Social Stats in the World of Darkness

[Ziggurat]

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

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

Didn't I also suggest that it might be more expedient for us to approach these disputes, frustrations, and misunderstandings at the interpersonal level, using player to player conversations that are facilitated by staff through a framework of easy/simple prompts, or questions, an atmosphere which encourages collaboration, a willingness to remove players that cannot maturely navigate these discussions, and more than just oversight, a plainly drawn expectation (with explanation) that players make the effort to cooperate in the resolution of these things as much as they would in any other conflict...?

I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of this discussion. All of the above is simply irrelevant.

It's not really irrelevant at all, though. I get that your initial idea was to remove social mechanics between players entirely, and that you've since moved on to consider the opposite option - that you should develop a system of social mechanics that is more complex and nuanced, so that when used between player characters there is less need for oversight, less potential for headaches, etc.

I'm suggesting plainly that neither are necessarily the solution, and that maybe the problem you're trying to solve doesn't need to be dealt with through mechanics. Maybe the issue is a cultural one, and there are staff practices and methods of facilitation that could handle this just as well.

This is a thread about the place of social stats between players in the world of darkness, intended primarily for discussion about how to manage these encounters and create a fun, equitable experience. I don't know how it could possibly be 'irrelevant' to contribute the idea that the mechanics themselves aren't nearly as problematic as the way that players (and staffers) opt to deploy them, far more often than not. Frustrations rooted in disputes over social rolls are, I think, symptomatic of larger, pervasive norms in this community when it comes to direct communication, transparency, and good faith. Not to say those things don't exist in the WoD MU community, just that they can be scarce, and the impersonal nature of the medium tends to coax opaqueness and distrust out of people, and instead of resolving to create tools to remain grounded in collaboration, folks are often permitted to remain wary, if not hostile.

but the aim of the current discussion is to examine what might be implemented when the lines of communication are cut

What needs to be implemented is more communication, simple as that.

If you're really only interested in 'automating' this so that there is no possible scenario where a staffer could ever need to step in, in the case that two adults cannot maturely discuss how to resolve a dispute that their characters are having, that's all well and good. But if the result is a system that removes the need to problem solve or cooperate OOC in order for players to butt heads ICly by mathematizing social encounters as thoroughly, or even more so, than physical combat? You're not going to reduce OOC hostility very much, you're just going to reduce the ability for people to throw tantrums when they don't get their way (and note, people still do this over physical combat, in any system, so idk what kind of platonically ideal social mechanics you had in mind but even they might not do what you're hoping for).

ETA: problems on MUs are, more often than anything else, problems between people - it baffles the shit out of me that helping people learn to/be able to successfully resolve interpersonal problems themselves is not considered a viable course of action here! I promise it'd take way less work than developing a social combat system that is more robust than Doors or the system from Danse Macabre, and it'd fix more than just social encounter misgivings

[Ganymede]

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

problems on MUs are, more often than anything else, problems between people - it baffles the shit out of me that helping people learn to/be able to successfully resolve interpersonal problems themselves is not considered a viable course of action here!

To the contrary, I consider this a given. Yes, helping people successfully resolve interpersonal problems is not only a viable course of action, but a commendable one. I've acknowledged this several times, and would heartily promote it.

What I'm looking for is a system to implement when this is simply not possible. Perhaps the players don't trust each other, but that's a rare occurrence; rather, a system is usually necessary when the objectives cannot be reconciled. When reasonable people cannot come to an agreement on how a situation shall unfold, that's when they turn to whatever system exists to resolve the problem.

There are also holes in the system in general. For example, PC A sucker-punches PC B, but PC B just wants PC A to back down and away. So, in the situation PC B just wants to make an Intimidation roll against PC A to stop the fighting, but what are the appropriate modifiers? Is a single success all that's required; if not, how many? What if PC B wants to beg forgiveness to mollify PC A for the purpose of ending the combat? Is that a Persuasion roll? One success or many? And what about parity: why does PC A need to engage in combat over several turns, but PC B able to succeed with a single success on a social roll?

And so on.

