Social System

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social System

 

Cross posted from the Social effects thread. I was hoping we could compare and contrast with the systems already put forward.

 

One important point, however - when you do this, the GM needs to be aware that each skill roll is a chance to fail and that if you load an encounter up with them, the PCs will eventually fail. To counter this, the GM either needs to give significant bonuses (or smaller penalties) to make each sub-task easier or make sure each subtask is not pass/fail, but moves the odds of probability back and forth, so that PCs have a chance to recover from a failed roll.

 

Essentially, what I tend to do as a GM is to tell the players that hey can go for a straight roll but the penalty will be nothing/trivial/substantial/overwhelming and then let them decide whether to just tackle it head-on, break it down into subtasks, or try and wangle up some complementaries. I'm usually pretty open to players suggesting subtasks.

 

This is not HERO as written (though it is pretty close).

 

I think that I would like this detailed out for people. Essentially you could be using skills that would set things up for the final roll. So any one interaction in the group adds modifiers (-4 to +4) based on success that build to a final resolution.

 

Obviously this could work itself up into a self-sustaining mountain of supplementaries and so you might want to limit the number of skills that might be used over any one period of time. You might want to use a one-off skill that allowed you to use more skills - persuade someone to give you a minute to listen to them.

 

 

Doc

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

Cross posted from the Social effects thread. I was hoping we could compare and contrast with the systems already put forward.

 

 

 

This is not HERO as written (though it is pretty close).

 

I think that I would like this detailed out for people. Essentially you could be using skills that would set things up for the final roll. So any one interaction in the group adds modifiers (-4 to +4) based on success that build to a final resolution.

 

Obviously this could work itself up into a self-sustaining mountain of supplementaries and so you might want to limit the number of skills that might be used over any one period of time. You might want to use a one-off skill that allowed you to use more skills - persuade someone to give you a minute to listen to them.

 

 

Doc

 

This is an excellent suggestion, and not just for social interaction. Many skill rolls could benefit from being broken down into smaller stages to avoid the 'one failed roll = failed mission' problem.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

This is an excellent suggestion' date=' and not just for social interaction. Many skill rolls could benefit from being broken down into smaller stages to avoid the 'one failed roll = failed mission' problem.[/quote']

 

A simple way to do this is to play to the player's skills. If Lamoniak has "Conversation, 15- (and he does) then he's not only a skilled conversationalist, but understands ow to approach a conversation. In a recent session, he wanted to get a priest to divulge a cult secret. Now the priest knows him, is sympathetic, and would like to help him .... but it's a cult secret. He can't tell a non-member. So I ask Lamoniak to make a roll - even though he's not conversing with anyone right now and tell him that by his best estimate, a direct appeal is likely to fail (ie: big minus).

 

At that point, it's up to the players/PCs to work out how to tackle the problem. Try a PRE attack to get a bonus? Try and sweet-talk him anyway? In the end, they decided to sweet-talk him (ie: beg) but also offer him one of their cult secrets in exchange. That not only gave them a substantial bonus (the cult secret was a doozy: a highly improved healing spell) but allowed Khelsen to bring his substantial PS: trader roll into play as a complementary.

 

In short, in my game, most decisions to "sub-roll" are taken by the players, not the GM. That lets the players decide - even though they don't really realise this - the pace of the game. If a social interaction is interesting, they will spend more time on it. If it isn't, they'll blow through it. I present the problem - and let them decide how much detail they want in tackling it. This avoids the "Uh oh - we're going to detailed social - that means this encounter is somehow important".

 

As such, I'm not really keen on a phase-by-phase approach to things. Social interaction can take seconds "Get off your butts, soldiers, we're taking that bastion right now!" PRE Attack, to information gathering (Conversation: player specifies he uses the whole evening to get an extra time bonus) - in each case, unless the player chooses to go sub-roll in the latter, that one roll covers anywhere from 3 seconds to 5 hours.

 

cheers, Mark

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Social System

 

At that point' date=' it's up to the players/PCs to work out how to tackle the problem. Try a PRE attack to get a bonus? Try and sweet-talk him anyway? In the end, they decided to sweet-talk him (ie: beg) but also offer him one of [b']their[/b] cult secrets in exchange. That not only gave them a substantial bonus (the cult secret was a doozy: a highly improved healing spell) but allowed Khelsen to bring his substantial PS: trader roll into play as a complementary.

 

In short, in my game, most decisions to "sub-roll" are taken by the players, not the GM. That lets the players decide - even though they don't really realise this - the pace of the game. If a social interaction is interesting, they will spend more time on it. If it isn't, they'll blow through it. I present the problem - and let them decide how much detail they want in tackling it. This avoids the "Uh oh - we're going to detailed social - that means this encounter is somehow important".

 

Mark

 

From everything you have written you have developed the rules in HERO into something a bit more than they are RAW. You haven't expounded on whether contacts and favours get used or given out due to these (possibly rivalries and hunteds could come in as well).

 

However, you have been actively using a hard social system for years. I think that the system could be set up to serve you better (a bit more coherent than it currently is) and to bring new GMs to that level of use more quickly.

 

The current rules on social interaction (and the way you use your advancement of that) do not apply to PCs if the player wants to play the 'out of character' card. There is no reason that a more developed social system would have to apply to player characters. Obviously (given my many posts) I would recommend that it did but I think that a more developed system should be in the core rules and that the compromise could be that the application of the rules to PCs could be waived by agreement within the gaming group.

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social System

 

From everything you have written you have developed the rules in HERO into something a bit more than they are RAW. You haven't expounded on whether contacts and favours get used or given out due to these (possibly rivalries and hunteds could come in as well).

 

However, you have been actively using a hard social system for years. I think that the system could be set up to serve you better (a bit more coherent than it currently is) and to bring new GMs to that level of use more quickly.

 

I think, in the interests of terminology, I'd call this a "detailed" or "granular" social conflict resolution system. I agree that this is an excellent approach for beefing up this aspect of the game (and setting a framework for beefing up resolution of conflicts in other areas that are less common in general, and don't merit such analysis in the core rules).

