Superman killed Lex Luthor vs The man who never would

[Quertus]

Have you considered taking out huge life insurance policies on your family members, then killing them for the insurance money? Making out with statues or plushies? Abducting children to sell into slavery? Worshipping me as a god? Eating a tide pod? Taking nude pictures of yourself, and posting them on the internet, or around your community? Streaking? Keeping your eyes closed / blindfolded for 24 hours, to know what it's like to be blind? Dropped puppies off a roof to create realistic falling damage models? Joining a cult? Owning a slave? Catching a disease just to spread it to others? Being bad just so you'll get spanked (or otherwise be punished and/or otherwise interact with the person dishing out punishment)? Sold your soul?

What can I say to you to convince you to do so?

See, I don't think it's that easy. Oh, maybe on a dare, someone might try some of those things. Or, for the right price. However, without prompting, I doubt most people would even think of most of those things, let alone independently think that they're all great ideas / enjoy them all once they tried them.

Maybe I'm wrong about human psychology. Maybe I'm bad at role-playing. But I think of personalities more in terms of what paths they'll take by default, what types of solutions they'll consider on their own, or with promoting, and how they go about evaluating new data / offers, rather than, well, anything I've seen our of so-called "role-playing" mechanics.

And maybe I'm wrong about big blue, but the superman who lives in my head wouldn't snap so readily or completely, nor so easily convince the entire League to join him, as the Justice Lords path required.

Whereas the Doctor who lives in my head is not the man who never would. He was full well prepared to Lobotomize him some sentient space whale, I'm pretty sure he's taken lots of actions that resulted in the deaths of beings he disliked. He's terminated Cybermen claiming that they were "already dead" despite both their and their "host's" sentence. The doctor who lives in my head is at best trying, at worst self-deluded.

Not that I have any interest in running someone else's characters like that. Even as GM, I limit / avoid contact with known entries to the extent possible. But they make more approachable examples than characters no one would recognize.

So, what do y'all think? Clear as mud so far? Have I lost my marbles? Anything anyone can relate to?

But… how does convincing someone work, then?

Well, I suspect RPGs would benefit from hiring some con artists to answer that question. But I suspect that there's several factors involved, like stepping the target around their objections, controlling their focus, and making it sound to their advantage / disadvantage to make certain choices, or something. And, if alcohol had taught us anything, it's that lowering people's inhibitions tends to help.

Thoughts?

[KillianHawkeye]

What exactly are we talking about? :smallconfused:

[Ameraaaaaa]

What exactly are we talking about? :smallconfused:

I think he means he hates mechanics that can convince a character to go against their beliefs.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think he means he hates mechanics that can convince a character to go against their beliefs.

I don't think I've ever read of any such mechanics in D&D or other games I've played, outside of enchantment type magic which literally changes someone's mind. :smallconfused:

[Ameraaaaaa]

I don't think I've ever read of any such mechanics in D&D or other games I've played, outside of enchantment type magic which literally changes someone's mind. :smallconfused:

Maybe he is referring to stuff like social skill systems vs actually resolving things through actual in game conversations with words instead of dice.

Personally I'm not sure either way but i guess both csn be fun in different ways. The former adds unpredictability snd the latter sounds like a good source of tension.

[icefractal]

Some games have "hard" social skills that can compel someone into a course of action.

It's an inherent trade-off - if social skills can directly force people to do things, this can result in a scenario that's strongly against the character's nature. If they can only make non-binding suggestions, or only compel things within what's acceptable to that character at that moment, this can result in "no selling" any social interaction that doesn't go your way.

I prefer the latter as a failure state, because it only ****s up one type of character concept (the extremely persuasive person) rather than potentially ****ing up all character concepts except "extremely malleable person". And any mechanics where the logical IC action is "Someone's talking to me ... run! Or stab them!" are bad mechanics.

Of course there's the "social skills are binding on NPCs but only polite suggestions for PCs" approach. Personally (and maybe this should go in the unpopular opinions thread) - screw that. "The GM has infinite actors ..." no, not ones that matter, and it's actually not a good thing when the choice is "powerful NPCs only communicate indirectly" or "powerful NPCs are very foolish". If you want to diplomance the king into trading his castle for a piece of toast, be prepared to get diplomanced in turn. Or maybe don't use rules that produce that result.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't think I've ever read of any such mechanics in D&D or other games I've played, outside of enchantment type magic which literally changes someone's mind. :smallconfused:

Yeah in my experience DnD is the most vulnerable to this type of goes-against-belief shenanigans since it doesn't have any mechanics to prevent it and DnD roleplaying tends to be the comedic adventures of a bunch of semi-competent hooligans and a DM can allow a lot of dumb things in the name of being funny. Exalted 3e? The job of having intimacies is literally there to make sure an Exalt can't make you go against your nation when your a strong loyalist to it even when they are this demigod of persuasion (they instead have to figure out how to make the most convincing argument to do things to benefit your nation instead that just so happen to also benefit them, which they can be very good at, but its technically not going against your beliefs).

[Mechalich]

Some games have "hard" social skills that can compel someone into a course of action.

It's an inherent trade-off - if social skills can directly force people to do things, this can result in a scenario that's strongly against the character's nature. If they can only make non-binding suggestions, or only compel things within what's acceptable to that character at that moment, this can result in "no selling" any social interaction that doesn't go your way.

I prefer the latter as a failure state, because it only ****s up one type of character concept (the extremely persuasive person) rather than potentially ****ing up all character concepts except "extremely malleable person". And any mechanics where the logical IC action is "Someone's talking to me ... run! Or stab them!" are bad mechanics.


Part of the problem with hard limits on the ability of social interactions has to do with how it interacts with murderhobo-type or just plain old blank slate type characters. Most extremely potent forms of social compulsion that can be backed up with concrete examples involve some kind of leverage held by the party doing the compulsion. That leverage may be purely social in nature and may in fact have been established entirely through nothing but previous social interactions (Moliere's famous play Tartuffe is one of the best examples known of how a web of lies and deceits can build up to become a self-sustaining construct and very much worth a read to get a feel for this sort of thing), but it isn't spawned out of thin air. There are pretty clear limits on what most people can be 'talked into' doing from a ground state.

The problem is that a great many tabletop players, and even some GMs with regard to antagonists, build characters over which it is simply impossible to gain any leverage. They don't care about anything that can be threatened, they've never done any stigmatized thing for which they can be shamed (and the idea of simply being a stigmatized thing has lost a lot of potency), they don't have crippling debt to bad people, they aren't a hideous disappointment to their family, etc. They become immune to social attacks through the mechanism of not having any social ties. This often isn't even deliberate, many players simply can't be bothered or even actively rebel against the idea of providing a backstory, which leaves a GM throwing hooks into an empty void.

Ultimately this is one of the issues of gaming that isn't solvable with pure mechanics. Social heavy scenarios require everyone to get on the same page about how things are going to work and everyone needs to be a good sport about the whole thing. Of course, that sort of thing is beyond the capabilities of many tables, even ones that run dungeon crawls just fine, which isn't surprising either, considering the nature of office conflict.

[Satinavian]

I think social interactions should not be completely handwavy and should have strong mechanics.

But the reason most such attemps fall flat is because people try to use a common wisdom of RPG design which is "don't make to many subsystems, do try to apply the same principles to new fields instead" and end up with social combat systems just because they already have written a combat system.

But social interactions are for the most part not antagonistic or at least not clearly antagonistic. Having people roll against each other often produces weird results. If i want to convince someone of the truth, it should be easier the more insight/experience that person has, not harder. Also win/lose states rarely map well to expectations of results for social interactions.
It also often falls flat for more than two participants because if you somehow copy a combatr system, you need sides people are on. Making a party or discussion group into some weird battle royal where the more people interact with each other, the less likely they are the last person standing obviously doesn't work.

I have not found a superior social system that matches expectations all the time. Which is why i tend to use hybrid systems with strong mechanical parts but also big holes that need to be filled to account for the exact situation.

[NichG]

Good models of persuasion should lead to the decision being made feeling like the right decision to make from the character's point of view in that moment. So rather than brute force 'this roll determines what you decide', almost everything should be about leverage and information - what amounts to the role positioning takes in combat.

Someone who initiates persuasion having solid leverage almost need not say anything, it's just making the other party trust the sincerity of the trade-off, e.g. that if they comply then the blackmail material will actually be destroyed and not used again, or that they really will receive the bribe.

I think where players get into trouble is in imagining persuasion as a tabula rasa, two people clashing on an empty field kind of thing, and then expecting that it should be a viable character concept. E.g. being able to get a target to do what they want even without providing something in exchange. In that case, any form of persuasion which would be respectful of the target's characterization can only really lean on information control, e g. lying or selective revelation of truth. And that requires even more intimate knowledge of the target, not less.

So in a game where being primarily a persuasive character is intended to be a viable archetype and which wants to respect the characterization of others, it's much more important to have information gathering mechanics, leverage-generating mechanics, things to guarantee trust, etc than to actually have a direct contest of persuasion vs resistance. So, things to let you know a target's needs and stresses and desires. Things to threaten to apply social penalties to others who don't comply or to reward compliance, ideally using specific contexts to limit what can be pressured and how broadly the penalties apply. Things which let you guarantee your own oaths so that they are beyond disbelief, or which force others to keep their word once given.

This kind of approach does mean that a character who has no desires and totally eschews social ties is less vulnerable to manipulation. But that's a fair tradeoff if you've done enough to make being a participating member of society have more benefits than harms. That might mean taking things which are taken for granted (like being able to enter cities or spend money) and making them explicitly contingent on maintaining a certain degree of social status. Or it might mean having social involvement offer such a high degree of additional benefits that not engaging would be like leaving 25% of a character's potential on the table.

Anyhow, TL;DR is that character-preserving persuasion should let the target make their choice in the end, and focus on the ability to change the consequences and uncertainties surrounding the available choices.

[Lacco]

In addition to the posts above, for social interaction you need to take into account different scenarios with different stakes. A friendly discussion with established rapport where two people try to argument which choice is the better for their current situation will be very different from two antagonistic public speakers trying to sway the king and his court for their choice - mainly because there will be different "victory conditions", stakes, pressures and consequences.

One of the best social systems I have seen, the one from Burning Wheel, has two interesting mechanics - one obvious, one not so obvious. The first one is "compromise". If you win the overall social combat (reduce opponents' "social HP" to 0), but have lost some of your own HP, you owe him a compromise (how big a compromise depends on your remaining "social HP"). Basically, you took a wound, you achieve your goal, but with a compromise attached to it.

The other mechanic is the result: it does not dictate your feelings or change your decision, but it simulates you running out of arguments save for "no, I won't". And you can go for escalation: if you are not satisfied with the result, you can draw your weapon and escalate. But there will be consequences.

Quertus may become known as the violent man who should not be dealt with. Feared, but not respected. Just a simple bully who goes for his disintegrate spell if you do not agree with him. Or you just get coup d'grace'd with a battle axe because you did not follow up on your word.



Back to the topic:

Let's assume that there are different types of people - some are easily swayed because they do not wish to anger someone and want people to like/love them. Some have their moral compass and strong values, and will walk away from the conversation if you go against them (or will childishly stomp on the ground and think of all the ways you are wrong). Some will instantly like/dislike ideas based on which they are feeling like and find fun/entertaining/less irritating. Some need an incentive and will not budge unless they get the special mission/promise of reward/feeling they are getting more than the others. And some just need logical arguments and enough data to sift through to get to a decision. And some will just need a convincing story. Some are combination of these.

How do you persuade them?
The first ones are easy. Ask them politely, tell them it's important and it will help you. You'll see either see their eyes get soft and warm, or you'll see few cracks under the facade - and they'll return a sob story why they can't.

The ones with the moral compass? Listen to their reasoning, ask questions. If you can show them why the choice you are after has better values without challenging their moral core, they will consider it, and if you are sufficiently persuasive, they will accept your choice. If you can't do so, they'll most likely either shut down and just leave or will criticize anything and everything and nitpick.

The like/dislike ones? They'll need you to play with them. Get them in sufficiently good mood so they'll turn the switch to "like" and you're fine. Fail to do so and prepare for the longest string of evasions/excuses and irritating behaviour.

The incentive lovers will need to feel like they are special, getting special treatment and to see some fat nice incentive at the end: provide one, keep cool, don't threaten but challenge them and the choice is made easily. Fail to do so and they won't deal with you - because they do not deal with losers. In worst case, they'll find a way to make you suffer for it.

The logical ones you feed cold, fresh and good data. They'll compute, nod and accept - if the data is good. If not, ask questions. Just don't go talking about feelings and emotions, or they'll just disagree and go their own way.

The story-based ones will require you run a movie in front of their face, made out of words - let them imagine the results, the path, the good things and the risks of not going your way, and then tell them to do it your way. If you did the movie right, they'll just go with you. If not, they'll just sit, trying to process what has been asked out of them, in perpetual state of analysis paralysis.

And the combinations... well, let's say you need to find which of these is the communicator and which is the motivator.



The issue is, that for some people, the idea of someone else "controlling" their character through talking... is unacceptable. Even worse, the idea of someone forcing them to do something because they are embarassed/angry/without arguments/afraid of losing the other person is ... well, an unhealed wound. The above mechanic from BW helps a bit: you are still in control of your character, but you have lost part of the argument, so you determine what concession do you grant to the other side. Or you were shocked by the insult - so decide if you just stand without words, fuming (and draw your blade to escalate in the next round because you've had it with the pompous jerk, royal guard be damned!), or you just run away, swoon or mumble some apology to the one who insulted. It's just that you've lost the roll.

It's similar to getting disarmed in D&D rules: you can't just say "but I hold my sword tight, so I don't lose it!". You accept the disarm because your roll failed. So here, you accept that your reaction won't be optimal, because you've lost your temper/your brain just stopped working for a moment and you'll get the correct reply when your character bathes themselves in the evening/your good upbringing overtook for a moment.



