@thenomain Get a load of this one: How often do you see folks applying their Status (covenant/court/whatever) as a bonus to social rolls against those that have a lower rating of Status for the same group?
Spoiler: Never lol
@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Spoiler: Never lol
Did you ever play on Requiem for Kingsmouth? I'm guessing "no," but I could be wrong.
@derp said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
... maybe the system isn't broken, and maybe it's just the way we've been allowed to play it so far that's the problem.
Or maybe the system is woefully insufficient because it doesn't take into consideration that there is a difference between tabletop and MUSH play, and, for the fifteen or so years that we've been trying to play nWoD games on MUSHes, no one's ever bothered to sit down and think "why the fuck do we have eleventy billion merits related to fighting with different styles and weapons and have maybe one or two things for social play?"
@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.
The first scenario was, literally, to pull social stats entirely out of the equation. Can't find middle ground in a dispute? Either fight physically or deal with it. That option had its fair share of dissent.
Now the scenario is to make social and mental combat more robust to solve disputes where the parties cannot otherwise agree. Collaboration is important and to be encouraged, but the aim of the current discussion is to examine what might be implemented when the lines of communication are cut.
@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@thenomain Get a load of this one: How often do you see folks applying their Status (covenant/court/whatever) as a bonus to social rolls against those that have a lower rating of Status for the same group?
Spoiler: Never lol
Frequently.
@thenomain said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Yet I almost never saw anyone use them.
I don't know if this is because there's a tacit "no social rolls against PCs", there's a more obvious "if I do this people will drag this into a headache that I can avoid", or what.
Yeah, a hundred per cent that.
I'd be willing to bet big internet bucks the major reason social powers are so rarely even attempted on PCs is the potential for headaches following it.
@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
I'd be willing to bet big internet bucks the major reason social powers are so rarely even attempted on PCs is the potential for headaches following it.
Maybe it's just the circles you run with, but I can attest that social powers and rolls have been directed at me quite frequently. Strangely, more often on games without robust social systems, like games using FS3.
The use of social powers in the World of Darkness is amusing and fun if you don't take them too seriously. This is a culture thing that isn't going to be solved by a more robust social combat system.
But if one is provided, the outcomes should be clearer. Enforcing the rules should not be something that staff shies away from either.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@thenomain said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Yet I almost never saw anyone use them.
I don't know if this is because there's a tacit "no social rolls against PCs", there's a more obvious "if I do this people will drag this into a headache that I can avoid", or what.
Yeah, a hundred per cent that.
I'd be willing to bet big internet bucks the major reason social powers are so rarely even attempted on PCs is the potential for headaches following it.
I think the other option is 'if I make a roll I'd prove that I don't have the stats I'm trying to play off'
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
I'd be willing to bet big internet bucks the major reason social powers are so rarely even attempted on PCs is the potential for headaches following it.
For sure, culture is probably as developed within a tighter RP circle as it does in an entire game.
Complexity might be an issue too. If a generic, easy to memorize roll is enough for most purposes and it doesn't try to do too much or assume granural control of its effects then it's likely to be used more often; for example the Doors system is not 'easy'. If it's not 'easy' it won't be used nearly as much - period.
The more a social system tries to do the less successful is poised to become.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
if you don't take them too seriously
This is a franchise whose players are rather famous for seeking mutual destruction rather than lose.
Hell, people don't even PK people's PCs who by all rights SHOULD be PKed because of the headaches it causes. A lot of time especially within vampire, lethal means of dealing with a problem are used rather than a HUGE amount of non-lethal stuff just to prevent the headaches caused by lesser actions (I'm sure it's the case with other spheres too, it's just I'm most familiar with vampire). i have seen people genuinely act like another PC torporing them /and returning them to their buddies/ or extracting a boon/favor for someone was the same as killing them outright, then proceeded to dial up the ic aggression to the point that the original player who wanted to avoid PK eventually had to do it. With the person screaming and spitting OOC the whole way, escalating at every turn.
So it's not like physical skills are not reacted to the same way in PvP.
@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
The more a social system tries to do the less successful is poised to become.
I whole-heartedly disagree with the statement because what I think you mean to say is:
The more a social system tries to do the less likely players will want to use it.
We should probably add to this the following truism:
The more complex a system is the less likely players will want to use it.
