Aug 23, 2017, 12:42 AM

@Ghost said in Eliminating social stats:

Theoretical Example:

  • Player A wants to lie to Player B
  • Player B wants to know if they're being lied to.
  • Player B initiates a specialized, hardcoded (or string) roll for their perception stat vs target's social stats.
  • The screen returns a prompt to all players that Player B's explanation is convincing.

I'm going to assume the last line is that 'Player A's explanation is convincing', since Player B isn't explaining anything in this example.

I don't see a situation where one of the two doesn't know what's going on. Eventually, the code has to ask Player A if their character is lying, which means you must absolutely trust Player A's honesty.

I don't think trusting Player A is going to be difficult; I think most players want to be honest until there's a point where they will obviously lose out if they are honest.

I like it, though; it's a Player-to-Player version of the Secret Doors check. See, in D&D, you must initiate the check for secret doors; you roll and if you succeed, THEN the DM tells you yes or no. It does have a minor downside that you know if you failed, but that's easily countered by not being able to try again until something reasonable triggers it.

I also like it because it does something that code can do well. This would, frankly, be easier than coding a tabletop system.

--

I don't like that everyone gets the benefit of Player B's roll, or that Player A knows that Player B succeeded/failed, but can be part of the fine-tuning, being a theoretical example and all.