Influence/Reputation system?

[Ganymede]

@lordbelh said:

I've gotten a ton of mileage out of social dicepools, but when I use them I try to play with the other person and their character. If I want to just railroad them, well, I'll use Dominate or its like.

When it comes to PvP social "combat," I find that people focus on getting a particular result rather than focusing the system on the process.

Let's look at the vote situation. Suppose David wanted Cai to vote for him, and presume that Cai wouldn't normally do it. It's reasonable for David to make a Presence + Intimidation roll, contested by Cai, to see whether a threat to harm Sarah works to convince Cai to do otherwise. If he succeeds, it's reasonable to presume that Cai thinks David means business, and he'll reach accordingly: he may immediately Frenzy; or he may capitulate. Either is a reasonable reaction to being threatened; and either has its consequences.

I will likely never apply the Doors system against another PC. I think it's silly; I think the Doors system is clearly calculated to be applied to NPCs only. If you want to convince a PC ICly to do something, then RP it. If you suck at RP, get better at it.

RPing on a MU* is way more than simply rolling some dice. Not coincidentally, I also find it much more satisfying and interesting.

[Alzie]

@Ganymede Social combat is just as valid as physical combat.

[lordbelh]

@Alzie said:

@Ganymede Social combat is just as valid as physical combat.

I'd say social dice is as valid as physical dice. But there's no good social combat system. Actual combat is fairly straight forward, but social combat never will be, because it actually requires you to take into account motives, personalities, histories, etc for it to work on anything but the most superficial levels.

[crayon]

Haven: Mist and Shadows has an interesting setup with influence and reputation wherein influence points are obtained throughout the course of roleplay. It's a pretty interesting system that adds another layer to gameplay that I find compelling, and I feel like it adds a more meaningful dynamic to interactions.

The present iteration of the system is... kind of a complicated monster, wherein one's social rank (reputation really) is calculated by a pretty wide number of factors. Said social rank then generates a hidden quantity of influence that's given out to people that you interact with in roleplay, to sort of incentivize interaction with more reputable characters. This influence can then be converted into experience or a few other things, or else used in a scheme system, or on praising or dissing other characters, which can in turn effect their social rank.

I've generally enjoyed these sort of systems in games I've played, as I'm not always all that interested in playing a muscle or combat oriented character. Most of my background in roleplaying started in Shadowrun and I was always a fan of playing "Face"-type characters, and I think systems like this are great for that.

[Derp]

@lordbelh said:

@Alzie said:

@Ganymede Social combat is just as valid as physical combat.

I'd say social dice is as valid as physical dice. But there's no good social combat system. Actual combat is fairly straight forward, but social combat never will be, because it actually requires you to take into account motives, personalities, histories, etc for it to work on anything but the most superficial levels.

I can see where you're coming from with this. It is a rather complicated system, and there will never be one system that pleases everyone, just like some people are displeased with physical combat systems. I do think it's important, however, to at least choose one system so that it's universal, preferably one that gives actual meaning to social stats, since you pay as much for Persuasion or Intimidation or such as you do for Brawl or Firearms.

If there were no social -stats-, then you could completely freeform it. But since in most systems that's not the case, it's important to give the people who invest in them a meaningful way to use them as well. Reactions and interactions aren't completely left to players. Some of them are left to dice. That's just a reality that we're going to have to face if we have any sort of meaningful resolution to this question. There is still a wide spread of possibilities, but it can't just be 'whatever we feel like' if the stats are going to have any sort of real meaning.

[SG]

@Derp said:

If there were no social -stats-, then you could completely freeform it. But since in most systems that's not the case, it's important to give the people who invest in them a meaningful way to use them as well.

I agree, but the issue is many players have difficulty separating themselves from the characters they're playing. They often can't conceive of backing down from an intimidating goon, or being momentarily charmed by someone they loathe.

Of course, quite a bit of that is tied to poorly crafted poses, or people who don't sink points into something, but go all purple on everyone and expect the same results with the point costs.

I think freeforming social is the best way, at least when other players are involved. NPCs it's fairly easy to run because most GMs don't take things too personally with mooks.

[Derp]

@SG said:

I think freeforming social is the best way, at least when other players are involved. NPCs it's fairly easy to run because most GMs don't take things too personally with mooks.

But then how do we avoid the 'physical stats are the only ones that matter' problem? Does everyone have to be a combat mook? Is the combat mook the master of the game, because there exists no scenario in which your Intimidation 5 can have a meaningful effect on the dude with brawl 4?

If freeform social is the only way to go, how do we resolve the problems it creates? Is losing a bit of ultimate control over action really worth the continued issue that creates? And if not, what other option is there?

[Pyrephox]

@SG said:

@Derp said:

If there were no social -stats-, then you could completely freeform it. But since in most systems that's not the case, it's important to give the people who invest in them a meaningful way to use them as well.

I agree, but the issue is many players have difficulty separating themselves from the characters they're playing. They often can't conceive of backing down from an intimidating goon, or being momentarily charmed by someone they loathe.

Of course, quite a bit of that is tied to poorly crafted poses, or people who don't sink points into something, but go all purple on everyone and expect the same results with the point costs.

I think freeforming social is the best way, at least when other players are involved. NPCs it's fairly easy to run because most GMs don't take things too personally with mooks.

Sadly untrue. GMs, at least on MU*s, are just as likely to block or twist the attempt to use social skills on NPCs, and for the same reasons. "I'd like to persuade this cagey informant to give a straight answer." "You can't do that. Social skills aren't mind control, and he doesn't want to tell you." "I'd like to intimidate this thug into backing down." "He's more scared of his boss than he is of you and nothing's going to change that." Or worse, "I'd like to intimidate this guy into telling me what he knows." roll dice, exceptional success "You scared him so much that he's too terrified to talk. Also, he's going to attack you now."

About the only place I know that really took social skills seriously even for NPCs was RfK, and even there, they prioritized Merits over skills (even though Merits cost less than skills), and gatekeeped pretty heavily what level of Aliies/Influence you had to have in an NPC faction before you could use social skills on any member of that faction. But at least they did acknowledge that you COULD influence NPCs in a meaningful way, and had an explicit system for how that worked, which is more than most.

[Bobotron]

@Derp
I have played on plenty of MU*s where social stats/skills weren't a coded thing, as all coded stats were related to the coded combat system, and social RP for stuff worked out well. It's an issue of the culture of the type of game you're looking at, more than anything else.

This is not meant to say that I disagree that social stats should matter, especially if the system you're using requires them. I think a lot of times people come into games from other games where social stats were never rolled, and the new game wants to use them, and doesn't make that clear anywhere on their site, and that can cause a disconnect. But the concept of not conceiving of backing down, for example, is valid. The opposite is also valid, at least in social stat games, where people play above what they have and expect those results.

[surreality]

One of the major issues is demanding a determined outcome, rather than allowing the character to interpret their real response. There's 'this would be weird for the character to do but if they did they would go about it in the following way', which is reasonable enough to work with.

The folks who don't consider that cool and are all, 'I succeeded on my roll, now you will follow my script exactly no matter how absurd it is' are a huge issue. And people really do do this.

You stab someone, based on what their character is, something specific and not open to interpretation is going to happen.

"I'm going to talk your character into sleeping with my character" is, while a fractious example, a basic goal that's ultimately neutral. It's reasonable for the target character to, depending on circumstances, be uncomfortable during, or awkward, or eager, or any number of things, and that is up to them. Where the problem comes in is when the player making the roll wants to script that shit out entirely on their own and steamrolls the other player. That takes the character out of the player's hands in a very real way, in a way that being stabbed (unless it's a deathblow) doesn't.

If someone can't understand how this 'I'm just gonna play your character for you for a little bit here and do stuff you might not like and react in ways you don't think are remotely appropriate and hand it back to you' issue is an issue to some people, or makes them feel like somebody broke or mussed up their toy, I really don't know what to tell them.

Imagine for a moment that someone else logs in to your character, plays a scene that bears no resemblance to how you play them, has them behave in ways they wouldn't and don't, and then sends you the log when they hand the character back to you. Think for a moment about how WTF you would be over this in terms of 'where do I go from here with this character?' The you will follow my script!!! approach does exactly this in terms of the consequences of it for the target character's player.

[Pyrephox]

@surreality Of course, then you run into those folk who say, "My character doesn't back down when intimidated, they go crazy and fight with every bit of combat dice they have." Which means that you get people walking around with all RAR I'M TOUGH because they put all their dice in combat, and none in social skills or resistance abilities. Because they know that if it comes to a social test, they can just move things to a combat footing, where no one doubts the effectiveness of their skills.

Basically, there are always assholes. You can't define a system by how assholes will use it, because every system just privileges a /different set/ of assholes. A system also can't stop assholes from being assholes - that job needs to fall to staff, and trying to offload basic game management skills to the system is one of the reasons why game cultures BECOME toxic. If, when someone skeeves on you by trying to dice-force you (and this kind of abuse is often really aimed at getting the /player/ to do something sexual) into TSing with them, then if you don't feel supported to say, "I don't feel comfortable with that kind of play with you. I don't mind if they get seduced, but we're not going to play it out, and my character will feel guilty in the morning, not fall in love with yours." and know that the staff has your back, then that's something wrong with the /game culture/. Because that sort of situation is not what any social resolution skill system is meant for. For that matter, you should be able to go to staff if someone is stalking you around the grid and /constantly/ rolling combat dice at you. "What my character would do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. "What the rules will technically let me do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. But as long as we keep trying to build and run games with the design goal of "not having to confront assholes with their asshole behavior", then game cultures are going to continue to be toxic, no matter what system is used.

[Coin]

@Pyrephox said:

@surreality Of course, then you run into those folk who say, "My character doesn't back down when intimidated, they go crazy and fight with every bit of combat dice they have." Which means that you get people walking around with all RAR I'M TOUGH because they put all their dice in combat, and none in social skills or resistance abilities. Because they know that if it comes to a social test, they can just move things to a combat footing, where no one doubts the effectiveness of their skills.

Basically, there are always assholes. You can't define a system by how assholes will use it, because every system just privileges a /different set/ of assholes. A system also can't stop assholes from being assholes - that job needs to fall to staff, and trying to offload basic game management skills to the system is one of the reasons why game cultures BECOME toxic. If, when someone skeeves on you by trying to dice-force you (and this kind of abuse is often really aimed at getting the /player/ to do something sexual) into TSing with them, then if you don't feel supported to say, "I don't feel comfortable with that kind of play with you. I don't mind if they get seduced, but we're not going to play it out, and my character will feel guilty in the morning, not fall in love with yours." and know that the staff has your back, then that's something wrong with the /game culture/. Because that sort of situation is not what any social resolution skill system is meant for. For that matter, you should be able to go to staff if someone is stalking you around the grid and /constantly/ rolling combat dice at you. "What my character would do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. "What the rules will technically let me do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. But as long as we keep trying to build and run games with the design goal of "not having to confront assholes with their asshole behavior", then game cultures are going to continue to be toxic, no matter what system is used.

This. All of this all the time forever.

[ThatGuyThere]

Honestly the way I have found that works the best for running scenes is have the social skills give penalties to the person with effective use if they do not go along with what the user wants. For example Character A rolls to intimidate character B gets a success. Character B reacts by attacking character A we have all know this scenario, what I would do if running the scene Alright but you loose 3 dice because you are shaken by Character A. I think this sort of thing is what they were aiming for with condition to some extant. Every one keeps control of their characters actions but the social characters roll has a real mechanical effect.
In the seduction example Person A rolls well and say gives Person B a 2 or 3 dice penalty on all roles in the presence of Person A because they get flustered. Still no player is forced to do something they really don't want but Person A has definite advantages in a situation of Person B.
I realize that this solution would not satisfy either side but a good compromise is usually the one that leave both sides a little unhappy.

[Derp]

@ThatGuyThere said:

In the seduction example Person A rolls well and say gives Person B a 2 or 3 dice penalty on all roles in the presence of Person A because they get flustered. Still no player is forced to do something they really don't want but Person A has definite advantages in a situation of Person B.

Yep! That's the entire purpose for the Swooning condition. I agree that I think this is what the Conditions system is meant to be used for. Nobody loses control over their character (which is why there is a condition associated with offering an alternative). There are incentives for going along with the dice results, and other incentives/disincentives for going with an alternative approach. It's all narrative cooperation.

.

[Thenomain]

What @Derp said.

[Groth]

@Derp said:

@ThatGuyThere said:

In the seduction example Person A rolls well and say gives Person B a 2 or 3 dice penalty on all roles in the presence of Person A because they get flustered. Still no player is forced to do something they really don't want but Person A has definite advantages in a situation of Person B.

Yep! That's the entire purpose for the Swooning condition. I agree that I think this is what the Conditions system is meant to be used for. Nobody loses control over their character (which is why there is a condition associated with offering an alternative). There are incentives for going along with the dice results, and other incentives/disincentives for going with an alternative approach. It's all narrative cooperation.

.

Self-serve conditions was probably the most widely enjoyed system @Alzie ever coded for us.

[Lithium]

@Gingerlily said:

Has anyone played a game that had a system for influence and reputation (not Status: Whatever) something dynamic that was changed for better or worse by players in game actions? Was this fun? Totally not fun? How did it work and what did you like or not like about it? Did other players have ways of influencing it (Like if Player A acted like a complete jackass in public, could Players B, C, and D who were in the scene do something to make his reputation go down? Or up respectively if he did something awesome)

Tell me your stories, ideas, methods. The only game I have played on with anything like this was Blood of Dragons (yes, yes I did), but it was only partially complete and I was never quite sure how it was operating.

Thanks thanks!

I've coded up something for my ShadowRun game that is based off street cred and notoriety. Every action has the chance to impact those things, the Johnsons will influence them, Fixers, other players, etc.

As for how it will work? No clue, games not ready yet.

[surreality]

@Pyrephox said:

@surreality Of course, then you run into those folk who say, "My character doesn't back down when intimidated, they go crazy and fight with every bit of combat dice they have." Which means that you get people walking around with all RAR I'M TOUGH because they put all their dice in combat, and none in social skills or resistance abilities. Because they know that if it comes to a social test, they can just move things to a combat footing, where no one doubts the effectiveness of their skills.

Basically, there are always assholes. You can't define a system by how assholes will use it, because every system just privileges a /different set/ of assholes. A system also can't stop assholes from being assholes - that job needs to fall to staff, and trying to offload basic game management skills to the system is one of the reasons why game cultures BECOME toxic. If, when someone skeeves on you by trying to dice-force you (and this kind of abuse is often really aimed at getting the /player/ to do something sexual) into TSing with them, then if you don't feel supported to say, "I don't feel comfortable with that kind of play with you. I don't mind if they get seduced, but we're not going to play it out, and my character will feel guilty in the morning, not fall in love with yours." and know that the staff has your back, then that's something wrong with the /game culture/. Because that sort of situation is not what any social resolution skill system is meant for. For that matter, you should be able to go to staff if someone is stalking you around the grid and /constantly/ rolling combat dice at you. "What my character would do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. "What the rules will technically let me do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. But as long as we keep trying to build and run games with the design goal of "not having to confront assholes with their asshole behavior", then game cultures are going to continue to be toxic, no matter what system is used.

Few differences.

1. Active and reactive aren't at parity.
2. Some (admittedly flawed) systems exist that demand that reaction in WoD, actually. (Kuruth, I'm looking at you and your triggers list.)

I'm not talking about forced roleplay, as FTB covers that and most sites allow for it.

I'm talking about people dictating the particulars in ways that are unreasonable bullshit and expecting you to suck it up.

I don't disagree that it's about forcing the player to do something in most cases. These situations get even uglier. The moment you say: I am not keen on this we need to ftb, which is intended to be 'drop to ooc negotiation and summary about what happens', people who aren't getting the TS (or whatever else they were looking for) tend to escalate to dictating a scripted outcome under their exclusive control into which you are not given as much input as you are due. And it's usually much nastier when it's due to the kind of thing you're talking about, re: the player isn't getting the joy they wanted out of the scene and directed at fucking up the other character as much as possible, and this is not what you get with combat. You can't recalibrate your combat damage to 'extra dickbag screw you damage' level after the roll is made like you can in this scenario, and that's an issue.

To put it on parity with combat, people behave as though the moment they succeed on the first roll, they get to ignore your defense and anything else they feel like to keep whaling on you. And that is not a thing.

[Derp]

@surreality said:

@Pyrephox said:

@surreality Of course, then you run into those folk who say, "My character doesn't back down when intimidated, they go crazy and fight with every bit of combat dice they have." Which means that you get people walking around with all RAR I'M TOUGH because they put all their dice in combat, and none in social skills or resistance abilities. Because they know that if it comes to a social test, they can just move things to a combat footing, where no one doubts the effectiveness of their skills.

Basically, there are always assholes. You can't define a system by how assholes will use it, because every system just privileges a /different set/ of assholes. A system also can't stop assholes from being assholes - that job needs to fall to staff, and trying to offload basic game management skills to the system is one of the reasons why game cultures BECOME toxic. If, when someone skeeves on you by trying to dice-force you (and this kind of abuse is often really aimed at getting the /player/ to do something sexual) into TSing with them, then if you don't feel supported to say, "I don't feel comfortable with that kind of play with you. I don't mind if they get seduced, but we're not going to play it out, and my character will feel guilty in the morning, not fall in love with yours." and know that the staff has your back, then that's something wrong with the /game culture/. Because that sort of situation is not what any social resolution skill system is meant for. For that matter, you should be able to go to staff if someone is stalking you around the grid and /constantly/ rolling combat dice at you. "What my character would do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. "What the rules will technically let me do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. But as long as we keep trying to build and run games with the design goal of "not having to confront assholes with their asshole behavior", then game cultures are going to continue to be toxic, no matter what system is used.

Few differences.

1. Active and reactive aren't at parity.
2. Some (admittedly flawed) systems exist that demand that reaction in WoD, actually. (Kuruth, I'm looking at you and your triggers list.)

I'm not talking about forced roleplay, as FTB covers that and most sites allow for it.

I'm talking about people dictating the particulars in ways that are unreasonable bullshit and expecting you to suck it up.

I don't disagree that it's about forcing the player to do something in most cases. These situations get even uglier. The moment you say: I am not keen on this we need to ftb, which is intended to be 'drop to ooc negotiation and summary about what happens', people who aren't getting the TS (or whatever else they were looking for) tend to escalate to dictating a scripted outcome under their exclusive control into which you are not given as much input as you are due. And it's usually much nastier when it's due to the kind of thing you're talking about, re: the player isn't getting the joy they wanted out of the scene and directed at fucking up the other character as much as possible, and this is not what you get with combat. You can't recalibrate your combat damage to 'extra dickbag screw you damage' level after the roll is made like you can in this scenario, and that's an issue.

To put it on parity with combat, people behave as though the moment they succeed on the first roll, they get to ignore your defense and anything else they feel like to keep whaling on you. And that is not a thing.

Perhaps not. But even in combat, you now have the Beaten Down system, which also kind of forces the person to at the very least cede the point, or spend a fuckton of willpower or something continuing to resist. Even if you think your dude would never give up, never surrender, if you run out of willpower that's pretty much what happens. Because the game system determined that.

And that's what it is. It's a system to determine outcomes. There is negotiation involved within it, but no matter what, it limits character agency in some way. It's a system with encoded stats, you know? Just like you're probably not a gymnast without a fair few dots in athletics (or I guess you could be a -bad- gymnast...), you probably aren't a tower of iron will without some fair resistance attributes, nor are you a smooth-talking ladykiller without some Persuasion and Presence.

It all just comes down to whether people are willing to accept the systems in place, I guess. There are dicks on both sides of that line.. The one that digs their heels in and refuses to compromise, on either side, is equally guilty of such.

[lordbelh]

@Derp The Beaten Down and Surrender mechanics are optional, though.