Social System

[Utech]

Re: Social System

 

reducing this all to a single roll' date=' rather than a series of steps tends to rob the whole thing of the drama which would be the only point of doing something like this in the first place.[/quote']

 

I agree completely. It has about as much appeal to me as reducing combat to a single die roll.

 

Example:

GM: Take your Fighting Skill Roll, account for any complementary Skills such as Tactics, get bonuses for all the Powers and so on and so forth that you've got, take minuses for the opponent's Fighting Skill (blah, blah, blah, etc.) Right. OK, you need to roll a 10 or less on three dice.

Player: If I don't make it?

GM: You're captured.

Player: OK. Wait! Did you add in my bonus for being left handed?

 

I'm not interested.

 

I like the way the Physical Combat system allows for many, many different variables to be . . . well . . . variable. When run well, it rewards good thinking and roleplaying and allows for mistakes to heighten drama. I'd want a Social Combat system to allow for all the same drama and excitement.

 

Please understand that I have no interest in playing out Social Combat for every social interaction! (Just as I have no interest in pulling out the Physical Combat rules every time someone tries to get a seat on the train by pushing other passengers out of the way.)

 

In most games (Sean has rightly pointed out that some games would intentionally turn this list on its head), I wouldn't want to use Social Combat rules for:

 

• routine use of Streetwise to check the mood on the street and/or check on prevalent rumors
  
• routine use of Seduction to make friends with an NPC who might have useful skills or contacts
  
• routine use of Oratory to make a speech at the local Toastmasters
  
• routine use of Bureaucracy to speed up the processing of simple forms
  

 

In most games, I would strongly consider Social Combat rules for:

 

• courtroom drama scenes (maybe the PCs are helping one side or the other, maybe the PCs are on trial, maybe some of the PCs are on one side and some on the other and another is on trial and maybe some are in Secret ID...)
  
• rallying the troops scenes (get the local townsfolk ready to fight for their homes, prep the Spartans for their last stand)
  
• getting information in a complex environment (negotiating a minefield of palace intrigue, dealing directly with a crime boss to work out a truce, convincing intelligence agencies to share information with each other to prevent a terrorist attack)
  

 

In general, I'd see a Social Combat taking the place of a night's Physical Combat. It would not slow the game down at all -- just provide for a different sort of fight with different sorts of stakes and different sorts of fallout.

 

Social Combat could be a real boon to players with a lead tongue who want to play a silver-tongued character.

[Vondy]

Re: Social System

 

Unless you are running a comedy campaign and several PCs are running a nun seduction pool' date=' reducing this all to a single roll, rather than a series of steps tends to rob the whole thing of the drama which would be the only point of doing something like this in the first place.[/quote']

 

Its not a mind control roll. The MC levels referenced in TUS were clearly intended to be illustrative rather than literal. As for the number of rolls, I think that would be wholly dependent on how the situation developed. I would, generally, propose a gradual, more gradated method of handling social interaction (if I were to use anything at all). At the same time, just walking up with the "hey, nun baby" routine probably only deserves one roll with a major negative modifier. Its up the the player to determine their approach. Sometimes the comedy is rooted in bad tactics.

 

I don't think that any social skill should ever be as instant as mind control: they are different beasts. You can buy mind control on an activation roll or with RSR if that is what you want' date=' but if you buy Persuasion on 34 or less, you don't just snap your fingers and have people fall into bed with you.[/quote']

 

I agree. But I think your comment is a nonsequitor. I've never seen a game with skill rolls that high because most game-masters, including myself, understand the difference between MC and interaction skills. As I said, the reference in TUS was intended to be illustrative. And the trend is to try to do that sort of thing with superskills, which is more apropos, anyways. Even in superheroic games I've seldom seen anythig (other than science skills) exceeding 20-.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social System

 

I agree completely. It has about as much appeal to me as reducing combat to a single die roll.

 

Example:

GM: Take your Fighting Skill Roll, account for any complementary Skills such as Tactics, get bonuses for all the Powers and so on and so forth that you've got, take minuses for the opponent's Fighting Skill (blah, blah, blah, etc.) Right. OK, you need to roll a 10 or less on three dice.

Player: If I don't make it?

GM: You're captured.

Player: OK. Wait! Did you add in my bonus for being left handed?

 

I'm not interested.

 

Actually, I could see this being a fine means of resolving physical combat, with the caveat that this would be in a game that revolves around challenges other than physical combat. In a game of political maneuvering and diplomacy, for example, reducing combat to an opposed skill roll could work just fine. The social conflicts would be played out in detail, with each step having success and effect rolls in some form or another and advancing the overall conflict to ultimate success or failure, or something in between. But "you 'ave insulted my honor - I challenge you to a duel" would simply be resolved with opposed skill checks based on dueling ability, one side wins and the other loses, and we get back to the REAL game.