A bit different is the "two diplomats try to sway the king & the court" - because it's no longer as personal. You have these NPCs and they need to be on your side, otherwise you'll lose. Oh, and the king. And some of them have no idea what you are talking about, some of them are too stupid to realize the consequences of the bad choice, and some of them just look for the "better man", not the "better choice" in the argument. So even if you give perfectly rounded facts, you can still lose because the other guy makes you look like insufferable, irritating, "you see what I'm working here with? He's just unable to change his mind" stubborn and childish person. So how to model this?

I was toying with this some time ago and I got an idea: maneuver-based diplomacy. Verbal combat, that deals different kinds of damage based on the maneuver chosen. You can go inflict some Embarrasment using the Veiled Insult maneuver, which will slowly build up, or go straight for Infuriate to make the other one lose his cool. Or you Hammer Away the catchy phrase and Monologue when given the chance, to get the idea ingrained into the crowd's mind to get more support for your future Closing Argument. Or just use the Bargain to attack and Debate Point to defend to inflict several Compromises on the defender.

It would be a hell to work out all the possibilities though, so I gave up on the project.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem is that a great many tabletop players, and even some GMs with regard to antagonists, build characters over which it is simply impossible to gain any leverage. Leverage is also influenced by how much the player invests in the game/setting/group.

Ultimately this is one of the issues of gaming that isn't solvable with pure mechanics. Yep.

Social heavy scenarios require everyone to get on the same page about how things are going to work and everyone needs to be a good sport about the whole thing. Yes! That's an OOC, small group dynamics thing; no set of game rules can provide that.

In addition to the posts above, for social interaction you need to take into account different scenarios with different stakes. You put into a few words what I was thinking, thank you!

It would be a hell to work out all the possibilities though, so I gave up on the project. A wise choice; the permutations in the conversational world are nearly endless.

[Stonehead]

My understanding of psychology (as a non-psychologist) is that everyone is way more influence able than they think. Your classic Milgram experiment, or Conformity experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments), or the entire field of advertising, show fairly scientifically that human beings are easy to influence into acting a way they wouldn't normally. Even people who don't think they are.

So, the problem with hard mechanics for social skills isn't a break in realism, I think that it's more that it's a serious feel-bad moment. One of the core tenants of ttrpgs is that you create this fictional character, and act out what you say they'd do. When that character's choices and personality are taken out of your hands, it really ruins the game. Same thing when wielded by the players, the DM gets to design npcs, so when their personalities are taken out of his hands, it ruins the fun for him.

One other issue is the time scale. Yeah clever advertisers can manipulate you into spending a few dollars you wouldn't normally have as an impulse purchase, but you can't convince someone to kill the king after a 3 minute conversation. Maybe a clever wordsmith could make you say something out of character, but if they don't spend weeks upon weeks reinforcing it, you're going to revert back to normal as soon as they leave.

(edit) Oh, one other thing, social influence may be realistic, but it definitely doesn't feel realistic, and a lot of times, that's what really matters at the table.

[clash]

During social interactions I like to define and keep in mind the following:

Core Belief
A persons core defining belief. This cannot be changed except under extreme circumstances, and if ever changed results in a personal crisis of identity.

Example
A Paldin's personal faith in their deity or a persons belief in the dignity of all human life.

Major Beliefs
The values that form a persons central belief system and morals. These are usually derived from their core belief. These can be changed by defining events usually showing how the major belief isn't in line with their core belief.

Example:
The above Paladin believes in supporting the church of their deity until it discovers or is led to believe that their church is corrupting the teachings of their deity.

Minor Beliefs
A minor value that the character holds, which is typically either loosely derived from their major beliefs or not grounded at all. These are less about right and wrong and more about should and should nots.

Example:
The Paladin believes in making your own way in life, but could still be convinced to accept a large gift.

Something as simple as that can add tons of realism to the NPCs involved.

[KorvinStarmast]

During social interactions I like to define and keep in mind the following:

Core Belief
Major Beliefs
Minor Beliefs
Something as simple as that can add tons of realism to the NPCs involved. Nice framework, this is a keeper! :smallsmile:

[Lord Raziere]

Nice framework, this is a keeper! :smallsmile:

....Hate to be that gal, but....thats pretty much the Exalted 3e social intimacy system in a nutshell. only without the flexibility of choosing whether to have principle or a tie to something or someone more physical. its already made.

[Willie the Duck]

I have yet to find an RPG social system which does not have points which break verisimilitude (I think the OP's point about Supes/Luther). Even Hillfolk and other games where social relationships and interaction are the primary gameplay loop (so, decidedly not secondary to combat or the like) have breakpoints, can be gamed, etc.


In addition to the posts above, for social interaction you need to take into account different scenarios with different stakes. A friendly discussion with established rapport where two people try to argument which choice is the better for their current situation will be very different from two antagonistic public speakers trying to sway the king and his court for their choice - mainly because there will be different "victory conditions", stakes, pressures and consequences.

Even broad categories such as Counsel, Deceive (person into thinking something), Deceive (someone to do something), Deceive (person regarding your own beliefs/identity/etc.), Group Decision, Intimidate, Persuade (each of the 3 Deceive options), and Win Debate are going to have some 4+ dimensional array of options base on stakes and reasonable field of outcomes and such. If a game system is going to cover both convincing someone to do something mildly (or wildly) outside their nature AND convince a guard that you're clearly just a normal townsperson out after curfew to bring their grandma some soup, a lot of the normal gameplay architecture most RPGs use is going to go out the window. In particular, I think, is the one where doing something really hard likely is the same process as doing something easy, just with a heftier modifier (convincing Superman to sell children into slavery is just DC 500, or a -80% on your Persuade skill check, or whatever).

[Lacco]

You put into a few words what I was thinking, thank you!
A wise choice; the permutations in the conversational world are nearly endless.

Well, I am usually on the other side of the fence, thinking how you put in fewer/far better words what I was thinking, so thank YOU.

Also, I'm still thinking about it, but I assume it would have to be either very specific RPG (Philosopher Combat, where you only debate) or RPG with very specific themes/aesthetics so you could narrow the amount of interactions.

It's also the level of simulation/emulation that needs to be set correctly: too wide and you have only few maneuvers which cover almost everything, or the endless permutation problem. Still, I think it's doable, but it will definitely not fit everyone's tastes (it's sufficient if it fits mine, for me :smallbiggrin:).


(edit) Oh, one other thing, social influence may be realistic, but it definitely doesn't feel realistic, and a lot of times, that's what really matters at the table.

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand.


One other issue is the time scale. Yeah clever advertisers can manipulate you into spending a few dollars you wouldn't normally have as an impulse purchase, but you can't convince someone to kill the king after a 3 minute conversation. Maybe a clever wordsmith could make you say something out of character, but if they don't spend weeks upon weeks reinforcing it, you're going to revert back to normal as soon as they leave.

Well, my approach would be to split it into several "subsystems" or "scenarios" (I'll use the word "actor" for active participant).

You have the discussion/negotiation/argument, where you and another actor (or more) are trying to get to a decision/answer. Your goal is usually to be the one to persuade the others, or leave them without arguments.
You have the performance/debate, where you and the other actors are trying to persuade a crowd/third party. Your goal is similar to the first one, but the main part is persuading the third party/crowd: you do not care about the opponents.
You have the interrogation/intrigue, where individual actors have the position of aggressor and defender, and your goal is to make them confess/find

We are not covering, of course, normal talking/small talk/just friendly discussions and simple interactions; more below.


Even broad categories such as Counsel, Deceive (person into thinking something), Deceive (someone to do something), Deceive (person regarding your own beliefs/identity/etc.), Group Decision, Intimidate, Persuade (each of the 3 Deceive options), and Win Debate are going to have some 4+ dimensional array of options base on stakes and reasonable field of outcomes and such. If a game system is going to cover both convincing someone to do something mildly (or wildly) outside their nature AND convince a guard that you're clearly just a normal townsperson out after curfew to bring their grandma some soup, a lot of the normal gameplay architecture most RPGs use is going to go out the window. In particular, I think, is the one where doing something really hard likely is the same process as doing something easy, just with a heftier modifier (convincing Superman to sell children into slavery is just DC 500, or a -80% on your Persuade skill check, or whatever).

Now this issue can be tackled by splitting the social system into simple checks (you say a lie to the guard, he either accepts, wants to investigate it or immediately sniffs out deception = simple roll can show the result) and social combat (where there are multiple outcomes of significant weight, e.g. convincing the king to lend you half of his army).

Let's say you have attributes (e.g. Charm, Cunning, Command, Intellect, Awareness).
Let's say you have skills (e.g. Deception, Intimidation, Persuasion, Ridicule...).
And then Maneuvers (e.g. Shout Over Them, Provoke Reaction, Cutting Remark, State the Point, Filibuster).

So a Provoke Reaction maneuver would serve to throw your opponent off his game: to make him react in a way he may not like/have planned/will make them look terrible. It could go with Charm/Ridicule (for hidden insults), Cunning/Intimidation (for veiled threats that make the opponent either ask for brown pants), Cunning/Ridicule (to insult them just provoke them into violent reaction)... or even Charm/Seduction (to make them swoon for a moment). Mechanically: if you beat their resistance, the opponent loses his action and reacts in one of possible ways (e.g. 1000 yard stare/brown pants/stammer and lose focus/lose it and go for a weapon - the opponent chooses the appropriate reaction, but does not remain calm).

Filibuster would work differently mechanically: Intellect/Deception would mean you make up a thousand of arguments and semi-false statements that ring true, Charm/Persuasion would mean you go for a lengthy soliloquy where you spin a dozen personal stories...

And WHAT your character actually says could vary, but how the opponent/crowd reacts would be defined also by the roll.

...so yes, it wouldn't be an easy system to manage; definitely. But I'm still going to make it one day :smallbiggrin:


I have yet to find an RPG social system which does not have points which break verisimilitude (I think the OP's point about Supes/Luther). Even Hillfolk and other games where social relationships and interaction are the primary gameplay loop (so, decidedly not secondary to combat or the like) have breakpoints, can be gamed, etc.

Likewise. Although, the level to which these can be gamed varies, and simple rolls (e.g. roll d20 + modifiers vs. DC) can be gamed much easier, in my experience.

[Quertus]

I have yet to find an RPG social system which does not have points which break verisimilitude (I think the OP's point about Supes/Luther).

doing something really hard likely is the same process as doing something easy, just with a heftier modifier (convincing Superman to sell children into slavery is just DC 500, or a -80% on your Persuade skill check, or whatever).

I would be willing to be convinced that this was my point, yeah. :smallwink:

Although… not everything I said directly supports that point. So I *think* I may have actually been more "constructive", more "this is some of how I view social interactions personality working" than my usual "this is how existing systems are wrong" refrain.

Regardless, i certainly agree with your comment, that the failings of existing social systems… detract from role-playing.

[Stonehead]

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand.

Yeah, for sure, although I'm not really expert enough in anything to come up with great examples. My point was that there are things that happen often enough in reality, that would feel unrealistic to the viewer if they were to happen in a movie or a game. I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not really sure why but it seems like we expect a level of continuity between cause and effect in fiction that just doesn't happen often in real life, or maybe we expect the most likely outcome to be the only realistic outcome or something.

So, lets say two people are fighting, and one of them is established as being better than the other. It would feel unrealistic if the worse of the two were to win. That happens all the time in real life though. In the Stanley Cup, they play up to seven games, because it's so likely that the worse team will win, that they need to play several games to determine the winner. If you lose 4 games to 1, that feels like a blowout, the other team is clearly better than you. But that also means you have about a 20% chance to win if you were to play a single game. 20% is unlikely, but it's far from unrealistic. If the better fighter were to lose in a movie, we would expect some reason to justify the loss, when in reality, that's just a thing that happens sometimes.

So in rpgs, people's behavior being drastically influenced is something that feels like it needs a big reason or justification, like enchantment magic. In reality though, it's just something that happens sometimes.

Or, better example, falling out of planes. If I'm watching a movie, or in an rpg, and a character jumps out of a flying plane and survives, it would feel horribly unrealistic, even if they break their legs. In reality however, while you're still more likely to die than not, people have been documented several times surviving such a fall. It's unlikely, but realistic (it has to be because it happened in reality).

These aren't perfect examples, because they're all unlikely events, whereas in the milgram experiment, something like 2/3s of people ended up acting against their beliefs. Point is, sometimes things happen in real life that feel unrealistic.



Well, my approach would be to split it into several "subsystems" or "scenarios" (I'll use the word "actor" for active participant).

You have the discussion/negotiation/argument, where you and another actor (or more) are trying to get to a decision/answer. Your goal is usually to be the one to persuade the others, or leave them without arguments.
You have the performance/debate, where you and the other actors are trying to persuade a crowd/third party. Your goal is similar to the first one, but the main part is persuading the third party/crowd: you do not care about the opponents.
You have the interrogation/intrigue, where individual actors have the position of aggressor and defender, and your goal is to make them confess/find

We are not covering, of course, normal talking/small talk/just friendly discussions and simple interactions; more below.

I think that's a way better way to handle it, and I personally would love a game like that. I think the problem is that there isn't a super strong target demographic for such a system. I mean, games flush out systems way more when it's more of a central piece of the gameplay. In personal experience though, the people who like heavier, deeper systems are the one's who tend to prefer exploration and combat, and the players who prefer talking and roleplaying are the ones who tend to prefer more rules-lite systems. If you're playing a classic dungeon crawl game, you probably don't need multiple different social interaction systems, because 90% of the game is spent exploring caves and fighting monsters. If you're playing a more rp-heavy social intrigue game though, you're probably playing with people who don't like complicated subsystems.

[Spore]

Principles give form to a personality, but nuance comes from knowing where upholding their ideals starts and ends.

It is average writing to say Superman would never kill and sticking to it.

It is good writing to say Superman would only kill if there was no chance he would be able to stop a villain killing more people otherwise.

