It's not my fault, I am just doing what the dice say my character would do! [Archive] - Page 5

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-13, 12:16 AM

To first: Yeah. This, I think folds in nicely to the discussion about different social skills that is going on.

To second: Why? It is using manipulate as "Get people to be or act (more) like you'd like them to", which I think most people would agree it means. Yes, manipulate has a certain negative connotation, but in describing social systems for RPGs, I tend to use it more neutral. Because other than morale, one can't really draw a clear line imho. Maybe I should have specified that.

Manipulation in the context of one person manipulating other isn't a matter of negative connotations, it's straight up negative. By its very nature it involves deceit, coercion, and the like. For manipulation to be at all "positive" requires a very narrow set of circumstances where it's the least-bad option available. (IE, lying to someone to keep them from doing something terrible.)

To third:
"My levers are way off most people" is so far away from "noone can give me what I want" I don't even know what to say.

And yet both are true, regardless of whether you might believe it.

...Also, again: You not being faced with the temptation can make assessments and guesses, but never give a guarantee how you would react in any given situation, if you have no experienced it beforehand. You can say you wouldn't all you want, but that has little bearing on the question if you actually WOULD. For this example, ten billion is a nice and comfortable number - because humans can't really comprehend it. I believe that you THINK you wouldn't. I just don't believe that that has much to say on whether you actually WOULD.

That's because you don't know me. :smallwink:

(Also, dude. Don't turn your emotions of. That is... unhealthy as hell. It can work as a coping mechanism for some time, but seriously, it will backfire eventually. I mean, I might be wrong and this again a case of you using the same words as I would, but for something different, but let me tell you, from sad and unfortunate experience, that if what you are describing is in any way even close to what I understand, it is not sustainable for your mental health. And that I would recommend that you, if at all possible, go see a therapist about this.
...Sorry. Your description just kinda hits too close to home for bull**** I used to do. :smallwink: )

It is what it is. Can't change the circumstances, can't change the past, and can't change how my memory works. It's better than the alternative.

To fourth: I think you are overestimating the effect. Or rather, you are underestimating how easy it can be to work around that.

If it's that easy to work around... it wasn't ever actually the sort of thing I'm referring to.

To fifth: I don't think your assertions are true. Because ultimately, yeah. But "the situation that was originally laid out" is in fact a lever that was pulled. And for some people, the levers to pull are extrodinarily difficult, amoral and time-consuming to pull. But I find this to be all the more reason for a fleshed-out social system; rather than just narrating it. Because I find "just narrating it" to be ultimately unsatisfactory in a game that for me, is about rolling dice and being able to do things you couldn't IRL.

There comes a point of "difficult and time consuming to pull" that's functionally impossible without "superhuman" means, and maybe even with.

I can understand why you might, but find this quite presumptuous. Because ultimately it boils down to "someone tried this on me once, it didn't work, so it can never work". And you can probably see why this is a bad argument.
Now as I say, I have both successfully (and unsuccessfully) "seduced" people as well as been successfully (and unsuccessfully) been "seduced". Granted, I might be an easier target than you, Max (...Even with the little you shared about yourself there I actually know that I am), but I know from experience that it CAN work. And noone ever asserted that any and all seduction attempts must be successful.

The assertion was, however, that any seduction attempt could be successful in at least "enticing" the target if the right "levers" are identified, that it's just a matter of being "skilled enough".

Sometimes, there's just literally no way to accomplish a thing.

A system such as the proposed would have to make it possible to build for the case of people working like both of us - "Not before I know you" as well as "Offer me and I will probably say yes". Though I do also know that some people can, if the exact right "buttons" are pressed suddenly forget much of the requirements they once thought fundamental. I've been there myself - more with enticing than with seduction in the literal sense (This is about smoking of waterpipes for me as an avid, AVID nonsmoker.) One can go about things a bit more intelligently than the girl in your example.

Certainly. However, one can also beat one's head against a brick wall, and the brick wall's never coming down. There's no technique for that.

Her failure was assured by the very act of trying.

Segev

2017-01-13, 11:15 AM

Yes... the problem is, "the correct tactic" doesn't map to seduction, or enticement, or whatever you want to call it -- unless one wants to include "spend several months forming an actual relationship" under the heading of "seduction and enticement".All valid points; it is something to consider in designing such a system.

I suspect that for anybody, there exists a tactic which could override the "but I don't know you!" characteristic, but it is going to be different for each person and is going to be quite a surprise to those who encounter somebody who can find it and use it. I won't presume to know what that might be for you, as I'm not building you as a character. I honestly don't know what it would be for me. Personally, I have a very staunch "not going to have sex before marriage" moral stance. Intimate physical contact with anybody I could potentially consider sexually attractive is thus more than a little uncomfortable for me, because it hits my "this is wrong" buttons. I haven't gotten close enough to anybody to feel it...right. (Should I ever fall in love, I expect I'll warm up quickly.) But at the same time, lust is a personal weakness of mine, so I don't put myself in situations where it can be aroused as a general rule. I would rather not test the "this is wrong" barrier against an actively-stimulated libido.

In gameplay terms, it may not be possible to get Max_Killjoy the character in this aggressive one-night-stand-seeker's bed. Not out of lust, at least. This obviously leads to even skeevier territory as efforts for this hypothetical sexual predatrix to get his consent become less about enflaming desire and more about making him do it anyway.

In a lot of gameplay situations, though, it may not be the actual sex that the seductress desires, but the manipulation of the target's emotions and behaviors her arousing desire for sex with her can enable. The Pirate Queen is a case where she really is in it for the sex, herself, but a lot of classic situations involve "you want me so badly you'll do a favor for me." Like the cute girl who wants into the exclusive club so she flirts with the bouncer.

Such situations would not HAVE to go to sex to work out.

Anyway, the more focused point is that you're right; examining the barriers to "immediate" temptation is important in designing a social system.

If there is a veto, who gets to do it, the DM or the controlling player?Wasn't directed at me, but in the system I've been theorizing, it'd be the player. The system only tells the player how the character FEELS about a situation, and the emotional costs or rewards. The player makes the final choice as to how to act on it. The player is the ultimate arbiter of the PC's Agency.

Segev mentioned Futurama as an example that works because we (both Bender and the audience) so how the story played out, and ultimately Bender had, at least the illusion, of choice. But if that was just accomplished by a die roll it would be cheap and / or horrifying. It would feel like someone's master swordsman losing to a small child with a stick off screen because they rolled a 1.Agreed. It's one reason I like the idea of a more in-depth system that actually plays out over the course of multiple "moves."

To use combat as an analogy again, it'd be far less believable for a pack of kobolds to overwhelm a well-armed party of adventurers with a single unlucky "combat roll" that says "kobold's win outright" than it is to run an actual combat, and see step by step how the dice betray the party again and again, and the PCs are fooled or outmaneuvered by these low-level threats. Either way, it's an unlikely outcome, but the witnessing of how it happened makes it more believable in the latter case than the former.

I am standing in awe of the fact of "How did I not come up with that". It is definitely a much better way to handle things, RPG-wise. ...I am running through new sortings in my head based on this right now. The rest of your post just serves to stress that. Maybe by my next post I will have sorted my thoughts enough to post a new sorting. I'll keep you updated^^Cool; glad you like it. To be fair, this is a subject I've given a fair amount of thought to, off and on, over the years. So making the move from "seduction" to "what is seduction actually doing?" to "enticement" was something I had groundwork laid for. :smallsmile:

The target numbers for talking someone into handing you all their stuff or killing themselves out of the blue without any sort of groundwork would be so astronomical as to unreachable without magical influence.As we've discussed the topic of "no, just no" reactions and needing to have somebody WILLING to be convinced, I've come to the conclusion that a well-designed system wouldn't have it be about getting "big enough numbers" at all. Instead, it'd be about removing, undermining, or altering those barriers that make the target recalcitrant.

Which makes for an interesting design challenge.

And, the described "Making big changes requires extraordinary circumstances" is precisely why more fleshed out social systems and relaying the whole stuff onto multiple different rolls over a longer time, to make the target numbers actually feasible, would be my preference.Agreed.

Exactly. And who sets those numbers?The system, during play. The builder of the characters in question, when the characters are built.

For clarity, I think it needs to be pointed out again that "morale" and "moral" are NOT the same thing.Absolutely. Quoting for emphasis.

Morale (with an 'e') is pronounced "More Al" (like the first part of "Albert") and refers to how you feel. Your overall mood and good cheer. High morale is confidence, comfort with the situation, and "feeling good" about things in general. Low morale is being depressed (not necessarily clinically; that's different), despondent, hopeless, and generally "down" about how things are going.

Morals (without an 'e') are what you find to be acceptable behavior. They define "sins" and "righteous choices." Most people, for example, agree that murder and rape are immoral. Some view extramarital sex as immoral (both pre-marital and 'cheating on your spouse'). How moral you feel a choice is can impact how making it affects your morale, but they are very much not the same thing.

Manipulation in the context of one person manipulating other isn't a matter of negative connotations, it's straight up negative. By its very nature it involves deceit, coercion, and the like. For manipulation to be at all "positive" requires a very narrow set of circumstances where it's the least-bad option available. (IE, lying to someone to keep them from doing something terrible.) While it often has that connotation, its denotation need not.

Telling somebody the absolute truth and playing on their emotions with utter honesty is still manipulation. Manipulation is not all bad, all the time. We just don't tend to get our backs up about it when its cajoling and we're actually convinced what we were manipulated into doing is the right thing, even after the fact. We only tend to be upset about manipulation if we feel tricked, used, or exploited.

"She's manipulating you, man!" says a friend to a guy who's crush has offered him her favor in exchange for him doing something she wants. "Yeah, and it's working," says the guy, who is happy to know he's making his crush happy, and thus actually is glad to do it. Maybe he expects some tit for tat, or maybe her smile is enough. But he recognizes the manipulation; he just doesn't mind it. (Interestingly, the crush's girlfriend might raise her eyebrow and say the guy is manipulating her, because he's getting what he wants by agreeing to do something she wants.)

The assertion was, however, that any seduction attempt could be successful in at least "enticing" the target if the right "levers" are identified, that it's just a matter of being "skilled enough". Technically, if you're pulling different levers, it's a different seduction.

Sometimes, there's just literally no way to accomplish a thing. Sometimes. But...let's look at your inept seductress from your example, again. You said you did find her attractive. What if, instead of coming on stronger the second time, she'd backed off, and instead just tried to engage you on a more platonic level? Or kept being flirty, but not in a "take me now" sort of way...more in a "get a date later" sort of way?

If her goals was not time-limited to "get you into her bed right now," but instead was "get into your pants eventually," could she not have potentially hooked your interest at this first encounter (even, perhaps, made you think once or twice about her in a salacious sort of way, even if you'd quash that and refuse to act on it right then)? Then used the interest to gain additional opportunities to get to know you, and eventually have you be comfortable enough that her seduction efforts might work?

Again, it would take a more involved social system and a character willing and able to engage in the tactics that CAN work, but I posit it's doable.

Certainly. However, one can also beat one's head against a brick wall, and the brick wall's never coming down. There's no technique for that.

Her failure was assured by the very act of trying.
On the other hand, one can try to walk around it, or to start picking at the mortar with one's fingernails (or better tools). Or to dig under or climb over it.

Different approaches, efforts to remove the barrier or get around it. Or to wear it down, where you can't bash straight through.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-13, 11:39 AM

While it often has that connotation, its denotation need not.

Telling somebody the absolute truth and playing on their emotions with utter honesty is still manipulation. Manipulation is not all bad, all the time. We just don't tend to get our backs up about it when its cajoling and we're actually convinced what we were manipulated into doing is the right thing, even after the fact. We only tend to be upset about manipulation if we feel tricked, used, or exploited.

At least for me, that "cajoling" is aggravating either way, it's a matter of degree of aggravation rather than not being aggravated at all when it's "harmless" or "the right thing". My friends and family know to not push when I say "no thank you" or "not interested" or "I'd rather not".

Other people aren't, I gather, as bothered by it.

Sometimes. But...let's look at your inept seductress from your example, again. You said you did find her attractive. What if, instead of coming on stronger the second time, she'd backed off, and instead just tried to engage you on a more platonic level? Or kept being flirty, but not in a "take me now" sort of way...more in a "get a date later" sort of way?

If her goals was not time-limited to "get you into her bed right now," but instead was "get into your pants eventually," could she not have potentially hooked your interest at this first encounter (even, perhaps, made you think once or twice about her in a salacious sort of way, even if you'd quash that and refuse to act on it right then)? Then used the interest to gain additional opportunities to get to know you, and eventually have you be comfortable enough that her seduction efforts might work?

Again, it would take a more involved social system and a character willing and able to engage in the tactics that CAN work, but I posit it's doable.

At what point does that blur the lines into an actual relationship, and proven trustworthiness, as opposed to a manipulation? Should someone who is in a relationship always have the thought "something else could be going on here" in the back of their mind?

Or are we not separating the one from the other at all?

Segev

2017-01-13, 12:04 PM

At least for me, that "cajoling" is aggravating either way, it's a matter of degree of aggravation rather than not being aggravated at all when it's "harmless" or "the right thing". My friends and family know to not push when I say "no thank you" or "not interested" or "I'd rather not". See, to me, "But we're going to go to this other thing you like afterwards, and can't come back to pick you up," or "But your best friend from high school you said you wanted to see again will be there," or "No, we're not going to THAT restaurant you thought we were, but this other one we think you like," are all forms of manipulation. Not negative ones. But they are. I don't even see them as particularly pushy. Giving somebody information they didn't have which can change how they view a choice or situation is often a good thing to do.

Telling somebody a situation is what it is, honestly, and knowing how they're most likely to react, IS manipulating them into taking that action. Assuming they aren't the sort to say, "I wish I hadn't known the truth so that I wouldn't have had to act on it," it also is not wicked or malign. Because they'll be glad that they knew what was what so that they could do what they want to do about it, acting on complete information.

At what point does that blur the lines into an actual relationship, and proven trustworthiness, as opposed to a manipulation? Should someone who is in a relationship always have the thought "something else could be going on here" in the back of their mind?

Or are we not separating the one from the other at all?I don't think we really can separate the two. I mean, let's assume your would-be seductress was genuinely interested in you for your body, with no other ulterior motives, for this example.

IF she's good enough at reading you to realize that she's not getting into your pants without forming a relationship, and acts on that to try to get to know you (and get you to know her) better, is she manipulating you? Or is she forming a relationship because her libido wants her to, and later finding additional things she likes about you? Are you manipulating her by also trying to build a relationship, since her initial motive was sex with you and you're holding that back as something she's going to have to "earn" by winning you over in a more complete relationship?

I do get that you mean a narrower definition of "manipulate," but I find that the line between "good persuasion" and "manipulation" is fuzzy when we use the word "manipulate." I can draw some bright lines of ethics and morals: most of the time, using deception is the bad kind. If nothing else, it's an indication that you know you're trying to get them to do something they wouldn't normally want to do. Emotional manipulation is...trickier. There's nothing wrong with a loved one telling you that you're hurting them and asking you to behave differently. But there is something wrong with a loved one using that to push for too much. The line of "too much" is a source of a lot of fights between people who genuinely care about each other. Which is why it's hard to say when it's "bad manipulation" or "legitimate requests for aid."

Because if Bob asks his girlfriend, Alice, to skip her book club tonight 'cause he wants to watch a movie with her, and she says "no," he's probably "in the right" to push for it with increasingly desperate pleas if he has a legitimate, pressing need for her company and comfort due to something bad that happened. e.g. he just found out his father is dying with cancer, and he NEEDs his girlfriend's support. But it's bad if he plays that "but I NEED you tonight" card and the reason he needs her is...not actually that severe.

How severe is a very valid question. It's the paradox of the heap, as somebody else pointed out a while back in this thread. But it's manipulation of Alice either way; it's just acceptable manipulation in some cases, because his need is genuinely "great enough." And, assuming she loves him, she probably would want to be there for him in such times, more than she wants to go to a book club meeting.

Cluedrew

2017-01-13, 04:58 PM

This problem comes up if you assume the GM is playing strictly by RAW (except that Apocalypse World makes it clear that moves are engaged by the fiction making the situation possible, not the other way around so even then it would be against RAW, and PCs can always just ignore whatever you were wanting them to do and tell you to shove off EVEN WHEN YOU SUCCEED.)Besides Apocalypse World's take on the matter I actually tend to insert my own version of rule 0. It goes something like this "Do what makes sense."* I think it is unreasonable for a rule set to cover every possible situation, even if we are talking about something simple like... pottery.

I'm not sure how hard it would be to cover every single situation that could come up in pottery making... but I'm willing to bet the rules for determining the damage done by a burst air pocket and the shards it sends flying would be unwieldy at the very least.

So we go for approximations in some cases and in others we leave the override button in the hands of the people actually playing. And I don't actually see why that is actually a problem. The rules should handle the common cases (which is dependant on the game you are playing) and should handle them well. But every single corner case that could come up? Why bother?

* Exception, sufficiently cartoony games: Because it just doesn't matter.

I wanted to say some stuff on manipulation, veto and Segev's social system... but after sitting here for 15 minutes I just have to admit I don't have it worked out yet.

0

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-13, 05:08 PM

Besides Apocalypse World's take on the matter I actually tend to insert my own version of rule 0. It goes something like this "Do what makes sense."* I think it is unreasonable for a rule set to cover every possible situation, even if we are talking about something simple like... pottery.

I'm not sure how hard it would be to cover every single situation that could come up in pottery making... but I'm willing to bet the rules for determining the damage done by a burst air pocket and the shards it sends flying would be unwieldy at the very least.

So we go for approximations in some cases and in others we leave the override button in the hands of the people actually playing. And I don't actually see why that is actually a problem. The rules should handle the common cases (which is dependant on the game you are playing) and should handle them well. But every single corner case that could come up? Why bother?

* Exception, sufficiently cartoony games: Because it just doesn't matter.

I wanted to say some stuff on manipulation, veto and Segev's social system... but after sitting here for 15 minutes I just have to admit I don't have it worked out yet.

0

AW shares your philosophy. It doesn't attempt to codify all things. But it DOES have actual rules about rules not engaging when it's obviously not appropriate for the move to engage. And the moves tell you what might cause them to come up.

Floret

2017-01-14, 07:57 AM

Exactly. And who sets those numbers?

Edit: Also, earlier in the thread didn't you say that if a player was uncomfortable with something you were forcing their character to do that you would ask them to leave the game before changing your story?

The GM, with possibility for input from the players, along guidelines set by the system.
Now what I feel you are pointing out here is that a GM might abuse these rules. And yeah, they might - but they might do so with every rule. And the problem here is not the rule - is that you are playing with someone who abuses rules for their own powertrip.

And the Edit, again is at least a misunderstanding if not a misrepresentation of what I said. I did say that if the player was uncomfortable with something their character was convinced to do, I will, after being told this, drop the matter. I just ALSO said, that if a player routinely and consistently ignored the results of social rolls affecting their character, their playstyle was probably not a great fit for mine, and we would both be better off going seperate ways TRPG-gaming wise.

"My story" doesn't come in at all. Sure, I have a story prepared, but I will only push it in absence of player input - and my players are rather creative in circumventing exactly the areas I have preparation for. I feel like you are, again, trying to put my method up as some method of railroading - which I just... absolutely do not believe it is. Let's maybe take my Shadowrun game. There has not been a single session so far where the players did NOT suddenly come up with plans upon plans that involved at least one NPC I had no idea was necessary, did not require me to have google open during the whole time, frantically helping me to come up with names of people and places that were suddenly required to exist, and generally coming up with everything needed to supply the players with the facts and stats needed to play through their plans. (Sure, this is the most sandboxy campaign I run, but in none of my games have I ever said "no, you cannot do that", or used an NPC talking the characters out of a plan to make them go along with the ones I had laid out. I rewrote climaxes on the fly and put work on dozens of scenes and countless characters to the bin because the players just... didn't go the route that I would have expected them to.)
My point is: I feel like you are accusing me of railroading, and I take offense to that.

Now since Shadowrun does not have a morale system, it runs on my "If you loose a social roll, your character is roughly convinced/will do about what was asked of them/are affected by whatever the NPCs goals in the roll were" rule. There have been situations, where social rolls have been made against players. There have been times they have lost them. But while it might have made their character like a certain NPC (Sure, I probably did as much with my voiceacting for that), or made them switch topics of conversation, it was never used by some higher authority as a hidden "you can't do that".
The example I brought up some time earlier from L5R? Of the Higher-up Courtier convincing the groups courtier to go talk to her superior and tell her to act a certain way? She did, and thereby learned more about what was going on, since she had a private talk with her superior about the goings-on. The players COULD of course have learned that another way - or even gone talk to her regardless of not having to because of the roll. The player even put her own spin on what she said (Not "This is a great idea" but "It was suggested to me to suggest for you to do that. I am unsure of the motives behind it, but I did not sense malice.") That was totally okay. She went, and suggested to her superior a course of action - that was the result of the roll. Everything else is interpretation.

Manipulation in the context of one person manipulating other isn't a matter of negative connotations, it's straight up negative. By its very nature it involves deceit, coercion, and the like. For manipulation to be at all "positive" requires a very narrow set of circumstances where it's the least-bad option available. (IE, lying to someone to keep them from doing something terrible.)

Segev said much of how I feel on the subject. The borders of what constitutes manipulation are somewhat fluid, and it can be used somewhat neutrally as "Get people to do things for you that they would possibly have not without your input". That input need not be coercion. "I will give you a kiss if you do that for me" is, on a base level, also manipulation and at least in a grey zone. But I would hardly see deceit, malice or coercion in it. And on the base level, if you ask, over family dinner, for someone to hand you the salt, you are getting them to act differently based on your input - but I don't think anybody would consider it evil. It can, however be included in the broadest definitions of the term manipulation. Social interaction is based around influencing one another.
And at least for me (and appearantly Segev) this is the broadness I mean when I talk about manipulation for constructing social mechanics.

And yet both are true, regardless of whether you might believe it.

That's because you don't know me. :smallwink:

Maybe. Or maybe not. Seriously, you can't really contest the assertion "Things being offered to you is different from imagining things being offered to you, and can have different reactions"? Because that would mean you either have the most vivid imagination ever, being identical to real life, or you just haven't had any such imagination tested.

If it's that easy to work around... it wasn't ever actually the sort of thing I'm referring to.

Or it was. Someone digging in against one angle mostentimes leaves themselves open from the sides.

There comes a point of "difficult and time consuming to pull" that's functionally impossible without "superhuman" means, and maybe even with.

Sure. Any system would either have to be build to accomodate that, or state outright "this isn't about modelling reality".

The assertion was, however, that any seduction attempt could be successful in at least "enticing" the target if the right "levers" are identified, that it's just a matter of being "skilled enough".

Sometimes, there's just literally no way to accomplish a thing.

A very specific thing? Possibly, yes. At least none that wasn't so timeconsuming and immoral as to be utterly unfeasible. (Specific as in "Get person to have sex right now")
But this wasn't what Segev was talking about - rather, he was, I think, talking about a general direction. (General as in "Get person to feel some itching".) And I truly believe that there is a way to make most everyone feel an itching.

Certainly. However, one can also beat one's head against a brick wall, and the brick wall's never coming down. There's no technique for that.

Her failure was assured by the very act of trying.

No, it wasn't, at least not in the example you provide. Her failure was quite transparently the way of trying and not changing it up, thereby annoying you. If I were in her situation (And given I had the same goals as her), I'd probably (If I noticed), drop the direct approach, and just talk about hobbies or whatever to get to know you. "Erode the barriers" somewhat, in Game terms, lessen the gap between what you think you need and what is there.
Yesyes, it wouldn't have worked. You keep saying that. In absence of proof, I remain unconvinced. Sorry.

(Also... Yeah you can. If the brick wall is sufficiently pre-damaged, a precise headbutt might even get it to come down, to continue the metaphor.)

Cool; glad you like it. To be fair, this is a subject I've given a fair amount of thought to, off and on, over the years. So making the move from "seduction" to "what is seduction actually doing?" to "enticement" was something I had groundwork laid for. :smallsmile:

Well, possibly. It still feels so utterly direct. Below I have tried to put words to the thoughts I started after your post last time.

As we've discussed the topic of "no, just no" reactions and needing to have somebody WILLING to be convinced, I've come to the conclusion that a well-designed system wouldn't have it be about getting "big enough numbers" at all. Instead, it'd be about removing, undermining, or altering those barriers that make the target recalcitrant.

Which makes for an interesting design challenge.

I think we are somewhat in agreement here, actually - the "big enough numbers" are to be totally and utterly out of reach for any player. What the system would require you to do, rather than bash your head against that unsurmountable wall, is, if you want to get through it, erode it, like you pointed out.

After responding, now, I have come up with some other thoughts about social skills, somewhat inspired by Segevs post earlier. But first, let me make a slight detour about Charisma.

Because I think that "Charisma" as a term and stat somewhat misses the mark about what is really going on. I kinda feel it isn't at the same "base" level as other stats we often talk about - Strength, Constitution, Intelligence, that sort of thing. Charisma is often described as charm, a sort of "aura of likability" or the like. (...really, how the hell am I supposed to translate the German "Ausstrahlung" into english if the only fitting result for this specific connotation is "charisma"...) Force of personality is cited by Shadowrun. Degenesis talks about an "authentic presence", not having to distort oneself to be liked. I think the latter is actually much more on point.

Because ultimately, from my lived experience, this isn't about some innate force of Charisma. This is mostly about selfconfidence. (Or... well. Small German lesson: "Selfconfidence", translated into German, means "Selbstbewusstsein". Now, that word has something very important in it: "Bewusstsein", translated mostly to "consciousness". Selbstbewusstsein means to be aware of who you are. (Somewhat interesting that English has the literal translation "Selfconsciousness" as the utter opposite.) What I am talking about is, of course, inspired a good bit by the German term and connotations.) The problem with Charisma, and the point where Max' problem with the concept come in, is when it runs into "Fakeness". As Degenesis describes, the most likable people are generally authentic (Or, appear authentic, but this then is up to acting or bluff skills to mask.). Well. With a caveat. Authentic, and somewhat interesting and uplifting to be around. But people who are genuinely aware of their strengths and confident to talk about their interests mosten times naturally provide interesting topics, and hearing people talk about things their likes, seeing their joy, can be very uplifting. Other than a general "aura of likability", Selfconfidence can also help with just going ahead and talking, improvising (Or having the confidence to say the improvised things), not overthinking, which generally helps quite a lot in getting people to react and in favour with you.

This is, I feel, where the "lovable rogue" archetype falls - they do things we should dislike, but do so with an utter confidence and honesty, that we somehow can't help ourselves to like them.
"Be confident" is often part of flirting tips - but for very good reason.

Now note, again, I am not talking about people that are just full of themselves. This is being confident in your skills, not thinking you are gods greatest gift to man. If there is a difference between your presentation and what people actually feel is going on, this is gonna backfire.

tl,dr: "Charisma" I find is less fit to be a central stat and too wishy-washy a term, I think it is more about "Selfconfidence", from which Charisma grows.

For the rest of my thoughts. After looking at Segev's ideas, I propose another sorting of social skills:

1. Sincerity „I fully believe what I am saying“ (Bluff/Intimidate/Saying the truth convincingly)
2. Enticing “C’mon it will be worth it” (Seduce, something more)
3. Social Engineering (?) “Make people like/dislike you” (This would primarily give modifiers for further rolls or take them away (Through a "likes you"/"dislikes you" condition). Sometimes part of Persuade. Leadership could possibly fit in here as well, depending on what you do.)
4. Psychology (Long-lasting, manipulating efforts reframing worldviews)

And on the defensive (I like contested rolls for this sort of thing...)
5. “Don’t make an arse of yourself in social environments” – could double as a potential way of resisting at least (the effects of) social Engineering and Enticing; main focus would be sth like “Social stealth”
6. Willpower “No, I won’t”, defensive, defending against the other’s

Some part of me feels like I am missing something - but I don't quite see what. So have at it^^

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-14, 09:32 AM

If your response to someone saying "This is a thing that is true of me as an individual person" is to repeatedly say "No it's not" and "I know better"...

