Posts made by Ghost

@arkandel Fuck yes, such a good example.

I can't remember which game it was, but my character accepted information that I, as a player, knew to be a lie. There was even a log on the wiki about how they were going to lie to my character. I read it before the scene and still my character believed it.

A player paged me and asked(sic:) "LOL OMG are you wanting your character to be ruined on purpose?"

Social rolls won't get rid of metagaming, but the fact of the matter is that you and I, Arkandel, should be able to play with each other without me trying to guess what YOU are up to. It should be about perception at the character level. Logs and scenes your character is not aware of should not, but often do, affect character decisions.

So, back to social RP? Ethic like ours should be standard because it's fair to other players. Were that ethic the majority, we probably wouldn't have to wonder about social rolls at all. It would just be a question of what plot twists we wanted to throw at each other.

But I can't help but feel in a culture where little bits of metagaming here and there are considered commonplace that I'd love to be able to effectively lie ICly to any given player and not have it be treated like an OOC betrayal or cheating.

But even with dice, they'd know deception was rolled so...

@ganymede @Arkandel I knoooooooow and I love you both dearly for those two really specific points. I agree. Remove those people from the political arena and avoid them.

But it's just a damned shame that I can't RP with every single approved character and expect the same level of metagaming ethic when it comes to that kind of stuff.

PLAYING THE PLAYER is like:

VLAD SAYS SOMETHING

• Who plays Vlad?
• Ask around
• No one knows him? Page him with "hey where else do you play?"
• wikistalk
• check if he is using a PB you hate

If your search turns up to be negative:

• Your character doesnt believe him
• Never RP in a room with them again

If you know him and like his player?

• Page "LOL OMG ARE YOU??? HIIIII"
• Plan RP together

If you don't know who they are

• Proceed with caution, ask OOC if they're lying

Like...I know we all know people who do this lol.

And so my while involvement in this thread has mostly been because I wholly prefer "stop paging me and dice me, bro" as an alternative.

@ganymede said in Social Systems:

Imagine how fun it would be if vampires were to play their requiem rather than their players' erotic fantasies birthed from teenage fiction.

To the rest of your post, though?

I think some of us are really good at writing it through and handling it as a cooperative story. Nothing is better to me on these games than when I'm in a group of writers all about writing deception, chaos, lies, and plot twists going in knowing that they are happening and congratulating each other on our writing.

However, there's a concept I've mentioned before that I came up with in my LARP years:

PLAYING THE PLAYER

This is when people make their RP decisions poker-style based on what they know about the OOC person or their likes/dislikes. It's a form of metagaming that is hard to catch and even harder to convince players to stop doing.

In terms of social role play without dice, its the "My character isn't going to believe Tom's new character, because Tom likes making characters who lie, and I don't want my character to be lied to"

I won't get on my soapbox about how this I think has become the norm more than not and why so many Mushers care about which player is playing which bit...but on-topic, Playing the Player is one of my big reasons for being into social rolls.

If we are, in fact, gaming, then it should be what happens IC that determines the flow, and social dice provides a little protection from this kind of metagaming.

@faraday Exactly! We're in sync on this I think.

Social rolls have to make sense, but also have to work within the characters, scene, or setting.

If the bad guy thinks girls are gross, there is no amount of seduction that would make him decide to take the girl back to his room. If your character is a secret service agent, no amount of persuasion would make them take a box from a stranger and put it under the seat of a Senator's convertible.

Since we all like depth and writing so much in this hobby, I don't think that social rolls are a problem, but I think they need to be in proper context.

Sidenote: I've had a LOT of my TT players and some Mushers go the route of oocly explaining their argument and hoping that the justification will handwave the social roll altogether.

"My character is going to tell them that they're a cop and to give them their car"

Roll for it.

"Oh please if a cop told you to give them your car, you would."

Do you have identification? A badge?

"No but..."

Then roll with negative modifiers for lack of looking like a cop, or find some other method like pulling your gun and using intimidation.

I think the above is a good example as to why social rolls are written into systems and shouldn't be handled ad-hoc between the GM without resolution. In some cases social rolls are as vital and treacherous as combat rolls and things like leaping to catch an outstretched hand.

@faraday We can! And we can still be buddies about it!

