TheRPGSite

Please write in this thread about awesome and memorable social scenes, adventures, or whole campaigns run using old-school games with no "social rules" or mechanics (or for that matter, new school games that don't have them too).

RPGPundit

I ran a Changeling game that ended up turning into a labyrinthine political struggle, wherein we went close to a year without combat. The games mostly consisted of investigation, rumour-mongering, subterfuge, and seductions, but it culminated into a two session long ballroom gala that transgormed into an impromptu trial as the queen was accused of infidelity, one of the characters was called on for treason and the players tried to convince the assembled nobles that there was an assassin in their midst, meanwhile trying to protect the queen (who was in fact guilty and one of the PCs was the cuckold) from her sister's underhanded bid for power and identify who exactly was behind the plot against the king.  That was perhaps the most intense 10 hours of gaming I've ever experienced, and not a single die was rolled, it was just arguments, interrogations, pleas, and bluffing between player and a host of npcs.

In one session of AD&D2e I put the party druid through a series of tests. One of which was by putting her on trial against herself. In a nutshell, the rest of the party played her playing the druid and then quizzed and cross examined the actual player/character about her motivations and actions.

I once played a dwarven war cleric.  He thought he was a real bad ass, but actually wasn't.  He had been tossed out of his local temple for being a pest, and was told that if they saw his face there again he would need a res.

He was trying to get the party to notice his combat prowess, so he picked a fight at the tavern.  His mark turned out to be the captain of the guard.  A round and a half later he was nearly dead, running for his life with the whole town guard in pursuit.

On a lark, he ducked into said temple, guards in tow, raised his weapon high in the air and yelled, "GET THEM!"

In the chaos, he slipped out the back.

-----

I nominate this story because nobody called for a bluff check or any roll of any sort.

Just about every campaign ran using AD&D 1st, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, and now Swords & Wizardry had some awesome social moments with no specific mechanics. The only thing needed was making sure I, the referee, roleplayed the NPCs as if the players were there and had the players respond to my roleplaying in first person rather than third person.

But of all the campaigns, I would say the most awesome bit of social roleplaying was the two hour debate sparked in a Star Trek campaign over the ethics of returning the time-line back to normal.

Basically the Klingons time-travelled back to 1962 and shot a nuclear missile into the US Fleet blockading Cuba igniting a global nuclear war. The players were investigating a unrelated space anomaly at the instant the Klingon initiated this and were protected from the changes in the time-line.

When they re-emerged they found instead of the federation they found an Andorian Star Empire, locked in a two way struggle with the Romulans and Klingons. They had a epic year long voyage back to Earth where they figured out what happened.

They dug up the slingshot profile used by the Enterprise for Time-Travel and before they were going to a initiate it, the science officer piped up with "the question Are we doing the right thing here?" and pointed out that this solution would wipe out the existence of billions in this time-line including some Andorian friends they made.

The result was prehaps one of the deepest and most passionate philosophical debates I ever seen in a RPG session.

This and other similar sessions has left me with the belief that mechanics are not necessary for this aspect of tabletop RPGs. What needed a smart referee to setup an interesting situation with players committed to roleplaying their characater as if they were there. Mind you this is not quite the same thing as acting as a different personae. One could act as a thinly disguised version of his own personality and still do this well.

Quote from: estar;669991This and other similar sessions has left me with the belief that mechanics are not necessary for this aspect of tabletop RPGs. What needed a smart referee to setup an interesting situation with players committed to roleplaying their characater as if they were there. Mind you this is not quite the same thing as acting as a different personae. One could act as a thinly disguised version of his own personality and still do this well.

Obviously, I strongly agree with all this.

RPGPundit

I am not sure I get the point of this thread.

Is it meant to show that you do not need social mechanics to have awesome social situations? Well, that is a no-brainer. The only mechanic you need is to roleplay every present character to the best of your skill, and see where it takes you.

Is it meant to say that social mechanics are inconvenient? That would be weird coming from you, given that you are a great fan of Pendragon and Pendragon has social mechanics AND THEY FUCKING ROCK. I think we can all agree that a good social mechanic can enhance roleplaying. I cannot see them as mutually exclusive.

i think atlas games published a dnd 3 module called splintered peace or something that was highly focused on social roleplay but that did not introduce new social mechanics. i could be wrong about that last bit. it has been about seven years since i played it.

Most of the RPG's I have played do indeed have social mechanics, though the best moments of role playing and social interaction I have had in my years of role playing have always been when we didn't use the dice and just got into character and tried to act and interact as we believed our characters would without dice getting in the way.

Quote from: Imperator;670225I am not sure I get the point of this thread.

Is it meant to show that you do not need social mechanics to have awesome social situations? Well, that is a no-brainer. The only mechanic you need is to roleplay every present character to the best of your skill, and see where it takes you.

Is it meant to say that social mechanics are inconvenient? That would be weird coming from you, given that you are a great fan of Pendragon and Pendragon has social mechanics AND THEY FUCKING ROCK. I think we can all agree that a good social mechanic can enhance roleplaying. I cannot see them as mutually exclusive.

+1.
sure, playing a combat-centric rpg can mean doing the social part with no mechanics.  Other RPGS are built for social interactions, and have rules for them, and maybe less combat rules.
A good GM makes it all work.

Quote from: Imperator;670225I am not sure I get the point of this thread.

Is it meant to show that you do not need social mechanics to have awesome social situations? Well, that is a no-brainer. The only mechanic you need is to roleplay every present character to the best of your skill, and see where it takes you.

Is it meant to say that social mechanics are inconvenient? That would be weird coming from you, given that you are a great fan of Pendragon and Pendragon has social mechanics AND THEY FUCKING ROCK. I think we can all agree that a good social mechanic can enhance roleplaying. I cannot see them as mutually exclusive.

I was going to ask "so what's the point of this thread, to prove that social mechanics are moot?", but decided to bite my tongue, so cheers for taking that jump.

In defence of social mechanics - as I said before, I often expect both to roleplay it AND to roll it. Because quite frankly, you don't expect your players to know real life spells to be a wizard, you don't expect them to know how to swing swords to attack people, you don't expect them to be nuclear physicists to use Physics(Nuclear) skill, so why suddenly everyone looses their minds and It's Roleplay Only Bub when it comes to social skill mechanics? Being a superb liar who can charm and bluff your way out of everything is also a skill, and pretty hard one.

It's definitely a double-edged sword, and it gets a lot worse the further from the GM it gets.

On the pro side, like Ricewind said, it can be nice to put your faith in the mechanics and not have to actually be good at it personally.  Taken to the extreme, you might ask why there are non-physical attributes at all?  Does having a high INT not make you smarter in character? Vis-a-vis CHA.

The flip side is easy to see when things get taken too far. "I convince the king to hand over his throne to me.  My Diplomacy is +40."

As a middle ground I do see the value in 'attitude points' and methods for moving that attitude in steps one direction or another.

