Right. But what I am (and I think most of us are) positing with it is that, you as the player have a right to not engage in Social Conflict without some sort of minimum effort. I've got something that I'm writing up that I'll link when I'm done that talks about the initiation of a Social Conflict that includes both a Goal and something that starts the intrigue. The minimum effort thought process harkens further back in the thread regarding 'unreasonable expectations of initiating RP' which relies on player cooperation and people being actually FAIR to each other. I plan to lay out some samples and examples and such for guidelines, though ultimately the cooperative angle is what i hope would work out in determining if an intrigue should be set up (without having to involve staff, anyway).
Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat)
-
@thenomain said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
I don’t know what recent game design philosophies are in the Onyx Path or LARP circles for CoD, but this is the core system that we are still dealing with for that particular game line.
It's a little hard to say exactly what their design philosophy is, vis-a-vis social skills used against others, but they do seem to lean more toward people being forced to undertake actions because of good social rolls. 'Social Combat' isn't simply a term in 2e. There are actual Social Combat Styles characters can learn (although in fairness I believe the first of these were introduced in 1e supplements).
-
I’m having a hard time discerning what your point is in response to what I said.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
So, I didn't read any of this, but the first post. Super awesome, right? But, I just shared this with Ganymede and will share with you all. Here's my (and @Coin and @tragedyjones 's) Social Combat system for Chronicles of Darkness. It's meant for most in-scene situations, designed to reward players who comply while allowing players/characters to say "no".
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xy1B7lvz06UHKCcXKj0c1p-3kAUwUH_RqdKnKBDsGK0/edit?usp=sharing
If anyone feels compelled to use any of it, cheers to that! Just please try to find a way to reference where you found it. And, in my own due diligence, this was cooked up in the wake of playing Requiem for Kingsmouth's (imo) awesome social fu system.
-
@thenomain Sorry. I thought you were asking if their design philosophy has changed.
-
@the-sands said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
I'm sorry. I'm a bit confused. It sounds as though you are worried that vampires would have an ability that mortals don't. Isn't that the whole point of a Discipline, that it's a power that exceeds the boundaries set on normal skills? For that matter isn't that why the character is a vampire and now just 'a mortal with an eating disorder'?
I wasn't entirely clear.
In my opinion, the designers of the Chronicles of Darkness conceived of situations where one PC could feasibly convince another PC or NPC to do something against their natures. Although, as Thenomain mentions, the designers stated they didn't want players at the table to start using their social stats against one another, the social stats were meant to be used to resolve conflicts, however they arise.
For example, the Leveraged Condition (CoD, p. 289) contemplates other characters being able to convince your character to do something they may not want to do. No mention of requiring some sort of supernatural power to inflict it. The Swooning Condition (VtR 2E, p. 306) weakens your PC's ability to resist his paramour's commands; and this condition can be inflicted if another PC helps your PC fulfill their Vice. In both cases, a non-vampire PC can inflict a Condition to cause another PC to do something against their natures, or even their interests.
If one were to say, "well, only vampires can force you to do something against your nature with a discipline," my response would be "no, that's not really how the system appears to work." Indeed, a Daeva who is dependent on a mortal suffers from the opposite problem. The only conclusion I can make is that the designers of CoD intended mortals to be able to affect other mortals in a way that allows you to twist them beyond their natures, or even in conflict with their natures. Or, as a counterpoint to Thenomain's statement, mortals can make other mortals do something.
We know vampires can do this far more easily, but that doesn't mean mortals don't have their ways.
-
@the-sands said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
@thenomain Sorry. I thought you were asking if their design philosophy has changed.
I didn't know if it has, but it's still originally based on a system where PvP was not meant to be a thing. Unless they are clear in that is no longer the case (like the LARP), then I'm going to continue interpreting the rules as "not really meant to do that". From skimming the Doors system recently, it very easily could, but it a) isn't very clear on how the Doors system is meant to work and b) still requires staff to enforce it. Without at the very least the former, its use as "social combat" is limited to NPC for certain and PvP only when players are okay with it.
I also just noticed that the word Combat in the thread title is in quotes, which I'm interpreting to mean that just because it's the word combat that this doesn't mean it needs to follow the same presumptions as physical combat.
For instance, in Chronicles of Darkness, upon engaging in combat you must give your goal for that combat and if you do anything outside that goal you must spend Willpower. This is an extremely simple rule that I doubt many if anyone playing CoD online is using. I kind of hope so, because that adds a social element to physical combat: Motivation.
It also tells better stories.
-
@bobotron said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
Let's leave aside 'completely ridiculous argument' because I don't think anyone is going to reasonably argue that 'Hey baby, wanna fuck? +roll' is a valid instigator for Social Conflict.
Actually I have seen pretty much that. You might not have but I have. I was playing a male character had a female character pose the most unseductive "dance" towards may character, when my character acted disinterested said person wanted to roll to seduce mine. It might not happen often but it happens just as often as I have seen asshole walks into a bar and for no reason instigates a physical combat..
