Social Systems

[Roz]

@faraday said in Social Systems:

@seraphim73 said in Social Systems:

I think, however, that it all comes down to one singular point: Trust.

Yes, but that's kind of core to why we have stats at all. If everyone trusted each other to play reasonably or (for GMs) to judge situations reasonably, we wouldn't need social stats or physical stats.

I actually disagree with this point, and I think it's an important disagreement. That is: I don't think that the only reason for sheeted stats is because people can't play reasonably with each other. I think there's a fundamental difference in the feel between full consent and limited to no consent. A lot of players like the numbers, they like having the element of chance and the unknown. I think it's a mistake to think of stats as "this thing we need to have to make people play fair with each other" instead of "this thing we can design and utilize to help enhance RP for a certain style of play."

[Ghost]

@roz I explained it to my tabletop group as such:

"Dice rolling is important and is something that has to be done to reinforce the game element of RPG. Inherent skill, even in the real world, isn't a deciding factor in the success of everything. There are few simple efforts in life, and being more skilled in something doesn't equate to automatic success either."

The skill modifiers or extra dice represents how well in any given situation the character might mitigate any stresses, sudden performance, etc might produce a success on their behalf. Michael Jordan didn't effortlessly score a ton of points. Even with his skill, it was work, but his skill level made it more likely that his use of the skill would produce results. Michael Jordan wasn't a series of hand-waved rolls, but a series of good skill rolls.

This is why nearly every gaming book I own suggests that only mundane tasks usually receive no roll:

• No roll is needed to load a coffee maker up and make a passable cup of coffee
• A roll is needed to make an impressive breakfast in bed for that hot blonde you met last night that is still sleeping in your bed
• No roll is needed to make that hot blonde a standard toaster waffle Eggo Waffle breakfast.

This works with social. Lying to or impressing people is not easy. It should always be opposed any time the targeted character is attempting to see through any kind of BS.

[faraday]

@ghost said in Social Systems:

That shit needs to be hit with a hammer, and as a community, need to get better about policing that lack of fairness.

Yeah, that stuff needs to be hit hard with a hammer. There's a big difference between "my character is disinclined to believe Harry because he's lied to her seven times before and there have been dire consequences and she's not going to be fooled again" vs. "my character has no reason to disbelieve Honest Harry even though I, the player, know he's lying."

That happens in physical rolls too though. People deciding to be extra cautious because they know it's a combat scene even though their chars should be clueless. Or metagaming a called shot to the neck just because they know that the armor is weakest there. Stuff like that. Nefarious metagaming needs to be combatted.

@roz said in Social Systems:

I think it's a mistake to think of stats as "this thing we need to have to make people play fair with each other" instead of "this thing we can design and utilize to help enhance RP for a certain style of play."

We can agree to disagree there. I think the shift from statless consent to statted non-consent over the years is no coincidence, it's reactionary. And most tabletop RPG books begin with some variation of "it's like cops and robbers when you were a kid, but with rules instead of 'I shot you' 'No you didn't."

But I do agree that stats provide other value beyond just making everyone play nice.

I like @Ganymede's system.

[Ghost]

@lisse24 said in Social Systems:

For the record, I fundamentally disagree with this assertion. In my experience, while some players are out only to win, most are out to tell stories and are OK with periodic losses. They are not OK with feeling like they got screwed over. Social skills are often used spuriously and leave people feeling like they got screwed. So lets make a system that negates that feeling and encourages collaboration.

It's a double-edged sword. There's often too much casual metagaming and need for OOC reassurances to let players know whether or not they're being lied to. Pick your poison:

• Tell the player OOCly that they're being lied to and hope to God they don't cheese it, use that OOC information ICly, or engineer it to their advantage
• Roll dice and keep it all IC, but if they fail a social/deception roll may behave as if their character suspects they have been lied to and then directs their RP towards negating successful deception

Or

• When they ask if they were lied to ICly, keep it all IC and lie to the player OOCly out of hope that what is going on IC is preserved. Technically, asking OOC questions about what is or is not true is metagaming, which is OOC insider trading that determines their IC approach. When it is revealed that you OOCly lied, you end up on MSB as a liar or some grade of sociopath.

