Social Conflict via Stats

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:

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?

... too fucking bad?

I wasn't exactly pleased when Tommy and Adorabella repeatedly butt-raped Oz with their Beasts, but that's how the dice went. My bad.

I definitely try not to get my folks killed in XCOM2, but I don't restart every turn in order to get the perfect outcome.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Arkandel I'll call bullshit on that. If you're only ever participating in scenes where everything goes how you want it to go... that's really no different than ignoring the things you don't like just because you don't like them. Accept that bad shit will probably happen to your character and you will not be able to stop it. Stop trying to cater to the 'sensitive' people that can't handle having things beyond their control happen. I don't want to take 4 agg from the nasty Gangrel that I'm in combat against... its not going to be super fun, I'll hate it... but I'll do it because that's how the game works.

@ThatGuyThere Ask staff on TR, or even Reno 2.0 if they have the time to come mediate every social interaction where one side doesn't like what the other side is doing. Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Groth]

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@ThatGuyThere Ask staff on TR, or even Reno 2.0 if they have the time to come mediate every social interaction where one side doesn't like what the other side is doing. Go ahead, I'll wait.

I don't think I've ever seen Staff get asked to mediate a social conflict as it happened. The way it goes down in my experience is that the scene breaks down, everyone goes home and later Staff gets to find a unique complaint from each participant when they log in to check their job queue.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@ThatGuyThere Ask staff on TR, or even Reno 2.0 if they have the time to come mediate every social interaction where one side doesn't like what the other side is doing. Go ahead, I'll wait.

I don't think I've ever seen Staff get asked to mediate a social conflict as it happened. The way it goes down in my experience is that the scene breaks down, everyone goes home and later Staff gets to find a unique complaint from each participant when they log in to check their job queue.

Do you want massive timestops and retcons? Because this is how you get massive timestops and retcons.

[Arkandel]

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Arkandel I'll call bullshit on that. If you're only ever participating in scenes where everything goes how you want it to go... that's really no different than ignoring the things you don't like just because you don't like them.

There's no need to deal in absolutes. There's a considerable gap between "I only participate in scenes where everything goes my way" and "I will not ignore rolls and cheat if things don't go my way".

The system I proposed works perfectly well with the former. I am suggesting if someone is at the point (or the kind of person) they would go with the latter then there is no point in trying to enforce these rolls and no system would really fix the problem - I would rather just avoid the players.

Edit: Clarified the gap in question.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Arkandel I will pose a question to you then. If you aren't willing to have outside sources influence and change your character (for better or worse)... then why play an interactive non-consent game where other people have the ability to influence and change your character? If you'll only ever accept certain outcomes (and tailor your RP so you only ever see those outcomes), then what are you actually adding to the game and why should anyone want to play with you?

The former attitude is really no different from the latter attitude. Both presume that everyone else is on the game merely to help you achieve your goals and anyone that isn't there to help you isn't worth the time. That kind of entitled attitude is what leads the former to become the latter. And that does happen, more often than I think you're allowing for. There's a reason staff take complaints about people exhibiting 'problem behavior' and not just for outright cheating or ignoring rules. A single player's poor behavior or attitude can be just as destructive to a game as any cheater.

[Arkandel]

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Arkandel I will pose a question to you then. If you aren't willing to have outside sources influence and change your character (for better or worse)... then why play an interactive non-consent game where other people have the ability to influence and change your character? If you'll only ever accept certain outcomes (and tailor your RP so you only ever see those outcomes), then what are you actually adding to the game and why should anyone want to play with you?

When did I suggest a system where outside sources cannot significantly influence and change your character, for better or worse?

[Misadventure]

I get the cold logic of what you are saying, but I can count on one hand the number of times anyone was trying to change anyone across over twenty years of play. In those instances, death was on the line, and people were trying to get across what had happened to deserve that.

