Ignoring Social Challenges

[Mass Trauma NPC]

Since it was brought up in another thread it spurred me to bring up my curiosity. Why is it a house rule that you may ignore a social challenge by expending a willpower?

[Anklebiter Leaps-into-Danger]

I presume the answer is "because people are going to do it anyway, so we might as well make it cost something".

[Mass Trauma NPC]

I refuse to accept a lack of resistance to cheating as an answer.

[Nike 'Slays the Patriarchy' Strilakos]

this.  peopel tend to not like when another PC dictates how they think/feel/act.  so stuff like persuasion etc is often ignores.  this way it is legit and costs something precious.

[Mike]

Persuasion the gift can't be ignored with willpower, Persuasive the social trait can.

Willpower is only supposed to be used if it is against the character's Demeanor or Nature.
That's how it was originally setup in RAtC by me and may have been adjusted by staffs after me.

[Nike 'Slays the Patriarchy' Strilakos]

i think it has mostly been used in terms of Bob says "i am telling you to do this thing A, social challenge" and Pete says "hell no, my char would never do that, i spend a willpower to ignore you"  (this rule is also known as using seduction-the-social-challenge-not-the-gift on Black Furies)

[Justin Northwood]

What Mike said.

I tend do think some of the wording got lost in translation when the accumulated house rules were moved from a subform worth of posts into a unified website page.

That being said, I think the point of the rule more than anything, was to specify that you CAN'T spend a WP to ignore the effects of a social Gift (even if it does go against Nature/Demeanor).  Gifts (even basic ones) are a little more hefty than your standard social challenge.

This probably merits a little further discussion.

[Conor (Former ST)]

That's how it was originally setup in RAtC by me and may have been adjusted by staffs after me.

Not so far as I know.

[Jerry Castillo]

Social Challenges, as I understand it, aren't meant to brainwash people. I always thought they were meant to cause people to give serious weight and consideration to what the character says. The choice of what to do should always remain with the player, but a good roleplayer should respect what a successful Social Challenge against them means. It's more nebulous than taking a Bashing damage, certainly, and that can lead to disagreements about people ignoring Social Challenges when they don't do exactly what the challenge initiator wants. Ideally, it should be an opportunity for more good RP, not less, as a character struggles to reconcile what they want to do with the force of the challenge initiator's personality.

However, there will be circumstances when a character is too caught up in their impassioned speech/crushing grief/near-Frenzied anger (or for reasons of Nature) that even the nicest Child of Gaia or most impressive Silver Fang can't really sway them with words alone. That's what spending a Willpower is for, I think, to say "my character is so dead-set on the current course of action that he's just not listening." I do think Willpower to ignore Social Challenges is often over-used, but I also think it has its place.

[PEBE]

I refuse to accept a lack of resistance to cheating as an answer.

It's not cheating.

Purely fictitious example:
Pebe returns home from the raid and tells Alexander how it went.
Alexander doesn't approve; suggests (Social challenge) Pebe go Winter Wolf. Pebe loses the chop and spends a WP to "ignore" as he believes it didn't go that poorly.
Alexander sees Pebe dismiss the suggestion and decides to Mastery the poor Metis into obeying. Pebe loses chops and performs Winter Wolf. WP cannot be spent to ignore the effects of the Gift.

[Mike]

It adds that dynamic to the game where other characters start to learn your Nature and Demeanor and what they can get away with ordering you to do or not.  Like Brody is a Matyr/Bureaucrat trying to social Brody out of throwing himself in front of danger would be a tough sell.  Trying to convince him that he should be up front in a battle would be an easy sell.  Willpower should not be able to be used in the second instance.

Just my opinion and again how I set up the rule in the first place.

[Mass Trauma NPC]

I refuse to accept a lack of resistance to cheating as an answer.

It's not cheating.

The context you're taking my quote out of is that people will ignore social challenges anyways so the rule was added in to facilitate this.


To continue this line of thought, so given the examples given if you have no appropriate willpower to spend and it is not explicitly against your nature do I get to strong arm you with one social challenge?

[Seven Mountains]

I can't spend a willpower to ignore a Physical challenge and pretend the damage didn't happen because I don't want my character to be hurt.

This is an unconstructive rule which neuters the whole point of playing a socially capable character.

This moves back to the level of trust in a MET LARP. If you played this properly as the recipient of a social challenge you would review the situation and decide if it warranted even defending yourself. If Brody Socially Challenges 7M with intimidating, you can be damn sure I will likely relent to the Athro near Elder Klaiviskar master.

If Jerry used ingratiating, well yes Jerry as a character is in fact VERY ingratiating and I would relent there to.

I think it is immature for anyone to stand behind the wall of "I do not want my character being socially manipulated into doing something". Instead I say make them work for it and then as a cooperative player give them a reward of success. Or even *GASP* have you characters opinion change over time based on the strong social argument from a character who has worked hard to change your mind.

It isn't mind control, it was never meant to be. People who play it that way disrespect the game and the other characters as a whole. Have some integrity, pony up to the RP bar and have a drink with others. Don't be stubborn and unyielding in a way that ruins a social characters fun. The game breaks down into a giant dick waving prick fight and then combat because someone didn;t take a moment to accept that maybe the Get of Fenris with 4 intimidating traits was actually intimidating and perhaps relenting here would be the fair thing to do...

Yeah it's a trigger topic for me...

[Death of the Party]

Yeah it's a trigger topic for me...

