Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat)

[ixokai]

@bobotron said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

But there's tons of 'NON INTIMIDATABLE' or 'OH YOU ARE SO TRUTHFUL BUT I THINK YOU'RE LYING ANWAY'. None of us want Social Stat Dominate, or at least that's how the thread has read to me.

If that's what you're getting, there's a lot of wires crossed, indeed.

IMHO, most of us who do not like mandatory social combat is not that we want "NON INTIMIDATABLE", but that 'Intimidate vs Willpower' (or whatever the contesting stat is), reduces a character's nuance and depth to a fairly silly level. Lots of examples have been given.

The guy who you can't intimidate by threatening his life because he's not afraid to die-- but if you threaten his companion's life, that's different.

You can't encapsulate that kind of character nuance in most stat systems, so it makes PVP Social really silly. Either a character can be intimidated by an angry kitten, or they are nearly impossible to intimidate by anything at all in the universe. There's no importance of context, nuance, and specific character development and growth. Its all or nothing.

On any game I'm on that doesn't have a mandatory social combat rule, then that doesn't mean I will refuse to abide by someone rolling intimidate-- but it's something I'll take into account, but the context and nuances of the situation will be factors in how I write a response. A lady tries to seduce me, it won't work, but maybe I'll find it charming if she rolled well and doesn't press it after the initial gentle rejection. If I can't really die, then I'm not going to be scared by a gun to the head, but once that becomes apparent, I might be very intimidated by a random innocent getting a gun to his head in my place. Maybe my character's Subterfuge 5 is never rolled when lying to old ladies, because all old ladies remind me of my Gran, and I never successfully learned to lie to her.

Dice can be involved, but when all that informs outcomes of social interactions is dice, then you're reducing interesting characters to boring numbers and chance.

[The Sands]

@bobotron said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

And contrary to what @The-Sands has stated, I haven't really seen any 'WAH I CAN'T MAKE EVERYONE ELSE DO WHATEVER I WANT' in this thread, and if that's how this thread has been being read,

Just to be clear, I was only attributing that directly to @Goldfish. I have expressed concern that people (as in people in general, not anyone specific) might try to do something like that but until @Goldfish I don't think I ever said 'you're going to try and do this'.

Now it is entirely possible that @Goldfish was just trolling me and if so I fell for it. If not, this is the fallacy with saying I'm using a strawman argument. My argument is not 'everyone will do this' but 'if you try and implement this the end result will be someone doing this'.

In short, @Goldfish (and similar people) is why we can't have nice things.

[ixokai]

@surreality said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

@ixokai said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

Social is more nuanced then 'can aim and fire a gun'. Social involves a lot of particulars. I've had more then one woman or utterly incompatible character try to seduce a gay character of mine in the past: I'm not joking, not making euphemisms. I've had a lady roll seduction on my queer ass.

This is always a good example. (Not trying to single you out here.) How differently would you react if, instead of that character trying to get in your pants for info, they sent an NPC (or a PC they convince to do it) to get into your pants for info that's male?

I'd be fine with that, because they would have taken into consideration the nuances of my character-- though my character might be very picky on his 'types'. And if they RP'd seduction horribly, but rolled well, I'd be a little annoyed. But I'd probably go for it if they tried to come up with a reasonable situation that made the roll make sense.

I'm betting hard that there's a much better chance of you being willing to go along with that (which would be the same for most folks, I'd think).

That high social score should inform female seductress 'this isn't going to work due to improper equipment, I need the right tool for this job to get what I want' just like high firearms is going to inform ace sniper that a twig and the word 'bang' isn't going to blow a hole in someone; they also need the right tool for that job.

The problem is rarely purely a matter of agency, it's a matter of how much more agency is removed in the way many people handle social rolls, and have historically handled them.

I agree.

[Bobotron]

@ixokai

Right. My examples fall to the very extreme that we all have encountered and seen in games. I think those of us who are advocating some type of social combat just want a way for that to be more mitigated in some manner, and giving more value to social stats, especially when considering player skill vs. character skill (which is a whole can of worms I don't want to circle discuss again).

