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

[Pyrephox]

@derp I have not enough upvotes to give for this.

At some point, players who want to play a game with other people have to recognize that they are playing a game, and that games have rules that abstract certain aspects of reality to make those aspects of reality /playable/. No social conflict or resolution is ever going to take in all the deep aspects of your character - it's not supposed to, it's not fair to expect it to, and /that's part of the point/. Social resolution systems are consistently held to a completely unrealistic set of high expectations, higher than any other aspect of the game.

In order to have a working system, people have to adjust their expectations and work within the stat and skill system given, whatever that might be. If they can't do that, then they need to find a different game with different rules. But refusal to spend the points the game gives to make a 'strong-willed' sort of character, and then insisting their character should be treated in all ways like they are Ironwill McUnflappable because it 'violates their agency' to do otherwise is not a reasonable objection - it's part of the problem that makes having decent social and political play nigh impossible on MU*S.

[kitteh]

@surreality Yeah, I didn't mean that I just want a couple 'outs' to put on character sheets as special category of out of social free cards.

I really mean that I think we need to work from the ground up to build sheets for games that are more about the social interactions that are common to MU and rather than trying to square peg round hole systems that are very wargamey.

Beliefs, values, fears, goals, subconscious drives, likes, vices, and sure even sexual preferences, etc. Ideally some of it would be mostly-permanent (ie maybe it could change but only with +request or whatever sort of limited 'I get to change my sheet occasionally' process), but some would also be more 'live,' so that for instance you could record that character X was a dick, character Y was a lover, etc.

[MarsGrad]

@pyrephox That is a sound argument for any game that focuses more on the game than the RP.

Unfortunately most MUs do not. If the bulk of the game is in the characterization of the PCs, not the dice rolls, than it's actually more obtuse to expect the personalities of the PCs to be completely irrelevant to rolls specifically targeting said personality.

Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting 'my character has goals and personality quirks' should act like ironclad armor. They're detriments to certain approaches. They're the cover you take in a gunfight. The smoke screen laid down by your allies. They should be treated as penalties (and bonuses) to an opposing character's roll based on how they go about convincing Space Cowboy to do the thing they want him to do. Or at the very least you should work with Space Cowboy to make your awesome intimidation/persuasion/seduction check believable.

[faraday]

@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.

[Ganymede]

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

Or at the very least you should work with Space Cowboy to make your awesome intimidation/persuasion/seduction check believable.

That's Rule No. 1 for me when it comes to just about any game.

Try to figure things out before resorting to dice.

Because, man, dice totally suck sometimes.

[MarsGrad]

@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.

I stand somewhat corrected.

Let me rephrase: "I don't think anyone is suggesting a character's goals and personality quirks should act as fully encasing, 360 degree, impenetrable platemail that renders them immune to all forms of persuasion, etc. It just makes certain approaches non-viable just like, say, attacking a tank with a pocketknife.

[Arkandel]

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

That's Rule No. 1 for me when it comes to just about any game.

Try to figure things out before resorting to dice.

Because, man, dice totally suck sometimes.

See, I'm torn on this, and not because I disagree.

For starters I hate using dice, and very rarely roll anything unless asked to, in a 'contest of will'-type situation, or in PrPs.

However the one compelling argument I've found people who support dice and mechanics have, and which I am swayed by, is to facilitate the possibility of occasional failure and provide a scale to success. Even the practiced politician will misread a situation or say the wrong thing at the wrong time after all, so a roll could make for an interesting scene since the result is truly unexpected by all participants.

Is that enough of a reason to include them? I don't know - I'm just saying it's worth considering, because to me if not for that, the only reason I'd ever roll anything at all would be what I described above.

[The Sands]

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

Space Cowboy might be a masochist according to your story, and he might have a deathwish. But in this scenario? His 'Masochistic Deathwish' stat just got beaten by Johnny B. Goode's 'intimidating jerkface' stat.
If you want the kind of character that never blinks in the face of such things, then -invest in the stats that make sure you rarely lose those rolls-, and then when you do lose one, figure out why this time is different.

