Social Stats in the World of Darkness

[surreality]

@pyrephox The main issue I have with that writeup is the 'get people to cooperate' line. (Irony points!)

All examples of things someone may be trying to 'get people to cooperate' with:

• come with me down this dark alley
• don't talk to the police
• torture your grandmother to death
• pick up the tab for dinner
• cheat on your spouse
• press the shiny candy-like red detonator button on that suicide vest
• swing a kitten around by its tail and throw it against a wall
• hide this contraband in your house
• give them all the money you have on you
• murder a stranger
• buy them coffee

...and I think we can all reasonably agree these asks are not all equal within any sensible system, and not even equal from one character to the next within that system.

[Pyrephox]

Oh for fucks' sake.

If you expect a social system to map out every possible use of the system under every possible circumstance including whatever whackadoodle scenarios you invent specifically to try to break the system, then no, you will never find any that does that, because it's not physically possible to write that out, and if you did, no one would ever read it.

Game systems, every single game system, operate under the assumption that the players want to play the game, and not set out to try and act in bad faith at every possible level - bad faith actors should be expelled from the game. No system will ever stop an idiot from trying to abuse mechanics - that doesn't mean a system is useless or broken, it means that idiots shouldn't be humored.

Getting rid of social systems won't stop idiots, either. If you're trying to build a game under the premise of "how do we stop idiots from being idiots" then no matter what systems you use, you are doomed to failure.

[surreality]

@pyrephox None of that is 'crazy things intended to break the system' at all. It is stuff different people could consider within the bounds of what's written there, because there are no parameters established for what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable interpretation of the text.

They got better about this very real issue in later editions, but that writeup is really quite bad for that reason.

Most of those I'd consider reasonable applications of the skill as an ST; some, I wouldn't. Some would be fine for some characters, and not fine for others. In a tabletop game, with one ST, and one ST's interpretation of the text, one knows what to expect when they sit down to that game at that table, and can choose to play by that interpretation or not.

In a game with multiple STs, you're going to have multiple interpretations of what is, and what is not, reasonable. That is one layer of 'problematic' added to the translation of the system from tabletop to MU.

In a game where players operate autonomously without an ST more often than not, particularly in the social aspects of play, and this is the vast majority of play that most players will experience, you add more layers of difficulty based on even more variance in interpretation, and it becomes more prominent an issue than it would be in your average tabletop game due to the amount of time spent in social aspects of roleplay vs. mental or physical aspects of roleplay by proportion.

[Sunny]

@pyrephox

I suspect people are trying to reframe their arguments so that you better understand what their objection is to the system/what problem is being discussed, rather than trying to counter what you're saying. Personally I gave up the eleventy billionth time someone called me a cheater for wanting input on what a result looked like for my character, but they're still at it.

[Tinuviel]

@pyrephox said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Is it inaccurate? Or do you feel that it misrepresents the general resolution mechanics of the game such that it has no utility to illustrate that system to someone who has not previously read it? Is there an actual objection to the content or its accuracy, or is this just being pedantic for the sake of it?

The objection is to using third-party sources when discussing rules-as-written. It isn't pedantry, it's requiring decent and generally constant accuracy. There's no guarantee that when/if this thread is read a year from now by someone new the information in that wiki will still be accurate, given it's neither a published source nor one any of us control.

[Arkandel]

@tinuviel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

The objection is to using third-party sources when discussing rules-as-written. It isn't pedantry, it's requiring decent and generally constant accuracy. There's no guarantee that when/if this thread is read a year from now by someone new the information in that wiki will still be accurate, given it's neither a published source nor one any of us control.

They aren't even rules-as-written because they weren't developed for MU*. They were aimed for table-top - there are no official rules for what we need, thus no appeal to authority can work.

I do agree the very idea of trying to create any kind of exhaustive list of social rolls' effects is an exercise in madness though. In my eyes there are only two ways to go at it:

1. Don't allow its use on PCs (which doesn't solve the problem completely, and devalues the skills, but at least it takes creeping out of the equation).

2. Accept that interpreting what the roll results do falls to the target's player as they will differ from one PC to the other. Yes, that means some people will play being unphased by them, which you can't do with a combat roll. Them's the breaks.

I suppose there's a third way - removing social rolls - but that'd gut the system, so I don't really count it as a real solution to anything.