It is great writing to see Superman betray his own ideals because his subjective preferred people are endangered, sending him in to kill more people than he saves, and later on regrets it.

[Lacco]

*SNIP*
If the better fighter were to lose in a movie, we would expect some reason to justify the loss, when in reality, that's just a thing that happens sometimes.

Okay, then I understood correctly. And yes, sometimes a cheap shot can hit the master.


So in rpgs, people's behavior being drastically influenced is something that feels like it needs a big reason or justification, like enchantment magic. In reality though, it's just something that happens sometimes.

Yup. I understand why people want to "no sell" social interactions in fantasy (as they are often not able in reality), but the truth is, that sometimes we're just tired of discussions and just say "whatever". Sometimes we just fail to find arguments and fold the cards because other people are forcing us to decide on the spot and it's easier to step down than to die on a hill you did not choose. Sometimes folks are just so silver-tongued that we nod without thinking and sometimes the lady's just too cute for us to say "naaaah, I'm not going to another castle...".

And oftentimes, people who do just disagree on principle get branded "stubborn" and "lost case" and are not interacted with anymore - so it's sometimes worth to just go for a compromise instead of full victory at terrible cost.

...and I'd love to see a system that covers this. And covers it with relatively easy mechanic but in such complexity that "win strats" are harder to find than just stacking bonuses.

Back to the drawing table for me, I've gotten few ideas from this whole thread.


I think that's a way better way to handle it, and I personally would love a game like that. I think the problem is that there isn't a super strong target demographic for such a system. I mean, games flush out systems way more when it's more of a central piece of the gameplay. In personal experience though, the people who like heavier, deeper systems are the one's who tend to prefer exploration and combat, and the players who prefer talking and roleplaying are the ones who tend to prefer more rules-lite systems. If you're playing a classic dungeon crawl game, you probably don't need multiple different social interaction systems, because 90% of the game is spent exploring caves and fighting monsters. If you're playing a more rp-heavy social intrigue game though, you're probably playing with people who don't like complicated subsystems.

Can't really say: I usually hit players that go for the roleplaying and conversations, but love complex systems, after all I usually GM the wonderful trainwreck that is Riddle of Steel (and I managed to implement the Duel of Wits from Burning Wheel as a starting point for social combat into it)...

And I seldom do a dungeon crawls. Although, my last social-heavy game was a dungeon crawl :smallbiggrin:

[Satinavian]

Yup. I understand why people want to "no sell" social interactions in fantasy (as they are often not able in reality), but the truth is, that sometimes we're just tired of discussions and just say "whatever". Sometimes we just fail to find arguments and fold the cards because other people are forcing us to decide on the spot and it's easier to step down than to die on a hill you did not choose. Sometimes folks are just so silver-tongued that we nod without thinking and sometimes the lady's just too cute for us to say "naaaah, I'm not going to another castle...".
If you want to see people "no sell" social interactions all the time, look how beggars are treated. People say "whatever" when they are not invested and don't see a point in further argueing and precisely because it doesn't cost them anything of value. That is not the kind of "win" that counts. To force other people to decide on the spot, you need to have power or control of the situation.

It is not really that easy to convince people. Con-men very carefully select and research targets or try it out on huge numbers. Advertisers always try to inflate their importance but exposure to people who would consider being buyers in the first place and building associations that lead people to the product should a need arise is the most important thing they do. And pretty much every nation in the world had to recognize that there are clear limits to propaganda and to teaching their values to children in schools.

[Saint-Just]

If you want to see people "no sell" social interactions all the time, look how beggars are treated. People say "whatever" when they are not invested and don't see a point in further argueing and precisely because it doesn't cost them anything of value. That is not the kind of "win" that counts. To force other people to decide on the spot, you need to have power or control of the situation.


Interesting. My experience (not only personal, though I admit it's anecdotes, not data) is when beggars can/are allowed to approach people, look them in the eyes and speak at them instead of in the air it is significantly harder for the targets to refuse. Most people still will give nothing, but the distribution is definitely what I would associate with "making a really difficult roll" and either lucking out out or encountering someone with less ability to resist than others; definitely not just advertising your need and getting only from those willing to give. I've seen people who declared that they will never give money to beggars give money to beggars, and I've seen a beggar to negotiate amount upwards above initial offer (but below beggar's request).

There is also an importance of being able to claim not to be a professional beggar. There is a narrow norm against beggars which does not generalize across all requests for aid even when such aid is in the form of money.

All the usual disclaimers apply, blah, blah, societies, classes, IRL social bubbles, but you can clearly see I am on the side of "people are more persuadable than you think". Making things hard/unlikely is a better simulation than making them impossible or even tightly tied to mutual concessions. How to make things hard without just making them lolrandom or swingy is a separate mechanical question, not exclusive to social interaction.

[Mechalich]

It is not really that easy to convince people. Con-men very carefully select and research targets or try it out on huge numbers. Advertisers always try to inflate their importance but exposure to people who would consider being buyers in the first place and building associations that lead people to the product should a need arise is the most important thing they do. And pretty much every nation in the world had to recognize that there are clear limits to propaganda and to teaching their values to children in schools.

Con-men also lie. The persuasion part of a confidence scam is only part of a complex set of actions involved in presenting what is actually a win-lose interaction (usually, I get a lot of money, you lose as lot of money), as a win-win (usually, we both get a lot of money). And even less predatory interactions often involve similar elements of deception. For example, diplomacy often involves figuring out what person A's goals, and then presenting Option B, which happens to also be your personal goal, as a way they can achieve their goal. And, notably, interactions of this kind often collapse if person A ever decides that Option B isn't actually going to give them what they want, which may happen in cases where it actually would do so, just not quick enough or at an acceptable price point.

And this actually leads into the broader issue. RPG systems are conflict resolution mechanics - the entire purpose of the rules and the dice is to present as a neutral arbiter to resolve conflicts between the PCs and the GM - and when you change the goals of the conflict you change the needs of the system attempting to resolve them, mechanically and mathematically. Combat, which is the most developed conflict type in most RPGs, benefits in that most combats have highly similar goals, to defeat the enemy. Even then, many systems have real trouble properly resolving a combat that does not end with the functional annihilation of one of the sides (D&D, in particular, has never managed a good mechanic for running away).

With social conflicts the goals change so often between different scenarios in terms of scope, scale, timeframe, and many other factors that the idea of reducing all social struggles to a single mechanical system (never mind a single roll like some systems do) is nearly impossible, at least not without utilizing the high levels of abstraction typical of rules-lite systems.

[icefractal]

Interesting. My experience (not only personal, though I admit it's anecdotes, not data) is when beggars can/are allowed to approach people, look them in the eyes and speak at them instead of in the air it is significantly harder for the targets to refuse.There's still limits though. People aren't giving the beggars their houses, for example.

And doesn't strong manipulation enabled by simple interaction create bad incentives, like avoiding social interaction entirely?

"Ah, travelers, would ..."
"Nope! Not falling for that one again, back off!"
"I just ..."
"Not. Another. Word." *draws weapon*

[NichG]

Interesting. My experience (not only personal, though I admit it's anecdotes, not data) is when beggars can/are allowed to approach people, look them in the eyes and speak at them instead of in the air it is significantly harder for the targets to refuse. Most people still will give nothing, but the distribution is definitely what I would associate with "making a really difficult roll" and either lucking out out or encountering someone with less ability to resist than others; definitely not just advertising your need and getting only from those willing to give. I've seen people who declared that they will never give money to beggars give money to beggars, and I've seen a beggar to negotiate amount upwards above initial offer (but below beggar's request).

There is also an importance of being able to claim not to be a professional beggar. There is a narrow norm against beggars which does not generalize across all requests for aid even when such aid is in the form of money.

All the usual disclaimers apply, blah, blah, societies, classes, IRL social bubbles, but you can clearly see I am on the side of "people are more persuadable than you think". Making things hard/unlikely is a better simulation than making them impossible or even tightly tied to mutual concessions. How to make things hard without just making them lolrandom or swingy is a separate mechanical question, not exclusive to social interaction.

In my mind, it's not whether success is possible or impossible, it's what is casually responsible for that success. To me, successful persuasion means that the persuader has figured out how to understand their target's needs and attitudes, and has adapted their approach to that understanding. And that includes changing what they attempt to achieve with persuasion.

Persuasion as attack makes the success probably about the forcefulness of the persuader and the defense of the target, rather than being about the alignment between the two parties.

That's why I talked about 'respectful' persuasion systems - the idea that the system pays heed to what the target wants and needs and how that aligns to the persuasion attempt in a way that cannot be replaced with raw numerical advantage.

In the beggar example, the way I'd say it is that a skilled beggar has the ability to know who will feel guilty or be willing to give some money to end the interaction, and who will become hostile and even attack them or destroy their stuff or call police or whatever. Trying to force the same schtick with someone who would actually enjoy an excuse to harm someone without the power to resist is going to end poorly regardless of skill.

[icefractal]

To me, successful persuasion means that the persuader has figured out how to understand their target's needs and attitudes, and has adapted their approach to that understanding. And that includes changing what they attempt to achieve with persuasion.That does seem like a good approach. I sometime think that (in D&D terms) Diplomacy and Sense Motive should be folded together, and a successful Diplomacy checks means that you know what route, if any, will lead to the other person doing / believing what you want them to. And for some things that route is just "ask in a charming way" or "say something inspiring". But for others you need more, and some things just aren't possible.

The tricky part is that you need to figure out what things fall in which category for everyone the PCs negotiate with. Having a robust amount of examples for that is something few RPGs do, but that seems very helpful.

[Azuresun]

(edit) Oh, one other thing, social influence may be realistic, but it definitely doesn't feel realistic, and a lot of times, that's what really matters at the table.

Something else is that we accept that combat is a bit cinematic and unrealistic, so we'll overlook the bits where it doesn't make sense. In social mechanics, it's much more noticeable when the system breaks, produces results that make no sense or offers perverse incentives to min-maxers. A lot of the time, the designer will have a very firm model in their mind of what a typical social interaction will look like, but not consider the players trying something outside of that, or looking at what the system actually rewards.

For example, here's a discussion on how it could go horribly, hilariously wrong in Exalted 2e. (http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/main-category/exalted/57826-why-don-t-2ed-2-5-social-combat-work)

[Willie the Duck]

I would be willing to be convinced that this was my point, yeah. :smallwink:
Okay, now if we could model that willingness to be convinced into game terms, then we'd be getting somewhere. :smalltongue:


Although… not everything I said directly supports that point. So I *think* I may have actually been more "constructive", more "this is some of how I view social interactions personality working" than my usual "this is how existing systems are wrong" refrain.

Most things are.


Yup. I understand why people want to "no sell" social interactions in fantasy (as they are often not able in reality), but the truth is, that sometimes we're just tired of discussions and just say "whatever". Sometimes we just fail to find arguments and fold the cards because other people are forcing us to decide on the spot and it's easier to step down than to die on a hill you did not choose. Sometimes folks are just so silver-tongued that we nod without thinking and sometimes the lady's just too cute for us to say "naaaah, I'm not going to another castle...".
This is the part that I think could be modelled a somewhat similarly to standard RPG social combat systems -- they are landing hits and you don't have a lot of Damage Reduction (based on 'no! the contrapositive is important to me, I'm not going along with that!'), so they've exhausted your will to resist so you just say "whatever."


Can't really say: I usually hit players that go for the roleplaying and conversations, but love complex systems, after all I usually GM the wonderful trainwreck that is Riddle of Steel (and I managed to implement the Duel of Wits from Burning Wheel as a starting point for social combat into it)...
Hold the phone. You run a Riddle of Steel game, with bits of Burning Wheel soldered on, and you have players? I bow to either your charisma or karma. Each of those games always seems to land as 'This is one of the best games ever made if you're focused onHey come back you guys! I promise it will be fun! I have beer and wings and we're in the sunroom, not the basement, c'mmmonn!'


And doesn't strong manipulation enabled by simple interaction create bad incentives, like avoiding social interaction entirely?
"Ah, travelers, would ..."
"Nope! Not falling for that one again, back off!"
"I just ..."
"Not. Another. Word." *draws weapon*

Something else is that we accept that combat is a bit cinematic and unrealistic, so we'll overlook the bits where it doesn't make sense. In social mechanics, it's much more noticeable when the system breaks, produces results that make no sense or offers perverse incentives to min-maxers. A lot of the time, the designer will have a very firm model in their mind of what a typical social interaction will look like, but not consider the players trying something outside of that, or looking at what the system actually rewards.

This seems to be an eternal problem for RPGs -- if you make the combat too deadly, players will avoid it or min-max until it isn't deadly for their one character (and then the same with every other subset of the rules). Somehow, one has to make the subsystem interesting enough that players want to engage with it, but resilient enough not to be easily and overly gameable (while still letting the guy who wants to invest in being 'the face' get some actual benefit from that investment). It's, well, I mean there's a reason why this isn't a solved problem is what I'm saying.

[Stonehead]

Can't really say: I usually hit players that go for the roleplaying and conversations, but love complex systems, after all I usually GM the wonderful trainwreck that is Riddle of Steel (and I managed to implement the Duel of Wits from Burning Wheel as a starting point for social combat into it)...

And I seldom do a dungeon crawls. Although, my last social-heavy game was a dungeon crawl :smallbiggrin:

My only response to that is that I'm jealous.


There's still limits though. People aren't giving the beggars their houses, for example.

And doesn't strong manipulation enabled by simple interaction create bad incentives, like avoiding social interaction entirely?

"Ah, travelers, would ..."
"Nope! Not falling for that one again, back off!"
"I just ..."
"Not. Another. Word." *draws weapon*

See, I think this is the point where conversations about social power always get super muddied. Not that you said anything I disagree with, it's absolutely correct, but it's different from the original claim in this thread. These arguments usually go something like
Person 1: "My character would never kill or steal, and nothing could convince him otherwise"
Person 2: "But in real life people are influenced all the time to do things they normally wouldn't"
Person 3: "But there's no way a random stranger could convince me to give him my house."

