Eliminating social stats

[Lain]

@faraday said in Eliminating social stats:

Personally, I have a basic fundamental objection to having dice tell me how to play my character.

Here's the thing: unless you also want to get rid of Mental stats, they already do. As an example of someone who wants to crack a neighbor's WiFi password, if they have Computer 0 in game but Computer 2 out of game, they might know OOC to download Kali Linux. This, by no stretch of the imagination, grants the player license to tell the ST, "Okay, so my guy downloads Kali Linux."

Should a player decide to do this with their Computer 0 character, they are pretty much already in the wrong. However, the ST can choose to be magnanimous by allowing the player to roll to see if their character knows this information. If they fail that roll, they don't know how to go forward; and no, you don't get to reroll. Also if you get a dramatic failure due to your -3 dice penalty your character downloads and runs definitelynotmalware.exe onto his Windows 10 Botnet Edition installation and it destroys it, rendering the machine unusable until the operating system is reinstalled. Finally, he doesn't know how to do this reinstallation because of his already-failed Computer roll on this exact topic.

Such is similar with players who want to use some subtle emotional ploy with their Manip 1 Persuasion 0 character. It almost definitely doesn't work. This is precisely why we have rolls. So yes, you can RP the specifics how you want, but if you fail the Manip + Persuasion vs Resolve + Composure roll, you are obligated to make your character say/do something stupid. Something unpersuasive. Something mildly embarrassing or just cringey. Why? Because he sucks at this. No, you don't get to evade it. You don't get to find some cleverly tactful way to make spaghetti fall out of your character's pockets. They just fuck up or sperg out. Period.

Similarly, your Resolve 2 Composure 2 character doesn't get to go on some ride-or-die shit when someone points a gun in his face and he loses the Intimidation roll. What actually happens is he crumples. He puts his hands up and his eyes go wide. He gives the thug his wallet and begs to be allowed to keep his ID. If it's a dramatic loss (the thug gets 5+ successes on him), he might literally shit himself. He doesn't teleport behind you, and he doesn't unsheathe his katana. He just acts like a weak-ass bitch, in public.

If you want more autonomy over your character you're just going to have to spend your finite point-spend resources on making them more behaviorally resilient. If you want them to be able to make other characters do what he wants, you'll have to also spend your finite point-spend resources on extroverted social skills like Persuasion, Intimidation, etc.

Saying that your socially awkward character can make some Tyrion Lannister power play is like saying my Firearms 0 character can snipe your Tyrion Lannister character from 3mi away. The correct answer is: just no.

[faraday]

@Lain said in Eliminating social stats:

Here's the thing: unless you also want to get rid of Mental stats, they already do. As an example of someone who wants to crack a neighbor's WiFi password, if they have Computer 0 in game but Computer 2 out of game, they might know OOC to download Kali Linux. This, by no stretch of the imagination, grants the player license to tell the ST, "Okay, so my guy downloads Kali Linux."

To me, there's a difference between regulating a character's abilities, which is like every stat system ever, and regulating their thoughts and attempted actions. I can try to punch Russel Crowe in the face. That doesn't mean I'm going to succeed, or do any appreciable damage even if I surprise him.

It's okay if someone doesn't see a difference there, but I do.

[Lain]

@faraday said in Eliminating social stats:

@Lain said in Eliminating social stats:

Here's the thing: unless you also want to get rid of Mental stats, they already do. As an example of someone who wants to crack a neighbor's WiFi password, if they have Computer 0 in game but Computer 2 out of game, they might know OOC to download Kali Linux. This, by no stretch of the imagination, grants the player license to tell the ST, "Okay, so my guy downloads Kali Linux."

To me, there's a difference between regulating a character's abilities, which is like every stat system ever, and regulating their thoughts and attempted actions. I can try to punch Russel Crowe in the face. That doesn't mean I'm going to succeed, or do any appreciable damage even if I surprise him.

It's okay if someone doesn't see a difference there, but I do.

Just an FYI, social skills are abilities. Also, you can't regulate a character's knowledge without regulating their thoughts and attempted actions. Computer 0 characters don't think "I should download Kali Linux" when they don't know the WiFi password. Computer 2+ people just might.