And that's fine. I never said that players had to use a physical, social, or mental system if they do not want to. I've been in plenty if IC sparring matches that did not become a full-out physical contest. The fundamental focus of both the initial and subsequent questions is whether there should be a system, and, if so, what would the aims be.
In the morass of comments, I have made a couple of conclusions that are guiding my thought processes regarding the system I want to create, using the Chronicles of Darkness' Storyteller system:
Players want some parity between physical and social combat insofar as its effectiveness in role-playing.
Players do not want a social system that is empty or powerless.
Some of the ideas arising out of these conclusions are as follows:
Make social combat on par with physical combat, going so far as to adding advantages to the system like "Social Initiative" and "Social Health" that can be affected by social attacks.
Have concrete results for victory in social combat, which as physical combatants must declare their intent prior to engaging in physical combat.
Make clear rules for the victory results, such as using Conditions.
Award players for electing and abiding by the victory results.
As an example:
Arkandel is sick of Ganymede's shit in public, and decides to engage her in social combat by delivering a cold, icy stare to make her shut her damn trap. Arkandel declares his intent, and he and Ganymede roll initiative. Arkandel rolls a 8, and adds his Dominance (Social Initiative), and ends up first, so he takes the first attack by delivering the stare and telling Ganymede to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Rolling his eyes, Arkandel finally turns to look at Ganymede with an expression and gaze of steel. "Why don't you have a seat now? No one cares what you have to say, you glorified pencil-pusher?"
Arkandel rolls his Presence + Intimidation pool. Unfortunately, Arkandel is seriously milquetoast, and can only roll 3 dice: 1, 4, 8. Ganymede takes 1 damage to her Nerve (Social Health). With some Nerve left, Ganymede isn't fully convinced, and returns Arkandel's stare with a cool one of her own, along with sending along a witty remark about his mother's expansive waistline.
The lawyer blinks at Arkandel, and puts a hand over her mouth for a moment. "I would, buddy, but -- " She sighs. " -- I think the last person to use this chair was your mom, and her ass done up and broke it, son."
Ganymede rolls her Manipulation + Intimidation, which is exceedingly high given that she is a world-class lawyer, and rolls: 6, 8, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10. This thumps Arkandel's Nerve hard, reducing it to zero. Ganymede chooses to give Arkandel the Cowed Condition as a result, which reduces Arkandel's Intimidation pool for the rest of the scene, and requires him to spend a Willpower point to engage in any other kind of combat.
Something like that.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@ganymede I think the simpler an implementation, the more likely it is to be used and create fun, spontaneous RP under good conditions. Such as by groups of friends that know and trust each other enough, so they are fine with doing random rolls to help nudge RP one way or the other for fun as basically RP prompts. The drawback of a simple and accessible implementation is imo you can't easily shift that into meaningful consequences without a ton of staff oversight since then you open up to people trying to use it for things that don't make sense, but I think that's not much different from someone randomly attacking another person physically for no or trivial reasons. I think in both cases, the antagonist must feel a great deal of risk for attempting anything that would permanently hurt another character's experience, and at best feel they have no more than a 60-40 chance to remove another character from play without being removed themselves imo.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
The more a social system tries to do the less successful is poised to become.
I whole-heartedly disagree with the statement because what I think you mean to say is:
The more a social system tries to do the less likely players will want to use it.
I think the core of our disagreement here lies in the fact I see no difference between those two statements.
A system can't be successful unless players buy into it.
@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
A system can't be successful unless players buy into it.
Let me attempt to persuade you otherwise.
rolls dice
Okay, so, let me try by Socratic method: why do World of Darkness players so readily buy into the Violence section (combat) of the rules, but sometimes vehemently oppose any attempt to use rules regarding social influence and maneuvering?
We can blame it on that dragon, agency, or we can presume that it is because the Violence section creates a cognizable framework to resolving the confrontation. If it is the latter, then players who seek to resolve the confrontation without staff intervention can either work it out OOCly or use the system that is provided.
And from what I can tell, anecdotally and by report of others, is that players usually resolve things OOCly by collaboration, and when they cannot, well -- you have a situation.
I posit that if players cannot agree OOCly on how to resolve the confrontation, then they may not be able to agree on the method by which to resolve the confrontation, even if they are provided with a method in the core rules. This may be because what is provided is too vague or simple to be of use; indeed, the Storyteller System is very loose with how to resolve social confrontations between player-characters. Maybe this is because the system expects players to resolve it among themselves or to not be such babies about what happens with their PCs, but it is a super big problem. (GODDAMMIT SUPER WHY.)
