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.