The problem of social systems

[Mistborn]

Two topics have been the cause of more flames and threads than any other mundane characters and social mechanics. I've started 5-6 pointless threads that all devolved into trolling about mundane characters so lets see if I can tackle social mechanics and suprise everyone by starting a thread not full of trolls trolling trolls.

So it seems like it's impossible to do a social mini game that people don't hate. Here are the problems as I see it.

Character can't get too good- Diplomancers give most people bad feels so you can't let being really good at the social mini game be soming like a (Ex) Dominate. When you party face can make every non mindless enemey instantly freindly with a few words it ends with stupid things like the orc rushing into battle with earplugs so the don't get instantly trunned by the half-elfs siren song.

Players don't like losing control- in order to have meaningful social combat it needs to be possible for PCs to "lose" how ever if that means that the players character gets hijacked that won't go over to well

It can't be overly binary- as Frank has said if when you haggle with the shop keeper the only two possible results are "you give the shopkeeper all of your stuff and then walk out wearing only a barrel" or "the shopkeeper gives you everything you ask for free and then goes down on you" that's both unrealistic and unsatisfying.

No one likes it when the results are morally hidious- as hilarious as it is to play as Nanoha and make friends via evocations spells we don't want violent methods to produce such overly positive results. If the best to make the princess love you is too beat her half to death that's both stupid and creepy. We really don't want to write domestic violance simulators.

Anything I miss?

[Avoraciopoctules]

The Dresden Files RPG looked like it had a pretty decent social combat system. Then again, it ended up being boring enough compared to work required that I never ended up actually running it.

[Grek]

Solutions to the various problems posed:
1. Don't make "The other side does what you say" be a result of the social system. I know that sounds stupid, but bear with me here.
2. Instead of letting the winner dictate actions to the loser, impose penalties/bonuses such that the player of the looser will want to do what the social system says they will.
3. Allow both sides to gain/lose penalties and for variable amounts of those penalties. Be sure to emphasize results where both parties get some effect, not just one.
4. Make violence have sharply limited effects in the social system. Like, being violent gives you a bonus to threats, but has no direct effects limited.

[Hicks]

Character can't get too good- Diplomancers give most people bad feels so you can't let being really good at the social mini game be soming like a (Ex) Dominate. When you party face can make every non mindless enemey instantly freindly with a few words it ends with stupid things like the orc rushing into battle with earplugs so the don't get instantly trunned by the half-elfs siren song.

I would like to point out that I am totally fine with stuffing your ears with wax to resist the siren's song; that is totally how Odyssius got past actual sirens in the Odyssey

Wikipedia[/url]] They skirted the land of the Sirens, who sang an enchanting song that normally caused passing sailors to steer toward the rocks, only to hit them and sink. All of the sailors except for Odysseus, who was tied to the mast as he wanted to hear the song, had their ears plugged up with beeswax.

Don't look at the nymph/medusa, don't listen to to diplolancer/siren, and take penalties (blindness/deafness) when so protected.

[Mistborn]

Don't look at the nymph/medusa, don't listen to to diplolancer/siren, and take penalties (blindness/deafness) when so protected.

You don't see as a problem when the half-elf diplomancer is so persuasive that it's comparible to a supernatural compulsion.

[PoliteNewb]

Don't look at the nymph/medusa, don't listen to to diplolancer/siren, and take penalties (blindness/deafness) when so protected.

You don't see as a problem when the half-elf diplomancer is so persuasive that it's comparible to a supernatural compulsion.

I think people see a problem when the wizard's schtick IS "supernatural compulsion", and the bard's schtick is "like that, only suckier".

I suppose this is not an issue if diplomancy is not a schtick, just something that everybody can do.

[Mistborn]

I think people see a problem when the wizard's schtick IS "supernatural compulsion", and the bard's schtick is "like that, only suckier".

I suppose this is not an issue if diplomancy is not a schtick, just something that everybody can do.

Magical compulsion and Diplomacy are diffrent in many ways. They have overlap where being able to do jedi mind tricks is about the same thing as being a fast talker. The thing is that making people do things if one of the few areas where having phlebotinum is a legit weakness.

If you make people you mind-bitches than that can have consquences. People can detect that mind shenagins via sense motive or divination magic. There are a lot of social situations that mind control in not an advisable to solve. Asking the king to help you in a pursuesive manner is far far less likely to have negitive reprocussions than mind controling the king.

[Hicks]

You don't see as a problem when the half-elf diplomancer is so persuasive that it's comparible to a supernatural compulsion.

No. No I do not that as a problem at all. In general, The myths of legend are totally full of people who were so good at [blah] that their skill was supernatural, and specifically because after a short conversation with my brother you will suck his dick if he so chooses, it is basically a foregone conclusion. He has a platinum tongue that drips honeyed words around a truthful kernal, and with it pours a vat of oily lies down your throat, and you will lap it up and thank him afterwards. Dude trains ever moment of his entire life to manipulate people and peppers in neurolinguistic programming and expert use of body language and body reading to establish dominance in the conversation and you will agree with him. He is Tolken's Wormtongue made flesh. The only 100% guaranteed way to resist his chats is to not listen, at all.

[Lokathor]

I think that, like with other things, an Same Game Test needs to be setup for "persuasion" (either intimidation or diplomacy) before you can talk about any of it concretely. Before you talk much about how you'll be resolving a situation, you need to pick some situations and pick what your goals for the situation would be.

Some classic examples of trying to persuade folks include:
[*]The Doctor bluffing his way past someone asking who he is to take charge of the situation.
[*]Trying to convince Theoden to join the war against Mordor.
[*]"We're gonna be cool... like Fonzie"
[*]"I WANT THE TRUTH" -- "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

[Dogbert]

From where I see it, the problem with diplomancy are systems in which social skills are a 1-hit effect, namely, every system written before the inception of Social Combat.

Any event where two parties oppose each other with considerable consequences for the loser is automatically a conflict, and deserves to be handled as per the game's conflict resolution system.

In FATE, characters have two "HP" bars, one for physical damage and a second one for mental/social (some FATE flavors separate mental and social into separate bars too)... and both can remove you from conflict or even the game when fully depleted.

While FATE isn't perfect and suffers from the same Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards issues on every FATE game where magic is involved, it's at least a step in the right direction regarding social combat.

[PhoneLobster]

Anything I miss?

Yes.

People give me a lot of flack for not adhering to your... lets just say, rather shallow list of requirements.

But the important thing I keep trying to remind them, and will remind you now, is, I put a lot of time and effort into creating a workable social system.

And my starting point looked a hell of a lot like your list.

The thing is as you attempt to meet those requirements, and some others you discover other requirements, and find your attempts will generate more problems.

The design goals and solutions I have applied to them have been generated by a process of trail, and error, and actually attempting to make this shit work. I encourage you to try, and try hard, to make a functional formalized set of social mechanics that meet your goals, In particular the "overly binary" goal which is in many ways the fundamental change I found I was FORCED to make when attempting to design a functional social system.

I want you and others to TRY this for two reasons. 1) It would be totally cool if it worked. But unfortunately mostly 2) If you give it an honest to god try and put some real thought and experimentation into it you are almost certainly going to be going back and re-assessing the goal pretty damn fast just like I did.

This runs the same for a lot of the other aspects people criticize. Currently I'm copping a pile of flack for daring to have social and physical damage stack (oh the sheer horror) due largely to concern trolling about a "morally abhorrent" outcome that is merely technically possible and not actually encouraged or mechanically optimal.

They are basically flipping their shit because I have one damage track (and ignoring all other actual mechanics involved). But damnit. I actually STARTED with multiple damage tracks. Not just physical and social, at one point I even had "nice" social and "nasty" social separate, even opposed!

Practical attempts to make that work and not be a total cluster fuck, actual experimentation with what players actually wanted to learn and use in game have lead me to the goals and design decisions I have now. And things like the single damage track have been the difficult and sometimes counter-intuitive solutions that have in fact brought real improvements to the system.

Simply enough multiple damage track solutions (and non-binary results) are SO BAD for the game that taking a small risk of something like a mere mechanically non-optimal possibility of "moral abhorrence" is totally a good deal, and indeed a REALLY good deal from the view of producing a playable and enjoyable game as your end point.

[Username17]

PhoneLobster, while people are in open mouthed horror at the whole thing where stabbing people with a broadsword makes being nice to them easier, that is only a small portion of why your system is met with near universal disgust. When I go to the Elf King with my problem about zombie uprisings, and he doesn't want to do anything about it and I want to present evidence that he should, that's a perfect opportunity for the game to use whatever social system it has. And the expected, nay the acceptable outcomes of that system are "How much help does the Elf King send (between none and a lot)".

If your system can't give outcomes on that continuum, it's a worthless system. And let's be honest, your system can't. It doesn't even try. If you "lose" to the Elf King, you abandon your zombie uprising quest and start doing shit for the Elf King. If you beat the Elf King, he doesn't send some help, or even a lot of help, he sends absolutely everything he has. Possibly he even makes you King of Elves. It's stupid. It's not functional. The potential outputs of your system are all outside the acceptable range.