...then you're repeatedly making my point for me, about how terrible, unfun, and toxic it is to give anyone other than the player any say-so about what's going on inside the character.

And repeatedly hitting that same note to try to convince someone of something they're clearly not going to change their mind about, is kinda ironic, given the example being discussed.

Floret

2017-01-14, 10:35 AM

Please note that what I am saying isn't "This isn't true". I am saying that "In the absence of it ever having been tested, we cannot actually KNOW if it's true", based on the tried and tested assertion "Things being offered to you is different from imagining things being offered to you, and can have different reactions".

I have never said "No, you don't believe that". I have said, and stand by the statement of "You believing it doesn't necessarily make it so, and unless it was tested, we have no way of knowing. Therefor asserting that this IS how you work, is an assumption, not a fact."

Or, more simplified: Humans aren't actually all that good at self-assessment.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-14, 11:51 AM

For response, see my most recent post above.

The hole keeps getting deeper... maybe you should stop digging.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-14, 01:07 PM

For response, see my most recent post above.

The whole keeps getting deeper... maybe you should stop digging.

At this point you're purposefully misunderstanding what people are telling you for the sake of getting mad.

Bruh.

BRUH.

BRUH.

Wut r u doin

Cluedrew

2017-01-14, 01:26 PM

AW shares your philosophy.A Powered by the Apocalypse system was part of the reason I am pretty confident about that philosophy. I had been working on it before I saw any Powered by the Apocalypse games, but seeing it in action convinced me. At least for the style of game I am going for it was they way to go.

Because I think that "Charisma" as a term and stat somewhat misses the mark about what is really going on. I kinda feel it isn't at the same "base" level as other stats we often talk about - Strength, Constitution, Intelligence, that sort of thing. Charisma is often described as charm, a sort of "aura of likability" or the like. (...really, how the hell am I supposed to translate the German "Ausstrahlung" into english if the only fitting result for this specific connotation is "charisma"...) Force of personality is cited by Shadowrun. Degenesis talks about an "authentic presence", not having to distort oneself to be liked. I think the latter is actually much more on point.

Because ultimately, from my lived experience, this isn't about some innate force of Charisma. This is mostly about selfconfidence. (Or... well. Small German lesson: "Selfconfidence", translated into German, means "Selbstbewusstsein". Now, that word has something very important in it: "Bewusstsein", translated mostly to "consciousness". Selbstbewusstsein means to be aware of who you are. (Somewhat interesting that English has the literal translation "Selfconsciousness" as the utter opposite.) What I am talking about is, of course, inspired a good bit by the German term and connotations.) The problem with Charisma, and the point where Max' problem with the concept come in, is when it runs into "Fakeness". As Degenesis describes, the most likable people are generally authentic (Or, appear authentic, but this then is up to acting or bluff skills to mask.). Well. With a caveat. Authentic, and somewhat interesting and uplifting to be around. But people who are genuinely aware of their strengths and confident to talk about their interests mosten times naturally provide interesting topics, and hearing people talk about things their likes, seeing their joy, can be very uplifting. Other than a general "aura of likability", Selfconfidence can also help with just going ahead and talking, improvising (Or having the confidence to say the improvised things), not overthinking, which generally helps quite a lot in getting people to react and in favour with you.

This is, I feel, where the "lovable rogue" archetype falls - they do things we should dislike, but do so with an utter confidence and honesty, that we somehow can't help ourselves to like them.
"Be confident" is often part of flirting tips - but for very good reason.

Now note, again, I am not talking about people that are just full of themselves. This is being confident in your skills, not thinking you are gods greatest gift to man. If there is a difference between your presentation and what people actually feel is going on, this is gonna backfire.Charisma is hard to pin down yes (in fact one of my favourite definitions of it is "the undefinable quality of a person") and it is made even worse by the fact that all stats represent a group of related but independent aspects of a person. Let's look at strength, no stat is more well defined than strength; it is how strong you are. So how does the strength of a boxer (with powerful arms) compare to that of a speed skater (with powerful legs)? Or a odd but experience kung-fu master with that of a weight lifter? And charisma, and other social stats across systems, are even more abstract.

A game that wanted to focus on social interactions would probably separate those out (and a lot of existing ones do). And that is for the social side of it, personality-wise you would need a whole round of rules to make it work. Wait a second, that's what we are talking about.

Anyways, I think I have put my finger on something that has been bothering me:

On Hard Mechanics: If there is something I have repeatedly agreed with Max_Killjoy on in this thread, its that combat is not the same as social interaction. While I still believe that both can be represented mechanically, there is no doubt that those mechanics must change. One important difference is how "hard" the mechanics are.

Now because the literal definition of hard is not the one I'm talking about (nor would it make a sense if I was) let me take a moment to explain it. Best way I have to describe it is that the more human input required to make the rule work the softer the rule is. If you could put it into a computer and get the same answer the rule is hard. For instance D&D combat rules are very hard, they give a list of options (which can be expanded on) exact distances, the damage dealt in every case and (through a layer of abstraction in the action system) how long they take. FATE's aspect system is very soft, you have to create your own aspects, decide when they apply and although they have rules about what happens then, some of those options still require a person to fill in what happens.

With that out of the way, I think we are starting to fall back into hard mechanics territory. For instance if you want seduction to not effect your character "my knight is not interested in one night stands" should all it should take, especially if this matches previous portrayals of the character. We could encode that amount of detail, but there is a point it becomes mechanically unwieldy and I think that point is earlier than where we want to stop detailing characters. To resolve that I think we need a fuzzy edge where we can fit in those character details that deserve mention, but not rules.

1

Talakeal

2017-01-14, 04:55 PM

The GM, with possibility for input from the players, along guidelines set by the system.
Now what I feel you are pointing out here is that a GM might abuse these rules. And yeah, they might - but they might do so with every rule. And the problem here is not the rule - is that you are playing with someone who abuses rules for their own power-trip.

Not trying to say the GM can abuse their power.

I am saying that changing the social interaction rules to make them "fair" actually make the game less fair and give the GM more power.

In most RPGs I have played:

The DM creates, controls, and either sets the difficulty for and / or has the final say on the outcome of social skills used against NPCs.
The players create, control, and either set the difficulty for and / or have the final say on the outcomes of social skills used against PCs.

Saying that this is an unfair system is purely one of semantics which can be remedied by simply rephrasing it as:

The gamer who created and has control over the given character sets the difficulty and / or has the final say on the outcome of social rules used against that character.

Saying that PCs and NPCs should all "follow the same rules" make it sound like you are making the game more fair and equal, but you are actually doing the opposite; they are only equal in that every character is equally at the mercy of the DM's rulings.

I don't know who you are or how you run your games. For all I know you might be the nicest most free spirited DM I have ever met. But you keep arguing that the DM should have all the power and then justifying why they need all the power. I am not saying you are a tyrant, control freak GM, or a rail-roader, merely that you are making the same arguments that such a person would.

Furthermore, the "rail-roading DM" is the boogey man of these forums. IF making house rules so that social skills affected PCs was as common or necessary as you seem to think it is I would imagine people would be coming to these forums on a daily basis complaining about how the DM is using social skills to railroad them, as it is both simpler and more direct than all of the vague passive aggressive and ineffective ways that railroading is actually being conducted.

And the Edit, again is at least a misunderstanding if not a misrepresentation of what I said. I did say that if the player was uncomfortable with something their character was convinced to do, I will, after being told this, drop the matter. I just ALSO said, that if a player routinely and consistently ignored the results of social rolls affecting their character, their playstyle was probably not a great fit for mine, and we would both be better off going seperate ways TRPG-gaming wise.

These are the quotes I was referring to; I certainly get the impression that while you acknowledge that people's feelings matter and will make minor allowances, your "story" (or if you prefer the "theme" of the game) still comes first and you would ask them to leave the game before deviating it.

Well. While I would never go so far as to say "No, the dice fell that way, you have to play seduced now" if the player objected very strongly (They will have a reason for that) I would certainly make a not of that, and if not an isolated incident of blatantly ignoring the results of dicerolls, probably talk with them about why they feel like they can or want to ignore those, and if it is a matter of playstyles clashing, ask them to leave the group.
(Please also note that "being seduced" almost never happens in my TRPGs, and would not result in more than a fade to black and maybe a flavourstatement about the encounter afterwards ("It was strange/great/You'd really have expected more from him after those grandiose words").)
Also note that this "all or nothing" is not an ideal state from my view, and I'd much rather do the thing about "go along, or suffer penalty X", leaving it as a choice.
.

So, I generally give players what I feel is a fair chance to avoid things that they are uncomfortable with out of character. It is important to know what you are getting yourself into, and to have fair warning of things that have potential to upset or hurt you.
If they do not take it, and then complain, then I would ask them to leave. Unless they or the group can tell me why the thing I think crucial might not actually be. I am willing to compromise - but I am not willing to throw away everything and suddenly turn a Shadowrun game into playing morally upright do-gooders because of one player.

I am not trying to misrepresent you, but I don't think you realize you are coming across as harshly as you are to me. But those are the quotes, so if anyone wants to read them there they are without and editing or misrepresentation.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-15, 09:38 AM

Not trying to say the GM can abuse their power.

I am saying that changing the social interaction rules to make them "fair" actually make the game less fair and give the GM more power.

In most RPGs I have played:

The DM creates, controls, and either sets the difficulty for and / or has the final say on the outcome of social skills used against NPCs.
The players create, control, and either set the difficulty for and / or have the final say on the outcomes of social skills used against PCs.

Saying that this is an unfair system is purely one of semantics which can be remedied by simply rephrasing it as:

The gamer who created and has control over the given character sets the difficulty and / or has the final say on the outcome of social rules used against that character.

Saying that PCs and NPCs should all "follow the same rules" make it sound like you are making the game more fair and equal, but you are actually doing the opposite; they are only equal in that every character is equally at the mercy of the DM's rulings.

I don't know who you are or how you run your games. For all I know you might be the nicest most free spirited DM I have ever met. But you keep arguing that the DM should have all the power and then justifying why they need all the power. I am not saying you are a tyrant, control freak GM, or a rail-roader, merely that you are making the same arguments that such a person would.

Furthermore, the "rail-roading DM" is the boogey man of these forums. IF making house rules so that social skills affected PCs was as common or necessary as you seem to think it is I would imagine people would be coming to these forums on a daily basis complaining about how the DM is using social skills to railroad them, as it is both simpler and more direct than all of the vague passive aggressive and ineffective ways that railroading is actually being conducted.

----

These are the quotes I was referring to; I certainly get the impression that while you acknowledge that people's feelings matter and will make minor allowances, your "story" (or if you prefer the "theme" of the game) still comes first and you would ask them to leave the game before deviating it.

----

I am not trying to misrepresent you, but I don't think you realize you are coming across as harshly as you are to me. But those are the quotes, so if anyone wants to read them there they are without and editing or misrepresentation.

And we've clearly seen from this thread why it's a bad idea to give anyone but the player control over the PC's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, and the sorts of derailing disagreements that can arise when someone else has standing to impose their own "vision" on that part of the game. Every post, every sentence that amounted to "my model of how people work applies to your character (or you) whether you agree with it or not", and every reaction to those comments, has been proof of how unfun and even toxic that imposition would be.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-01-15, 10:52 AM

If done properly, and you're looking at such mechanics fairly as a player, any such system isn't telling you "Your understanding of your character is wrong", it's telling you "Make these particular sorts of people in this game". I don't think there's anything obscene, or even controversial, about saying that not every sort of character is suited for every sort of game.

Cluedrew

2017-01-15, 11:22 AM

To Max_Killjoy: We haven't actually talked about the why part that much, and we certainly haven't proven it, not with a set of premises that has been agreed on at least. It could be a worthwhile topic in its own right, but I don't think we can arrive at a definitive solution because the matter is one of preference.

I don't think I should explain why people shouldn't play games they don't enjoy. But no one here is saying everyone should play these games (not in the part of the thread I can remember) and I hope no one is anywhere. If you don't like it, don't play.

On the other hand if you do enjoy it. I'm sure there are groups out there who enjoy games with pre-generated characters. That's even further along the spectrum, not only is the personality enforced, you don't even choose what personality is.

It is entirely possible that there has never been a good personality system in an role-playing game ever. I mean we have seen all sorts of pitfalls that they can fall into. But that does not mean there could never be one. Unless you can equate representing personality to some great unsolvable math problem we can never know for sure. Also I believe there have been good personality mechanics in games, but that is a matter of taste.

1

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-15, 11:41 AM

kyoryu

2017-01-15, 12:06 PM

And we've clearly seen from this thread why it's a bad idea to give anyone but the player control over the PC's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, and the sorts of derailing disagreements that can arise when someone else has standing to impose their own "vision" on that part of the game. Every post, every sentence that amounted to "my model of how people work applies to your character (or you) whether you agree with it or not", and every reaction to those comments, has been proof of how unfun and even toxic that imposition would be.

And yet people enjoy a number of games that *do* tell them how their players think/feel/react on occasion.

So clearly it's a personal preference and not a universal law.

Segev

2017-01-15, 02:26 PM

Social interaction is based around influencing one another.
And at least for me (and appearantly Segev) this is the broadness I mean when I talk about manipulation for constructing social mechanics.This does seem to express what I am trying to get across about "manipulation" being broader in definition than the oft-used (but non-universal) connotation. "Billy, my son, I need to get the bathrooms cleaned and the lawn mowed today. If they're both done before noon, I'd love to drive to Six Flags and spend the rest of the day there with you. It isn't worth going if we're not leaving by noon, though, and I doubt I can do both tasks by myself in that time. Would you like to do one of them so we can be done in time?"

That's manipulation. It's quid pro quo, to a degree, but it's also quite honest: both tasks need doing before the Dad saying that can take time to play with his kid. He does think his son and he, working in parallel, can get both tasks finished in time. Dad honestly wants to go to Six Flags with Billy. But it IS manipulation, especially phrased as it is, because it could be framed in a way that Billy comes to the "Well, if I help by mowing the lawn, we can do it in time!" conclusion on his own. Whether this is true of Max_Killjoy (or any other specific individual) or not, it is true that a good number of people who come to a conclusion on their own are more likely to act on it than if it's suggested outright to them.

Such things are manipulation. They need not be negative.

A very specific thing? Possibly, yes. At least none that wasn't so timeconsuming and immoral as to be utterly unfeasible. (Specific as in "Get person to have sex right now")
But this wasn't what Segev was talking about - rather, he was, I think, talking about a general direction. (General as in "Get person to feel some itching".) And I truly believe that there is a way to make most everyone feel an itching.Quite specifically, the "Pirate Queen offers you X morale points to sleep with her, and it will cost you X morale points if you refuse" mechanic is meant to simulate that "itching," not a compulsion that mind-whammies you into being unable to resist. It might be so enticing that you feel resistance is beyond you, but mechanically, the choice remains the player's. Hence, it's telling you the strength of the "itch."

Ideally, as Floret's post elaborated on, a system would amount to more than "she rolls 'seduction,' and you are affected." It would actually involve her using the system to figure out what hooks and levers you DO have, and playing to them. Maybe building an image or impression, or a new hook. Maybe trying to undermine existing points of resistance. Her success would be variable, and no matter how good she was at eroding your barriers, you still have that choice at the end. Ideally, it wouldn't be left to post-hoc justification to re-fluff "why" your knight felt that lust for her despite his best intentions. Ideally, the process of her getting to the point where she finally makes the morale point offering will make it quite clear how she got around your knight's resistance to such enticements. Perhaps because she enticed along an entirely different route, where those points of refusal didn't apply.

Because I think that "Charisma" as a term and stat somewhat misses the mark about what is really going on. I kinda feel it isn't at the same "base" level as other stats we often talk about - Strength, Constitution, Intelligence, that sort of thing. Charisma is often described as charm, a sort of "aura of likability" or the like. (...really, how the hell am I supposed to translate the German "Ausstrahlung" into english if the only fitting result for this specific connotation is "charisma"...) Force of personality is cited by Shadowrun. Degenesis talks about an "authentic presence", not having to distort oneself to be liked. I think the latter is actually much more on point.

Because ultimately, from my lived experience, this isn't about some innate force of Charisma. This is mostly about selfconfidence. (Or... well. Small German lesson: "Selfconfidence", translated into German, means "Selbstbewusstsein". Now, that word has something very important in it: "Bewusstsein", translated mostly to "consciousness". Selbstbewusstsein means to be aware of who you are. (Somewhat interesting that English has the literal translation "Selfconsciousness" as the utter opposite.) What I am talking about is, of course, inspired a good bit by the German term and connotations.) The problem with Charisma, and the point where Max' problem with the concept come in, is when it runs into "Fakeness". As Degenesis describes, the most likable people are generally authentic (Or, appear authentic, but this then is up to acting or bluff skills to mask.). Well. With a caveat. Authentic, and somewhat interesting and uplifting to be around. But people who are genuinely aware of their strengths and confident to talk about their interests mosten times naturally provide interesting topics, and hearing people talk about things their likes, seeing their joy, can be very uplifting. Other than a general "aura of likability", Selfconfidence can also help with just going ahead and talking, improvising (Or having the confidence to say the improvised things), not overthinking, which generally helps quite a lot in getting people to react and in favour with you.

This is, I feel, where the "lovable rogue" archetype falls - they do things we should dislike, but do so with an utter confidence and honesty, that we somehow can't help ourselves to like them.
"Be confident" is often part of flirting tips - but for very good reason.

Now note, again, I am not talking about people that are just full of themselves. This is being confident in your skills, not thinking you are gods greatest gift to man. If there is a difference between your presentation and what people actually feel is going on, this is gonna backfire.

tl,dr: "Charisma" I find is less fit to be a central stat and too wishy-washy a term, I think it is more about "Selfconfidence", from which Charisma grows.This is an interesting set of observations. The most fascinating part of it, to me, is that we nevertheless really do have, before we dig down to specifics, a solid idea of what "Charisma" means. It's only when we dig into "now what EXACTLY does this mean for mechanical purposes?" that we start having difficulties. Which again feels related to (if not exactly) the paradox of the heap. Get too close to the subject, and you stop being able to tell if that tree and it's friends are a "forest" or just "a few trees."

For the rest of my thoughts. After looking at Segev's ideas, I propose another sorting of social skills:

1. Sincerity „I fully believe what I am saying“ (Bluff/Intimidate/Saying the truth convincingly)
2. Enticing “C’mon it will be worth it” (Seduce, something more)
3. Social Engineering (?) “Make people like/dislike you” (This would primarily give modifiers for further rolls or take them away (Through a "likes you"/"dislikes you" condition). Sometimes part of Persuade. Leadership could possibly fit in here as well, depending on what you do.)
4. Psychology (Long-lasting, manipulating efforts reframing worldviews)

And on the defensive (I like contested rolls for this sort of thing...)
5. “Don’t make an arse of yourself in social environments” – could double as a potential way of resisting at least (the effects of) social Engineering and Enticing; main focus would be sth like “Social stealth”
6. Willpower “No, I won’t”, defensive, defending against the other’s

Some part of me feels like I am missing something - but I don't quite see what. So have at it^^In modern parlance, typically "social engineering" refers to using common social graces to elicit information and responses from people which you can use to manipulate a situation or organization. In security, it's the techniques intruders use to gain access to secure systems which rely on manipulating the people who have legitimate access. "Could you hold that door for me?" at a badge-locked facility, said by somebody carrying an arm-load of precarious files, is something which people not trained to look out for it (but conditioned by western society to be polite and helpful) might fall for. Now this person - who may not be allowed in the facility at all - has entered, and has little to no monitoring of their presence.

In broader terms, it often refers to top-down measures meant to manipulate social customs. Use of taxes to "encourage" charity or purchases the government desires, creation of public policy in the society at large or in specific, closed societies (e.g. the military) to force people to engage in or not engage in or stigmatize certain behaviors (including stigmatizing the stigmatization of certain behaviors). That kind of thing.

It rarely has much to do with getting people to like you, specifically. That's almost the surface definition of "charisma," itself. I think, in gameplay terms, it is MORE likely that "social engineering" as a character trait would come up in the former mode, as that's the active use of a skill by a PC to affect the immediate environment. I also think it's fairly well covered by your Sincerity and Enticing, with perhaps a little bit of Persuasion.

Side note: I think Sincerity and Persuasion are definitely distinct things. Sincerity is convincing the listener of your earnestness; that you believe what you are saying. Persuasion is convincing the listener that something is true (or worthwhile, or bad, etc.). You can convince somebody that you are sincere, even if they think you're wrong. It is also theoretically possible to convince somebody that you don't believe what you're pushing, but still have them examine the facts and decide that, despite you being a deceitful jerk, you're wrong for NOT believing what you're saying. e.g. they might think your spiel about global warming is half-hearted and that you're only mouthing the stats and stuff because you're angling for money, but still find the stats and stuff you mouth to be compelling.

Now, you do bring up a good point: something about "I like you from the moment I met you" is important to be able to measure. It's a skill some people have. Some manage to make a good first impression and later sour it as people get to know them better. Others are off-putting until you get to know them. And, of course, there are those who're off-putting and stay dislikable, and those who make a good first impression and who you just like more the more you get to know them.

I'm not sure separating "first impressions" from ability to impress in the future is worth the extra complexity, but maybe a general "Impress" skill? It does strike me as distinct from Persuade, and would probably fit what I think you're suggesting for "Social Engineering."

The "psychology" angle strikes me more as an intellectual skill than a social skill. Something a scholar of human nature might be able to spell out and plan. It seems more a "know what works" thing than a "good at doing it" thing. Does that sound right to you?

On the defensive side... I think defenses are more along the lines of one's own nature and goals simply being opposed to what's being asked of you. Though some sort of "how hard are you to impress?" value probably should exist to determine how easy it is for a stranger to make a good impression. Even that, though, might be wrapped up in traits: somebody who is devoted to a Chivalric Ideal might be more easily impressed by a beautiful princess acting proper and fair than by that Pirate Queen, though he may also be more easily moved by the poor but honest peasant than by the poor and sneaky pirate deck hand.

With that out of the way, I think we are starting to fall back into hard mechanics territory. For instance if you want seduction to not effect your character "my knight is not interested in one night stands" should all it should take, especially if this matches previous portrayals of the character. We could encode that amount of detail, but there is a point it becomes mechanically unwieldy and I think that point is earlier than where we want to stop detailing characters. To resolve that I think we need a fuzzy edge where we can fit in those character details that deserve mention, but not rules.My headspace is revolving around a notion that the traits should be broad enough that we can take a player's word for it why it applies or doesn't apply, but at the same time, it will become obvious through play what the nuances really are. Without having to spell them out in hard terms. The "hard" mechanics are those traits' numbers. When you decide Trait X applies, it always adds or subtracts X from the relevant calculations.

1I've noticed you ending your posts in various numbers. Might I ask their significance?

Saying that PCs and NPCs should all "follow the same rules" make it sound like you are making the game more fair and equal, but you are actually doing the opposite; they are only equal in that every character is equally at the mercy of the DM's rulings.That's just not true. Only if the GM is expected to make up all the numbers is this true. Consider combat again: The GM doesn't decide what the PCs' ACs are, nor what their to hit modifiers are. The PCs and NPCs using the same rules doesn't put everything in the GM's control in the manner you're describing here.

The same should be true of any subsystem where all characters play by the same rules: the numbers are there already, not determined by the GM at the time of rolling.

And we've clearly seen from this thread why it's a bad idea to give anyone but the player control over the PC's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, and the sorts of derailing disagreements that can arise when someone else has standing to impose their own "vision" on that part of the game. Every post, every sentence that amounted to "my model of how people work applies to your character (or you) whether you agree with it or not", and every reaction to those comments, has been proof of how unfun and even toxic that imposition would be.
That's...not what anybody's said to you. You're almost pathologically misrepresenting what people are saying, at this point.

"I don't believe that you are as good at self-assessment as you think you are" is not saying "I really do now better than you how you think." It's saying they don't believe you're right. Note that nobody has told you what you "really" feel. They have, at worst, questioned how accurate your self-assessment is. Nobody has said "You would be moved in this way by this." They have questioned whether you are truly able to assess, just from hearing it described clinically, whether you would be moved by it if you actually experienced it.

You might still be offended by that, but it is distinct from what you're claiming people have asserted.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-15, 02:36 PM

That's...not what anybody's said to you. You're almost pathologically misrepresenting what people are saying, at this point.

"I don't believe that you are as good at self-assessment as you think you are" is not saying "I really do now better than you how you think." It's saying they don't believe you're right. Note that nobody has told you what you "really" feel. They have, at worst, questioned how accurate your self-assessment is. Nobody has said "You would be moved in this way by this." They have questioned whether you are truly able to assess, just from hearing it described clinically, whether you would be moved by it if you actually experienced it.

You might still be offended by that, but it is distinct from what you're claiming people have asserted.

There's zero actual distinction between what you say you're not saying, and what you say you are saying.

"Here's how people react in this situation."
"How about this concrete example of me not reacting that way in that situation?"
"Um, well, uh... that doesn't count for reasons and blah blah blah... you'd react the way I said you would if it happened again!"

:smallconfused:

georgie_leech

2017-01-15, 02:41 PM

Segev

2017-01-15, 02:44 PM

There's zero actual distinction between what you say you're not saying, and what you say you are saying.

"Here's how people react in this situation."
"How about this concrete example of me not reacting that way in that situation?"
"Um, well, uh... that doesn't count for reasons and blah blah blah... you'd react the way I said you would if it happened again!"

:smallconfused:

'I don't think you necessarily know for certain that you'd react like that,' =/= 'You would actually react like this.' :smallconfused:

As georgie_leech says, the two are distinct statements.

Nobody has said you did not react to the situation you listed as you say you did. There has been examination of WHY you reacted that way, and hypothesizing on whether the reasons are what you think they are (and whether different behavior on her part would result in the same reaction from you). There has been serious questioning of some claims you've made about how closely your hypothetical reaction to something you are only told your character is experiencing would be to you, yourself, actually experiencing it.

Nobody has said, "Max, you'd definitely go for the Pirate Queen."

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-15, 03:08 PM

As georgie_leech says, the two are distinct statements.

Nobody has said you did not react to the situation you listed as you say you did. There has been examination of WHY you reacted that way, and hypothesizing on whether the reasons are what you think they are (and whether different behavior on her part would result in the same reaction from you). There has been serious questioning of some claims you've made about how closely your hypothetical reaction to something you are only told your character is experiencing would be to you, yourself, actually experiencing it.

Nobody has said, "Max, you'd definitely go for the Pirate Queen."

No, no, it's the much more sly and "plausibly deniable" twist... "You never know if you'd go for the PQ next time..."

Segev

2017-01-15, 03:13 PM

No, no, it's the much more sly and "plausibly deniable" twist... "You never know if you'd go for the PQ next time..."

Nobody's being sly. It is undeniably true that you cannot know for certain that the Pirate Queen won't find a way to make you feel some sexual desire for her "next time." You know neither what circumstances you will be in at that future time, nor what tactics she might use.

Nobody is telling you - certainly not through the auspices of the system proposed - that you WILL have sex with her no matter what you think. At most, they're suggesting you MIGHT have some desire, and that it's up to you how you act on that desire.

Heck, I think it fairer to say that all anybody's suggesting is that you, in front of your computer and not engaged with any seductresses, are not likely to be perfect in assessing how you'd react to a hypothetical seductress whose tactics are not yet determined should she actually meet you IRL and decide she wants to get to know you better. (Whether "know" is in the modern or Biblical sense.)

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-15, 03:39 PM

Nobody's being sly. It is undeniably true that you cannot know for certain that the Pirate Queen won't find a way to make you feel some sexual desire for her "next time." You know neither what circumstances you will be in at that future time, nor what tactics she might use.