You can play to be affected by others, and to share in one anothers creativity, without ever directly accepting their control of how your character changes. Sure, you can say well, I posed a doorway, and you went through it, so that means I controlled you, but not really, and that's most of what people offer.

I've played characters absolutely begging to be told to change their outlook. One got some advice from a nice Changeling (OMG cross sphere information sharing, the end is nigh).

[Miss Demeanor]

@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@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?

Bolded for emphasis. Your response suggests that any course of action where someone 'hates' the outcome should be avoided. But everyone can't win all the time. Sometimes, you just have to accept that something you don't like is happening to your character. But the system you outlined sets up the perfect opportunity for people to just pose whatever the Hell they feel like posing, free to ignore what the dice say because they're the only ones that will see the result. You've just enabled people to cheat. And as fun and fluffy as it is to talk about 'trusting other players', you have to be willing to take into account the lowest common denominator. In your system, there's no way to even catch someone cheating let alone call them out on it. You have no proof. No way to go 'Heeeeeeeey, I succeeded that roll, why are you posing like your character was completely unaffected?'. You're enabling the people that are untrustworthy while saying that we should just trust people to do the right thing.

[Arkandel]

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

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?

Bolded for emphasis. Your response suggests that any course of action where someone 'hates' the outcome should be avoided.

Oh, you misread it or I didn't explain it sufficiently. That's not at all what I was saying. I was saying if the person I am playing with will either cheat if he can or need to be brute-forced into accepting an IC action if he can't, then I don't want to play with them.

That kind of person will sabotage the outcome anyway so continuing the scene is a poison pill for my fun.

Systems can't fix bad people. They can only facilitate and improve interactions between the rest.

[SG]

If I were going to design a social conflict system it would be something like this:

Social Conflict System.

SP (Social Points): 1d8/ level + wisdom bonus
Social Status: 10 + Intelligence Bonus + Style Bonus + Political Power

Attacks:

Shame! 1d4 SP damage + charisma bonus.
Threaten! 1d6 SP damage + Charisma bonus.
Lie! 1d6 SP damage + charisma bonus.
The Scathing Truth! 1d10 SP Damage + Charisma Bonus.

Back them up! Friend heals 1d6 SP.

In order to wound someone's SP, you roll 1d20 against their Social Status. On a successful attack, their Social Points go down by the indicated number. When a player reaches 0 SP, they are left stammering and speechless, unable to carry on meaningfully in the conversation.

[Lisse24]

@SG said in Social Conflict via Stats:

If I were going to design a social conflict system it would be something like this:

Social Conflict System.

SP (Social Points): 1d8/ level + wisdom bonus
Social Status: 10 + Intelligence Bonus + Style Bonus + Political Power

Attacks:

Shame! 1d4 SP damage + charisma bonus.
Threaten! 1d6 SP damage + Charisma bonus.
Lie! 1d6 SP damage + charisma bonus.
The Scathing Truth! 1d10 SP Damage + Charisma Bonus.

Back them up! Friend heals 1d6 SP.

In order to wound someone's SP, you roll 1d20 against their Social Status. On a successful attack, their Social Points go down by the indicated number. When a player reaches 0 SP, they are left stammering and speechless, unable to carry on meaningfully in the conversation.

Overall I like the simplicity, but I worry that it may be too antagonistic. It would very clearly be used in social attacks, which is not always what you want social combat for.

[SG]

Yeah, I think some sort of trading card game might work better, but I do think some sort of codified rules might be fun. But I've been playing a lot of GURPs lately, and they have systems for everything. I'm trying to track down a copy of social engineering which I think covers this sort of thing.

[Kanye Qwest]

@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

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?

Bolded for emphasis. Your response suggests that any course of action where someone 'hates' the outcome should be avoided.

Oh, you misread it or I didn't explain it sufficiently. That's not at all what I was saying. I was saying if the person I am playing with will either cheat if he can or need to be brute-forced into accepting an IC action if he can't, then I don't want to play with them.