That said, I also approach social skills like any other skill - if you have it high, and you roleplay it well, you may not need to roll. Someone with Looks 17 in Call of Cthulhu probably won't need to roll whether or not he succeeded in seducing a meek librarian.

As for the topic itself - I had quite a few of those. There was a hostage negotiations part, when party's Thief got caught trying to infiltrate mobster's tavern, and said mobster had a knife on his throad, while party had knives on the throats of his companions. Fast, tense, and no Charisma rolls called. From the same campaign, there was a moment when heroes made a mistake of telling a priest of God of Light that one of the guys is the son of God of Light, which said priest considered a heresy and started a tense dispute that ended out with players being kicked out of the temple.

And in my Call of Cthulhu games, interrogations are routinely done without rolling most of the time.

Itt: Mtp

Quote from: mcbobbo;670343The flip side is easy to see when things get taken too far. "I convince the king to hand over his throne to me.  My Diplomacy is +40."

Its easy to imagine when things get taken too far. Have you actually seen a king convinced to give up his thrown on a diplomacy roll?

Quote from: Imperator;670225I am not sure I get the point of this thread.

Is it meant to show that you do not need social mechanics to have awesome social situations? Well, that is a no-brainer. The only mechanic you need is to roleplay every present character to the best of your skill, and see where it takes you.

Is it meant to say that social mechanics are inconvenient? That would be weird coming from you, given that you are a great fan of Pendragon and Pendragon has social mechanics AND THEY FUCKING ROCK. I think we can all agree that a good social mechanic can enhance roleplaying. I cannot see them as mutually exclusive.

No, its more just to demonstrate case-study evidence of the kind of complexities of social gaming you can do with zero social mechanics, and the proof that people who play D&D are doing this, all the time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;670507No, its more just to demonstrate case-study evidence of the kind of complexities of social gaming you can do with zero social mechanics, and the proof that people who play D&D are doing this, all the time.

RPGPundit

But the initial premise is a daft one and totally pitched to get a one sided result. (ie. Have you stopped beating your wife?)

You may as well say give me some examples of great role play without roleplay mechanics and I could quote you how we role play with my daughter and her puppets, or how I role play my characters in Escape from Colditz, or car wars or someone might even site some great role play from Dungeon World (shock horror).

No one has ever denied you can do great role play and social interaction with no mechanics because 3,000 years of human theatre woudl meake them look like idiots.

The debates we have had on social mechanics are about how can you use in game mechanics that more roundly realise the traits and personality of the PCs and combine those with good role play to get the best outcome. So mechanics that guide roleplay or mechanics that develop role play or mechanics that through their interaction with the game world and the players round the table generate improved in character immersion and role play.

Merely saying 'car wars didn't have any social mechanics but listen to this example of in game social interaction where the PCs do a deal with the driver of a monster truck and pursuade him to take out the biker gang' proves nothing because there are as many or more examples where no social interaction occurs, the same is true of OD&D, AD&D, Runequest or any other game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;670533But the initial premise is a daft one and totally pitched to get a one sided result. (ie. Have you stopped beating your wife?)

You may as well say give me some examples of great role play without roleplay mechanics and I could quote you how we role play with my daughter and her puppets, or how I role play my characters in Escape from Colditz, or car wars or someone might even site some great role play from Dungeon World (shock horror).

No one has ever denied you can do great role play and social interaction with no mechanics because 3,000 years of human theatre woudl meake them look like idiots.

I would absolutely agree it does make them look like idiots; but I'm guessing you haven't seen of these arguments, then.  A great many of them start from the premise of "because D&D has only combat and no social rules, this stymies any possibility of social roleplaying".

Quote from: RPGPundit;670656I would absolutely agree it does make them look like idiots; but I'm guessing you haven't seen of these arguments, then.  A great many of them start from the premise of "because D&D has only combat and no social rules, this stymies any possibility of social roleplaying".

yeah.

I like my games now with some social skills, but that;s because I came from a D&D (etc) background with tons of great social roleplaying in those systems.

I moved because I wanted to be able to be able to give a mechanical advantage and progression to the social part of the game, not because it was impossible to roleplay without them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;670656I would absolutely agree it does make them look like idiots; but I'm guessing you haven't seen of these arguments, then.  A great many of them start from the premise of "because D&D has only combat and no social rules, this stymies any possibility of social roleplaying".

But that isn't really the final outcome you are trying to get to.
The final point you are trying to get to is that games don't need social mechanics becuase D&D managed for years etc .. therefore social mechanics are a waste of time therefore games with social mechanics are Swine/Storygame/ANOTHER bad thing.

The Aim of social mechanics is to try to encapsulate the characterists of the PC in the real world to improve immersion. If your PC needs to climb a wall the GM does not make you do 50 pushups (an approximate parallel to climbing a wall) they make you make a strength check , or an agility roll, or a climbing roll or whatever.
However when your PC needs to charm a guard you are supposed to charm them through roleplay which is the social equivalent of 50 pushups.

The challenge is to create a mechanic that isn't just "I roll fast talk", but at the same time encourages in character dialogue and role play and represents the character's not just the player's skill and you know what it's really really hard to do.

Merely saying - see you don't need social mechanics I don;t think cuts it.

I have mixed feelings on social mechanics. On the one hand, there's things like Charisma, where it's rolled simply to accent or decide the effectiveness of the player's role-playing. That's been a part of the hobby since the beginning, and I have no more issue with that than I do with an Intelligence attribute.


Some people refer to CoC's Sanity mechanic as a 'social mechanic', but I completely disagree in the se way that I don't consider'morale a social/personality mechanic. Then there's stuff like Pendragon's Passions which I'm overall nuetral about.

What I absolutely cannot stand and won't deal with is 'social combat' rules such as those in Burning Wheel.

On social mechanics, I think that stats and skills are more about guiding how you role play the character more than they are for constant dice rolls.  I'll play a guy with a CH 5 very differently than I do a guy with CH 15.  I'm not too sure of my acting abilities outside of that range.

I remember a number of awesome scenes done without rolling dice in a number of different games, and I think one of the reasons I'm on the OSR wagon is the number of scenes that were not as fun because I insisted on rolling rather than letting the players acting determine the outcomes.

I remember a scene I did when I was 13 where in a guy was on trial for being a pure strain human and was expelled from the community.  I still think it was one of my best scenes, and I have been doing rather a few.

Quote from: Chugosh;670701On social mechanics, I think that stats and skills are more about guiding how you role play the character more than they are for constant dice rolls.  I'll play a guy with a CH 5 very differently than I do a guy with CH 15.  I'm not too sure of my acting abilities outside of that range.

I remember a number of awesome scenes done without rolling dice in a number of different games, and I think one of the reasons I'm on the OSR wagon is the number of scenes that were not as fun because I insisted on rolling rather than letting the players acting determine the outcomes.

I remember a scene I did when I was 13 where in a guy was on trial for being a pure strain human and was expelled from the community.  I still think it was one of my best scenes, and I have been doing rather a few.

