PDA

View Full Version : [New System] Tactically rich social interaction that doesn't hinder RP



NichG
2012-10-26, 02:44 AM
This thread originated from a debate about RP-based social interaction versus mechanics-based social interaction. The mission of this thread is to generate a system that satisfies both sides of the debate and is also interesting to play. For the record, here are the constraints:


But there is a middle ground between "Roleplaying Social Skills is Forbidden" and "Roleplaying Social Skills is Compulsory," and it's one people here seem reluctant to explore. I would like to see good RP rewarded without punishing people whose RP is weaker because of no fault of their own, and solid mechanics which encourage tactics while avoiding over-reliance on Player skill.



- Preservation of the agency of all entities involved, PC and NPC. This is a really hard one, but I'm pretty sure TotallyGuy has posted the solution, and that is to use a bidding system. Both parties must agree to engage in the conflict and can effectively voluntarily wager loss of agency in order to win the conflict. The corresponding requirement here is, there must be some benefit to engaging in social conflict or some penalty for refusing to do so otherwise the system will not get used. TotallyGuy's flowchart had 'failure to participate means either walking away or escalating to physical violence', which is certainly one solution, but there may be better.

- The system should recognize and exploit the richness of actual human social interaction and structure. If the system replaces nuance with pre-tabulated statistics, that would make it unappealing to me. The prior point helps this a little bit, since there's always a fallback, but the fallback is pretty primitive so we need to do better and directly address this.

- The system should never say 'you aren't smart enough to come up with that plan' or 'you aren't charismatic enough to know to say that'. There are other ways to make social stats count than to require the DM to arbitrarily police his players, and I'd like to focus on those.

- Require appropriate effort in play for appropriate success. Not necessarily social RP effort, but this goes hand in hand with 'tactics' to me. A system where character creation determines that A will beat B 100% of the time is uninteresting. I want the environment, the particulars of the situation, etc to matter more than the degree to which the player has specialized. That is to say, make it like combat should be: every character should be roughly equally able to participate, but in qualitatively different ways, and figuring out how to exploit your 'way of being good at it' in the face of the scenario is what the tactics are about. I don't want a system where someone deciding to make a social character trivializes social interactions, and someone who didn't decide to make a social character basically can't participate - better to take every class/archetype/whatever the system will have, and give them certain unique social abilities.

- On that note, don't assume D&D is a baseline. Okay, this isn't really a requirement, but I think things will go a lot smoother if we discard D&Disms and try to make something that is actually for what it is for. Such a thing could be transplanted back into D&D later.


This post begins the design with a rough proposal of ideas on how this might be accomplished.

- There are roughly two classes of social conflicts: Overt, and Covert conflicts. Overt conflicts consist of one character applying a certain Pressure against another in an open manner, and using that pressure to demand their action. The other character then has a choice: ignore the Pressure, in which case whatever bad thing it was then proceeds to happen to them; agree to the action, in which case there is no conflict; or engage in the conflict by applying their own Pressures, trying to reduce the Pressure applied to them, etc. An example of an Overt conflict would be a prince standing before his king at court and challenging him on the fact that the realm's coffers have nearly run out. The Pressure is the threat of revolt should the king be unable to respond; the desired action is perhaps that the king abdicate to the prince, or something less extreme; the king's response in the conflict could be to instead use his station to accuse the prince of treason. Overt conflicts are generally between people who do not want to agree with one another - there is no subtle persuasion, but rather it is two people wielding social weapons at one another with intent to 'kill'.

Covert conflicts cover situations where the victim of a social attack is possibly unaware that they are under attack. Negotiations between merchants follow this line, as do subtle manipulations and seduction. Whereas Overt conflicts are about applying pressure, Covert conflicts are about restricting information, providing false information, and the like. In a Covert conflict, there is no sharp line to indicate the start of the conflict - instead, it consists of people simply using social abilities on one another. In Overt conflict, the loser of a conflict is bound to their word, but in Covert conflict there is no binding of this sort - the results are often more subtle. Covert conflict is often a good prelude to Overt conflict, since it can be used to create Pressures that can then be applied.

The duration of demands created by Overt conflict is limited based on the scope of the conflict, abilities, yadda yadda. I'm not sure how this should be done, but a loss shouldn't be eternal.

A note on adjucation: several of the abilities will require that what you are doing is phrased in a way that 'makes sense'. If anyone at the table wishes to, they may object that what you have said 'doesn't make sense' - in this case, without any further discussion, all those at the table not directly involved in the conflict should make a silent vote. If 2/3 of the table feel it does not make sense, then the action is blocked. This rule assumes that the players are mature and are able to distance themselves from 'party vs world' considerations.

- Every 'level', or other interval of advancement, characters can put a point in one of three offensive social statistics, and a point in one of three defensive social statistics. Each point allows the character to gain a special ability associated with that statistic, which may have certain prerequisites. The statistics are also used for opposed checks (1d20+statistic, tie goes to defender) and to determine some of the numerical scalings of abilities.

Despair: This is where the system has its teeth. In overt social combat, Pressures are applied - this is things like 'if you don't help me, your family will die' or even 'if you help me, I can make sure your family's condition will improve'. Ignoring those pressures (i.e. not successfully winning the social conflict and still choosing not to acquiesce to demands) causes the pressures to trigger, and whatever bad things they consist of then happen. A character who tries to ignore this finds that their life loses a little luster, they become a bit more jaded, a bit more cold-hearted, etc. Mechanically, they gain points of Despair. Despair cannot be 'cured' magically, unless the bad thing associated with the pressures that caused it is cured (i.e. casting a spell to make the person feel good isn't permanent, if their family is still dead). However, Despair can be shed by having positive interactions with other people - forming a new friendship or love, indulging in a vice, etc. Despair acts as a penalty to all rolls the character performs (barring, say, a Perk that can turn it into an advantage for the specific purpose of vengeance).

The offensive statistics are:

Guile
This statistic grants access to abilities that help the character create deceptions, both in the form of overt lies and in the form of more subtle cons and trickery. Direct social combat against a Guile-based character is easy, but dangerous for the victor, because they have some ability to shrug off constraints imposed by their wagers (more on that later).

Smooth Talker
This statistic is the purview of those people who know exactly what other people want to hear. The abilities associated with Smooth Talker involve manipulating the emotions of your opponent. This is a matter of knowing the body language and subtleties of communication for being persuasive. Seduction falls under this statistic, as does intimidation. Corporeal facts, such as 'these two noblemen hate eachother' do not fall under this roof, but instead can be covered by the Lore Perk.

Orator
Whereas a Smooth Talker knows how to manipulate emotion, Orators can perform feats of logic to prove their point. Logic doesn't necessarily work very well against an individual, but it works wonders when it is announced to a large crowd who are all observing the actions of that individual. An Orator manipulates the opinions of the world around their target to create pressure upon them. If an Orator is performing social combat, they do not attack their enemy - they convince society that if their enemy does not act as they have declared, he is a dangerous fool and should be stripped of his responsibilities for the good of all.


The corresponding defensive statistics are:

Savvy
This person is clever and perceptive. He knows when people are manipulating him. This statistic grants powers to determine the social moves of others

Integrity
This character feels strongly that they know what is right and what is wrong. They might have a duty, or a responsibility, or even a lifelong ambition. Things that try to sway them from this path run afoul of their Integrity.

Self-Control
This statistic gives the character abilities to resist emotional manipulation and ploys. Whereas someone with Integrity resists a manipulation because they know its wrong, someone with Self-Control resists a manipulation because they can distance themselves from it and analyze it rationally.
[/spoiler]

There are also a few 'obtained' statistics that occur through a person's interaction with the world:


Status[b]: If a person has station within a given society, this can be used to their advantage and can be leveraged in social conflicts.

[b]Reputation: Positive reputation can act as a defense against having societies turned against you. Negative reputation makes you an easy target.

Clout: Roughly speaking, this represents the difference between a king backed by his army and a beggar on the field. A person with a sufficient Clout advantage cannot be (effectively) socially attacked in an Overt manner, as the threat that they escalate to violence makes many tactics useless - instead, Covert methods are needed first to reduce the Clout. Clout is situational - if the person is in a situation where they cannot actually call upon their allies, then their allies don't count towards their Clout.


Perks and Flaws

A character may take a Flaw in order to gain a Perk. This can be done as often as once per 'level'. Flaws are basically hidden hot buttons that expose a character to social manipulation who would otherwise be unassailable in a situation. They're basically ahead-of-time agreements to lose agency in certain specific cases. Perks are special defenses, or other kinds of advantages that relate to social conflict.

