Social Interaction

So I came across this post via Trollsmyth's reply to it. The argument is about whether social interactions deserve a mechanical basis or not. Anyone who has read Synapse clearly knows where I fall on this debate (hint: with Erin) and despite having a significant overhaul in the works for the Synapse resolution system, this rework will not be significantly affecting the give-and-take dynamic of the conversational system, merely the way you gain successes. And in Errant, even with the D&D base, I am having the GM test people's Charisma for social interactions. Because it is just good play.

Now this argument has come up before between Dan and Chad on Fear the Boot. Dan = Erin. Trollsmyth = Chad. Same basic arguments. Neither side convinced. So I am going to assume that nobody will be swayed by anything I say on the matter, but I do think it is important for me to state my reasoning if only to get some thoughful critique from my readers and to further solidify my own thoughts on the matter (in the way that writing them down does).

I am going to use the example of a computer game called Europa Universalis II that I used to play. I bought EUIII and played it for a while, but the magic was gone (and that is a long long story for another time). I still consider EUII to be the greatest video game ever made. The beauty of the game is that it is complex, but not complex enough that managing that complexity becomes it's own game. You could make some decisions, sit back and think for a while, chat with your opponents, and have some breathing room. Within this breathing room, diplomacy flourishes like you wouldn't believe. And the game was played in 4-5 hour sessions with 8+ people, with a week in between sessions to do diplomacy via instant message, and within this space diplomacy is the ONLY game. People would write up and sign complex diplomatic treaties with each other, both in secret and in public. And playing this game was INTOXICATING like you wouldn't believe. For those who have seen the alpha copy of my still private game called Statecraft, this is where the idea for that game was born; in this diplomatic space.

Now I am really really good at diplomacy and I was able to leverage this as a force-multiplier in the game. I developed a system of using non-aggression pacts with varied expiration dates so that I could attack my enemies in turn. I was a master of turning people to my side, breaking up alliances, and so on. And I developed a reputation as a kind of player whose word could be trusted into the depths of hell (built on a legacy of honoring treaties uber-alles) and this further enhanced my ability to turn things to my advantage.

While I enjoyed this state of affairs, I will readily admit it was patently unfair. I brought an enormous strength to the table that was totally unrelated to my actual ability to play the game. I may not have been the best general, but my diplomacy enabled me to bring a gun to the knife fight (to turn a phrase). I may not have been the best economist, but I was able to make trade agreements and land-swaps that ended up helping me. And of course, I was able to extract massive results at the peace table when I won. But all this is unfair. No other player could counter this ability with skill at the game because my advantage laid outside of the game mechanics.

And social interaction in RPGs, if you have no mechanical basis, becomes like this. It allows players who are really clever to leverage massive in-game strength using out-of-game assets. And it is unfair.

That's why I am in favor of social mechanics. Especially double-blind mechanics like in Synapse where neither the GM or the player can predict how it will play out in advance.