Nobody is telling you - certainly not through the auspices of the system proposed - that you WILL have sex with her no matter what you think. At most, they're suggesting you MIGHT have some desire, and that it's up to you how you act on that desire.

Heck, I think it fairer to say that all anybody's suggesting is that you, in front of your computer and not engaged with any seductresses, are not likely to be perfect in assessing how you'd react to a hypothetical seductress whose tactics are not yet determined should she actually meet you IRL and decide she wants to get to know you better. (Whether "know" is in the modern or Biblical sense.)

When someone says "I wouldn't do that" or "my character wouldn't do that", and you say "you don't know that", that's the same fundamental problem and error as saying "you're wrong".

An in-depth exhaustive explanation or the revealing of details of personal history shouldn't be required to convince.

Just to leave open the door to any romantic relationship, ever, with any woman, ever again, is a concession to "you never know for certain".

If I were drawing an absolute and inviolate line without any concession at all, it wouldn't be "I can't be seduced into fast-forwarding to the sack", it would be "never again, not with anyone, not so much as one date".

Segev

2017-01-15, 04:56 PM

When someone says "I wouldn't do that" or "my character wouldn't do that", and you say "you don't know that", that's the same fundamental problem and error as saying "you're wrong".

Unless you've already been tested in that specific circumstance, saying "you don't know that" is actually accurate. This is why people test themselves.

Bob can tell himself he wouldn't be scared no matter what happened in a haunted house all he likes, but until he tries a particular haunted house, he cannot be certain. The more haunted houses he tries, the more confident he can reasonably be, but there always might be one that finally pushes the right button to make him get the heebie jeebies.

Similarly, Alice can rationally examine all the possible reasons anybody would be afraid of heights and determine that she wouldn't be. But until she stands at the ledge and looks down, she can't know for certain that she won't be.

Peter can tell himself that he'd never deny his friendship with his mentor, no matter how badly the police and the mob might intimidate him, but until he's tested while his friend is on trial, he won't know if he'll deny him not at all...or three times before the **** crows.

Jack can say he'd never get mad at his kid brother for whatever it is his parents are telling him in advance to brace himself over and remember that his brother didn't mean it, but he won't know for sure until he finds out his kid brother destroyed his science fair project just before he is about to turn it in, costing him not just the science fair, but a passing grade in science class.

Amy can be staunch in her conviction that she wouldn't break down in tears during a eulogy to her mother, but until she's done it, she can't be certain.

Grace can state with all the firm self-confidence in the world that she can stick to a diet for a month, eating no more than 1500 calories in a day and never having any desserts, but until she does so, she can't be certain she'll remain firm when hungry and faced with a box of donuts.

Cluedrew

2017-01-15, 05:00 PM

Such things are manipulation. They need not be negative.One of the grandest acts of manipulation I have ever seen involved no lies and was for the benefit of the one being manipulated. A friend of mine talked someone else (stranger to us) out of chewing tobacco. It was an interesting conversation to listen to, I wish I could remember all the details. I do remember some details but the overview is simply that my friend presentenced an argument in a friendly way and the guy seemed convinced by the end.

My headspace is revolving around a notion that the traits should be broad enough that we can take a player's word for it why it applies or doesn't apply, but at the same time, it will become obvious through play what the nuances really are. Without having to spell them out in hard terms. The "hard" mechanics are those traits' numbers. When you decide Trait X applies, it always adds or subtracts X from the relevant calculations.Your system itself was part of it, but just overall conversation seemed to be heading. Also part of the system that this does not cover (you talked a bit about this else where, but just to nail it down) how about incoming pressures? How strict is the application of those traits?

I've noticed you ending your posts in various numbers. Might I ask their significance?I think I explained it when I started. But it is the "swordsage count", that is the number of posts that have been made between when I started writing the post and when I posted it. Back when the thread (and my posts were huge) it was rare for it to be below 2, and I got tired of saying "Double swordsage", I just continued it in this thread out of habit.

pathologically misrepresenting what people are sayingWhat does this mean? Misrepresenting by reflex?

When someone says "I wouldn't do that" or "my character wouldn't do that", and you say "you don't know that", that's the same fundamental problem and error as saying "you're wrong".Unless there is some fundamental aspect of the universe that makes you incapable of being incorrect, there is no fundamental error in saying you're wrong. Now that doesn't mean you're wrong, but you are going to need a cogent argument to win other people over.

I don't use the word cogent very often.

1

Segev

2017-01-15, 05:15 PM

One of the grandest acts of manipulation I have ever seen involved no lies and was for the benefit of the one being manipulated. A friend of mine talked someone else (stranger to us) out of chewing tobacco. It was an interesting conversation to listen to, I wish I could remember all the details. I do remember some details but the overview is simply that my friend presentenced an argument in a friendly way and the guy seemed convinced by the end.Indeed, it's hard to draw a line where "rational presentation of the facts" is not manipulation. After all, if the purpose of presenting facts is to persuade people, how does that differ from presenting facts in a way designed to persuade people? At what point does it become "manipulation?" One could say "the moment it starts being deceptive," but that means that any time the villain manages to lay out how he's arranged things such that the heroes "have" to help him (because if they don't, they're enabling or even performing greater evil still) isn't manipulation. And I would argue that it very much is. Even if he provides naught but the coldest, most rational layout of utter honest truth.

Also part of the system that this does not cover (you talked a bit about this else where, but just to nail it down) how about incoming pressures? How strict is the application of those traits?The way I'm envisioning it, there's a little bit of negotiation and give-and-take. The player of the character seeking to invoke your trait explains why it applies, and if you disagree, you can outline how it doesn't. I'd err on Max_Killjoy's side, here, and generally say the player should have the final say, but while this is abusable, abuse of it will likely become obvious pretty quickly.

It isn't as iron-clad a system as combat systems tend to be. But my goal is to use it to enable players to better judge things, not to force "bad" players to be better. Encourage less-than-good players to be better, sure. Help those players perhaps see where they're being a little inconsistent in their characterization, sure. But there is an assumption that people are at least approaching it with a desire to use it well.

That's partly why even agreeing that you're "affected" comes with a reward: the optimal move might just be to say "no, actually, it would work EVEN BETTER on me...so I get more morale points out of giving in," and invoke a trait that the socialite's player might have missed on your sheet.

Sure, I'd like to make it harder-defined than that, but I don't think it's feasible.

I think I explained it when I started. But it is the "swordsage count", that is the number of posts that have been made between when I started writing the post and when I posted it. Back when the thread (and my posts were huge) it was rare for it to be below 2, and I got tired of saying "Double swordsage", I just continued it in this thread out of habit.Ah. If you did, I missed it. It'd be clearer if labeled, but that is at least as much typing as "double swordsaged," so... well, at least I know now!

What does this mean? Misrepresenting by reflex?Insistently, mostly. With a hint of "and convinces himself we really mean what he's misrepresenting us as meaning."

Floret

2017-01-15, 05:21 PM

Explanations on Social Engineering

Yaknow, I take full responsibility for choosing the wrong words for what I wanted to say. It sounded vaguely plausible as a name, but as the question mark suggests, I wasn't really sure. Turns out that suspicion was right :smallwink:

Side note: I think Sincerity and Persuasion are definitely distinct things. Sincerity is convincing the listener of your earnestness; that you believe what you are saying. Persuasion is convincing the listener that something is true (or worthwhile, or bad, etc.). You can convince somebody that you are sincere, even if they think you're wrong. It is also theoretically possible to convince somebody that you don't believe what you're pushing, but still have them examine the facts and decide that, despite you being a deceitful jerk, you're wrong for NOT believing what you're saying. e.g. they might think your spiel about global warming is half-hearted and that you're only mouthing the stats and stuff because you're angling for money, but still find the stats and stuff you mouth to be compelling.

I don't think one can, outside of freak accidents, convince someone of something without also convincing them that you yourself believe it. I mean, I do agree it could happen, but the cases you describe would not be enough for me to put up two different skills. Maybe something along the lines of "You had a fumble, but succeeded anyways" (Possible in some systems; Shadowrun 4th and 5th I know of; generally doable everywhere where a fumble runs on a different scale than the question if you succeed or not).
Now, convincing someone you believe it without convincing them is possible, yes. I don't know if I'd rather roll that into Sincerity regardless, roll it into enticing, into psychological stuff; or make another skill. Possibly another skill.
The idea behind the four skills I put up was to make them, somewhat broken down:

1. Get people to believe you ("Sincerity")
2. Get people to do things ("Enticing")
3. Get people to like you ("Charisma")
4. Get people to believe things ("Psychology")

The addons and how to fluff these would be a matter of system, I think. Dunno. Any thoughts on this "cleaned up" model?

Now, you do bring up a good point: something about "I like you from the moment I met you" is important to be able to measure. It's a skill some people have. Some manage to make a good first impression and later sour it as people get to know them better. Others are off-putting until you get to know them. And, of course, there are those who're off-putting and stay dislikable, and those who make a good first impression and who you just like more the more you get to know them.

I'm not sure separating "first impressions" from ability to impress in the future is worth the extra complexity, but maybe a general "Impress" skill? It does strike me as distinct from Persuade, and would probably fit what I think you're suggesting for "Social Engineering."

Oh, I didn't wanna split the two off. I just generally wanted to suggest a skill for making people like or dislike you (Whatever direction you find beneficial; mosten times that would be being liked, but I can imagine Intimidation efforts being somewhat propped up by the person disliking you, and therefor being more ready to believe you would to ****ty things to them). Whether that would be to set a better first impression than you'd otherwise have, or make a person like you more over time, making a neutral person your friend or a hostile person neutral.
(Sidenote: This would require a scale from "openly hostile" to "best friends forever" or sth on which to rank character opinion on another character, to be noted when necessary; and on which this skill could produce movement.)
It might indeed be somewhat related to what is usually seen as "Charisma", but more on a skill level than at an attribute level? If that makes sense? Whatever name one wants to give it^^

The "psychology" angle strikes me more as an intellectual skill than a social skill. Something a scholar of human nature might be able to spell out and plan. It seems more a "know what works" thing than a "good at doing it" thing. Does that sound right to you?

I'd disagree, actually. I would, ideally, have the skill cover both, since even the practical applications of psychology are a rather intellectual endeavour, and Psychologists generally do both. (Just most often with no intention to actually manipulate to the level they possibly could, which is a good thing.)
I agree one could split off the skill in "analysing people" and "applying the techniques the analysis suggested might work", but I find rolling them into one to be rather sufficient and plausible abstraction for most games. It definitely isn't a PURELY social skill, but the borders are fluid anyways. As I see it, it is a skill with social applications.

On the defensive side... I think defenses are more along the lines of one's own nature and goals simply being opposed to what's being asked of you. Though some sort of "how hard are you to impress?" value probably should exist to determine how easy it is for a stranger to make a good impression. Even that, though, might be wrapped up in traits: somebody who is devoted to a Chivalric Ideal might be more easily impressed by a beautiful princess acting proper and fair than by that Pirate Queen, though he may also be more easily moved by the poor but honest peasant than by the poor and sneaky pirate deck hand.

My headspace is revolving around a notion that the traits should be broad enough that we can take a player's word for it why it applies or doesn't apply, but at the same time, it will become obvious through play what the nuances really are. Without having to spell them out in hard terms. The "hard" mechanics are those traits' numbers. When you decide Trait X applies, it always adds or subtracts X from the relevant calculations.

I think this comes down to preference. I like opposed rolls for these, and therefor you would need defensive skills for these sorts of things. The traits and goals and stuff being opposed would be modifiers, in this case.
What I meant as the "Willpower" skill was along the lines of what Max is pointing to with "digging in your heels" and the like. Doing your best not to be swayed. Really, this is a matter of system and approach.

"I don't believe that you are as good at self-assessment as you think you are" is not saying "I really do now better than you how you think." It's saying they don't believe you're right. Note that nobody has told you what you "really" feel. They have, at worst, questioned how accurate your self-assessment is. Nobody has said "You would be moved in this way by this." They have questioned whether you are truly able to assess, just from hearing it described clinically, whether you would be moved by it if you actually experienced it.

You might still be offended by that, but it is distinct from what you're claiming people have asserted.

I am, incidentally, saying the latter. And I do firmly stand by that being different.
Now if someone claimed that there is supposedly no difference between self-assessment and reality, and that there cannot be, then... that is utterly wrong, and a proof of someone being either naive, or full of themselves, or just incredibly bad at self-assessment.
Because, incidentally, someone who was a god at self-assessment, would not get there by just taking their self-assessment as fact, but fact-checking it.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-15, 05:36 PM

Insistently, mostly. With a hint of "and convinces himself we really mean what he's misrepresenting us as meaning."

And here again we get back to you arrogantly presuming to know what's going on in someone else's head.

Somehow it's fine to do that, but not fine to respond to what someone actually put in their post as if they meant what they wrote.

"I don't believe that you are as good at self-assessment as you think you are" is not saying "I really do now better than you how you think." It's saying they don't believe you're right. Note that nobody has told you what you "really" feel. They have, at worst, questioned how accurate your self-assessment is. Nobody has said "You would be moved in this way by this." They have questioned whether you are truly able to assess, just from hearing it described clinically, whether you would be moved by it if you actually experienced it.

You might still be offended by that, but it is distinct from what you're claiming people have asserted.

I am, incidentally, saying the latter. And I do firmly stand by that being different.

At least you're honest in making the claim to somehow magically know other people better than they know themselves.

Doesn't make you any more right, but at least you're honest about it.

Cluedrew

2017-01-15, 05:57 PM

The way I'm envisioning it, there's a little bit of negotiation and give-and-take. The player of the character seeking to invoke your trait explains why it applies, and if you disagree, you can outline how it doesn't. I'd err on Max_Killjoy's side, here, and generally say the player should have the final say, but while this is abusable, abuse of it will likely become obvious pretty quickly.Two things: being open to abuse is not as big of a deal in a non-competitive game, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Also I meant to ask, going back to the well worn seduction situation, the Pirate Queen's appeal which was being used as a modifier along side the Knight's trait's.

Ah. If you did, I missed it. It'd be clearer if labeled, but that is at least as much typing as "double swordsaged," so... well, at least I know now!Maybe... I seem to recall there was some other reason I just used the number... but I forget what it was. Maybe I didn't think it would be going on for so long. Which is part of the reason I'm not labeling it now, we just talked about it.

Insistently, mostly. With a hint of "and convinces himself we really mean what he's misrepresenting us as meaning."Thank you for the explanation. Also I believe the word is delusion, which is not to say that is the only explanation.

The idea behind the four skills I put up was to make them, somewhat broken down:

1. Get people to believe you ("Sincerity")
2. Get people to do things ("Enticing")
3. Get people to like you ("Charisma")
4. Get people to believe things ("Psychology")

The addons and how to fluff these would be a matter of system, I think. Dunno. Any thoughts on this "cleaned up" model?Enticing doesn't fit. You can use all the other three to get people to do things, so why would there be a separate skill for that. Cut that one up and distribute cases depending on method.

On the other hand I think one interesting divide is logic/emotion. Personally I feel that is a rather large difference in how people think and how different techniques to influence people work.

So you might have get an emotional reaction, a logical one or form a bond. Now we could break this down even further, but 3 seems like a nice starting point and form a bond would probably be different enough mechanically that it might rate its own skill. Could just be an application of the first two. I just made this by the way.

I'd disagree, actually. I would, ideally, have the skill cover both, since even the practical applications of psychology are a rather intellectual endeavour, and Psychologists generally do both.So now I am thinking about a skill system where you have a practical and theoretical score in every score... I see some potential but I'm not sure what the point of such a system would be.

1

Koo Rehtorb

2017-01-15, 06:33 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-15, 06:43 PM

If I can try to summarize this:

1) You cannot know with certainty how will you react to a situation if you have not experienced it before.
2) Every situation is, in at least some way, unique.
------------------------------------------------------
3) Therefore, you cannot know with certainty how you will react to any given situation.

I think this is all true. I question how useful it is, though, considering it doesn't rule out being able to predict how you will react to something with a high degree of accuracy, even if it isn't with certainty.

It's not certain that the entire universe won't undergo a collapse into a lower-energy state 5 minutes from now. It is, however, very very unlikely.

"You can't be certain" / "You never know for sure" is pure sophistry.

Doesn't really matter, though... the entire "discussion" amounts to a couple people blowing off my entire life as meaningless in the face of their pet theories about the workings of the human mind.

"Here's my idea for representing people's mental processes in an RPG system."
"Your model doesn't work for people who don't work that way."
"Everyone works that way."
"Some people don't."
"Everyone works that way."
"... everyone? Not really. Take my word for it."
"Everyone works that way."
"Fine... I don't work that way."
"Yes you do."
"Here's an example of me not working that way."
"That doesn't count. And it doesn't matter what you think, you work that way."
"He's right, you don't work the way you think you work, you work the way he says you work."
"My entire life experience tells me otherwise."
"Doesn't matter, this is how you work, even if you don't think so."

I tried to keep it abstract and non-specific, but no matter how much I tried to explain, it just kept coming back to different ways of being told "Your own experience of 43 years of your own life doesn't mean anything, and if you think it does, then you're delusional."

Talakeal

2017-01-15, 06:52 PM

That's just not true. Only if the GM is expected to make up all the numbers is this true. Consider combat again: The GM doesn't decide what the PCs' ACs are, nor what their to hit modifiers are. The PCs and NPCs using the same rules doesn't put everything in the GM's control in the manner you're describing here.

The same should be true of any subsystem where all characters play by the same rules: the numbers are there already, not determined by the GM at the time of rolling.

Maybe in your system.

Floret is talking about being able to use social skills against PCs in existing RPGs that just aren't built with that level of character specificity.

In D&D I can determine my armor class and have a lot of control over the variables and get a concrete number.

There is no way in D&D (or 90+% of existing RPGs) to model a character's level of susceptibility to seduction with anything other than the DM's opinion of their character.

Likewise, a character who has a effectively infinitely high AC and no sells every attack would ruin the balance of a game like D&D.

An asexual character with no sex drive to manipulate is more or less "meh whatever" in most games that don't focus on erotically charged sex-ventures where sexuality is used like a weapon.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-01-15, 06:59 PM

It's not certain that the entire universe won't undergo a collapse into a lower-energy state 5 minutes from now. It is, however, very very unlikely.

"You can't be certain" / "You never know for sure" is pure sophistry.

I'm inclined to agree.

Which is why I don't find the goal of accurately modeling character internals to be a productive one. It's something that seems doomed to failure if it's trying to be an impartial simulation. People are too quirky to apply universal motivation rules to with any degree of accuracy beyond the more simplistic needs. Now, if it stops trying to be an impartial simulation then all bets are off and the system becomes far more workable, at least in my mind.

Cluedrew

2017-01-15, 07:46 PM

pure sophistryWhat do you mean by this? I looked up sophistry but the definition I found doesn't really make sense in this context.

0 <- Short post.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-15, 07:58 PM

What do you mean by this? I looked up sophistry but the definition I found doesn't really make sense in this context.

0 <- Short post.

n. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

More generally, an argument that prioritizes cleverness or being "technically true" over being illuminating or useful.

Cluedrew

2017-01-15, 09:18 PM

Now, if it stops trying to be an impartial simulation then all bets are off and the system becomes far more workable, at least in my mind.I think that is the trick. I'm not trying to (nor is anyone I can see in this thread) create an "impartial" (for my understanding of your use of the word impartial, which I roughly equate to what I was talking about hard, not using human input) system because can't see it working. Even if it you could create such a system it would likely require an extensive background in psychology to even play.

Really, I think more than modeling personality (mechanics->personality), most of the mechanics that interest me are those that let you express personality (personality->mechanics). That sounds like a small difference, but in the way the mechanics are laid out it tends to be very significant.

You know I was going to use FATE as an example, but that doesn't really work because aspects don't have to have anything to do with personality. (Going off of my knowledge of a system I still haven't got to play.) They are just aspects of your character, they can be personality, but also skill, equipment, bits of personal history and so on. I suppose I could use an overly narrow view of the alignment system but after all the work I have done to move in the opposite direction I don't want to do that either. Wait I got one, Segev's system is mechanics->personality.

And in realizing that I thought of another way to describe the difference between the two. So mechanics->personality is world->character, that is it is mechanics provide a way for things in the world to effect the character, personality->mechanics is character->world, the mechanics provide a way for the character to effect the world around them. Now that is just the direction of travel, to be a personality mechanic the part of the character has to be the personality, here including things like mood and the general mental state.

And now I have no need to use an example from Segev's system. I feel like I have had a bit of a epiphany, hand have worked out what I have been trying to say. Hopefully others will find this useful as well.

n. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.How is pointing out the difference between "reasonably certain" and "completely certain" invalid logic? It might be pedantic, although considering the topic it may not even be that, but it is a real difference. Or were you referring to a different part of the conversation?

0

RazorChain

2017-01-15, 10:55 PM

You can't really model behavior with a system as behavior is so erratic. But the best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior.

In my running campaign one PC got seduced. This was half-demoness that the PC had released from a gilded prison, the player suspected it was a trap of somekind and didn't want to be seduced.
So me and the player we talked about why his character didn't want to get seduced. His character had nothing against being seduced it just turned out the player didn't trust me and though that I as a GM was going to screw him over somehow and something bad would happen to his character. Given this was only session 5 or so with a new group this was understandable as I hadn't built up trust with the group, we were all relative strangers. Of course the player was right, I had ulterior motives and something interesting would happen, but I just told my players I would screw them over all the time and due to it a lot of interesting things would happen, some could even lead their characters to their deaths. But I would never kill them just because they made an interesting choice.

Now at session 15 they don't blink at making an interesting choice if it's in character as now we have a gaming experience based on trust. They can completely trust that I'm going to screw them over and add interesting complications.

But bottom line is why PC's don't want to be bluffed, fast talked, seduced or give in to vices is because they believe it will lead to bad things. Like Max Killjoy I think the players should be in control of their character. Because even if you play a greedy git then your greed doesn't dictate that you'll always act on it or how far you would be willing to go for your greed. Instead of letting the dice dictate you might just let the player dictate.....if they want to roll for it then fine...roll against will or something......really lucrative offer, here have a -5 to your will.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-16, 02:50 AM

There is a significant body of work that shows humans to be some of the worst predictors of their own behaviors.

http://journal.sjdm.org/14/14130/jdm14130.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100623110114.htm

Found those two pretty immediately, plus others with a Google search.

Long story short: people literally and truly are not the best predictors of their future behavior. Especially in hypothetical situations.

Floret

2017-01-16, 07:24 AM

Talks about Abuse potential, fairness and quotes me.

Sorry to you, I missed your post in my replies - my multiquote button seems to have reset. Oh well.
And I think you are misunderstanding my goals there somewhat. I am not trying to make the rules more "fair" in any sort of sense - in fact, I think trying for "fairness" in power distribution between players and GM is ultimately an utterly doomed exercise, since the GM just... has more power than the players. And this won't go away. At which point I personally favour the approach of "search ethical GMs that know how to handle this responsibly, and write good tips for new GMs on how to do this" rather then try to mask that, and pretend that the situation can, purely rules-wise ever be actually equal.
PCs and NPCs working from different rules is not intended to create "fairness" between players and GM, but rather to create equality rules-wise between PCs and NPCs. To not need multiple different rules for the same thing.

I am, I feel, not really arguing that the GM SHOULD have all the power, but rather that they pretty much HAVE, unless they let go of parts intentionally. Which they have to do, if there is to be any sort of player input - which is very much my, and probably everyone else's preferred playstyle (If it is not, go write a novel. I like doing that, too, but again, two distinct things with two distinct appeals and stuff). And probably also any fun, at least on the players part. I am also arguing that WHICH parts of the power to hand over is purely a matter of preferrence - generally, the premise is that control over the actions of a single character, if not their success, will be given over to a player each. Also that the GM will have the obstacles put in the player's way be beatable, and that they don't just call for "Rocks fall, everyone dies". That they refrain from using their power to alter the world in unpredictable ways. All with very different reasoning as to WHY this is a good way to do things.
It is also generally agreed that PCs can be affected by the dicerolls of NPCs in multiple different situations. Combat is the most direct form of those. So the world will react to the PCs, and the PCs will react to the world; sometimes restricted by dicerolls. If one wants to expand this to the effects of Social rolls or not is purely a matter of preference. The majority of players might even say "NO, WTF?". But there is a non-negligible (As seen in this thread) subset of players that say "yeah, actually I like that". These rules are for them. That subset. The reasons for this might differ, again.

And maybe I am coming across more harshly than I intend, yes. Maybe I have weird players that actually ASK me to tell them what their character feels, sometimes in absence of any roll. That actively want to roll the dice to see if their characters are affected by their negative traits (A mechanic of TDE amongst others, you choose whether your character has any, and get buildpoints if they do.); to a degree that I never have to call for a roll on those, because the players roll far more often anyways. I don't know.

As to whether or not a control-freak GM would be making the same arguments - I don't know. And I largely don't care. Just because an asshat shares an opinion of yours does not make you an asshat for holding that opinion. Reductio ad Hitlerium and that jazz. "Bad people share your idea" isn't an argument. One would have to show the actual fault in the argument. And I don't think "GMs being decent people is far more important than having rules (pretending to) restrict their power" is really an argument that a control-freak GM would make.

Enticing doesn't fit. You can use all the other three to get people to do things, so why would there be a separate skill for that. Cut that one up and distribute cases depending on method.

Hmm... I actually disagree a bit, again. The others can cause action indirectly, this here is to cause action directly. To take all the modifiers built up by the other skills and reap the rewards - the "Seduce, but not just for sex" skill Segev argued for. The one if you just want to present an idea in the best light possible.
I feel a skill for causing action directly fits in maybe not in the middle of the list, but it would create a hole if left out. Maybe I am bad at getting across what I want to do here :smallwink:

On the other hand I think one interesting divide is logic/emotion. Personally I feel that is a rather large difference in how people think and how different techniques to influence people work.

So you might have get an emotional reaction, a logical one or form a bond. Now we could break this down even further, but 3 seems like a nice starting point and form a bond would probably be different enough mechanically that it might rate its own skill. Could just be an application of the first two. I just made this by the way.

I think this is somewhat covered in the split between "Charisma" and "Sincerity", but indeed only somewhat. "Appeal with logic" and "appeal with emotion" would be a different angle - but actually, just having those two as skills might work for a different system. I don't pretend I have the perfect solution, truth be told I want feedback on a split I'd find interesting for a "generic" system, and also for my own systems specifically^^
Though I'd add: "Forming a bond" and "get emotional reaction" are very much intertwined in my view, and separating them out I feel might be difficult. Since most emotional reactions have "forming a low-level bond" as the method of their working. You become invested in the struggle of the person doing the appeal, and therefor feel compelled to help them.

So now I am thinking about a skill system where you have a practical and theoretical score in every score... I see some potential but I'm not sure what the point of such a system would be.

(Old-timey) university-students/professors. They potentially know tons of stuff, but ****all about applying it to the real world. Which is really bad when (Point of the game) happens. Maybe demon invasion. Maybe "just" war. Something like that. :smallwink: Model a very specific sort of setting, to have a more general answer. But: Setting-specific systems are always a nice thing imho.

Floret is talking about being able to use social skills against PCs in existing RPGs that just aren't built with that level of character specificity.

There is no way in D&D (or 90+% of existing RPGs) to model a character's level of susceptibility to seduction with anything other than the DM's opinion of their character.

Likewise, a character who has a effectively infinitely high AC and no sells every attack would ruin the balance of a game like D&D.

An asexual character with no sex drive to manipulate is more or less "meh whatever" in most games that don't focus on erotically charged sex-ventures where sexuality is used like a weapon.

