New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 244
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by NichG View Post
    I'm not sure it feels coercive to me unless the blocks can be cleared in ways that ignores their content (so maybe Fast Talk in particular is a concern), but it does have a faint lawyerly feel to it. Like, it could reduce to a lot of semantic arguments about how someone phrased their block, or whether someone properly thought out all contingencies and corner cases when defining their blocks.

    So e.g. let's say you want to protect yourself from the request 'kill your lover', so that under no circumstances will you do that. How would you phrase the blocks and how complicated would it need to be? How about if you want to protect yourself from 'if you don't kill X, I will kill Y' when you care about X and Y?

    Could someone have a block 'under no circumstances will I do something only because I'm asked to do it; I will listen, refuse, and then I may or may not independently decide to do it anyhow'? Would that be bypassed by honor?
    You don't need to phrase blocks in advance. They are done in reaction to someone else's course of action you don't want to go along with. You don't make a block about not killing your wife until someone tries to get you to kill her, and you might have several reasons why you wouldn't. You no longer like the person for suggesting it, you love your wife, it would destroy your life in your village, it would leave your children you love without a mother, and it would be dishonorable in your eyes.

    And even if you don't think about all those in the moment, you can add them on as you consider them. Now even then a person may work through all those blocks. "The world is ending, and everyone may die, but if you come and sacrifice your wife on this alter we have a chance to live. Talk with her about it. I wouldn't rob you of your last moments together whether you help or not. You can trust me, I'm an adventurer of great renown, famed for my honor. Without this sacrifice your children will die, but if you and your wife help us she'll be commemorated as a hero forever."

    But as a PC you'll need to be convinced to go along. Even if someone sounds honest, you can still say that what they are saying is too suspicious (and that would be your block).

    As for your last suggestion, a character could be like that, but if they never went along with any suggestions, they couldn't function in a party. Think of how hard it would be if you could never agree to do something if someone else wanted it. Like you can't get up in the morning because your wife wants you to get up. You can't converse with her because she wants to talk about the day. You can't accept food, because someone wants to give it to you.

    That type of character would be really neat as an alien intelligence, and could be defeated by clever players 'please don't kill yourself!'

    Thankfully, as blocks are reactive, you don't need to go that far to be a curmudgeon that doesn't work well with others if that's what you want to play.

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    You don't need to phrase blocks in advance. They are done in reaction to someone else's course of action you don't want to go along with. You don't make a block about not killing your wife until someone tries to get you to kill her, and you might have several reasons why you wouldn't. You no longer like the person for suggesting it, you love your wife, it would destroy your life in your village, it would leave your children you love without a mother, and it would be dishonorable in your eyes.

    And even if you don't think about all those in the moment, you can add them on as you consider them. Now even then a person may work through all those blocks. "The world is ending, and everyone may die, but if you come and sacrifice your wife on this alter we have a chance to live. Talk with her about it. I wouldn't rob you of your last moments together whether you help or not. You can trust me, I'm an adventurer of great renown, famed for my honor. Without this sacrifice your children will die, but if you and your wife help us she'll be commemorated as a hero forever."

    But as a PC you'll need to be convinced to go along. Even if someone sounds honest, you can still say that what they are saying is too suspicious (and that would be your block).
    In that case it sounds like you could always add the block 'I've decided not to do it' at any point, which isn't a point of logic or trust so it can't really be bypassed except via favors. Also if you can add blocks on the fly as you like, favors don't seem to do anything.

    Which basically seems to turn it into the default 'character decides' system. Which is actually the system I'm generally in favor of, but doesn't sound like what you're trying to do...

    If rather than seeing it as a resolution system, you look at this as a way to compactly communicate an NPC's decision process to the players, I think it's fine. It just seems to break down if you start to treat it as a game where 'choosing your blocks' is an action that can be taken.

    As for your last suggestion, a character could be like that, but if they never went along with any suggestions, they couldn't function in a party. Think of how hard it would be if you could never agree to do something if someone else wanted it. Like you can't get up in the morning because your wife wants you to get up. You can't converse with her because she wants to talk about the day. You can't accept food, because someone wants to give it to you.
    That's why I put the 'decide independently' bit. Someone asks me to get up in the morning: 'I won't do it because you said so, but I'm deciding to get up on my own now'. So a character that comes off as a jerk, but still functional.

