Hi guys this is a split from a thread in actual play that touched on some issues to do with social conflict, or as I call it social challenges, as conflict implies direct confrontation.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5W32IfgIIkrZDUwMzFhZWItYzA2Yi00NDg5LWFmOWEtOTdhYWY0OWZiYjM5&hl=en_US

This link has the details of the proposed system which addresses issues like

- player control of their characters in the face of influence attempts
- 'mind control' of NPCs
- all social interactions coming across as pushy, confrontational conflict
- no framework/guidance for pursuing social outcomes

Love to know what you think.

Hi Stefoid,

Here a short answer. I like it, and the funny part is that I just wrote myself something about building-up relationships, though in a waaay less formal way than what you are describing here.

My remarks:
- Looks quite thourough, and believable. It was a nice read !
- I'm worried about what a character sheet in Ingenero will look like in the end. Are 'motivations' and the like present on the character sheet? It looks to me as a ton of things you need to track about your character. Not necessary a bad thing though. As you may have read from my posts, I am rather at the 'minimalistic' side of the complexity scale so I'm probably biased here.
- I have concerns about my own system that will also probably apply to Ingenero as well: how many relationships will you keep? You can virtually establish bonds with all NPCs around, is this manageable? And how will these bonds evolve over time? Bonds between people tend to wither if not maintained from time to time.

That's it for my immediate thoughts,

  Cédric

Hi Cedric.

Players are required to write down 5 traits for their character, of which 3 are motivations and 2 relationships.  These are their most significant traits.  They can have others, but they are not required to formally keep record them.  The 5 are starters to allow the character to hit the ground running.

As the player gets used to their character, they will form a lot of motivations and relationships in their head, mostly unconcioucsly as they round out their character through play, meet new NPCs etc...  Players arent required to record all of this stuff, but they should know the way it impacts on social situations. 

Ive given a framework for thinking about and performing social challenges, but it isnt neccessarilly tied to formal conflict res rules.  Im hoping a lot of socially challenging situations can be resolved without resorting to plays and rolling dice.

For instance when a character is subjected to an influence attempt, its up the the relevent player's gut feel if the leverage applied falls into clearly insufficient, clearly sufficient, or ballpark  categories.

Similarly, when a character is resisting a formal social play, gut feel should inform how they are doing that. - with an informal relationship or motivation? etc... and how strong would that informal relationship or motivation be?  The GMs gut is used for NPCs and the players guts are used for their own PCs.

One time where you would record relationships explicitly is when your character is explicitly trying some relationship engineering.  then the focus is firmly on that relationship and it makes sense to record it.

This is great feedback, by the way.  Thank you.

Stef,

Hey.

Glad to see Ingenero still kicking around.

I like the humour of your “subtext” translations. In fact, the entire cop-thug convo was very helpful.

It’s good to see you devote some of your time and energy to social challenges; it feels like you’re focusing on social challenges over physical conflicts. I say this because of pg 5 that shows there are more exclusive mechanisms for enhancing one’s effectiveness with social challenges than there are for physical conflicts.

I think this privileging of social challenges is a good thing!

Also, I think it’s great that you frame social challenges in terms of “leverage” and “bargaining”; these terms (and your description/examples of them) really help the reader recognize that social challenges are fundamentally—beside the obvious reasons—not the same as physical conflicts.

However, despite this praise, I don’t understand why you’ve designed this micro-system. Or, perhaps more correctly, I struggle to recognize just how much of this system is “rules” and how much it is “suggestion”.

It is so formulaic that it seems rule-like. Sure, devise degrees of relationships (because all PCs begin with 2) and allow players to increase/decrease the strength of their given relationships, but why go as deep as you have with mechanics such as seeming/reading/communicating? Hell, I like the terms and think they are great examples that cover near-every social action, but they (somewhat contradictorily) are portrayed as important distinctions that should be actively referred to when taking any social action.

I say “contradictorily” (Word saved me some trouble, apparently this word exists) because I’m receiving mixed input from the text and your posts—both seem to default to “commonsense first, use this text as a guide” but the intricacies of the rules suggests “these are rules, stick to them” instead.

On the whole I think it’s a great effort. Focus on social ties, relationships, and challenges that don’t require fists or blades. Awesome! But how to mechanically entwine (despite the best efforts of your many useful examples) this micro-system with other mechanics and the Ingenero “system-setting-feel in general” eludes me. Perhaps I’m dense, if so: forgiveness, please?

If not (I hope): I (also) hope this feedback is useful.

Btw! I’ve read a lot of your rules and I find you do a good job of spacing the text and using headings/bullets, so good job there!

T

Hey!

This is a first cut, hasnt been play-tested yet.

I think the important thing is to lead with the fiction, and the list of 'means' - reading, seeming, etc... give the player an idea of the scope of what can be attempted in the fiction.  Those particular words could be used in the fiction, at least while the players are learning the system, but they dont need to be.  Hopefully whatever fictional intents are attempted will boil down to one or the other when they need to.

The leverage and bargaining text indicate when  the formal rules in terms of plays and dice rolling and so on, need to be engaged.

So yeah, good feedback, thanks!  I should emphasise what Ive just said in the rules to give them context.