Eliminating social stats
-
@deadculture said in Eliminating social stats:
@Gingerlily Having stats does not automatically make you good at using them. The way I see it, stats are a potential. You can either waste your potential or use it well.
Of course, people playing socially able characters with sheets that don't represent it at all kind of annoy folks.
I feel like it kind of does. Having combat stats that are high makes you good at combat, you don't need a particular ooc skill to engage in that, unless a game has super strategic combat. So having social stats may not mean people are amazing at writing out super compelling things to go with their dice roles, but it should still matter. I think people are super hung up on it because their pride gets involved. If Bob is not a great poser and his manipulation/persuasion is described kind of meh, it's cool to roll with it anyway. Let Bob have his moment of triumph, it doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt your PC because there are plenty of times social 'combat' will go another way.
-
Really, and this is true of all roleplay in general, as far as I am concerned, but... with people who might not have the ability to roleplay that social aptitude up to the general "your" standards, which are nebulous and subjective to begin with... the real trick is to be more cooperative. Not elitist. Instead of being like "Well, that line was lame, so I'm not going to respond to it", instead be like "So you rolled really high on that roll, so your character would know that telling me X or saying Y thing to me isn't going to get the sort of response your character wants. Instead, if you say this Z thing, it'll strike just the right chord, and get my character to thinking."
But all too often, people consider all rolled actions in a game to be adversarial. Hell, I approach PK-combat from a cooperative standpoint. It really does make the game go a lot better, and lets you learn to divorce your ego and just enjoy the ride for what it is. A story.
-
Cooperation would suggest it's not a game you can win. It would mean that seeing the characters go through the paces, the highs and lows were the goal.
Silly @Shebeast, RP is for kids.
"let's get paid!"
-
A number of earlier 'games', especially Mushes, had no stats. It was all social story telling. It's where the concept, very common on comic mu*s, came from; Take turns in the spotlight, or take your losses let others win sometimes.
I'm sad that all mu*s have this relegation to 'game' and required 'stats' these days.
-
@TimmyZ said in Eliminating social stats:
A number of earlier 'games', especially Mushes, had no stats. It was all social story telling. It's where the concept, very common on comic mu*s, came from; Take turns in the spotlight, or take your losses let others win sometimes.
I'm sad that all mu*s have this relegation to 'game' and required 'stats' these days.
I'm relatively new to MUs and did full consent systemless type RP for years. I think they are fun and I enjoy them. But I think it's much more difficult to make an extremely large, coherent world with heavy continuity without any kind of systems that can be used to arbitrate disputes and define the abstract.
-
In statless MU*s (which I do play, too), there is far less of a focus on these things, in my experience. People just kind of do what they want, though sometimes there is the problem of cliques doing OOC politicking for certain advantages to varying degrees.
But, specifically, in playing games based off of tabletop RPGs, the system is kind of an inherent part of that experience. Also, there is often a large element of political based RP, which relies a lot of social ability.
There is, as was expressed earlier, an element of elitism. Combine these factors, and you come to the need for social stats and systems to prevent basically one group of players shutting everyone else out and having all the "things".
In short, there's definitely a merit to playing statless games, but in my experience, those games are very different in nature to those that do. You couldn't run a WoD/CofD game without stats. It'd be a nightmare.
-
@ShelBeast @Apos I know why folks like stats and have a need for arbitration. I'm pointing out Mu is a multiple user environment, not only for games.
I'm with @Arkandel here. Social elitism if you will. I stop playing when it's dice only. Sorry to ESL or less adept writers. I'm forgiving too, I don't need spelling and grammar. I'm horrid, at times, with both myself. I'm here for story and if a fellow writer can't entertain me with story I'm sorry to say I'm moving on. Roll social stats to your hearts content, I'm moving over to rp with the other story teller.
I enjoy games, tons out there, tons that include rp. These days I'm leaning away from stats. I still MUD occasionally, on a low player base, stat heavy mud, when i want something crunchy.
Playing doesn't mean game (dice, stats, needed resolution). Don't get me wrong not bagging on stat based systems. But I'd like to see some diceless or stat-less systems too. In Mu*, not forum or irc or sandbox with a friend only but amongst a group of players enjoying a theme.
I played Dragonlance Mux (the first DL Mu*) for years with multiple players and no stats.
-
@Gingerlily said in Eliminating social stats:
@deadculture said in Eliminating social stats:
@Gingerlily Having stats does not automatically make you good at using them. The way I see it, stats are a potential. You can either waste your potential or use it well.
Of course, people playing socially able characters with sheets that don't represent it at all kind of annoy folks.
I feel like it kind of does. Having combat stats that are high makes you good at combat, you don't need a particular ooc skill to engage in that, unless a game has super strategic combat. So having social stats may not mean people are amazing at writing out super compelling things to go with their dice roles, but it should still matter. I think people are super hung up on it because their pride gets involved. If Bob is not a great poser and his manipulation/persuasion is described kind of meh, it's cool to roll with it anyway. Let Bob have his moment of triumph, it doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt your PC because there are plenty of times social 'combat' will go another way.
Bob can have his moment of triumph the moment he can use his character as described by his sheet for maximum effect. Otherwise, always replacing social acuity for the roll of a die means that not only are you unable to play the social character you've envisioned, you need to reconsider how you work your interactions with other people as a whole.
Last second edit to add: It also defeats the purpose of playing a social game to begin with. If you can't put in a pretty turn of phrase, what the fuck are you doing?
-
@deadculture said in Eliminating social stats:
Last second edit to add: It also defeats the purpose of playing a social game to begin with. If you can't put in a pretty turn of phrase, what the fuck are you doing?
Pretty turn of phrase is subjective. So are the circumstances surrounding social interaction. Let's not get into the fact that most people don't pose body language for a cues and the like, we don't get to hear tone, etc. It's completely unfair to say people need social skills. No, that's wrong, and you should feel bad for saying it. Let's not forget that communication takes two, and it's really hard to figure out what's going to convince your PC if you do not give me anything to work with because you are the shitty player.
-
@Sunny I don't feel even slightly bad for saying it. Turnabout is fair game, and I roll with social dice when they're thrown at me AND I prefer the softer approach of not having to throw d10s at you to convince you of something.
-
@deadculture Yeah, except I'm not sure how you expect anyone to be able to pick up on whether your character is lying or not when you don't actually pose the cues that would suggest they were doing so. Of course it's way easier to get away with lying when you don't have to actually roll to back it up, you just get to lie. People tend to believe shit unless you give them a reason not to. The ability to get away with lying is actually less about how awesome of a poser someone is than you seem to think.
ETA: For the record, I play a lying character who lies, and I roll. I roll for it a LOT. Unprompted. Because I need to know how successful the character is at concealing her shit, NOT how successful I am at oocly fucking obfuscating things.
-
@Sunny They can always go around the character and investigate.
On the other hand, persuasion, manipulation and other little pearls don't necessarily involve lying to get your point across. If you need to lie about something to convince someone, you're pretty much already done there. There's more to persuasion than falsehoods. Perhaps the person is telling the truth, but they want you on their side, instead of someone else's. Perhaps it's their version of the truth, which is also subjective, as you mentioned, but then, the social game IS subjective. If you really need to be coercive about it, then sure, roll away.
Slight edit on a word, blame my OCD
-
@deadculture Investigate what? If you as a player give me no reason as a player to have my character suspect that something is up, how do you actually expect that to happen? I am bringing up lying in specific because this is where this whole thing becomes really, really problematic.
Some folks here seem to think persuasion is some mythical thing that some people are good at and others should just go away or get fucked or? The ability to communicate in text, the number of people that actually give you enough to work with to persuade someone? It is a very, very small number. I can guarantee you that nobody here (including me) is as awesome as they think they are, and NOBODY is playing with all of the information we actually would in genuine social situations. So no, people don't need to learn social skills. They need to learn specifically how to convey something in the way that PLEASES YOU SPECIFICALLY, or they don't deserve to sit at the big table.
Whatever.
-
@Sunny said in Eliminating social stats:
Yeah, except I'm not sure how you expect anyone to be able to pick up on whether your character is lying or not when you don't actually pose the cues that would suggest they were doing so.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but stuff like this has always worked just fine for me:
"It doesn't worry me," Cate says. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Ahem. "I just resent the implication."
Not my best pose ever but it proves a point: You don't need social stats to work these things out. Consent and lightly-non-consent games have been doing it successfully for decades.
If that's not your preferred style - that's cool. I'm not knocking anyone else's right to play games differently. But this pervasive assumption that everyone who dislikes social stats is some kind of powerposing a-hole who never wants to fail is just freaking exhausting.
-
@Gingerlily said in Eliminating social stats:
I think social stats help in eliminating OOC politics and demanding that they be IC. Which in my opinion is a good thing, and also a crucial one.
I don't think social stats does anything to eliminate OOC politics. In some cases, it can make it worse.
I see what everyone's getting at: if you have social stats and force people to use them, you can keep people honest. Much like calling a bully's bluff, this is indeed something that can be done.
But anyone with the slightest bit of guile and acumen will either have the social stats they need to climb or attach themselves to someone who does. And that someone who does gains the benefit of having others around them who need them. It also behooves players to link up with other players that are favorable or serve their interests.
In the absence of social stats, there's no need to bulk up in that area.
That said, if you're going to play a political game, then I think you really ought to focus on making a workable form of social combat with social stats. Do something novel and nullify or reduce the importance of physical stats, or make it a non-factor entirely. Why don't we try eliminating combat stats? That would be a more worthwhile endeavor, in my estimation.
“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.
-
Absolutely. And that's how I generally prefer it. But let's not forget that I am objecting vehemently to the idea that elitism to this extent is a reasonable approach to have. It's not. The ability to persuade someone via a specific IC character wholly using text does not in any way, shape, or form indicate that they are smarter, more capable, or even a better writer. It indicates a very specific skillset.
-
@Sunny I would actually go so far as to say that it takes more skill as a writer to get caught lying ICly than it does to lie ICly. I'm not talking about some stupid 'The sky is green' lie, I'm talking about an attempt at subtle manipulation that you've decided is beyond your character (or the dice have decided is beyond your character at the moment) and have posed the little cues that suggest a lie.
Certainly, you can type things like @faraday suggested, and I have, frequently. But there's something of an art (in my opinion) to showing the little cues like avoiding eye contact, a faint stutter or hesitation, that sort of thing, that suggest that a character is lying without blatantly saying so.
-
Yep. Agreed. 100%.
-
@Seraphim73 said in Eliminating social stats:
Certainly, you can type things like @faraday suggested, and I have, frequently. But there's something of an art (in my opinion) to showing the little cues like avoiding eye contact, a faint stutter or hesitation, that sort of thing, that suggest that a character is lying without blatantly saying so.
Those make better poses, admittedly. But also... then you're actually relying on the player to pick up on those subtle cues, instead of giving the player information that you think their character would realize.
-
@faraday You're quite right. And if the cues seem to get missed the first time or two I pose them at a player, I tend to get more blatant, leading up to something like your example. It's slower, and it's not perfect, but I prefer to go with the most detailed, least blatant example that the rest of the folks in the scene will pick up on. It's elitist of me, and I don't much care. grins