[Auspice]

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

@tinuviel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

The objection is to using third-party sources when discussing rules-as-written. It isn't pedantry, it's requiring decent and generally constant accuracy. There's no guarantee that when/if this thread is read a year from now by someone new the information in that wiki will still be accurate, given it's neither a published source nor one any of us control.

They aren't even rules-as-written because they weren't developed for MU*. They were aimed for table-top - there are no official rules for what we need, thus no appeal to authority can work.

I do agree the very idea of trying to create any kind of exhaustive list of social rolls' effects is an exercise in madness though. In my eyes there are only two ways to go at it:

1. Don't allow its use on PCs (which doesn't solve the problem completely, and devalues the skills, but at least it takes creeping out of the equation).

2. Accept that interpreting what the roll results do falls to the target's player as they will differ from one PC to the other. Yes, that means some people will play being unphased by them, which you can't do with a combat roll. Them's the breaks.

I suppose there's a third way - removing social rolls - but that'd gut the system, so I don't really count it as a real solution to anything.

All of these still come down to one thing in the end:

Physical stats trump all.

Which is sort of the crux of the issue. A socially built character will always be hamstrung in comparison to a physical one, even though that's not how it should be in the narrative. I've witnessed how much it can suck to play social PCs, esp. with how many STs just phone it in throwing out Rando Mob #1923 for the plot one after the other without weaving some sort of social puzzle for those PCs.

If you hamstring them against PCs too so they can't even try doing their thing in day-to-day RP (even with people who may be amenable to it)........

[mietze]

The lack of STs and referees is why I'd advocate for players using tools to negotiate for themselves. But that too is objected to? It seems like the less all or nothing approach on a game where you are allowed to have social skills that are impactful towards PCs. If there is an opportunity for hard opt out for specific squicks or uncomfortable things, I really cannot understand why it's so objectionable to work with another person to either learn how to frame things to move them a pace or two in either direction if the roll is significant enough (and so that the other player doesn't have their fun ruined by their PC having to go in a direction that would break or harm enjoyment, assuming and giving the benefit of the doubt that the player does not term "anything that I don't decide for myself and retain total control over" ruins their enjoyment of their character on a non-consent game with other people around).

It really seems there is nothing good enough for the people who just simply seem to want there to be no social skills at all that can be used in PC interaction. Which is ok? But if you're looking to build something that allows both for the use of social skills AND preserving as much player agency as possible in regards to the internal workings of their PC, then you do need to look at SOME way to get the discussion started, because it's not going to happen on its own, unless you're playing with your BFF who apped in with you and thus knows a lot of the development of your PC.

Maybe it's a cultural divide. I enjoy getting to know other PCs through RP and partnership and plots. I enjoy other players getting to know mine through the same, even if the IC goals conflict (and therefore social dice are pulled out). If someone doesn't enjoy that or is open to it, and is more about their own personal development as a PC steered by them, without other people being able to affect or know much except for in very specific circumstances, then clearly there's going to be a discomfort factor there too.

We have talked about seeing to the comfort of people who don't want to engage in discussion. But I think the people who are open to that and are shamed for using skills/dice that lead to that (because I'm sorry, it totally does happen, all the time. For every time someone has been called a cheater for not wanting to let a single dice roll give someone carte blanche to dictate the reaction, there is someone who is called a might-as-well-be-OOC-rapist for asking how to resolve a situation where dice will be rolled to influence a social situation. I have seen and experienced people throwing the fact that so and so forced them into TS by using manipulation, and so me using the same skill to try to get them to go along with this one aspect of a plan or try my PC's idea first is the same sort of thing and I'm a horrible bad person who should feel bad. On multiple occasions. Even though those dice were legal in game, and I started the conversation with the idea that I wanted to influence not dictate, and wanted to be sure that it was fun for them also.

At some point we are going to have to remove the extremists on either side (Because you will never rid yourself of people who refuse to play well with others via systems and polices for using social dice--it's the staffers' job to boot those folks IMO) when taking into consideration on how to build a way to use this stuff, if at all.

[Lithium]

@ganymede Late to the conversation, for better or worse, if you remove the effects of social stats on PC's (Which I am neither four or against, personally), then you need to reduce the cost of them. Right now they are the same cost as punching someone in the face.

Punching someone in the face always works or not based on the roll.

Social stats in your game would not, so need to be less expensive comparatively.

At least my two cents.

Sorry if this was addressed already haven't read all 8 pages yet.

[Arkandel]

@mietze While I suspect no solution will solve this issue there are probably steps to be taken in order to mitigate its effects.