Example flaws: Insecure (character must roll Self-Control or become Irrational when a certain specific aspect of themselves is brought into question), Greedy (character is extra susceptible to positive incentives)

Example perks: Lore (character just tends to know who is who, and can discover pieces of relevant information about societal relationships without being seen to be asking), Obtuse (character misses things at opportune moments, and can ignore a certain degree of provocation and cajoling because he simply doesn't understand it)

Status Conditions

These are really spotty right now, fill in later...

Irrational: This character is currently being dominated by emotional considerations, not intellectual ones. Penalty to Self-Control, can't use Self-Control powers, cannot accept Pressures without escalating to physical violence.

Horrified: Something about the situation has gone beyond what this character has expected was ever possible. They are in over their heads, and this impacts ...

Desperate: This dangerous condition occurs when the things that a character is forced to do because of previous social conflict losses are coming into conflict with a Pressure that is being applied to them. This may be good for the character, and breach those previous losses, or may be bad in that they are unable to ignore the Pressure.

Here are some abilities, to give some examples.

Guile Abilities

Promises are made to be broken (Guile 4)
When losing Overt social combat, you can at a later point attempt to break free of the constraints imposed on you by your loss, at least temporarily. You may roll Guile versus your opponent's Savvy to ignore constraints of your loss for one scene. This can only be done once per a given loss.

Verbal Booby Trap (Guile 2)
You can use this ability to turn the crowd against someone who tries to manipulate it against you. When someone attempts to convince others to act against you as a way to create Pressure, you may use this ability. You must point out something that they have said that goes against one of the societal norms of the people being convinced - or at least something that could be twisted to sound as such. This is a prerequisite of being able to use the ability. If you find such a statement, however, you reverse the effect and gain a Pressure to use against your opponent - no roll is needed, but this trick only works once in a given scene.

Oh that? That was a Lie (Guile 1)
Once per interaction with a given person (once ever, so make it count!), you can take back something that, at the time, was said with full honesty. This is a retroactive change - it can reverse actual gameplay and preparation that was played out, but only those things that were done by the character, and that are not inconsistent with events that followed in a severe way (as in, that character would not have been there in an important fight where everyone saw them). When this ability is used, it is as if the story of the game had been told by an untrustworthy narrator - there is no actual alteration of events.
For another point (min Guile 3) this ability can be upgraded to 'Oh him? He was a hired double', which allows you to get away with even modifying such things on the basis that you hired someone to fill in for you.

Can you really risk it? (Guile 5)
This ability lets the character suggest without explicitly saying that they are acting on behalf of someone the target cannot afford to offend. It doesn't guarantee they'll get their way, but it goes a long way towards guaranteeing their safety. This creates a phantom Pressure associated with the demand of 'don't harm me'. A sufficient Savvy roll can pierce the lie.

All according to plan! (Guile 4)
Retroactively change the instructions given to an accomplice once per story.



Smooth Talker Abilities

Maybe you misheard me (Smooth Talker 2)
Once per conversation, you can take back something you said. The other person must treat it as if you had not said it, though they can make a Savvy roll against your Smooth Talker to figure out that you slipped (but not what you are covering).

Lets make a deal (Smooth Talker 1)
This ability is the meat of turning Covert social combat into a real weapon. By using this ability, a Smooth Talker can attempt to make an agreement binding. It has to be a real agreement, not just 'hey, can you help me?' 'yeah, sure, what do you want?' kind of conversational snippets. The Smooth Talker must succeed in a roll against either the opponent's Integrity or Self-Control at the moment the opponent attempts to renege. Until then, the opponent does not know that they have been bound. In character, this consists of a feeling of doubt in one's actions. Note that 'Oh that, that was a lie' and similar abilities can simply negate this.

Ha ha, what a guy (Smooth Talker 4)
This passive ability makes it so that the Smooth Talker can say anything, no matter how insulting or offensive, in such a way that the listeners do not take offense from it. The lighter side of this is playful insults. The darker side is that a Smooth Talker could use this to publically and openly argue in favor of horrible things, and people would not be offended (they may still decide not to do said horrible things, but it cuts right through responses like 'how could he say that?'). A Savvy roll can detect that something weird is going on.

Provoke (Smooth Talker 2)
If the character makes a successful roll against the target's Self-Control, the target's player must reveal one thing OOC to the other player that the Smooth Talker could say that would make his character angry.


Orator Abilities

Know the crowd (Orator 1)
You can use this once per scene to determine a single social norm or taboo that you could exploit in an argument - must be used as part of an actual debate or manipulation, not just 'its a new scene, tell me about the Elves' kind of stuff.

Visionary (Orator 3)
You say things in a way that speaks of your secret knowledge, the fact that you have the ear of the high-ups, that you are 'in', that you know whats 'up', and other meaningless things. Basically, using this ability, the crowd sees you as a source of wisdom and enlightenment. You can make a pronouncement, and the crowd will temporarily adopt that pronouncement as a societal norm for the scene so long as it does not directly conflict with an existing societal norm. At Orator 9 you can buy an upgrade that overrides existing societal norms. Yes, you can make 'lets kill the king!' a societal norm for a scene. Other Orators can attempt to counter this by rolling against you, but they risk the crowd turning violent against them if they fail by too much.

Think of the Children! (Orator 4)
If you know a societal norm to exploit, you can imply that something violates that norm even when this is clearly nonsensical. This only really works on crowds though - don't try to use it directly on your opponent.


More later, but thats enough to begin with. I think that the actual Overt social combat system needs to be a lot more concrete than it is right now.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-10-29, 01:50 PM
I think that status conditions are a good place to put the meat of the system, really. That way, you can even roll overt and covert conflicts into one (which makes it easier to handle borderlines). How? By using a "Clueless" condition.

But here's my second suggestion--don't attach them to characters. Attach them to aspects of the argument.

See, arguments/maneuverings are between people...about something. The merchant wants your money, you want his goods. The spy wants information, the diplomat wants the...ahem...personal attentions of the spy. The paladin wants legal justice served upon a killer, the grieving father wants revenge. And it doesn't have to just be two topics. The more topics, the better.

So, if you combine that with status conditions, you can use that to track where each topic is at. Then, each player is trying to maneuver the conditions so that their opponent stacks up so many penalties on each one that they fail a "Will Save" to refuse the whole offer. (You could also concede on one of the topics in order to modify the statuses of the rest of the topics, for instance.)

NichG
2012-10-29, 02:11 PM
So, if you combine that with status conditions, you can use that to track where each topic is at. Then, each player is trying to maneuver the conditions so that their opponent stacks up so many penalties on each one that they fail a "Will Save" to refuse the whole offer. (You could also concede on one of the topics in order to modify the statuses of the rest of the topics, for instance.)

Yeah, I think the status conditions are interesting. I think I would prefer to avoid there ever being a 'moment of domination' though. Incentives are much more flexible, so that someone can say 'well, mechanics aside, my character really feels strongly about this. I accept that all my rolls are going to be at -10, I will lose all my social status, and I will be branded a criminal, because I refuse to concede on this.' It retains agency while encouraging not being stubborn about things because you have the choice to be stubborn.

Topics is another interesting idea, since it better enables a more collaborative or mediative interaction. For instance, if two forces are deadlocked on some matter, a mediator with the ability to adjust the degree of importance of this or that topic could try to (mechanically) crack the deadlock.

Maybe it would be good for me to outline my actual design thoughts so far, so we can redo some of the things that are clunky or misleading right now.

I guess the way I would see a social encounter playing out is roughly this: the aggressor wants something - information, loyalty, action, whatever. They need to have some way to make the other person give it to them, and cannot force the issue through violence (or wish to avoid violence, at least). However, they can use their social abilities to obtain leverage (what I was calling Pressures) over their target, or can come in with those Pressures due to what has happened so far. To me, the role of a Pressure is that it is something that the target of the aggression cares about, either positively or negatively, which urges them towards action if it is combined with a demand or solution that releases the Pressure. I envision a lot of the mechanics coming into play by allowing players to create Pressures through 'off-screen interactions' with the world. For instance, creating the threat of something that ruins a person's reputation, hiring thugs to threaten something someone cares about, obtaining blackmail material, etc could all be single-action offscreen things that would give you pressures you can leverage against someone, and then the actual resolution comes down to a combination of RP and the fact that the person knows the system will give each of those threats some mechanical teeth even if they refuse to back down in the RP.

At every point, players involved in the conflict are basically deciding whether or not the consequences for being stubborn are worth paying, or if they should give in. The place where the mechanics do 'dominate' player actions is when a player has made this choice - they are basically committed to the outcome, which can demand certain behavior. Someone who applies a Pressure and then gets the opponent to yield is forced by the system to release that Pressure and perhaps even discard it from future attempts depending on the agreement (barring powers that modify this of course). Similarly, if they fail to obtain agreement they are forced by the system to actually do whatever it is they have threatened to do (barring powers that modify this of course). And so on.

