Social Interaction

 I haven't been doing much writing or game development lately because of my impending test into 3rd-degree black in Kung Fu. But lately, it seems like I've stumbled across a number of blog/forum posts about rules for social interaction. How, or even if this should be supported mechanically is a contentious and confusing subject that I don't currently have answers for. It does, however, fall within an area of interest where I've been doing a lot of research and thinking, so I thought I would throw out some considerations that might be used as tools for a future system.

All conscious decisions are based on an (often imperfect) cost/benefit analysis of one's desired states or goals. So, it should be no surprise that when it comes to social interactions (where one is trying to get someone to do something) that all of the techniques and strategies one might employ are designed to influence how the target weighs the factors on one side or the other of that equation.

Two early pioneers of the concept of Social Power, the social psychologists French and Raven, established 5 categories of sources of power: Coercive Power, Reward Power, Expert Power, Legitimate Power, Referent Power. Unfortunately, these sources of power may represent multiple types of influence, muddying the waters when searching for a reason why or how this power influences people. It is, nevertheless a good place to start.

The two -- what might be called -- "purest" expressions of power are Coercive Power and Reward Power as these directly influence one's conscious evaluation of the costs or benefits of a potential decision.

* Coercive power -- "Do this... or something bad will happen to you."

-- directly affects the cost side of the cost/benefit equation either by withholding a benefit (e.g. a boss threatening to fire--and thus stop paying--you) or imposing an additional cost or limitation to one's ability to hold or achieve a desired state.

* Reward power -- "Do this...it will be worth it."

-- directly affects the benefit side of the equation, offering additional resources, opportunities, or some form of help to hold or achieve state (e.g. the money to buy the things you need to live)

The remaining three (or more) sources of power tend to be more indirect, taking advantage of non-rational/emotional influences and cognitive biases to manipulate the cost/benefit evaluation, often by introducing multiple factors to both sides of the equation.

* Expert Power -- "Do this...because I know what's best."

-- is generally a part of an appeal to one's self-interest, by encouraging you to trust the source of the advice. If 4 out of 5 doctors recommend something, you can trust it is a good idea, as long as it is medical advice and not decorating tips and that they aren't on the advertiser's payroll.

* Legitimate Power -- "Do this... because I'm the boss."

-- usually conceived as "positional power" it is hard to distinguish this from Coercive or Reward power. To legitimately establish it as a separate category, it should probably be re-conceptualized as an appeal to expected norms. "Do this... because that's what you do."

* Referent Power -- "Do this... because I'm, me."

-- is generally an attempt to invoke an associated emotion. This is the power of a well-liked celebrity to sell commercial products. It may include more abstract concepts like "God and Country" or even "Think of the suffering children/puppies!"

Take that, rules monster!

 I've been thinking about how I can adapt my homebrew system for a solo-style game. Since solo gamers seem to prefer especially light rule systems, I think I've been able to largely replicate the results of the current system while cutting the number of rolls down to 1/3 or less of those originally required-- as well as provide for some additional results

New Combat rules

• Attacker and Defender each roll 1d6
• If the result is over 3 their opponent takes a wound.

• Subtract the Attacker's result from the Defender's result.
• If it is positive, the attacker will have Advantage in the next action.
• If it is negative, the defender will have Advantage in the next action.
• If the difference is 0, neither side will have the advantage.
• If the difference is greater than +2, then the attacker gets a +2 advantage.
• If the difference is less than -2, then the defender gets a +2 advantage.

If combat continues, the advantage can be used to reroll any 1 die roll in the next action. Unused advantage disappears after the next exchange. (*)

Attacker's chance...

TO HIT		FOR ADVANTAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 MISS HIT 2 3 4 WOUND WOUND & HIT 5 6		1 2 3 4 5 6 1 0 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 2 -1 0 +1 +1 +2 +2 3 -1 -1 0 +1 +1 +2 4 -2 -1 -1 0 +1 +1 5 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 +1 6 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 0

This seems to combine elements of my current d2 dice pool system with elements of my earlier VS6 system (**). 

While the second table may seem a little complex at first glance, the whole thing boils down to 2 simple rules:

1. If the difference between the 2 rolls is not 0, give the highest roller an advantage.
2. If the result is greater than 2, give them an extra advantage.

