Influence/Reputation system?
-
Pretty much what @Coin said.
-
@Coin said:
@surreality said:
@surreality said:
@Ganymede said:
The key word is: acceptance. The problem is: most players don't accept what happens to them.
That, and the Doors system seems unnecessarily complicated given that there's a perfectly-viable, single-roll system available.
The single roll isn't great, but it's much better than social maneuvering. Single roll has resists, and takes the target's stats they spent on -- like iron will/etc. -- into account. SM doesn't. It completely ignores the stats of the target save for in setting the base number of doors. I can kinda see why players don't accept outcomes from a system that only takes the aggressor's stats into account.
Edit: ignores modifiers, too, and that's just bad.
What? No it doesn't.
Social Maneuvering rolls can be Resisted and Contested, depending on the type of roll and what you're trying to do. In fact, if you have Iron Will, for example, and someone is trying to do something that you would resist or contest with Resolve, it would absolutely count.
There is nowhere in the books that says 'Social Maneuvering does away with resisting or contesting rolls'.
This is literally in the second paragraph of GMC p. 193 "Opening Doors":
As Storyteller, be creative in selecting dice pools. Change them up with each step to keep the interactions dynamic. Similarly, consider contested and resisted rolls. Most resisted actions or contested rolls use either Resolve or Composure or a combination of the two. But don’t let that stand as a limit. Contested rolls don’t require a resistance trait. For example, Wits might be used to notice a lie, Strength to help a character stand up to threats, or Presence to protect and maintain one’s reputation at a soiree.
Single roll isn't better, because single roll accomplishes things and it feels like "magic". One roll and done. With Social maneuvering you actually have to put your Skills and other stats to use, figure out how to properly engage your target from one Door to the next, etc.
Yeah, I've seen that -- but it's 'consider' which... is not the same as the requirement for these factors in the single roll system (which is usually timed out extended rolls, so 'single' is a bit of a misnomer).
If someone is using the (extended, modifiers in place) single-roll system rolls with it? That's a lot more reasonable.
Thing is, the 'changing up the roll types' thing is a two-edged sword and doesn't necessarily allow those things to apply in every instance. The 'he fixed my car with a repair roll' example, for instance -- wouldn't make those things relevant. Essentially, you could fix someone's car, bake them a pie, and drop off a package for them across town before the post office closes and magically they want to hop into bed with you provided you succeed in doing those things. Which makes zero sense, and the resistance stats someone paid for don't come into play the way they're designed to.
-
One of the big flags, for me, is the singular lack of defensive bonuses for Social Combat over the extensive aggressor bonuses for it. You can find a TON of social merits that will let you add modifiers, open Doors by taking a Condition, etc. Iron Will is pretty much it in terms of 'defense'. So its still very much weighted in favor of the aggressor. Sure. You can defend/resist... but since you need only a single success to move to the next stage, its not likely to do you much good.
-
@Miss-Demeanor You'd think Iron Will would add a door per dot or something -- but no.
-
@Miss-Demeanor Another good point.
-
Well, it isn't intended to be used on PCs, so it's... kinda more proof of that. If it was intended to be used on PCs, we'd see defensive merits like we do for anything else. We have them for the old style social rolls (iron will) but really, I think we'd see a broader range here of options, 'cause they're pretty limitless.
It would be possible to create such things, which would actually go a long way toward balancing the scales on this.
Something akin to the 'fast-talk' merit, but geared toward empathy and picking up on manipulation/deception, for instance, would be a good start. ("Is he only fixing my car because he wants something?")
A notation on supernatural merits -- telepathy in particular -- in regard to being able to pick up on ulterior motives? Yeah, they would, and that's a reasonable defense to bring to bear as well that isn't mentioned. There are some other merits and powers that should give someone a leg up in this particular regard.
