 Social Conflict System, How do you handle PC arguments? |
  |
 Oct 28 2007, 07:47 AM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 208 Joined: 3-May 06 From: On the Run Member No.: 8,521  |
After past bad experiences with PC vs PC social skills and the escalation that resulted - our group unanimously voted to restrict social skills to PC to NPC and NPC to PC resolution.
It eventually came to the point where anytime the face opened his mouth to talk to another character the rest of the characters immediately got ready to pop a cap in him. |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 28 2007, 10:39 AM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
@Rotbart: PvP is allowed IF both players agree on this. One incident of unwilling PvP happend (not in my current group) several years ago. That was the PC of a rules-bending munchkin (I mentioned his Righ magician on DS before) and pressed upon someone who plays a rather "normal" character. Good example why I won´t have this at my table.
On the system: You would still need to model percieved areas of competence within your group. The face, good at judgeing people, should hold the street sams opinion of combat in high regard. Yet he will certainly win the discussion here. At the same time, the street sam should not really listen to the face in case of combat decisions. Right now we are playing in a pretty unrestricted campaign. Runs pay well (on a scale of 20-25k per run), and the opposition is limited to something believable. On the other hand, tactical discussions while in combat are "forbidden" unless handled in few words and roleplaying is on a all-time-high. We already had several plans come close to failure due to disagreements on the achived consensus and people acting with different agendas. This is both realistic and funny, and any system on finding a consensus would take this away. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2007, 10:45 AM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Perhaps it's just me, but usually, playing games where a cane is a necessary tool for the GM aren't fun at all. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 28 2007, 10:53 AM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 573 Joined: 17-September 07 Member No.: 13,319 |
I'm with FoD, and of those three examples, mind-affecting magic is the only one that can direct a more-than-momentary action. I might rule that losing a composure check or Intimidation check causes the character to flinch, hesitate, or even freeze for a full turn, and I would rule out some actions (eg attacking when badly intimidated) or allow an attempt with huge penalties, but I would never tell the player what exact action the PC must take, eg "you surrender" or "you flee". Let alone "the face persuades you to abandon your loyalties and motivations, and you go along with selling the orphans to Tamanous"... nor "the face inspires you with warm fuzzy ideals, and you agree to protect the orphans without payment". The face, or the hacker who puts a few points into Etiquette (Avatar) and Leetspeak, or the sammie who picks up Intimidation and Or'Zet, should get plenty of value in their interactions with NPCs. Players should respect that the face PC is smooth and persuasive, and roleplay accordingly, even if the face's player is less persuasive, and that can be rewarded (or penalized) with Karma, without taking away each player's control over their PC. I'm imagining a LOTR type campaign... and "Boromir, roll Intimidation plus CHA plus bonus dice for being bigger and better-armed than Frodo, plus bonus dice for noble rank; Frodo, roll WIL+CHA; oh dear, crit glitch, you're giving Boromir the One Ring." (Spend Edge, Frodo, spend Edge for reroll dice!) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 28 2007, 11:08 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
@Rotbart: I agree, and left the group because of this incident. Real PvP would have been the only other option.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2007, 11:10 AM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 573 Joined: 17-September 07 Member No.: 13,319 |
And that would make me willing to *try* this system. In the orphanage example, I might say say "okay, you could possibly persuade my idealist PC to abandon the orphans but not to sell them to Tamanous", or "okay, my cynical PC could maybe take the job for a nominal fee but the orphage owes us a place to hide if we ever need one - and then YOU owe me a favor too". Those give me, as player, a chance to roleplay a reasonable amount of persuadability, to stretch the range of the characterization, and also a chance to draw no-way boundaries as needed. But it involves a certain level of trust in the other players. In a good group, sure, I'll try it but I think we'll mostly just roleplay and only use this system occasionally. At a tournament or convention game, I'd be darn cautious. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 28 2007, 11:12 AM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
But who is advocating "pure" roleplaying? Even the people who would rather roleplay most things out still think that the GM and the other players should take the face's social skills into account, not to mention that of the NPCs and other PCs. To do otherwise is not roleplaying at all, but metagaming, and should be penalized accordingly when it is time to give out the roleplaying Karma. And the face has an entire world of NPCs to con, cajole, and manipulate. I have played faces, and I have never felt "screwed over" because I couldn't take control of another PC's character away from him. Your game might need your complicated resolution system, and if you need it, and it works without causing any resentments, fine. But I don't personally consider that the optimal way to run PC vs. PC social skills. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 28 2007, 03:07 PM
Post
#58
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 24-February 06 From: California, USA Member No.: 8,303 |
Is metagaming necessarily bad? In my games, I explicitly tell the players what will happen if any of their rolls fail (except in combat, because failed rolls have obvious consequences, detailed by the system), so that they know what's at stake. That's metagaming, too, and in my experience, it makes the game more exciting. Metagaming is only bad when the player uses it to cheat. But it is a tool, and like any tool, whether it's a good or bad thing depends on how its used. To quote Luke Crane...
