@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:
If the local combat monster opts to lose a combat to someone that barely knows which end of the stick is pointy, that'll make people confused.
First, why would the local combat monster opt to lose the combat? Second, why would anyone be confused? Third, why would anyone presume that the winner is telling the truth if this were reported?
I'd be more convinced of your argument if you presented a sensible example.
If I send my minions to capture you and my minions choose to lose, that affects me.
And your minions know this, and should suffer the consequences. Even if you were to use the resolution system (dice), there is always a chance for abject failure. As nothing is ever guaranteed, there is no reason to rely on the system to reach any desired result.
If you try to seduce my faction leader and my faction leader opts in, that affects me.
This happens all the fucking time, rolls or not. If you're suggesting that we all need to roll to see if a PC gets a boner looking at another PCs tits, then we've reached the point of absurdity.
That's where the Shared part of the MUSH acronym comes in, the characters are supposed to all be within the same shared and consistent universe.
In our RL "shared and consistent" universe, laws and rules are bent and broken all the damn time during settlements, yet the vast majority of us think that things like settlement agreements and plea bargains are a good way to streamline what our society considers "just."
I wouldn't feel the need to continue this, but any policy that would deny the players the right to adjudicate their own conflicts without staff intervention is a horrid policy. There is no cognizable reason why one player has any right to object to how two other players resolve their differences. Such a policy would result in needless staff intervention time and time again for rudimentary, trivial things.
That's just silly.
@lordbelh said in Social Conflict via Stats:
I think you're absolutely bonkers for thinking its a decent way to solve PvP social conflicts, because as I've said before it so utterly favors the aggressor that it just doesn't work in any antagonistic scenario. In the hands of someone who doesn't want to play nice and cooperative its made to be abused.
I am bonkers, but I don't think so here. I don't recall anything in the Doors system that doesn't permit me to beat the fuck out of you or deny seeing you in the future. There is an implicit willingness to engage which, in a way, ought to favor the aggressor. It's just another form of combat, I suppose, but I will concede that it could use a few tweaks.