Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?

[Coin]

@surreality said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@Coin I dunno. I have no real objection to multiple rolls doing things with proper modifiers. (I may not want to play the character again after whatever it is, but that's a different issue.) Treating anything social as the equivalent of a one-shot-kill with superpower strength effects, though, is not horribly uncommon, and once somebody's been on the receiving end of this, I empathize strongly with the aversion developing.

I think the best storylines happen when people divorce themselves from their "vision" of the character they're playing and allow the story to mold and change them, including their interactions with others. But I can sympathize with the desire to play the character "as envisioned". I just think it's also one of the things that limits us from having truly great RP the most.

@Arkandel said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@Coin That's why I always advocate rewarding confrontations. If the only outcome of social 'combat' is that you either 'win' or 'lose', and winning essentially means you retain the status quo then from that perspective being challenged at all is never a good thing. The best case scenario for you is that nothing happens - at least from a systemic point of view.

Well, yeah. I think for Vegas, @tragedyjones and @skew and I are working on something a bit more rewarding for social confrontations.

[surreality]

@Coin said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@surreality said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@Coin I dunno. I have no real objection to multiple rolls doing things with proper modifiers. (I may not want to play the character again after whatever it is, but that's a different issue.) Treating anything social as the equivalent of a one-shot-kill with superpower strength effects, though, is not horribly uncommon, and once somebody's been on the receiving end of this, I empathize strongly with the aversion developing.

I think the best storylines happen when people divorce themselves from their "vision" of the character they're playing and allow the story to mold and change them, including their interactions with others. But I can sympathize with the desire to play the character "as envisioned". I just think it's also one of the things that limits us from having truly great RP the most.

I think you're reading a little more into that than is really there.

For the really obvious example, I'm not at all interested, for instance, in playing a rape victim. On any given number of games, it's possible for that to occur. No, I'm not going to continue to play the character after that, even if it's entirely fair play to allow it to happen if the system says it does and there are no consent rules allowing an opt-out.

I'd FTB it, sure, but it still ICly happens, and I'm really just not interested in exploring that storyline at all in my pretendy fun times. It is non-enjoyable to me and I'm not going to waste my enjoyment time on that, nor should anyone ever feel obligated or pressured to do so in the name of some higher 'artistic roleplayer ideal'.

Edit: I agree with what you're saying re: the folks who just can never ever be lied to, or intimidated, or charmed, etc. But realistically, people absolutely have the right to have limits for what they consider an appropriate amount of non-enjoyment in their hobby time.

[Coin]

@surreality said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@Coin said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@surreality said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@Coin I dunno. I have no real objection to multiple rolls doing things with proper modifiers. (I may not want to play the character again after whatever it is, but that's a different issue.) Treating anything social as the equivalent of a one-shot-kill with superpower strength effects, though, is not horribly uncommon, and once somebody's been on the receiving end of this, I empathize strongly with the aversion developing.

I think the best storylines happen when people divorce themselves from their "vision" of the character they're playing and allow the story to mold and change them, including their interactions with others. But I can sympathize with the desire to play the character "as envisioned". I just think it's also one of the things that limits us from having truly great RP the most.

I think you're reading a little more into that than is really there.

For the really obvious example, I'm not at all interested, for instance, in playing a rape victim. On any given number of games, it's possible for that to occur. No, I'm not going to continue to play the character after that, even if it's entirely fair play to allow it to happen if the system says it does and there are no consent rules allowing an opt-out.

I'd FTB it, sure, but it still ICly happens, and I'm really just not interested in exploring that storyline at all in my pretendy fun times. It is non-enjoyable to me and I'm not going to waste my enjoyment time on that, nor should anyone ever feel obligated or pressured to do so in the name of some higher 'artistic roleplayer ideal'.

Edit: I agree with what you're saying re: the folks who just can never ever be lied to, or intimidated, or charmed, etc. But realistically, people absolutely have the right to have limits for what they consider an appropriate amount of non-enjoyment in their hobby time.

In turn, I think you're reading into my comment. Obviously there are limits. I would never object to them. But some people set those limits so tightly to the ideal of a character they've created that it becomes entirely impossible to have any character development be anything but their pre-planned thoughts on the matter and, frankly, I think that those people are a lot more common than we admit--and many of the people who are that way don't even realize it.

