I have a lot of good stuff to say about this place so far!

Despite the tendency of similar WoD MUs to frequently have staffers that are aloof, if not downright mean, my experience so far is that every staffer on SanFran is super friendly, super diligent, super helpful, and enthusiastic about creating a fun space to tell stories.

I was wary at first of the decision to allow Mage and Sin-Eater alongside templates like Vampire and Changeling, as I've seen the power disparity elsewhere make cross-sphere PRPs all but impossible. But so far, Xapham has made a lot of solid, common sense adjustments to various Sin-Eater abilities to 'un-break' them. Likewise, Azrael has made a number of adjustments to Vampire in order to make it a more robust, tough template, when the RAW end up delivering a creature that is inordinately squishy compared to most any other gameline. I'm really seeing the staff here turn the dials to deliver a level playing field, as best they are able, with a focus on amending template Advantages that already exist instead of tacking on a bunch of new rules in addition to what is there to begin with.

I do think Changeling and Werewolf will need for a couple of serious bones to be thrown their way to be brought up to speed with the adjusted vampires/sin-eaters, and I'm curious as to whether anything will (if it even reasonably CAN) be done to rein Mages in. That said, I have a lot of faith in these staffers right now.

The player base so far has been nothing but friendly and welcoming. That's not to say there's no chance of the usual MU melodrama eventually cropping up, but there's a good foundation here, right now.

If folks are looking for a good time playing 1E, mixed template, and if they've been turned off by similar projects for whatever reason, I think San Fran is 100% worth checking out right now.

I think a Tier policy is not going to affect a game nearly as much as your staff culture and your XP gain rate will. Personally, I'm of a mind (at this point) that the best way to go is for everyone to start at around 100-200 (if its 1E), with a very slow XP gain rate. Higher XP rewards for STs, or significantly higher XP rewards for 'very deadly' scenes, made sense when I first started MUshing, but retrospectively they lead to the same problems. You get cliques of players/powergamers that are constantly running scenes for one another, and every one of those scenes includes someone taking agg damage and some monster hurling 30 die pools, and so the danger is 'real', but all the players are, again, powergamers. So then that clique skyrockets ahead of your average player on the XP roster. XP gain algorithms that cause low XP players to gain at a rate relative to the highest XP players are really goofy imo, because you end up with players gaining 50 or 90 XP a week. Players with 750 XP - especially if they are Sin-Eaters or Mages - are beyond unfuckwithable. They shouldn't even be player characters, they're incomprehensible. You might as well let folks play as True Fae, seriously. A 750 XP mage shouldn't be able to interact with other humans in any recognizable way.

Fear & Loathing's 'Guest Star' system was something different, and I caped for it for a while, because it did manage to create some cool RP and relieve pressure from the staff by effectively having players act as NPCs. Towards the end, I grew to dislike it, and in the weeks before it closed, I was turned off by the policy altogether, and urging for Paris/Stardust to do a relaunch without Guest Stars and focusing on a more level playing field with a more serious commitment to XP gain being staggered, and starting XP being raised periodically so new players weren't doomed to be trapped far behind dinos. Obviously, that didn't come to fruition, and the Guest Star policy is a big regret of mine, still.

San Francisco is interesting, because they are being a lot more mindful of XP gain than say, Fallcoast, and I won't be as derisive as Tempest but I have to say, the staffers on SF are much more attentive and invested in their player bases. Capping their spheres this early is an indicator of that. They don't want to be the biggest or most popular, they want to tell good stories, and be able to manage that, so they aren't overextending themselves or allowing a sandbox style environment do 'the work' for them. Those are the main reasons that I'm not totally put off by their tier policy; I mean, 400 XP mages at launch? Like, a third of the grid right now, in beta, is 400 XP mages. BUT, the gain rate is very closely minded, and the staffers are enthusiastic, and attentive. Do I think it would be better if their tiers were lower? Say, 100, 175, and 250? Yes. Do I think that their current setup, as it is, will damn them? Not really, it'll take more than just that.