-
Right. But what I am (and I think most of us are) positing with it is that, you as the player have a right to not engage in Social Conflict without some sort of minimum effort. I've got something that I'm writing up that I'll link when I'm done that talks about the initiation of a Social Conflict that includes both a Goal and something that starts the intrigue. The minimum effort thought process harkens further back in the thread regarding 'unreasonable expectations of initiating RP' which relies on player cooperation and people being actually FAIR to each other. I plan to lay out some samples and examples and such for guidelines, though ultimately the cooperative angle is what i hope would work out in determining if an intrigue should be set up (without having to involve staff, anyway).
-
@bobotron
My question is who determines the threshold for minimum effort? To me that just seems like opening a second can of worms. Is it three poses? 5 poses? -
Minimum effort should be something determined by the MUSH itself, honestly. Because that way there is consistency, and you can post guidelines and say 'Minimum effort should look something like X, Y or Z. Anything more, sweet action, that's more RP and that's what we're all here for.' And any doubts should have players calling for a judge if they aren't sure they can handle the social conflict themselves. But I'm working from an angle of 'try to place some trust in the players'. At least part of this is due to my own personal expectation that I'll be staffing a MU* with minimal assistance for a while after I get it open, and the more examples and ways to negate the necessity of staff oversight, the more players might be comfortable cooperating with each other.
-
@bobotron
You sir are far more optimistic about humanity in general and MUSHers in specific than I have ever been or likely ever will be.Edit to add: I would far prefer some hard and fast rules to prevent the worst than all the trust and hopes of cooperation in the world.
-
Hence the guidelines that would be posited with the social conflict files. But yeah. I'm erring on the side of trust and will go from there. I've had good luck doing it with 60+ person LARPs where I've had to kick shitheels out for being assholes and violating the social contract and the OOC social rules of the game, while other people are reasonable. I've had to do it a few times on MU*s where people flagrantly did shit that was against theme or broke OOC rules. I'm not a stranger to it.
And honestly, I've freely admitted a million times that I come from a massively different background than most MUers on here, having migrated on from the heavy consent TF/superhero MU circuit. I have a much different take on some things than a lot of people here do, or at least it feels that way a lot of times.
AS far as 'hard and fast rules,' besides guidelines that spell out what SHOULD be in pose(s) that initiate social combat and the actual 'here's how social conflict system works and attendant code', what hard rules are you thinking need to be there?
-
@thatguythere said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
Edit to add: I would far prefer some hard and fast rules to prevent the worst than all the trust and hopes of cooperation in the world.
The only danger with that is anything hard and fast that you write is going to be open to exploitation by bad actors. I have to make three poses before I can start social combat? Alex walks into the bar. Alex walks over to the pretty girl. "Hi," Alex says. "Nice boots." (Initiate social combat).
I have to have a certain number of sentences/characters before initiating social combat? Alex walks into the bar with a copy of Great Gatsby in one hand. "In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since," Alex says, reading out loud to himself (insert the requisite number of characters/lines/words being copy pasted) (Initiate social combat).
-
So, "walking away" is a move that works for every kind of combat, if isn't always possible. There's a detailed chase mechanic for nWoD/CoD. Getting someone to not walk away from social interactions is a skill.
-
@the-sands
If your point is hard and fast rules can be gamed yes that is true but I still prefer them to vague guidelines that can just as easily be gamed and that it do little more than add a prelim argument to the main event over the social contest. -
I think one of the biggest things is just the inadequacy of the systems we use. People compare 'I shoot you!' and 'I lie to you', but these are games that devote dozens if not hundreds of pages to combat and often barely a few if any to social mechanisms. Including social skills in a list means nothing on its own. And even the tacked-on 'social combat' systems are obvious for what they are.
And this is a fundamental problem. It affects perception, buy in and legitimacy. Even if we say we honor both, is it reasonable to grant equal agency to the person who's spent 20 xp maxing one social skill to the person who's spent 500xp on twelve different combat skills, stats, merits and powers? And whether it is or not, people rarely do.
So I'm kind of with @Thenomain (and curious about that other system!). I don't see how the situation is salvageable when we're stuck trying to jury rig combat-is-king games with hundreds or thousands of xp worth of character growth space for murdering and maybe a couple dozen for 'social stuff.' People will play a wargame like a wargame.
-
@bobotron said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
(IE: someone killing their wife and their unborn child, for example)
Just to be argumentative: Iago and Othello.
That said, I'm generally on the side of "Social Combat with some no-nos" including forcing another character into an IC sexual relationship that the player is not comfortable with, just because even if you aren't typing up the sex, there's still a good deal of interaction involved (usually) that players should not be forced into.
Of course, many other folks are saying that that should be one of the exceptions anyhow. Changing sexual orientation and causing immediate betrayals are obviously others. I sort of liked the "defining characteristics" concept that Faraday and I talked over when I was working to create the Furystorm social combat system. It works better for a tabletop game with lots of GM oversight than a MU*, but it's still an interesting way to protect against sudden and overwhelming character changes due to dice rolls.
I also like the idea that Sparks put forth that you can only affect how others perceive you. It doesn't put social combat on the same level as physical combat, but it's an interesting middle ground.
-
@kitteh said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
I don't see how the situation is salvageable when we're stuck trying to jury rig combat-is-king games with hundreds or thousands of xp worth of character growth space for murdering and maybe a couple dozen for 'social stuff.'
I've played enough 2E WoD to know that combat-is-king only works when you've got a lot of XP to work with. When you don't, it isn't a great strategy. And when you cap XP spending, it becomes even worse.
I'm turning my focus away from the "are these comparable systems?" question to what seems to be an underlying problem: what consequences are there to killing someone? Make tangible penalties for assaults and murders, and you'll probably see less of them.
-
@roz Yeah, that one was me, I think. I'm mostly staying out of this one, though.
I think it was pointing a stick at someone's chest and saying 'bang' and expecting it to work or something similar, but yes.
Few people object to 'can be influenced'.
People object to 'can be influenced in a hopelessly unreasonable manner' in the social arena in precisely the same way as they would object to someone pointing a stick at someone's chest, saying "bang", and expecting it to blow a hole through them in the same way a shotgun would if this were to occur in combat.
This has nothing to do with dice pools whatsoever and everything to do with absurdity. The 'my medical dice won't bring someone back from the dead!' example is also excellent. The other I like to use is 'it does not matter what your dice say, you cannot throw a baseball and hit the moon'.
These limits exist in the physical and mental aspects of the game, too. People are just generally not stupid enough to try them.
Many people refuse to recognize the bounds of absurdity in the same way in social rolls, and too many people have tried to pull the 'I fixed your car and made my roll so now you have to fuck me' when, hey, maybe I hate that car and wanted it dead so I could buy a new one, and fixing it would make me frustrated and angry with them instead. Similarly, the cheap pick-up line approach simply is not going to work on a nun no matter how hot you are, but people demand that it must.
In short: fuck those people.
If you need to have the understanding that you can't shoot someone with a stick and the word 'bang' for that firearms pool to do you any good, it's the same with social foo.
That means that, yes, you would probably have a better understanding of how to approach that other person to get your attempt to work, in the same way that 'must have a gun and not a stick and the word "BANG!"' is part of the fundamental knowledge inherent to successful use of the firearms skill.
It also means that, like the firearms expert knows they need a gun, the subterfuge expert has a better understanding of how they must appeal to their target to be believed. Neither gets to just 'make up' how they want this to happen, however we see people do this with social rolls all the time, and then demand that not only does it work, it works the way they want it to no matter how impractical or unrealistic the approach they chose is, even if it is just as impractical and unrealistic a means of impacting their target as the stick and "bang".
As a result, the way many people have traditionally approached social rolls is fundamentally broken, because they haven't traditionally been held to the same practical standard as 'no, you can't just point a stick at someone, say 'bang', and blow a hole through their chest, you need a gun for that'.
I have little issue with my character being swayed through plausible means.
I have major issues with my character being swayed through complete absurdities, same as I'd have major issues with the "Bang!"-twig blowing a hole through my chest instead of an actual boomstick.
-
@bobotron said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
Let's leave aside 'completely ridiculous argument' because I don't think anyone is going to reasonably argue that 'Hey baby, wanna fuck? +roll' is a valid instigator for Social Conflict.
Let's not.
Because the reason I dislike PVP Social Combat is because I have seen, repeatedly, that. Slightly different words, nothing more substantial then a single pose of a few words and someone rolling a social stat and demanding my character react accordingly.
Its not even infrequent. Maybe its not seduction, maybe its manipulation. You raise completely nonsensical arguments about how people believe these vast conspiracies and crazy things, which are true, but we believe those things because of extremely long, dedicated efforts to convince people of an unreality.
It took Fox News years to convince people that facts weren't facts; and now that they have, they're suffering from not being facts too. But it doesn't happen in just a roll.
You are missing the key point.
If someone wants to back up a convincing argument with a roll, I'm fully willing to take into account that roll, but its not an absolute. If my character agency and his particular nuances are not a factor in outcome, only rolls, in his behavior, then whatever. You can argue all you want, we'll never agree; your game has no interest with me.
Social is more nuanced then 'can aim and fire a gun'. Social involves a lot of particulars. I've had more then one woman or utterly incompatible character try to seduce a gay character of mine in the past: I'm not joking, not making euphemisms. I've had a lady roll seduction on my queer ass.
History matters, in social. How you grew up. The particulars of what makes you angry, not; safe, not. A gun is a really simple thing. You aim it and shoot it and someone else dodges or armor takes it. Comparing Social to Combat is, frankly, daft, in my opinion.
But that doesn't mean social isn't important. Its just not important in some games: particularly, PVP heavy games. I personally prefer strongly to play PVE type games, where social is a thing you target at NPCS, and where even combat is actually rare to target other PCs.