 What I like about this overall approach is that it provides for the possibility that one side or the other can fail to hit and still gain Avantage. They can even take the hit and still gain Avantageas if making a sacrifice play. This approach can even allow for both combatants to simultaneously hit each other... all with 1 roll of 2 dice and 2 simple comparisons.

 Although the side that hits is much more likely to gain Avantage, it is not guaranteed. 

Want a little more detail?

One of the purposes of this design is to reduce the number of rolls where nothing happens. If, however, you need to know if an attack occurred that might have hit but was simply blocked, Considered that all doubles are blocked attacks. The Advantage system already takes into account situations where an attacker failed so miserably that the defender didn't have to defend, or where a defender was tricked into an unnecessary defense through a feint. In both cases (the failed attack or unnecessary defense) the other combatant receives an Advantage bonus even though no one was actually wounded.

 

 On a side note... I've read a couple of papers challenging Panksepp's list of primary emotions on a number of grounds. I already knew that lexical studies show that we have many more words for negative emotion than positive emotions despite there not necessarily being an imbalance in the emotions actually experienced. This is disappointing because I had hoped to limit the list to 6 primary emotions (for game reasons). While I might not be able to reproduce the full OCC model of emotions, I should be able to come up with a decent revised list shortly.

 

 (*) An optional rule might be to allow the player to use the +2 to automatically turn a wound into a miss or a miss into a hit.

 

 (**) VS6 was a d6-d6 mechanic with straight adds for modifiers. The nice thing about it is that one could avoid the math by simply declaring one die as the positive die and one as the negative, roll both, and take the lowest value. This would produce results in the range from -5 to +5 without subtracting and produce results similar to FUDGE but without adding.

 

 In this current implementation, I've limited the advantage results to +/-2 because of the limited range of values.

How do you feel about that?

Christmas, New Years', too many doctor visits, and endless family activities kept me busy over the last couple of months. Even though I didn't have much time to think, much less to create, I still managed to pull together a few more simple tools. 

I've spent a lot of time trying to determine primary character attributes based on their function in the cognitive process. (As opposed to the misguided lexical approach.) And, while I feel I'm definitely getting closer I also thought that (for our current purposes) it's not necessary to reproduce the whole process of evaluations that determine the characters' reactions, but rather the conclusions such evaluations produce--namely emotions.

Inspired, in part, by Panksepp's list, My goal was to cover the greatest range of evaluations and motivations with the smallest list of emotions. My original version included a neutral/satisfied emotion but lacked Disgust. Neutral/Satisfied was --at best-- a very low-level happy emo0tion. When I realized I didn't have any way to represent a character's disapproval or rejection, I dropped the neutral/satisfied option and added Disgust, Disapproval, Rejection, and Refusal. 

Most lists include surprise as a primary emotion but I've never considered it one. If by "surprise" you mean startled, then a low-level fear would do just as well. If by "surprise" you mean unexpected, then my Thoughtful, Questioning, Curious, Uncertain, and Skeptical category will do just as well.

Use the Emotion/Mood chart to determine a character’s reaction or set the tone for a new scene. These are broad emotional categories. The degree of strength and the direction of the emotions must be determined by context. The resulting motivations or drives may be weak or strong, the object of the emotion may be oneself, or another, or even a broader or ambiguous situation. 

Yes... But What Actually Happens?

 A vast number of writers have stories about telling someone that they are a writer and being offered a "million-dollar" story idea. Said person will be happy to share it for half of the story's profits and all the author has to do is write the thing.

This reflects a profound ignorance of both the craft and the business of writing. First is the idea that there is any money to writing. The second is that there is any special value to ideas. Anyone in the industry can tell you that the real challenge is not the uniqueness of the idea but the quality of its implementation.

The hardest part of writing is not coming up with an idea for a story, or even characters. It's not even coming up with a plot. It's the process of actually putting those ideas into words. With the proliferation of various story structure schemes, it's possible to outline a detailed plot, craft richly detailed characters, know your story's theme and symbolism, and still be stuck trying to decide how to begin the thing. In fact, those schemes may make it worse since they give you so many additional elements to juggle instead of just thinking of what would be fun or interesting.