So this is one part of my issue with how some people seem to want to handle Social Combat (and once more, there are certainly people say they don't want to handle it this way. I'm not trying to raise a strawman argument and say everyone on the 'pro' side wants this. I'm saying that there certainly are people who want Social Combat to be this way). I firmly support the idea that Space Cowboy should now be intimidated. You don't get magical resistance to intimidation just because of your backstory. I absolutely support that position.

However, context is still important and you're running on the assumption that Johnny is intimidating Space Cowboy with physical violence (since we are talking about Space Cowboy's masochistic tendancies). If Johnny had decided to threaten Space Cowboy with getting fired from his job and Space Cowboy is the owner of a starship that does odd jobs then I still support Space Cowboy laughing in Johnny's face because as intimidating as Johnny's threat is it is completely meaningless (n.b.: If Johnny was threatening he would keep Space Cowboy from getting work that's a different issue but his threat was that SC would be fired which shows to SC that Johnny doesn't have the capability of carrying out his threat because Johnny doesn't even know that SC is self employed).

Now, let's assume that Johnny is dressed like your stereotypical murder hobo and he threatens to get someone fired. This is clearly an Intimidation roll but shouldn't Johnny have penalties? After all, he doesn't seem to be particularly well off. In fact, he doesn't even look like he's got ties to the community. Sure, he's got a high intimidation skill but he still seems to be trying to use that in a way 'unsupported' by his current situation. What if Johnny's threat is that he works for the IRS (he claim he is currently off duty) and he's going to get the person audited, however the person he's threatening actually is an IRS agent (Johnny doesn't know) who knows that not only is Johnny not an IRS agent but who is also pretty unconcerned even if he did get audited?

Context has to be taken into account (incidentally, this can lead into a whole second question because if Johnny is threatening physical violence but only has a 2 Strength, 1 Brawl, 0 Weaponry and no gun and he's threatening someone with 5 Strength, 5 Brawl, and a boatload of Fighting Styles shouldn't Johnny have some situational penalties? The person being threatened is a skilled fighter who can probably tell from how Johnny holds himself that Johnny talks a good game but seems to lack the ability to back it up)

[Seraphim73]

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

For combat, this sort of detail has in some games come in the form of hit locations, and variable weapon performance against types of armor. Different moves based on weapon type and reach, different defenses based on mobility, and of course differences based on fighting styles and or feats and advantages.

This is a really interesting point, I think. Most humans have the same hit locations for physical combat, but most humans don't have the same "hit locations" for social combat. Trying to use a generic combat system without taking into account the target character's personalities, passions, desires, and stubborn points is like trying to use a fish hit location chart for a person. Sure, you might get a "head" or "abdomen" result that works well enough, but you might also get a "tail" or "dorsal fin" result that... doesn't really work for the situation.

Likewise, most bulletproof vests with trauma plates offer... relatively similar protection. But someone's rank/position/status might provide a great deal of protection from someone who respects the hierarchy, but someone who doesn't care what your title is? Doesn't help at all.

@kitteh I'm becoming more and more convinced that a short list of "Defining Characteristics" (need a new term for it) should be included on every character's sheet in a game with hard social skills (ie, social skills that can be used CvC and the results of which are IC). In most situations, they should provide bonuses or penalties when trying to influence the character toward or against them (respectively).

@MarsGrad That's exactly how my Furystorm system (still in development) works. You declare your intended approach, the defender declares how effective it is and you set your "weapon" accordingly for bonuses or penalties, you roll, and then you work together to determine how that dice roll happened ICly.

(reading on, I see that @surreality has a very similar approach here)

As @faraday notes (and @ixokai before her), however, there are some situations where it just won't work. If the character can't afford a new car and doesn't want a new car, it's not very likely that someone is going to be able to sell them a new car (then again, there must be a reason they're on a car lot, yes?). But you might be able to sell them on the idea that when they do need a new car, they should come to you to buy it, and this is a great model, so you should do it sooner than you otherwise might have. For the example @ixokai used, a gay male character being approached by a woman for sex... perhaps they can't get sex, but they could probably get you laughing and grinning and charmed by them (even if not sexually interested in the slightest), so that you let them get close to you so they can clone your phone (without you knowing what they're doing, of course). It's still a seduction, but it doesn't lead to sex.

