Posts made by Bobotron

@goldfish
This type of mentality is why I'm trying to develop something that has Social stats be viable in CvC conflict. It's all well and good to build extra systems for them (Contacts and Allies should flow off them, for example). And contrary to what @The-Sands has stated, I haven't really seen any 'WAH I CAN'T MAKE EVERYONE ELSE DO WHATEVER I WANT' in this thread, and if that's how this thread has been being read, then I feel like there's a lot of wires crossed. Most of us don't reasonably want something like that. Most of what we are wanting is some method for a character who has a high social, to be able to reasonably use that to do the things it's supposed to do: wheedle information, scare someone off, lie to get access to forbidden areas or forbidden knowledge. And sure, that's totally a facet of RP. But there's tons of 'NON INTIMIDATABLE' or 'OH YOU ARE SO TRUTHFUL BUT I THINK YOU'RE LYING ANWAY'. None of us want Social Stat Dominate, or at least that's how the thread has read to me.

@zombiegenesis

Kinnikuman could be some inspirational listing, but it's as good a place as any to steal wrestling stuff from. Same with Tiger Mask and probably a plethora of others. 80s Japan liked their sports anime (really, Japan likes its sports anime in general).

@thatguythere

Hence the guidelines that would be posited with the social conflict files. But yeah. I'm erring on the side of trust and will go from there. I've had good luck doing it with 60+ person LARPs where I've had to kick shitheels out for being assholes and violating the social contract and the OOC social rules of the game, while other people are reasonable. I've had to do it a few times on MU*s where people flagrantly did shit that was against theme or broke OOC rules. I'm not a stranger to it.

And honestly, I've freely admitted a million times that I come from a massively different background than most MUers on here, having migrated on from the heavy consent TF/superhero MU circuit. I have a much different take on some things than a lot of people here do, or at least it feels that way a lot of times.

AS far as 'hard and fast rules,' besides guidelines that spell out what SHOULD be in pose(s) that initiate social combat and the actual 'here's how social conflict system works and attendant code', what hard rules are you thinking need to be there?

@thatguythere

Minimum effort should be something determined by the MUSH itself, honestly. Because that way there is consistency, and you can post guidelines and say 'Minimum effort should look something like X, Y or Z. Anything more, sweet action, that's more RP and that's what we're all here for.' And any doubts should have players calling for a judge if they aren't sure they can handle the social conflict themselves. But I'm working from an angle of 'try to place some trust in the players'. At least part of this is due to my own personal expectation that I'll be staffing a MU* with minimal assistance for a while after I get it open, and the more examples and ways to negate the necessity of staff oversight, the more players might be comfortable cooperating with each other.

@thatguythere

Right. But what I am (and I think most of us are) positing with it is that, you as the player have a right to not engage in Social Conflict without some sort of minimum effort. I've got something that I'm writing up that I'll link when I'm done that talks about the initiation of a Social Conflict that includes both a Goal and something that starts the intrigue. The minimum effort thought process harkens further back in the thread regarding 'unreasonable expectations of initiating RP' which relies on player cooperation and people being actually FAIR to each other. I plan to lay out some samples and examples and such for guidelines, though ultimately the cooperative angle is what i hope would work out in determining if an intrigue should be set up (without having to involve staff, anyway).

@thenomain

CoD doesn't have a LARP circle. By Night Studios primarily focuses on 1) using Status on other characters, be they NPCs or PCs, and 2) having people be reasonable during Social Challenges, there's no special mechanics for social on NPCs vs. Social on PCs. It's Boons, Negative Status which has mechanical backing, Social Challenges if you're a reasonable player, and Boons.

@the-sands
I've mentioned just outright banning skeevy concepts, true, because often they're the thing that people roll a lot more for social stuff. As far as other things to ban, I honestly don't have a concrete list at this point. I think the biggest things revolve around changing core conceits UNLESS the player is willing to lean that way, like your example of being willing to be tricked into killing your wife and child. Defining those core conceits is the difficult prospect though. And I've stated, multiple times in this thread alone, that 'hurr durr Imma trick you +roll' is not an intended goal, at least from my standpoint. RP is needed (even if they're not the best social player, as long as they put forth the EFFORT to TRY, then they get to use their social guns), and some things just wouldn't trigger social-fu anyway (mostly those core conceits).

