On Rolls Controlling your Character

[Segev]

Yeah, when I say "moves" I don't mean "choose from this list." I mean things along the lines of (to go back to combat as an example subsystem for a moment), "Okay, so the succubus has DR against normal arrows. My character, Haley, will pull out her cold iron arrows, since I can't remember and she lacks the Knowledge skill to roll to see whether it's those or silver arrows that do full damage. I'll see if these work better, and switch to silver if these don't."

That's a move and a planned set of follow-up moves. If Haley had the appropriate Knowledge, a move would be to roll it to determine which kind of arrow to draw, potentially saving a round of wasted actions and ammo.

Or maybe Haley says, "Okay, I can't shoot her, but I can drink this potion of flying and go up and grapple her to the ground." That would also be a move (or set thereof). The use of the item is automatic, and her attack rolls and grapple checks would determine how well she does in actually succeeding at that move.

"Grapple" is, in fact, a "listed" move in the rules. I would expect similar tools to be present in a well-defined social subsystem. But they would be meant for use in broad strokes, just like combat "moves" are. The ones I suggested in my example of Bardicus and the Innkeeper were things like "discover why he's mad at me," which probably would be more formally named as a function of a Sense Motive-like skill, and "divorce myself from Millerson in the innkeeper's mind," which might be an "erode a belief" 'move' that has definition in the subsystem as to how it's done.

So... I would prefer there to be definite mechanical tools I can pick up and say I'm using, but I would want them to be broadly applicable, not "do this very specific thing." A number of fluff descriptions as to what the actions are could be used, and in some cases may help to identify what's the appropriate mechanical tool to use at all.

[kyoryu]

So... I would prefer there to be definite mechanical tools I can pick up and say I'm using, but I would want them to be broadly applicable, not "do this very specific thing." A number of fluff descriptions as to what the actions are could be used, and in some cases may help to identify what's the appropriate mechanical tool to use at all.

At the extreme of broadness, you have Fate with just four moves - Attack, Create Advantage, Defend, and Overcome.

And Attack can arguably be considered a subset of Overcome.

[Segev]

At the extreme of broadness, you have Fate with just four moves - Attack, Create Advantage, Defend, and Overcome.

And Attack can arguably be considered a subset of Overcome.

My issues with Fate tend to be that what I know of its mechanics don't actually allow for resolution. They are barely better than "well you should go along with it if you're a good role player and not a munchkin."

Again: I will admit that I don't know Fate. I am operating on what others have told me. (Mostly proponents of it who have been unable to answer my questions as to how the rules of conflict resolution actually lead to a different result based on success or failure without the player choosing to allow it to...which makes the need for mechanics questionable at all, to me.)

But in general, while I think those four moves are in some ways too broad, that is the right idea conceptually, anyway. "Moves" which are broadly applicable enough to cover the bases. I'd prefer them a LITTLE more specific to the subsystem and not just a reskinning of the same ones used in combat, but that's again due to a desire for specificity in the effects of using the mechancis.

[Quertus]

Most games I'm familiar with that have such things generally are a kind of opt-in situation. You can't walk up to the king and social-skill your way into getting to marry his daughter if you're a broke peasant. He's got no reason to engage with you at all. You've got to set up a set of mutually-agreeable 'stakes' for the discussion to even take place. BW handles this quite well by forcing the winner to offer certain concessions to the loser - so the winner gets what they want, but they either get part of what they want instead of all of it, or the loser gets what they want.

This goes back to the con man - you've got to find someone that is greedy enough to engage in the first place.

Social rules that allow you to just walk up to someone and get them to do *anything* without any kind of reason why they'd even engage you are pretty bad and stupid.



I think this goes with the 'soft control' type of mechanism - you either get some benefit if you do what the 'controller' wants, some penalty if you don't, or some combination of the above.


At the extreme of broadness, you have Fate with just four moves - Attack, Create Advantage, Defend, and Overcome.

And Attack can arguably be considered a subset of Overcome.


My issues with Fate tend to be that what I know of its mechanics don't actually allow for resolution. They are barely better than "well you should go along with it if you're a good role player and not a munchkin."

Again: I will admit that I don't know Fate. I am operating on what others have told me. (Mostly proponents of it who have been unable to answer my questions as to how the rules of conflict resolution actually lead to a different result based on success or failure without the player choosing to allow it to...which makes the need for mechanics questionable at all, to me.)

But in general, while I think those four moves are in some ways too broad, that is the right idea conceptually, anyway. "Moves" which are broadly applicable enough to cover the bases. I'd prefer them a LITTLE more specific to the subsystem and not just a reskinning of the same ones used in combat, but that's again due to a desire for specificity in the effects of using the mechancis.

As a grognard war gamer, I'm perfectly happy with there being exactly one mechanic, "roll social" (as some of the systems I've played don't even have social stats). Want to make the innkeeper like you? Roll social. Want to understand why the innkeeper doesn't like you? Roll social. Want to convince him that you're not like that other guy? Roll social.

Segev can play a social character with no more mechanics than, "roll social", so why add more? What is gained by breaking it down further?

Hmmm, let's start with the obvious: complexity. Never forget that, for some, complexity is its own virtue. It allows for things like "system mastery". And it makes the system more "engaging", at least for some. It also allows for multiple social stats, for more fine control. But to what end? Realism? I haven't seen anything model human social interaction better than the human mind (ie, role-playing), so existing implementations seem to fail in that regard.

Hmmm... Can we make something somewhat realistic with only the roll social mechanic? Let's combine a few ideas previously mentioned in this thread: roll social, intimacies, and rewarding following the dice. Let's use 3.x D&D terminology / rules as our base.

So, let's say that the dc for roll social can be modified by, say, +-10 per point in connected to intimacies.

So, if Cute Girl wants a 1-night stand with Segev, if he has a 3-point conviction (I'm tired of auto-correct) to no premarital intimacy, she has to deal with a +30 DC, and subsequently Segev will be rewarded for role-playing correctly and turning her down.