    It's like telling a salesman 'I'm going to sleep on it' before making a purchase decision.

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    I'm growing more and more convinced that the suspicion, distrust, and outright fear of social "combat"/consequences says more about the playerbase than any mechanics. I'm of the impression that because of the following core motivations, large numbers of players will rationalize just about any argument against social outcomes. The logic has nothing to do with it, any more than it did some wise man constructing elaborate proofs of their chosen ideology. The culture and motivations are everything.

    1. Many players would rather lose the game than power or agency. The same people who would rather have a PC die than surrender, or lose equipment, or any theoretically lesser punishment that somehow impacts their power fantasy, they're the ones who hate the idea that someone could through deception, persuasion, or charm take away decisions. To them, dying to fireball is fair because they got to swing all the way down, but being persuaded to make a decision they didn't want to is unfair...

    2. Many players have a distinct fear of ambiguity in outcomes. Social outcomes, almost by definition, are going to be ambigious. Where combat is both mechanistically rigid and in many systems has a very clear 0/1 state, social systems would struggle to be. So if you're the kind of player who thinks the that table trust is ensured by defined mechanics for whatever reason - you don't trust your GM, you have a fear of being unfairly treated by the system - then you almost by definition will not trust a system which requires other people's judgement to the degree social outcomes do. You will always fear the extreme outcome.

    3. Many players probably aren't that good at being social to begin with. Let's face it, at least 49% of us should be below average at social skills IRL. And if you find this to be a source of frustration and limitation, man, you aren't going to want it in your power fantasy. And you're more likely to be suspicious of it.

    4. Many players wildly overestimate peoples ability to remain uninfluenced by other people - or as an extension of power fantasy, believe people are far more logical than they are. In both life and fiction, people are flattered, cajoled, persuaded ,pressured, charmed, seduced, and decieved pretty routinely into making objectively bad decisions. Despite the clear and overwhelming tendency for this, we routinely have a blindside where we believe it wouldn't happen to us. Players are either misestimat ing outcomes because of personal involvement, or just don't like the idea that their avatars might act illogically as part of their power fantasy. And since by definition a range of outcomes means sometimes taking a sub optimal one you didn't choose...

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by KineticDiplomat View Post
    I'm growing more and more convinced that the suspicion, distrust, and outright fear of social "combat"/consequences says more about the playerbase than any mechanics. I'm of the impression that because of the following core motivations, large numbers of players will rationalize just about any argument against social outcomes. The logic has nothing to do with it, any more than it did some wise man constructing elaborate proofs of their chosen ideology. The culture and motivations are everything.

    1. Many players would rather lose the game than power or agency. The same people who would rather have a PC die than surrender, or lose equipment, or any theoretically lesser punishment that somehow impacts their power fantasy, they're the ones who hate the idea that someone could through deception, persuasion, or charm take away decisions. To them, dying to fireball is fair because they got to swing all the way down, but being persuaded to make a decision they didn't want to is unfair...

    2. Many players have a distinct fear of ambiguity in outcomes. Social outcomes, almost by definition, are going to be ambigious. Where combat is both mechanistically rigid and in many systems has a very clear 0/1 state, social systems would struggle to be. So if you're the kind of player who thinks the that table trust is ensured by defined mechanics for whatever reason - you don't trust your GM, you have a fear of being unfairly treated by the system - then you almost by definition will not trust a system which requires other people's judgement to the degree social outcomes do. You will always fear the extreme outcome.

    3. Many players probably aren't that good at being social to begin with. Let's face it, at least 49% of us should be below average at social skills IRL. And if you find this to be a source of frustration and limitation, man, you aren't going to want it in your power fantasy. And you're more likely to be suspicious of it.

    4. Many players wildly overestimate peoples ability to remain uninfluenced by other people - or as an extension of power fantasy, believe people are far more logical than they are. In both life and fiction, people are flattered, cajoled, persuaded ,pressured, charmed, seduced, and decieved pretty routinely into making objectively bad decisions. Despite the clear and overwhelming tendency for this, we routinely have a blindside where we believe it wouldn't happen to us. Players are either misestimat ing outcomes because of personal involvement, or just don't like the idea that their avatars might act illogically as part of their power fantasy. And since by definition a range of outcomes means sometimes taking a sub optimal one you didn't choose...
    Of course the culture and attitudes of players matter.

