Social Systems: What are they supposed to do?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

Almaz wrote:... if you want people to wear purple, sure?
The entire question of social mechanics goals is What do you want to motivate? Followed up with Wait, why the hell would you want to motivate that? The purple example is supposed to demonstrate to you the existence of other modifiers is not an argument in defense of the stupid outcomes caused by stupid modifiers. You seem not to have grasped that.

"The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend" is one of the most laughably failed trap proverbs in it's something like 2400 year history. It's success to failure ratio is abysmal. Believing it isn't something you should be motivating or weighting your game outcomes on trust towards.

No more so than you should be attempting to make it actually true in your game outcomes.

And I will note that in a trust type mechanic the "Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend" modifier would generally result in it going both ways, thus actually effecting the behaviour of both parties, and have the very real danger of not just making characters believe it is true, but actually making it true in the game world.

That's all kinds of ass and I don't care what imaginary high school dynamics you want to pretend excuse it.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Almaz
Knight
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:55 pm

Post by Almaz »

PhoneLobster wrote:The entire question of social mechanics goals is What do you want to motivate? Followed up with Wait, why the hell would you want to motivate that? The purple example is supposed to demonstrate to you the existence of other modifiers is not an argument in defense of the stupid outcomes caused by stupid modifiers. You seem not to have grasped that.
No, I totally got what you were saying. That's what I'm saying, though. If you want to motivate people to do things to piss off X group so they get in good with Y group, then you do that. If you assign a bonus to wearing purple, you get everyone to wear purple. If you want them to wear a duck on their head, then assign a bonus to it and you will jolly well see the rise of the mallard-crested overlords. D&D, long ago, made up different damage dice for weapons partially because everyone was using knives instead of swords. Prak wants to motivate this, so he dropped a bonus in.
PhoneLobster wrote:"The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend" is one of the most laughably failed trap proverbs in it's something like 2400 year history. It's success to failure ratio is abysmal. Believing it isn't something you should be motivating or weighting your game outcomes on trust towards.
Just because a con has been running for 2000+ years doesn't make the con less effective. See: organized religion. DO HO HO!
PhoneLobster wrote:No more so than you should be attempting to make it actually true in your game outcomes.
I dunno, if you want people to behave like irrational dicks (which a lot of people are) instead of perfectly rational Lobsterdroids, then you should totally go in for it. I mean, if I was running something more Game of Thrones-y, I probably would make it by default not true, so people mistrust each other constantly and there's no real way to earn anyone's trust, but "acting to spite X to get in with Y" is certainly a common test of loyalty in our real world, so I don't think it's unprecedented. Though I will grant that usually Y demands it as an act of fealty, instead of spiting X naturally gaining you Y's favor. But still.
PhoneLobster wrote:And I will note that in a trust type mechanic the "Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend" modifier would generally result in it go both ways, thus actually effecting the behaviour of both parties, and have the very real danger of not just making characters believe it is true, but actually making it true.

That's all kinds of ass and I don't care what imaginary high school dynamics you want to pretend excuse it.
If... you want that dynamic in your game, you plop down a mechanical incentive for it. Prak does. PhoneLobsters, apparently, do not. Your distaste for cherry and preference for grape (apparently) does not mean that other people should not include cherry filling in their games. It just means PhoneLobsters should not eat them. Which, fortunately, no one has even invited you to do so!
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

Almaz wrote:No, I totally got what you were saying.
Then your position, and ENTIRE defense of Prak's small, but bad choice right there is pretty much just "Utterly any goal is OK, and while I am at it, analysis consequences be damned to boot! No discussion for you! Everyone shut up, nothing is a wrong choice!"

It is a fucking shitty argument to make in defense of anything, and I will note exactly the sort of argument that leads directly to shitty social mechanics with inexplicable goals that generate "unexpected" stupid outcomes.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Almaz
Knight
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:55 pm

Post by Almaz »

It's simply that if the consequence of your decision is in fact your goal, then you are making a correct decision. And honestly you've done nothing other than back up Prak's decision by citing years of policy history and entire genres where the idea appears and is used heavily.

