Social traits seem to excite more comment and sow more disagreement than other kinds of character attributes or abilities. They're often neglected or excised entirely, the argument for the latter being that players are perfectly capable of conversing on behalf of their characters, and that it should be this kind of roleplay '" not simply a skill check or dice roll '" that determines the outcome of things like diplomacy and negotiation.
I don't wish to get too far into that particular debate in this thread. It generally speeds towards 'if you make a character's social skill dependent on the player's social skill, do you make a character's strength dependent on the player too?' And that argument has been done to death. Let us assume in this thread that we do want some kind of crunch representation of social ability, and proceed from there.
But what kind of social attributes? How many? The system I've been working on just has one purely social attribute (Charm). Certainly other mental attributes figure into socially oriented skills (Cunning, Perception, etc.), but having one 'social attribute' seems to be the norm in several systems I've played and read about. Most famously, D&D has its 'Charisma,' whose definition seems to range anywhere from rhetorical ability to an ill-defined 'presence' to cup size/chin squareness depending on who you ask.
Besides being vague, these systems have another potential problem. They all make the same assumption that there are one or more social traits or skills that you can get 'good' at '" a character who has a high Charisma or Negotiation skill is simply better at these things, without qualification, than a character who doesn't. They propose an objective sliding scale of ability between 'socially adept' and 'socially awkward' in the same manner as 'physically strong' versus 'physically weak.'
In my own experience, however, things just don't work this way. Communication is based on context. A champion salesman might be said to have Charisma, and certainly he can close the deal '" but what if you placed him in a different culture (not to mention, in a fantasy world, a different race)? The kind of sales pitches that work where he's from might well get no response (or a very negative one) in another part of the world.
Alright, so perhaps this isn't the most dire problem ever faced in designing social crunch, but an idea came to me as I was considering the notion of race-specific attributes. I call it:
Comparative Social Values[note=Or'¦]Originally I just called them 'fellowship traits.' Do you like that better?[/note]
What I mean by 'comparative' is that instead of reflecting how good you are at something (as expressed by charisma, charm, and so on), these traits are value-neutral. They simply express how the character understands society, and thus what kind of society the character is most comfortable in. They are 'used' by comparing them with the social traits of the person you are trying to use them on (I have no precise mechanic for you but that's not terribly important yet).
For instance, let's say a social value is 'Ambition.' If your character comes from a society where 'getting ahead' is everything, social mobility is very high (or at least is perceived to be), and everybody sees themselves better off in five years, your Ambition score would be quite high.
Now, let's say you need to ply somebody with the promise of advancement or power (or even a simple bribe). Instead of rolling diplomacy or charisma or something like that, instead compare your Ambition with his (since wanting more is what makes one receptive to bribery). If his is high like yours, you're in luck '" he's interested in what you've got to offer and you, being from a society that understands these things, know just how to present it. The attempt is likely to succeed.
Obviously, if this individual has a low Ambition, this attempt is going to be a lot harder. Someone with low Ambition may value other things (loyalty, for instance) above material or social progress, or perhaps he's just content with how things are and would prefer that you bugger off. But it's also going to be difficult if you have a low ambition and the target's is high '" he might be receptive to a bribe, but your character is a fish out of water in this situation. You might not be using the right innuendo, or you might come across as insulting or patronizing in your offer, or perhaps the whole idea of bribery is just so awkward for someone like you that you just stammer ineffectively. You'd be better off taking another approach, preferably one in which both you and he have similar scores.
This is what I mean by comparative '" the effectiveness of a value depends on the values of others, rather than being objectively high/good or low/bad. Having sky-high Ambition is not an asset when dealing with people who see that as a personality flaw.
What are the potential advantages of this system?
Firstly, it helps to account for cultural and racial difference that separate societies. You don't have to impose a rather arbitrary 'wrong culture modifier' '" which is a bad kludge anyway. With comparative social values, you could well have a cultural or racial norm, but any one individual could easily deviate from that just by tweaking those base scores.
Secondly, it allows you to use social skills without treating them like just another skill check or combat roll. There's strategy involved '" you don't just 'roll diplomacy,' you have to figure out what kind of appeal is going to work on someone given your character's values and what you believe the target's values are.
Thirdly, it prevents social abilities from becoming 'dump stats.' Because a low score in a comparative social value is no 'worse' than a high one, you can allow players to choose whatever scores they want based on their character's personality and culture.