However, one could imagine a player bringing in a character who 'doesn't care about anything' to try to protect themselves from ever being threatened by this system. Sort of like players with very hostile DMs learn not to put family or loved ones in their backstories. The Despair system and Flaws are both sort of intended to protect against this. Flaws say 'you get a mechanical benefit for choosing something that you have no choice but to care about'. Despair says 'even if you shrug it off in RP, losing something you care about hurts you, and you take penalties in other areas of the game'.

I kind of think that Conditions could very much act like Despair, but more specific. For instance, an Enraged condition might not force any particular behavior in RP (though you're encouraged to play it), but it might block you from using any Guile abilities in social interaction, and outside of social interaction it might prevent you from e.g. choosing to do non-lethal damage or holding back in certain ways. That means that the social interaction can be used as a mechanical preface to violent action that has impact upon the resulting violent action, and then vice versa (getting pissed off by a third-party manipulator and being forced to escalate a confrontation with the King to violence or back down entirely would be an interesting scenario, for instance)

For the Topics system, I could imagine that Pressures would be tied to particular topics or particular demands, and the

So far I feel that these systems are more for overt, aggressive social combat though. Neither of them models collaboration, mediation, conflict resolution, subtlety, seduction, etc.

Aux-Ash
2012-10-29, 05:00 PM
I'm very interested in this topic and have on and off been working on a tactical mechanical social system myself for the past few months(but I'm far from having a working model thus far). So I was really happy to find this topic (and I also recieved "The Dance Macabre" for nWoD the day before yesterday which also introduces a mechanical social system so I'm hyped up on such systems as well).

The system you suggested looks interesting, but this far it looks very front heavy. There's a lot of stuff to keep track on even before I begin thinking about interacting socially. The formatting of the post might make it a bit worse than it is, but there's a lot of new terms, interactions and such coming up at once and it's really difficult to make out the core of it all.

So my suggestions is that first of all, you/we need a reliable core. One which the entire system revolves around. The "resolution"-mechanic and the base of the scenario. Most rpg systems have this for combat: you roll against relevant attack value and upon success your target takes something to indicate damage which accumulated leads to the target's ability to continue fighting is lessened.
This is the very core of virtually all combat in rpgs and technically you can use it as it is. You don't need to add all the other factors and tools that are at your disposal.
This system, I think, would benefit from the same principle. A simple and reliable core onto which everything else is added, but is perfectly functional (if a little dry) on it's own. Preferably one that can be explained in a single sentence.

Secondly. I suggest that the separation between overt and covert is dropped. Is it really any point at all in having one format were you tie yourself up and one were you don't? Isn't it fairly common that people are both manipulated and confronted about the same issues by the same persons?
I think I see why you'd want it, but couldn't that be better achieved by a common mechanic for both? One revolving around putting in "stakes" and "negotiating" in steps/turns, perhaps? The more I add to my pile, the greater the chance of my success but it also ties me up further and further. Different methods means different consequences. Only once I've worn down the opposition do I succeed and can claim my prize.
Something along those lines could perhaps eliminate the need for the divide between the overt and covert, since it'd simply be different "stakes".

NichG
2012-10-29, 05:48 PM
I agree that its horribly disorganized right now. If anything, my second post is probably the one that should be read first :smallsmile:

So covert versus overt... I guess the issue is that they seem to have fundamentally different goals, not just different means of interaction. The 'point' of overt social conflict is to force someone to do something that you want. The point of covert social conflict is to arm yourself with the tools needed to succeed in overt social conflict, or even failing that, pure information discovery. Once you've gone overt, you're working with someone who absolutely will not want to work with you, and must be compelled - sort of like Intimidate. For covert, its more like Bluff, where if you do it right the person does not know in character that they've been had.

Still, I'd say that the one thing that's really a core mechanic out of all of this is the idea of Pressures. Everything else is basically dancing around how to make pressures, how to lie about resolving pressures, how to defend against pressures, etc. A play example, with very rudimentary mechanics, might look something like:


Edward Turncoat wants the king to grant him lands. He is ruthless and does not mind being seen as such. He realizes ahead of time that the king can put pressure on him - imprisonment, imprisonment of his family, seizure of his holdings, etc if he is too overt. He needs to come up with sources of pressure against the king that outweigh these things. So he first starts with the king's subjects, with the plan to lead a faction that could rebel against the king at an inopportune time. The king is eyeing a nearby country with the intent to start a war, and if his own nobles rebelled during a war then the king's empire would come crashing down.

Edward visits Lorenzo Benedict, a noble who wants more power. He uses a positive pressure (a Temptation) against Lorenzo's greed, saying that if Lorenzo agrees to simply indicate his willingness to follow Edward's lead at an opportune time then Lorenzo will get the lands he wants. Lorenzo has no particular reason to fight this pressure (he really does want those lands, and he's had a bit of Despair due to things in the past), so he accepts and sheds a point of Despair. He will shed a second point if the plan goes off to his advantage.

Edward hires spies to report any useful blackmail he could leverage against the king. A die is rolled, and his spies come back with the information that the king has a bastard son, as well as the location and disposition of the bastard son. The king currently only has female heirs, and this kingdom is patriarchal, so such a child could be a threat to the king's dynasty. Edward could use this as positive pressure (give me land and I will tell you the location of the bastard) or negative pressure (I have this knowledge and I will raise him up to try to claim the throne if you don't acquiesce to my demands).

So Edward has amassed the following pressures, if he waits for war that is:

- Noble rebellion (1 point)
- Noble rebellion threatens the kingdom's success during war (1 points)
- Can tell the king about his son (1 point)

versus the king's threat of imprisonment (1 point), imprisonment of family (not really effective against Edward, who bought the Cold-Hearted perk), and so on. Edward thinks he has a good shot.

Edward goes to the king to apply these Pressures. The king balks, applies counter Pressures, and negotiation happens. The king must decide whether to take a penalty of 4 despair and be done with Edward (excepting the problems he's caused), or accept Edward's petition for land but realize that Edward will still pose a problem in the future. The king decides to accept the proposition, since his attention is so split and having a -3 to all his leadership actions in the war would suck.

Alternately, the king could have stonewalled and tried to assassinate the nobles loyal to Edward (thus reducing the pressure). He could have also just killed Edward, which would probably end the pressure associated with the king's bastard unless Edward had taken precautions there, but would still levy the -2 and might make the rebellion of the nobles worse.


And I'm done for awhile since I just lost power here...

Aux-Ash
2012-10-30, 01:24 AM
So the core is a:
Lever Pressures against one another in the overt stage - confront the opponent with your Pressures in the overt stage - choose wether you accept your end of the deal or take a social punishment in the form of despair?

Sounds solid enough

In your example the king is passive, how will it work if he'd be actively working against Edward?
Will the covert phase work on a turn by turn basis? I do something, he does something, I do something, he does something and so on until one of us try to confront the other?

Might I also suggest changing the name from Covert to Manipulation (since it seems to be about increasing control over the situation), Overt to Confrontation (since you bring your issue and your support to bear against the opponent) and Pressures to Incentives (since pressure has antagonistic implications, whereas Incentives have no value inherent in the word)? Changing despair to disgrace is also an idea? Since the former is an emotion while the latter social state?

Could this system simulate a three-way split, or a four way one? Where several people try to force an issue their way and actively work against one another the same time?

It seems a bit "the winner takes it all" and while that should certainly be possible. Perhaps it is an idea to add a "trade" system into the place where the aggressor can sacrefice one of his/her pressures in return for the defender to drop one of their's. But once the confrontation concludes, the aggressor "binds" themselves to accept the other sides pressures and if they refuse they too take despair. So that the system become a little more "give and take"? What do you think?

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-10-30, 10:05 AM
Overt vs. covert actually sounds more like two phases of negotiation. I think you'd shift from the "feeling-out"/information gathering phase into the "leverage" phase.

Really, though, I think I'd have leverage remain the core of a conflict, with mechanics added in to gather information for advantage. That way, you can use said mechanics when you don't have a conflict, and then leverage them for bonuses whilst in a conflict.

Other thought: you don't need an attacker and a defender. Not every social interaction has an offense-defense paradigm, and many do not. I would suggest a "haggling" approach, with the possibility of taking aggressive and conservative stances.

NichG
2012-10-30, 11:44 AM
So the core is a:
Lever Pressures against one another in the overt stage - confront the opponent with your Pressures in the overt stage - choose wether you accept your end of the deal or take a social punishment in the form of despair?

Sounds solid enough

In your example the king is passive, how will it work if he'd be actively working against Edward?


He'd leverage the pressures (or Incentives) that he has against Edward, take actions to create more of them, etc. He'd then demand of Edward something like 'release the incentives you're providing to me and desist in this matter'.



Will the covert phase work on a turn by turn basis? I do something, he does something, I do something, he does something and so on until one of us try to confront the other?