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 28 2007, 06:21 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
Okay, now I'm just confused; do you want your system to apply to important decisions or not? Because if you do, get off the backs of the people that are "hung up" on the planning the run scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2007, 08:04 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 24-February 06 From: California, USA Member No.: 8,303 |
I'm saying that, while that's an important decision, it's not really a conflict. If you're planning how to approach a run, all the characters involved want the same thing, the only question is methodology. Riley's scenario was a much better example of what I'm getting at - two characters wanting different things, and those things were tied to the beliefs of the characters. The resolution of that conflict would have spun the plot of the game in a new and unexpected direction. Fun for everyone! Planning the run only determines what traps you run into first. It doesn't really affect the story at all.
I'm not trying to be hostile. If I came across that way, I apologize. What I'm trying to do is put forward the idea that playing the game as a game doesn't take away from the choices that the player makes for his character, and, indeed, can make for a much more satisfying game with more intense and exiting roleplaying. But with a couple of exceptions, people have this knee-jerk reaction of "Oh, noes! Mind-control!" whenever this subject comes up. And maybe that's because they tried a way of doing it that just didn't work, and it left a bad taste in their mouths. That's fine. I'd probably have the same reaction, if it were me. However, I've played in and run games that use systems like this, and I know it can work. It keeps the game moving, and it keeps everyone engaged and invested in what's going on at the table. I've presented a possible mechanic that could be used in this particular game, and what I really want is opinions on how it could be made better or more fair. But before that happens, I have to get people to entertain the idea that it is, in fact, workable. I'm not saying everyone has to use it, or that everyone has to run their tables like I run mine. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2007, 08:24 PM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Make it so the face does not get to win every discussion the mage does not win?
Or go by the book and have the would-be leaders roll their leadership dice, using nothing but the hits (single test) to decide who wins. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2007, 08:34 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
Metagaming can be good or bad, depending on the context. In the case of my example, it was a character using his real-life social skills for a character built with little or no social skills.
The Luke Crane argument is a straw man argument (at least in this context - the original quote may have been talking about something different), since no one is advocating doing away with dice rolls, merely doing away with dice rolls for PC vs. PC usage of social skills. The flip side of that argument is that if a player's actions are determined solely by dice rolls, the player hardly even needs to be there. But to move away from this impasse, and back to C&C on your system: The good: It still gives the loser options, such as carrying a grudge or even escalating to violence. It entitles the loser to compromises for getting any successes at all, rather than having one character get everything he wants. Both players have to agree to the terms of the argument, so you won't have any nonsense that arises in other games where the face can get people to pay for his dinner every time, or talk the team into using his plan as opposed to the plan made by the sammie with the break-in experience, or even more egregious abuses. The bad: An extended test makes the face vs. anyone else even more of a mismatch. They not only have less dice to roll, but less times that they can roll them. Needlessly complicated. If you do have to roll the dice, you don't need something this involved. Have both players make their arguments, assign dice pool modifiers based on the arguments and other factors, then have them make a single opposed test. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2007, 09:19 PM
Post
#63
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 24-February 06 From: California, USA Member No.: 8,303 |
Awsome, now we're getting somewhere!
I actually forgot to include walking away in here. It's possible that one PC may refuse to even argue about something, and it would be wrong for the GM to force him to do so. It was in my head when I wrote it up, I just forgot to state it explicitly.
On further thought, you're absolutely right. I actually had a reason for doing this, but it's linked to your next point, so I'll address it there.
I see where you're coming from here. The reason that I had it set up as an extended test was because I wanted to provide an opportunity for other characters to chime in with their own arguments to help with either side from statement to statement. I hadn't come up with a good way of doing that when I wrote up the system, and then I went back and looked up the Teamwork Tests rules, which could actually work for this. So, with what you've suggested, I can see two ways of handling this: A.) Extended test option - The involved characters make their statements, then any characters on the sidelines have the option of making their own statements, backing whichever side they wish. They make a Teamwork Test with an appropriate skill and add their successes to the dice pool of whoever they're backing, thus increasing their dice pool. This would work especially well for the situation where the face has a massive dice pool and the opponent has crap-all for social skills. Upside: The exchange becomes more dynamic, with everybody at the table having a chance to be involved. Also, it can potentially level the playing field by letting a socially inept character receive help from other characters. More hits will likely be scored by the disadvantaged character, and thus he'll have a much better chance of netting some really good compromises. Downside: Still an extended test, which is actually fine with me, but I can see very well why others wouldn't like it. Also, a lot of dice rolling, which, again, I don't see as necessarily being a problem if it stays fun, but I realize, again, this may be something that other people don't like. B.) Single opposed test option - The involved PCs make their arguments, dice pools are modified by the quality of the statements and normal social skill modifiers. Then the other characters get the option to pick a side and help out if they choose. They make a teamwork test and add their hits to the pool of whichever side they've chosen. The opposed test is made, with compromises based on the margin of failure of the loser. Upside: Much simpler, with fewer rolls. Also, quicker. Downside: Not as dynamic. Sideline characters have to pick a side and stick with it - they can't be swayed by the arguments as they fly back and forth. Both ways of doing it would work pretty well, in my opinion. I could actually see presenting both as an option to the players and seeing what they say about it. Or even trying the single opposed test first, and presenting the extended option later on. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Oct 28 2007, 09:21 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 573 Joined: 17-September 07 Member No.: 13,319 |
Ya know, this thread has gone on for a while; let's settle it with a dice roll and be done. I claim +1d6 because Gothfather found my example useful. <www.irony.com/webdice.html>
Seriously, I think there's some apples-vs.-oranges here. I say take it to playtesting and come back with some specific examples of conflicts in which dice-rolling resulted in a game session that was more fun for the players and the GM. If a player writes a PC with CHA as their dump stat, and speaks IC with articulate delivery, I'm OK with the other PCs being able to "hear" the player's intent, but the "in-game camera" shows the PC stammering or whining or whatever, and that's what NPCs respond to. Same as it shows the character speaking Sperethiel (poorly) even though all the *players* are using English to express what their characters say. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 29 2007, 04:26 AM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 103 Joined: 21-August 07 Member No.: 12,814 |
Gothfather, I dig where you are coming from. I think what you wrote is pretty useful for groups that want it. Most systems don't focus on PC vs PC, because that's where the heavy RP takes place. Systems generally want mechanic-less role-playing so personality and voice can shine, not dice. When you are having a "do we let 'em go or finish them" type debate, or a "do we trust Johnson", the arguments can be awesome, especially if you are lucky enough to play with people who can temper their arguments with the personality (and competence) of their character. And if they have cool/fun personalities, this is often the highlight of any game.
However, some groups don't like that. That's where having a system can be useful. It brings debate to a conclusion without getting players angry or frustrated. You might take a look at Spycraft. Their 2nd edition ruleset has dramatic conflicts, including negotiations, seductions, chases, etc. They are basically super-cool extended tests with strategies. They are expressly NOT for PC vs PC (PCs in Spycraft are immune to most con/diplomacy skills!), but it could be a cool way for you to heighten the system's importance if it is a big part of your game. Also, if arguments are tough, it could actually be a fun focus to the issue, turning bad arguments into a tournament style high stakes side of the game, winner take all. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 30 2007, 03:35 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 698 Joined: 26-October 06 From: Iowa, United States Member No.: 9,720 |
I'm liking the ideas coming out of here. But with dicerolls, whats the threshold we're looking at, or is it going to be a time limit on the extended test? Or might I suggest the goal is to have 10 net hits more than your opponent on the extended test? Or some static number.
Also on a side note, this is how you do food. http://dicepool.com/catalog/popup_image.ph...2c966a669ecf48c |
|
|
|
|
Oct 30 2007, 04:44 PM
Post
#67
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 24-February 06 From: California, USA Member No.: 8,303 |
I'll take a look at that if I can find it. I'm not so down with the "winner take all" idea. It kind of defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to do, which is to come up with a way of settling a social conflict mechanically, but allowing for the loser of the challenge to not be mind controlled.
The threshold I came up with is the opposing character's Composure dicepool - Will+Cha. It could just as easily be Will+Logic or Cha+Logic, depending on how you see the argument working. I picked the Composure pool because as I envisioned it, the point isn't to be right, it's to be convincing. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 30 2007, 08:28 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 698 Joined: 26-October 06 From: Iowa, United States Member No.: 9,720 |
Threshold of Composure dice pool, but how does that work in more than 1 on 1? Do they have to focus on one person's composure at a time, or do they just have to have total hits greater than the persons Composure, or does the entire group add their composure for convincing? Either of the first two beat composures and people join their side. Those truly convinced can help to convince and add their dice pool to their new side, or if grudgingly convinced not (become the I don't care side). I like the idea of negotiation assists, just trying to see a threshold for turning a group of people.
Or does each side need to establish a speaker and the objective is just to take out the main speaker... Perhaps each additional person adds +2 to the threshold, mob composure is alot harder to break than a single person (peer pressure). Just throwing thoughts into the mix, when I'm not at work I'll probably end up compiling the ideas and submitting my own take on a system, or at least establishing an idea for my gamers. I just want more ideas on how to work things. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 30 2007, 10:06 PM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,838 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,669 |
IRL, I've seen someone tricked/pressured/frustrated/guided into taking part in a conversation that they would rather avoid many times. If fairly normal people IRL can manage this, then surely the super-Face with wacked-out Cha and 'cool social-fu' can do the same to his teammates. He'll know how to work them even better than he can perfect strangers (and, as for the reverse, his skill means that it's unlikely they can use their knowledge of him against him to much effect). Sorry folks, but if the Face and the Sammy get into a physical conflict the dice are probably going to give it to the Sammy. Everyone would call the Face's player a whiney bitch if he didn't accept the outcome. In a social conflict, the Face will win and if the Sammy's player can't take that, then he's a whiney bitch. It's a game. Your character is your 'piece' in the game - it is NOT 'you'. If another character takes an action that causes an effect, you have to accept that whether the action is physical or social or anything else. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 30 2007, 10:56 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
I think that disputes of this nature should probably be resolved with a boxing match. After a few boxing matches the players will be so tired they won't want to argue anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 31 2007, 02:53 AM
Post
#71
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
The difference is that in most games, the sammie typically doesn't shoot at the face on a whim. (although I'm sure some GMs have seen it happen ;) ). TheGothfather has the right idea. The face should get the abilities his player paid for, but the other players need to feel that they are actually getting to play their own characters, not having them be turned into the NPCs of another player who's being an asshole. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 31 2007, 03:01 AM
Post
#72
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,838 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,669 |
The only defense against an asshole player is not playing the game with him/her. If the player is dedicated to screwing with the other players they can just do it with a magician and Control Emotions/Control Thoughts/Influence. The high-Cha guy just does it more smoothly and if your players really want to play their characters they'll accept the good and the bad. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 31 2007, 04:10 AM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Well, the Face may have convinced the Sam that such and such is a good idea, and going along with the idea would be good roleplay. But the Sam's player can be an asshole right back and refuse to roleplay being NPCed. And then shoot the Face in the face since he isn't getting the roleplay karma anyway.
Player(Face): Hey, I convinced you to do X. Player(Sam): So, I shoot you anyway. Player(Face): But I already convinced him to do X. I demand I get the benefits of my abilities. GM: You do get the benefit of the abilities you bought. Once your PC convinces the Sam that he should do something but he doesn't, he isn't roleplaying and does not get the roleplay karma. There is an effect. Oh, now that your PC is dead, you can roleplay a dead man. And if you do it well, you get roleplay karma. Pity... dead people don't really have need of karma, but that's the way the game mechanics work. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 31 2007, 04:13 AM
Post
#74
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 24-February 06 From: California, USA Member No.: 8,303 |
This works best for a one-on-one conflict. For multiple characters, I'd go with making Teamwork tests for the characters who aren't directly involved, but still want to put in their two nuyen. In the extended opposed test version of these rules, this would occur after the two main characters made their statements, but before they roll their dice. The beauty of doing it this way is that those who aren't the main characters have the opportunity to be swayed to either side, and make teamwork tests for whichever side they want between statements. In the single opposed test that Glyph suggested, the two main characters would make their arguments, then everyone else would roll their teamwork tests, and then the opposed test would be made with the modified dice pools. There's already rules for using social skills against groups. SR4 pp. 120-121. The system here is for a "duel of wits" style argument, which is intended to be much more personal. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 31 2007, 04:26 AM
Post
#75
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,838 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,669 |
In this situation, the player of the Face can equally ignore the effects of the Sammy's actions. The results of physical actions are not inherently any more enforceable than social actions. If the Sammy wants to ply, he has to accept all aspects of the game and not think that he has some kind of final word. In any case, the GM may need to step in. Were I the GM, I would enforce the results of both activities equally. BTW, physically attacking a teammate is a good way to never find professional work again, and I'm sure a good Face has made that pretty clear early on - well before anyone ever thought of killing him. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th July 2026 - 12:50 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.