There is no good answer here without reinforced policies or preexisting trust relationships between players.

Update/Afterthought: Currently I handle this by trying to make connections with like-minded RPers who enjoy things like chaos and regret ICly, who appreciate the dramatic end of things. I prefer my harsh RP to include high-fives in pages when our characters lie and fuck each other over with drama. We prearrange these plot twists between each other and I know these players don't take IC things personally. Unfortunately, this is the exception and not the standard, so I have to be choosy who I do this with.

[ThatGuyThere]

@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.

[Ghost]

@thatguythere That's something I've noticed wholesale across a lot of games, including WoD. I've seen social stats purchased, seemingly, to fuel the various powers requirements for dice. Social situations for the most part are hand-waved unless they involve NPCs, but PvP power usage for a skill might require Wits+Subterfuge, so subterfuge gets a lot of attention for the power, but not used in regular social RP.

Maybe it's just personal preference or a pet peeve of mine, but I'm a bit opinionated when it comes to the way characters are RPed versus their dots on their sheets.

I've seen a lot of highly articulate and charismatic physically min-maxed characters with very few dots along the lines of social/wits related skills (presumably because their powers didn't require those dots) who roleplay as if those dots are there...they just weren't important to the build they wanted at the time.

Don't wanna sound like grumpy cat, here, but I consider that to be in poor taste. (because I WILL and HAVE often roleplayed characters with very low social stats and very high stats as being socially inept and easy to manipulate, and my RP will reflect my character's sheet, because I believe that doing so is FAIR to the players who statted towards social)

[Ghost]

But I do feel this topic could segue into a thread about how to make it so that RP reflects what's on your sheet. I don't think it would be a wasted topic, either.

Min-maxing takes advantage of rolls that people aren't asked for often, who then turn and use those dots towards stats that are intended to be used more often.

I warned my tabletop group, I really did. Once I started enforcing rolls for things like academics and socialize, they started buying dots in it. That learning curve was treacherous, but (again, metagaming) just because you oocly know how to look stuff up on Google doesn't mean that your character knows it.

[Lithium]

This is why I really like the Fate social combat system, you can /always/ concede if you are losing, it's incredibly hard to be one shot, and if you concede you get to choose how you get taken out of the scene. So if you don't want to be seduced, have your character get frustrated at the constant seduction techniques and they leave/go home.

You would only get 'seduced' if you resisted the seducing to the point you had severe psychological issues (big complications) and they had the opportunity to dictate how you were taken out.

I don't know why people are so against the system when it handles social combat so well without removing agency unless you simply refuse to let someone 'win'.

[ThatGuyThere]

@faraday said in Social Systems:

Yes, but that's kind of core to why we have stats at all. If everyone trusted each other to play reasonably or (for GMs) to judge situations reasonably, we wouldn't need social stats or physical stats.

I disagree with this premise, to me stats are not about a lack of trust but about adding the spice of uncertainty into the situation. True you don't need stats for that you could roll and say even x wins odd y wins but I think that stats allow that with a bit more complexity.
Best why to describe it is comparing stats games to statless, on a stats game in a fight between my combat character and mooks my character will win most of the time but the exact details are up in the air and a loss is possible. On a stat-less game there is not real uncertainty unless it is a continuing plot the PCs will win, if it is a continuing plot whatever happens for the story to continue will happen, while this is not bad it does not feel the same at all compared to one where the result is genuinely up in the air.

[faraday]

@lithium said in Social Systems:

I don't know why people are so against the system when it handles social combat so well without removing agency unless you simply refuse to let someone 'win'.

Because of agency.

My characters have been conned. They've been used. They've been seduced. They've been manipulated. They've been cowed into submission. I am not in any way, shape or form against the idea of someone else 'winning', nor am I against bad things happening to my character. I just want to have a say in whether it makes sense for it to happen, and not leave such decisions up to the whims of a crappy (in most RPGs anyway) dice mechanic.

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

On a stat-less game there is not real uncertainty unless it is a continuing plot the PCs will win

And why is that? Because most players don't like to lose unless they're forced to by mechanics. Otherwise the PCs in a statless game would choose to lose (sometimes) for the sake of drama, furthering the plot, providing challenges to overcome, etc.