 

At present, Hero is hardwired to combat being the main focus of conflict, and all others take a back seat and are resolved much more quickly and much less dramatically, typically with a single roll, possibly opposed. I'd like to see the rules provide the option - more tools for the toolkit, I suppose - of swapping which conflict resolutions are resolved in the simple skill roll mechanism, and which using a more complex and detailed system. Perhaps there would also be a mid-level resolution system where there are multiple rolls and some tactical options but far less granularity than the current combat system.

 

Social conflict is the broadest area where such a mechanism could be useful, but it could be applied to, say, medical challenges (Star Trek, Babylon 5 and Stargate, off the top, have had episodes where the real challenge has been medical in nature - roll 12- and you succeed doesn't allow for this focus). Legal challenges (Law & Order Hero), investigations (CSI Hero) and, I'm sure, numerous other challenges could be modeled in this way.

 

The game would then set its own focus by deciding what challenges are resolved under the detail model and which under the simple model.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

[/font][/font]INTRODUCTION You want to become known to Sister Sabela' date=' and you want her to have a positive attitude toward you. You make up a pretext to talk to her. First off you need a reason to talk to her at all, so you start going to church and make sure you say hello whenever you can. You might spend a month on that, although if you want to rush things it could be as little as a single service. She is a Nun, so you decide you will ask if there are any local charities as you have some time to donate. You could chat to others in the church and find out about her, if she runs the soup kitchen, or a discussion group. You can research the tenets of faith. This will all involve various background, research or social interaction rolls. For instance you might engage a church member (socialise skill) and get them to tell you about Sister Sabela, but without them realising she is the point of the conversation (Persuade at -2). You could even talk to her directly, but that might backfire.[/font']

2. APPROACH You know a bit about her now so it is time to talk to her directly. This is when you will be using your Empathy or Sympathy skills to see if any guesses you may have been able to make about her traits (or ‘hot buttons’ as you insist on calling them) are accurate.

3. STRATEGY To work on her you need to spend time with her, so a round of socialise and distraction rolls is probably in order. Now you need to apply a strategy to reel her in. Perhaps you work on her pride, convincing her that, even if she were to encounter temptation she would be too strong for it, opening the possibility of getting close to temptation just to see. This time her trait is working for you. Perhaps you want to work on a sob story – you might have some terminal but non-contagious disease and she look so much like your dead wife, who you miss so terribly, and what with her gone and the illness you are seriously contemplating suicide....that should engage her compassion and possibly sacrifice traits. Loyalty to the church and her vows is going to be a toughy, so some sort of theological argument about whether giving in to the pleasures of the flesh is really that much of a sin (argument rolls).

4. DENOUMENT Arrange a starry night, a bottle of communion wine and, perhaps a failed suicide attempt...it could all backfire at any moment with a bad roll or two, but it just might work...

The thing is you can make a social effects system a single roll, if you really don’t want to be bothered (I spend three months working on Sister Sabela...what do I have to roll) OR you could go through a whole series of rolls each possibly gaining a little ground, or losing it (and bear in mind that Sister Sabela might have her own agenda too – she’s pretty empathic...) OR you could role play it. But frankly if you want to role play seducing a nun you should probably be calling a premium rate telephone number not playing Hero J

Looking at it there is a bit too much overlap on the positive traits, and I’d welcome suggestions as to alternatives, although I am keen to keep the number relatively manageable – otherwise it will be difficult to engage a trait if they get too obscure.

 

This is a good example - and without the fixed modifiers, this is exactly how I run things right now, using the rules as-is. You even include the option I mentioned before, that some things simply aren't possible on a simple skill roll.

 

It does seem rather a lot of trouble to go to, just to recreate the system we currently have.

 

This approach is applicable to any set of skill rolls though, not just social skills: you can go for the straight-up "make the roll" approach, or you can try to break a difficult task down into subtasks (I call them "extended contests" in a nod to Hero Quest) and work at such subtasks in a way to try and get more favourable odds (which is essentially what you did above).

 

An important correlate of course is that the GM can do this to the players as well. A group who might resent being told to perform a certain task by a NPC who pops up to deliver the ultimatum, may well take the same task willingly from an NPC they know and trust, or if the task is sold as an activity they actually want to do.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

This is a good example - and without the fixed modifiers' date=' this is [b']exactly[/b] how I run things right now, using the rules as-is. You even include the option I mentioned before, that some things simply aren't possible on a simple skill roll.

 

It does seem rather a lot of trouble to go to, just to recreate the system we currently have.