No way except player opinion of the character. Group consensus. Or, shockingly, what I have been saying all this time: An opposed roll. With situational modifiers to be pointed out beforehand and possibly argued about when their fitting seems fiddly. Works in FATE: You say "This aspect/stunt applies", and if someone feels like "Nah, it doesn't really, does it?" you have a quick chat. Now for all I know the concept of opposed rolls is utterly foreign to DnD. I don't know, I stay away from that game.
A game where such a system is not built-in would of course be ideally suited by a GM who is not a stickler to the rules. Funnily enough: RAW, the approach you describe is actually written INTO many systems. Maybe in your experience this has been remedied by "we don't use social skills against players", but there is no clause in most games that actually says this as per RAW. Maybe a block discussing using those skills BETWEEN PCs, but NPC on PC is generally rather... standard, in my experience?

[SPOILER]"Here's my idea for representing people's mental processes in an RPG system."
"Your model doesn't work for people who don't work that way."
"Everyone works that way."
"Some people don't."
"Everyone works that way."
"... everyone? Not really. Take my word for it."
"Everyone works that way."
"Fine... I don't work that way."
"Yes you do."
"Here's an example of me not working that way."
"That doesn't count. And it doesn't matter what you think, you work that way."
"He's right, you don't work the way you think you work, you work the way he says you work."
"My entire life experience tells me otherwise."
[COLOR=#0000cd]"Doesn't matter, this is how you work, even if you don't think so."

See, there are several problems with what you write here.
1. "Take my word for it" as a part of your argumentation. Because... why should we? If what you describe utterly contradicts our lived experience, every study we read, everything we ever learned about human workings... Why should we just take the word of some guy on the internet for "No, your worldview is wrong"; without at least questioning him if it maybe was his worldview that was not air-tight? "Take my word for it" is not an argument that holds any sort of strength on its own, and expecting it to do is just ridiculous. Just as it would be for us to expect you to just discard your worldview.
2. "Yes you do" was never said. What WAS said is "Are you sure? Can you provide proof for this?" Likewise, "That doesn't count" wasn't part of the argument, rather "This might not actually be the proof you think it is, because of (Reasons). Please strengthen your case."

There is a significant body of work that shows humans to be some of the worst predictors of their own behaviors.

http://journal.sjdm.org/14/14130/jdm14130.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100623110114.htm

Long story short: people literally and truly are not the best predictors of their furore behavior. Especially in hypothetical situations

This is exactly what I am talking about, yes. Thank you for providing links.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-16, 07:46 AM

See, there are several problems with what you write here.
1. "Take my word for it" as a part of your argumentation. Because... why should we? If what you describe utterly contradicts our lived experience, every study we read, everything we ever learned about human workings... Why should we just take the word of some guy on the internet for "No, your worldview is wrong"; without at least questioning him if it maybe was his worldview that was not air-tight? "Take my word for it" is not an argument that holds any sort of strength on its own, and expecting it to do is just ridiculous. Just as it would be for us to expect you to just discard your worldview.
2. "Yes you do" was never said. What WAS said is "Are you sure? Can you provide proof for this?" Likewise, "That doesn't count" wasn't part of the argument, rather "This might not actually be the proof you think it is, because of (Reasons). Please strengthen your case."

Because if you had just taken my word for it, or not dragged out the "you can't be certain" canard about my statements about my own internal experiences, we wouldn't have filled the thread with the "talk about Max Killjoy's brain show" for several pages.

Regarding the studies -- just as "anecdote" is not the singular form of "data"... "statistics" and "data" are not the plural forms of "human being". And yet somehow, when people set out to study the human mind, they quickly forget that, and mistake the general for the specific, trend for truth, and the mean for the entire data set. People are not stamped out on a production line, they're individuals, and each model only exists once, ever, in singular. There are variations, and outliers, and just being an outlier doesn't mean there's something wrong, or something that needs to be fixed.

I've had to understand and accept that most people don't think like I do, they don't work like I do. They do things I don't understand, take risks I wouldn't take, engage in irrational optimism, build houses of cards that are most likely to collapse, and look at the long term in way that I just don't comprehend. I listen to the TED talks about the human mind, and to me it sounds like they're discussing aliens, almost none of it sounds familiar to my experience.

And yet for some reason, most people also seem unable to accept that there are others who don't work like they do, and even get aggressive about proving that everyone thinks the same if it comes up. Maybe if they could accept it, this thread wouldn't have gotten to where it is at this point.

But hey, those have been failings of psychology going back to the pseudoscience of Freud and Jung. They presumed that their own very personal (and unusual) experiences were the key to understanding all human minds, and they presumed that there was a single "way people work" that could be uncovered.

Segev

2017-01-16, 10:55 AM

Edit: Removing a long response to Max_Killjoy, because I was probably overly harsh in it. My apologies to any who read it, in particular Max. I will leave the short-form response here, as I think it gets the point across without being too biting. Editing it slightly to add a personal plea.

Short form: Nobody here is telling you, Max_Killjoy, that we know how your head works. We're telling you that what you're saying sounds unbelievable to us. If I claimed I never made mistakes and that I was the smartest man alive, I doubt people would just take my word for it. Them telling me they don't think I'm the smartest man alive because Stephen Hawking might be smarter isn't them telling me I'm stupid, nor that they know precisely how intelligent I am. Please stop taking it personally when people aren't convinced on your word alone that you are the equivalent of an Olympic champion compared to everybody else when it comes to self-assessment at just your word.

I don't think one can, outside of freak accidents, convince someone of something without also convincing them that you yourself believe it. I mean, I do agree it could happen, but the cases you describe would not be enough for me to put up two different skills.Agreed. That is the hazard of separating the skills, and yet, if you don't separate them, you can't get the desired states. Conundrum.

...maybe I should spell out the states, so we're on the same page without anybody having to dive back through the quotes:

1. Sincerity fail; Persuasion fail: The target not only doesn't believe what you're saying, but they think you don't believe it either. They conclude you're lying.
2. Sincerity fail; Persuasion succeed: The target believes what you're saying is true, but doesn't believe you. This is the "error" state that seems hard to contemplate. It seems like it could arise from the target having reason outside your efforts to believe the truth of what you say, but thinks you believe yourself to be lying. "My liege, your daughter is alive. You have to believe me!" could be something you, perhaps think you're lying about, because you just attempted to murder her, but the King knows she's actually still alive and in the care of his best doctors.

Alternatively, this could arise if you do such a good job playing what you think is "devil's advocate" that your argument convinces the audience, even though you clearly think you're outlining a flawed position. "Straw Man Has A Point."
3. Sincerity succeed; Persuasion fail: The target believes YOU believe what you're saying, but is still unconvinced that you're right. Maybe they think you're mistaken, or that you're insane.
4. Sincerity succeed; Persuasion succeed: The target is convinced of your point and believes that you also believe it.

Of these, only 2 is problematic. But even it can come up, so the only issue is if it comes up too often (and "25% of the time" is way too often).

Now, convincing someone you believe it without convincing them is possible, yes. I don't know if I'd rather roll that into Sincerity regardless, roll it into enticing, into psychological stuff; or make another skill. Possibly another skill.
The idea behind the four skills I put up was to make them, somewhat broken down:

1. Get people to believe you ("Sincerity")
2. Get people to do things ("Enticing")
3. Get people to like you ("Charisma")
4. Get people to believe things ("Psychology")

The addons and how to fluff these would be a matter of system, I think. Dunno. Any thoughts on this "cleaned up" model?

Oh, I didn't wanna split the two off. I just generally wanted to suggest a skill for making people like or dislike youFair enough.

(Whatever direction you find beneficial; mosten times...As I believe you've indicated English is your second language, let me provide a quick correction: "Mosten" isn't a word. You're looking for "most."

I can imagine Intimidation efforts being somewhat propped up by the person disliking you, and therefor being more ready to believe you would to ****ty things to themHm, maybe. Though I think that's relatively unrelated to them liking or disliking you. ...or, rather, the cause is inverted: they are more likely to dislike you if they believe you'd do nasty things to them.

It might indeed be somewhat related to what is usually seen as "Charisma", but more on a skill level than at an attribute level? If that makes sense? Whatever name one wants to give it^^In truth, the skill/attribute divide is somewhat arbitrary. Yes, people have talents, but even "talents" can be trained. I'm not going to say we should try revamping things to have only one or the other, but I am observing that it's unsurprising that there's fuzziness in the boundary.

I'd disagree, actually. I would, ideally, have the skill cover both, since even the practical applications of psychology are a rather intellectual endeavour, and Psychologists generally do both. (Just most often with no intention to actually manipulate to the level they possibly could, which is a good thing.)
I agree one could split off the skill in "analysing people" and "applying the techniques the analysis suggested might work", but I find rolling them into one to be rather sufficient and plausible abstraction for most games. It definitely isn't a PURELY social skill, but the borders are fluid anyways. As I see it, it is a skill with social applications.Ah, see, the way I read what you'd written was more as a "social science" thing, covering dealing with large groups of people. My misunderstanding.

I like opposed rolls for these, and therefor you would need defensive skills for these sorts of things. The traits and goals and stuff being opposed would be modifiers, in this case.
What I meant as the "Willpower" skill was along the lines of what Max is pointing to with "digging in your heels" and the like. Doing your best not to be swayed. Really, this is a matter of system and approach.I wasn't really trying to speak against opposed rolls, though I admit I am picturing a single-roll system.

There are two major components to "resisting" a social influence (whether it's meant to change your beliefs or to persuade you to do something): Sheer stubbornness and a sense of attachment to your current beliefs on an emotional level ("I can't possibly stop believing my religion! It's part of my identity!"); and other beliefs and principles which dictate that what's being pushed is wrong (whether in the "not factually correct" or "not morally acceptable" sense).

I look at both as being more firmly related to your attachment to the traits defining the broad strokes of your personality. You might be incredibly stubborn about your political views, but more wishy-washy about your religious ones, for example. You may have that stubbornness backed up by other traits related to things you believe to be true (perhaps even due to having seen their truth in action). I'd go so far as to suggest that "an incredibly stubborn man" is so because he has his traits at really high values, more than because he has an independent stubbornness streak.

That said... a stubbornness stat might be fitting as a way of establishing a "baseline" at which you first adopt a new belief. I'm not sure I like this, but it's something to consider.

I am, incidentally, saying the latter. And I do firmly stand by that being different.Are you sure you mean "the latter?" That means "the last one said." Which, in this case, means you ARE telling Max_Killjoy that you know, better than he does, what's going on in his head.

Because, incidentally, someone who was a god at self-assessment, would not get there by just taking their self-assessment as fact, but fact-checking it.This, I agree with. And he still shouldn't expect others to just take his word for it, because it is well outside the norm for human beings.

I don't find the goal of accurately modeling character internals to be a productive one. It's something that seems doomed to failure if it's trying to be an impartial simulation. People are too quirky to apply universal motivation rules to with any degree of accuracy beyond the more simplistic needs. Now, if it stops trying to be an impartial simulation then all bets are off and the system becomes far more workable, at least in my mind.I disagree. Not that people aren't quirky and individual and unique, but that they are so much so that it's fruitless to model them.

People's physical capabilities are also quirky and individual and unique, and the simple truth is that our models of them in games are ridiculously simplistic, making people who are good at lifting being good at climbing and at grappling just because we wrap it all into "strength." Separating dexterity from strength is also not a spectacular model for how humans REALLY work, and yet D&D is hardly the only system to do it.

But the systems work, and provide believable characters.

The same can be done for mental/social traits. For drives, for motivations.

You can't really model behavior with a system as behavior is so erratic. But the best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior.You CAN model behavior. People are often quite consistent, and we have sufficient aggregate evidence of commonalities of human behaviors to at least approximate it with a system for believable motivation.

So me and the player we talked about why his character didn't want to get seduced. His character had nothing against being seduced it just turned out the player didn't trust me and though that I as a GM was going to screw him over somehow and something bad would happen to his character.And herein lies the problem. How do you know he REALLY had no issue with his PC being seduced in THIS situation? You managed to persuade him that he should be okay with seduction in general, but why is THIS situation a "general" seduction that is only justified in being resisted because he doesn't trust you not to screw his PC over with it?

The whole point of a system like the one I'm proposing is to remove the "trust" discussion, and any hint that the player should be guilted into "admitting" that he's only refusing because he doesn't trust the GM. The idea here is that you'd have some objective numbers, and it would culminate in you being able to tell the player that this girl's sexy wiles offer him X morale points if he indulges with her, and that it will cost X morale points to turn her down.

The player, if he's really okay with seduction in general, will probably still pay the points this time, as he smells something fishy. But...in the future, he'll seek out such seductions when he feels it's safer, because hey! Morale points for being seduced! This will also give you, as GM, a chance to build a level of trust, or at least complacency: the rewards for being seduced easily may over time outweigh the risks, and so when you decide that THIS seductress is a demoness with nefarious aims, he may not even suspect until it's too late.

Here, you tipped your hand due to conservation of detail: sexy funtimes hadn't come up before, so the fact that you're bringing them up now is a hint that something's up.

But bottom line is why PC's don't want to be bluffed, fast talked, seduced or give in to vices is because they believe it will lead to bad things.Absolutely. This leads to the exact dichotomy of PC/character experience that I'm looking to mitigate. Clearly, fast-talking, bluffs, and seduction work on real people. People give in to vices even though they know they shouldn't all the time. It's because people - and the PCs in the world experiencing the temptation - experience a drive, urge, or perception which makes them value going ahead and doing it over what they might "know" is wiser. The player...doesn't experience those things, without something to connect him to it.

Like Max Killjoy I think the players should be in control of their character.Despite Max_Killjoy's protestations to the contrary, so do I. The system I propose leaves this in place.

If I seem snippy, here, it's because Max_Killjoy's repeated arguments are against a straw man that such a system removes the PC from the player's control, and I get tired of that being held up as a reason why any system like this is not just impossible, but immoral.

Because even if you play a greedy git then your greed doesn't dictate that you'll always act on it or how far you would be willing to go for your greed. Instead of letting the dice dictate you might just let the player dictate.....if they want to roll for it then fine...roll against will or something......really lucrative offer, here have a -5 to your will.Indeed. The system I've been pushing would leave it up to the player whether his incredibly greedy git gives in at any given time. Sure, refusing to do so means losing out on a huge morale point reward (and possibly paying a huge morale point penalty), because he's so incredibly greedy, but he can do it. Nothing forces him to give in.

This way, too, there's never a sense that the character is being unfairly held accountable for something he was "forced" to do. The player ALWAYS ultimately chooses the character's actions. He doesn't choose the costs and rewards, but he chooses the actions.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-16, 11:10 AM

Because if you had just taken my word for it, or not dragged out the "you can't be certain" canard about my statements about my own internal experiences, we wouldn't have filled the thread with the "talk about Max Killjoy's brain show" for several pages.
Taking your word for it would be a bad way to arrive at truth.
Imagine if someone had said "All the best characters stick knives in their eyeballs" and everyone just took their word for it.
(Sometimes an extreme example is used to highligjt the silliness shared between the much less extreme reality)

Regarding the studies -- just as "anecdote" is not the singular form of "data"... "statistics" and "data" are not the plural forms of "human being". And yet somehow, when people set out to study the human mind, they quickly forget that, and mistake the general for the specific, trend for truth, and the mean for the entire data set. People are not stamped out on a production line, they're individuals, and each model only exists once, ever, in singular. There are variations, and outliers, and just being an outlier doesn't mean there's something wrong, or something that needs to be fixed.

Mk. So here's how this would be solved for you:
A research study about you wherein you make predictions about what you would do in about 50 hypothetical situations, and then after a sufficient amount of time has passed for that memory to be much less clear (about a year, lets say) you would be presented with 5 randomly selected options from those 50 situations. And your reaction would be measured. If it was the same as your prediction every time, congrats. You are indeed an outlier.
If you are wrong a significant amount of the time, congrats. You're not an outlier. You just are exactly as bad at predicting your future self as everyone else is.

Until that happens, (I ain't waiting for it) we will use the model of people that applies most often.

I've had to understand and accept that most people don't think like I do, they don't work like I do. They do things I don't understand, take risks I wouldn't take, engage in irrational optimism, build houses of cards that are most likely to collapse, and look at the long term in way that I just don't comprehend. I listen to the TED talks about the human mind, and to me it sounds like they're discussing aliens, almost none of it sounds familiar to my experience.

So then... why do you even have a dog in this fight?
We're talking about how people generally behave.
Your being an exception to the rule does not make the rule 100% inaccurate and worth throwing away. It means you're outside of the central portions.

And yet for some reason, most people also seem unable to accept that there are others who don't work like they do, and even get aggressive about proving that everyone thinks the same if it comes up. Maybe if they could accept it, this thread wouldn't have gotten to where it is at this point.

They've been as aggressive as: "Based on the majority of humans being really terrible at predicting their future behavior, the safest bet is to say you're in that group even if you believe otherwise. So my money will sit on the high chance option."

But hey, those have been failings of psychology going back to the pseudoscience of Freud and Jung. They presumed that their own very personal (and unusual) experiences were the key to understanding all human minds, and they presumed that there was a single "way people work" that could be uncovered.

Are you attempting to discredit psychology as part of your argument?
Because Freudian and Jungian psychology don't discredit modern psychology for the same reasons Alchemy doesn't discredit Chemistry and Astrology doesn't discredit Astronomy.

Thou shalt not judge the final product by its alpha build.

georgie_leech

2017-01-16, 11:17 AM

Thou shalt not judge the final product by its alpha build.

Off topic, but you just encapsulated everything I've ever tried to say about Early Access games. :smallbiggrin:

Segev

2017-01-16, 11:21 AM

Off topic, but you just encapsulated everything I've ever tried to say about Early Access games. :smallbiggrin:

This is also why I would hesitate to spend full-game-like-prices on early access games. It always amazes me that they think they can ask $40-$60 a pop for an "early access." If I WOULD like your final product, but would be disappointed by the early version, it risks me making that false judgment AND being angry over paying for a game I don't like. If I like the early access version but later additions for the final product make me unhappy, I feel doubly cheated. It's just generally better to wait for the final game, see what it looks like, and buy it if THAT looks good.

Early access should be cheap. It's a risk and gamble. If you don't want to sell early access cheaply because you don't want to "give the game away," then either just give a discount for the final version, or release the "early access" as a demo. >_<

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-16, 11:42 AM

Yeah. Though what was essentially being done was more like waiting for the game to be released, then looking at what the Early Access version had, and deciding to buy or not buy based on that.

Which is silly.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-16, 11:44 AM

Actually, no. I did no such thing. I said that it seems that you're doing this, because that is what it seems you're doing. I base my statements on the behavior I witness, and how you are unequivocally responding. If you are responding to what is actually being written, you are absolutely terrible at communication. If you are responding honestly to what you think is being said, you are terrible at reading comprehension. If you are misrepresenting what is being said in order to justify taking it personally, but have convinced yourself that you're being abused and insulted and that there is no misrepresentation on your part, then that is what I am calling pathological misrepresentation.

I am genuinely NOT trying to insult you. I am telling you what your behavior is coming off as. I am trying very hard not to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, primarily because I do not believe you are purposefully misrepresenting anybody. I think you are doing so, because I also do not believe you to be inept at reading comprehension nor at communication.

Given how personally you're taking it, as evidenced by the spoiler where you spell out how you believe this conversation has gone and how you seem to think that, prior to this post and the last one where I directly addressed your misrepresentation (or misinterpretation, or intellectually dishonest straw man) of people's positions, shows me just how personally you're taking it.

Nobody has said "your mind works this way." You insist we have, because you refuse to acknowledge that there's a difference between not trusting that you're as good at self-assessment as you think you are and believing that we know exactly how you'd react. "You don't know" is not the same as "We know better."

And the only sophistry going on is your attempt to compare the likelihood that the universe will spontaneously end tomorrow to the likelihood that you are not necessarily able to predict your own future behavior as well as you think you can. It's possible that you can, but you've provided no evidence of this, and, frankly, I don't expect you to because it would be incredibly hard to do over the internet. This has nothing to do with whether I think you're right or wrong, and everything to do with telling you that evidence suggests that most humans are not as good at it as you think you are.

Even if you're right, and you are a perfect self-assessment engine who could not be modeled in the system being discussed, the person you claim to be is demonstrably an extreme outlier in human behavior and nature.

Even if we take your word for it, we've been saying for pages that that's not normal for how humans work. Nobody has tried to pry into your mind except to see if you really are saying what it seems you are, because what you're saying is so alien to the mindsets of not only those of us posting in this thread (other than you), but to how evidence both anecdotal and experimental suggests human minds generally work.

You know what studies of large numbers of people do let you do, however? Figure out commonalities.

You know what part of designing a game system entails? Trying to model commonalities and create room for exceptions to be the way stats vary your character from them.

It is irrelevant whether you can find Jesus Christ as the one example of a perfect human being, or Max_Killjoy as a singular example of a vastly different collection of mental processes. While it'd be nice if a system could model both, it is not helpful to say "because it cannot model singular outliers, it is worthless to try to model something that encompasses a broader swath of humankind."

Then why on earth are you saying, "Because I work entirely differently than most people, you should use my difference to show that no system should work in any way other than how my own mind works?"

Because that's what you've been saying, even if you don't think so. Your every objection has been, "I want characters to work the way my mind works," in essence. That's nice. But since you get offended when we start pointing out that our minds don't work like yours (which is weird, since you insist that nobody can know how another's mind works) and that we find such tools useful, it's really self-centered of you.

I can only conclude that you're taking this whole thing way too personally. That, somehow, people not wanting to play the game the way you want to is a personal attack on you, because people don't think the way you do. I can't quite fathom why. I had, up 'til now, believed that you were genuinely trying to discuss how human minds work in general, and wanting to discuss how to make characters work how you think human minds work. This is clearly not the case.

By your own admission, whenever you hear discussions of how human minds work, you think people are talking about aliens. Given that most people will discuss it - even if they disagree - in terms of where assessments of cause are probably wrong, not in terms of how utterly alien the models presented are, you should be aware that you are not a good model for how a person in fiction should be portrayed. Not if that person is to be believable.

What somewhat confuses me is that you find ANY characters in ANY works believable, since you seem to not only find other humans' minds incomprehensible, but find any character whose mind doesn't work as yours does to be unbelievable.

I'm sorry you find this discussion so personally offensive. But you're the one who injected your differing thought process into it, and then insisted that any system that doesn't model a character on your mental process is not just inadequate for you, but somehow morally offensive just for existing. You made examining how your mind works relevant to trying to discuss system design with you. You don't get to come in and say, "Because my mind doesn't work that way, no human mind does, and it's not just pointless but evil of you to try to make a system modeling human drives." Yet that's exactly what your attitude and your aggressive offense-taking is doing.

This saddens me because you have interesting insights. But you take things personally and want to use that you're taking them personally as a reason why nobody is allowed to discuss the topic if they don't agree with you. That makes it very frustrating to try to prize out those insights.

Short form: Nobody here is telling you that we know how your head works. We're telling you that what you're saying sounds unbelievable to us. If I claimed I never made mistakes and that I was the smartest man alive, I doubt people would just take my word for it. Them telling me they don't think I'm the smartest man alive because Stephen Hawking might be smarter isn't them telling me I'm stupid, nor that they know precisely how intelligent I am.

Short form answer:

"Commonality" != "universality", and as noted, the "mean" is too often mistaken for the "whole".

As for the rest, I'm utterly lost as to how you're interpreting an objection to your attempt to encode every character's mental function and personality under a model based on an utterly narrow and normative model of the human mind, as as assertion that every character should be modeled on a single person's mental processes. But somehow, you're taking "not everyone works like that" to mean "everyone works this other way". Somehow, you're taking "leave room for all sorts of people's mental processes to be included" as "there's only one valid understanding of mental processes"... while YOU and FLORET are the ones claiming that there's only one valid answer.

I have NEVER said that I want all characters to be modeled on or work like one singular person, me or otherwise -- that would be the exact opposite of my position, clearly. As in, everything I've said has explicitly and implicitly been opposed to that very notion, to the point that I'm perplexed that you'd even suggest that I'd said anything of the sort.

I've said that any RPG system for modelling internal mental processes is going to either cross the line into burdomsome complexity, or be so narrow and simplified that it utterly fails to allow for the full range and nuance of different human minds, let alone non-human minds in certain sorts of games. I have also said that it's better to let the player be the sole determiner of what goes on inside the character, and be done with it.

I'm not taking the entire discussion personally -- I'm taking the "you don't work that way, even if you think you do" bullcrap personally. I'm taking it personally that I'm saying "hey, here's someone who's mind is outside the box you've drawn" and the response I'm getting is "you're delusional".

But this is always what happens, which is why I didn't lead with my personal experiences as an example, and it took several go-arounds before I offered up my own personal experience. I have NEVER been able talk about my mental processes without someone chiming in "but that's not how people work".

kyoryu

2017-01-16, 11:52 AM

Off topic, but you just encapsulated everything I've ever tried to say about Early Access games. :smallbiggrin:

Nobody wants to see how the sausage is made.

I say this as a game developer.

Segev

2017-01-16, 11:57 AM

Somehow, you're taking "leave room for all sorts of people's mental processes to be included" as "there's only one valid understanding of mental processes"... while YOU and FLORET are the ones claiming that there's only one valid answer. Except...that's not what I've said, nor what I've read Floret saying.

I have said that it may not be possible to cover EVERYTHING, though that would be ideal. I have said that the mean and reasonable standard deviations around said mean are what I am aiming for FIRST, because that will encompass sufficient quantities of character concepts as to be useful. Getting more would be nice.

I am also saying "just because you can present an outlier doesn't mean what I'm trying to do is invalid." There literally is no way to read your objections, wherein you claim I'm trying to tell players how their personal minds work, and calling the attempt to make a system that models characters AT ALL "wrong" in the strong terms you have used and with so much offense as you have taken, in any other way. You have not said, "That won't cover me, but I see how it could cover others." You've said, "Because that won't cover me, it's not just useless but actively harmful."

I have NEVER said that I want all characters to work one singular person, me or otherwise.Nor have I accused you of saying so. I have accused you of saying that any system which doesn't cover you is not just worthless, but offensive and wrong.

I've said that any RPG system for modelling internal mental processes is going to cross either the line into burdomsome complexity, or be so narrow and simplified that it utterly fails to allow for the full range and nuance of different human minds, let alone non-human minds in certain sorts of games. You have, and I've countered that by saying that it need be neither. Just because it doesn't cover outliers doesn't mean it's "so narrow and simplified that it utterly fails to allow for ... different human minds."

There is a difference between "different human minds" and "every possible human mind." I am not aiming for "every possible" as the sole possible success condition. I am aiming for 'enough to be useful to most players.'

I would even suggest that, if you weren't taking this so personally as to get offended, it would be useful to you: it would help you play these alien minds known as "a large swath of humanity" which you recognize don't work the same way yours does.

I'm not taking the entire discussion personally -- I'm taking the "you don't work that way, even if you think you do" bullcrap personally.You're taking offense that people are not accepting that you're right about how you work, when they have seen no evidence to back it up save your say-so. I wouldn't even be explaining why I don't find your anecdotal objections persuasive except that you keep telling me that I'm inherently wrong for wanting to model something that reflects what most people do experience, as evidenced by both many non-you anecdotes and studies of human behavior.

I'm taking it personally that I'm saying "hey, here's someone who's mind is outside the box you've drawn" and the response I'm getting is "you're delusional". Except nobody's said that. Well, I haven't seen anybody say that. The closest I've seen is Floret saying "I am saying the latter," and given her apparently ESL state, I'm not convinced she meant what she denotatively said. (She might have, in which case I disagree with her.)

What HAS been said - what I have said - is that I am not convinced that you are as good at self-assessment as you think you are. Most people aren't very good at self-assessing, and self-assessing one's self-assessment capabilities is appropriately untrustworthy.

But this is always what happens, which is why I didn't lead with my personal experiences as an example, and it took several go-arounds before I offered up my own personal experience. I have NEVER been able talk about my mental processes without someone chiming in "but that's not how people work".

It isn't how most people work. The trouble is not that you brought up your experience, but that you tried to hold up your experience as if it was normal enough to disprove a model claiming to work within the state space that encompasses the bulk of human minds. And in so doing, you (perhaps inadvertently) asserted that your experience should be considered normal.

