Social Conflict System - Dumpshock Forums

Social Conflict System, How do you handle PC arguments?

Options

Glyph

Oct 31 2007, 04:28 AM

Post #76

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449

QUOTE (Smilin_Jack)

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.

@HappyDaze:
I'm quoting Jack, because that's what can happen if you let the face try that kind of asshattery. And you know what? It's a perfectly valid response. If a player pulls that kind of crap, it's the same as a mage casing control thoughts on other characters, or the sammie threatening the hacker with his Uzi III, or the hacker threatening the sammie with a copy of corporate security footage with his face on it. Except that the latter tend to happen during dramatic scenes of conflict. Social skills are on all of the time.

It's not a matter of "accepting the good and the bad", it's a matter of someone being a griefer. You are correct that leaving is the best option, but if I was GMing, I would boot the offending griefer out long before anyone else left. "If your players really want to play their characters"? Yeah, usually they do, which is why they don't take kindly to other people taking control of those characters away from them. Which, unfortunately, is how too many GMs tend to run social skills, rather than as the relatively subtle manipulations they are supposed to be.

HappyDaze

Oct 31 2007, 04:30 AM

Post #77

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,838
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,669

QUOTE

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.

This is an extension of the 'don't play with assholes' that I mentioned earlier. If this occurs, just have you next character come in as a suicide bomber packed with his maximum load of explosives. You can always out-asshole one another until you're tired of Spy-vs-Spy idiocy. Hopefully mature minds will stop using violence as the answer. IRL, people use social conflicts to solve problems all the time - so why not PCs?

HappyDaze

Oct 31 2007, 04:38 AM

Post #78

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,838
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,669

QUOTE

And you know what? It's a perfectly valid response. If a player pulls that kind of crap, it's the same as a mage casing control thoughts on other characters, or the sammie threatening the hacker with his Uzi III, or the hacker threatening the sammie with a copy of corporate security footage with his face on it. Except that the latter tend to happen during dramatic scenes of conflict. Social skills are on all of the time.

This doesn't fly.

Intraparty violence is not generally a valid response to social conflict. Why? Because as you said, social skills are on all the time. It's the normal and acceptable way of handling a conflict between non-hostiles. Just because someone disagrees with you and tries to change your mind (a social conflict) does not mean you should resort to physical violence - they are not your enemy. To even suggest that words should be dealt with by a bullet because you can't outtalk the other guy means that the suspension of disbelief in your game accepts that shadowrunners are not merely mercenaries but ruthless psychotics to the core.

Since social skills are on all the time, perhaps everyone would do well to brush up on them. The group might not even need a dedicated Face, especially if they feel socially threatened by such an individual (not too uncommon IRL for poorly socialized people to avoid associating with those of more influence).

Glyph

Oct 31 2007, 04:40 AM

Post #79

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449

QUOTE (HappyDaze)

QUOTE

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.

This is an extension of the 'don't play with assholes' that I mentioned earlier. If this occurs, just have you next character come in as a suicide bomber packed with his maximum load of explosives. You can always out-asshole one another until you're tired of Spy-vs-Spy idiocy. Hopefully mature minds will stop using violence as the answer. IRL, people use social conflicts to solve problems all the time - so why not PCs?

What's ironic is that you don't seem to consider the face to be immature, or an asshole, in that example. Using social skills to solve problems is when the face talks the group into an exclusive nightclub, or convinces the Ancients to let the group pass through their territory unharmed, or convinces the guard that a tattered ID really does mean they're the janitorial staff. Abusing a liberal interpretation of the game mechanics for social skills, to take control of another player's character from him, isn't solving problems... it's creating them.

Ravor View Member Profile	Oct 31 2007, 04:43 AM Post #80
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361	Huh? You mean that Shadowrunners and even the majority of the average Sixth World citizens aren't ruthless psychotics to their very cores? :cyber:

Glyph

Oct 31 2007, 04:50 AM

Post #81

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449

QUOTE (HappyDaze)

QUOTE

And you know what? It's a perfectly valid response. If a player pulls that kind of crap, it's the same as a mage casing control thoughts on other characters, or the sammie threatening the hacker with his Uzi III, or the hacker threatening the sammie with a copy of corporate security footage with his face on it. Except that the latter tend to happen during dramatic scenes of conflict. Social skills are on all of the time.