Werewolf often seems to end up orphaned at launch with these WoD mus, I've seen it a couple times now at least. Castiel kinda had the TL position fall in her lap due to Ahri vanishing, and has no notes for Ahri's setup (the wolfblood killing virus, the conflict between Azlu and Beshilu, the 'Protectorate' of werewolves which is essentially a Forsaken version of a Pure Confederacy if I understand it right, a bunch of united packs) and so she's got the unenviable task of filling in the substantial blanks while picking up all the slack from WW waiting for Ahri to show back up (a backlog of apps and associated jobs). She seems to be brushing up on/preparing to deal with Fetishes, which are their own headache altogether. If you feel like you've been waiting for an unreasonable amount of time - and I think a week is too long, at this point, since the game is live - you ought to nudge another staffer in order to get some help. Gabriel was very helpful and accommodating to me when Ahri disappeared and I'd been waiting the same amount of time to hear back on my app.

So far, Cas seems to be just what the sphere needs, honestly. She was quick to institute Aspects from Signs of The Moon, and I believe the prereqs for their benefits are trimmed down to PU 3, 5, and 7, instead of 3, 7, and 10. I don't think it makes up the power disparity between Uratha and Sin-Eaters, or Vampires with their 2E influenced physical disciplines, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. If she continues to institute similar houserules, which help players to define their characters and benefit from that mechanically, or simply updates to Werewolf's base advantages, like regeneration, we'll definitely end up with a template that is - for once - robust and dangerous enough to keep up with the bigger, badder splats in WoD, without relying on powergaming built around Rites. This is important on a MU with Mage, Geist, and Super-Vampires, which is so encouraging of cross-sphere RP. I think Cas definitely deserves patience as she figures out where to go and what to do with what she's been given.

I can elaborate on any of these points but simply

1.) Most players don't use social skills against each other anyways
2.) If you let players lie to each other without rolling Subterfuge and allowing the other player to attempt to detect that lie using Wits+Empathy or Manipulation+Subterfuge, you're gonna have fuckin' problems, my guy, idk how you eliminate the mechanics around lying on a game like a MU??
3.) Players that invest in social powers like Majesty or Vainglory can't bring those to bear against other PCs when they come into conflict, meaning they aren't competitive with PCs that are physically focused or mentally focused. I don't know how much conflict you anticipate their being between PCs, but that sort of thing crops up and can create fun RP. Vigor becomes a better investment, because it applies evenly against everything, but Majesty or Vainglory is less useful; you can't manipulate the Harpy into giving you praise, make an impression at the big social function, or make the Primogen divulge all of their filthy secrets. You might be able to do those things without making any rolls, but... that means other players will have to willingly CHOOSE to let you have those kinds of successes, and in my experience (as stated here) players don't like to lose. Even when you make successful social rolls against folks, they will sometimes refuse to play along anyways. So without rules or rolls, I don't see those kinds of manipulations being successful ever. But I think the Vigor 5/Resilience 5/Celerity 5 Gangrel will still be able to get other PCs to cooperate, simply by virtue of being able to directly trash them in a direct conflict.

ETA: last point ended up being elaborate anyways yw

@wizz A seriously great way to be about it, my dude.

There's a tendency to throw around terms like 'success' or 'thriving' or the like when it comes to discussing MUs, and there is a ton of conflation with number of active logins, for example. I think to 'succeed', all you need is for your players and staff to be having a good time - however many people that actually refers to, is irrelevant. If you only end up with a couple dozen active players, but they are all telling cool stories and enjoying themselves, you're doing better than most any MU I've been on, by my reckoning.

