Social effects

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

See Gandalf taking his staff into the hall with Theoden. I'm sure that the guard there was under the strictest of instruction and under no illusions what would happen if he failed (even if that turned out not to be the case).

 

Gandalf pulled a bait and switch to influence the persuasion that he be allowed to take his staff into the hall and the bluff that it was not a weapon but a stick to aid an old man.

 

 

Doc

 

There being a world of difference between a walking stick - even an elaborately carved one - and a sword; in that one is a... stick, and the other a lethal weapon with no other real purpose in that setting. He would never have been able to pull of getting Glamdring into the hall instead.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

The problem is that when you use dice to resolve a conflict' date=' you [i']have [/i]reduced it to a binary solution: you made the roll, or you didn't. So all the shades of maybe-maybe not that are present in social interactions are lost in the yes/no mechanics of the die roll.

 

You reduce one aspect to yes or no. Same way one successful hit in a physical combat does not decide ultimate victory, one social victory does not decide the whole of the interaction.

 

 

Doc

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

If social mechanics with weight and influence are so universally bad and do nothing but destroy all that is good in gaming...why do so many games both narrative and mechanistic have them and why do people play those game and praise those mechanics? People actually do use them and enjoy them. Not everyone, people have different tastes but they don't destroy everything that they touch.

 

And if they aren't this universal bane to gaming and it's just a matter of preference and opinion... what the heck are we arguing about here? This isn't even the 6th edition threads so no one need hope or fear that anything will be taken from this thread and used in 6th edition even as a presented option. The thread has rapidly gone from talking about a game and different ways to play Let's Pretend to a battle between Good and Evil instead of talking about opinions which is all this really is.

 

Well, I do recall saying several times in the 6E discussion (and a couple times here, I think) that if such a system were to be included in 6E as a clearly optional rule that I would have no problem with it. I kept getting back 'I want it as a core, default rule, not an option,' from one particular poster. That kind of makes me a bit... stubborn. I am willing to compromise; why isn't this person?

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

You reduce one aspect to yes or no. Same way one successful hit in a physical combat does not decide ultimate victory, one social victory does not decide the whole of the interaction.

 

 

Doc

 

Yes, but in the examples given, it always seems to be the core aspect of the situation that is given the roll. So Jack believes that Lily has fallen and now, based on that belief, doing anything other than shooting her is acting out of character.

 

Even if the player thinks that Jack would believe in her no matter what, because the roll says that Jack honestly believes she has turned.

 

Let's look at it another way: Lily has succeded mightily on her persason roll against Darkness, and is acting in a way that an old deciever finds convincing. Jack is seeing the exact same thing, and does not have half the experience in deception and corruption - he's little more than an overgrown feral child, after all. By any sane standard, Lily's acting should have him convinced as well, even without Puck hissing in his ear to shoot!

 

But Jack's player believes in Lily's essential goodness, and believes that she won't, in fact, do what she is saying.

 

Reducing it to a roll and saying 'Jack believes Lily has turned' takes the choice out of the player's hands, because if Jack truly belives she has, then he has no choice but to shoot to save the world....

 

And damns it instead, because the dice said so.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

There being a world of difference between a walking stick - even an elaborately carved one - and a sword; in that one is a... stick' date=' and the other a lethal weapon with no other real purpose in that setting. He would never have been able to pull of getting [i']Glamdring[/i] into the hall instead.

 

 

Not with a misdirection, perhaps, but I daresay that even the poison whisperings of Wormtongue couldn't have injected enough steel into the guard's spine to call Gandalf's bluff if he'd used intimidation instead. Like I say, there's many approaches you can take.

 

Of course the discussion that followed would have taken a very different course in al likelyhood, if, before it had begun the Rohim had been threatened with fiery destruction.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

We have been talking about hard systems and soft ones and, if I'm right, refering to dice based and role play based systems respectively.

 

However there is no reason that a dice based system should have but a single possible outcome, or that a role play based system could not benefit from an injection of randomness.

 

You can code a role playing system if you want, or use a dice based system to inspire your next gambit.

