Okay, I want Gaijin Gear: Portable Fake Bush for Cover on my next character sheet. :-D

I had a snippier response to recent developments on this thread last night, but my laptop battery died and took the post with it. (Probably for the best. Should not read repetitive forum arguments while also in the midst of grading essays; in terms of mental states, the one only compounds upon the other...) Still, there's a couple of points I started to make, besides what Kinzen has already covered, that seem worth retyping, so:

"I want to seduce Person X" is to "I want to attack Person X," as "I want to make Person Y Assassinate the Emperor" is to "I want to attack and kill the Lying Darkness with one blow."

Two issues here. The first is small but essential: this analogy's off in an important way. "I want to attack Person X":"I want to try to seduce Person X" OR "I want to successfully defeat Person X":"I want to seduce Person X"--but you can't compare an attempt at one thing to a success at another thing. (That seems obvious, but still appears to fall through the cracks at some points in this discussion.)

Second: Let's set aside for a minute the fact that--as this very thread has discussed in interesting and productive detail, with some good suggestions that any RPG developer could probably profit from reading--the RAW doesn't provide concrete means for representing social interactions with nearly as much dimension, detail, and variety as it does combat. Even accounting for all that, when I'm GMing and the player of Person Y says "I want to attack Person X," I immediately and quite naturally consider a long list of things that aren't on either party's sheet: How far apart are X and Y? Is each of them standing or sitting? What were they doing up to this moment? Is it possible for X to catch Y by surprise? Are they currently carrying weapons, and if so, does either of them have their weapon drawn? Is either one wearing armor, and if so, what kind? What martial assistance, if any, can Y expect to call on? Is it dark, or are there any other environmental conditions in effect? What's the terrain like, and does either party have a terrain advantage like cover, higher ground, or better knowledge of the space? What are Y's lines of retreat, if any? Etc. etc. etc. Some of this has formal mechanics associated with it (because combat is more thoroughly mechanized than other parts of the game), but lots of it doesn't, and even the mechanized bits are nearly all at the GM's discretion.

Why then is it so contentious to say that a similar host of character-stat-extrinsic factors can be taken into account in social interactions? If we say that "you're offering him a bribe, but he's already well off so he probably won't be interested," or "you're trying to seduce her romantically, but she's already happily married to a man who saved her life," or "you're asking him to believe that someone he's trusted deeply since childhood is a traitor" are roughly equivalent to "you're trying to attack her from a side with heavy cover," or "he remembered to put on his armor this morning, so your flesh cutter arrows won't be very effective," or "you've started this fight by attacking from lower ground with difficult footing," would that help get the point across?

Not that we're saying all of this stuff needs concrete mechanics. After all, there's nothing on your character sheet that says you'll start a particular fight in cover, or that your character with PTSD and trust issues always carries an extra dagger, either--that stuff all also emerges out of RP. And yes, that means it too is subject to abuse from the occasional player who lets their hatred of being bested take precedence over everyone else's suspension of disbelief, and needs to be talked to out of character or asked to leave; who among us hasn't known that guy who demands that you believe he had his tetsubo and heavy armor in the bathtub with him all along? But the existence of That One Guy doesn't mean we insist that unless you take the home-brewed advantages Never Ever Ever Unarmed, Dark Paragon of Finding The High Ground, Gaijin Gear: Portable Fake Bush For Cover, or whatever, then there's no case where those conditions could possibly apply in any way that affects the dice-rolling. That's all!

Edit: Well, and also it would be nice if core rulebooks (particularly but not only L5R) put as much effort into explaining and hand-holding w/r/t all that stuff for social interactions as they do for combat ones. Again, that's not cumbersome new rules systems, it's just helping players and GMs get their thoughts organized for a better play experience.

Sometimes I think when some of us say we'd like a framework for how to handle all those factors and some examples, there are others who read that as "We'd like 30 pages of rules that spell out in great detail every possible situation."

I think to cover all possibilities you would just need an entire supplemental book dedicated to social interactions. Make it complete with illustrations, and stories. Side bar notes, and jokes. Have separate chapters for Imperial Court, each of the Clan Courts, Family Courts, Market Place, Public Street, and Red Lantern Districts.

I just have one serious red flag about nailing social interaction down to a completely mathematical formulae, and the outcome all comes down to the roll of a dice. Social interaction in and of itself is intuitive, this almost seems like it removes that intuition, and personification. My point of view is that the mechanics are the letter of the law, while the storyteller's and the player's intuition are the spirit of the law when it comes to social encounters in gaming. You need both to really have these be dynamic and fun. One without the other can be open to abuse.