Perhaps I should continue this topic under this account instead.

*Steeples fingers* Muh ha ha ha

[Mike]

First, I didn't make the rule to stop social actions.

Second, the rule was made to add more clarity to Demeanors and natures.

I play probably the most Socially powerful PC in the area.  If this is a road block for you then perhaps playing a social character is not your thing.  Only time wp is used against be is when I was trying to make them do something against their nature.

The rule is acceptable for this, not everything is put in to stop cheating or power gaming.

Don't make accusations on a ruling unless you know the whole story.

[Justin Northwood]

Ladies, ladies.. You're both pretty!

[Seven Mountains]

Did I miss something?

[Mike]

The tone of the thread was that players were being cheated by the Rule and thus the Staff, I answered in kind to that tone.

[Seven Mountains]

I hope that wasn't what you infered from what I said and if so that wasn't the intent.

I have a significant issue with the rule but also with the spirit of how the game is designed to be played. No more no less. The rule would not be needed if the players as a whole wanted to accept that losing in anything, combat, social situations, puzzles, anything is as much of a great story as winning.

[Death of the Party]

The tone of the thread was that players were being cheated by the Rule and thus the Staff, I answered in kind to that tone.

Ah, you mistake me, sir! My problem is in fact with house rules everywhere. When confronted with one I don't understand the purpose of I question the shit out of it. I'm actually doing the same thing on the HF boards at this moment, so please don't feel targeted.

[Conor (Former ST)]

In the decade or so I've been playing MET, I've found that most social challenges tend to make *players* angrier than most non-fatal physical challenges.

Damage is something most gamers are used to in most games.  Sometimes you take it, sometimes you die.  In a game where wounds take a long time to heal, damage might be a Thing, but in Werewolf, damage tends to evaporate within 30 seconds of combat ending.  So if you surprise someone with a physical challenge and they take some damage they can trivially regenerate, they're likely to shrug it off unless they don't have anything better to do.

The part of the game you have absolute control over is who your character is, what they think, how they react emotionally.  That's also the part of the game people tend to be the most invested in.  Trying to change how someone plays their character with a social challenge goes right up most player's asses, because you're reaching into the internal narrative in their head and rewriting it violating their free will.

I have two favorite examples of this.  One is how often I see players lose all their rage to Calm or something like it and then say "hey, I just lost a bunch of important stuff, can I gain a Rage?"  This makes perfect sense if the formula is player dislikes a thing->gain a Rage, but no sense if you look at it as "my character just got less angry...  and this makes them ANGRY!"  (Exception: You are playing The Hulk.)  The other is when I tried to play a Ragabash with more social traits than anyone else in that (non-org) game, where the entire idea was "I say this thing a Ragabash needs to say, but I have so many social traits that your PC is not offended by it at all and actually listens to it," and this failed utterly.  Players routinely spent willpower (which was a precious resource in that game) to retest my social challenge in which my only goal was "you're not really bothered by that when my character says it."

We could remove the option to cancel giftless challenges with a willpower.  IME, most players that I've ever larped with will find a way to ignore those things anyway - by either just ignoring them completely, or playing them reluctantly, or immediately having a friendly PC challenge them back into thinking whatever they wanted to think in the first place.  I'm not convinced they're entirely wrong to do so, either.

If I thought there was support for it, I'd put up a poll with options for leave as-is/WP to retest only/2WP required to cancel/you may retest WP when defending a giftless social as many times as you like until you run out, but I generally get the idea that most people who are not Vance or Rick prefer it exactly as it is.

[Nike 'Slays the Patriarchy' Strilakos]

but I generally get the idea that most people who are not Vance or Rick prefer it exactly as it is.

everythign Conor said there resonates right with me, but this last part most of all

[Tyler]

I take Social Challenges as they are, someone does not have the social skills their character does so if they win against me they express it in the manner their trait dictates; ie Diplomatic or persuasive or Manipulative. I react accordingly. If they win I act as if they were well spoken/mannered/whatever and if they fail my character sees them fumble and not express what they wanted any better than the player did...

[Seven Mountains]

Thanks Anna for making that observation. Really helps be enjoy the depth of this conversation a great deal.

The fact of the matter is the rule is as it is because players as a majority want it. Doesn't change the fact that I think it is a false and useless mechanic designed to give players a way to oversome their in ability to play well with others and play a world of darkness game rather than a world of dimness and always getting their way.

If you want to just play a narrative there are a TON of games designed for such, where you dictate at all times what happenes to your characters in all regards. Fanfic the crap out of the world if you want, but anytime folks want to play a werewolf game which at it's roots is dark, savage, difficult world of darkness, then this rule will go away. More werewolves throughout the setting fall to the wyrm, horano or despair induced combat than they do just combat.

The wyrm can't tempt you if you can just ignore it.

[Conor (Former ST)]

Let's keep the antagonism IC.

[Nike 'Slays the Patriarchy' Strilakos]

wasn't trying to be antagonistic, just commenting on stuff.  shrug

[Justin Northwood]

Maybe we need to resolve this with some social challenges.

[Nike 'Slays the Patriarchy' Strilakos]

Maybe we need to resolve this with some social challenges.

hee.  +1

[Seven Mountains]

If this rule would be decided by RPS I would do it in a heart beat. You don't want to play RPS with me ...

[Death of the Party]

Maybe we need to resolve this with some social challenges.

I would but you'd just spend a willpower.