And that is why whenever your system comes up in any context, people shit on it. Because it is a toilet, that deserves to be shat upon. Your system is literally incapable of providing any output to any scenario that anyone other than you would find vaguely acceptable in any context.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

any output to any scenario that anyone other than you would find vaguely acceptable in any context.

But that's not true Frank. He has done extensive playtesting with all his gaming friends.

Even though in ITT he has talked about how he has no gaming friends, and can't find anyone worth gaming with to save his life.

[PhoneLobster]

If you "lose" to the Elf King, you abandon your zombie uprising quest and start doing shit for the Elf King.

Or you dont even roll and he helps you because it seems sensible and the GM decides it sounds good.

If you beat the Elf King, he doesn't send some help, or even a lot of help, he sends absolutely everything he has. Possibly he even makes you King of Elves. It's stupid.

Yeah. It's stupid because thats not actually how changing a character's motivation to "Friendly" would fucking work.

You are beating up a straw man. Stop it.

[Username17]

If you "lose" to the Elf King, you abandon your zombie uprising quest and start doing shit for the Elf King.

Or you dont even roll and he helps you because it seems sensible and the GM decides it sounds good.

If your system can't handle convince the Elf King to send help, then you don't have a fucking system. Shifting the Elf King from dubious to cautiously helpful is the absolute bare minimum that a non-MTP system should be capable of. Fuck, even D&D can handle that. Fuck, 4th edition D&D can handle that. If you abdicate even that to pure MTP, your system isn't worth anything.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

So then You are saying you actually want a system where the GM CANNOT decide that the character under his control would based on the character's own complex pre-existing motivations voluntarily agree to a request by the PCs?

Because that is bat shit fucking insane.

[Grek]

There's a difference between "Ask the Elf King for help -> Elf King agrees that you deserve help -> Elf King totally helps you" and "Ask the Elf King for help -> Elf King doesn't want to help -> Bust out the social system to see if you can change his mind" Nobody gives two shits if you MTP that first one. But that second one is a definite requirement for a social system, and a requirement that your mousetrap shit fails dismally at.

[PhoneLobster]

Nobody gives two shits if you MTP that first one.

Except that Frank on one of the few rare occasions he could be brought to give ANY concrete details about how he would want a D&D social system to work specifically required that that scenario be covered by compulsory "reaction" mechanics outside of voluntary player/GM control.

So maybe Nobody is an inaccurate rerpresentation.

"Ask the Elf King for help -> Elf King doesn't want to help -> Bust out the social system to see if you can change his mind"... But that second one is a definite requirement for a social system, and a requirement that your mousetrap shit fails dismally at.

An odd thing to say since that is flat out how it works.

Also an odd thing to say since Frank and other critics largely refuse to admit the first two steps happen and then flip their shit if the last step actually changes minds.

What you are TRYING to say is you don't really get the idea of a broad charm like motivation change, and want "less-binary" results and maybe even a big pile of situational modifiers. Both of those don't work. There have been giant discussions why those don't work.

But generally I have found the most successful way to point that out to people is to have them TRY and make those two things work. The smarter games designers fairly quickly realise they cannot in fact make a reasonable formalized means of encompassing the massive amounts of variables required to handle basic situational modifiers for something as simple as lieing to people about the contents of a bag.

The dumb ones write a 5 point list with 1 sentence on each point and think they've made a functional system.

[Kaelik]

What you are TRYING to say is you don't really get the idea of a broad charm like motivation change, and want "less-binary" results and maybe even a big pile of situational modifiers. Both of those don't work. There have been giant discussions why those don't work.

But generally I have found the most successful way to point that out to people is to have them TRY and make those two things work. The smarter games designers fairly quickly realise they cannot in fact make a reasonable formalized means of encompassing the massive amounts of variables required to handle basic situational modifiers for something as simple as lieing to people about the contents of a bag.

Even if we were to take as true your claim that it is literally impossible for their to be a non-binary social system, that still doesn't defend the point that:

Players ask for help using MTP->Elf King says no for MTP reasons->They just don't get any fucking help

IE, the MTP only with no social mechanics system where you don't write any rules at all is better than your system where step three is "engage social system and make King your slave or become his slave" is actually worse.

It doesn't matter if no one else can make a system that does what they want. If your system is worse than MTP, your system is still ass. And your system is still worse than MTP.

[PhoneLobster]

... and make King your slave....

Let me refer to something I said five minutes ago and you ignored for trolling lulz.

Yeah. It's stupid because thats not actually how changing a character's motivation to "Friendly" would fucking work.

You are beating up a straw man. Stop it.

Or better yet the first line of the quote from me at the top of your post...

What you are TRYING to say is you don't really get the idea of a broad charm like motivation change

But let me further elaborate since this is a "The Problem with Social Systems" thread.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Because THIS particular piece of information is VERY important to anyone who would actually want to start getting into it.

From my experience with the social mechanics stuff, ranging back to WELL before anything altogether resembling my current social "lets make friends is the main goal of the system" type mechanics.

And including virtually every attempt at any and every semi formal implementation of ANY form of social mechanic that EVER compels ANY action there are ALWAYS critics who always make the SAME critique about the terror of "Making The King Your Slave!" And indeed, they use almost that exact scenario and wording every time. They said it about everyones system, they said it about 3.x diplomacy, they said it about every damn effect ever with the exception of the odd charm person spell.

The fact is it really doesn't matter what you are proposing. These guys are batshit reactionaries with an authority complex of some kind. And the King/Slave language is actually a bit of a give away.

Anyone intending to actually make social mechanics basically needs to start with the understanding that if they actually propose rules that DO anything of any note at all then they WILL face foaming "No King no be slave me angry!" posters. And they really should take that particular language as a sign that they should be ignoring those particular critics.

[Pulsewidth]

Social combat rules will never work because the players understand real life social combat too well for the required abstractions to be believable. Players would have the exact same problems with the physical combat rules if they regularly got into lethal sword fights in real life.

[PhoneLobster]

Throw in a "think they" before understand and I will give that a "maybe but I sure as hell don't intend to give up that easily" to it.

One of the biggest problems with social rules is that anyone who hasn't put any real thought or work into it THINKS they can either pull perfect MTP modifiers out their ass for everything, or worse, thinks they can write up a five entry table to do it magically for them.

So there really are a large crowd of people out there who attack anything that takes out "pull shit out of your arse" from any PORTION of the system because they are actually honest to god convinced they are so awesome at understanding "real life social combat" that they can in fact perfectly emulate it without any hard mechanical interference of any kind in any circumstance. And in fact automatically hate anything that does provide any interference.

Remember this endless shit storm from a small number of posters here over my social stuff is basically because it can make someone be your friend. Sometimes. With difficulty. And the risk and expense of a (hopefully)relatively balanced combat encounter. THAT is too much interference with their "awesome" ass pulling skills for them.

Except Frank, he is bat shit crazy and as usual demands it both ways with the "no interference" demands at the being friends end, and then "all interference!" demands at the encounter start/reaction mechanics end. But that is increasingly bog standard insanity for him.

[zugschef]

If you "lose" to the Elf King, you abandon your zombie uprising quest and start doing shit for the Elf King.

Or you dont even roll and he helps you because it seems sensible and the GM decides it sounds good.

Why do you even have a social system, when you openly admit that the core of your system is MTP? That's just... bizarre.

[PhoneLobster]

your system is MTP? That's just... bizarre.

It's stepped.

Every formalized mechanic has to decide what belongs in MTP, because it's either too hard or too unimportant or both, and what needs to be formalized.

One element of design you have to be careful of/decide upon in social mechanics is how it interferes with player and GM choice.

I drew that line on conflict between the GM and the Players over what they want a character to do. It handily by definition ensures that it won't interfere with choices about character actions that everyone agrees on. Something a less well thought out mechanic, like say, hard compulsory reaction mechanics on all initial meetings, would.

Basically if Player A says they think their PC wants to be the Ogre Chief's friend, and the GM says hey, I think the Ogre Chief wants to be friends, here have this free bonus buffalo gift from him... there should be NO ROLLS involved in that. When a player says "I want to convince the Ogre Chief to be my friend so he will stop refusing to let me borrow his buffalo" there should really be rolls there.

Frank has actually proposed, amongst various nonsense he changes at a whim, well, basically the dead opposite scenario.

[shadzar]

So it seems like it's impossible to do a social mini game that people don't hate. Here are the problems as I see it.


Players don't like losing control- in order to have meaningful social combat it needs to be possible for PCs to "lose" how ever if that means that the players character gets hijacked that won't go over to well

Anything I miss?

social mini-game....players lose control...

i think you missed something in there.

it isnt only what you included, but when the players lose control of their character TO the mini-game. not losing, but being unable to control or think for their own character because some mini-game takes over, or worse.. the mini-game is solely that because the players get nothing of enjoyment out of it save for pass-fail.

the players have a need to interact with each other and the DM, and may enjoy how something works out beyond the mini-game.

allowing for a mini-game will hav something always happen as a constant. some people will want to use it, others will not, and groups will have problems when mixing these two parties or people.

so between that bullet point and its next one there is a place where the players lose control to not only chance and circumstance and not only some construct within the game taking control of the character, but the game system itself can take control of the character away from its player.