Social Systems

[Ortallus]

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@ortallus said in Social Systems:

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@wildbaboons said in Social Systems:

@arkandel I agree... but why I like things affecting NPCs instead of PCs. There was a whole thread on this not that long ago that we don't need to rehash.

My question would be if social can only be used on NPCs but physical can be used on PCs and NPCs and they cost the same , you would be doing yourself a disservice to not buy physical over social.
Especially because in most RP environments a well written pose describing IC awkwardness will win you more friends than a poorly written one describing social awesomeness, so you can follow the mechanical rules pose your low social stats yet get the full benefit of having higher ones except for the occasional use on an NPC.

So, I guess you're going to beat up the NPC to get better prices on goods then? I mean, I guess it could work? Once?

Or steal them after all thieving most often gets listed as a physical skill.
And lets face it how often on a MU do you actually barter with someone for a price? Maybe it is the games I am on but most of the places I have been things like equipment get handled in jobs. Or if it is a plot specific do-dad is it likely from an NPC introduced in that plot never to be seen again once the plot is over so how many times does it need to work?

Evidently you haven't played on any of the Shadowrun MU*'s.

I'm not saying it comes up often, but maybe it should? =P Things like negotiation and etiquette are extremely useful for interactions with NPCs, and if they don't have a system allowing you to roll on jobs, you should find better MU*s. =P I've used intimidate during interrogation jobs, and seduction during legwork jobs where I was trying to find information from certain people.

So yeah, you can stack up on physical skills, if you're not creative enough to understand how to use social skills, or if your MU doesn't let you. But that's the fault of the MU, not the skillset.

[Thenomain]

I have skipped to the very end because I didn't see people focusing on this:

In almost every other rolled situation, you have a fairly clear idea of risk/reward, even if sometimes the risk is you don't get the reward. And by "reward" here I mean "find the trail" or "hit the dude". Sometimes the risk is more interesting.

I've seen very few social systems lay out a risk/reward system in as clear a matter. It's muddy and far more personal than other systems. Negotiating seems to be required just to get started. There are almost never rules as to what social stats can do, and that makes comparisons to combat and other types of contests neigh useless.

So start with deciding what your social challenges are for.

Then make a system that does that.

After that, it's a matter of tweaking the first or second step until you feel that people are engaged.

[ZombieGenesis]

@Thenomain Most of the systems I use (Savage Worlds and A Song of Ice and Fire) actually have you set a social objective before you enter into the social conflict. Each player starts by stating what their goal is in this conflict and then the two players (or more) RP and roll around how to achieve those goals. I think it's just easy for combat because the implied goal is "I bring you to 0 health".

[Lisse24]

@zombiegenesis I'm not really a fan of having to state a goal at the beginning. I think it makes things more complicated than they need to be, I think its makes doing little things like lying or trying to impress another more important and carry more weight than it should.
It also makes it harder for characters to go with the flow and change midstream.

To be clear, I still think every time you make a roll you should state before hand what you're rolling and why, but I don't think that's limited to social stats and I don't think your statements should have to think more than the immediate roll that you're attempting to do.

[Thenomain]

@zombiegenesis said in Social Systems:

@Thenomain Most of the systems I use (Savage Worlds and A Song of Ice and Fire) actually have you set a social objective before you enter into the social conflict.

This is the negotiation I mentioned. I can think of quite a few systems that have tried this, and have considered how this would be done outside a social situation and each time I run it through my head, the social situation takes far longer to get into.

--

A Practical Example

Back in the oWoD days, the rules were pretty much written as "this sounded good at the time" and Rule Zero always gave people the chance to ignore rules.

In action in a situation where there is no GM oversight—i.e., online—this meant that everyone could negotiate what the rule really meant. In action, combat scenes of 4 people could take more than eight hours.

More than eight hours. For combat. And why? Because people could argue their case.

It has been said and repeated that stricter rules keeps this from happening, and people can either agree to play a game with that rule or not, or informally ask people to ignore the rules, but they couldn't make a case for each roll of the dice and therefore things go far faster.

This is what most social systems lack.

Fix this.

--

edit: I have seen @SunnyJ's attempts at fixing this. They're pretty bad-ass.

[Ganymede]

@thenomain said in Social Systems:

This is what most social systems lack.

Fix this.

I think I did, personally.