I mean, fuck, have you actually paid attention to political history? The thing you're citing as a supposed counterpoint? The failures of the US administration are not considering the enemy of our enemy as a friend, generally. We totally gangbanged the Germans with Russia. When we raised militias to take out various dictators, they fucking fought for us. The failure is failing to realize that in a world of shifting alliances, the enemy of my enemy is my friend... only as long as both of those people are enemies. Or uhm, as long as we're paying the mercenaries. And that is the chicken that has come home to roost, several times.

Speaking of, I direct your attention to the following:
Image
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

Almaz wrote:It's simply that if the consequence of your decision is in fact your goal, then you are making a correct decision. And honestly you've done nothing other than back up Prak's decision by citing years of policy history and entire genres where the idea appears and is used heavily.
No... the historical precedent IS that the enemy of your enemy really ISN'T your friend. People, including your players know this and will be offended when their characters have to be as laughably stupid as, well, US foreign policy. And this isn't just a "stupidity modifier" this is a fucking "Fuck you Todd you smart ass, your genius character gets pushed over the failure line by this modifier because EVERYONE believes this stupid shit" modifier. That is a bad outcome. Even within the domain of the borderline Fairy Tea Party infinite list of infinite modifiers design space that is a bad outcome.

And the practical outcome of Prak's plans isn't just that people will falsely believe the enemy of the enemy to be friends it literally will make actually behave as friends. Very probably without some significant clarifications on duration or end states for the benefit, actually BEING your friends, indefinitely.

The further game play issues generated from the outcome include that everyone gets the bonus because everyone is enemies with bad guy house/everyone else. That's just what "Enemy of My Enemy is my Friend" bonus becomes in either harry potter town or ANY sort of complex factional setup, a ubiquitous bonus that might as well be "the new zero" or "the OTHER additional less well advertised flat penalty for being from bad guy house" only we all know the numbers never considered that.

But no, you go "hey people have been saying this for a long time and the USA (famed genius nation) keeps making this mistake? FUCK IT, MUST BE RITE! PERFECT FIT FOR AN RPG GAME TOO FOR no reason."

It seems you are, to put it simply, remarkably dense. Which is unsurprising for someone that just moments ago attempted the "Opinions cannot be criticized" argument with some of that there pig lipstick stuck on it.

edit: Actually looking more closely at the history of "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend" the "proverb" appears to have only really entered it's current form during the cold war. Which is rather ironic. But also my favorite bit is the guy who is attributed with the "original" form of the stupid thing, which is actually more about national borders and adjacency of kingdoms, was very possibly apparently burned to death by his Enemy, the Friend of his Friend.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Almaz
Knight
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:55 pm

Post by Almaz »

I'm not sure what more you want than "mutual enemies creates combined military action from both parties" in order for proof that it totally is a strategic decision and motivation that people act on -- no matter how stupid that decision might be in the long term. Fuck, just a few short months ago self-proclaimed gamers were allying with motherfucking Jack Thompson because he opposed some people they disliked. Sure, it results in some totally boneheaded behavior but a myth repeated enough times becomes true... or at least, "true" enough for humans to behave that way. Humans are dumb motherfuckers.

And again, if the goal is to make that happen, to making people unite in disdain for Nerd House or Bad House or whatever... then making it a rule is totally what is wanted. And considering Prak wants petty schoolyard politics? ... yeah that's what he wants!

