Posts made by faraday

@lithium said in Social Systems:

This is FATE social combat in a nutshell. You can argue/debate (Roll social combat fu), you can leave (Concede to losing the scene, have your character leave before any major consequences), or you can go for help (Maybe use contacts or resources as a social attack by calling friends or paying the bouncer to bump someone out the door).
FATE has everything to do with Player Agency, while also keeping system there to adjudicate.

Having never actually played FATE I might be missing some core component of the system, so please forgive my ignorance here.

I thought you had said that if my PC failed a social roll to rebuff a persuasion attempt, for example, my only options were to either concede to being persuaded or to get mad and leave the scene. I just don't like that. I'm not saying it's the most terrible thing in the world or anything, I just have a philosophical objection to it because once again it's taking away my ability to decide how my character reacts. Maybe they argue, maybe they throw a drink in his face, maybe they just scoff and say "You're an idiot" and go back to their drinks.

Someone can be the absolute most persuasive salesperson in the world (i.e. roll Amazing Success every time) and still not close a deal because the other person isn't interested in what they're selling, not because the other person succeeded in their Willpower check.

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

As a disclaimer please let me know if I'm over-arguing with you because while I find this debate interesting, I realize it can also get annoying.
Having said that, what makes sense is a matter of narrative and we're all fallible when it comes to how we interpret what we're doing. So in a in a traditional 'physical' stated system it might make perfect sense for my combatant's personal journey at that point to result in victory

It's okay, I think it's been a good debate so far!

I think we have different definition of 'makes sense' though. Your ace sniper missing a shot makes sense. Everyone's fallible - even Navy SEALs. Your ace sniper missing ten shots in a row for no darn reason other than you kept rolling a 1? Nope, sorry, that doesn't make any more sense than a (insert political hot button topic here) advocate suddenly changing her mind just because somebody rolled a 20 on their persuasion roll.

So yes - I'm all for randomness and unexpected victories/defeats as long as those results are bounded by rails of plausibility. That's really all I'm asking for. (And I freely admit that's not everyone's jam. I'm not knocking people who prefer it another way, just responding to the "I don't get why anybody would want it that way" type of arguments.)

@lithium said in Social Systems:

I don't know why people are so against the system when it handles social combat so well without removing agency unless you simply refuse to let someone 'win'.

Because of agency.

My characters have been conned. They've been used. They've been seduced. They've been manipulated. They've been cowed into submission. I am not in any way, shape or form against the idea of someone else 'winning', nor am I against bad things happening to my character. I just want to have a say in whether it makes sense for it to happen, and not leave such decisions up to the whims of a crappy (in most RPGs anyway) dice mechanic.

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

On a stat-less game there is not real uncertainty unless it is a continuing plot the PCs will win

And why is that? Because most players don't like to lose unless they're forced to by mechanics. Otherwise the PCs in a statless game would choose to lose (sometimes) for the sake of drama, furthering the plot, providing challenges to overcome, etc.

@ghost said in Social Systems:

That shit needs to be hit with a hammer, and as a community, need to get better about policing that lack of fairness.

Yeah, that stuff needs to be hit hard with a hammer. There's a big difference between "my character is disinclined to believe Harry because he's lied to her seven times before and there have been dire consequences and she's not going to be fooled again" vs. "my character has no reason to disbelieve Honest Harry even though I, the player, know he's lying."

That happens in physical rolls too though. People deciding to be extra cautious because they know it's a combat scene even though their chars should be clueless. Or metagaming a called shot to the neck just because they know that the armor is weakest there. Stuff like that. Nefarious metagaming needs to be combatted.

@roz said in Social Systems:

I think it's a mistake to think of stats as "this thing we need to have to make people play fair with each other" instead of "this thing we can design and utilize to help enhance RP for a certain style of play."

We can agree to disagree there. I think the shift from statless consent to statted non-consent over the years is no coincidence, it's reactionary. And most tabletop RPG books begin with some variation of "it's like cops and robbers when you were a kid, but with rules instead of 'I shot you' 'No you didn't."

But I do agree that stats provide other value beyond just making everyone play nice.

I like @Ganymede's system.

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

Obviously no one thinks changing someone's beliefs in one roll, even for a single encounter, is appropriate.

Unfortunately I think a lot of players do think that's appropriate. That said, I do like the incremental approach. Not only does it encourage RP by requiring multiple scenes, but it acknowledges that changing someone's opinion on something doesn't happen overnight.