 

Hell, when all is said and done, if we include a decent dice based social interaction system and you prefer to role play just don't use it. All you've lost is a couple of pages of space that couldn't have been used to teach someone to roleplay anyway. Mind you, if we do include such a system it should be the best system it can be.

 

So, never mind HOW the system works - let us build from effect: what do we want to be able to do with it?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Yes' date=' but in the examples given, it always seems to be the [i']core[/i] aspect of the situation that is given the roll. So Jack believes that Lily has fallen and now, based on that belief, doing anything other than shooting her is acting out of character.

 

Even if the player thinks that Jack would believe in her no matter what, because the roll says that Jack honestly believes she has turned.

 

Let's look at it another way: Lily has succeded mightily on her persason roll against Darkness, and is acting in a way that an old deciever finds convincing. Jack is seeing the exact same thing, and does not have half the experience in deception and corruption - he's little more than an overgrown feral child, after all. By any sane standard, Lily's acting should have him convinced as well, even without Puck hissing in his ear to shoot!

 

But Jack's player believes in Lily's essential goodness, and believes that she won't, in fact, do what she is saying.

 

Reducing it to a roll and saying 'Jack believes Lily has turned' takes the choice out of the player's hands, because if Jack truly belives she has, then he has no choice but to shoot to save the world....

 

And damns it instead, because the dice said so.

 

OTOH, if the dice didn't decide that Tim Curry believed Lily was going to do it, then he only did so because the GM decided to give the players a break.

 

A decent dice system allows for the LoD to be fooled, because he funamentally believes in the triumph of Evil, and allows Jack to see the truth because he's Tom Cruise and he always wins. Sorry, because he fundamentally believes in the goodness of Lily. Build that into their disadvantages and the right result is all but ensured.

 

All, but for the roll of a die...and that is what gives it the magic. You don't KNOW you're going to win, you don't KNOW you're going to get it right. If it is all down to you and the GM, and you know he or she is not a complete b*rst*d then the outcome is ensured.

 

Risk, my friends, is the spice of gaming. And so much else...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Reducing it to a roll and saying 'Jack believes Lily has turned' takes the choice out of the player's hands' date=' because if Jack truly belives she [i']has, [/i]then he has no choice but to shoot to save the world....

 

And damns it instead, because the dice said so.

 

As I said in response to Mark earlier - it is flabby roleplaying to allow a single fact to determine PC actions.

 

He may be convinced that Lilly will kill the unicorn. If the player is also convinced then the action is likely to be an attack on Lilly. If the player is not convinced then the drama comes from how they ensure the unicorn's survival without killing Lilly...

 

It is not the dice who make the decision. The player could decide not to kill Lilly but save the unicorn by diving between the killing stroke and the unicorn - sacrificing himself rather than attack someone that he cannot bring himself to harm...there could be any number of actions that could be taken, but if you insist on going for the most unsatisfactory one, it is not the fault of the system or the GM....

 

Doc

[Ice9]

Re: Social effects

 

Wait, that's what hard and soft were referring to? I though it was the degree of control the social system has on the PCs - "hard" social systems can compel the character to act a certain way, "soft" systems can only provide incentive to do so.

 

Another distinction is where a social conflict can compel beliefs or only actions. The difference between "you believe that he's innocent" vs "innocent or not, you're convinced to let him go". The second type can also support a "loser describes the details" resolution, which I think some players would have less objection to.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

There being a world of difference between a walking stick - even an elaborately carved one - and a sword; in that one is a... stick' date=' and the other a lethal weapon with no other real purpose in that setting. He would never have been able to pull of getting [i']Glamdring[/i] into the hall instead.

 

Shows Gandalf's player judged the modifiers correctly.

 

He gambled on getting one less obvious weapon through by giving up other more obvious weapons. That made the contest one where he did not go head to head with opposing directives but slightly to the side.

 

The hallmarks of a good system would be that it allowed for such subtlety on the part of the players.

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Wait, that's what hard and soft were referring to? I though it was the degree of control the social system has on the PCs - "hard" social systems can compel the character to act a certain way, "soft" systems can only provide incentive to do so.