An 'aware' merit, for instance, that would allow someone to apply res + comp instead of the lesser of the two only to their base doors, to be the case if they succeed on a roll to determine there's an ulterior motive of which they should be suspicious and perhaps be more on guard against the instigator? Exactly the kind of thing that would make this much more reasonable. Give it a wits threshold on par with Iron Will and some kind of Empathy requirement, make it not cheap, etc.
-
@Gingerlily You're welcome. I think we could probably have done more early on to make it plain to people how the system works (in fact, we're working on something related to that right now), but the rumor system is one of our favourite pieces of code. As I noted, we can't take credit for the basic idea, its heavily inspired by what Sanguinis Nobilis used, but it worked quite well to integrate into a fantasy setting with politics as well.
I do think that having an equilibrium that Influence strives to return to reduces the risk of the system being abused, as massive changes can't happen simply through players ganging up on someone else via the code; the changes have to be reflected in actual position changes.
-
@surreality said:
Thing is, the 'changing up the roll types' thing is a two-edged sword and doesn't necessarily allow those things to apply in every instance. The 'he fixed my car with a repair roll' example, for instance -- wouldn't make those things relevant. Essentially, you could fix someone's car, bake them a pie, and drop off a package for them across town before the post office closes and magically they want to hop into bed with you provided you succeed in doing those things. Which makes zero sense, and the resistance stats someone paid for don't come into play the way they're designed to.
See, I don't agree, because if someone actually came to be and said, "this guy wanted to bake me a pie and fix my tire to opens doors so that I would sleep with him", I would laugh and tell that guy "no". The system assumes some sort of basic common sense, so using really dumb examples of how it can be gamed is against the actual spirit of the system.
That said, I don't disagree that it's basically meant for NPCs. I've said that a thousand times.
Iron Will shouldn't do any more than it already does. I mean, shit, as far as Merits go, it's basically the best thing in the game. It lets you spend 1 WP point to add your Resolve (a minimum of 4) to your action instead of 3, and then it lets you use 8-again if it's contested. That's crazy good.
I could see another, different Merit that added Doors, sure. I don't disagree that if the system was used for PvP, it should balance out. But again, advocate of NPC use, over here.
I was just pointing out that the book has an ENTIRE PARAGRAPH about making rolls Resisted and Contested, so it doesn't actually do away with them at all. The player who is actually using Social Maneuvering is not the person who decides what penalties or rolls they use. They can suggest, but the decision is ultimately on the Storyteller, and in a PvP system, it should be on the opposing player (within reason). If the person using Social Maneuvering feels that the rolls the other person is calling for, or the penalties they want are wrong or too high, but want to insist, then you call Staff.
I can assure you that the vast majority of the people who will try to use the Social Maneuvering system to pressgang another player into something they don't want to do, that isn't legitimately important to a story that goes beyond some basic player desire, do not want Staff involved.
Someone told me yesterday that in the game they run, they have social systems in place, and they also have an "emergency opt-out" rule where if you really don't think your character would do something, you can opt-out. They also told me that usually, the opting-out happens for dumb shit that isn't actually important to an overall story, so it doesn't really matter. Random seduction would fall into this sort of scenario.
I'm sure we can sit here and dissect this to the point where we find all the flaws evaaaar, but it's not the point. The point is that playing in good faith is a hell of a lot more fun than being a jackanape, and social systems require good faith. If you can't accept that someone else is playing in good faith as a default and keep a wary eye out for outliers, then you're obviously never going to be able to function with a PvP social system, because you're constantly going to be looking for the other person's ulterior motives or "angles" that go beyond thebasic reasons for the action.
TL;DR: Social systems only work well if you're not hyperparanoid and/or a dick. You know, same as most everything else.
-
@Gingerlily I found the original Sanguinis Nobilis code for their rumor system -- they posted it long ago on a now-defunct FTP site, but fortunately we saved it. It may give you some ideas for approaches:
The code: http://pastie.org/10451992
The help file: http://pastie.org/10451995 -
@Coin said:
Single roll isn't better, because single roll accomplishes things and it feels like "magic". One roll and done.