Said this elsewhere, but wanted to say it again here:

SF has already closed up Mage and Changeling both, and will not be accepting new apps for those spheres. I think that's fuckin' great. It's obvious that these staffers are very hands on, very attentive, and very enthusiastic about telling great stories. Where other multi-sphere MUs tend to only close spheres when there is no TL present, and otherwise allow as many players to participate as are eager to join, SF has said, 'No, we know that we are capable of catering to this many people, we have the resources and energy to run stories and facilitate play for this many, if we allow more in, we won't be able to manage that'. Where other multi-sphere MUs rely on a sandbox atmosphere, or player STs (incentivized by XP rewards that I have seen abused out of control, and even abused myself as an ST that was greedy for ecks pees) to preoccupy their players, SF has said, 'No, we know that if we as staffers don't take responsibility for facilitating an enjoyable game, we will end up with a dichotomy of generic bar RP, and cliques of players telling stories for one another to essentially 'farm' XP, either of which might be enjoyable but neither of which are what MUs are really about'.

I genuinely wish more MUs would be willing to put their foot down, at risk of seeming 'exclusive', and not allowing spheres to get much larger than 20 players each. At a glance it seems bad, but I think that mentality is really good for the health of a game. This is yet another indicator that these staffers have their heads in the right place.

Just my experience. It's very common for folks to make dramatic speeches, or impassioned admonitions, trying to convince other PCs of their position or steer them to a certain course of action, but not roll Persuasion, or Socialize. This happens at meetings and at social functions and even in scenes just between two PCs. It's pretty common for folks to make threats or prod with questions without rolling either. I generally don't have an issue with these sorts of things, RP is RP, after all.

But it can be frustrating, too, and sometimes ends up feeling like a drag.

If Steve makes a badass, dramatic speech, full of rich rhetoric and frightening analogies in order to convince Gwen that they should go along with his plan to deal with the rival gang, and do things the way he wants to... only for Gwen to give an equally dramatic speech about why they should go with HER plan, but one that isn't nearly as convincing, doesn't really acknowledge his points, and just sort of undercuts what he says with its defiance without actually holding a candle to it in terms of articulation or reasoning... that can be lame. Realistically, Gwen would realize that Steve is right and play ball. But Gwen's player, even if she doesn't have the chops IC or OOC to argue with him, doesn't want to lose, and she wants to get the last word. So then you get nine poses back and forth of Steve nailing her verbally, making his point very clearly, and RPing well, while she is just obstinate but posturing as though she's got the same level of righteousness and maybe even thinking OOC that what she has to say is just as valid. Eventually Steve just gives up and fucks off.

If you've seen Breaking Bad, you might recall the infamous scene where Walter White says that HE is the danger, HE is the 'one who knocks'. Imagine if, in that scene, his wife wasn't frightened and appalled. If instead, she smirked and lit a cigarette, and delivered a soliloquy of her own, but it was not really relevant or capable of refuting what he said. So he gives another speech. Then she does. Finally, Walter's given no fewer than 7 badass declarations that give you goosebumps to hear, and his wife just smirks again, quips, and leaves. I know you've experienced or witnessed a scenario like this on a WoD MU.

Some RPers don't like to lose, don't even like to appear vulnerable or shaken IC, or to be convinced of something by someone they dislike and only want to come to their own conclusions ICly. When you dispense with using social skills to negotiate these discussions, they are able to indulge themselves in this way, which is empowering to them as players at the expense of what I'd consider a logical or consistent story. That's an issue of collaborative storytelling, sure, a feature far more than a bug. But why create more latitude for that kind of behavior? Doesn't compute, for me, personally. All of that said, so long as everyone in a scene is more interested in telling a good story and playing their characters accurately than 'winning' or giving themselves badass clout tokens, you don't run into these kinds of awkward scenarios. Unless you have other ways to incentivize that sort of good faith RP, though, I think eliminating social rolls altogether is of more benefit to folks that like to be obstinate than players that want to collaborate.

@faraday Didn't I already explain earlier how, even in 1E, lots of social challenges should be contested, EXTENDED rolls (representing the length of a conversation rather than a single quip), with target numbers that are variable based on circumstances, but many players and STs default to making them instant actions with a single roll? Is it really accurate to portray the Doors system from GMC and 2E as one which relies upon players 'just making a roll'?