This doesn't fly.

Intraparty violence is not generally a valid response to social conflict. Why? Because as you said, social skills are on all the time. It's the normal and acceptable way of handling a conflict between non-hostiles. Just because someone disagrees with you and tries to change your mind (a social conflict) does not mean you should resort to physical violence - they are not your enemy. To even suggest that words should be dealt with by a bullet because you can't outtalk the other guy means that the suspension of disbelief in your game accepts that shadowrunners are not merely mercenaries but ruthless psychotics to the core.

Since social skills are on all the time, perhaps everyone would do well to brush up on them. The group might not even need a dedicated Face, especially if they feel socially threatened by such an individual (not too uncommon IRL for poorly socialized people to avoid associating with those of more influence).

That doesn't fly.

It doesn't matter if a group "brushes up on" social skills. The face can probably fire a pistol, but still isn't likely to be even close to the sammie's level of skill. A dedicated face in SR4 will win most dice contests against any non-face hands-down, easily.

But the face is fine with a low pistols skill, because he doesn't have to face down combat monsters on a daily basis. But that's the situation the rest of the party's in, whenever the face wants his way.

In such a situation, roleplaying doesn't really matter, since your characters are all being overridden by the allmighty dice. So barring a GM who sets reasonable limits on social skills, it's back to Jack's solution.

WearzManySkins View Member Profile	Oct 31 2007, 05:23 AM Post #82
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,159 Joined: 12-April 07 From: Ork Underground Member No.: 11,440	I believe a poster has put a different spin on this,,,it was the party deciding on how to fence/dispose of loot/gear. There were several ways it could have been done, and for different reasons for it too, all the reasons were IG and IC. Again in such a situation who determines whose RPing carried the argument? Also a player does not have total control over his characters actions things like composure checks indicate that. WMS

HappyDaze

Oct 31 2007, 05:35 AM

Post #83

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,838
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,669

QUOTE

So barring a GM who sets reasonable limits on social skills, it's back to Jack's solution.

If you don't have a GM that sets reasonable limits on any aspect of the gam, then nobody's going to have a solution. I'm not suggesting mind control on the part of soail skills, but I am suggesting that they should be able to influnce PCs just as they influence NPCs - I don't play d20 for a number of reasons, and its ruling that PCs are immune to social skill effects is one of them.

QUOTE

A dedicated face in SR4 will win most dice contests against any non-face hands-down, easily.

Sure. But you didn't need to have a dedicated Face, did you? You choose to associate with a guy that can talk people into almost anything... and they (and your character) like it!

Charisma should be the most important stat in any game that involves any amount of social interaction either intraparty or interparty with NPCs. Look at how far Charisma and social skills get otherwise mundane individuals IRL. Of course, many of the players of RPGs tend towards the socially inept side that just wants to blow shit up, so it doesn't suprise me to find that some people don't want to mirror this aspect of reality to any real degree.

Smilin_Jack

Oct 31 2007, 05:48 AM

Post #84

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 208
Joined: 3-May 06
From: On the Run
Member No.: 8,521

QUOTE (HappyDaze)

Intraparty violence is not generally a valid response to social conflict. Why? Because as you said, social skills are on all the time. It's the normal and acceptable way of handling a conflict between non-hostiles. Just because someone disagrees with you and tries to change your mind (a social conflict) does not mean you should resort to physical violence - they are not your enemy. To even suggest that words should be dealt with by a bullet because you can't outtalk the other guy means that the suspension of disbelief in your game accepts that shadowrunners are not merely mercenaries but ruthless psychotics to the core.

Since social skills are on all the time, perhaps everyone would do well to brush up on them. The group might not even need a dedicated Face, especially if they feel socially threatened by such an individual (not too uncommon IRL for poorly socialized people to avoid associating with those of more influence).

And my suspension of disbelief goes out the window when the other characters know for a fact that the face is a slick tricky con man who can turn the Don gay or convince the elf corp princess to put out for the troll biker - after all that's exactly why they put up with him in the first place - falling for his crap.

Then again, I don't have to worry about it anymore as PC social skills don't work on other PC's anymore in our games. :P

HappyDaze

Oct 31 2007, 05:56 AM

Post #85

Shooting Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,838
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 7,669

QUOTE

Then again, I don't have to worry about it anymore as PC social skills don't work on other PC's anymore in our games.