Yes, a Ventrue Prince could use Dominate to cow an opponent, but she also should be able to do so with but a look, yeah? Because she's the Prince: she's got Status; she's got power; and vampires know you just don't want to fuck with her. So, other than turning on her Dominate-eyes, why can't she stare down a Gangrel neonate into submission? I see that as completely feasible.

Or what about a Rahu? Yes, there's Dominance, but Uratha know not to bitch-slap a Rahu. She should be able to cow someone with a damn glance -- but how? Without a clear system, welp, it's time to slash them to bitty pieces.

Anyhow, yes. Yes, I understand what you're saying. And when I said "irrelevant," I meant "as to the construction of a robust social combat system."

But if the result is a system that removes the need to problem solve or cooperate OOC in order for players to butt heads ICly by mathematizing social encounters as thoroughly, or even more so, than physical combat? You're not going to reduce OOC hostility very much, you're just going to reduce the ability for people to throw tantrums when they don't get their way (and note, people still do this over physical combat, in any system, so idk what kind of platonically ideal social mechanics you had in mind but even they might not do what you're hoping for). (Emphasis added.)

Yes, this is what I'm aiming for were I to create or implement a more robust system of resolution.

[Derp]

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

Would people still use social stats to resolve conflict? Why or why not?

I respectfully disagree with @Thenomain and @faraday, and say 'Of course they would.'

Why?

Because it never fails that, no matter how unpopular a decision by a game-runner is, there will be people who continue to play under the ruleset created because they want to play on the game.

While questions of bogging things down and agency and whatnot are all well and good, and I'm sure work well on the theoretical level, in reality these things rarely pan out. No matter how unpopular a game's staff and house rules, no matter how unlikely it seems on paper that people will continue to play on games, it never fails that as long as the staff are there, and active, and doing things with the rules in place, people will be there playing until someone shuts off the lights. They might grumble about it, but they'll be there, even when there are alternatives.

Evidence: Haunted Memories, Darkwater, The Reach, Fallcoast, Fate's Harvest. And that's, what, just this decade? How many decades long does that list stretch?

People are going to play, period. There will always be someone grumbling, but -- ok, just go look at SFMux. Despite the fact that they have wonky rules, and weird staffers, and have outright been accused of stealing from other games, there hasn't been a mass exodus of players from the place. They still play. They still play under the rules given to them. Because that's what players in this genre do. They play, and they bitch about how things could be better, and they play some more, and nobody is every perfectly pleased but plenty of people manage to have fun.

So, distilled -- of course they'll play, and continue to use those rules. Probably even more once it's made clear and explicit that it's safe to do so, no matter what philosophical arguments to the contrary might spring up. At best you lose a small subset of folks who just refuse, but meh.

[Tinuviel]

@derp It's thus very important to say, as I believe you were leading towards, that just because people play with/by those rules, that doesn't mean they're good rules.

[Apos]

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

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

At the end of the day, the rules don't get taken seriously because of desuetude, essentially. It's not that the rules aren't there, it's just that people have gotten so used to being able to break them that they have come to expect they will be ignored.

Let's suppose for a moment that the rules will always be enforced by staff when needed.

Would people still use social stats to resolve conflict? Why or why not?

I've only been MUing for a few years compared to most people and I can think of 3 cases off hand of someone asking some version of the question, "Can I roll my social stats to try to talk my way out of this and not die?" when they were faced with imminent execution. There is basically zero chance someone doesn't try that if social combat exists and someone is trying to PK them, and whether it's allowed and reasonable is one I'd have a handle on.

[faraday]

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

So, distilled -- of course they'll play, and continue to use those rules.

Just to be clear - I wasn't saying people would leave the game en masse or refuse to play there. I just think folks avoid interacting with systems unless they either a) buy into them or b) are forced to use them.

Most players have no inherent philosophical objection to FS3's combat system, yet most fistfights on FS3 games are handled with just a few simple rolls or a gentlepeople's handshake. Why? Because as @Thenomain mentioned, the system, while detailed and highly automated, gets in the way of RP and slows things down when folks have other ways to resolve issues.

[Tinuviel]

Hey, if we/you guys solve this whole 'solving problems when nobody wants to cooperate' issue, I know a few anthropology and political science journals we could submit to...