 

Markdoc, I think, gives himself far too little credit when he says he's just using the rules as written. I think he has taken those rules and expanded them into a much more dramatic and engaging system.

 

The current rules on social interaction (and the way you use your advancement of that) do not apply to PCs if the player wants to play the 'out of character' card. There is no reason that a more developed social system would have to apply to player characters. Obviously (given my many posts) I would recommend that it did but I think that a more developed system should be in the core rules and that the compromise could be that the application of the rules to PCs could be waived by agreement within the gaming group.

 

Especially given the range of diversity, and the level of emotion, on this issue, I think the rules need to discuss the possible structures of applying these rules to PC's, stressing that every gaming group needs to find its own balance, specifically addressing options from:

 

(a) social skills don't apply to PC's

( social skills would generally be used to guide the PC's reactions, but would be overridden by the player as needed to fit his conception of the PC

© social skills can be used to manipulate certain behaviours, extract information, etc. from PC's.

 

[ie overall impact of social skills]

 

(i) PC's are just as affected by social skills as NPC's

(ii) PC's and significant NPC's enjoy exceptions to social skills (whether that is override as ( or immunity as ©)

(iii) PC's enjoy exceptions not extended to any NPC's

 

[ie application of social skills]

 

And, most importantly, that this is an area where some players and gamers feel very strongly, so it's important for the group to find a balance they consider fun. In particular, the fact that some players feel very strongly that application of social skills against their PC usurps their role as a player should be noted. As well, the fact that the GM should be careful that the players are still running their PC's, and that facing consistent levels of social opposition that can force them to do the opponent's bidding is no more fun than an endless stream of combat encounters too powerful for the PC's to hope to prevail.

 

Given this range of diversity, perhaps there should be no default at all for these settings.

[Ice9]

Re: Social System

 

One solution would be to have a "hard" system, but a player can spend an XP to counter a social compulsion they felt was unacceptable (and the compulsion can't just be reapplied). The DM could also do this, at the cost of giving out extra XP. If a system like Hero/Fate/Action Points is being used, it could run off those instead. You could even allow countering a counter, for a bidding effect on important decisions.

 

This would make opting out a significant decision, not something people would do lightly, but still possible if a compulsion was going to ruin a character concept or the game.

[nexus]

Re: Social System

 

If the particular game incorporates Hero Points maybe those could be spent to avoid results. Seems fair since they'd allow the player to reject certain things in the physical realm too and would have a game effect.

[Vondy]

Re: Social System

 

Especially given the range of diversity, and the level of emotion, on this issue, I think the rules need to discuss the possible structures of applying these rules to PC's, stressing that every gaming group needs to find its own balance, specifically addressing options from:

 

(a) social skills don't apply to PC's

( social skills would generally be used to guide the PC's reactions, but would be overridden by the player as needed to fit his conception of the PC

© social skills can be used to manipulate certain behaviours, extract information, etc. from PC's.

 

These three options for applying social skills are discussed in TUS.

 

(i) PC's are just as affected by social skills as NPC's

(ii) PC's and significant NPC's enjoy exceptions to social skills (whether that is override as ( or immunity as ©)

(iii) PC's enjoy exceptions not extended to any NPC's

 

 

This was NOT discussed in TUS and ways of handling these probably should be discussed.

 

Given this range of diversity' date=' perhaps there should be no default at all for these settings.[/quote']

 

Personally, I am interested in seeing a more robust write-up of the method Markdoc uses.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social System

 

Personally' date=' I am interested in seeing a more robust write-up of the method Markdoc uses.[/quote']

 

I think that's an excellent approach as well.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

Players have a responsibility to properly define their characters. If they want to be immune to social effects then they have to justify that and build that.

 

I doubt that a realistic character could be immune to social effects - even an android type who does not understand emotion and therefore could not be swayed by it could be influenced by a logical argument (...and that is WHY you have to shoot the President...).

 

PCs should be as vulnerable to social effects as anyone else IMO, but it is how you implement that that matters. You don't want someone with high social skills de facto mind controlling everyone.

 

One way to avoid this is so apply consistent modifiers, and I've attached a list of suggestions. Another way is to make better use of PRE attacks. Rather than using them as we do now, why not have them as a way of enabling social interaction?

 

I've also has some thoughts on PRE attacks, which I might post on a separate thread.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

Has anyone ever considered the possibilites of just taking the existing social rules and making them 'objective' (Hugh's term) and 'binding' (my term) on all the participants?

 

One could even go so far as to designate 'stages' of sucess - make the roll exactly and the character goes along with it, so long as not too much is asked, make the roll by a ton and the character gives the con man his Social Security number...

[nexus]

Re: Social System

 

Has anyone ever considered the possibilites of just taking the existing social rules and making them 'objective' (Hugh's term) and 'binding' (my term) on all the participants?

 

One could even go so far as to designate 'stages' of success - make the roll exactly and the character goes along with it, so long as not too much is asked, make the roll by a ton and the character gives the con man his Social Security number...

 

Utech's proposal aside, I've been under the impression that many of the proponents of expanding the social were looking mainly at expanding the correct one rather than building one from scratch along the lines you suggest.

 

Aside from the results being able to be handwaved, the primary issue with the current system appears to be that it's very simple and binary, the modifiers and in some cases, the skills themselves and how they interact aren't highly developed. Some people have developed house rules or intuitive rules of thumb that work for their groups but as I understand the idea for the thread was to develop something more codified and "tactically" interesting. Building on what we have already is a good start.

 

One way to implement your suggestion, IMO, would be to steal from the level of effect tables for PRE attack or Mental powers. They have the needed structure in a familiar format and I think they'd just require some rewording to work pretty well for comparing margin of success for defining how much the target's reactions are constrained/steered by the intent of the aggressor's roll.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

Wow. Was it really that simple to find a solution? Or has everyone just given up on this?

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

Dunno about the others, but work has been hectic lately, and I have been traveling a lot, so I haven't really been able to do more than check out the boards briefly the last 10 days or so. Things are slowing down a bit now, so I have a chance to write a more substantive response.

 

First off, on the the "rules as written" question, maybe you guys are right: I've always interpreted what we are doing as pretty much going with the rules - however it's pretty plain that's not the consensus!

 

As such, I have never "formalised" what I do. I can however sum up my general approach to things and then give some examples - perhaps we can formalise further from there.

 

First off, I see social interaction as occurring through 2 mechanisms (from the gamist point of view).

 

The first is PRE attacks. In my game those can have powerful effects, but are extremely limited in both duration and effect. The rules already allow for social effects "deeply consider what the attacker says" etc. In general, the rules I apply are:

PRE attacks must be visible (they are attacks, after all) so you can't "PRE attack" someone subtly. It has to be some kind of "Look at me!" effect, that is going to draw attention - though precisely what that constitutes depends on setting. I usually require the player the define what the PC is doing to make a PRE attack - though it can be as simple as "I draw myself erect and bark "You men there! Follow me!""

You can use a PRE attack to try and get someone to do something, but as noted, effects are always going to be short-term (usually a phase or two at most) - PRE attacks are very blunt tools, but they are a way of getting people's attention. Generally, if used in conjunction with a social skill, you get a +1 for each step up on the PRE effect chart above the base - if appropriate. They normally would not be applicable to things like Conversation - though they could be - a loudly-spoken cutting remark, for example, to humiliate someone.

Note that PRE attacks are highly context sensitive and lose effectiveness rapidly with repeated use against the same target/group. I have noticed some GM's will allow bonuses to PRE attacks (because players request them) but often don't apply the penalties (being outnumbered, repeated use, etc) which can make them overpowered.

One thing I often do is PRE attack vs PRE attack. In some cases, this obvious - a Hero countering the scary effect of a demon on his colleagues, and nearby NPCs. Less obviously, it can be applied even when one antagonist is not there - for example, if the PCs are interrogating a thug, and try to use a PRE attack to frighten him, the thug may get a small bonus on his attempt to resist if his boss is really, really, scary (again, PRE attack vs PRE attack - with a penalty to the absent party for being, well, absent).

The only actual change to the rules is that I substitute "appropriate action" for "violent action". They can be the same, of course - a Hero might be able to get frightened soldiers moving by leading the charge (appropriate action). A Commissar might get the same bonus by executing the nearest soldier (violent action) ... but even if both get the same PRE attack score, the overall effect on the soldiers is going to be different.

 

The second is obviously social skills - here, we have mostly covered the ground. The base rules are as I have laid out above, namely:

1. Unless you have a captive audience somehow (and often even then) social skill use is an "opt-in" situation. You can't use Conversation or Persuasion on a target that has already pre-determined that they will not talk with you. On the other hand, if they have opted in - in other words, they do interact - then they must, to some extent suffer the consequences.

2. As noted, some situations lead themselves to breaking down skill rolls - other don't. This is very much on a case by case basis - using Seduction to establish a rapport and then using Persuasion to get the target to do something might be possible over several weeks. Using Persuasion on a suicidal person to stop them leaping off a bridge is likely to be minutes to seconds. All the standard skill rules for extra time, appropriate tools, etc apply. These are highly context dependant. For a seduction, wine and roses might work - or for an NPC with psych lims. like "Thrillseeker", a suggestion to go HALO skydiving might work better.

I can't stress that last point enough - one reason that I resist a list of specific modifiers is because every interaction is highly context dependant. This is true of physical combat as well, but to a much, much lesser degree - social combat essentially comes with a history.

 

If you are trying to punch an opponent in the face, the outcome depends on your relative combat skills and the environmental factors in play. It doesn't so much matter whether you fought last week. For social combat, however, relative skill and environment play a role - but so do your interactions (or lack of them) over preceding days, months and years. The same request, identically phrased and delivered in the same setting may have a totally different reception depending on whether it's coming from your old, trusted mentor, your lover of the last 3 weeks or the guy who's repeatedly tried to kill you and your family.

 

That said, I tend to apply modifiers on a scale of ±1 to ±5 with 1 being "that sounds pretty reasonable/ a bit unreasonable" to "Hell, yeah/ Hell, no". Likewise, I score the degree of success from -5 to +5 on a scale of miserable failure to outstanding success (more or less than that has no particular effect: you can't gain mind control by having Persuasion 30-). Note, however, that even an outstanding success may not be enough to gain the result you want - there are cases where NPCs or PCs are simply not going to go along with a request. That doesn't mean they are immune to social interaction, as has been so often suggested - it merely means that particular approach is simply not going to work.

 

Modifiers that I take into account include (but are not limited to)

PRE attacks - as noted above

Environmental modifiers - these can also run the gamut from -5 to +5 but are generally in the -2 to +2 range - defining these is hard (see below)

Historical modifiers (again -5 to +5: what is the historical relationship to the characters to each other?) -5 is extreme hatred/distrust, +5 is extreme love/ implicit trust, etc. Note, this can be something heard about another character, it doesn't have to be personal. It can also "inherited" by being a member of a specific group. The disadvantage "reputation" can affect this, though I usually limit even a extreme reputation to +3/-3 unless the parties involved have personal knowledge of each other

 

Pysch lim.s can give a bonus or penalty, but I tend to play them differently - if the social interaction triggers a psych lim., in a positive fashion I tend, instead of giving a bonus to the interaction, tell the player directly "You have a psych lim for X - make your EGO roll if you want to avoid going along with ...." The reason for this is that I regard Psych lims as a major foundation for the PC's mind and it is (or should be) something the player has deliberately indicated that they don't mind playing along with. Lastly, psych lim.s can be triggered by events, in which there is no social antagonist. If the psych lim is triggered in a negative fashion (ie: events or a social interaction point towards an course that would violate the psych lim) then the player has to either make an EGO roll to go along with it, or it acts as a penalty (-1, -3, -5, for moderate, strong or total) to the social interaction.

 

To give an example of why I can't really give hard and fast modifiers, let's take an example: a bunch of adventurers turn up in a bar and ask for directions to the nearby castle. Simple situation, yes?

 

Possible mod.s include:

The bar itself. Small, with only regulars? A busy meeting place where strangers are common? Located in a area with distrust for foreigners? A rough place where brawls are frequent? An upper class establishment?

The party. Known to the locals (for good or ill?) Bearing signs that indicate their affiliation or opposition to the local power structure? Are they polite? Are they scruffy? Do they look threatening?

The destination. Is the castle the home of a hated vampire? A feared vampire? A beloved patron? Abandoned? Under siege? Is the local lord known to be recruiting mercenaries or adventurers? Has he demanded that all strangers be sent to him at once?

The general location. Is the countryside at peace? At war? Under a dark curse? Over-run with violent "adventurers"? Is it broad daylight? Just before midnight on a stormy night?

The NPCs. Do they hate "vagabond adventurers"? Are they faithful retainers? Are they obsequious to authority, craven or looking for a fight? Do they have any history with the PCs or the group they might represent?

 

Any/all of these can give major modifiers before the PCs have even spoken a single word - and this is for a very simple interaction. I don't pretend to weigh all of these individually and add up any modifiers: I simply consider these aspects and then weigh any subsequent interactions against my "general atmosphere" and the NPCs involved.

 

Lastly, I have indicated that I use complementary rolls extensively. A couple of general rules here - they apply to all skills, not just social skills.

1. I level penalties (-1 per 2 points the roll was failed by) on complementaries. This stops the players from all "having a go" (too many cooks spoil the broth!) They can try if they like, but soon learn it's better to let the best at a particular task tackle it - it's better to have no helpers than a bunch who don't really know what they are doing.

2. Group activities get a single roll, against which everyone measures their success. This is to stop everyone making a roll hoping to get a really low roll, which can slow things down and is likewise unrealistic.

 

Hope that helps.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

An interesting and useful approach that would make a good framework. As you say I think a lot of it is RAWish, but it is not drawn together, which makes it harder to use.

 

A couple of minor issues:

 

1. I considered allowing PRE attacks to act as complimentary to social skills by adding a bonus on success, but that, mechanically, is often just increasing the effect of high PRE - you get a plus for PRE from the PRE attack and you get a plus for PRE from the skill use.

 

2. When a PRE attack is used to cause someone to hesitate, as per the present system, I'd suggest that should require some risk on the part of the PRE attacker. In effect, unless you are standing there in plain view, disdainful of the need for, for instance, dodging, you are going to be a sight less impressive. I'd make a PRE attack a full phase action. That should cut down on indiscriminate chancing. It would also preclude using defensive manoeuvres. Obviously to get any benefit from the hesitation of your targets you'll need to launch the PRE attack at the very bottom of the segment, or even delay your action altogether.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

An interesting and useful approach that would make a good framework. As you say I think a lot of it is RAWish, but it is not drawn together, which makes it harder to use.

 

A couple of minor issues:

 

1. I considered allowing PRE attacks to act as complimentary to social skills by adding a bonus on success, but that, mechanically, is often just increasing the effect of high PRE - you get a plus for PRE from the PRE attack and you get a plus for PRE from the skill use.

 

Correct. But given that PRE by itself is a pretty blunt weapon, can easily be nerfed by circumstances and PRE attacks degrade rapidly with use, I haven't found it to be overpowering. It tends to be an approach that is only useful if judiciously used. In addition, note that I "cap" the effectiveness of social skills by not allowing "mind control" like effects - which means that a very high PRE allows you to overcome difficulties more easily, but rarely allows you to dictate the effect. I view it as analogous to OCV, in this regard. In the majority of games, it doesn't matter if you have OCV20 or OCV30 - under most circumstances, you will always score a hit - but hitting by 10 more than you need, doesn't make your attack more effective. It merely guarantees that you successfully hit.

 

The combo of PRE attacks and social skills makes high-PRE characters viable in a variety of situations, without making them overwhelming, in my experience.

 

2. When a PRE attack is used to cause someone to hesitate' date=' as per the present system, I'd suggest that should require some risk on the part of the PRE attacker. In effect, unless you are standing there in plain view, disdainful of the need for, for instance, dodging, you are going to be a sight less impressive. I'd make a PRE attack a full phase action. That should cut down on indiscriminate chancing. It would also preclude using defensive manoeuvres. Obviously to get any benefit from the hesitation of your targets you'll need to launch the PRE attack at the very bottom of the segment, or even delay your action altogether.[/quote']

 

Comes with the territory. If you are shouting "Surrender, scum!" whilst taking cover or dodging attacks, then at the very least, you are going to be taking penalties for "inappropriate setting" and/or "at a disadvantage". Likewise, it's going to be hard to rack up any bonuses like that. In addition, most of the bonus-inducing options (exhibit a power, commit a violent - or appropriate, if you will - action) also take a phase. I agree, that a PRE attack needs to be obvious to have any effect. However, I am leery about making requirements about "must stand in plain view". The eerie howl of Banshee may well make people hesitate even if - or perhaps especially if - they can't see the source.

 

In general, PRE attacks can give you a momentary edge, but unless used together with social skills, that's not a huge payoff for the points invested. And social skills usually require you to engage in more protracted interaction to gain much benefit ... generally obviating the effect of the PRE attack.

 

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Re: Social System

 

I know I keep harping on this aspect of social skill rules but personal experience has made me something of a hard case about. The intent of the social action should taken into account in situation where negotiation is required. IOW, negotiation to maintain the target concept shouldn't turn a successful roll into effectively a failure.

 

Putting aside the issue of "binding" social systems (any social system can be binding if the player's agree to it), the type of expansion I'd like to see would be similar to the treatment giving car chases and Combat Driving in 4th edition "Justice not Law" even with that system you could still settled a car chase with a simple roll-off if it was that important but they offered more. Tables, modifiers, even random events and expansions including how other skills might come into play that would make social interaction more interesting and involved to provide a more in depth resolution system would be great.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social System

 

Putting aside the issue of "binding" social systems (any social system can be binding if the player's agree to it)' date=' the type of expansion I'd like to see would be similar to the treatment giving car chases and Combat Driving in 4th edition "Justice not Law" even with that system you could still settled a car chase with a simple roll-off if it was that important but they offered more. Tables, modifiers, even random events and expansions including how other skills might come into play that would make social interaction more interesting and involved to provide a more in depth resolution system would be great.[/quote']

 

I like the idea of a system that is not one roll resolution simply because it would make a more dramatic structure. In combat, you watch your STUN deplete, realize that you are (likely) going to lose unless you change tactics, and perhaps do something risky, dramatic or unexpected. A "one roll resolves" system removes all of that. It's great for resolving issues that aren't at the core of the specific game as it speeds them up ("you picked the lock" or "the lock is beyond you"), but it removes drama from the conflict, so it makes such conflicts ancillary (be it social skills, courtroom drama, medical issues or what have you). Why would anyone want to play the Medical Officer? Stories can't focus on medical issues since you either resolve them or fail in a single die roll, yet Star Trek, Stargate and Babylon 5, in only one genre, has several examples of scenarios where the conflict revolves around medical matters.

[Utech]

Re: Social System

 

If you are trying to punch an opponent in the face' date=' the outcome depends on your relative combat skills and the environmental factors in play. It doesn't so much matter whether you fought last week.[/quote']

It might matter a great deal! You would have a much better idea of your opponent's abilities and tactics. You or your opponent might be injured and be suffering penalties. The first encounter might have suggested a weakness or vulnerability you are prepared to exploit in the second encounter.

 

All this is standard combat storytelling in my book.

 

And exactly the same sort of things apply to Social Combat.

 

Many of the modifiers you suggest would work just great during Social Combat using the Combat rules.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

It might matter a great deal! You would have a much better idea of your opponent's abilities and tactics. You or your opponent might be injured and be suffering penalties. The first encounter might have suggested a weakness or vulnerability you are prepared to exploit in the second encounter.

 

Sigh. I thought I was being clear, but just to make it stone obvious: mechanistically the attacks used will still be as effective as they were in the previous fight. Your energy blast does not normally get weaker because you shot the same guy with it last week. Even if your opponent Found Weaknes on you last week, your defences don't start lower in this week's fight, nor does he get a bonus or penalty to try again.

 

And yes, if one of the characters involved were injured, that would make a difference - but then if one of the characters was injured in a totally seperate indcident, before they'd ever met, that would affect the fight too ... all of which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Unlike the physical combat example, in social combat, the relative effectiveness of attacks must be directly affected by previous interactions and social reputation. Otherwise the entire idea becomes unrealistic and essentially pointless.

 

If a character suggests "Let's take a walk through the park" the chance of success is going to differ wildly depending on whether the character asking is the other character's trusted companion, arch-enemy, or a random contact, if it's 12:00 pm or am, if the character asking is known to be holding the other character's DNPC hostage at a secret location, etc. If on the other hand, in the identical situation, one of those two characters responds by physically attacking the other, the chance of success is determined by their relative CV and attacks/defences ... not their relative history. Totally different situation.

 

It's why, on reflection, a purely "combat simulation" form of social combat wouldn't work - a character would need a "social DCV" that was different for every PC/NPC, or alternatively would need to track "social CV modifiers" for every PC/NPC they had ever interacted with.

 

cheers, Mark

[Utech]

Re: Social System

 

Sigh. I thought I was being clear' date=' but just to make it stone obvious: [b']mechanistically[/b] the attacks used will still be as effective as they were in the previous fight.

Sigh. Just to make it stone obvious: mechanistically the attacks used can be more or less effective than they were in previous fights. CV can change quite a bit. The weapons your character selects because of what happened before can be quite different. The location can be selected because of what happened before in order to get bonuses to your rolls.

 

And yes' date=' if one of the characters involved were injured, that would make a difference - but then if one of the characters was injured in a totally seperate indcident, before they'd ever met, that would affect the fight too ... all of which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.[/quote']

All of which is totally relevant to the discussion at hand. If one character has suffered heartbreak that would make a difference -- even if that heartbreak is suffered in a totally separate incident.

 

Unlike the physical combat example' date=' in social combat, the relative effectiveness of attacks [b']must[/b] be directly affected by previous interactions and social reputation. Otherwise the entire idea becomes unrealistic and essentially pointless.

No. Just like physical combat, the relative effectiveness of attacks should be directly affected by previous interactions and reputation. Otherwise the entire idea of combat of any sort becomes boring.

 

If a character suggests "Let's take a walk through the park" the chance of success is going to differ wildly depending on whether the character asking is the other character's trusted companion' date=' arch-enemy, or a random contact, if it's 12:00 pm or am, if the character asking is known to be holding the other character's DNPC hostage at a secret location, etc. If on the other hand, in the identical situation, one of those two characters responds by physically attacking the other, the chance of success is determined by their relative CV and attacks/defences ... not their relative history. Totally different situation.[/quote']

No. If one of those two characters responds by physically attacking the other, the chance of success will be determined partially by their relative history, by the environment, by the presence or absence of other people... Many different factors. It's the same.

 

It's why' date=' on reflection, a purely "combat simulation" form of social combat wouldn't work - a character would need a "social DCV" that was different for every PC/NPC, or alternatively would need to track "social CV modifiers" for every PC/NPC they had ever interacted with.[/quote']

That's why, on closer reflection, using Combat rules to resolve Social Combat would work just as well as using Combat rules to resolve physical Combat. In both, characters have CV scores that are modified by the environment and their previous encounters.

 

There's no need for your Brick to calculate a different CV when he enters into combat with agents, speedsters, martial artists, orcs, elves, and mosquitoes. Each opponent and situation will change how effective the Brick is.

 

Kompai.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

Sigh. Just to make it stone obvious: mechanistically the attacks used can be more or less effective than they were in previous fights. CV can change quite a bit. The weapons your character selects because of what happened before can be quite different. The location can be selected because of what happened before in order to get bonuses to your rolls.

 

You are mistaking situational bonuses - which I've already mentioned - for base mechanics. This is pretty simple, and it seems really obvious to me, but let's try again.

 

Situation: Two characters, fully rested and uninjured, face each other in a clean/well-lit street.

Physical combat: Their base OCV and DCV is always going to be the same, no matter how often they do this, unless you actually spend points to change them. They can change the chance of hitting each other by situational bonuses (dodge, block, using different attacks) but the base chance of success is always going to be the same, regardless of how the characters feel about each other. An AoE attack is always going to go againt DCV3, A 12d6 EB is going to do 12d6 damage, etc.

Social combat: The base chance of success is (or should be) different every time the characters meet, since it should be modified by their state of mind and past history. A 12d6 PRE attack is only going to be a base of 12d6 the first time it is used, etc.

 

The two situations are not analogous. Even more starkly take Character 1 away and replace it with a totally different charcater with the exact same powerset. Physical combat plays exactly the same. Social combat should not. That because social combat is predicated on who you are, not just what you are.

 

 

All of which is totally relevant to the discussion at hand. If one character has suffered heartbreak that would make a difference -- even if that heartbreak is suffered in a totally separate incident.

 

Why? A character heartbroken over his DNPC Girlfriend having an affair is not necessarily going to be easier to say, persuade - or necessarily harder to persuade - on an unrelated topic. It'll certainly affect his interaction with that DNPC, but it may or may not have an effect on other social interactions. In contrast, if he has a broken arm, his combat efficiency will be impaired, regardless of who broke it. Again, in the physical universe, there's a direct linkage that doesn't necessarily exist in a non-physical interaction.

 

No. Just like physical combat' date=' the relative effectiveness of attacks [i']should[/i] be directly affected by previous interactions and reputation. Otherwise the entire idea of combat of any sort becomes boring.

 

You are welcome to your opinion, but that's simply not how physical combat works in Hero system. Reputation does not affect your OCV. I don't gain bonuses to my HKA or STUN, simply because I don't like the guy I am trying to stab. Personal history doesn't feature in the mechanics at all.

 

No. If one of those two characters responds by physically attacking the other' date=' the chance of success will be determined partially by their relative history, by the environment, by the presence or absence of other people... Many different factors. It's the same.[/quote']

 

Nope, not even close. You are mistaking situational bonuses for basic mechanics again. In physical combat - at least in Hero system - relative history doesn't change the mechanics.

 

That's why' date=' on [i']closer[/i] reflection, using Combat rules to resolve Social Combat would work just as well as using Combat rules to resolve physical Combat. In both, characters have CV scores that are modified by the environment and their previous encounters.

 

I understand you like the concept, and that's fine, but simply stating that "they are the same" doesn't change the fact that they are not.

 

Situational modifiers are "instant", if you like. They can change from phase to phase and don't carry over. If I gain +3 DCV from hiding behind a wall, I gain no DCV bonus the next time I fight the same opponent somewhere else - or even the next phase, if I move away from cover. Prior history doesn't change how our powers interact in physical combat. The STUN you inflicted on an opponent a day ago has no effect on his STUN total right now. However, in a proposed "social system" if I gained "+3 social DCV vs X" because "last time I went along with what X suggested, he betrayed my trust" that should carry over. Social modifiers are not situational.

 

If you want to persuade someone to carry a package to the captain, it's easier if the captain is in the next room and it's aregular workday, than if he's huddled in a foxhole with bullets pinging all around. That's a social situational modifier - it's environment dependant. However if the last time you gave your messenger a package it exploded in his hands, he's going likely be reluctant to take another package from you, regardless of your local environment. That's not a situational modifier: it's a personal/historical one.

 

There really is no equivalent for lasting bonuses in physical combat and the closest we come to lasting penalties is BOD or ability damage - and they are not history-specific. If you are at 2 BOD, you're at 2 BOD, regardless of who inflicted that injury.

 

There's no need for your Brick to calculate a different CV when he enters into combat with agents' date=' speedsters, martial artists, orcs, elves, and mosquitoes. Each opponent and situation will change how effective the Brick is.[/quote']

 

Right - but none of those things change his base DCV. If he's DCV 6 facing another Brick, he's DCV 6 facing a martial artist. If he's fought the same martial artist before, he may alter his tactics, but his base DCV remains 6.

 

However, if a social system is to have any meaning at all, his "Social CV" should be different the second time he faces the same opponent (either for better or worse).

 

Likewise situational modifiers don't really translate very well either. A "social combat level" like "+3 SCL vs Mutants : hates mutants" could be bought - but of course it presumably works as a negative when someone tries to talk him into doing something against mutantkind. There's no equivalent in physical combat for a level that is a positive or a negative depending on intent.

 

I've thought around the original suggestion and come to the conclusion that I can't make it work: and I'm pretty good at rules-bending. It's not that you can't have a detailed social combat system - I've thought of several - just that Hero physical combat is a poor model for it.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

My position is this: the basic factors that affect social or physical combat do not really change over time, assuming that one or the other party does not start injured or at some other disadvantage, and nor should they...except:

 

1. over time a character can spend XP to improve their ability. perhaps even improve it against a particular opponent.

 

2. things are NEVER the same exactly because the mechanism includes a random roll which, in effect, accounts for how each might be 'feeling' on a particular encounter.

 

Now dealing with 'injuries' is problematic. In physical combat there are clear effects: you have less STUN or BODY or reduced characteristics. There is no real parallel with social combat - you might have been soundly trounced last week but rather than starting at a disadvantage it has given you insight, and your performance may well improve.

