Social Systems
-
-
@ghost The funny part, is he didn't see it. Still doesn't see it. And won't see it.
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
-
@lithium Yeah, I don't think this person is really gathering that it's not a fight when you're reiterating the thing that someone else said that is being ignored in favor of picking a fight.
I'll post it again.
@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.
@Ortallus take it to the Hog Pit.
-
@lithium said in Social Systems:
This is FATE social combat in a nutshell. You can argue/debate (Roll social combat fu), you can leave (Concede to losing the scene, have your character leave before any major consequences), or you can go for help (Maybe use contacts or resources as a social attack by calling friends or paying the bouncer to bump someone out the door).
FATE has everything to do with Player Agency, while also keeping system there to adjudicate.Having never actually played FATE I might be missing some core component of the system, so please forgive my ignorance here.
I thought you had said that if my PC failed a social roll to rebuff a persuasion attempt, for example, my only options were to either concede to being persuaded or to get mad and leave the scene. I just don't like that. I'm not saying it's the most terrible thing in the world or anything, I just have a philosophical objection to it because once again it's taking away my ability to decide how my character reacts. Maybe they argue, maybe they throw a drink in his face, maybe they just scoff and say "You're an idiot" and go back to their drinks.
Someone can be the absolute most persuasive salesperson in the world (i.e. roll Amazing Success every time) and still not close a deal because the other person isn't interested in what they're selling, not because the other person succeeded in their Willpower check.
-
@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.
Oh fucking well.
-
-
@ghost said in Social Systems:
@lithium Yeah, I don't think this person is really gathering that it's not a fight when you're reiterating the thing that someone else said that is being ignored in favor of picking a fight.
I'll post it again.
@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.
@Ortallus take it to the Hog Pit.
I saw it. it's just not relevant.
What he is saying there is that social systems shouldn't be included because they're not used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed. So, they're just completely not needed, or physical builds in games with those systems are inherently superior, if you read the context of the rest of his posts.
But keep trying, and keep trolling. If you got something you want to say, you take it to Hog Pit, I'm not the one who started calling names or being an asshole.
-
@faraday In TT/MU I think that can be handled with a policy that states that you can't persuade someone to do something that they knowingly have no interest in doing.
Knowingly
In your example, if you neither want nor need a 2018 BMW, no amount of critical successes would make you decide to throw yourself into debt to buy something you don't need.
BUT... said salesman could leave such a good impression that when your character decides they want a BMW...Charlie was so awesome and comfortable that HE is gonna get that sale.
Using an old example again:
You will never be able to persuade Leia to agree to a Death Star test against Alderaan. Never. BUT you can persuade her to give you information under threat of blowing up Alderaan.
Using social rolls has to include some kind of reasonable context for the social attempt. As fun as it might be, a roll to try to talk the Pope into knowingly leaving the Vatican to make live broadcast midget porn doesn't make sense.
...but you might be able to get him to privately put a porn DVD into a laptop that contains a Trojan virus. But if the Pope has zero interest in porn...a copy of a movie might do the trick.
It's all in the context.
Update: I've added Ortallus to ignore. He's just trying to instigate snippy BS.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man -
@ghost said in Social Systems:
@faraday In TT/MU I think that can be handled with a policy that states that you can't persuade someone to do something that they knowingly have no interest in doing.
Knowingly
In your example, if you neither want nor need a 2018 BMW, no amount of critical successes would make you decide to throw yourself into debt to buy something you don't need.
BUT... said salesman could leave such a good impression that when your character decides they want a BMW...Charlie was so awesome and comfortable that HE is gonna get that sale.
Using an old example again:
You will never be able to persuade Leia to agree to a Death Star test against Alderaan. Never. BUT you can persuade her to give you information under threat of blowing up Alderaan.
Using social rolls has to include some kind of reasonable context for the social attempt. As fun as it might be, a roll to try to talk the Pope into knowingly leaving the Vatican to make live broadcast midget porn doesn't make sense.
...but you might be able to get him to privately put a porn DVD into a laptop that contains a Trojan virus.
It's all in the context.
Update: I've added Ortallus to ignore. He's just trying to instigate snippy BS.
Once again, you instigated the snippy BS. But way to announce you're pissy at not being able to have a reasonable discussion about something, and would rather throw insults and storm off when you lose. applauds Very mature. Big awesome.