I've got the gist of it, and am considering just making a webpage with all my homebrew stuff. But that may wait until my stupidly over-ambitious redesign of social stuff is ready to go. :-)

I'm just gonna drop this here...

http://www.kazenoshiro.com/2015/10/27/saving-l5rs-history/

I think to cover all possibilities you would just need an entire supplemental book dedicated to social interactions.

How fortunate then that literally no one has suggested it's necessary or desirable to "cover all possibilities." Social interaction doesn't need a giant, separate tome that will make it seem a) optional and b) prohibitively complex. That's pretty much the opposite of what L5R should be going for--it should be presented as integral to the system/setting, and as both accessible and satisfying for players and GMs. It's not rocket surgery. It's not really that difficult or obscure, and it's entirely amenable to common sense. It's just that since many roleplaying systems and settings don't emphasize it at all, a bit more effort to clarify skill use and generally orient people getting started would go a long way.

Sometimes I think when some of us say we'd like a framework for how to handle all those factors and some examples, there are others who read that as "We'd like 30 pages of rules that spell out in great detail every possible situation."

And then proceed to argue in detail against that nonexistent vision... eh.

I just have one serious red flag about nailing social interaction down to a completely mathematical formulae, and the outcome all comes down to the roll of a dice. Social interaction in and of itself is intuitive, this almost seems like it removes that intuition, and personification. My point of view is that the mechanics are the letter of the law, while the storyteller's and the player's intuition are the spirit of the law when it comes to social encounters in gaming. You need both to really have these be dynamic and fun. One without the other can be open to abuse.

There's no reason that acknowledging the law has both a letter and a spirit should mean we can't try to bring the former more in line with the latter--entirely the opposite, in my opinion.

There is always the Exalted 3e way to do social interactions (one of the new systems I really really like in that game):

People have intimacies ranked in importance (minor, major, and defining). A big part of the system is figuring out the intimacies of other characters. Any time you try and convince someone of a thing, or to do a thing, you have to parse the request in such a way as it goes along with the targets intimacies. If you make a request that violates a targets Defining Intimacies, they can no-sell the roll completely by spending an in game resource (willpower point)

So effectively, unless you jump through a lot of hoops first, you can't convince someone to do something they wouldn't be inclined to do to begin with.

There is always the Exalted 3e way to do social interactions (one of the new systems I really really like in that game):

People have intimacies ranked in importance (minor, major, and defining). A big part of the system is figuring out the intimacies of other characters. Any time you try and convince someone of a thing, or to do a thing, you have to parse the request in such a way as it goes along with the targets intimacies. If you make a request that violates a targets Defining Intimacies, they can no-sell the roll completely by spending an in game resource (willpower point)

So effectively, unless you jump through a lot of hoops first, you can't convince someone to do something they wouldn't be inclined to do to begin with.

Yeah, I haven't had a chance to try it out in play yet, but it looks really cool.

To expand:

- Everyone has Intimacies, defining what they care about and in what ways, both positively and negatively - e.g. a Crab might have Defining Intimacy: my Clan, loyalty, Defining Intimacy: the Shadowlands, hatred, Major Intimacy: the Crane, contempt, etc. They can have as many as they like, at whatever level they like, although the GM may (and should) declare that an Intimacy whose strength hasn't been reflected in play for a while begins to weaken.

- Any social influence roll gets bonuses for the strongest Intimacy supporting it, and penalties for the strongest Intimacy opposing it, and you cannot make someone believe or do anything unless you can draw upon one of their Intimacies to support it. If a total stranger approaches you out of the blue and tells you to go blow up a bank without explanation, it doesn't matter how smooth they are, you're not going to do it. If you want to convince someone to do or think something, you first have to use social actions to create a relevant Intimacy, and then strengthen it (and strengthening an Intimacy also requires the support of another Intimacy, so building up to a Major Intimacy is a lengthy task). This can be as simple as an Intimacy of "likes and trust me", but you must do it, and if you are e.g. a Kakita talking to a Matsu, or a Scorpion talking to... anyone... there's a decent chance they will have a general negative Intimacy towards you already.

- The level of action you can convince someone to take is limited by the strength of the Intimacy - a Minor Intimacy lets you convince someone to take on some inconvenience, but nothing that would seriously threaten their safety, position, or honour. A Major Intimacy could be used to sway them to take serious risks, but they will still shy away from things that are highly likely to see them dead or disgraced. For a Defining Intimacy, people will do just about anything, potentially even things that are absolutely certain to cost them their life or honour.