If you led with "I know I don't work the way most people do," rather than trying to claim that any attempt to model something that doesn't match your experience is telling you how your mind works, is asserting better knowledge of your personal experience than you have, we probably would have just dismissed it as an outlier and gone on with it. I suspect, on some level, you don't want to have this dismissed as an outlier, which is why you didn't lead with that. But if you're going to try to present an acknowledged outlier as not such, don't be surprised when people object to that outlier being taken as exemplary of the norm.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-16, 12:24 PM

I have NEVER said that I want all characters to work one singular person, me or otherwise.

Nor have I accused you of saying so.

So how should this have been read:

Your every objection has been, "I want characters to work the way my mind works," in essence.

If you led with "I know I don't work the way most people do," rather than trying to claim that any attempt to model something that doesn't match your experience is telling you how your mind works, is asserting better knowledge of your personal experience than you have, we probably would have just dismissed it as an outlier and gone on with it. I suspect, on some level, you don't want to have this dismissed as an outlier, which is why you didn't lead with that. But if you're going to try to present an acknowledged outlier as not such, don't be surprised when people object to that outlier being taken as exemplary of the norm.

What I actually led with was "Not everyone works that way" and "there's more variation than you're accounting for" multiple times, and this was rejected. So I reluctantly used myself as one example of that statement being true. But instead of moving on from there, the conversation was immediately turned to an increasingly aggressive series of attempts to disparage and disprove and dismiss and cast doubt.

If I'd said "I don't like broccoli"... somehow I doubt there would have been an uproar of "you can't say that for certain!", and no one would have said "I bet we could find a way to present broccoli that you'd fall for!" But somehow the more detail I've given of my internal experience of life and examples of past situations, the more insistent people have become that I just simply cannot be right... about myself. I'm not claiming that I can jump to the moon or bounce bullets off my chest or anything patently ridiculous, but even if we're talking about fictional characters, it sounds like people have less trouble believing that a character could do things that are absolutely physically impossible for a real human being, than they have believing that a character wouldn't be "sexually intrigued" by the things that are considered "typical" even when it's completely against their will.

E: my original objections to these sorts of systems were (and are) that they intrude on the very core zone of greatest player agency, that they don't leave room for the full scope of possible characters / presume that all characters are within a certain bound space, and rest on an unfounded premise about what makes a "good" RPG character and "good" roleplaying.

I (and others) also suggested that a variation of some of the proposed systems could work as an opt-in setup, so that players who wanted to say "hey GM, here's some internal conflict I'd be interested in exploring with this character" could do so, rather than players having to build up elaborate opt-outs during character creation to avoid the situations that they'd rather not explore due to disinterest or discomfort, or disconnect from their concept of the character. This was rejected as "unfair" by at least one commentator.

Segev

2017-01-16, 02:15 PM

BRC

2017-01-16, 02:50 PM

If the purpose is to create an RPG mechanic, rather than create some sort of all-encompassing model for human behavior, than an individual example isn't really relevant.

An actual Archer would point out that how most RPG systems handle Archery is inaccurate to the point of absurdity, but they might still roll some dice.

I can accept that somebody (probably many people) will look at whatever system Segev comes up with and say "My mind doesn't work like that". So, if you're playing in a game using Segev's System, either accept that you're playing a character whose mind DOES work like the system models, or don't play in that game.

kyoryu

2017-01-16, 03:46 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-16, 04:31 PM

And, ultimately, I think the most salient point is that Max_Killjoy just doesn't like systems that tell him what his character does/feels/thinks.

Even if it's an accurate model of reality, that's not going to really change his preference.

In broad terms, you are correct.

However...

The more it's based on the player's explicit choices in character creation (and ongoing growth), and the less it's based on a imposing an implicit default set of assumptions about the inner workings of the human mind... the less I would find such a system bothersome.

The broader the sorts of persons that it can accurately and smoothly and "transparently" represent, and thus the less it would feel like one was fighting against the system to play the character as one felt the character would feel and think and react... the less I would find such a system bothersome.

The more it's driven by things the player says "I want to explore with this specific character" and the less it's driven by things the game designer or GM says "you will explore with your characters"... the less I would find such a system bothersome.

Cluedrew

2017-01-16, 05:16 PM

Thou shalt not judge the final product by its alpha build.
Nobody wants to see how the sausage is made.

I say this as a game developer.The road is long and hard, and so many people have no idea what is on it.

I've got a few more ideas percolating in the back of my head, but one big one right now is I think this is why a lot of systems have an abstraction between cause and effect for social mechanics. Most of the time the effect is encoded while the cause is actually left up to the players.

So "Would my character react this way in this situation?" is not quite the right question, the question is "Is this a situation in which my character would react this way?". OK so that is effectively the same question, I'm just reframing it a bit to try and make the idea clear. The reactions may be fixed, but what makes your character feel those reactions is usually up to the player.

I could go on, but I'm feeling kind of tired. Am I making sense?

0

kyoryu

2017-01-16, 05:38 PM

The more it's based on the player's explicit choices in character creation (and ongoing growth), and the less it's based on a imposing an implicit default set of assumptions about the inner workings of the human mind... the less I would find such a system bothersome.

I would generally agree with this.

Fate maps well to this - you explicitly state the kinds of trouble you think it'd be interesting to get into, and then those are the mechanical hooks that are available.

There's a couple caveats to that, of course - if hte Pirate Queen has an "Unnaturally Seductive" aspect, *that* can be Compelled as well as if it were your own aspect.

I mention that only as an example, because I do think that Fate is a bad choice for you, personally.

Talakeal

2017-01-16, 06:17 PM

Sorry to you, I missed your post in my replies - my multiquote button seems to have reset. Oh well.
And I think you are misunderstanding my goals there somewhat. I am not trying to make the rules more "fair" in any sort of sense - in fact, I think trying for "fairness" in power distribution between players and GM is ultimately an utterly doomed exercise, since the GM just... has more power than the players. And this won't go away. At which point I personally favour the approach of "search ethical GMs that know how to handle this responsibly, and write good tips for new GMs on how to do this" rather then try to mask that, and pretend that the situation can, purely rules-wise ever be actually equal.
PCs and NPCs working from different rules is not intended to create "fairness" between players and GM, but rather to create equality rules-wise between PCs and NPCs. To not need multiple different rules for the same thing.

I am, I feel, not really arguing that the GM SHOULD have all the power, but rather that they pretty much HAVE, unless they let go of parts intentionally. Which they have to do, if there is to be any sort of player input - which is very much my, and probably everyone else's preferred playstyle (If it is not, go write a novel. I like doing that, too, but again, two distinct things with two distinct appeals and stuff). And probably also any fun, at least on the players part. I am also arguing that WHICH parts of the power to hand over is purely a matter of preferrence - generally, the premise is that control over the actions of a single character, if not their success, will be given over to a player each. Also that the GM will have the obstacles put in the player's way be beatable, and that they don't just call for "Rocks fall, everyone dies". That they refrain from using their power to alter the world in unpredictable ways. All with very different reasoning as to WHY this is a good way to do things.
It is also generally agreed that PCs can be affected by the dicerolls of NPCs in multiple different situations. Combat is the most direct form of those. So the world will react to the PCs, and the PCs will react to the world; sometimes restricted by dicerolls. If one wants to expand this to the effects of Social rolls or not is purely a matter of preference. The majority of players might even say "NO, WTF?". But there is a non-negligible (As seen in this thread) subset of players that say "yeah, actually I like that". These rules are for them. That subset. The reasons for this might differ, again.

And maybe I am coming across more harshly than I intend, yes. Maybe I have weird players that actually ASK me to tell them what their character feels, sometimes in absence of any roll. That actively want to roll the dice to see if their characters are affected by their negative traits (A mechanic of TDE amongst others, you choose whether your character has any, and get buildpoints if they do.); to a degree that I never have to call for a roll on those, because the players roll far more often anyways. I don't know.

As to whether or not a control-freak GM would be making the same arguments - I don't know. And I largely don't care. Just because an asshat shares an opinion of yours does not make you an asshat for holding that opinion. Reductio ad Hitlerium and that jazz. "Bad people share your idea" isn't an argument. One would have to show the actual fault in the argument. And I don't think "GMs being decent people is far more important than having rules (pretending to) restrict their power" is really an argument that a control-freak GM would make.

Ok, let me try a different way:

Not being able to choose how my character feels / reacts to stimuli takes away most of what I find fun in the game, the ability to make decisions that affect the outcome of the plot and the ability to exercise creativity in constructing a meticulous personality for my character. Without that being a player would be completely dull (and being a DM would be pretty dull as well), and so I recoil from the idea. If you want to play it more power to you; but it is a fundamentally different game than I play and not one that I would enjoy.

Likewise, in my experience, outside of a few control freak DMs, most people I talk to about gaming in person or online hold their control of PCs sacrosanct and many react even more strongly than I do, like I said I have been raked over the coals for putting in a house rule that players aren't allowed to loot fallen comrades or narrating their actions during downtime to set up the current session. I find it extremely unlikely that you were able to find a group of players who all share your views; now I am not saying it is impossible, and I am not calling you a liar, I merely suspect that you might (key word might) be overstating your stance or assuming your players are enjoying it more than they are.

My point was that saying "I like NPCs and PCs to follow the same rules," does not necessitate taking control away from the players. Indeed, you can reconcile it by using language that is neutral to the player or the GM, simply rephrasing "Does not work against PCs" as "Controlling player (be is a GM controlling an NPC or a player controlling a PC) either sets the difficulty of social rolls used against them OR has final say as to how the situation plays out.

Now, this would still leave open the possibility for players to no-sell / god-mode, but most won't, just like your proposed system is open to abuse by railroading DMs, but most won't. That is really a social problem, and in most games isn't that big a deal anyway.

I didn't say your idea was bad because bad people share it, I said that if it was common place bad people would be abusing it all the time. That isn't an appeal to consequences or prediction of the future, it is an observation of the present. Like if you were to say "Dinosaurs are not only still alive, but plentiful in the wilds of the American southwest," and I respond "Then why don't I regularly see stories about T-rex attacks on the nightly news?"

No way except player opinion of the character. Group consensus. Or, shockingly, what I have been saying all this time: An opposed roll. With situational modifiers to be pointed out beforehand and possibly argued about when their fitting seems fiddly. Works in FATE: You say "This aspect/stunt applies", and if someone feels like "Nah, it doesn't really, does it?" you have a quick chat. Now for all I know the concept of opposed rolls is utterly foreign to DnD. I don't know, I stay away from that game.

Opposed by what though?

Most games lack any sort of number to oppose social rolls with, the closest most get is some sort of generic "will save" which is totally blind to the situation.

So you would end up with a situation that is more or less totally random and / or GM FIAT.

For every social roll you would need to keep in mind the relationship with the person asking, the character's mood, their preferences, the scope of the request, and what is at stake.

This is extremely hard to do, and WILL take away creativity and / or control from the player unless you give them a lot of leeway in either determining what modifiers apply to the roll and / or into how it ultimately plays out.

Also, while "social skills as mind control" is bad, giving people morale penalties isn't much better as, while the player retains control, they lose creative agency in designing their character. You can't use the same rules for someone who is asexual vs. someone who is trying to stay monogamous vs. someone who is trying to avoid emotional connections; you can't use the same system for someone who is trying to save money vs. someone who is trying to stay sober vs. someone who hates the sensation of being drunk. You can't use the same system for someone who is avoiding meet because they think it is murder, vs. someone who is allergic to meat, vs. someone who is a really picky eater and is disgusted by the taste of meat, vs. an enlightened monk who has transcended mortal desires.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-16, 08:10 PM

You know what? I think arguing over what we perceived the other as meaning is getting in the way of actually discussing the topic. So I will apologize for any misunderstandings I may have performed or caused.

Can we agree that, if we take your word, Max_Killjoy, for how your mind works, you are an outlier and that failure to encompass a character that works exactly as you do does not mean a system fails to model something which might be considered "normal" human minds?

Please note that this is not asking you to endorse any system as succeeding at that goal, only to acknowledge that "encompassing Max_Killjoy's unique mentality" is not a necessary condition to succeeding at the goal of modeling a range of "normal" human minds. (Nor would I argue it a sufficient condition; in fact, given the outlier nature, I would posit that it would be feasible that a system a priori determined to model Max_Killjoy's mind would FAIL at the aforementioned goal.)

It didn't start out as specifically an objection about whether the system could model me (that would be a bit on the egotistical side) but rather the general narrowness of what it seemed to include... but I made the mistake of using myself as an example at a certain point, so it ended up being this parallel thing of both objecting to the concept of imposing an implicit model, and defending the things I'd tried to say about myself in the context of that example.

I would argue the general principle that an RPG system has to be somewhat capable of handling outliers... as unusual, fringe, and even non-human people are kinda the stock and trade.

How many would balk at a character being in the 95th percentile or better of their chosen specialty? Or of intelligence, or strength? Or whatever?

How many would consider an RPG system incomplete if it didn't capture the maximum known human strength, or allow a character to be at least as good as the best known human archers or fencers or marksman or martial artists? Or allow for Einstein or Pavarotti or Bach?

And yet if you're going to try to model human thinking and motivation, someone who literally "thinks outside the box" or "marches to the beat of a different drummer" or who isn't "neurotypical"... isn't worth trying to model? And it should be outside the bounds of what the system can even handle, "because outlier"?

RazorChain

2017-01-16, 08:21 PM

Cluedrew

2017-01-16, 08:45 PM

How many would consider an RPG system incomplete if it didn't capture the maximum known human strength, or allow a character to be at least as good as the best known human archers or fencers or marksman or martial artists? Or allow for Einstein or Pavarotti or Bach?

And yet if you're going to try to model human thinking and motivation, someone who literally "thinks outside the box" or "marches to the beat of a different drummer" or who isn't "neurotypical"... isn't worth trying to model?Is it trying to worth to model all the outliers, I'd say so. It is worth trying to do so in every system, I'd say no.

Every system has a some set of characters it is interesting in modeling. We usually (that is to say, people in general according to my observations) don't think about this in terms of personality, because it is usually not encoded into the rules. Its still there though, implicitly in the types of the stories the system is about and the types of people who get involved in them.

Now a careless decision could reduce the size of the set more than we want to, but at the same time leaving out things that the story is not about isn't actually a bad thing. A system about high school drama is not going to suffer from not being able to represent Einstein or Bach (although it might be interested in representing someone who will be the next Einstein or Bach in 10 years).

And most mechanics don't deal with the entire human mind (at least, not any detail) an outlier in one regard might be close to the average in another. Similarly, even if it does cover outliers, it may not cover all of them. Again this should be on purpose, because the system is about some of those outliers and not others. For instance "how complete is a system that doesn't represent the maximum human ability" (my answer: Is it supposed to?) but what about the minimum human ability? How many systems accurately represent someone missing their legs? Or is completely incapable of reading facial expression? Not many, are they incomplete for not representing those? Maybe, if they were supposed to.

Also I would like to point out, we are still working on representing the "mean" well and that including outliers does complicate things. So it might be worth working out how to do the average case and then move on to the outliers.

1

Lorsa

2017-01-17, 02:24 AM

The more it's driven by things the player says "I want to explore with this specific character" and the less it's driven by things the game designer or GM says "you will explore with your characters"... the less I would find such a system bothersome.

Fate maps well to this - you explicitly state the kinds of trouble you think it'd be interesting to get into, and then those are the mechanical hooks that are available.

I want to put in a minor thought regarding this, which is a worry of mine (which may or may not disappear if/when trying Fate myself):

The worry is this:

You may not know in advance what kind of trouble it would be interesting to get into for your character. Just as when I'm a GM I like to be surprised by what my players do, so I like to be surprised as a player.

Yes, there are generally a few things, certain kinds of "trouble" that I would want my character to encounter; but I don't want this to be the end of all complications.

Using Max_killjoy's actual play example of the "grumpy 'lizard-dragon' knight", I doubt Max would've said "I would want my character to be put in a situation where he will first grow attached to someone who is a fool and then see him dying because of his stupidity". And yet, this was a great situation set up by the GM, which helped Max to explore and develop his character even further.

It is not a given that specifying certain kinds of complication as being desired would necessarily leave out the undesired ones. The GM could still make up complications of his own. However, I do fear that by telling the GM "these are the things I want", they may try to hard to work those things in that they forget, or don't have the creative energy to, come up with surprised that would be even better.

Basically, I think it is impossible to state all kinds of complications you want for your character, as there may well be some you're not aware of that would be super fun, and also I think it's undesirable as you loose the element of surprise.

On social mechanics:

While I think the discussion on the different types of skills is proceeding quite well, there was something I wanted to add in the "allow the dice to dictate what my character would do", or rather "follow the outcome of a 'persuasion' roll made by another character".

If we remove all types of arguments, methods or the like as being necessary to state by the agent making a social roll, but still have the target character being forced to go along with the outcome, it has an issue with personality growth.

My point is this, in order to roleplay a character properly, it is very important to know exactly what triggered this action. If my character is convinced to change their mind on something, or go along with something I didn't originally want, something has happened to their personality. I expect it to affect future choices and interactions made by the character. Maybe it has triggered the slippery slope towards evil? Maybe the character will now become a political activist due to their changed views? Unless I know the very specific arguments, actions or methods behind the change, I can't roleplay the altered personality that follows.

It is also very hard to simply put this on the player with a statement as "the NPC made a great roll to persuade you, so YOU come up with whatever argument would work on your character". Because *I* might not know myself what would work on my character. I will know when I see it, or encounter it, but, and this builds on the research posted by ImNotTrevor, people are not very good at judging their future behavior. So it's almost impossible to say "these arguments would convince me" or "these actions would seduce me" in advance, but you WILL know once you see or experience them.

So, in summary, I think it is very difficult for a player to state what sort of things would work to convince, manipulate or entice their character in advance. I think the specifics for when my character is convinced, manipulated or enticed to be important in order to decide how the personality is now changed, how to roleplay the character in future situations. Leaving them out or stating them as unimportant thus makes roleplaying harder (at least for some people, not for all).

Segev

2017-01-17, 08:49 AM

Honestly, I think what I'm proposing is mostly going to be set up by the player ahead of time. It should be relatively clear what "defaults" exist in any assumptions, and players who have a clear character in mind that violates those assumptions in terms of his preferences should be able to paint those differences at chargen.

The assumptions I'm talking about are things such as:

People don't like unpleasant odors.
Certain odors are all but universally repugnant.
People find working with unpleasant odors draining.
People in general like luxuries.
People enjoy common vices.

This list isn't exhaustive, and there will be many who like or dislike narrow subsets of these kinds of things. But it is on the base assumption that some things will be given innate "gain morale for engaging in this" or "lose morale for suffering that" ratings. I suppose, in a way, it's akin to Fate giving Aspects to environments or scenes.

The intent is that exceptions to the norm - a peasant whose got the horribly unpleasant job of cleaning up the waste dumped out of windows onto the street and carting it out of town who might have become innured to those particular odors, a ranger who is actually uncomfortable on a bed softer than pine needles - will be fairly clear from the traits the players design into them. It's not so much meant to say "all characters like brothels (that cater to their sexual preference)" as it is to say "most do, so the default assumption is that Madam Boosteeyay's Beauties generates a certain amount of morale reward for a certain amount of money. If your PC is not the sort to enjoy brothels, an applicable trait will reduce this, possibly to the point that it's not worth bothering. (He has too much taste, he's the wrong sexual preference, his pride won't let him pay for such...activities...whatever.) In theory, this will unlikely be an explicit and narrow distaste for brothels, but will come from a broader trait. The applicability and nuance comes from play and history of how and when it's invoked.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-17, 09:17 AM

I want to put in a minor thought regarding this, which is a worry of mine (which may or may not disappear if/when trying Fate myself):

The worry is this:

You may not know in advance what kind of trouble it would be interesting to get into for your character. Just as when I'm a GM I like to be surprised by what my players do, so I like to be surprised as a player.

Yes, there are generally a few things, certain kinds of "trouble" that I would want my character to encounter; but I don't want this to be the end of all complications.

Using Max_killjoy's actual play example of the "grumpy 'lizard-dragon' knight", I doubt Max would've said "I would want my character to be put in a situation where he will first grow attached to someone who is a fool and then see him dying because of his stupidity". And yet, this was a great situation set up by the GM, which helped Max to explore and develop his character even further.

It is not a given that specifying certain kinds of complication as being desired would necessarily leave out the undesired ones. The GM could still make up complications of his own. However, I do fear that by telling the GM "these are the things I want", they may try to hard to work those things in that they forget, or don't have the creative energy to, come up with surprised that would be even better.

Basically, I think it is impossible to state all kinds of complications you want for your character, as there may well be some you're not aware of that would be super fun, and also I think it's undesirable as you loose the element of surprise.

On social mechanics:

While I think the discussion on the different types of skills is proceeding quite well, there was something I wanted to add in the "allow the dice to dictate what my character would do", or rather "follow the outcome of a 'persuasion' roll made by another character".

If we remove all types of arguments, methods or the like as being necessary to state by the agent making a social roll, but still have the target character being forced to go along with the outcome, it has an issue with personality growth.

My point is this, in order to roleplay a character properly, it is very important to know exactly what triggered this action. If my character is convinced to change their mind on something, or go along with something I didn't originally want, something has happened to their personality. I expect it to affect future choices and interactions made by the character. Maybe it has triggered the slippery slope towards evil? Maybe the character will now become a political activist due to their changed views? Unless I know the very specific arguments, actions or methods behind the change, I can't roleplay the altered personality that follows.

It is also very hard to simply put this on the player with a statement as "the NPC made a great roll to persuade you, so YOU come up with whatever argument would work on your character". Because *I* might not know myself what would work on my character. I will know when I see it, or encounter it, but, and this builds on the research posted by ImNotTrevor, people are not very good at judging their future behavior. So it's almost impossible to say "these arguments would convince me" or "these actions would seduce me" in advance, but you WILL know once you see or experience them.

So, in summary, I think it is very difficult for a player to state what sort of things would work to convince, manipulate or entice their character in advance. I think the specifics for when my character is convinced, manipulated or enticed to be important in order to decide how the personality is now changed, how to roleplay the character in future situations. Leaving them out or stating them as unimportant thus makes roleplaying harder (at least for some people, not for all).

If the player can't predict ahead of time, I'd say that this is an argument for an opt-in system, so that they're not blind-sided.

Segev

2017-01-17, 09:36 AM

I think broad strokes traits covering goals, dreams, aspirations, fears, vices, or what-have-you would provide enough basis to determine what applies. No need to predict specifics; the specifics arise from a combination of smaller elements, each of which is likely covered or an acceptable default.

One thing that's only been lightly touched on is the precise means of "character growth," as well. This is in no small part, on my part, anyway, due to not being certain how to handle it. But ideally, discovery of some hitherto unexplored angle of the character that varies from "default expectations" should enable that new "take" to be added, somehow. Whether it's reflected in the nuances of a broader trait, or the development of a new trait, it needs to be possible.

GungHo

2017-01-17, 11:01 AM

If the player can't predict ahead of time, I'd say that this is an argument for an opt-in system, so that they're not blind-sided.

There are times where I do pause things and tell people what I am going to do and what they're likely to encounter if there's a specific "trigger" point for someone in the group (we're former military, law enforcement, and other folks in public service so there's some things people have seen/encountered that you just don't want to surprise them with) to basically gauge "are you okay with this happening to your guy/gal". To be specific, there's one person who has a real problem with his characters being taken control of (think vampire charming, that kind of thing), so he usually gets the BA Baracus treatment if there's a mass charm/mind control incident, with the payoff that he usually gets to be the one who helps everyone out of the bind.

kyoryu

2017-01-17, 11:37 AM

Maglubiyet

2017-01-17, 11:46 AM

2) Compels are just one way to get in trouble

As an adjunct to this, there are also many (many!) ways a single Compel could be used.

Quertus

2017-01-17, 05:13 PM

Just got caught up with reading this thread, and... I'm'a try and keep this from being a wall of text. Hopefully it'll still make some sense. And, yes, 3/7ths of my numbers are made up for comedic effect.

Just for the record, a) max_killjoy describing himself sounds very familiar to me (give or take differant life experiences); b) my self evaluation may not be perfect, but, having a very analytical mind, and lacking any motivation for self deception, yes, I am a tested "god of self evaluation" compared to most humans; c) thus, I tend to believe MK in his descriptions, and, if his mind works like mine, suspect that he probably is good at self evaluation, too. Just because most people are bad at self evaluation doesn't mean all people are. Just because most people can't run a 5-minute mile doesn't mean all people can't. Etc etc.

So, when around 20% of the active participants (how many people have a dog in this fight?) seem to follow the same mental patterns, I'd hardly call that an outlier.

Now, unlike Max, I am egotistical enough to complain about systems with which one cannot model my mental processes. Of course, that is a misdiagnosis of the root cause: I have a series of tests for personality mechanics, and said tests obviously include the things I am most familiar with and thus most confident in my ability to test. If the system cannot pass my simple tests of modeling actual behavior, it fails.

Also unlike Max, I won't talk from a single example - the universe has taken a 20, several times over, on seducing me. I have a lot of experience with my behavior in that circumstance. And my experience is a) I get the same morale bonus for following my values, no matter what / how skilled the seduction attempt; b) despite the fact that I am probably composed at least 270% of regret, I don't find these choices to be something that I suffer any morale penalties from fretting over. Harsh, I know. But that's me. Now, I'm not immune to seduction attempts (although I'll contend it would require drugs, supernatural intervention, or otherwise be categorized correctly as rape to make me interested in someone outside my preferences - no corpses, animals, etc etc etc for me, thanks (and no offense intended to anyone if that's your thing)), and I'll even go so far as to say that, under the broadest definitions of "seduction", there are several people who I'm confident could... modify my behavior (to varying degrees), even with very unskilled seduction attempts. So I fear that any system which focuses too much on character skill just isn't... realistic.

Why do I have a dog in this fight? Well, when I suggested that this was best handled at the group level, I was told I was wrong, and that these rules should be baked into the system.

Ok. If there is a push to move systems in this direction, then I'm going to hold the system to a high enough standard that it at the very least isn't a detriment to me, that I don't have to constantly fight the system to play my character as well as I was without the system. Which seems fair, given that the original stated purpose of the such systems, if memory serves, was to make it easier to roleplay characters correctly.

But why do I care? Several reasons, but the most applicable is because I have the unreachable goal of 100% accuracy in my role-playing. Anything that helps me get closer to that goal is good in my book. Thus, contrary to what one might expect, given my stance, I actually like the idea of personality / behavior / morale / whatever mechanics, to help me see when I am failing to RP my character correctly.

I like the idea. But the implementation, on the other hand, can easily leave a lot to be desired. Not being broad enough to model the types of human behavior that matter to me, or, perhaps more germane to the current discussion, the types of humans / characters whose behavior matters to me, is a problem. I don't imagine y'all'd enjoy being forced to RP baffling aliens any more than Max or I would - although I often create stretch goals of role-playing as close to you baffling aliens as possible, at least in limited areas of personality (such as, "what would it be like to have a normal human ineptitude for self evaluation?")

Another problem example is the system telling me what my character feels. Let me second pretty much everything Max had said on this subject, with a similar "taste" to T~: my gaming experience is... Largely? Primarily? Exclusively?... what my character feels about a situation. Some system, some developer sitting in front of a screen and not inside my character's head, is at the height of hubris to believe that they, in the general case, can know how my character feels about something better than I, the player of that character, does. As I've said before, actors can get PTSD from feeling what their characters feel - they are far more in touch with their characters' feelings than most people in this thread give them credit for, or any (playable) system could ever be.

Now, to step back from that just a bit... I don't want to advocate getting into character enough that you suffer serious psychological damage. Method acting has fallen out of favor for this reason. I am merely pointing out that the bar for just how well one can experience feels from RP is much higher than seems to be discussed it believed in this thread.