There is a difference between social skills and mental skills, but the difference isn't material for the purpose of autonomy over your character's decisions. A character's mental faculties to no small extent determine how they go about things. Social characters get other people to act in their interest. Mental characters do the math and engineer their way out of it in some way.

If you want to make other people do your bidding, use your points thusly or accept that your neckbeard is going to be kind of patchy.

[Pyrephox]

@faraday And your character can /try/ to be a cool dude in the face of intimidation, but if he fails, it's just bad playing to refuse to play the failure honestly.

Personally, I think the 'agency' argument is always a little disingenuous. If you have a character in a system that has rules about social interactions, then by making that character, you've agreed to play by those rules. You have made a character knowing those rules existed, and have chosen to play a character knowing how conflicts are resolved.

Deciding that a subset of those rules shouldn't apply to you because you don't like how it plays out in this situation is every bit as mature as a guy who flips the chessboard when he starts to lose, no matter what kind of 'but my creativity!' artiste arguments it gets dressed up in.

[Roz]

@Pyrephox said in Eliminating social stats:

@faraday And your character can /try/ to be a cool dude in the face of intimidation, but if he fails, it's just bad playing to refuse to play the failure honestly.

Personally, I think the 'agency' argument is always a little disingenuous. If you have a character in a system that has rules about social interactions, then by making that character, you've agreed to play by those rules. You have made a character knowing those rules existed, and have chosen to play a character knowing how conflicts are resolved.

Deciding that a subset of those rules shouldn't apply to you because you don't like how it plays out in this situation is every bit as mature as a guy who flips the chessboard when he starts to lose, no matter what kind of 'but my creativity!' artiste arguments it gets dressed up in.

I don't think there's really a need to characterize @faraday that way. She's stated that she just doesn't like playing with systems with a strong coded social component, not that she wants to play in them but ignore the social skills. Certainly she's built FS3 as a system that's not really designed to explore social combat, because it's not her thing.

[Pyrephox]

@Roz Sorry, I was actually using the generic 'you'. And yes, if you (generic) are not playing on systems that have mechanized social mechanics, then obviously none of the above applies to you.

[Thenomain]

I understand what @Pyrephox was trying to say, and I kind of agree with @Lithium too in the same way that I agree with @Arkandel's premise, which I mix liberally and get:

Play the stats hard, or not at all.

As long as people stay within the spirit of the game, I don't think there's any bad play that goes to either end of the spectrum. I don't even mind people opting to not roll dice at all if they can agree on an outcome. I strongly believe the dice are there only to create an uncertain outcome (Lithium's "tension"), or when people can't agree on what the outcome should be.

[Bobotron]

I'l agree with 'play stats hard,' but it will never work on a MU*. Players are too ingrained into their way of thinking to allow successful social tests to color their perceptions, convince them someone is telling the truth, and all the things that social conflict requires. You will never get all players to buy into it, and that is the stumbling block that needs to be overcome.

[faraday]

@Lain said in Eliminating social stats:

Just an FYI, social skills are abilities. Also, you can't regulate a character's knowledge without regulating their thoughts and attempted actions.

Nobody's arguing that social skills aren't abilities. What we're debating is how they should work. I don't see a lack of knowledge/ability as a lack of autonomy. Saying my character can't cast spells because they're not a magician or do brain surgery because they're not a surgeon isn't depriving me of autonomy over my character's thoughts and actions.

[Lain]

@faraday said in Eliminating social stats:

@Lain said in Eliminating social stats:

Just an FYI, social skills are abilities. Also, you can't regulate a character's knowledge without regulating their thoughts and attempted actions.

Nobody's arguing that social skills aren't abilities. What we're debating is how they should work. I don't see a lack of knowledge/ability as a lack of autonomy. Saying my character can't cast spells because they're not a magician or do brain surgery because they're not a surgeon isn't depriving me of autonomy over my character's thoughts and actions.

The inability to resist being manipulated/coerced is definitionally a lack of autonomy. Since you want to play autonomous characters, maybe you should use your points toward that end. At least, in cases where the rules measure autonomy in some form or other.

