What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?
-
@surreality Yes, I know. I'm not actually arguing with you; it's more that your posts reminded me of very common arguments that always come up in these situations and never fail to make my teeth grind. I even agree with it - I wish that more MU*s would tailor tabletop systems for the game play they actually expect to support. And make those tailored rules specific and posted where everyone can see them. And if that involves restricting or taking out social skills, that's fine. Just don't leave them in there, but make them ineffective.
And, as always, make your expectations for the game clear so that people can opt in (or out) of the experience up front. If you want a game where the social dice fall where they may? Make sure that's clear from the beginning, and then enforce it. People who can't deal with that can find another game. Likewise, a game where all social stuff is based on player consent. So much of the problems we run into with MU* culture have one root in people's reluctance to just...set explicit boundaries and expectations, and let players make an informed decision as to whether this game is for them or not.
-
@Pyrephox I'm more a fan of restricting certain subject matter to consent-based, typically: rape, pregnancy, sexual preference changes, romantic relationships. These are the places where the most abuses seem to occur -- and by restricting the specific subject matter rather than the stats, you diminish the possible loopholes. For example, some of the above could be done socially or physically through force/etc. and if it's the subject matter that proves problematic, no amount of mechanics change is going to prevent the people dedicated to asshattery from seeking out alternate means of being that asshat.
-
I think having social hit points might be a thing to think about. I /think/ one of the Game of Thrones games did it this way, and I'm pretty sure Savage Worlds has a mechanic for it as well, where you need 3 raises over a scene in order to convince important NPCs to do things you want them to.
In order to convince some person to do something that they might not wish to do, you have to wear them down with arguments, and convince them over an encounter and nag them till they take out the trash.
When people see their social hit points are running low, and they really don't want to do something, their character would be uncomfortable enough that they'd leave the situation, or change things up like start a physical fight. Or you know, go to their room and turn up the stereo so they can write goth poetry in peace.
This would help fix the one role to turn people into a sock puppet thing, I think. If someone starts sleazing on you, and you don't like it, it gives you the chance to leave, slap them or straight up tell them to fuck off.
-
@Pyrephox said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
but when my character gets scared he becomes really aggressive so I'm warning you, if you do it, you'll be sorry because I've got 18 dice in brawl and 20 Defense (because I didn't have to spend any XP on social resistance)...."
Yes, I meant to address that issue above but it skipped my mind, thanks for bringing this up.
The problem we MU*ers have when we adopt systems which include social mechanics but those mechanics are infrequently used (or simply are, in practice, less important than ones associated to physical traits) is that the return on players' investment becomes severely skewed. If I get the full benefits of my strength+brawl every single time I feel like punching but you don't get the benefit of your wits+manipulation every time you feel like lying - because simply my character doesn't believe what you say, you filthy LIAR - then why did we pay the same XP to raise those skills?
It's also been brought up before but whether due to systems paying more attention to physical combat or the playerbase in general being more familiar/fond of its mechanics compared to social ones it the return-on-investment curve becomes even more compromised. If I punch you in the face (maybe for lying to me) and roll 3 successes that's 3 bashing damage - it's cut and dried, you know exactly how many health boxes you got and what happens when you run out of them. With me trying to change your mind about who to vote for... that's a gray area full of clouds.
... Which is not even addressing the OOC repercussions of using such rules. Mind control, trying to 'force' a character into sexual/romantic relations through their dice pools, those are all actions which carry hefty social stigma in many communities.
"But", someone might say, "for example the GMC mechanics have Doors and shit, what about that, huh?" Well... again, playerbase adoption is the key. The number of times I've seen a Door used in scenes is hilariously low compared to the punches I've seen backed with dice. Obviously YMMV but I'd be surprised if most people playing nWoD even knew the rules for Doors let alone have used them regularly in scenes; for every person well versed enough to have done so I feel confident - but feel free to prove me wrong - there are many more who kinda sorta know how it works but...
The underlying problem here is fairly inescapable; most MU* use systems which have been built with social mechanics in mind so you can't simply not have them in your game without gutting the system completely, which is a task that requires massive houseruling. And they're in, they'll be used less than their physical counterparts although they cost the same and in theory are just as important; in practice not so much.
-
I've always felt social abilities/powers should affect PCs the same as NPCs until and unless physical abilities/powers stop doing so. That said, I also think they should work as written: if the power says it can make someone DO something, it can. If it says it makes them feel or experience X, then they get to react to that however they feel their character would react to feeling or experiencing X.
Once upon a time, I had a character for whom keeping secrets was a big part of who she was. Someone rolled an ability to persuade her to tell them one of them, and they won. So she told them. I couldn't come up with any really fitting reason she would have, so later, when she had to explain why (which was a pretty good scene also, actually), she basically said she had no idea, it just kind of came out and she had no idea what she was thinking. It's possibly not something that would have happened if it were full consent, but it wasn't, and the other person spent the points to be able to do that, and that's the way the dice fell.
The same character on the same game had someone else's fear and pain from being bullied and beaten dropped into her head, as if it were her experience. The player was very upset at me that she didn't collapse weeping, but that's not how the character would react to those feelings... so she didn't. His power didn't include dictating reactions, so he didn't get to.
I'd be okay with both the idea that a player can have a short list of things that are off the table and the one that certain subject matter are officially consent-only, as long as neither list is so long or broad that it basically makes it all "victim's choice" again. I also think it's reasonable if the difficulty or number of successes needed are raised for things that should be harder (depending on the system). But it really annoys me when we act like points spent on social abilities and powers don't matter and aren't equal to physical ones. If I want to spend my points on being Massive McSmashsmash, then I need to accept that Crafty von GoodIdea may come over and talk me into beating that asshole in the corner up for him, just as much as Crafty needs to accept I may hospitalize him if I don't like his hat.
-
Recent reading of the Intimacies rules (and how they apply to Exalted 3's social influence system) have led me to think there are possible compromises. The problem with compromise, however, is that no one ever wants to compromise; it's something you have to accept, not desire, so it's often a bitter pill to swallow even if you're not losing as much as you could have otherwise.
That said, including some fail-safes into the Doors system isn't that difficult.
- If someone is trying to open Doors to get you do so something that is diametrically opposed to your Virtue, you can spend a Willpower to lock a Door for the remainder of the scene. They can feel free to try again in another scene, but that Door will not open for that particular reason during that scene. e.g. If your Virtue is Loyal, then you can spend a Willpower point to lock that Door down when someone is trying to make you betray someone.
- If the Social attempt is trying to make you do something that would immediately make you suffer a Breaking Point--you can spend a Willpower point to lock that door Down the same way as above with the Virtue. e.g. If your character's Breaking Point is 'Murder someone', which is pretty common, you can spend a Willpower to completely resist attempts to make you do so Socially for a scene. You may still suffer a BP if you witness the murder, but at least it won't be your doing...
- Remove certain things from plausibility at all. The system cannot be used to force someone to have sex with your character through dice-born seduction without the consent of the other character's player, etc.
These are just two ways to safe-guard people who have convictions built into their characters and who don't want to be targeted socially, but that will still leave their characters otherwise open and vulnerable to other instances of Social systems.
These compromises go hand in hand with other compromises on the other end of the spectrum: combat. If your character is about to die, you should be allowed to negotiate with the other player--if your character surrenders, then the attacking player really should figure out a reason for their character to let you live--even if it's a bad reason. No one should be prisoner to their characters' whims.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
-
@surreality said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
@Pyrephox I'm more a fan of restricting certain subject matter to consent-based, typically: rape, pregnancy, sexual preference changes, romantic relationships. These are the places where the most abuses seem to occur -- and by restricting the specific subject matter rather than the stats, you diminish the possible loopholes. For example, some of the above could be done socially or physically through force/etc. and if it's the subject matter that proves problematic, no amount of mechanics change is going to prevent the people dedicated to asshattery from seeking out alternate means of being that asshat.
I would be totally okay with all of the above. Because, after all, it IS a game, and there are some things that just should not be pushed onto players if they aren't fully on board with that. Sexual RP of any type is on that list, for me.
-
@Arkandel said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
"But", someone might say, "for example the GMC mechanics have Doors and shit, what about that, huh?" Well... again, playerbase adoption is the key. The number of times I've seen a Door used in scenes is hilariously low compared to the punches I've seen backed with dice. Obviously YMMV but I'd be surprised if most people playing nWoD even knew the rules for Doors let alone have used them regularly in scenes; for every person well versed enough to have done so I feel confident - but feel free to prove me wrong - there are many more who kinda sorta know how it works but...
Honestly, the number of people who have clearly not read the rules of the system they are ostensibly playing in always surprises me. There's getting things wrong (which, in something as inconsistently written and with as many exceptions and corner cases and editions and modifiers as WoD/CoD is inevitable), and then there is "clearly has never even looked at that section of the book". Social skills seem to get this more than other areas (I don't know any modern system which still has "roll a simple seduction check and the target falls in love with you/must sleep with you" as an outcome mechanic, and WoD/CoD certainly hasn't for as long as I've been playing, which is nearly a decade at this point), but it happens all over the place.
The underlying problem here is fairly inescapable; most MU* use systems which have been built with social mechanics in mind so you can't simply not have them in your game without gutting the system completely, which is a task that requires massive houseruling. And they're in, they'll be used less than their physical counterparts although they cost the same and in theory are just as important; in practice not so much.
Yeah. And that's not good. Not only because it cheats people who try to faithfully describe their character's abilities, but also because it pushes the culture of the game towards physical combat to resolve any and all difficulties. Players, ultimately, want to be effective at SOMETHING - what that thing is will differ by individual (and it might be OOC as much as IC - I know some players who are happiest when their character is making other players laugh), but everyone wants to know that they're having an impact and influence on the game. So whatever is the most effective route for influence is where you're going to get a majority of people focusing their characters.
-
@Pyrephox Yup, that exactly! And a lot of people who talk about the 'this is crossing into OOC massive discomfort zones/driving players away/etc.' are talking about those things as the source of problems. Dealing with it on a subject matter level, well... every damn one of those things have been huge drama magnets. Having to get on record what people agreed to and when in regard to them, not even taking mechanics or systems into account, can be of enormous benefit to staff if they later have to mediate something in regard to one of those issues, which is an added bonus. (And all too often, they do.)
Those are the kind of subjects most folks are talking about when they say, "Don't care what the system says, that is going to lead places uncomfortable enough for me as a player if they are forced down my throat that I'm not going to want to play that character any more." If a character is killed IC, at least there's a story and closure there. When you have to retire them because someone's OOC whims and dice pool made them too unpalatable to ever play again -- especially when you will be expected to continue playing them with those things in place? Yeah, that really is worse than (IC) death, and all the FtB in the world isn't gonna help.
-
@Coin
In a system that had those things, I'd find that totally acceptable. I've never played on a game/with a system that had Doors, but they sounded like an interesting way of handling things. -
I know that we're getting into old hat territory here, but the Doors system already has rules for compromises built into it. If your character totally and just would absolutely never do a thing, but the other guy still won, then it's time to negotiate. Not necessarily time to get up in arms about it. If the negotiations seem to be going in bad faith, on either side, that's when it's time to call in staff.
That said, as far as certain topics being absolutely consent only -- they sort of are already, in a lot of systems, but not consenting to a specific thing doesn't necessarily mean you get to completely call the shots on how that scenario turns out, either. Again, why I like Doors -- compromises are built into the system, and both players have to negotiate something in good faith if one of them just really isn't feeling the scenario on the table. Neither player gets to dictate in absolute terms how it turns out, but they have to find an agreeable middleground, which is fairly easily done in most situations.
But i'm seriously kind of digging @Coin's suggestion of being able to spend willpower to lock doors for a scene. That's... a thing I might tinker with some.
-
@Warma-Sheen said Because players don't want to play against each other . They want to play against something that makes them feel powerful cause they're gonna beat it down, usually with a much smaller chance of death, then brag about it to other PCs.
Or players don't want to play against each other because they do not prefer PvP.
I play these games to tell a story not compete with anyone. Your post comes off a lot like everyone who doesn't play like me sucks. I prefer PvE not because i want to feel powerful or win, and trust me in actual play there is about as much chance of death in either case. And that is very little. -
@Arkandel said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
I've been on MU* before where no one rolled outside PrPs. And I've played games where people did roll somewhat often but almost always for powers ("Auspex! What are your feelings?") rather than mundane purposes (you'd rarely see perception rolls like Wits+Composure for instance). I've even been on spheres where it was considered rude, a douche move, if you rolled at people - the rules never made it consent-only but the community had, at least for that particular span of time.
I have run into this dice aversion some places. even to the point where I was chastised at by the other person in a scene cause I rolled self control (it was an oWoD game and i was playing a type that have virtues) to see how my character reacted to a temptation. It was not that the other player disagreed with the mechanics of the role but they "did not want mechanics to intrude on a scene." To me it was a situation where it could go either way and both options lead to interesting RP avenues so I thought it was the perfect time to let mechanics shape the story.
-
@Pyrephox said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
Yeah. And that's not good. Not only because it cheats people who try to faithfully describe their character's abilities, but also because it pushes the culture of the game towards physical combat to resolve any and all difficulties. Players, ultimately, want to be effective at SOMETHING - what that thing is will differ by individual (and it might be OOC as much as IC - I know some players who are happiest when their character is making other players laugh), but everyone wants to know that they're having an impact and influence on the game. So whatever is the most effective route for influence is where you're going to get a majority of people focusing their characters.
We should detach what may well be an overall inadequacy of mechanics to interpret something as complex as social nuances into mechanics and consider the idea that it's not necessarily intentional; it's not cheating per se (although it could be) but a failure of dice to bridge player- rather than character-based qualities.
For example let's say you're playing Rick, a Werewolf PC and you're very good at it. Rick is all sorts of flawed; unpleasant to look at, with a terrible fashion sense, burdened with a crippling alcoholism, chronic swearing and he's a liar to boot. However, being very good at it you make that fun! People like hanging out with Rick. They pursue Rick despite his bad social traits or the fact you're honestly, genuinely playing them out.