Suffice to say, I agree that there are things that it shouldn't be able to do, approaches that need to happen in some manner, and such things. But how do we get there in a manner that doesn't turn into the most extreme manners.

In all honesty, this whole discussion just makes me almost want to eschew Social Skills and just... go. I've been on tons of MU*s without them unless it somehow related to combat (Leadership to rally, as the primary example).

[ixokai]

@bobotron Really, social stats are great... on PVE-focused games. Most of these RPGs were not designed with regular, heavy PVP in mind. They're mostly tabletop games where its assumed nearly everyone sitting around a table are on the same side and the social stats are for the NPCs. So they're balanced in that they are supposed to be effective against the characters without as much detail, nuance or investment.

Not saying the games are designed so that social contests between players NEVER would happen, it just was never the focus in most of them. Its a problem with adapting tabletop RPG's to MUSHes.

[Bobotron]

@ixokai

I understand that they were not designed in that manner, you don't have to keep repeating that point ad nauseum. RPGs are not new territory for me man. But there becomes a point where social stats should have some meaning between player characters vis a vis concepts and player skill vs. character skill. That's all that I'm saying and all that my goal is with designing some type of social conflict system.

[ixokai]

@bobotron said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

I understand that they were not designed in that manner, you don't have to keep repeating that point ad nauseum.

Since that's the first time I made that point, I hadn't intended on repeating it.

[Goldfish]

I wouldn't dare throw my dice down to MAKE someone do Thing X. That's not my style. But apparently it's someone else's idea of fun.

I've rolled social die maybe twice in a PrP. One was an amazing interaction with an NPC. A total validation of pumping into social skills, my character was able to be vital to the plot in a way that wasn't stabbing at the enemy weakly.

[Pyrephox]

I think, ultimately, any game that wants to have a decent social resolution system is going to have to define the outcomes it wants to enable, pick mechanics that create those outcomes, and then ruthlessly enforce those mechanics for a while, until people who can't abide that particular system have self-selected out, and it's become part of the game's culture. Because there will never be a consensus on what 'good' social mechanics are, because of the wide variety of assumptions and desires regarding them among the collected playerbase. This is one case where you definitely cannot make a game that makes everyone happy.

But I think the one thing you shouldn't do is what too many games actually do - include a system's full range of social maneuvering mechanical options, expect people to pay equally for them as they do combat or magical options, and then refuse to allow them to be useful in actual play. Often against PCs /or/ NPCs.

[Bobotron]

@ixokai

Sorry. I meant that as the nebulous ‘you’ simply because it’s been said multiple times in the thread prior.

[The Sands]

@goldfish said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

I wouldn't dare throw my dice down to MAKE someone do Thing X. That's not my style.

Then how are people screwing up your concept by saying that you can't make people do what you want simply because of your dice rolls?

[Thenomain]

I think that a huge part of this problem is that almost every RPG we play has a resolution system, while social interactions are a process. The closest process we have in RPGs is combat.

The resolution system, even if it’s done over time, is “roll these dice, try to get that result”.

The Fantasy Flight RPGs with their bizarro dice do a lot to mesh dice with more flexible results. The Smallville RPG was mainly about how the actions influenced and were influenced by the social relationships. The Dr. Who RPG, tho not being pvp, puts social results as resolving first and combat results resolving last.

But in the end, I think the problem with the RPGs we’ve been playing is that the game doesn’t tell us what these social systems do, or they don’t fit the persistent PvP mediums we use.

The systems I’ve seen for social in WoD are like Ganymede mentioned. Have you shown anyone else your Vampire regions system, @Sunnyj? It’s just...right. It’s Reign (the RPG) for vampires.

And we should give law enforcement teeth, or give violence systems that are not death teeth. Give Status teeth (Eldritch tried). Make taking something away from the character a possibility,

I’d like to start with carrying broadswords in public, because legal or no you’d probably be on first name basis to several cops.

