[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacysystem

[Lachek Butalek]

> > > Like I said before - equating social gameplay like diplomacy with any
> > > form of combat (even as an "alternative form") is just wrong.  Wrong
> > > wrong wrong.

Why? Because it's hokey? Because social "gameplay" should be freeform,
and not have to conform to game rules? The comic referenced is
certainly LOL funny, but in my opinion only because it points out how
inadequate the system's subtlety is - not because it in any way
lampoons the the core *idea* of a system to handle social
interactions.

If you will indulge me - in the world of tabletop RPGs, the
traditional philosophy was that combat needs to be governed by hard
rules, while social gameplay shouldn't require rules - it was simply
an improv session of social interaction between player and NPC, the
ultimate outcome of which was determined by the Game Master. If your
warrior wanted a discount at Ye Ole Weapons Shoppe, the GM would
determine if it happened based on the player's relative skill in
persuasion.

As games became more story-driven and more centered around social
interaction, players decided this was inadequate - it allowed socially
skilled players an advantage over socially inept players, regardless
of the relative social skills of their character. Thus, stats like
"persuasion", "sex appeal", "charisma" and "intimidation" were born -
though with the caveat of not being usable on other players, and
generally with bonuses or penalties given for exceptionally good or
bad roleplaying. However, combat apparently still held a special place
in the designers' hearts, because rules for combat in these games are
usually 5-10 times as complex as any systems in place for handling
social interactions. In many ways, the combat system consists of a
long series of special cases to the game's core rules, while systems
for social interactions are usually dealt with by a simple contested
roll to see who won. Incidentally, this is also the way it's dealt
with in almost all CRPGs that support such contests - games like the
Bioware D&D games, NWN/2 and so on all do "skill checks" at certain
points in the conversation trees to see if options like "Persuade" and
"Intimidate" become available or not.

Finally - and here comes the point to this long tirade - many modern
day roleplaying games that *focus* on social interactions, games like
Best Friends, Dogs in the Vineyard and Burning Wheel, *fully* support
complex systems for handling social interactions. Normally social
contests and intellectual contests are treated exactly the same as
physical contests - there is a very good reason words like "stab" and
"dodge" can be used both to describe melee fighting and verbal combat,
and the same mechanics can absolutely apply to both situations. Dogs
in the Vineyard goes so far as using the same system to handle the
repercussions from engaging in either type of combat, with a
difference only in degree (you're more likely to get killed by
engaging in gunfighting, but you're equally likely to get "scarred" -
whether that be physically or emotionally).

The interesting result of this is that with a consistent system to
handle both social and physical contests, players are actually more
likely to engage in social combats than they otherwise would be. The
system provides entertainment, but more importantly, it empowers the
players by putting their fate in their own hands instead of leaving
the result entirely up to the GM (traditional combat-oriented RPGs) or
a simple dice roll (story-driven RPGs). When the system is the same or
similar for multiple types of conflict, players do not naturally tend
to gravitate towards one or the other, and tend to be more open minded
about what the "game" actually consists of and what the "goal" of the
game is.

As a game designer, you want your players to be open minded about what
the goal of your game is, because it provides for endless gameplay -
Sim City, for example, has no implicit goal, so players set their own
goals (and provide their own obstacles) instead of waiting for the
game to provide them with one. That means less time has to be focused
on "content production" (rollercoaster building) and more time can be
spent making the world interesting and dynamic, which in turn allow
players more options, which will let them set new goals, and so on.
There you go, a MMO perpetual motion machine - the shareholder's wet
dream.

So why, why spewing venom over an attempt (such that it is) at
mechanizing social interactions and the creation of mini-games and
systems for contests involving things other than bashing someone's
skull in? Is there a reason why a development that brought tabletop
RPGs out of the Dark Ages wouldn't work in MMOs?

(Why don't y'all discuss amongst yourselves while I go to the kitchen
for another 'Dew ;) )

Lachek