldn't just ignore it because you know better, or, even worse, because you don't think you would feel like that. THAT is what your character is experiencing - it is up to you to translate that into actions that follow logically, from context. Sometimes that might mean having your character do something distasteful, or even something you really do not want them to. Some of the best role playing I've ever seen arises from such situations.

 

If a player ignores what the GM tells them is happening in their character's world, unless it is something the player wants to hear, I'd ask the same question you did: what are they even doing there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Assuming that Jimmy IS about to shoot you, or, if he isn't maybe it is because you DID blow the PER roll. I often ask players to make a PER roll where they can not see the result, or even make one for them, because you generally will not know what the result of a PER roll actually is and so you won't know if the information is reliable or not - just the rough odds of it being reliable.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

I'm not a Doctor Who fan' date=' but it reminds me of the climax of the movie [u']Legend.[/u]

 

Princess Lilly is holding a sword, apparently about to sacrifice the last unicorn.

 

The hero, Jack, lurking above with a bow, with his friend and faerie mentor urging him to shoot before it's too late, whispers "I trust you, Lilly. I will always trust you." And shoots the villain, just as Lilly swings the sword at the chains binding the unicorn and cries "Run!"

 

Now the question becomes what, exactly, has occurred in mechanical terms. What was the purpose of the social skills attempts in question, and how do we interpret that in game.

 

Legend? I see either no one using social skills or, perhaps, the faerie mentor using a social skill to convince Jack that any trust in Lilly is misplaced. The latter is better for illustrating the social skill concept, so let's proceed down that road.

 

At present, Jack's player can say "well, despite the fact I spent no points on resistance to social skills, and despite the fact that the person using the skill on me has succeeded spectacularly, I will still ignore it. You shouldn't have wasted half your character points on social skills - they can just be ignored. I spent mine on archery skills instead, so I'm useful for something." That is the state of the current system. This may be good play or bad play, but it is permitted, or even encouraged, by the current system.

 

Under a hard coded social skills system, the mentor has tried to persuade Jack that his trust in Lilly is misplaced (the faerie believes that, so it is a "best of intentions" attempt). But Jack's resistance to social skills, his force of will and his own faith in Lilly (likely providing a bonus due to his background, his in-game behaviour to date and/or any relevant psych lim's) has caused him to successfully resist the use of social skills.

 

To me, that is more dramatic in game. There was a chance of failure, and that makes success meaningful. Simply being able to say "screw you - my character does not listen" is not dramatic, in my opinion. It adds no real tension to the game. The social skills of PC and NPC alike are reduced to simple flavour text with no ability to meaningfully impact the characters' success or failure in achieving their objectives.

 

If my character were in the position you described?

 

"I shoot towards the podium, but aiming for a window a couple stories up on the building the president is standing in front of, praying there's no one behind that window. I know that at the sound of the shot and shatter, the Secret Service will tackle the president and get her under cover. "

 

So what if Jack failed to resist the social skills used against him, and he does not trust Lilly, even for the one fleeting moment he needs to decide his next move?

 

It doesn't mean Lilly moves from "I trust and love her" to "she is evil - slay her". Perhaps he stands up and yells "Lilly - don't do it!" sacrificing his own tactical advantage rather than take the shot. Perhaps he selects the more difficult called shot on her arm or hand to prevent harm to the Unicorn, but not harm her. Maybe he attempts the even more spectacular shot of striking the sword and knocking it from her hands.

 

But he failed his social skill resistance, so the mentor's skill achieves what was intended - his trust is broken and he must act accordingly. How he reacts to that loss of trust is the player's decision, but the conflict was lost, and the consequences must be played out. Placing blind faith is no longer an option. When we lose a conflict, the consequences cannot be handwaved by the player.

 

In the other example, that approach is legit whether or not you succeeded with the social skill resistance. It prevents the assassination, either because you still do trust your wife (social skills successfully resisted) or because, although your trust is failing, or even gone, that doesn't toggle her from "loved one" to "hated enemy", and your actions must consider not only loss of trust, but also retention of feelings.

 

It's your job as a Game Operations Director to put the characters in situations where they have to make decisions. It's not your job to make those decisions - and I think you (Sean Waters) understand that, because the scenario you describe does NOT involve usurping the player's right to make choices for the character.

 

If a "social combat system" or "hard coded social mechanics" or whatever the *bleep* you (several of you) are all talking about also does not involve such a usurpation - well, fine. What are we arguing about?