But the problem is much larger than even I have expressed. Yes - for safety reasons, if nothing else - there will always be a disconnect between the experience of the character and the experience of the player. But, there will also be a disconnect between how the GM conceptualizes events, how the player conceptualizes events... and how the character experiences the events. In point of fact, for any X people gaming around the table, there are X+1 "experiences" / versions of events for a given character: what each of those X people envisions, and what the character "actually" experiences. Of those X people, which one do you think is more likely to get closer to what is going on inside that character's head?

This is why I have mentioned a technique I found helpful in both "bringing my numbers closer to 100%" and in getting everyone on the same page: talking. When someone had a "huh?" moment, they would ask why the character in their head was operating differently from the character in the player's head. Discussion would ensure. As an added side bonus, this technique helps catch misunderstandings and communication issues. Win/win. And, yes, sometimes even I, stubborn as I am about my characters' internals, would see that I had either perceived the scene incorrectly, or had misunderstood, say, common behaviors and experiences of warrior cultures, and got the chance to learn to RP my character better. Or, sometimes, I just learned that you humans were weird, and decided I was either unable to achieve that particular stretch goal, or that said stretch goal / character simply wasn't fun for me to play.

Another technique I've found useful, which others have described differently, is the social tactical minigame. I know I'll get pushback on this one, but... people have different wants and desires, different buttons that can be pushed. Finding those buttons should probably not normally involve a roll (although a sense motive or spot check to notice how a guy is always looking at girls feet could certainly hint at their particular fetish, as an example I've encountered IRL). Any attempt to get someone to do something of X "importance" / resistance requires an equally big button to push. Yes, psychological studies have demonstrated how badly humans are at placing values on things, and that how you set up the request can influence how much value humans place on a thing. Fine. "For every 10 points you pass a Convince check, modify the size of the Value of the Request by one step".

So, ideally, I'd like social mechanics which are at least as beneficial as either of those systems.

According to feedback I've gotten in other threads, most people believe that they couldn't be convinced to eat a human corpse "just because", no matter how convincing the speaker. I'll hazard a guess I'd get the same feedback regarding convincing people how fun it was to have sex with a corpse.

IMO, systems such as those under discussion likely best modeled in an opt-in style (so some people can experience the RP boost, while it doesn't get in Max's or my way), with the assumption of no-sells on most things... unless anyone wants to try to convince me that I could convince them to eat or shag a cadaver?

I think there's a lot more I'd like to explore about my deceptively simple cupcake example, where I listed off motivations off the top of my head about why an individual child might choose a particular cupcake.

Presumably, everyone has been a child, and everyone has seen children make choices. So there should be nothing special in my experiences. If I am incorrect, and this example is somehow unapproachable, let me know.

So, to beat a dead horse, it sounds like people - and many of the described systems - are trying to tell Max, "you can't know that you'll choose the green cupcake until you are in that situation. And, you aren't in that situation, your character is." To which I say, while that is technically correct, the most likely person to guess what cupcake Max will take (for normal human inability to predict themselves) is someone who has specifically studied Max extensively; the second most likely is Max; the least likely is a statistical average of human preferences. Which of those sound most like game mechanics?

One thing I haven't studied about humans is whether they are actually as complex as I am. So, I'm curious: while my decision-making process can vary from day to day, mood to mood, about which cupcake I will select, and why, what about the rest of you? Will you always select a cupcake for the same reason (favorite flavor, favorite color, new experience, what someone else is having, conflict avoidance, resource denial, etc etc etc), or will your underlying motivation in making the same choice vary from day to day?

For me, at least, there is a whole range of things which are "in character". I can't imagine a system which could model even my choice of cupcake in a way that would be better than me "just role-playing" me choosing a cupcake. But, yes, even so, I will occasionally fail to realize that the way the Thai I had for lunch is sitting on character-me's stomach precludes the concept of the double-decker fudge truffle cupcake sounding appetizing. I don't hit 100% accurate - 100% within the range if what is in character - even when role-playing myself.

What about everyone else? Will you predictably always choose a cupcake for the same reasons, every time? If not, how many possible motivations can you count in yourself, and how do you choose which motivation to follow?

Another thing which I'm curious about - one which it is probably best to not attempt to implement in an RPG, is the disconnect between expectation and reality. People don't do things based on the actual amount of pleasure (autocorrect corrected that to "lawsuits", BTW) they receive, but based on their expectations. And, as we have already mentioned, most humans are terrible at generating realistic expectations, even if the thing they ought to have the most experience with - themselves. Imagine the letdown if the pirate queen were terrible in bed! The knight broke his vows... for that? Double whammy on morale! So, my question is, given how much flak Max got for claiming to know himself, anybody brave enough to speak up on how well they think they have been and are able to estimate how much "morale", how much happiness, they will get from a thing? As I said above, I can speak from experience on how much morale I'll get from resisting a seduction attempt... but... even though I'm good at self evaluation, I'm not confident I can guess how much pleasure a new experience, like getting flenced, or drinking the cult's Kool-Aid, might be worth. Any takers?

On a random note, I happen to know how much pleasure I get from having a root canal without anesthetic: massive amount of pain, learned that there is a limit to how much pain I can tolerate (and hope that I never reach that limit): +3 morale points. And, no, I don't enjoy pain.

Um... I seem to have forgotten what I actually wanted to say about cupcakes. But my phone is out of charge. Maybe next time.

jayem

2017-01-17, 07:10 PM

To which I say, while that is technically correct, the most likely person to guess what cupcake Jayem will take (for normal human inability to predict themselves) is someone who has specifically studied Jayem extensively; the second most likely is Jayem; the least likely is a statistical average of human preferences. Which of those sound most like game mechanics?
I'm not sure that follows, necessarily. We do have the Dunning-Kruger effect and similar things.

On objective measures, students in bottom quartile think they are in the lower-upper quartile. 42% of people at a company thought they were in the most skilled 5%. etc..
And I don't see why that wouldn't carry over into assessments of willpower, (I've taken up jogging, I know how different my plans for where I give up differ from reality, does it stop me deciding next time will be different, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd actually be much quicker at predicting someone elses willpower).
That's obviously got a complicated relationship to any roleplaying comparision (is the other person an extension of me, or like another person, when considering my judgement. Especially as there isn't anything to compare with, the prediction is the 'reality').

(quote edited so I'm questioning my judgement, not another's)

*and it's a bit hard to have trials

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-17, 07:24 PM

*sigh*

Dunning-Kruger (http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/)

jayem

2017-01-18, 03:26 AM

*sigh*

Dunning-Kruger (http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/)

Cheers for linking to that, the first graph shows exactly what I needed for the point, and is a lot clearer than the one I was looking at.

To take one example assuming for the moment they accurately rate the percentiles accurately and they exactly correlate to success rate, that means they all expect to succeed in something about half the time, when that just isn't the case. (That doesn't tie in with the other tests, but somewhere that disconnect has to come). I'm not quite sure how that relates to the examples.

In fact that graph shows guessing the mean would actually be directly better for 60% of people (that's the above average side of the effect causing that rather than the flattening) [and the lesson from that half contradicts my point above]. Better would be some rescaling based on their perception as there it is monotonic.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-18, 07:48 AM

Cheers for linking to that, the first graph shows exactly what I needed for the point, and is a lot clearer than the one I was looking at.

To take one example assuming for the moment they accurately rate the percentiles accurately and they exactly correlate to success rate, that means they all expect to succeed in something about half the time, when that just isn't the case. (That doesn't tie in with the other tests, but somewhere that disconnect has to come). I'm not quite sure how that relates to the examples.

In fact that graph shows guessing the mean would actually be directly better for 60% of people (that's the above average side of the effect causing that rather than the flattening) [and the lesson from that half contradicts my point above]. Better would be some rescaling based on their perception as there it is monotonic.

The important takeaway from that article:

1) the cause might not be, or might not entirely be, what DK concluded it was.
2) that it's a gross misuse of the results of the DK study to start citing DK every time someone says they're at the high end of the scale on something.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-18, 01:46 PM

Saw this quote in someone's sig, and thought it was appropriate to this discussion:

"The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees. But no matter what covenant is struck or words exchanged, the DM is not the PCs."

Lorsa

2017-01-18, 03:35 PM

So... at the risk of further derailing...

Fate handles this a few ways:

1) Everything on a Fate character sheet is essential written in pencil. Skills can change, aspects can change, stunts can change. There are rules as to how *quickly* this can happen, so you have continuity, but characters are expected to change

2) Compels are just one way to get in trouble - you can still get in trouble lots of other ways! There just isn't that mechanical hook to say "hey, this is a golden opportunity to get into that type of trouble".

3) Even looking at Compels, other aspects can be Compelled as well, including setting and situation aspects.

4) You can end up with extra aspects as Consequences from complications. If you end up "Shaky as Anything" after the last fight, that can be Compelled against you.

It would be very interesting to see how this works out in practice. Especially the second one. I have no problem with getting into specific trouble I define, but I would be sad if I didn't also get into other kinds of trouble. :smallsmile:

Segev

2017-01-19, 11:20 AM

I will keep repeating myself, because I keep seeing responses which seem to ignore this point. Apologies if I seem to be repeating something as if it's a new point when it isn't. At no point would I propose a system that tells you what your character does. Now, the more recent iterations of these comments are more accurately objecting to being told what their character "feels."

I will contend that, while the system proposes to tell you some of what your character feels, in the sense that your character has urges that he does not necessarily choose in that moment, and the system will tell you what they are and how strong they are. It cannot and does not pretend to tell you everything your character is feeling. Only some of it. Mainly those things which are poorly modeled in the game's other mechanics.

This system, for instance, should have little to nothing to say to Max_Killjoy in his personal example about the (somewhat lovable) fool who got himself infected with the plague. I can't see how any traits he discussed or demonstrated would cause him to be penalized morale points for not responding with the "correct" amount of "ire" or "kindness," given how the situation was described.

As to Quertus's discussion of seduction and his own tastes, certain things would likely have direct assigned base "unpleasantness" values. "Have sex with/eat a corpse of your own species," for instance, would have its own rating that is a baseline assumption of what "most people" would experience if they were compelled to do so. This rating is a cost in morale points as they feel "unclean" or otherwise traumatized.

Those who are exceptions to this rule would have traits to reflect it. "Necrophilia" at a given rating would counterbalance and even overcome this innate morale penalty rating, for instance, because it is directly granting morale bonuses to such activities, given that ... unusual taste.

Similar applies to cannibalism.

I would not expect anybody to be able to use the system to convince somebody to do something that repulsive "just because." However, I would not put it past some skilled persuader to construct a scenario wherein it becomes tempting. Or, if not "tempting," at least equally costly in terms of morale to refuse to. There's a scene in a webcomic called "Digger" where the main character is attending a funeral for a tribe into which she's just been adopted. She is the guest of honor, as the person whose funeral it is was "avenged" by her, and it's important that her avenger show the utmost respect to send her spirit to the 'good afterlife.' For all intents and purposes (not to belabor details of the comic world too much), the main character is a vegetarian, to the point that meat literally makes her sick. The tribe's customs require ritual cannibalism of the one for whom the funeral is being held, lest their strength be lost to the tribe and their spirit wander forever. The guest of honor gets the "choicest part" - the deceased's raw liver.

I have no idea if anybody could convince me that I love/respect/care for a person enough to dive into their culture's customs to that degree, when they would so thoroughly repulse me. However, one can see how the main character might be persuaded, even if they're staunchly anti-cannibal. A useful aspect of this system, for me, would be helping me gauge just how strong the "ew gross" and "cannibalism is morally repugnant" parts of my character are compared to the "respect the culture" and "respect this person" and associated "guilt for condemning his spirit to their equivalent of hell" might be. Are the drives keeping my PC from tasting of that liver stronger than the drives making him feel obligated to do so?

The final choice, of course, is still mine, as the player; only I know if the drives' strengths are enough to dictate over any other considerations - including an ineffable sense of what kind of character I want mine to be - that govern his behavior. If the "pro cannibalism in this case" drives are still weaker than the "ew gross" drives, then it says something about his deepest self that he forces himself through it despite the misery. If he refuses, even though the guilt for doing so pains him more than the grossness and other stuff would have, it says something about his conviction towards anti-cannibalism.

If he goes WITH the drives' indicators, that, too says something: that he has drives which govern his preferences, and that he went with them in this case. I should note that this isn't a "bad" thing despite the connotation of the prior paragraph. "I feel good about this decision" is also a statement of character.

It is not my goal to design this system to moralize. Only to map broad aspects of the character's personality, and both provide indication of what the character's immediate urges are, and let those times where the character's urges are counter to the game's mechanical reward structure have some counter-balance. A secondary (but important) goal would be to empower a meaningful suite of social mechanics.

Jestir256

2017-01-19, 06:40 PM

Woahhh, deep thread. Although it is here discussed brilliantly and thoughtfully, avoidance of the last thirty-six pages of discussion are the reason for the following house rule, which I use in all my campaigns:

-The thoughts and feelings of a player character are normally the exclusive, sovereign domain of that character's player. Diplomacy as as skill affects a character only as and if that character's player chooses. The MAXIMUM effect of a bluff check is to persuade a character of the sincerity of the speaker.

In light of the RAW functions of the social skills, this house rule is pretty extreme. I have two reasons for maintaining it. The first is a kind of personal pragmatism: I once saw a game session actually come to blows over "diplomancy," and have no desire to repeat the experience. The second reason became visible some years after I started playing with this rule; I noticed that it had the unintended effect of deepening the reaction to mind affecting enchantments, which still affect characters per RAW. It's easier to role play the deep, horrific sense of violation that results from having your will magically subverted if the player's will is analogously subverted by the rules. Enchantments have become my most effective means of generating character animosity for an antagonist NPC, and player satisfaction with their ultimate comeuppance.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-01-19, 09:39 PM

georgie_leech

2017-01-19, 09:40 PM

jayem

2017-01-20, 03:15 AM

The important takeaway from that article:

1) the cause might not be, or might not entirely be, what DK concluded it was.
2) that it's a gross misuse of the results of the DK study to start citing DK every time someone says they're at the high end of the scale on something.

As an aside, but as this thread is about variations in people, rather fitting. What is it with these papers and their rubbish graphs, where are the InterQuartile Ranges at least! (or on the one where they rule out some other explanations, e.g. bottoming out, confidence intervals). Surely there must be an variations in assessment ability as well as those correlated with ability?

If they are tiny, that's interesting as it means based on your input and average statistics we can get a vastly better estimate than an individual can.
If the IQR are around 20%, which still means almost no-one claims the extremes, then the exaggerated D-K is true in enough cases to need to consider it by default. Which would be also interesting.
And inbetween, would also be interesting.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-20, 01:41 PM

Yes, but, D&D social rules are complete garbage. Presumably a theoretical social system being discussed here would not be complete garbage.

Well, mostly the discussion is about ways to make it not garbage, and if it's possible for any such system to be non-garbage.

As an aside, while I've questioned the necessity, and the idea of including it as included as a core and mandatory part of a system, I think "garbage" is entirely to strong and dismissive a term. I think Segev could make the system solid and functional in purely mechanical terms.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-20, 01:53 PM

Quertus

2017-01-20, 05:21 PM

We're still referencing how necessary mechanics are?

I'll answer the question again:
They're not necessary.
No mechanic is necessary.

That's not a meaningful measuring stick. Just bringing that up again.

Lemme try to address that, then.

Taking poison is generally a bad plan. If I see someone planning to take poison, I'd ask why. If the answer was to kill themselves, well, it's still a pretty bad plan - there's lots of better ways, for most any definition of "better". If they're trying to kill cancer, sadly, that's about the best answer modern medicine has. Outside a few other medicinal answers, taking poison seems like... there must be a better way of accomplishing this.

So, perhaps not necessary in the way you mean, but, rather, necessary in the sense of, "is there some other way to solve this problem, or is it necessary to go down this particular path in order to solve this problem?

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-20, 05:59 PM

Jestir256

2017-01-20, 08:15 PM

Yes, but, D&D social rules are complete garbage. Presumably a theoretical social system being discussed here would not be complete garbage.

You know, it's a funny thing, but my players actually LIKE the "diplomancy" rules. I think the perception that they are awful comes entirely from the defeat of agency that results from their reciprocal application to PC's. More and more I suspect that the 3.x social skills were never intended for or tested on player characters.

Talakeal

2017-01-20, 09:13 PM

You know, it's a funny thing, but my players actually LIKE the "diplomancy" rules. I think the perception that they are awful comes entirely from the defeat of agency that results from their reciprocal application to PC's. More and more I suspect that the 3.x social skills were never intended for or tested on player characters.

They also influence sttitude rather than action. Just because you make someone helpful doesnt mean they are now your slave and can be convinced to do things they would never do.

Segev

2017-01-20, 09:52 PM

You know, it's a funny thing, but my players actually LIKE the "diplomancy" rules. I think the perception that they are awful comes entirely from the defeat of agency that results from their reciprocal application to PC's. More and more I suspect that the 3.x social skills were never intended for or tested on player characters.

3.5 rules specifically have Diplomacy do nothing to PCs.

The rules for Diplomacy in D&D 3.5 are designed to empower swift "get the NPC to do something for you" resolution. They're not meant for a game focusing on social aspects.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-20, 10:02 PM

Lemme try to address that, then.

Taking poison is generally a bad plan. If I see someone planning to take poison, I'd ask why. If the answer was to kill themselves, well, it's still a pretty bad plan - there's lots of better ways, for most any definition of "better". If they're trying to kill cancer, sadly, that's about the best answer modern medicine has. Outside a few other medicinal answers, taking poison seems like... there must be a better way of accomplishing this.

So, perhaps not necessary in the way you mean, but, rather, necessary in the sense of, "is there some other way to solve this problem, or is it necessary to go down this particular path in order to solve this problem?

Your glaring logical flaw: Assuming all rules must solve a problem. They don't need to solve a problem. Sometimes a rule exists because it's fun for some people. And that's a 100% valid reason to have a rule/mechanic. If I make a system that requires you to actually sing whenever your bard sings, that solves 0 problems but might be a really fun time for the people who like a bit of flamboyant theatrical comedy.

Many RPGs with social systems have them because the designer thought: "Hey. I wanna have my character's personality and fictional actions/decisions to have mechanical impact." So they made a system that does that, and sold it.
Based on how popular some of these systems are, apparently lots of people are having fun with them.

What a horrible turn of events when people have fun without solving any problems, right?

Please.

And, in order for an RPG to be an RPG -- and not just free-form group improv acting or storytelling -- some mechanical structure, that is, rules, are necessary.
This is a strawman.

However, at the far end of the spectrum, rules that are too detailed, too many, too overwhelming, will make the game impossible to play; and putting the rules ahead of everything else can end up pushing the game into "might as well have made a board game" or "might as well have made a simulation program for you computer" territories.

This is also not my argument.

So the question of which rules are necessary is entirely valid.
This requires that every single rule/mechanic be vetted by necessity.
Prove that Armor Class is necessary and I'll drop my point. But since that would be impossible, my point stands.

Mechanics might solve problems. That is not their sole purpose. If you think that is their sole purpose, you will need to list what problem is solved by having a Football field be the length it is, what problem is solved by having 10 yards to a first down.

What problem is solved by using a d20 instead of a d10 on D&D attack rolls?
What problem is solved by having the fireball spell?
What problem is solved by having magic in the first place? (And "the problem of not having wizards" doesn't cut it since many systems do just fine without Wizards. It's not a for-realsies problem.)

"Because I find it fun" is exactly as valid a reason to have a rule/mechanic as any other.

As my wife says, "Don't yuck my yum."
Just because it doesn't do anything FOR YOU doesn't make it "unecessary." Once you go down that route you're automatically implying that people are doing it wrong. At which point any complaint of accusing you of badwrong fun will just make me chuckle because it's wildly hypocritical.

Pfft. You play games with an initiative order? Why even bother? Doesn't do anything for you that going around the table clockwise doesn't do. Why make a mechanic when you can just settle it simpler at the table?

If that sounds stupid and pretentious to you, welcome to how it sounds when the same logic is applied to RP rules. My games function just fine without initiative. They don't use it. And my group has fun without it. I don't run into problems of whose turn it is. I can cut between a fight and a scene elsewhere seamlessly with no timeline issues coming into play. My players enjoy less bookkeeping. So do I.
And you will never hear me seriously make the complaint of the previous paragraph seriously. Because that's stupid. Initiative rules AREN'T necessary. But for some people, they're really fun and keep them organized.
Even if keeping track of who had gone and who hadn't wasn't a real problem, initiative order systems would likely still exist. For fun reasons.

And "because I/we/my groups find it fun" is sufficient reason for an RPG mechanic.

Talakeal

2017-01-20, 10:49 PM

Your glaring logical flaw: Assuming all rules must solve a problem. They don't need to solve a problem. Sometimes a rule exists because it's fun for some people. And that's a 100% valid reason to have a rule/mechanic. If I make a system that requires you to actually sing whenever your bard sings, that solves 0 problems but might be a really fun time for the people who like a bit of flamboyant theatrical comedy.

Many RPGs with social systems have them because the designer thought: "Hey. I wanna have my character's personality and fictional actions/decisions to have mechanical impact." So they made a system that does that, and sold it.
Based on how popular some of these systems are, apparently lots of people are having fun with them.

What a horrible turn of events when people have fun without solving any problems, right?

Please.

This is a strawman.

This is also not my argument.

This requires that every single rule/mechanic be vetted by necessity.
Prove that Armor Class is necessary and I'll drop my point. But since that would be impossible, my point stands.

Mechanics might solve problems. That is not their sole purpose. If you think that is their sole purpose, you will need to list what problem is solved by having a Football field be the length it is, what problem is solved by having 10 yards to a first down.

What problem is solved by using a d20 instead of a d10 on D&D attack rolls?
What problem is solved by having the fireball spell?
What problem is solved by having magic in the first place? (And "the problem of not having wizards" doesn't cut it since many systems do just fine without Wizards. It's not a for-realsies problem.)

"Because I find it fun" is exactly as valid a reason to have a rule/mechanic as any other.

As my wife says, "Don't yuck my yum."
Just because it doesn't do anything FOR YOU doesn't make it "unecessary." Once you go down that route you're automatically implying that people are doing it wrong. At which point any complaint of accusing you of badwrong fun will just make me chuckle because it's wildly hypocritical.

Pfft. You play games with an initiative order? Why even bother? Doesn't do anything for you that going around the table clockwise doesn't do. Why make a mechanic when you can just settle it simpler at the table?

If that sounds stupid and pretentious to you, welcome to how it sounds when the same logic is applied to RP rules. My games function just fine without initiative. They don't use it. And my group has fun without it. I don't run into problems of whose turn it is. I can cut between a fight and a scene elsewhere seamlessly with no timeline issues coming into play. My players enjoy less bookkeeping. So do I.
And you will never hear me seriously make the complaint of the previous paragraph seriously. Because that's stupid. Initiative rules AREN'T necessary. But for some people, they're really fun and keep them organized.
Even if keeping track of who had gone and who hadn't wasn't a real problem, initiative order systems would likely still exist. For fun reasons.

And "because I/we/my groups find it fun" is sufficient reason for an RPG mechanic.

I know you were being sarcastic, but I so wish I could convince people to go around the table rather than futzing with initiative order.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-20, 10:54 PM

I see we're still being offered up spurious farce, juvenile sarcasm, false equivalency, and deliberate misrepresentation/misinterpretation in place of any form of supported, logical reasoning.

(And in order to be engaged in the strawman fallacy, someone has to be misrepresenting another person's argument... so I'm at a loss as to how my statement of my OWN position on the matter was a "strawman"... :smallconfused: )

georgie_leech

2017-01-20, 11:09 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-20, 11:25 PM

No sarcasm here, what makes AC necessary?

While I don't care for AC's conflation of armor with evasion, there needs to be some form of mechanical representation of how hard the character is to hit, and some form of mechanical representation of how hard the character is to damage with a physical blow if an attack hits.

What's the alternative?

Also, let us not, deliberately or inadvertently:

1) Conflate the question "is a mechanism/rule for this function necessary" with "is this particular mechanism/rule necessary".
2) Conflate "it is legitimate to consider the necessity of a rule" with "all rules must be necessary".
3) Conflate "we cannot prove the necessity of this rule" with "therefore all questions of necessity are invalid".

georgie_leech

2017-01-20, 11:45 PM

While I don't care for AC's conflation of armor with evasion, there needs to be some form of mechanical representation of how hard the character is to hit, and some form of mechanical representation of how hard the character is to damage with a physical blow if an attack hits.

What's the alternative?

Everything hits? 50/50 odds? Playing Rock-Paper-Scissors? Increasing Damage Resistance? LARPing? All defensive increases give THP that restores every round?

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-20, 11:57 PM

Everything hits? 50/50 odds? Playing Rock-Paper-Scissors? Increasing Damage Resistance? LARPing? All defensive increases give THP that restores every round?

"What's the alternative?" as in, what is the alternative to having A rule for that function?

All those appear to be attempts -- most of them of dubious construction -- at a rule to fulfill the function, rather than alternatives to having a rule at all.

To be clear, the questions "Is AC necessary?" and "Is a mechanism for factoring how hard a character to hit into the combat rules necessary?" are in no way equivalent questions. Likewise, "Is this initiative system necessary?" is in no way equivalent to "Are rules to enforce or weight character personality necessary?"

Segev

2017-01-21, 12:44 AM

To be fair, one could argue that it is NOT necessary to have rules on the level of "to hit, then damage if hit" for combat. One could argue that combat should be done by competitive description. Or that it should be a single "combat" roll (as D&D 3.5 reduces a lot of socializing to a single "diplomacy" roll). In a game where the main thrust of gameplay is to be, say, resource management on a political scale, the actual resolution of a duel might be a simple "get this resolved and out of the way" concern.

kyoryu

2017-01-21, 12:46 AM

The problem is that in order to define what is "necessary", we have to define what we're trying to *accomplish*. And as that certainly varies widely among posters here, so does what rules are "necessary" or even useful.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-21, 07:36 AM

I know you were being sarcastic, but I so wish I could convince people to go around the table rather than futzing with initiative order.

Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, most PbtA systems don't bother with initiative at all.

While I don't care for AC's conflation of armor with evasion, there needs to be some form of mechanical representation of how hard the character is to hit, and some form of mechanical representation of how hard the character is to damage with a physical blow if an attack hits.

What's the alternative?
Characters take damage only when they fail combat rolls, with damage being reduced by their armor amount.

PbtA systems do that for players. NPCs just get the flat reduction of incoming damage. How hard they are to hit is done by the PCs rolling against the same success/failure standards as every other roll in the game.

Freemarket does not have combat mechanics at all. Because it's a transhumanist ultracapitalism game set on a space station near jupiter and killing your opponent only inconveniences them for a few minutes. So they have no form of "how hard to hit" at all.

A way to measure how hard it is to hit something/someone has been ditched in several games. It is not necessary for a game to function.

Also, let us not, deliberately or inadvertently:

1) Conflate the question "is a mechanism/rule for this function necessary" with "is this particular mechanism/rule necessary".

The first option is just a weird way of sneaking the word "Necessary" into "Does this do what I want it to do/Does this accomplish my design goal?"
Neither involves necessity as the measuring stick.

2) Conflate "it is legitimate to consider the necessity of a rule" with "all rules must be necessary"

You can save yourself a lot of time by stripping out the necessity part and just going for "does it do the thing it's designed to do."
A thing doesn't need to be necessary to accomplish that task. The necessary part is an additional qualification that doesn't need to be.

3) Conflate "we cannot prove the necessity of any rule" with "therefore all questions of necessity are invalid".
Fixed that for you.
And now it looks a bit silly.

I see we're still being offered up spurious farce, juvenile sarcasm, false equivalency, and deliberate misrepresentation/misinterpretation in place of any form of supported, logical reasoning.
This isn't an argument, it's just ad hominem. Come at my point instead.

(And in order to be engaged in the strawman fallacy, someone has to be misrepresenting another person's argument... so I'm at a loss as to how my statement of my OWN position on the matter was a "strawman"... :smallconfused: )
What you were using as a counterpoint had nothing to do with anything I actually said.