Which is great but relies on our social skill to interpret and if you have say 9 Charism in real life how do you role play someone with 18 Chr? What help does the game give you to achieve that roleplay objective?

I role play everything , its my nature. However , I get the players to make a social roll and I incorporate that into the roleplay into the responses of the NPCs and their reactions to the PCs.

Now without the a doubt the best social mechanics I have evr seen are in James Bond 007. The seduction rules extracted basically from genuine human courtship patterns are outstanding.
They take a part of the game key to the genre, seduction and sex, and mechanize them taking away all the ickyness of roleplayers being allowed to have sex. At the same time the process and description of those steps encourage role play and interaction with the NPC and the game world.
Without a dounb the best social mechanics.
A close second is the Amber attribute auction. This is only relegated to 2nd place because it's social function in the game world, which is to establish rivalries and competion between the PCs to set the scene for the social relationships of the group, are secondary to it's role in setting up attributes themselves and becuae it has a couple of minor machanical issues that need to be tweaked.

Now these are 2 great social mechanics. We need more rules of this quality. not less.

Jibba.....

GuildSchool mechanic (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/61603393/Declare%2C%20Roleplay%2C%20Roll%2C%20Recover).

Not saying perfect, but this is our formalized version.

I'm not saying that you can't use social mechanics. I'm saying that D&D works perfectly well for social-rp, and the idea that you MUST have social mechanics is a lie.

However, now that you put it out there, I'm willing to bet there's quite a lot of social RP that's gone on in old school games that would have been just plain IMPOSSIBLE if you were using some kind of social mechanic/social combat mechanics system, because the rules would have choked it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;671013However, now that you put it out there, I'm willing to bet there's quite a lot of social RP that's gone on in old school games that would have been just plain IMPOSSIBLE if you were using some kind of social mechanic/social combat mechanics system, because the rules would have choked it.

For sure.  I have allowed the players to change my mind, for example, which wouldn't have been possible assuming I was in a position to set the DCs or similar.

Quote from: mcbobbo;671353For sure.  I have allowed the players to change my mind, for example, which wouldn't have been possible assuming I was in a position to set the DCs or similar.

Couldn't you just change your mind about the DCs?

Quote from: Noclue;671466Couldn't you just change your mind about the DCs?

Sure, but in a lot of these systems that would not always necessarily mean that he rules-as-written have just the right option for what the PCs actually want to do.

Not to mention that if you have codified rules for something like this, the tendency of many GMs and players is to "think within the rules", and not even consider options that would be outside the possibilities of the mechanics.

Quote from: RPGPundit;671013I'm not saying that you can't use social mechanics. I'm saying that D&D works perfectly well for social-rp, and the idea that you MUST have social mechanics is a lie.

However, now that you put it out there, I'm willing to bet there's quite a lot of social RP that's gone on in old school games that would have been just plain IMPOSSIBLE if you were using some kind of social mechanic/social combat mechanics system, because the rules would have choked it.

RPGPundit

Of course there have been.   Social skills are just like combat skills, in that you get better at them with use and just like different monsters get tougher in a game built for combat, like d&d, a gm has to be able to use NPC abilities against the players.

Old school games are great when you want the combat codified or the exploration to be the focus, and when social interaction is not any part of the rules balance, but an incidental.

When you want to play a game where combat takes a back seat to intrigue or politics, old school games, much though I love them, are like using an oven to make ice cubes.   Wrong tool kit.

Quote from: LordVreeg;672891When you want to play a game where combat takes a back seat to intrigue or politics, old school games, much though I love them, are like using an oven to make ice cubes.   Wrong tool kit.

I'm pretty sure this thread proves otherwise.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;673133I'm pretty sure this thread proves otherwise.

RPGPundit

I don't think it does.  Yes, you can play a more illogical game where a starting character like a thief with zero experience in the social forum or contacts in the court or understanding of etiquette who speaks one language poorly and has never left the city can outperform a seasoned, top level courtesan and trained orator with dozens of years of experience, friends in every chamber, speaks four languages fluently and has been all over the world, in a straight up debate in public.

Because the game mechanics are built to make sure that that same starting thief with 5 HP and leather armor and a dagger can't beat a 10th level knight with 70hp and a magic suit of plate mail in a straight up fight in public.  This is what the game is built to do, or in the words we like to use, this is where the 'simulation' is.

Frankly, the starting thief winning either one should be just as illogical and in-setting illogical, maybe more so the first case, to be honest.  The reason it works the way it does, however, is because the game is balanced around the second scenario, while the first example, the Social part, is incidental to the game.

Quote from: LordVreeg;673214I don't think it does.  Yes, you can play a more illogical game where a starting character like a thief with zero experience in the social forum or contacts in the court or understanding of etiquette who speaks one language poorly and has never left the city can outperform a seasoned, top level courtesan and trained orator with dozens of years of experience, friends in every chamber, speaks four languages fluently and has been all over the world, in a straight up debate in public.

Because the game mechanics are built to make sure that that same starting thief with 5 HP and leather armor and a dagger can't beat a 10th level knight with 70hp and a magic suit of plate mail in a straight up fight in public.  This is what the game is built to do, or in the words we like to use, this is where the 'simulation' is.

Frankly, the starting thief winning either one should be just as illogical and in-setting illogical, maybe more so the first case, to be honest.  The reason it works the way it does, however, is because the game is balanced around the second scenario, while the first example, the Social part, is incidental to the game.

agreed but i have tried to argue in other threads and the usual suspects will shout you down with an argument that either they managed social mechanics without rules, thus missing the point or arguing that social mechanics can only ever be 'i roll diplomacy' and that that noise should apparently have sexual intercourse.... but good luck.
i liked your system by the way when my players mature a little i might introduce a variant of it... i kind of do but not so formal

Quote from: LordVreeg;672891When you want to play a game where combat takes a back seat to intrigue or politics, old school games, much though I love them, are like using an oven to make ice cubes.   Wrong tool kit.

All RPGs can handle this because of the zeroth mechanic. They are games were players play as individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee.

All RPGs automatically come with the ability to handle social interaction due to their focus on the play of individual characters. And it develops naturally over the course of a campaign due to the fact players starting out having little to no relationship with or knowledge of the NPCs.

Then during the course of the campaign it develops so that in the end despite no explicit support a 9th level Thief will master a 1st level Thief in a political or intrigue confrontation by the simple fact that the 9th level character would have far more time to develop relationships and learn how things work socially.

Quote from: estar;673284All RPGs can handle this because of the zeroth mechanic. They are games were players play as individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee.

All RPGs automatically come with the ability to handle social interaction due to their focus on the play of individual characters. And it develops naturally over the course of a campaign due to the fact players starting out having little to no relationship with or knowledge of the NPCs.

Then during the course of the campaign it develops so that in the end despite no explicit support a 9th level Thief will master a 1st level Thief in a political or intrigue confrontation by the simple fact that the 9th level character would have far more time to develop relationships and learn how things work socially.