I think it's intellectually dishonest to put the full weight of the blame for the issues you're describing upon the mechanics themselves, "just make a roll" social mechanics as orthodoxy are a product of the WoD MU community moreso than the World of Darkness rules as written, I think.

Didn't I also suggest that it might be more expedient for us to approach these disputes, frustrations, and misunderstandings at the interpersonal level, using player to player conversations that are facilitated by staff through a framework of easy/simple prompts, or questions, an atmosphere which encourages collaboration, a willingness to remove players that cannot maturely navigate these discussions, and more than just oversight, a plainly drawn expectation (with explanation) that players make the effort to cooperate in the resolution of these things as much as they would in any other conflict...?

No one has really responded to those ideas, so... is that just naive?

I mean, if my character has a rivalry with another character, and I just attack them in the street without warning, even right there, most players will hit the pause button and ask what's going on, OOC, ask about talking things out player-to-player, or involve a staffer. If they consent to PVP of that nature, then for it to resolve, we need to communicate each round - we need to tell each other our defense pools, we need to make each other aware of resistances, we need to make each other aware of weapon bonuses, and the abilities of different powers. But that's still not a pleasant experience for most folks. But when you start talking about your goals, turn to turn, your ideas for ways to get a leg up, explain your rationale prior to the conflict or possibly even ask about the other player's comfort level, or when you allow physical conflicts to de-escalate in order to brew more RP or instigate another fight later - at that point you're collaborating, you're working together to make story, not pwn each other, even if you do pwn each other in the story. Why the hell can't 'social combat' or social encounters be expected to have a similar etiquette??? Seriously? Why not?

@goldfish In my experience, unlikeable characters lead to people disliking the player behind them.

If the character is just a dick, some players might not feel they have the energy or not be interested in an antagonistic or rivalry based relationship IC. If the character commits immoral acts, there are even players that will call you, the player, gross, and avoid you. It doesn't matter if your character believes they are doing the right thing, or if the character is just an actual unrepentant monster; there are folks in the hobby that will take it as a reflection of your character. That's why I personally gravitate more towards white hats these days, and I think that's why a lot of MU players tend to gravitate towards white hats.

If you can find a good group of players that you trust, and have a solid OOC rapport with, or that you feel have the requisite sort of maturity, though, I think you can totally make a very unlikeable character.

I think as you said, competency doesn't much matter. As long as you are secure in your incompetence, you can show up to a big fight scene with your firearms 0 character and enjoy yourself.

Activity is another matter. I think it depends on the game and the kinds of plots that intrigue you? But, that said, its easy to make a character that is, conceptually, the sort that folks go to for help under rare or specific circumstances, the kind that only reaches out to help once in a blue moon, and isnt in the public view for very long. A hermit, a reclusive black market arms dealer, a mysterious homeless man with a lot of battle scars and an encyclopedic knowledge of the city's history - more so than four professors of history put together could offer - these are the sorts of characters that can weather periods of inactivity or absence and still have a lasting, interesting impact on a story.

I read them pretty voraciously, including the books that no one ever uses, random sourcebooks, etc. I'm surprised by how many people have read the corebook but missed big parts of the mechanics for things like combat, or just don't bother with them.

How often do you use the concealment and cover rules in combat scenes? How often do you see people using Willpower to add a +2 to defense for a single attack (so many folks don't even know they can do that)? What about Charging - you move twice your speed and stage an attack, but you lose defense - is that something you've used or seen used?