 

This approach is applicable to any set of skill rolls though, not just social skills: you can go for the straight-up "make the roll" approach, or you can try to break a difficult task down into subtasks (I call them "extended contests" in a nod to Hero Quest) and work at such subtasks in a way to try and get more favourable odds (which is essentially what you did above).

 

An important correlate of course is that the GM can do this to the players as well. A group who might resent being told to perform a certain task by a NPC who pops up to deliver the ultimatum, may well take the same task willingly from an NPC they know and trust, or if the task is sold as an activity they actually want to do.

 

cheers, Mark

 

The system I suggested is meant to work with Hero's strenths anyway - coding attitude as disadvantages seems like a logical extention.

 

I don't think that the social skills we have really cover all the bases as neatly as they could, hence the suggested changes, but it basically is Hero as is, just neatened up a bit.

 

The most innovative bit IMO is the system for misinformation - which is not really catered for directly in Hero at present.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

The system I suggested is meant to work with Hero's strenths anyway - coding attitude as disadvantages seems like a logical extention.

 

I don't think that the social skills we have really cover all the bases as neatly as they could, hence the suggested changes, but it basically is Hero as is, just neatened up a bit.

 

This, I think, is just a matter of taste - I prefer the system as is, rather than blending disadvantages and making traits stand in for skills. But of course, I realise others may prefer a different approach.

 

The most innovative bit IMO is the system for misinformation - which is not really catered for directly in Hero at present.

 

OK, I didn't see the misinformation bit (I didn't read the .pdf: I assumed it contained what you posted in a neatened up format).

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

This' date=' I think, is just a matter of taste - I prefer the system as is, rather than blending disadvantages and making traits stand in for skills. But of course, I realise others may prefer a different approach.[/quote']

 

Traits are disadvantages, a way of coding how people react to certain stimulii, they are not meant to stand in for skills, but to consistently modify them, often to the benefit of the person who has the trait - if you are Merciful it will be hard to get you to torture a prisoner. I'm looking at you, Dick Cheney.

 

 

 

OK, I didn't see the misinformation bit (I didn't read the .pdf: I assumed it contained what you posted in a neatened up format).

 

cheers, Mark

 

It is in both (opponent's ability level does not act as a penalty but if you do not succeed by that much then they have caught you out and may give misinformation). The other thing that Hero doesn't really have at present is a clear way to resist social effect attempts. Just because you are good at persuasion does not mean you are necessarily good at resisting other people's attempts to persuade you of something - there is a way of doing that in the bit I suggested.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social System

 

Traits are disadvantages' date=' a way of coding how people react to certain stimulii, they are not meant to stand in for skills, but to consistently modify them, often to the benefit of the person who has the trait - if you are Merciful it will be hard to get you to torture a prisoner. I'm looking at you, Dick Cheney.[/quote']

 

But much easier to get you to release a prisoner, or not turn him in at the outset, if he is at risk of torture. This balances out. If I know your traits, I gain a significant advantage since I can push your buttons.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

But much easier to get you to release a prisoner' date=' or not turn him in at the outset, if he is at risk of torture. This balances out. If I know your traits, I gain a significant advantage since I can push your buttons.[/quote']

 

Absolutely - which is why they are a *disadvantage* - you cede some measure of control over your character for the promise of power.

 

I never realised how Faustian Hero was before...

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

This is a good example - and without the fixed modifiers' date=' this is [b']exactly[/b] how I run things right now, using the rules as-is. You even include the option I mentioned before, that some things simply aren't possible on a simple skill roll.

 

It does seem rather a lot of trouble to go to, just to recreate the system we currently have.

 

This approach is applicable to any set of skill rolls though, not just social skills: you can go for the straight-up "make the roll" approach, or you can try to break a difficult task down into subtasks (I call them "extended contests" in a nod to Hero Quest) and work at such subtasks in a way to try and get more favourable odds (which is essentially what you did above).

 

An important correlate of course is that the GM can do this to the players as well. A group who might resent being told to perform a certain task by a NPC who pops up to deliver the ultimatum, may well take the same task willingly from an NPC they know and trust, or if the task is sold as an activity they actually want to do.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Thanks, Mark, that's EXACTLY the point I've been trying to make all along. The existing system works just fine; I see no need for extensive changes.