    How even would one construct a logical argument for or against social mechanics without any reference to matters of preference or values? Logic only begins to be usable once a goal and context are stated, and logic only becomes the sole consideration if those things are unanimously agreed upon.

    Anything about realism or mechanics reflecting reality? Well, how much to prioritize realism vs internal consistency vs gameplay feel vs fantasy is a values choice.

    Anything about who can participate at the table? Everyone has their own group of players with their own preferences there.

    A good part of these sorts of discussions comes down to exposing people to different points of view more than to debating points of logic. There's something which one viewpoint assumes another viewpoint should be satisfied with, so people holding that view propose it. Then people of that other viewpoint find the things which they react negatively to and explain those things, at which point the first people either understand a bit more or they don't see it or they spot something inherent to the other view that they can't swallow and the discussion spirals off from there.

    The product of internet debates is rarely conversion. Sometimes it'll reveal minor points which are unnecessary to core things which people will let go of. But I think enabling us to build better mental models of ourselves and of each other is usually the most productive outcome we can hope for. We can clarify our stances and better explicitly understand what particular aspects of things we like or dislike.

    But 'I logic'd best, now people will run games my way' isn't going to happen.

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by KineticDiplomat View Post
    Many players wildly overestimate peoples ability to remain uninfluenced by other people - or as an extension of power fantasy, believe people are far more logical than they are.
    I've seen this point before, and from a scientific POV it's reasonable - mind-body duality isn't really a thing, and people's "self" is less sharply defined and more malleable than we'd like it to be.

    However - this isn't a "silly gamers, acting like they're Vulcans" thing. It's how our society and legal system operates!

    Q: What do you call someone who was socially manipulated into committing murder?
    A: A murderer.

    Both in a legal sense and - in the opinion of many people - a moral sense. "I was manipulated into it" is not generally considered an excuse the way "someone picked up my unconscious body and used that to bludgeon people" or "I had a totally unexpected seizure and lost control of the car" are.

    In both life and fiction, people are flattered, cajoled, persuaded ,pressured, charmed, seduced, and decieved pretty routinely into making objectively bad decisions.
    And those people are often judged, hard, on those decisions.

    But what if the player wants a story of ****ing up, doing bad things, accepting that, and trying to find redemption? Then great, facilitate players who want to have that arc - rather than assigning it randomly to players who don't.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-01-16 at 08:06 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    I recalled I'd been tourist to Paris about 8-9 years ago. Got a street con run on me, would have worked if I hadn't been with someone who knew the cons. Later I got to watch the hustlers work the crowds. Yeah, its a bit creepy that some people can walk up to someone they don't know & walk off ten minutes later with a wad of cash in hand.

    So ya, D&D 3.5 diplomancer stuff is nuts but its not an actual social conflict mechanic. The actual conflict systems that have thought & work in them I'm cool with. I find that they also help the less socially adept players be more than lumps on a log in the game's talky encounters.

    I do find the argument "i don't have physical combat xp so i use combat systems but do have social skills so don't want social combat systems in games" a bit weird. Does that mean those people would be down for using thier RL combat skills to adjucate fights with a DM who is a combat veteran? Why is it that so often plysical conflicts get a rules structure but nothing else does?

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lacco's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Slovakia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    I recalled I'd been tourist to Paris about 8-9 years ago. Got a street con run on me, would have worked if I hadn't been with someone who knew the cons. Later I got to watch the hustlers work the crowds. Yeah, its a bit creepy that some people can walk up to someone they don't know & walk off ten minutes later with a wad of cash in hand.

    So ya, D&D 3.5 diplomancer stuff is nuts but its not an actual social conflict mechanic. The actual conflict systems that have thought & work in them I'm cool with. I find that they also help the less socially adept players be more than lumps on a log in the game's talky encounters.

    I do find the argument "i don't have physical combat xp so i use combat systems but do have social skills so don't want social combat systems in games" a bit weird. Does that mean those people would be down for using thier RL combat skills to adjucate fights with a DM who is a combat veteran? Why is it that so often plysical conflicts get a rules structure but nothing else does?
    Two main reasons come up to my mind.

    1. Everybody thinks they know how social skills work in RL.
    2. There is a social stigma related to not being able to control one's character (losing the control) - most of us had the RL experience of embarrasment, got tongue-tied, pushed around by more socially adept folks. This experience is not something most of folks want to relive in the fantasy world.