To this, I reply: "it depends on what you're using the roll for." A Manipulation + Subterfuge roll to determine if a listener believes a lie is reasonable; the same roll to determine if the listener decides to give away his house to you is unreasonable. That's why the seduction "system" had many rolls to make.
With Social maneuvering you actually have to put your Skills and other stats to use, figure out how to properly engage your target from one Door to the next, etc.
This is fine, but, in application, this should be used to get the listener to give you his house, not to determine if they believe your lie.
-
@Coin Or, y'know, not crafted to be weighted in the favor of the aggressor. My issue with the social combat system isn't the players that try to equate social rolls with mind control. My issue is going into it knowing that either I or the person I'm up against, is at a huge disadvantage. Its the social equivalent of being an nWoD combat monster that only ever picks fights with people that aren't combat monsters then saying 'but they could have fought back if they wanted!' or 'but he had a chance to defend against it!'. And its not because the person even necessarily has bad stats, they just don't have the same options. Now, admittedly, GMC has made physical combat much more evened out. You have better options for combat and defending yourself. But for social combat, its like its still stuck back in nWoD. You get your Resolve, or Composure, or sometimes both. Maybe you have Iron Will. But that's it. No amount of 'good faith' playing is going to keep the system itself from being skewed.
Also, given that you can get 9-again on up to three skills with PT 2 with no real effort, but Iron Will will only grants you a bonus to your defense/resistance with the expense of a WP... its not as great as it seems. On the one side, its giving you 1-2 extra dots. On the other, you keep whatever pool you have with 8-again, and your pool is maxed out at 10, period. Now throw down on that against someone with the option of having 10-15 dice at 9-again, plus the ability to open MORE Doors with a single success. Or by taking a Condition. Or having soft leverage accepted.
Taking your 'good faith' advice, lets see how this plays out.
Ex: John wants Mary to go out with him, but Mary thinks of John as just a friend (Good Impression) and aspires to date Steve. Lets say Mary has Resolve 3, Composure 3 (which is slightly above average, I believe). That makes the total Doors 4 (3 for lower of Res/Comp and 1 for against an aspiration). John has Presence 3, Persuasion 3 with a spec in flattery and PT 2 (salesman) with the Pusher and Sympathetic merits. John has found out that Mary is having some car trouble but can't afford the repair bill. He swings by Mary's house to offer to discount her repairs by taking her car into the dealership he works at, taking on the Swooning Condition to immediately open 2 of Mary's doors. Mary is flattered by his attempt and accepts the offer even if she still intends to ultimately turn John down (good faith). She's now accepted his soft leverage and another Door is opened, and Mary now has an Excellent Impression of John. She demurs at his offer to go to a movie on Friday, but offers to have coffee with him later on because he's such a good friend (and the player is acting in good faith). Mary and John meet for coffee and John presses his advantage in the form of a Pres + Persuasion roll. Putting his flattery spec to good use, he's now rolling 7 dice at 9-again, versus Mary's Resolve + Composure. Unless Mary rolls really well and John doesn't, that last Door will open and Mary should agree to go out with John.
Three of Mary's Doors were opened without ever having to make a single roll. The aggressor was 3/4ths of the way there by giving a gift and taking on a Condition that really only benefits him. And it was all done with a build John could easily have exited chargen with. Without ever rolling a thing, John got through three Doors and moved up the Impression line. Mary, by the rules, had a whole one chance to 'defend' against John's persuasion.
Edit: Even if Mary's player called for a roll to determine if Mary would accept John's soft leverage, or declined it all together, John was still halfway to his goal without a single roll.
-
Unless Mary rolls really well and John doesn't, that last Door will open and Mary should agree to go out with John.
Or Mary could roll badly and her player could say, "Mary is still more interested in Steve. I can take a Condition that you can use for something else, and Mary can have coffee with John instead." This is perfectly viable. If John's player can't accept this, or won't, or whatever, then he's not acting in good faith, he's being a dick, and I would suggest Mary's player stop playing with him.