"What's the alternative?" as in, what is the alternative to having A rule for that function?
Not having a rule with that function. There are systems fhat do it just fine (see above)

All those appear to be attempts -- most of them of dubious construction -- at a rule to fulfill the function, rather than alternatives to having a rule at all.
Although this still misses my actual point.
No mechanic is necessary to accomplish any given goal.
We can ask "Does this mechanic accomplish the goal?"
That's an entirely different, more accurate question.

To be clear, the questions "Is AC necessary?" and "Is a mechanism for factoring how hard a character to hit into the combat rules necessary?
To answer the second question:
As displayed in Apocalypse World, no.
Unless you want to equate landing the hit at all with damage reduction, at which point we're stretching our definition a lot.

are in no way equivalent questions. Likewise, "Is this initiative system necessary?" is in no way equivalent to "Are rules to enforce or weight character personality necessary?"
They are not the same question.
They are similarly silly, red-herring questions.

I do not need to equate hitting your friend with a hammer and throwing a shovel at your cousin to point out that both are similarly rude.

The problem is that in order to define what is "necessary", we have to define what we're trying to *accomplish*. And as that certainly varies widely among posters here, so does what rules are "necessary" or even useful.

The necessary bit is an extra step. "What should I use to accomplish my design goals?" Is a sufficient question to cover all of this without getting caught up in qualifiers.

Cluedrew

2017-01-21, 08:15 AM

So, just as an update, I have been keeping up with the thread I just haven't had the time to type out the post I had in mind. Which is a model of decision making points I am still working out and could easy take me an hour or two depending on how it goes.

But this I think I can reply to and I will start by saying: We already covered this.

And I think that the answer from last time remains the same. No in all cases (yes it isn't the same question, but I think this answer holds for all variants). Every rule can be replaced or scrapped. Even all of them if you so choose. This may take you out of the realm of role-playing game, but freeform role-play is still an interactive form of entertainment you can do with your friends so I think it is close enough for these discussion.

... Actually now I am wondering if you could argue that a system without some form of role-playing mechanics is not actually a role-playing game, just a game that you can role-play in. However even if that does hold it is unnecessarily pedantic.

The problem is that in order to define what is "necessary", we have to define what we're trying to *accomplish*. And as that certainly varies widely among posters here, so does what rules are "necessary" or even useful.I think this is the closest thing to a useful answer we have, just replace "necessary" with "beneficial" or "helpful".

Swordsage: 0

jayem

2017-01-21, 11:18 AM

... Actually now I am wondering if you could argue that a system without some form of role-playing mechanics is not actually a role-playing game, just a game that you can role-play in. However even if that does hold it is unnecessarily pedantic.

I think this is the closest thing to a useful answer we have, just replace "necessary" with "beneficial" or "helpful".

Swordsage: 0
I think if you start pushing that mechanic requirement, you'll either end up with everything included (and a very loose definition of role-playing mechanic), or nothing (and a very tight definition). We've already had it observed that social mechanic's (may) detract from RPG ability, and social mechanics definitely could be made into a pokemon esque game without any RPG's. The same could be said for combat mechanics, the evolution of D&D pretty much shows the combat mechanics can be taken out of the role play.

And going the other way, what makes the rules for Diplomacy (which do give you a 'character/role', and you could definitely keep it up in theory), not role playing mechanics (or to go to the IMO ridiculous, Cludo/Monopoly). I think most of the obvious arguments will pretty much fail to have a natural border and can be turned about.
Outside mechanics, two clear dividers I can see remaining are that the rules expect unruled situations* (which arguably is not a mechanic) and the instruction to role-play (definitely not a mechanic). Practically it's clear that some things blatantly are RPG's, and some things blatantly just games you could say stuff in character about, more debatable perhaps if there's a set in-between.

*In normal cluedo, hiding the candlestick is not an option. It is in D&D. On the other hand D&D combat you can't insert the dagger between the slots of his armour, well you could but it would have no effect (or it would be added onto a description of a nat20), in which case you could always say 'I hid the candlestick'.

Quertus

2017-01-21, 12:18 PM

Your glaring logical flaw: Assuming all rules must solve a problem. They don't need to solve a problem. Sometimes a rule exists because it's fun for some people. And that's a 100% valid reason to have a rule/mechanic. If I make a system that requires you to actually sing whenever your bard sings, that solves 0 problems but might be a really fun time for the people who like a bit of flamboyant theatrical comedy.

Many RPGs with social systems have them because the designer thought: "Hey. I wanna have my character's personality and fictional actions/decisions to have mechanical impact." So they made a system that does that, and sold it.
Based on how popular some of these systems are, apparently lots of people are having fun with them.

What a horrible turn of events when people have fun without solving any problems, right?

This is fair. I have some personal biases, and I am viewing the discussion through the lens of how it was introduced: to solve the problem of choosing the correct RP answer when a) that does not match the correct mechanically optimal answer b) for those who want to RP without being "punished" for doing so. And I've added c) without creating a system that punishes people like me who "just roleplay" that the system must live up to a minimum standard of being at least as accurate as "just role-playing" is for me, so that these extra mechanics have, at worst, 0 value.

But, for the record, I'm a mild rules-phile. I can certainly appreciate rules for rules sake, just as I can appreciate elegant or obscure coding solutions for their elegance or obscurity. Such personal preferences are, IMO, not germaine to this discussion.

And, while I thank you for pointing out how my biases color my perception of the conversation (whether or not I was already aware of that, it's still nice to be reminded, so that one does not become complacent), at the risk of being the proverbial pot to your proverbial kettle, you have heard the old adage of being able to attract more wasps with honey than with vinegar, have you not?

I know you were being sarcastic, but I so wish I could convince people to go around the table rather than futzing with initiative order.

How would you feel about initiate in heroes?

The problem is that in order to define what is "necessary", we have to define what we're trying to *accomplish*. And as that certainly varies widely among posters here, so does what rules are "necessary" or even useful.

Fair enough. I'm still viewing it under a single lens. However, by pointing out the costs, each individual can answer whether those costs make it "worth it" for what they are trying to accomplish.

As I've said, if you're trying to make a system that is an obvious parody of human emotion, such that, say, "the only source of happiness is beer", I'm fine with that. There's no real "cost" beyond accepting silliness.

But when you aim for something more true to life? Different minds work differently. And, it seems, most of us don't trust most of us to be able to answer what we'd do or feel or think in a given situation. Heck, for all my introspection, all my studies of human behavior, all my focus on my characters internals and "RP-first" attitude, I don't even roleplay myself 100% correctly. What hope do we possibly have of understanding the situation and variables sufficiently to create realistic mechanics under such circumstances?

I don't think it can be done. But I'd love to see it if it could, so feel free to prove me wrong. :smallwink:

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-21, 12:35 PM

This is fair. I have some personal biases, and I am viewing the discussion through the lens of how it was introduced: to solve the problem of choosing the correct RP answer when a) that does not match the correct mechanically optimal answer b) for those who want to RP without being "punished" for doing so. And I've added c) without creating a system that punishes people like me who "just roleplay" that the system must live up to a minimum standard of being at least as accurate as "just role-playing" is for me, so that these extra mechanics have, at worst, 0 value.

But, for the record, I'm a mild rules-phile. I can certainly appreciate rules for rules sake, just as I can appreciate elegant or obscure coding solutions for their elegance or obscurity. Such personal preferences are, IMO, not germaine to this discussion.

And, while I thank you for pointing out how my biases color my perception of the conversation (whether or not I was already aware of that, it's still nice to be reminded, so that one does not become complacent), at the risk of being the proverbial pot to your proverbial kettle, you have heard the old adage of being able to attract more wasps with honey than with vinegar, have you not?

Having a personal guideline for what you want to accomplish is fine. I've said nothing to the contrary.

If you like rules for their own sake, why would you ask about whether a rule is needed in the first place? Clearly the necessity of a rule is not the measuring stick for whether or not it's worthy of its place. So I'm now just confused about why you'd use the measuring stick of "needfulness" in place of "Does it do what I want" which are two very different standards of measurement.

Fair enough. I'm still viewing it under a single lens. However, by pointing out the costs, each individual can answer whether those costs make it "worth it" for what they are trying to accomplish.

Why would the people actively using these systems and enjoying them need to have the downsides pointed out if they already experience those downsides?

As I've said, if you're trying to make a system that is an obvious parody of human emotion, such that, say, "the only source of happiness is beer", I'm fine with that. There's no real "cost" beyond accepting silliness.

But when you aim for something more true to life? Different minds work differently. And, it seems, most of us don't trust most of us to be able to answer what we'd do or feel or think in a given situation. Heck, for all my introspection, all my studies of human behavior, all my focus on my characters internals and "RP-first" attitude, I don't even roleplay myself 100% correctly. What hope do we possibly have of understanding the situation and variables sufficiently to create realistic mechanics under such circumstances?

I don't think it can be done. But I'd love to see it if it could, so feel free to prove me wrong. :smallwink:

What exactly does "RP rules" mean to you?
Because I think we might have radically different ideas.
You seem to think of RP rules as strictly prescriptive, and that they must tell you what your character would do.
I count descriptive mechanics as RP rules, including things such as Apocalypse World's Seduce/Manipulate that allows you to offer another PC a carrot, stick, or both. And the choice is still theirs. I count that at an RP rule.
I count Belief, Instinct, and Goal as RP rules
Same with Bonds, Strings, Hx, and other such interpersonal connection stats/mechanics. Which are also descriptive.

Segev

2017-01-21, 01:03 PM

You seem to think of RP rules as strictly prescriptive, and that they must tell you what your character would do.
I count descriptive mechanics as RP rules, including things such as Apocalypse World's Seduce/Manipulate that allows you to offer another PC a carrot, stick, or both. And the choice is still theirs. I count that at an RP rule.
I count Belief, Instinct, and Goal as RP rules
Same with Bonds, Strings, Hx, and other such interpersonal connection stats/mechanics. Which are also descriptive.

This is an interesting way of framing it. Can you outline how "descriptive RP rules" might function in a game, and contrast with how "prescriptive RP rules" do, in your formulation?

Quertus

2017-01-21, 01:14 PM

Having a personal guideline for what you want to accomplish is fine. I've said nothing to the contrary.

If you like rules for their own sake, why would you ask about whether a rule is needed in the first place? Clearly the necessity of a rule is not the measuring stick for whether or not it's worthy of its place. So I'm now just confused about why you'd use the measuring stick of "needfulness" in place of "Does it do what I want" which are two very different standards of measurement.

Because the concept was introduced to me as, X rules for Y purpose. Thus, I am pointing out that X rules have Z, R, and Q disadvantages, which are not shared by solutions M and N.

Why would the people actively using these systems and enjoying them need to have the downsides pointed out if they already experience those downsides?

... You've lost me. How can we, in discussing creating new systems, be talking about people who are already using said systems?

What exactly does "RP rules" mean to you?
Because I think we might have radically different ideas.
You seem to think of RP rules as strictly prescriptive, and that they must tell you what your character would do.
I count descriptive mechanics as RP rules, including things such as Apocalypse World's Seduce/Manipulate that allows you to offer another PC a carrot, stick, or both. And the choice is still theirs. I count that at an RP rule.
I count Belief, Instinct, and Goal as RP rules
Same with Bonds, Strings, Hx, and other such interpersonal connection stats/mechanics. Which are also descriptive.

Or perhaps this answers my question, above.

I haven't played with any of these systems per se, but let me attempt to give my feedback on my expectations. Sorry I haven't done so sooner.

BIG has the issue of requiring you to read the GM's mind, in a guessing game of what will come up, mitigated by the fact that you continue to pick a Belief, until the GM stops rejecting them as something that won't come up this session. This feels a touch railroad-y, in that the GM needs to know what will happen in the season, and falls apart if the players have agency to derail those expectations.

But. A modified BIG, where I kept all my character's Beliefs, and, at the end of the season, was awarded a foo for following at least one of those beliefs, and was given the option to modify / remove / create new beliefs... sounds like something I'd be willing to try. Bonus points if new beliefs could be created real time, not just between sessions (so that when we, say, meet the princess, I can add in beliefs about the princess?).

Hx... I won't deny feeling a connection to those I treat. I question the type and amount of connection physical (or emotional) abuse creates. None worth mentioning, IME. Being able to magically teleport from across the world to the side of someone you've had sex with... is an example of how the game's general style makes it not match my gaming preferences. A more realistic game that used the Hx system? I might give that a try... but, honestly, I fear it's definition of "connection" may be antithetical to my own.

And... I don't think I'm familiar with Bonds or Strings.

Talakeal

2017-01-21, 02:46 PM

... Actually now I am wondering if you could argue that a system without some form of role-playing mechanics is not actually a role-playing game, just a game that you can role-play in. However even if that does hold it is unnecessarily pedantic.

I would say the exact opposite actually.

The whole core of role-playing is to get into your character's head and try and think like they do; if you have mechanics telling you how your character acts / thinks / feels you aren't RPing at all, you are just playing another dice game.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-21, 03:59 PM

This is an interesting way of framing it. Can you outline how "descriptive RP rules" might function in a game, and contrast with how "prescriptive RP rules" do, in your formulation?

Prescriptive:
Rules tell you what your character WILL DO.

Descriptive:
Rules react to what your character DID.

Because the concept was introduced to me as, X rules for Y purpose. Thus, I am pointing out that X rules have Z, R, and Q disadvantages, which are not shared by solutions M and N.
My reaction to this is:
Rules act differently on paper than in gameplay, so take caution in assuming how people interact with rules when discussing hypotheticals.

... You've lost me. How can we, in discussing creating new systems, be talking about people who are already using said systems?

We've also talked about systems that already exist.

BIG has the issue of requiring you to read the GM's mind, in a guessing game of what will come up, mitigated by the fact that you continue to pick a Belief, until the GM stops rejecting them as something that won't come up this session. This feels a touch railroad-y, in that the GM needs to know what will happen in the season, and falls apart if the players have agency to derail those expectations.
If you have an adversarial GM, yes. BIG has this problem. If played in good faith, it usually goes the other way. You inform the GM about the kind of game you want and he'll let you know if your BIG happens to fall outside of what is feasibly possible within the session if that happens to be the case. He can't bar you from having it, but he can say "Are you sure?"

But. A modified BIG, where I kept all my character's Beliefs, and, at the end of the season, was awarded a foo for following at least one of those beliefs, and was given the option to modify / remove / create new beliefs
This is standard BIG. You just described how it already works.

... sounds like something I'd be willing to try. Bonus points if new beliefs could be created real time, not just between sessions (so that when we, say, meet the princess, I can add in beliefs about the princess?).
You could include that, though it makes it a lot more chaotic.

Hx... I won't deny feeling a connection to those I treat. I question the type and amount of connection physical (or emotional) abuse creates.
Hx is not about positive emotional connection. It's "how well you know them" or, as it actually functions, the influence you have over them.

None worth mentioning, IME. Being able to magically teleport from across the world to the side of someone you've had sex with... is an example of how the game's general style makes it not match my gaming preferences.
I'm hesitant to call that an RP mechanic. And the scale of these games is usually one town and some surrounding area. Plus it's supposed to have a lot of weirdness involved. But that's neither here not here.

A more realistic game that used the Hx system? I might give that a try... but, honestly, I fear it's definition of "connection" may be antithetical to my own.
Hx isn't so much "connection" as "influence over/knowledge about." At least in 2e.

And... I don't think I'm familiar with Bonds or Strings.
Strings come from Monster Hearts. They're a lot like Hx.
Bonds come from Dungeon World. They describe a belief/goal related to another character. When both players agree that the bond is resolved (no longer a true thing, regardless of how it stopped being true) they both get XP.

Segev

2017-01-21, 11:14 PM

Prescriptive:
Rules tell you what your character WILL DO.

Descriptive:
Rules react to what your character DID.

What do "descriptive RP rules" do in the game? Are we just talking about Alignment-type things? You RP'd this way, so you are treated as X alignment for purposes of things that interact with it?

Quertus

2017-01-21, 11:26 PM

I would say the exact opposite actually.

The whole core of role-playing is to get into your character's head and try and think like they do; if you have mechanics telling you how your character acts / thinks / feels you aren't RPing at all, you are just playing another dice game.

Yeah, kinda like how a "padded weapons game" kinda isn't a padded weapons game if you remove the padded weapons.

However... most padded weapons games have rules about the padded weapons: certain construction requirements, how their damage works, etc. Makes me wonder what rules about role-playing would look like.

stuff

You know, I'll sit here and calmly discuss cannibalism, various sexual practices, burning orphanages, experiments that involve dropping thousands of puppies from various heights to measure the results... but you've managed to hit one of my "nope!" zones. Kudos! Unfortunately, your prize is that I will not be able to discuss some of the specifics of your examples with you for an indeterminate amount of time. Sorry.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-21, 11:52 PM

What do "descriptive RP rules" do in the game? Are we just talking about Alignment-type things? You RP'd this way, so you are treated as X alignment for purposes of things that interact with it?

"You failed a roll and now you will do what X NPC wants"

"You failed a roll and so you lose control of your character and they do Y instead."

"You can't turn down a drink because you have the Alcoholic tag"

Those are prescriptive. They prescribe character actions rather than describing/reacting to them.

(Edit: I realize now you were asking about Descriptive RP rules here's the explanation:)

BIG is descriptive. You lay out what you wanna do, and at the end reacts if you did it.

Apocalypse World's Seduce/Manipulate move offers a PC up to two options: (as lf 2e)
Do the thing the other PC wants, and get XP instantly
Or!
Don't do it and un-highlight a stat (one venue for getting XP disappears)

Those activate only after the thing has been done or not done. For instance, if I ask a character to not do anything violent for a while, and my seduce/manipulate goes off without a hitch, then here's what happens:
If they get to the end of the session without committing violence, XP!
If they don't, after they commit a violent act they un-highlight one of their stats

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-22, 12:08 AM

You know, I'll sit here and calmly discuss cannibalism, various sexual practices, burning orphanages, experiments that involve dropping thousands of puppies from various heights to measure the results... but you've managed to hit one of my "nope!" zones. Kudos! Unfortunately, your prize is that I will not be able to discuss some of the specifics of your examples with you for an indeterminate amount of time. Sorry.

If you don't mind, could you PM me what exactly it was that noped you out? I'd like to avoid that line in the future if at all possible. My only two ones I can potentially blame are how Hx works (which has just as much of a balancing role as a fictional role) or my (admitedly too-terse) comment about describing BIG as it already essentially exists. Which I think is an indication of poor communication in describing what the system does rather than something strictly your fault.

As for the first, specifically why receiving harm from another PC causes your Hx with them to go up:
The move used to prevent a PC from harming you is called Help/Interfere. It is based on your Hx with the character you are helping/interfering with. If your Hx goes up with the character that just hurt you, they are less likely to be able to do it again, or if you're already at +3 Hx you get XP for your trouble. Hx is more complicated in 2e and it doesn't map so simply to just "How well you know a person."

As for the second... yeah, I was in a rush today and dealing with frustrating customers. I'm sorry I said that in the most dickish way possible.

Floret

2017-01-22, 06:34 AM

Apologies for being absent for some time, I had time only to read - or rather, was too tired of this thread to actually respond to most things.

I would say the exact opposite actually.

The whole core of role-playing is to get into your character's head and try and think like they do; if you have mechanics telling you how your character acts / thinks / feels you aren't RPing at all, you are just playing another dice game.

Again, "the whole core of role-playing" is an absolutely invalid statement, if not followed by "for [insert person]".
There is NO one core of role-playing. People play these games for wildly different reasons. I, for example, don't see that as the core of roleplaying. I see that as a way to accomplish the core goal, which is to experience interesting, epic, emotional or otherwise great moments I could not, or would rather not experience IRL. Some of this might be through being someone else, that reacts to situations differently from what I do, some of it may be through rolling tons of dice that by the rules mean I get to do some awesome magic shenanigans.

But the "Core" of Role-playing will always be defined by the person playing. And not by some universal constant. So, if for you, that is the core? Rules messing with it will lessen your enjoyment. Sure. Then don't play with such rules. For others, that see their core of role-playing in something else? Why not mess with rules like that if it heightens theirs?
Sure, this might end up very niche. But so what? We are not gonna make a DnD-Dethroner anyways :smallwink:

What do "descriptive RP rules" do in the game? Are we just talking about Alignment-type things? You RP'd this way, so you are treated as X alignment for purposes of things that interact with it?

For me personally, I would probably count many of the rules that FATE has. "This situation that arose fits one of my aspects, so I get +2/a reroll", for example. And, following from that, any rules that look at a situation that arose, and say you "Alright, having done this gets you XP, this gets you bonus dice, this gets you less dice, etc." (For example, having rules to grant positive or negative modifications on a social roll for the argument that was brought, could be seen as descriptive. They react to what happened, rather than prescribe a certain course of action.)

I've been thinking a bit about your morale system in this regard. Because it isn't really prescriptive, cause it doesn't force any course of action, but it's also not THAT descriptive, as the "what you get for each choice" comes before the decision, so there is no decision yet that to describe with the boons. I mean... there sort of is, actually... More descriptive than prescriptive.
I think a problem that I have is that, while the terms are functional in this situation, they are sort of stretching the definition that I regularly, in language studies, am confronted with regarding "descriptive", at the very least^^

(The sorting is irrespective of my own personal, probably weird and "WTF have you done with my system?" attempt of implementation of your system, I hope. :smallwink:
I mean, for all I stand behind my own solution for social rules under current systems, I DO prefer yours to the rather prescriptive nature of what I am currently doing. I don't have a PROBLEM with my way of doing things (obviously), but that doesn't mean I can't go around looking for ways to do it better when building my own system(s).)

Talakeal

2017-01-22, 01:52 PM

Apologies for being absent for some time, I had time only to read - or rather, was too tired of this thread to actually respond to most things.

Again, "the whole core of role-playing" is an absolutely invalid statement, if not followed by "for [insert person]".

Hence opening with the "I would say," bit.

Also, this was directly in response to someone saying that if you are doing something freeform than it isn't really part of the game, not just random conjecture. I personally found that statement a bit like saying you need to take the boffer combat out of SCA and replace it with dice, allowing freedom in (what I consider to be) the core of any activity is neither bad nor contradictory.

Quertus

2017-01-22, 03:56 PM

If you don't mind, could you PM me what exactly it was that noped you out? I'd like to avoid that line in the future if at all possible. My only two ones I can potentially blame are how Hx works (which has just as much of a balancing role as a fictional role) or my (admitedly too-terse) comment about describing BIG as it already essentially exists. Which I think is an indication of poor communication in describing what the system does rather than something strictly your fault.

As for the first, specifically why receiving harm from another PC causes your Hx with them to go up:
The move used to prevent a PC from harming you is called Help/Interfere. It is based on your Hx with the character you are helping/interfering with. If your Hx goes up with the character that just hurt you, they are less likely to be able to do it again, or if you're already at +3 Hx you get XP for your trouble. Hx is more complicated in 2e and it doesn't map so simply to just "How well you know a person."

As for the second... yeah, I was in a rush today and dealing with frustrating customers. I'm sorry I said that in the most dickish way possible.

I... Don't know how to PM. <insert blush emoji here>

The most important thing I want to get across is that you aren't at fault here. In fact, I'm grateful that you helped me discover that I have this "nope!" zone. As I refuse to tolerate myself having conversational "nope!" zones*, it's something I'm now trying to understand and work through. Unfortunately, based on past experience, that'll probably take a few years.

Most everybody is probably used to me absent mindedly forgetting I was in a conversation in the first place. This time, I get to apologize in advance for any sleight you may feel for me dropping a line of thought.

IMO, the first step to solving a problem is recognizing that there is a problem. The second step is to determine what the problem is. I haven't completed the second step yet - I'm still gently feeling the area out to define exactly what my "nope!" zone looks like. So... I can't tell you what, exactly, my triggers are.

* IRL, face to face, I actually have a known "nope!" zone, one that I lack online. I have found exactly one person I'm comfortable enough with to discuss that topic face to face. With luck, those conversations may remove said "nope!" zone.

Segev

2017-01-22, 05:16 PM

BIG is descriptive. You lay out what you wanna do, and at the end reacts if you did it.

Apocalypse World's Seduce/Manipulate move offers a PC up to two options: (as lf 2e)
Do the thing the other PC wants, and get XP instantly
Or!
Don't do it and un-highlight a stat (one venue for getting XP disappears)

Those activate only after the thing has been done or not done. For instance, if I ask a character to not do anything violent for a while, and my seduce/manipulate goes off without a hitch, then here's what happens:
If they get to the end of the session without committing violence, XP!
If they don't, after they commit a violent act they un-highlight one of their stats

So "descriptive" in this case is "here are consequences for your choices." "Prescriptive" is "you don't have choices anymore."

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-22, 09:17 PM

So "descriptive" in this case is "here are consequences for your choices." "Prescriptive" is "you don't have choices anymore."

Prescriptive rules do eliminate freedom. Prescriptive has enforcement involved. "This is how things will be."

Descriptive rules are reactive. "This is how things are."

@Quertus
I think you PM me from my profile page? Been a while since I've done it.
I just want to make sure I'm not pushing at buttons that need not be pushed. There's a reason my table as a "Skip" rule. I don't want people feeling uncomfortable due to stuff I say. When you get it figured out, feel free to drop me a line so I can avoid bringing it up in the future.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-23, 09:36 AM

This sounds like more of a "chicken or egg" sort of thing. Descriptions, decisions, dice rolls / other rules, etc, work in a cycle, not in a line.

Segev

2017-01-23, 10:19 AM

I'm not sure "prescriptive" and "descriptive" are useful terms, here, because it's hard to say whether "these consequences encourage you to choose X" is prescriptive (reducing your 'valid' choices) or descriptive (you can do whatever, but there are consequences).

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-23, 10:58 AM

This sounds like more of a "chicken or egg" sort of thing. Descriptions, decisions, dice rolls / other rules, etc, work in a cycle, not in a line.

Prescriptive and Descriptive are qualitative terms, not terms for the order of operations of rules.
And I don't see the point of disqualifying an adjective from being applied to a rule unless your goal is to squash all discussion about RP rules. Which I hope it isn't.

Perhaps it would be better to classify them as Active and Reactive.

Active RP rules make things happen.
Reactive RP rules react to what has happened.

Segev

2017-01-23, 12:13 PM

Perhaps it would be better to classify them as Active and Reactive.

Active RP rules make things happen.
Reactive RP rules react to what has happened.

That's a little better. I still am unclear on whether it matters that the "reaction" to "what has happened" is designed to influence the choice of what will be done.

That is, nothing STOPS you from ignoring the plea for aid, but the reaction to you doing so is a loss of morale due to how guilty you'll feel.

Is that active or reactive? I'd argue reactive, but if the fact that the reaction to a particular choice is a penalty makes it "active," then I'm still unsure that "reactive" is meaningful.

kyoryu

2017-01-23, 12:22 PM

I think there is a real difference.

Just using alignment as an example:

Descriptive: "You've done the following things, therefore your alignment is now X"

Prescriptive: "You're alignment X, therefore you cannot do the following things."

Beyond that, there's a difference between hard control and soft control.

Hard control: "I won this roll, therefore you do the thing."

Soft control: "I won this roll, therefore if you don't do the thing, I can make bad things happen to you."

Examples of soft control:

In Apocalypse World, the Brainer can use an "In-Brain Puppet Strings" move. On a success, the target has a command implanted. Until that task is completed, the Brainer gets a certain number of "hold" points that they can use to either mess with rolls or directly cause harm. When the hold is depleted or the command is completed, the control dissipates.

At no point is the target *forced* to do a certain thing. They can absolutely refuse to follow the command, so long as they are willing to live with the consequences. Yes, the control *changes* the outcomes, and so *encourages* them to do those things, but the final choice remains with the player.

In D&D 4e, most Defender types have the ability to "mark" an opponent. If this "mark" is ignored in some way, the defender can then punish the marked character - with attacks of opportunity or other negative outcomes. This still doesn't prevent the marked target from ignoring the mark - they might decide that it's still worth it to have a shot of taking out that wizard.

