Generally speaking we expect players to follow the rules of the game they're playing. In trivial cases or cases where the outcome is predictable it makes sense to handwave the rules, however players determining an outcome by themselves that go against the rules are cheating.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
A social combat system does not necessarily have to dictate how someone feels.
Example:
Person A wants access to Person B's bank accounts. Without social combat, they're up a creek unless they're have skills in thievery, hacking, whatever OR they're a manipulative RPer.
With my ideal social combat system, Person A decides to Seduce Person B. They succeed at their roles which happen over several scenes and weeks. This doesn't mean that Player B is seduced. Player B does give over access to the bank accounts, but if Player B wants to decide that Player A is coming on really strong and they're a bit afraid of Player A being a stalker and that's why they give over access to their bank accounts. Good on them.
Because it happens slowly, if they also want to arrange an intervention with their PC buddies, because they think Player A is an asshole and they don't want to be mixed up with him, they have time to do so. They can also avoid the player in the future, just like someone might do RL.
Dreaded double post: It's worth mention that I don't think the game Bobotron is making is not a WoD game. It's a game with vampires, but I don't think it's a WoD game.
So it may be counterproductive to discussion to work from the assumption that all games are WoD/using that system/etc. as has been coming up rather a lot, and that that system is the only one that's being considered -- or is even the one being considered at all.
@Ganymede The difference between vampire disciplines and social fu is that disciplines you can (or at least I can) easily explain why you're doing these crazy things. VAMPIRE MIND CONTROL. There's a cause and effect. No matter how crazy these emotions and thoughts are, they have a plausible reason for being there. To me in this they're like physical combat. They follow the same rules of cause and effect (even movie realism cause and effect) that everybody can more or less get behind. Or should be able to, unless they're just absolute control freaks.
@Lisse24 said in Social Conflict via Stats:
A social combat system does not necessarily have to dictate how someone feels.
Example:
Person A wants access to Person B's bank accounts. Without social combat, they're up a creek unless they're have skills in thievery, hacking, whatever OR they're a manipulative RPer.With my ideal social combat system, Person A decides to Seduce Person B. They succeed at their roles which happen over several scenes and weeks. This doesn't mean that Player B is seduced. Player B does give over access to the bank accounts, but if Player B wants to decide that Player A is coming on really strong and they're a bit afraid of Player A being a stalker and that's why they give over access to their bank accounts. Good on them.
Because it happens slowly, if they also want to arrange an intervention with their PC buddies, because they think Player A is an asshole and they don't want to be mixed up with him, they have time to do so. They can also avoid the player in the future, just like someone might do RL.
So if you were player of A, having succeeded on your dice rolls to seduce character B, and you're then treated like a creepy stalker. You'd be fine with that?
@Groth Got access to the bank accounts, didn't I?
I mean, it's all what expectations are set by the rules being put forth. If you create a ruleset that is focused on results and everyone knows that they can't dictate feelings, then yes, people might be frustrated, but they should be OK with that.
@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:
Generally speaking we expect players to follow the rules of the game they're playing. In trivial cases or cases where the outcome is predictable it makes sense to handwave the rules, however players determining an outcome by themselves that go against the rules are cheating.
Litigants determine the outcome of their cases all the time prior to trial by settlement, regardless of whether their claims and liabilities are consistent with the law.
If the core of every conflict is resolution, I see no reason why the affected parties cannot resolve their conflict as they see fit, provided that outcome does not affect others.
@surreality said in Social Conflict via Stats:
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.
If you want to micro-manage as a vampire, pick a Ventrue. Dominate allows you to dictate what the target does, and Majesty does not. Majesty forces a target to generally like you and do some things to you, but it can be resisted in a way that Dominate does not. This is why I'm confused as to why someone would be okay with Dominate, but not Majesty; it's like they didn't read the damn book.
Not only that, but if you stay under the Conditions inflicted by Majesty, you can get beats. Lots of them. Look at Charmed: you get a fucking beat just for doing a requested favor. I'm not one to suggest juicing your PC by being a servile bitch, but ... yeah.
@lordbelh said in Social Conflict via Stats:
The difference between vampire disciplines and social fu is that disciplines you can (or at least I can) easily explain why you're doing these crazy things.