Fourthly, it allows anybody to be the 'face' of a party given the right circumstance. The party dwarf can actually come into his own as the most socially adept member of the party when dealing with fellow dwarves without having to worry about whether he's bought enough social skill points '" he's more likely to share their values and can more easily deal with them as a result.
The main problem, of course, is figuring out what comparative social skills to use. I haven't given too much thought to that quite yet, being more interested in what people think of the core idea. I originally wrote this up in the context of my own campaign setting and devised four values to fit with that, but I'd like to approach the idea generally before I bring examples into it. (Also, I'm still working on that four-value system).
I hope you don't mind if I steal this from you. I had been looking at making social situations more realistic for all of the reasons you mentioned. I don't care too much for an arbitrary blanket score that decides if you're good or bad at getting people to be receptive to your ideas, suggestions, and points of view. It's a bit silly, taking an extreme example the best person to get an autistic child to do something isn't a salesman, politician, or a bard. Those types of personalities would come across as overly intrusive and pushy to someone with autism. The best person to get an autistic child to do something is someone with a mild touch of autism themselves. They can sympathize with the child and understand how to approach them. They'd do horrible in a debate against a political professional but in this situation they have it in the bag. I like your idea alot, it lets players shine in the social roles they are built for and doesn't penalize their awesome speech because they don't have a high charisma or something.
I think this makes sense as values have a huge impact on how we act and people with similar values are likely to get along and trust each other much easier than ones with very different value sets. So if you want to convince someone of something you have to find an area where you both meet, some common ground to stand on where you can get them to say "yea I agree with you here" and take it from there.
The tricky part is thinking of values that you can use in a measurable way. Values you share can be things like religious beliefs, political views, worth of the individual vs the group, or any number of other things. The hard part is how to quantify that.
Charisma = Emotional intelligence+Empathy+innate social understanding+presence in GS. That's how I use it when looking attrib mods for social skills.
I like the idea- it's a good way to give guidance for players to playing a social character or using actual diplomacy. It allows the GM to quantify things and create challenge rolls rather than have to act out everything.
e.g. It is very difficult to deal with this situation amicably... Player has no idea how to properly comport himself in a social situation and he roleplays a scene terribly-insulting the king... but then he complains when that backfires and so he says "I have a 20 diplomacy; let me roll--the fighter gets to roll even though she's a parapalegic in real life and she can't really fight" ; so of course he rolls and everything is okay.
Contraiwaise. Another player makes a good diplomatic entreaty to the King by way of RP. Technically, according to the rules, this should be rolled to see if the king's attitude is adjusted. Of course you can apply modifiers based on the actual RPed situation (a +2 competence bonus), but those are a bit of a crude fix and it's difficult to properly award people. (e.g. the Diplomat rolls a 2 and has a +2 with the competence bonus... so he gets a 4; or he rolls a 1) His response in the future is... "So why should I RP at all"
--
Your system seems to allow for more fun:
Although I might make it a continuum; you can have one or the other and in any given situation, the GM knows how the 'enemy' character would react to your roll.
[ic]STAGE 1
Forthrightness v. Contemplativeness
---Dave has 10 forthrightness out of 10 and he is dealing with Contemplative Peter. Dave rolls a 1d10 and it's a 1, so he edges 1 toward contemplative for a total of 9 forthrightness. Dave roleplays being VERY forthright. Peter is Upset by Dave.
STAGE 2
--Dave's roll is supplemented by "Social Intelligence" (how to react to a person)
---Social Intelligence is either affected by bonus points due to good Roleplaying. (like current DnD)
---Or the intelligence is the actual Charisma statistic's bonus.
---Or both
-Dave also roleplayed pretty well in response to Simon's discomfort, so Dave gets an additional -1, so he has an 8 forthrightness. Dave also has +4 charisma, so he has a 4 forthrightness.
STAGE 3
-Now Peter rolls his Agreeableness to see how well Dave's 4 points in the wrong direction affect him. Peter has a 1 for agreeableness of 10- he's not agreeable. So peter rolls a 1d10 and gets a 10, now he has an 11 of agreeableness out of a maximum of 20.
STAGE 4
The 11 agreeableness (only applied because dave is still on the wrong side of the continuum; if dave had been contemplative, peter would be happy) is rolled against Dave's Charisma check again. Dave rolls a 7. Add 4 because of his bonus and it's 11 to 11, roller wins.
Dave convinces Peter to do something.[/ic]
There's a lot going on in this thread.
Quote from: PCBut what kind of social attributes? How many?
but having one 'social attribute' seems to be the norm in several systems I've played and read about. Most famously, D&D has its 'Charisma,' whose definition seems to range anywhere from rhetorical ability to an ill-defined 'presence' to cup size/chin squareness depending on who you ask.[/quote]What I mean by 'comparative' is that instead of reflecting how good you are at something (as expressed by charisma, charm, and so on), these traits are value-neutral. They simply express how the character understands society, and thus what kind of society the character is most comfortable in. They are 'used' by comparing them with the social traits of the person you are trying to use them on (I have no precise mechanic for you but that's not terribly important yet).[/quote]almost[/i] exactly what you're describing (and it fits the same role as what you're talking about.)
The only big difference between your system and FATE's Aspects is that instead of coming into play when they match or clash between two people, Aspects come into play whenever someone at the table can convincingly argue that they'd be advantageous/disadvantageous in the situation at hand. (Often, that's the same as matching/clashing between two people, but that's not always necessarily the case.)
I don't want to derail the thread to chatter away about FATE, but you should really look into this if you haven't already done so.
QuoteThirdly, it prevents social abilities from becoming 'dump stats.' Because a low score in a comparative social value is no 'worse' than a high one, you can allow players to choose whatever scores they want based on their character's personality and culture.
If you're running a game where social stuff is important, players aren't going to use social abilities as "dump stats". If you're running a game where social stuff is unimportant, who cares if they do use them as dump stats (in fact, they probably ought to). This has always seemed like sort of a non-issue to me.
Quote"several systems"? Besides D&D and stuff that's based on D&D, I can't think of any.
Have you taken a look at Aspects, from FATE?[/quote]I don't want to derail the thread to chatter away about FATE, but you should really look into this if you haven't already done so.[/quote]If you're running a game where social stuff is important, players aren't going to use social abilities as "dump stats". If you're running a game where social stuff is unimportant, who cares if they do use them as dump stats (in fact, they probably ought to). This has always seemed like sort of a non-issue to me. [/quote]mechanics[/i] (as opposed to social roleplaying) were ignored or underused. Perhaps that too is just the fault of the GM, but it seems to me that the way a social mechanic is designed can help preventing this kind of thing from happening.
QuoteTRoS, Shadowrun, WFRP? I'll be the first to admit I don't have a very broad knowledge of RPG systems but I think "several systems" was an appropriate phrase to use. In any case, I don't see on what basis you say that my suggestion is "based on D&D" - I only mentioned it as an example of a system with a single social stat. A lot of people are most familiar with d20 and I chose to use that to make an analogy.
A PC using aspects to influence an NPC is making a skill check upon an object, with rerolls and bonuses applied depending on how many aspects he is invoking, but the aspects and personality of the target don't really seem to come into play. Is there some mechanic that reflects how effective a certain aspect would be on a certain person that I'm missing?[/quote], she can leverage those for concrete mechanical effects, in exactly the same way as she could leverage her own aspects.
If you want to get a little sneakier, you can get a hell of a lot of mileage from manipulating people via their aspects
indirectly, by arranging for their aspects to be compelled.
Depending on your table rules, players might also have the ability to offer compels against the aspects of other PCs and of NPCs. This opens the system wide up to a lot of variety (and unpredictability), because it means you can either 'tag' someone else's aspect for the general +2 or reroll,
or you can 'compel' that aspect to, essentially, bribe that player with fate points into making that aspect a pressing, current issue that must be acted upon in this scene.
QuoteMy suggestion is that these various social values are shared by all characters
Ambition, Piety, Affluence, Integrity, Honor, Greed, Desire for Glory, Loyalty, Self-Preservation, Harmony, Allegiance, Optimism, Cruelty, Zealotry, Confidence, Deceptiveness[/quote]I mean, the list could potentially go on and on. And no matter at which point you say "enough, no more!", you'd be excluding some things that could easily be given the same weight in social situations as the stats you kept.
And they could get really specific. Let's say there's an uprising going on in the province, and some people support the government, and others support the rebels, and others are neutral. You'd need a stat for that. Let's say there's a charismatic wandering prophet in town, stirring up trouble with his fire-and-brimstone religious revivals-- you might well need a stat for how much people buy into his message (or how much they resist him and the trouble he's causing). To generalize, I feel like in any situation where any character (PC or NPC) makes enough waves to become controversial, they need a stat with their name on it to be on the character sheets of every character (PC or NPC) in the game. Which, in its way, is damned cool-- but oh my god, the paperwork!
CHARIA... enough said.
Perhaps an Extraversion/Intraversion scale using aspects for the couple values they think are important enough that they define much of who they are. As an example let's take George the Barbarian and Wendy the Sorceress. Note that the numbers are just examples to help show my idea and not hard values that I've decided on.
George the Barbarian
Personality: +7 (strongly extraverted)
Beliefs: Strength is the most important thing, Authority is inherently corrupt, Women should be seen not heard
Wendy the Sorceress
Personality: -2 (lightly intraverted)
Beliefs: Freedom is better than security, True wisdom comes from the arcane gods, Intelligence is stronger than physical strength
If Wendy wants to influence George she right off the bat has a -9 from the severe personality difference between her and George. Add to this a -3 due to the fact that she is strongly violating one of his firmly held beliefs (women should be seen not heard) and she has a serious uphill battle. This makes sense, two vastly different people like this would have a hard time relating. However Wendy here very much needs his help and decides to ease into things by watching him and listening to him. She quickly figures out that he thinks highly of displays of strength and has been complaining alot about the corrupt local politicians. Making her move she steels herself and uses her magic to toss aside a man George was arm wrestling and sits opposite him. George is amused enough by this small woman being capable of tossing aside a big brute to hear her out (the values cancelling each other out). Wendy offers him fair pay and room and board at the village in exchange for helping her deal with some ruffians because "gods know that baron won't help us". She has shown some degree of extraversion outside her norm which temporarily brings her closer to George's way of thinking so her score temporarily moves 2 over to 0. On top of this she has displayed strength and a distaste for authority which George agrees with giving her a +3 from each and gets a further +1 for an appropriate payment. She however is still breaking his views that women shouldn't be heard and still gets a -3 from that. The results being 3+3+2+1-9-3 = -3. Still an uphill battle but much more likely to succeed than the -12 because she paid attention to George and appealed to his values.
If she succeeds enough with him, George gets a small note under his social tab like so:
George the Barbarian
Personality: +7 (strongly extraverted)
Beliefs: Strength is the most important thing, Authority is inherently corrupt, Women should be seen not heard
Slightly Approves of Wendy (+1)
Meaning that any future social rolls with him get a +1 bonus because George now likes her. On the other hand if she fails enough with him she might get a -1 there as he is getting annoyed by her.
This is an interesting approach.
Like LC I was quick to be reminded of FATE aspects, but your design has its own merits. As to what values you should pick to describe characters Driving Values might be a good starting point. Ambition, Honor, Faith and Greed are all traits which are easily woven into social interaction as opposed to personality traits like Skepticism or Ruthlessness. You don't appeal to a person's ruthlessness, that trait explains his actions but never his motivations.
This also reminds me Fiasco's approach to characters; you are not defined by your own traits as much as your relation to others around you.
You could also describe characters by social value "packages": their cultures and affiliations. Or ideologies. You could map how these packages interact in a table if you feel there is overlap.
I took the liberty to attach a rather exhaustive table of personality trait continuums I made long, long ago in an attempt to get my D&D players to think about their character personalities: Personality Sheet (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4664926/personality%20sheets.xlsx)
Quote from: CJ Fellowship TraitsOrientation
Orientation* represents a character's sense of place in a social structure.
A character with high Orientation understands society as a system of prescribed roles, privileges, duties, and expectations that divide individuals and groups within the society. He is conscious of both his place within these divisions and the behavior appropriate for his station. He is likely to be most comfortable in a system of explicit social ranks or castes, whether based on ancestry, race, ability, gender, or other methods of differentiation.
A character with low Orientation perceives society as a collection of individuals who are entitled, within reason, to equal rights and privileges. He sees his role in society as something he is (or should be) able to choose, not something granted to him or imposed upon him by others. He is likely to be most comfortable in a community in which lacks ironclad categories and allows individuals to take what roles they please.
Orientation is the key fellowship trait of Iskites, but Tahro also frequently have high Orientation scores. Umbril and Gheen tend to have low Orientation scores.
Potential Uses for High Orientation:
Browbeat a servant/guard/other 'grunt,' or threaten him with the potential wrath of his superiors.*Convince someone to do something based on the obligations or duties of his rank/station (noblesse oblige, a knight's chivalrous code)*Manipulate a superior with flattery
Potential Uses for Low Orientation:
Convince someone to disobey a superior's orders '" 'What, does he think he's better than you?'*Encourage someone to 'follow their heart' instead of cleaving to their duties or expectations of them*Persuade someone to have mercy on their captives or subordinates '" '
Nobody deserves this.'[/list]
Kinship
Kinship represents a character's sense of belonging within a family structure. A 'family' is often, but not always, defined by blood relationship.
A character with high Kinship understands the family as the basis of society and civilization. He considers himself to be in part defined by his family or ancestry, and holds the bonds of kin above other associations. He is likely to be most comfortable in a society that is organized into family structures and respects their kin and elders.
A character with low Kinship places no particular emphasis on family relations over other relationships; while he may get along perfectly well with his family, he is more likely to strive and sacrifice for friends than for people who he simply happens to be related to. Family identity is meaningless to him and he may resent being defined by his ancestors or kin. He is likely to be most comfortable in a community in which family is incidental to a person's identity, or one in which family simply does not exist.
Kinship is the key fellowship trait of Gheen, but Tahro also tend to have high Kinship scores. Umbril may have high Kinship scores if the metil is an important concept in their community, but otherwise do not. Iskites tend to have very low Kinship scores.
Potential Uses for High Kinship:
Persuade a family member to aid you, or even sacrifice for you*Make an appeal based on family ties '" 'Please sir, he has three young children'¦'*Convince someone to act based on family expectations or honor '" 'What would your father say if he could see you now?'
Potential Uses for Low Kinship:
Convince someone to disobey their family, or even betray them*Inspire loyalty in a friend of another race or culture
Ambition
Ambition represents a character's desire for advancement within society.
A character with high Ambition believes that society is essentially competitive and that it is natural to struggle for more influence, prestige, wealth, glory, or power. He is not content with remaining in one place and covets social progress, sometimes (but not necessarily) at the expense of others. He is likely to be most comfortable in a society with high social mobility and a general desire for advancement.
A character with low Ambition understands society as essentially static. He believes that there is no intrinsic value in social climbing and that people can and should be content without being at the top of the heap. He has goals and pursues them, but these goals tend to be what interests him or makes him happy rather than what will raise his social station or material power. He is likely to be most comfortable in a less competitive society in which people are dedicated to their livelihoods instead of grasping and covetous.
Ambition is the key fellowship trait of Umbril, but Gheen may also score highly on this trait. Tahro and Iskites tend to have low Ambition scores.
Potential Uses for High Ambition:
Persuade or corrupt someone with money, power, or favor*Convince someone to take an action based on the perceptions of others '" 'Why, you'll be famous'¦'*Gather followers hoping to ride your coattails '" 'I'm going places '" and you can, too.'
Potential Uses for Low Ambition:
Instill loyalty in another '" 'We're all counting on you to do your duty.'*Convince someone to sacrifice for others '" 'We don't need this loot, but the orphanage does.'*Turn someone against a selfish person '" 'He doesn't care about you. He's only out for himself.'
Reverence
Reverence represents a character's respect for the established norms and mores of the social order.
A character with high Reverence understands society as resting upon a foundation of established tradition and history. He believes that wisdom lies in deferring to those who came before, not in thoughtlessly rushing towards the new. He values continuity and conservatism. He is likely to be more comfortable in a society with reverence for its traditions and pride in its history.
A character with low Reverence believes that tradition is an unnecessary straitjacket, and that the age of an idea or custom has no bearing on its virtue or usefulness. He despises the idea of clinging to the ways of dead people, believes fully in social progress, and is unlikely to revere or identify himself closely with his people's history. He is likely to be more comfortable in a progressive and forward-thinking society in which action is not restrained by tradition.
Reverence is the key fellowship trait of Tahro, but Gheen also score highly on this trait. Iskites tend towards moderate Reverence scores, while Umbril generally score very low.
Potential Uses for High Reverence:
Convince someone to follow tradition or maintain the ways of their predecessors*Turn someone against some new custom or innovation '" 'It was better in the old days'¦'*Inspire someone to bravery by evoking their proud history and culture
Potential Uses for Low Reverence:
Persuade someone to disobey a tradition or law '" 'What do
they know?'*Appeal to someone's desire to change things for the better*Convince someone to accept a new idea or way of doing things[/list][/ic]
*'Orientation' may not be the best English word for this, but it has importance in the campaign world.