 

If you want optional rules for 'more detailed resoultion' then that's your perogative. I look at the current system as 'supporting intensive roleplaying,' which is exactly how I like it. YMMV, of course.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

Traits are disadvantages' date=' a way of coding how people react to certain stimulii, they are not meant to stand in for skills, but to consistently modify them, often to the benefit of the person who has the trait - if you are Merciful it will be hard to get you to torture a prisoner. I'm looking at you, Dick Cheney.[/quote']

 

Personally, I'm just glad I don't have to look at Darth Cheney anymore But my point was that picking traits like that integrates them directly into the skill system, in a way that I am uncomfortable with: I don't like the idea of picking a disadvantage (Stubborn, Unemotional, Fearless) that primarily gives you bonuses in-game. Disadvantages should (and do, in our games) figure into social interaction, but I prefer a much more seperated approach, where players choose disad.s on the basis of character definition, not on the basis of an explicitly attached bonus. I'm profoundly uneasy with that. I've played in game systems that do that (HeroQuest's prime offender again) and it most definitely doesn't appeal. It gets worse when you use a Hero point mechanism: people can (and often will) choose disadvantages that benefit their characters.

 

It is in both (opponent's ability level does not act as a penalty but if you do not succeed by that much then they have caught you out and may give misinformation). The other thing that Hero doesn't really have at present is a clear way to resist social effect attempts. Just because you are good at persuasion does not mean you are necessarily good at resisting other people's attempts to persuade you of something - there is a way of doing that in the bit I suggested.

 

Ah, OK, I missed that: I thought you were referring to a specific rule. It's a good idea: so good, we've been doing it for a couple of decades in all our games, but with the caveat that to pass misinformation along, the opponent has to realise you are pumping them (failed roll on your part or success in a skill vs skill roll) - and then make a roll of their own to pass misinformation without you realising that they are lying to you. It's also explicitly included in the rules - it mentions under Conversation that the person you are talking with may be using his own Conversation on you. Of course you can get misinformation the old-fashioned way - failing a roll and misunderstanding, or even a successful roll if the person doesn't actually know the information you are getting is false.

 

Likewise, Persuasion specifically includes rules on resistance and mentions skill vs skill rolls as one option (Persuasion doesn't actually automatically make you able to resist persuasion: the default resistance is actually an EGO roll. It would be appropriate to go to skill vs skill where two characters were arguing - each trying to persuade the other - though). The rules also specifically make the same point that I've been making - that persusasion is not mind control, and there are instances where it will simply fail.

 

As I've said in past posts, Hero already has a very flexible and (potentially) deeply useful social skill system. We've been doing - using the RAW - most of the stuff that says Hero can't do, for years: I've mentioned the game where the fate of kingdoms teetered on a PS: Poetry roll.

 

I had thought that was obvious, but reading these threads makes it plain to me that not everybody sees it the same way. Part of the problem, I think is that most people don't seem to have read or thought about the intercation skills in Hero, because so much of what has been suggested (apart from hard-coding character reactions) is already in the rules.

 

If smart people who are familiar with the rules can overlook this, that's a problem. One solution might be to split the skills up by class and present them with a basic discussion on how to use skills in that category. It also looks like more discussion on skill contests (including extended contests) would be a good thing - but I've already said repeatedly that I'm in favour of that aspect.

 

Another part of the problem, I suspect is lack of practice with the RAW. Although people often write that they'd like such a system, that may be for rules-completism or on theoretical grounds: they don't actually run social interaction heavy games and wouldn't actually use them if they existed. It's why we keep getting strawman examples like "Courtroom hero" instead of examples from actual games.

 

I do run social interaction-heavy games ... it's why I'm so opposed to a hardcoded social interaction system.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social System

 

I do run social interaction-heavy games ... it's why I'm so opposed to a hardcoded social interaction system.

 

Our games have become increasingly heavy on the social interaction side - we feel a lack as we hit points where we'd like to resolve something but are not slick enough to do it without the crutch of a dice based system.

 

We have tried rolling the skills as they exist but they lack something and it is never quite clear if the player or the PC has won or lost.

 

A good system would make sure that it was the PC who won or lost and the player could guide the approach made and the style (the actions in getting the PC to the point of the contest).

 

I would equate it to the player choosing the battlefield and how the troops are deployed but the actual battle is fought by the PC.

 

Doc

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

Our games have become increasingly heavy on the social interaction side - we feel a lack as we hit points where we'd like to resolve something but are not slick enough to do it without the crutch of a dice based system.

 

There's quite a lot there: here's one example from the rules (it's for persuasion). It seems pretty dice-based to me, and as you can see, it covers almost everything Sean suggested.