    Put these two together. Most folks would rather have their character dead in honorable combat than being laughed at at a court.
    Call me Laco or Ladislav (if you need to be formal). Avatar comes from the talented linklele.
    Formerly GMing: Riddle of Steel: Soldiers of Fortune

    Quote Originally Posted by Kol Korran View Post
    Instead of having an adventure, from which a cool unexpected story may rise, you had a story, with an adventure built and designed to enable the story, but also ensure (or close to ensure) it happens.

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Does that mean those people would be down for using thier RL combat skills to adjucate fights with a DM who is a combat veteran?
    Yes. Literally how revised and free Kriegsspiel were meant to work. This idea's older than, and served as precursor to, tabletop roleplaying and the concept of a game master. The idea was introduced because mechanical simulation of battlefield conditions on the tabletop was found to be real slow and unwieldy.

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Theoboldi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lacco View Post
    Two main reasons come up to my mind.

    1. Everybody thinks they know how social skills work in RL.
    2. There is a social stigma related to not being able to control one's character (losing the control) - most of us had the RL experience of embarrasment, got tongue-tied, pushed around by more socially adept folks. This experience is not something most of folks want to relive in the fantasy world.

    Put these two together. Most folks would rather have their character dead in honorable combat than being laughed at at a court.
    There's also the third factor that most social mechanics are in fact a very bad representation of what being manipulated or made to look foolish in real life actually look like, and go way overboard in what they allow. Sure, it's possible to fast-talk someone and make them go along with something before they have time to think it over, but most irl scams and manipulations for instance revolve around exploiting existing vulnerabilities, lack of knowledge, social expectations in a way that just isn't handled well by the more basic forms of social mechanics.

    As a result, the outcomes of such mechanics, especially if they are negative for the player characters, can feel very arbitrary to the players themselves. Especially when the person at the other end of the table does not have the ability to describe the opposing side's actions in an immediate manner that makes it sound sensible that the player character should fall for their words, it then causes a disconnect in the fiction.


    Further, consider that a character's decision making and choices are the most universal and basic parts of roleplaying in a traditional roleplaying game. Any social combat system or even just social system that has the potential to influence what a player character does will take away this fundamental gameplay agency. It, for a moment, removes a fundamental part of the game in a way that can feel very much not fun.
    Always look for white text. Always.
    That's how you do it! Have a cookie!
    Quote Originally Posted by ezekielraiden View Post
    You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

    You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Yes. Literally how revised and free Kriegsspiel were meant to work. This idea's older than, and served as precursor to, tabletop roleplaying and the concept of a game master. The idea was introduced because mechanical simulation of battlefield conditions on the tabletop was found to be real slow and unwieldy.
    Great. I know a couple vets you can have fist fights with when you want to find out if your paladin can smite an orc. Because what's being suggested in this thread isn't "find a recognized expert in <thing> to referee a high level abstract <thing> teaching game". The statements come across as "games shouldn't have noncombat conflict resolution because the DM and players already know everything they need to know".

    Thinking about it... something I've noticed on forums is an increasing trend towards people saying that games shouldn't have rules or systems for things outside combat because the poster is already making up thier own rules or systems for those things. Or they deride any noncombat systems as "too one-size-fits-all" with no consideration that thier beloved combat system is one-size-fits-all where all forms of combat are treated as working the same way and having the same results.

    Whats missing of course is that the vast majority of games aren't written for experts who have the experience & knowledge to ad-hoc anything they might need. Just as some people don't feel they can adjucate a sword duel from thier personal experiences others don't feel that they can run a good diplomatic, locked room puzzle, or dangerous exploration scene from thier personal experiences.

    That's really where I think these conflict resolution systems are useful. As a set of guides for general abstraction of a type of conflict for those who don't want to free form it or write thier own systems. Like I did some research into human perception (really only about 2 weeks spare time looking up old military research on spotting & I.D.ing) to come up with a perception & stealth system. Unless a game has a better & more specific implementation I'll just use mine, but I'm not going to say that games shouldn't have those systems for people who don't want to do thier own work.

  11. - Top - End - #221
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoboldi View Post
    There's also the third factor that most social mechanics are in fact a very bad representation of what being manipulated or made to look foolish in real life actually look like, and go way overboard in what they allow.
    I think this is definitely a factor. I've seen people argue that you cannot create good social mechanics and their argument is basically to point at D&D and say "look how bad these mechanics are". The other main argument seems to assume you will have one set of mechanics for all social interactions. To me, that seems like running a food race or a soccer/football game in D&D's combat system.