I'll say it here: if more people read and tried to use the Doors system effectively, they would find that it's a pretty decent way to solve PvP social conflicts. It just takes time and patience, and, GODDAMN is that shit apparently in short supply.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
"Not reading the damn book" is, in my experience, at least 70% of the problem in any discussion about social resolution mechanics.
@Lisse24 said in Social Conflict via Stats:
@Groth Got access to the bank accounts, didn't I?
I mean, it's all what expectations are set by the rules being put forth. If you create a ruleset that is focused on results and everyone knows that they can't dictate feelings, then yes, people might be frustrated, but they should be OK with that.
The problem generally is that people don't roll up Swordsmen to kill people, they do it because they want to be awesome at swording. If you offer them the ability to kill all their enemies through carbon-monoxide poisoning, while having a terrible reputation as a swordsman, that would probably not feel very fulfilling. In the same way I don't think I'd feel very good about my Casanova character if it was talked about as a pushy stalker.
The problem from a game design standpoint is that when you look at the actual situations in which people want to use persuasion, they tend to either be rather short term (Hostage negotiation, wanting to get through a door, offering a bribe etc) or they're about changing someones mind. In a purely results focused system you can support the former however to be useful, it would need to be resolved within a single scene and that's the use-case most of the single-roll social combat systems attempt to fill.
@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:
Litigants determine the outcome of their cases all the time prior to trial by settlement, regardless of whether their claims and liabilities are consistent with the law.
If the core of every conflict is resolution, I see no reason why the affected parties cannot resolve their conflict as they see fit, provided that outcome does not affect others.
In a MUSH it does affect others. If the local combat monster opts to lose a combat to someone that barely knows which end of the stick is pointy, that'll make people confused. If I send my minions to capture you and my minions choose to lose, that affects me. If you try to seduce my faction leader and my faction leader opts in, that affects me. That's where the Shared part of the MUSH acronym comes in, the characters are supposed to all be within the same shared and consistent universe.
@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:
This is why I'm confused as to why someone would be okay with Dominate, but not Majesty; it's like they didn't read the damn book.
Some people are fine with their characters actions being controlled but not their feelings. I don't see what's confusing about this. "Dominate can force you to eat shit regardless of how you feel. Majesty can force you to eat shit and like it."
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
@Ganymede I've read and tried to use the Doors system effectively. I've had a lot of fun with the Doors system. I think you're absolutely bonkers for thinking its a decent way to solve PvP social conflicts, because as I've said before it so utterly favors the aggressor that it just doesn't work in any antagonistic scenario. In the hands of someone who doesn't want to play nice and cooperative its made to be abused.
@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:
If the local combat monster opts to lose a combat to someone that barely knows which end of the stick is pointy, that'll make people confused.
First, why would the local combat monster opt to lose the combat? Second, why would anyone be confused? Third, why would anyone presume that the winner is telling the truth if this were reported?
I'd be more convinced of your argument if you presented a sensible example.
If I send my minions to capture you and my minions choose to lose, that affects me.
And your minions know this, and should suffer the consequences. Even if you were to use the resolution system (dice), there is always a chance for abject failure. As nothing is ever guaranteed, there is no reason to rely on the system to reach any desired result.
If you try to seduce my faction leader and my faction leader opts in, that affects me.
This happens all the fucking time, rolls or not. If you're suggesting that we all need to roll to see if a PC gets a boner looking at another PCs tits, then we've reached the point of absurdity.
That's where the Shared part of the MUSH acronym comes in, the characters are supposed to all be within the same shared and consistent universe.
In our RL "shared and consistent" universe, laws and rules are bent and broken all the damn time during settlements, yet the vast majority of us think that things like settlement agreements and plea bargains are a good way to streamline what our society considers "just."
I wouldn't feel the need to continue this, but any policy that would deny the players the right to adjudicate their own conflicts without staff intervention is a horrid policy. There is no cognizable reason why one player has any right to object to how two other players resolve their differences. Such a policy would result in needless staff intervention time and time again for rudimentary, trivial things.
That's just silly.
@lordbelh said in Social Conflict via Stats:
I think you're absolutely bonkers for thinking its a decent way to solve PvP social conflicts, because as I've said before it so utterly favors the aggressor that it just doesn't work in any antagonistic scenario. In the hands of someone who doesn't want to play nice and cooperative its made to be abused.