 

I would classify "you lost the social conflict, and you agree with him that the only solution is for you to shoot your wife through the head" as usurption. However, I would classify "you lost the social conflict, and your trust in your wife has been deeply shaken - you believe that she is making an attempt to assassinate the president" as setting consequences for losing a conflict. Those consequences restrict your alternatives (just as being stunned in physical combat, mind controlled or affected by a PRE attack restrict your alternatives) but the decision of how to proceed given those restricted alternatives remains yours. Sometimes, your alternatives may be severely restricted (you are KO'd at -15 STUN - your only action can be a recovery at PS 12).

 

At that point, I can't say "I trust her - I will walk away" and be in keeping with the conflict loss, any more than you can decide "I shake off the hit and don't lose a phase for being stunned". But you can say:

 

- my trust is shattered. Try to get her in my scope so I can go for the head shot.

 

- my trust is broken. I will fire at the podium above the president (your logic). That will give me time to go after my wife and try to talk some sense into her (yes, YOU can use social conflict as well)

 

Any of a number of other options (shoot the gun out of her hands; shoot to wound so she can't fire; shoot at her vantage point to get secret service attention on that location) could exist. But simply waving the social skill result aside and ignoring it does not. A GOOD player would not simply wave the result aside. Why, then, is it offensive to have a system that REQUIRES, rather than REQUESTS, good play?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Well' date=' if it's going to be a specific and encompassing 'hard' system, then it's going to have specific examples for modifiers, isn't it?[/quote']

 

I don't believe these modifiers need to incorporate a detailed chart hard coding the modifier for "on the rebound", "slipped her a roofie", "torch to the groin" and "gosh, you're cute".

 

At any rate' date=' if the rules you are proposing cannot even claim to be [i']better[/i] that the rules that exist... what's the point?

 

I consider rules that permit OBJECTIVE resolution of conflict superior to rules providing for SUBJECTIVE resolution. That is why I prefer the current physical combat resolution system to "Bang I shot you" "No you didn't, I dodged out of the way!"

 

I consider that consequences for losing a conflict should be MANDATORY, and not something OPTIONAL that the player or GM can simply handwave away. Just as you cannot respond to taking STUN in excess of your CON by saying "I shake it off and fire back without losing a phase", loss of a social conflict should carry repercussions, often ones which restrict the character's options. That doesn't mean loss of all choice, but it does mean loss of the choice to carry on as though you did not lose the social conflict.

 

We seem to agree that a good player will role play the results of loss of social conflict, so why should a good player care whether that result is mandatory? If he is going to role play as if it is mandatory, then it should make no difference to him whatsoever.

 

The point of a hard social system is for one character to be able to force a certain type of reaction out of another character regardless of the intent of the player of that character. In short' date=' it not only makes the abuse [i']possible[/i], but the abuse is almost the whole point of it!

 

This is where we clearly disagree. I would say that giving the player carte blanche to ignore the results of loss of social conflict is no less prone to abuse. A good role player will role play in accordance with the results of such a loss, so the only point of allowing them to waive the consequences at their own discretion is to permit, even encourage, abuse by bad players.

 

So rolling some dice and saying 'the dice say you're going to do it that way' is somehow better?

 

The dice could say "you have been convinced that your wife is planning to kill the president". You now believe that is her plan when you see her in the third story window across the street, lining up her rifle scope, as the President takes the podium.

 

Now, the question is what you will do about it. Maybe the skill user could even persuade you "killing her is the only way", but that would be a much harder roll. If the GM is prepared to make that roll feasible, I suggest he is a bad GM. He has removed all conflict, all drama and all point of playing the character. Let's assume we have a good GM, using the system to restrict your options and create some dramatic tension.

 

You could say "yeah, sure, whatever - she's the bad guy. Called shot on her head." I don't see this as stellar play. You could agonize and come to that decision too, I suppose.

 

Or you could scream up at her, trying to shake her out of this decision (after all, you can also use social skills) but let's assume that you realize that's unlikely to work.

 

Maybe you point to the window and yell "My God - she's got a gun", or you charge the podium and tackle the president, placing yourself between him and the bullet. "I won't sacrifice the president, but I won't sacrifice my wife either."

 

You could make the devastating personal decision that you have no choice but to shoot, and aim for her arm (-2 OCV due to the tears in your eyes as you make this difficult decision). You could take the cinematic approach of trying to shoot the gun from her hand - a difficult and dramatic attempt.

 

But you can't brush off the consequences of losing the social conflict. Of course, a good player would not have brushed off those consequences to begin with, so, as a good player, why are you so opposed to a system that denies you that choice?

 

End of the day if a player really doesn't want to be told if their character believes someone they are talking to' date=' there's no point in forcing them, but I do think they are missing out on some interesting new experiences.[/quote']

 

End of the day' date=' if the GM is telling me what my character feels/does, then what am I even doing there?[/quote']

 

You are making the choices for the character based on the options which are available to him given what he perceives - including what he may have been convinced to perceive by a third party with good social skills.