I wasn't really thinking that this system would be turn-based. The events I described in the play sample could take place over months. However, if you can marshal up incentives/pressures over a shorter time, you can apply them over that shorter time. The main limitation on actions is that specific 'powers' that people have from their stats/classes/etc will only work once per Topic, so while you could throw it all at trying to do a blaze of things at once, it will leave you unable to respond to your opponent's counter. Also, things that take time take time (so if you have to ride by horse to somewhere a month away in order to create the incentive you want, and you're leaving behind a confrontation/overt social interaction, your enemy has a lot of chances to mess things up for you when you get back).



Might I also suggest changing the name from Covert to Manipulation (since it seems to be about increasing control over the situation), Overt to Confrontation (since you bring your issue and your support to bear against the opponent) and Pressures to Incentives (since pressure has antagonistic implications, whereas Incentives have no value inherent in the word)?

My thought about 'covert' was that the thing that makes the covert phase distinct is that your opponent does not realize he is being attacked yet. Once he knows what you're doing, you either must escalate to overt, escalate to violence, or desist entirely. One could imagine it as a 'Wariness' scale, at the risk of introducing more terms into the system than is strictly necessary. Wariness zero allows covert actions and escalation to overt or violence; Wariness one allows only overt actions or escalation to violence. Wariness two is 'in combat', and mechanical social interactions do not work.



Changing despair to disgrace is also an idea? Since the former is an emotion while the latter social state?


I called it Despair because I actually did intend for it to be an emotional state, representing the removal of things the person cares about from their life, or the denial of things they dearly want. Social disgrace can be a source of Despair, but burning down the woods of a druid who never sees civilization would also cause Despair. Specifically the thing that separates Despair from other emotions is that it is the character saying 'if I only agreed with his demands, this would not have happened' to themselves every night, and things like that. It is a combination of a negative thing (or failure to attain a positive thing) with the knowledge that one could have prevented it. And so it penalizes all the character's actions, not just their social ones. A warrior who loses a social encounter and takes Despair becomes a little more uncertain with their fighting, and risks getting themselves killed. So even a totally non-social character can be a victim of social engineering, which is kind of the point (otherwise, everyone could just opt out of this system and the guy who wants to do all sorts of social manipulations finds that everyone is immune).



Could this system simulate a three-way split, or a four way one? Where several people try to force an issue their way and actively work against one another the same time?


The thing that is missing is making the issue itself central rather than the individual pairwise interactions central. I think this is what CarpeGuitarem's topics are meant to fix. Lets say the situation was 'there is a vote and there are 9 people voting - you want the vote to go one way'. You could put pressures on person X, while simultaneously person Z is putting pressures on X. X is kind of in trouble - no matter what he does, he gets Despair. In fact, if you colluded with person Z and secretly didn't care about the vote, you just wanted to ruin X, then you and Z could apply half of the pressures that are in your combined arsenal and intentionally give X conflicting demands. This way, unless X fights one of you, he will suffer Despair.



It seems a bit "the winner takes it all" and while that should certainly be possible. Perhaps it is an idea to add a "trade" system into the place where the aggressor can sacrefice one of his/her pressures in return for the defender to drop one of their's. But once the confrontation concludes, the aggressor "binds" themselves to accept the other sides pressures and if they refuse they too take despair. So that the system become a little more "give and take"? What do you think?

Yeah, this kind of stuff is good. A lot of elaborations on the system can be covered by the various powers you get through the core stats. Guile already has something like this - it lets you lie about one pressure. But it would be good to make it central to the system. Maybe an action like this:

Combine/Divide Issues: One person in an overt social encounter can propose to split the demand into two separate things. If the other person agrees, they must assign their pressures separately to those two things. If they disagree, nothing happens. Similarly, two separate topics can be combined if the two parties agree. The decision is binding, barring Guile powers that allow deception here.



Overt vs. covert actually sounds more like two phases of negotiation. I think you'd shift from the "feeling-out"/information gathering phase into the "leverage" phase.

Really, though, I think I'd have leverage remain the core of a conflict, with mechanics added in to gather information for advantage. That way, you can use said mechanics when you don't have a conflict, and then leverage them for bonuses whilst in a conflict.

Other thought: you don't need an attacker and a defender. Not every social interaction has an offense-defense paradigm, and many do not. I would suggest a "haggling" approach, with the possibility of taking aggressive and conservative stances.


The way I'm envisioning it at least, without leverage you cannot force someone's action through mechanics. So gathering leverage is fundamental. You should still be able to gain new leverages in the overt phase, since that keeps things dynamic (rather than 'okay gentlemen, show me your hands, and the higher number wins'). However, it might become hard to gain them directly from your target since he is now hostile to you, so it'd be about running side manipulations and so on.

Still, I'd like there to be something for persuading someone without it being an obviously hostile negotiation. While this could still be done with a leverages system, clearly not all leverages should apply (there's no way to be friendly about saying 'if you don't do this for me I'll make your family suffer') And a hostile negotiation is completely different than a friendly one.

Aux-Ash
2012-10-30, 03:27 PM
He'd leverage the pressures (or Incentives) that he has against Edward, take actions to create more of them, etc. He'd then demand of Edward something like 'release the incentives you're providing to me and desist in this matter'.

But if the covert phase is when someone is not aware that they're under a social attack... how would he gather his own?


I wasn't really thinking that this system would be turn-based. The events I described in the play sample could take place over months. However, if you can marshal up incentives/pressures over a shorter time, you can apply them over that shorter time. The main limitation on actions is that specific 'powers' that people have from their stats/classes/etc will only work once per Topic, so while you could throw it all at trying to do a blaze of things at once, it will leave you unable to respond to your opponent's counter. Also, things that take time take time (so if you have to ride by horse to somewhere a month away in order to create the incentive you want, and you're leaving behind a confrontation/overt social interaction, your enemy has a lot of chances to mess things up for you when you get back).

Ah sorry I was unclear. When I meant turn I did not mean any specific unit of time but rather turn as in "It's my turn now". The length of the actual turn could be a few seconds, a few minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or even years depending on the specific situation.
I absolutely agree that gathering Pressures should take the time it needs to.


My thought about 'covert' was that the thing that makes the covert phase distinct is that your opponent does not realize he is being attacked yet. Once he knows what you're doing, you either must escalate to overt, escalate to violence, or desist entirely. One could imagine it as a 'Wariness' scale, at the risk of introducing more terms into the system than is strictly necessary. Wariness zero allows covert actions and escalation to overt or violence; Wariness one allows only overt actions or escalation to violence. Wariness two is 'in combat', and mechanical social interactions do not work.

Hmm... I feel this is a unneccessary restriction. Could not the King and mr Turncoat be gathering their allies and aligning influences to their causes concurrently, fully aware of one anothers intentions but not feeling safe enough to gamble everything yet? The king want to be sure his realm does not rise in rebellion and Turncoat that he can ensure he keeps his head on his body. Essentially racing until one has enough to sway the court to their position?

That both sides may gather Pressures until one side decides to force the confrontation. Thus if one side realises that they are facing a losing prospect or that they are sitting on a very strong initial situation they can try to confront the other before the other side is ready for it?

I feel the greatest benefit is that subtelty thus become a choice, rather than a requirement. Naturally, being unaware of being "under attack" should also still be possible.


I called it Despair because I actually did intend for it to be an emotional state, representing the removal of things the person cares about from their life, or the denial of things they dearly want. Social disgrace can be a source of Despair, but burning down the woods of a druid who never sees civilization would also cause Despair. Specifically the thing that separates Despair from other emotions is that it is the character saying 'if I only agreed with his demands, this would not have happened' to themselves every night, and things like that. It is a combination of a negative thing (or failure to attain a positive thing) with the knowledge that one could have prevented it. And so it penalizes all the character's actions, not just their social ones. A warrior who loses a social encounter and takes Despair becomes a little more uncertain with their fighting, and risks getting themselves killed. So even a totally non-social character can be a victim of social engineering, which is kind of the point (otherwise, everyone could just opt out of this system and the guy who wants to do all sorts of social manipulations finds that everyone is immune).

Oh, I agree with the purpose. Absolutely. I was just thinking that not every person feels despair when someone socially outmanouvers them, so calling it despair might carry with it assumtions and implications that are unneeded. Even if it's just the mechanic being called that and it takes the form of whatever negative emotion your character may be experiencing it would at best be slightly unintuitive.


The thing that is missing is making the issue itself central rather than the individual pairwise interactions central. I think this is what CarpeGuitarem's topics are meant to fix. Lets say the situation was 'there is a vote and there are 9 people voting - you want the vote to go one way'. You could put pressures on person X, while simultaneously person Z is putting pressures on X. X is kind of in trouble - no matter what he does, he gets Despair. In fact, if you colluded with person Z and secretly didn't care about the vote, you just wanted to ruin X, then you and Z could apply half of the pressures that are in your combined arsenal and intentionally give X conflicting demands. This way, unless X fights one of you, he will suffer Despair.