@the-sands

There's an obvious difference between 'people can be manipulated' and 'I have been tricked into killing my wife and unborn child'. We've stated multiple times in this thread that there are things that are right out and would require supernatural pushes (IE: someone killing their wife and their unborn child, for example), versus not needing supernatural pushes (being plied with money and favors, gotten drunk and talking through flattery, intimidated through promises of violence backed up by evidence that can be followed through on). HEll, I've said multiple times there should be a list of things social combat should not be able to accomplish.

@thenomain

Right, but what's a good bennie that isn't crazy and unbalancing? I suppose that's in the design of each individual system.

@Duntada
That's also a facet of anything that uses the Cortex system, with Mental and Social Stress. I'm sure that those could give some ideas on adding to Social Conflict, but a lot of their 'end resolution' is the same: out of a fight/out of steam and thus, out of the scene, rather than 'trying to get a particular outcome' like we've been theorizing here.

I've long wondered what, other than experience, you could give as a reward for being willing to fail, since this discussion always swings around to carrots needed to make people. Some thoughts...

• XP. Natch.
• A social 'win' in a future social conflict. Perhaps too powerful.
• Extra 'tokens' for social bonuses or bidding (this is one I'm theorycrafting the most, since the social stuff I'm messing with is a token-bidding system. If you willingly fail, you get some extra tokens that you can spend on future social intrigue, above your stat-based maximum.)
• Status (this one is the weakest option, as I can't find viable methods to do it even in the recognition system I stole from MET VtM)
• Advantage (a reroll on a future die roll?)

Hrm.

@thenomain

Right, but we circle back around to the 'buy in' and 'player reasonability' angles. I've had tons of fun, personally, getting socially fucked in a game, even without a carrot like a Beat or whatever. But the community has proven that people like us are in the minority.

@The-Sands
Right, and this we agree on. I'm positing the most simple 'if-then' statement for social conflict as my base example, because it's the most common one that people throw screaming fits about on games. And as you state, it circles right back around to unreasonable resistance or unreasonable factors. And things like the criticality of the information is why I had brought up, say, torture and intimidation vs. just a successful talking around you. Different approaches for different setups.

@sparks

That's a good way of articulating it, the creation of 'trust'. But the community has harmed itself badly with the things that constantly lead to this round and round discussion.

@the-sands
That's false equivalency. But, sure, if you're in the right area with the right equipment, and the situation could dictate it, you can restart their heart, though perhaps the rules say they're braindead now but they're ALIVE, or they're horribly disfigured and scarred or they are paralyzed from the neck down. And yes, I'm being explicitly facetious in my response there, but it answers your exact question.

Regarding skills having limits, I don't think anyone here has said they don't. What we're stating for discussion is that social skills should have something behind them if they are an explicit part of the system. I think most of us have consistently put forth the conceit that 'No, social stats cannot make you do certain things' and have posited tons of things (typefuck being the primary culprit, because all the time THIS DISCUSSION comes up because of the community's fucking skeezy behavior).

I can think of tons of instances where people are manipulated in media without social powers. And your example is EXPLICIT in stating 'limited margins' such as intimidation, which is what most of us HAVE BEEN SAYING this whole time.

But any system requires buy in. Well, I guess looking at the examples and reasoning presented in the many times this thread has been repeated, except physical conflict. But that's because we are TRAINED that Physical Conflict should have a system behind it.

And sometimes, I'm sorry, but sometimes losing player agency because of the system has to happen. It's Bad Metagaming to not adhere to things that are implicit in the system.

If I blow out your kneecaps with called shots that are recorded by the system and you have Conditions or whatever from those, that should be no different than me making a successful Lies roll to get you to speak out of turn and reveal some type of information.

Also, I don't think anyone has said anything about 'deeply held beliefs'. In fact, those of us who have posited social resolution systems here have stated that there should implicitly be things that Social Conflict can NOT do/change. Typefuck, change your sexual orientation, make people fall in love, the list goes on. But there are some things that it should, both in the short term (telling a convincing lie and getting information; torture and intimidation vis a vis leverage to get BIG secrets).