[Thenomain]

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

Just to be clear - I wasn't saying people would leave the game en masse or refuse to play there. I just think folks avoid interacting with systems unless they either a) buy into them or b) are forced to use them.

And this is why people would, because of Ganymede's primary conceit:

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

Let's suppose for a moment that the rules will always be enforced by staff when needed.

For this my "no" was heavily defined as "because this sounds like combat". If it's not like combat, but some other conflict system that's quick and easy, then I can see people using it.

I really can see people using it anyhow, but for the sake of discussion I wanted to start with the pushback and "no, but also yes" doesn't have the same impact.

I agree with a lot of what @Derp says, but for the WoD crowd I also believe in what I said.

[Derp]

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

Hey, if we/you guys solve this whole 'solving problems when nobody wants to cooperate' issue, I know a few anthropology and political science journals we could submit to...

Shit, could we just submit that directly to Congress?

[Tinuviel]

@derp No, we want it actually known.

[Derp]

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

@derp No, we want it actually known.

Trueeee.

[Seraphim73]

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

I've only been MUing for a few years compared to most people and I can think of 3 cases off hand of someone asking some version of the question, "Can I roll my social stats to try to talk my way out of this and not die?" when they were faced with imminent execution. There is basically zero chance someone doesn't try that if social combat exists and someone is trying to PK them, and whether it's allowed and reasonable is one I'd have a handle on.

Shouldn't they be allowed to do this? Or at least to try? I mean, if they've spent the points to buy the skills to be super-smooth-talking, shouldn't they at least get a chance to roll against the massive modifiers for the Prince's higher status, their Resolve (or appropriate defensive stat), the evidence against them, the intimidation factor of all of the guards surrounding them, and the hostility of the crowd? At least to delay things "until a more detailed investigation can be completed?"

[Ganymede]

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

I've only been MUing for a few years compared to most people and I can think of 3 cases off hand of someone asking some version of the question, "Can I roll my social stats to try to talk my way out of this and not die?" when they were faced with imminent execution. There is basically zero chance someone doesn't try that if social combat exists and someone is trying to PK them, and whether it's allowed and reasonable is one I'd have a handle on.

I concur with Seraphim73 on this point.

I wouldn't say that it would be appropriate for a social combat issue, but rather a long-term objective that would be resolved with the Doors system. It would be a Herculean task, but that's kind of how good RP arises. Also, it is a good reason for the Prince or the High Authority to be in the hands of staff.

Maybe it's not execution, but the confiscation of the PC's worldly possessions, lands, and title, and a public flogging. That's a reasonable substitute for execution. And then the punished PC can play out trying to work his/her way back up the social ladder as a RP path.

To me, that sounds like a good story -- one I'd engage in.

But, yeah, I can see how another player might stomp their feet, whine, and rage-quit. Heaven forbid there be consequences for their actions.

[mietze]

I can't answer for Apos but I read their comments to mean more like even though people turn up their nose at allowing other pcs to affect them with dice rolls or social appeal, when it comes to a situation where they are facing real destruction (instead of losing face) they will privately or suddenly embrace it.

Which is my experience as well, which might be why I read it that way!

[Ganymede]

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

I can't answer for Apos but I read their comments to mean more like even though people turn up their nose at allowing other pcs to affect them with dice rolls or social appeal, when it comes to a situation where they are facing real destruction (instead of losing face) they will privately or suddenly embrace it.

That's fine.

People can live their lives believing that there is a house over their roof when there is none, but when the rain comes I wouldn't blame them if they tried to build themselves one well after-the-fact.

In this case, the system is for the other PCs that they want to brush off. If you ignore it, the other PC can bring this to staff. And I, as staff, will ensure that people know that if people use the systems to reach an outcome, you will follow that outcome or you can find another game.

Real simple.

[Apos]

@mietze Yeah, I wasn't trying to make a value judgment on whether it's good or bad there, just that I believe people will use the systems, to contrast with the posts arguing they'd go unused. I do think that simpler systems will get used more, particularly if the introduction to them is fun and engaging. I think the drawback is simple systems are really great for cooperative play, and help create fun RP between friends, but I think anything for PVP needs to be more robust. Simpler systems means staff oversight and judgment calls, and even if a staff member is fair, our community's trust levels when it comes to PVP is not great.