Person 3 here is right, but "A random stranger could never convince me to do X" is not the same as "Nothing ever could convince me to do X". And I think that's a type of problem that ttrpgs have a really hard time with. Because in DnD, being a random stranger is just a -10 to your roll, easily overcome if you know what you're doing. So if your system doesn't go deeper than roll + bonus >= dc?, you can't handle influence well. You need a system that allows gaslighting and manipulation, but doesn't allow conmen to steal the shirt off your back. Most systems I've seen just use DM fiat for what's possible and honestly, unless if social intrigue is a big theme of your game that's probably the best route.



Yup. I understand why people want to "no sell" social interactions in fantasy (as they are often not able in reality), but the truth is, that sometimes we're just tired of discussions and just say "whatever".
Slight tangent, but I actually really like the way GURPS handles social skills against players, and I wish it applied to npcs as well. If someone tries to make an influence roll against you (diplomacy, intimidation, seduction, etc) and succeeds, they can't force you to do anything. But, if you don't do what they want, you take a penalty to your other rolls. It's so simple yet it never takes agency away from the player, and it models needing to use willpower to resist fear and temptation really well. GURPS does a lot of things I don't like, but I'm shocked this system isn't near universal, it's so good.

[Vahnavoi]

I could not make head or tails about the thread title or the opening post, but if it's social systems you want to talk about, let's talk about social systems:

The most powerful system at the tabletop that you can leverage for simulating conversations, negotiations, persuasion etc. is using the natural language you use to speak to converse, negotiate, persuade etc.

Seriously. You don't need to abstract them to a silly dice game, certainly not the same silly dice game you'd use for physical actions. The reason tabletop games abstract physical actions into sm dice games is because you can't do those things and still have your game be tabletop game (it becomes live-action roleplay etc. instead if you try). But you can talk just fine around a tabletop.

Now, I understand, you may have a pressing need to ask "but what about those shy unsocial people who can't talk their way out of a wet paper bag?". Look: there's this thing called "acting". If that shy player's character sheet reads "really interesting person" or whatever, the other players can act as if that character is interesting, even if the dialogue produced by the shy player really isn't. On the flipside, if a socially apt player's sheet reads "complete ass", that player act as if they're a complete ass, and the others can follow suit.

If you want a mechanic out of it, put the dice away and start to think of what would either help the shy player to act as their character, or help you act as yours. Things like:

1) Ask-a-friend: if a player doesn't know how a socially apt person would act in a given situation, they can stop the game and ask one other person outside the game for help.

2) Option elimination: if there's a limitied set of options, a player can ask the game master to eliminate one option that definitely won't get what that player's character wants.

3) Poll the audience: the player can ask other players around the table to cast their votes for what would be the best option.

If your game uses something like a Charisma score, you can give more of these tools for a player to use for positive modifiers, on per-day or per-conversation basis. Negative modifiers are substracted from the total if multiple characters are present.

Don't bother mumbling about verisimilitude. The real conversation and acting skills of your players set the ceiling for how nuanced and interesting social interactions you can have in your game. The only way game rules can truly improve on that is by acting as instruction manuals those skills.

[Lacco]

Beggars and con-men utilize some of the basic truths about how human minds work: for some personalities, emotions overrule logic; embarrasment is a good prybar (even second degree embarrasment - you see that the beggar has few small coins in his hand, so you are "shamed" into thinking that other people already gave him money) and most (not all) folks are wired to WANT to help others (of course, experiences can dull this want).

They do not research the targets - but focus on the most likely ones, tailoring their story. After all, persuasion is a skill: your "charisma" limits your ability to convince people, but it takes skill to actually do so - you can get lucky, but the more... difficult your request (difficult/demanding/uncomfortable), the less likely it is to succeed.


Interesting. My experience (not only personal, though I admit it's anecdotes, not data) is when beggars can/are allowed to approach people, look them in the eyes and speak at them instead of in the air it is significantly harder for the targets to refuse. Most people still will give nothing, but the distribution is definitely what I would associate with "making a really difficult roll" and either lucking out out or encountering someone with less ability to resist than others; definitely not just advertising your need and getting only from those willing to give. I've seen people who declared that they will never give money to beggars give money to beggars, and I've seen a beggar to negotiate amount upwards above initial offer (but below beggar's request).

There are several techniques that they can actually use: e.g. if someone refuses your first offer, they are more likely to accept the second one (in negotiations). We are, of course, speaking in generalities. So a beggar asks for a dollar, you refuse. He then asks for just few pennies - and is more likely to get them. Tried and tested. And it's usually a win for them regardless: because they got the money.


Con-men also lie.

In this case, lying effectively is again, a skill. And while it has some impact (because it allows you to basically invent arguments/stories/facts instead of having to actually have these arguments/stories/facts), it's more about the long-term and short-term consequences (you lie and they find out - your relationship is strained or broken; you lie and they don't find out = the consequence is postponed WHEN they lie... and the more you lie, the easier is to find out; this can be modeled with relative ease).


With social conflicts the goals change so often between different scenarios in terms of scope, scale, timeframe, and many other factors that the idea of reducing all social struggles to a single mechanical system (never mind a single roll like some systems do) is nearly impossible, at least not without utilizing the high levels of abstraction typical of rules-lite systems.

Very nicely summed up.

Still, I think there is a possibility to create a framework for the scenarios and to limit them. E.g. timeframe: an improptu argument on the street will be much faster & the arguments will be shorter than a formal debate somewhere in the dwarven assembly of clans. Will it have impact on the mechanical side? Maybe, some approaches will be useless for street argument (e.g. reciting a poem from your ancestor that warns about the foolishness of greed) that will be effective in the other.

Let's assume a basic move: you state your point/argument/statement. Is there a mechanical difference between using the poem or stating just simple, ugly truth? Should there be one?

Now the question is, what other moves/maneuvers there can be?


There's still limits though. People aren't giving the beggars their houses, for example.

And doesn't strong manipulation enabled by simple interaction create bad incentives, like avoiding social interaction entirely?

"Ah, travelers, would ..."
"Nope! Not falling for that one again, back off!"
"I just ..."
"Not. Another. Word." *draws weapon*

Escalation should be definitely a part of any social system. Friendly discussion - heated discussion - agressive discussion - fight.


In my mind, it's not whether success is possible or impossible, it's what is casually responsible for that success. To me, successful persuasion means that the persuader has figured out how to understand their target's needs and attitudes, and has adapted their approach to that understanding. And that includes changing what they attempt to achieve with persuasion.

Persuasion as attack makes the success probably about the forcefulness of the persuader and the defense of the target, rather than being about the alignment between the two parties.

That's why I talked about 'respectful' persuasion systems - the idea that the system pays heed to what the target wants and needs and how that aligns to the persuasion attempt in a way that cannot be replaced with raw numerical advantage.

In the beggar example, the way I'd say it is that a skilled beggar has the ability to know who will feel guilty or be willing to give some money to end the interaction, and who will become hostile and even attack them or destroy their stuff or call police or whatever. Trying to force the same schtick with someone who would actually enjoy an excuse to harm someone without the power to resist is going to end poorly regardless of skill.

Ah. Good point: what does the roll represent. In case of PC/NPC interaction, I usually assume the result of the roll represents the effect the speech has on the opposite side. The reaction. In the context of the conversation (so if we have a merchant and adventurer and the adventurer rolls very well on negotiation for a lamp, the merchant will throw in an extra flask of oil or give a discount; if he rolls extremely well, he may get an invitation to a dinner; if he fails, he does not get any discount and has to pay full price; if he fumbles the roll, he gets nothing save for extremely irritated merchant).

Persuasion can take many different forms with different approaches, but the forms interact in a relatively stable way. I'd focus on the form, not the content of the statement from mechanical point of view: the content will be important to understand the context & the roleplaying reaction, but not the mechanical result.

An example: you can offer a concession. Mechanically, the opponent gains a compromise already (before the whole thing has been decided) if he does not refuse, in exchange for a) a two-way compromise (a tradeoff, a quid pro quo) b) an improvement in the mood/softening of the argument/bonus for next roll. In my ideal system, this would be actually a good way to "disarm" an enemy (more skilled/better at argumenting) - instead of offering a point he can debate/destroy, you offer a concession and he can either accept, refuse, or escalate.


This is the part that I think could be modelled a somewhat similarly to standard RPG social combat systems -- they are landing hits and you don't have a lot of Damage Reduction (based on 'no! the contrapositive is important to me, I'm not going along with that!'), so they've exhausted your will to resist so you just say "whatever."

Well, that would be my understanding. You either get a pool (e.g. social HP) which you have to reduce, which represents the composure of the individual, but also the arguments he has, willpower to continue and emotional attachments/principles... with the individual "wounds" representing broken arguments, embarrasment, stress and so on.

I'd go a different way (as I usually work with dice pool mechanics): some of the maneuvers could attack your dice pool (e.g. embarrasment, anger or even the opponents' ability to make you laugh so hard you can't focus), some of them will provide instant reward (e.g. the concession mechanic), some will allow you to improve your future attempts ("soften" the target, e.g. flattery) and some will be purely responsive
(dismissing an argument, ad hominem, filibustering so that your opponent can not really get a word in...). The "basic" moves would be stating your argument/point (directly attacking the HP) and responding to an argument (blocking the effect and taking initiative from the other side).

I'm still thinking about how to model interruption, but mainly the interruptions would offer immediate chance to escalate and maybe some crowd penalty (as it's not really "proper" in most cases). Will see.


Hold the phone. You run a Riddle of Steel game, with bits of Burning Wheel soldered on, and you have players? I bow to either your charisma or karma. Each of those games always seems to land as 'This is one of the best games ever made if you're focused onHey come back you guys! I promise it will be fun! I have beer and wings and we're in the sunroom, not the basement, c'mmmonn!'

That was only one time! :smallbiggrin: Yeah, I ran an adapted RoS with Duel of Wits soldered onto it and a working magic system(s). One of whom was a vancian-like casting. Because I'm the crazy guy.

My main way of persuading players was easy: nobody else in my vicinity wants to GM, so I choose the game. And I have few preparatory "adventures" that I run with folks that lead them through the basics so they get hooked up on the complex goodness of the RoS. Because there is no system (other than its successors) that does what it does and that provides the same complexity of combat with a good flow of play.

Burning wheel comes close second, but I have not tested its "Fight" rules in detail with sufficiently large groups. It provides similar feeling (you have to plan ahead, but also adapt), but it loses some of the fluidity and raw emotion.

And yes. If you want to play a swordsman? There's no better choice.

But no worries, my crazy luck ran out some time ago, as the main group broke to smaller pieces (everyone lives on other side of the country, different countries, have kids, too much work). So no more RoS crazyness for me. I'm thinking of running something smaller online again though.


This seems to be an eternal problem for RPGs -- if you make the combat too deadly, players will avoid it or min-max until it isn't deadly for their one character (and then the same with every other subset of the rules). Somehow, one has to make the subsystem interesting enough that players want to engage with it, but resilient enough not to be easily and overly gameable (while still letting the guy who wants to invest in being 'the face' get some actual benefit from that investment). It's, well, I mean there's a reason why this isn't a solved problem is what I'm saying.

If you'll have enough time, check this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?582400-The-Riddle-of-Steel-why-not-using-all-dices-to-attack&highlight=riddle+of+steel).


My only response to that is that I'm jealous.

About the players or about my mystery/social game being a dungeon crawl?

If about the players, I can understand. I've been extremely lucky about the players. Maybe the extremely niche games I prefer bring me extremely niche players :smallwink:


Slight tangent, but I actually really like the way GURPS handles social skills against players, and I wish it applied to npcs as well. If someone tries to make an influence roll against you (diplomacy, intimidation, seduction, etc) and succeeds, they can't force you to do anything. But, if you don't do what they want, you take a penalty to your other rolls. It's so simple yet it never takes agency away from the player, and it models needing to use willpower to resist fear and temptation really well. GURPS does a lot of things I don't like, but I'm shocked this system isn't near universal, it's so good.

I'd love to see this idea implemented. Basically: social combat/system should provide you with choices - not just rolls. So yes, he intimidates you successfully - that should not take control from you. You should still be able to choose if you want to flee the scene (bonus to fleeing, as you have extra motivation), just stand still for few moments until you compose yourself (lose action/round, but be able to continue) or push through it (but with a penalty, as you are still shaken on the inside). Choices are the meat of the system.

...okay, wrote too much :smallsmile:

[Theoboldi]

You need a system that allows gaslighting and manipulation, but doesn't allow conmen to steal the shirt off your back. Most systems I've seen just use DM fiat for what's possible and honestly, unless if social intrigue is a big theme of your game that's probably the best route.

You are most likely aware of this, but keep in mind that gaslighting and many similar forms of social manipulation are commonly forms of abuse, that often are quite traumatising for their victims. I'd put some big disclaimers on games that encourage and allow enforcement of such techniques through their mechanics.



Escalation should be definitely a part of any social system. Friendly discussion - heated discussion - agressive discussion - fight.


I don't think you quite understand the point. The social system, in the scenario laid out by icefractal, is not utilized. Knowing that it is dangerous to let the NPC speak, since them trying to convince the PCs of something may result in a use of the social system that will result in them being penalized or having to do something they may not wish to do, the players instead opt to go to violence immediately. The system, in this case, has discouraged interaction and its own use.

This is a basic of human interaction as well. Once people feel as though socially interacting or speaking up about something results only in negative consequences for them, they will often avoid such contact and develop a habit of going along with whatever is said to prevent friction.

If you wish to create such a system, there needs to be a clear way for people on all sides of a discussion to opt out of it without resorting to escalation or immediate wild flight, that does not also riddle them with (overly harsh) consequences. Likewise, there needs to be some sort of benefit to actually engaging with the situation, even if the character is not particularely built for social interaction. Otherwise, they'll take the easy way out anyways.