I don't have as much experience with solo RPGs, but I expect similar or even worse difficulties.

Fortunately, there is an increasing number of "Oracles" available to gamers to suggest story events. Unfortunately, many of them are both arbitrary and random, containing vague non-sequiturs that confuse as much as inspire... 

So I spent much of Thanksgiving weekend compiling a semi-structured list of several hundred plot objectives. My goal was to create something that was both exhaustive and structured so that one could select the scope of randomness desired. It turns out that "exhaustive" and "structured" are rather difficult to balance. To make matters worse, reading some actual play accounts, it seems that many players prefer a very simple--even minimalistic--tool.   

I've always liked the telescoped approach where you provide a simple basic structure and allow for optional levels of increasing detail. Among the numerous scholarly papers that I've read on procedurally generated content, one of the authors discussed how you can generate an enormous amount of material by combining several smaller lists of items.

With those two things in mind, I tried to sort my not-yet-exhaustive list of plot objectives into basic categories. 

Action Goals

1. Creation – create something new or cause something to be
2. Destruction – kill, impair, render useless
3. Protection – prevent or resist change and maintain the status quo
4. Change – improve, repair, redirect, persuade or transport
5. Knowledge – detect, identify, locate
6. Concealment – hide, deceive, trick
7. Control – buy or sell, steal or give, capture or release
8. Help – advise, assist, equip or empower

Domains

1. Information, Ideas
2. Person, Relationship, Organization
3. Place
4. Thing, Tool, Resource

This is certainly subject to change, but I think it can already cover a very broad range of missions. For example, Knowledge + Concealment + Organization could cover a spy mission while Concealment + Destruction + Place could be a sneak attack.

I'm still planning on expanding this into a more robust-yet-still-structured list so that if you already know you want some sort of investigation mission, you can randomly select from among a number of options which would not only include more specifics but supplementary lists of required support elements as well.

MOODPIGS, Solo RPGS, and Oracles

Why?

When the subject of Solo RPGs comes up, one of the first questions asked (besides why) is how? Stories, story games, and RPGs all involve some sense of exploration and mystery solving. How do you play a game like that when you are the one creating it and thus know everything before you begin?

Good question. The simplest response would be: through the use of an oracle.

It turns out, that using an oracle is not really that much different than how a regular game is run. Sure, a bad GM will construct a plot and then railroad the players into following it regardless of player "choices." A competent GM will usually have some sort of plot or plot elements ready but understands that (as the much-paraphrased saying goes) no plan survives first contact with the enemy and so is prepared to wing it when the players inevitably head off in unexpected directions. Experienced GMs frequently don't even prepare a plot. They'll just lay the toys out for the players, read their reactions, and push plot elements in front of them as appropriate--rather like a jazz player riffing on narrative rather than musical themes.

I'm sure that many players have posed a question to their GM for which they were entirely unprepared. More then once I've seen (and done this as well) a GM quickly assign probabilities for various outcomes in their head then roll a dice to determine what actually happens. This is no different than what happens in Solo play. In fact, when you consider that both the GM and the players are responding to ideas randomly generated by the other, it really is no different than if dice had determined both the setup and results of a player's actions. (And I've had some pretty random players.)

So what is an Oracle and how do you use it?

An "Oracle" is a simple tool or method that a solo player uses to help him determine the results of a narrative question. In its simplest form, it can just be tossing a coin and calling out heads or tails or rolling a die and calling odds or evens.  It helps the player make a decision when they truly have no idea how to respond and it helps them avoid common repetitive responses, injecting a certain sense of surprise and uncertainty to the game/story.

More complex versions can provide additional information. Usually, these are fairly generic Magic 8 Ball kind of responses that have to be interpreted within the context of the game events to determine the outcome. (Presumably this is how it got the name "oracle")  Just as how early RPGs went from simple binary "hit" or "miss" results on character action rolls to a more graduated series of responses (including critical success/failure or partial success/failure) the most common oracles take a clue from improv theater and--in addition to a simple yes/no--introduce the concepts of yes/no and... or yes/no but...

In practice, these tools are little different than the random encounter tables, NPC reaction tables, or critical hit tables used in traditional RPGs. The oracle tables are simply a more generalized form that allows their use in a broader range of situations. Considering their similarities, you could argue that RPGs have always included an oracle in some form as a part of the game.