I'm the kind of nutter that even reads the fiction, depending on the book. Skinchangers, Promethean, the Lancea Sanctum book (that first story with Solomon Birch is gr8), Requiem for Rome, Changeling, and Slasher all have some real cool bits in there imo

@glitch said in Zero to Mux (with wiki):

Once you have an account created, the following tutorial will walk you through setting up your new server and mediawiki: Digital Ocean Mediawiki Tutorial

So, this is a super old thread, but I am starting my journey as a MU-runner and have hit a snag already. The Mediawiki tutorial is no longer available, it looks like, as of September. So I have my Digitalocean account, but I've got no idea what I'm doing or what tools I should or should not be selecting here for this project. Anyone have pointers for setting up a server and Mediawiki using Digitalocean?

@goldfish In my experience, unlikeable characters lead to people disliking the player behind them.

If the character is just a dick, some players might not feel they have the energy or not be interested in an antagonistic or rivalry based relationship IC. If the character commits immoral acts, there are even players that will call you, the player, gross, and avoid you. It doesn't matter if your character believes they are doing the right thing, or if the character is just an actual unrepentant monster; there are folks in the hobby that will take it as a reflection of your character. That's why I personally gravitate more towards white hats these days, and I think that's why a lot of MU players tend to gravitate towards white hats.

If you can find a good group of players that you trust, and have a solid OOC rapport with, or that you feel have the requisite sort of maturity, though, I think you can totally make a very unlikeable character.

I think as you said, competency doesn't much matter. As long as you are secure in your incompetence, you can show up to a big fight scene with your firearms 0 character and enjoy yourself.

Activity is another matter. I think it depends on the game and the kinds of plots that intrigue you? But, that said, its easy to make a character that is, conceptually, the sort that folks go to for help under rare or specific circumstances, the kind that only reaches out to help once in a blue moon, and isnt in the public view for very long. A hermit, a reclusive black market arms dealer, a mysterious homeless man with a lot of battle scars and an encyclopedic knowledge of the city's history - more so than four professors of history put together could offer - these are the sorts of characters that can weather periods of inactivity or absence and still have a lasting, interesting impact on a story.

@tinuviel That's not really true though. F&L was set in Vegas, and the shooting that happened at that concert went down while that game was live, but the event was kept OOC only - folks (I think rightfully) decided it'd be in poor taste to RP about that in a WoD game. I'm currently working on a WoD MU set in Charleston, and I've had to wrestle a bit with what that means for the Dylan Roof shooting. In terms of game mechanics, that church would be a Wound, or Malus Loci, or possibly be haunted by ghosts. But I think using the victims as props is disrespectful, and using the event as a prop is kind of disrespectful, even - at least because the way that manifests in WoD is very visceral, by way of ghosts and spirits and the like.

In your everyday life, I'm sure you have a couple of conversations a week, minimum, about the political circus in DC, if you're American. Trump's newest gauche remark or tyrannical power play, etc. Recently friends of mine have been talking about Bolsonaro's election, even, which happened in Brazil. But no one talks about these things IC on a MU, and the racist or discriminatory policies that we are experiencing IRL don't come up on these MUs. You don't get a lot of scenes with MAGA hats, or ICE investigators, or proud boys beating up Spring Courtiers that they perceive as 'degenerates'. Some of that stuff would fit right into WoD (unfortunately), but people come to these games often in search of escapism. They don't want the prejudices and social ills of their lives to follow them into their fantasy world, and I can't fault them - I often feel the same.

If you can have a game set in 2018 where NPCs dont talk about the Kavanaugh hearings or detention camps at the border, POC characters are not harassed or living with fear that they will be lynched (just happened in Ferguson like last week), where there are no 'Unite The Right' rallies, and discussions between PCs about what they will do if birthright citizenship is repealed, etc etc........ you can totally have a game set in 1925 where the N-word isn't tossed around in every scene, women are able to carry around guns without all the menfolk nudging each other and cracking up, and so on.

ETA: That said? As an ST/player I have never shied away from my NPCs sometimes saying things that are racist or discriminatory if I felt it were realistic. A homophobic ghost is going to say homophobic slurs, a racist vampire is going to make casually racist remarks. I don't usually go full-Tarantino with it, sure, maybe more Martin McDonagh where an NPC might casually insult someone as a 'f*g' or something to that effect. I always try to drop a disclaimer at the start of the scene or before a particularly nasty pose that the character might offend or be disruptive and that folks should page me if they have concerns or need to establish boundaries. If no one reaches out? I assume we're all prepared for an HBO original series level of brashness.

