Social Stats in the World of Darkness

[faraday]

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

It's just a part of the game. Maybe we should stop treating other players like they're NPCs in our tabletop game, where we can be very passive in what is done to/with us?

I've been all over this topic advocating for a more consent-based approach. You're reading more into my post than what I actually said. I was just trying to point out that "roll then discuss" is a hybrid of what I believe are the two more common forms of conflict resolution (roll and deal with it // consent). I never said that No RPG EVER did it, or even that it was a bad idea. I just think there are pretty obvious reasons why a lot of folks are resistant to it.

Also? MUSHes are not TTRPGs, but when you are building one based on a TTRPG system with a slew of versions, I think peoples' past TTRPG experiences are relevant to the discussion because they come in as baggage.

Side note: I never played CoD I played a really ancient version of WoD. So even if it has been that way "for a long long time" it wasn't that way when I played.

[Ganymede]

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

Given the nature of mushes, the interactions you have between PCs are very much as if you are sharing the responsibility of GMing/working it out amongst yourselves so why would it seem or be weird to engage each other in that discussion piece?

This is an important, crucial question.

My answer: because it is for some people. If I recall some of the MUSH/MUD discussions, this is a point of argument on the issue of what is "better." Do players prefer to share the responsibility of GMing and/or working matters out amongst themselves, or do players prefer to have the installed code resolve the issue? And when expectations or preferences do not match, there is a super big problem.

(Goddammit, now Super Why is infecting my invective.)

We should stop treating other players like they are NPCs in a tabletop game, but the Chronicles of Darkness system is structured that way. And the thing is that "normal" players (y'all muthafuckas not normal, shit) have different, equally-valid playing preferences or styles. Even were a game to make it absolutely, objectively clear what players should expect, I do not believe, from my experience, that this will solve the issue.

It never has.

There have been a lot of suggestions made, all of which I have examined and written down. I really like the way Requiem for Kingsmouth handled social interactions, but I'm not wedded to it. It has become clear to me that if a code or system could be created or implemented, it may be complex, cumbersome, and undesirable. But it could provide that third-party resolution (as a GM would) to a situation that would make those less-willing to discuss resolution prior more comfortable and validated.

[mietze]

This whole discussion is about how/if to incorporate social skills into a mush where the system being used heavily relies upon them.

Using or adapting the system that has already been written to help with this, and reflects a player's desire for agency but also the risk that comes from playing a dice-rolling game seems like a no brainer.

I actually don't think there are really super understandable reasons for being knee jerk resistant to this idea of doing this, IF you want to play on a game that is not full consent. Hell even if you ENJOY full consent (as I have very much so) you still need to talk/negotiate with the other player. And if you never want to talk to another person, then why complain about the dice compelling you to just give in?

We are discussing this because of the nature of WoD themes and storylines being not so black and white, because theres a lot of flexibility in what the skills can do (by design), and because there are a lot of misunderstandings that crop up because of that.

Being willing to discuss/roll/resolve is already in the system. You can customize the bells and whistles so that it is less overwhelming for people who dont handle newness well.

And yeah, maybe I just has shitty GMs in my tt experience but I have indeed told them I wanted to sneak past a guard, gotten info about the set up of the area, then used that info to make my pitch, rolled, and resolved. It made it fun and I got to be creative, esp if it was a super hard situation. I'm hard pressed to think of any tt session, from high school D&D to present where I didn't discuss things with my GM, and where I didn't reap rewards for doing so.

[mietze]

If you want to retain agency and be able to put things in a direction that makes things comfortable for you, then I think by necessity you are going to also have to do some work other than batting down someone else's perfectly reasonable roll and success with a "nah, that just doesn't work for me." Doesnt that other play partner have just as much need for feeling validated and comfortable?

I do not think a prerequisite for having social skills should be that the player is psychic. But that can be how they are treated like they should be otherwise "well you just didn't convince me oocly."

I guess if you wanted to eliminate all need for player discussion/negotiation, you could have buyable abilities that give you social immunity from certain applications that are a hot button/sore spot for the player. ("I can never be convinced to follow someone else's suggestion about my business." "I can never be charmed into giving a favor or discount." "Oratory dice have no effect on my willingness to be moved by a political speech." Usually sexual situations are off the table for rolling, as they should be.)