Similarly, if I have a 3-point intimacy "does not attend (certain types of) parties", Cute Girl or Friendly Co-worker or Scorpion Clan Member will find the task of inviting me surprisingly difficult, and someone role-playing me will correctly be rewarded for turning them down when the social roll is failed. I don't need any special merit to be rewarded for not attending.

So, to invite me to a party, you've really got to work to make it worth my while to go. Because I'm going to get a benefit for not going.

Unlike the original reward system, this system rewards complex characters - or, at least, does not exclusively encourage bland characters who could go either way on anything.

So... as far as I can tell, the system I have described meets both my and Segev's stated requirements. So... how does it fail?

[Cluedrew]

Does it even fail? I don't know, I haven't tried it.

Complexity does have some useful features (room for exploration, encoding details) so does simplicity (pick up time, tends to remove corner cases) so the single mechanic part is not necessarily good or bad. In fact it might be an advantage for a game that has social rules, but it is not focused on them.

Also I think it is defiantly an improvement over D&D's roll for type of action diplomacy, that more or less ignores the character you are trying to convince. The only other unknown I think is how exactly does the reward mechanic play out? How strong is it? Is it a short lasting bonus (a modifier) or a small long term reward that can build up over time (like XP).

So I guess... it looks like it might work but I can't tell you for sure.

[Segev]

As a grognard war gamer, I'm perfectly happy with there being exactly one mechanic, "roll social" (as some of the systems I've played don't even have social stats). Want to make the innkeeper like you? Roll social. Want to understand why the innkeeper doesn't like you? Roll social. Want to convince him that you're not like that other guy? Roll social.

Segev can play a social character with no more mechanics than, "roll social", so why add more? What is gained by breaking it down further?As a grognard war gamer, would you be perfectly happy with there being exactly one mechanic, "roll combat?"

Want to grapple that bugbear? Roll combat. Want to murder that potentate? Roll combat. Want to clear that line of guards barring your escape? Roll combat.

Quertus can play a combat character with no more mechanics than, "roll combat," so why add more? What is gained by breaking it down further?


Hmmm, let's start with the obvious: complexity. Never forget that, for some, complexity is its own virtue. It allows for things like "system mastery". And it makes the system more "engaging", at least for some. It also allows for multiple social stats, for more fine control. But to what end? Realism? I haven't seen anything model human social interaction better than the human mind (ie, role-playing), so existing implementations seem to fail in that regard.You do answer your own question here, though treating "complexity" as the end goal reveals a bias (which you admit, so I won't fault you for it; I point it out so you can see it if you're blind to it as many are to their own biases).

What is gained by having more than "roll combat?" Fidelity and feel. It feels better to have your burly melee swordsman and your numble knife-thrower using distinct mechanics for their chosen weapons and styles. Both ultimately roll to-hit and damage (in D&D, at least), but there are differences even there. There are range considerations, damage amounts, the stat the knife thrower uses for hitting is going to be the one he uses to dodge, while the melee swordsman is going to have to rely on other things. The knife thrower may use Sneak Attack, which has its own mechanical requirements and allows for rewarding role-play as a sneaky opportunistic attacker rather than a charge-to-the-face attacker like the swordsman might be.

Similarly, social mechanics that let you have more nuanced builds with differing strengths and weaknesses. (High dex not having to compete with high str, but different damage conditions? High str and high dex, requiring more MAD? High str and high con, just taking the hits to the face? Good at lying but not great at getting people to like you? Good at generally getting people to like you but only okay at persuasion? Can read people like a book, and has to rely on that to gear persuasive efforts since you are awful at changing minds? Great at changing minds but awful at reading people?)

There's a difference between the gregarious life of the party, the femme fatale, the lovable urchin, the beloved proper woman, the overbearingly charismatic despot, the domineering matron whom none dare cross, and the shining paladin whose men will follow him into hell. A more complex social system allows you to model these things better.

But, more to the point, "roll social" means that you're not avoiding one of the biggest complaints about social mechanics: they come off as "mind control" when you can do something like, "I make the innkeeper like me. I roll social." "But he hates you; that's a huge penalty!" "Eh, I have +eleventybillion to my roll; he's my fanatical devotee now."


Hmmm... Can we make something somewhat realistic with only the roll social mechanic? Let's combine a few ideas previously mentioned in this thread: roll social, intimacies, and rewarding following the dice. Let's use 3.x D&D terminology / rules as our base.

So, let's say that the dc for roll social can be modified by, say, +-10 per point in connected to intimacies.

So, if Cute Girl wants a 1-night stand with Segev, if he has a 3-point conviction (I'm tired of auto-correct) to no premarital intimacy, she has to deal with a +30 DC, and subsequently Segev will be rewarded for role-playing correctly and turning her down.

Similarly, if I have a 3-point intimacy "does not attend (certain types of) parties", Cute Girl or Friendly Co-worker or Scorpion Clan Member will find the task of inviting me surprisingly difficult, and someone role-playing me will correctly be rewarded for turning them down when the social roll is failed. I don't need any special merit to be rewarded for not attending.

So, to invite me to a party, you've really got to work to make it worth my while to go. Because I'm going to get a benefit for not going.

Unlike the original reward system, this system rewards complex characters - or, at least, does not exclusively encourage bland characters who could go either way on anything.

So... as far as I can tell, the system I have described meets both my and Segev's stated requirements. So... how does it fail?

It could work, but so could replacing literally every combat die roll with "roll combat" and giving bonuses and penalties based on the skill of the combatants.

And the trouble with the latter assertion, that avoiding the bonus/penalty angle is solved by the higher difficulties to get "nuanced" characters to be persuaded, actually misses the points of it entirely. It still, under that system, comes down to "your character leaves your control and does something you don't have any desire nor temptation to have him do." It still rewards building everybody as asexual, chaste murderhobos who can't be swayed by anything, because it lets the player no-sell social influence better.

Remember that my big reason for advocating for bonuses and penalties of some sort is to give the player a shared sense of the character's temptations. The character feels tempted because man, making out with that hot chick sounds like it'll feel really, really good. The player doesn't really feel that temptation; the DM is NOT that hot (or, if she is, it's still probably way awkward to even think about that), and the player isn't going to make out with her anyway (or, again, if he is, it's probably either quite awkward or...well, a different kind of "role play.")