-
@ghost said in Social Systems:
It's all in the context.
I'm good with the salesman argument, but the only info Leia would give up to protect Alderaan is a false, misleading one. It's canon
Likewise not buying the Pope example unless that was an existing proclivity. Those examples are exactly the sorts of situations that exemplify my cardinal objection to social systems without the player having a "yeah that doesn't make sense" card.We can agree to disagree
-
@faraday We can! And we can still be buddies about it!
I agree though, a preexisting proclivity is reasonable. My examples weren't iron clad, but this is why Google, surveys, etc exist. It's to find those preexisting proclivities, because ad firms pay HUGE sums of money to find those proclivities to avoid trying to sell ice to polar bears.
So I think it's fair to push back with preexisting stances. I think it's good RP to RECON what those preexisting proclivities are so that the social rolls make sense when they happen.
One of my cardinal rules as a GM is that TV, books, and movies can help GMs figure out how scenes can make more sense, so here is another example.
Any caper/investigation show from Miami Vice to Leverage has an investigative phase where their target is researched before the lead female puts on some ridiculous dress and goes into the cocktail party to flirt with and plant a bug on the crimelord. Dexter did it before his killings.
These examples are RP gold and work well with players.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man -
@ghost said in Social Systems:
One of my cardinal rules as a GM is that TV, books, and movies can help GMs figure out how scenes can make more sense, so here is another example.
Totally with you there actually. And I think that doing that sort of stuff makes it more likely that whatever gambit you ultimately decide to try has a better chance of succeeding because it's not wildly out of character for the mark to fall for it.
Like, maybe you trick the Pope with a faked email spoofing one of the bishops saying "Notes for next week's sermon" or something.
Then target's player won't have grounds to pull a Red Card on the play. And if they try, you'd have way more leverage on an appeal.
-
@faraday Exactly! We're in sync on this I think.
Social rolls have to make sense, but also have to work within the characters, scene, or setting.
If the bad guy thinks girls are gross, there is no amount of seduction that would make him decide to take the girl back to his room. If your character is a secret service agent, no amount of persuasion would make them take a box from a stranger and put it under the seat of a Senator's convertible.
Since we all like depth and writing so much in this hobby, I don't think that social rolls are a problem, but I think they need to be in proper context.
Sidenote: I've had a LOT of my TT players and some Mushers go the route of oocly explaining their argument and hoping that the justification will handwave the social roll altogether.
"My character is going to tell them that they're a cop and to give them their car"
Roll for it.
"Oh please if a cop told you to give them your car, you would."
Do you have identification? A badge?
"No but..."
Then roll with negative modifiers for lack of looking like a cop, or find some other method like pulling your gun and using intimidation.
I think the above is a good example as to why social rolls are written into systems and shouldn't be handled ad-hoc between the GM without resolution. In some cases social rolls are as vital and treacherous as combat rolls and things like leaping to catch an outstretched hand.
-
@ghost said in Social Systems:
Any caper/investigation show from Miami Vice to Leverage has an investigative phase where their target is researched before the lead female puts on some ridiculous dress and goes into the cocktail party to flirt with and plant a bug on the crimelord. Dexter did it before his killings.
These examples are RP gold and work well with players.
These are those early/intermediate steps the people trying to pull absurd bullshit tend to overlook. They're relevant and they are good form.
They also mean that everyone involved is much more likely to stay true to their character. That's the genesis of the stat described earlier: have people make a list of their things. Working against them, so much harder if not impossible. Working toward them? Easier.
Most good players are going to be down with something like this. The 'not in character for me' issue may not be wholly resolved, but it is mitigated by the aggressor taking steps to ensure that the ask is set up in such a way as to respect the other player's concept of their character and what that character would do.
Bear in mind, I do not consider 'I can never lose' and 'you will do what I want, how I want it, I don't care that it makes zero sense for your character' players to be 'good players', in that the selfishness level is right off the charts in both extremes.
-
@Ghost - Yeah I think we’re more in sync than not.
I think it helps to break conflict into two categories.