    Speaking of which the social mechanics I have enjoyed tend to be very narrow and focused on a particular situation, and they will usually set boundaries that make sense. Like rules that only handle when you threaten someone and only kick in if you have a threat to make.

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by KineticDiplomat View Post
    I'm growing more and more convinced that the suspicion, distrust, and outright fear of social "combat"/consequences says more about the playerbase than any mechanics.
    In a nutshell, yes. (Good post all around)
    As Pogo once said "we have met the enemy and he is us"
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Great. I know a couple vets you can have fist fights with when you want to find out if your paladin can smite an orc.
    Play fighting to solve character conflicts continues to be mundane in the realm of live-action roleplaying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok
    Because what's being suggested in this thread isn't "find a recognized expert in <thing> to referee a high level abstract <thing> teaching game".
    I've suggested getting a manual on genuine social skills in this thread, in a direct reply to you. Thanks for paying attention. The actual point of my last reply to YOU was that YOU were suggesting that and I felt compelled to point out that people have done and continue to do this. It is entirely mundane course of action. Nothing weird about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok
    The statements come across as "games shouldn't have noncombat conflict resolution because the DM and players already know everything they need to know".
    The actual argument concerning social skills is that you need them to gather and maintain a playgroup. Use and develop skills you've already demonstrated and required to have, instead of something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok
    Thinking about it... something I've noticed on forums is an increasing trend towards people saying that games shouldn't have rules or systems for things outside combat because the poster is already making up thier own rules or systems for those things.
    Sure, it is silly to argue some game designer shouldn't include rules for a thing because one already has a different game about that thing. There is a non-silly, non-straw version of this argument though, which can be phrased as a question: "who needs that thing?"

    Given kids who've yet to learn to read, write or do math can often navigate and resolve social conflicts on their own while playing pretend, it's a fair question as far as social skills go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok
    Or they deride any noncombat systems as "too one-size-fits-all" with no consideration that thier beloved combat system is one-size-fits-all where all forms of combat are treated as working the same way and having the same results.
    That's a byproduct of arguing from examples - which is not a surprise, given common examples of non-combat systems ARE deliberately designed as one-roll-fits-all generic systems with even less detail and variation than D&D combat. The only way out of that rut is to provide examples of quality from outside that paradigm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok
    Whats missing of course is that the vast majority of games aren't written for experts who have the experience & knowledge to ad-hoc anything they might need. Just as some people don't feel they can adjucate a sword duel from thier personal experiences others don't feel that they can run a good diplomatic, locked room puzzle, or dangerous exploration scene from thier personal experiences.
    Far more important is that the most popular games aren't written BY experts, which means their rules are just codification of how their non-expert designers would adjucate those things - entirely within capability of a practiced amateur to out-perform. The only thing tabletop game designers typically have over individual game masters is ability to be confidently wrong about a lot of things at once.

    The joke then comes a full circle when you go ask an expert and they answer "trying to simulate this numerically would be very slow and difficult on the tabletop, it's better to do your homework and then use your real knowledge to plug the holes of a simpler game". Which is what the Kriegsspiel example demonstrates.

    Which comes back to the point that a game book could just be or include real advice on social skills. Just like your example of perception could be replicated by putting that genuine military research and rules-of-thumb in a game book.

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The actual argument concerning social skills is that you need them to gather and maintain a playgroup. Use and develop skills you've already demonstrated and required to have, instead of something else.
    I'm not convinced that takes social skills as much as organizational skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Far more important is that the most popular games aren't written BY experts, which means their rules are just codification of how their non-expert designers would adjucate those things - entirely within capability of a practiced amateur to out-perform. The only thing tabletop game designers typically have over individual game masters is ability to be confidently wrong about a lot of things at once.

    The joke then comes a full circle when you go ask an expert and they answer "trying to simulate this numerically would be very slow and difficult on the tabletop, it's better to do your homework and then use your real knowledge to plug the holes of a simpler game". Which is what the Kriegsspiel example demonstrates.

    Which comes back to the point that a game book could just be or include real advice on social skills. Just like your example of perception could be replicated by putting that genuine military research and rules-of-thumb in a game book.
    I actually agree with this, mostly/sorta?