There are systems that do not in any way measure autonomy, and in those systems it would make sense for essentially nobody to be meaningfully deceived or coerced, but that would be boring af tbqh. I just don't see why your PC should have some kind of magical plot armor against being played like a tool that NPCs do not.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@Pyrephox said in Eliminating social stats:

@Roz Sorry, I was actually using the generic 'you'. And yes, if you (generic) are not playing on systems that have mechanized social mechanics, then obviously none of the above applies to you.

I'm honestly curious how this discussion applies to PvE environments at all.

I have never seen anyone object to using social skills to bluff an NPC guard, or strike a better deal with an NPC merchant, or talk an NPC antagonist around to being on their side. How often or not often this stuff comes up and how powerful it is in a given scene depends a lot on the GM, but when it does, people are generally pretty enthused about it (I'd like to see it played up more in PvE environments, but that's neither here nor there). This all seems pretty explicitly PvP focused, whenever we talk about social skills on this board, and I think that ultimately comes down to the difficulty of ego management. Which the best system in the world will burst into frustrated flames against, alas.

[Pyrephox]

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Eliminating social stats:

@Pyrephox said in Eliminating social stats:

@Roz Sorry, I was actually using the generic 'you'. And yes, if you (generic) are not playing on systems that have mechanized social mechanics, then obviously none of the above applies to you.

I'm honestly curious how this discussion applies to PvE environments at all.

I have never seen anyone object to using social skills to bluff an NPC guard, or strike a better deal with an NPC merchant, or talk an NPC antagonist around to being on their side. How often or not often this stuff comes up and how powerful it is in a given scene depends a lot on the GM, but when it does, people are generally pretty enthused about it (I'd like to see it played up more in PvE environments, but that's neither here nor there). This all seems pretty explicitly PvP focused, whenever we talk about social skills on this board, and I think that ultimately comes down to the difficulty of ego management. Which the best system in the world will burst into frustrated flames against, alas.

I dunno, I've gotten the "it's not mind control" and extreme reluctance to allow social skills to affect NPCs in just as many PvE scenes with NPCs, or more, than PvP. All too often, social skills don't let you do anything against PCs OR NPCs, because GMs get just as resistant as PCs to the idea that their NPCs could be talked out of, or into, something that doesn't go along with how they see the course of the plot.

[faraday]

@Pyrephox said in Eliminating social stats:

@faraday And your character can /try/ to be a cool dude in the face of intimidation, but if he fails, it's just bad playing to refuse to play the failure honestly.

I don't disagree with that basic premise. What I disagree with is the way that every system I've ever seen tries to figure out whether my character should be intimidated. It's almost always "Intimidation vs Willpower" and that, to me, is woefully inadequate.

It doesn't take into account:

• My character's relationship with yours. If you're in a position of authority, that's more intimidating. If you're a hated enemy, she's more likely to dig in her heels.
• Her past experiences. A past victimization may make her cower or be more determined not to be a victim again.
• Her personality. If she's with someone, she may be more inclined to protect them or not want to back down and have them think less of her.
• The stakes. Intimidating her to hand over her wallet is way easier than intimidating her to give over secret codes that might cause harm.
• Your strategy. Do you have something on her? Are you bigger than her and resorting to physical intimidation?

And those are just a few factors off the top of my head. There are probably dozens more. Sure you could try to boil all those down into some kind of modifier, but in my experience that just never works well.

So what I personally prefer is to let you do your roll to say "Ok wow he did a really good job at acting intimidating" but then let me take into account those dozens of other factors to decide based on the situation how to react.

And for those suggesting that I'm looking for plot armor so my character never has to fail, come RP with me sometime. I routinely have my characters make all sorts of poor decisions because it makes for a good story. I just want to be the one owning their bad decisions, and not leave it up to a coded system.

But that's just me. I'm not saying the opposing view is wrong or evil, I'm just saying I don't like to do things that way. YMMV.