Right, it's adjudicated like everything else not covered by the rules.  I've done it this way and did it with these games for years myself.  It's one of those things that makes an RPG different from other games, the PCs can do anything, and if it is not covered by the rules, it is adjudicated.

But not all RPGs are created to do everything as well as others.  Some games do madd combat better, some do space travel, some specialize in certain magic systems, some simulate tech well, and the difference and specialization is based on the ruleset/system, and how it handles that specialization.   One does not say that D&D, for example, does space travel well because it has no mechanics for it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;673230agreed but i have tried to argue in other threads and the usual suspects will shout you down with an argument that either they managed social mechanics without rules, thus missing the point or arguing that social mechanics can only ever be 'i roll diplomacy' and that that noise should apparently have sexual intercourse.... but good luck.
i liked your system by the way when my players mature a little i might introduce a variant of it... i kind of do but not so formal

'when my players mature a bit'....ok, that's priceless in and of itself.  Glad you like it.  Like anything it evolved and changed.

Quote from: LordVreeg;673346But not all RPGs are created to do everything as well as others.  Some games do madd combat better, some do space travel, some specialize in certain magic systems, some simulate tech well, and the difference and specialization is based on the ruleset/system, and how it handles that specialization.   One does not say that D&D, for example, does space travel well because it has no mechanics for it.

Except in the case of social interaction. There are no true mechanic in the sense of rolling to see whether you hit the opponent.  In general in most RPGs a hit is a black or white resolution either you hit him and proceed on through. The same with a successful jump navigation roll, a roll to see how well you planted your crop.

Social interaction are always adjudicated any rolls result in a guideline. The resolution is in the interplay between the referee as the NPC and the player. And this is the fundamental mechanic shared by all tabletop RPGs.

In the case of adjudicating anything involving mass appeal like speaking to a crowd, leading an army, etc, I agree with your points. However not at the level of individual interactions and how they play out through the life of a campaign.

From my point of view there are several major aspect to a tabletop RPG. Among the there is the game and then there is the roleplaying. The game are the mechanics. The roleplaying encompass what you do with the game. It is the roleplaying that sets RPGs from their wargame progenitors.

The roleplaying to me is more than just pretending to be or acting as another character it is the campaign, the setting, sessions, etc. All the fuzzy wuzzy  ill-defined human stuff that surrounds the game mechanics. I view the social interaction as part of the roleplaying not the mechanics.

Social tables, rules, etc are aides in the same class as NPC generation and world building are aides. Yes they can help but they are not necessary in the way a combat system is or magic is.

I'm also with LV here, though I also agree that you can ad - lib some stuff. But there are various level of intrigues. Sometimes you want to play a Talleyrand, but you ain't one. There are also issues of player skill vs character skill at work here - a good RL talker will be at a strong advantage here over someone who's a "silent player". That aside, if anything social skills are useful as RP guidelines.

Quote from: estar;673398Social tables, rules, etc are aides in the same class as NPC generation and world building are aides. Yes they can help but they are not necessary in the way a combat system is or magic is.

I think that's a gross oversimplification. It depends on a genre and game - in a high court intrigue combat skills may be less useful than diplomatic ones. Or investigative games.

I actually like per se the concept of social combat. It's just that I wish there was a simple, elegant execution of it.

Quote from: estar;673398Except in the case of social interaction. There are no true mechanic in the sense of rolling to see whether you hit the opponent.  In general in most RPGs a hit is a black or white resolution either you hit him and proceed on through. The same with a successful jump navigation roll, a roll to see how well you planted your crop.

Social interaction are always adjudicated any rolls result in a guideline. The resolution is in the interplay between the referee as the NPC and the player. And this is the fundamental mechanic shared by all tabletop RPGs.

In the case of adjudicating anything involving mass appeal like speaking to a crowd, leading an army, etc, I agree with your points. However not at the level of individual interactions and how they play out through the life of a campaign.

From my point of view there are several major aspect to a tabletop RPG. Among the there is the game and then there is the roleplaying. The game are the mechanics. The roleplaying encompass what you do with the game. It is the roleplaying that sets RPGs from their wargame progenitors.

The roleplaying to me is more than just pretending to be or acting as another character it is the campaign, the setting, sessions, etc. All the fuzzy wuzzy  ill-defined human stuff that surrounds the game mechanics. I view the social interaction as part of the roleplaying not the mechanics.

Social tables, rules, etc are aides in the same class as NPC generation and world building are aides. Yes they can help but they are not necessary in the way a combat system is or magic is.

But you see that is the point.
It's the love of roleplay that make we want to look for more and better mechanics that support Social skills and interaction because as you say yourself most games have none.

Just because the social aspect of the game has been left as underdevoped as it was when Tenser first decided to wade into the orcs with his staff rather than cast a sleep spell doesn't mean that we as GMs and some of you guys as designers shouldn't be thinking about ways to add more mechanical support for role play.

I think a good GM can incorporate skill roles into interaction. Looking here though a large % of GMs don't want to or find it too hard or whatever.
I really think that picking mechanics that really work, like the 007 Seduction system is the best way forward. Pick stuff that works well and adapt and develop it.

Quote from: estar;673398Except in the case of social interaction. There are no true mechanic in the sense of rolling to see whether you hit the opponent.  In general in most RPGs a hit is a black or white resolution either you hit him and proceed on through. The same with a successful jump navigation roll, a roll to see how well you planted your crop.

Social interaction are always adjudicated any rolls result in a guideline. The resolution is in the interplay between the referee as the NPC and the player. And this is the fundamental mechanic shared by all tabletop RPGs.

In the case of adjudicating anything involving mass appeal like speaking to a crowd, leading an army, etc, I agree with your points. However not at the level of individual interactions and how they play out through the life of a campaign.

From my point of view there are several major aspect to a tabletop RPG. Among the there is the game and then there is the roleplaying. The game are the mechanics. The roleplaying encompass what you do with the game. It is the roleplaying that sets RPGs from their wargame progenitors.

The roleplaying to me is more than just pretending to be or acting as another character it is the campaign, the setting, sessions, etc. All the fuzzy wuzzy  ill-defined human stuff that surrounds the game mechanics. I view the social interaction as part of the roleplaying not the mechanics.

Social tables, rules, etc are aides in the same class as NPC generation and world building are aides. Yes they can help but they are not necessary in the way a combat system is or magic is.

Estar,  there are many things that set war games apart from RPGs.   And role playing, or playing in character, is more than speaking or interacting.  And the background for your prejudice comes from a game that was closer to a war game.  And determining that the interaction being part of the role play and not the mechanics is merely part of the choice of matching game to system.  It is frankly one of the reasons that traditional governmental systems always look so silly in most trad RPGs, monarchies can't pass on king ships when character combat level is really a prime determinant of who is in charge.   Remember the first grey hawk, when all the countries had to have uber high level leaders....so really, all the governmental heads were past adventurers?   That's because there is no social/political power that equates to character level.