 

Another distinction is where a social conflict can compel beliefs or only actions. The difference between "you believe that he's innocent" vs "innocent or not, you're convinced to let him go". The second type can also support a "loser describes the details" resolution, which I think some players would have less objection to.

 

I suspect that dice systems are equated with 'hard' and rp sysems with 'soft'. My point is they shouldn't be and neither extreme is particularly good imo.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Yes' date=' but in the examples given, it always seems to be the [i']core[/i] aspect of the situation that is given the roll. So Jack believes that Lily has fallen and now, based on that belief, doing anything other than shooting her is acting out of character.

 

Even if the player thinks that Jack would believe in her no matter what, because the roll says that Jack honestly believes she has turned.

 

He has been persuaded into believing she has turned, yes. If persuasion, or other social skills, cannot influence belief, what are they for? Do those walking out of a political rally BELIEVE the candidate is the right man for the job, or just decide to vote for him 'just because'?

 

Let's look at it another way: Lily has succeded mightily on her persason roll against Darkness' date=' and is acting in a way that an old deciever finds convincing. [i']Jack[/i] is seeing the exact same thing, and does not have half the experience in deception and corruption - he's little more than an overgrown feral child, after all. By any sane standard, Lily's acting should have him convinced as well, even without Puck hissing in his ear to shoot!

 

But Jack's player believes in Lily's essential goodness, and believes that she won't, in fact, do what she is saying.[./quote]

 

Why should Jack's PLAYER's knowkedge have any impact whatsoever? If the player knows how to make gunpowder, can the character create it? Our characters have different skills and knowledge and abilities than we do ourselves. That's the whole point. I'm playing my character, not myself with pointy ears and a funny costume.

 

Reducing it to a roll and saying 'Jack believes Lily has turned' takes the choice out of the player's hands' date=' because if Jack truly belives she [i']has, [/i]then he has no choice but to shoot to save the world....

 

And damns it instead, because the dice said so.

 

Reducing the options to "belief means I must kill her" does the game a disservice. As others have pointed out, there are more than two options. If we assume that his belief cannot fail, where is the drama? Where is the chance of failure that makes success worthwhile?

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

We have been talking about hard systems and soft ones and, if I'm right, refering to dice based and role play based systems respectively.

 

However there is no reason that a dice based system should have but a single possible outcome, or that a role play based system could not benefit from an injection of randomness.

 

You can code a role playing system if you want, or use a dice based system to inspire your next gambit.

 

Hell, when all is said and done, if we include a decent dice based social interaction system and you prefer to role play just don't use it. All you've lost is a couple of pages of space that couldn't have been used to teach someone to roleplay anyway. Mind you, if we do include such a system it should be the best system it can be.

 

So, never mind HOW the system works - let us build from effect: what do we want to be able to do with it?

 

Okay, let's start with some definitions.

 

When I refer to a 'hard' social system, I mean one where when a social skill is used sucessfully, the character is affected and thinks what he is being influenced to think is correct, and therefore must act accordingly. There would need, therefore, to be numerous rules to account for the vast variety of psych limits, player/GM attitudes, and the inherent vagarity of social interaction in the first place.

 

When I refer to a 'soft' social system, I mean one where there is some wiggle room for both the GM and the Players to judge if and how much the character believes what he is being influenced to believe and play appropriately.

 

Personally I prefer a 'soft' social system works best with the 'rock hard' physical system in HEROs, since having a 'hard' social system would drag an already rather slow-running game out quite a bit - in addition to the philosophical differences I have also stated. So to add a 'hard' social system on top of the 'hard' physical system, and a game that already has a reputation for being vastly over-complicated just gets a worse one.

 

A hard system presented as an option, or in a supplement? Sure, have at. I'll bend that far.

 

A hard system as a default rule? I don't think so.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

As I said in response to Mark earlier - it is flabby roleplaying to allow a single fact to determine PC actions.

 

Flabby roleplaying, hunh?

 

He may be convinced that Lilly will kill the unicorn. If the player is also convinced then the action is likely to be an attack on Lilly. If the player is not convinced then the drama comes from how they ensure the unicorn's survival without killing Lilly...

 

Why should he be concerned? Jack now truly believes that Lily has made her choice, and it wasn't him. Not to mention the little detail that she's threatening to kill the last unicorn and damn the world to eternal winter...