Sounds good. Add in an option to undermine other people's Pressure's and it looks real good.


Yeah, this kind of stuff is good. A lot of elaborations on the system can be covered by the various powers you get through the core stats. Guile already has something like this - it lets you lie about one pressure. But it would be good to make it central to the system. Maybe an action like this:

Combine/Divide Issues: One person in an overt social encounter can propose to split the demand into two separate things. If the other person agrees, they must assign their pressures separately to those two things. If they disagree, nothing happens. Similarly, two separate topics can be combined if the two parties agree. The decision is binding, barring Guile powers that allow deception here.

I wasn't really thinking about lying and special tricks but rather that all Pressures that stand at the end of a social combat stand for both parties. So if mr Turncoat does not want to end up in prison he needs to sacrefice one of his own Pressures in order to get the king to drop his.
As a core of the system. Before any specific tricks are added to the complexity.

I imagine it'd help the system model less antagonistic social interaction and negotiation. As well as ensure that sometimes you have to give a little to gain a little. I imagine deception would become even more useful, since you could fake a "pressure" to sacrefice :smallwink:


The way I'm envisioning it at least, without leverage you cannot force someone's action through mechanics. So gathering leverage is fundamental. You should still be able to gain new leverages in the overt phase, since that keeps things dynamic (rather than 'okay gentlemen, show me your hands, and the higher number wins'). However, it might become hard to gain them directly from your target since he is now hostile to you, so it'd be about running side manipulations and so on.

This is essentially why I'd suggest not splitting them into covert and overt. So that different parts in the interaction can act against one another without forcing a confrontation. Even the mightiest men need time to gather their assets. Even the most authorian king need to ensure themselves of their support. Spymasters wage private wars using their assets all while their gambles slowly build up to to their climaxes.

I imagine that model can help portray less antagonistic social interaction as well. The "Pressures" are there friendly in nature and often made in plain sight, even with the other side's permission (trying to show them what you mean and how the plan would work, for instance). But at some point do you "confront" the other side, ask them to either commit... or not.

Domriso
2012-10-31, 03:04 AM
Watching this thread so hard. I've been looking for a good social system for a while, since I've been failing at thinking of one myself.

NichG
2012-10-31, 10:43 AM
But if the covert phase is when someone is not aware that they're under a social attack... how would he gather his own?


I think I was unclear here. You can't use 'covert' directly against someone who knows you're an enemy. But you can use it against his underlings, other people in his organization, other people in the society around him, etc. 'Covert' actions still have a place after an overt phase has begun, just not against the person you're openly antagonistic towards.



Ah sorry I was unclear. When I meant turn I did not mean any specific unit of time but rather turn as in "It's my turn now". The length of the actual turn could be a few seconds, a few minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or even years depending on the specific situation.
I absolutely agree that gathering Pressures should take the time it needs to.


I guess I'm sort of seeing social interactions woven in and out of other actions and progression of gameplay. Having it go turn by turn risks the 'roll initiative!' syndrome, where the players get in a mindset 'okay, now its time for social combat!'



Hmm... I feel this is a unneccessary restriction. Could not the King and mr Turncoat be gathering their allies and aligning influences to their causes concurrently, fully aware of one anothers intentions but not feeling safe enough to gamble everything yet? The king want to be sure his realm does not rise in rebellion and Turncoat that he can ensure he keeps his head on his body. Essentially racing until one has enough to sway the court to their position?

That both sides may gather Pressures until one side decides to force the confrontation. Thus if one side realises that they are facing a losing prospect or that they are sitting on a very strong initial situation they can try to confront the other before the other side is ready for it?

I feel the greatest benefit is that subtelty thus become a choice, rather than a requirement. Naturally, being unaware of being "under attack" should also still be possible.


Hopefully I answered this above. Another point though, there are lots of ways to gather pressures instead of covert actions, but usually it involves leveraging previous victories. I.e. you won a previous social combat and someone owes you a favor, and you call it in. Or you have a very real power over the person, such as having status over them or being the only ones who can save their village from the dragon or whatever. No covert action is needed there - you just say 'pay us or we leave the dragon be' and thats a Pressure.



Oh, I agree with the purpose. Absolutely. I was just thinking that not every person feels despair when someone socially outmanouvers them, so calling it despair might carry with it assumtions and implications that are unneeded. Even if it's just the mechanic being called that and it takes the form of whatever negative emotion your character may be experiencing it would at best be slightly unintuitive.


The Despair isn't because you lost, its because the Pressures applied to you were actually things that mattered to you. Subtle distinction. What I'd say is, something incapable of causing a character Despair should he be denied it fails to be a Pressure. If I'm a woodland druid who never goes into the city, a threat by the king to bar me from the city fails as a Pressure because I simply wouldn't care.

Thus determining mechanically that characters care about something becomes important. One way around this is for abilities to say 'okay player, you must now tell me something concrete that your character cares about and would feel Despair if it were destroyed/lost/denied to you'. Another is to give mechanical bonuses for picking specific mechanical vulnerabilities.



Sounds good. Add in an option to undermine other people's Pressure's and it looks real good.


Yeah, this is where the special stats/powers come in I think. Guile characters and Orators would both be good at this in different ways. Also, you could leverage a Pressure on another person to force them to withdraw theirs. I imagine that a Pressure can be withdrawn right up until the deciding moment, though of course a willingness to do so reveals your weakness to your other enemies. Just because person 1 withdraws a pressure doesn't mean person 2 can't go 'oh, thats a pressure for him? okay, now I do it'.



I wasn't really thinking about lying and special tricks but rather that all Pressures that stand at the end of a social combat stand for both parties. So if mr Turncoat does not want to end up in prison he needs to sacrefice one of his own Pressures in order to get the king to drop his.
As a core of the system. Before any specific tricks are added to the complexity.


I think thats a good idea. If someone levies a Pressure, it means that they 'swear before the mechanical system' that they will do this if the demand is not met. If the demand is not met, they do it.



I imagine it'd help the system model less antagonistic social interaction and negotiation. As well as ensure that sometimes you have to give a little to gain a little. I imagine deception would become even more useful, since you could fake a "pressure" to sacrefice :smallwink:


I think I already have a Guile power for this actually! At least there's one that creates a phantom pressure of some organization backing you that must not be pissed off, with a fixed demand 'don't kill me'.



This is essentially why I'd suggest not splitting them into covert and overt. So that different parts in the interaction can act against one another without forcing a confrontation. Even the mightiest men need time to gather their assets. Even the most authorian king need to ensure themselves of their support. Spymasters wage private wars using their assets all while their gambles slowly build up to to their climaxes.

I imagine that model can help portray less antagonistic social interaction as well. The "Pressures" are there friendly in nature and often made in plain sight, even with the other side's permission (trying to show them what you mean and how the plan would work, for instance). But at some point do you "confront" the other side, ask them to either commit... or not.

Again, hopefully answered above at least in part. There can certainly be friendly pressures, especially against someone with e.g. a Greed flaw. 'I will give you this if you do this for me' is valid leverage.

Perhaps the way to handle 'friendly' pressures is that they act as a double-edged sword. If the person refuses, they gain Despair. If they accept, they shed it and that thing becomes something they cannot be pressured again with for some time (to prevent Despair farming ...). But yeah, I can see how an overt conflict doesn't model this well.

Okay, how about this:

To use hostile pressures, you must escalate to an 'overt' status. Once you've threatened them, you can't charm them. However, you can use 'friendly' pressures during 'covert' status. Covert, Overt, and Combat are just three levels of Wariness, but the actual conflict can span those three levels, and Wariness can increase or decrease based on events that occur. For instance, a Guile character applies a hostile pressure to person X 'on your behalf' to frame you - this raises your status with person X to Overt, against your will. You then prove that you were framed - your status with person X can decay back down to Covert.

Aux-Ash
2012-10-31, 01:51 PM
I think I was unclear here. You can't use 'covert' directly against someone who knows you're an enemy. But you can use it against his underlings, other people in his organization, other people in the society around him, etc. 'Covert' actions still have a place after an overt phase has begun, just not against the person you're openly antagonistic towards.

Ah. I see. I interpreted it as a phase during a normal social interaction (hostile or not) rather than a state. So interaction never goes into overt if no hostile action is taken?


I guess I'm sort of seeing social interactions woven in and out of other actions and progression of gameplay. Having it go turn by turn risks the 'roll initiative!' syndrome, where the players get in a mindset 'okay, now its time for social combat!'

Yeah, I figured that as well. I just wonder if it wouldn't be a bit difficult to resolve without such a structure. What sort of time limits are there? When is an issue resolved? Just how much can your opponent act against you once you go into overt? How many Pressures can I apply at any given moment in time? I figured that a turn structure could help resolve that. Organise it into narrative "slots", so to speak.


Hopefully I answered this above. Another point though, there are lots of ways to gather pressures instead of covert actions, but usually it involves leveraging previous victories. I.e. you won a previous social combat and someone owes you a favor, and you call it in. Or you have a very real power over the person, such as having status over them or being the only ones who can save their village from the dragon or whatever. No covert action is needed there - you just say 'pay us or we leave the dragon be' and thats a Pressure.

Hmmm... I got to say that I find the line between what is overt and what is not rather difficult to see at this point. That might be the source of the confusion.


The Despair isn't because you lost, its because the Pressures applied to you were actually things that mattered to you. Subtle distinction. What I'd say is, something incapable of causing a character Despair should he be denied it fails to be a Pressure. If I'm a woodland druid who never goes into the city, a threat by the king to bar me from the city fails as a Pressure because I simply wouldn't care.

Thus determining mechanically that characters care about something becomes important. One way around this is for abilities to say 'okay player, you must now tell me something concrete that your character cares about and would feel Despair if it were destroyed/lost/denied to you'. Another is to give mechanical bonuses for picking specific mechanical vulnerabilities.

Fair enough. I still think despair might not be the best term, but I can see how disgrave isn't a better one.


Yeah, this is where the special stats/powers come in I think. Guile characters and Orators would both be good at this in different ways. Also, you could leverage a Pressure on another person to force them to withdraw theirs. I imagine that a Pressure can be withdrawn right up until the deciding moment, though of course a willingness to do so reveals your weakness to your other enemies. Just because person 1 withdraws a pressure doesn't mean person 2 can't go 'oh, thats a pressure for him? okay, now I do it'.

+

I think thats a good idea. If someone levies a Pressure, it means that they 'swear before the mechanical system' that they will do this if the demand is not met. If the demand is not met, they do it.

Sounds good.


I think I already have a Guile power for this actually! At least there's one that creates a phantom pressure of some organization backing you that must not be pissed off, with a fixed demand 'don't kill me'.

Great. I imagine there's plenty more variants of it one could think up.


Again, hopefully answered above at least in part. There can certainly be friendly pressures, especially against someone with e.g. a Greed flaw. 'I will give you this if you do this for me' is valid leverage.

Perhaps the way to handle 'friendly' pressures is that they act as a double-edged sword. If the person refuses, they gain Despair. If they accept, they shed it and that thing becomes something they cannot be pressured again with for some time (to prevent Despair farming ...). But yeah, I can see how an overt conflict doesn't model this well.

Okay, how about this:

To use hostile pressures, you must escalate to an 'overt' status. Once you've threatened them, you can't charm them. However, you can use 'friendly' pressures during 'covert' status. Covert, Overt, and Combat are just three levels of Wariness, but the actual conflict can span those three levels, and Wariness can increase or decrease based on events that occur. For instance, a Guile character applies a hostile pressure to person X 'on your behalf' to frame you - this raises your status with person X to Overt, against your will. You then prove that you were framed - your status with person X can decay back down to Covert.

I think that works better. An interaction could then never move beyond covert and still succeed?

NichG
2012-10-31, 02:12 PM
Ah. I see. I interpreted it as a phase during a normal social interaction (hostile or not) rather than a state. So interaction never goes into overt if no hostile action is taken?


Yeah, I think thats about right.



Yeah, I figured that as well. I just wonder if it wouldn't be a bit difficult to resolve without such a structure. What sort of time limits are there? When is an issue resolved? Just how much can your opponent act against you once you go into overt? How many Pressures can I apply at any given moment in time? I figured that a turn structure could help resolve that. Organise it into narrative "slots", so to speak.


Well I want to preserve 'sensible' results. If someone can threaten you thirty ways, they can threaten you thirty ways without having to take turns at it. However I can see the point that a largely incoherent argument (I can do this and this and this and this and they're all unrelated) might begin to lose force against a person. Maybe for a given interaction there's a maximum amount of Despair that can be gained, set either by some stat or just a system-wide fixed value? The pressures themselves can still apply, because they for the most part consist of things that are not empty threats or bribes.

'When is it over' is a big question of course. Stonewalling is a real-life tactic in these things, but eventually someone just gets annoyed and triggers one or more of their Pressures. In fact, it might make sense for someone to intentionally set a trap for stonewalling that 'lets' them fire off a Pressure, because then their opponent has Despair and is at a disadvantage in future rolls. This is the danger of negotiating with only one Pressure - if they stonewall you can either punish them for it, in which case you fail to obtain your demand, or you can wait it out, in which case they can stonewall forever. Maybe something that lets players set time limits on things?

I could see room for a general class of abilities that let you say 'whatever I say in RP, OOC this is true'. It might make for an interesting dynamic, but it could also detract. I'm not sure yet.



Hmmm... I got to say that I find the line between what is overt and what is not rather difficult to see at this point. That might be the source of the confusion.


Overt is for threats. Do this or I will do that. If you do not do this, then this bad thing will happen to you. I am forcing you to do this by way of this consequence. In overt, there is no illusion that the person negotiating with you is trying to help you. If you could destroy their Pressures, then in-character you have no reason not to.

Covert is for information gathering, seduction, bribes, and all the subtle stuff. In a covert action, a person doesn't necessarily want to say no. They may not want to say yes yet, but they don't have a reason to shut down and stop listening to you.

Covert and Overt status are strictly with respect to the relationship with a specific other person, not the grand scale social manipulation as a whole (which is constantly comprised of many interleaved conflicts that do not cleanly start or end).

For instance, Edward is being overt with the King in the example. But there's nothing stopping him from, e.g., being covert with the bastard prince he found at that point, convincing him to make a play for the throne. The prince is part of the conflict, but he isn't the one who has been approached aggresively. Some people may escalate to overt defensively - think about a person who gets themselves angry so they don't need to listen to what someone else is saying - but it simultaneously stops them from being covert with the person they escalated to.

Fair enough. I still think despair might not be the best term, but I can see how disgrave isn't a better one.



I think that works better. An interaction could then never move beyond covert and still succeed?

Yeah. Basically success is just the other party saying 'yes'. Even more importantly, an interaction could never move beyond covert and still 'conclude', as in someone could decide to 'accept', 'reject' (and suffer penalties), or 'withdraw'/whatever (in the case of the aggressor, taking back their pressures as part of a counter-deal).

Aux-Ash
2012-10-31, 03:38 PM
I think a maximum limit to the amount of despair one can unleash on someone is a good rule.
Similarily, I think that there should be a limit on the amount of Pressure's of the same kind one can utilise. If I set up one Pressure to break their kneecaps and one to pull their fingernails out, I only get the despair for one. Both are just the threat of bodily harm, even if I set them up as separate Pressures. For all intents and purposes it's the same threat.
Same would apply if I threaten to harm the family and throw them out if their homes, technically different but for all intents and purposes I'm promising to hurt the opponents family. That one is financially and one physically doesn't really matter does it?
Now if I'd promise ot hurt my opponent -and- their family... then it's two separate Pressures and well worth giving separate Despair.

Threatening someone thirty different ways is perfectly valid, but if it's just variants of the same threat it's not really adding anything beyond the first one. Is it?

---

Tossing up an example to test my understanding of the core (before stats and manouvers are added) a bit:

John Merchant is selling cloth at his stall in the bazaar, Gawan the Knight shows up and admires the goods. He feels the cloth is a bit expensive though and decides to start social interaction to haggle the prices down to more reasonable levels. John has seen the look in Gawan's eye, he knows the Knight is interested and seeks to sell it for as high a price that he can convince the man of.

JM: Beautiful cloth, isn't it? Pure silk from beyond the seas. Imagine how happy you would make your wife if you granted it to her? (JM uses a Pressure to appeal to Gawan's desire to appeal to his wife).

GtK: A bit expensive though, normally I can buy twice the amount for the same price. (GtK uses a Pressure to point out that he can get cheaper silk elsewhere).

JM: Ah, but the roads are not safe this time of year. Bandits roam large, there's talk of war in the east and let's not forget the dragon at Serpent's Crag. (JM levies his second Pressure, refering to the dangers of moving expensive goods like cloth).

GtK: The quality isn't the best though, look it's all frayed along the sides here. (GtK uses a Pressure to argue that the cloth is overpriced due to it's subpar quality).

JM: Sir, I have a wife and children to feed. If I sell it cheap I'll lose my business and they'll be starving (JM uses a Pressure to emotionally manipulate GtK).

GtK: I could throw in a good word for you among my friends though, giving you plenty more business if you sell it for half. (GtK tries to use his friendship network and the promise of more business to come as a Pressure to get JM drops his prices).

If JM was greedy he could take the last thing on those grounds and possibly shed some Despair, right?