[Arkandel]

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

If you want to retain agency and be able to put things in a direction that makes things comfortable for you, then I think by necessity you are going to also have to do some work other than batting down someone else's perfectly reasonable roll and success with a "nah, that just doesn't work for me."

I am starting to develop an intense dislike for that word - agency.

Agency in this context means you have a say in the direction a story is developing and your character's role in it; it doesn't mean you control their every aspect. It doesn't mean there can be no setbacks, losses or embarrassments in the way. Such control is in the domain of writing novels (or fan fiction), not roleplaying.

It's being overused to mean "I never lose". That's not what it's supposed to stand for.

That stands in both physical and social encounters. Sure, no one should feel forced to play out anything they find disturbing but there are plenty of scenarios (especially in the World of Darkness) where success is a zero sum game; for someone to prevail someone else needs to take a hit.

The only real way to retain 'agency' in this manner is to avoid being part of those scenarios, and yet many players who should know better - who ought to understand they can't handle setbacks gracefully - engage themselves in situations they're all but guaranteed to be challenged somehow.

For example one could play an artisan and probably not need to worry about losing face too much because that's not an inherently contested position, therefore if I want to avoid things that trigger my irritation that would be a suitable role to play. However if I go and make myself a High Lord wannabe in a hotly contested hotbed of political maneuvering then something has to give; even removing social rolls there's no way I can retain that precious 'agency' of controlling my character's development. I can have a say in it, for sure, but social rolls don't take that away to begin with.

[mietze]

@arkandel yeah, but if the issue is that people literally do not want to have to discuss with anyone else, just veto it or not...I mean yes, that's disappointing, but maybe there should be a buy in way to be able to avoid the topics that they are unwilling to give any discussion to another player. So that neither party has to waste their time on the other.

[Pyrephox]

@arkandel It is a crime that one can only upvote a post once.

And yes, negotiation with the GM is an extremely common thing in many tabletop systems. In fact, more modern narrative based systems have even moved towards giving more of that power to PCs. Like, 13th Age, which does adventurous high fantasy, has 'backgrounds' instead of skills, and successfully rolling on a background allows a player to TELL the GM how their background is relevant to the situation, including to the point of changing the world around them - "I am a Former Captain of the Imperial Guard," (roll success) "so it's not hard for me to find one of the guards at the ball who owes me a favor, and he lets us crash the party, as long as we don't rat him out if we get caught."

Other systems, realizing that players do not have the skills of their characters, incorporate that into skill checks. For example, having a Tactics skill, where yes, the player can roll for their character to come up with a decent plan, and the GM can outline the plan they come up with and give them a bonus to actions to execute that plan. (Something will still go wrong, because GAME, but it won't be because a player is not the tactician that their character is). Even WoD has a merit called Common Sense that allows: "Whenever you are about to do something contrary to common sense, the Storyteller should alert you to how your potential action might violate practicality within the mundane realm (often an Intelligence roll). This is an ideal Merit if you are a novice player because it allows you to receive advice from the Storyteller concerning what you can and cannot do, and (even more importantly) what you should and should not do."

EDIT: The new edition of 7th Sea actually has you roll your successes/raises in advance of the scene, and then decide where/when to spend them throughout the scene, which I always thought was an interesting way to do it, too. You have a general idea of your competence to start out, but are not /exactly/ sure of WHAT you'll be competent at.

Because forcing players to rely only on their own skills when they want to play characters who are competent at things that they never had a chance to practice OOC is not a recipe for fun.

[mietze]

And as a player my top goal is to have everyone, win or lose, come away with feeling like they got to enjoy their character's interaction with mine. I have never ever had a player NOT respond to my interest in their PC (assuming they has agreed to RP with me specifically, I'm not talking about the people in a scene who are clearly interested in a specific person(s) and all else are window dressing...that's clearly not personal at all and not really a fair comparison). Wanting to work with someone to find a resolution that reflects success on a roll but doesn't totally destroy their ooc enjoyment of the interaction is a tool towards that end. I would much rather do that than roll dice, have them say nothing, and then find out later that they felt I "destroyed their PC."

[surreality]

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

I am starting to develop an intense dislike for that word - agency.

Agency in this context means you have a say in the direction a story is developing and your character's role in it; it doesn't mean you control their every aspect. It doesn't mean there can be no setbacks, losses or embarrassments in the way. Such control is in the domain of writing novels (or fan fiction), not roleplaying.