In any case, again, the system is not meant for PvP, which I have stated I agree with a fucking dozen times. Your entire argumentative post is made inconsequential by the fact that I already agreed it's not a good system for PvP, and that it would require changes if it were used in PvP as anything but optional. What part of that isn't coming through?
ETA: Just like there exist in the real world people who reject advances because theya re interested in someone else, there exist people who don't. Maybe John is just that smooth. Who knows? This is the sort of thing that good faith means--it's not just good faith from Mary's part--it has to be from John's part, too. And if Mary's player isn't actually interested in that sort of story, why doesn't she just tell John's and be done with it?
-
While I agree on the issue with PvP with @Coin, physical and social confrontations aren't inherently that different and normally I'd have no issue with using mechanics to resolve them if not for two issues.
-
It's much easier for staff to recognize when physical mechanics are being abused (PKs cause a lot of noise).
-
It's much more likely for people to report physical than social confrontations.
There's a kind of players who revel in abusing this by making it sound like their idea of where things ought to go is the right one, and if you don't go along you're a bad player. What do you mean you don't want to sleep with my character? Look, the dice say you do, what are you, some kinda cheater? They will happily hide behind mechanics and concepts ("well, I am playing a sexually obsessive PC and look, dice rolls!") whether the other player cares to go that way or not.
That doesn't mean all games ought to be consensual - but once player-to-player collaboration flies out the window because someone's view on where things should go is pushed as an agenda, it's historically been far more likely that social abilities have been abused than physical ones.
-
-
Compatibility is an issue in every aspect of life no matter where you go. You are never going to agree on anything with everyone all the time. It just won't happen. Sometimes you can't Rp certain things with certain people because it's just not fun. And if it stops being fun, it stops being worth it. I am willing to often go above and beyond, and exclude my own fun, for other people. Everyone has a different threshold. But at some point you have to say, "this isn't working out" and not really care if the other person agrees or not.
-
It could be that believing the lie is a system with only one Door. You both can be right about this.
-
@Coin said:
And if Mary's player isn't actually interested in that sort of story, why doesn't she just tell John's and be done with it?
People do, though. I know I've been in the position to say: "I'm willing to do X, Y, or Z -- pick your favorite or if you have another suggestion, cool -- but I am not interested in RPing A." Not even once has that been respected in my experience. It is, and has always been, "Nope, I rolled and I want A and you have to A or you're a cheater."
The 'well we just won't play that' thing... "You have to play it, even if the X is FTB, and now you're this and you must continue to interact with me whether you like it or not." Which is a quick recipe for retiring a character.
-
It's always been a quick recipe to "I don't play with you anymore", for me.
-
@Coin Same -- but there are people who do continue to press the issue, and will use the argument that 'if you avoid me, you're cheating, because you lurve me now!'
Which is more or less a giant disaster for players who are ethical and honest and want to play fair.
-
@surreality said:
@Coin Same -- but there are people who do continue to press the issue, and will use the argument that 'if you avoid me, you're cheating, because you lurve me now!'
Which is more or less a giant disaster for players who are ethical and honest and want to play fair.
No, what it really is is a dick that needs to be pimp-smacked in the kisser.
-
@Coin said:
It's always been a quick recipe to "I don't play with you anymore", for me.
You know where I stand on this - at a whiff of stupid I'm outta there. But it's not the case for everyone, and the social pressure exerted by someone determined enough to get their way can be significant. Especially when it's not convenient to avoid someone; what if you move in common circles, especially in smaller spheres/games?
No, what it really is is a dick that needs to be pimp-smacked in the kisser.
History shows this does happen but much later, and after the fact. Remember, Juerg (the posterboy for this) was pretty well respected at his time, until people came out to talk about what he did later on. At that point you've already lost players.