[Arkandel]

@faraday said in Social Systems:

My characters have been conned. They've been used. They've been seduced. They've been manipulated. They've been cowed into submission. I am not in any way, shape or form against the idea of someone else 'winning', nor am I against bad things happening to my character. I just want to have a say in whether it makes sense for it to happen, and not leave such decisions up to the whims of a crappy (in most RPGs anyway) dice mechanic.

As a disclaimer please let me know if I'm over-arguing with you because while I find this debate interesting, I realize it can also get annoying.

Having said that, what makes sense is a matter of narrative and we're all fallible when it comes to how we interpret what we're doing. So in a in a traditional 'physical' stated system it might make perfect sense for my combatant's personal journey at that point to result in victory... only I keep rolling 1's, and he continues to fall on his face despite the odds. Hell, what about those unexpected triumphs? Sure, my guy is a bookish nerd, but he just broke a baseball bat over the villain's head and knocked him the fuck out because I rolled out of this world - woohoo!

That's arguably one of the advantages of having stats - that no matter what circumstance and accidents still play a role in the IC world and things remain exciting in the OOC realm as well; if I, as a player, know beyond any shadow of doubt my guy will fare well (or even that he won't) then it takes some of the thrill and anticipation from the outcome.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

As a disclaimer please let me know if I'm over-arguing with you because while I find this debate interesting, I realize it can also get annoying.
Having said that, what makes sense is a matter of narrative and we're all fallible when it comes to how we interpret what we're doing. So in a in a traditional 'physical' stated system it might make perfect sense for my combatant's personal journey at that point to result in victory

It's okay, I think it's been a good debate so far!

I think we have different definition of 'makes sense' though. Your ace sniper missing a shot makes sense. Everyone's fallible - even Navy SEALs. Your ace sniper missing ten shots in a row for no darn reason other than you kept rolling a 1? Nope, sorry, that doesn't make any more sense than a (insert political hot button topic here) advocate suddenly changing her mind just because somebody rolled a 20 on their persuasion roll.

So yes - I'm all for randomness and unexpected victories/defeats as long as those results are bounded by rails of plausibility. That's really all I'm asking for. (And I freely admit that's not everyone's jam. I'm not knocking people who prefer it another way, just responding to the "I don't get why anybody would want it that way" type of arguments.)

[surreality]

@faraday said in Social Systems:

So yes - I'm all for randomness and unexpected victories/defeats as long as those results are bounded by rails of plausibility.

This. If it's so random or difficulties are scaled badly compared to what a character can accomplish with the dice they have, you may as well not have stats and just resolve things with 'whoever gets the higher on a 1d100 roll-off wins'.

[Ghost]

@faraday said in Social Systems:

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

As a disclaimer please let me know if I'm over-arguing with you because while I find this debate interesting, I realize it can also get annoying.
Having said that, what makes sense is a matter of narrative and we're all fallible when it comes to how we interpret what we're doing. So in a in a traditional 'physical' stated system it might make perfect sense for my combatant's personal journey at that point to result in victory

It's okay, I think it's been a good debate so far!

I think we have different definition of 'makes sense' though. Your ace sniper missing a shot makes sense. Everyone's fallible - even Navy SEALs. Your ace sniper missing ten shots in a row for no darn reason other than you kept rolling a 1? Nope, sorry, that doesn't make any more sense than a (insert political hot button topic here) advocate suddenly changing her mind just because somebody rolled a 20 on their persuasion roll.

So yes - I'm all for randomness and unexpected victories/defeats as long as those results are bounded by rails of plausibility. That's really all I'm asking for. (And I freely admit that's not everyone's jam. I'm not knocking people who prefer it another way, just responding to the "I don't get why anybody would want it that way" type of arguments.)

I've given this some thought, so allow me to counterpoint.

On the crunchier systems (let's set WoD and FS3 aside for a moment, because WoD focuses on the # of dice controlling the 8+ on a d10 as the outcome and FS3 is a modified Fudge) don't suffer this so much.

Take d20 Saga Edition Star Wars for example. Your attack roll is modified by all kinds of numbers after the dice roll that make success easier as you level up, but with WoD/FS3, there are raw dice, not levels. So in Saga Edition Star Wars:

d20 roll: 1 is a botch, 20 is a crit
...then add your base attack bonus, dex modifier, modifiers from weapon, modifiers from feats, modifiers from aiming...

To hit, say 18 on a D20 after modifiers sometimes can mean: just don't roll a 1

A d20 roll + 15...hits an 18 on 3 or higher, whereas in some other systems (like WoD) you could throw 3400 dice and it's up to probability alone just how many of them are 8+

So there's a system-based variable in play here. Mushing tends to avoid super crunchy systems like Eclipse Phase, Mechwarrior, Shadowrun, and lots of d20suite games because they're driven by a need for progression based on XP given for enemies killed, etc, but the crunchier systems DO control these outcomes a bit better for an Ace Sniper.

[Roz]

@faraday said in Social Systems:

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

As a disclaimer please let me know if I'm over-arguing with you because while I find this debate interesting, I realize it can also get annoying.
Having said that, what makes sense is a matter of narrative and we're all fallible when it comes to how we interpret what we're doing. So in a in a traditional 'physical' stated system it might make perfect sense for my combatant's personal journey at that point to result in victory

It's okay, I think it's been a good debate so far!

I think we have different definition of 'makes sense' though. Your ace sniper missing a shot makes sense. Everyone's fallible - even Navy SEALs. Your ace sniper missing ten shots in a row for no darn reason other than you kept rolling a 1? Nope, sorry, that doesn't make any more sense than a (insert political hot button topic here) advocate suddenly changing her mind just because somebody rolled a 20 on their persuasion roll.

As someone who has played an ace sniper with terrible dice, I feel this so hard.

[Ortallus]

@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?

[ThatGuyThere]

@faraday said in Social Systems:

And why is that? Because most players don't like to lose unless they're forced to by mechanics. Otherwise the PCs in a statless game would choose to lose (sometimes) for the sake of drama, furthering the plot, providing challenges to overcome, etc.

Duh. No offense meant but no one likes to lose at anything, but any game has situations where sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Hell chess has no randomness at all but still winners and losers.
Without the social inducements and threat of social alienation you would see a lot more people god-moding on consent places.
But to the stats are less about winning and losing and more the fun that comes with the absurd happening due to random luck. Not about winning and losing.

Take for example a scene that has happened to me multiple times across ever superhero game, lets meet foil a crime and talk. Standard superhero meeting thing, and one that bore the piss out of me due to the lack of stats. I want to get to the hopefully interesting part of the talking because a fight poses are basically pointless preamble since the result is obvious.
With dice I love that sort of scene because there is that chance that something interesting can occur during the fight.

@faraday said in Social Systems:
Everyone's fallible - even Navy SEALs. Your ace sniper missing ten shots in a row for no darn reason other than you kept rolling a 1? Nope, sorry, that doesn't make any more sense than a (insert political hot button topic here) advocate suddenly changing her mind just because somebody rolled a 20 on their persuasion roll.

Yes but if I know I am making the shot before hand why bother with it, just fast forward to the part that is in doubt.
I don't want to RP a social scene where someone was like alright we will meet and this is how it goes, and I don't she how RPing a fight where the winner is already decided. To me that takes the entirety of the draw of RP away which is the possibility of the unexpected.

[surreality]

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

Duh. No offense meant but no one likes to lose at anything, but any game has situations where sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

I actually don't mind losing at all, within certain limits. I don't even mind losing most of the time.

I do, however, mind losing (either through just consenting to or dice) and never getting a win.

Which has happened to more than a few of my characters, enough so that even with stupidly low expectations and a willingness to 'give' plenty on stuff, probably 2/3 of the characters I've played in the last 5 years never got a single win on something.

That also stops being enjoyable pretty fast.

[ThatGuyThere]

@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?

[Lisse24]

Maybe we can spin out the discusson on the merits of stats and dice to another thread and keep this one focused on social system design for those of us that agree it might be interesting to try some different types of social systems.