An Example: The MOODPIGS Oracle

Above, I've included the oracle for the solo adaptation of MOODPIGS on which I am working. The normal resolution system for MOODPIGS is a comparison of the results of opposing dice pools. The dice pool's size will generally start within a range of 1-6 dice and may increase by adding an additional 1-3 dice and/or by re-rolling dice. An "average" value--such as might be used in a situation where no particular skills or situational modifiers apply--is 2 dice. The player would roll his 2 Action Dice (labeled AD in the table above) for his character's actions, while the GM (or sometimes the player himself) rolls the Challenge Dice. (CD in the table above) Simply compare the AD and CD results to the Oracle table to determine the outcome.

Breaking Ties and keeping the story moving.

Some game resolution systems--including MOODPIGS--allow for the possibility of a tie. This is problematic as an answer to a yes/no question. In fact, depending on the relative size of the competing dice pools, the chance of a tie can rise as high as 33%. While some degree of ambiguity may be appropriate for anything that gives at least some pretense of following reality, nothing is more annoying than repeatedly being told to try again. As a result, 2 of the 3 possible tie results have been given slightly different interpretations so that the story can move forward even if the story's character doesn't. In addition to the ambiguous Yes...and No, there is Interruption/New Event which means that before you can even find out the answer to your question a new situation has taken over and must be dealt with. And... (taking a clue from the Recluse Solo Engine) there is Question Assumptions, which means that the question itself is based on a misunderstanding. Something that is assumed to be true (or false) isn't and you need to re-examine what you think you know.   

Interpreting the Results

• Yes, And — The answer is not only yes, but the results are even more yes than expected.
• Yes, But — The answer is yes, but only mostly yes. The results are compromised.
• Question Assumptions — The question is based on a false assumption. Reconsider something assumed as true.
• Yes — Keep going based on this fact being true.
• Yes… And No — Or neither. The results are ambiguous, or the task is bigger than expect. Additional requirements must be met or a different approach tried.
• No, But — some aspect may be true or some path might be found to the desired outcome.
• Interruption / New Event — Something new and unexpected and probably urgent has come up.
• No — Consequences may follow.
• No, And — Not only no, but worse than no.

The oracle presented here--and indeed as most oracles are--is evenly balanced between yes and no responses. Sometimes the player may wish to weigh the answers a little more heavily toward the yes or the no while still allowing for the possibility of either reply. This can be done by simply rolling extra dice but counting only 2 of them (the 2 highest or 2 lowest depending on which way you want to eight them) or by rerolling 1 of the 2 dice if one of them happened to not be counted.

An Example

A character is attempting a task that is not particularly likely to succeed, but which could be very helpful if it does. This task does not fall into any of the normal skill categories so the player decides to use a standard 2 Action Dice vs 2 Challenge Dice roll but to give the Challenge Dice a bonus to indicate the increased difficulty of succeeding. The player has already determined that only even-numbered results (e.g. 2,4,6) will be counted as passing. Odd results (1,3,5) will not be counted. The player has 2 options.

Option 1: The player rolls 2AD vs 3CD but if all 3 CD come up as even, he only counts the results as 2.

Option 2: The player rolls 2AD vs 2CD, but if 1 or more CD come up as odd, he may reroll one of them.

The end result is the same either way. It is simply a matter of preference as to whether one wants to roll more dice or make more rolls. 

As you can see from the chart above, using 2D vs 2D gives an even chance of success, failure or a mixed result. By adding 1 dice to 1 side, the odds of 1 outcome happening increases from 33% to 44%. Adding 2 dice bumps it up even further to 58.33%. You can add even more, but once the ratio passes 2:1 you might as well just determine the results outright.

M.O.O.D.P.I.G.S

 

I got drawn into RPGs in the 70's when my brother came home with a bunch of photocopied pages from the 1st edition D&D PHB and DMG books. It wasn't long before we had the basic set then, later, every single 1st ed AD&D book printed at the time. Pressed into service as the DM, I was often forced to adjudicate stuff that wasn't covered by the rules, which led to modding the rules, which led--eventually--to trying to create my ideal game system. 

It turns out that's kind of hard. And on top of that, my ideal system changes from time to time over the years. At this point, I would consider just getting a complete system something of an accomplishment.

Lately, I've spent a little more time on Reddit wandering around various RPG subreddits including onepagerpgs which inspired me to try to condense my current attempt down to a single page. More than just an interesting challenge, I find such exercises in focus very helpful in defining just exactly what my goals are.

The result? M.O.O.D.P.I.G.S

I'm not married to the name. It doesn't (necessarily) have anything to do with moods or pigs. (But then I'm not one to tell what to have or not have in your game.)  I've considered swapping the two middle stats around and calling it SPAR, but I thought that might sound like I was trying too hard. At least this name is pretty memorable. 

A number of changes have not been playtested very much, but then it's not a huge departure from other games I've played/run. The tri-fold brochure layout is more convenient for printing before using, but I've always liked the idea of explaining the game to a prospective new player by just handing them a simple brochure.

If anyone feels like playtesting this, I'd love to hear how it goes.

Thinking the Unthinkable

I have lately found myself considering something that I would have considered appalling only a few months ago. 

Solo RPGs 

A Solo RolePlay Game sounds like an oxymoron. RolePlay games (not the computer simulations of a vaguely Tolkien-esque warriors whacking elves and orcs with swords) could probably be best described as collaborative improvisational fiction. They frequently use funny-shaped dice, sometimes small figurines, and they almost always use rules. (Sometimes many MANY rules.) The idea of a solo RPG just sounds ludicrous. 

Defenders often suggest that one should just consider it as a form of a writing exercise. I can see that, except that I've never cared for writing exercises. While they can sometimes get the juices flowing, they rarely (if ever?) produce anything I'd actually want to read. Besides, I have my own system for writing novels. 

I successfully did NaNoWriMo 9 1/2 years in a row. I've finished at least 6 full-length novels and have numerous others in various states of completion. I've most likely written around a million words, writing exercises seem like wasted effort... except... the more I read about solo RPGs, the more interested I've become. 

It began with a rare but crippling bout of writer's block following some serious PTSD. Since then, I've been stuck on a novel titled The Awakened which I've occasionally described as:

Imagine if the Light and Dark sides of the Force were semi-sentient pan-dimensional life forces engaged in a proxy war where they recruit combatants by infecting them, granting them amazing powers which enevitably destroy their warriors.

I'm excited and committed to this story, but I can't seem to get my hands around it. There's too much to grip. Conceived as a tight third-person POV, I may have to broaden it. After listening to the audiobooks of JC (Wildbow) McCrae's serialized novels Worm and Ward and Twig, I've considered doing something much the same. But I've got to write it first. 

So why Solo RPGs?

Thinking back to when all we had in the RPG field was the basic D&D box set and the Advanced books, we spent a lot of time planning games that didn't always get played due to lack of players. The Lone-wolf books sometimes helped fill the void and, where it didn't, we'd use the random dungeon generator in the back of the DMG, a TRS80 Microcomputer, a little BASIC knowledge and create our own procedurally generated adventures much like the later Wizardry games. 

In some sense, Solo RPGs feel a little like we've come full circle. If nothing else it feels a little more like venturing out into the unknown rather than re-treading the same ground over and over again. Scrolling through forums and reading about yet another Tolkien-esque/D&D clone game session makes me shudder. And while real magic can happen around a table of 4 or 5 other players, it's harder to escape cliches when others are involved, and no story generated by a committee is ever worth reading.

Also, I like procedurally generated things. I'm fascinated by the phenomenon of emergent complexity--surprising complex behaviors generated by simple rules --and lately I've been reading a lot about human cognition and various approaches to behavioral simulation like MircoPsi and OpenPsi

I'm also fascinated by the mechanics of how stories work. And while I wasn't looking, the indie RPG community has made great strides catching up to some advanced narrative theory, while the Solo RPG community has come up with some really interesting tools that can at least suggest some of the procedural approaches used elsewhere.

Perhaps Solo RPGs are simply a thing whose time has come, or perhaps I'm just distracting myself from the real job of writing, or maybe I'll find a way out of this inexplicable creative blockage. Either way, I'm assembling my tools and preparing to experiment. We'll see what happens.