[surreality]

@Coin They're definitely out there, yeah. (Especially irksome are the ones that love to talk endlessly on channels about the ninety things that they could do to <any random person>, but flip their shit if there's even a snowball's chance in hell that someone could do something that might have an impact on them somehow. )

I think this tends to be something that works out better on smaller games, where players are a little more likely to have run across each other more often in the course of play, too. There's a bit of a chance to build up some trust there, while that's more of a total crapshoot on any of the sprawling megagames.

[Arkandel]

@surreality said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@Coin They're definitely out there, yeah. (Especially irksome are the ones that love to talk endlessly on channels about the ninety things that they could do to <any random person>, but flip their shit if there's even a snowball's chance in hell that someone could do something that might have an impact on them somehow. )

I've found people love to brag on channels, and that those more prone to doing so are those who actually play the least; they just like to imagine what they would do with their stats and powers, but it's rarely to the point they put that to a test. This often comes with comments like "I'm considering making him pay for what he just said!" - but always exclusively on the channel and where the target of that ire doesn't have access.

It usually don't mean anything. People, as noted, don't like to 'lose' even if 'losing' is actually a net gain.

[Sparks]

See, I think there are several different things that are starting to get conflated a bit in the thread.

1. The fact that while physical combat is rarely resolved by a single roll, social combat often has been boiled down to a single 'lie' or 'manipulate' or 'seduce' type roll. (And yes, you can argue that those rolls should be backed by RP, but it still often leads to more bitterness if it's a single roll.)
2. Social stats are often harder to justify buying, because people will just RP being a really good liar, or RP being charming, and spend their XP on physical combat. It would be nice to make social stats actually have value. And you can do this (as Arx has) by making social stats reduce the cost of other things, but they're then just supplementary stats to other systems.
3. The fact that some players will resist changes they think are wildly uncharacteristic. (I.e., "I won't give up the secret that gets my brother killed.")
4. The fact that some players will resist any change to their character's status that they didn't plan, classifying it as #3.

The proposed 'make a social combat system akin to physical combat' thing only addresses point #1 and #2.

I don't know that point #3 needs to be addressed; I think there are scenarios where it's utterly unreasonable for social combat to completely deviate a character from their norm. If someone holds a secret close even from those they care deeply about, I don't think a total stranger should be able to worm it out of them... or at least not without significant effort.

I don't think there's any system that can address #4. Systems can make it easier for players to RP among themselves without involving staff, but they can't change player behavior entirely.

[surreality]

@Sparks #1 is exactly the problem I'm trying to describe, yep. You put that beautifully.

For #3 and #4: Take a look at the stats you have available. I think I have a partial solution on that one, at least. If you have something like a 'willpower' stat, or similar, you can let people pick <points in stat/percentage of points in stat/some other 'derived by character attributes' number of points/generic number of points consistent for all characters if you don't feel like tying it to other stats> in personal modifiers for the character's own unique drives and motivations. How, or how much, those modifiers take effect, depends on your system.

You may or may not want to add a list of 'this is beyond the scope of a roll', 'this is a list of standard modifiers', too.

It helps the player firm up the character's core motivations and drives, which limits how much people can effectively whine and wheedle on point #4 (since they have to pick things, not 'everything'), and allows players in the #3 area, who have things that really are core to their character's concept to have a system-supported method of having the importance of that thing explicitly recognized in play, in the game mechanics.

[Sparks]

@surreality That's an interesting idea. I suspect it might only lessen the number of disputes that require staff being called in, not eliminate them, but I agree it's a potentially decent way to codify point #3.

[surreality]

@Sparks It doesn't totally stop the whining on #4, but it's a tidy way to remind that group that a sweeping 'nope!' approach is not considered fair play. It also still provides them with a handful of things they can protect, and a stat or mechanism they can invest in to bolster that ability if it is really the priority to them.

(I have a stat called 'Identity' in the system I'm tinkering with that supports this mechanic. It has a few other quirks, but it's the core stat used to generate the number of items on the list. There's a 'Willpower', too, which may ultimately get added, so people can pick a few more things. I'm still waffling around on the specifics.)

[Arkandel]

Some issues, as @Sparks and others noted, can't be fixed. The same kind of player who won't accept 'losing' anything ever would also pitch a fit in a physical confrontation as well anyhow, and combat is supposed to be a solved problem for us.