    Like, in general I think that this is really an argument in favor of rulings-not-rules, which absolutely can be applied to social situations. That doesn't mean you can't still have some level of social mechanics in play if you want, just that even if you do, it probably makes more sense to leave a lot in the "GM judgement" realm and just use the mechanics mostly to resolve areas of uncertainty.

    Or, to put it slightly differently, if you're going to have social mechanics, I'd prefer:

    1. Fairly lightweight mechanics, mostly around resolving uncertainty
    2. Clear, result-based actions
    3. Strong guidance on how to use the mechanics, what preconditions exist for hte various mechanics, limiting results, pacing, etc.

    Coming up with a full mathematical model for human interaction seems........ ambitious, to say the least. Making one that can be effectively used at a tabletop seems unlikely.
    Last edited by kyoryu; 2022-01-18 at 11:30 AM.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Organizational skills are social skills, especially when you're dealing with small groups in person. I'm genuinely mystified what you think the distinction is.

  16. - Top - End - #226
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Organizational skills are social skills, especially when you're dealing with small groups in person. I'm genuinely mystified what you think the distinction is.
    They are a subset of social skills.

    Empathy is a social skill, and has nothing to do with organization. Very little negotiation is part of organization, apart from things like scheduling (which tends to be the easy negotiation bits). Very little of the "soft" parts of social skills are exercised with organization.

    Also, the premise of "GMs can organize a game, therefore they have good social skills" is pretty quickly disproven by the number of GMs that can get a group together, but have horrible social skills (outside of said organizational skills, if you want to include those in the umbrella).
    Last edited by kyoryu; 2022-01-18 at 01:02 PM.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    stuff
    So, I didn't read your post. Over the last few years I stopped reading any post that chops everything up into individual sentences like that. I've found them to be pointless rants that try to pick out sound bites to agonize over without engaging the actual communication.

    I'm sorry but those sorts of posts just signal a complete communication & comprehension failure to me.

  18. - Top - End - #228
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    I've talked about that kind of people earlier in this thread, the reply is the same: groups gathered by such people are not stable without improving their social skills. At best, you can move tasks of managing group social relations to a player other than the game master. Either way, don't confuse minimum bar to pass with good. The skills required to hold a functioning game and playgroup are much lower than skills required to hold a high-quality game and playgroup. The point is that using and developing those skills is how you get better.

    ---

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    So, I didn't read your post. Over the last few years I stopped reading any post that chops everything up into individual sentences like that. I've found them to be pointless rants that try to pick out sound bites to agonize over without engaging the actual communication.

    I'm sorry but those sorts of posts just signal a complete communication & comprehension failure to me.
    If you don't actually read my posts, you can say nothing of worth about what they signal.
    Last edited by Vahnavoi; 2022-01-18 at 01:52 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #229
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    I've talked about that kind of people earlier in this thread, the reply is the same: groups gathered by such people are not stable without improving their social skills. At best, you can move tasks of managing group social relations to a player other than the game master. Either way, don't confuse minimum bar to pass with good. The skills required to hold a functioning game and playgroup are much lower than skills required to hold a high-quality game and playgroup. The point is that using and developing those skills is how you get better.
    Clearly, and no argument involved with any of that.

    I don't buy that it's an argument that you shouldn't have social mechanics. I do agree that social mechanics are best left fairly light, though.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    If you go way back in this thread, you'll find examples of social mechanics given by me. The real point was that mechanics can be made in such a way that they facilitate a player using what social and acting skills they do have, instead of replacing those with skills in math and probability.

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    If you go way back in this thread, you'll find examples of social mechanics given by me. The real point was that mechanics can be made in such a way that they facilitate a player using what social and acting skills they do have, instead of replacing those with skills in math and probability.
    Its not that I don't read you (or anyone specifically) posts, its that I've lost all faith in that style of post that chops everything up into disjointed sound bites.

    And I think our core goal is pretty similar. I like mechanics that help the player run the character in line with the fiction. If the fiction of the character (PC or NPC) is that they're suave & charming or gullible & trusting then I prefer that there be something to show that instead of having to rely totally on player social skills.