It's being overused to mean "I never lose". That's not what it's supposed to stand for.

Then people need to clarify that it doesn't mean "I never lose," not stain the word -- it is not of the four-letter variety, and should not become so. The word is valid, as is the concept it is meant to represent. People acting in good faith in this regard need to take this term back with a quickness.

To be blunt, I see some folks talking a good game in this thread and hitting all the right talking points that I've also seen repeatedly act horribly re: 'I can never be scared/lied to/intimidated/disadvantaged in any fashion/etc.' which makes the whole thread something of an exercise in frustration.

This stuff only ever changes if people start walking that walk; the talk isn't going to make the world a better place on its own.

Additional point of frustration: any time one of these discussions comes about, from a collaborative perspective, it is a chance for brainstorming. Personally, I love that. I love coming up with ideas with someone. If everyone is working from the same information and honest and up front re: their intentions, even 'bad' situations for a character can be enjoyable to explore as a player.

Are they always? No.

Is that avoidable? No.

It is still possible to reach a far more reasonable and mutually enjoyable outcome by acting in good faith than it is when folks behave otherwise.

[faraday]

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

Even WoD has a merit called Common Sense that allows...

That's my point though ... having GM advice is not a foregone conclusion in every system. Some games make you pay for a Common Sense merit. Others have a Wisdom stat.

I've played in lots of different TTRPG groups - both conventions and various clubs/friends - and it was rare for anyone to ask the GM for direct help in solving the problem. Sure, you could ask informational type questions like "Do I know anything about ork customs so I don't inadvertently offend him?" But never "What's the best way to win this fight?"

I make no claims that this experience is universal, but I do believe it's fairly common. Whether you believe that or not, though, you have to acknowledge, as @Ganymede said, that people come to MUSHes with different experiences and assumptions about how the game "should" be played. Navigating that lack of a common ground is difficult.

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

I am starting to develop an intense dislike for that word - agency. It's being overused to mean "I never lose". That's not what it's supposed to stand for.

See, the thing is - people are claiming it's being used to mean "I never lose" but that's not what many (most? all?) of us are actually saying.

I use agency in the dictionary sense of exerting control. Not over what happens to my character - because that would actually mean exerting control over the environment, the NPCs, and other PCs - but over my character's thoughts and attempted actions. Deciding what a character thinks, says and does is literally a player's job IMHO.

And yes, of course, you have to respect the rolls if rolls are part of the game. But there are lots of ways to do that. Feeling intimidated and doing what the person is asking you to do because you're intimidated are two very different things. Perhaps I take a negative modifier on an attack, or pose standing up to them while literally quaking in boots, or any number of other possible actions that respect the roll while still retaining control over what I feel is my character's most appropriate reaction to that roll.

That's what agency is to me. And if folks don't like that way? Hey, I respect that. All I'm asking for is the same degree of respect in return.

Because it's really not about never losing. My characters have routinely been duped, intimidated, seduced, and manipulated into doing dumb things, and I personally know that's true for several other players who advocate for agency. It's just about staying true to the core of who that character is in your mind.

[Pyrephox]

@faraday "Feeling intimidated" is defined by the system. If the system says, "when a character successfully wins a contest of intimidation, X happens" then that is what happens, and if you don't like that, then don't play the game.

Part of agency is responsibility - don't play a game with rules you can't abide. And EVERY system (professional system, at least, not homebrew) that has social contests tends to define what the acceptable outcome of those contests are. Read the rules, know the rules, follow the rules.

Or explicitly house-rule the rules, or don't play the game. But once you agree to play a game rules as written, don't throw a fit because you don't like what the outcome of a social contest is.

EDIT: I suppose this is the core of my frustration with this endless round of arguments, because people are so damned generic about it. You can't say you like or don't like 'social systems' because there five billion of the damned things. And almost no one on the "no social stats/skills" side has been talking about /World of Darkness/ social skills/stats/processes and what specific problems they have with them in play. Possibly because I'm not sure anyone's actually read them - certainly, the situations they describe /cannot happen/ under most versions of the rules as written, without someone being ignorant or lying about the rules that exist.

You can't have a reasonable discussion about boogieman that people make up in their heads, and I don't think anyone has been advocating FATAL as a system here.