The bonuses are meant to tempt the player. The penalties are meant to simulate the character's sense of lost opportunity. It's meant to make the player feel some measure of the "torn" sense the PC has. It also allows the social character to be effective even if the player no-sells the actual requested action. Sure, his honorable samurai can maintain his honor and not go to the "party" with the Scorpion. But he's torn by his desire to do so, and feels (perhaps) guilt even for WANTING to, and that impedes his performance of his duties anyway, letting Scorpian-san's ally have an easier time sneaking past the honorable samurai. If Samurai-sama had gone to the party, it'd have been easier still (with no guard there at all), but it still helped. And now, Samurai-sama is compromised for a little longer and has a harder time doing anything related to preventing that heist. And maybe has hooks in him that Scorpian-san can use in the future.

Overall, the goal behind such mechanics is to serve the dual roles of allowing the player to never truly lose control of the character (so it's never flat-out "mind control"), and to let the player really get a sense for how his PC is torn over the decisions. Rather than just assuming that no, his fighter won't sleep with that wench. Yes, he'll take his watch. No, he won't waste time on ale and partying when he could be maintaining his weapons. No, he won't bother spending extra for the comfy bed at the inn; he can save money by sleeping in the cheap room and it's established that it doesn't give him discomfort penalties. He'll be just fine with the cheapest food he can buy, thank you, as long as it's nourishing. No, he doesn't feel tempted by the offer of an upgrade for "just a little more money."

If there are little perks and rewards for playing in to luxury temptations, little penalties for turning down things your PC does desire, it gives reason to HAVE desires and designs (you get bonuses if you indulge), but hooks to manipulate (you get penalties if you refuse...and that's if the mere temptation of the bonuses isn't enough to persuade you).

[Darth Ultron]

Overall, the goal behind such mechanics is to serve the dual roles of allowing the player to never truly lose control of the character (so it's never flat-out "mind control"), and to let the player really get a sense for how his PC is torn over the decisions.

The problem here might be ''social'' stuff can be wild, unknown and not in control. When Dorn watches his family be killed by orcs, he does not sit back and think of how would be the best way for him to react and what he wants to do. Dorn feels a an immediate feeling and has an immediate reaction. Elsa goes to a party thinking she won't have any fun and meet a man...and then she falls for a guy. And as most couples can tell you: sometimes people fall in love with people they never thought they ever would.

[Segev]

The problem here might be ''social'' stuff can be wild, unknown and not in control. When Dorn watches his family be killed by orcs, he does not sit back and think of how would be the best way for him to react and what he wants to do. Dorn feels a an immediate feeling and has an immediate reaction.I fail to see how this is a "problem." Do you believe it contradicts or is incompatible with the design I am suggesting? If so, how?


Elsa goes to a party thinking she won't have any fun and meet a man...and then she falls for a guy. And as most couples can tell you: sometimes people fall in love with people they never thought they ever would.

I am not sure I really believe in love at first sight. I have never seen it happen, and certainly never experienced it. Though I'd like to. Falling in love seems to be difficult to do.

[Cluedrew]

To Darth Ultron: Sure, but the player losing control is different from the character loses control. When the character loses control they fall back on instinct and act reflectively. What exactly this works out to be depends on the details of their personality. Where do those details come from? The player. I do believe there is a role for rules and randomness to help guild it, but neither of these things should be arbitrary without regard to what the player has said about the character.

[Darth Ultron]

I fail to see how this is a "problem." Do you believe it contradicts or is incompatible with the design I am suggesting? If so, how?

Well, the disconnect between ''fantasy character'' and ''guy sitting at a table'' is big. So that nothing happens to the character in a social way, unless the guy drinking a Mt. Dew in another reality thinks they want it to happen?




I am not sure I really believe in love at first sight. I have never seen it happen, and certainly never experienced it. Though I'd like to. Falling in love seems to be difficult to do.

I'm talking more about love in general.

The more general point is most people can't control themselves. I'm sure your one of the people that thinks ''anyone can snap'' at any time and/or ''people don't really know how they will react until they are in the situation'' . I know this is not true for everyone, but do understand it's true for people that don't know themselves.

I greatly dislike mechanical ways to control a character. I just about never use them in a game. I go for more direct player control and manipulation, then the player has the character react appropriately.

[Cluedrew]

I greatly dislike mechanical ways to control a character. I just about never use them in a game. I go for more direct player control and manipulation, then the player has the character react appropriately.Then you seem to agree with NichG, who is also into that more free-from style. I have played that way and enjoyed the game, but that is not to say other methods can't work. Also I wanted Darth Ultron saying "I go for more direct player control" on record.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Here's a random example. In Burning Wheel when your character has a reason to be shocked, be it from being surprised or being slashed with a weapon or confronted with magic, you make a steel test. Steel is the stat that measures how good you are at reacting quickly and keeping your wits about you.

If you fail a steel test then you're hesitating for a certain number of heartbeats. But the game gives you different options of how you're hesitating and lets the player choose. You can choose to stand and drool, fall prone and beg for mercy, swoon, or run screaming. The game tells you that you're temporarily ineffective, but lets you pick how. There's even a trait you can take called Gloryhound that adds a fifth option of "charge into the fray heedless of safety, tactics, or plans".

[Darth Ultron]

Then you seem to agree with NichG, who is also into that more free-from style. I have played that way and enjoyed the game, but that is not to say other methods can't work. Also I wanted Darth Ultron saying "I go for more direct player control" on record.

Well, it's slightly more accurate to say I use more personal homebrew rules. If I want a character to do something or react in a set way, then I simply get the player to do so.

[Segev]

Well, the disconnect between ''fantasy character'' and ''guy sitting at a table'' is big. So that nothing happens to the character in a social way, unless the guy drinking a Mt. Dew in another reality thinks they want it to happen? Doesn't this...