On the other hand - for example - I keep going back to having too many possible specialties and sub-cases is a systemic problem; with physical confrontations I could conceivably specialize and be entirely functional at a far smaller cost than it takes to be versed enough to cover their every social equivalent - grab Weaponry and Strength... and you're done, you're now useful in 90% of fighty situations where you have access to an axe. But if you get Presence and Intimidation you might be useless to a diplomatic meeting; no, the ST called for Manipulation and Persuasion. D'oh!

To be honest after discussing these things at length in threads like this I'm inclined to agree with an earlier approach @Ganymede suggested; just not have social stats. I'm not satisfied with it, it reduces the number of different niches and 'builds' in games, but it still seems better to what we're coming up with so far.

Then again someone will come with an easy to use integrated solution one of these days to make it all come together... I hope.

[Coin]

@Arkandel said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

Some issues, as @Sparks and others noted, can't be fixed. The same kind of player who won't accept 'losing' anything ever would also pitch a fit in a physical confrontation as well anyhow, and combat is supposed to be a solved problem for us.

On the other hand - for example - I keep going back to having too many possible specialties and sub-cases is a systemic problem; with physical confrontations I could conceivably specialize and be entirely functional at a far smaller cost than it takes to be versed enough to cover their every social equivalent - grab Weaponry and Strength... and you're done, you're now useful in 90% of fighty situations where you have access to an axe. But if you get Presence and Intimidation you might be useless to a diplomatic meeting; no, the ST called for Manipulation and Persuasion. D'oh!

To be honest after discussing these things at length in threads like this I'm inclined to agree with an earlier approach @Ganymede suggested; just not have social stats. I'm not satisfied with it, it reduces the number of different niches and 'builds' in games, but it still seems better to what we're coming up with so far.

Then again someone will come with an easy to use integrated solution one of these days to make it all come together... I hope.

Or you could treat plots the same way real life is treated, where a large majority of people use their social and mental aspects far, far more often than they do their physical ones when it comes time for conflict resolution, and where the physical approach is seen, by society, as something rather barbaric.

If you did that, the nuances of the social Skills being much less applicable to a wide variety of situations would make more sense, since you're theoretically rolling Social stuff way more often.

My point is, the problem continues to be people, not the system.

[surreality]

@Arkandel said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

On the other hand - for example - I keep going back to having too many possible specialties and sub-cases is a systemic problem; with physical confrontations I could conceivably specialize and be entirely functional at a far smaller cost than it takes to be versed enough to cover their every social equivalent - grab Weaponry and Strength... and you're done, you're now useful in 90% of fighty situations where you have access to an axe. But if you get Presence and Intimidation you might be useless to a diplomatic meeting; no, the ST called for Manipulation and Persuasion. D'oh!

This is really not hard to manage. It's not even hard, man.

There is a reference list of what the rolls entail in most systems. (Not all of which are WoD. WoD is more flexible with this in ways that plenty of games are not -- and this is quite relevant in a general discussion. Don't hang the problems of WoD around the neck of every other potential game out there, essentially.)

Yes, sometimes people can fudge them in special circumstances.

That doesn't mean that a standard reference does not -- or cannot -- exist to almost completely if not completely resolve this issue.

[skew]

@Coin Social combat system is being written atm! A spin off RfK, designed to be a bit simpler and more direct.

It'll be done and on Fallen World sooooon.

(Also, I read no other post but the one my name was mentioned in.)

Edit:

Highlights:

• It's simple - one roll vs one roll to accomplish simple things.
• It has a complex system to fall back on (Chronicles of Darkness Social Maneuvering, via the book).
• It allows players to "opt out" when they have an appropriate reason to (such as, say, you hiding your deepest darkest secret from someone's random "detect lies" roll).
• It rewards players who "lose" their roll and comply with the "attackers" goal.
• It allows a lot of stats (skills and merits, in this case) that don't normally see love to have value.

[Arkandel]

@surreality said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@Arkandel said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

On the other hand - for example - I keep going back to having too many possible specialties and sub-cases is a systemic problem; with physical confrontations I could conceivably specialize and be entirely functional at a far smaller cost than it takes to be versed enough to cover their every social equivalent - grab Weaponry and Strength... and you're done, you're now useful in 90% of fighty situations where you have access to an axe. But if you get Presence and Intimidation you might be useless to a diplomatic meeting; no, the ST called for Manipulation and Persuasion. D'oh!

This is really not hard to manage. It's not even hard, man.

