Social Stats in the World of Darkness

[surreality]

@tinuviel Exactly this. It really is designed with that in mind at all times. It's why I gave up on using it for MU, or even thinking it should be, ultimately, but especially so as written, and without a fairly comprehensive explanation of the game/staff/uniform ST stance on... frankly almost every single aspect of the game.

In all seriousness, while I have shared this story in the past, it's apt to repeat, and hopefully it will further drive this point home:

Years back, I was in an oWoD online game that had a group of players who insisted that celerity applied to any action that a character could take rather than just the physical actions the creators intended, including blowing past things like willpower or blood expenditures allowed per over all turn. Well, not just no, but fuck no. So, knowing some of their folks and having a quick contact, I ask one of their developers to clarify this to end this absurdity so things can go back to the merely ridiculous, rather than the balls to the wall bullshit of things like characters slinging multiple thaumaturgy rituals and throwing in two pops of dominate with celerity in a single over all turn.

His reply, verbatim: Oh, honey. Do not play with those people.

...

Yeah. That approach works just fine for tabletop. Not so much in the come-one, come-all free-for-all of chaos that is even a small MU.

[Tinuviel]

@surreality Stop agreeing with me. I lose my power if I don't have something to rail against.

[Arkandel]

@misadventure said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

MU* RP is more socially oriented than (almost all) tabletop for many reasons. Moreso than deadly danger, it should offer interesting choices, and make for an interesting story.

MU* and table-top are simply different mediums. Comparing them is a task bound to fail the same way discussing a movie versus the book it was derived by would.

In table-top something is, or had better be, always happening. That's what the ST is there for, after all; downtime can and should exist but it's kind of like a cinematic experience where these pockets of exposition and character development are then thrown into perpetual upheavals.

MUSHes, and I don't mean that in a bad way, are kind of the soap operas of roleplaying. Most of the time nothing is 'happening' per se, and the vast majority of a character's played life is spent talking about or dissecting either the official storyline (rather than actively participating in or directly affecting it), or of course expanding the relationships between themselves and others.

That's conversely the exact reason social skills need to be really easy to use. It's something you'd have to put into play all the damn time, so if you have to go consulting tables (let alone involving staff) and shit the boat has already sailed.

[Tinuviel]

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

MU* and table-top are simply different mediums

Media.
The plural of medium is media.

I would argue, however, that comparing how one adapts a tabletop game to their group with adapting the same tabletop game to a MU is perfectly sound.

[Arkandel]

@tinuviel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

MU* and table-top are simply different mediums

Media.
The plural of medium is media.

Thanks for the correction!

I would argue, however, that comparing how one adapts a tabletop game to their group with adapting the same tabletop game to a MU is perfectly sound.

I still disagree as long as we're discussing the effects of adapting the mechanics, and the original system is actually written for small parties with a GM present.

The WoD is a rather obvious example to use for why the comparison fails, as I've been in numerous campaigns myself with both short and long term arcs yet never faced even a fraction of the complaints about social skill abuse, powers creeping people out, players losing agency in unwanted ways, etc.

Of course such observations are anecdotal but I still believe they're about the same as most people have of playing the 'intended' way versus what we are using them for.

[Tinuviel]

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

I still disagree as long as we're discussing the effects of adapting the mechanics, and the original system is actually written for small parties with a GM present.

To a point, yes. However the ways in which one adapts are important, if not the end results. Using the same method for a larger audience could and I lean heavily into the could provide some sort of idea as to what one might expect were one to use the same thing to a wider audience.

[faraday]

So even though I prefer a more consent-based approach to social conflict, as a thought exercise I worked out how I would create a system if I wanted to do so. Here it is: https://aresmush.com/fs3/fs3-3/social

In a nutshell, it codifies the kind of modifiers I was talking about (that aren't reflected by stats), explicitly states some guardrails and expectations, and provides some mechanics that I think could be turned into a simple command like:
social Faraday/Persuasion+Obligation+Trust vs Ganymede/Composure+Consequence

Staff may still need to be called in for idiots being idiots, but at least it offers a framework where reasonable people can work things out when they can't agree. I believe it gives defenders reasonable accommodation for agency without giving them veto power.

Obviously it's designed for FS3 and not WoD, and I'm not specifically looking for feedback on it (since it's just a hypothetical system). I just posted it to show that I a middle-ground solution might be possible, and because I thought there might be some ideas in it that might be useful to somebody somewhere.

[Ganymede]

@faraday

That's totally unfair. I'd only have 2 dice to resist.

(This is totally awesome, though.)

[Tinuviel]

But adding consequence removes my agency! /s

[Thenomain]

What I like about @faraday's concept is that it adds Mudlike elements to our Mushlike expectations, which is something we should be embracing. As @Misadventure said once long ago (on Wora): We should make the computer do the hard things that we can't do in RPGs.

But as usual, I'm going to play That Makes Me Think Of:

Back on AetherMux, the entire conflict resolution system went something like this (I can't remember the exact inputs so ignore this):

<thenomain types>: +compare strength+weaponry=faraday dexterity+dodge
<game replies>: Thenomain is trying to compare his <foo> to your <bar>.
<faraday types>: +compare/accept thenomain
<game replies>: Faraday narrowly succeeds by 15%
<faraday poses>: The claymore comes down slowly on Faraday's side, 
cutting through her coat and drawing a red line across her skin. 
There's $300 she won't see again in a hurry.