Now, there are issues even with the Doors system, as much as I love it. For example, when I ran an organization Doors attack for someone who wanted to get my character over a barrel by attacking his business interests, it was great fun, but one problem I DO think exists is there's no real way to 'fight back', so to speak. You can counter attack (open a Doors attack in return on an asset of the attacker, if your character knows about it), but there's not really anyway in that indirect conflict for your character to find out about it and shore up their defenses. The system is oriented towards PC -> NPC action, with the Doors as obstacles to overcome, and could probably use some tweaking to be more PC <-> PC friendly.

And in an earlier version of the intimidation contest in WoD, for example, an exceptional success on Intimidation made the target permanently intimidated. That was great when you're talking an NPC who might become a reoccuring character who gets cowed into helping the PCs. Not so much in PC <-> PC conflict. No game that I know of ever House Ruled it to something more reasonable.

[surreality]

@pyrephox I have yet to see a system define 'X' as 'perform the following script, whatever I want that script to be', which is a major aspect of the problem.

Both call and response need to adhere to the same version of reality. If call or response is wildly afield, some kind of arbiter is likely necessary.

[Auspice]

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

"Feeling intimidated" is defined by the system. If the system says, "when a character successfully wins a contest of intimidation, X happens" then that is what happens, and if you don't like that, then don't play the game.

That said, you get to decide what intimidation means to you character. How do they handle being intimidated? How do they respond to it? What does it make them feel?

But so many people (this goes back to the issue on many games where people respond to everything with a 'shrug, whatever' no matter how horrifying, how awe inspiring, etc. because they are just 2COOL4SCHOOL) can't bear the idea of their character being intimidated by another that they just wanna go NOPE.

That is the issue, I think, at the crux of it. It's not that we're saying 'you must be intimidated in this one specific way!' it's that... you have to be intimidated at all and many of us who have done these rolls, on social PCs in the past, have had someone just nope out...

...because that person is playing one of those 'cool as a cucumber' type PCs who just never reacts to anything because they're just too cool or they've 'seen too much' or...

No one is trying to take agency or control of another PC. It's still about influence.

[faraday]

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

@faraday "Feeling intimidated" is defined by the system. If the system says, "when a character successfully wins a contest of intimidation, X happens" then that is what happens, and if you don't like that, then don't play the game.

If the system says that, then yes. But I have not seen a system that says literally "If you win an intimidation roll against someone they must do exactly what you demand". Most don't go into that much specificity. (And if the most recent version of CoD says that, then obviously nevermind. I don't have those rules.)

[Pyrephox]

@faraday http://nwod.org/wiki/index.php/Intimidation_Skill

For your reading pleasure. It's not a full writeup, because wiki, and it's WoD not CoD, but it might at least help you get an idea of the applicable system involved.

[Tinuviel]

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

It's not a full writeup, because wiki, and it's WoD

It's also a specific game's wiki, not to be taken as authoritative.

[faraday]

@pyrephox I see that as being open to a lot of interpretation. This is why TTRPGs have a GM. And if you're going to use that system as-written on a MU, you always have the option to call in staff and they can arbitrate whether the way I'm having my character react to the intimidation roll is in accordance to the rules or not. Obviously my choice then is either acquiesce to their decision or quit.

Nobody is saying players have a right to not follow the rules. We're having a discussion, solicited by @Ganymede, about what rules would be appropriate/acceptable. The whole thread is predicated on not using the rules as-written.

[Pyrephox]

@tinuviel I mean, I'm at work, but I'm pretty sure it's pretty much cut and pasted from the core book, minus a few other explicit uses of the skill? Someone is welcome to look up the book if they've got it on them and check, though if they believe it to be inaccurate.

It is, at the very least, an accurate exemplar of how WoD's actual rules handle social contests in every version until the Doors system. (Also, did you know that WoD has rules for negotiation? Like actual rules, which walk you through how many concessions are given based on what rolls in an extended contest are won and lost, how long it takes, etc? It's pretty cool.)

[Tinuviel]

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

I mean, I'm at work, but I'm pretty sure it's pretty much cut and pasted from the core book, minus a few other explicit uses of the skill?

Even if that's the case, it's not something one should assume when using third-party sources.

[Pyrephox]

@tinuviel Is it inaccurate? Or do you feel that it misrepresents the general resolution mechanics of the game such that it has no utility to illustrate that system to someone who has not previously read it? Is there an actual objection to the content or its accuracy, or is this just being pedantic for the sake of it?