[Ganymede]

@thenomain said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

The systems I’ve seen for social in WoD are like Ganymede mentioned. Have you shown anyone else your Vampire regions system, @Sunnyj? It’s just...right. It’s Reign (the RPG) for vampires.

Hey.

Hey.

You stay the heck away from my development team, sir.

[Apos]

@faraday said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

@marsgrad said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting 'my characters has goals and personality quirks' should act like ironclad armor.

Just to be clear: Yes, I am suggesting exactly that. Some things just won't work on some people, just like you can't take out a tank with a pocketknife. Just like no matter how many points I make or how well I make them, I won't sway some people here to change their views on social combat. But those "hills to die on" should not be unlimited.

I personally am in favor of approaching unshakable convictions as points of resilience and vulnerability based on approach. For example, someone that's sheeted as Total Coward could not be compelled under any circumstances to take a risk to life or limb- they can't be manipulated, bribed, seduced or convinced in any way to doing something suicidal. But on the flip side, someone like that would pretty much autofail to resist any kind of intimidation ever. And I think most people are way more okay with playing ball with approaches that are consistent with their characters, even if the outcome to them might be detrimental in some way.

I think it just helps to take any personal strength as also a potential vulnerability, and make that implicit into the characters as a tradeoff.

[faraday]

@apos said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

I think it just helps to take any personal strength as also a potential vulnerability, and make that implicit into the characters as a tradeoff.

I agree completely. The 'Death Wish' RP hook might make you immune to being intimidated by physical violence (hello, Martin Riggs) but make you more vulnerable to being manipulated into doing something by being told how dangerous it is. It works both ways.

(Not directed at Apos...)
All these "you're not playing by the rules" comments... come on. All skill systems allow for situational modifiers. And all skill systems make allowances that some things just aren't possible no matter how well you roll. You can't jump the Grand Canyon no matter your athletics, and you can't resuscitate someone who's been dead for an hour no matter how well you roll your Medicine.

All we're fundamentally disagreeing about is whether "convince Bernie Sanders to give up Medicare for All" should be a -3, -30, or just not possible no matter what you roll. Any social conflict system needs to give better guidance than just "roll manipulation vs wits" for what should/shouldn't be possible in social combat and what appropriate modifiers should be.

[Apos]

@faraday So to be more productive and thinking about system design, what about... a player defines an inclination, defined with a descriptive string and then an integer for magnitude. So 'Total Coward: 10' and then defines a will and won't, for something they won't do because of it, and something they will do because of it, for a vulnerability and defense. Could be a secret, or could become known and publicly viewable due to their reputation. Players could have fun with defining them.

Then in disputes between players, if someone says, 'My character would never do that' for something undefined, that's fine, then add it to their sheet along with an equivalent point of vulnerability. So PCs become more fleshed out over time whenever it comes up and people can show their character's evolution over time in response to stories showing what effects them or not.

[Ganymede]

@apos said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

So to be more productive and thinking about system design, what about... a player defines an inclination, defined with a descriptive string and then an integer for magnitude. So 'Total Coward: 10' and then defines a will and won't, for something they won't do because of it, and something they will do because of it, for a vulnerability and defense. Could be a secret, or could become known and publicly viewable due to their reputation. Players could have fun with defining them.

That sounds pretty close to what Pendragon has. It's a system that I liked.

[faraday]

@apos I like the general idea. I prefer a more minimalist approach (assigning a number and defining will/won't for "Total Coward" or "Soft Spot for Kids" seems a bit overkill, but I'm all for something like (Trait - Description).) But I think we're on the same page in principle.

[Lotherio]

@ganymede said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

Pendragon [...] It's a system that I liked.

Just to say it again, but my like is less past tense. I still like it.

[Thenomain]

You know, here’s a case where the D&D Alignment Grid may actually make sense.