So I think that what a good social system that most people are comfortable with needs is the understanding that some things just can't be done by social combat rolls (turning the gay character straight), but that there's always some positive result for the winner of the rolls that can come about.

[Arkandel]

@seraphim73 said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

This is a really interesting point, I think. Most humans have the same hit locations for physical combat, but most humans don't have the same "hit locations" for social combat. Trying to use a generic combat system without taking into account the target character's personalities, passions, desires, and stubborn points is like trying to use a fish hit location chart for a person. Sure, you might get a "head" or "abdomen" result that works well enough, but you might also get a "tail" or "dorsal fin" result that... doesn't really work for the situation.

The problem isn't so much that we can't have a system where players input those things for their characters somehow ("Name and rate five things your character would be angered/flattered by") but that doing so very quickly burdens everything with that much extra complexity. The interface is less intuitive, command-line arguments become a maze, CGen takes longer to do and it's easier to screw up, and all that takes place before we even figure out whether the results are 'realistic enough' or not.

Look, we've had RPGs since the late 70s/early 80s. That's almost forty years of some pretty intelligent people creating all kinds of systems, where you can play anything from a shape-shifting kangaroo to a sentient meteorite. It's not an accident no 'social system' has really been presented as a yardstick, that none of the mechanics our collective hobby has come up with have gotten any closer than "well, roll manipulation+persuasion versus composure or something"-type rolls.

It's not because the answer is really close and we just have to refine it, it's because we are asking the wrong question. We are trying to treat social combat like we do the physical equivalent, and it just doesn't work that way.

[faraday]

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

It's not an accident no 'social system' has really been presented as a yardstick, that none of the mechanics our collective hobby has come up with have gotten any closer than "well, roll manipulation+persuasion versus composure or something"-type rolls.

I agree it's not an accident, but I think the reasons are very different. I don't think it's about trying to equate physical or social combat, but rather:

1. Social stuff is typically secondary (or even lower than that) in Tabletop RPGs. It's frequently just handwaved with RP or a couple die rolls.
2. Tabletop RPGs aren't geared towards PVP.

Nobody(*) has any problems implementing these sorts of manip+persuasion rolls against NPCs. The GM typically doesn't care, and if they do - they have executive fiat, rolls behind the screen, etc.

But that aside, I agree with your basic argument that games need to approach it differently. And I'd find it impossible to define all those personality traits in chargen. Heck, I'd have a hard time putting them to paper for a BSG char I've played for 3 years! I know her personality, but I'd have a hard time spelling it out.

[kitteh]

@seraphim73 Definitely.

And more than just being sets of bonuses and penalties, they'd also provide RP fodder and even a use for social rolls less severe than all out 'mind control,' because every +sheet item is also a data point that can be learned, modified, etc.

Consider: Which of the following seduction scenarios is more off-putting?

• I roll some dice, and the result says that you are now attracted to me to X degree. RP continues and you react appropriately (whatever that means). Maybe I have to make successive rolls to meet some threshold. Eventually we bone. Maybe there's an award for agreeing to the social roll, you get some bonus XP.

• I roll some dice. Because I get some successes, I get to see X items from your list of sexual/romantic preferences, and also automatically learn 1 hard turn-off. I can now use/avoid these in RP, creating romance informed by things you're presumably interested in character-wise. If I want to make a hard sell, I can make another kind of roll, and if that succeeds your +sheet status to me gets upgraded from 'Acquaintance' to 'Daaaaayum.' That could provide further roll modifiers, and maybe XP feedback for all RP that acknowledges it (which could be anything from actual boning to, say, giving me info/favors/special treatment, etc).

This is the perfect social system world I envision, anyway.

[Goldfish]

Y'all just totally fucked up my WoD high social character. I'm like, What's the point? He's a good liar, persuasive, and is expressive in various ways, namely music and writing.

But why bother? I should just dump them points into combat and call it a damn day.

[Ganymede]

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

However the one compelling argument I've found people who support dice and mechanics have, and which I am swayed by, is to facilitate the possibility of occasional failure and provide a scale to success. Even the practiced politician will misread a situation or say the wrong thing at the wrong time after all, so a roll could make for an interesting scene since the result is truly unexpected by all participants.