But in order to avoid that, I think we need to have really detailed systems that have characters do incremental change and define what their characters will and won't do, and probably detail how their initial stances with other characters would be, and how their relationships shift and change. I think that's amount of bookkeeping can be successful if it also tries to make the development of that fun, and play to a lot of players really wanting to define their characters likes and dislikes, and providing meaningful incentives for characters to have pronounced vulnerabilities, and making some required. IE, a character that trusts no one, has no empathy, and is stubborn and unmovable is socially toxic and no one would have any reason to ever involve them in anything, and making those kinds of tradeoffs clear.

[mietze]

@ganymede I am not arguing with that. I am a big fan of thoughtful use of social dice (or combat dice), and the negging of it bothers me (though since it's a constant on WoD places it is something I'm used to).

But I agree with Apos that if a system is in place people will use it. I think that they might only seek to use it when it can get them something they want, while looking down on it otherwise, but the same can be said for any "conflict" system, including combat. I think the assertion that "nobody" or few people would use a social combat system is not true nor should it be a deterrent from building one.

I would say the majority of players on a majority of games are not overly familiar with the combat system either. Yet it is important to have rules around that and a system if you are going to allow violence on the game. (Most of the time combat dice are used against NPCs. I have played on many intense social games and the same can be said for social dice.)

It is possible to have a game where social dice are never cast at another PC per se, but against their assets. (You could do the same thing with violence). Youd still have people complaining about how it ruined things (combat or social) for them, but it totally preserved agency for the individual character. They were not influenced how to feel about one of their warehouses firebombed or their informant in the police rooted out and paid off/turned against them.

[surreality]

(Still limited ability to comment, 'cause travel/tablet/etc.)

Haven't seen this mentioned, but from what I recall -- and no, I can't look it up from here -- the book states there are some thing outside the bounds of what the system is designed to allow. I don't recall whether it provides examples or not, but I do recall at least that much.

It would be very important for any given game to define what that means on that game, and what is, or is not, an appropriate use of the system. Even the developers seem to be aware that people will try to get away with the ridiculous by mentioning this, and that STs do not have to let them even try it.

One of the aspects of agency that hasn't come up, but is something I think is relevant here, and it's directly related to the above. By default, players joining a game cede authority over many things to staff; joining a scene, they cede authority to the ST (player or staff).

The issue that people are running into on the cultural level is a bit abstract, in that it is ideally ceding authority to the system, and the system does not have the same ability to make the kind of judgment calls that the system itself relies on to function properly. It was not designed to function autonomously.

Otherwise? In PC-PC interactions, it becomes a matter of ceding authority to the aggressor's interpretation of the system -- including what is reasonable, permissible, or allowable; what mods apply, etc. -- and I think it's easy to see and understand why many players balk at that.

[Misadventure]

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.

Social interaction should not be modeled after physical combat, because simplistic to say that all forms of social success "defeated" anyone. Social interactions have many possible outcomes, many of which all parties will actively go along with, very few of which are "complete domination of will and purpose".

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.

If it's not interesting, then you've wasted everyone's time.

I really, really like details and will design systems to show off where people are strong and weak, and that emphasizes all stakes so behaviors make sense, but no one online needs that much info. They need to know it was engaging and gave them something to make decisions about, pull up details from their character, and be a little inspired or surprised by. Everything else, people will walk away and stay away from.

(See endless combat, endless posturing or attacks from combat monster PCs, endless shiny special, endless trauma, endless drama, players will walk away when they see no engagement or fun for themselves.)

[Tinuviel]

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

the book states there are some thing outside the bounds of what the system is designed to allow.

I believe this is at least half the point behind the storyteller system. A great deal is left in the hands of the ST. Which is fine... in tabletop play. The key think a MU needs is uniformity. I don't care if a dozen MU's have a dozen different rules, so long as they are applied uniformly inside the game itself. AND are publicly accessible to those not yet on the game.