 

So why not kill her? She's evil now, right?

 

It is not the dice who make the decision. The player could decide not to kill Lilly but save the unicorn by diving between the killing stroke and the unicorn - sacrificing himself rather than attack someone that he cannot bring himself to harm...

 

Sure he could have. He chose to believe in her heart, not in the proof before his eyes.

 

there could be any number of actions that could be taken, but if you insist on going for the most unsatisfactory one, it is not the fault of the system or the GM....

 

Doc

 

I insist on the most unsatisfactory one? It sounds like you are quite convinced that I am the one pushing everyone else to accept that my opinion is the ONE TRUE WAY for the future of HEROs. And yet, I'm the one who is willing to compromise between our positions by making it an optonal rule....

 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, telling me I am guilty of 'flabby' and 'unsatisfactory' gaming is quite insulting. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Shows Gandalf's player judged the modifiers correctly.

 

He gambled on getting one less obvious weapon through by giving up other more obvious weapons. That made the contest one where he did not go head to head with opposing directives but slightly to the side.

 

The hallmarks of a good system would be that it allowed for such subtlety on the part of the players.

 

Doc

 

Not to metion that Glamdring wasn't the tool he needed for the job...

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

He has been persuaded into believing she has turned' date=' yes. If persuasion, or other social skills, cannot influence belief, what are they for? Do those walking out of a political rally BELIEVE the candidate is the right man for the job, or just decide to vote for him 'just because'?[/quote']

 

Recently it's generally been 'the lesser of two evils,' hasn't it?

 

Why should Jack's PLAYER's knowkedge have any impact whatsoever? If the player knows how to make gunpowder, can the character create it? Our characters have different skills and knowledge and abilities than we do ourselves. That's the whole point. I'm playing my character, not myself with pointy ears and a funny costume.

 

No, Jack's PLAYER determined in character creation that Jack is the type of guy who believes in the goodness of people in general, and Lily in particular. In light of that, he decided that Jack was not swayed by Lily's act, or by Puck's argument.

 

Could it have backfired on him? Heck Yes! What if Lily really had turned? Jack's shot at Darkness would have allowed Lily to kill the Unicorn, and Darkness wins anyway! That's where the uncertainty lies: has she turned, or hasn't she; do you believe in her, or don't you?

 

And that is the heart of it.

 

Reducing the options to "belief means I must kill her" does the game a disservice. As others have pointed out, there are more than two options. If we assume that his belief cannot fail, where is the drama? Where is the chance of failure that makes success worthwhile?

 

Yes, there are more than two options. Do I believe that Jack belives that Lily has really turned? If so, what does he do about it? If not, why not? And what can he do to best help her in that case?

 

Can he do something self-sacrificing and dive in the way? Sure he can. Granted, that's a long way to go to get there, with no guarentee that he'll get there at the right time, plus even if he does it he's just dead and the Unicorn is still chained down and vulnerable. And he already has his bow in hand and a held phase....

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

You are' date=' of course, entitled to your opinion. However, telling me I am guilty of 'flabby' and 'unsatisfactory' gaming is quite insulting. Please refrain from doing so in the future. [/quote']

 

Hmm. Not sure I did - you seem to get upset quite often in these discussions. Let me make it easy for you, I'll stop responding to your posts...

[Vulcan]

Re: Social effects

 

Hmm. Not sure I did - you seem to get upset quite often in these discussions. Let me make it easy for you' date=' I'll stop responding to your posts...[/quote']

 

I'm sorry, did you not say:

 

As I said in response to Mark earlier - it is flabby roleplaying to allow a single fact to determine PC actions.

 

He may be convinced that Lilly will kill the unicorn. If the player is also convinced then the action is likely to be an attack on Lilly. If the player is not convinced then the drama comes from how they ensure the unicorn's survival without killing Lilly...

 

It is not the dice who make the decision. The player could decide not to kill Lilly but save the unicorn by diving between the killing stroke and the unicorn - sacrificing himself rather than attack someone that he cannot bring himself to harm...there could be any number of actions that could be taken, but if you insist on going for the most unsatisfactory one, it is not the fault of the system or the GM....