There's Minor stuff, like -- Do you believe the employee who’s telling you he needs off Sunday because his grandmother died? Do you pay a little more than you wanted because the salesman sold you some ‘extras’ that you don’t really need? Do you bend the rules to let in that cute girl who “just forgot her purse and will only be a second”? Do you open the email that looks like it’s from your mom sending you a video of your niece’s birthday party (which is actually a virus)?
Unless you have some really darn good reason, trying to pull “my character would never fall for that” is just being a poor sport.
But then there's also Major stuff - like the Leia/Pope examples. The fact that Leia wouldn’t give up the rebels - even with a gun to the figurative head of her entire planet - is a core facet of her character. Indiana Jones would never give up on a quest. John McClane would never cower in the attic waiting for help to arrive.
For our MUSH characters, these are the answers to those character study questions like “Would he ever cheat on his spouse?” “Would she sooner die than betray her cause?” “Would he kill to protect his family?” These are things that define who the character is, not things that you figure out by throwing a few dice.
But I think in part that comes down to how you view MUSHes on the simulation--> narration spectrum. Obviously I favor a more narrative approach with some simulation for spice and fairness.
-
I posit that Leia won the social roll (intimidation) and gave up false intel to make the other player believe otherwise, or only partly won/lost it (did not betray her cause, but gave up something important).
There are several systems that go this way.
Both require players willing to do this, a GM, or Apocalypse World.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@thenomain I understand your POV. But again, it comes down to how much you view these things as stories and how much you view them as games.
Did John McClane just make a whole bunch of really good Willpower / Courage rolls, or is he just fundamentally not the kind of guy who's gonna sit back and let terrorists threaten innocent people?
-
@thenomain said in Social Systems:
I posit that Leia won the social roll (intimidation) and gave up false intel to make the other player believe otherwise, or only partly won/lost it (did not betray her cause, but gave up something important).
There are several systems that go this way.
Both require players willing to do this, a GM, or Apocalypse World.
Lost the intimidate, succeeded on bluff?
-
@faraday said in Social Systems:
@thenomain I understand your POV. But again, it comes down to how much you view these things as stories and how much you view them as games.
Did John McClane just make a whole bunch of really good Willpower / Courage rolls, or is he just fundamentally not the kind of guy who's gonna sit back and let terrorists threaten innocent people?
I would like to posit that his core characteristics determined that he wasn't just going to sit around and let terrorists threaten people and his rolls helped determine what sort of method of stopping terrorists was both possible and in character for him to pursue.
-
@faraday said in Social Systems:
These are things that define who the character is, not things that you figure out by throwing a few dice.
Note that in the example I gave of how a system would work, this is already factored in.
Like so:
- (Arkandel is trying to talk Faraday into giving him $20 again although he never pays her back)
Arkandel:
+influence faraday=Gimme $20Faraday:
+influence/list=arkandel (it's #4 on her list of ongoing influence attempts by Arkandel)
+influence/difficulty arkandel/4=6 (it's a scale from 1 to 10... she's losing her patience but she's not going to make a huge fuss over that amount... yet)- (Arkandel is trying to talk Faraday into signing over her beloved car to him)
+influence faraday=Gimme your car
Faraday:
+influence/list=arkandel (it's #7 on her list of ongoing influence attempts by Arkandel... he keeps bugging her)
+influence/difficulty arkandel/7=10 (That will never get corroded. No matter the rolls, it's there to stay)In this system Arkandel never gets a message when the difficulty is set. I would never have any idea how hard it is to success or how far/close to it I am other than what's revealed through poses.
A social system doesn't need to be all-or-nothing, either subject to one bad roll (or series of them) or better of gone. There are compromises we can make which can enrich social interactions instead of making them captive to the dice - and I say this although I almost never roll anything in my RP. Anyone here who knows me can probably attest to the fact.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel I can tell you right now, just looking at that makes my eyes cross and I cringe from the soul out at 'omg more code and fuss to keep track of' potentially for piles and piles of characters. That sounds like a lot of overhead to manage for one character, let alone the other dozen or more I would ideally be interacting with sometimes.
I realize this isn't a huge thing for many folks, but it is enough so for me that it would be a major 'do I feel like dealing with that' factor for me regarding 'do I play here or not'. Probably a bigger one than 'do I think the rules for what it accomplishes are tailored toward my preference for how to tackle this subject', even.
Oh fucking well.