Now I'm playing Tim. Tim is a Daeva, Tim is awesome! He's wealthy and generous, his social stats are off the charts - and the guy is honorable, dependable... too bad I can't spell well, toss out unimaginative short poses and just can't find something to hook me into those around me. As a result not many people respond well to Tim - he should be a leader of men but no one is giving me the light of day.
Is everyone cheating? No. Can stats fix that? No.
It's not an issue when it comes to physical traits because... you can't screw up punching someone too badly. You can play a pretty kickass ninja without knowing martial arts in real life so all you need is a hefty brawl+weaponry score, but if you're not a decent roleplayer or a socially adept one you might be unable to engage others sufficiently, and no dice pool in the world is gonna fix that.
There's no fix for this.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Arkandel Yeah, one of my most popular characters was an utterly repulsive asshole with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Loud, smelly, crass, unpredictably violent, absolutely unrepentant thug who engaged non-stop in deplorable behavior. But like, I was privately shocked (and frankly a little unnerved) by how often he got propositioned, just because I tried to make him also funny. The game had coded social rolls like seduction, and I enjoyed trying them since they would never, ever do anything but spectacularly botch due to his absolute lack of any kind of social skills and was therefore hilarious.
But he was also a roster character, and I was told that basically every previous player of the same character was not well regarded, and that also reinforces your point, in that the same character can then also magically transform from being hated to everyone wanting to RP with them because of the player.
-
@Derp said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
I know that we're getting into old hat territory here, but the Doors system already has rules for compromises built into it. If your character totally and just would absolutely never do a thing, but the other guy still won, then it's time to negotiate. Not necessarily time to get up in arms about it. If the negotiations seem to be going in bad faith, on either side, that's when it's time to call in staff.
That said, as far as certain topics being absolutely consent only -- they sort of are already, in a lot of systems, but not consenting to a specific thing doesn't necessarily mean you get to completely call the shots on how that scenario turns out, either. Again, why I like Doors -- compromises are built into the system, and both players have to negotiate something in good faith if one of them just really isn't feeling the scenario on the table. Neither player gets to dictate in absolute terms how it turns out, but they have to find an agreeable middleground, which is fairly easily done in most situations.
But i'm seriously kind of digging @Coin's suggestion of being able to spend willpower to lock doors for a scene. That's... a thing I might tinker with some.
I like that suggestion, too. And yeah, the Doors system is the best yet iteration of social skills mechanics for WoD/CoD. Especially when paired well with Conditions and Beats, it gives people a real, mechanical incentive to be willing to "fail" on occasion, and it builds a collaborative aspect into social maneuvering.
For what it's worth, CoD is better on the combat side, too, even though people (staff members too) don't use the coolest features such as purpose declaration and surrender/beaten down rules. It's absolutely designed to let people get their punch on without everything having to end in murder, as well as helping to frame the stakes of a conflict in more interesting ways than "try and kill each other".
CoD is riffing heavily on newer, stat-light systems that take player/GM cooperation and collaboration seriously, and I love where it's going. However (to bring this back to the topic of the thread), people aren't yet really thinking about how a CoD game needs to be run and set up differently than a WoD game. Just the investigation system alone suggests a massive sea change in how we think of "plots", and one that could take some of the burden off of STs, but neither STs nor Players are really running with that, yet, that I've seen.
-
I think my main concern aside from essentially not using one third of a game system is that well-rounded characters are punished for not min-maxing. RPGs as a rule reward specializing, but is that type of highly specialized character beneficial to mass RP in a system that is already slated against use of social abilities?
Maybe some of this could be solved by requiring PCs to spend XP in ratios or something. Idk. Doesn't solve the unused system problem but might promote less overall ridiculous concepts. OTOH dictating to that extent what players can buy probably won't go over well.
-
@acceleration said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:
Maybe some of this could be solved by requiring PCs to spend XP in ratios or something. Idk. Doesn't solve the unused system problem but might promote less overall ridiculous concepts. OTOH dictating to that extent what players can buy probably won't go over well.
Forcing the parts of a system which aren't working on players will hurt more than it can fix. In this case it wouldn't even treat the symptom (i.e. that people respond to players' roleplaying ability as much or more as stats).
-
@Apos
I sometimes give the benefit of the doubt on people being around repulsive characters due to the fact that I have a social built character that is built around specifically getting along with these people. She's a terrible and deplorable monster parading about as a friendly person.It's her job to give people who are monsters and rejects unconditional positive regard... because that means she has control over the people society pays as little attention to as possible, and are the most likely to follow extremely questionable orders.
When I have a character that is much more open about being a terrible person, I just assume the other players are making a character concept along the lines of that, but my violent unlikable son of a bitch is too arrogant to think people would pull anything over on him.
-
Random comment: I feel that MU*s should really pull more from LARP mechanics than tabletop mechanics, simply because many LARPS have large groups of players playing at one time and have mechanics better designed for social RP.