I'm proposing that a more robust system, like what was proposed in the Danse Macabre, might get more players to engage in using social stats to resolve social confrontations. Maybe it will, or maybe it will just make people want to engage in OOC deliberations to resolve confrontations (who the fuck wants to use my system, fuck it, let's just work it out rather than look to crazy-lawyer-system). It does not matter to me in the slightest.
What matters is that social combat has been the red-headed step-child on World of Darkness games. I believe that making them on par with physical combat will make people stand up, notice it, and pay it some more goddamn attention. And, as per the example I gave, using social combat may be a way to avoid physical combat as the end-all-and-be-all of confrontations. Further, game lines like Vampire make social combat the front-and-center of a story's focus, yet never make it something as tangible and complex as politics ought to be.
Anyhow, I don't want to complicate things, but if there's a way to raise the power level for social stats, I figure it's worth going after.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Enforcing the rules should not be something that staff shies away from either.
I think this is just a MU* truism. If Staff is shying away from enforcing whatever rules they've implemented, the game is probably going to have problems.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
What matters is that social combat has been the red-headed step-child on World of Darkness games. I believe that making them on par with physical combat will make people stand up, notice it, and pay it some more goddamn attention. And, as per the example I gave, using social combat may be a way to avoid physical combat as the end-all-and-be-all of confrontations. Further, game lines like Vampire make social combat the front-and-center of a story's focus, yet never make it something as tangible and complex as politics ought to be.
I realize that this thread is about WoD in general, but I would go so far as to say that social interactions have been the red-headed step-child of most RPG systems forever. There are a few, like A Song of Ice and Fire that have "full" systems the equal of physical combat, but most systems that I have experience with have pretty limited social rules. I posit that this is because we're all theoretically social creatures, so the designers a) think we'll be resolving in-game social issues socially, and/or b) social conflicts are damn complicated, much more so than physical ones.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Okay, so, let me try by Socratic method: why do World of Darkness players so readily buy into the Violence section (combat) of the rules, but sometimes vehemently oppose any attempt to use rules regarding social influence and maneuvering?
I've got it on good authority the Socratic method would entail leading me to the truth by asking me questions I answered them myself. 
The truth was in me all along!
We can blame it on that dragon, agency, or we can presume that it is because the Violence section creates a cognizable framework to resolving the confrontation. If it is the latter, then players who seek to resolve the confrontation without staff intervention can either work it out OOCly or use the system that is provided.
Socrates aside, that is a fair question. The answer, IMHO, is threefold:
In many/most of violence there is an arbitrator (ST) present who can double as a guide, answering quick questions with authority.
The rolls tend to be very straight forward and the effects quite well defined. +roll strength+weaponry+3-4 (where +3 is your weapon's damage, -4 the opponent's defense+armor) is a very straight forward thing; if you roll 3 successes that's 3 lethal damage. If the damage brings them to 0, they are dead. It's all nice and neat, prepared in advance, and even most powers that modify it do it in a direct way (you have Vigor? Well, add it).
It's something we do in PvE. PvE is cleaner, there's way less bitching. Notice how violent PvP scenarios very often do need arbitration (staff acting as a ST, basically) and the simplicity described above is thrown out the window - players contesting each other invalidates the element of collaboration, and that's the result.
And from what I can tell, anecdotally and by report of others, is that players usually resolve things OOCly by collaboration, and when they cannot, well -- you have a situation.
Yup.
I'm proposing that a more robust system, like what was proposed in the Danse Macabre, might get more players to engage in using social stats to resolve social confrontations. Maybe it will, and maybe it will just make people want to engage in OOC deliberations to resolve confrontations (who the fuck wants to use my system, fuck it, let's just work it out rather than look to crazy-lawyer-system). It does not matter to me in the slightest.
You'll notice I've long been supporting the idea any system we use for social encounter resolution must enhance what we already have. It can't just add an element of complexity, it has to be better. People need to want to use it - else they won't. It's because, unlike violence, they'll be doing social stuff all the time; it can't be a chore.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
why do World of Darkness players so readily buy into the Violence section (combat) of the rules, but sometimes vehemently oppose any attempt to use rules regarding social influence and maneuvering?