I agree though, a preexisting proclivity is reasonable. My examples weren't iron clad, but this is why Google, surveys, etc exist. It's to find those preexisting proclivities, because ad firms pay HUGE sums of money to find those proclivities to avoid trying to sell ice to polar bears.

So I think it's fair to push back with preexisting stances. I think it's good RP to RECON what those preexisting proclivities are so that the social rolls make sense when they happen.

One of my cardinal rules as a GM is that TV, books, and movies can help GMs figure out how scenes can make more sense, so here is another example.

Any caper/investigation show from Miami Vice to Leverage has an investigative phase where their target is researched before the lead female puts on some ridiculous dress and goes into the cocktail party to flirt with and plant a bug on the crimelord. Dexter did it before his killings.

These examples are RP gold and work well with players.

@faraday In TT/MU I think that can be handled with a policy that states that you can't persuade someone to do something that they knowingly have no interest in doing.

Knowingly

In your example, if you neither want nor need a 2018 BMW, no amount of critical successes would make you decide to throw yourself into debt to buy something you don't need.

BUT... said salesman could leave such a good impression that when your character decides they want a BMW...Charlie was so awesome and comfortable that HE is gonna get that sale.

Using an old example again:

You will never be able to persuade Leia to agree to a Death Star test against Alderaan. Never. BUT you can persuade her to give you information under threat of blowing up Alderaan.

Using social rolls has to include some kind of reasonable context for the social attempt. As fun as it might be, a roll to try to talk the Pope into knowingly leaving the Vatican to make live broadcast midget porn doesn't make sense.

...but you might be able to get him to privately put a porn DVD into a laptop that contains a Trojan virus. But if the Pope has zero interest in porn...a copy of a movie might do the trick.

It's all in the context.

Update: I've added Ortallus to ignore. He's just trying to instigate snippy BS.

@lithium Yeah, I don't think this person is really gathering that it's not a fight when you're reiterating the thing that someone else said that is being ignored in favor of picking a fight.

I'll post it again.

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

@Ortallus take it to the Hog Pit.

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

@ortallus You are correct, the logic would be flawed had he said 75% of all social interaction required arbitration through dice rolls.

I will concede my point under the overwhelming threat of your greater wit and intelligence.

@lithium said in Social Systems:

@ghost Heh Good Luck.

I know, right?

@ortallus said in Social Systems:

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@ortallus
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not against social skills I am against the idea that they are should only work on NPCs.
And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

K, I could get into the math here, but I'm not going to get all fancy with it.

tl;dr

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with PCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're way too aggressive. Or they are.

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with NPCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're a gamer. Congratulations.

Let's not get snippy and hyperbolistic. @ThatGuyThere wasn't saying that 75%+ of PC to PC interaction required dice intervention. Don't put words in their mouth. @ThatGuyThere simply said that 75%+ of their interaction on MUs is with PCs, not NPCs.

Frankly I agree with them.

So there has to better a better resolution system to tasks, including social challenges than "whatever they agree to", because in many cases "whatever they agree to" consists of ONLY what works for them.

Let's be cool here and not put words in people's mouths.

@arkandel Respectfully, I see it as a conversation about social systems, but the conversation keeps circling around how to get players to use them if implemented.

I truly believe you can systemize maturity with policies, using the game system as designed, and with staff/GMs who won't wrestle with immature players.

My TT night maturity system works. It's called "Be Mature or Be Somewhere Else" and I have asked players throwing drama fits to leave for the night.

But that's a conversation for another thread.

I advise to keep the game within eras depicted by the movies and TV shows or at least eras with familiarity (NJO, Legacy) of Sith, Empire, Republic, Jedi.

While a Star Wars meganerd like me would love to see the Mandalorian Wars, your non-meganerd players may suffer for the lack of familiarity.

Really, I've found that giving your players more comfort with the setting will make them more confident to run plots, etc.

On topic? All I can say is this:

I think from WoD to Shadowrun to D&D, the social rolls systems are adequate. I think that dice systems are necessary to ensure outcomes are based on sheets and not the better OOC argument/negotiating of players. Dice keep games from being about who the GM likes better, or who had the better idea, but whose character was able to clinch the victory on any given roll.

