@Arkandel said in Eliminating social stats:
Elitism is part of the hobby though. It is a hobby, and it does require some skill to play; there is an unfairness in that some are just better gifted than others, I agree, but that comes with the territory. You can have a room full of aspiring writers, all of whom are working just as hard, but some are just more talented than the rest; or a team of basketball players who are busting their asses, but some are just more athletic, can jump higher or are just taller (and it's an old coaching adage - you can't teach height).
Sure, elitism is part of the hobby, but whether or not to be elitist is still a choice that every gamer makes. No one has to do something just because it exists, and I know you know that. I'm snooty too sometimes, I like to seek out players who write in a similar style to my own and engage my interests. I also step out of my box sometimes. Playing with @Coin is a great example. I'm super verbose, and he is as succinct as possible (likely to do with his intense Hemingway fetish but I don't judge). So he's probably not among the people that I'd seek out often if I did not know him and know how creative he is. Since I do know both of those things, I play with @Coin whenever I can. I get to practice a little brevity, he gets to practice paragraph form, and we both get better at writing and playing because of it.
That is a question of preferences though rather than talent/skill at writing that engages people. I can be elitist and eye roll when someone who I think is a bad writer or is a boring gamer is around, and I even blow these people off sometimes because I want to do something more fun. I also remain aware of how when I first switched from MUDs to MUSH that I was pretty clueless and likely shitty at meeting the cultural shift and thus being dubbed a 'good' writer or player. People kept giving me opportunities though and I figured out what to change, and now I can hang out and rp without being horrible at either. Usually.
I can't tell you what makes a great roleplayer great. It's not just writing skill and it's definitely not language alone. There's no rote to follow - I've seen people who throw a thesaurus' worth of synonyms in every pose and the poses are still not that great. But I do know one when I see them.
Such a player will be more popular than another who isn't as skilled and that's just just how it is; it doesn't make a difference if their character has low social stats or that they are played properly, because even if they roleplay a Nosferatu whose nose has fallen off and can't open their mouths without making a blunder they are still more fun to hang around than someone else with Socialize 5 and Striking Looks. At least I know who I'd want my character to be buddies or hook up with or whatever.
Sure, of course they will. It doesn't change the fact that I think overall, when considering the philosophy of all this and the opening question about eliminating social stats, it changes dynamics to reward that popularity contest without giving other players tools to participate. On a political game, that popularity isn't always IC talent either. With no stats to regulate social conflict, people win through uncoded social support. So any group of people applying in together, or any player who charms people into joining his or her group gets a pretty significant edge on anyone else. I think social stats help in eliminating OOC politics and demanding that they be IC. Which in my opinion is a good thing, and also a crucial one.
On a language based medium we can decide that we only want to be affected by great writing, and that those without the same command of the language can't play with us. Whether or not that sits well with a game designer or a game's players is up to them, but own it.
I think I just did, but of course others' mileage may vary. I'd be interested in hearing from them. Notice however I never said I wouldn't play with people who can't roleplay as well - generally I'd play with anyone. But I don't shy away from admitting roleplaying skill matters socially way more than stats do, and that (for me) expecting it to be otherwise because of the system is a failure on behalf of the system.
Hey, that's cool by me. I don't think 'Elitism is part of the hobby' is a justifiable reason to look at game design through that lens. There are lots of shitty things about this hobby that are part of the hobby but that doesn't mean that they should be encouraged to remain. How we engage new players or players who haven't yet figured out how to be 'cool' is part of the hobby too, and in my opinion it is a more important one to focus on. I'm not by any means implying I'm great at this, I'm really not. I still want to be better at it overall, even if on a given night I roll my eyes at someone who is boring me and try to get out of it and into something cooler.
I think giving players tools like social stats help them engage in things on more levels than determining that the social aspect of power will be determined only by what is written and which characters have the most fans. Just like we get to pretend that we are having an amazing laser gun fight or using our bulging muscles to wrestle our foes to the ground, players of varying writing skill levels should be able to pretend that their character is popular, savvy, and cool. Even with social stats, some players will always be the ones everyone wants to play with because they are fun and interesting, and that's fine. I just think it's better overall to at least let all players have the opportunity to play at social influence and politics.
So my mileage varied! And you heard from me!