Now, you've noted an interesting thing about "duration is not specified," but considering that was never your objection, but rather against the premise of the thing itself, you win a no prize.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

Almaz wrote:I'm not sure what more you want than "mutual enemies creates combined military action from both parties"
That's not the rule Prak described, there was no "temporarily shared interests" modifier in the offing, he described a rule where prior action created present/future allies "because teenagers".
Humans are dumb motherfuckers.
That's a stupidity modifier. You seem not to be able to tell the difference. By having both that AND the Enemy of My Enemy modifier, you've double dipped your humans are dumb motherfuckers AND directly penalized your "genius" characters... for apparently being dumb motherfuckers. That is a poor outcome.
making people unite in disdain for Nerd House or Bad House or whatever... then making it a rule is totally what is wanted.
That's the "is an enemy" modifier. You again, seem not to be able to tell the difference. Again, by having both you have double dipped your "penalty for bad guy house" modifier in a non-intuitive and not immediately transparent way. That is a poor methodology.
considering that was never your objection, but rather against the premise of the thing itself, you win a no prize.
Your stated position a few posts ago was "Flat modifiers motivating absolutely everyone to dress in purple is totes fine". Not sure what your plan on "Stop saying more things!" angle is here but it won't look good for you if that's the new rules for talking about stuff on forums.

edit: Actually, while here, the original 2400ish year old quote, which is a a needlessly complex bunch of stupid in itself but can basically be translated (very charitably) to mean "Short term strategic interests dictate your military allies" would be a more sensible but boring match for any sort of multi factional bullshit, but actually the "old arabic saying" version of the quote which is basically some banjo playing "Me and My Brother vs My Cousin, Me and My Cousin vs The Outsider" would make for a better framework for factional interactions in a multi-faction RPG. Not entirely good, but better.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:42 am, edited 4 times in total.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

deaddmwalking wrote:Frank beat me to my major point - it seems that some people want the Social Rules to reward the player for engaging with the world (and NPCs) in character. If the player gives a rousing speech about why the elves should aid in the defense of the human village, the player wants a chance to convince the elves to do something that isn't necessarily in their immediate self-interest (not dying). On the other hand, other people want the rules to reward a character for investing resources in social interaction. The Diplomancer says 'I try to convince the elves to help. I have a 93 on my Diplomacy'.

Now, in my opinion, the first option makes the game more enjoyable for the other players. The second option is more appropriate for a game where the focus is that you're able to play a character who can be completely unlike you - including your ability to influence people.
How do you handle failure for both types of roleplaying though?
User avatar
Prak
Serious Badass
Posts: 17350
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Prak »

I'm actually now wondering if you know what Aspects are in FATE, PL. No hate behind that, I sure as hell don't know every tiny mechanic from every game, so I'm not expecting you to (though FATE is one of the better known indies, so I do expect people to generally know about it).

Spoiler for people who don't know how aspects work:
So, basically characters in FATE get something like seven descriptors to aid in the story part of things. There are various types, like High Concept and Trouble, but the exact nature doesn't really matter. What this generally means is that he gets to spend a Fate point whenever he feels that this aspect is relevant, Invoking it, to either get a minor bonus (+2) or a reroll. However it can also be Compelled by Mister Cavern to basically complicate matters- if the player accepts the Compel he gets a Fate Point to spend later, but he could also choose to avoid it by spending a Fate Point to avoid the complication.

So a character might have Mageslayer as his High Concept. Whenever he's fighting a Mage, he would have the option of spending a fate point to get +2 to a roll, or a reroll if he rolls really shitty (this is an example from Dresden, I wouldn't allow such a broad Aspect in Scholomance) Whenever he's dealing with a Mage, Mister Cavern might decide to compel his high concept, saying "you really want to kill this guy" or something of the sort, and the player either roleplays the encounter that way and gets a FP for later use, or says "nah, I can control myself," and spends a FP. But the aspect could also come into play if the character is running around in Mage society and his Mageslaying rep is known, to cause friction between him and the guys he's trying to deal with. Maybe Mister Cavern tosses the guy an FP when a Mage lynch mob shows up.

The idea is that Aspects are a way to use Plot Currency such that it's always available (more or less) but not always in play. The guy with Mage Slayer has to be able to afford his bonus, and Mister Cavern gives him Plot Currency when he decides to have the character's concept makes things difficult for him.

