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.
@ZombieGenesis There's a line there between what is reasonable and what isn't,but how do you draw the line? The drowning kitten example should be a fringe, edge case, but in games where these sorts of social system are in place it isn't that rare for people to try to use their Rolls to over come your Role.
-
@arkandel That seems to complete the best argument for why there shouldn't be social stats on MUs. The results of "social combat" are generally more ambiguous than the results of physical damage, if they're effective they tend to risk violating player agency (partly due to said ambiguity), and if they're ineffective they're not worth advancing.
I'm used to a combat-focused game where there are no social stats and I've often wondered if social stats make for more intriguing or varied RPed conflict resolution, but it's these reasons that convince me that stats can't be the answer.
-
@faraday said in Social Systems:
- Agency. I have one job on the game, and that's to decide how my character acts/reacts. When you start enforcing social behavior, it's like you're taking the controller out of my hand and telling me how to play the character. That bugs the heck out of me. I do not feel the same at all if you tell me that my character got shot, or missed their shot, or anything else external to the character's thoughts and behaviors.
I want to hook on just this.
Obviously, my response was pretty tongue-in-cheek, but it was meant to highlight what I believe the issue to be: the temperament of the players involved. I'm one of those players that honestly couldn't give fewer shits if you want or don't want to roll something, mostly because I think I am forceful and clever enough to manipulate you and your PC without rolling anything, if that's what I think my PC would do.
(Pro-tip: Part of this also means adhering to my stats, which I try to do as hard as I can. That said, I simply can't RP as a doofus or brick wall.)
But, as for agency, I think the best way to encourage people to use a social system is to put player agency on both sides. For the aggressor, the option to use a social mechanism should always be available; for the target, the option to opt-out of the result should always be available. To that end, I really like RfK's system, where a player could roll to affect another's PC, but the target PC's player could: (1) pre-emptively accept what the aggressor PC's player wants, and gain a beat; (2) see the result; or (3) negate the result, which gives the aggressor's PC a beat. Regardless of the outcome, the aggressor PC cannot attempt another roll to the same effect for the rest of the scene.
“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.
-
@zombiegenesis said in Social Systems:
@wildbaboons said in Social Systems:
Agency is the big one here. Social stuff against NPCs all day, but no, I don't care how high you rolled on your manipulation/persuasion/whatever roll. You're not going to convince my character that drowning kittens is a good idea.
I think that's a bit hyperbolic. I think people have a hard time separating themselves from their characters and it's not just online that this happens. In my TT group we had one player who refused to use the intrigue system when an NPC was trying to convince her to dedicate soldiers to some battle. Her stance was "My character would never do that" and that was that even though there was no reason why her character wouldn't aside from "I don't want her to". Which is fine but part of the fun we were trying to have with this game was rolling with all the punches, even and especially the social punches thanks to the intrigue system. Ultimately the GM said "Ok, spend a destiny point for the auto-win" and we all moved on but it left a stale taste in everyone's mouths.
No, no one could ever convince you to do something that goes against your moral character (drowning kittens) without supernatural powers but maybe a friend convincing you do make a bad decision in the heat of the moment? Maybe! To me that's part of the fun of playing a character that isn't me, using their various stats and in-game systems to determine what they would do. Maybe not all the time but some of the time, sure.
Okay, maybe he's being hyperbolic. But I can potentially see the other player's point about 'my character would never do that'. Maybe not in this specific situation, but as a general thing.
I mean, look at the Charm Person spell in DnD. You can convince intelligent creatures to do things within their nature. The more convincing you are the better the effect. "Hey little chief... that other goblin wants to kill you and take your job... are you going to let him get away with that?" Would work. "Hey little chief, attack that big dragon to get his shiny" would garner, "Fuck you dude, I aint stupid."
Again, maybe hyperbolic, but this is when using full on magic to influence someone's thoughts. Now, take the magic out of the equation and I don't care what your 'persuasion' skill is, if I think sending in my troops is a bad idea for me, them, or my homeland, and you've offered nothing to convince me otherwise, then yeah, I'm not going to budge either. If your character has seduction over 9,000, but my character doesn't like were-badgers, I'm not going to TS with you.
I'd say a GOOD social system is one that allows both players to say, "Okay, I'm not sure how my character would handle this. He's sort of on the fence about sending his armies. I mean, on the one hand, Mr. McBaddington IS a threat to the whole realm, and you've made a convincing argument of that. On the other hand, Angry Ladygal is on my western boarders, and if I send my troops I might be leaving myself vulnerable. Let's make a roll to see just HOW convincing you're being."
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this question, in the grand scheme, as it really is opinion based, and as with many things, you can appeal to the widest audience, but you'll never ever appeal to everyone.