I saw another GM make a similar change by making it so that all PCs were 100% immune to attacks from other PCs (something he got from a online game). I don't think either idea is a satisfying solution to ingame problems.

BTW, can NPCs use social skills against your PCs, or are all PCs total psychos that can't be influenced by others?

Glyph View Member Profile	Oct 31 2007, 06:14 AM Post #86
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449	In a prior post, he said social skills were limited to PC vs NPC or NPC vs PC, so I assume characters in his games can still be affected by social skills. Just to be clear, since you advocate rollin' dem bones, what would you consider some good examples of acceptable social skill use by a face vs. a party member? On the flip side, what would you consider out of the scope of a social skill's range, even for a face? What would you do if a face used his social skills to get his way all of the time - would the party eventually get higher thresholds to resist it, representing them getting sick of it? And like Jack pointed out, they also know that the face is a con man - how would that affect his thresholds vs. other PCs? Or would he be like Harry the Hat, able to bamboozle them at will?

Smilin_Jack View Member Profile	Oct 31 2007, 06:15 AM Post #87
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 208 Joined: 3-May 06 From: On the Run Member No.: 8,521	Yep - NPCs can use social skills against our PCs. My ex-gangster character has been conned, fast-talked, and screwed over by plenty of NPCs. So have the face, mage, and deck... hacker.

toturi

Oct 31 2007, 08:01 AM

Post #88

Canon Companion

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187

QUOTE (HappyDaze @ Oct 31 2007, 12:26 PM)

QUOTE

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.

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.

Results of physical actions are inherently more enforceable by the GM because the rules of combat are clearer and more unambiguous than the Social skill rules. The sammy does not have the final word, however. He still needs to shoot to kill the Face, just as the Face can shoot the Sam back. The Face can also use Edge to bypass being killed. Just as the Sam can sacrifice RP karma to ignore the strong influence the Face or any other NPC or PC have on him.

Both sides have their upsides and downsides. It is a matter of choice.

Nightwalker450 View Member Profile	Oct 31 2007, 01:54 PM Post #89
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 698 Joined: 26-October 06 From: Iowa, United States Member No.: 9,720	One thing that should be very closely looked at: Is this really an In-character argument, or a player argument? In my gaming experience the plan is usually come up with by the group of players, not just by one player. The basic idea is some players are not as intelligent or charismatic as their character, so by producing a plan as a group the "face" gets to have a plan that is generally going to work well, and be acceptable to all players. Once set, then its open to dice rolls if people want to throw in character disputes in. This is just something that hasn't been mentioned, the rules handle characters who have higher strength then their players, but it takes a group to make up for a player not being as smart or as charismatic as his character. Are there any players who have a charisma of 6, and phermone enhancers? If players are set on different plans and can't come into an aggreement, then the GM needs to step in and turn it into in-character sooner to keep player hostilities down. GM has to act as referee between characters as well as players if he want's to keep a story moving.

Fortune

Oct 31 2007, 01:59 PM

Post #90

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

QUOTE (Nightwalker450)

In my gaming experience the plan is usually come up with by the group of players, not just by one player. The basic idea is some players are not as intelligent or charismatic as their character, so by producing a plan as a group the "face" gets to have a plan that is generally going to work well, and be acceptable to all players. Once set, then its open to dice rolls if people want to throw in character disputes in.

This is just something that hasn't been mentioned, the rules handle characters who have higher strength then their players, but it takes a group to make up for a player not being as smart or as charismatic as his character.

This is a very good point.

TheGothfather View Member Profile	Oct 31 2007, 03:20 PM Post #91
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 24-February 06 From: California, USA Member No.: 8,303	I'm talking about in-character arguments, specifically dealing with those situations where two characters' beliefs are pitted against each other. Also, and I didn't really explain this before, this system assumes a certain playstyle. It's not going to work for everyone, and I realize that. I just figured I'd present it for anyone who was interested.

WinterRat1

Nov 2 2007, 06:23 PM

Post #92

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,289
Joined: 20-April 04
Member No.: 6,260

The Living in the Shadows (LITS) and Down in the Gutter (DITG) games over in the Welcome to the Shadows forum use the following interpretation of Social Skills. They apply equally to PC vs. NPC or PC vs. PC.