I agree you can role play without the mechanics, as I said, I did it for years and do it still.  But when I play a game based upon an area of the game, I like having mechanics that allow for the character to have skills like etiquette and detect falsehood and bluff and flirt and detect social dynamic and instill trust and read body language and instill confidence.   It can make for a different game, and one better suited to certain game style and setting/ system matches.

Quote from: Rincewind1;673474I actually like per se the concept of social combat. It's just that I wish there was a simple, elegant execution of it.

This is addressed to LordVreeg's and JibbaJibba relies as well. My view is that the essential social combat mechanic was built into RPGs the moment the players and referee started acting as individual characters.

At best social mechanics are a guide for referee to determine how the NPC is reacting to what the character is saying or doing. I do not have a problem with this type of mechanic as LordVreeg pointed out it helps to make characters better at certain things then the player is.

It doesn't work as well in reverse. Most players I find do not like their characters actions determined by a dice roll.

Quote from: Chugosh;670701On social mechanics, I think that stats and skills are more about guiding how you role play the character more than they are for constant dice rolls.  I'll play a guy with a CH 5 very differently than I do a guy with CH 15.  I'm not too sure of my acting abilities outside of that range.

I remember a number of awesome scenes done without rolling dice in a number of different games, and I think one of the reasons I'm on the OSR wagon is the number of scenes that were not as fun because I insisted on rolling rather than letting the players acting determine the outcomes.

I remember a scene I did when I was 13 where in a guy was on trial for being a pure strain human and was expelled from the community.  I still think it was one of my best scenes, and I have been doing rather a few.

I am so stealing that trial concept for gamma world!

Quote from: LordVreeg;673214I don't think it does.  Yes, you can play a more illogical game where a starting character like a thief with zero experience in the social forum or contacts in the court or understanding of etiquette who speaks one language poorly and has never left the city can outperform a seasoned, top level courtesan and trained orator with dozens of years of experience, friends in every chamber, speaks four languages fluently and has been all over the world, in a straight up debate in public.

Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen.  The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it. Said thief will stand NO chance, no matter what he says, if he's trying to argue with said orator (I suspect you meant "courtier" not "courtesan"?) in a debate being held among gentlemen (he might have some chance if said debate was happening in a low-class brothel, or in front of an angry mob predisposed to hate the courtesan, of course).

On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;674824On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen. The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it.

:P

Look, the quality of the game will always depend on the quality of the players and GM. Acting otherwise, no matter which side of the "rules/no rules" social mechanics divide you are on is moronic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674824Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen.  The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it. Said thief will stand NO chance, no matter what he says, if he's trying to argue with said orator (I suspect you meant "courtier" not "courtesan"?) in a debate being held among gentlemen (he might have some chance if said debate was happening in a low-class brothel, or in front of an angry mob predisposed to hate the courtesan, of course).

On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

RPGPundit

dude eh?

and a guy with 12 points in diplomacy is a seasoned orator, that is what 12 points in diplomacy means just like 12 points in hit stuff with sword means he is good at hitting stuff with a sword.....

Quote from: RPGPundit;674824Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen.  The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it. Said thief will stand NO chance, no matter what he says, if he's trying to argue with said orator (I suspect you meant "courtier" not "courtesan"?) in a debate being held among gentlemen (he might have some chance if said debate was happening in a low-class brothel, or in front of an angry mob predisposed to hate the courtesan, of course).

On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

RPGPundit

The interesting detail I take from this is that social skills in an rpg can be too simplistic.

The thief with diplomacy is a good example.

'streetwise' and 'courtier' really are different and not one 'diplomacy' skill.

A farmer turned soldier fighter with Intimidate skill might be an inspiring commander.

A wizard with Intimidate might be riding on the fearsome reputation of dark sorcery for his Intimidate.

So I can see a ton of thematic issues; but it depends how one customizes a skill to the particular character.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674824Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen.  The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it. Said thief will stand NO chance, no matter what he says, if he's trying to argue with said orator (I suspect you meant "courtier" not "courtesan"?) in a debate being held among gentlemen (he might have some chance if said debate was happening in a low-class brothel, or in front of an angry mob predisposed to hate the courtesan, of course).

On the other hand, in a game with "social mechanics", if the low-class illiterate thief has a player who put 12 points into "diplomacy" for no fucking reason that make sense in-setting, he'll beat the seasoned orator thanks to a die roll.

RPGPundit

incorrect, my friend.

The addition of social skills does not preclude within-setting logic, it merely increases said logic.  A good GM is still a good one, a bad one is still bad.  Your description of the issue is merely a retelling of any bad GM system where the rules are applied poorly.

You can say that 'caring about social RP' is going to make it all better, but the example we are working with in the public debate between our two protagonists is aided and better structured when you have the social dynamics in the rules, and without them you are relying on GM fiat when you don't have to.

Hey, I'm not saying a good GM can't do make a good game with fiat, but in a social heavy game, as in a game with any area of particular interest, some level of system supporting that area of the game is merely a tool for the GM and players to make the game better.

Quote from: Bill;674894The interesting detail I take from this is that social skills in an rpg can be too simplistic.

The thief with diplomacy is a good example.

'streetwise' and 'courtier' really are different and not one 'diplomacy' skill.

A farmer turned soldier fighter with Intimidate skill might be an inspiring commander.

A wizard with Intimidate might be riding on the fearsome reputation of dark sorcery for his Intimidate.

So I can see a ton of thematic issues; but it depends how one customizes a skill to the particular character.

Social Skills are about 3/4 of the way down (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956117/Skill%20Master%20spreadsheet).

Quote from: LordVreeg;674923Social Skills are about 3/4 of the way down (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956117/Skill%20Master%20spreadsheet).

Looks like a very specific list of skills. Looks clear what each one is for.

Have you had any issues with there being 'too many skills' ?

Does your ssytem have 'related skills' or 'unskilled use of some skills' ?

Quote from: LordVreeg;674911incorrect, my friend.

The addition of social skills does not preclude within-setting logic, it merely increases said logic.  A good GM is still a good one, a bad one is still bad.  Your description of the issue is merely a retelling of any bad GM system where the rules are applied poorly.

You can say that 'caring about social RP' is going to make it all better, but the example we are working with in the public debate between our two protagonists is aided and better structured when you have the social dynamics in the rules, and without them you are relying on GM fiat when you don't have to.

Hey, I'm not saying a good GM can't do make a good game with fiat, but in a social heavy game, as in a game with any area of particular interest, some level of system supporting that area of the game is merely a tool for the GM and players to make the game better.

I'd say it's a bit like with Combat mechanics actually - I can imagine CoC without combat chapter, with combat by fiat (You need that many PCs to defeat a Shoggoth, etc etc).

And of course if the thief has 12 ranks in Diplomacy or 90% Persuade, he's no longer an illiterate low - class thief. He's at the very least, an illiterate Blackadder - cunning low class thief!

Quote from: Bill;674936Looks like a very specific list of skills. Looks clear what each one is for.

Have you had any issues with there being 'too many skills' ?

Does your ssytem have 'related skills' or 'unskilled use of some skills' ?