 

typically the target gets to make an EGO Roll in a Skill Versus Skill Contest to resist the suggestion or see through the lie. The GM may modify the Persuasion roll based on the quality of the character’s statements, the believability of what he’s saying, the target’s Psychological Limitations, and other factors. (Alternately, the GM can modify the EGO Roll instead.) Some possible modifiers include:

—the target wants to believe the character: +3 to the Persuasion roll (or -3 to the EGO Roll)

—the target is skeptical or suspicious: -1 to -5 to the Persuasion roll (or +1 to +5 to the EGO Roll)

—the target has a Psychological Limitation that agrees/disagrees with the character’s statement: +1/-1 to the Persuasion roll for a Moderate Psychological Limitation, +2/-2 for Strong, +3/-3 for Very Strong (reverse the modifiers if they’re applied to the EGO Roll)

—use appropriate modifiers listed under Presence Attacks (page 428) as a modifier to the Persuasion roll (for example, a +2d6 modifier would equal a +2 Persuasion roll modifier [or a -2 EGO Roll modifier]).

 

We have tried rolling the skills as they exist but they lack something and it is never quite clear if the player or the PC has won or lost.

 

I don't seperate those two things - indeed, I don't want to seperate those two things: I see them as two indissoluble parts of a single whole. To me it makes no sense in the slightest to treat the PC as "separate" from the player. It's the player who makes the base decisions, supplies the personality, provides the spirit that animates the PC. You can no more seperate PC from player than you can seperate actor from role. Just as an actor can "inhabit" a role and potentially play multiple different roles, the same is true of a good player and a PC or PCs.

 

A PC is not a character in a novel. He doesn't have an internal life apart from that supplied by his player. If he did, he'd be an NPC. As a GM, I don't want PCs to become more NPC-like. As a PC, I detest the concept.

 

A good system would make sure that it was the PC who won or lost and the player could guide the approach made and the style (the actions in getting the PC to the point of the contest).

 

See above. You call it a good system. I'd call it a very bad system. No question, though, it's not what Hero does: on that I agree with you.

 

I would equate it to the player choosing the battlefield and how the troops are deployed but the actual battle is fought by the PC.

 

Good analogy - but not the kind of game I'd want to play. I go to some lengths as GM to encourage immersion in the game: the last thing I want is an alienating mechanism introduced.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social System

 

The problem with with persuasion, rules as written, is that it is not binding on characters OR players, just the GM.

 

—the target wants to believe the character: +3 to the Persuasion roll (or -3 to the EGO Roll)

 

Believe the character or the player?

 

—the target is skeptical or suspicious: -1 to -5 to the Persuasion roll (or +1 to +5 to the EGO Roll)

 

Who decides whether the target is suspicious and by how much?

 

—the target has a Psychological Limitation that agrees/disagrees with the character’s statement: +1/-1 to the Persuasion roll for a Moderate Psychological Limitation' date=' +2/-2 for Strong, +3/-3 for Very Strong (reverse the modifiers if they’re applied to the EGO Roll)[/i']

 

This begins to get to the kind of thing I was looking at but you will notice that the first two modify much more than this - a suspicious character can be almost twice the modifier than a very strong psychological limitation.

 

That seems skewed to me.

 

—use appropriate modifiers listed under Presence Attacks (page 428) as a modifier to the Persuasion roll (for example' date=' a +2d6 modifier would equal a +2 Persuasion roll modifier [or a -2 EGO Roll modifier']).

 

And here you begin to get some coherence between skill use and PRE attacks - I would like to see the linkages stronger than they are...

 

As I've said, I'm not looking (necessarily) to introduce swathes of new rules if the current ones could be tightened up and made to work together more coherently.

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social System

 

There's quite a lot there: here's one example from the rules (it's for persuasion). It seems pretty dice-based to me, and as you can see, it covers almost everything Sean suggested.

 

typically the target gets to make an EGO Roll in a Skill Versus Skill Contest to resist the suggestion or see through the lie. The GM may modify the Persuasion roll based on the quality of the character’s statements, the believability of what he’s saying, the target’s Psychological Limitations, and other factors. (Alternately, the GM can modify the EGO Roll instead.) Some possible modifiers include:

—the target wants to believe the character: +3 to the Persuasion roll (or -3 to the EGO Roll)

 

—the target is skeptical or suspicious: -1 to -5 to the Persuasion roll (or +1 to +5 to the EGO Roll)

 

The PLAYER wants to believe or the CHARACTER wants to believe? As a player, I may be suspicious that Belkar has suddenly found religion and wants to convert to worship the God of Puppies and Rainbows. I think he really wants access to the Temple Treasury. But Piffany the Puppy Priestess deeply wants to believe - she knows that, deep down, everyone loves puppies and rainbows and she is delighted that she has finally reached Belkar's inner self.

 

So does the chance of success improve by 3 because Piffany dearly wants to believe and always takes people at face value, or a -5 because the player is wholly skeptical and suspicious, and does not want to believe the story and let Belkar anywhere near the temple?

