Social Stats in the World of Darkness

[Arkandel]

@ganymede Even more so it happens simply because some people are just better roleplayers - and unintentionally.

The easiest example is if you see how some great roleplayers who can write solid poses, who are mature, active, creative and courteous attract companions, friends and allies without trying even when they aren't playing charismatic characters, but for those who don't have it (whatever it is) it won't matter if they have Leadership 5.

For this there is no 'fix'. People gravitate to quality, for which there is no stat you can buy with XPs.

[Ganymede]

@pyrephox

I'd like to think that too, but we are presuming arguendo that there is no IC/OOC divide. There are arguments on both sides as to whether it is possible to completely divorce the player from the character, so as to support the conclusion that the characters alone are competing.

The entire belief of "if my PC loses I lose" is a matter of player cognition. This is not something we can eliminate by policy, so I don't consider it an issue. But, again, I am arguing from the perspective that there is no IC/OOC divide, so I have to, for the sake of the discussion, avoid any digression into whether there should be or can be a separation between IC and OOC. I see your concern, but it's not really in my mind right now.

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

People gravitate to quality, for which there is no stat you can buy with XPs.

I don't necessarily believe this, but I like to think this is why I get nice RP partners.

That said, sure -- and so what? Maybe I used that "quality" to get my PCs into political situations. Maybe I used that "quality" to punch above my weight class politically, so to speak. What I do know is that I didn't cheat with my PCs; they were either built to be political, or hustled their way up the ladder IC.

So, maybe I'm good with the political game, and maybe my PCs are.

But I can say, with some confidence, that I didn't rely on or roll my social stats to get there unless asked to. And my experience leads me to believe that players, if they gravitate to quality RP as you say, are more than happy to play with what they see on the screen. I feel that players are willing to adjust their PC's habits and behaviors to stay with other PCs that they enjoy playing with. And they are willing to let things go, and just go with how things are written.

If so, then do we really need social stats?

I mean, D&D campaigns seem to go just fine without players using social stats to sleep with one another. D&D is built to cater to player v. GM RP rather than player v. player. And people like D&D just fine.

[Pyrephox]

@ganymede The lack of IC/OOC divide where there really SHOULD be some is, perhaps, at the root of the whole problem. And "If my character loses, I lose" is a cognition that doesn't spring out of nowhere. If you're actually saying as a game policy that social contests between characters will be resolved based on the skills of the players involved, then a loss for a character IS a loss for that player. Assuming they were trying their best to be a slick social maven, they've just been labeled a failure in that endeavor, possibly in a hugely public way on the game. Not their character, but THEM. So it certainly isn't going to help.

There is no absolute IC/OOC divide - ultimately, characters exist because we OOC want them to do so, and they attempt to do things that we OOC want them to do. But that doesn't mean that the entire concept of 'this is a character's skills and abilities' and 'this is a player's skills and abilities' needs to be tossed out.

If you want to cross the IC/OOC divide in a more productive way, then encourage collaboration in social systems, and make it rewarding for players who are perhaps more skilled or savvy regarding social interaction to HELP players who are less so succeed in directing their socially oriented characters.

[Thenomain]

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

I don't think of the purpose of social maneuvering in games to be one player trying to out-think the other

To ground what robolawyer said, I don't think of the purpose of a car to be to run over people you disagree with, but like any tool it can be used far outside the scope of its designed purpose. We give tools their purpose. This is why we have windows with warnings that read, "Children cannot fly."

[Ganymede]

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

If you're actually saying as a game policy that social contests between characters will be resolved based on the skills of the players involved, then a loss for a character IS a loss for that player. Assuming they were trying their best to be a slick social maven, they've just been labeled a failure in that endeavor, possibly in a hugely public way on the game. Not their character, but THEM. So it certainly isn't going to help.

This is the sort of discussion I want to engage in, because this is a good point.

Take the contrary situation. Let's say Player A wants to play a slick social maven, and loads up on dice and powers to do this. If Player A rolls poorly, then they have failed, may be labeled as a failure in that endeavor, and that may be hugely public. If they still hold to the cognitive issue -- "if my PC loses, I lose" -- then the dice and stats have not helped either. And that's the situation, I think, that arises now, and why players often engage bitterly and hotly about what pool to roll.

The cognition problem doesn't go away with social stats.

[Thenomain]

@ganymede

Getting away from a system with a binary succeed/fail system would also help.

[Pyrephox]

@ganymede It does not! And some people are always going to view /any possible loss/ for their character as a dire attack on their identity as a person. I've GMed for those players, who were lovely people, but just...not capable of viewing otherwise.

However, policy does effect how prevalent and supported a viewpoint is as well as what kind of players are attracted to your game - if you support a policy of, "We don't care if someone sexually harasses other players or sends them repeated graphic rape threats IC," then you're going to get a much higher percentage of players who are totally cool with sending other players graphic rape threats IC and sexually harassing others. Likewise, if your policy is, "IC social contests are contests between players," then you're going to get a higher percentage of players who have poor separation of IC/OOC to start out with. And a higher percentage of people who THINK they are far more seductive/charismatic/clever than they are, and who are not going to deal well with finding out otherwise.