Settings and locations can also have aspects and they can be used in these same ways (with players spending FP when they use a setting's aspects to their advantage and gaining FP when the MC uses them to their detriment) and a big thing in FATE communities was apparently the idea of using Aspects to denote minor things about parts of the game that don't need to be universally present but benefit from coming up occasionally, like the Vulcan race could have the aspect Logical, and anyone playing a Vulcan got that aspect for free in addition to their character's normal aspects.
So basically, when you piss off the prefect of House Slytherin, you get a floating aspect "Enmity of Slytherin" or "Enmity of [Slythering Prefect]." This doesn't translate to an ever present -2 to social interactions with House Slytherin, or an ever present +2 to social interactions with Hosue Griffindor. It's just an opportunity for Mister Cavern to bring up "remember when you spilled pumpkin juice on this guy last week? Yeah, he's still pissed about that" when [Slytherin Prefect] is being an obstinate dick to your character, and give you plot currency for it, and an opportunity for you to reroll a shitty roll, or push a near miss over the edge when interacting with some Griffindors by bringing it up yourself and paying some plot currency for it.

Granted, I haven't defined durations or anything yet, but it's just a sketch at this point, the way I realized I could handle rep without tracking a number as I was going to bed after getting to that point in my planning. Bigger incidents would last longer and be called into play more, so messing up a spiteful guy's robes would come up when interacting with that guy or his cronies and last like a week or until he screwed with you in some minor way in retaliation, and winning the season in [Magic Game] would come up when dealing with members of your rival house that care about the game and last for the summer and maybe until the first game or until rival house played yours and won.

It's a sketch at this point, and yes, I need to define durations and such, but as a way of simply implementing high school grudges and favor, I think it works pretty well.

Its not that "The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend" is true, in the real world or my game world, its more that "Teenagers are capricious and spiteful dicks and mussing up a guy's clothes will make him and his friends slightly more hostile to you and make people who hate that guy slightly more favorable of you." I'd likely track only one such incident at a time, or maybe one per sphere of influence. Because, yeah, if you step on a guy's Jordans, he'll be pissed at you, but if you then go bang his girlfriend, he's really more pissed about the latter than the former and the shoes don't really matter anymore. And he'll probably forget about the shoes in a week or so unless you were wearing golf cleats.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.

You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

Prak wrote:I'm actually now wondering if you know what Aspects are in FATE, PL.
I should know FATE better, it's interesting, but sadly I don't, tend to forget what little I've picked up, and largely can't particularly be assed learning it in detail. Also, homebrew kludges, you get a lot of "will use/ressemble X" followed by... not doing that...

Your explanation marginally improves the somewhat questionable choice of modifier, but not really enough to invalidate my criticism. You are still basically giving out [insert variable reward here] for Enemy of my enemy is my friend/lol I hate soup guy too. I think it's a poor place to insert a reward.

But really it mostly just also brings up the question of what the hell? Why the hell is this thing something elaborate involving third parties vaguely attached to everyone and/or the soup dispenser instead of being a simple "I hate that guy" on the soup receiver and/or his faction? The description seems to indicate it could be and it seems like anything else is a poor frame of reference causing weird problems for no reason.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User avatar
Prak
Serious Badass
Posts: 17350
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Prak »

Yeah, no worries. It's not like I know what Shadowrun's hacking system, or whatever, is like. We are not all encyclopedias of game mechanics.

I long ago decided I really didn't care about writing a perfect, or even good, social minigame, since the average gamer is perfectly happy to use D&D's "Roll a die, add a mod, beat a DC" or some Dice Pool opposed roll thing. Social minigames are very, very hard to write, so I'm just going to steal After Sundown's "How to Win an Argument" with the necessary word changes.

That said, I feel like part of the high school experience is dealing with your reputation, whether that's as a nerd, or the captain of the football team, or the cool kid, or whatever, along with whatever the latest faux pas or win you've had is.

I'm already planning on using Aspects in Scholomance, because I like the system. It also happens to be a decent way to evoke Rowlingverse wandlore without an Ars Magica "Ye Olde Catalogue of Magicke Bonii." So it seemed to me that using aspects to represent reputation would at least be functional.

Mind you- I'm talking about functionality, particularly in the hands of the novice and average gamer, not Platonic Ideals of Design here. I am far, far fucking away from Platonic Ideals of Design here. I'm just trying to scratch a gaming itch and maybe get a date. If the game is something I can be kind of proud of, that's a bonus.

The idea is that who your character is and what they do will influence how other students and the teachers treat them. So in addition to a changing "Latest Incident" aspect for Reputation, you might also have a Clique aspect, where you write "Nerd" or "Jock" or "Demon Cultist" and then Mister Cavern can say "well, the Jocks think you're a wuss, so they're not going to give you the information you want (but have a Plot Dollar)" while also allowing the player to say "Hey, I'm a Jock, the cheerleaders think I'm hot shit. Here's a Plot Dollar so I can increase my success by two hits and get them hanging off of me." And the Soup Guy thing is just a crappy example. It's probably more like "Known for bullying first years" which can be compelled when you're dealing with protective do gooders, but you can invoke it when you think the guy you're talking to is a similar dick, or when you're talking to first years and want to intimidate them.

And now I see the problem you're trying to point out. The aspect isn't being attached to everyone. If you're the person who pissed off the Slytherin Prefect, you get the Incident Aspect "Pissed of Slytherin Prefect." Its attached to you. I said floating originally because typically FATE characters have seven aspects and I hadn't thought about doing a Social Aspects grouping. So its a part of your character, its just that Mister Cavern might call it into play when you're dealing with people who work for or are close to the Slytherin Prefect, and you can invoke it when you're dealing with people who you think hate him.

I feel like I'm talking in circles. Let me try to figure out a better explanation.

Ok, Harry Potter book five, Order of the Phoenix. At the end of book four, Harry reappeared on Hogwarts grounds with the body of local cool guy Cedric Diggory, shouting that Voldemort was back. Harry gains the Incident Aspect "The Boy Who Cried Voldemort." At the start of their Fifth Year, Seamus confronts Harry, because Seamus' mother reads the Prophet, which says that Harry and Dumbledore are mad fearmongers, demanding to know what happened to Cedric. Seamus is looking for a fight, and Mister Cavern compels Harry's "The Boy Who Cried Voldemort" aspect, because Harry knows what happened, but most everyone else thinks he's lying (or crazy). Harry's player takes the proffered Fate Point and gives Seamus the fight he wants. Later in the year, Harry is convinced to start Dumbledore's Army and he uses his still present "The Boy Who Cried Voldemort" Aspect for his own benefit, telling people about his fights with Voldemort or his agents each of the last four years, and changes some of their minds (though others were more interested in just knowing what happened to Cedric and don't join, because they don't really care). In the process, he probably gains a new Incident Aspect "Founder of Dumbledore's Army," replacing "The Boy Who Cried Voldemort."

The aspect generated by your incident is always tied to your character, it just comes into play based on the motives and interests of those around you. There are genuinely going to be Slytherins who don't care that you pissed off the prefect, and Slytherins who in fact like that you pissed off the prefect, and there will be Griffindors who don't care and the Griffindor Prefect might, if he thinks you did it on purpose, actually disapprove of it, because he thinks you disrespected the station he shares with the guy. And the nature of the incident will determine how long it lasts, and I'm thinking you should probably get a Triumph Incident (something you did that you can generally brag about) and a Defeat Incident (something you'd rather people forget), because founding Dumbledore's Army doesn't erase that the wider wizarding world still thinks Harry is crazy.

I think the idea of the disposition of Soup Guy modifying your reputation was a mistake. That is a part of that character, and their propensity to hold a grudge shouldn't really affect what other people think of it. The fact that he'll have his friends mess with you for shorter or longer doesn't need to be accounted for in the aspect.

As to durations, I think it will vary. Minor things like "Gave the Griffindor Prefect a handy under the quidditch pitch" will last for, maybe, a week, but if you make a habit of giving griffindors handies under the pitch, then you will get an aspect along the lines of "Griffindor Bike" which probably lasts until something supplants it.

Hm. I need to sketch out the exact Reputation Aspect Structure, I'm sort of thinking something like=
  • Faction: The group in school you belong to (Clique, House, whatever)
  • Breed: What you physically are that people will judge you for (half-blood, pureblood, werewolf)
  • Reputation: The main activity (or event) you are known for (bullying first years, bleacher handjobs, sucking up to teachers)
  • Victory: The last or biggest thing you did that you want people to remember you for (slaying the basilisk, catching the snitch, top of the class)
  • Defeat: The last or biggest thing you did that you wish people would forget (crying Voldemort, getting mauled by a hippogriff, tripping on your robes)
But if I do that, along with wands having aspects, then maybe I need to drop some of the core aspects, because using all the aspects of Dresden Files, plus those, brings a single character up to 12. Then the school will have aspects, houses might (effectively or actually) have aspects, and your wand will have at least a few. 20 aspects to keep in your head is probably way to much, both for reasons of head space and because it starts to get to a point where you can always find something to improve your roll with.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.

You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

The whole "infinite modifiers for infinite situations" thing is just dumb. That is not how game systems work. There are essentially infinite textures that ground can have, but you still have the MC define any particular ground as normal terrain, difficult terrain, or impassable terrain and move the fuck on with your life. If you do anything in an RPG you have a loss of detail when you convert story aspects to game categories, and then you have an expansion of detail when you convert game outputs to story aspects.

If you're going to have the game take inputs and give outputs with regards to social situations, you're necessarily going to have to assign things to arbitrary categories when you lose detail to convert the social situations into game mechanical inputs and then you're going to have to use your imagination and storytelling ability when you convert the dry game mechanical outputs to in-character actions and responses.

You know, just like when your character is going to disarm a bomb and the MC has to assign the bomb a complexity value and the conditions a difficulty value so that you know what you need to roll to succeed or fail, and then the MC has to improv some sort of in-world meaning when you roll the dice and the game outputs "extraordinary success" or whatever the fuck.

Making a social mini-game in a gamist sense is simply a matter of generating an acceptable range of potential outputs and dividing up the circumstances into a handlable number of potential input categories. 3e D&D fails at this utterly, and most games that try to have social mini-games are one flavor or another of hilarious disaster. But in principle it's no different than lockpicking or space ship piloting.

In 3e D&D, most things revolve around stabbing things in the face. So the number one desired use of the social minigame would be to cause combat music to not start. Unfortunately, the social minigame actually requires the combat music to have not started to be used at all. This means that it is absolutely worthless for the main thing you want it for. To even be allowed to roll the dice to convince the Orcs to not attack you, you need to have already succeeded in convincing the Orcs to not attack you. It's fucked. But there's no reason it has to be like that. A short look-up table for the difficulty to convince various kinds of threats to not fight followed by asking the MC to guesstimate which scenario was most similar to the one at hand to set the difficulty could fit in a quarter page of box-text and would be more than sufficient for the task.

-Username17
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

The outputs I'd want from a social mini-game would be:

1. Information gathering.

2. Minor favors.

3. Maybe in-combat smack-talk, but definitely pre-combat buffs/debuffs.

4. Systematic way to gain followers, contacts, and henchmen.
User avatar
maglag
Duke
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:17 am

Post by maglag »

I would say the 3.X bard's music ability would be a great for social skill. You can fascinate enemies to make them distracted, you can motivate allies so they do shit better, you can sweettalk Suggestions into your enemies to make them do what you want or charm them, you can motivate your allies so good that they gain pseudo-levels for some time. And you can do that stuff by singing or oratory or dancing or playing instruments or whatever you wrote in your Perform skill.