- You can always spend Willpower to resist an attempt to create a new Intimacy or to weaken a Major or Defining Intimacy (assuming you have a Willpower point left). You can spend one to resist an attempt to move you into action as long as you can cite an Intimacy opposing the action, of equal or greater strength to the one supporting the action, in addition to the one you originally used to resist it (since clearly that one was not strong enough to resist the other person's persuasion).

- If you have a Defining Intimacy towards someone or something, then anything that would require absolutely giving up on that Intimacy is considered Unacceptable Influence and can be resisted without spending Willpower (attempts to weaken the Intimacy are OK, though - you have to spend Willpower if you want to resist those). Anything that would entail the character killing themselves or embracing certain death likewise qualifies... although, as Tsubaki noted, talking someone into killing themselves is actually a setting-appropriate thing under some circumstances, so maybe that should be left out if the system were adapted to L5R?

So, for instance - a Bayushi courtier strolls up to a samurai in the garden and says "You should go kill your lord." GM goes "Wut?" Player goes "I'm just that convincing, look, I rolled an 80." The roll fails nonetheless, because the PC did not draw upon any Intimacies to support it. He simply has nothing to build upon; there's no reason for the samurai to go along with the request.

Now suppose, instead, that our courtier did some research on this samurai beforehand, and knows that he is in love with one of his lord's cousins (Minor Intimacy: lord's cousin, love), who would stand to inherit some of his property if the lord died. The courtier seeks to convince him to do it for her... but oh dear, our samurai is a very loyal man, whose service to his lord defines his life (Defining Intimacy: my lord, absolute loyalty). He cannot serve his lord if he kills his lord, and so the attempt qualifies as Unacceptable Influence and fails.

So, in order to convince our samurai to do this thing, our courtier must first undermine his loyalty to his lord. So he finds excuses to talk to this samurai some more... the samurai does not particularly trust him (Scorpion, after all), but it's a pleasant enough way to pass the time. The courtier begins insinuating, very subtly, that the samurai's lord is perhaps not quite worthy of such pure devotion as his loyal servants show him - after all, look at how he treats his cousin, his own blood, who toils in his service for so little reward! (Thus drawing upon the samurai's Intimacy of love to weaken his Intimacy of loyalty.) Unfortunately, a Minor Intimacy is not enough to support an attempt to undermine a Defining one - the samurai's affection for his lover is just not strong enough to sway his devotion to his lord.

After further probing, however, our courtier learns that the samurai is deeply devoted to the virtue of Compassion (Major Intimacy: Principle, Compassion), and it so happens that the lord recently raised taxes on his peasants to punishing levels in order to pay for his heir's wedding celebration, and responded brutally to signs of discontent. The samurai has avoided thinking about it thus far, lest it compromise his loyalty... but our courtier is skilled at his vocation, and subtly draws out his doubts and his feeling of sympathy for those lower in the Celestial Order than himself. He begins to wonder if his lord really is as worthy as all that, if he would so disregard one of the tenets of Bushido... and his Intimacy of loyalty weakens to Major.

Now that the samurai could conceivably be convinced to do what our courtier wants and turn against his lord, our courtier presses the point: isn't it his duty as a samurai to protect those weaker than him, to take a stand against dishonour? Doesn't he owe it to the people in his care to stop his lord from brutalising them? Many have tried to soften his lord's heart through reason and persuasion, and all have failed... but there are other ways... Unfortunately, killing his lord is almost certain to result in his samurai's death and ruination, and even his commitment to Compassion isn't strong enough for that . Back to the drawing board...

But aha! It turns out that our samurai also has a Defining Intimacy of devotion to his Clan's honour - and the lord's conduct has been causing tongues to wag disapprovingly in the Imperial court, threatening to shame the Clan before the entire Empire. Doesn't our samurai's duty to his Clan demand that he do something before his lord can irreparably tarnish the honour of his family and ancestors? It may cost him his life, but what is a samurai's life weighed against what he must do? Our samurai has serious doubts, of course (he still has a Major Intimacy of loyalty), but our courtier is very good at what he does, and draws on his victim's disquiet at serving such a brutal lord, and his (probably correct) belief that that lord will not be swayed by words, to convince him anyway. With a heavy heart, the samurai goes off... and attempts to kill his own lord at the next opportunity, for the sake of his Clan's honour.