 

Doc

 

I may, indeed, get a bit worked up during these discussions. But generally I keep it in check and don't let it get personal. On the other hand if the parts I emphasised were not actually intended to be insults to my gaming preferences, then you certainly worded them... poorly.

 

Doc, I am willing to see a 'hard' social system in the rules - so long as they are kept clearly optional. Why do you seem so strident about making them 'the one true way'?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social effects

 

Why should he be concerned? Jack now truly believes that Lily has made her choice' date=' and it [i']wasn't him. [/i]Not to mention the little detail that she's threatening to kill the last unicorn and damn the world to eternal winter...

 

So why not kill her? She's evil now, right?

 

Why should he be concerned? Oh, I don't know.

 

Why should Luke Skywalker try to save his father, rather than try to kill him? He's evil, right? Didn't Yoda respond to "I won't kill my own father" with "Then we are already lost", or some such? But Yoda didn't persuade him.

 

Why does the String-Jawed Hero keep falling prey to the wiles of the Femme Fatale? She's evil, right? "But I still love her".

 

Why does the hero not kill the villain? "But killing you would make me just as bad. I won't go down that road."

 

Why not take out the villain before he can do more harm. "Our first priority is the innocent bystanders." "We don't have time to save a single life." "If we stop caring about those lives, then we've already lost."

 

Cinematic reality often conflicts with simple pragmatism. The most pragmatic approach is rarely, if ever, the heroic one.

 

Sure he could have. He chose to believe in her heart' date='[/i'] not in the proof before his eyes.

 

ALTERNATIVELY: Neither he, nor his "player", CHOSE to believe, or not believe. He DID believe. His roll to resist persuasion to the contrary shows that he BELIEVED. A failed roll would show that he was UNABLE TO BELIEVE in the face of evidence and persuasion to the contrary.

 

In fiction, the writer decides how the dice come up. In gaming, he does not, whether one views the writer as the GM, the player or a combination of both.

 

I insist on the most unsatisfactory one? It sounds like you are quite convinced that I am the one pushing everyone else to accept that my opinion is the ONE TRUE WAY for the future of HEROs. And yet' date=' [i']I'm the one who is willing to compromise between our positions by making it an optional rule....

 

You are mixing two issues. You are insisting the choice was "I believe in her and I will ignore the risk she poses to the unicorn" or "I kill her". We see other choices.

 

At the end of the day, one of the rule systems must be the default. Why is it superior that your preferred approach not be the optional rule? You can still play your game if the rules say "Here is the hard-coded default rule, but some gaming groups prefer not to have PC beliefs resolved by the dice. In such games, you may prefer to reduce the impact of social skills on PC and NPC beliefs, or even eliminate them entirely".

 

I believe the answer falls to your previously stated belief that players and GM's want to follow the default rules, and view a deviation from them as something they can attack. Perhaps those in favour of harder coded social resolution mechanics don't want players attacking them because they are a deviation from the core rules. In other words, perhaps the reason some of us want these as default rules are EXACTLY THE SAME as the reason you want your preferred approach to be the default, and the preferred approach of others as the optional rule.

 

Recently it's generally been 'the lesser of two evils' date='' hasn't it? [/quote']

 

All other things being equal, I prefer to vote for the incumbent. He's already had some time at the trough, so maybe he won't be as hungry.

 

But you are deflecting the issue. Politicians sell people on believing in them. Often successfully, even if they didn't WANT to believe.

 

No' date=' Jack's PLAYER determined in [i']character creation[/i] that Jack is the type of guy who believes in the goodness of people in general, and Lily in particular. In light of that, he decided that Jack was not swayed by Lily's act, or by Puck's argument.

 

Or, under the hard social skill model, No, Jack's PLAYER determined in character creation that Jack is the type of guy who believes in the goodness of people in general, and Lily in particular. In light of that, he decided that Jack would take appropriate disadvantages, social defenses or whatever the system provides in this regard so that it would be difficult for him to be swayed by Lily's act, or by Puck's argument.