I based them off of the Secret Arts mechanics from Eos Press's Weapons of the Gods, which is an excellent game, by the way.

I realize every group has their own way of doing things, and this may not be the best solution for everyone. Regardless, I hope this proves helpful to whoever may choose to use it.

Note: It's not explicitly stated in the rules below, but the penalty may or may not be a quantitative one. It may be a role-playing/qualitative one as well.

QUOTE

Social Skills

Social Skills in Down in the Gutter operate on the following basic principles:

1. Free Choice - No character, PC or NPC, should ever be forced to do something against their basic nature as a result of a Social Skill roll, or else it’s not a social skill, it’s mind control.

2. Genuine Impact - Social Skill rolls must have a material impact on the game, or else there is no point to having them as a game mechanic.

3. Equal Application - PC and NPC alike must be equally subjected to the results of Social Skill rolls, or else social skills become an unfair one way ticket for PCs to impact NPCs while refusing to be impacted in return.

4. Choices have Consequences - If a character chooses to act in a way other than what the roll would naturally dictate, there must be a consequence to ignoring the roll or else the roll has no validity.

Therefore, all Social Skill rolls in DITG will be handled in the following manner: All characters, PC or NPC, must either roleplay the result of the roll or suffer a penalty determined by the GM.

For example, suppose Aziz loses an Intimidation Roll to Ganger A. He can choose to roleplay being intimidated and act accordingly, possibly backing down, apologizing, or running away. Alternatively, he may act in a way that does not correspond with failing the roll, such as attacking Ganger A, and suffer a penalty of a magnitude and duration determined by the GM, depending on the result of the Intimidation roll.

You will note that Principle 1, Free Choice, is not violated. Aziz is free to choose his response to losing the Intimidation roll.

Similarly, Principle 2, Genuine Impact is followed, as Aziz is impacted in a material way, either letting the roll dictate his actions to a certain extent or taking a statistical penalty.

Principle 3, Equal Application, is followed, as Aziz is subject to the result of a Social Skill roll, just as he would expect the Ganger to be impacted by failing the Social Skill roll if the positions were reversed.

Finally, Principle 4, Choices have Consequences applies because Aziz will suffer a penalty as a consequence of choosing to act in a way other than what the roll dictates the result should be. Perhaps the penalty is a result of a loss of confidence in himself, or maybe he knows he got owned and can’t help but feel embarrassed.

Note that players may not invoke the, ‘well my character should not be subject to the penalty because he would do X even though the result of the roll is Y because he’s just like that’ defense.

To continue the previous example, Aziz cannot argue that because Aziz is a violent, ornery fellow, if he was Intimidated he really would attack Ganger A and therefore should not suffer a penalty. It may be true that Aziz is violent, ornery, and really would attack Ganger A if he felt threatened. In that case, he is forced to either do something contrary to his nature (back down and avoid conflict) or suffer a penalty to what he would normally do (fight). Even if it is what Aziz would do, it doesn’t change the fact that his self-confidence is rattled and he is now uncertain of himself as a result of the Intimidation roll, causing him to fight at a disadvantage.

Since the GM definition of what constitutes ‘roleplaying the result of the roll’ is what counts, players are free to ask us what they are allowed to do in the process of roleplaying the result of the roll and what actions would result in a penalty. In most cases this should be fairly self-explanatory, but as always, players are encouraged to seek clarification where necessary.

WearzManySkins View Member Profile	Nov 2 2007, 06:52 PM Post #93
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,159 Joined: 12-April 07 From: Ork Underground Member No.: 11,440	@WinterRat1 Nice system, good examples. WMS

Riley37

Nov 2 2007, 08:23 PM

Post #94

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 573
Joined: 17-September 07
Member No.: 13,319

QUOTE (Nightwalker450)

...it takes a group to make up for a player not being as smart or as charismatic as his character. Are there any players who have a charisma of 6, and phermone enhancers?

Cogent point on the group option to work *together* to make the in-game result match the in-game character abilities, when those differ from the player's abilities.

An attractive female gamer, in a group of mostly male and mostly lonely gamers, can get doubled effective Charisma and make good use of pheremones, and if they are also the GM's girlfriend, they may get HandOfGod without actually burning Edge, but that's a different topic.