 

Well...look at it his way.

 

If a GM tells you that Jimmy is pointing a gun at you and his finger is tightening on the trigger and he looks angry, you get a choice about what you DO, but if everything about the situation would make someone in your position believe that they are about to be shot, it would be a poor GM who didn't convey that information to you.

 

Now to me there is no practical difference, in the vast majority of cases, between a GM giving the description above OR saying 'You believe Jimmy is about to shoot you' OR 'It looks like Jimmy is about to shoot you'. It makes no difference if the GM tells you that because it is part of the exposition or because he asked you to make a PER roll, which you didn't blow*.

 

Maybe you DID blow it. Maybe Jimmy is aiming at the Ninja silently approaching behind you, which happens to be a shot 3 mm to the left of your ear and 3.5 cm above your shoulder. That could easily be mistaken as lining up a head shot on you.

 

Of course if you think the GM is lying to you or that you only think that because of a bad dice roll' date=' you can choose to stand there and do nothing, but then, of course, you are metagaming, not role playing at all.[/quote']

 

Especially if you saw the PER roll come up 6-6-5, so you're pretty sure whatever you perceive isn't what's really happening.

 

Real people in real situations sometimes read it right and sometimes read it wrong. From a character point of view they are a real person in a real world. You are happy to get information about sensory impressions, how is getting information about emotional impressions, or summaries of various impressions any different.

 

If the GM tells you that as you enter the warehouse 'something doesn't feel right', is that usurping your 'right' to make your own decision about whether something 'feels' right or not?

 

There are even situations where I have no problem with a GM telling me what my character will do. Perhaps we are having a macho competition with a street gang leader and we both put our hands in boiling water. The GM tells me I have to make an EGO roll for my character to hold their hand there, and the gang leader does the same. If I fail I pull my hand out.

 

Is that wrong? I don't think so.

 

Apparently, Sean, you should be rolling STUN for the boiling water to see if he is Stunned (and loses the ability to keep his hand in the water), or KO'd (in which case his hand will come out as he collapses to the street). As long as it's application of the combat rules, that seems to be OK.

 

From here, it's a short step to saying "you don't need an ego roll to violate psych lim's - do whatever you envision the character doing". That's not to say "ignore psych lim's", but if you think this is a case where your character WOULD violate that Moderate or Severe psych lim, how dare the GM usurp control by bringing dice rolling mechanics into it.

 

Only I know how my character would behave, so no matter how out of character YOU may think it is, you should still give me a role playing bonus to my xp since, by definition, however I role play him is the right way.

 

As with anything it is a matter of sensible application. If I get to the end of the street and decide to turn right and the GM rolls and tells me I have to turn left, I'll be understandably upset. OTOH if I step out into the street and the GM tells me I jump back onto the pavement as a black sedan comes out of nowhere and nearly hits me, I'm not going to complain that I wanted the choice of being knocked down.

 

I suppose the point I'm aiming at is that the world interferes with people all the time, beliefs and understandings, perceptions and even reactions are not always conscious.

 

I agree that a player should control the conscious aspects of a character, the things they could actually control if the player WAS that character, but not the external and subconscious aspects, which they would have no, or extremely limited control over.

 

I agree.

 

This is where things become difficult' date=' of course, with social skills. If the GM CAN tell you what your feeling about something is - and sometimes that is inevitable - because most GMs don't come with the power Mental Illusions' to fully convey the experience to you - and emotional context can be vital - then you need to consider how that will affect your actions. You shouldn't just ignore it because you know better, or, even worse, because you don't think you would feel like that. THAT is what your character is experiencing - it is up to you to translate that into actions that follow logically, from context. Sometimes that might mean having your character do something distasteful, or even something you really do not want them to. Some of the best role playing I've ever seen arises from such situations.[/quote']

 

A poor player looks for loopholes in the Mind Control command. A good player plays out the results on the basis that the command is now the objective of his character, even when it runs contrary to the objectives of the player. I can be cheering for my teammates to take down my character, but I will still run my character as effectively as possible, because my character now believes (pursuant to the Mind Control) that my teammates are The Enemy and must be stopped at all costs. That means I'll battle them every bit as effectively as I would battle any other opponents to prevent their vile plot from succeeding.

 

If a player ignores what the GM tells them is happening in their character's world' date=' unless it is something the player wants to hear, I'd ask the same question you did: what are they even doing there?[/quote']

 

Very true. A player wanting to control the outcomes of all events affecting his character, rather than operating within the constraints imposed by his successes and failures, should be writing a novel, just as much as the GM who wants to railroad all character decisions and outcomes.