Now, at the point of his loyalty being weakened, the samurai could have spent a Willpower point to resist - the argument is convincing, but his duty is just too ingrained into his life to allow himself to doubt it. The courtier could try again, but he'd need to take a different angle - perhaps our samurai is also very devoted to Honesty, and yet saw his lord lie to the face of another samurai once? If he allowed his loyalty to weaken, he could also spend Willpower to resist the suggestion that he kill his lord, but he would need to find a supporting Intimacy besides that of his loyalty to his lord, because clearly that was not strong enough to do the job. Perhaps he has a Defining Intimacy of devotion to his close family, who would be disgraced if he did this, and that thought is enough to stay his hand. At that point, our courtier could try again, but again, he'd need to come at it from a different angle. This would continue until the samurai ran out of Willpower or chose not to spend it, until circumstances prevented our courtier from continuing to work on him (perhaps the samurai himself removes himself from such a troubling conversation), or until the courtier himself gave up and went to do something else.

About the only thing I think the approach is lacking for representing social influence in L5R (and the kind of feel that the game should create) is some way to properly represent manipulating someone with social convention rather than their actual feelings - they know that they don't actually believe or want this, and you know it too, but convention demands that you both act as though they do. The system could represent that somewhat through Intimacies tied to social propriety, but it's a big enough part of the L5R setting that I feel like it wants more in-depth coverage.

Interesting! I feel like that describes more or less the thought process that goes through my head; it just nails it down into specific sheet items with specific levels. I'm not sure that I personally would want to define it that specifically (I would spend so. much. time. tracking Minor Intimacies), but for people who want to quantify just how important X is to their character, I could see it working.

I do think there's another (and bigger) hurdle, though, besides the "social convention" one you mentioned: Willpower. There are no Willpower points in L5R, so what are you spending to resist these attempts? Void Points are the obvious example . . . but those are a very limited resource already used to power a crap-ton of other things. I don't particularly like the idea that our hypothetical samurai could be talked into betraying his lord because he was in a fight earlier that day and burned his Void Points on Armor TN and school techniques. Honor would make sense in an L5R context, but wearing that one down to zero is a complete non-starter. I don't really see anything else that would make a good replacement, though.

Ooh, yes, that's true. It is worth noting that Willpower in Exalted has a lot of applications besides resisting social influence - quite similar to those of Void points in L5R, actually (you can use them to enhance die rolls, enhance your defence against attack, and power special techniques). And it;s harder to replenish, in general, as you get back only point per day (with the potential for an extra one per scene if you describe an especially good stunt, but that's hardly reliable). OTOH, Exalted PCs tend to start with more of them - 5 is the default starting Willpower rating for Solars, and you can buy more, in contrast to 2 being the starting Void rating in L5R.

So, maybe Void could be turned to this purpose, with some rebalancing... or maybe not. It might require that Willpower be added to the system outright. Perhaps based on Earth? Or just on the Willpower trait? And maybe "spend this instead of Willpower to resist social influence" could be added to the uses of Void points.

I'd rather social interactions and/or systems based on a relatively simple set of rules with the emphasis of the players making choices and the GM making the outcome. At most 2 or 3 pages of actual rules and then putting in a bunch of page in a fluff/background section that describes the social situation in the universe.

However, I would like to see all the elements interact in the social situation and in different ways.

Well, my pointlessly ambitious redesign of social stuff for L5R is up to eight pages, but that's with an explanation of what the skills even do (since I've changed that up a bit), a breakdown of what different types of modifiers should represent, examples of what Raises do for each of the different skills, notes on Glory, and an unfinished writeup of the Court Battle idea. :-)

There is always the Exalted 3e way to do social interactions (one of the new systems I really really like in that game)

I'd rather social interactions and/or systems based on a relatively simple set of rules with the emphasis of the players making choices and the GM making the outcome. At most 2 or 3 pages of actual rules and then putting in a bunch of page in a fluff/background section that describes the social situation in the universe.

However, I would like to see all the elements interact in the social situation and in different ways.

Sounds exactly like 4th Edition is now.

I'd rather social interactions and/or systems based on a relatively simple set of rules with the emphasis of the players making choices and the GM making the outcome. At most 2 or 3 pages of actual rules and then putting in a bunch of page in a fluff/background section that describes the social situation in the universe.

However, I would like to see all the elements interact in the social situation and in different ways.

Sounds exactly like 4th Edition is now.

It's like most rpgs now: relatively short and easy system so the fluff, campaign, story, GM/Player interactions, and so on can hang on it. Making it convoluted with stuff like way too much l5r conventions is over doing it IMO.