    It just doesn't feel... nice? fair? ...for a system to tell someone they can play a charming & persuasive character (or a skilled combatant, or a nimble thief, etc., etc.) but then deny all the character abilities & fiction by saying the player has to RL have all the skills & talent in order to succeed at the appropriate tasks. So I think that a social combat subsystem is just one if a games' uncertainty resolution subsystems, to be used when & as is appropriate for that game to match it's fiction.

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    And I think our core goal is pretty similar. I like mechanics that help the player run the character in line with the fiction. If the fiction of the character (PC or NPC) is that they're suave & charming or gullible & trusting then I prefer that there be something to show that instead of having to rely totally on player social skills.

    It just doesn't feel... nice? fair? ...for a system to tell someone they can play a charming & persuasive character (or a skilled combatant, or a nimble thief, etc., etc.) but then deny all the character abilities & fiction by saying the player has to RL have all the skills & talent in order to succeed at the appropriate tasks.
    You don't get better at something by not doing it. Giving the player too large of a crutch encourages non growth of that (social) skill area. That's a disservice to the player.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-01-18 at 05:13 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    You don't get better at something by not doing it. Giving the player too large of a crutch encourages non growth of that (social) skill area. That's a disservice to the player.
    I can guarantee you I am no better at swinging a sword than I was when I started playing 2E. I was at a DM's wedding and we held up real swords for him and his bride to walk under. It was quite heavy for me. I was relieved when they finally passed, and I could put my arm down.

    There is a point to a player should say something to convey how or what his character says and does instead of just "I use persuasion on him", but the player is not his character. The player does not have to demonstrate swinging a sword or casting a spell. He doesn't need to demonstrate a performance.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  24. - Top - End - #234
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    I can guarantee you I am no better at swinging a sword than I was when I started playing 2E.
    Irrelevant to the conversation at hand. I am referring to role playing. you don't swing a sword during play, it's too dangerous, but talking isn't dangerous and talking is how you play make believe.
    Put another way, you just did the guy at the gym fallacy.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-01-18 at 05:41 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Irrelevant to the conversation at hand. I am referring to role playing. you don't swing a sword during play, it's too dangerous, but talking isn't dangerous and talking is how you play make believe.
    Put another way, you just did the guy at the gym fallacy.
    Not at all. Guy At The Gym is irrelevant to the point. The point is the real person playing at the table. You don't demand of him to show the DM his ability to swing a sword or cast a spell, but such a player may still play the best warrior or spellcaster of the land. By that same measure you don't demand the player to make up and recite a soliloquy to play the most suave ladies' man of the land if that's what he wants his character to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Its not that I don't read you (or anyone specifically) posts, its that I've lost all faith in that style of post that chops everything up into disjointed sound bites.
    Not only do they tend to be nitpicky posts that miss the larger point of the post, but even when they don't they are just harder to follow. Like there is a cycle you have to go through to read and understand a quote and its response over and above all the words. I just find posts with a lot of quotes harder to read and follow than one with few or none.

    To KorvinStarmast: While I am on the subject, I have found some of your "collage" posts pretty unreadable because of that (they usually aren't nitpicky though). Just a bit of feedback.

  27. - Top - End - #237
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    Not only do they tend to be nitpicky posts that miss the larger point of the post, but even when they don't they are just harder to follow. Like there is a cycle you have to go through to read and understand a quote and its response over and above all the words. I just find posts with a lot of quotes harder to read and follow than one with few or none.

    To KorvinStarmast: While I am on the subject, I have found some of your "collage" posts pretty unreadable because of that (they usually aren't nitpicky though). Just a bit of feedback.
    I agree with this. Although I'm guilty of it sometimes.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Its not that I don't read you (or anyone specifically) posts, its that I've lost all faith in that style of post that chops everything up into disjointed sound bites.

    And I think our core goal is pretty similar. I like mechanics that help the player run the character in line with the fiction. If the fiction of the character (PC or NPC) is that they're suave & charming or gullible & trusting then I prefer that there be something to show that instead of having to rely totally on player social skills.

    It just doesn't feel... nice? fair? ...for a system to tell someone they can play a charming & persuasive character (or a skilled combatant, or a nimble thief, etc., etc.) but then deny all the character abilities & fiction by saying the player has to RL have all the skills & talent in order to succeed at the appropriate tasks. So I think that a social combat subsystem is just one if a games' uncertainty resolution subsystems, to be used when & as is appropriate for that game to match it's fiction.
    Who says that systems have to present a 'charming and persuasive' character as a promised archetype in the first place? It feels like there's a lot of circular arguments around this point. If the point in question is whether to put social combat in a system, then assuming that the system would still present 'social combatant' archetypes, have things to invest in for social combat, etc if the answer is determined to be 'let's not put social combat into this system' doesn't make any sense.