-
@wildbaboons I think most systems utilize some sort of "social combat" also give tools to ensure that something you absolutely do not want to happen doesn't happen. Let's say you're character is at a bar with the intent of socializing, leaving them open to being seduced by someone they may find attractive. You lose the rolls but just don't want your character to go THAT far...in WoD spend a willpower point, in Game of Thrones spend a destiny point, in Savage Worlds spend a benny, in Fate spend a fate point to redirect the outcome in some way. They resist at the very end, they get a phone call that calls them away, the other person gets a phone call, or whatever. Similar systems generally exist for combat after all. Struck with a death blow? Spend a benny to reduce it to just knocking you out.
-
I agree with everyone else that relative simplicity is a must. I'm a fan of a simple contested roll for direct interactions between players.
I think these contested rolls should be done fairly frequently, because then they become part of the games culture. To encourage this I think players need to get something when they lose a contested roll, xp comes to mind. Giving XP for losing a contested roll, would also be a way to help new players catch up to dinosaurs, since the lower-xp players will lose rolls more often.
I think the consequences for contested rolls should be well-defined. For example, CoD's conditions are great. They were fun to RP out, they are defined ahead of time, and they reward players for playing along.
I think anything that has major consequences for a character should always take multiple scenes. Again, this is sort of like Doors, although, I would make the number of scenes the same across the board to keep the possibility of confusion and cheating down (Yes, I am a big fan of simplicity and transparency in systems).
I like the idea of status systems, when I've seen them on a game. I'd like it if they actually did something and were tied in better with social rolls. I think they could give players with social stats something to do. I don't have firm ideas on implementation.
Finally, while I'm lean non-consent, I don't think anyone should ever be forced to RP on a regular and consistent basis with a player they would not prefer to. I think players need to have consent privileges when it comes to things like marriages/ghouling/family/etc. I know it's not explicitly tied to social systems, but probably worth remembering when throwing things together.
-
I'm good with whatever works in favor of the story being told at the time. If dice help move the story along, by all means roll away and pose out the consequences. If there is time, I honestly prefer RP'ing it out. Honestly, I'm here for the RP part, I can do any number of statistical simulation games at a hundred different places on the web from dating to empire building to space exploration and mining. I prefer MU* for the RP side, and I prefer MUSH as the game is far secondary to me after the RP side.
I really don't enjoy PvP in my RP, especially so if code enforced, just not RP to me. A game yes. I trust people to RP the stats they put up in CG. I prefer collaborative RP and storytelling. Its what I've always enjoyed about most comic places, no +stats/dice/rolls to worry about usually. Most players know how to take a fall, most folks can spot the twinks and just avoid them.
-
@lisse24 said in Social Systems:
I agree with everyone else that relative simplicity is a must. I'm a fan of a simple contested roll for direct interactions between players.
I think these contested rolls should be done fairly frequently, because then they become part of the games culture. To encourage this I think players need to get something when they lose a contested roll, xp comes to mind. Giving XP for losing a contested roll, would also be a way to help new players catch up to dinosaurs, since the lower-xp players will lose rolls more often.
An interesting idea. Also, I believe in Fate system, if you have something negative proposed, like a shot at one of your weaknesses, you can choose to take a Fate point and roll with it, or effectively burn the Fate point to get out of it. Pretty nice mechanic.
I like the idea of status systems, when I've seen them on a game. I'd like it if they actually did something and were tied in better with social rolls. I think they could give players with social stats something to do. I don't have firm ideas on implementation.
This has been done well, and this has been done poorly.
-
@ortallus said in Social Systems:
An interesting idea. Also, I believe in Fate system, if you have something negative proposed, like a shot at one of your weaknesses, you can choose to take a Fate point and roll with it, or effectively burn the Fate point to get out of it. Pretty nice mechanic.
I'm not familiar with Fate, but that system certainly seems neat. I think the way I view it is that you want to give people something so that they don't view it as a loss and to take the sting out of it.
-
@lisse24 said in Social Systems:
@ortallus said in Social Systems:
An interesting idea. Also, I believe in Fate system, if you have something negative proposed, like a shot at one of your weaknesses, you can choose to take a Fate point and roll with it, or effectively burn the Fate point to get out of it. Pretty nice mechanic.
I'm not familiar with Fate, but that system certainly seems neat. I think the way I view it is that you want to give people something so that they don't view it as a loss and to take the sting out of it.
Yeah, totally. I think a general sort of like, "Okay, if you roll with the punches, you get an XP. Or you can burn the XP to resist the effect and get called out of the scene somehow, your choice."
Could make for an interesting house rule in MUSH games. I mean, most of the time in RP systems, they're designed so you can use the social systems against NPCs (or occasionally vice versa) but typically not against other players. There's a definite distinction in how players feel about the two. Letting players RP it out is, imo, generally a better option. However, the MUSH environment often requires another way to resolve things if the player is just being stubborn but it is within reason his or her character would behave a certain way. Especially on RC/FC type places.