I greatly dislike mechanical ways to control a character. I just about never use them in a game. I go for more direct player control and manipulation, then the player has the character react appropriately....contradict this?

I mean, if the disconnect is so great as to be insurmountable (as the first quoted bit implies), why would you want to have ONLY that disconnected control be used?

[Darth Ultron]

Well, the way your talking about is the disconnect. Only if the player agrees that something effects their character, then it happens with mechanical support.

My way is just straight effecting the player. There is no disconnect as if the player feels X, they so will automatically the character. Your the one that said you like it when the player feels the same things as the character, right?

[Cluedrew]

The game tells you that you're temporarily ineffective, but lets you pick how.So far this seems like on of the best ways to do it, the mechanics decide the magnitude of what happens but the player decides what that actually works out to be. In fact you could consider the reward/punishment systems a variation of this as they try to make the good and bad choices (logically) more even. A different approach but a similar idea of creating paths that are close enough you can choose between them based on your character's character.

Well the reward/punishment scheme can result in unbalanced options, but then that just says something stronger about your character if you pick the bad one.

[Quertus]

As a grognard war gamer, would you be perfectly happy with there being exactly one mechanic, "roll combat?"

Want to grapple that bugbear? Roll combat. Want to murder that potentate? Roll combat. Want to clear that line of guards barring your escape? Roll combat.

Quertus can play a combat character with no more mechanics than, "roll combat," so why add more? What is gained by breaking it down further?

This criticism actually greatly enhances my confidence in my purposed system. My grognard war gamer self has enjoyed "roll combat" about as much as everyone else.

The d20 system has been pretty successful at reducing a diverse array of mundane combat possibilities to a single "roll combat" mechanic. Want to attack? Roll BAB, with modifiers, vs AC. Want to grapple? (Take a feat, ) Roll BAB, with modifiers, vs (touch) AC. Want to clear out a line of fodder? (Take great cleave, ) Roll BAB, with modifiers, vs AC, until you miss.

Yes, there's a few pieces of the d20 combat engine that inexplicably use a different mechanic. Rather than reveling in the system's "diversity ", I'll contend that the system would be improved by homogenizing these aberrant outliers.

In fact, I think most would agree a single-system social mechanic would be better than 3.x combat if it simply avoided requiring massive quantities of feats to use successfully. No, you don't need a separate feat to sense motive on someone without provoking a social AoO, for example. :smalltongue:

But, then again, the fidelity of 3.x combat mechanics is probably a pretty low bar in the first place.


Fidelity and feel.

You're right - when you describe 3.x as, "roll combat", it loses a lot of its flavor. I'm not after flavor here, I'm just describing mechanics.


Good at lying but not great at getting people to like you? Good at generally getting people to like you but only okay at persuasion? Can read people like a book, and has to rely on that to gear persuasive efforts since you are awful at changing minds? Great at changing minds but awful at reading people?)

There's a difference between the gregarious life of the party, the femme fatale, the lovable urchin, the beloved proper woman, the overbearingly charismatic despot, the domineering matron whom none dare cross, and the shining paladin whose men will follow him into hell. A more complex social system allows you to model these things better.

Good at ranged combat, but untrained in melee? Master Spellcaster / diplomat / whatever, but still loses dodge ball to playground children? Yes, d20 tying combat to BAB, and BAB to level, limits the concepts you can play. Does my proposed system create similar limitations, or do proper definitions of of one's intimacies provide for the same diversity as role-playing? I'll have to think about this one.


But, more to the point, "roll social" means that you're not avoiding one of the biggest complaints about social mechanics: they come off as "mind control" when you can do something like, "I make the innkeeper like me. I roll social." "But he hates you; that's a huge penalty!" "Eh, I have +eleventybillion to my roll; he's my fanatical devotee now."

It still, under that system, comes down to "your character leaves your control and does something you don't have any desire nor temptation to have him do."
Overall, the goal behind such mechanics is to serve the dual roles of allowing the player to never truly lose control of the character (so it's never flat-out "mind control")

Avoided this by combining with, "rolls advise; you get incentive (bonuses, xp, whatever) for complying with the results of the roll". This is not an issue.


It still rewards building everybody as asexual, chaste murderhobos who can't be swayed by anything, because it lets the player no-sell social influence better.

But then the honorable samurai must pass up the bonus / take the penalty to go out with the big D's daughter. And it probably won't work out, because she can roll social to tell that he's not really into her in the first place.

Heck, even being honorable is pretty disadvantageous.




Remember that my big reason for advocating for bonuses and penalties of some sort is to give the player a shared sense of the character's temptations. The character feels tempted because man, making out with that hot chick sounds like it'll feel really, really good. The player doesn't really feel that temptation; the DM is NOT that hot (or, if she is, it's still probably way awkward to even think about that), and the player isn't going to make out with her anyway (or, again, if he is, it's probably either quite awkward or...well, a different kind of "role play.")

The bonuses are meant to tempt the player. The penalties are meant to simulate the character's sense of lost opportunity. It's meant to make the player feel some measure of the "torn" sense the PC has. It also allows the social character to be effective even if the player no-sells the actual requested action. Sure, his honorable samurai can maintain his honor and not go to the "party" with the Scorpion. But he's torn by his desire to do so, and feels (perhaps) guilt even for WANTING to, and that impedes his performance of his duties anyway, letting Scorpian-san's ally have an easier time sneaking past the honorable samurai. If Samurai-sama had gone to the party, it'd have been easier still (with no guard there at all), but it still helped. And now, Samurai-sama is compromised for a little longer and has a harder time doing anything related to preventing that heist. And maybe has hooks in him that Scorpian-san can use in the future.


, and to let the player really get a sense for how his PC is torn over the decisions. Rather than just assuming that no, his fighter won't sleep with that wench. Yes, he'll take his watch. No, he won't waste time on ale and partying when he could be maintaining his weapons. No, he won't bother spending extra for the comfy bed at the inn; he can save money by sleeping in the cheap room and it's established that it doesn't give him discomfort penalties. He'll be just fine with the cheapest food he can buy, thank you, as long as it's nourishing. No, he doesn't feel tempted by the offer of an upgrade for "just a little more money."