 

[/i]—the target has a Psychological Limitation that agrees/disagrees with the character’s statement: +1/-1 to the Persuasion roll for a Moderate Psychological Limitation, +2/-2 for Strong, +3/-3 for Very Strong (reverse the modifiers if they’re applied to the EGO Roll)

—use appropriate modifiers listed under Presence Attacks (page 428) as a modifier to the Persuasion roll (for example, a +2d6 modifier would equal a +2 Persuasion roll modifier [or a -2 EGO Roll modifier]).[/i]

 

I thought you didn't like the idea of disadvantages granting bonuses. Can my character take Deeply Suspicious of Everyone's Motives as a Very Strong psych and, as a consequence, apply -8 (-3 for the Psych and -5 for his suspicions) against every such roll? Oh, and I'm even suspicious of your motives for suggesting I should distrust Belkar's motives, so I get -8 to resist you trying to turn me to DISTRUST him too!

 

I don't seperate those two things - indeed' date=' I don't [b']want[/b] to seperate those two things: I see them as two indissoluble parts of a single whole. To me it makes no sense in the slightest to treat the PC as "separate" from the player. It's the player who makes the base decisions, supplies the personality, provides the spirit that animates the PC. You can no more seperate PC from player than you can seperate actor from role. Just as an actor can "inhabit" a role and potentially play multiple different roles, the same is true of a good player and a PC or PCs.

 

Whereas I often play characters very different from myself. For example, I deliberately selected a character with a lot of versatility, and saddled him with the psych limit like "impatient and impulsive". He's naive and inexperienced. The reason? I want a character who won't overanalyze (which I as a player am prone to do). In combat he does the first thing that comes to my mind - no more than 2 seconds to select his action - even when I see a flaw in that immediate decision (like "an explosion right there" which also knocks an allied flyer back).

 

A PC is not a character in a novel. He doesn't have an internal life apart from that supplied by his player. If he did' date=' he'd be an NPC. As a GM, I don't want PCs to become more NPC-like. As a PC, I detest the concept.[/quote']

 

A PC is also not the player. To me, anything that helps the player put himself into the PC's mindset is a good thing. As a player, I know that your detailed description of the way the street vendor haggles over the price of a River Fruit is a tip that, somehow, this is more important than spending 2 CP on daily maintenance, but my character has no way of differentiating this guy from every other fruit vendor he's ever encountered. So I as a player am on my guard where my character has no reason to be.

 

Sometimes the best role playing sees the player cringe at what he knows his character would logically do, and he goes ahead and does it anyway.

 

To me, a character who selects the best tactic perceived by the player is a game pawn, not a character.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

The problem with with persuasion' date=' rules as written, is that it is not binding on characters OR players, just the GM.[/quote']

 

I don't see anything in the text that suggests this. It's more accurate to say it's binding on neither. Persuasion is not mind control.

 

Believe the character or the player?

 

The character, obviously - though you can't (and IMO shouldn't) realistically completely seperate them - the player is the chracter's mind and memory

 

Who decides whether the target is suspicious and by how much?

 

The GM or player, obviously. The GM, after all, decides everything else external to the player, degree of suspicion shouldn't be a stretch. Likeiwse, telling the player "Don't be suspcious, you have no reason to be" is essentially an exercise in futility.

 

We keep coming back to this. The GM cannot make a player suspicious or unsuspicious by fiat. He can declare that the PC will behave as though he was unsupicious and insist the player run from that aspect. But at that point, he's starting to usurp the player's actions - and in most cases, he'll be running his games with smaller groups or no group at all once he does that. It's a rare group that is happy with diminished investment in their PCs - which is why gaming rules which do tend in that direction tend to be a much more abstract, negotiated style of play - or more usually, not played very much at all.

 

 

This begins to get to the kind of thing I was looking at but you will notice that the first two modify much more than this - a suspicious character can be almost twice the modifier than a very strong psychological limitation.

 

That seems skewed to me.

 

I can see why - but I can also see why the decision was made to do that: the emphasis is on active responses, not background modifiers. So I understand your point - but agree heartily with the game design decision.

 

 

And here you begin to get some coherence between skill use and PRE attacks - I would like to see the linkages stronger than they are...

 

As I've said, I'm not looking (necessarily) to introduce swathes of new rules if the current ones could be tightened up and made to work together more coherently.

 

Sure, here I agree: to me the rules seem plenty explicit, and we've obviously been using them as written without problems (PRE attacks have always had a social intercation aspect included, as long back as I can recall) and some skills like Oratory explicitly interact with PRE attacks in the rules, but expanding on them a bit would not be a bad thing.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

I don't think that the player is the mind and memory of the character, and this may be a point upon which much rests and we will never agree. One system doubtless favours the Unity theory, one the Seperatist theory.

