Resolving social conflicts amicably

[simon_hibbs]

Player: "Screw that, I gut him anyway."
GM: "Ok, you can do that. Your Relationship ability with the Healer is reduced by 10 points[...]"

Simon,
I wonder if this doesn't just push the problem back one notch. Now whoever plays the Healer (I assume the GM in your example, but could be anyone in the general case.) has lost free will.

So, I guess my question is: are you trying to accomodate the insist-on-free-will players or are you looking to accomodate mixed groups with some freewillers and some others?

I forgot to address this question in my previous post.

The PC has lost some relationship ability with the Healer, not vice versa. The effects of losing the contest should always be applied to the loser (reduced ralationships, or increases in Bad Reputation type abilities). Also this rules suggestion doesn't take away free will from anyone. They merely enforce consequences - either in you actions if you choose to allow it, or in other ways if you don't.

I don't think anyone - not even adamant free-willers - would argue that character's shouldn't have any social abilities, or that there should be no social contests. Almost all RPGs do have some social skiills, abilities and contests even if it's just Bargain, Fast Talk and such.

I'm interested in accomodating mixed groups, because in practice many of the clubs and gamign groups I've been fortunate enough to game with have included players with differing tastes on this issue.


Simon Hibbs

[Resonantg]

I actually had something like this happen 2 times in the last month or so with my gaming group.  The first time it happened, it actually spawned some of the best role playing I've had in a long long time.  Another player and myself had a half hour long discussion, in character, in focus of the entire group, with the rest of the group trying to help out on one side or another.  We were playing in a Japanese Ninjas & Superspies campaign, and the concepts of honor and duty and treason were the focus of the issue The discussion was on whether or not a PC had committed treason and was one of the group members honorbound to execute her.  Now if you're familiar with the Japanese concepts on the topics, you can imagine how sticky this got since we all viewed ourselves as, or were, samurai in some form or another.  The player who was the target of the discussion had no real say in the issue (it was in the script, and she played it out beautifully I thought).  And so, for a half an hour or so, I debated the philosophical merits of letting her live and redeem herself, while the other PC debated it was our duty to execute her right then and there.  In the end, the character was spared and put on the road to redemption, but her would be executioner really saw no way for that character to continue on with the group and had her gracefully bow out (although that added another plot complication much to our chagrin).  The two characters as well as the players were satisfied by the resolution and we actually felt that we accomplished something akin to combat and were happy with it and went on (till her departure of course) without any conflicted feelings concocted by dice or GM decision.

The reason for this preamble is that these kinds of situations where you have  life or death, or maybe right and wrong hanging in the balance of an argument between players should be acted out whenever possible sans dice.  This is where the real meat of roleplaying is and shouldn't be avoided or just brushed under the rug with dice.  I will leave an exception to this rule of thumb though in which a player is playing a character that they themselves have no ability to act out (the character has an IQ of 250, and a very high Empathy with a lot of debating and philosophical skills, but is being played by a High School Student who flunked forensics).  Then dice should intervene where the players can't participate up to the level of the character.

Also, social interaction often is where characters build the most respect and understanding for themselves.  Another case in point.  A character I was playing got into a fight in which I was badly beaten up by another party member for insulting his honor.  I was mad, and sulked for a time.  The GM's resolution was to say that while accomplishing a task later in the game needed to succeed, the two characters were stuck on the same task and we "bonded" during it.  Now I didn't feel bonded, nor did the other player, but the GM says so, it is so, regardless of how the players feel, the characters were resolved.  By the next week the issue was over, but I did have to remind him the other player that we had "bonded" over our task, and he wouldn't do a few various actions, and I had to catch myself from doing rude things back because of the same said reason.  But regardless, the resolution was always in the "recordbooks" with an asterix next to the title denoting "solved by GM's decision", never by true resolution.