If there are little perks and rewards for playing in to luxury temptations, little penalties for turning down things your PC does desire, it gives reason to HAVE desires and designs (you get bonuses if you indulge), but hooks to manipulate (you get penalties if you refuse...and that's if the mere temptation of the bonuses isn't enough to persuade you).

This describes how you want a solution implemented, rather than what you want.

At what point should the rules invoke a quiet despair? Murderous rage? Suicidal impulses? Ennui?

No, I think even PTSD-inducing method acting is safer than realizing this line of thought.

I suppose that, if it had a goal, the goal of my "back of the napkin" system would be to use Pavlovian methods to encourage and reward characterization and role-playing. Of course, the "problem" with defining it that way is, you'd therefore expect the social mechanics to be removed when no longer necessary, once people had been trained to role-play their characters just fine without further rewards. :smallwink:

[Segev]

Well, the way your talking about is the disconnect. Only if the player agrees that something effects their character, then it happens with mechanical support.

My way is just straight effecting the player. There is no disconnect as if the player feels X, they so will automatically the character. Your the one that said you like it when the player feels the same things as the character, right?
"Your way" is free-form. It does not permit people to role-play; it only permits them to say their name is Legofern Lassigan the Elf Bard while being themselves, exactly as socially skilled as they are IRL.

In other words, you're either deliberately ignoring or completely missing the point, and no amount of my repeating it will make it clearer to you because you cannot possibly have read and understood what has been written so far in this thread and come to the conclusions you've obviously reached.

I'm sorry I cannot make it clearer.


This criticism actually greatly enhances my confidence in my purposed system. My grognard war gamer self has enjoyed "roll combat" about as much as everyone else.

The d20 system has been pretty successful at reducing a diverse array of mundane combat possibilities to a single "roll combat" mechanic. Want to attack? Roll BAB, with modifiers, vs AC. Want to grapple? (Take a feat, ) Roll BAB, with modifiers, vs (touch) AC. Want to clear out a line of fodder? (Take great cleave, ) Roll BAB, with modifiers, vs AC, until you miss.I think this reveals a failure in communication between us.

IF this is what you mean by "roll social," then I have less objection, because I don't see D&D 3e as having a "roll combat" mechanic. It has a mechanic for resolving to-hit, and a lot of mechanics that sprout from a successful effort to do so.

At no point do you "roll combat; you beat DC x, so you kill him." Which is what "roll social" made me picture (and, in fact, D&D 3e has "roll social" as I was envisioning it right now; the consensus of this thread seems to be that that is unsatisfying, and I agree).



Good at ranged combat, but untrained in melee? Master Spellcaster / diplomat / whatever, but still loses dodge ball to playground children? Yes, d20 tying combat to BAB, and BAB to level, limits the concepts you can play. Does my proposed system create similar limitations, or do proper definitions of of one's intimacies provide for the same diversity as role-playing? I'll have to think about this one. Except it doesn't limit those concepts appreciably. The differences between a ranged fighter and a meleeist are significant in the mechanics, from what stats are used to hit to what tactics WORK.

If your "roll social" is equally varied for different approaches, I have no objections.



This describes how you want a solution implemented, rather than what you want.

At what point should the rules invoke a quiet despair? Murderous rage? Suicidal impulses? Ennui?In the player? I don't expect them to. In the character? "When appropriate," by the same measure as when they should invoke injury, debilitation, death, or failure of the strength of characters' arms.

[Cluedrew]

"Your way" is free-form. It does not permit people to role-play; it only permits them to say their name is Legofern Lassigan the Elf Bard while being themselves, exactly as socially skilled as they are IRL.I think you can role-play without mechanics, but you are limited by social skills and other things as well.

I think of it less a matter of making it possible as it is a matter of creating additional tools to make it easier.

[Segev]

I think you can role-play without mechanics, but you are limited by social skills and other things as well.

I think of it less a matter of making it possible as it is a matter of creating additional tools to make it easier.

That...is what I have been suggesting. That mechanics are tools to enable you to play a character who has different capabilities than you do. Who is better (or worse) at fighting, or at social interaction, or at politics, or at inventing things.

[Max_Killjoy]

That...is what I have been suggesting. That mechanics are tools to enable you to play a character who has different capabilities than you do. Who is better (or worse) at fighting, or at social interaction, or at politics, or at inventing things.


Is there a difference between enabling that, and allowing an NPC or another PC to "seize control" of the PC away from the player?


IMO, anything that seizes control of the player character away from the player is ground upon which we must tread very carefully.

.

[Quertus]

I think you can role-play without mechanics, but you are limited by social skills and other things as well.

I think of it less a matter of making it possible as it is a matter of creating additional tools to make it easier.

As I define RP as interpreting the world and making choices based on your character's knowledge, experience, personality, stats, etc, as well as based on the social skills of the character speaking to you, not the player doing so, I view success at RP being limited only by one's skill at RP. How do you define RP such that it requires and is limited by other social skills (and other things as well)?


IMO, anything that seizes control of the player character away from the player is ground upon which we must tread very carefully.

So... you are not a fan of mind control magic? Why not?

[Amphetryon]

IMO, anything that seizes control of the player character away from the player is ground upon which we must tread very carefully.

.

Every die roll with consequence in every RPG I know can be described truthfully as 'seizing control of the player character away from the player.' The Player is not in control of the outcome; the dice are. The same goes for any alternative resolution mechanics/props a game might have (cards, chits, GM adjudication, etc.).

Where is the line in the sand, in your opinion, beyond which the Player does not have sufficient control?

[Thrudd]

Every die roll with consequence in every RPG I know can be described truthfully as 'seizing control of the player character away from the player.' The Player is not in control of the outcome; the dice are. The same goes for any alternative resolution mechanics/props a game might have (cards, chits, GM adjudication, etc.).

Where is the line in the sand, in your opinion, beyond which the Player does not have sufficient control?