DITG lays out some explicit principles. Yay explicit principles, thanks for posting them!

Now then. I *still* see more discussion. I'm rolling my Charisma + Con. Anyone who gets fewer hits, *must* pitch their players on either Gothfather's system or the DITG principles, or lose Karma.

24.97.85.139/cgi-bin/shadowroll.pl

WinterRat1 View Member Profile	Nov 2 2007, 08:33 PM Post #95
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,289 Joined: 20-April 04 Member No.: 6,260	With respects to the original author of this thread (The Gothfather) I am curious to see what the general DSF public’s opinion is of the Social Conflict System I use in my games. I don’t mean to create a ‘competing’ thread as it were; I am simply interested in soliciting feedback from a wider stream of opinions beyond those currently following this thread. Thanks to all for the thoughts and ideas presented in this thread so far!

Fortune View Member Profile	Nov 2 2007, 08:36 PM Post #96
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	I'd like a clearer idea on your use of the word 'punishment' (examples would help) before I can really form a full opinion.

WinterRat1 View Member Profile	Nov 2 2007, 08:44 PM Post #97
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,289 Joined: 20-April 04 Member No.: 6,260	Was that directed towards me? I didn't use the word 'punishment' anywhere in my writeup so I am uncertain if you were referring to me or another poster.

Fortune

Nov 2 2007, 08:54 PM

Post #98

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

QUOTE (WinterRat1)

Was that directed towards me? I didn't use the word 'punishment' anywhere in my writeup so I am uncertain if you were referring to me or another poster.

You're right. Read one too many posts and misremembered the exact wording. Sorry about that. I meant your use of the word 'penalty'.

TheGothfather

Nov 2 2007, 08:57 PM

Post #99

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 112
Joined: 24-February 06
From: California, USA
Member No.: 8,303

I think this works just fine. It accomplishes the same thing that my system does, but it's clearly designed for a different playstyle than I use. In both systems, player choice is preserved, albeit in different ways, social skills impact the game, the application is equal, and all choices have consequences. Really, the only difference is what approach we take to the problem, but I think that both (and probably numerous other possible systems) are valid solutions.

QUOTE (Riley37)

I'm rolling my Charisma + Con. Anyone who gets fewer hits, *must* pitch their players on either Gothfather's system or the DITG principles, or lose Karma.

Well, I'm clearly pitching my own system to my players, but that's because my system was designed to fit the style of play I use at my table, which is much more "indie" game style than traditional. Either of the one's that we've suggested in this thread would work well, I think, as would no system at all if that's what makes it fun for your players.

Smilin_Jack View Member Profile	Nov 2 2007, 10:00 PM Post #100
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 208 Joined: 3-May 06 From: On the Run Member No.: 8,521	Ok, here are some issues that irk me when applying social tests in a PC vs PC context. 1. Does the positive quality Magic Resistance add to a characters dice pool on tests against adept powers? They are magic after all..... 2. The positive qualities High Pain Tolerance, Toughness, and Will to Live are useful in regards to damage (be it from magic or a bullet). 2.a. The positive qualities First Impression, Animal Empathy, Human Looking, and Guts add to social dice test. 2.a.1. Guts is the only positive quality that adds dice specifically when resisting social tests, and then only when resisting fear and intemidation. 2.b. There are no positive qualities useful for resisting social influence as a whole (see 2.a.1 above) withouth being a charismatic character. 3. While combat is has an exaustive list of modifiers, the BBB specifically states that "The gamemaster should evaluate each situation and apply modifiers as he feels appropriate. The Social Modifiers Table (p. 122) provides some examples." 3.a.1 The parties face is known for his ability to lie, con, cheat, and steal with words, the other characters know this, should the face be penalized when trying to perform his manipulations on them? 4.a In the Game Concepts section (p. 61) Charisma is stated to be "Charisma is a nebulous attribute. More than just looks, Charisma represents a character’s personal aura, self-image, ego, willingness to find out what people want and give it to them, and ability to recognize what she can and can’t get out of people." While Willpower is "Willpower keeps a character going when she wants to give up, or enables her to control her habits and emotions. <snip> Willpower also represents a character’s cool under fire, her ability to resist intimidation and manipulation, and her resolve to stick to her guns when the pressure is on." So why is a target characters Con resistance roll based on Charisma instead of Willpower?

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »