Social System

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

When you roll 3d6 and get a 3, your character is obviously 'on game'.

 

When you roll 18 the character is obviously distracted.

 

When you roll a 3 then an 18 the character is obviously trying too hard the second time not to break his run of bad luck.

 

When you roll an 18 then a 3 the character is obviously pulling himself together.

 

The dice account for an enormous amount of variation which has causes you can not account for in a game.

 

If you WANT to have a character who is -3 in combat when he's had a row with his girlfriend that sounds like a disadvantage to me: Phys Lim occasionally greatly (-3 OCV when he's argued with his girlfriend (8-)).

 

You could adapt the personality disadvantages I suggested to show physical as well as psychological effect.

 

Now I do not mind which system we use but I think we can improve or radically change (and improve) what we have at present. I'm not against the idea of social combat mimicking physical combat but I'd need to actually see it running to be convinced.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

I think you don't want it to work' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Nope, no, and not even close. You're right that I have no interest in applying such a system myself. But that's never stopped me helping other GM's develop house rules for their own use - indeed, I still spend quite a lot of time discussing rule designs with GM friends. If we could come up with something workable, I'd be more than happy to help develop it.

 

My original conclusion was that a straight port of the Hero physical combat system would require carrying multiple modifiers from one "social combat" to another, essentially modifying a character's CV vs each individual opponent, and that such an approach would rapidly become so cumbersome that it's essentially unworkable ... unless you plan to play a very social conflict-light game, in which case, the whole idea becomes pointless anyway.

 

I've skipped over your point by point rebuttal, because you clearly agree, even writing "In Social Conflict, what this person has done before IS a situational modifier." So, yes, it's possible to create such a system, but as I commented, it's not really possible to make it playable. It would involve a vast amount of book-keeping.

 

Your reaction to my post may very well be affected by our past history of communications on the Board' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

No, not all. I am interested in game design. I've spent a fair amount of my own time pondering how best to make a usable social interaction system, and have decided for my own use, that a fairly rules-lite approach, as I have detailed here, works best. It should also be obvious that I'm actively opposed to trying to graft such a thing onto the Hero system rules. That doesn't mean (far from it!) that I am uninterested in developing such a system as an intellectual exercise. I actually spent time off-line playing around with the concept of a direct map of teh Hero combat system onto social interaction before deciding it's one of those ideas that sounds kind of cool when you float the concept, but when (as I have done the last couple of weeks) you actually start trying to draft rules, it rapidly becomes apparent that it's a foolish dream.

 

Some of the issues ... what does a "social dodge" mean? Is it an attempt to avoid interaction? How can you "haymaker" a argument - pressing your point more vigorously usually only confirms your opponent in his views? We've already covered the issue of modifiers. What's an "explosive" seduction?

 

None of this of course is an argument against a rich social interaction system - merely that in trying to implement the direct mapping Utech suggested, I've become convinced that it's not really feasible (though I should thank him for the idea, I guess: it gave me something to occupy time while I was traveling, which I've been doing a lot the last few weeks).

 

Still , you do't have to take my word for it: I'm done with the idea. If you want to tackle it .... be my guest. I'm betting that's the last we'll hear of the idea

 

If I was going to develop a detailed social combat system, instead, I suspect I'd go for something intent-based, where base interaction started off at zero and was modified up or down depending on the history of the interactees and the situation. That'd still require the GM to track prior interactions, but if you assign them a level and a standard bonus then you only have one number/attitude to track (for example, Hates/loathes/dislikes/likes/trusts/loves) - and it could also be applied to groups. That's more bookkeeping than we have now, but it's potentially doable.

 

Then provide a series of gambits (for example, Taunt, Ignore, Change topic, Persuade, False Agreement, Intimidate, etc) which allow you to modify your opponent's roll - but which may also modify relationship. You may be able to get someone to do what you want by intimidating them, but that will likely move your relationship in a negative direction, for example.

 

Finally characters may have stances, which modify interactions. A stance is a stated ideal or point of view. These could be hard-coded into a character (psych. lims, for example) or merely descriptional. The more serious they are, the bigger effect they have - like Psych Lim.s.

 

Such a system would work like this:

Character A wants to convince Character B of something. This requires a social combat. How difficult it is depends on how large a change is required - each step taking a progressively larger penalty. In return, Character B wants Character A to leave him alone - how difficult this is, also sets a progressively larger penalty.

 

The modifiers would be:

Relationship: Hates/loathes/dislikes/likes/trusts/loves the opponent

 

Stances: stances that support the proposed change gives the opponent a bonus, stances that oppose it give a penalty.

 

Gambits: gambits are essentially social combat maneuvers, but rather than aping physical combat, they work as "paired modifiers" - in other words, if your opponent chooses Ignore, Taunt gives you a bonus. It's hard to ignore taunts. If on the other hand, your opponent chooses Sophistry, Taunt gives you a minus: it make you appear boorish or childish. In turn, Sophistry gives a minus against Intimidate, etc. You'd need to make up a chart for these, but the rough sketch I made had a square with 4 quadrants Seduce/Persuade vs Intimidate/Coerce, giving a positive/negative axis and an emotional/logical one. Depending on what you are trying to do, you choose one quadrant for your approach, and that give syou the gambist which are available to you. I had roughed up a number of gambits down each side with the idea that winning an interaction with negative gambits moves your relationship down the scale and winning with positive ones moves it up the scale. In the middle of the grid, I placed "Change topic" which gives a minus against any other gambit but allows you to move to a different quadrant, potentially choosing more advantageous gambits against your opponent's approach.

 

Social skills: these you buy like CSLs - so much for +1 with a single maneuver, so much for a +1 with three related maneuvers, etc.

 

The actual combat proceeds, with each round the two characters choosing a gambit, adding the modifiers and rolling their modified skills against each other. A success by 2 or more gives you a +1 on your next roll, with social combat continuing until either both parties give it up, or one character reaches the desired level of effect.

 

Lastly a character can choose to avoid defeat by taking a stance (or increasing a committment to an existing stance one level) - but it must be one relevant to the social defeat. This reflects the interaction hardening their resolve, rather than persuading them, but it's a last-ditch option - too many stances are going to make the character vulnerable to manipulation by people who know what they are .. plus they'll make him pretty quirky.

 

This system replaces the existing system of social skills: anyone can attempt to persuade someome. You don't need Persuasion to do so. How persuasive you are depends on how many Persuasion SSLs you have. However it could be grafted onto the existing Hero system without too many ther changes, so that PRE attacks and EGO attacks could also be used to give modifiers - essentially short term stances.

 

I'm not actually suggesting anyone use this - it's just an example of the sort of playing around I have been doing with "social combat" that seems more feasible than what was suggested.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Social System

 

My original conclusion was that a straight port of the Hero physical combat system would require carrying multiple modifiers from one "social combat" to another, essentially modifying a character's CV vs each individual opponent, and that such an approach would rapidly become so cumbersome that it's essentially unworkable ... unless you plan to play a very social conflict-light game, in which case, the whole idea becomes pointless anyway.

 

I've skipped over your point by point rebuttal, because you clearly agree, even writing "In Social Conflict, what this person has done before IS a situational modifier." So, yes, it's possible to create such a system, but as I commented, it's not really possible to make it playable. It would involve a vast amount of book-keeping.

 

Don't you need the same amount of recordkeping in your game? I am confident past interactions impact the flow of future interactions in your game as well. The only change in this area is that the modifiers would be more codified.

 

Some of the issues ... what does a "social dodge" mean? Is it an attempt to avoid interaction? How can you "haymaker" a argument - pressing your point more vigorously usually only confirms your opponent in his views? We've already covered the issue of modifiers. What's an "explosive" seduction?

 

To the last, Marilyn Monroe on a sewer grate

 

A direct port of each mechanic would be dificult if not impossible, but a more analogous system where the interaction plays out in discrete, short actions which move towards success or failure in smaller increments seems very possible.

 

If I was going to develop a detailed social combat system' date=' instead, I suspect I'd go for something intent-based, where base interaction started off at zero and was modified up or down depending on the history of the interactees and the situation. That'd still require the GM to track prior interactions, but if you assign them a level and a standard bonus then you only have one number/attitude to track (for example, Hates/loathes/dislikes/likes/trusts/loves) - and it could also be applied to groups. That's more bookkeeping than we have now, but it's potentially doable.[/quote']

 

Yet one could easily apply "Hates/loathes/dislikes/indifferent/likes/trusts/loves" as modifiers in a more detailed social combat system, one which might also consider that, although he Bob Dislikes Ted, he Hates Arnold, so using Bob's hatred of Arnold may allow Ted a greater possibility of success. All modifiers that would reasonably be considered in adjudicating the results of any social conflict.

 

Then provide a series of gambits (for example' date=' Taunt, Ignore, Change topic, Persuade, False Agreement, Intimidate, etc) which allow you to modify your opponent's roll - but which may also modify relationship. You may be able to get someone to do what you want by intimidating them, but that will likely move your relationship in a negative direction, for example.[/quote']

 

Look - Social Combat Maneuvers!

 

Finally characters may have stances' date=' which modify interactions. A stance is a stated ideal or point of view. These could be hard-coded into a character (psych. lims, for example) or merely descriptional. The more serious they are, the bigger effect they have - like Psych Lim.s.[/quote']

 

Just as Vulnerability and Susceptibility influence physical combat.

 

Having some target number to reach ("Social Stun", if you will, or how easy the target is to manipulate short-term, and Social BOD reflecting a long-term manipulation), and gradually reaching it through the target's defenses seems not so far off a social combat system, and I suspect much of what you present will be of some use to Utech in his design, assuming he pursues it.

[Utech]

Re: Social System

 

I suspect much of what you present will be of some use to Utech in his design' date=' assuming he pursues it.[/quote']

I'm pursuing it.

 

I've been very busy lately and had to get caught up with my games at Hero Central. I have a little more time now and I'm looking forward to trying out a few Social Combats at HC soon.

[Markdoc]

Re: Social System

 

A direct port of each mechanic would be dificult if not impossible' date=' but a more analogous system where the interaction plays out in discrete, short actions which move towards success or failure in smaller increments seems very possible.[/quote']

 

Of course it's possible - I gave one simple example that I worked out while flying to the States. There are a variety of games that use social combat systems - I've played some of them.

 

But what was asked for - and what I rejected as essentially unplayable after spending some hours trying to work out how it could be done - was a direct port of the Hero physical combat system. That could be done too - I've already said as much. I just don't think you could actually play it in an ongoing game. Essentially Hero combat is very, very flexible and it allows you to take advanatge of what I call situational modifiers (range, surprise, lighting, terrain, etc). And of course, these situational modifiers interact with different powers differently: it's not like there's a single combat modifier applied to all attacks. That's not a problem in physical combat - the GM should know where everybody is and what the terrain looks like: he doesn't need to hold it in memory. For social interaction, though, much of that "terrain" is internal - it's portable and goes where the characters go - and it's unique for each character. Which means unlike physical combat, it has to be recorded somewhere.

 

Your two choices are either

1) remove most of the detail (as I do in my own game, with the simple hate-love gradient).

2) generate a monster pile of book-keeping.

 

Option 1 means moving away from the detailed, direct mapping of Hero system physical combat. Option 2 is IMO unplayable.

 

I suspect much of what you present will be of some use to Utech in his design' date=' assuming he pursues it.[/quote']

 

That's why I bothered to write it out!

 

cheers, Mark

[Utech]

Re: Social System

 

I'm fishing for beta testers on Hero Central. If you're interested, let me know.

[septembervirgin]

Re: Social System

 

I find it difficult to identify with "Reputation Points" as it introduces a dissimilar system into Hero: it does not work like Endurance and one cannot expend character points on it. This runs contrary to Hero Systems rules and rule philosophy.

 

Also, to categorize traits into "good" and "bad" even for the sake of social interactions forces an ethical system on a rule set that seems to be seperate of ethical system. For example, no actual characteristics nor flaws nor advantages are associated with the vapid definitions of good and evil.

 

So it is my suggestion that we go with what we have to a certain degree. Have you considered that Comeliness is a very strange attribute because it assumes that societal aesthetic is universal to a meta-verse?

[nexus]

Re: Social System

 

Have you considered that Comeliness is a very strange attribute because it assumes that societal aesthetic is universal to a meta-verse?

 

Comeliness has been discussed once or twice...

 

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry, to jerk your chain a little. There's been some borderline flame wars over Comeliness since the annoucement of 6th edition and your statement just struck me as funny in light of that. You seem to have joined recently so there's no reason you'd know about them, of course but I couldn't resist

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

Oh, yeah, the debates about Comliness have been HUGE.

 

If you're interested in reading up on it, check the 6E Forums under 'Characteristics Issues.' Be forewarned, thought: the COM debate was about half of the 300 pages of discussion. And the threads are locked; it's too late to add your two cents worth.

 

For the record: Steve has now officially said that COM is out of 6E.

[nexus]

Re: Social System

 

Oh' date=' yeah, the debates about Comliness have been HUGE.

 

If you're interested in reading up on it, check the 6E Forums under 'Characteristics Issues.' Be forewarned, thought: the COM debate was about half of the 300 pages of discussion. And the threads are locked; it's too late to add your two cents worth.

 

Didn't it spill across a couple of threads too? Perks and Skill, IIRC? That was a massive debate/shouting match.

 

There's also a thread in this form with a poll that I started and maybe others.

 

For the record: Steve has now officially said that COM is out of 6E.

 

Yeah. :-/

[Sean Waters]

Re: Social System

 

Oh' date=' yeah, the debates about Comliness have been HUGE.

 

If you're interested in reading up on it, check the 6E Forums under 'Characteristics Issues.' Be forewarned, thought: the COM debate was about half of the 300 pages of discussion. And the threads are locked; it's too late to add your two cents worth.

 

For the record: Steve has now officially said that COM is out of 6E.

 

 

It might be huge to you, but I find it strangely attractive.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

 

(PS This is Hero: we can just build COM again if we want it )

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

Yes, in any of my games COM will, of course, be retrofitted back in. Assuming, of course, that any other changes in 6E don't make it too much hassle to retrofit...

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Social System

 

Yes' date=' in any of my games COM will, of course, be retrofitted back in. Assuming, of course, that any [i']other [/i]changes in 6E don't make it too much hassle to retrofit...

 

It is my (possibly flawed) understanding that 6e will have a mechanism to handle characters that are attractive enough to have an effect on interaction. It may be a Talent instead of COM, but it'll be in there.

[nexus]

Re: Social System

 

It is my (possibly flawed) understanding that 6e will have a mechanism to handle characters that are attractive enough to have an effect on interaction. It may be a Talent instead of COM' date=' but it'll be in there.[/quote']

 

At risk of starting yet another brushfire. Yes there will be a mechanism for it. It has been suggested that it will function like Attractive Advantage in GURPs and other games. Some (myself included) find that a step backward from what we have in Comeliness and thus not an entirely satisfactory replacement. Others feel it is an improvement, a lateral move or that it's a compromise to have measure of physical appearance in Hero System at all.

[nexus]

Re: Social System

 

Yes' date=' in any of my games COM will, of course, be retrofitted back in. Assuming, of course, that any [i']other [/i]changes in 6E don't make it too much hassle to retrofit...

 

It is possible but I can't imagine what those changes might be. It will mainly be a PIA for the extra work. It's easier to ignore things that build them back in generally.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

It is possible but I can't imagine what those changes might be. It will mainly be a PIA for the extra work. It's easier to ignore things that build them back in generally.

 

Especially if the new Heromaker doesn't have an option to add COM back in.

[Vulcan]

Re: Social System

 

It is my (possibly flawed) understanding that 6e will have a mechanism to handle characters that are attractive enough to have an effect on interaction. It may be a Talent instead of COM' date=' but it'll be in there.[/quote']

 

I'd tell you why I think that is not a good thing, but I repeated it often enough in the Great COM Debate that I don't feel like repeating it again here.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Social System

 

Especially if the new Heromaker doesn't have an option to add COM back in.

 

Hero Designer has a mechanism for adding Characteristics. It's clunky but straightforward.

[nexus]

Re: Social System

 

Hero Designer has a mechanism for adding Characteristics. It's clunky but straightforward.

 

For some but there's more than a few find it a major pain or haven't figured it out yet. I know I'm one of them. A convenient interface for toggling comeliness on and off would be a check in the pro column as far as purchasing any future versions of it

 

But I think we're drifting off topic.

[jaws]

Re: Social System

 

I'm fishing for beta testers on Hero Central. If you're interested' date=' let me know.[/quote']

 

Is this still going on, Can I check it out? Or how did it go? You have a system we can see?