    I guess what I've been arguing for is a deeper change, not even just to details of mechanics but fundamentally even to how we think about the fiction of characters who socialize.

    Mechanics aside, I would not support 'character who navigates social interactions in a combatative way to consistently get what they want' as being a viable fictional archetype at all.

    If you want to have a suave and charming archetype, what they're doing should be fundamentally different fiction than conflict. The system should not encourage the player to think about those characteristics in a conflict-based mindset at all.

    In other words, don't tell players at any level - mechanics or fiction - that being suave and charming is about getting other characters to do what you say.

    Instead, make it about being memorable to other characters, having favors and kindnesses stick in people's minds more and negative rumors stick less. Have it be about more easily avoiding conversational snags, being better able to show only the parts of yourself you want to display, better able to avoid topics or shift the flow of conversation without being overt. To appear as a member of any social class and to pass all the subconscious tests like accents, cultural references, reacting authentically to sudden events, etc. To be able to understand what people want, where opinions stand and where they're eager to go, what rumors will stick and fester and what rumors won't suit the public's palate.

    And if those abilities aren't hard and fast enough for the kind of action the rest of the game assumes, make it explicitly clear that these are at best ribbon features and won't be enough on their own to form a viable character concept. Or just don't put that stuff in at all. Don't put core stats for it, don't put expensive abilities or skills around it. Just say 'if you want to act suave and charming, that's a fluff choice on your part that has nothing to do with the system'
    Last edited by NichG; 2022-01-18 at 11:04 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #239
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by NichG View Post
    Who says that systems have to present a 'charming and persuasive' character as a promised archetype in the first place? It feels like there's a lot of circular arguments around this point...

    Mechanics aside, I would not support 'character who navigates social interactions in a combatative way to consistently get what they want' as being a viable fictional archetype at all.

    If you want to have a suave and charming archetype, what they're doing should be fundamentally different fiction than conflict.
    Well there's the valid question of if you want to present 'strong and healthy' as a promised archetype too. If you're writing a new game and want to keep all the mental & social bits of a character out of the mechanics so theres just the physical stuff thats nice, or you could write one that just does social stuff and keeps all the physical action purely in the player skill area. That might be really interesting.

    But for the games that do present "charming & persuasive" as an archtype, and do have the social stats & skills, I'm happier if they have some not-terrible structures for the bits of the game where they come into play. I don't think I've ever advocated for all systems doing social stuff and requiring support for every possible archtype.

    Your issue with social "combat" is probably mostly framing. Sort of like you shouldn't normally use the physical combat systems for races or lock picking, so you shouldn't normally use social combat for seduction or haggling. Part of the issue there is some subsystems labeled 'social combat' are broader than just the 'combat' bit and others that are just the combat bit are being misused when you try to do all social activities with them. When to use social combat is probably like asking when to roll physical combat initative, you can get bunches of wildly different answers for slightly different use cases.

  30. - Top - End - #240
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Gaming Religion Crisis of Faith III - Social Combat (vs HP)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    Not at all. Guy At The Gym is irrelevant to the point. The point is the real person playing at the table. You don't demand of him to show the DM his ability to swing a sword or cast a spell, but such a player may still play the best warrior or spellcaster of the land. By that same measure you don't demand the player to make up and recite a soliloquy to play the most suave ladies' man of the land if that's what he wants his character to be.
    This continues to be false. Each game sets its own demands for what is required to play a character. If you go into a live-action game, you don't get to play any kind of swordsman if you're unwilling or unable to pick up a fake sword and do some play fighting. A tabletop game not demanding that is a function of being a tabletop game, not of being a roleplaying game. Swordfighting and social skills don't measure the same because they're different skills with different physical requirements and thus different viability for being implemented at the tabletop.

    Yes, this goes for magic too. Ironically enough, actual magical practices have involved such things as rolling dice, drawing cards, moving pieces on a board and speaking words in a different language or as if you're someone else. You could include such practices in a game wholesale - such games exist, the reasons why they aren't mainstream visible, especially on this forum, are purely cultural.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •