Author Topic: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts  (Read 3919 times)

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« on: October 15, 2012, 05:01:20 AM »
As you probably know, I started a thread a while back about messing with the skill list. In it, some fairly radical revisions to the social combat system were suggested.

I proposed a way to execute those revisions, and people seemed to like it. So I took my half-finished skill list rewrite and incorporated it.

You can see the new skill list here.

The new skill list is basically a summarized version of the old one, minus Burglary and with slightly different combat skills. But it is significantly different in one respect: its social combat system.

Social conflicts no longer exist. They've been replaced with reputation conflicts, which are what they sound like. An interrogation or another such thing is now a mental conflict.

Accordingly, the social skills have been completely rewritten. I can't really explain quickly, just read them.

And there's also one other house rule I'd like to use with this. It's an updated version of an old idea. I drew a lot of flak for that old idea, because it was vague and because it let people get social armour by playing as jerks. Hopefully I've fixed those issues.

Here goes:

Mental attacks have weapon ratings, according to the following rules:

Mental attacks that really shouldn't work are weapon -4. Occasionally less, but only occasionally. Examples: threatening someone who could kill you before you could blink, seducing someone of the wrong sexual orientation, convincing someone that you're not a murderer while standing over the body of someone you murdered.

Mental attacks which are clearly somewhat unreasonable are weapon -2. Examples: threatening someone significantly stronger than you, seducing someone who's happily married, convincing someone that you're not a murderer when you totally are and there's solid evidence.

Normal mental attacks are weapon 0. Examples: Threatening someone who you could probably hurt or kill, seducing someone who's available, convincing someone that you're not a murderer when there's only weak evidence.

Mental attacks that really ought to succeed are weapon 2. Examples: Threatening someone significantly weaker than you, seducing someone who's drunk and looking to score, convincing someone you're not a murderer when you aren't and the whole murderer thing is just a rumour.

Mental attacks that you probably shouldn't have to make are weapon 4. Examples: Threatening someone who you could obliterate with a gesture, seducing someone who's already hitting on you, convincing someone you're not a murderer when the only reason they have to believe that you're a murderer is that you're a young black man and they're a horrible racist.

Thoughts?

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2012, 06:17:36 AM »
I like the overall trend.
Obviously, the trappings are less well spell-out than those in the RAW.  I'm not sure whether you were planning to add additional bulk, but I do think the list would benefit from it.

I'm not sure about the changes stemming from your removal of Burglary.  Some of them seem counter-intuitive to me (such as sleight-of-hand stunt options being listed in Rhetoric where I would have moved them instead to Stealth).
I think my understanding of those changes would benefit if you were to describe here how the tasks formerly associated with Burglary would be carried out under your revised list.
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Ophidimancer

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 956
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2012, 12:33:26 PM »
I will have to consider this list before making a substantive comment, but I do like that "Not Dying" is a Survival Trapping.

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9863
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2012, 12:52:34 PM »
I will have to consider this list before making a substantive comment, but I do like that "Not Dying" is a Survival Trapping.

I'd like to participate in this discussion but, like Ophidimancer, I'd need to go over the various Threads and re-writes.

My only comment so far is regarding negative weapon ratings.  Shouldn't something like "happily married" be used as an Aspect or declaration for the defender?  Obviously, the negative weapon rating gives a better (dis)advantage over the course of a more drawn-out fight engagement, but it still seems a bit weird to me.

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2012, 04:43:03 PM »
I like how you've set the new mental conflicts up, but I think negative weapon rating is counter-intuitive and doesn't fit with the rest of the game.

Instead, I would suggest it be armor rating given to the defender based on their own perception of the situation at-hand.  I would also only allow the weapon rating if the attacker has appropriate knowledge of the situation at hand.