I do go for very extended campaigns.  As we spoke about before, my two live groups gave been going since 2003 and 1995, respectively.
SO I like that there is still a lot of room from growth.

No one ever complains of their being too many.  The way the mechanics work, after a while, since we keep track of levels in each skill, it takes a lot of experience to move a skil up and it makes more sense to go learn a sub skill of it or another skill.

all the skills are set up into trees, and there is a both a base skill amount that comes from attributes that is the unskilled usage portion, and sub skills (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956387/Subskills%20and%20dropdowns) do recieve a bonus from the parent skills.

"Skills--Sub Skills and Dropdowns


One of the issues that cropped up in using a skill based system ws the interrelated nature of skills and knowledge bases, and of difficult, esoteric skills.  One of the weaknesses found in other systems was the lack of depth and relatedness of skills.  Adjudication has always and will always be the highest law, but many skills are related, and most systems don't deal with this well.  And creating a system that allowed for basic and advanced skills, with a basic knowledge giving a small amount of the skill in the more advanced, was quite a trick.  But in practice, it has worked well and kept people coming back for over twenty five years.

 

 
Subskills
 

Skills in Celtricia are based on a tree system, in that 'Basic Trap Skill' has sub skills of 'Find Trap, remove Trap, and 'Set Trap'. 'Avoid Trap is a sub skill of 'remove trap', etc.

Far too much of what people can learn is based on layers of previous knowledge.  While we understand that skill trees are still a very crude approximation of the way people learn and that the additive and cross-dicliplined nature of actrual learning is still not well represented, having skills as prerequisite skills seems a good game mechanic to enforce the nature of easy vs. hard skills while still maintaining some verimilitude.

 

So most 'skill trees' have a base skill and sub skills, and these sub skills can have 4-5 levels in some cases in very esoteric cases.  In game terms, the 'parent skill' of a sub skill must always remain one level of ability ahead of the sub skill.  So in order to reach the first level of ability in a sub skill, you must have reached level 2 in the parent skill.  This means that to reach level 1 in a sub skill of a sub skill, you must be level 3 in the base skill, level 2 in the middle skill, before level 1 can be reached in the 'sub of the sub'.

 

 

Dropdown
 

Now, since you understand that skills have sub skills, how do sub skills affect the game?

A Dropdown skill is one that the character can use because it is a sub skill of a skill they already have an ability in.  Every skill has an entry for a dropdown % amount.  This represents the amount of the parent skill that is passed onto the sub skill, both as the ability before the skill is learned, and as a bonus once that skill is actually learned.  

 

The basic Trap skill has a 1.0 dropdown for Remove trap, Set trap, and find trap, which means that 100% of the skill amount is dropped down as an ability in those skills. SO why would anyone bother to learn the find trap skill?

Because Basic skills have lousy amounts gained per level. 'Basic Trap, for example has an average attribute/unlearned base of 5% with 1-4 gained per level. This means that a thief-type who does not learn the sub skills may be fifth level in Basic Trap, but it will only give an average of 17.5% skill in the sub trap abilities, which is pretty lousy. (that 17.5 it gives to the subskills is called the 'dropdown').

 

Find Traps, the sub skill, has an average attribute base of 10% with a 2-7 gain per level. So the amount gained per level is higher, though the scope is narrower. The same thief-type from before, with a second level skill in 'Find Trap' added to his fifth level 'basic trap' skill dropdown, will have a 36.5% Find Traps skill.

 

Behind the curtain, understand that characters are supposed to use sub skills.  The above example is a good one, as the only use of the Basic Trap skill is to give the sub skills/dropdowns.  But as a mechanism, it gives a generalized ability that goes up in very small amounts, whereas if a character decided to also specialize in the sub skill and learn it, their ability in that more narrow channel improves much faster.

More esoteric and difficult skills have very small dropdowns, to simulate how difficult they are to learn and how much effort must be spent to really learn them.

So the dropdown replicates a more realistic approach, in that this allows characters to understand some of languages that are related (dropdowns) of a larger language they know, it allows basic alchemists to try to identify poisons (dropdown skill), even with their general alchemy understanding, it allows characters with the basic defense skill knowing how to make the most of their armor (the Protection Bonus dropdown), without being expert in that skill.  In short, the base skill/dropdown mechanism allows for characters to have a generalized knowledge in an ability and a chance of applying it to a specific skill, without giving them too much ability in that specific skill."

Quote from: LordVreeg;675144I do go for very extended campaigns.  As we spoke about before, my two live groups gave been going since 2003 and 1995, respectively.
SO I like that there is still a lot of room from growth.

No one ever complains of their being too many.  The way the mechanics work, after a while, since we keep track of levels in each skill, it takes a lot of experience to move a skil up and it makes more sense to go learn a sub skill of it or another skill.

all the skills are set up into trees, and there is a both a base skill amount that comes from attributes that is the unskilled usage portion, and sub skills (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956387/Subskills%20and%20dropdowns) do recieve a bonus from the parent skills.

"Skills--Sub Skills and Dropdowns


One of the issues that cropped up in using a skill based system ws the interrelated nature of skills and knowledge bases, and of difficult, esoteric skills.  One of the weaknesses found in other systems was the lack of depth and relatedness of skills.  Adjudication has always and will always be the highest law, but many skills are related, and most systems don't deal with this well.  And creating a system that allowed for basic and advanced skills, with a basic knowledge giving a small amount of the skill in the more advanced, was quite a trick.  But in practice, it has worked well and kept people coming back for over twenty five years.

 

 
Subskills
 

Skills in Celtricia are based on a tree system, in that 'Basic Trap Skill' has sub skills of 'Find Trap, remove Trap, and 'Set Trap'. 'Avoid Trap is a sub skill of 'remove trap', etc.

Far too much of what people can learn is based on layers of previous knowledge.  While we understand that skill trees are still a very crude approximation of the way people learn and that the additive and cross-dicliplined nature of actrual learning is still not well represented, having skills as prerequisite skills seems a good game mechanic to enforce the nature of easy vs. hard skills while still maintaining some verimilitude.

 

So most 'skill trees' have a base skill and sub skills, and these sub skills can have 4-5 levels in some cases in very esoteric cases.  In game terms, the 'parent skill' of a sub skill must always remain one level of ability ahead of the sub skill.  So in order to reach the first level of ability in a sub skill, you must have reached level 2 in the parent skill.  This means that to reach level 1 in a sub skill of a sub skill, you must be level 3 in the base skill, level 2 in the middle skill, before level 1 can be reached in the 'sub of the sub'.

 

 

Dropdown
 

Now, since you understand that skills have sub skills, how do sub skills affect the game?

A Dropdown skill is one that the character can use because it is a sub skill of a skill they already have an ability in.  Every skill has an entry for a dropdown % amount.  This represents the amount of the parent skill that is passed onto the sub skill, both as the ability before the skill is learned, and as a bonus once that skill is actually learned.  

 

The basic Trap skill has a 1.0 dropdown for Remove trap, Set trap, and find trap, which means that 100% of the skill amount is dropped down as an ability in those skills. SO why would anyone bother to learn the find trap skill?

Because Basic skills have lousy amounts gained per level. 'Basic Trap, for example has an average attribute/unlearned base of 5% with 1-4 gained per level. This means that a thief-type who does not learn the sub skills may be fifth level in Basic Trap, but it will only give an average of 17.5% skill in the sub trap abilities, which is pretty lousy. (that 17.5 it gives to the subskills is called the 'dropdown').

 

Find Traps, the sub skill, has an average attribute base of 10% with a 2-7 gain per level. So the amount gained per level is higher, though the scope is narrower. The same thief-type from before, with a second level skill in 'Find Trap' added to his fifth level 'basic trap' skill dropdown, will have a 36.5% Find Traps skill.

 

Behind the curtain, understand that characters are supposed to use sub skills.  The above example is a good one, as the only use of the Basic Trap skill is to give the sub skills/dropdowns.  But as a mechanism, it gives a generalized ability that goes up in very small amounts, whereas if a character decided to also specialize in the sub skill and learn it, their ability in that more narrow channel improves much faster.

More esoteric and difficult skills have very small dropdowns, to simulate how difficult they are to learn and how much effort must be spent to really learn them.

So the dropdown replicates a more realistic approach, in that this allows characters to understand some of languages that are related (dropdowns) of a larger language they know, it allows basic alchemists to try to identify poisons (dropdown skill), even with their general alchemy understanding, it allows characters with the basic defense skill knowing how to make the most of their armor (the Protection Bonus dropdown), without being expert in that skill.  In short, the base skill/dropdown mechanism allows for characters to have a generalized knowledge in an ability and a chance of applying it to a specific skill, without giving them too much ability in that specific skill."

I posted before I realized there were skill trees there. I am sure you put a lot of thought and organization into it.

Mind if I steal your skill list as a reference?
 
Looks very useful.

Quote from: Bill;675215I posted before I realized there were skill trees there. I am sure you put a lot of thought and organization into it.

Mind if I steal your skill list as a reference?
 
Looks very useful.

No stress.
We are still rounding out some pieces not there, but it's 85-90% done.  Thanks for asking.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;674825Except in a game where people care about Social RP, that's not going to happen. The emulation of the game world will prevent it; or rather, affect it.

:P

Look, the quality of the game will always depend on the quality of the players and GM. Acting otherwise, no matter which side of the "rules/no rules" social mechanics divide you are on is moronic.

Well thanks, but in that case you've just conceded the irrelevance of social mechanics.

If social mechanics need to be governed by emulation to be controllable, to not have them be manipulated into a vehicle for abuse, then you are in exactly the same boat with them as with a game where there are no social mechanics.  At best, they are entirely optional, at worst they're a distraction that only gets in the way.

Quote from: jibbajibba;674840dude eh?

and a guy with 12 points in diplomacy is a seasoned orator, that is what 12 points in diplomacy means just like 12 points in hit stuff with sword means he is good at hitting stuff with a sword.....

Except that for a lot of players it doesn't mean that. It just means "I put 12 points in diplomacy so that I can get away with shit, but I don't want to be one of those pansy-ass debaters. So no, my character is hog-farmer mcgee, an alley-thief from bumtown, but somehow in the court of kings he'll outdo the most skilled of lawyers because he has a lot of points in "hit stuff with words"".

But I guess that's what happens when you treat roleplaying the same as combat. you cheapen roleplaying.

Quote from: RPGPundit;675499Except that for a lot of players it doesn't mean that. It just means "I put 12 points in diplomacy so that I can get away with shit, but I don't want to be one of those pansy-ass debaters. So no, my character is hog-farmer mcgee, an alley-thief from bumtown, but somehow in the court of kings he'll outdo the most skilled of lawyers because he has a lot of points in "hit stuff with words"".

But I guess that's what happens when you treat roleplaying the same as combat. you cheapen roleplaying.

If you take examples that require a bad GM, you end up with games that sound bad.  And when you describe a game vaguely and make up situations that might not even be able to happen, they can also sound bad.

Most games with social skills only allow you to learn them if it makes sense, and the progress is slow.  

It still comes down to using the right ruleset for the type of game you want to play, and if 95% of the rules are based on combat and magic, that's what the game is for, and if the rules are based on diplomacy, intrigue, social knowledge and building relationships, that's what the game does best.  

With the right rules you don't have to make up the chance of a player knowing an obscure custom, or knowing how to dance, or if they know the family of the person they are talking to.  These are examples of the social skills that get used, not your made up version of the Diplomancer that came from D&D trying to use social skills.

Quote from: RPGPundit;675498Well thanks, but in that case you've just conceded the irrelevance of social mechanics.

If social mechanics need to be governed by emulation to be controllable, to not have them be manipulated into a vehicle for abuse, then you are in exactly the same boat with them as with a game where there are no social mechanics.  At best, they are entirely optional, at worst they're a distraction that only gets in the way.

And I could turn around and make the same argument for physical combat. Its just as easy to decide who is the most skilled and then have them describe how they are fighting and have an arbitrator decide who won.

Then nobody could put a bunch of skill points into "swordplay" that don't make sense for the character, nobody could exploit the rules to create characters that don't make sense (A level 1 guy beating an Ogre Mage!).

See, you try to make the argument that you are saying they aren't needed, but the argument you are actually making is that they are BAD. There is kind of a difference here. Not only that, but you are confusing not needed with not preferable.

I don't think any rules are NEEDED, that doesn't mean I don't prefer some rules to exist. In reality we don't NEED any rules. We could play a whole game with descriptions of the characters, describing our actions, and having a GM decide how things go. Now, that might not appeal to most RPG gamers (and I would guess that it wouldn't), but it certainly is POSSIBLE. (and a lot of people do this all the time).

So yes, your argument that they are not needed is true. Unfortunately, you aren't actually MAKING that argument. You are making the argument that adding them is bad. That isn't the same as not needed, and will depend heavily on what the players and GM want in their game rather than some objective truth.

(Also, you were completely, and hilarious disingenuous in your arguments by supposing that your hypothetical no rules social rp game be run by a very competent GM, while having your hypothetical rules social rp game be run by an ignoramus. If you are having to do that to argue your point, maybe you just don't have much of a point.)

Quote from: LordVreeg;675506It still comes down to using the right ruleset for the type of game you want to play, and if 95% of the rules are based on combat and magic, that's what the game is for, and if the rules are based on diplomacy, intrigue, social knowledge and building relationships, that's what the game does best.  

Utter bullshit.  Look at Amber or Lords of Olympus: these games have extensive rules on powers and combat, but no rules at all (and no attributes/abilities to apply mechanically) on social knowledge, relationships, diplomacy or intrigue, and yet that is what they're famously about.

What do they have? A considerable amount of GM-advice on how to arbitrate these things and make them spectacular, without ever needing to put a mechanical facade on them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;675840Utter bullshit.  Look at Amber or Lords of Olympus: these games have extensive rules on powers and combat, but no rules at all (and no attributes/abilities to apply mechanically) on social knowledge, relationships, diplomacy or intrigue, and yet that is what they're famously about.

What do they have? A considerable amount of GM-advice on how to arbitrate these things and make them spectacular, without ever needing to put a mechanical facade on them.

RPGPundit

Utter Bullshit. Amber is good at social mechanics because half the book is dedicated to social mechanics.
Amber doesn't have complex rules for combat, the powers are sketched the entire game is light touch rules. In that context Social interaction gets a huge ammount of rule time.

This is how I rule on social interactions. PC starts roleplayign I start role playing. I get PC to make a skill check. I may make an oppsed role for the NPC. Then we continue to role play and I modify my roleplay based on the result of the roll, not on the quality of the roleplay because its my job to foster better roleplay at my table not to judge the quality of others who may be shy, less outgoing or whatever. As Gm I am the only interface to the world the PCs have every they see, hear, touch, sense or feel comes from me. I can easily modify my responses to a social situation based on the NPC personality the skill check and the proposal, but even when the proposal is ludicrous the response of the NPC can still be in keeping.
"Your Highness please give me your duaghter's hand in marriage," (rolls 19 +30 skill for 49 total)
" Haha my boy and well I might you certainly have the gift of the gab, surely one such as your self must come from noble blood, and yet you appear, if it is not  rude of me to say, as though you are covered from head to toe in pig shit."
"Yeah I had to negotiate my way through a farm yard on the way here."
"Well let us get you cleaned up and into some decent clothes and perhaps we can continue this discussion over dinner. Cuthbert could you escourt these spendid fellows to the guest wing and see to it that they are given all comforts.... etc "
That stuff is a piece of piss to do and the reply of the NPC doesn't depend on my interpretation of the role play it depends on the NPCs interpretation of the skill role. I just translate that at the table.

Likewise I can use social skills on the PCs. Because I am the world and all the sensory data that comes from the world to the PCs I can make an NPC seem kind, good, inviting, noble, weak, selfish. I can equally well make an argument that will pursude the PCs or at least present the argument in the best light.
Compare
"The barmaid smiles at you shyly and comes over towards your table. She brushes a stray curl of dark hair out of her face and you can't help but notice that her hip is pressing a little too hard against your shoulder as she pours you a mug of ale. " Barmaid makes seduction roll 17.
To
"The barmaid looks more than a little surly, she attempts to dazzle you with a smile that would turn milk and then stomps over to your table, invades your personal space and pours a mug of ale. " Barmaid makes seduction roll of 7

This is not complex but it does rely on GM experience. As GMs we bring he world to life I think there is room for some mechanical assistance with that process

Quote from: RPGPundit;675840Utter bullshit.  Look at Amber or Lords of Olympus: these games have extensive rules on powers and combat, but no rules at all (and no attributes/abilities to apply mechanically) on social knowledge, relationships, diplomacy or intrigue, and yet that is what they're famously about.

What do they have? A considerable amount of GM-advice on how to arbitrate these things and make them spectacular, without ever needing to put a mechanical facade on them.

RPGPundit

On top of Jibba's good comment about the actualy breakdown of advice on adjudication being what Amber's rules are about, there is also the fact that Amber is actually about a set of books.  whether the system succeed or fail at their attempts at emulation is up for debate, since the Players are looking for play that emulates the Amber novels, no matter how well or poorly the rules are suited for it.  It could be a completely horrible match for intrigue and social interaction games, and that's still the game people would try to play with it, based solely on the players trying to emulate the way characters behaved in the novels.

Quote from: jibbajibba;675856Utter Bullshit. Amber is good at social mechanics because half the book is dedicated to social mechanics.

Clearly your definition of "mechanics" and the rest of the hobby's is a little bit different.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jibbajibba;675856Utter Bullshit. Amber is good at social mechanics because half the book is dedicated to social mechanics.
Amber doesn't have complex rules for combat, the powers are sketched the entire game is light touch rules. In that context Social interaction gets a huge ammount of rule time.

This is how I rule on social interactions. PC starts roleplayign I start role playing. I get PC to make a skill check. I may make an oppsed role for the NPC. Then we continue to role play and I modify my roleplay based on the result of the roll, not on the quality of the roleplay because its my job to foster better roleplay at my table not to judge the quality of others who may be shy, less outgoing or whatever. As Gm I am the only interface to the world the PCs have every they see, hear, touch, sense or feel comes from me. I can easily modify my responses to a social situation based on the NPC personality the skill check and the proposal, but even when the proposal is ludicrous the response of the NPC can still be in keeping.
"Your Highness please give me your duaghter's hand in marriage," (rolls 19 +30 skill for 49 total)
" Haha my boy and well I might you certainly have the gift of the gab, surely one such as your self must come from noble blood, and yet you appear, if it is not  rude of me to say, as though you are covered from head to toe in pig shit."
"Yeah I had to negotiate my way through a farm yard on the way here."
"Well let us get you cleaned up and into some decent clothes and perhaps we can continue this discussion over dinner. Cuthbert could you escourt these spendid fellows to the guest wing and see to it that they are given all comforts.... etc "
That stuff is a piece of piss to do and the reply of the NPC doesn't depend on my interpretation of the role play it depends on the NPCs interpretation of the skill role. I just translate that at the table.

Likewise I can use social skills on the PCs. Because I am the world and all the sensory data that comes from the world to the PCs I can make an NPC seem kind, good, inviting, noble, weak, selfish. I can equally well make an argument that will pursude the PCs or at least present the argument in the best light.
Compare
"The barmaid smiles at you shyly and comes over towards your table. She brushes a stray curl of dark hair out of her face and you can't help but notice that her hip is pressing a little too hard against your shoulder as she pours you a mug of ale. " Barmaid makes seduction roll 17.
To
"The barmaid looks more than a little surly, she attempts to dazzle you with a smile that would turn milk and then stomps over to your table, invades your personal space and pours a mug of ale. " Barmaid makes seduction roll of 7

This is not complex but it does rely on GM experience. As GMs we bring he world to life I think there is room for some mechanical assistance with that process

Some interesting examples here.


I have observed that players tend to be in two camps in this matter.

One camp expects their skill roll results to be reliable no matter the circumstances.  

The other camp accepts that a particular King may not let a commoner marry his daughter no matter how silvery his tongue is.

Quote from: Bill;676665Some interesting examples here.


I have observed that players tend to be in two camps in this matter.

One camp expects their skill roll results to be reliable no matter the circumstances.  

The other camp accepts that a particular King may not let a commoner marry his daughter no matter how silvery his tongue is.

I think you make a good point, though it is players and GMs.  I also see this in that the former group often wants to use social mechanics to replace roleplaying, and the latter group wants to use them to enhance the roleplay experience.  

also, Many secondary social skills, I mentioned some before, are knowledge-based, and allow the player and GM to share more knowledge about the world based on knowledge the PC would have.