 

One way to model that, potentially, is that after any encounter with some sort of social interaction each party rolls a red d6 and a green one. They subtract the red from the green and add the resulting number to their PRE Defence (i.e. the amount of PRE they use to defend against social interactions, PRE attacks and the like) for future interactions with that same character. You do that whether you 'won' or 'lost' the combat as people's relative social position does not necessarily worsten by coming out second. Over time it could mean that both characters have relatively

 

That involves a lot more paperwork and record keeping and would not be appropriate for all campaigns but might mean, over time, that one party's relative social position worstens considerably (I know I shouldn't but I jus can not help myself) or improves considerably (don't worry - sh'll do it for me) or stays the same - which seems pretty realistic.

 

Another possibility is that social combat (whatever mechanism is used) results in an award of a sort of perk - only useable against that 'opponent'. After the combat, each player rolls 1d6 and if one gets a higher score than the other they get a single use +5 PRE only against that opponent. They can use that in their next encounter or save it for a big occasion.

 

If someone takes a voluntary penalty on their social interaction skills in a given encounter they can add the amount they took as a penalty to the 'bonus roll' at the end - sometimes it is better to lose several arguments to win the one that matters.

 

These methods simulate the idea of becoming aware of an opponent's apabilities over time and various psychological factors and, come to think of it, could work for physical combat too.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social System

 

You are mistaking situational bonuses - which I've already mentioned - for base mechanics. This is pretty simple, and it seems really obvious to me, but let's try again.

 

Situation: Two characters, fully rested and uninjured, face each other in a clean/well-lit street.

Physical combat: Their base OCV and DCV is always going to be the same, no matter how often they do this, unless you actually spend points to change them. They can change the chance of hitting each other by situational bonuses (dodge, block, using different attacks) but the base chance of success is always going to be the same, regardless of how the characters feel about each other. An AoE attack is always going to go againt DCV3, A 12d6 EB is going to do 12d6 damage, etc.

Social combat: The base chance of success is (or should be) different every time the characters meet, since it should be modified by their state of mind and past history. A 12d6 PRE attack is only going to be a base of 12d6 the first time it is used, etc.

 

Focusing on the two items in bold, in a truly realistic game (and let's ignore, for the moment, the limits of the ability to have a completely realistic game, whether for physical or social conflict), shouldn't the character's physical combat abilities vary over time as well? A distracted boxer makes mistakes that he would not make if he were focused on the fight. He may be distracted because his girlfriend just left him, for example, and the fact that the other boxer neither knows nor cares about his opponent's love life doesn't change the fact that he has an easier time in this particular fight.

 

One of the boxers may have been in a hotel room with trains running outside last night, and have slept poorly. He's tired and off his game. That also makes a difference in a fight.

 

The physical combat rules do not take these variances into account. Why? Because they would not be more realistic? No. Because the added complexity of simulating them would not add sufficiently to the enjoyment of the game to justify that level of additional complexity? Probably. Because there is a limit to how many factors the system can reasonably and practically account for, so we make some compromises to realism in the interests of playability? Most definitely.

 

You refer to Find Weakness not lasting long after the specific encounter, which is true. At the same time, the PRE attack reduction for multiple successive PRE attacks which you cite above also does not last over time.

 

Now, the PRE attack may be weakened by the fact that I cleaned this guy's clock last time, so I view him as being At a Disadvantage now, where I did not before. But similarly, his Persuasion should be reduced if he stabbed me in the back last time I listened to him. Both modifiers would affect only this specific character, not anyone who entered into a PRE attack or social conflict with me. And, if I didn't know who this guy is (perhaps because he is disguised), neither his PRE attack nor his Persuasion attempts against me would be modified by his history.

 

In Social Conflict, what this person has done before IS a situational modifier.

 

Why? A character heartbroken over his DNPC Girlfriend having an affair is not necessarily going to be easier to say' date=' persuade - or necessarily harder to persuade - on an unrelated topic. It'll certainly affect his interaction with that DNPC, but it may or may not have an effect on other social interactions.[/quote']

 

If I know he is heartbroken over his DNPC Girlfriend's affair, I may very well be able to use that in my efforts to Persuade him. Sharing women trouble may allow me to get closer to him. Knowing he'd like to get away from the situation for a while might assist me in persuading him to, say, accept a job out of town. I can change my tactics to take advantage of this SITUATIONAL MODIFIER, just as the fact that I've lead him into a bad idea in the past may be a further SITUATIONAL MODIFIER making it harder for me to persuade him.

 

In contrast' date=' if he has a broken arm, his combat efficiency will be impaired, regardless of who broke it. Again, in the physical universe, there's a direct linkage that doesn't necessarily exist in a non-physical interaction.[/quote']

 

In hero, a broken arm does not necessarily impede your combat efficiency. There are no rules that say he will take extra damage if I target his injured arm specifically. His Energy Blast can be fired from the other arm (if it needed an arm in the first place) without penalty. His Ego Attack is completely unchanged. He doesn't have a reduced DCV due to the awkwardness of having one arm strapped to his torso. He can Head Butt or Kick me with the exact same combat modifiers as a punch.

 

He has a situational modifier to a Grab, but that's only one maneuver. Just like the fact he's been betrayed before only affects certain maneuvers in social conflict.

 

I don't agree that Social Conflict would reasonably adopt the physical combat structure wholesale. Different maneuvers and modifiers would, by necessity, apply. Being Prone doesn't really hurt your social DCV, and I see no reason for Social Knockback. But the prospect of a more detailed social conflict situation modified by appropriate situational modifiers, including past experience, is far from impossible.

 

You are welcome to your opinion' date=' but that's simply not how physical combat works in Hero system. Reputation does not affect your OCV. I don't gain bonuses to my HKA or STUN, simply because I don't like the guy I am trying to stab. Personal history doesn't feature in the mechanics at all.[/quote']

 

I think physical conflict is much less prone to modifiers for personal history, but your statement that "Personal history doesn't feature in the mechanics at all." is just as incorrect, in my opinion, as asserting that history is equally relevant (or irrelevant) in both physical and social conflict.

 

As an example, if my opponent keeps a dagger or a Derringer in a spring mounted sheathe in a sleeve, he may well get a Surprise Maneuver bonus on me when he uses it in our first encounter. I would definitely challenge the GM who tried to apply the same Surprise Maneuver against me the second time, now that my character is aware that this specific opponent is prone to use that specific tactic.

 

As a second example, just as my character will be harder to socially manipulate by Character X after being burned once, he will be harder to Surprise out of Combat by Character Y the second time he approached with a pistol hidden behind his flag of truce.

 

To be clear, Surprise is a mechanic that affects physical combat, and that mechanic is affected by history.

 

Situational modifiers are "instant"' date=' if you like. They can change from phase to phase and don't carry over. If I gain +3 DCV from hiding behind a wall, I gain no DCV bonus the next time I fight the same opponent somewhere else - or even the next phase, if I move away from cover.[/quote']

 

And that bonus I receive because I am stinging from my girlfriend having an affair may be reduced or eliminated as I am persuaded that "it's not what you think", or have forgiven her. Just as the situational modifiers from my physical situation can change over time, whether from combat to combat or phase to phase, the situational modifiers from my emotional situation can change over time.

 

Prior history doesn't change how our powers interact in physical combat. The STUN you inflicted on an opponent a day ago has no effect on his STUN total right now. However' date=' in a proposed "social system" if I gained "+3 social DCV vs X" because "last time I went along with what X suggested, he betrayed my trust" that [b']should[/b] carry over. Social modifiers are not situational.

 

I don't know how much clearer this can be. The prior betrayal was a situation. As long as that betrayal still happened, that "wall" is still there. If, however, you are presented with convincing evidence that the supposed betrayal was not caused by X, that "wall" comes down, and the modifier should be reduced or eliminated. It might also be eroded by a belief that X has sincerely repented and changed.

 

No, social walls will not be precisely identical to physical walls, nor will social combat be precisely identical to physical combat. That does not mean they have nothing whatsoever in common, which seems to be your contention.

 

If you want to persuade someone to carry a package to the captain' date=' it's easier if the captain is in the next room and it's a regular workday, than if he's huddled in a foxhole with bullets pinging all around. That's a social situational modifier - it's environment dependant. However if the last time you gave your messenger a package it exploded in his hands, he's going likely be reluctant to take another package from you, regardless of your local environment. That's [b']not[/b] a situational modifier: it's a personal/historical one.

 

It's not an environment-dependent modifier. It is a situational modifier, which I would call an "experiential modifier". Just as I might give a character a bonus on his Demolitions roll because he's very familiar with the guy who made and placed the bomb, which I would still consider a "situational modifier" despite not being an "environmental modifier".

 

There really is no equivalent for lasting bonuses in physical combat and the closest we come to lasting penalties is BOD or ability damage - and they are not history-specific. If you are at 2 BOD' date=' you're at 2 BOD, regardless of who inflicted that injury.[/quote']

 

Perhaps there should be lasting bonuses for physical combat - an optional rule for those prepared to track such things. Pro sports routinely features players who play much better against their former team due to their greater awareness of that team's tactics. Source material routinely comments on characters familiar with their opponent being better able to combat them due to knowing how they fight. Hero presently lacks this element, doesn't it?

 

Right - but none of those things change his base DCV. If he's DCV 6 facing another Brick' date=' he's DCV 6 facing a martial artist. If he's fought the same martial artist before, he may alter his tactics, but his base DCV remains 6.[/quote']

 

And his base resistance to persuasion or manipulation remains the same. But it may be modified by factors such as past history, where we presently have no physical mechanic for getting a DCV bonus because "I know how he fights". Although we DO have a mechanic that increases the chances I will be hit if my opponent pulls a Surprise Maneuver.

 

However' date=' if a social system is to have any meaning at all, his "Social CV" [b']should[/b] be different the second time he faces the same opponent (either for better or worse).

 

Sitiational Modifiers such as "Attacker is Trusted by Target" or "Target has been betrayed by Attacker" seem like perfectly reasonable inclusions in Social Conflict. They don't change the fact that Target has a social DCV of 6, but they do change the odds of "Trusted Friend" and "Historic Betrayer" persuading Target - even if Trusted Friend is his uncle and Historic Betrayer is his Uncle's secret crime boss identity.

 

Likewise situational modifiers don't really translate very well either. A "social combat level" like "+3 SCL vs Mutants : hates mutants" could be bought - but of course it presumably works as a negative when someone tries to talk him into doing something against mutantkind. There's no equivalent in physical combat for a level that is a positive or a negative depending on intent.

 

In Mental Combat, there is. We call them "psychological limitations". These should also have an impact on social conflict and, in fact, might make such disadvantages more granular in nature in that we would know your example character has +3 to resist social attacks positive to mutants and -3 to resist social attacks negative to mutants.

 

I've thought around the original suggestion and come to the conclusion that I can't make it work: and I'm pretty good at rules-bending. It's not that you can't have a detailed social combat system - I've thought of several - just that Hero physical combat is a poor model for it.

 

I think you don't want it to work, based on your past comments and because you are clearly very happy with your current method of resolving social conflicts in Hero. That is imposing a significant negative modifier on Utech's attempts to persuade you that, in fact, this is a viable alternative - a social situational modifier based on your history.

 

Your reaction to my post may very well be affected by our past history of communications on the Board, and how you view same. It may also be viewed by other interactions on the Boards that I had nothing to do with. Both are additional social situational modifiers.

[Utech]

Re: Social System

 

Thanks Hugh for answering things quite well for me.

 

Markdoc, I'm glad that your system works well for you. Looks like I've failed to convince you that my idea would work for you as well. That's cool.

 

As soon as time allows, I'll try out Social Combat on Hero Central and post how it turned out.