@Roz
In my ideas for a social system, a shit approach wouldn't even start a Social Conflict. But again, all of this requires player buy in and willingness to understand that, sometimes for the story (and remember, we're here in a 'text based medium to play story games, not wank an e-peen character sheet' right? Yes, I'm being deliberately facetious again) your agency will be lost. Roll with it as much as your agency to go out and RP is lost if your kneecaps are blown out and you have a system-dictated 2 weeks of hospital recovery time.

@ixokai

Let's leave aside 'completely ridiculous argument' because I don't think anyone is going to reasonably argue that 'Hey baby, wanna fuck? +roll' is a valid instigator for Social Conflict. But let's say, someone actually tries and puts forth effort, but YOU (the blanket you, the observer) don't feel that their attempt is 'good enough' even though they tried to do what they could.

But we (blanket we, the community) don't take this same thing into account, GENERALLY, when someone poses firing a particular type of gun the wrong way, or stab for 'movie vital parts' or whatever. Why do we apply it to one, but not to the other? It's a double standard, to a point.

I'm going to give an anecdotal example here from the last LARP I ran.

I had a player who played with us, who was not at all socially adept and diagnosed with actual social disorder. He wanted to play a highly social character and had a concept and chose a Daughter of Cacophony. And he tried his goddamn head off to BE social, even if he, the player wasn't the best at it. And so we relied on the Social Attribute and Skills he purchased, with some coaching from the STs and acquiescence of understanding he's TRYING from players to roll with his Social Challenges.

At what point, really, does putting all the value on the immersion and verisimilitude HURT the game? And at that point, what's the point of even having any type of social stat to waste points on? I mean, being honest, even though we're a text-based community we are not a community of professional writers, and many people have social issues that hinder their roleplay, even if they are actively trying.

My only comment would be, you said you're getting rid of skeevy behavior. But one of your examples states that you can't roll to seduce on short-term. That implies the long-term ones can do that.

My advice would be to just issue a blanket list of things that can't be gotten by social combat, period. It's my plan with the Leverage system I'm building for HotB.

@lithium

That's what it read to me too, but I didn't want to assume. It goes back to the continuing 'I am not my character, my stats matter just as much, and often more, than my ability to type it out'.

If a game has stats, those stats must matter. Whether that's punching or stabbing a dude, weaving baskets underwater or hacking systems, or using your silver tongue to convince the Captain of the Guard to allow you into the guardhouse. The rest of it depends on your intent with the game. I've been on tons of statted games with no social stats, and players were extremely reasonable about intimidation, trickery, lies and such. Conversely, the couple of games where I've been on that had social stats either 1) gave no real backing to those social stats, or 2) suffered from the same issues I have crop up in LARP - I am my character, thus my agency is infringed upon if you use your Lies Stat @ Eleventybillion.

The biggest thing to do is ensure that it's straightforward what your expectations are and what you'll enforce.

I've enforced this in many LARPs where players expect to rely on their own personal social skills, and don't invest into their character's social stuff. And I've gotten equal amounts of pushback as well as adherence.

@jennkryst

Can you clarify what you're trying to convey with this post? Are you trying to bring up the idea that a social conflict dice roll should consider those factors you list out?

KINNIKUMAN MUSH!

My only input would be use an easy system like Cortex. Cortex allows for a lot of variety, and you can do a lot of combos. Define your attributes, define your skills, define any 'bonuses' and they all have die ratings that can be increased, and boom there you go.

It also has the neat option of 'bidding your opponents' damage(s) against them'. Like, if you've got a dude up to a d6 Physical Stress, some things might let you bid that against him.

@thenomain
Yeah, but you're also going to the most extreme point. But much of this also comes from the discussion of 'player agency'. I'm not talking about 'seduce to typefuck,' but things like 'I'm going to use social-fu to get you to back me to be Duke/get the password to the secret society/to plant this evidence against Lord Farfignuten' and people are extremely against the idea that they can be manipulated AT ALL. Unless you're just saying enforce FtB just like 'HP = 0 = unconscious' and have it otherwise notated, IE: Social HP = 0 = You plant the evidence/give false testimony against Farfignuten via this +note that is enforced on you by staff'.

@Ganymede
I applaud the intent there. Honestly, just outright banning the skeevy behaviors under social conflict is a generally better option than most anything. I hope you have luck in getting the things along the lines of your laid out 'gossip campaign/vote against your own interest/whatever' angle to actually work out.

@jennkryst

Corollary to that, if compulsory how is staff going to handle enforcing the results of social combat?