Then agree to use the dice. Do that.

Or don't, and agree to an outcome.

Like, just do something? And stick with it. That's totally fine. And when there's a system available, use it if you want -- or don't.

But if you opt-out of a result of social combat that I engaged in, and I don't feel your reasons are justified, that's probably the last time we'll be doing that, and I'll make sure that whatever plans I come up with work around you.

Or, maybe next time I push your PC's face in instead.

[ThatGuyThere]

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

It also means that, like the firearms expert knows they need a gun, the subterfuge expert has a better understanding of how they must appeal to their target to be believed. Neither gets to just 'make up' how they want this to happen, however we see people do this with social rolls all the time, and then demand that not only does it work, it works the way they want it to no matter how impractical or unrealistic the approach they chose is, even if it is just as impractical and unrealistic a means of impacting their target as the stick and "bang".

This is one of the many reasons I am a big fan of resolving all the dice stuff separately than posing the results rather than mixing the rolling and the posing as it goes, simply because I have much less issue with the losing and more the the patent absurdity of some of the poses attempting social manipulation I have seen. It is similar to how if someone rolled computer hacking and then posed having two people sharing the same keyboard to make things move faster a la NCIS, I would either ask them to alter the pose or as someone running the scene I would just nope on the roll.

[Botulism]

It would seem to me that the best way is to start with a declaration of what you want to do (change someone's mind, say) and roll it, then based on the roll negotiate with the other player the best way to do the declared thing. Like in combat. The problem arises when people try to do it in poses first, fail or struggle, then want the dice to fix it. Why not treat social "combat" like regular combat? We don't pose shooting someone in the face before rolling. Stop trying to pose your persuasion before you roll it.

[TNP]

Perhaps 'social combat' should, as a rule, be only extended actions. That would allow for investigation as well into 'what gun to use'. It could then also be opposed. The entire thing could instigate many RP scenes.

[The Sands]

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

Y'all just totally fucked up my WoD high social character. I'm like, What's the point? He's a good liar, persuasive, and is expressive in various ways, namely music and writing.

But why bother? I should just dump them points into combat and call it a damn day.

Hang on. Is your character suppose to be a good liar, persuasive, and expressive in various ways or is he suppose to make other players do what he wants? Because in the first case no one has done anything that said you can't do that. There's just arguments being made than you can't 'force' characters controlled by players to do something. If it's the second case the problem isn't other people fucking up your character. You fucked up your character when you made them.

Skills aren't magical abilities. They have limitations. If you want to be able to walk up to someone and slap them in the face without having them know you were there you have to buy Obfuscate, not Stealth. Likewise, if you want to control the actions of another character you need Dominate, not Persuasion.

Now if you want to propose an idea so that Persuasion can be modelled without co-opting player agency (e.g. a player who is 'persuaded' has the following modifiers) I'd like to hear it. Otherwise all I'm hearing is 'Wah! I can't make everyone else do whatever I want with my social skills!' and that makes you part of the group that makes me so nervous about ideas like 'mandatory social combat'.

[Bobotron]

@goldfish
This type of mentality is why I'm trying to develop something that has Social stats be viable in CvC conflict. It's all well and good to build extra systems for them (Contacts and Allies should flow off them, for example). 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, then I feel like there's a lot of wires crossed. Most of us don't reasonably want something like that. Most of what we are wanting is some method for a character who has a high social, to be able to reasonably use that to do the things it's supposed to do: wheedle information, scare someone off, lie to get access to forbidden areas or forbidden knowledge. And sure, that's totally a facet of RP. 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.

[faraday]

@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.

I don't see anyone arguing the 'you're so truthful but I think you're lying anyway' stuff in this thread, and yet you and I both know it happens sometimes in games.

I don't see anyone arguing 'Social Stat Dominate' in this thread, but people trying to use it that way has actually happened a lot in games too.

And that's why folks on both sides are so darn sensitive about this issue. We've seen these systems (or lack thereof) be horribly misused in ways that few on either side are advocating for.

Side note: Even the 'not intimidatable' arguments posited were about someone who couldn't be subject to a particular kind of intimidation. Not someone who couldn't be intimidated ever.