 

Similarly, perhaps Achilles' PLAYER determined in character creation that Achilles is virtually invulnerable. In light of that, he decided that Achilles would take appropriate defenses, resistances or whatever the system provides in this regard so that he would ve virtually invulnerable. He doesn't just get to declare "Achilles is virtually invulnerable, so I don't need to apply that damage against my defenses - it bounces off him". Some of us feel Jack shouldn't get an auto success to resist social skills either.

 

Can he do something self-sacrificing and dive in the way? Sure he can. Granted' date=' that's a [i']long[/i] way to go to get there, with no guarentee that he'll get there at the right time, plus even if he does it he's just dead and the Unicorn is still chained down and vulnerable. And he already has his bow in hand and a held phase....

 

Sometimes, the heroic action isn't the pragmatic one. "I can't just kill her - she can still be saved from Evil's Dark Grasp". The Heroic option is often one that is less certain of success, but does not give in to the pragmatic view that the end justifies the means.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

A bad "decision" you didn't actually make' date=' but which were dictated by the dice, could also be going into combat and getting nailed by a lucky head shot because your opponent rolled 2 3's in a roll then rolled max damage. We accept that.[/quote']

 

Yeah, because it's a totally different thing: getting hit and going unconscious is in no way comparable to a PC changing their beliefs and all the actions which logically flow from that change.

 

And' date=' if there was no perceived possibility he would NOT be persuaded, where would the drama in the movie be? In games, the possibility of failure and success are determined by the dice, not by player or GM fiat.[/quote']

 

Stuff and nonsense. The drama was in no way - even the tiniest moiety - related to persuasion or not. The situation would have been identically dramatic if the sidekick hadn't been there at all. The drama was all about whether Jack had guessed right about Lilly - had she really decided to become evil? There really was no possibility that he would be persuaded, in this situation. The drama was all about choice. The persuasion roll, in a game simulation, would have been an irrelevancy as far as drama goes.

 

A -10 (or higher) modifier may well have been reasonable' date=' and dictated that the character have no chance of success. But he has no chance of success because of the difficulty of the task, and the level of his skill. It's perfectly reasonable to decide "I do not want such virtually impossible tasks to be viable, so skill rolls cannot be high enough in this game to allow them to succeed".[/quote']

 

Sure, if you'd prefer to pitch it like that: to me that's a detail - saying "No choice of success" or "A sufficiently large penalty that success is impossible" are the same thing.

 

At the same time' date=' I would not take issue if attacking the guard resulted in death for the character against overwhelming odds he could not possibly prevail over. Some tasks are not possible given the abilities of the character. But if the character had a Teleportation spell, he could certainly attack the guard while pretending to remove his sword to hand it over, then Teleport away with a Triggered spell. For the GM to say "no, the guards fill you full of arrows before you can Teleport" would be unreasonable. The characters should be able to use their abilities as allowed by the GM - Teleport spells or extreme skill rolls. And the GM should ensure the abilities allowed will be consistent with the desired challenge levels in the game.[/quote']

 

Sure, no argument here - it's just that in some situations the penalties are so large that no success is possible. That's just not social skills. I don't care if your climbing roll is 23-: it is impossible to climb the sheer glass wall that has no defects or corners. Likewise, it doesn't matter if your OCV is 20, you can't shoot the wings off a fly at 2 km with a .45. It doesn't matter how high your PS: woodsman is, you can't cut down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring ... and so on.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

I tend to believe that anyone can be made to do anything' date=' and an absolute in personality is an difficult to justify as invulnerability to physical attacks. It is all a matter of leverage. The example you gave above is one where the guard is weighing his options. If Lamoniak had sweetened the deal with 10000 in gold and a fast horse, well, he might have come to a different conclusion. It is not that he would not do what was asked under any circumstances, it is just that he would not do it under those circumstances. -10 on the roll and 'no chance' are functionally identical, but at least if you start at -10 then you can modify further with bribes, threats or whatever.[/quote']

 

Given that history is full of instances where people have chosen death - even gory agonizing death - over certain courses of action, I feel strongly that there are plenty of instances where people cannot be forced to do certain things.