You're also going to dissuade people who are uncomfortable with that sort of boundary crossing, and who prefer to be able to recognize that a character and a player can be good a very different things, without it being a judgement on the player. Now, if that's the playerbase you're looking for, that's fine - it's a good way to get it. If it isn't, then that's something to keep in mind.

[Ganymede]

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

Getting away from a system with a binary succeed/fail system would also help.

---

King's Advisor: Milord, the princess might be taken hostage or her life be put in jeopardy.

Longshanks: Oh, my son would be most distressed by that. Uh, but in truth, if she were to be killed, we would soon find the king of France a useful ally against the Scots. You see, as king, you must find the good in any situation.

---

The situation is only binary if you cannot see the other possibilities. This is another cognition problem.

[Ganymede]

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

... if your policy is, "IC social contests are contests between players," then you're going to get a higher percentage of players who have poor separation of IC/OOC to start out with.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I have been in many spheres with IC social contests, and, for the most part, have found that, given the amount of potential conflict, there was little actual conflict that bled OOC. However, in a bizarre inverse relationship, games with less potential IC conflict socially bred much more conflict IC and OOC. I couldn't tell you why this was (with any authority, but I have some ideas), but that's my experience.

And a higher percentage of people who THINK they are far more seductive/charismatic/clever than they are, and who are not going to deal well with finding out otherwise.

This sounds like a problem for the player. Frankly, when they find that out -- and they find no social stats to use as a sword to enforce their delusion -- they may leave to find more tolerant pastures.

"High charisma! Plz RP accordingly!" Yeah, go fuck yourself, no.

You're also going to dissuade people who are uncomfortable with that sort of boundary crossing, and who prefer to be able to recognize that a character and a player can be good a very different things, without it being a judgement on the player.

Again, I am of the belief that the existence of social stats to influence others isn't going to change this.

[Thenomain]

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

The situation is only binary if you cannot see the other possibilities. This is another cognition problem.

Most systems encourages binary thought. Look at CoD back-peddling in their combat system: If your goal is to kill, you must spend Willpower. If your goal changes, you must spend Willpower.

D&D (et al.) get away with this by making all the things you roll for binary. And yes I know there's a degree of fluidity at the far ends but most of your rolls are going to be "hit/whiff". This level of simplicity goes into its favor because it's designed for it.

[Pyrephox]

@ganymede I fundamentally disagree, based on my own experiences. And since each of our experiences are subjective, and there's no objective data that I know of which supports either, I suppose this is where we break out the old 'agree to disagree' canard.

I will say, despite the flaws of both games, after playing Kingsmouth, I lost most of my interest in WoD MUs, because of their lack of support for social systems - and after playing Arx, I can't ever see myself going back to a WoD MU where social skills are just a meaningless XP sink and used for fueling supernatural powers. So I wouldn't be the target audience for a WoD game without social stats in the first place.

But, if one ever gets made, I hope that it's fun for the people who choose to play there, and that it does well!

[Ganymede]

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

So I wouldn't be the target audience for a WoD game without social stats in the first place.

I hate canards. Damn ducks.

You are actually my target audience, so I'm trying to work through things carefully. There are a lot of strong, good opinions. My goal is to gather the thoughts, and figure out what is best for what I want to set up.

Thanks for discussing this with me.

[Pyrephox]

@ganymede No worries! It's been an interesting discussion.

And, what I MIGHT suggest, if you don't want PCs to be able to affect each other directly with social skills/abilities, is to have robust mechanics for affecting NPCs in meaningful ways. Like, going back to the games up above, on Kingsmouth, social skills made your character better at controlling territory, and allowed indirect conflicts by screwing with NPCs within other territories. Likewise, with Arx, there's very little (that I know of) direct use of intimidation and seduction, despite those being skills, but they CAN be very useful in @actions and GMed scenes. Which gives people a sense of utility and power and agency, without needing to directly 'change' another PC's mind or actions.

However, if you do that, I'd say the systems need to be equally or more powerful than PCs' abilities to use physical or supernatural means to directly change other character's minds (or take them out of the conflict directly).

Still, that's only my thought on it.

[GangOfDolls]

Maybe social stat rolls and roll offs require a staff judge present to work? That way the staffer can present the 'yes/no/maybe' of what the roll does, doesn't do, and what the options are in between.

It's a resource demand on a staffer yes but it will also make players think harder about if they really need social dice for this thing they're trying to do or not. Like, if you're trying to make someone sleep with you in character based on social dice, you're less likely to abuse that option if it requires a staffer present to watch you be a weirdo perv.