[Quertus]

I could not make head or tails about the thread title or the opening post.

Lol, that's fair.

The thread title references two characters' stances on murder.

One character, who constantly does everything he can to preserve the lives of his enemies, even risking his own life to do so, has a bad day, and subsequently goes on a killing spree, and otherwise abandoning more or less all the values he's ever held.

Another character, who has been willing to commit atrocities, who would stand by and let his enemies die, or intentionally cause them to suffer for all eternity, doesn't kill when given sufficient motivation, and (despite (kinda) setting up to commit genocide in a previous episode, and (seemingly) only stopping because he'd also kill innocents) claims to be "the man who never would".

Although I pretty well agree with most of the stuff you said in your post, what I was trying to poke around at with this thread (I think - darn senility) was the idea of personality, and how it factors into social interactions. I chose those two scenes because they both touch on the same topic (how the character responds to scenarios where they might murder someone), and because both scenes fail to match the personality of the version of that character that lives in my head (OK, well, the Doctor lies - I full well believe he could do and say what he did, just not that he actually is "the man who never would")

I believe that there is such a thing as "the man who never would". Or, well, to be more precise… "the man who never conceivably would". The live-action Teen Titans, or, one of my personal favorites, 12 Angry Men, can give reasonable insight into my personal belief on how different people are very different to persuade.

And that difference is a matter of what I'm calling "personality".

Does that make any more sense?

[Vahnavoi]

The character who does a 180 degree spin on their past values is primarily a comic book trope - it comes from multiple authors during multiple eras playing "what ifs" on nominally the same character.

Everyone and their mother understands it's implausible for a human personality to do such radical shift, outside of weird externalities (force, injury, or, in the realm of fantastic, mind control). It was understood such shifts normally only happen gradually, over long periods of time, not based on single actions. Back in the 70s, (A)D&D even had a whole bundle of mechanics tied to it. It gave a game master a framework and permission to judge ethical nature of player character actions, and stipulated penalties for sudden and radical departures from a character's previously established nature. It also allowed socially grouping characters based on shared core values, explaing who should get along with who and why. It was called "Alignment", last I checked, everyone hates it and pretends it doesn't exist to solve this very problem. :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

....Hate to be that gal, I don't have to buy a game system to take that post and use it (or the bits of it) that I like for my games.
And, if someone eventually invites me to an Exalted 3e game, so much the better. :smallsmile:

Don't bother mumbling about verisimilitude. The real conversation and acting skills of your players set the ceiling for how nuanced and interesting social interactions you can have in your game. The only way game rules can truly improve on that is by acting as instruction manuals those skills. I'll offer that this is true regardless of the game system involved.

The character who does a 180 degree spin on their past values is primarily a comic book trope - {snip} It gave a game master a framework and permission to judge ethical nature of player character actions, and stipulated penalties for sudden and radical departures from a character's previously established nature. It also allowed socially grouping characters based on shared core values, explaing who should get along with who and why. It was called "Alignment", last I checked, everyone hates it and pretends it doesn't exist to solve this very problem. :smalltongue: Cackled, I did. :smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

Don't bother mumbling about verisimilitude. The real conversation and acting skills of your players set the ceiling for how nuanced and interesting social interactions you can have in your game. The only way game rules can truly improve on that is by acting as instruction manuals those skills. I'll offer that this is true regardless of the game system involved.

The character who does a 180 degree spin on their past values is primarily a comic book trope - {snip} It gave a game master a framework and permission to judge ethical nature of player character actions, and stipulated penalties for sudden and radical departures from a character's previously established nature. It also allowed socially grouping characters based on shared core values, explaing who should get along with who and why. It was called "Alignment", last I checked, everyone hates it and pretends it doesn't exist to solve this very problem. :smalltongue: Cackled, I did. :smallsmile:

[Stonehead]

I'd love to see this idea implemented. Basically: social combat/system should provide you with choices - not just rolls. So yes, he intimidates you successfully - that should not take control from you. You should still be able to choose if you want to flee the scene (bonus to fleeing, as you have extra motivation), just stand still for few moments until you compose yourself (lose action/round, but be able to continue) or push through it (but with a penalty, as you are still shaken on the inside). Choices are the meat of the system.

It's great because it puts the player in the same spot as their character. When you're influenced, nothing magically subverts your will, you just realize the costs of doing what you wanted no longer outweigh the benefits.


I could not make head or tails about the thread title or the opening post, but if it's social systems you want to talk about, let's talk about social systems:

The most powerful system at the tabletop that you can leverage for simulating conversations, negotiations, persuasion etc. is using the natural language you use to speak to converse, negotiate, persuade etc.

Seriously. You don't need to abstract them to a silly dice game, certainly not the same silly dice game you'd use for physical actions. The reason tabletop games abstract physical actions into sm dice games is because you can't do those things and still have your game be tabletop game (it becomes live-action roleplay etc. instead if you try). But you can talk just fine around a tabletop.

Now, I understand, you may have a pressing need to ask "but what about those shy unsocial people who can't talk their way out of a wet paper bag?". Look: there's this thing called "acting". If that shy player's character sheet reads "really interesting person" or whatever, the other players can act as if that character is interesting, even if the dialogue produced by the shy player really isn't. On the flipside, if a socially apt player's sheet reads "complete ass", that player act as if they're a complete ass, and the others can follow suit.

If you want a mechanic out of it, put the dice away and start to think of what would either help the shy player to act as their character, or help you act as yours. Things like:

1) Ask-a-friend: if a player doesn't know how a socially apt person would act in a given situation, they can stop the game and ask one other person outside the game for help.

2) Option elimination: if there's a limitied set of options, a player can ask the game master to eliminate one option that definitely won't get what that player's character wants.

3) Poll the audience: the player can ask other players around the table to cast their votes for what would be the best option.

If your game uses something like a Charisma score, you can give more of these tools for a player to use for positive modifiers, on per-day or per-conversation basis. Negative modifiers are substracted from the total if multiple characters are present.

Don't bother mumbling about verisimilitude. The real conversation and acting skills of your players set the ceiling for how nuanced and interesting social interactions you can have in your game. The only way game rules can truly improve on that is by acting as instruction manuals those skills.

I think this is wildly optimistic for most groups. First, the assumption that everyone's characters will "yes-and" everyone else's descriptions has not held up in the groups I've played in. If my character is "scary" and your character is "fearless", without some way of neutrally handling interactions, one of us is going to end up with a characterization that isn't held up. If the extent of the system is "Say your character is cool, and everyone else will react like they're cool", well, if it works for your groups then I'm jealous, because it definitely wouldn't work for many of the groups I've been in.

Also, in my experience at least, there's rarely one awkward player in a group of charismatic actors. For better or worse, ttrpgs have been a nerd hobby for 40, before getting popular, so there are a lot of socially awkward rpg players. I've been in a group where I was the only person confident enough to call the pizza place to order pizza (back when you had to call them). So "Ask the more charismatic players for help", isn't a solution in a lot of groups.

Also also, the purpose of the dice isn't to handle everything the players can't do themselves, they also add the element of randomness that can make more interesting stories. All the things you want to do can fall into three categories, "Yes you can do it", "No, it's impossible", and "It's possible, but not guaranteed". The DM could just decide the results of everything in the third category, they have that authority, but for DMs like myself who aren't practice improv performers, the game is much more interesting if category 3 is resolved using dice.


You are most likely aware of this, but keep in mind that gaslighting and many similar forms of social manipulation are commonly forms of abuse, that often are quite traumatising for their victims. I'd put some big disclaimers on games that encourage and allow enforcement of such techniques through their mechanics.

No, yeah, it's obviously a horrible thing to do, but the rules don't stop you from torturing people either. Horrible traumatic experiences are somewhat common occurrences in fiction. Now, if you're even a halfway decent human being, you won't include topics your players are sensitive to, just like you wouldn't include a long, drawn out torture seen if one of your players was actually tortured in a pow camp.

My point was just that someone you trust and see every day should be handled differently than a stranger on the street. Not that the rulebook should include a step-by-step guide on how to abuse someone.

[Theoboldi]

No, yeah, it's obviously a horrible thing to do, but the rules don't stop you from torturing people either. Horrible traumatic experiences are somewhat common occurrences in fiction. Now, if you're even a halfway decent human being, you won't include topics your players are sensitive to, just like you wouldn't include a long, drawn out torture seen if one of your players was actually tortured in a pow camp.

My point was just that someone you trust and see every day should be handled differently than a stranger on the street. Not that the rulebook should include a step-by-step guide on how to abuse someone.

Right, I just do think that it's worthwhile to put a massive disclaimer on games that have rules that explicitely allow this, just like you would put a disclaimer on a game that has rules for torture.

Besides, once it's in the rules, players will want to do it to their enemies. You know how they are. They can't not fiddle around with the buttons. :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, in my experience at least, there's rarely one awkward player in a group of charismatic actors. For better or worse, ttrpgs have been a nerd hobby for 40, before getting popular, so there are a lot of socially awkward rpg players. I've been in a group where I was the only person confident enough to call the pizza place to order pizza (back when you had to call them). So "Ask the more charismatic players for help", isn't a solution in a lot of groups. That isn't a problem with a given game system, however.
A lot of pre D&D folks played a variety of board games, like the GM-less, diceless game called Diplomacy.
I think it may qualify as a role playing game in the sense of there being a lot of free form role play between players.
But it was invented years before role playing games were called RPGs.
And it does have an end state, or a win condition, so it's probably not correct to call it an RPG.

[Vahnavoi]

I think this is wildly optimistic for most groups.

Optimistic? You should read my post again and rethink the tone with which you imagine the words to have been written.


First, the assumption that everyone's characters will "yes-and" everyone else's descriptions has not held up in the groups I've played in.

I'm giving (plural) you advice on how to handle a game, while strongly implying that you haven't been handling your games like this because you either are or have to deal with shy unsocial people who can't act. :smalltongue:


If my character is "scary" and your character is "fearless", without some way of neutrally handling interactions, one of us is going to end up with a characterization that isn't held up. If the extent of the system is "Say your character is cool, and everyone else will react like they're cool", well, if it works for your groups then I'm jealous, because it definitely wouldn't work for many of the groups I've been in.

Hmmm, point. If only there was some specially nominated person who could serve as final arbiter for such seemingly paradoxical interactions. We could call them "game leader" or maybe an "umpire" or a "referee"....


Also, in my experience at least, there's rarely one awkward player in a group of charismatic actors. For better or worse, ttrpgs have been a nerd hobby for 40, before getting popular, so there are a lot of socially awkward rpg players. I've been in a group where I was the only person confident enough to call the pizza place to order pizza (back when you had to call them). So "Ask the more charismatic players for help", isn't a solution in a lot of groups.

Imagine, for a moment, a world where this isn't the case because at least some people 1) make concentrated effort to improve their social and leadership skills and 2) use those skills to teach less experienced players how to do that as well.

You have now imagined majority of other group hobbies, from scouts to team sports to martial arts.

If you are an experienced player with even the smallest amount of relevant skills, you can start making that world a reality for tabletop roleplaying games. :smallwink:


Also also, the purpose of the dice isn't to handle everything the players can't do themselves, they also add the element of randomness that can make more interesting stories. All the things you want to do can fall into three categories, "Yes you can do it", "No, it's impossible", and "It's possible, but not guaranteed". The DM could just decide the results of everything in the third category, they have that authority, but for DMs like myself who aren't practice improv performers, the game is much more interesting if category 3 is resolved using dice.

There's other ways than dice to add unpredictability - but regardless of whether you want unpredictability created by random or pseudorandom functions in your game, all social interactions within the game are improved by increasing real social and acting skills of the players. Certainly, you will never get worse at implementing whatever result you roll with dice by having those skills.

[KorvinStarmast]

You have now imagined majority of other group hobbies, from scouts to team sports to martial arts.

If you are an experienced player with even the smallest amount of relevant skills, you can start making that world a reality for tabletop roleplaying games. :smallwink: But that would take effort; the game wouldn't be doing the work for them. :smallwink:
By the way, adding "from scouts to team sports to martial arts to golf" would fit well: when one starts out in golfing there is a lot of learn from other players about things like etiquette (not talking when someone else is on the tee, don't kick the ball, and so on).
Social skills passed on as a part of the culture of the hobby.

@Stonehead: just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the 5 Geek Social Fallacies article?

[Stonehead]

That isn't a problem with a given game system, however.

I don't think it's a problem necessarily, but I think an rpg is limiting its audience quite a bit if each group needs a talented actor in order to play it.


Optimistic? You should read my post again and rethink the tone with which you imagine the words to have been written.

I'm giving (plural) you advice on how to handle a game, while strongly implying that you haven't been handling your games like this because you either are or have to deal with shy unsocial people who can't act. :smalltongue:

Can optimistic not apply to advice? Maybe I did just totally misread something, because it still seems applicable to me. If someone's in like physical rehab or something, and someone tells them it's faster to walk without crutches, I'd say that's optimistic advice. And I mean, if you wanna call me shy and awkward, that's cool, but the reason I use dice is because I think dice games are fun, not because I'm a terrible actor (which I am, don't get me wrong).


Hmmm, point. If only there was some specially nominated person who could serve as final arbiter for such seemingly paradoxical interactions. We could call them "game leader" or maybe an "umpire" or a "referee"....

Literally my next point was talking about why DM fiat isn't a good solution to the problem. That's why I don't like breaking down messages line-by-line and responding out of context.


Imagine, for a moment, a world where this isn't the case because at least some people 1) make concentrated effort to improve their social and leadership skills and 2) use those skills to teach less experienced players how to do that as well.

You have now imagined majority of other group hobbies, from scouts to team sports to martial arts.