This is why I believe that players forced by dice or GM decision to act a certain way, sometimes gain a new animosity towards the other player that can bleed over unintentionally and can be the source of bitterness between players for a time.  Or they tend to sulk even though, according to the dice, the resolution was not only amicable, but incredibly so.  This disconnect can often cause problems farther down the line too.  Often, this is why I feel it's better to let the characters hash it out to the best of their abilities in character as much as possible, because I know how much fun it is to me.  Though, just thinking about this, if I look at it from a GNS point of view, I can see this being annoying as all getout to Gamist players while the Narrativist and Simulationist would enjoy it immensely and prefer this.

[Bill Cook]

I wonder what "play the page," "let the dice speak," "GM has the final word" players think about striking unsatisfactory resolutions from the record. As hard as you try to qualify risk, sometimes you'll end up with something you don't like that you didn't realize was possible. Sometimes it takes suffering a consequence to realize you can't bear it. So you might quit your job. Quit the relationship. Quit the game. In other words, it's a deal-beaker, and either as a matter of limited awareness or emotional truth, you are unprepared to face it.

I've had this happen. One session, half-jokingly, I said I killed my friend. That reality started to settle over the next few scenes. I really started to miss the guy, and I didn't like what it said about my character. So the next time the GM refered to his death, I said, "No, I didn't really mean that." But he wouldn't have it. Everyone backed him. But I couldn't stand it. It got in the way of my interest with the remainder of the session. At the start of the next session, the GM said, "I've thought about it and decided you can have that guy back."

That's a mechanic that doesn't show strongly in most Forge games. And I think it is more on target than other reccommendations forwarded in this thread. Universalis is the only one I can think of that facilitates VCR editing. Of course, you should make every effort to qualify, and I agree with the prevailing view of applying the unaltered system, but addressing remorse with something more nuanced than "GM may will it" would be a valuable stopgap. In fact, as I think of it, this is how TSOY enters BDTP.

[Jason Lee]

Wow.

And I realize that, a year ago, I probably would have agreed -- but now I don't. I used to see the loss of the ability to make decisions for my character as an intolerable violation: I didn't expect that whatever my character tried would work, but I certainly expected that I'd be able to try. But playing Capes and Dogs in the Vineyard, and reading Actual Play about those games and others, has convinced me that it's equally interesting to deal with losing control. I don't know about you, but in real life, I frequently watch myself make the wrong decision even though my "true" self wants something else, and people have wrestled with this issue in some really interesting story-telling for a long time. (Including, say, Saint Paul: "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak").

To riff off Ron Edwards's line (which I'm misquoting) "sometimes the dice tell you today is the day your character gets kicked to the curb": We're all more or less reconciled to game mechanics that say, "sorry, you missed the target" or "today is the day you got socked in the jaw; what do you do about it?" But there's fertile ground in games that tell you "sorry, you found you didn't have the willpower to shoot someone when your friends urged you not to" or "today is the day you lost faith in your cause; what do you do about it?"

As long as that "what do you do about it" isn't closed off, the story isn't over.

Entirely voluntary social resolution wouldn't hinder that kind of character, nor prevent you from using social resolution mechanics as a springboard for creativity.  Giving the target character's player the right to decide if a social conflict passes to resolution isn't just for static characters either.  What is does is allow you to control which aspects are open to change and what stakes are needed for character change.  With dynamic characters you'd be in a position to better reinforce character change.  You can establish a change in motivations and then remain consistent with that change.

The Duel of Wits mechanic Chris mentioned, and Vincent's note about the veto in Dogs are voluntary social resolution (just in case anyone thought I was talking about vetoing results after resolution instead of vetoing passing a conflict to resolution).


*****

Cruciel, I guess I'm not sure I agree with you.

I mean, maybe my guy's a Conan clone. I want to make a statement like "Human will can overcome any challenge" or "There's nothing in the universe cold steel can't cut." I roll three crappy combat rolls in a row and get gutted. Some statement.

Particularly in fantasy and western fiction, the way a character fights is a primary vehicle for that character's making a thematic statement. For Conan, it's no skin off his nose if a foxy witch seduces him into doing the wrong thing; the player's sitting there going 'fuck' but he knows that later on he'll figure out what's going on and then head out for sweet revenge. But if a competent city guard rolls two natural 20's and guts him, forget about it.

I guess what I'm saying is that losing a physical conflict is not intrinsically more or less deprotagonizing than losing a social conflict or any other type, though players may find it so. (I think that a lot of us are just trained to say "well, that's the game" about combat whiffs but not about social whiffs; this is an artifact of RPG design history though.)  So if we were to follow your logic all the way through it seems like we'd have to play Karma or heavily player-driven Drama systems to create protagonized players at all...but that's not right, I don't think.

The loss of a social conflict can do more damage to a theme, because it reflects a choice of the part of the character.  It decides the character's emotional boundaries - instead of defining results of a choice it decides the choice itself.  Though, which elements are relevant to the character will vary.  Conan Clone getting seduced doesn't impact the theme of the story much, but the impact might be significant if he was convinced that bloody vengeance is morally wrong.

Compromises to character traits that are results based, like combat effectiveness and getting mind controlled, are still a concern because they affect how a theme is expressed.  Meaning, they can still be deprotagonizing even if they don't compromise character motivations (I hope that sentence makes sense to someone other than me).  That's why in games that are more geared towards story you see a lot of authorial power mechanics to protect such traits, like fortune in the middle, shticks (absolute traits like "fastest gun in the west"), spiritual attributes, hero points, character death only when you establish it as a stake, etc.

Ron's Sorcerer mechanic is actually a really nice illustration of the difference.  If I'm reading it correctly, character motivation is not affected by resolution (choice), but the strength of that motivation is (results). Seems to fit nicely into a game that involves pitting your will against temptation.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Entirely sensible. It's just that when you say something like

What is does is allow you to control which aspects are open to change and what stakes are needed for character change....

I'm going: "Okay, but I want to explore the loss of control." I want to play a game (at least sometimes) where "my" character changes and is put at risk in ways that I not only didn't think of, but didn't even want.

Now, that's not for everyone. That's not even for me, all the time. But it's a place worth going.

[simon_hibbs]

I've had this happen. One session, half-jokingly, I said I killed my friend. That reality started to settle over the next few scenes. I really started to miss the guy, and I didn't like what it said about my character. So the next time the GM refered to his death, I said, "No, I didn't really mean that." But he wouldn't have it. Everyone backed him. But I couldn't stand it. It got in the way of my interest with the remainder of the session. At the start of the next session, the GM said, "I've thought about it and decided you can have that guy back."

This happens in TV serials, serial novels, etc all the time. The Amber novels by Roger Zelazny are a calassic case in point.

You don't need to revise history and break in-game continuity, you just have to get clever. Perhaps your character realy thought he'd kileld the guy, but actualy the whole situation was staged. Perhaps your characetr is in on the act, and just wanted the other players to think he'd done it (or an NPC - but he couldn't risk letting the other PCs know because the truth might leak).


Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

I'm going: "Okay, but I want to explore the loss of control." I want to play a game (at least sometimes) where "my" character changes and is put at risk in ways that I not only didn't think of, but didn't even want.

Now, that's not for everyone. That's not even for me, all the time. But it's a place worth going.

A veto (but still with game mechanical consequences) does not force you to use it every time, it merely means that other players can do so if they wish.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in the relative merits of allowing the dice to controll character actions or always having the player in controll. That is a seperate debate. What we are discussing here is whether it is possible to include both play styles within the same game, and strategies for enabling that.

Simon Hibbs

[drnuncheon]

Sorry, but I'm not interested in the relative merits of allowing the dice to controll character actions or always having the player in controll. That is a seperate debate. What we are discussing here is whether it is possible to include both play styles within the same game, and strategies for enabling that.

I've been following this thread with some interest, because it's about exactly the same mechanics that give me pause when thinking about games like Dogs.  Proscriptive personality mechanics are something that has been a problem since the very early days of roleplaying (alignment, anyone?) and they are, at least to this player, the quickest way to 'deprotagonize' a character.

Obviously, the mechanic for the dice controlling the character is already contained in the game, so we don't have to do anything to include that style of play.  So how do we include the other?

The first idea - which is the one that I've generally used - is as a part of the social contract: "Social skills don't get used on other PCs."  For the players that are OK with their character being controlled by the dice, you could add "unless the player is willing".  In this case, the free-willers would never even roll the dice until the situation escalated into physical action of some kind.  The resolution mechanics for the dice-controllers - and for influencing NPCs - would remaint he same, but (if I understand how Dogs, or any conflict resolution system, works) you would have to frame your conflicts carefully.  You would want to say "Does the Dog convince Bob of X" rather than "Who convinces the other one?"  This is probably the best way, if all the players can agree, because everything else I can think of is going to involve more compromise on the part of the free-willers.

The other thought I've had is that ideally, the personality mechanic in use should, if the character is described correctly, produce the same results as the player's choices - that is to say, the more accurate the sheet, the less the disconnect between the player's decisions and what the rules would say.  I think this is the direction in which you were going when you suggested changes to the sheet when a player refused the results of the social rolls.  I think the thing to keep in mind there is that the changes should always move in the direction of making the sheet a more accurate depiction of the character as it is played.

Then again, it may be just a case of it being the wrong system for what you want to play.  It may be the equivalent of trying to use Chaosium's BRP or WHFRP to do a campaign based on the film Hero: "I deflect the thousands of arrows that have been fired at the monastery." "Er...you've been hit 237 times and now resemble a hedgehog who has fallen into a vat of red dye..."

Jeff

[Sydney Freedberg]

Even a veto you swear to yourself you're never going to use provides an escape clause that, at least psychologically, changes everything. Jeff's "social skills don't get used on other PCs unless the player is willing" is an interesting idea, but the Willing and the Unwilling would be playing a very different game, even though they were at the same table at the same time. It's not impossible to design a game that would still work, I suspect; in fact traditional RPGs assume an equally dramatic difference among participants' vulnerability to events, namely between the GM and plain-old-players -- but I think the difference would be that significant. It's not something you patch with an extra mechanic; it goes straight to the heart of the game.

[drnuncheon]

Jeff's "social skills don't get used on other PCs unless the player is willing" is an interesting idea, but the Willing and the Unwilling would be playing a very different game, even though they were at the same table at the same time.

You're absolutely right, which is why it's so important that both sides be on board for it - otherwise you get the same kind of problems as when a GM prepares a dire and terrifying Call of Cthulhu session and the players treat it as a Doom-style gunfest or a Scooby Doo mystery.

If, however, both sides agree that that's what they want to do, I don't really see any reason it needs to cut to the heart of the game - it would only be the heart of the game if the heart of the game was the personality simulation (in which case you've got the problem of using the wrong system for what you're trying to do).  If such a compromise is causing problems, then I think that means that one or more of the players isn't really agreeing to the altered expectations that it entails.

Jeff

[TonyLB]

I'm with Sydney... it's a big deal in practice.

To get your mind around how big:  Imagine if you said "Combat skills can only be used (even by NPCs) against PCs whose players are willing to have them wounded or impeded."  See how the people who are Willing are playing an entirely different game from the Unwilling people who say "No thanks, we'll just be immortal and untouchable"?

Social skills, when they're really played (i.e. "I've changed your mind... now play it!"), cause much greater changes in a character than combat skills ever do.  A sword can only kill somebody.  A word can make them into somebody entirely different.

[Bill Cook]

For Dogs, specifically, in Conflict Question,

Cut people out of the beginnings of conflicts ruthlessly. Don't let them say "I might want to be involved later, so I'm involved now."

That's at least one way to handle Simon's reference to Clinton's actual play. It could go something like this:

GM:	So let's say what's at stake is whether you kill this guy.
Free Will Chick:	Agreed. I draw my gun and blow his head offf. [Rolls dice.]
GM:	[Catching up, rolls dice.] Ok. He drops down below the feed trough.
Must Act in Every Scene:	Whoa! Hang on. My guy talks her out of firing on the farmer. [Checks sheet to gather dice.]
GM:	Actually, you're not involved, so you'll have to wait for the follow up.
Must Act in Every Scene:	Not involved? I'm standing right there!
GM:	I know, but you're not designated as a participant.
Free Will Chick:	I wouldn't want you in, anyway. This one's between me and the object of my vengence.
Must Act in Every Scene:	[Fumes impotently.]

Or more pedantically, starting from the shooting announcement,

	:
GM:	Hang on, killer. Anyone else in on this?
Must Act in Every Scene:	Me! [Gasps.] I talk her down.
Free Will Chick:	No, I don't want you in.
Must Act in Every Scene:	Too bad. As a player, I get the opportunity to participate in any conflict.
Free Will Chick:	What about the opportunity to be an ass?
GM:	You two! SC foul! No more Oreo Cookies. [Secretly longs for Universalis' Challenge Mechanic.]

BTW, welcome to The Forge, Jeff (aka drnuncheon)!

[drnuncheon]

To get your mind around how big:  Imagine if you said "Combat skills can only be used (even by NPCs) against PCs whose players are willing to have them wounded or impeded."  See how the people who are Willing are playing an entirely different game from the Unwilling people who say "No thanks, we'll just be immortal and untouchable"?

Yep. I acknowledged that, in fact (and I've been in games where what you describe above actually happened, and for much the same reasons - to provide a framework for a wide variety of play styles and expectations to coexist.)

I guess my point was that, if the social skills affecting other players was not the main thrust of the game itself, the differences between the two games being played are minimal.  Take, for example, a traditional D&D dungeon crawl.  If some players want to use a Fortune-based mechanic for determining the success of social skills and others prefer to use a Drama-based mechanic (ie "roleplaying it out" with no dice-rolling), they could coexist with little difficulty because that's not the main focus of the game.  Similarly one could have a court intrigue game where some players choose to use a fortune-based combat system while others negotiate the results of a duel.  If fights were rare, the games would be hardly divergent at all.

As the importance of any aspect of PC interaction grows, so do the difficulties in using multiple systems of resolution.  If a group chose to focus their Dogs game on the PCs interactions with the town rather than the PCs interactions with each other, having the two resolution systems wouldn't make nearly as much difference to the game as one that was focused on the Dogs' relations with each other.

Jeff

[simon_hibbs]

... you would have to frame your conflicts carefully.  You would want to say "Does the Dog convince Bob of X" rather than "Who convinces the other one?"  This is probably the best way, if all the players can agree, because everything else I can think of is going to involve more compromise on the part of the free-willers.

If HeroQuest has taught me anything, it's that how you frame a contest is critical. For example consider these two contests:

1. Bob is about to shoot Joe. Magnus tries to persuade Bob not to pull the trigger.

This is the way most people would phrase a contest like this. The problem is that Bob's player may be adamant that Bob will pull the trigger whatever Magnus says.

2. Magnus tries to persuade Bob that shooting Joe is the wrong thing to do.

This is quite different. Bob may well be persuaded that he would be wrong to kill Joe, yet still do it anyway. He will have to live with the guilt for the rest of his life, but that's an interesting and valid decision for the player to make.

3. Magnus tries to persuade everyone that shooting Joe is the wrong thing to do.

If there are witnesses, this is different again. Whether or not Bob's character is persuaded that Joe should live becomes only one component of the result. If the rest of the townspeople are persuaded that Joe should not die, yet Bob still shots Joe, what will they then do to Bob? (or at least think about him).


Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

Social skills, when they're really played (i.e. "I've changed your mind... now play it!"), cause much greater changes in a character than combat skills ever do.  A sword can only kill somebody.  A word can make them into somebody entirely different.

Sure, but I think most games can include both approaches. The practical result will simply be that some characters will evolve emotionaly and psychologicaly in ways that the player couldn't have just played out themselves, and others won't.

Is that a problem?

Simon Hibbs