I still think there needs to be some sort of boundaries though. Princess Leia is never going to willingly betray the resistance no matter how much time and effort you put into influencing her and moving that needle.

It also doesn't address the rolls that really are cold one-shots. Talking your way past the guard. Schmoozing the receptionist into giving out a room number she shouldn't. Lying to the cop asking you where you were that night. Convincing someone to put their gun down in a standoff. With NPCs it's really easy (and appropriate) to boil that down to a single roll. But as @Ghost and others have mentioned, many players get really, really, really bent out of shape if they lose a roll like that -- FAR more than if they lose a dodge roll and get decked.

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

I don't understand that. On those games you need to give your consent to be punched, too, but no one is (or seems to be) making the argument physical skills shouldn't exist.

If that were the sole reason against social skills I'd agree with you. But I listed a bunch of other reasons that are unique to social skills. I was just pointing out that the RFK system was really consent at its core.

@seraphim73 said in Social Systems:

I think, however, that it all comes down to one singular point: Trust.

Yes, but that's kind of core to why we have stats at all. If everyone trusted each other to play reasonably or (for GMs) to judge situations reasonably, we wouldn't need social stats or physical stats.

@seraphim73 said in Social Systems:

As for social stats vs physical stats, even on PvE games, there's usually at least the possibility of another PC punching your PC (even if they aren't trying to kill yours), and usually you use combat stats for that. But if social stats can't be used against other PCs... well, they're less valuable.

Players use skills against each other all the time in a consensual manner on a PvE game. You might use melee for a sparring practice.

But you can use social skills the same way - consensually. I've seen players roll Bluff or Persuasion or even Seduction in the same sort of playful "let's leave this to chance" way that they would for a pick-up Pyramid game.

And even on a relatively antagonistic PvE game like 100, you still didn't have people running around punching each other on a regular basis. "There might be a PvP barfight once in a blue moon" is really not a compelling argument for "physical stats are more valuable than social stats".

That said, I think physical stats are more valuable on 99% of MUSHes, and it has nothing at all to do with PvP. It's because only 1 out of every 5 (and that's being generous) MU plots even has an opportunity to use social skills to resolve the conflict at all. The other 4 have dozens of opportunities to use combat skills in a single scene.

To tie that back to the OP's original question: Games set up which skills are valuable by setting up opportunities for those skills/systems to be useful. If it's just a chore, or a tool to bludgeon other people over the head, nobody's going to use it.

This also has nothing in particular to do with social stats btw. If I wanted Technician to be as valuable as Firearms on BSGU, I'd need to run one Tech plot (with multiple chances to use the skill in the scene) for every combat plot.

@fei-dawen Depends, I guess. I've spent most of the past 20 years playing on strictly PvE games, so my perspective is skewed compared to a lot of people here. I think 1998 was the last time I can recall a situation where two PCs came to blows in a non-consensual manner.

@fei-dawen In a PvE game, combat actions don't work on PCs either because there's no PvP. So there's no inherent "value imbalance" between social stats and combat stats.

@ganymede said in Social Systems:

But, as for agency, I think the best way to encourage people to use a social system is to put player agency on both sides. For the aggressor, the option to use a social mechanism should always be available; for the target, the option to opt-out of the result should always be available.

Sorry for double post but I missed this before... What you describe is the norm on the consent games I've played. You can always TRY to manipulate me, but I have to give my consent to BE manipulated.

Sounds like RfK was just putting some carrot incentives around it so everybody comes away with something (either what they wanted, or a 'beat'). Nothing wrong with that, but did it really help? Was the beat-carrot enough incentive for someone to take a social dive when they otherwise wouldn't?

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

And if that's the case no one buys social stats, and people complain there are only combat monsters around. Well, there's a reason for it.

Personally I'm okay with that, if the alternative is strong-arming me into playing my character in a way that feels incongruous with the character's personality, core values, etc.

But I don't think it has to be as all-or-nothing as you're making it out to be. You can use social stats against NPCs. If you run a primarily PvE game, then those stats are still valuable.

And if you're running a non-consent PvP game? Honestly ... good luck with any system. I think 30 years of MU history and a zillion discussions on these boards have aptly demonstrated the sour grapes that result from pitting strangers against each other in a persistent environment

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

after all things with the most impact in a system should be the ones most clearly provisioned and accounted for, right?

Or they are the ones that should be most left up to consent-based cooperative resolutions unless both the players involved, with staff mediating, are absolutely unable to come up with any sort of compromise. That's just my 2 cents though - I respect that folks like social systems for a variety of reasons. I just don't personally.