If you are an experienced player with even the smallest amount of relevant skills, you can start making that world a reality for tabletop roleplaying games. :smallwink:

Ok, other than insulting my ability to DM (which, fair enough. Kinda rude, but probably true. I never claimed I was good at it.) I have another issue with this response. I wasn't attacking the idea of helping out less experienced players, I was saying using 0 dice wouldn't work for a lot of groups. I hope no one thinks I'm that much of a monster that I'm arguing against the idea of helping each other out. Maybe I need to rethink the way I present myself on the internet.

I'm sure just rping it out and never rolling dice works for some groups, and that's great. They're probably more fun to watch. I don't think it's a silver bullet though. It's not even just a matter of being outgoing and charismatic either, if it's solely based on the words and arguments used, it's going to be impossible for one of my characters to like, make a legal argument for example. Probably impossible for most DMs to reasonably judge their effectiveness either. Same thing with singing to an audience, or negotiating contracts, or actual country-to-country diplomacy.

The way most groups I've seen handle it is someone makes some in character arguments, the DM uses those to set the difficulty, or give out bonuses/penalties, and then a skill is rolled which determines the effectiveness of the argument. And I think that works really well for most games. In most games (that I've been in at least), conversations are about a third of the game, and of those, only about a third could actually have big impacts on the game. I don't think it's bad to roll dice in those cases at all.


There's other ways than dice to add unpredictability - but regardless of whether you want unpredictability created by random or pseudorandom functions in your game, all social interactions within the game are improved by increasing real social and acting skills of the players. Certainly, you will never get worse at implementing whatever result you roll with dice by having those skills.

I know I said I don't like breaking down messages line-by-line, but it's pretty hard not to in response to one. Again, I'm not saying that improving your social skills is a waste of time, that would be a ridiculous claim. But conflating "being good at improv" with "not using dice" is just incorrect.


But that would take effort; the game wouldn't be doing the work for them. :smallwink:
By the way, adding "from scouts to team sports to martial arts to golf" would fit well: when one starts out in golfing there is a lot of learn from other players about things like etiquette (not talking when someone else is on the tee, don't kick the ball, and so on).
Social skills passed on as a part of the culture of the hobby.

@Stonehead: just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the 5 Geek Social Fallacies article?

Yeah, big fan. I stumbled upon it in high school, and it did a lot to help make me less annoying. Although, based on this thread, I still have a long way to go on that front.

I do think though that there's a difference between being a charming person and being a good improv actor. It's one thing to not invite different friends who wouldn't like each other to the same event, and different thing to respond in character to a taunt without pausing and "umm"-ing enough to kill everyone's immersion. And again, I feel like I need to reiterate this so I'm not misunderstood: Being good at role playing and socializing is good. Using dice is also fun though.

[Mechalich]

Ok, other than insulting my ability to DM (which, fair enough. Kinda rude, but probably true. I never claimed I was good at it.) I have another issue with this response. I wasn't attacking the idea of helping out less experienced players, I was saying using 0 dice wouldn't work for a lot of groups. I hope no one thinks I'm that much of a monster that I'm arguing against the idea of helping each other out. Maybe I need to rethink the way I present myself on the internet.

I'm sure just rping it out and never rolling dice works for some groups, and that's great. They're probably more fun to watch. I don't think it's a silver bullet though. It's not even just a matter of being outgoing and charismatic either, if it's solely based on the words and arguments used, it's going to be impossible for one of my characters to like, make a legal argument for example. Probably impossible for most DMs to reasonably judge their effectiveness either. Same thing with singing to an audience, or negotiating contracts, or actual country-to-country diplomacy.

The way most groups I've seen handle it is someone makes some in character arguments, the DM uses those to set the difficulty, or give out bonuses/penalties, and then a skill is rolled which determines the effectiveness of the argument. And I think that works really well for most games. In most games (that I've been in at least), conversations are about a third of the game, and of those, only about a third could actually have big impacts on the game. I don't think it's bad to roll dice in those cases at all.

You're correct. Freeform gaming is in many ways the ideal state of gaming, but the overwhelming majority of groups aren't capable of functioning in the freeform environment. The experience of the small portion of gaming groups that can do so provides no useful data at all for those groups that need to utilize a model system for dispute resolution and capability representation in games. Trying to use the experience of groups that freeform effectively as a design model for gaming systems is like trying to base couples therapy techniques on the rare couples that have frictionless relationships that never need counseling at all.

[Stonehead]

You're correct. Freeform gaming is in many ways the ideal state of gaming, but the overwhelming majority of groups aren't capable of functioning in the freeform environment. The experience of the small portion of gaming groups that can do so provides no useful data at all for those groups that need to utilize a model system for dispute resolution and capability representation in games. Trying to use the experience of groups that freeform effectively as a design model for gaming systems is like trying to base couples therapy techniques on the rare couples that have frictionless relationships that never need counseling at all.

I don't know man, "I like this thing, therfore it's the perfect way to enjoy this hobby", generally isn't a very convincing argument. Boardgames are fun, the idea that incorporating mechanics into your game is "tainting the perfect ideal, but necessary for those lower gamers who don't know any better" seems a bit presumptuous. Like, it's important to recognize the difference between "I like this thing", and "This thing is ideal for everyone". You arguably aren't even gaming if you remove all the game elements.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think it's a problem necessarily, but I think an rpg is limiting its audience quite a bit if each group needs a talented actor in order to play it. Have never played a single RPG that required a talented actor. Played a bunch that required people to use their imaginations.


I'm sure just rping it out and never rolling dice works for some groups, and that's great. They're probably more fun to watch. I don't think it's a silver bullet though. Depends on the group, so 'not a silver bullet' is a point that I agree with.

Again, I'm not saying that improving your social skills is a waste of time, that would be a ridiculous claim. But conflating "being good at improv" with "not using dice" is just incorrect.
Whomever is demanding that one 'be good at improv' during an RPG among a table full of rank amateurs is making a big ask. But using one's imagination, and being willing for weird outcomes to crop up, seems to be a good approach to RPGs.
Yeah, big fan. I stumbled upon it in high school, and it did a lot to help make me less annoying. Although, based on this thread, I still have a long way to go on that front. Ain't none of us here who is perfect. :smallsmile:

If you are playing among friends, you can take risks and all enjoy when things go a little off
(you just did what with the bale of hay? Hey, wait, you didn't just pull the pin on that grenade, did you?)
or come out with unpredictable results. That's part of the fun of RPGs. If your table's climate isn't that permissive of imperfection, that's a small group dynamics problem. Whether or not it is "solvable" varies.

My experience tells me this: you get better at role playing by doing more of it, not by asking the dice to do it for you.

@Mechalich: nice post. how much structure a given group needs or wants varies. There isn't a single answer for that.

[Stonehead]

Whomever is demanding that one 'be good at improv' during an RPG among a table full of rank amateurs is making a big ask. But using one's imagination, and being willing for weird outcomes to crop up, seems to be a good approach to RPGs.

I also don't think using your imagination or being flexible are incompatible with using dice. Limitations breed creativity, they don't restrict it.


My experience tells me this: you get better at role playing by doing more of it, not by asking the dice to do it for you.

I might be using dice differently than other people, or maybe I'm not making my stance clear, but the dice aren't supposed to replace the role playing, they're supposed to determine the results when it could go either way. I'm a big fan of not rolling dice unless if the result actually matters, and that applies to role playing too. You don't say "I'm gonna roll diplomacy to ask for directions", you just ask for directions. When making a request to the king, you still make an impassioned speech (Or at least outline your main arguments if you aren't good at public speaking). The only difference is who decides if the king is convinced or not. In some games, it's just the DM's opinion, and in others the DM and the dice work together.

I'm curious though if even that level of randomness is distracting for some people. To me, the mechanics do a good job of flushing out a character, but I get that that's not universal. Total dicelessness isn't a silver bullet, but I don't think basic diplomacy rolls are either.

[Lord Raziere]

I might be using dice differently than other people, or maybe I'm not making my stance clear, but the dice aren't supposed to replace the role playing, they're supposed to determine the results when it could go either way. I'm a big fan of not rolling dice unless if the result actually matters, and that applies to role playing too. You don't say "I'm gonna roll diplomacy to ask for directions", you just ask for directions. When making a request to the king, you still make an impassioned speech (Or at least outline your main arguments if you aren't good at public speaking). The only difference is who decides if the king is convinced or not. In some games, it's just the DM's opinion, and in others the DM and the dice work together.

I'm curious though if even that level of randomness is distracting for some people. To me, the mechanics do a good job of flushing out a character, but I get that that's not universal. Total dicelessness isn't a silver bullet, but I don't think basic diplomacy rolls are either.

As someone who has freeform a lot-probably more than all the other roleplaying I've ever done combined- I think freeform just does what your do in a different way both and completely fine, now that I think about it.

because when I make a freeform character for a roleplay on this forum, -its a naruto one- there is an ability section for each sheet, and sometimes I put down things that you normally wouldn't expect to be abilities, because they affect things more than just having a personality. for example one ninja I have made as a Ciaphas Cain expy, being this fake hero with a reputation he has to maintain but acts cowardly so one of his abilities is to reflect that to make sure I remember to make this an actual effect on the world even if its all freeform. it for examples reminds that one of his first actions to use a jutsu to stun others that is basically just weaponized screaming in terror, then run away so he can set up traps if people pursue, thus turning his cowardice into something deadly and apart of his strategy. thus in a way its a note that reminds me how this character typically acts and what action they are likely to take, as well as remind me to keep their luck in a certain state where they encounter things that maintain their Ciaphas Cain-ness. thus it fleshes out the character by having this be an actual ability and not just a personality trait and provides a consistent strategy he does when in doubt. and that a freeform sheet is basically a bunch of reminders of how this characters acts and what they are capable of. and that typically more notes means the character is more fleshed out because it means I've thought certain aspects of the character more even if there is no numbers attached. (there are letters sure for power purposes but its a real short range and your basically expected to not no-sell anything above what you have.)

[Vahnavoi]

I don't think it's a problem necessarily, but I think an rpg is limiting its audience quite a bit if each group needs a talented actor in order to play it.

Your error is in thinking that this isn't already the case.

In order for a tabletop group to materialize, there needs to be at least one person charismatic and skilled enough to familiarize themselves with the game rules, gather a group of friends, create a compelling character and then act as that character in ways that's interesting to other people. The number of these people is what sets limits to growth of the hobby.

Virtually every other hobby, at some point, has noticed that there isn't a natural abundance of such people, and they've all solved the problem in the same way: by organizing and then holding courses to teach interested people the requisite skills. Tabletop games aren't an exception - have never been am exception - once you go looking.


Can optimistic not apply to advice? Maybe I did just totally misread something, because it still seems applicable to me. If someone's in like physical rehab or something, and someone tells them it's faster to walk without crutches, I'd say that's optimistic advice. And I mean, if you wanna call me shy and awkward, that's cool, but the reason I use dice is because I think dice games are fun, not because I'm a terrible actor (which I am, don't get me wrong).

You seem to be misreading the claim that natural language and acting are more powerful systems than dice, as a claim that they are easier system, which isn't being made. Rolling dice to see if you rolled a higher number than another number is simpler, and hence easier, than learning a natural language and holding conversations with one, but the ability of that roll to model a conversation is far less.

As far as crutches go, I described three non-dice crutch mechanics for social mechanics in my original argument. The point being made was that dice do not serve as crutch for making a person able to act out social interactions and you should think of non-dice mechanics to adress that.

The other issue is that you seem to think that using dice because you think dice games are fun is some kind of counter-argument to what I said. If you find dice fun for reasons unrelated to your (in)ability to act out social interactions, that's cool, but irrelevant to what I'm saying, because it says nothing of how good dice are for modelling social interactions.


Literally my next point was talking about why DM fiat isn't a good solution to the problem. That's why I don't like breaking down messages line-by-line and responding out of context.

And it was a bad point because having a referee-figure such as the game master to make rulings of such corner cases is literally why there is such a thing as a game master. There isn't a better solution for human-run games about human interactions.

More elaborately: the position and role of the game master predates modern tabletop roleplaying games and was actually codified in wargaming, from which D&D copied it wholesale. The reasons for introducing a game master were, primarily, that detailed mechanical rules were too slow to process on the tabletop, and that undetailed rules create unrealistic or unwanted corner cases. It was deemed that replacing slow-to-process and inaccurate mechanical resolution with a living human making judgement calls based on real expertise improved flow and realism of wargames. At the same time, introduction of a game master lessened the burden on the players, because now the game could be run with only one person having to know all the rules. (If you want to know more, look up "Kriegspiel" on Wikipedia, or some other source on history of wargaming and how it eventually lead to Chainmail and D&D.)

All of the same points apply to tabletop games. Nearly all of the time, when people are unhappy about game master fiat, it has to do with that point about real expertise - namely, real or perceived lack of it on part of the game master. You have two options: improve the game master's real expertise, preserving the reasons why you have a game master to begin with, or go back to creating mechanics, paying for it with increased complexity, increased processing time and a steeper learning curve.

The rest of your post dances around these points. Observing that most groups use dice or that most groups couldn't model social interactions without them may be correct, but it just raises two questions: "Why?" and "Are there other ways to do this?"

And the real answer to the first is that "a lot of them just never were taught how do the thing without dice" and the real answer to the second is "Yes" followed by a long list of "here's how"s.

---


You're correct. Freeform gaming is in many ways the ideal state of gaming, but the overwhelming majority of groups aren't capable of functioning in the freeform environment. The experience of the small portion of gaming groups that can do so provides no useful data at all for those groups that need to utilize a model system for dispute resolution and capability representation in games. Trying to use the experience of groups that freeform effectively as a design model for gaming systems is like trying to base couples therapy techniques on the rare couples that have frictionless relationships that never need counseling at all.

That's impressively wrong.

Examining a group capable of functioning in an environment and finding out what they do differently to those who don't, is step one to figuring out how to replicate traits of the first group in the second. This applies to roleplaying games and therapy both. Actual couple therapists do look at the frictionless couple and then try to figure out how to make the couples with friction more like them. You are implicitly imagining a really weird strawman for how techniques are based on behaviours of the functioning group, to make this analogy.