 

My reasoning:

 

1. The character can know things the player doesn't know (like nuclear physics).

2. The player can know things the character doesn't know (like this particular GM almost always has a blonde female NPC, called Carla, who seems harmless but isn't).

3. The player and character are experiencing the world in very different ways, and the skill of the GM in describing the world affects the player's perception but shouldn't affect the character's (just because the GM isn't actually that good at roleplaying innocence, doesn't mean the NPC he is playing shouldn't come across as innocent).

 

To me consistency is important, and so anything the system does to encourage consistency is a good thing. You don't have to take traits (or psych lims or whatever system you use to model proclivity) if you don't want to be limited in that way. I think anyone who cares about it this much is probably a pretty good role player anyway, and, I suppose the ultimate in role playing is not needing a rule set any more - not because it was limiting you, but because you don't need rules to tell you what you were going to do anyway. Of course you'd need a pretty good rule system to get it that right...

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

I don't think that the player is the mind and memory of the character, and this may be a point upon which much rests and we will never agree. One system doubtless favours the Unity theory, one the Seperatist theory.

 

My reasoning:

 

1. The character can know things the player doesn't know (like nuclear physics).

2. The player can know things the character doesn't know (like this particular GM almost always has a blonde female NPC, called Carla, who seems harmless but isn't).

3. The player and character are experiencing the world in very different ways, and the skill of the GM in describing the world affects the player's perception but shouldn't affect the character's (just because the GM isn't actually that good at roleplaying innocence, doesn't mean the NPC he is playing shouldn't come across as innocent).

 

All of this is true - and good roleplaying more or less requires that the player tries to see things through his PC's eyes. However, unless he's genuinely schizoid, a true seperation is simply not possible. Ever. Moreover, since the PC is the player's avatar in the game world, I am not even convinced it's especially desirable. If the player's emotional investment in his PC is weakened that weakens the game, IMO.

 

To me consistency is important' date=' and so anything the system does to encourage consistency is a good thing. You don't have to take traits (or psych lims or whatever system you use to model proclivity) if you don't want to be limited in that way. I think anyone who cares about it this much is probably a pretty good role player anyway, and, I suppose the ultimate in role playing is not needing a rule set any more - not because it was limiting you, but because you don't need rules to tell you what you were going to do anyway. Of course you'd need a pretty good rule system to get it [i']that [/i]right...

 

And thus you keep coming back to the core point, on which we essentially agree: that you cannot compel roleplaying.

 

If the player is prepared to roleplay his PC, rules that hard-code detailed reactions are mostly not useful and may actually hinder play. If the player is not prepared to roleplay, rules that hard-code detailed reactions are definately not useful and will almost certainly hinder, or end, play.

 

To me, the question, then is "Why would you want rules that are almost never useful and which are often a hinderance to enjoyment?" I think social interaction is very important, in-game, so guidelines in this area are good - it's become clear to me in the course of this discussion that the rules are not as clear as they seemed to me.

 

But I remain convinced that more restricting rules, that attempt to compel PC behaviour are essentially doomed to failure.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

All of this is true - and good roleplaying more or less requires that the player tries to see things through his PC's eyes. However, unless he's genuinely schizoid, a true seperation is simply not possible. Ever. Moreover, since the PC is the player's avatar in the game world, I am not even convinced it's especially desirable. If the player's emotional investment in his PC is weakened that weakens the game, IMO.

 

 

 

And thus you keep coming back to the core point, on which we essentially agree: that you cannot compel roleplaying.

 

If the player is prepared to roleplay his PC, rules that hard-code detailed reactions are mostly not useful and may actually hinder play. If the player is not prepared to roleplay, rules that hard-code detailed reactions are definately not useful and will almost certainly hinder, or end, play.

 

To me, the question, then is "Why would you want rules that are almost never useful and which are often a hinderance to enjoyment?" I think social interaction is very important, in-game, so guidelines in this area are good - it's become clear to me in the course of this discussion that the rules are not as clear as they seemed to me.

 

But I remain convinced that more restricting rules, that attempt to compel PC behaviour are essentially doomed to failure.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I'd just like to mention that it is a genuine pleasure debating with you

 

I believe there is a significant overlap between player and character and that the art of role playing is, to a large extent, being empathic: thinking and feeling what they would feel rather than the other way around - which is what often happens - that the character becomes an extension of the player.

 

If you want to play yourself in a game, set the character up so that it IS you, at least as far as personality goes, if you want to play someone else, for the crack, then impressing yourself upon them is pointless.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social System

 

I'd just like to mention that it is a genuine pleasure debating with you

 

Ya big sook, Waters!! You never say that to me, all I get is abuse!!