There is a reference list of what the rolls entail in most systems. (Not all of which are WoD. WoD is more flexible with this in ways that plenty of games are not -- and this is quite relevant in a general discussion. Don't hang the problems of WoD around the neck of every other potential game out there, essentially.)

Yes, sometimes people can fudge them in special circumstances.

That doesn't mean that a standard reference does not -- or cannot -- exist to almost completely if not completely resolve this issue.

I've played two kinds of games in the last 3 years; nWoD {1,2}.0 ones and Arx. They both had this problem. In fact Arx specifically attempted to fix it by making physical skills twice as expensive and still landed squarely into it anyway in the end.

I agree that a solution is possible but our chronic inability to implement one suggests it's not that easy, if only because the issue is downplayed or misidentified.

[surreality]

@Arkandel WoD has the problem because they created the game specifically to allow for the problem, which is less a problem in the tabletop environment than it is online. That's kinda the thing here; tabletop, you're going to get something a lot more consistent than in a game of hundreds of characters and dozens of STs. In tabletop, it's a feature, not a bug, and the consistency problem is less an issue. It becomes a huge issue on a MUX, where consistency is often more important than flexibility. Depending on the environment, this deliberate system mix-and-match-ness design choice is at various stages along the bug <---> feature continuum.

As to why Arx has the problem, I couldn't tell you, since I've not looked at their system.

I know I'm using a list of tasks, which aren't miles off from the list of rolls WoD provides. ('Create Art', 'Dodge', 'Detect Lies', etc. are all examples in the books.) It's just simplified from 'you have to remember the combinations of that roll or look it up' to +roll/task <task name>, which cuts down on the memorization problem for any standard attempt to <task name>.

There are ways to fix this stuff, and they really, really are not impossibly hard to find. People being lazy and refusing to memorize or reference the list and pulling something out of their ass instead is a problem; that isn't the system's fault, though, and throwing out any attempt at making a viable system on those grounds is kinda like throwing out a gourmet dinner in total because somebody forgot the freshly whipped cream on dessert.

You can set things up to minimize if not eliminate this problem in a coded environment, and they generally aren't terribly difficult, or more difficult or complex than any other roll you need to enter into the system is going to be.

[Seraphim73]

@Sparks said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

See, I think there are several different things that are starting to get conflated a bit in the thread.
[really good list]
I don't know that point #3 needs to be addressed; I think there are scenarios where it's utterly unreasonable for social combat to completely deviate a character from their norm.

I agree that the actual combat system of social combat can only address points 1 and 2. I think that point 4 has to be addressed by game culture. If your game simply has the default that social combat is a thing, and is used on NPCs and PCs alike... well... you kind of have to get over #4 if you're going to play there.

Point #3 is an interesting one, and I struggled to find a solution to it with my own system. I never really succeeded. I tried and discarded a couple of methods, each of which had their own problems (although they were interesting):

First I poked around at a system like @surreality mentioned, allowing PCs to have 1-3 Hills to Die On--things that were immutable about their character (ie, "No Mistreating Pets," "No Killing Kids," and "No Betraying the King" or something like that). These were then things that could not be changed with social combat. But I decided that it would be nearly impossible to police from a chargen perspective, and that many players would try to make these too broad ("Paragon of Virtue" or "Good Person" or "Never Cheats" or something like that) to give themselves as much defense as possible against social combat without investing in the appropriate stats. I do like the idea of them being modifiers rather than inviolate points.

Next I looked at requiring each player to state their character's goal before combat (physical and social alike), and for their opponent to agree that it was reasonable. It was nice because then each player knew the stakes, but again, requiring the two players to agree on what was reasonable -- while nice, was also a little utopian considering many MU* players.

To @Arkandel's concern about requiring all of the different social skills while being able to specialize with a single weapon skill, I went with just two social skills in my system: Persuasion and Deception. You use Persuasion when you're using the truth, and Deception when you're using a falsehood. You can absolutely just specialize in one or the other and try to use it almost all the time. Sure, you might get into a situation when you have to use the other one, but you might also get into a situation where there aren't any spears around and you just have to use a sword or an axe.

[Thenomain]

@Coin said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

Or you could treat plots the same way real life is treated, where a large majority of people use their social and mental aspects far, far more often than they do their physical ones when it comes time for conflict resolution, and where the physical approach is seen, by society, as something rather barbaric.