1. In PvE, players can roll to see if their PC successfully influences NPCs.
2. In PvP, players can roll to see whether they project their own PC in an intended manner.
3. In PvP, players cannot enforce the results of a roll on a target PC, but the target PC may elect to accept the outcome in exchange for a reward; if they don't, then the player's PC gets a reward.

As far as MUSHing, I think that having to roll to lie is silly; I think it may be more important to roll to see if your PC seems credible. Why? Because you could be telling the truth, but just come off as a liar because you can't keep your shit together.

[Thenomain]

@ganymede

I didn't want to get into the situation where people argued which systems did what well, but address the underlying problem or problems with social systems.

That said, I do agree with the following:

1. Players need to play the system. This is part of what all players agree to when they sign into a game. Players can agree amongst themselves not to engage with a system if they don't want to, but if they want a system they have to engage with the one presented.
2. The "carrot" system of Fate, RfK, etc. is one of the best systems I've seen, knowing that Exalted seems to have a decent way, and that Fate also has made even physical combat a series of role-played benefits and drawbacks where social combat = mental stress makes sense. The drawback with a gain/spend bennies system for accepting or pushing bad things on others is that you get one bennie no matter the stakes. (That is, it's not good with varying stakes.)
3. I can't remember my #3. The previous two are far more important, and in that order. If staff have a system that players want to engage in, that staff should consider themselves both skilled and damned lucky. You can lead an RPer to a rulebook...

[Seraphim73]

@roz I'm totally fine with disagreement. I also agree that having a weighted randomization method in RP is awesome. I should have been more precise in my language: I believe that lack of trust is why we need stats in CvC situations. And yes, sometimes we still just want a randomizer when we're playing with people we know and trust, but I believe that we don't need stats in those situations, you can just roll a die or flip a coin, because everyone trusts everyone to "play fair."

[Ghost]

On topic? All I can say is this:

I think from WoD to Shadowrun to D&D, the social rolls systems are adequate. I think that dice systems are necessary to ensure outcomes are based on sheets and not the better OOC argument/negotiating of players. Dice keep games from being about who the GM likes better, or who had the better idea, but whose character was able to clinch the victory on any given roll.

So all I can really do is give my 2 cents as to how I would(and how I do) approach social dice rolls as a GM. This covers both MU and Tabletop:

1. We use the system. Period. While we may have some house rules, the system is the framework for ensuring that it is a game. I dont care which system that is. It could be FS3, d20, WoD, etc. We are using the system, its combat/social system, and we are keeping track of health/death/etc.

2. Players should be expected to be mature about wins, losses, and character death. These are games and while it's not always awesome to lose a character(that you weren't prepared to lose), players should be mature enough to avoid unhealthy attachment to their characters or treat them as an extension of themselves. As a GM I will keep other players from bullying other players with dice and throw properly-leveled bad guys at your characters, but ultimately, negative behavior involving demands of control about whether or not it is fair for your character to be subject to these systems is inherently cheating. I would not allow myself, or other GMs, to feel pressured to by players griefing them with angst about their attachment to their characters. We should be adults, and it is a game.

So, ultimately that's my take on social dice. I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the systems involving social dice. The problem, I believe, persists in some of the classic rage-pattern behaviors that come from players wanting to control whether they win or lose, and the pressures those players put on others to make sure that things go their way. I've seen this behavior in living rooms, game conventions, LARP, and online RP. It's a common occurrence in the hobby.

As mature adults and roleplayers we should be above this, have policies to keep people from using social rolls to try to leverage TS or other taboo behavior, and not devolve into OOC spats based on whether or not we like what happened ICly.

[Arkandel]

@ghost said in Social Systems:

We should be adults, and it is a game.

Sure, but this discussion is about systems, and you can't systematize maturity.

[Ghost]

@arkandel Respectfully, I see it as a conversation about social systems, but the conversation keeps circling around how to get players to use them if implemented.

I truly believe you can systemize maturity with policies, using the game system as designed, and with staff/GMs who won't wrestle with immature players.

My TT night maturity system works. It's called "Be Mature or Be Somewhere Else" and I have asked players throwing drama fits to leave for the night.

But that's a conversation for another thread.

[ThatGuyThere]

@ortallus
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not against social skills I am against the idea that they are should only work on NPCs.
And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

[Ortallus]

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@ortallus
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not against social skills I am against the idea that they are should only work on NPCs.
And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

K, I could get into the math here, but I'm not going to get all fancy with it.

tl;dr

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with PCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're way too aggressive. Or they are.