This is very different from something like Dominate Person: "Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)" The target, in that case, has no choice of what to do outside of a couple of special circumstances - on a minute to minute basis, their ability to choose is gone.

EDIT: Segev, your system is an example of soft control.

Segev

2017-01-23, 12:25 PM

Sure. "Hard control" vs. "soft control" makes sense in a game mechanical sense.

Alignment being descriptive makes sense, but mainly because the interaction with other mechanics is fairly limited (unless you're deliberately playing something where it isn't, like a Paladin).

Does alignment being descriptive, and the fact that a Paladin's behavior is "soft controlled" by the fact that, if his alignment changes, he loses his powers, align with the notion of any other "descriptive" mechanics?

Is "Descriptive" and "soft control" fairly synonymous in context of social/RP rules?

kyoryu

2017-01-23, 12:41 PM

Is "Descriptive" and "soft control" fairly synonymous in context of social/RP rules?

I don't think so, but I think they're related.

Segev

2017-01-23, 01:43 PM

The problem I'm having, then, is that I'm not sure how you make "descriptive social/RP mechanics" that aren't also soft control mechanics.

kyoryu

2017-01-23, 01:49 PM

The problem I'm having, then, is that I'm not sure how you make "descriptive social/RP mechanics" that aren't also soft control mechanics.

Why do you want to?

I mean, if you want them to have some level of influence, then they're going to be either hard or soft control. Otherwise they're just purely descriptive.

Segev

2017-01-23, 02:13 PM

Why do you want to?

I mean, if you want them to have some level of influence, then they're going to be either hard or soft control. Otherwise they're just purely descriptive.

Because I was under the impression we were discussing mechanics that actually had some meaning. If I was misunderstanding the purpose of "descriptive" vs. "prescriptive" mechanics in this discussion, then it's no wonder I seem confused.

What purpose do you see descriptive mechanics serving, when it comes to RP/social mechanics?

kyoryu

2017-01-23, 02:30 PM

Segev

2017-01-23, 02:40 PM

No, I'm asking why would you want a descriptive mechanic that doesn't have some element of soft control?I don't think I do. I was asking what it would look like because it seemed to me that people were drawing a distinction while asking for a descriptive mechanic that eschewed any form of control.

In essence, it sounds like you agree with me that a social/RP mechanic that is useful will have to offer some sort of control. (I prefer soft control, here.)

Cluedrew

2017-01-23, 04:10 PM

On My last post: Which posed the question, "Is it still a role-playing game if there are no role-playing mechanics?" First off I don't think the answer is that important. It is probably more a result of the almost random intersection of definitions created for other situations than the any thing about this particular case.

But then why did I pose it? Because I thought it was interesting. For me the intuitive answer is yes, because there are a lot of, what are in my opinion, role-playing games that don't have anything I would point to as role-playing mechanics (although as jayem pointed out, we don't even know quite what that is). Yet when I actually look at the definitions, the answer seems to come out no.

If anyone has any questions or further opinions they can weight in, but otherwise I think we can move on.

This sounds like more of a "chicken or egg" sort of thing. Descriptions, decisions, dice rolls / other rules, etc, work in a cycle, not in a line.Could you please clarify, as this seems to contradict your previous position that everything should flow outward from decisions, so I must have misunderstood at least one part.

On Decision Points: So I have been turning it over in my head and I realized that the main idea of this model I have been working on boils down to this: If we consider player control of a character in terms of decision points than role-playing mechanics shouldn't remove them, they either A) further support them with mechanical effects or B) move them forward to character creation (or any other time you modify your character sheet).

Now of course if you simply move them all forward, you get a simulation that takes a lot of work to set up and must account for every possible outcome. This is not a good outcome so you don't want to do that. You could of course do all type A mechanics (those are the character->world ones) or you can simply choose to pair back group B (world->character) to the point it is fun.

For some people that point may be none at all, amounts can vary. And even if you want about the same amount, the kinds of decisions you want to move forward also can change. Simple example Segev's system leans more towards temptation, mine goes more towards drive.

And with the "soft" mechanics most people around here are interested, you actually can get more decisions. At character creation you decide the characters inclinations and then during play you can decide if the situation causes them to break from that or not. With some mechanical weight behind both options, I feel that can add some meaning to the moment.

So, depending on how they are done, role-playing mechanics can both increase your opportunities to make in character decisions and give them more meaning. I don't think I have to explain why I am interested in that. The trick is just to create a system that does it properly.

On a completely different note: Is it just me or is this thread starting to develop its own vocabulary.

Quertus

2017-01-23, 10:25 PM

Because I was under the impression we were discussing mechanics that actually had some meaning. If I was misunderstanding the purpose of "descriptive" vs. "prescriptive" mechanics in this discussion, then it's no wonder I seem confused.

What purpose do you see descriptive mechanics serving, when it comes to RP/social mechanics?

I don't think I do. I was asking what it would look like because it seemed to me that people were drawing a distinction while asking for a descriptive mechanic that eschewed any form of control.

In essence, it sounds like you agree with me that a social/RP mechanic that is useful will have to offer some sort of control. (I prefer soft control, here.)

If I can take a stab at personality mechanics which work more like descriptive alignment, without being toothless?

Quertus is Academic. This gives him whatever bonus. However, instead of casting BFC / SoD / SoS spells in combat, you'll more often find Quertus casting spells to evaluate new creatures and recording the results, or casting additional sensory spells to better evaluate new breeds, or throwing shuriken / rocks at monsters (and recording the results), or just drawing sketches. Should this behavior change substantially and consistently (if, say, someone ever teaches him a more playground-approved efficient combat style), then Quertus would lose (access to? the benefits from?) his Academic trait.

Quertus is Verbose. Beats me what bonus that gives him. But, on the off chance I ever start consistently giving terse replies when role-playing him, he would lose this bonus.

Quertus is a Worlds-Published Famous Author. He gets bonuses in certain social situations, and, happily, apparently every dragon is willing to parlay with him. Should he ever stop producing some of the best books on diverse topics (see also the "Academic" trait), at rock bottom prices, he could lose this trait.

Quertus has the "loses every wizard's duel" trait. The only possible bonus for this trait is that his foes underestimate him. This trait has sufficient teeth that it should not be possible to lose this trait.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-24, 09:02 AM

If I can take a stab at personality mechanics which work more like descriptive alignment, without being toothless?

Quertus is Academic. This gives him whatever bonus. However, instead of casting BFC / SoD / SoS spells in combat, you'll more often find Quertus casting spells to evaluate new creatures and recording the results, or casting additional sensory spells to better evaluate new breeds, or throwing shuriken / rocks at monsters (and recording the results), or just drawing sketches. Should this behavior change substantially and consistently (if, say, someone ever teaches him a more playground-approved efficient combat style), then Quertus would lose (access to? the benefits from?) his Academic trait.

Quertus is Verbose. Beats me what bonus that gives him. But, on the off chance I ever start consistently giving terse replies when role-playing him, he would lose this bonus.

Quertus is a Worlds-Published Famous Author. He gets bonuses in certain social situations, and, happily, apparently every dragon is willing to parlay with him. Should he ever stop producing some of the best books on diverse topics (see also the "Academic" trait), at rock bottom prices, he could lose this trait.

Quertus has the "loses every wizard's duel" trait. The only possible bonus for this trait is that his foes underestimate him. This trait has sufficient teeth that it should not be possible to lose this trait.

That's surprisingly similar to how traits work in Burning Wheel. The difference is that BW traits give you Artha (XP) when they complicate your life/the situation.
Because of this, disadvantageous traits actually COST you at character creation, rather than the usual "receiving of more points in exchange for the bad thing." Which I think is neat.

And that last trait would be easy to lose: Win a Wizard's Duel. :P (if we're treating the trait name literally)

And I'd think that Quertus winning a bunch of duels would likely change that.

What might be neat would be to have Traits that are under your control, and maybe Perceptions handled by the group/GM?
In either case they're invoked by the player, but it would be a pretty neat thing since the perceptions of others are mostly out of your control. So Quertus might have another column with "Useless in Combat, Bookworm, Dangerous (because Wizard), Famous Author, Genius," etc. And those would be how other people might view Quertus. Some people will see Quertus and be afraid/extra cautious because he's a wizard and Wizards are dangerous/rare. They might know his reputation and basically view him as being as dangeous as a tissue paper. They might be familiar with his body of work and local academics might crowd him in the tavern to ask questions.

None of which is under his direct control, because it's about how other people perceive him.

Not really much of a mechanic, but something of an idea.

Segev

2017-01-24, 09:21 AM

Quertus

2017-01-24, 10:32 AM

That's surprisingly similar to how traits work in Burning Wheel. The difference is that BW traits give you Artha (XP) when they complicate your life/the situation.
Because of this, disadvantageous traits actually COST you at character creation, rather than the usual "receiving of more points in exchange for the bad thing." Which I think is neat.

And that last trait would be easy to lose: Win a Wizard's Duel. :P (if we're treating the trait name literally)

And I'd think that Quertus winning a bunch of duels would likely change that.

What might be neat would be to have Traits that are under your control, and maybe Perceptions handled by the group/GM?
In either case they're invoked by the player, but it would be a pretty neat thing since the perceptions of others are mostly out of your control. So Quertus might have another column with "Useless in Combat, Bookworm, Dangerous (because Wizard), Famous Author, Genius," etc. And those would be how other people might view Quertus. Some people will see Quertus and be afraid/extra cautious because he's a wizard and Wizards are dangerous/rare. They might know his reputation and basically view him as being as dangeous as a tissue paper. They might be familiar with his body of work and local academics might crowd him in the tavern to ask questions.

None of which is under his direct control, because it's about how other people perceive him.

Not really much of a mechanic, but something of an idea.

Well, as I said, the "loses every duel" trait has teeth: Quertus cannot win a wizard's duel. That's the mechanics of the trait. So... he cannot win a duel to worry about losing the trait.

I wrote those words on Quertus' sheet after I realized that every BBEG, every lieutenant, every evil wizard who had challenged him to a 1-on-1 duel for something, every friendly duel between Quertus and a fellow PC or friendly NPC, Quertus had lost. Every. Single. Time. So, just in case I had a bad day in the future, and didn't roleplay him correctly, I put this simple fact into his mechanics, to protect him from me.

I doubt anyone knows exactly how bad Quertus really is in 1-on-duels. So it's not really directly part of his reputation. Although a given person's knowledge of Quertus might include a tale like, "and then Quertus lost the McGuffin in a duel against the BBEG's lieutenant".

In fact, if I had to categorize them, I think only his status as a famous author was intended as a purely reputation-based mechanic. The rest were intended to be... "crunchier". Still, while not what I was aiming for, I can see how a descriptive impression & reputation mechanic could be fun.

Segev

2017-01-24, 10:42 AM

Isn't the fact that "loses every wizard duel" is self-enforcing a fact that makes it prescriptive, rather than descriptive? If the difference is that descriptive things are because it has happened, but prescriptive things enforce themselves, Quertus should be able to win a wizard's duel. It would just make his descriptive trait change to "loses almost every wizard duel."

Quertus

2017-01-24, 01:20 PM

Hm. Descriptive traits functioning like Paladins' alignment-conditioned class abilities, then.

That is an idea. I do worry that it actually is MORE constraining than a soft-control system, because ... well, of the Paladin Problem, really: trying to design it so that the traits don't become Flanderized lest the player character lose them would be hard.

Hmmm... I was thinking less like a Paladin, and more like descriptive alignment, in that they are not quite so easy to lose. Quertus can go crazy and try to pretend to be a War Wizard without losing his academia status. It's just that... well, significantly over 90% of the time, he doesn't bother pretending.

If Quertus encounters a 6-armed, snake-tailed daemon, one might be surprised to observe Quertus dispense with his standard array of careful analysis. If asked, Quertus would admit that he already has several specimens under observation, and a simulacrum dedicated to evaluating their capabilities.

Even if Quertus displays uncustomary tactical acumen in dealing with this particular threat, this isn't a "fall from grace" scenario. Rather, it should come across as "the exception that proves the rule" / "even a broken clock is right twice a day", or, as in my example, as the logical consequence of his general academic approach.

Now, yes, mechanics of this nature would be "softer" than I generally care for, as they would require interpretation and good faith on both sides of the GMs screen. But that was my attempt at creating an example of more descriptive, yet not completely toothless, mechanics.

EDIT:

Isn't the fact that "loses every wizard duel" is self-enforcing a fact that makes it prescriptive, rather than descriptive? If the difference is that descriptive things are because it has happened, but prescriptive things enforce themselves, Quertus should be able to win a wizard's duel. It would just make his descriptive trait change to "loses almost every wizard duel."

Yeah, you're right, it is prescriptive. It's just been on Quertus' sheet so long, I don't really think about it any more. It probably isn't a good example of what I was trying to get across.

However, I suppose that there's nothing to preclude creating a system with the possibility of both descriptive and prescriptive traits...

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-24, 01:25 PM

I have to agree with Segev on that one.

"Always loses duels" as a descriptive mechanic would be like this:
If you lose a duel, you get 1/2 of the XP you'd have gotten if you had won. (This is the carrot to go against the natural stick of losing duels)
If you win a duel, you lose this trait. (This is the stick to go against the natural carrot of winning a duel)

A trait with rules like this is WAY more fascinating to me, because it is a great avenue to promote hard choices, especially when the duel MATTERS.
Does Quertus actually win this one time, get full XP, and save the day... at the cost of losing the trait?

This is a difficult player decision that can be really fun for people like me. It also serves as a handy signal to other players of how serious Quertus is taking this particular situation as opposed, possibly, to other ones.

Then again, I like the G part of my RPG just as much as the RP. I like the intersection.

kyoryu

2017-01-24, 02:35 PM

If I can take a stab at personality mechanics which work more like descriptive alignment, without being toothless?

All of those are still (at least) soft control.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-24, 02:56 PM

Could you please clarify, as this seems to contradict your previous position that everything should flow outward from decisions, so I must have misunderstood at least one part.

Can you link to or quote that statement so that I can see where you're seeing the contradiction?

Also, I may misunderstand the distinction that some are trying to make.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-24, 03:03 PM

Can you link to or quote that statement so that I can see where you're seeing the contradiction?

Also, I may misunderstand the distinction that some are trying to make.

The distinction is between the way the individual rules behave, not the way that the players/mechanics generally behave.

An individual rule can Prescribe an action (When you are Dominated, do what the Dominator tell you to)
They can also Describe an action (What you're doing activates X mechanic and gives you Y boon.)
They can also blend the two.

Though I'm preferring to call it Active and Reactive, respectively.

Quertus

2017-01-24, 03:52 PM

All of those are still (at least) soft control.

Hmmm... I guess I was aiming for the idea that if, in some unforseen future, Quertus started fighting in a playground approved manner, "Academia" would no longer describe him, so he'd need a new trait to replace it. Perhaps he'd finally be a "Seasoned War Wizard". Or perhaps it's because he's seen and studied everything, or developed creature analyzing senses which enable him to learn creatures' abilities perfectly in real time. The exact nature of the cause would determine what his new trait should be, and what bonuses it grants.

So that it's never a "fall from grace" scenario, merely a "this no longer seems to apply. What does?"

I have to agree with Segev on that one.

"Always loses duels" as a descriptive mechanic would be like this:
If you lose a duel, you get 1/2 of the XP you'd have gotten if you had won. (This is the carrot to go against the natural stick of losing duels)
If you win a duel, you lose this trait. (This is the stick to go against the natural carrot of winning a duel)

A trait with rules like this is WAY more fascinating to me, because it is a great avenue to promote hard choices, especially when the duel MATTERS.
Does Quertus actually win this one time, get full XP, and save the day... at the cost of losing the trait?

This is a difficult player decision that can be really fun for people like me. It also serves as a handy signal to other players of how serious Quertus is taking this particular situation as opposed, possibly, to other ones.

Then again, I like the G part of my RPG just as much as the RP. I like the intersection.

I mean, a lot of Quertus' duels have mattered, he's just always failed to emerge victorious.

For difficult decisions... although it can easily be overdone, I often like the type of hard choices where circumstances pit two of a character's desires / principles against each other.

Cluedrew

2017-01-25, 10:46 PM

Can you link to or quote that statement so that I can see where you're seeing the contradiction?...Umm...

If I go back and link every time you have rejected (usually with at least one word to increase the strength) the idea of mechanics effecting decisions we are going to be here for a long time. But to me "Descriptions, decisions, dice rolls / other rules, etc, work in a cycle, not in a line." suggests that dice rolls and rules influence decisions.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-26, 08:53 AM

I mean, a lot of Quertus' duels have mattered, he's just always failed to emerge victorious.

For difficult decisions... although it can easily be overdone, I often like the type of hard choices where circumstances pit two of a character's desires / principles against each other.

I very much like giving people hard decisions. And they need not always be big dire things to still be hard choices.

"You can get the person you're with to the other side of the street and into cover but you take damage for both of you, or you are pinned down here but unharmed for now." (This said based on a roll's outcome.)

That is, depending on specific context, a hard decision. (Especially if the PC is low on health and their way out is across the street.) I try to have one or two per session, or when things are getting dire I'll aim for one per PC per session of the dice are helpful

But I do ALSO enjoy playing their goals against one another. I don't have to dislike one form of hard decision to like the other. I just loke them generally.

Cluedrew

2017-01-26, 09:22 AM

I very much like giving people hard decisions. And they need not always be big dire things to still be hard choices.Well yeah you play Apocalypse World right? The whole "Yes, but..." method is built into the system on a 7-9.

For those who don't know, that is a weak hit, which usually results in a success but often a choice about how things go wrong on the side. (Weak hits take other forms as well, but that is the relevant one.)

I was going to try to say something significant, but I am also tried. I am going to throw out that zero-control mechanics (those that actually have no enforcement at all) can still be useful. Mostly because they help you think about the character. They can point you in the direction the game is supposed to go or just trigger ideas.

Example: I once played a game that had Medical Information as a field on the character sheet. I have never before or since actually stopped and thought about what injuries or sicknesses my character might have had, their allergies or medication they take. But I did here and a few more parts clicked into place for this character who was a medical mess.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-26, 10:02 AM

...Umm...

If I go back and link every time you have rejected (usually with at least one word to increase the strength) the idea of mechanics effecting decisions we are going to be here for a long time. But to me "Descriptions, decisions, dice rolls / other rules, etc, work in a cycle, not in a line." suggests that dice rolls and rules influence decisions.

OK, two different things being discussed, that's the disconnect. In part because (I think) I misunderstood the descriptive/prescriptive split.

The first thing is whether in-character roleplaying decisions should be made based on the character's thoughts, interaction with the setting, immediate and long-term circumstances, etc -- and not for mechanical carrot-and-stick reasons. And yes, I still say that mechanics should take a distant back seat in that regard.

The second thing was (I thought) a question about "order of operations", and to me the order of operations would be a circle, and not a short arrow, because once the character has decided what to do, if it requires interaction with the rules, then the rules come into play, but either way the situation changes based on the outcome of the character's actions (or failed attempt), and their next decision is informed by the new situation they're presented with, and so on.

And since we're on that subject, one of my major objections to systems that have long-narration setups before or after or around the actual "mechanics instant", as opposed to having each attempted action or intrinsically linked set of actions be its own "mechanics instant", is that it strips the character (and thus the player) of most of their decision points and their ability to react to / interact with the situation as it unfolds.

Segev

2017-01-26, 10:20 AM

OK, two different things being discussed, that's the disconnect. In part because (I think) I misunderstood the descriptive/prescriptive split. Yeah, that split seems a little awkward, at best, for this discussion. I would prefer to avoid those terms here. (I like them elsewhere; they just seem to engender confusion rather than clarity here.)

The first thing is whether in-character roleplaying decisions should be made based on the character's thoughts, interaction with the setting, immediate and long-term circumstances, etc -- and not for mechanical carrot-and-stick reasons. And yes, I still say that mechanics should take a distant back seat in that regard. I'll say that my goals here have been to align the "carrot and stick" with the "thoughts, interaction with the setting, and immediate and long-term circumstances." My problems, that I'm trying to resolve, are a problem with the carrot-and-stick as it stands being contrary to the latter "character goals" grouping of drives.

And since we're on that subject, one of my major objections to systems that have long-narration setups before or after or around the actual "mechanics instant", as opposed to having each attempted action or intrinsically linked set of actions be its own "mechanics instant", is that it strips the character (and thus the player) of most of their decision points and their ability to react to / interact with the situation as it unfolds.Agreed. Whole-heartedly. It's one of the major problems with most social systems as they stand. "Okay, I talk about this and try to convince people of that and here's my spiel, and we had this conversation IC. Now I roll this one Social Check to see if it went my way!" is hardly satisfying.

A design goal for me in building anything intended as even a rudimentary social system would be to have multiple decision points, each represented by some mechanical activity/choice. I know you don't like the comparison to combat, but please focus on the aspect I'm referencing here when I say that I want to model it after the level of in-game-actions that have gameplay moves associated with them in the same way combat does.

I want sequences of rolls to influence, persuade, deceive, manipulate, learn about, and otherwise alter the social dynamics of the scene as characters try to bring things around to their goals. Just as we have movement and attack rolls and damage rolls and nuances in how position and line of sight and the like to make combat something characters are trying to take sequences of mechanical actions to bring around to their goals.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-26, 10:40 AM

Agreed. Whole-heartedly. It's one of the major problems with most social systems as they stand. "Okay, I talk about this and try to convince people of that and here's my spiel, and we had this conversation IC. Now I roll this one Social Check to see if it went my way!" is hardly satisfying.

A design goal for me in building anything intended as even a rudimentary social system would be to have multiple decision points, each represented by some mechanical activity/choice. I know you don't like the comparison to combat, but please focus on the aspect I'm referencing here when I say that I want to model it after the level of in-game-actions that have gameplay moves associated with them in the same way combat does.

I want sequences of rolls to influence, persuade, deceive, manipulate, learn about, and otherwise alter the social dynamics of the scene as characters try to bring things around to their goals. Just as we have movement and attack rolls and damage rolls and nuances in how position and line of sight and the like to make combat something characters are trying to take sequences of mechanical actions to bring around to their goals.

I see the merit in that, if for no other reason than that the "one roll, get result" setup tends to result in things that feel more like mind-bending powers than social interaction.

In fact, if we take a notoriously heavy-handed mental power as an example, there's Dominate in Vampire, which I would have been much less put off by if it had been constructed in a way that affected social interaction in the way that physical disciplines affected combat. That is, ways to make the character more effective in intimidating, manipulating, persuading, etc.

I always found it odd how many people would have been vehemently opposed to a combat "I win button" power that was only stopped by someone being "better generation" or buying a Merit, who were none the less entirely fine with the way Dominate works.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-26, 10:56 AM

Well yeah you play Apocalypse World right? The whole "Yes, but..." method is built into the system on a 7-9.

That is the system that introduced me to my love of such choices, and it is my favorite. But it is not the only system I play or the only one that I can use to have that happen.

For those who don't know, that is a weak hit, which usually results in a success but often a choice about how things go wrong on the side. (Weak hits take other forms as well, but that is the relevant one.)
A partial success in AW actually takes other forms more often than it takes the one you listed.

Most involve "You get what you want but to a lesser degree"
Then there's "You get what you want with strings attached"
And there's "You don't get what you want, but you get something like it."
What I'm talking about is: "You can either get what you want at cost, or not get what you want without cost."

Segev

2017-01-26, 10:59 AM

I see the merit in that, if for no other reason than that the "one roll, get result" setup tends to result in things that feel more like mind-bending powers than social interaction.

In fact, if we take a notoriously heavy-handed mental power as an example, there's Dominate in Vampire, which I would have been much less put off by if it had been constructed in a way that affected social interaction in the way that physical disciplines affected combat. That is, ways to make the character more effective in intimidating, manipulating, persuading, etc.

I always found it odd how many people would have been vehemently opposed to a combat "I win button" power that was only stopped by someone being "better generation" or buying a Merit, who were none the less entirely fine with the way Dominate works.

I think the reason people are "okay" with how Dominate works is because it's supposed to be the mental invasion effect.

Using D&D for the example, dominate person is supposed to be a literal override of the victim's will. They are your mind-slave. There's nothing subtle about it, insofar as the control goes. (It can be exerted subtly, of course, but the control itself is "bam! you must do as I say.")

Charm effects are more as you describe. It would be cool if a well-designed social system existed such that charm effects make the target more susceptible to the user's social manipulations. Instead of being "wham, you like them; make opposed Charisma checks if you don't want them to convince you to do something they're asking you to do," it would be a specific additional thing your character "likes." In my conception of the system I've been discussing, it would be a trait: "Likes this person." The magic is that it's just THERE all of a sudden, as opposed to having been built up over normal social interaction.

Even more subtle magics (perhaps "glamores" or the like) could instead magically augment the numbers the socialite is throwing around. If the Pirate Queen from our prior examples was actually a Fairy Pirate Queen using magical glamour, she could perhaps ignore "sexual preference" or otherwise throw bigger numbers around, justified as supernatural prowess. Or maybe she just has a minimum "cost" she can extract for resisting her wiles, on the basis that she's magically alluring even if you would otherwise be uninterested.

But overall, yes, I agree: for social mechanics to not feel like mind control, they need to operate on a level that feels more fine-grained than a single roll at the end. People have "less problem" with the magical compulsions being one-and-done effects because, I think, those magical compulsions are literally mind-control, so them feeling like mind control isn't a problem.

(Note: I'm saying people are okay with them being mechanically represented that way, not that they're okay with mind-control being used, necessarily. And I'm still not sure I'm making the distinction clear. Please let me know if you think I'm not; I'll try again.)

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-26, 11:52 AM

I think the reason people are "okay" with how Dominate works is because it's supposed to be the mental invasion effect.

Using D&D for the example, dominate person is supposed to be a literal override of the victim's will. They are your mind-slave. There's nothing subtle about it, insofar as the control goes. (It can be exerted subtly, of course, but the control itself is "bam! you must do as I say.")

Charm effects are more as you describe. It would be cool if a well-designed social system existed such that charm effects make the target more susceptible to the user's social manipulations. Instead of being "wham, you like them; make opposed Charisma checks if you don't want them to convince you to do something they're asking you to do," it would be a specific additional thing your character "likes." In my conception of the system I've been discussing, it would be a trait: "Likes this person." The magic is that it's just THERE all of a sudden, as opposed to having been built up over normal social interaction.

Even more subtle magics (perhaps "glamores" or the like) could instead magically augment the numbers the socialite is throwing around. If the Pirate Queen from our prior examples was actually a Fairy Pirate Queen using magical glamour, she could perhaps ignore "sexual preference" or otherwise throw bigger numbers around, justified as supernatural prowess. Or maybe she just has a minimum "cost" she can extract for resisting her wiles, on the basis that she's magically alluring even if you would otherwise be uninterested.

But overall, yes, I agree: for social mechanics to not feel like mind control, they need to operate on a level that feels more fine-grained than a single roll at the end. People have "less problem" with the magical compulsions being one-and-done effects because, I think, those magical compulsions are literally mind-control, so them feeling like mind control isn't a problem.

(Note: I'm saying people are okay with them being mechanically represented that way, not that they're okay with mind-control being used, necessarily. And I'm still not sure I'm making the distinction clear. Please let me know if you think I'm not; I'll try again.)

I think I get it.

In terms of system construction, it's sort of like what happened with 4th edition Legend of the Five Rings. The original release had pretty much no rules for crafting, and then one of the supplements just sort of dropped in Schools with Techniques for crafting that existed in isolation. So instead of interacting with existing rules and augmenting and boosting and so on, these Techniques were sort of just... there. In a vacuum.

If you're going to have social "powers" or "techniques", it's probably better to have a system of mundane social interaction, than have them just exist in a vacuum, so that the effects can be more granular, more integrated, and where appropriate more subtle.

(Not to say that social mechanics should look anything like combat in general.)