So all I can really do is give my 2 cents as to how I would(and how I do) approach social dice rolls as a GM. This covers both MU and Tabletop:

1. We use the system. Period. While we may have some house rules, the system is the framework for ensuring that it is a game. I dont care which system that is. It could be FS3, d20, WoD, etc. We are using the system, its combat/social system, and we are keeping track of health/death/etc.

2. Players should be expected to be mature about wins, losses, and character death. These are games and while it's not always awesome to lose a character(that you weren't prepared to lose), players should be mature enough to avoid unhealthy attachment to their characters or treat them as an extension of themselves. As a GM I will keep other players from bullying other players with dice and throw properly-leveled bad guys at your characters, but ultimately, negative behavior involving demands of control about whether or not it is fair for your character to be subject to these systems is inherently cheating. I would not allow myself, or other GMs, to feel pressured to by players griefing them with angst about their attachment to their characters. We should be adults, and it is a game.

So, ultimately that's my take on social dice. I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the systems involving social dice. The problem, I believe, persists in some of the classic rage-pattern behaviors that come from players wanting to control whether they win or lose, and the pressures those players put on others to make sure that things go their way. I've seen this behavior in living rooms, game conventions, LARP, and online RP. It's a common occurrence in the hobby.

As mature adults and roleplayers we should be above this, have policies to keep people from using social rolls to try to leverage TS or other taboo behavior, and not devolve into OOC spats based on whether or not we like what happened ICly.

@faraday said in Social Systems:

@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.)

I've given this some thought, so allow me to counterpoint.

On the crunchier systems (let's set WoD and FS3 aside for a moment, because WoD focuses on the # of dice controlling the 8+ on a d10 as the outcome and FS3 is a modified Fudge) don't suffer this so much.

Take d20 Saga Edition Star Wars for example. Your attack roll is modified by all kinds of numbers after the dice roll that make success easier as you level up, but with WoD/FS3, there are raw dice, not levels. So in Saga Edition Star Wars:

d20 roll: 1 is a botch, 20 is a crit
...then add your base attack bonus, dex modifier, modifiers from weapon, modifiers from feats, modifiers from aiming...

To hit, say 18 on a D20 after modifiers sometimes can mean: just don't roll a 1

A d20 roll + 15...hits an 18 on 3 or higher, whereas in some other systems (like WoD) you could throw 3400 dice and it's up to probability alone just how many of them are 8+

So there's a system-based variable in play here. Mushing tends to avoid super crunchy systems like Eclipse Phase, Mechwarrior, Shadowrun, and lots of d20suite games because they're driven by a need for progression based on XP given for enemies killed, etc, but the crunchier systems DO control these outcomes a bit better for an Ace Sniper.

But I do feel this topic could segue into a thread about how to make it so that RP reflects what's on your sheet. I don't think it would be a wasted topic, either.

Min-maxing takes advantage of rolls that people aren't asked for often, who then turn and use those dots towards stats that are intended to be used more often.

I warned my tabletop group, I really did. Once I started enforcing rolls for things like academics and socialize, they started buying dots in it. That learning curve was treacherous, but (again, metagaming) just because you oocly know how to look stuff up on Google doesn't mean that your character knows it.

@thatguythere That's something I've noticed wholesale across a lot of games, including WoD. I've seen social stats purchased, seemingly, to fuel the various powers requirements for dice. Social situations for the most part are hand-waved unless they involve NPCs, but PvP power usage for a skill might require Wits+Subterfuge, so subterfuge gets a lot of attention for the power, but not used in regular social RP.

Maybe it's just personal preference or a pet peeve of mine, but I'm a bit opinionated when it comes to the way characters are RPed versus their dots on their sheets.

I've seen a lot of highly articulate and charismatic physically min-maxed characters with very few dots along the lines of social/wits related skills (presumably because their powers didn't require those dots) who roleplay as if those dots are there...they just weren't important to the build they wanted at the time.

Don't wanna sound like grumpy cat, here, but I consider that to be in poor taste. (because I WILL and HAVE often roleplayed characters with very low social stats and very high stats as being socially inept and easy to manipulate, and my RP will reflect my character's sheet, because I believe that doing so is FAIR to the players who statted towards social)

@lisse24 said in Social Systems:

For the record, I fundamentally disagree with this assertion. In my experience, while some players are out only to win, most are out to tell stories and are OK with periodic losses. They are not OK with feeling like they got screwed over. Social skills are often used spuriously and leave people feeling like they got screwed. So lets make a system that negates that feeling and encourages collaboration.