@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
In many/most of violence there is an arbitrator (ST) present who can double as a guide, answering quick questions with authority.
The rolls tend to be very straight forward and the effects quite well defined. +roll strength+weaponry+3-4 (where +3 is your weapon's damage, -4 the opponent's defense+armor) is a very straight forward thing; if you roll 3 successes that's 3 lethal damage. If the damage brings them to 0, they are dead. It's all nice and neat, prepared in advance, and even most powers that modify it do it in a direct way (you have Vigor? Well, add it).
It's something we do in PvE. PvE is cleaner, there's way less bitching. Notice how violent PvP scenarios very often do need arbitration (staff acting as a ST, basically) and the simplicity described above is thrown out the window - players contesting each other invalidates the element of collaboration, and that's the result.
I would like to propose an alternative reason, using the following scenario:
Arkandel rolls some dice to punch Ganymede, getting three successes.
Arkandel growls angrily and rears a fist back, ducking under Ganymede's arm to deliver a punch square to her kidney, inflicting three damage (in theory).
Ganymede-player reads the pose, doesn't even roll any dice, and writes a pose of her own
Ganymede rolls her eyes and continues drinking her beer. She's a world-class lawyer and has been in more courtroom brawls than she can even count, and that nerve nexus under her kidney has been dead for years, ever since that judge broke his gavel and shanked her for being so snarky. She ignores the roll and decides she takes no damage, because this element of her story is important to her character's background, and she's the only one who gets to decide how her character is affected.
We would instantly call bullshit on that kind of thing, because the dice said otherwise, using the system put in place, and we would insist that the outcome be enforced because the system says it should be.
On the other hand, if Arkandel had tried to intimidate her and Ganymede had just rolled her eyes and continued drinking her beer because she's a battle hardened world class lawyer that's seen some shit, and this dude can't have an effect on her, many people in this thread wouldn't even bat their eyes.
Why?
Because we have come to expect that one will be enforced, and the other won't be, for whatever reason, even though in both scenarios a player is trying to invalidate the system's results using their own made-up information.
Players don't use the system, and it has no teeth, because we've never enforced this scenario, and every time we try and remind someone that invalidating the results of the system based on extraneous information not contained therein is cheating at its most basic level, we allow this violation of the rules regularly, and so players feel entitled to ignore the system.
That's why players tend to so vehemently oppose any use of social combat -- because they've seen this exact scenario enough to know that if they raise a big enough fuss about it, someone will let them wiggle out of it based on meta-rationalization, whereas with physical combat that rarely happens and they will be called out for acting in bad faith.
This gets even more ludicrous when Ganymede's character has a Resolve + Composure pool of like, 3, and the system itself doesn't back up her story of being a battle hardened lawyer with a will of iron.
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.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@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?
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@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?
No.
I wish I played on Return to Kingsmouth to see how they approached these things. I've seen a few people in this thread complain how interweaving RP into a combat scene is clunky and they'd skip it if they could, and that is so far the best we can do with WoD/CoD combat.
In Tabletop, combat is fun. Rolling to hit and the GM deciding your abysmal result meant you stepped on the hidden yellow spore and now you're charmed and your fellow players have to figure out a way to get you out of combat without killing you? FUN.
WoD Combat on Mu*s are tedious. Gone is the era of a single scene taking two days to resolve (I am not kidding, peeps), but damn it's still involved and you still have to wait ten minutes for your turn and guh.
So maybe the comparison is not the best one, at least not for me.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Would people still use social stats to resolve conflict? Why or why not?
Probably not, for all of the reasons that @Thenomain and @Arkandel already mentioned. Also..
Agency. Folks can mock it and dismiss it all they want, but it is a thing that a significant number of people really care about. NOT because they can't bear to lose, but because it's kind of insulting to have someone else tell you how to play a character you created. It's the MUSH equivalent of someone telling JK Rowling "Harry Potter would never do that!"
Appearances. Without conducting a scientific poll or anything, I would venture to say that most MU players would rather their characters die than be humiliated. It just goes against why a lot of people play these games, which is escapism. Die gloriously in battle? Sure, whatever. (Though some folks hate that too.) Become a coward? Dealbreaker.
@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@thenomain Get a load of this one: How often do you see folks applying their Status (covenant/court/whatever) as a bonus to social rolls against those that have a lower rating of Status for the same group?
Spoiler: Never lol
Frequently.
