Zornhau Forums

Another advantage of social circles is that they would provide an objective measurement of a character's relationships. For example, NPC 1 would be listed specifically as having a constant trust score of +3 (until his actions and/or further social combats change that score), whereas SAs are always fluctuating based on meta game factors.

Good! We've done a lot of headway in defining what possible applications of social circles could have.

So, in essence, social circles as discussed here would serve the role of defining all non-trivial relationships that are not the main drivers of the plot? The relationships that drive the plot would be defined through the SAs.

Do everyone agree with that definition?

The other option would be to have social circles and SAs overlap. So, the social circles would be used to define all non-trivial relationships (also serving as a reminder-list of some sorts, as it would include all the important names) and the SAs would be used to further define the characters that are the main drivers of the plot.

Social circles would probably overlap with SA's, but as with overlapping SA's, I'd suggest choosing one or the other to use the mechanics for, depending on the situation.

While the idea of having one's connections plotted out with a circular system of diagrams sounds really neat, I feel like it might be overkill for many games. Such a system basically adds an additional page to the character sheet, and I'm not sure what the incentive would be for the player to constantly track and monitor it. What incentive does the player have to move an NPC from "untrusted" to "trusted?" Sure, you can say it should reflect in his behavior, but that's a hard line to follow, and unless the GM has the power to say "You clearly trust this guy now, update your sheet" it's unenforcable mechanically. All a player has to do to beat the system is decide that their character will tentatively go along with everything, but will never make themselves vulnerable.

Also: as the GM, I don't look forward to circling up every other NPC in case the players fall into one or the other.

Thoughts?

Social circles are a fine idea and I really like it. Still, if there is this system then there should be a clear distinction when the character belongs to circles and when it is fodder for SAs. It can be grounds to confusion if not done correctly or specifically enough.

Personally I am really lazy GM so having to fill out character circles is a bit daunting but then again you only need to do this to movers and shakers of the campaign and even then only fill in what is necessary at the time being. It is of course easy to add and refine them later on in the campaign. Same applies to PCs. Maybe you start out with only 2 - 3 (max) circles and go from there as the campaign progresses.

I would say that if you don't trust the person at all, you are pretty invulnerable to his social attacks. Then again what are your options to influence him in turn? Persuasion? Not likely as you don't trust him to act as your persuasion dictates. At this moment I can only think of intimidation and bullying to work as you know that he will do as you say or you get back to him.

Now, if you open up a little you get more subtle ways to influence others but the price is that you will get easier to be manipulated as well. Sure there are sociopaths that are extremely good at manipulation and probably don't trust anyone but they are still an exception, I hope.

So, trust gives you more ways to influence your target at the price of getting manipulated, too.

With that kind of carrot I wouldn't be too worried of GM having to force players to accept NPCs to their circle of trust if they want a game where social combat occurs.

Marras wrote: I would say that if you don't trust the person at all, you are pretty invulnerable to his social attacks. Then again what are your options to influence him in turn? Persuasion? Not likely as you don't trust him to act as your persuasion dictates. At this moment I can only think of intimidation and bullying to work as you know that he will do as you say or you get back to him.

It's a neat idea, but im not sure that people actually function that way. I don't need to trust you to manipulate you. Conmen don't "trust" their marks. They simply size the person up and then play to that person's fantasies.

Likewise, you don't actually have to trust someone to be conned. You can think someone is completely untrustworthy, but even that could work to their advantage if they assume that whatever they say is going to be assumed some kind of trick. That all comes down to the poison cups game -- did I put the poison in your glass? Or did I put it in mine, knowing you wouldn't trust me and would demand to switch them?

Of course, the appropriate answer is that that they were both poisoned and
I've spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

higgins wrote:Good! We've done a lot of headway in defining what possible applications of social circles could have.

So, in essence, social circles as discussed here would serve the role of defining all non-trivial relationships that are not the main drivers of the plot? The relationships that drive the plot would be defined through the SAs.

Do everyone agree with that definition?

The other option would be to have social circles and SAs overlap. So, the social circles would be used to define all non-trivial relationships (also serving as a reminder-list of some sorts, as it would include all the important names) and the SAs would be used to further define the characters that are the main drivers of the plot.

I lean towards the latter for the same reason you have a static combat proficiency with SAs added on top. But I think we're getting close to something good here.

Agamemnon wrote:Also: as the GM, I don't look forward to circling up every other NPC in case the players fall into one or the other.

As a GM, I don't look forward to defining any statistics or scores for my NPCs. I do as little as possible, often making up scores on the spot if it becomes necessary. I don't see social circle/relationship scores being much different. Sure, it's a little more than you'd have to do without a social combat system, but hey, if you're going to add a system to your game then you have to deal with some extra rules. 'Tis the nature of the beast.

Agamemnon wrote:While the idea of having one's connections plotted out with a circular system of diagrams sounds really neat, I feel like it might be overkill for many games. Such a system basically adds an additional page to the character sheet...

The graphical circles are just an aid. I picture the innermost circle of the trust/distrust as giving a trust score of +3, for example. The next ring moving outward gives a +2, until you get to the outermost circle which gives a -3 trust score. Say you have 5 names recorded in your trust circle. You don't have to have a giant target diagram on the sheet. You could just as easily have an area where you can write the five names in a short vertical list along with their trust score. Again, if you're going to have social combat you'll have to deal with adding at least some space to the character sheet. It doesn't have to be a big diagram per se (although depicting things visually always makes things easier).

Agamemnon wrote:I'm not sure what the incentive would be for the player to constantly track and monitor it. What incentive does the player have to move an NPC from "untrusted" to "trusted?" Sure, you can say it should reflect in his behavior, but that's a hard line to follow, and unless the GM has the power to say "You clearly trust this guy now, update your sheet" it's unenforcable mechanically. All a player has to do to beat the system is decide that their character will tentatively go along with everything, but will never make themselves vulnerable.

Now for your more important question, which I have the least time to address (sigh). I'm thinking of trust scores as more important for NPCs than for PCs. For example, for in-game reasons a PC might have a goal to get a suspicious NPC to start trusting them, probably by doing helpful things but perhaps also by engaging in social combats to charm or impress the target. So your main goal would be to change your score/circle on the NPC's character sheet.

For PCs, we've talked about a few ways of adding consequences for social combat. We've talked about being able to use the Temptation mechanic—perhaps this could be applied to trust scores, too. "Hey, your sheet says you don't trust this guy. Maybe you shouldn't take his (clearly helpful) advice." Also, as I've mentioned before, a character who trusts no-one is generally friendless. Such a character would clearly have penalties in other areas. Unless they really are a sociopath who manages to convince everyone they are normal, most people would never befriend such a person (i.e., they would have low love/friendship scores, or whatever you choose to call that particular social circle).

But maybe trust isn't important to your game. I've started to think of these social circles as flexible depending on the type of game you want to run. Maybe you don't want or need the trust circle, but maybe you want the love/hate circle or the lust/disgust circle—whatever's important to your game.