 

 

Doc

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

The PLAYER wants to believe or the CHARACTER wants to believe? As a player, I may be suspicious that Belkar has suddenly found religion and wants to convert to worship the God of Puppies and Rainbows. I think he really wants access to the Temple Treasury. But Piffany the Puppy Priestess deeply wants to believe - she knows that, deep down, everyone loves puppies and rainbows and she is delighted that she has finally reached Belkar's inner self.

 

So does the chance of success improve by 3 because Piffany dearly wants to believe and always takes people at face value, or a -5 because the player is wholly skeptical and suspicious, and does not want to believe the story and let Belkar anywhere near the temple?

 

If the player is roleplaying Piffany, +3. Otherwise he's not roleplaying Piffany.

 

Whereas I often play characters very different from myself. For example, I deliberately selected a character with a lot of versatility, and saddled him with the psych limit like "impatient and impulsive". He's naive and inexperienced. The reason? I want a character who won't overanalyze (which I as a player am prone to do). In combat he does the first thing that comes to my mind - no more than 2 seconds to select his action - even when I see a flaw in that immediate decision (like "an explosion right there" which also knocks an allied flyer back).

 

Congratulations! You're a good roleplayer!

 

A PC is also not the player. To me, anything that helps the player put himself into the PC's mindset is a good thing. As a player, I know that your detailed description of the way the street vendor haggles over the price of a River Fruit is a tip that, somehow, this is more important than spending 2 CP on daily maintenance, but my character has no way of differentiating this guy from every other fruit vendor he's ever encountered. So I as a player am on my guard where my character has no reason to be.

 

Sometimes the best role playing sees the player cringe at what he knows his character would logically do, and he goes ahead and does it anyway.

 

To me, a character who selects the best tactic perceived by the player is a game pawn, not a character.

 

Look at that! We totally agree! Sometimes a character does things the player would never do because it is in character for them to do so. Notbecause the dice said so, because it was in character. It's that simple.

 

 

 

My bad. I'm bringing the 'yes-no' argument over here. Sorry...

 

 

 

So. How do we go about making this thing work again?

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

To me consistency is important' date=' and so anything the system does to encourage consistency is a good thing. You don't have to take traits (or psych lims or whatever system you use to model proclivity) if you don't want to be limited in that way. I think anyone who cares about it this much is probably a pretty good role player anyway, and, I suppose the ultimate in role playing is not needing a rule set any more - not because it was limiting you, but because you don't need rules to tell you what you were going to do anyway.[/quote']

 

The heart of the matter right there.

 

Of course you'd need a pretty good rule system to get it that right...

 

Exactly.

 

Although the more I look at what you posted, the more I think you're on the right track.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

Ya big sook, Waters!! You never say that to me, all I get is abuse!!

 

 

Doc

 

You like abuse.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social System

 

You like abuse.

 

 

Telling tales out of school now!

[ayinde]

Re: Social System

 

i converted this from a different game but it worked well in a game i ran a wile ago

Manipulation

Charm. Persuasiveness. Charisma. The capacity to play upon the desires, hopes and needs of others to influence them. Manipulation reflects your character's finesse in social situations. How well he can appeal to, gain the favor of and generally coerce others. Manipulation is applied to win smiles, to put people at ease or to gain favors. Where Presence deals in social force, Manipulation focuses on social subtlety. It's the tool and trade of businesspeople, politicians, salesmen and publicists. Your character may be a wallflower, he could frequently make off-color statements, he might have a winning smile and a hardy handshake, or he may be able to sell sand in the desert.

coercion

Another person seeks to turn your character's mind to her way of thinking, or tries to get him do something for her, possibly through debate, intimidation or threats. A prolonged interrogation or torture session may require extended rolls between parties, made every few minutes, hours or days, as appropriate. If successes rolled in a contested coercion attempt tie, the subject maintains his own will and does not break down.

 

Mechanic

Coercer: roll presence skill or interaction skill

Defense: roll ego skill subtract margin of success or interaction if same skill as attack

>>in general this is for working with npcs a player character has a lot more freedom in his action if a player is coerced with a successful roll he can still chose not to obey but will receive negatives to his dice roles for the scene representing him ignoring an order out of nothing but stubborn will<<

Modifiers:

 

 

Common allegiance

1

Rank

varies

Complementary skill

varies

Reasonable evidence

1_3

Opposing force

-1

Attitude of defender

varies

 

Interaction skills

everyman=%

acting %

persuasion %

conversation %

bribery

interrogation

high society

seduction

street wise

*animal handler

*bureaucratic

*trading

*oratory

 

Skill enhancer

Manipulator

interaction

3/-