JM: Half price!? The outrage! The indignity! You're trying to rob me blind! (JM fakes a tantrum (half-seriously), trying for two Pressures. One where he pretends to be insulted and shock GtK to go back on his last one and one were he tries to gather a crowd that will assert some peer pressure (note lowercase p) on GtK)

If GtK was easy to anger, could this one raise the entire interaction to Overt?

And so on, until both sides settles on a price or one of them gives up. Does it largely look right to you (if missing all the mechanical details and crunchy bits).

NichG
2012-10-31, 04:16 PM
I think a maximum limit to the amount of despair one can unleash on someone is a good rule.
Similarily, I think that there should be a limit on the amount of Pressure's of the same kind one can utilise. If I set up one Pressure to break their kneecaps and one to pull their fingernails out, I only get the despair for one. Both are just the threat of bodily harm, even if I set them up as separate Pressures. For all intents and purposes it's the same threat.
Same would apply if I threaten to harm the family and throw them out if their homes, technically different but for all intents and purposes I'm promising to hurt the opponents family. That one is financially and one physically doesn't really matter does it?
Now if I'd promise ot hurt my opponent -and- their family... then it's two separate Pressures and well worth giving separate Despair.

Threatening someone thirty different ways is perfectly valid, but if it's just variants of the same threat it's not really adding anything beyond the first one. Is it?


I agree with this. I think there either has to be a really crystal clear line as to what consists of a distinct pressure or you have to basically allow the table to vote whether something makes sense as distinct. Both are valid models, but the first is more concrete so I'll focus on that.

Nobilis does this thing where you have to assign a certain number of points to bonds - things your character cares about. You can be attacked by people corrupting your bonds, which causes you to lose miracle points. We could do the same thing here:

Each player creates a list of their character's top 10 priorities. The top three of these are worth 2 Despair to threaten, the next 3 are worth 1 Despair to threaten, and only one of the last four can be effectively threatened at the same time. Furthermore, by taking Flaws this list may be expanded. No one priority can be effectively pressured twice at the same time, and someone who has already taken Despair for the destruction of a priority does not take more Despair when it is destroyed again in the future unless they have shed that previous Despair. So someone with nothing to live for (max Despair) cannot be pressured, but is also playing a character who is taking -13 to all rolls. Probably not a good trade but you could do it.

The following is unspoilered so I can pick it apart...


---

Tossing up an example to test my understanding of the core (before stats and manouvers are added) a bit:

John Merchant is selling cloth at his stall in the bazaar, Gawan the Knight shows up and admires the goods. He feels the cloth is a bit expensive though and decides to start social interaction to haggle the prices down to more reasonable levels. John has seen the look in Gawan's eye, he knows the Knight is interested and seeks to sell it for as high a price that he can convince the man of.

JM: Beautiful cloth, isn't it? Pure silk from beyond the seas. Imagine how happy you would make your wife if you granted it to her? (JM uses a Pressure to appeal to Gawan's desire to appeal to his wife).


So far so good. If GtK buys the cloth at this point he sheds Despair.



GtK: A bit expensive though, normally I can buy twice the amount for the same price. (GtK uses a Pressure to point out that he can get cheaper silk elsewhere).


I don't know if this is quite what this Pressure is. I'd say its a little weak to be a Pressure right now - is the merchant going to suffer Despair merely because he failed to sell to this one individual? Merchants would all be going around with a lot of penalties if that were the case. Perhaps a better example would be if GtK said 'Ah, but your friend Marco over there is selling it for half the price. I think I will go talk to him instead', when Marco is that merchant's rival.

If GtK sticks with the dialogue you presented, what I would say is that he is not applying a pressure; instead, he is pointing out that the pressure JM is trying to apply has no teeth - it might give him Despair for all of 5 minutes until he went to the other stall and bought the cloth there, alleviating the pressure. More of a 'try again bub' than a real counter.



JM: Ah, but the roads are not safe this time of year. Bandits roam large, there's talk of war in the east and let's not forget the dragon at Serpent's Crag. (JM levies his second Pressure, refering to the dangers of moving expensive goods like cloth).


This is an argument rather than a pressure. It has nothing personally to do with GtK, and also conceptually doesn't defeat his point 'I can go over there and pay half'. The banter is fine, but no change in state occurs here. If JM is an Orator, he could try to get the crowd to react like GtK is unreasonable and thereby threaten his reputation or something, but here I think thats a bit much.



GtK: The quality isn't the best though, look it's all frayed along the sides here. (GtK uses a Pressure to argue that the cloth is overpriced due to it's subpar quality).


Again, I think it takes more than this to be a pressure. Threatening to point out the shoddy quality to the merchant association would be a hostile pressure and would increase the tension to Overt, which is to the merchant's disadvantage (now instead of the merchant trying to push things on GtK, GtK is trying to take them for less than their value on the threat of ruining the merchant's business). This would be a ruthless, but possibly successful move.



JM: Sir, I have a wife and children to feed. If I sell it cheap I'll lose my business and they'll be starving (JM uses a Pressure to emotionally manipulate GtK).


This may or may not be a pressure. If GtK has a Soft-hearted flaw or has some code of honor to follow that forces him to help the needy, it would be a pressure (threatening GtK's honor or morality, which might be really high-point pressures under the priorities system!). Otherwise it'll miss. This is borderline between a friendly and hostile pressure - if we had such a thing I'd call it neutral, but it isn't a threat. So if GtK buys the cloth at this point he could shed Despair.



GtK: I could throw in a good word for you among my friends though, giving you plenty more business if you sell it for half. (GtK tries to use his friendship network and the promise of more business to come as a Pressure to get JM drops his prices).


This would in fact be a pressure against the merchant's Greed.



If JM was greedy he could take the last thing on those grounds and possibly shed some Despair, right?


Exactly. The last thing is a friendly pressure vs greed, so accepting to it indulges a vice (indulges a value, whatever) and so JM would shed Despair and take a loss.



JM: Half price!? The outrage! The indignity! You're trying to rob me blind! (JM fakes a tantrum (half-seriously), trying for two Pressures. One where he pretends to be insulted and shock GtK to go back on his last one and one were he tries to gather a crowd that will assert some peer pressure (note lowercase p) on GtK)


The crowd infact could be an uppercase Pressure here, and I think is the only thing that is a pressure. Basically, JM would be overtly threatening GtK's social reputation if he successfully gathered a crowd. As before, if JM has Orator powers he can turn this into an actual tangible Pressure. Otherwise its theatrics but doesn't change the state, since the crowd isn't realistically going to pressure GtK to buy it. JM being upset isn't really a Pressure since again, it has no bearing on GtK personally unless he were sworn to protect all merchants or something like that.



If GtK was easy to anger, could this one raise the entire interaction to Overt?


GtK could decide he's had enough and try to cut his losses by going Overt. He would say 'I consider the merchant hostile' OOC, at which point the only new pressures that would apply between the two of them would have to be hostile. I think existing pressures would either stand, or only hostile ones would persist - the second makes covert games a lot dicier, since the other person needs to have Despair to begin with for any of your leverage to be real. The former means GtK could still take Despair over the wife thing, at least until he went and bought from Marco. It'd make JM really clever if he and Marco were in cahoots, and Marco raised his prices after a signal from JM (since then GtK is stuck either taking Despair or buying the silk for his wife from someone).

Otherwise, for the merchant, this is basically a loss: GtK's player has said 'I don't have enough Despair to care about shedding any; goodbye', since it'd be hard for the merchant to threaten GtK to buy his wares.



And so on, until both sides settles on a price or one of them gives up. Does it largely look right to you (if missing all the mechanical details and crunchy bits).


Roughly right, though I think of Pressures as more deep motivations, not details of an argument. The argument is basically banter that mechanically consists of 'Come on, you don't want despair do you?' 'But I can easily shed it elsewhere' which is sort of the non-mechanical negotiation part of the game as well as the flavortext that makes it actually amusing.

Aux-Ash
2012-10-31, 04:44 PM
I think I understand. A Pressure needs to either be a threat to you, or a benefit to you (either through shedding despair or some other means) to count as a Pressure?

Thoughts:
The example needs some method of working out compromises. This is especially true if it's supposed to cover the haggling above since most often both parties meet at the middle (I've even haggled with a man in Hanoi that refused to sell me what I desired until I had haggled for it. :smallbiggrin: I think the idea was to ensure no party felt cheated in the affair).
I can see this not working if the argument goes Overt, but as long as it stays Covert maybe both parties could agree to meet at the middle?

Philosophical debate (and other debates). Does logical arguments work as Pressure there? If yes, do they do so in other cases as well?

NichG
2012-10-31, 05:07 PM
I think I understand. A Pressure needs to either be a threat to you, or a benefit to you (either through shedding despair or some other means) to count as a Pressure?


Yeah. The system is intended to work with maybe 2 or 3 pressures max on each side in a conflict. Each pressure is sort of an element that could be fought over, manipulated, defused and re-fused and any other complex thing you could think to do tactically.



Thoughts:
The example needs some method of working out compromises. This is especially true if it's supposed to cover the haggling above since most often both parties meet at the middle (I've even haggled with a man in Hanoi that refused to sell me what I desired until I had haggled for it. :smallbiggrin: I think the idea was to ensure no party felt cheated in the affair).


I'm not sure if this system can in fact properly model numerical haggling, which honestly speaking is half ritual. When people haggle, e.g. at a market, do skilled hagglers have any real doubt as to where the number will end up? I guess if 'tradition' is one of your vulnerabilities, then 'its tradition to haggle!' is in fact a Pressure...

In a more general case, where there is nuance to a set of demands, I think its easier for it to model compromise. E.g. if its something like: give me these three territories or I will X, Y, and Z to you! someone could say 'I'll give you one, if only you promise not to Z!' (overt), or the covert case: 'I would like to have my son enter your academy. His grades aren't very good, but its prestigious and important for his future that he do well there. In exchange, I will give you this large sum of money', countered by 'we have a reputation to uphold. I will take less money, but I can't guarantee his grades - if he does poorly, he's kicked out'.

I guess the issue is, if pressures are discrete things, you can't 'partially' back off on a pressure. I guess if a pressure is worth multiple Despair/Joy, you could model partially backing off as reducing the point value of the pressure. Compromise works better if the other person can offer a positive pressure (I can't give you exactly what you want, but I can help you shed Despair; how's that?). So an example, given the school thing, might be something like this:

Person A: "I want my son to go here and to do well because its prestigious. Here, have money."
Person B: "I can't make him do well. How about a building named after you instead (positive Pressure against Person A's admitted Prestige)?"
Person A: "... good enough" (sheds despair and son is enrolled). Or: "This is pointless." (Person A and Person B both gain 1 Despair).



I can see this not working if the argument goes Overt, but as long as it stays Covert maybe both parties could agree to meet at the middle?


Actually I think it can still work for Overt. For hostage negotiations, which are clearly Overt situations, usually the negotiators try to break up the lump sum thing (all the hostages for all our demands) into partial compromises (we'll give you your first demand if you release one hostage).



Philosophical debate (and other debates). Does logical arguments work as Pressure there? If yes, do they do so in other cases as well?

I would say logical arguments only work as pressure either if they act to convince a third party who has some power over the two debators to side one way or another (in which case the real pressure is from the third party), or if someone has a flaw or value that puts 'being rational' as highly important. For instance, arguing with a scientist that he is being irrational and being able to back it up might count as a pressure since the scientist ostensibly puts value in making rational judgements. That said, I'd guess that even in scientists, pure 'always be rational' is probably not a very high thing - always is an artificially high bar for most people, who do naturally make emotional decisions. More likely is the value 'be perceived as a rational person by society', which could easily be used to make a logical argument a pressure if, and only if, the argument was made in a public forum.

Aux-Ash
2012-11-04, 09:38 AM
Looking over the core again, I think it can very well cover logical/philosophical arguments between two parties. Or perhaps more accurately, the core can with the addition of a special mechanic for such arguments.

I could very well see them as social abilities: You put forward an argument, the other part is given a chance to deflect it, you make a counterpoint, he gets a second chance. If he fails to counter the logic, it becomes a Pressure in your favour. If he manages to defeat your argument it does not (and perhaps give him a bonus toward any additional logical arguments).

The only ways to defeat one being to either "out-logic" the argument, ie prove that it does not apply in this case, or countering it with a different logic/philosophy/religion?

Thus in Edward and the kings case, our ambitious noble could decide to launch an argument using the Georgian (name taken at random, any resemblance ot real schools is accidental) school of economics as a means to prove that he is a superior caretaker of the economy. The king could try to either argue how the Georgian principles and Edwards applications of them is unapplicable or counter his attempts using another economical school. Our king, not very well versed in theoretical economics, fails and thus faces the prospect of arguing economics against someone with superior knowledge on how it works (ie. Pressure). The pressure is not a direct threat, or a direct benefit, but rather works as a show of force. Having it apply towards you is the realisation that your opponent is superior in the subject at hand, that you're fighting a losing battle (which definantely sounds Despair worthy).

How does that sound to you?

--

What I think the core needs most of all though, is a section that discusses Pressures. What they are, what they are not, how to construct them (mechanically) and the mechanics on how to use them. This as the first section. Then followed by Despair. How it applies, how it is shed. How it is experienced (as in, how the char could feel having different levels of Despair). ANd so on.

And then you begin discussing the various traits, stats and abilities.

Mostly a writing issue though :smallsmile: (willing to assist of you wish)

--

Will look over the stats and abilities in detail and see what I think about them

NichG
2012-11-04, 10:59 AM
Looking over the core again, I think it can very well cover logical/philosophical arguments between two parties. Or perhaps more accurately, the core can with the addition of a special mechanic for such arguments.

I could very well see them as social abilities: You put forward an argument, the other part is given a chance to deflect it, you make a counterpoint, he gets a second chance. If he fails to counter the logic, it becomes a Pressure in your favour. If he manages to defeat your argument it does not (and perhaps give him a bonus toward any additional logical arguments).

The only ways to defeat one being to either "out-logic" the argument, ie prove that it does not apply in this case, or countering it with a different logic/philosophy/religion?

Thus in Edward and the kings case, our ambitious noble could decide to launch an argument using the Georgian (name taken at random, any resemblance ot real schools is accidental) school of economics as a means to prove that he is a superior caretaker of the economy. The king could try to either argue how the Georgian principles and Edwards applications of them is unapplicable or counter his attempts using another economical school. Our king, not very well versed in theoretical economics, fails and thus faces the prospect of arguing economics against someone with superior knowledge on how it works (ie. Pressure). The pressure is not a direct threat, or a direct benefit, but rather works as a show of force. Having it apply towards you is the realisation that your opponent is superior in the subject at hand, that you're fighting a losing battle (which definantely sounds Despair worthy).

How does that sound to you?


So I think this is how Orators are meant to work, but it all has to do with the audience. Using logic against someone who can't lose face from being irrational isn't going to really gain any ground. I think there are really two places where logic comes in strongly:

1. Debating in front of observers who use the result to decide their actions. In the Edward vs the King case, this would be the courtiers, advisors, and the like. If Edward makes a good show, they may decide 'this upstart is better for the kingdom than the current king!' and that puts pressure on the king since its a concrete loss. This is exactly how Orators are supposed to work. The 'counterarguments' are not necessarily logical - an Integrity based character could say something like 'I don't know economics, but remember when Galford tried to buy the lumber lands around our borders from us? I stood up for you then! Do you trust someone who cares about you as people, or just as numbers?'

2. Using it as a purely trans-mechanical form of negotiation. Pointing out to someone 'I'm going to ignore your Pressure, and this is why' is really good for covert pressures, because the person may want to accept a pressure to shed Despair, but if the person who offers does a bad job of it then its in the other person's benefit to help. E.g. 'Don't bribe me with counterfeit bills, you idiot. I'm not saying no, but I'd like real money please', or things like that. Even something as simple as 'you are going into battle tomorrow. Do not make me make you go into battle with a distraction upon your mind' to remind someone that a few points of Despair could be the difference between life and death for them.

I think a show of superiority could definitely be a thing though. But there are lots of kinds of superiority, not just logic-based. I'm not sure a show of superiority should be worth a permanent point of Despair, such as Pressures give, since I think its good to tie Despair very concretely to a person's values to manage the total amount that can be received. It could however induce a temporary status condition 'demoralized' or something.

The real issue with doing logical arguments mechanically is that you can't really mechanically determine a victor, and attempts to do so can be silly (if e.g. you used 'total points' you could get such weird things like 'Your plan will doom us all. Explanation follows...' countered by a nit-pick like 'Ah, but you are wrong - a duck is not actually a mammal!'). Ostensibly you could have the rest of the table act as judges in the debate, but that strikes me as just creating a new subsystem - maybe something we want to do, if it ends up feeling like its a big gap.



What I think the core needs most of all though, is a section that discusses Pressures. What they are, what they are not, how to construct them (mechanically) and the mechanics on how to use them. This as the first section. Then followed by Despair. How it applies, how it is shed. How it is experienced (as in, how the char could feel having different levels of Despair). ANd so on.


Agreed!



And then you begin discussing the various traits, stats and abilities.

Mostly a writing issue though :smallsmile: (willing to assist of you wish)

--

Will look over the stats and abilities in detail and see what I think about them

Yeah, I think we're nearing the point where its changed enough we need a v2. I'll edit it up a bit later with some of the new ideas and put the old stuff in a spoiler or text file somewhere or something.