@wizz A seriously great way to be about it, my dude.

There's a tendency to throw around terms like 'success' or 'thriving' or the like when it comes to discussing MUs, and there is a ton of conflation with number of active logins, for example. I think to 'succeed', all you need is for your players and staff to be having a good time - however many people that actually refers to, is irrelevant. If you only end up with a couple dozen active players, but they are all telling cool stories and enjoying themselves, you're doing better than most any MU I've been on, by my reckoning.

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Didn't I also suggest that it might be more expedient for us to approach these disputes, frustrations, and misunderstandings at the interpersonal level, using player to player conversations that are facilitated by staff through a framework of easy/simple prompts, or questions, an atmosphere which encourages collaboration, a willingness to remove players that cannot maturely navigate these discussions, and more than just oversight, a plainly drawn expectation (with explanation) that players make the effort to cooperate in the resolution of these things as much as they would in any other conflict...?

I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of this discussion. All of the above is simply irrelevant.

It's not really irrelevant at all, though. I get that your initial idea was to remove social mechanics between players entirely, and that you've since moved on to consider the opposite option - that you should develop a system of social mechanics that is more complex and nuanced, so that when used between player characters there is less need for oversight, less potential for headaches, etc.

I'm suggesting plainly that neither are necessarily the solution, and that maybe the problem you're trying to solve doesn't need to be dealt with through mechanics. Maybe the issue is a cultural one, and there are staff practices and methods of facilitation that could handle this just as well.

This is a thread about the place of social stats between players in the world of darkness, intended primarily for discussion about how to manage these encounters and create a fun, equitable experience. I don't know how it could possibly be 'irrelevant' to contribute the idea that the mechanics themselves aren't nearly as problematic as the way that players (and staffers) opt to deploy them, far more often than not. Frustrations rooted in disputes over social rolls are, I think, symptomatic of larger, pervasive norms in this community when it comes to direct communication, transparency, and good faith. Not to say those things don't exist in the WoD MU community, just that they can be scarce, and the impersonal nature of the medium tends to coax opaqueness and distrust out of people, and instead of resolving to create tools to remain grounded in collaboration, folks are often permitted to remain wary, if not hostile.

but the aim of the current discussion is to examine what might be implemented when the lines of communication are cut

What needs to be implemented is more communication, simple as that.

If you're really only interested in 'automating' this so that there is no possible scenario where a staffer could ever need to step in, in the case that two adults cannot maturely discuss how to resolve a dispute that their characters are having, that's all well and good. But if the result is a system that removes the need to problem solve or cooperate OOC in order for players to butt heads ICly by mathematizing social encounters as thoroughly, or even more so, than physical combat? You're not going to reduce OOC hostility very much, you're just going to reduce the ability for people to throw tantrums when they don't get their way (and note, people still do this over physical combat, in any system, so idk what kind of platonically ideal social mechanics you had in mind but even they might not do what you're hoping for).

ETA: problems on MUs are, more often than anything else, problems between people - it baffles the shit out of me that helping people learn to/be able to successfully resolve interpersonal problems themselves is not considered a viable course of action here! I promise it'd take way less work than developing a social combat system that is more robust than Doors or the system from Danse Macabre, and it'd fix more than just social encounter misgivings

@thenomain Get a load of this one: How often do you see folks applying their Status (covenant/court/whatever) as a bonus to social rolls against those that have a lower rating of Status for the same group?

Spoiler: Never lol

@surreality I don't know that much about Doors, tbh, only read through it once, a while ago. It seemed interesting, but I don't like the way 2E streamlined a lot of things, while simultaneously being kind of impressed by it. If that makes sense? