A "political" or "intrgue" game

[TranquiloUno]

Someone in the "6e = teh bestest mechanics" thread said this: "Hero is not suited for your political game..."

 

Not wanting to derail that discussion I'll ask here:

 

First part: What does an "intrigue" or "political" based game mean to you? What would it include or not include? What would make a game "political" as compared to say a normal fantasy game with treacherous Imperial courts or compared to a cyberpunk game with treacherous corporate turds?

 

Second part: What mechanical effects would you want in such a game? (Mechanical effects re: intrigue\politics, to be clear)

Second part: Part two: How would you model those effects using Hero?

 

Third part: What non-mechanical stuff would you definitely use but not bother simulating in game mechanics?

 

Forth part (optional): Is Hero suited or not suited, mechanically, as a system, to political\intrigue type games? Why or why not?

[TranquiloUno]

Ooh. Always check that spelling before posting I guess. 

 

 

My answers probably go like:

 

1) Political games should focus on stuff besides combats and fights and exciting action\adventure tropery. Not that there would be NO fighting or chases or whatever, just that "action" should be more about learning info, influencing allies, gaining access and influence, and so on.

 

2) As discussed in another thread I think the main thing would be answering questions like: How do PCs determine if they are being lied to\how do the PCs lie successfully? And having a system\house rule to make sure PCs will know that's a consistent mechanic.

2pt2) I'd probably just use Talents and Skills, and, of course, roleplaying. I don't know if I'd add anything special.

 

3) Pretty much all of the ally-making, influence gathering, and so forth would be handled largely via roleplay. Important to the game but not important to simulate mechanically.

 

4) I don't have a good answer here. Part of the reason for the thread. When I think of a "political" game I guess I'd default to thinking of Amber (the diceless one) and some LARPS I've played. Political games are, to me, about wheeling and dealing and many things going on at the same time and trying to forge alliances and so on. I think Hero would work fine for that but I'm curious if other folks have issues with it or other reasons to pass on using Hero for a "political" or "intrigue" oriented game.

 

What say you all?

 

[RDU Neil]

Since I'm the one who said that, I'll chime in...

 

It is very possible to have a game using Hero that has a lot of intrigue and politics in it, but IMO that is more the genre/trappings of an otherwise action adventure game, not the "point of the game."  For example, I've been running a Heroic level game called Secret Worlds off and on for years now. The characters are "specials" in that they have a level of skill and ability above average to normals, but no real "powers." They specials are involved in conspiracies and back alley battles between secret organizations vying for power. It is very much steeped in the real world politics and events. (Think Mr. Robot, X-Files and Jason Bourne combined).

 

While building alliances and figuring out the plots and agendas of the competing groups... determining who is the enemy is, etc., ... are all part of the plot, the mechanics around these are tangential. They involve the same basic "make some skill rolls to find out information" that any other game would. Having Perks and Contacts and Resources are all important, but they don't decide the game mechanically. There is no "Perk vs. Perk" resolution system... is my investigation better than your dark conspiracy?... type of mechanical resolution. They are background, color, and occasionally important for a turn in the narrative...

 

... but mechanically, the game is Hero-style action adventures. Gunfights and martial arts battles. Knives in the dark, and car chases, etc. (talk about something else Hero doesn't do well.. vehicle combat... we abstract that a great deal.)

 

To me... a game that is "about" Politics is a game that mechanically supports the characters taking political actions... assembling coalitions, persuading and influencing others, etc. And not just a basic "Roll Persuasion" and then have to just "make up" what that roll means. It would have defined, mechanical impact on the opposing character... they could deflect the argument, verbally riposte... there would be back and forth just like a martial arts fight in Hero, punching and blocking and dodging, but in a verbal/social way... and there would be just as many variants and complex mechanics for resolving these political and social conflicts as there are in Hero for resolving physical and mental combat. (It might be possible to bastardize the mental powers and combat maneuvers to reflect this, but again, it is bending Hero out of shape to do something it wasn't intended to do.)

 

Think of it this way... in Hero you often have hundreds of points in combat skills, abilities and powers, and a few skills that are social. A truly Political or Social game would be the opposite... the majority of a character focused on many and varied nuances of political skills, abilities and powers... and a few skills like "Fight 13-" to resolve the background moments of combat.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

For question two, Interaction Skills are the easiest way to go. Both Hero System Skills and Advanced Players Guide I go into detail on using Interaction Skills in a variety of social situations. However, APG II describes a detailed optional "Social Combat" system, including "combat maneuvers" and "damage" effects.

 

One unofficial element that has potential is a mechanic that Hero Games author Shelley Chrystal Mactyre proposed in relation to her long-in-limbo Regency Hero source book project: Reputation Points.

 

On the non-mechanical front, in the past I posted to the forums a campaign concept and large number of "plot seeds," under the overall heading, Besruhan Intrigues, for a fantasy campaign stressing politics and intrigue at least as much as fighting and exploring, set in Hero Games's "Turakian Age" setting. As you suggest, most such interactions would be handled through role-playing; but the region I chose includes a number of elements which I felt naturally led to plots to draw PCs into those power maneuvers.

[RDU Neil]

You guys talk about these APG things... I've never heard of or seen these. What are these? I've only ever seen the 6th Ed v1 and v2? (and CHamps COmplete).  What are all these other 6th Ed books? WHere do they exist?

[Lord Liaden]

11 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

You guys talk about these APG things... I've never heard of or seen these. What are these? I've only ever seen the 6th Ed v1 and v2? (and CHamps COmplete).  What are all these other 6th Ed books? WHere do they exist?

 

https://www.herogames.com/forums/search/?q=advanced player's guide&type=nexus_package_item&search_and_or=and&search_in=titles

 

Note that there are a few additional 6E system expansion books: https://www.herogames.com/forums/store/category/10-hero-system-general/

[Doc Democracy]

For a political intrigue game there has to be a way to measure who is winning and of determining what winning means.

 

I think that intrigue points as per Shelley's scheme is a good start but you need a whole raft of other stuff and a way of bringing some of the components already out there into a coherent system.

 

We have reputation, we have contacts and favours.  We have DNPCs and Hunteds.  All of that would come into play in a much more fluid framework as these things ebbed and flowed based on the actions of the characters.  

[TranquiloUno]

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:

Since I'm the one who said that, I'll chime in...

 

It was you. Thanks for the reply!

 

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:

 

 

To me... a game that is "about" Politics is a game that mechanically supports the characters taking political actions... assembling coalitions, persuading and influencing others, etc. And not just a basic "Roll Persuasion" and then have to just "make up" what that roll means. It would have defined, mechanical impact on the opposing character... they could deflect the argument, verbally riposte... there would be back and forth just like a martial arts fight in Hero, punching and blocking and dodging, but in a verbal/social way... and there would be just as many variants and complex mechanics for resolving these political and social conflicts as there are in Hero for resolving physical and mental combat. (It might be possible to bastardize the mental powers and combat maneuvers to reflect this, but again, it is bending Hero out of shape to do something it wasn't intended to do.)

 

Think of it this way... in Hero you often have hundreds of points in combat skills, abilities and powers, and a few skills that are social. A truly Political or Social game would be the opposite... the majority of a character focused on many and varied nuances of political skills, abilities and powers... and a few skills like "Fight 13-" to resolve the background moments of combat.

 

 

 

Interesting! I wouldn't have thought to try to simulate it (social scheming, etc) mechanically like that.

Is there a system you have in mind here? Or an existing system that you've played that you feel IS about politics in the sense you mean?

 

I see Dogs in the Vineyard mentioned a lot in these types of discussions (but never Underground...) but have never played it. It seems more like a unified mechanic than the sort of multi-faceted tactical thing that I think it sounds to me like you are suggesting. 8D

Does it produce those sorts of interactions?

 

Wonder if it could be simulated in Hero....

 

[assault]

The other useful source is The Ultimate Base.

 

It's suggestions for Kingdom level actions are frankly horribly bland, but could be wrapped up in colour. Part of the problem it has, and acknowledges, is that it is trying to cover too many cases.

 

The relevant chapter ("Kingdom Creation") starts like this:

"This chapter of The Ultimate Base takes the concept of a “Base” to all-new levels. It features rules for creating and playing nations, kingdoms, cities, planets, organizations, and similar entities as “characters” in the HERO System. Collectively, for game purposes, these entities are referred to as Kingdoms (capital K), even though many aren’t kingdoms in the traditional sense of that word."

 

By nesting this concept, you could have characters contesting control of political factions, factions contesting control of parties, parties contesting control of nations, and these nations competing with rivals...

 

Amongst other things, there's a "KINGDOM COMBAT MANEUVERS TABLE". Horribly abstract, of course.

 

This stuff begs to be used with the APG II social combat stuff.

 

Heh. My beef with 6e is that it's over-complete, not under-complete. ?

[Duke Bushido]

I've got to say, politics and intrigue, etc, are world-building a role-playing.  I don't even see the connection to game mechanics-- any game, any mechanics-- period.  I mean, yes, there are Skills in the game.  But unless I've missed something really huge in 6e, the rules have always mentioned "this is the way skills work.  This list is a suggestion for commonly-seen skills.  Feel free to add any other Skill you want."

 

And that's really only important you think you need some sort of "Save vs Intrigue" action going on.

[Lord Liaden]

33 minutes ago, TranquiloUno said:

 

It was you. Thanks for the reply!

 

 

Interesting! I wouldn't have thought to try to simulate it (social scheming, etc) mechanically like that.

Is there a system you have in mind here? Or an existing system that you've played that you feel IS about politics in the sense you mean?

 

I see Dogs in the Vineyard mentioned a lot in these types of discussions (but never Underground...) but have never played it. It seems more like a unified mechanic than the sort of multi-faceted tactical thing that I think it sounds to me like you are suggesting. 8D

Does it produce those sorts of interactions?

 

Wonder if it could be simulated in Hero....

 

 

I hate to do the "broken record" thing... but APG II breaks down how to do this mechanically in Hero in great detail. In fact, it describes three optional systems: Skills based, Talents based, and Combat Maneuvers based, that last similar to what RDU Neil describes.

[TranquiloUno]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I hate to do the "broken record" thing... but APG II breaks down how to do this mechanically in Hero in great detail. In fact, it describes three optional systems: Skills based, Talents based, and Combat Maneuvers based, that last similar to what RDU Neil describes.

 

Yes, thank you! I actually have that one in hard copy and I'll have a look shortly. Or now. 

[Scott Ruggels]

Once Intel For politics and intrigue I only have to show you Danger international . Most of the work for that had modules nestled snugly in the Cold War,

With visits to Eastern Europe, Fictional Central American Countries, and had rules for any sort of James Bond spy action to more realistic Black Ops,

amd Mercenary Action. The author of said book, L. Douglas Garrett, would run an occasional campaign of his, called Costa Diego, centering around a small and mountainous fictional Central American country and its struggles against a Soviet backed, marxist insurrection, the FRLN.  The politics of that tiny nation were often influenced by the PC actions or not depending on the secrecy, or lack there of during the operation. However many of the games were held at conventions, and ended with spectacular body counts and collateral damage. 

 

But I ran a highly political Fantasy Hero campaign once I thought I handle on the rules.  I can answer examples of using this campaign and how I came up with Systems on the fly.

 

First you have to determine What sort of sociology political development level they had  Fantasy Games default to a High Medieval , feudal system with a few empires scattered around. Governments in the Gunpowder age tended to be constitutional monarchies, Reublics, and dictatorships. In most space games, you get Star Empires roughly based on the Persian Satrap system, Space Communism, or a Federation system with each planet a semi independent state, with ties and responsibilities to the other member systems to provide for common defense, and the promotion and regulation of trade. 

 

Probably the best ( and most properly cynical analysis of politics is the following video, Rules for Rulers:

 

you can see by this analysis  that the system adjudications suggest themselves.   

 

One of the systems I used was for a parliamentary democracy and each district was represented by D6 the King had a number of D6s equal to the parliament.  Now each of those districts had pluses or minuses about an issue to modify the body of the die to each district. Each district can only deliver a maximum of two body points or votes. Each district has a member of parliament who delivers said votes. Self interest, manipulation by fear or blackmail, or persuasion and deal making can make a swing of plus or minus three in favor of or opposed to an issue. This then opens up multiple avenues of approach in bending the Parliment to the player character desires. 

 

1.) PC petitions to address Parliment to persuade them to his issue. This is is the Hail Mary approach with the biggest chance of success but he has to roll a presence attack or Oratory with complimentary skills  of persuasion, logic, or lying to succeed. A success modified the members of Parliment not actively oppposed to your issue gives you  plus one modifier on all eligible MPs. A critical success delivers +2 Negative modifiers may arise from opposed MPs whoes grasp of the facts, oratorical skill, or vicious mockery (Even outright lies and calumny) can be made against the proposal and will also be added, or subtracted to each MPs modifier. After the debate, which can be rolled or Roleplayed, depending on group temperment, the votes are taken:

 

”It is time to commit to the vote, All those in favor say ‘aye’”.

 

All the Dice are rolled but one at a time and the body of the die written down after the additive or subtractive modifiers are upplied to their name. 2 body means that name is not rolled again. A one body is noted against the name and can be rolled again. A zero Body die is noted and rolled again. 

 

“All those opposed say nay!...”

 

those Dice that are rollable, former Zero Body and One body dice are rolled one at a time, with modifiers applied to the result. Two body dice are noted, but not rolled again, That member being a solid Nay and listed as such. Those who have1 bodypoint in the Aye column already cannot be rolled again, both their votes are cast.  

 

“...Abstentions? Show of hands please”

 

any remaining dice are rolled. Two body dice are noted down as solid Abstentions. Any memberNot Parliment who has generated no body points, at this point is considered to have been asleep through the vote, probably from the party the night before. If there are more than two, they were probably wheeling and dealing about the next item on the agenda. 

 

“The Ayes have it. The motion is sent to the king for his signature non the time and of this month. “ 

 

If the Ayes win, the GM has to decide how much power the king has. If he sits with a privy council, his two votes are allocated Ed how he sees fit and all of the subsequent dice get a plus one modifier in the same direction. If he has an independent House of Lords, his dice are rolled with no modifiers, but double Nays become abstentions, as no one wishes to be disloyal to the king. If the body points are equal or greater the the The King’s, he will grudgingly sign it into law. If the king agrees with the motion and it passes, he happily sign it, and the party gains +1 level of political influence and associated social skills. If the King supports it but the lords don’t and it fails. His Royal Highness, getting the bill’s supporters to re-submit on a fresh vote in 6 months. If the King is opposed and the lords and the Lords dice body exceeds the Parliment, the motion is said to be withdrawn. If the King is Very upset he may dissolve The Parliment, and call for Parlimentary elections in 6 month’s time. 

 

But sometimes, the King really is an autocrat, and the Parliment is just a sop to the Merchants, the guilds and petty landholders. While he holds the power all to himself. The GM puts the dice out one at a time with the amount of pips showing to display his wishes subtly or directly. He can even roll some, and place some but next to noted names so independent names can roll freely, as they see fit, the rest, thing Kong’s. Donors put down both body for him. 

 

Now you you have a list of names and a system and a modifiable voting record of all the MPs, and even a few for the House of Lords that because of their position are now important NPCsnfor the campaign. The advantage of this method is there is a nearly non existent chance of combat. The dis advantage is that one character gets the spotlight, and the rest of the party are disarmed spectators. It can be used in conjunction with other methods. 

 

2.) You have no classy orators in your party, all it is not lost!  You can infiltrate, or if rich enough throw one’s own Parliamentary  Ball. Members from all over then country have arrived for the floor voting the next day, bringing their wives and servants, making a very target rich  environment for the social set.  Most GMa have a certain flavor of how they like to run social interplay. Some rely on the dice, others use skill modifiers as aids to sparkling repartee and/or seduction. Any of the socially relative positive skills can be used here, and even a few of the negative ones.  I suggest you make note of succ sees and critical successes. Sucesses mean the The influenced MP will he shifted one body point in your favor.  A critical success means you can influence one MP 2 body in your favor Or if it has thought that particular MP is himself a spectacular orator or conversationalist he can add a plus one body to himself AND to the name above and below them on the list.  Caution :Critical Successes can  lead to ties and obligations as it is assumed votes are a quid pro quo. Critical persuasion means he thinks as your friend, that he may ask a favor of you and your friends, such as finding dirt on a rival, finding and disposing of a black mailer and the evidence, or taking care of a goblin infestation near his country estate. Critical success in Seduction will lead to a wonderful evening, but also the player character may find out they now have a boyfriend or stalker, or a “Reputation” for good or ill.   Failures just mean a step down for the next attempted NPC MP (14 or less becomes 11 or less). Critical  failures mean a two step reduction, and the rumors and giggling asides start to flow. The bguest start to call their carriages to leave and a seduction  critical failure could lead to scandal ( See Item 5).  In Parliment next day, only a critical success from method one can salvage the effort and even then it’s just a success. Otherwise the PCs are seen as. Climbers or worse, an  inept foreign influence.  The advantage of this method is that if favored the socially skilled and the role players. The Combat types or those other bad social skills may be given long sticks to keep the ornamental deer from eating the garden, before they are returned to the rental menagerie. There may be an entertaining duet to first blood.or a musical or dance performance to entertain the guests. But this is on top surface is a party, a social engagement, with influence and intellligencce gathering secondary goals, even if those reasons were for the idea for the party. 

 

“M’Lud, ‘erez twenty punds o’ gol’ an a certificate grantin’ a ten percent share o’ all th’ profits of ur Whiskey, in yer province to anyone you designate. What say he, M’lud?”

 

3.) Sometimes Naked Bribery  works, especially with a party with limited social skills. Illustrated was a two factor bribe where  one element, the gold can be kept or given away, or debts paid with it. The Second item, the profit share, can be kept or negotiated to another because the effect of bribery only gives one body point in your favor, however a critical success would allow the second item to be given to another in Parliment to bump them to a plus one. Failure is a polite refusal, and maybe some advice, “I know you are new here, but that is not how we do things here”.  A critical failure means, “What?!?!You have besmirched my honor! Leave or draw steel!” Even worse they could pick the wrong NPC that is already an anti-corruption crusader and if they escape that encounter, could be labeled as a malign influence or foreign agents and any attempt to further entreat with other members of Parliment will be rebuffed and depending on ifnties with the party become known, could torpedo the whole mission.  Depending on the culture though bribery could be a high risk/ low reward proposition. Some cultures would veil bribery dimly, while others might view it as expected baksheesh. Bribing a police officer yields different results depending on which side of the US/Mexico border.  The tactic has a moderate risk of combat, and a limited reward, it’s not the most effective but it can be a complimentary tactic to....

 

 

4.) Blackmail. “M’lud, We Ken Yahave made Sir Gilliam Hall yer factor and signatory on that share o’ the whiskey trade, wi’ oot report’n tha’ to the exchequer. T’wood be a turrible Shem, iffen  his name became public knowledge? What surt a’ attention do y’ thenk a Parlimentery investigation woul’ Find? But ya need not worreh, laddiebuck iffen ya will be are man in th’ Parliment, we can make shoor yer name ,and Sir Hall’s never see th’ light o’day,  How does tha’ soond, M’lud? We will be contactin’ ya feels yer answer, wethen a couple a daze, fer yer answer and instructions. A pleasure doin’ business w’ ya.”

 

This isa very dangerous tactic but has the absolute best reward, and the highest probably of combat. Extortion has been a leverage tactic since premodern Times, and is still effective to this day (See Black Mirror). Evidence found or fabricated is either filched or forged, or even set up (See Soviet Honey Trap operations). 

operations. As the blackmailer, the key is mitigating your exposure, and vulnerability to the “Evidence” leaving your control. Go-betweens, dead drops, and night letters are the tools to do this. If the part in method 2 also had a Honey Trap operation in an upstairs bedroom, specifically to compromise married members of Parliment, it could be a back up plan if the main effort runs into failures. The tactic is risky, and is therefore the purview of professional criminals and spies, because, believe it when the victim starts to liquidate resources to pay assassins to hunt you down butcher you for the pigs to feast on, and have the evidence returned or destroyed. So  combat risk is high, and.  Continuing. A successful effort delivers you all their votes reliably until his assasins kill you. Or he resigns his post for “health reasons”, or the evidence becomes irrelevant due to age or shoring situations, or be finally refuses to prrform, as he is out of funds or influence, which leads to ....

 

5.). Scandal! It gets out that the whiskey profits were partially untaxed and the Sir Gilliam Hall turns states evidence on “M’lud”. Lady Chabita accuses a married member of parliment or having her way with her in a second floor statue nook, and took an ungentlemanly stern approach with her at the Parlimentary Ball. Witnesses both real and fabricated are produced because he though she was a discrete party favor, and bragged to his friends. Those friend, to cover their own culpability means he resign immediately.  Or even worse, Multiple members are flagged by Lady Chabita and the government falls. The King calls for snap elections to replsce the disgraced former members, who are now barred from public office, or worse dissolves Parliment under the charge of moral turpitude and announces a general election in 6 months. Sometimes an MP will profess  innocence and demand a trial, and then the game becomes a court room drama or a crime procedural but that is beyond the scope of politics. Scandal is mostly a pure role playing exceedise that the GM know orncan invent the temperment of the victim, and few die rolls are needed as the options are fighting it, turning it into a plus (Oh he’s just a saucy rake, but a solid credit to his people”, resign from office and vanish from the public eye, or they kill themselves. 

 

So I believe that whom ever said you could not “do politics in Hero was lackin in imagination. Hero has three different dice rolls on the whole, A.) Killing Damage/Luck, B.) Stun dice, or C.) skill + Dice. Using them as applied to various voting systems and government forms can give a rich background and a sense of the stakes, for a few die rolls. This was the secret of how I ran a decades Fantasy Hero game with only about a half hour of prep, and a half hour of sorting and cataloguing my GM’s notes after the game. From this I had a Parliment, Members views on issues, status and the point of view on the king, plus voting records, and then buckets of scenario seeds gen rated from these and the interactions of the players. It made for a very rich, and deep game 

 

 

I am Scott Ruggels, and I approve of this message!

 

 

P.S this took 4 hours to type from a hospital bed, and I will never do this with an iPhone again. 

[Doc Democracy]

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I've got to say, politics and intrigue, etc, are world-building a role-playing.  I don't even see the connection to game mechanics-- any game, any mechanics-- period.  I mean, yes, there are Skills in the game.  But unless I've missed something really huge in 6e, the rules have always mentioned "this is the way skills work.  This list is a suggestion for commonly-seen skills.  Feel free to add any other Skill you want."

 

And that's really only important you think you need some sort of "Save vs Intrigue" action going on.

 

The problem with this is that some people in a group are naturally better speakers and schemers than others. If it comes down purely to roleplay they will 'win' every time. The players who are the best at fighting in a group do not win every combat, the system mechanics sorts that out.  

 

If the important conflicts in a game are resolved by combat, the system needs a good combat mechanic. If the important conflicts are resolved by talking and intrigue, the system needs a good social resolution/influence mechanic.

 

It needs to ensure that it is character skills rather than player skills that are important.

[Scott Ruggels]

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

If the important conflicts in a game are resolved by combat, the system needs a good combat mechanic. If the important conflicts are resolved by talking and intrigue, the system needs a good social resolution/influence mechanic.

 

It needs to ensure that it is character skills rather than player skills that are important.

 

I have seen some social interaction mechanics and can think of two, both-by Paul Kidd. Albedo First Edition, with its ties and antipathies rolls and Lace & Steel with its card based combat. I am fuzzy on the details now as I last laid eyes on both in the very early 1990s. And may or may not have them both in storage. 

[Duke Bushido]

Doc, I respectfully disagree.  Whether someone works out a detailed contract of delivers an elegant, rousing speech to the rabble of the empire, or if my buddy Joe just announces "okay, I go and talk to the king,"  the politicking and such happen and are affected. 

 

"I am going to resist the edict, but not hard enough to fight" has the same impact as a long tirade about the unjustness of it all. 

 

I just don't see a connection - rephrase:  I don't see how any sort of politics or intrigue or subterfuge requires one kind of a mechanic or another. 

[Scott Ruggels]

38 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I just don't see a connection - rephrase:  I don't see how any sort of politics or intrigue or subterfuge requires one kind of a mechanic or another. 

 

May I? I believe Doc is talking about something I brought up a while back and was roundly criticized, that social interaction would be dominated by a tyranny of theater majors. I see this happen all the time, which is why I will allow, and encourage non acting based, mechanical, solutions.  Now everyone loves role play, but not everyone is good at it personally. A mechanical solution must have an action plus counter. Someone above mentioned verbal martial arts. So a good system should allow for verbal strike, dodge, parry riposte, with the player never required to actually make an in game quote. General intent is fine. Sure s good quote is fine and entertaining, but the system should allow the socially challenged, the profoundly introverted, or even the mute play the character they want, especially if it’s a character skilled in Verbal repartee. Everyone should get to be the hero, regardless of the players personal disadvantages compared to others. 

[Doc Democracy]

 

52 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Doc, I respectfully disagree.  Whether someone works out a detailed contract of delivers an elegant, rousing speech to the rabble of the empire, or if my buddy Joe just announces "okay, I go and talk to the king,"  the politicking and such happen and are affected. 

 

"I am going to resist the edict, but not hard enough to fight" has the same impact as a long tirade about the unjustness of it all. 

 

I just don't see a connection - rephrase:  I don't see how any sort of politics or intrigue or subterfuge requires one kind of a mechanic or another. 

 

I am all up for respectful disagreement.  ?  When my character tries to respectfully disagree but has no etiquette skills, is it possible he might offend the wrong person?  Does the GM get to decide that?  Does the player?  Or should there be a role for the system to adjudicate??

 

I am playing in a game and I want to go and talk to a range of petty officials to persuade the Minister to propose abolishing a policy of taxing adventurers (as I happen to know the Minister is not minded to do this).  How do I know I have spoken to the right people?  How do I know I have persuaded them to take up my cause?  How do I do this at the table??

 

I am a pretty loquacious guy.  I love to play face type characters but sometimes I dont.  I do inevitably play all my characters as if they had more charisma or conversation skills than they actually do.  I roleplay interactions with the GM and get in game benefits that some of my friends, whose characters have more skills than mine fail to achieve.  That is not right...

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

4 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I believe Doc is talking about something I brought up a while back and was roundly criticized,

 

You are right and I hope that I supported you if I noticed the conversation...as a beneficiary I am all for a solution....

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Doc, I respectfully disagree.  Whether someone works out a detailed contract of delivers an elegant, rousing speech to the rabble of the empire, or if my buddy Joe just announces "okay, I go and talk to the king,"  the politicking and such happen and are affected. 

 

"I am going to resist the edict, but not hard enough to fight" has the same impact as a long tirade about the unjustness of it all. 

 

I just don't see a connection - rephrase:  I don't see how any sort of politics or intrigue or subterfuge requires one kind of a mechanic or another. 

In addition to everything Doc Democracy mentioned, consider the inverse situation of a socially skilled NPC attempting to change the opinion of a PC.  Without resolution mechanics, it is dangerously easy to fall into the horrible patterns of "Tray Tor approaches you and proposes a mutually beneficial deal, speaking convincingly of a plan he hatched to -" "I say no, and go hit on the waitress." "But he's very convincing abou-" "My character is unconvinced.  I'm gonna go hit on the waitress." "No, your character is convinced and agrees to help!" "No, my character is unconvinced and hitting on the waitress!". 

For much the same reason as violent combat needs rules to determine who can do and withstand what, social combat needs rules to indicate when someone is fooled, convinced, agitated, or otherwise forced to act against their better interests.  Otherwise you just get 'nuh-uh' 'uh-uh' 'nuh-uh' 'uh-uh'. 

[Doc Democracy]

It is one of the things that most often triggers players.  The game telling them that, this time, it is their character that is deciding what to do and not them.  I can understand it but playing Pendragon was an epiphany for me, the first time my knight failed a bravery roll and I had to play the role of a knight that had just failed to be brave (which is not the action I had in mind).  I had to quickly think what my knight would say if he could not work up the bravery to charge the castle gate...what would he do?  I actually got to know my character better, I think I was better at playing the role and it meant that I had to really think about what Sir Shane of Craigneuk would do in future when faced with similar options.

 

Doc

[RDU Neil]

11 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

In addition to everything Doc Democracy mentioned, consider the inverse situation of a socially skilled NPC attempting to change the opinion of a PC.  Without resolution mechanics, it is dangerously easy to fall into the horrible patterns of "Tray Tor approaches you and proposes a mutually beneficial deal, speaking convincingly of a plan he hatched to -" "I say no, and go hit on the waitress." "But he's very convincing abou-" "My character is unconvinced.  I'm gonna go hit on the waitress." "No, your character is convinced and agrees to help!" "No, my character is unconvinced and hitting on the waitress!". 

For much the same reason as violent combat needs rules to determine who can do and withstand what, social combat needs rules to indicate when someone is fooled, convinced, agitated, or otherwise forced to act against their better interests.  Otherwise you just get 'nuh-uh' 'uh-uh' 'nuh-uh' 'uh-uh'. 

 

I have no more likes today, otherwise I would offer you some.

 

It is really interesting how there is a tendency, myself included, for players to resist loss of autonomy of character way more than destruction of character.  i.e. I've had many a character shot, stabbed, imprisoned, mutilated, paralyzed, poisoned, tortured and killed... and that is just "eh... whatever..." and I role play appropriately...  BUT... if a character is somehow "convinced to work with the bad guy" or "trust someone the player knows they shouldn't" or whatever... then it becomes "This sucks..." and every moment by the player is spent trying to loophole their way out.

 

I believe this is because role playing a character who is making a bad choice/acting against their own interests... is not just about the character losing autonomy... but the PLAYER losing autonomy. Psychologically, you've removed my agency as a player. More importantly, the player is now actively complicit in doing further harm to their character/party. This is "feels bad man" 100%. Role playing combat where you lose is attacking the "Character"... role playing social/politics where you lose is attacking the PLAYER.

 

The reason I bring this up, is that it comes back to mechanics. When you are involved in social/political type conflicts where the negative result is not "I lose a few abstracted points from my HP/Stun/Body total" and becomes "I'm now forced to act against my characters interest (notice "I" in this case is the player)... you need to have mechanics that actively reward the player for doing so. The game should be as fun and interesting when the social combat goes against you, as when it goes in your favor. This is fundamentally what good Nar mechanics are about, and why Hero, at its base, is not designed to do this. Can you hack the system to approximate something... maybe... can you "bolt-on" an external mechanic, possibly. I've done it with Luck Chits and such, but this is a mechanic that can work WITH Hero, but it isn't a Hero mechanic.

 

Hero is a brilliant task resolution system. "Did I pick the lock? Did I hit? How much damage did I take?" etc. Social/Political conflict resolution should be something very different, because you are not just resolving a quantifiable effect to a character sheet, you are often resolving an unquantifiable change to HOW THE PLAYER MUST PLAY THEIR CHARACTER. This is a fundamentally different thing.

[TranquiloUno]

Great stuff! Thanks everyone!

 

Follow up: All these "doing political stuff as concrete combat maneuvers with real mechanics" ideas.  Have any of you actually done this in Hero?

I see Pendragon mentioned. Are there any other systems where things work this way that folks have actual experience with?

 

How about actual games where a IRL person without the (social) skills their character has been played in the way suggested?

I think some of the Fate or whatever systems have ways for characters to take disadvantages based on their build to earn "Fate Points" that they can spend later.

 

So per RDU Neil and some other suggestions the way to get around the sting of removing player agency is to get them onboard with it by giving them a bennie later one.

The (I think) Fate system however isn't quite the same as what's being talked about here.

 

Like in a fight maybe I die, but most likely other interesting stuff happens. If I get "killed" in social combat do I now have to betray my friends (or whatever the thing is, work for somebody we hate, do stuff neither the player or character want to do) forever? Or can I recover from being socially dead?

Seems like if "social" is going to be emulated with combat systems then recovery and such should also work the same?

 

 

Just wondering if folks have actually played games like this, using Hero, or if it's mostly theorycrafting (which is FINE!) and\or other systems which are more designed around those ideas.

 

[RDU Neil]

In games where there are mechanics for social/political interactions (that I have played) it goes a bit deeper. It really is about designing rules for player agency, so even if the character "loses" the player is still engaged and the story moves forward and "losing" can be as interesting and satisfying as "winning."  (There is also a certain mindset of de-protagonism required for players about their characters, which is not always easy, even for people like me who like that kind of thing.)

 

I have played many PBtA (Powered by the Apocalypse) games, and the basic core mechanic is 2d6 and you get one of three results; full success (things happen the way you wanted them to), success with a challenge (you did what you wanted, but there is a complication), failure (things did not work out and GM can act against you). The GM rolls NO dice, ever. They merely respond to what the players initiate, and it can be with a failure, that even the player gets to suggest what bad thing happens. 

 

Dogs in the Vineyard (only played a little) there is a very cool dice pool mechanic that enables any kind of conflict resolution, but there are player choices... you can back down at any time which is sometimes best, because you can see your pool just won't beat their pool, so there is a mechanical reason to not do the typical "I just keep fighting even in the face of insurmountable odds, 'cause I'm a PC darn it!" attitude. Also, the player invokes  aspects of their characters to increase the dice pool at a cost later, or takes a hit now, for a bonus later, etc. (I'm vastly simplifying here.) The point is that the mechanic actually forces the player to think "What is the best way to move this current scene along" rather than "What would my character do?"... which I've always found to be a sham argument. Also, you can benefit from taking a smaller loss earlier, saving resources for later, or just not risking everything... making a judgment call on when (in the story, scene, plot) you need to go all in, vs. when you can back off. The game's mechanics support this kind of thinking.

 

To me it is about player attitude in a social/political style game (and a traditional action adventure game as well to a lesser extent)... in that the players need to go in being not just "ok with" but actively interested in the give and take, back and forth, success and failure of social and political interactions... not just "winning"... and the rules and mechanics should help support the players having fun even when the conflicts go against them. 

 

While this mentality is important in traditional "fight and kill what the GM throws at me" game, it is WAY more important in social/political type games for reasons stated above. If the player is engaged, win or lose, then there is no loss of agency... they are just as much driving the "here is the tragic downfall of my character" as they are "here is my character kicking ass". 

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

"No, your character is convinced and agrees to help!" 

 

I am sorry, GB, but I can't consider that.  The character isn't mine.  I don't get to decide his personality; I don't get to decide how he reacts to what I throw at him, anymore than I get to decide that for other people in real life. 

 

I can expect, and I can hope, but it is the player's place, and not mine, to control his heart and his desire.  If I want to influence that, I'll throw in a villain with Mind Control.  Even then, that's temporary, has defined limits and has a means for the character to break out, because no one wants to be forced to do things against their will, and when the game was written, the idea that the player controlled the character was so well-understood that Mind Control has never not had a way to break free. 

 

When I make a character, I decide his personality.  If I want him to do something that I find counter to his particular normal, I will list it as a Disadvantage. Even then, there are break-out rolls and circumstances to regain myself. 

 

When my players make a character, they decide who his and how he acts.  The very idea of a die roll to determine whether or not my character is brave this one time is so counter to everything I ever understood about role playing as to be unthinkable. 

 

I am not going to get involved in a whole big discussion about it because that would acknowledge the possibility that I might be persuaded that the idea had merit. 

 

Frankly, if I want to play an assigned personality, I wouldn't make my own villains: I'd use those in the published works and follow the letter of the personalities.  If I wanted my characters personality to change on the whim of a die roll or the draw of a card, I'd play Mystery Date. 

 

3 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

For much the same reason as violent combat needs rules to determine who can do and withstand what, social combat needs rules to indicate when someone is fooled, convinced, agitated, or otherwise forced to act against their better interests.  Otherwise you just get 'nuh-uh' 'uh-uh' 'nuh-uh' 'uh-uh'. 

 

We have rolls for deception skills.  Even then, the player has a chance to figure it out as play continues.  Agitation is a matter of personality: if your character has the unflappable patience of Job, how can I decide "not any more, he doesn't.  The dice say this guy ticks you off.  Beat his ass!  Now! Do it!" 

 

"in a role playing game, you will step into the role someone else has designed for you, and live your entire fictional life in the manner they chose for you." 

 

Just doesn't sound like anything I've ever read in any rule book, ever. 

 

But all of my favorite rules books, and 6e, harp rather regularly about making exactly what you want.  Making precisely the character you want to play. 

 

Serious points to you, though: I guffawed audibly at "Tray Tor.". Well done! 

 

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

 

Sorry, Doc; I'm on a phone, and this touch pad crap is killing me.