It's a double-edged sword. There's often too much casual metagaming and need for OOC reassurances to let players know whether or not they're being lied to. Pick your poison:

• Tell the player OOCly that they're being lied to and hope to God they don't cheese it, use that OOC information ICly, or engineer it to their advantage
• Roll dice and keep it all IC, but if they fail a social/deception roll may behave as if their character suspects they have been lied to and then directs their RP towards negating successful deception

Or

• When they ask if they were lied to ICly, keep it all IC and lie to the player OOCly out of hope that what is going on IC is preserved. Technically, asking OOC questions about what is or is not true is metagaming, which is OOC insider trading that determines their IC approach. When it is revealed that you OOCly lied, you end up on MSB as a liar or some grade of sociopath.

There is no good answer here without reinforced policies or preexisting trust relationships between players.

Update/Afterthought: Currently I handle this by trying to make connections with like-minded RPers who enjoy things like chaos and regret ICly, who appreciate the dramatic end of things. I prefer my harsh RP to include high-fives in pages when our characters lie and fuck each other over with drama. We prearrange these plot twists between each other and I know these players don't take IC things personally. Unfortunately, this is the exception and not the standard, so I have to be choosy who I do this with.

@roz I explained it to my tabletop group as such:

"Dice rolling is important and is something that has to be done to reinforce the game element of RPG. Inherent skill, even in the real world, isn't a deciding factor in the success of everything. There are few simple efforts in life, and being more skilled in something doesn't equate to automatic success either."

The skill modifiers or extra dice represents how well in any given situation the character might mitigate any stresses, sudden performance, etc might produce a success on their behalf. Michael Jordan didn't effortlessly score a ton of points. Even with his skill, it was work, but his skill level made it more likely that his use of the skill would produce results. Michael Jordan wasn't a series of hand-waved rolls, but a series of good skill rolls.

This is why nearly every gaming book I own suggests that only mundane tasks usually receive no roll:

• No roll is needed to load a coffee maker up and make a passable cup of coffee
• A roll is needed to make an impressive breakfast in bed for that hot blonde you met last night that is still sleeping in your bed
• No roll is needed to make that hot blonde a standard toaster waffle Eggo Waffle breakfast.

This works with social. Lying to or impressing people is not easy. It should always be opposed any time the targeted character is attempting to see through any kind of BS.

My suggestion:

Any system with any sort of deception vs perception skill check works just fine, but as @Ganymede pointed out, policies surrounding the social rolls are needed.

1. No social roll should ever be used to determine TS, ever.
2. No social roll should ever drastically alter the allegiances of a character beyond reasonable doubt. (You can convince Princess Leia that someone is spying on the Alliance long before she would ever spy on the Alliance herself)
3. Social combat rolls must be within the realm of reasonable doubt (The Pope will not suddenly believe you when you say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is Peter, the Apostle, without accompanying evidence)

...and here is what I feel is UTTERLY IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE

4. Social rolls often have winners and losers. If the loser of a social roll has been successfully deceived and chooses to act in stark contrast to what the winner of said roll has successfully deceived them into believing, staff intervention may take place. (Or some othet better wording)

In short, SOMETHING needs to be codified into policy to protect the losers of social rolls from metagaming.

We've all seen this happen:

• Characters are talking about secret business in a tunnel
• A new player arrives, rolls Obfuscate, successfully disappears and begins to eavesdrop
• SUDDENLY, the characters stop talking about super secret business and start talking about who is going to the NHL playoffs.
• ...they also randomly decide to throw their unused coffee cups at the corner where the guy is obfuscated, because oops...one might hit the invisible guy.

Another example:

• Character A and B are role playing.
• B rolls a deception based skill against A's perception and wins.
• A believes B...but...for some reason (merrrteeergermin)decides to go to every other character on grid before acting on said deception to check 4500 times whether or not they've been lied to, because although they believe it, their character is very very very thorough with this information

Or

• After character A has been lied to, suddenly character C ( a friend of A's, with many perception feats) shows up wanting to hear this deception, as well, and then C wins and informs A that it's a lie.

WE HAVE ALL seen these little white metagaming incidents take place and plenty of OOC gymnastics to engineer plausible metagaming like this.

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