[Pyrephox]

@faraday But here's the thing - you're also not taking to account all of the factors in 'how intimidating is this person' that would be presence in real life, but are not present and CANNOT BE PRESENT in the game, because we do not pose or model the world down that fine. And that includes the meta-factors of "I know I'm playing a game, and thus can examine this situation from a more detached perspective than my character could ever match." Not to mention the natural and almost ubiquitous tendency to interpret ambiguous events as favorable to your character, AND the difficulty of separating in game and out of game knowledge - for example, when someone poses badly in grammar and spelling. You, as the player, look at that and go 'pff, that's silly, that's not scary'. But your character? Cannot see how that pose is spelled. But it's still going to affect how you play that character.

But yes, social systems - like every other system in a roleplaying game - are abstracted, because no one has time to compare biographies in every single interaction that they're going to have conflict in. Because if we didn't have abstracted systems, we would be in real life. At some point, you have to suck it up and play the actual game. Or write a book, where all the narrative control is totally in your hands.

[faraday]

@Pyrephox said in Eliminating social stats:

At some point, you have to suck it up and play the actual game. Or write a book, where all the narrative control is totally in your hands.

Or play on games where social interactions are left up to the players. Because they actually exist and - believe it or not - people have fun there. A great many of them can actually divorce themselves enough to say "wow that's really scary" and behave appropriately in that sort of environment. I can understand not wanting to play in that kind of game - to each their own. What I can't understand is the blatant hostility, disdain and "wrongfun" toward people who just have a different style of play.

[Bobotron]

@faraday
Your suggestions of 'how to do a thing' is how the SoIaF RPG does Intrigue, their social combat.

[Pyrephox]

@faraday And, as I've repeatedly said, if you're playing on those games, pretty much none of this applies to you. It is an entirely different situation, and resembles breaking into a discussion of people who don't follow the rules in chess to say that people can have just as much fun playing cribbage, and in /cribbage/ there are no kings so arguments about castling never happen.

It is entirely true, mind you, but not particularly helpful.

[faraday]

@Pyrephox said in Eliminating social stats:

@faraday And, as I've repeatedly said, if you're playing on those games, pretty much none of this applies to you. It is an entirely different situation, and resembles breaking into a discussion of people who don't follow the rules in chess to say that people can have just as much fun playing cribbage, and in /cribbage/ there are no kings so arguments about castling never happen.

It is entirely true, mind you, but not particularly helpful.

Given that @Arkandel's original question in the thread was During game design, one of the potential ideas for its systems is to eliminate all social mechanics from it. I find the analogy of "breaking into a discussion" to be both baseless and insulting. But I'm stepping out because I have nothing more to offer here.

[Bobotron]

On the topic of a game without social stats? Every MU* I've ever played except for the couple of WoD games I briefly played over the last few years was social stat-less. They were heavily combat coded and full consent games, and there was a penchant for people doing RP to... well, play to their characters and not design 'good at everything' PCs. It worked fine on those games, though the games were predisposed towards certain things (big dumb thug Gutsman was easily outsmarted by Dr. Doppler, for example).

[Thenomain]

@Bobotron said in Eliminating social stats:

I'l agree with 'play stats hard,' but it will never work on a MU*. Players are too ingrained into their way of thinking to allow successful social tests to color their perceptions, convince them someone is telling the truth, and all the things that social conflict requires. You will never get all players to buy into it, and that is the stumbling block that needs to be overcome.

I think some of the most fun I've had is when people volunteer to play negative traits, regardless of stats. I think the least fun I've had is when people refuse to play negative traits, regardless of stats.

From my days of creating LARP systems, I think people just want a chance to decide how they act out their lack of agency. You may tell me that I'm in great awe of this person, but don't tell me what that means; let me tell you, the GM, what that means. If that's cool with you, then win-win.

--

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Eliminating social stats:

I have never seen anyone object to using social skills to bluff an NPC guard, or strike a better deal with an NPC merchant, or talk an NPC antagonist around to being on their side.

I have seen players, even in RL tabletop games, refuse to be the target of such things from NPCs, however. PvE is all well and good, but try some EvP and see how far you get. (Further than PvP, I imagine, but not open acceptance.)