[icefractal]

I don't think I agree about dice. They serve various purposes, and one of those is to provide inspiration by forcing you out of ruts / grooves you subconsciously assume. That still applies to social interactions, separately from the simulation / arbitration factors. Heck, I'll use random rolls even during preparation, because it makes me consider different possibilities than what I'd decide by default.

[Vahnavoi]

I don't think I agree about dice. They serve various purposes, and one of those is to provide inspiration by forcing you out of ruts / grooves you subconsciously assume. That still applies to social interactions, separately from the simulation / arbitration factors.

That's the same point about unpredictability Stonehead already made. The same answer applies: there's other methods to create unpredictability and whatever method you use, your ability to get anything out of it is strictly improved by having real social and acting skills.

Put differently: don't confuse utility for necessity. Dice have utility for creating unpredictability, they aren't necessary for it. Let's take a simple example in form of OSR-style reaction chart, going from hostile through neutral to friendly.

Typically, you'd roll dice, for example 2d6, to decide the initial reaction, modified by Charisma (etc.). An extreme roll (f.ex. hostile, friendly) might give you impetus to act differently than you'd be inclined to by default...

... but if you do not have natural language understanding of what the extreme results mean, the roll does nothing to help you act its result out. Any real analysis of the mechanic proves that the chart and the natural language descriptors are what's actually pulling the game forward. The dice are just a selection procedure you could replace by drawing cards, looking at the clock, having a point-pool mechanic , etc.

That's before factoring in that dialogue produced on-the-spot by other people can be unpredictable enough to give you impetus to break default.


Heck, I'll use random rolls even during preparation, because it makes me consider different possibilities than what I'd decide by default.

This is a red herring. In this thread, I'm specifically talking about systems for modeling and adjucating social interactions. I'm not talking about all the other things you could use dice for, like doing lonely prepwork in your basement. It's why my original argument pointed out a distinction between physical actions and talking. Dice don't have equal utility across all use cases.

[Quertus]

Everyone and their mother understands it's implausible for a human personality to do such radical shift, outside of weird externalities (force, injury, or, in the realm of fantastic, mind control). It was understood such shifts normally only happen gradually, over long periods of time, not based on single actions. Back in the 70s, (A)D&D even had a whole bundle of mechanics tied to it. It gave a game master a framework and permission to judge ethical nature of player character actions, and stipulated penalties for sudden and radical departures from a character's previously established nature. It also allowed socially grouping characters based on shared core values, explaing who should get along with who and why. It was called "Alignment", last I checked, everyone hates it and pretends it doesn't exist to solve this very problem. :smalltongue:

Your post made me very glad I called it "personality". Because one of my memes is "alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs", and I've been saying "alignment is not personality", and trying to take a clue-by-four to those who mistake one for the other, for nearly four decades now.

So, alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs because some of the original designers mistook alignment for personality? That's really sad.

Is there anything salvageable from their cancerous failure? "sudden and radical departures from a character's previously established nature" are implausible? That sounds usable.

So, in 3e parlance, the DC for social checks which violate the character's nature is "impossible". That sounds like a good baseline rule.


and different thing to respond in character to a taunt without pausing and "umm"-ing enough to kill everyone's immersion. And again, I feel like I need to reiterate this so I'm not misunderstood: Being good at role playing and socializing is good. Using dice is also fun though.

In order for role-playing by committee, or role-playing by "the group pretends you're charismatic", or role-playing in 3rd person ("George Stark gives a witty quip without really internalizing the message"), it requires players with healthier immersion, that doesn't die so easily.

[Vahnavoi]

Your post made me very glad I called it "personality". Because one of my memes is "alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs", and I've been saying "alignment is not personality", and trying to take a clue-by-four to those who mistake one for the other, for nearly four decades now.

So, alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs because some of the original designers mistook alignment for personality? That's really sad.

Congratulations on confirming you hold the exact attitude I was mocking. :smalltongue:

Alignment is description of a character's moral standing. It was never be-all-end-all of personality nor intended as such, but it would be foolish to argue that someone's moral standing is not part of their personality. Framing the topic in terms of a superhero killing their adversary is always both a question of personality and morality, because fans of that genre widely agree that some moral characteristics are fundamental parts of some character's personality. Hence, it falls in the exact rule space Alignment covers.


Is there anything salvageable from their cancerous failure? "sudden and radical departures from a character's previously established nature" are implausible? That sounds usable.

So, in 3e parlance, the DC for social checks which violate the character's nature is "impossible". That sounds like a good baseline rule.


3rd edition social check rules are more broken than 1st edition AD&D alignment was.

---

EDIT:

One interesting article I found on the topic of personality versus morality: "Is improving your personality a moral duty or a category confusion?" (https://psyche.co/ideas/is-improving-your-personality-a-moral-duty-or-a-category-confusion)

Spoiler alert: not only are personality traits and moral character traits correlated, there is an outright observable causal connection between goals and personality, as intentional change in goals can lead to intentional change in personality. To quote the article, "For now, one simple step is to revise our thinking: we might be better off giving up on the myth of morally neutral, immovable personality. And by changing our thinking about personality, we might change our ability to change."

For games, what this practically means is that if you care about psychological realism at all, personality and morality are linked, which also means personality and Alignment are linked. QED. :smalltongue:

[Quertus]

Congratulations on confirming you hold the exact attitude I was mocking. :smalltongue:

Alignment is description of a character's moral standing. It was never be-all-end-all of personality nor intended as such, but it would be foolish to argue that someone's moral standing is not part of their personality. Framing the topic in terms of a superhero killing their adversary is always both a question of personality and morality, because fans of that genre widely agree that some moral characteristics are fundamental parts of some character's personality. Hence, it falls in the exact rule space Alignment covers.



3rd edition social check rules are more broken than 1st edition AD&D alignment was.

---

EDIT:

One interesting article I found on the topic of personality versus morality: "Is improving your personality a moral duty or a category confusion?" (https://psyche.co/ideas/is-improving-your-personality-a-moral-duty-or-a-category-confusion)

Spoiler alert: not only are personality traits and moral character traits correlated, there is an outright observable causal connection between goals and personality, as intentional change in goals can lead to intentional change in personality. To quote the article, "For now, one simple step is to revise our thinking: we might be better off giving up on the myth of morally neutral, immovable personality. And by changing our thinking about personality, we might change our ability to change."

For games, what this practically means is that if you care about psychological realism at all, personality and morality are linked, which also means personality and Alignment are linked. QED. :smalltongue:

Personality and morality are linked? Duh. But you've mistaken alignment for morality, which, while not the exact thing I was "mocking", still is an issue.

See, if you look at the, "what alignment is…" threads, you'll usually get all 9 alignments given as answers. Whereas personality and morality, at both a conceptual and psychological level, shouldn't return such varied results.

Alignment may attempt to cover that "rule space", but it does so about as well as fish taco recipes.

Except that fish taco recipes do a better job, as they're more obviously bad at having anything to do with being a good predictor of personality and behavior.

[Stonehead]

Your error is in thinking that this isn't already the case.

In order for a tabletop group to materialize, there needs to be at least one person charismatic and skilled enough to familiarize themselves with the game rules, gather a group of friends, create a compelling character and then act as that character in ways that's interesting to other people. The number of these people is what sets limits to growth of the hobby.

Virtually every other hobby, at some point, has noticed that there isn't a natural abundance of such people, and they've all solved the problem in the same way: by organizing and then holding courses to teach interested people the requisite skills. Tabletop games aren't an exception - have never been am exception - once you go looking.

As has been mentioned by other people before in this thread, improv acting skill is completely different from real life charisma. A game requiring someone be charismatic enough to make a group is very different from a game requiring someone be a skilled enough actor to make diplomatic arguments, decide objectively how convincing such arguments are, and tell the players how they could make these arguments. A game can easily materialize with no member talented in improvisational actor.

I hope you don't think I have literally no other hobbies than playing ttrpgs and posting on internet forums, or that I have no idea how to organize a group.


You seem to be misreading the claim that natural language and acting are more powerful systems than dice, as a claim that they are easier system, which isn't being made. Rolling dice to see if you rolled a higher number than another number is simpler, and hence easier, than learning a natural language and holding conversations with one, but the ability of that roll to model a conversation is far less.

No, I don't care about simplicity or power, I don't think "go totally diceless" is good general advice for most groups. That's the only point I've disagreed with. You said yourself that your post was advice given to me because you were implying I'm bad at acting, and I don't think it's good advice. Using Newtonian physics to calculate fall damage is much more powerful than 1d6 per 10 ft, but it's not good general advice to use such a system.


That's the same point about unpredictability Stonehead already made. The same answer applies: there's other methods to create unpredictability and whatever method you use, your ability to get anything out of it is strictly improved by having real social and acting skills.
... snip ...
That's before factoring in that dialogue produced on-the-spot by other people can be unpredictable enough to give you impetus to break default.

There being otherr sources of unpredictability doesn't make dice any worse of a source. Some times the flow of conversation is enough to make unpredictable results, but for a lot of groups, adding dice to that (NOT REPLACING IT WITH DICE) makes the unpredictability much more interesting.


Let's take a simple example in form of OSR-style reaction chart, going from hostile through neutral to friendly.

Typically, you'd roll dice, for example 2d6, to decide the initial reaction, modified by Charisma (etc.). An extreme roll (f.ex. hostile, friendly) might give you impetus to act differently than you'd be inclined to by default...

I think this is the big misunderstanding, because rolling for initial reaction, or anything else not impactful to the game isn't what I'm advocating for at all. At no point did I recommend not rp-ing out conversations, or opening up a rulebook to consult some esoteric chart to determine how an npc will act. I'm saying that when you want to exert influence over another character, rolling some skill in addition to role playing the conversation, will tend to yield more interesting results for many groups.

I haven't seen a strong opposition to that point. I've seen a lot of counter-arguments to points I wasn't making. I never argued that role playing was a waste of time, or that you shouldn't try to improve yourself, or that you shouldn't help out your other players in areas you're strong at.

Somehow I got a counterargument to the assertion that dnd groups don't require you to be a decent person like other group activities do. Not sure where I made that assertion, but I definitely didn't intend to.

Maybe I shouldn't write so much, so no one gets the idea that I'm making some argument other than I think going totally diceless is bad advice for many groups. Some reasons I feel that way are:

Dice are a good (Not the only) way to add unpredictability
Many groups have no talented actors (But not no decent, charismatic people)
Many games are more fun if an argument could fall into "successful", "possible", or "impossible", rather than only being able to fall into "successful", or "unsuccessful".

[Vahnavoi]

As has been mentioned by other people before in this thread, improv acting skill is completely different from real life charisma. A game requiring someone be charismatic enough to make a group is very different from a game requiring someone be a skilled enough actor to make diplomatic arguments, decide objectively how convincing such arguments are, and tell the players how they could make these arguments. A game can easily materialize with no member talented in improvisational actor.

You and those other people are arguing against a strawman, because I was never talking about just improvised acting - the terms I've been using are "natural language" and "real conversation and acting skills". Those are quite a bit more broader than the idea you're taking away from my posts.

And no, the things you say are "completely different" from those other things are not. Your real life charisma is both correlated with and developed by your acting skills in ways similar to how your cardio-vascular stamina is correlated with and developed by running. The ability to convince your friends to play a game and play nice according to game rules is similarly a grass-roots application of the same skills any other group leader or a diplomat would use to negotiate a contract between two groups. The next step, then, is to figure out how to apply the skill you have already demonstrated to have, to mediate the fictional game conflicts. More on that later.

Anything deeper than this, would require you to define what you mean by "talent". I don't have a concrete idea what a talented person looks like in your mind, but I have a very good idea of what a person without talent looks like in mine: a shy kid with poor imagination, poor verbal skills and no friends. Those aren't the people who go around "easily materializing" games.


I hope you don't think I have literally no other hobbies than playing ttrpgs and posting on internet forums, or that I have no idea how to organize a group.

I know zilch about you and was never writing to just you in the first place. Whatever hobbies you might have and whatever you might be able to do, there's plenty of people, some of who could be reading this, who have no other hobbies and who have no ability to organize a group.


No, I don't care about simplicity or power, I don't think "go totally diceless" is good general advice for most groups. That's the only point I've disagreed with. You said yourself that your post was advice given to me because you were implying I'm bad at acting, and I don't think it's good advice. Using Newtonian physics to calculate fall damage is much more powerful than 1d6 per 10 ft, but it's not good general advice to use such a system.

Simplicity and power are both factors on every usability matrix I've ever seen, other factors being memorability, speed, and two others which I can't remember right now. Not caring about two relevant usability factors isn't a great foundation for your argument, and more importantly, raises the question: which other factor(s) are you using as basis for your argument? The same applies to Newtonian physics. You say it's not good general advise to use such a system, but completely skip on why. So, why? Because I suspect you are taking some important things for granted.


There being otherr sources of unpredictability doesn't make dice any worse of a source. Some times the flow of conversation is enough to make unpredictable results, but for a lot of groups, adding dice to that (NOT REPLACING IT WITH DICE) makes the unpredictability much more interesting.

A lot of criticisms of, say, 3rd edition social check system are based on the fact that dice DO make a worse source of unpredictability - namely, the distribution of d20 rolls causes unpredictability which feels entirely off to real humans with experience of real conversations. This is technically a calibration error, meaning it might be able to be fixed by choosing a different set of dice and modifiers, but there is no guarantee this would be even equally good to other methods.

Or, like I said to icefractal: dice do not have equal utility across all use cases. Whatever set of dice and modifiers you could pick has a specific usability profile based on power, simplicity, speed, memorability etc.. Which raises the question: when you say dice make something interesting, how do they do that and why? And that goes back to a thing I already said to you: if the "interesting" thing you get out of dice is unrelated to your (in)ability to act out social interactions, that's cool, but irrelevant to what I'm saying.