The line in the sand is seizing control from the player when the player is supposed to be making game decisions. The resolution mechanics decide the outcome of the players' actions which they make in pursuit of the game's objective. If the game's objective includes players making tactical decisions, their ability to make those decisions shouldn't be hijajcked or altered on a fundamental level (like it would be if the dice told you that your character is supposed to want to do one thing and not another, or choose one person as an ally and be the enemy of the other).
When dice decide literally everything that happens in a game, from the outcome of a fight to the characters' reaction to an NPC and their beliefs and motivations and how they would behave in a battle, you don't have a game so much as a simulation. The game would be more "can I build a character that will be able to navigate the GM's simulation?" rather than "can I navigate what the GM has planned using my character's abilities?"
If the player is being told by the dice what their character should be thinking and feeling (which tends to dictate what the character should be doing), then what decisions are being made by the player?

[Jay R]

So... you are not a fan of mind control magic? Why not?

I'm not the one you asked, but here's my reason.

In the current game, many of our enemies have been casting mind control on the fighters. Either Marcus or Gustav (my PC) usually fails the role.

I don't like fighting against the party. I don't enjoy making attacks that I hope fail. And I'm getting bored with fighting Marcus so often.

It's a legitimate tactic. I don't fault the DM for using it. But large parts of the fighting in the last few games have been unenjoyable. And the fighting is supposed to be a high point for the melee fighters.

That's all. It's a legitimate part of the game, that is often tactically superior. It ought to be used. But it's a legitimate part of the game that I don't enjoy.

[kyoryu]

Mind control of the "I get to player your character" type sucks when applied to PCs, as it turns them into spectators.

That's not to say it doesn't have its place at times, but its use has to be weighed against the inherent suckitude of sitting helplessly as your character is played by the GM.

[Segev]

Is there a difference between enabling that, and allowing an NPC or another PC to "seize control" of the PC away from the player?


IMO, anything that seizes control of the player character away from the player is ground upon which we must tread very carefully.

.

There is. First off, if you're to the point of dictating the actions of another character, the social manipulation has gone as far as physical combat does when you're to the point of "and now you're at the enemy's mercy." Whether that's death or capture or what-have-you.

Secondly, this is why I keep advocating for bonuses and penalties to actions that play along with and oppose (respectively) the "dictated" courses of action. That way, Sam O'Riley's player can choose to have Sam resist all the temptations in the world to perform dishonorable or otherwise unwise actions, but Sam suffers penalties due to resisting. So even if Secretary Xi Lynn is unsuccessful in luring Sam away from his post for a make-out session, Sam is so busy trying to clear his head of Sec. Xi Lynn's charms and the fantasies and desires she aroused in him that he likely fails to notice Rouge the Rogue sneaking past him.

Sam's player retains control of something he feels is very important about his character (that he wouldn't abandon his post for a sexy girl), but Lynn's powers of seduction are validated and made useful nonetheless, because Sam isn't "no-selling" the effects. They're just impacting in a different narrative fashion.

Potentially, if Sam's player had Sam go along with Lynn's blandishments, maybe Sam'd have morale bonuses to things for a while thereafter.


In a more elaborate system, perhaps the "bonuses" and "penalties" are controlled by the player of the character who received them or inflicted them (respectively). Maybe the "bonuses" are some resource that gets exhausted over time or with use, that are replenished by giving in to such temptations and indulging in R&R. (Actual R&R is designed to do this normally, with the added benefit of more wherewithal given to those who don't fight their urges and drain their reserves.) The penalties might be a drain on that, or a specific penalty to rolls that can be expended by the player imposing them, making them targeted and effective.


Again, this is for an elaborate, hypothetical system; the more these hooks are interwoven throughout it so that social mechanics interact with the rest of the system rather than being layered on top of it, the better.

[Max_Killjoy]

Every die roll with consequence in every RPG I know can be described truthfully as 'seizing control of the player character away from the player.' The Player is not in control of the outcome; the dice are. The same goes for any alternative resolution mechanics/props a game might have (cards, chits, GM adjudication, etc.).

Where is the line in the sand, in your opinion, beyond which the Player does not have sufficient control?


Every wolf can be described as a "dog", too. That doesn't make it accurate.

The problem is with seizing control of intent, not the outcomes.

[goto124]

So even if Secretary Xi Lynn is unsuccessful in luring Sam away from his post for a make-out session, Sam is so busy trying to clear his head of Sec. Xi Lynn's charms and the fantasies and desires she aroused in him that he likely fails to notice Rouge the Rogue sneaking past him.

Sam's player retains control of something he feels is very important about his character (that he wouldn't abandon his post for a sexy girl), but Lynn's powers of seduction are validated and made useful nonetheless, because Sam isn't "no-selling" the effects. They're just impacting in a different narrative fashion.

Again, this is for an elaborate, hypothetical system; the more these hooks are interwoven throughout it so that social mechanics interact with the rest of the system rather than being layered on top of it, the better.

How does one avoid making the players feel insulted by their character being successfully seduced by another character? Is it a case of 'suck up and move on'? Would the PCs have to write up character sheets dictating the 'social stats' of their characters, which would help decide if Lynn's attempt works on Sam?

So far, as soon as Lynn attempts to seduce Sam, she's won and Sam lost. Sam gets to choose what kind of loss he wants, but he still lost. In combat, if an orc swings a fist at Sam, Sam still gets room to maneuver, literally - he can attempt to step aside, he can attempt to dodge by making opposed rolls against the orc's attack. Again, this is for an elaborate hypothetical system, so presumably the social mechanics don't stop so abruptly.

Could this hypothetical system be written such that sexual seduction doesn't have to come into the picture, in case the players don't want sexual or romantic content in their games? Maybe that's part of why it's hard to accept seduction. YMMV, but if I was playing Sam, I would rather that Lynn's seduction attempts failed, but the fact that she annoyed Sam with her seduction means he was distracted enough for Rouge to get past.

How asymmetrical can a social mechanics system get? Does it help to tilt the system in favor of the PCs?

[AMFV]

How does one avoid making the players feel insulted by their character being successfully seduced by another character? Is it a case of 'suck up and move on'? Would the PCs have to write up character sheets dictating the 'social stats' of their characters, which would help decide if Lynn's attempt works on Sam?