Some ideas:

• base your game on the idea the entire game is built around these things, and that social stats aren't merely adopted straight from the page. So while someone can still ignore you if you use Persuasion on them ("yeah, my guy is too strong willed for this shit") there are still tangible and powerful benefits from NPC perception, status gains, sphere influence, etc.

• enhance the social rolls with messaging guiding targets correctly. So if I +roll manipulation+persuasion against a PC the code catches it as a social roll and echoes something like "A Persuasion roll has been successfully leveraged on you. This will not change your character fundamentally or make them do things contrary to their nature but it may have temporary effects in whatever way you choose to incorporate" or whatever disclaimer the game runners want to attach.

• make it rewarding to lose social encounters. I've been advocating that for ages - literally give a Beat every time, open up venues where long term social rivalries are profitable for all parties (after all if you're a Primogen member's foil and regular public sparring partner in meetings then your own prestige increases at the same time).

And so on. I don't think this is the kind of problem one can fix with a post or a paragraph on a wiki page but if work is put in it can.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede :

When you have enough to explain, I would love to see your conclusions in the development thread.

[Ganymede]

@auspice said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

All of these still come down to one thing in the end:

Physical stats trump all.

Which is sort of the crux of the issue.

I disagree. This isn't what I'm asking about at all. It is, however, a very large concern.

If we want to delve into "reality," the vast majority of potential violence is sidetracked by concerns about consequences. People generally don't try to shoot me in the courtroom because there are bailiffs with guns around, and because I'm the Mistress of the Tae-Kwon-Leap. In a MUSH, however, the consequences to the player are substantially less, which makes physical violence a more-available option to resolve conflict.

Maybe I have this all wrong.

Maybe the solution isn't fewer social stats, but giving them more power. Maybe a successful intimidation roll would result in a Condition that would bar or reduce the ability to engage in a fight. Maybe a successful seduction roll would result in a Condition that would bar refusal of simple, non-Breaking-point requests.

So, let's flip the question:

Would you make social stats in the World of Darkness more powerful? If so, how?

(Note, I'm not talking about powers that rely on social stats.)

[Thenomain]

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Would you make social stats in the World of Darkness more powerful? If so, how?

Give them the teeth of physical stats, either by backing them up with concrete results (which Doors tries to do) or by bringing th consequences of physical actions into stark relief.

Since most people play RPGs to be Awesome, I prefer the Teeth result, unless you want to play in a universe of some considerable shadiness, a World of Darkness if you will, then more of the latter.

[Auspice]

I think Doors are a good step. There are a few issues, but they are not insurmountable.

1. People do not understand the Doors system. You would need a good tutorial, staff & STs who understand them.
2. You would need to make sure players are all on the same page that they have to use them. That a social roll does not mean oop! the successful persuasion roll means they win! No, it means they got through a door. You do not get to just cross your arms, stomp your feet, and say NO. But you have to give a little. You get to decide HOW you give, but you do give because they did succeed and they did make it through a Door.

I think those two things are possible. But the 2nd one means that the players on the losing end of the Clash have to be understanding.

And you know what? If you get the asshole who goes 'homg no I get everything I want!'

guess what? They just went against the rules. They lose. Too fucking bad.

[faraday]

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

If so, how?

I think if you want widespread buy-in (and bear in mind you'll never please everybody) to a social conflict system, you need to develop one that at least vaguely resembles the way actual humans work, with a slightly heroic slant because in RPGs people want to be The Special.

You can use physical combat as a model of how to do this. Almost nobody would have fun if physical combat were completely realistic - with a low degree of accuracy and high degree of injury - but we have an approximation that a wide cross-section of people can buy.

Nobody's successfully done that for social combat. Such a hypothetical system needs to include some concept of armor for deeply-held beliefs, and some way of reflecting personality and things in our backgrounds that shape how we respond to things. It would need to reflect the fact that social manipulation is usually a long-term endeavor. It would need to reflect social relationships - you're far more likely to buy a lie from someone you trust than your most hated enemy.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

You can use physical combat as a model of how to do this. Almost nobody would have fun if physical combat were completely realistic - with a low degree of accuracy and high degree of injury - but we have an approximation that a wide cross-section of people can buy.

Nobody's successfully done that for social combat.

Earthdawn did, for what it had. And the Condition system for SW: Saga is an interesting basis to use for "social damage," if you will.

But there are two kinds of social combat, unlike physical combat. There's the long-game, which is what the Doors system represents, and then there's the short-game, which is the down-and-dirty single-roll interactions. The long-game is for trying to win over someone's vote; the short-game is for using a look to prevent someone from suckerpunching you for dissing his mama.

I think the key, as you say, is buy-in. And a very well-written, robust set of principles and rules.

[faraday]

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Earthdawn did, for what it had. And the Condition system for SW: Saga is an interesting basis to use for "social damage," if you will.

Earthdawn did? It's been ages since I've played/GMed ED but I don't really remember it having a particularly interesting social conflict system. Never played SW: Saga so I can't comment on that one.

But what I really meant was that nobody (to my knowledge anyway) has come up with a set of principles for social combat that have really taken off throughout the industry in the same way that it has for physical combat.

With physical combat, the mechanics, of course, differ from system to system, but the guiding principles -- to-hit mods for range/reach/etc., armor, dodge/parry, different weapons doing different damage, damage tracks, KO rolls, etc. -- are pretty similar across systems and generally understood and accepted.

[Seraphim73]

@mietze said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Granted, this works a lot better one on one rather than in one vs. many (like a speech to a crowded room).

Absolutely, but if it was a crowd of PCs, the speech isn't likely to be tailored to each of them individually anyhow, and is likely to affect each of them differently (this is actually where each "target" getting different modifiers due to the tactic chosen would come in). Now, if it was a host of NPCs being spoken to, I could definitely see the PC stating their tactic, getting a modifier from the GM, rolling, and then talking to the GM about what would work well for the crowd.

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

So what you and @Seraphim73 are suggesting is a hybrid of the two approaches. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a big departure from what folks are used to. And I think there's resistance from both sides because it lacks the core elements that appeal to each (puzzle / consent).

I agree with almost all of what you just said, and think that the connection to the Discuss method (or whatever we're calling it) being a strong departure from tabletop RPG-playing is a good one (although I have definitely done a little bit of the latter point with my players, especially my less-socially-inclined players, in tabletop).

The one (minor) point that I disagree with is that the Discuss method doesn't support consent. I mean, it certainly isn't full consent, but it allows you to tailor the encounter to your preferences for your character.

The issue of the wide variety of uses for social skills that @surreality brings up is a good one, and one where I think modifiers should come into play. I admit I don't know WoD/CoD well enough to even know how prevalent or useful modifiers are, but it seems to me that 'buy me a coffee' probably doesn't have a modifier unless the target hates the character asking, while 'push the shiny candy-red button on the suicide vest' probably does... unless the target is a fanatic (turning them into that fanatic would be a longer social skill play... months at least, maybe years, and include a lot of Discuss method use and modifiers and RP).

The one thing that I've noticed is that despite some claims to the contrary, there doesn't really seem to be anyone really objecting to the idea of working with another person to learn how to frame things. I may have missed something, but like... is anyone saying that?

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Nobody's successfully done that for social combat. Such a hypothetical system needs to include some concept of armor for deeply-held beliefs, and some way of reflecting personality and things in our backgrounds that shape how we respond to things. It would need to reflect the fact that social manipulation is usually a long-term endeavor. It would need to reflect social relationships - you're far more likely to buy a lie from someone you trust than your most hated enemy.

All things Furystorm tries to model, from setting ratings for Character Values (Community vs Self, Status Quo vs Change, etc) that provide modifiers for social rolls as appropriate; to armor for relative position in society, evidence contrary to what you're being told, and relationship with the person; to "weapons" dependent on the arguments being used; to the ability to play for advantage, fight aggressively, fight defensively, or gang up on someone just like in physical combat. It's not done, it'll probably never be used (because I'm not likely to run a game again), and it's certainly not perfect, but it's taking most of those points into account (mostly because you and I have talked about them quite a lot).

[Ziggurat]

Here are some thoughts I'm having, as this thread has progressed:

1.) With regards to some of the scenarios, and the disparity between them in severity, presented by Surreality: using Persuasion in a conversation to get someone to hide contraband in their house, buy you coffee, or come down a dark alley with you, would probably all be extended rolls with variable target numbers using WoD rules. They'd vary based on a lot of factors - how you present, how well you know each other, what the characters are like, etc etc, so there's no way to create concrete numbers but there are rules that already distinguish these sorts of requests as requiring variable levels of skill/success to accomplish. Maybe it's lazy, or dubious, for us to default to the idea that you roll a social skill once and if you succeed, you succeed - maybe, anyways? This brings me to point number 2

2.) I don't think the mechanics of social skills are the issue, and I do think varying degrees of IC/OOC delineation is part of the issue. I think the issue is that people don't communicate very well on MUs, in general. When characters are in conflict, players feel they are in conflict, and so they tend to keep their distance or even sometimes get hostile. Fostering an atmosphere where players communicate openly about their conflict, and negotiate an outcome that is fun and interesting for both of them, is gonna be the real ticket, I think. If you're going to try and use a social skill to convince a character to do something awful or uncharacteristic of them, you should be able to talk to the other player about your expectations, and hear what they think. This is collaborative storytelling - why avoid collaborating? If someone is obstinate or being a bad sport, unwilling to compromise on anything, then I think you bring in staff to mediate or you step back and say that the two of you are not going to be able to RP out this sort of conflict.

PVP requires maturity and honesty and transparency, it necessitates those things, and thats with physical PVP as well as social PVP. So idk, I think if you sit down and create that foundation, and say, 'Here are some ways to approach another player about these things', 'Here are some questions you can ask', 'Here are ways you can compromise and collaborate to create meaningful RP', 'Here are things that, if you intend to do them, you need to talk to the other player about', 'Here are examples of things you simply cannot use social skills for, and use your common sense from there, please', 'If you get into IC conflict with another character and it escalates to OOC hostility, talk to a staffer immediately - your players may be enemies, but you are both players on the same team, trying to create the same thing, even if you have different visions of the outcome'. At some point, things can't be totally negotiated. You won't always have a player willing to take the L, of course, often both players will want to win, and of course their characters will. So it becomes about hashing out how to create an environment where both can reach for success, and the one with the better stats takes the gold. 'I'm going to roll this to try and make this happen, what do you think?' 'I would be able to resist with this or this, I think, do you think it's reasonable for me to get a bonus because of X reason? I also have Y merit!' 'That sounds good!' If players can't conduct themselves like that, or agree on a target number that's appropriate for an extended roll (as mentioned above) or agree on the particulars of the Doors system, have it be part of the game atmosphere that they can grab a staffer to mediate those particulars. This brings me to point 3

3.) Social combat is almost as much of a mess as removing social skills altogether, imo, because most social combat systems in WoD are easily broken and allow certain archetypes to have an unfair amount of control over the trajectory of the game. This is less of an issue in 2E, but still, be careful about solving things in that way

4.) Finally, @Ganymede, I saw your comment about being able to manipulate and outwit other players, on an OOC level, and typically leaning towards manipulative character archetypes for that reason. I definitely agree with the sentiment that removing rules in a way that makes social manipulation/conflict hinge itself entirely upon the abilities of PLAYERS and not about their characters, is bad for a lot of reasons. Firstly, it means that players can really only play as characters with their level of social aptitude or less, with their talent for writing also applying, essentially, the lesser of their abilities as a socialite or writer determines how socially capable their characters can be. That inherently benefits more socially talented and academically oriented players; those that don't have a lot of talent for writing and/or the academic background that might improve one's ability to write, and those that lack social skills or even struggle with social interaction because of things beyond their control (maybe they struggle with a mental illness, or perhaps are on the autism spectrum, etc) are at a pretty steep disadvantage, and will struggle to have fun. Furthermore, I think it really does encourage a toxic atmosphere where there's less incentive and fewer tools for players to communicate directly about what's going on with their players, and I think the erosion of an IC/OOC delineation (by making it a contest between PLAYERS) will inevitably create bad feelings, distrust, resentment, and the like.

I've had PVP that was great, where both I and the other person spoke often and openly about the talents of our characters, some of our goals and plans, keeping secret what we needed to but being otherwise transparent. I was open to even allowing the other character to kill mine, in a gambit to perhaps change their mind, and I'd have been comfortable with that outcome. I've also had PVP that was really NOT great, where the other player barely spoke to me and was very opaque, I could tell they didn't like me OOC, and it literally felt bad. Like a weight in my chest, and it made my anxiety and paranoia flare up. We make ourselves vulnerable, a bit, when we portray these characters and open ourselves up to this community - especially when those characters embody parts of us. When other players are hostile, distant, and interested in winning or harming your character more than collaborating or telling a story with you (even if its a story where your characters are in conflict!), it is uncomfortable and anxiety inducing.

Create tools that help players use the tools that are already there, for resolving social skill checks.

ETA: I'm sorry this is so long

[Arkandel]

Strangely relevant!