Alas the 3.X dev teams decided that all of the above should be supernatural abilities because mundanes absolutely cannot have nice things.
Last edited by maglag on Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14838
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

FrankTrollman wrote:In 3e D&D, most things revolve around stabbing things in the face. So the number one desired use of the social minigame would be to cause combat music to not start.
I personally think that having the number one desired use of the social minigame being that you don't play the actual game is a terrible goal.

The one thing I don't want a social minigame doing is convincing everyone not to fight.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
maglag
Duke
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:17 am

Post by maglag »

Like the Gundam franchise then? Where everybody makes big speeches on how they want peace and friendship, but then everybody ends building up bigger armies of killer robots and starts to murderize the other side?

The social minigame there is to see how many suckers you can get to fight for your glorious side when the explosions start.

Space super royals:"They want to exterminste your race! Join us!"
Neo dictator federation:"Well, they blew up your home with you and your family inside, maybe you should work for us instead!"

Whoever rolls higher on the social stuff gets more reinforcements. Either way there will be carnage and prett explosions.
MGuy
Prince
Posts: 4795
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Indiana

Post by MGuy »

More like how most games of DnD are actually played where people who are ambushed don't worry or care about convincing their attackers to not attack them.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.
hyzmarca
Prince
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by hyzmarca »

If the social system can't win battles, then investing resources in the social system is incredibly stupid, since it means that you will be killed by people who don't waste their resources that way.

But D&D does not assume that the war of all against all is the default. If it did then it wouldn't have prices for things, since there wouldn't be merchants, just people who stabbed other people and took their stuff.

The default existence of a functional society means that there arem, by default, encounters that don't degenerate into violence.

FrankTrollman wrote: In 3e D&D, most things revolve around stabbing things in the face. So the number one desired use of the social minigame would be to cause combat music to not start. Unfortunately, the social minigame actually requires the combat music to have not started to be used at all. This means that it is absolutely worthless for the main thing you want it for. To even be allowed to roll the dice to convince the Orcs to not attack you, you need to have already succeeded in convincing the Orcs to not attack you. It's fucked. But there's no reason it has to be like that. A short look-up table for the difficulty to convince various kinds of threats to not fight followed by asking the MC to guesstimate which scenario was most similar to the one at hand to set the difficulty could fit in a quarter page of box-text and would be more than sufficient for the task.

-Username17
One thing you want is the ability to stop a fight once it has started. Which is why morale was a useful mechanics. You hit the enemy often enough, or you outnumber him or outclass him too badly, and you can convince him to surrender.
Last edited by hyzmarca on Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14838
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

hyzmarca wrote:If the social system can't win battles, then investing resources in the social system is incredibly stupid, since it means that you will be killed by people who don't waste their resources that way.

But D&D does not assume that the war of all against all is the default. If it did then it wouldn't have prices for things, since there wouldn't be merchants, just people who stabbed other people and took their stuff.

The default existence of a functional society means that there arem, by default, encounters that don't degenerate into violence.
Nothing about saying that social minigame doesn't prevent people from fighting means that everyone always fights everyone.

If a social system can't win battles then investing in it to the exclusion of combat is dumb, GOOD THING WE CLASS SYSTEM, so we can just make it so that people of a certain level are a certain amount good at combat, and can't choose to invest combat resources into the social minigame.

Look, when I walk into a shop, I don't fight the shopkeeper regardless of how good he is at the social minigame, because even if he is terrible, the reason I don't fight him has nothing to do with him personally.

When I walk down the road, and get ambushed by bandits, the bandits make a determination of whether or not they are going to try to murder me for my goods before I even talk to them, perhaps before I know they exist.

Engaging in a social minigame is not something I want to be involved in the decisions making in either case, about whether or not combat occurs.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
hyzmarca
Prince
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by hyzmarca »

Kaelik wrote: When I walk down the road, and get ambushed by bandits, the bandits make a determination of whether or not they are going to try to murder me for my goods before I even talk to them, perhaps before I know they exist.
That determination isn't a one-time thing. It is one that they keep making constantly, as more information reveals itself in the course of the encounter. And there may come a point where they revise their decision and choose to call the whole thing off.

It's perfectly reasonable for bandits to attack you, and then you turn into a were-boar, say "hey, guys, you don't have any silver weapons and I don't want to wash your blood out of my fur, let's just call this a draw and forget about it" and for the bandits to say "yeah, sure, just we'll jsut forget we ever saw you."
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14838
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

hyzmarca wrote:It's perfectly reasonable for bandits to attack you, and then you turn into a were-boar, say "hey, guys, you don't have any silver weapons and I don't want to wash your blood out of my fur, let's just call this a draw and forget about it" and for the bandits to say "yeah, sure, just we'll jsut forget we ever saw you."
And no one on earth wants whether or not they run away at that point to be based on how many fucking ranks of diplomacy you took and how high your charisma score is, and whether you spent a feat on Skill Focus Diplomacy, and whether you are a half elf, and whether you binded Naberius that day.

We want it to be based on whether or not the Bandit's know the shit they done got into, and pretty much just that.

Like, I really cannot stress enough how much I don't want to have a fucking social minigame everytime I get into a fight to see if the fight occurs, to say nothing of the pointlessness of having a stated out social minigame to see whether a fight occurs, only for everyone at the table to immediately go back to MagicTeaParty to determine what happens when the fight doesn't occur.

You rolled high because of your half elf diplomancer character with all the charisma activated Sweeping Oratory Compounding Convincement! Now the Bandits:

1) Decide to leave you in peace!
2) Decide to be your slaves!
3) Also have a diplomancer who used Counter The Sweeping Current of Direct Convincement and now you are their slaves!
4) Turn out to be assassins not bandits, hired for the express purpose of killing you, and therefore still attack, or perhaps don't for no good reason!
5) Say, "Your money or your life!" resulting in combat even though you won the social minigame to not combat because you are so pretty!
6) Ect.!

How the fuckity fuck do you figure out which of those occurs?
Last edited by Kaelik on Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
hyzmarca
Prince
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by hyzmarca »

Kaelik wrote: How the fuckity fuck do you figure out which of those occurs?
Presumably, that's what the rules are for.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14838
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

hyzmarca wrote:
Kaelik wrote: How the fuckity fuck do you figure out which of those occurs?
Presumably, that's what the rules are for.
Uh... the rules decide if people are assassin's or bandits through a social minigame? Whether the bandits ask for money before threatening to kill you? Whether or not bandits become your slaves?

These are things you think are best decided by who poured the most fucking character resources into being pretty, to the exclusion of combat. That is fucking horrible, and while I already knew I never wanted to play a game with you, that sure as fuck would have told me so if I hadn't.

When it comes to fighting, there should be at absolute most one fucking roll to decide if someone attacks you, and zero active actions taken. Sometimes there should be zero rolls.

Once the fight has started, there should be only MTP DM making decision based on whether the creatures believe that continuing to fight is in their best interest.
Last edited by Kaelik on Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
hyzmarca
Prince
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by hyzmarca »

Well, assuming that these are quantum brigands who are simultaneously assassins and bandits until someone observes them and collapses the waveform, one methods is as good as another. Rules at least make it non-arbitrary.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14838
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

hyzmarca wrote:Well, assuming that these are quantum brigands who are simultaneously assassins and bandits until someone observes them and collapses the waveform, one methods is as good as another. Rules at least make it non-arbitrary.
I think encounter design being done by DM fiat is superior to having a social minigame to determine what the encounter is.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Post Reply