The primary purpose of this thread is to solicit feedback regarding the interpretation of Social Skills I use in my games. A secondary purpose is to present this system for use to any who wish to make use of it.
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, NPC 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, and informative in discussing ways to improve what is a potentially contentious area of gameplay.
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.
Full Version: Social Skill System
| 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. |
Same question as the other thread. I would like to have some idea of the kind of things you have in mind when you refer to a 'penalty'.
I left the penalty deliberately vague because the GMs in my games enforce varying penalties dependent on the situation.
Example 1: In the Aziz vs. Ganger example above, I would base my penalty on the net hits achieved by the ganger.
If he Intimidates Aziz by only 1 net hit, I may just give Aziz a -1 dice pool penalty to his first attack, possibly more or less depending on how the situation was role-played.
If he Intimidates Aziz by 3 net hits, rather than giving Aziz a -3 penalty to his first attack, I would probably give him -1 dice pool penalty to his next 3 attacks/defenses (or maybe -2 to first action, -1 to second action). My logic in that situation would be if Aziz was so Intimidated as to receive a -3 on his first attack, he should not be attacking. Since he is attacking, he’s not rattled enough to NOT fight, but rattled enough that until he regains his equilibrium he will be at either a small disadvantage over a moderate time frame or bigger disadvantage in a short time frame.
If he Intimidates Aziz by 5 net hits, I would rule Aziz was significantly Intimidated (whether he role-played it or not) and thus make the penalty substantially stiffer, because the high fear factor should play a significant role in the outcome. I’d probably go with a staggered penalty, but higher in the beginning, say -3, -2, -1, -1, -1, over the course of 5 successive actions (attack or defense). The dice penalty in this case is not proportionate to the net hits Aziz lost by (as in the other examples), but I am also accounting for the fact that the ganger scored a critical success.
Example 2: The PCs lose a Negotiation roll to Mr. Johnson and instead of raising their fee he lowers it. The PCs decide to walk away. In this instance, there would not be any statistical penalties; I would make them role-playing related.
My interpretation of this situation is Mr. Johnson clearly outmaneuvered and out negotiated the characters, but rather than owning up to that they simply walked away because not everything went the way they wanted. Negotiations involve give and take, and there is always a risk you will end up giving more than you take in return. If the characters are not prepared to deal with that, and refuse to play by that concept, over time they will develop a reputation as hard to deal with.
I may have a Johnson in the future refuse to even Negotiate at all, because why should he? If he comes out ahead, the characters will simply walk, and everyone knows it. So why waste his time? He would say the deal is what it is, if you don’t want it, don’t take it. This snowballs into the characters having a rep of not being worth it for rush jobs, because obviously you can’t play the ‘take it or leave it’ card when time is a factor. Consequently, Johnsons will pass them up for certain types of jobs, such as where time is a factor. And so on and so forth.
Obviously I would not penalize significantly for walking away in all circumstances, or once in a while, especially if there are other factors making it reasonable to walk. But the general rule applied is if the PCs were not willing to honor the principles of negotiation and would only deal when they came out ahead, every single time, eventually people will choose to go to runners that were easier and more flexible to deal with.
Example 3: The PC face presents a plan of action the PC samurai disagrees with. After Social Skill rolls to convince the team, the face wins. Assuming the samurai decides to go against the plan, for whatever reason, in addition to whatever fallout the other PCs determined came from their characters, I would give the samurai a dice penalty at an appropriate time, representing self doubt. Maybe the face did have a better plan, and he was just being stubborn, should he have not been so stubborn? That doubt or questioning may show up to slow him down, even if ever so slightly, as he wonders if he should have gone along with the plan after all.
Disclaimer: In this and all situations, a certain amount of reasonableness and common sense is presumed. If the face’s plan was to assault Fort Knox with holdout pistols, barging in through the front gate shooting everything that moves, the samurai would suffer no penalty, because logic comes into play and he should not reasonably doubt himself for not going along with the plan, although he may doubt himself for not being there for his team or talking them out of it.
Do those examples answer your question?
Example 1: In the Aziz vs. Ganger example above, I would base my penalty on the net hits achieved by the ganger.
If he Intimidates Aziz by only 1 net hit, I may just give Aziz a -1 dice pool penalty to his first attack, possibly more or less depending on how the situation was role-played.
If he Intimidates Aziz by 3 net hits, rather than giving Aziz a -3 penalty to his first attack, I would probably give him -1 dice pool penalty to his next 3 attacks/defenses (or maybe -2 to first action, -1 to second action). My logic in that situation would be if Aziz was so Intimidated as to receive a -3 on his first attack, he should not be attacking. Since he is attacking, he’s not rattled enough to NOT fight, but rattled enough that until he regains his equilibrium he will be at either a small disadvantage over a moderate time frame or bigger disadvantage in a short time frame.
If he Intimidates Aziz by 5 net hits, I would rule Aziz was significantly Intimidated (whether he role-played it or not) and thus make the penalty substantially stiffer, because the high fear factor should play a significant role in the outcome. I’d probably go with a staggered penalty, but higher in the beginning, say -3, -2, -1, -1, -1, over the course of 5 successive actions (attack or defense). The dice penalty in this case is not proportionate to the net hits Aziz lost by (as in the other examples), but I am also accounting for the fact that the ganger scored a critical success.
Example 2: The PCs lose a Negotiation roll to Mr. Johnson and instead of raising their fee he lowers it. The PCs decide to walk away. In this instance, there would not be any statistical penalties; I would make them role-playing related.
My interpretation of this situation is Mr. Johnson clearly outmaneuvered and out negotiated the characters, but rather than owning up to that they simply walked away because not everything went the way they wanted. Negotiations involve give and take, and there is always a risk you will end up giving more than you take in return. If the characters are not prepared to deal with that, and refuse to play by that concept, over time they will develop a reputation as hard to deal with.
I may have a Johnson in the future refuse to even Negotiate at all, because why should he? If he comes out ahead, the characters will simply walk, and everyone knows it. So why waste his time? He would say the deal is what it is, if you don’t want it, don’t take it. This snowballs into the characters having a rep of not being worth it for rush jobs, because obviously you can’t play the ‘take it or leave it’ card when time is a factor. Consequently, Johnsons will pass them up for certain types of jobs, such as where time is a factor. And so on and so forth.
Obviously I would not penalize significantly for walking away in all circumstances, or once in a while, especially if there are other factors making it reasonable to walk. But the general rule applied is if the PCs were not willing to honor the principles of negotiation and would only deal when they came out ahead, every single time, eventually people will choose to go to runners that were easier and more flexible to deal with.
Example 3: The PC face presents a plan of action the PC samurai disagrees with. After Social Skill rolls to convince the team, the face wins. Assuming the samurai decides to go against the plan, for whatever reason, in addition to whatever fallout the other PCs determined came from their characters, I would give the samurai a dice penalty at an appropriate time, representing self doubt. Maybe the face did have a better plan, and he was just being stubborn, should he have not been so stubborn? That doubt or questioning may show up to slow him down, even if ever so slightly, as he wonders if he should have gone along with the plan after all.
Disclaimer: In this and all situations, a certain amount of reasonableness and common sense is presumed. If the face’s plan was to assault Fort Knox with holdout pistols, barging in through the front gate shooting everything that moves, the samurai would suffer no penalty, because logic comes into play and he should not reasonably doubt himself for not going along with the plan, although he may doubt himself for not being there for his team or talking them out of it.
Do those examples answer your question?
That is basically what I am using right now. Even though I did not write it down in a proper way. 
NPC vs. PC social rolls used to be a problem before we came to the agreement that it was needed to keep things believable. And it made most of my players pick Intimidation, to avoid being bullied by gangers.
PC vs. PC social rolls tend to fall under the radar(as they are often handled by player vs player social roll
), I am trying to enforce them whenever really needed though. This should be easier in a forum based game.
NPC vs. PC social rolls used to be a problem before we came to the agreement that it was needed to keep things believable. And it made most of my players pick Intimidation, to avoid being bullied by gangers.
PC vs. PC social rolls tend to fall under the radar(as they are often handled by player vs player social roll
), I am trying to enforce them whenever really needed though. This should be easier in a forum based game.
| QUOTE (WinterRat1) |
| Do those examples answer your question? |
To a tee!
I really like the system, and think it would be quite good for those times when this kind of thing pops up.
I like the system, too. If you need to have social skills affect other PCs, this is about as good a system as you could come up with.
I'm not sure about the Mr. Johnson example, but that depends on what point they are in the negotiations. A Johnson who makes an initial offer (presumably a lowball one, to start things going), then lowers it later, is essentially slapping the PCs in the face. I wouldn't blame them for walking. It's different if it's during the course of the negotiations, where the asking price is wobbling up and down.
I'm not sure about the Mr. Johnson example, but that depends on what point they are in the negotiations. A Johnson who makes an initial offer (presumably a lowball one, to start things going), then lowers it later, is essentially slapping the PCs in the face. I wouldn't blame them for walking. It's different if it's during the course of the negotiations, where the asking price is wobbling up and down.
Hmm interesting take, but I'd still not want to have the PCs roll dice instead of trying to think of and agree on a plan. It would slow down the roleplay too much, and unless the players are more or less undecided they will not go with a plan they don't like at all, no matter if the Face rolls 15 hits.
They do try to roleplay their social skills somewhat, but if I said now you must follow Uzz's inadequate plan or face penalties on actions that differs from it (for example) they wouldn't be happy about it.
As for having NPCs influence PCs, that's fine by me (and vice versa), and I like that they can ignore some of it if it's against their nature. Although I'd give some harsher penalties I think, -1 on first action is nothing to a combat character... in my experience if shove comes to blow one of them goes down in a pass or two.
They do try to roleplay their social skills somewhat, but if I said now you must follow Uzz's inadequate plan or face penalties on actions that differs from it (for example) they wouldn't be happy about it.
As for having NPCs influence PCs, that's fine by me (and vice versa), and I like that they can ignore some of it if it's against their nature. Although I'd give some harsher penalties I think, -1 on first action is nothing to a combat character... in my experience if shove comes to blow one of them goes down in a pass or two.
Warning: not slept for more than the appropriate time, read with care,
I like the soft -1 dice penalty but for tougher GMs you can make up something different like easier glitches or maybe you can't use edge or you gain the cursed karma quality, all of this just for 1 pass or for a while...
Cheers,
Max
| QUOTE (FriendoftheDork) |
| They do try to roleplay their social skills somewhat, but if I said now you must follow Uzz's inadequate plan or face penalties on actions that differs from it (for example) they wouldn't be happy about it. |
I imagine it's more for "all other things being equal". If there are two plans and the group is split down the middle trying to decide, it seems to me like it might work.
If it's just one guy with charisma and no tactical skills trying to get things to go his way against the rest of the group backing a solid plan, I don't think any GM would try and force a roll...
| QUOTE (WinterRat1) |
| 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. |
RAW already preposits your basic principles. However, only the NPCs "have" to roleplay as they do not get awarded RP karma. But PCs do get to ignore Social skill rolls at the expense of not getting RP karma. Karma has a material effect on the game, hence not being awarded RP karma for not following the roll fulfills both 2 and 4.
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Define "basic nature".
My typical measuring stick for such things is the Milgram Experiment. If an interpretation of the effect of social skills does not allow the Milgram Experiment to have approximately the results it had, it is too flawed to be useful.
~J
Needs more tables. Give me a functional set of rules like I would find it in a sourcebook, and my group will try it out.
| QUOTE (NightRain) | ||
I imagine it's more for "all other things being equal". If there are two plans and the group is split down the middle trying to decide, it seems to me like it might work. If it's just one guy with charisma and no tactical skills trying to get things to go his way against the rest of the group backing a solid plan, I don't think any GM would try and force a roll... |
OK that has never happened in my group. There are usually 10-15 different plans, and most of the players like some or all of them and discuss the merits of each, considering what is effective and what their character likes.
Last time they used the backup plan "Trog jumps 10 meters over the monowire fence from a rooftop, goes through the armor glass window of the apartment of the target, and brings out both the extraction target and an opportinity target with the help of Simon's levitate spell and Uzz's covering fire."
Hmm, so I don't really think social skill rolls between PCs are usually necessary, but I don't mind the system as long as the players don't try to abuse it.
| QUOTE (FriendoftheDork) |
| ... but I don't mind the system as long as the players don't try to abuse it. |
If you build it, they will abuse it.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
Define "basic nature". My typical measuring stick for such things is the Milgram Experiment. If an interpretation of the effect of social skills does not allow the Milgram Experiment to have approximately the results it had, it is too flawed to be useful. ~J |
Yeah, because that's what shadowrunners are known for, obedience to authority.
But seriously, the problem with allowing the equivalent of the Milgram experiment in Shadowrun is that, if you asked those people if they would do such a thing beforehand, they would probably say "No, of course not!" Players will probably feel the same way about their characters. Therefore, replicating the effects of the Milgram experiment enforces realism at the expense of verisimilitude... and in a roleplaying game, I personally find the latter to be more important.
If anything, a shadowrunner would continue giving the shocks after being told to stop, just for the lulz.
| QUOTE (Glyph @ Nov 4 2007, 03:17 PM) |
| Yeah, because that's what shadowrunners are known for, obedience to authority. |
But most NPCs are.
As for shadowrunners, they'd probably go full power on the first error because they're runners; there is something wrong with them.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.