Social Conflict via Stats

[surreality]

@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:

In social interactions not so much! You can absolutely have debates where it's utterly impossible to change the other person's mind... and if anyone has doubts about this, read this MSB thread. Read almost any thread.

I had to laugh, 'cause this is the best example ever.

Has anybody truly changed their minds about it? We give by inches, but the general premises we find to be the core problems don't tend to budge much.

[Thenomain]

@surreality said in Social Conflict via Stats:

Has anybody truly changed their minds about it?

Over time, Wora/Swofa/Wora/Soapbox and discussions with people I know has changed my mind on quite a lot. Most people may treat these forums like a donkey show, but without positive feedback we don't know how many people have acted and tested changes.

That's where this forum falls flat. It's easy to state your opinion, but after a point that opinion needs tested or it exists in a vacuum (your own head). Worse, sometimes these forums reenforce the "my beliefs or nothing" mentality that a lot of Americans share. Not a fault of these forums, but of the people on them.

Disbelieving that anyone could possibly come to a different conclusion through discussion is, IMO, a small part of reenforcing this.

Or in Surreality Terms: It depends.

It depends on how you take it. I know this is way off topic, but the assertion that things are impossible because "nobody has ever changed their mind because of Wora" is a false one.

Where I'm coding today, there was an absolutely gorgeous young woman sitting nearby. If she started talking to me I would have had to fight not to start drooling until that moment where she said she smoked, or acted like a snob. Doors would have closed. I would've still been interested, but it's my own standards that make me more or less accepting of someone. I would be fighting my own standards.

Someone who is good at manipulation could mess with these without my known consent, or basically tricking me into messing with these standards. "Loudly and in public" triggers a lot of people's unwillingness or triggers other fears and concerns that make the manipulation harder.

In other words, context matters.

In physical conflict, we all share the same basic context: One human body is vaguely like another. Without a system to decide how one human psyche is pretty much like another, coming up with a social conflict system that we can agree on will be not be a debate, but an endless chamber of Rapid Development.

(note: by "agree" I mean "more or less accept as a workable system")

[surreality]

@Thenomain said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@surreality said in Social Conflict via Stats:

Has anybody truly changed their minds about it?

Over time, Wora/Swofa/Wora/Soapbox and discussions with people I know has changed my mind on quite a lot. Most people may treat these forums like a donkey show, but without positive feedback we don't know how many people have acted and tested changes.

^ This. This is why I keep wanting to attempt wacky shit and new systems. I've been increasingly frustrated with how little trying there is compared to how much arguing -- and often how the arguing can delay the trying or shut it down, or that people won't in return try the thing that's being tried.

That's where this forum falls flat. It's easy to state your opinion, but after a point that opinion needs tested or it exists in a vacuum (your own head). Worse, sometimes these forums reenforce the "my beliefs or nothing" mentality that a lot of Americans share. Not a fault of these forums, but of the people on them.

Disbelieving that anyone could possibly come to a different conclusion through discussion is, IMO, a small part of reenforcing this.

Or in Surreality Terms: It depends.

It depends on how you take it. I know this is way off topic, but the assertion that things are impossible because "nobody has ever changed their mind because of Wora" is a false one.

Definitely agreed. It's what I mean by 'we give by inches' -- there are changes, but they are incremental. There's no 'one argument and someone's whole world turns upside-down'.

In physical conflict, we all share the same basic context: One human body is vaguely like another. Without a system to decide how one human psyche is pretty much like another, coming up with a social conflict system that we can agree on will be not be a debate, but an endless chamber of Rapid Development.

This is kinda what I'm getting at in terms of 'a more comprehensive system' with notes on intimidation factor on weapons, how much someone understands or can process an opponent's capacity, etc.

As for some of the examples you mention, something like the 'triggers' setup for WtF2 isn't a bad idea: pick X# 'weaknesses', and X# 'resistance builders' (with better names) to represent things like has a weakness for 'brunettes' or resistance to 'very religious' people and so on. The list of options (while it would doubtless be LONG), could pretty easily be the same list people pick from for both categories.

[Kanye Qwest]

@surreality said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Thenomain said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@surreality said in Social Conflict via Stats:

Has anybody truly changed their minds about it?

Over time, Wora/Swofa/Wora/Soapbox and discussions with people I know has changed my mind on quite a lot. Most people may treat these forums like a donkey show,

Oh my goodness.

Definitely agreed. It's what I mean by 'we give by inches'

Oh my GOODNESS.

[surreality]

@Kanye-Qwest ...that would be a lot of inches. o.o

[Groth]

@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

And people don't like it when they don't have full autonomy over their character. So you will never get that relatively easy ruleset until the players stop bitching about not being in complete control of their character's choices/actions/etc.

Absolutely. That's why I keep repeating the same thing (so forgive me one more try ) - in order for a social stats system to have a chance of being culturally accepted and actually used, as opposed to being merely forced on people, it must offer something we don't currently have.

In other words it can't just be an addon to the way we already play in scenes. That's a disadvantage then. It's interrupting scenes which already flow a certain way with extra delays for OOC conversations, dice rolls, looking up tables, debating mechanics, etc.

What it must do is make things better than what we are doing now. And not just better because 'whelp, we are using social stats now' - that's the goal, not the means. We must answer the question 'how is this making things more fun than before? convincingly.

This is also why I don't think it'll ever happen.

Consider, why do we roleplay in the first place? I believe most of us enjoy imagining ourselves as someone else, trying to figure out how our character would feel in any given circumstance, how they would react and seeing how they in turn affect other characters.

In a hypothetically robust social system, that would no longer be in our control. The game decides what motivates the character, what their emotional state is, what their reaction is supposed to be. We the players would then merely be the actors playing out the actions given to us by the game system which might be fun but it would be a very different kind of game.

[lavit2099]

@surreality That's what she said.

[Ganymede]

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:

The game decides what motivates the character, what their emotional state is, what their reaction is supposed to be. We the players would then merely be the actors playing out the actions given to us by the game system which might be fun but it would be a very different kind of game.

And yet, this is what WoD 2E does through Conditions. It's built into the game. If a vampire uses Majesty to inflict the Charmed Condition on your PC, guess what? You're charmed, or you're breaking the rules.

But what does "charmed" mean? We have a system that tells us, mechanically, what our advantages and disadvantages are, but nothing -- NOTHING -- requires the player to perform in a certain way. An actor in a play can portray and express the lines of a scene in many ways, and demonstrate the same general emotion -- but how they do it is, for the most part, between them and the director.

Charmed? A cool, predatory vampire might be a little more cordial. An effusive vampire might gush. A cerebral vampire might be confused and bewildered. But you're still charmed, and still subject to the Condition's system effects.

[Groth]

@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:

The game decides what motivates the character, what their emotional state is, what their reaction is supposed to be. We the players would then merely be the actors playing out the actions given to us by the game system which might be fun but it would be a very different kind of game.

And yet, this is what WoD 2E does through Conditions. It's built into the game. If a vampire uses Majesty to inflict the Charmed Condition on your PC, guess what? You're charmed, or you're breaking the rules.

I've had a number of people express intense dislike of the discipline Majesty for that reason. Arguing that with Dominate they atleast get to keep control of how their character feels, while Majesty is a profound violation and that kind of OOC backlash was why it was never popular to use.

[Ganymede]

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:

I've had a number of people express intense dislike of the discipline Majesty for that reason. Arguing that with Dominate they atleast get to keep control of how their character feels, while Majesty is a profound violation and that kind of OOC backlash was why it was never popular to use.

I'll bet they also don't like Nightmare because it may make them run like a damn fool, which counters some deep-set need to always be cool, calm, and in control. I'll bet they also don't know that you can counter Majesty and Nightmare by Lashing Out, whereas Dominate is a one-shot-crush.

All three aggressively force a PC to do something they wouldn't, and remove control from the player. I don't see a dividing line. You can use Dominate to get someone to drink your blood -- and then, bang, bonded. You can use Dominate to get someone to fellate your PC. Saying that it is somehow more acceptable than Majesty or Dominate is absurd, as all three disciplines remove control from the player.

You don't like Majesty or Nightmare? Or Dominate? Then don't fucking play with vampires -- simple. There's a reason why vampires usually run solo.

[Miss Demeanor]

To this I say... if you cannot handle having your character's feelings determined by outside sources? NOT THE GAME SYSTEM FOR YOU. Its like the college kids claiming they can't handle a lecture on WWII because 'omg NAZIS' and need a safe space from the mean, hurtful facts of the past.

But I am notorious in still living in the 90s, when WoD would unapologetically fuck your shit up in every arena, then taunt you for not having brought a backup character sheet ready to go. God I miss the days when people would whine less about losing a character.... or even the autonomy of their character.

[Ganymede]

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But I am notorious in still living in the 90s, when WoD would unapologetically fuck your shit up in every arena, then taunt you for not having brought a backup character sheet ready to go. God I miss the days when people would whine less about losing a character.... or even the autonomy of their character.

Here's a participation trophy for you!

[Miss Demeanor]

@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But I am notorious in still living in the 90s, when WoD would unapologetically fuck your shit up in every arena, then taunt you for not having brought a backup character sheet ready to go. God I miss the days when people would whine less about losing a character.... or even the autonomy of their character.

Here's a participation trophy for you!

FUCK THAT SHIT! YOU WIN A REAL TROPHY OR YOU GET CONSOLATION ICE CREAM! THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS!

...seriously though, I refused to let my kids accept 'participation' awards. They need to know that life will not praise them for doing 'okay'.

[Groth]

@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:

I've had a number of people express intense dislike of the discipline Majesty for that reason. Arguing that with Dominate they atleast get to keep control of how their character feels, while Majesty is a profound violation and that kind of OOC backlash was why it was never popular to use.