Since many of us here know World of Darkness, I will point out: This was the point of the Morality system to begin with. Not how others see you, but as a system to punish people for being more bestial than societal.

It was not perfect—heck, it wasn't even good—but it did push people to not do certain things. There are a lot of small rules that were implemented in nWoD and CoD to make sure that people aren't getting into combat with the expectation that 'kill or be killed' is the only end result. They are ignored. Because:

[...] the problem continues to be people, not the system.

However, I am going to point out @Sparks' suggestions as an exception of my usual rule: "Be very careful when applying a code solution to a social problem." If you walk into a game knowing what the expectations are, and those expectations are codified, then you're more likely to accept them.

--

Related: There is a game called Dogs In the Vineyard, about Mormonism in 1800s America. It has a social system and a physical system. The rough rule is this:

• People escalate to violence when talking fails.
• People escalate to talking when violence fails.

The comment about "rather barbaric" reminded me of this, and it rings to me, an absolute wuss, as true.

--

(edit) In the modern Dr. Who RPG, action resolution happens in a certain order. 'Talk' is first. I like that.

[surreality]

@Seraphim73 said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

First I poked around at a system like @surreality mentioned, allowing PCs to have 1-3 Hills to Die On--things that were immutable about their character (ie, "No Mistreating Pets," "No Killing Kids," and "No Betraying the King" or something like that). These were then things that could not be changed with social combat. But I decided that it would be nearly impossible to police from a chargen perspective, and that many players would try to make these too broad ("Paragon of Virtue" or "Good Person" or "Never Cheats" or something like that) to give themselves as much defense as possible against social combat without investing in the appropriate stats. I do like the idea of them being modifiers rather than inviolate points.

This, I'm not worried about as much as I might be. Having staffed CoD for a while, which has custom breaking points and aspirations for every character, there are actually a lot of staffers versed in checking for this out there and in talking to players about setting them up appropriately. If there wasn't an existing example to reference, or there weren't any staffers out there who had dealt with similar things, I'd have more concern.

I've only seen this come up once in terms of a player being a dick about things, and that was Rex/Sovereign... so, y'know•. It's a less pervasive problem than might be imagined; people tend to behave themselves on these, even if that means being nudged to narrow things down some or clarify them.

• "The girl staffer is telling me to clarify a thing! I must demonstrate my dominance by trying to argue and swinging my dick around!" (You can all guess how well that went for him.)

[Seraphim73]

@surreality The Hills to Die On were actually suggested to me by a player who was concerned about hard social combat having extreme results on a character. It might actually be a solid system for just that -- ensuring buy-in by players who are worried that someone is going to swing a bag of dice at them and suddenly their character is radically different (even if the system assures them that this will not happen). It does, however, need a better name. Maybe Principles?

[surreality]

@Seraphim73 I'm stuck between 'core principles' and 'core motivations', personally. Core ideals? Ideals, maybe? Oddly, I like Ideals, since it meshes well with a stat called Identity. The initial repetition there might make a good relatable mnemonic.

Quick edit: this is the writeup I had for it:

For each dot a character possesses in the Identity attribute, choose a personal motivation. These motivations are considered to be the character's core drives, the ideas and ideals they consider integral to who they are.
These motivations should be fairly specific, such as:
I will not kill someone due to my religious beliefs
I will protect my children from physical harm
I want to earn my freedom from indentured service
I will not betray my captain's trust in me
I will not pass up an opportunity to turn a profit
I will not harm a child
These goals may have some flexibility, but they are not overly broad. Due to the benefits provided, some specificity and a fairly narrow interpretation is required.
For each listed motivation, the character receives +2 dice to resist attempts to force them to act against these core values, OR they may choose to reduce the target number to resist the attempt by 1 (to a minimum of target difficulty 2). These bonuses stack if multiple core values are being challenged. If acting in line with one core motivation means acting against another, the bonuses cancel each other out one for one.
If a character is attempting to convince or persuade another to do something that would be in line with one of their core motivations, it reduces the target difficulty of the attempt by one for each corresponding motivation to a minimum of target difficulty of two (2), but does not have the option of adding additional dice to the attempt. If doing so would cause the character to act against another of their core motivations, the same cancelation of benefits on a one for one basis applies.

...I plan to change some of the specific mechanics there, but the general idea comes across. It's also relevant that if someone's being asked to do something that supports their core motivations, it's going to be easier for the persuader to get them to join in the effort or take action.