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

@ganymede Why don't players fuck non-social system rolls (or don't do so as badly)?

Couple reasons:

1. Fewer consequences. So you got stabbed. So what? Unless your game is big on permadeath, you'll get over it in a few days and go on with your life. Whereas a lot of the social stuff that people bother to roll for has weighty consequences. I got conned into giving away the keys to the kingdom and now I'm completely f-ed. When combat has dire consequences, you see the same resistant behavior.

2. We're used to not rolling for social stuff. There are hundreds of micro-interactions on MUSHes in any given RP scene, and none of them are rolled. We trust players to resolve social interactions without rolls until suddenly we don't and that feels a bit insulting sometimes.

3. It's personal. Nobody thinks poorly of an action hero who takes a round to the shoulder and soldiers on. But the sap who gets conned? He's a sap. Players empathize too much with their characters. It's bad enough to lose, but to lose in a way that makes your character look like an incompetent idiot? That pushes peoples' buttons.

4. The rules are murky. General modifiers for physical combat are well-established in tabletop RPGs, and everybody has a pretty shared understanding of its boundaries (i.e. you can't saw off someone's arm with a butter knife). Yet there's no similar understanding for social conflict. What's the appropriate modifier for "I'm just not into guys" on a seduction roll? What's the appropriate modifier for "I'm (insert political party here) and I'm vehemently opposed to (whatever)"? Nobody has any bloody clue. They just want to roll Persuasion vs Willpower and call it a day, and that's silly. The lack of shared boundaries also leads to the uncommon but very real extremes like I'm going to make one roll and force you to betray everything you believe in.

ETA, forgot one, which may just be more of a pet peeve than a general rule:

5. Agency. I have one job on the game, and that's to decide how my character acts/reacts. When you start enforcing social behavior, it's like you're taking the controller out of my hand and telling me how to play the character. That bugs the heck out of me. I do not feel the same at all if you tell me that my character got shot, or missed their shot, or anything else external to the character's thoughts and behaviors.

@bobgoblin said in ROGUE: It is coming...:

This was the approach taken by a sw game not long ago that met with burning crashing. Everything was about the rebellion. Players wanted to do their own things and the disconnect left people scratching their heads.

There are all kinds of reasons why games fail. Attributing one game's failure to one particular design decision is a shaky proposition.

@bobotron said in ROGUE: It is coming...:

At what point is it really IMPOSSIBLE for certain types of characters to reasonably RP with each other and stay within theme?

This. I have played on a lot of different games, but I have never had a harder time finding RP than I did on the few Star Wars games I tried. And given that I'm a pretty motivated self-starter when it comes to finding RP, that's saying a lot.

@miss-demeanor Well you CAN do all of those things in Firefly too, but almost nobody does. Everyone wants to capture the feel of the show, which is centered around a small ship crew/family.

@miss-demeanor Firefly and Starfinder always struck me as settings that freaking rock as tabletop games (where you can be a single crew) and completely fall apart when you try to extend that to an even modestly-sized multi-player game.

I've just been burned too many times by Star Wars games where you're stuck on one planet while everyone else who's online is someplace else, and Firefly games where you're either stuck on a ship with nobody else from your crew on, or stuck on a planet while everyone else is away on their ships.

Which I think is another hurdle Original Sci-Fi games (and established ones too) have: focus. When the entire galaxy is your playground, herding the cats together becomes more of a challenge.

@apos said in Sci Fi/Opera Originality:

I think you're saying that, 'Unless you are willing to accommodate that, a sci fi game will not be successful because it will alienate its fans.'

No that's really not at all what I'm saying, but I'm not sure how to make what I said any clearer without repeating myself so I'm just gonna let it go.

@apos said in Sci Fi/Opera Originality:

People are used to approaching things as the protagonist of the story, and sci fi is pretty steeped in discovery, so they want to be the one to do that, and it is impossible to do that for a full player base.

That is exactly the sort of thing I'm getting at as to why original sci-fi settings are so hard. Players want to do this. Sure you can try to fight it but you're swimming upstream. Good luck with that.

@apos I'm not saying they're story-critical, I'm saying they're roleplay-critical. I, for one, don't want to be going through every scene feeling like I'm on shifting sands of not knowing the way the world works, nor do I want to be constantly having to interrupt a scene to ask basic life questions.

Sure, you can boil everything down to tropes. That's basically what I did with BSGU. "It's Space-France with this, or modern-day tech with that." But most sci-fi fans find that lazy and unsatisfying. YMMV.