So far, as soon as Lynn attempts to seduce Sam, she's won and Sam lost. Sam gets to choose what kind of loss he wants, but he still lost. In combat, if an orc swings a fist at Sam, Sam still gets room to maneuver, literally - he can attempt to step aside, he can attempt to dodge by making opposed rolls against the orc's attack. Again, this is for an elaborate hypothetical system, so presumably the social mechanics don't stop so abruptly.


Hardly true, in most systems when the Orc hits, the Orc hits, your attempt to evade would be prior to that attempt to hit, not after.

[Cluedrew]

As I define RP as interpreting the world and making choices based on your character's knowledge, experience, personality, stats, etc, as well as based on the social skills of the character speaking to you, not the player doing so, I view success at RP being limited only by one's skill at RP. How do you define RP such that it requires and is limited by other social skills (and other things as well)?Your social skills limit your role-playing ability, without mechanical support I can't charm a character if I can't charm its player.

Describe to me how your wizard casts fireball? ... You can't, well then why should the wizard cast fireball? Because it says so in the rules and lack of explanation aside that makes it possible. If I cannot describe the speech I make to get the crowd on my side, can my character still make it? If it says so in the rules, yes, otherwise no.


Every wolf can be described as a "dog", too. That doesn't make it accurate.

The problem is with seizing control of intent, not the outcomes.I believe dice do take away control from the player (because you would have more control if you said your attack hit and how much damage it did) so that description would be accurate in my mind. Could I also get you to expand on the second paragraph?

[Max_Killjoy]

I believe dice do take away control from the player (because you would have more control if you said your attack hit and how much damage it did) so that description would be accurate in my mind. Could I also get you to expand on the second paragraph?


One is about whether the character succeeds in what the player intends to do. The dice or whatever mechanic is about making the game something more than a shared make-believe, and about impartially adjudicating conflicting intentions.

The other is about seizing the intent away from the player, seizing motive and desire, and stripping the player of their share of agency within the game. Even from a basic game enjoyment level, why is the player even there if the GM is telling them what their character intends to do.

[Quertus]

How does one avoid making the players feel insulted by their character being successfully seduced by another character? Is it a case of 'suck up and move on'? Would the PCs have to write up character sheets dictating the 'social stats' of their characters, which would help decide if Lynn's attempt works on Sam?

So far, as soon as Lynn attempts to seduce Sam, she's won and Sam lost. Sam gets to choose what kind of loss he wants, but he still lost. In combat, if an orc swings a fist at Sam, Sam still gets room to maneuver, literally - he can attempt to step aside, he can attempt to dodge by making opposed rolls against the orc's attack. Again, this is for an elaborate hypothetical system, so presumably the social mechanics don't stop so abruptly.

Could this hypothetical system be written such that sexual seduction doesn't have to come into the picture, in case the players don't want sexual or romantic content in their games? Maybe that's part of why it's hard to accept seduction. YMMV, but if I was playing Sam, I would rather that Lynn's seduction attempts failed, but the fact that she annoyed Sam with her seduction means he was distracted enough for Rouge to get past.

How asymmetrical can a social mechanics system get? Does it help to tilt the system in favor of the PCs?

I can't believe I missed that. Yeah, that seems like a bad mechanic.


Your social skills limit your role-playing ability, without mechanical support I can't charm a character if I can't charm its player.

Hmmm... I see the disconnect. To my definition of roleplaying, the roleplaying is being done by the character being charmed, not by the character making the charm attempt. Which should have nothing to do with social skills.

[Segev]

How does one avoid making the players feel insulted by their character being successfully seduced by another character?How does one avoid making the players feel insulted by their character being successfully K.O.'d by another character?


Would the PCs have to write up character sheets dictating the 'social stats' of their characters, which would help decide if Lynn's attempt works on Sam?Well...yes? If the social system is built to be as in-depth as the combat system, then it would stand to reason you'd need as much written down for it as you do for the combat system, wouldn't it?


So far, as soon as Lynn attempts to seduce Sam, she's won and Sam lost. Sam gets to choose what kind of loss he wants, but he still lost.Nonsense. If Lynn attempts to seduce Sam, but she fails, she doesn't get to apply penalties to his efforts to do things other than spend sexy times with her. Don't get confused, here; the "penalties and bonuses" stuff is about the consequences of successful social influence, just as "death and incapacitation" are about the consequences of winning/losing combat.

If Lynn is to the point where she gives bonuses for going along with her seduction, and penalties for no-selling it, then she's already at the analogous point to the orc having beaten Sam to 0 or lower hp.


Could this hypothetical system be written such that sexual seduction doesn't have to come into the picture, in case the players don't want sexual or romantic content in their games? Maybe that's part of why it's hard to accept seduction.Sure, same as you can exclude any element you don't want. That's not a function of the system. If you don't want combat, don't play a game that encourages it. Run it with non-combat solutions available, and don't have the NPCs or PCs start fights.


YMMV, but if I was playing Sam, I would rather that Lynn's seduction attempts failed, but the fact that she annoyed Sam with her seduction means he was distracted enough for Rouge to get past.That would be a valid way to run it in a vacuum, but if building up emotional ties is part of the system, probably not. "I don't want Sam to like Lynn, so no matter what she does, she can't make him like her," is about as fair a statement as "I don't want Sam to lose to that orc, so no matter what she does, she can't K.O. him."


How asymmetrical can a social mechanics system get? Does it help to tilt the system in favor of the PCs?I'm not a fan of asymmetrical mechanics as a general rule, so I would be biased if I tried to analyze this. To me, if the rules are different based on you being a PC or an NPC, it invites a situation where the PCs just don't get to be as awesome as the NPCs. Even if it's meant to facilitate exactly the opposite, it's a risk that is built in with that design paradigm.

[Segev]

I can't believe I missed that. Yeah, that seems like a bad mechanic.It's an inaccurate read of what I was discussing. So is a false statement (albeit an innocently-made one).