That kind of person will sabotage the outcome anyway so continuing the scene is a poison pill for my fun.

Systems can't fix bad people. They can only facilitate and improve interactions between the rest.

But this isn't an all or nothing distinction. No one is reasonable all the time, and otherwise reasonable, pleasant (OOC) people will sometimes lose their shit and get very emotional and bent out of shape during any type of conflict - social OR physical. And in some games, non consent games, you don't always get to pick who you interact with. Sometimes you have to go see X. Or deal with Y.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Miss-Demeanor said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@ThatGuyThere Ask staff on TR, or even Reno 2.0 if they have the time to come mediate every social interaction where one side doesn't like what the other side is doing. Go ahead, I'll wait.

I am sure they didn't but I am also sure they likely didn't for physical as well, the fact is all games and systems for the most part only run when you have players willing to work with each other.
Taking the Gangrel example that i did not quote, now if dice have been rolled sure staff will enforce that 4 agg, but lets say before a roll gets made one side requested staff mediation, I am willing to bet more times then not the matter is dropped before before said mediation comes to a conclusion just because of the wait that would cause.
As I have stated before if I am about to enter PvP of any with someone i do not know I request staff to run the scene mechanically, at least in my personal experience literally every time the other side has either then worked out a mutually satisfactory conclusion or decided to retcon all interaction rather than wait for staff, granted this has happened I think 7 times so it might be a small sample size but I still don't see how social mechanics requiring honor system and trust differs much from physical.

[Ganymede]

@Kanye-Qwest said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But this isn't an all or nothing distinction. No one is reasonable all the time, and otherwise reasonable, pleasant (OOC) people will sometimes lose their shit and get very emotional and bent out of shape during any type of conflict - social OR physical.

Speak for yourself, sir.

[Miss Demeanor]

@ThatGuyThere The difference between the two is that you see the results of the physical combat. You know that you take that damage and are held accountable to it. Take that same example, you're in combat... but the attacker doesn't see the results of the attack roll, only you do. So you could take the 4 agg like you're supposed to... or you could say that it missed completely and pose not getting hit at all. If only one side ever gets to see the results of the roll, there's no way to hold them accountable to that roll. Even if you call in staff, only you got to see the results of the roll, so there's no way to prove that you're cheating. The honor system only works when everyone is playing by the rules. This has proven to not be the across across decades of MUSHing.

[Kanye Qwest]

@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Kanye-Qwest said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But this isn't an all or nothing distinction. No one is reasonable all the time, and otherwise reasonable, pleasant (OOC) people will sometimes lose their shit and get very emotional and bent out of shape during any type of conflict - social OR physical.

Speak for yourself, sir.

Well I'm not speaking for the fuckin trees, here.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Miss-Demeanor
I am not sure where the only one side gets to see the roll comes from. Both sides would see the roll both sides see all rolls in every code base I have any experience with.
What Arkandel suggested was the defense side suggesting modifiers. That works both ways and fits in most systems, if we are fighting in a bar and i suggest there should be a modifier on attacks of -2 due to there being a big crowd making maneuvering difficult, you have three choices, agree, negotiate or call in staff.
In a social situation say you are trying to fast talk me in a bar and I suggest a -2 due to your character being a known business rival you are left with the exact same three choices, agree negotiate or call in staff.
Yes people can and will be dicks with this but they can and will be dicks with any sort of system no matter how it is set up, even GURPS which is robust to a fault does not cover every situation that will come up in play. In any game where choices are open there has to be some level of agreement because no pre-written book will cover everything.

[Thenomain]

@Kanye-Qwest said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:

@Kanye-Qwest said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But this isn't an all or nothing distinction. No one is reasonable all the time, and otherwise reasonable, pleasant (OOC) people will sometimes lose their shit and get very emotional and bent out of shape during any type of conflict - social OR physical.

Speak for yourself, sir.

Well I'm not speaking for the fuckin trees, here.

Leaf us alone.