To use two of your own examples:
1)  Threatening someone who could kill you before you could blink
   / Threatening someone who you could obliterate with a gesture

    These are essentially the same but from different points-of-view.  The issue here is opponents' knowledge of the situation.  For example if I, a mortal with no knowledge of the supernatural, decide to threaten Queen Mab, I should not get a negative weapon rating.  I have no idea that she could obliterate me with a single thought.  She, instead, should get armor against my attack.  She knows I am not a significant threat.  Granted the end-result in this case is the same, it simply makes more sense to calculate it this way. 
   Here's why: Consider a situation where two unknown supernatural entities face off.  One is significantly more powerful than the other, but they have no way of knowing that.  They've never met or heard of each-other.  In your system, you'd look at their character sheets (or write-ups, if NPCs) and assign weapon ratings.  If you add in my sanity-checks, neither one would get bonuses.  They would be working on sheer intimidation value / force of scary-personality alone.

2) Convincing someone you're not a murderer when you aren't and the whole murderer thing is just a rumour.
   Again, it all boils down to knowledge available to the characters at-hand.  If the defender has never heard that rumor, it moves this from a weapon 2 to a weapon 4 attack.  What does the mere existence of a rumor matter if the character has never heard it?


I think you're on the right track here, but it still needs refinement.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 04:45:04 PM by Orladdin »
There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2012, 04:49:01 PM »
My only comment so far is regarding negative weapon ratings.  Shouldn't something like "happily married" be used as an Aspect or declaration for the defender?  Obviously, the negative weapon rating gives a better (dis)advantage over the course of a more drawn-out fight engagement, but it still seems a bit weird to me.

That gives me an idea:
What if, before combat begins, each side makes "global declarations".  They could be things like the modifiers listed in your examples.  Stuff like "Happily Married" or "Totally Gay" or "Not Actually A Murderer" or "Never Heard The Rumors".  Rather than simply getting tags on them, which are fleeting, whichever side has more of them that apply gets a greater bonus to attack/defense for the duration.  It means things that should continue to be relevant do, while other declarations/events during the combat are about as effective as they normally would be.  This way, if different factions in combat have different levels of knowledge about a situation, they get different weapon/armor ratings relative to the other actors in combat.

You could value them at +/- 1 rather than the normal, full +2 tags would get, since they "hang around."
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 04:51:44 PM by Orladdin »
There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys

Offline Mrmdubois

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1345
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2012, 05:14:15 PM »
That gives me an idea:
What if, before combat begins, each side makes "global declarations".  They could be things like the modifiers listed in your examples.  Stuff like "Happily Married" or "Totally Gay" or "Not Actually A Murderer" or "Never Heard The Rumors".  Rather than simply getting tags on them, which are fleeting, whichever side has more of them that apply gets a greater bonus to attack/defense for the duration.  It means things that should continue to be relevant do, while other declarations/events during the combat are about as effective as they normally would be.  This way, if different factions in combat have different levels of knowledge about a situation, they get different weapon/armor ratings relative to the other actors in combat.

You could value them at +/- 1 rather than the normal, full +2 tags would get, since they "hang around."

This, and the above comments Orladdin made about the weirdness of negative weapon ratings I approve of.

Offline KnightOrbis

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2012, 06:59:14 PM »
What program do I need to read the file, it doesn't seem to be working for me.

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9863
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2012, 07:17:58 PM »
Open Office.  It's free on-line.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2012, 07:58:47 PM »
I like the overall trend.
Obviously, the trappings are less well spell-out than those in the RAW.  I'm not sure whether you were planning to add additional bulk, but I do think the list would benefit from it.

I'm not sure about the changes stemming from your removal of Burglary.  Some of them seem counter-intuitive to me (such as sleight-of-hand stunt options being listed in Rhetoric where I would have moved them instead to Stealth).
I think my understanding of those changes would benefit if you were to describe here how the tasks formerly associated with Burglary would be carried out under your revised list.

The list in Your Story is half rules chapter, half skill list. This one is basically all skill list. The idea when I started this was to provide a quick cheat sheet for quick rules checks.

Ideally, it'd be paired with a revised Playing The Game chapter that explains everything.

As for Burglary, it didn't actually include sleight of hand. Deceit did, which is why that trapping is under Rhetoric now. In retrospect, Stealth might have been a better choice.

Burglary did three things: noticed security flaws, complemented other skills sometimes, and picked locks. The first can be done with Investigation, the second is unnecessary, and the third now requires a stunt. (Though maybe Craftsmanship ought to be able to do that.)

I'd like to participate in this discussion but, like Ophidimancer, I'd need to go over the various Threads and re-writes.

My only comment so far is regarding negative weapon ratings.  Shouldn't something like "happily married" be used as an Aspect or declaration for the defender?  Obviously, the negative weapon rating gives a better (dis)advantage over the course of a more drawn-out fight engagement, but it still seems a bit weird to me.

Maybe.

The idea of negative weapon ratings was to expand the possible range of social attacks. They let people make attacks that, under the normal rules, you'd have to flatly disallow.

There is a worry here about the possibility that people will game their character concepts to exploit these rules, but I think the revision made that less likely by judging ratings based on absolute reasonable-ness.

Instead, I would suggest it be armor rating given to the defender based on their own perception of the situation at-hand.  I would also only allow the weapon rating if the attacker has appropriate knowledge of the situation at hand.

Armour, negative weapon rating, same difference. I figured the latter was easier and more intuitive.

The information thing is a mistake on my part. The intention is that something only counts if the target knows about it.

That gives me an idea:
What if, before combat begins, each side makes "global declarations".  They could be things like the modifiers listed in your examples.  Stuff like "Happily Married" or "Totally Gay" or "Not Actually A Murderer" or "Never Heard The Rumors".  Rather than simply getting tags on them, which are fleeting, whichever side has more of them that apply gets a greater bonus to attack/defense for the duration.  It means things that should continue to be relevant do, while other declarations/events during the combat are about as effective as they normally would be.  This way, if different factions in combat have different levels of knowledge about a situation, they get different weapon/armor ratings relative to the other actors in combat.

You could value them at +/- 1 rather than the normal, full +2 tags would get, since they "hang around."

Eh, I don't like it.

The best thing about the Aspect system is that there's no such thing as a powerful Aspect. You're changing that, and yet you're making all Aspects provide the same bonus even if it's not reasonable.

And it seems complicated. Really, I can't see the benefit to tracking various things that'd give bonuses and penalties instead of just picking a number that seems reasonable. Simple judgement calls are better than complex ones.

What program do I need to read the file, it doesn't seem to be working for me.

Didn't see that coming, .odt is supposed to be compatible with everything. Whatever, here's an ugly copy-paste of the text.

(click to show/hide)

Offline crusher_bob

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 538
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2012, 08:49:36 AM »
First impressions:
I like the (partial) overlap of the trappings of skills so you can have characters are good at resolving the same situations, but don't all need to have the same skills.

I think it would really help to list the different types of things you can do in a mental or reputation conflict and give the skills used to attack or defend.  From the current formatting, it's hard to tell if you have all your bases covered because you can't tell what's actually possible.

Looks like Leadership is a bit too powerful.  It looks like characters who aren't much interested in reputation combat can just take a reasonable leadership and be pretty competent at it.

Offline crusher_bob

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 538
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2012, 09:29:34 AM »
Organized differently:
Mental Conflicts

Mental Initiative
Coercion
tie-breaker goes to? Rhetoric, maybe?

Mental Attacks
Use Amiability to make people like you and want to do things to help you, and to talk people into doing the right thing. This is generally a mental attack or maneuver.

Use Amiability to extract information from people, either by reading their mannerisms or by talking it out of them.

Use Coercion to threaten people, to scare people, and to make people do things or extract information from them through sheer force of personality.

Use Coercion to make people angry. This is generally a mental maneuver or attack.

Use Rhetoric to make people believe what you're saying, whether it's true or not. This can be a mental attack, a maneuver, or a non-conflict action. If you have a large audience, it can also be a reputation attack.

Mental Defenses
Use Amiability to defend against mental attacks and maneuvers intended to extract information from you or make you believe things and reputation attacks and maneuvers intended to make you look like a bad person.

Use Coercion to defend against mental attacks and maneuvers intended to make you do things or extract information from you.

Use Conviction to defend against mental attacks and maneuvers intended to undermine your faith or to make you act against your principles.

Use Discipline to defend against all mental attacks and maneuvers except those intended to make you believe things.

Use Rhetoric to defend against mental attacks and maneuvers intended to make you do something or to extract information from you, and against reputation attacks made through the use of an audience.

Use Discipline to keep your desires and emotions under control.

--------------------------------------------------

First Impressions
Use Amiability to establish a first impression as an honourable, kind, or otherwise good person.

Use Coercion to appear impressive or frightening. This can be used to establish a first impression or to discourage people from giving you any trouble.

Use Rhetoric to establish whatever first impressions you want, including blatantly false ones. If you use this trapping to establish impressions that could be created with another skill, that other skill modifies Rhetoric for the first impression roll.

---------------------

So, from the above, it looks like there are 3 general sorts of mental conflicts:

Those that try to extract information from you
Can attack with: Amiability, Coercion, possibly Rhetoric
Can defend with: Amiability, Coercion, Discipline, Rhetoric

Those that try to get you to do things
can attack with: Amiability, Coercion, possibly Rhetoric
can defend with: Coercion, Discipline, Rhetoric, possibly conviction

Those that try to change what you believe
can attack with: Amiability, Coercion, Rhetoric
can defend with: Amiability, Conviction

Offline Jack B

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2012, 02:55:09 PM »
Sorry if this was discussed in the previous thread but I can't go through a 12 page thread right now and I wanted to get one concern listed.

If you use mental stress for social conflicts you are potentially limiting the number of spells a wizard/evoker can 'safely' cast.  This would lead the smart baddies to want to talk/argue/parley with the PCs before any encounter (not a bad thing).  It would also lead to the PCs not wanting to talk to anybody that MAY be a threat and that would be a shame.

PS.  I had a much better post reflecting this point but the forum beast ate it  :-\

Offline admiralducksauce

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2012, 04:11:25 PM »
Sorry if this was discussed in the previous thread but I can't go through a 12 page thread right now and I wanted to get one concern listed.

If you use mental stress for social conflicts you are potentially limiting the number of spells a wizard/evoker can 'safely' cast.  This would lead the smart baddies to want to talk/argue/parley with the PCs before any encounter (not a bad thing).  It would also lead to the PCs not wanting to talk to anybody that MAY be a threat and that would be a shame.

PS.  I had a much better post reflecting this point but the forum beast ate it  :-\

You could structure the scene breaks so that if it broke into physical combat it counted as a new scene, clearing the stress. However, mental consequences from being rattled, incensed, or scared would remain and I think that IS entirely appropriate for messing with caster's concentration.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: A Revised Skill List, With Revised Social Conflicts
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2012, 09:24:36 PM »
I think it would really help to list the different types of things you can do in a mental or reputation conflict and give the skills used to attack or defend.  From the current formatting, it's hard to tell if you have all your bases covered because you can't tell what's actually possible.

Looks like Leadership is a bit too powerful.  It looks like characters who aren't much interested in reputation combat can just take a reasonable leadership and be pretty competent at it.

You're probably right.

Leadership has no attack trapping, so you also need another skill. Given how unimportant reputation is compared to physical and mental state, I think being good at reputation conflicts should be comparatively easy.

Mental Initiative
Coercion
tie-breaker goes to? Rhetoric, maybe?

Sure.

Those that try to extract information from you
Can attack with: Amiability, Coercion, possibly Rhetoric
Can defend with: Amiability, Coercion, Discipline, Rhetoric

Those that try to get you to do things
can attack with: Amiability, Coercion, possibly Rhetoric
can defend with: Coercion, Discipline, Rhetoric, possibly conviction

Those that try to change what you believe
can attack with: Amiability, Coercion, Rhetoric
can defend with: Amiability, Conviction

That's the general breakdown, yeah. The "change what you believe" thing, though, is supposed to be just lies. It's supposed to be just Rhetoric vs Amiability.

And I can clarify the two "possibly Rhetoric" entries. You can't exactly use it to extract info, but you can definitely make people do stuff. The line between the two is fuzzy, of course.

Sorry if this was discussed in the previous thread but I can't go through a 12 page thread right now and I wanted to get one concern listed.

If you use mental stress for social conflicts you are potentially limiting the number of spells a wizard/evoker can 'safely' cast.  This would lead the smart baddies to want to talk/argue/parley with the PCs before any encounter (not a bad thing).  It would also lead to the PCs not wanting to talk to anybody that MAY be a threat and that would be a shame.

PS.  I had a much better post reflecting this point but the forum beast ate it  :-\

Not sure what the problem is here, exactly...