Hmmm... I see the disconnect. To my definition of roleplaying, the roleplaying is being done by the character being charmed, not by the character making the charm attempt. Which should have nothing to do with social skills.
Is it then your definition of role-playing that the RP is done by the character being slain by the gladiator, not by the gladiator doing the slaying? Do we thus not need combat mechanics, either?

[Max_Killjoy]

Hmmm... I see the disconnect. To my definition of roleplaying, the roleplaying is being done by the character being charmed, not by the character making the charm attempt. Which should have nothing to do with social skills.


Wouldn't there be role-playing on both sides of that encounter, whether between two PCs, or between a PC and an NPC?

[Quertus]

Wouldn't there be role-playing on both sides of that encounter, whether between two PCs, or between a PC and an NPC?

Yes. :smallredface:

[goto124]

If Lynn is to the point where she gives bonuses for going along with her seduction, and penalties for no-selling it, then she's already at the analogous point to the orc having beaten Sam to 0 or lower hp.

Oh. Silly me. Carry on.

Actually, doesn't that mean we need mechanics to define everything that happens between "start of battle" and "0 HP"? Would a combat-style HP-like system work well, since the outcome isn't outright death or the like?

[Segev]

Oh. Silly me. Carry on.

Actually, doesn't that mean we need mechanics to define everything that happens between "start of battle" and "0 HP"? Would a combat-style HP-like system work well, since the outcome isn't outright death or the like?

I would avoid a "combat-like" approach in that the system of "to hit, damage" implies that there is a defense and an attack at all times, and that there's a separation between effectiveness of approach and amount of persuasion.

Now, there often will be a "conflict" element, in that the most common social situations involve one character trying to persuade another to change their mind on an issue, or to like them when they otherwise wouldn't, or to perform some specific activity. But even then, not every one of those really is well-modeled by an idea that you have to "defeat" them in social "combat."

Let's look at Sec. Xi Lyn and Sam O'Riley, and their first meeting, a day or so before the time she tries to seduce him away from his post. She has a general MO of trying to get guys to fall for her (or at least want her in a shallow sort of way), and so her efforts are towards learning what makes Sam tick. What does he value? What about her can she emphasize to build a bit of familiarity and even attraction?

Unless Sam has reason to resist her efforts, he's probably more focused on likewise making a good impression. So the social interaction has both of them trying to build up a sense of positive feeling towards themselves in the other. Lyn, though, is more focused on finding out what Sam likes and dislikes, and how to fit that, while Sam is trying to demonstrate his honorable, noble nature in hopes it will make a good impression. Lyn, being the socialite, probably has more successes in her efforts than does Sam. Sam's efforts ring hollow or futile to her because they run right up against (mechanically backed) beliefs of Lyn's, rooted in her jaded nature, that all such things are foolish or dishonest. She may think him a nice enough fool, if she thinks him genuine. Meanwhile, she's going to milk his efforts to learn what he values, and try to play to that. She wants him to think of her as attractive. Maybe she even wants to make him think she is attracted to him.

Sam probably wants to read her, to see what she's feeling for real (whether he's offending her and she's too polite to say so, or if she's really "in" to him, etc.).

To model situations where somebody wants to convince somebody else of their sincerity, I'd probably set a baseline "wants to believe them" target to overcome. If the one doing the sincerity check can't beat that, then the one doing the motive-sensing just doesn't buy it (even if true). Their own nature is just too distrusting. If the sincere one is genuine, the motive-senser's roll to read them can lower this threshold. If the sincere one is faking, the motive-senser's roll will serve as an additional barrier; the fake-sincerity has to overcome that AND the innate "wants to believe" difficulty.

Once Lyn figures out what Sam values, she can actually pull on those levers. Rolls against them can grant the bonuses and penalties, based on their degree of success and the strength of the personality trait (preference, belief, ideal, whatever) being tugged. I don't think a "hit points" system would work well here, but something related might: some sort of gauge that has to be filled to start overcoming it, which empties with distance and emotional separation/reprieve (a chance to "cool down" or "regain composure"). I'd probably make that guage start to fill based on how great the successes rolled were compared to a threshold value; maybe each increment of that value fills it by one.

AT this point, I don't really have the wherewithal to flesh this out more solidly. There are definitely holes and incomplete bits; I'm not writing a whole social system here, especially not without the rest of a game to hang it on. But I hope this gives an idea what I'm going for: discovering "hooks," building on them, playing off them, or even building new ones or dismantling old ones (altering their nature being a process of building and dismantling at once). Stronger hooks are easier to get results with, but harder to change and harder to get results that oppose them. If you can play on a hook, you probably can get something akin to the "roll Diplomacy to get immediate results" effects. But if you're opposing one, you probably lose any such efforts. So the social influence mini-game is about finding hooks you can use, avoiding hooks that oppose your goal, and possibly eroding those that are just plain in the way while building new ones to let you more easily play upon them.

Lyn's strategy is often to simply seek to build one of infatuation towards herself, because she's very good at building that specific hook and then pulling it for all it's worth. Another person might prefer to be an expert at discovering hooks and using them in combination with lies and spin (where needed) to get what he wants. It could even be possible for a clever socialite to use hooks that seem antithetical (e.g. one of hatred towards himself or his race or the like) to get what he wants, possibly by lying or making it seem that doing what he wants will hurt him. ("No, please don't attack me and ignore my friends getting the MacGuffin, Mr. Personal Enemy Who Hates My Guts In Particular! I would HATE that!")

So the only time it becomes "roll social and win" is when it's the kind of thing the target character would already want to do, if just presented right. Otherwise, the socialite has to figure out a way to get around to it, and possibly has to build or break down hooks to get what he wants. And that's where the "hit point" like thing would fit in: removing hooks that would get in the way (or at least convincing the target to let it slide "this once"), and building hooks that actually let you get what you want (e.g. sympathy for people that would normally be ignored, so you can get them to do a favor to benefit those people, or guilt for something he'd normally be fine with so you can get him to 'make amends' in a manner of your persuading).


Does that make sense? I know it's rambly and...incomplete.