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with NPCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're a gamer. Congratulations.

[Ghost]

@ortallus said in Social Systems:

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@ortallus
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not against social skills I am against the idea that they are should only work on NPCs.
And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

K, I could get into the math here, but I'm not going to get all fancy with it.

tl;dr

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with PCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're way too aggressive. Or they are.

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with NPCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're a gamer. Congratulations.

Let's not get snippy and hyperbolistic. @ThatGuyThere wasn't saying that 75%+ of PC to PC interaction required dice intervention. Don't put words in their mouth. @ThatGuyThere simply said that 75%+ of their interaction on MUs is with PCs, not NPCs.

Frankly I agree with them.

So there has to better a better resolution system to tasks, including social challenges than "whatever they agree to", because in many cases "whatever they agree to" consists of ONLY what works for them.

Let's be cool here and not put words in people's mouths.

[Lithium]

@ghost Heh Good Luck.

@Faraday That's the thing about FATE though is it /doesn't/ remove player Agency, until you are so far gone your character likely would have left before it got to that point.

So for example:

We go somewhere, someone is doing/saying something we don't like, they keep harassing us with it, we can do a few things but depending on our personalities we typically do one of three things:

1. We argue about it.
2. We leave.
3. If someone is being offensive, we go for help.

This is FATE social combat in a nutshell. You can argue/debate (Roll social combat fu), you can leave (Concede to losing the scene, have your character leave before any major consequences), or you can go for help (Maybe use contacts or resources as a social attack by calling friends or paying the bouncer to bump someone out the door).

FATE has everything to do with Player Agency, while also keeping system there to adjudicate.

[Ghost]

@lithium said in Social Systems:

@ghost Heh Good Luck.

I know, right?

[Ortallus]

@ghost said in Social Systems:

@ortallus said in Social Systems:

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@ortallus
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not against social skills I am against the idea that they are should only work on NPCs.
And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

K, I could get into the math here, but I'm not going to get all fancy with it.

tl;dr

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with PCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're way too aggressive. Or they are.

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with NPCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're a gamer. Congratulations.

Let's not get snippy and hyperbolistic. @ThatGuyThere wasn't saying that 75%+ of PC to PC interaction required dice intervention. Don't put words in their mouth. @ThatGuyThere simply said that 75%+ of their interaction on MUs is with PCs, not NPCs.

Frankly I agree with them.

So there has to better a better resolution system to tasks, including social challenges than "whatever they agree to", because in many cases "whatever they agree to" consists of ONLY what works for them.

Let's be cool here and not put words in people's mouths.

I'm not disagreeing with his statement. Nor am I putting words in his mouth. I'm merely point out the fact that his logic is flawed. But keep trying.

Since it seemed to go over your head, I'll elaborate.

Yes, you spend 75% of your time interacting with PCs, and 25% interacting with NPCs.

That does not mean that 75% of the time you're using physical conflict dice arbitration, and 25% of the time using social dice arbitration. It was a flawed comparison.

What I was trying to point out is that during that 25% of interacting with NPCs, you're almost always going to be using dice resolution. But how much of your PC interaction do you spend using dice? Unless it's a very aggressive type game, probably 10% at most.

Now, I'm also not saying that 100% of your interaction with NPCs is going to be social based. Sometimes an NPC needs their ass kicked. However, I've had characters that -did- spend a good 85% of their social interactions with NPCs using social tactics.

tl;dr once again: "If you're using more physical stuff than social stuff, that's on you, not the system."

I'm also not saying THAT is inherently bad. I'm saying it's one option, but it's not the only option. Some people like playing the wompy scrapper, some like the social guru, some like the mental master. Lots of styles. Just don't go invalidating the social style because you don't think of opportunities to use it.

[Ghost]

@ortallus You are correct, the logic would be flawed had he said 75% of all social interaction required arbitration through dice rolls.

I will concede my point under the overwhelming threat of your greater wit and intelligence.

[Ortallus]

@ghost said in Social Systems:

@ortallus You are correct, the logic would be flawed had he said 75% of all social interaction required arbitration through dice rolls.

I will concede my point under the overwhelming threat of your greater wit and intelligence.

Now who's putting words in whose mouth and being snippy?

[Ghost]

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.