There was no limitation to what could be compared, no hard system, just what the players decided was appropriate for the situation.

The game never rolls anything; it just compared values. It helped that the stats were all 0-50 allowing for a decent percentage comparison, but the concept is there: The game didn't have a barely-nonbinary success/fail system. You compared results and decided what that meant.

People used this for social interactions all the time.

This was a fairly consent-heavy game, but everyone knew this going in and people would lose the small things.

[faraday]

@thenomain said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

There was no limitation to what could be compared, no hard system, just what the players decided was appropriate for the situation.

That's basically how the FS3 opposed roll system works, FWIW, which is used for everything besides when people decide to use the +combat system. It just doesn't require the other person to accept before the results are printed. (i.e. it's "object after" not "agree before").

<FS3> Cate rolls Stealth+Reflexes (8 6 5 5 4 2 2 1) vs Erin's Demolitions+Wits (7 6 6 4 4 4)
<FS3>          Marginal Victory for Erin.

Don't even ask me what that particular contest might represent, lol But it shows how the rolls can be arbitrary.

[Thenomain]

@faraday

One of the things I appreciated about Aether was there was no randomness. You decided what '15% better' meant. Almost everyone recognized that the person on the other end of the screen was also involved and added that to their pose.

As people here were talking about "why don't people talk about this OOC?", here's a system where exactly that happened, and was quick.

[faraday]

@thenomain I'm now quite following (never played on Aether). Are you saying there were no rolls at all? If your stat was 15% better than mine it just said "succeeds by 15%"?

[Thenomain]

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Are you saying there were no rolls at all?

I'm saying there were no rolls at all.

If my Strength+Weaponry was 100,
and your Dexterity+Dodge was 115,
some math would be done to say how much more 115 is over 100
(I don't know; I use computers to do math for me)
and that's how much better you are at your thing
than I am at my thing.

I suppose we could add a randomness factor in there if you'd like, but the lack of a randomness factor was refreshing. Just because someone is narrowly better doesn't mean they'll succeed, and most everyone offered failures at such narrow a success.

[faraday]

@thenomain Yeah I mean there’s something to be said for that. I prefer some randomness though. Even Hank Aaron struck out sometimes, even against average pitchers. But I think the general principle is the same - give the players vague guidance on the outcome and let them sort it out. Some folks like that. Others prefer more concrete answers like “Faraday takes a moderate wound to her right arm.”

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

<FS3> Cate rolls Stealth+Reflexes (8 6 5 5 4 2 2 1) vs Erin's Demolitions+Wits (7 6 6 4 4 4)
<FS3> Marginal Victory for Erin.

And now I am sad and missing BSG:U.

Although, looking at this, I can't even imagine what the heck Cate and Erin were trying to do, yeah? Is Cate trying to hide from Erin's attempt to explode her?

...

Actually, that's probably the best way to look at it.

[Arkandel]

Generally speaking I prefer weighed randomness as well if for no other reason than because otherwise all outcomes are predetermined; if I made you believe my lie (or punched you in the face) today then I will be able to do so tomorrow, guaranteed, every time.

Now, for a mostly statless game this isn't a bad idea. It simplifies a lot of things without letting people be perfect at everything (hence the 'mostly' part). If I know you're a better liar than I am at reading you then I pre-emptively pose buying into your shit - how much? Well, by 15% or so.

Yeah, I can see that working out.

[Thenomain]

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Even Hank Aaron struck out sometimes

@thenomain said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Just because someone is narrowly better doesn't mean they'll succeed, and most everyone offered failures at such narrow a success.

--

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Others prefer more concrete answers like “Faraday takes a moderate wound to her right arm.”

As someone I know regularly says, "No system is going to make everyone happy."

[Seraphim73]

@misadventure said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Physical combat and its accepted model works fine because it has one end state: defeated (yield, unconscious, dead, etc). That result is typically dull to RP.

I disagree with this.

Social interaction should not be modeled after physical combat, because simplistic to say that all forms of social success "defeated" anyone.

And with this.

I think that you're short-changing physical combat and social combat alike.

Physical combat could be about counting coup, making a point, standing up for yourself even though you get beat up, beating someone up to shut them up, beating someone up because you like it, maiming someone, killing them... some of the best RP I've had has come from RPing physical combat (granted, a good deal of it came after the actual combat, but I also love posing physical combat.

"Defeating" someone in social combat could be intimidating them into backing off, it could be charming them into liking you a little more, it could be bribing them into taking your nephew on as an aide, it could be getting them to let slip that juicy little secret, it could be getting a discount on that car you want to buy... these are all victory/defeat situations, but through RP, they become much richer than that. Heck, you could even give in to what the other person wants, but get a valuable concession in return (being defeated, but doing significant "social damage" over the course of the interaction).

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Don't even ask me what that particular contest might represent, lol But it shows how the rolls can be arbitrary.

Clearly, Cate is trying to sneak past the tripwire mine Erin set up. Poor Cate.

[Misadventure]

Let alone defining moderate.

@Arkandel When discussing variety in results, it's a good idea to clearly separate how often something unexpected can happen from how unusual an outcome can happen.

Games discuss the magnitude of results with things like Specials, Crits, made by 10, 5 more successes than needed etc. Everything else just wiggles the results around the failing/succeeding division line.

First, define the power of the results you want to see, then decide if routine resolutions between equal parties can result in the extremes. Then work on whatever randomness you desire.