I'll bet they also don't like Nightmare because it may make them run like a damn fool, which counters some deep-set need to always be cool, calm, and in control. I'll bet they also don't know that you can counter Majesty and Nightmare by Lashing Out, whereas Dominate is a one-shot-crush.

You'd lose that bet since I've never received any complaints about Nightmare. You might not understand why these players feel the way they do and that's fine. The hypothetically solid social game might be a game you'll love and they'll never play and that's fine too. I'm just saying it'll be a very different game from how every MU* I've ever played has been and I doubt I'd enjoy it.

[Lisse24]

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But I am notorious in still living in the 90s, when WoD would unapologetically fuck your shit up in every arena, then taunt you for not having brought a backup character sheet ready to go. God I miss the days when people would whine less about losing a character.... or even the autonomy of their character.

Maybe this is why I enjoy playing ghouls and thralls on vampire games. I like being the underdog that has next to nothing going for them (except the one thing if they can figure out how to leverage it), and then seeing them rise above their circumstance. It's a good story!

Losing control and having to fight your way back is a good story. This is why I don't understand the resistance to social combat. No one likes to have a character pulled from them, but allowing a system to mess your character up (without dictating how your character thinks or feels about it) is a really good dynamic to add to a story and something seen in almost every piece of fiction.

Of course, this runs on the assumption that people are on MUs to tell character-driven stories and not just look cool, and evidence tells me that assumption may be mistaken.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Lisse24 I just think the social system is terrible as it stands. It was never meant to be used against PC's, or in a MU*, and there is no way in Hell that I am keeping track of every social interaction I have with every PC across weeks or months, trying to figure out if they've opened enough Doors to influence my character. I have better things to do with my time and quite frankly, tracking all that crap is like a job in and of itself. If I wanted to work where I play, I would volunteer to staff. Give me the one-and-done roll any day of the week, so I can know what's happening to my character and move on.

[Lisse24]

@Miss-Demeanor No one is talking about the Doors system specifically.
I agree that the doors system is terrible in a MU, but why can't someone pick up and code a different system that takes some of the concerns into account and does work in a MU environment.

There are a plethora of different systems for combat. There are a plethora of different systems for investigation. Come up with a different, better system.

[Groth]

@Lisse24 said in Social Conflict via Stats:

Maybe this is why I enjoy playing ghouls and thralls on vampire games. I like being the underdog that has next to nothing going for them (except the one thing if they can figure out how to leverage it), and then seeing them rise above their circumstance. It's a good story!

Losing control and having to fight your way back is a good story. This is why I don't understand the resistance to social combat. No one likes to have a character pulled from them, but allowing a system to mess your character up (without dictating how your character thinks or feels about it) is a really good dynamic to add to a story and something seen in almost every piece of fiction.

Of course, this runs on the assumption that people are on MUs to tell character-driven stories and not just look cool, and evidence tells me that assumption may be mistaken.

The dictation of how your character thinks and feels about it is what this is ultimately about though isn't it? In a robust social system your characters emotions and opinions would need to be codified and open to manipulation the same way your limbs are in physical combat and you'd have to be willing to accept the result of that.

Further to actually be meaningfully robust, this would have to be used for all non-trivial social scenes the way the combat engine has to be brought out for all non-trivial combats in order to be reasonably consistent. So instead of simply posing out a social scene in the local coffee house, you'd now declare each characters purpose and then use their social stats to determine if they develop friendship or let slip an accidental insult or what have you.

This wouldn't necessarily need to be overly cumbersome for individual players as long as it was all coded but it would like combat probably involve atleast one command per pose.

[Ganymede]

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:

Further to actually be meaningfully robust, this would have to be used for all non-trivial social scenes the way the combat engine has to be brought out for all non-trivial combats in order to be reasonably consistent. So instead of simply posing out a social scene in the local coffee house, you'd now declare each characters purpose and then use their social stats to determine if they develop friendship or let slip an accidental insult or what have you.

I suppose, in your experience, you've never run into players who decide a combat by consent, or declined using the "robust" proffered system to come to a resolution.

Players can work out how they want things to go. There's no restriction on that. But if one player decides that they want to use the system that has been provided, they should be allowed to do so. If you have no interest in having your PC's feelings or motivations dictated to you, you ought not play on a game where those things are easily and supernaturally manipulated.

The rest of us will wonder why you're around on the game.

[surreality]

@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:
But what does "charmed" mean? We have a system that tells us, mechanically, what our advantages and disadvantages are, but nothing -- NOTHING -- requires the player to perform in a certain way. An actor in a play can portray and express the lines of a scene in many ways, and demonstrate the same general emotion -- but how they do it is, for the most part, between them and the director.

I think this is where the issue is, actually.

If the director is an ST/impartial third party, s'all good.

If the other actor in the scene demands to be the director, micromanaging every nuance of a pose -- and I have seen buckets of this -- you have a problem, and it's not unreasonable to have some objections there.