Though again, nobody is going to talk old school Batman into killing someone, outside of some serious mojo or chemical manipulation. And thematically probably not even then. I mean, see "The Killing Joke." On the other hand, convincing Sherlock Holmes to take a case that he claims is boring can be done with some subtle manipulation to convince him it's not. If the player isn't that good at that sort of manipulation, but their character might be? Roll away.
-
@ortallus said in Social Systems:
Again, maybe hyperbolic, but this is when using full on magic to influence someone's thoughts. Now, take the magic out of the equation and I don't care what your 'persuasion' skill is, if I think sending in my troops is a bad idea for me, them, or my homeland, and you've offered nothing to convince me otherwise, then yeah, I'm not going to budge either. If your character has seduction over 9,000, but my character doesn't like were-badgers, I'm not going to TS with you.
In the TT game the issue was the player would not listen to anything regarding being convinced otherwise. The Song of Ice and Fire RPG offers a fantastic intrigue system where each player picks their desired outcome (I don't want to commit troops vs I want you to commit troops) and starting stances (I forget what they are exactly but you can pick something like "Very Against" or something) and then the intrigue starts and it's like a mini-game with each player whittling down the other players intrigue points (like health points) to get their objective. It could include things like straight out convincing, intimidation, blackmail, etc and so on. No one had a problem with burning a fate point to not send troops we would have just like to have seen HOW the intrigue played out. We felt it could have led to some great RP and character defining moments. Instead all we got was "I want you to send in some troops" countered with "No!" Not very fun or exciting.
-
@arkandel said in Social Systems:
And if that's the case no one buys social stats, and people complain there are only combat monsters around. Well, there's a reason for it.
Personally I'm okay with that, if the alternative is strong-arming me into playing my character in a way that feels incongruous with the character's personality, core values, etc.
But I don't think it has to be as all-or-nothing as you're making it out to be. You can use social stats against NPCs. If you run a primarily PvE game, then those stats are still valuable.
And if you're running a non-consent PvP game? Honestly ... good luck with any system. I think 30 years of MU history and a zillion discussions on these boards have aptly demonstrated the sour grapes that result from pitting strangers against each other in a persistent environment
-
@ganymede said in Social Systems:
But, as for agency, I think the best way to encourage people to use a social system is to put player agency on both sides. For the aggressor, the option to use a social mechanism should always be available; for the target, the option to opt-out of the result should always be available.
Sorry for double post but I missed this before... What you describe is the norm on the consent games I've played. You can always TRY to manipulate me, but I have to give my consent to BE manipulated.
Sounds like RfK was just putting some carrot incentives around it so everybody comes away with something (either what they wanted, or a 'beat'). Nothing wrong with that, but did it really help? Was the beat-carrot enough incentive for someone to take a social dive when they otherwise wouldn't?
-
@faraday said in Social Systems:
Sounds like RfK was just putting some carrot incentives around it so everybody comes away with something (either what they wanted, or a 'beat'). Nothing wrong with that, but did it really help? Was the beat-carrot enough incentive for someone to take a social dive when they otherwise wouldn't?
I think so. And it was kind of fun because socializers don't always win those rolls. There's always a chance of failure. The system rewarded people who engaged in it, one way or another, so I think that it encouraged rolls. It was brilliantly simple, and gave power to social-oriented folks that wouldn't have otherwise had it.
-
@faraday I mentioned conditions in my post, and RfK used those in their social systems. They basically gave the "loser" two options both of which were well-defined. They could go along and have Option A happen, or they could back out and have Option B happen. They chose which they wanted, both were "negative" for the player, but they still had agency.
-
@faraday Just to follow up on your point, though it may have been discussed elsewhere and I missed it: social stats would (and do) definitely work on a primarily PvE game. But if a MU's RP focuses more on player interaction than staff hosting scenes -- and most do -- then there's always an imbalance: physical attacks work on both PCs and NPCs, and if social attacks only work on NPCs, physical attacks are "better" or have more overall utility. And that in turn affects the relative value of stat points and the fairness of the system.
The point being that, while of course a lot comes down to player attitude and temperament, structural or inherent imbalances can make the difference too.
-
@fei-dawen In a PvE game, combat actions don't work on PCs either because there's no PvP. So there's no inherent "value imbalance" between social stats and combat stats.
-
@faraday Sorry, my post may have been confusing. I agree with you. I don't think there's a problem with social stats on PvE (like tabletop) games; I just figure most MUs aren't strictly PvE due to the nature of the medium, which makes social stats a bad fit. If that makes sense.
-
@fei-dawen Depends, I guess. I've spent most of the past 20 years playing on strictly PvE games, so my perspective is skewed compared to a lot of people here. I think 1998 was the last time I can recall a situation where two PCs came to blows in a non-consensual manner.
-
@faraday Oh, interesting. Just goes to show how limited my background is.
Then I guess the more accurate thesis statement is: there are structural or intrinsic reasons why, even (or especially) if a MU includes dice-rolling to resolve physical conflict between players, it shouldn't include dice-rolling to resolve social conflict between players.
