@thatguythere said in Social Systems:
And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.
This comes back to the whole 'tabletop vs. <any other environment>' clause. I would even say 'tabletop or LARP or Roll20 style online tabletop' vs. 'online persistent world', specifically.
Tabletop and Roll20 style online tabletop include an (ideally impartial) arbiter overseeing all action. This has a direct impact on what far more than 75% of players are going to attempt to do, and in what level of detail they are going to attempt to do it, in a way a persistent online game does not.
Tabletop and LARP include having to look the other players in the eye when you are taking action against their characters. Again, this has a direct impact on what far more than 75% of players are going to attempt to do, and in what level of detail they are going to attempt to do it, in a way a persistent online game does not.
In tabletop or online tabletop, the XP cost parity is much greater, because the ability to use a skill on a PC or NPC is roughly equal, because the only time action is occurring is when the GM is running a scene and can provide those NPCs -- to hit, lie to, etc. freely. The PCs are rarely around when there aren't also NPCs around to which these abilities can be applied.
When we are discussing systems created for use in one of the above environments, and not the one we are actually engaged with, we have to consider how the game was designed to be played and how we play differently. (Your post sums this up nicely, which is why I'm tacking on to it -- I'm not trying to go after you or anything here.)
Now, we could require everybody to play through skype video chat to replicate the latter 'have to look somebody in the eye', but, uh, maybe I doubt I'm alone in saying, 'maybe let's just not' (no offense to anybody out there).
We can, at least, take steps to emulate the former circumstances, much more effectively. The most obvious of which is 'call in a GM' to run the interaction. This is going to resolve the worst case scenario players -- like panther dude -- who are never going to try to pull that kind of shit in front of an impartial third party witness, let alone a witness who has any say in the outcome or potential consequences for failure (and is potentially a staffer who can say, 'this is abusive and gross, <action is taken in accordance with policy for people behaving in a manner that is abusive and gross>').
That's one step, and no matter what else someone does, I strongly recommend it, because:
-
This puts the people who are keen on trying to exploit others on notice that the jig could be up at any time.
-
It provides people who are gunshy that someone is going to try to take advantage to engage with the system when they otherwise might be resistant (especially if they see that others have asked for intervention and oversight and things have gone smoothly or fairly).
-
If it is a case in which a player who simply dislikes the other player is trying to force them to interact when they don't want to, or screw them over somehow -- which absolutely happens ("I know we have a no contact but I can roll at any time to force you to interact with me anyway!", etc.) -- knowing that an arbiter can be called in is an important protection. We already collectively keep an eye on this when it comes to combat and potential PK scenarios, and know "I hate the player so I'm going to kill their character on the world's flimsiest pretext" is not cool behavior. That we see so few PKs compared to how things used to be 'back in the day' is some pretty strong evidence that people grew up and realized just how not chill this behavior is. That we're collectively 'not there yet' on many levels on social fu doesn't make it a big surprise that we're not there yet on this one, but that more people are starting to recognize it as problematic is a promising sign.
-
"But I can't ever be intimidated/lied to/etc.!" is much less likely for anybody to try in front of an impartial observer, either, who knows that absolutely every character on grid can, in fact, be intimidated/lied to/etc., so cheating from that angle is going to be reduced as well.
There's more, but... that's a step people can take for most systems that will make some progress if people actually act impartially and staff are willing to take action if someone is behaving inappropriately. Solution? No. Progress? Yes. Progress is still helpful.