[NichG]

Maybe I shouldn't write so much, so no one gets the idea that I'm making some argument other than I think going totally diceless is bad advice for many groups. Some reasons I feel that way are:

Dice are a good (Not the only) way to add unpredictability
Many groups have no talented actors (But not no decent, charismatic people)
Many games are more fun if an argument could fall into "successful", "possible", or "impossible", rather than only being able to fall into "successful", or "unsuccessful".


If you're looking for someone to take up the argument that randomness is bad for resolving social interactions, I'm willing to take that point.

There are lots of ways for outcomes to be uncertain, and true randomness is the way that provides the least in return.

1. You can have a fully observable situation where it's still necessary to think deeply about what action to take, and uncertainty can arise from how well that goes for different people at the table. Chess is deterministic, but you'd be hard pressed to know if you're going to win just because you went first.

2. There can be discoverable hidden information which determines the outcome. Compared to true randomness, this allows for gameplay centered around actively discovering that information before committing to a course of action.

3. There can be information which must be inferred and cannot be directly observed, which means that the ability to make good guesses or connect dots becomes an element of the gameplay.

4. There can be truly hidden information, but which has non IID structure - that is, there are correlations which mean that choosing to risk one thing may gain a reduction in risk in another. This is for example the kind of randomness in card games, where seeing an ace means its less likely that a card you can't see is an ace. In social situations you can have things like knowing that only one person in the court has a secret vendetta against you but not knowing which, or knowing that a character worships one deity but not knowing which. This is the least interesting of these options but still has more going for it than dice.

To me, determining the outcome of a social interaction with a die roll is sort of like if you resolved combats by adding up the levels and modifiers of both sides and rolling. Yes, that's a valid resolution system, but it's one you'd use only if you didn't want combat to be very important in that game. Instead you have things like positioning, ranges, movement modalities, different scales of action, buffs and debuffs, etc.

And as for acting ability, a player doesn't need to be good at delivery in order to be good at figuring out characters and their motivations. Focusing on stuttering or ums is a misunderstanding of what should matter. Rather, like with tactical combat, a player does need to be able to reason about 'what can I do?' (what can I offer to this NPC, what can I threaten them with, what leverage can I exert via other connections to change their circumstances, etc) and 'how do I account for the others on the field?' (what does the NPC want, what are they like, what other pressures are they under from other people, why do they act the way they do?)

So in that sense, I'd say the average player would find a diplomatic negotiation more accessible than e.g. going undercover. Because in the negotiation, the point isn't the quality of the delivery or oratorical turns of phrase (and we can simply assume such were done well in character even if the player stumbles), it's how well the player understands the people at the table and the pressures and needs in play. And to me it's just as reasonable to expect that of novice players as it is to expect them to understand AoOs and threatened areas and grapple mechanics and full attacks.

[False God]

If you're looking for someone to take up the argument that randomness is bad for resolving social interactions, I'm willing to take that point.

I'll also second the argument, and piggyback to generally respond to the thread.

There are some things a person just won't do. Or is so statistically unlikely to do that representing it as possible on a die roll doesn't make for good gaming. It makes for silliness.

Dice can provide some level of unpredictability to social interactions, but social situations aren't really unpredictable. Human(oids) can be irrational, but they are typically rational creatures. Thats why we have social interactions to begin with. For the most part, if you have a general idea of a person, you also have a general idea of how they're going to respond to any situation, and assuming you're not trying to provoke them into an extreme reaction, their reaction will exist within the general range.

Dice, at best, can only represent their reaction within this range to whatever you say to them. So a person who is not inclined to give a random eloquent stranger the shirt off his back is not going to suddenly decide to do so because they met an eloquent stranger who happens to roll well. Their "range of reaction" is "react poorly, ie: How dare you attempt to swindle me!" to "react positively, ie: That was quite the inspiring speech but I'm still not giving you my shirt."

The PC may need dice to determine if they made some crude comment (rolled low) or an inspiring speech (rolled high) in lieu of being able to actually use the specific words to convey their argument. But them DM doesn't need them. The NPC responds appropriately on their wants and needs and goals and motivations to giving up their shirt or not.

And this is only a may. The dice can be put to better use discovering those NPC wants, needs, goals, motivations and so on. The discovery of which can be highly uncertain, discovered through other means of interaction with the gameworld. The player can then, without need for dice, make an argument with those elements. The player doesn't need to be a great actor to do this, they simply need to have learned what will get the NPC to lean in their favor, be that the cheese fondue or the wholesale slaughter of the NPCs enemies.

IME: dice to not add a meaningful beneficial element to social situations, because they add randomness and unpredictability to creatures in situations that by-and-large are not random and unpredictable.

[Stonehead]

If you're looking for someone to take up the argument that randomness is bad for resolving social interactions, I'm willing to take that point.

There are lots of ways for outcomes to be uncertain, and true randomness is the way that provides the least in return.

1. You can have a fully observable situation where it's still necessary to think deeply about what action to take, and uncertainty can arise from how well that goes for different people at the table. Chess is deterministic, but you'd be hard pressed to know if you're going to win just because you went first.

2. There can be discoverable hidden information which determines the outcome. Compared to true randomness, this allows for gameplay centered around actively discovering that information before committing to a course of action.

3. There can be information which must be inferred and cannot be directly observed, which means that the ability to make good guesses or connect dots becomes an element of the gameplay.

4. There can be truly hidden information, but which has non IID structure - that is, there are correlations which mean that choosing to risk one thing may gain a reduction in risk in another. This is for example the kind of randomness in card games, where seeing an ace means its less likely that a card you can't see is an ace. In social situations you can have things like knowing that only one person in the court has a secret vendetta against you but not knowing which, or knowing that a character worships one deity but not knowing which. This is the least interesting of these options but still has more going for it than dice.

To me, determining the outcome of a social interaction with a die roll is sort of like if you resolved combats by adding up the levels and modifiers of both sides and rolling. Yes, that's a valid resolution system, but it's one you'd use only if you didn't want combat to be very important in that game. Instead you have things like positioning, ranges, movement modalities, different scales of action, buffs and debuffs, etc.

I would agree that points 1 through 4 are great ways to add unpredictability to a game. But I also don't think that they're incompatible with including some degree of randomness as well. While good DMing techniques, all 4 points can apply to other elements of the game, like exploration too. I think exploration is made better on top of that if you have to roll your characters skills sometimes too.

The combat analogy is good, but if you extend it out to the diceless technique, wouldn't that turn into "Both sides narrate their tactics and the DM decides who wins"?

Also, I definitely don't think you should roll for every social interaction, only when one character is trying to exert influence over an npc, in a situation where the outcome matters, and could realistically go either way. "Rolling to resolve social interactions" is technically what I'm defending, but to me at least, it gives off the impression that you should be rolling charisma to buy rope from the general store.

The classic example of the kind of thing I'm defending is trying to talk your way out of prison or a fine from the town guards. One character is actively trying to change the actions of another. Going to jail affects the story quite a bit. It could go either way (depending on the argument), people talk their way out of speeding tickets IRL all the time, but they also fail to talk their way out of speeding tickets all the time.

"A good argument gets you out of it, and a bad argument sends you to jail" is a fine way to determine the outcome, but I honestly think "An amazing argument gets you out of it, a bad argument sends you to jail, and a normal argument we roll for" is more interesting.

I think it's kinda like finding a locked door in a dungeon. If you have the key, or you have the records you could blackmail someone with, you can probably just succeed. But, if you try to break down the door with a crowbar or win someone over with good arguments, you have to roll for it.


And as for acting ability, a player doesn't need to be good at delivery in order to be good at figuring out characters and their motivations. Focusing on stuttering or ums is a misunderstanding of what should matter. Rather, like with tactical combat, a player does need to be able to reason about 'what can I do?' (what can I offer to this NPC, what can I threaten them with, what leverage can I exert via other connections to change their circumstances, etc) and 'how do I account for the others on the field?' (what does the NPC want, what are they like, what other pressures are they under from other people, why do they act the way they do?)

So in that sense, I'd say the average player would find a diplomatic negotiation more accessible than e.g. going undercover. Because in the negotiation, the point isn't the quality of the delivery or oratorical turns of phrase (and we can simply assume such were done well in character even if the player stumbles), it's how well the player understands the people at the table and the pressures and needs in play. And to me it's just as reasonable to expect that of novice players as it is to expect them to understand AoOs and threatened areas and grapple mechanics and full attacks.

This part I agree with. I do think though that the base level of effectiveness is different. In combat, if you don't have any ideas, you can just run up and attack. It's boring and less optimal, but it usually gets the job done. In social interactions, if the DM is the sole decider of success, I've never seen "I don't have any ideas, my character just tries to convince him" have a chance at success.

And, just to be clear, that's a great way to do it for plenty of groups. Just like there are plenty of groups where just running up and attacking without thinking of tactics isn't going to get your character out alive. I don't the the majority of groups would be made better with that level of combat difficulty though.


I'll also second the argument, and piggyback to generally respond to the thread.

There are some things a person just won't do. Or is so statistically unlikely to do that representing it as possible on a die roll doesn't make for good gaming. It makes for silliness.

There were a lot of interesting points in this response, but I think this is the only one I don't 100% agree with. If the dicelesss system could be oversimplified to "Convincing arguments succeed, unconvincing arguments fail", there's basically two different ways to add dice to the equation. In one, you condense the two different categories into one: "Roll to determine success". The silliness you described. While random silly games can be fun every once in a while, it's not my preferred way to play.

The other way to add dice is to add a third category, so it could be oversimplified to "Really convincing arguments succeed, really unconvincing arguments fail, average arguments roll to determine success". I think this way gets a lot of the advantages I like about dice, while avoiding most of the issues with randomness.

And, if you think about it, that's the way most skill checks work. You auto-succeed acrobatics checks to walk down the stairs, you have to roll to jump across the chasm, and you auto-fail jumping to the roof of the castle. A nat 20 doesn't let you jump to the moon, and it also shouldn't let you talk your way into becoming the king.

[NichG]

I would agree that points 1 through 4 are great ways to add unpredictability to a game. But I also don't think that they're incompatible with including some degree of randomness as well. While good DMing techniques, all 4 points can apply to other elements of the game, like exploration too. I think exploration is made better on top of that if you have to roll your characters skills sometimes too.

The combat analogy is good, but if you extend it out to the diceless technique, wouldn't that turn into "Both sides narrate their tactics and the DM decides who wins"?


That would be the freeform technique. Diceless could mean that perhaps characters have some abilities or attributes which are precisely defined, and whose mechanical interactions are precisely defined, but where the goal is not to generate a probability of success or failure for a simple question like 'do I convince them to do what I want?'.

For example, you could have social systems where by spending resources you can unlock clues or secrets about the people you're interacting with, and where those secrets can be used as leverage to eventually create a compromise or negotiation or provoke a withdrawl from discussion. You could simultaneously build that such that all people running a character - GM or player - have the ultimate freedom to decide what their character chooses with regards to any sort of deal or circumstance, and where all of the social dynamics have to do with the consequences of those choices rather than trying to take the choice away directly.

In the combat analogy, you can take someone out of the fight by dropping their HP to zero without there needing to be an ability which lets you take over making their targeting or movement decisions for them. That kind of ability is an optional design element to reflect a specific kind of thing going on, but it's not a mandatory one to have in order for combat to not just be a matter of what the DM decides.



Also, I definitely don't think you should roll for every social interaction, only when one character is trying to exert influence over an npc, in a situation where the outcome matters, and could realistically go either way. "Rolling to resolve social interactions" is technically what I'm defending, but to me at least, it gives off the impression that you should be rolling charisma to buy rope from the general store.

The classic example of the kind of thing I'm defending is trying to talk your way out of prison or a fine from the town guards. One character is actively trying to change the actions of another. Going to jail affects the story quite a bit. It could go either way (depending on the argument), people talk their way out of speeding tickets IRL all the time, but they also fail to talk their way out of speeding tickets all the time.

"A good argument gets you out of it, and a bad argument sends you to jail" is a fine way to determine the outcome, but I honestly think "An amazing argument gets you out of it, a bad argument sends you to jail, and a normal argument we roll for" is more interesting.


In general I'd say you shouldn't roll to decide the outcome if you want there to be real focus on social interaction and persuasion at the same level that we put focus on combat. You could well roll (or just use a suite of abilities and social maneuvers, or just get it through conversation) to determine if the officer is in a hurry, or whether they seem to be enjoying making you suffer. And then that information could help you decide whether a quick apology would be a better way to get out of the ticket, or if you're going to need to playing along and display overt submission, or if there's some kind of way you can identify as part of the officer's circle of friends or interests. And perhaps the officer is going to be trying to read you at the same time, to tell if its genuine or looking for things to press you on or whatever.

For real social interactions it's not whether the argument is amazing, its whether the argument is aligned to the context. Does it speak to the person in front of you, not is it generally spoken well.

So that positions it as an encounter where you are using a limited amount of leeway and time to find your path to being able to identify a workable argument for this particular person in front of you, where your character's abilities may help you find that path more quickly or get additional time or whatever. But at the end of the day, the success or failure is based on whether the argument those abilities lead you to is actually something that, absent any kind of mechanical insistence or presentation details regarding eloquence, it would actually make sense for that character to accept.



This part I agree with. I do think though that the base level of effectiveness is different. In combat, if you don't have any ideas, you can just run up and attack. It's boring and less optimal, but it usually gets the job done. In social interactions, if the DM is the sole decider of success, I've never seen "I don't have any ideas, my character just tries to convince him" have a chance at success.


If you're fighting a flying monster and you just have melee, then 'I don't have any ideas, can I just stab it?' doesn't work either.

Fundamentally though, I think the important thing is: don't think of talking to someone like stabbing something with a sword. That attitude leads to the 'stab them before they open their mouth' conclusion. People talk with each-other because the majority of the time it ends up being better for both participants to have had the conversation than if one just walked away.