It's not my fault, I am just doing what the dice say my character would do!

[ImNotTrevor]

I mean, a lot of Quertus' duels have mattered, he's just always failed to emerge victorious.

For difficult decisions... although it can easily be overdone, I often like the type of hard choices where circumstances pit two of a character's desires / principles against each other.

I very much like giving people hard decisions. And they need not always be big dire things to still be hard choices.

"You can get the person you're with to the other side of the street and into cover but you take damage for both of you, or you are pinned down here but unharmed for now." (This said based on a roll's outcome.)

That is, depending on specific context, a hard decision. (Especially if the PC is low on health and their way out is across the street.) I try to have one or two per session, or when things are getting dire I'll aim for one per PC per session of the dice are helpful

But I do ALSO enjoy playing their goals against one another. I don't have to dislike one form of hard decision to like the other. I just loke them generally.

[Cluedrew]

I very much like giving people hard decisions. And they need not always be big dire things to still be hard choices.

Well yeah you play Apocalypse World right? The whole "Yes, but..." method is built into the system on a 7-9.

For those who don't know, that is a weak hit, which usually results in a success but often a choice about how things go wrong on the side. (Weak hits take other forms as well, but that is the relevant one.)

I was going to try to say something significant, but I am also tried. I am going to throw out that zero-control mechanics (those that actually have no enforcement at all) can still be useful. Mostly because they help you think about the character. They can point you in the direction the game is supposed to go or just trigger ideas.

Example: I once played a game that had Medical Information as a field on the character sheet. I have never before or since actually stopped and thought about what injuries or sicknesses my character might have had, their allergies or medication they take. But I did here and a few more parts clicked into place for this character who was a medical mess.

[Max_Killjoy]

...Umm...

If I go back and link every time you have rejected (usually with at least one word to increase the strength) the idea of mechanics effecting decisions we are going to be here for a long time. But to me "Descriptions, decisions, dice rolls / other rules, etc, work in a cycle, not in a line." suggests that dice rolls and rules influence decisions.

OK, two different things being discussed, that's the disconnect. In part because (I think) I misunderstood the descriptive/prescriptive split.

The first thing is whether in-character roleplaying decisions should be made based on the character's thoughts, interaction with the setting, immediate and long-term circumstances, etc -- and not for mechanical carrot-and-stick reasons. And yes, I still say that mechanics should take a distant back seat in that regard.

The second thing was (I thought) a question about "order of operations", and to me the order of operations would be a circle, and not a short arrow, because once the character has decided what to do, if it requires interaction with the rules, then the rules come into play, but either way the situation changes based on the outcome of the character's actions (or failed attempt), and their next decision is informed by the new situation they're presented with, and so on.


And since we're on that subject, one of my major objections to systems that have long-narration setups before or after or around the actual "mechanics instant", as opposed to having each attempted action or intrinsically linked set of actions be its own "mechanics instant", is that it strips the character (and thus the player) of most of their decision points and their ability to react to / interact with the situation as it unfolds.

[Segev]

OK, two different things being discussed, that's the disconnect. In part because (I think) I misunderstood the descriptive/prescriptive split.

Yeah, that split seems a little awkward, at best, for this discussion. I would prefer to avoid those terms here. (I like them elsewhere; they just seem to engender confusion rather than clarity here.)

The first thing is whether in-character roleplaying decisions should be made based on the character's thoughts, interaction with the setting, immediate and long-term circumstances, etc -- and not for mechanical carrot-and-stick reasons. And yes, I still say that mechanics should take a distant back seat in that regard.

I'll say that my goals here have been to align the "carrot and stick" with the "thoughts, interaction with the setting, and immediate and long-term circumstances." My problems, that I'm trying to resolve, are a problem with the carrot-and-stick as it stands being contrary to the latter "character goals" grouping of drives.

And since we're on that subject, one of my major objections to systems that have long-narration setups before or after or around the actual "mechanics instant", as opposed to having each attempted action or intrinsically linked set of actions be its own "mechanics instant", is that it strips the character (and thus the player) of most of their decision points and their ability to react to / interact with the situation as it unfolds.

Agreed. Whole-heartedly. It's one of the major problems with most social systems as they stand. "Okay, I talk about this and try to convince people of that and here's my spiel, and we had this conversation IC. Now I roll this one Social Check to see if it went my way!" is hardly satisfying.

A design goal for me in building anything intended as even a rudimentary social system would be to have multiple decision points, each represented by some mechanical activity/choice. I know you don't like the comparison to combat, but please focus on the aspect I'm referencing here when I say that I want to model it after the level of in-game-actions that have gameplay moves associated with them in the same way combat does.

I want sequences of rolls to influence, persuade, deceive, manipulate, learn about, and otherwise alter the social dynamics of the scene as characters try to bring things around to their goals. Just as we have movement and attack rolls and damage rolls and nuances in how position and line of sight and the like to make combat something characters are trying to take sequences of mechanical actions to bring around to their goals.