[Roz]

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

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

... if your policy is, "IC social contests are contests between players," then you're going to get a higher percentage of players who have poor separation of IC/OOC to start out with.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I have been in many spheres with IC social contests, and, for the most part, have found that, given the amount of potential conflict, there was little actual conflict that bled OOC. However, in a bizarre inverse relationship, games with less potential IC conflict socially bred much more conflict IC and OOC. I couldn't tell you why this was (with any authority, but I have some ideas), but that's my experience.

I feel like there's some dissonance in what you two are saying. The important phrase to me from @Pyrephox's post was that the social contests were between players rather than between characters. That is: if your policy supports the idea that player talent in regards to social maneuvering is what is going to win the day, it will encourage players who want to basically try to do their maneuvering OOC. Versus if you create policy that sets up how your game wants social systems to work and spend time working out how it happens on a character to character basis, and take steps to reduce ways in which people can basically use their OOC wits to make up for a lack of IC wits, I think you'll actually be building towards what you are describing, Gany: that when players understand the expectation and the normality of social maneuvering, it can actually reduce the OOC drama surrounding it. And when you take efforts to push things into the IC sphere, it reduces the conflation of character and player that @Pyrephox is talking about. I don't necessarily think that your experiences are disagreeing. I think the key is "set up policy to support IC contests as being between characters, not between players." I also think that having social conflict systems be a common and everyday thing helps to normalize it and have it feel a bit less like every instance is a huge deal to stress people out.

[faraday]

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

"High charisma! Plz RP accordingly!" Yeah, go fuck yourself, no.

I think this is an important issue when it comes to social stats.

We don't handwave social interaction in a MUSH.

The only way to get to the place @Pyrephox is describing where your OOC skills don't matter is if players are willing to accept:

Joe stands up and makes a stirring speech.

Most players are not willing to accept that, and I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to see that - any more than I'd want to read a crime novel written by an author who handwaved all important details with "And then Holmes questioned the suspect."

So like it or not, your OOC social savvy matters. A lot.

[Pyrephox]

@faraday I, at least, would be vastly more relieved to see that as a pose than to actually have someone type out what they think a stirring speech looks like. If for no other reason that there is nothing for other players or characters to DO in a 'stirring speech' moment, and there is nothing more OOC boring than posing your character listening to someone ramble on for rounds of poses trying to be inspirational.

Roll for effect, brief summary of things people can react to, move on to the fun parts for everyone.

[faraday]

@pyrephox To each their own. But I think it cuts out a giant swath of RP if all social interactions come down to:

"Bob bluffs his way past the guard." (roll Con)
"Jane tries to seduce Max into giving up the state secrets." (roll Seduction)
etc.

I think there needs to be more back-and-forth than that. And that requires people to be able to convincingly play their characters.

[Pyrephox]

@faraday Or it requires players to be kind to one another and recognize that not everyone is playing a character who matches with their skills. JanePlayer: "Hey, MaxPlayer, Jane would like to try to get Max to drop some juicy pillow talk about that secret project he's working on. She's got a fairly high Seduction and Charisma skill."
MaxPlayer looks at Max's social resist skills, winces: "Well, Max is pretty weak-willed, so she can probably get SOMETHING out of him, but I've previously played him as not being into the kind of persona Jane usually projects."
JanePlayer: "Huh. Could I roll Seduction and see if Jane could pick up what WOULD get him to drop his defenses?"
MaxPlayer: "Sure."
roll, moderate success
MaxPlayer: "Okay - he's more into the strong, forthright type. He doesn't like coy or innocent (or fake innocent). He's also probably not going to actually sleep with her any time soon - he's a slow moving kinda guy."
JanePlayer: "Darn. Okay, she doesn't want to put in THAT much time. But she could approach him boldly, ply him with alcohol, and get him to slip something, maybe?"
MaxPlayer: "It's possible! Let's roll and see if he's able to resist her charms."
roll
*roll
MaxPlayer's roll fails.
JanePlayer: "Yaaaaas."
MaxPlayer: "Damn. Okay, let's play it out for a bit, and he'll slip up and give her a juicy clue before he realizes that he's too drunk to be talking about this and runs away. Sound good?"
JanePlayer: "Sure."

Now, does that assume two reasonable players? Yes. But a social mechanics system can facilitate that, especially if it can reward MaxPlayer in some way for 'playing along' AND reward JanePlayer for not pushing past MaxPlayer's comfort level even though she won the contest.

And (and this is a big part of it) if the game culture is very explicit about maturity being required between players, and removing players who can't or won't follow through with that. The people who try to abuse systems to creep, and the people who try to no sell other character's skills and abilities? They both need to be vigorously removed without hesitation. As long as you're wishy-washy about it, no matter WHAT you choose as your system, cheaters of both types will manage to squirm around in the cracks, ruining it for everyone.

[faraday]

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

Or it requires players to be kind to one another and recognize that not everyone is playing a character who matches with their skills. ... Now, does that assume two reasonable players?

I disagree with the assertion that wishing for some degree of verisimilitude in the writing on a game is unreasonable or unkind.

But I do agree that when players cooperate to reach a mutually-agreeable resolution to conflict, it's better for everyone.