 

Also' date=' there are always various approaches - where a straight persuasion roll might fail, you might be able to fool the guard, or threaten him and accomplish your aims that way.[/quote']

 

Sure. I assumed that was taken as given. "No way to succeed with that approach" does not mean "No way to succeed with any approach".

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

I suspect that dice systems are equated with 'hard' and rp sysems with 'soft'. My point is they shouldn't be and neither extreme is particularly good imo.

 

I was using it in the sense the prior poster alluded to: Hard systems encode specific actions/beliefs. Soft systems do not. Hero system social interaction, as I play it involves much dice rolling but that dice rolling provides the flow of information and attitude between PCs and NPCs: it doesn't enforce actions that must be taken by either side.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social effects

 

Given that history is full of instances where people have chosen death - even gory agonizing death - over certain courses of action' date=' I feel strongly that there are plenty of instances where people cannot be forced to do certain things.[/quote']

 

Given that history is full of instances where individuals have chosen death - even gory agonizing death - over certain courses of action, I feel strongly that there are plenty of instances where some people cannot be forced to do certain things.

 

I think that it shows that there are modifiers to certain people's behaviour (and this can be reinforced among well indoctrinated groups) that allow them to endure to the death.

 

There will be lots of people who did not have the benefit of the indoctrination or group moral support who find alternatives. Some will kow-tow, some will comply and grump, some will comply and find ways to fight back in secret.

 

There is enough range there to allow for social contests to have a place...IMO.

 

 

Doc

[Markdoc]

Re: Social effects

 

Given that history is full of instances where individuals have chosen death - even gory agonizing death - over certain courses of action' date=' I feel strongly that there are plenty of instances where [i']some[/i] people cannot be forced to do certain things.

 

I think that it shows that there are modifiers to certain people's behaviour (and this can be reinforced among well indoctrinated groups) that allow them to endure to the death.

 

There will be lots of people who did not have the benefit of the indoctrination or group moral support who find alternatives. Some will kow-tow, some will comply and grump, some will comply and find ways to fight back in secret.

 

There is enough range there to allow for social contests to have a place...IMO.

 

Of course - again, that goes without saying. And also of course that means that sometimes, saying "No chance of success" or if you prefer "A sufficiently large penalty that there is no chance of success" is also appropriate.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social effects

 

Given that history is full of instances where people have chosen death - even gory agonizing death - over certain courses of action' date=' I feel strongly that there are plenty of instances where people cannot be forced to do certain things.[/quote']

 

Agreed - but there are plenty of instances of people doing all sorts of stuff. The fact that a dice based system allows for the possibility that someone might chose dishonour over death does not mean that it the same system can not allow for the possibility that they will choose death over dishonour. That is what the dice roll is for. In a pure role play situation all you are doing is replacing the 3d6 with the GM's opinion - nothing else changes. I suspect that the 3d6 roll will tend to expand the possible range of responses and that a GM will tend toward the most likely outcomes. That is not to say that a 3d6 system shoud include possible results that are too remote - the roll should still cover the range of possiblities whilst acknowledging tha some are more likely than others (but all are possible). To that extent a simply role played system is probably more limited than a properly constructed and administered dice based system.

 

 

 

Sure. I assumed that was taken as given. "No way to succeed with that approach" does not mean "No way to succeed with any approach".

 

cheers, Mark

 

A subtle point, but I would argue that anything is possible, but some things are so remote that they need not be represented as possibilities on a straight 3d6 roll - that would mean that if someone came along who was significantly better at persuasion, given otherwise identical circumstances, they might be able to move that remote possibility into the realistic range. I would alsways expect getting to do something involving great personal danger for no obvious reward would be nigh impossible, but in a game that can model almost anything, perhaps a character than can cause the impossible to happen might well exist.

 

I was using it in the sense the prior poster alluded to: Hard systems encode specific actions/beliefs. Soft systems do not. Hero system social interaction' date=' as I play it involves much dice rolling but that dice rolling provides the flow of information and attitude between PCs and NPCs: it doesn't enforce actions that must be taken by either side.[/quote']

 

I agree - in fact, as I've mentioned above, a pure role play system could well be far more limiting than a dice based system - and to that extent a dice based system may well be 'softer' than a pure role play system.