[Max_Killjoy]

Agreed. Whole-heartedly. It's one of the major problems with most social systems as they stand. "Okay, I talk about this and try to convince people of that and here's my spiel, and we had this conversation IC. Now I roll this one Social Check to see if it went my way!" is hardly satisfying.

A design goal for me in building anything intended as even a rudimentary social system would be to have multiple decision points, each represented by some mechanical activity/choice. I know you don't like the comparison to combat, but please focus on the aspect I'm referencing here when I say that I want to model it after the level of in-game-actions that have gameplay moves associated with them in the same way combat does.

I want sequences of rolls to influence, persuade, deceive, manipulate, learn about, and otherwise alter the social dynamics of the scene as characters try to bring things around to their goals. Just as we have movement and attack rolls and damage rolls and nuances in how position and line of sight and the like to make combat something characters are trying to take sequences of mechanical actions to bring around to their goals.

I see the merit in that, if for no other reason than that the "one roll, get result" setup tends to result in things that feel more like mind-bending powers than social interaction.

In fact, if we take a notoriously heavy-handed mental power as an example, there's Dominate in Vampire, which I would have been much less put off by if it had been constructed in a way that affected social interaction in the way that physical disciplines affected combat. That is, ways to make the character more effective in intimidating, manipulating, persuading, etc.

I always found it odd how many people would have been vehemently opposed to a combat "I win button" power that was only stopped by someone being "better generation" or buying a Merit, who were none the less entirely fine with the way Dominate works.

[ImNotTrevor]

Well yeah you play Apocalypse World right? The whole "Yes, but..." method is built into the system on a 7-9.

That is the system that introduced me to my love of such choices, and it is my favorite. But it is not the only system I play or the only one that I can use to have that happen.

For those who don't know, that is a weak hit, which usually results in a success but often a choice about how things go wrong on the side. (Weak hits take other forms as well, but that is the relevant one.)

A partial success in AW actually takes other forms more often than it takes the one you listed.

Most involve "You get what you want but to a lesser degree"
Then there's "You get what you want with strings attached"
And there's "You don't get what you want, but you get something like it."
What I'm talking about is: "You can either get what you want at cost, or not get what you want without cost."

[Segev]

I see the merit in that, if for no other reason than that the "one roll, get result" setup tends to result in things that feel more like mind-bending powers than social interaction.

In fact, if we take a notoriously heavy-handed mental power as an example, there's Dominate in Vampire, which I would have been much less put off by if it had been constructed in a way that affected social interaction in the way that physical disciplines affected combat. That is, ways to make the character more effective in intimidating, manipulating, persuading, etc.

I always found it odd how many people would have been vehemently opposed to a combat "I win button" power that was only stopped by someone being "better generation" or buying a Merit, who were none the less entirely fine with the way Dominate works.

I think the reason people are "okay" with how Dominate works is because it's supposed to be the mental invasion effect.

Using D&D for the example, dominate person is supposed to be a literal override of the victim's will. They are your mind-slave. There's nothing subtle about it, insofar as the control goes. (It can be exerted subtly, of course, but the control itself is "bam! you must do as I say.")

Charm effects are more as you describe. It would be cool if a well-designed social system existed such that charm effects make the target more susceptible to the user's social manipulations. Instead of being "wham, you like them; make opposed Charisma checks if you don't want them to convince you to do something they're asking you to do," it would be a specific additional thing your character "likes." In my conception of the system I've been discussing, it would be a trait: "Likes this person." The magic is that it's just THERE all of a sudden, as opposed to having been built up over normal social interaction.

Even more subtle magics (perhaps "glamores" or the like) could instead magically augment the numbers the socialite is throwing around. If the Pirate Queen from our prior examples was actually a Fairy Pirate Queen using magical glamour, she could perhaps ignore "sexual preference" or otherwise throw bigger numbers around, justified as supernatural prowess. Or maybe she just has a minimum "cost" she can extract for resisting her wiles, on the basis that she's magically alluring even if you would otherwise be uninterested.



But overall, yes, I agree: for social mechanics to not feel like mind control, they need to operate on a level that feels more fine-grained than a single roll at the end. People have "less problem" with the magical compulsions being one-and-done effects because, I think, those magical compulsions are literally mind-control, so them feeling like mind control isn't a problem.

(Note: I'm saying people are okay with them being mechanically represented that way, not that they're okay with mind-control being used, necessarily. And I'm still not sure I'm making the distinction clear. Please let me know if you think I'm not; I'll try again.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I think the reason people are "okay" with how Dominate works is because it's supposed to be the mental invasion effect.

Using D&D for the example, dominate person is supposed to be a literal override of the victim's will. They are your mind-slave. There's nothing subtle about it, insofar as the control goes. (It can be exerted subtly, of course, but the control itself is "bam! you must do as I say.")

Charm effects are more as you describe. It would be cool if a well-designed social system existed such that charm effects make the target more susceptible to the user's social manipulations. Instead of being "wham, you like them; make opposed Charisma checks if you don't want them to convince you to do something they're asking you to do," it would be a specific additional thing your character "likes." In my conception of the system I've been discussing, it would be a trait: "Likes this person." The magic is that it's just THERE all of a sudden, as opposed to having been built up over normal social interaction.

Even more subtle magics (perhaps "glamores" or the like) could instead magically augment the numbers the socialite is throwing around. If the Pirate Queen from our prior examples was actually a Fairy Pirate Queen using magical glamour, she could perhaps ignore "sexual preference" or otherwise throw bigger numbers around, justified as supernatural prowess. Or maybe she just has a minimum "cost" she can extract for resisting her wiles, on the basis that she's magically alluring even if you would otherwise be uninterested.



But overall, yes, I agree: for social mechanics to not feel like mind control, they need to operate on a level that feels more fine-grained than a single roll at the end. People have "less problem" with the magical compulsions being one-and-done effects because, I think, those magical compulsions are literally mind-control, so them feeling like mind control isn't a problem.

(Note: I'm saying people are okay with them being mechanically represented that way, not that they're okay with mind-control being used, necessarily. And I'm still not sure I'm making the distinction clear. Please let me know if you think I'm not; I'll try again.)

I think I get it.

In terms of system construction, it's sort of like what happened with 4th edition Legend of the Five Rings. The original release had pretty much no rules for crafting, and then one of the supplements just sort of dropped in Schools with Techniques for crafting that existed in isolation. So instead of interacting with existing rules and augmenting and boosting and so on, these Techniques were sort of just... there. In a vacuum.

If you're going to have social "powers" or "techniques", it's probably better to have a system of mundane social interaction, than have them just exist in a vacuum, so that the effects can be more granular, more integrated, and where appropriate more subtle.

(Not to say that social mechanics should look anything like combat in general.)

[Segev]

I think I get it.

In terms of system construction, it's sort of like what happened with 4th edition Legend of the Five Rings. The original release had pretty much no rules for crafting, and then one of the supplements just sort of dropped in Schools with Techniques for crafting that existed in isolation. So instead of interacting with existing rules and augmenting and boosting and so on, these Techniques were sort of just... there. In a vacuum.

If you're going to have social "powers" or "techniques", it's probably better to have a system of mundane social interaction, than have them just exist in a vacuum, so that the effects can be more granular, more granular, and where appropriate more subtle.

Right.

In addition, I would say that there's a place for "Dominate" effects that are one-and-done: specifically where you want it to be overt "you are magically mind-whammied." i.e., actual, undeniable mind control.

The more subtle things should work with a better, more granular system.

There's nothing wrong with a one-and-done approach to "BAM, mind control." (Other than the fact that people understandably don't like mind control.)

Any time it's not "I can't help myself; I am being mind controlled" but the victim instead thinks they're operating of their own free will? That should use a more subtle system, akin to the non-magical social system (Which should be more than "wham, you're convinced" for the exact reason that it shouldn't feel like mind control.)

[Lacco]

I don't want to derail the thread, but @Segev & Cluedrew: I'm currently trying to implement a morale system into one of my games and would be interested in discussing it with you. I've been trying to read through this thread in full to get all the relevant ideas, but fail miserably every time I try (it's too long & my time is fairly limited).

I was thinking of opening a new thread related to morale mechanics, mostly because I want to avoid falling into the discussion about dice telling people how they should act (RoS calls this mechanic "Spiritual Attributes" and it's one of my favourite parts of the system) but want to know if you are interested in helping me out to build a working morale system.

[Segev]

I would be delighted.

[Cluedrew]

I have a big post written up this morning that addressed a lot of stuff said since my last post. Then I lost it and I don't have the time or energy to re-create it just now. Which is part of the reason that the frequency of my posts have been going down as well. So the short form:

To Max_Killjoy: That makes more sense, thank-you.

To ImNotTrevor: There are plenty of variations on weak hits. I mention the hard choice one because of two reasons. First it was the most relevant. Secondly (at least I my experience in some hacks) a lot of the other variations do have an element of that hard choice, so it can be present even when it is not front and center.

To lacco36: That sounds like fun. If you want to switch threads though I wouldn't switch because it is off topic (I don't think it is) but rather to get rid of the 39 pages of raw intimidation for anyone just stopping by. I think this thread might just have the highest word count of any thread I have ever seen on Giant in the Playground. There are longer threads, but few with such massive posts.

On Level of Detail: Which is another idea I would like to throw onto the descusion about level of abstraction and number of decision points. How much detail do you want? It you want more detail you decrease the level of abstraction and increase the number of decision points. Abstraction just to get more concrete information. Increasing the number of decision points gets you more paths through the situation, or more opportunities to select those details.

I think one issue with a lot of role-playing mechanics is that the level of detail we get mechanical is far less than what we want narratively. And so we are left trying to make up the difference and patch the mistakes the system makes.