I am bonkers, but I don't think so here. I don't recall anything in the Doors system that doesn't permit me to beat the fuck out of you or deny seeing you in the future. There is an implicit willingness to engage which, in a way, ought to favor the aggressor. It's just another form of combat, I suppose, but I will concede that it could use a few tweaks.
@lordbelh said in Social Conflict via Stats:
@Ganymede I've read and tried to use the Doors system effectively. I've had a lot of fun with the Doors system. I think you're absolutely bonkers for thinking its a decent way to solve PvP social conflicts, because as I've said before it so utterly favors the aggressor that it just doesn't work in any antagonistic scenario. In the hands of someone who doesn't want to play nice and cooperative its made to be abused.
I think the only social system I've seen that can't be brute forced is the one they made for Exalted Third Edition, where compulsions required the support of an equal strength intimacy and upgrading an intimacy required the support of two lower level intimacy, effectively forcing you to go through quite a lot of actions regardless of the number of dice at your command.
I found it rather unwieldy though and it arguably made it excessively hard to impress minor characters.
@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:
The problem generally is that people don't roll up Swordsmen to kill people, they do it because they want to be awesome at swording. If you offer them the ability to kill all their enemies through carbon-monoxide poisoning, while having a terrible reputation as a swordsman, that would probably not feel very fulfilling. In the same way I don't think I'd feel very good about my Casanova character if it was talked about as a pushy stalker.
The problem from a game design standpoint is that when you look at the actual situations in which people want to use persuasion, they tend to either be rather short term (Hostage negotiation, wanting to get through a door, offering a bribe etc) or they're about changing someones mind. In a purely results focused system you can support the former however to be useful, it would need to be resolved within a single scene and that's the use-case most of the single-roll social combat systems attempt to fill.
Then design a system that caters to what you think players want. What I don't get about this discussion are the people arguing that because not everyone will be happy with a social combat system then no one should ever attempt to make one. Look, you may not want social combat in your game, but I would actually love to play a game that had that as an aspect and based on this thread, other people would like to try out a game with that, too. If other people don't want to play on a game with social combat then they can stick to games that don't implement that as a system, but why does this have to be an all or nothing proposition?
@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:
I wouldn't feel the need to continue this, but any policy that would deny the players the right to adjudicate their own conflicts without staff intervention is a horrid policy.
In a non-consent PvP game I'd call it a necessary policy as it becomes the responsibility of staff to ensure a level playing field. In a consent cooperative game, I wouldn't care. When you let people opt out of having to use the social mechanics you create incentive to ignore the social mechanics in favour of the mechanics which are enforced ultimately leading to characters who literally have a chance die on persuasion having a reputation for being charming.
@Lisse24 said in Social Conflict via Stats:
Then design a system that caters to what you think players want. What I don't get about this discussion are the people arguing that because not everyone will be happy with a social combat system then no one should ever attempt to make one. Look, you may not want social combat in your game, but I would actually love to play a game that had that as an aspect and based on this thread, other people would like to try out a game with that, too. If other people don't want to play on a game with social combat then they can stick to games that don't implement that as a system, but why does this have to be an all or nothing proposition?
What I've seen work best in practice so far is incentive based social combat where based on the roll of the attacker, the defender get some proportionate bonus for playing along which can include temporary buffs or xp.
The obvious problem of this approach is that it still leaves you with no way to model long-term persuasion and quite a lot of people will happily dump their social stats and just write purple prose instead which they're practically never called out on.
@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:
So if you were player of A, having succeeded on your dice rolls to seduce character B, and you're then treated like a creepy stalker. You'd be fine with that?
I think this is actually an important point. I think that--like physical combat--the attacker's roll determines the end result, it doesn't determine how that result takes place. If the defender wants to pose that they slipped on a banana peel and that's why the attacker hit them in the face, that's their right to do so (it's being an asshole, unless the defender totally outclassed the attacker and happened to botch, but that's another matter entirely). Likewise, if the attacker's goal is to get access to the defender's bank account, they got access to the defender's bank account, didn't they? Perhaps they didn't look as smooth doing so as they would like, but they still attained their goal.
In any open-pose system, the attacker is responsible for the goal and the approach, and the defender is responsible for the result and how it is attained. Why should social combat be any different (besides letting the dice handle the result)?
For starters I completely differentiate between social supernatural powers and what we're discussing here generally. Before we can have something like Majesty bypass conflict through stats we need to first design how that conflict normally goes.
In other words Majesty jumps ahead from Step #1 straight to Step #6, but we first need to know what each of those steps is normally and how it's crossed.
For another I disagree with @Groth in the way that I hate character control being taken from me; I mean I do, in the same way that I'd be mildly irritated by someone beating up my character if I had a different story/idea of his story progress, but that's fine - it comes with playing with other people. The unpredictability isn't a drawback as long as it's treated correctly by all participants starting with me; if my immediate mindset initially isn't that I just lost something then it's all good.
No, what I mind is if scenes can't flow properly because we keep having to interrupt their momentum to do dice stuff, chat OOC to debate mechanics and call staff in when we don't know/can't agree how something works. That shit kills my interest in a scene. A social system needs to be very, very fast-paced.
For example:
My character, Joe, is trying to fast-talk @Ganymede's Jane into letting him get through to the private back room.
I pose the social attempt, then do "+social/fasttalk Jane".
Ganymede sees the attempt ("Joe is trying to fasttalk you. Type '+social/defend Joe' followed by a modifier from -5 to +5. 0 is the default if you don't assign one").
Since Joe did something mildly clever by bringing up Jane's combat prowess as a backhanded compliment ("come on, if I misbehave you can kick my ass easily, we both know that") the attempt is given a defensive -2 modifier making it easier to succeed.
Ganymede runs "+social/defend Joe -2", sees the result (but I don't, I don't know the outcome) then poses accordingly.
The roleplay continues. There's near zero delay.
I am completely fine with this system.
@Arkandel That's the honor system, and let me know when you've had a game of more than 10 people where the honor system actually worked. There's no checks and balances in your example, no way to ensure that people are actually posing according to the results of the roll.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:
That's the honor system, and let me know when you've had a game of more than 10 people where the honor system actually worked. There's no checks and balances in your example, no way to ensure that people are actually posing according to the results of the roll.
Precisely.
@Arkandel, I have no problem with this. That's fine, if that's the system. But I don't think that's where people are having conflict here.
I have problems because either people don't think I'm posing accordingly or I don't think other people are posing accordingly. With physical combat, you have an easy way of recording the result: usually, "+hurt <damage>', or whatever. But when I successfully intimidate someone with Presence + Intimidation, and they flat-out ignore the result, that's the functional equivalent of dealing 3L damage to another player's PC, and them refusing to use the +hurt command.
Frankly, the next time this happens, I will log the scene, along with any OOC discussion, then terminate it immediately. I will then send a complaint to staff, provide the log, and never interact with the other player again until the matter is addressed and resolved. I see this as the only way to make sure that people do what they are fucking supposed to do.
For nearly 20 years we have been making excuses for people who otherwise ignored social rolls. That's because we didn't want to lose control either, right? Prisoner's dilemma and all.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:
@Arkandel That's the honor system, and let me know when you've had a game of more than 10 people where the honor system actually worked. There's no checks and balances in your example, no way to ensure that people are actually posing according to the results of the roll.
If you're worried about that I guess the outcome being shown isn't going to break the system, it's just a little extra.
But if we can't trust our fellow players then none of this really works. I don't want my IC social attempts to succeed if the other person hates it but is forced to go along, what's the point of that? How much fun is the scene going to be?
@Lisse24 said in Social Conflict via Stats:
@Groth Got access to the bank accounts, didn't I?
I mean, it's all what expectations are set by the rules being put forth. If you create a ruleset that is focused on results and everyone knows that they can't dictate feelings, then yes, people might be frustrated, but they should be OK with that.
That is a lovely sentiment in theory but not one I have seen a whole lot of times in practice. People will kvetch and moan about all sorts of rules not just social. Look at most instances of telenuking for example.
Socials will get this more then physicals that is true, but just as someone who walks around and even just threatens system based psychical conflict will get a rep for being a PKer even with no actual PK happening those that would do the same with a social system will likely feel the same OOC social backlash.
@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:
@Arkandel That's the honor system, and let me know when you've had a game of more than 10 people where the honor system actually worked. There's no checks and balances in your example, no way to ensure that people are actually posing according to the results of the roll.
Isn't that why you have staff available to adjudicate scenes. Normal combat works the same way though with more codified modifiers but if the two players RPing a fist fight can't agree on a mechanical issue they call in staff to sort it out, social could be done in the same way. Yes it creates more work for staff but so does making any sort of system a priority will.
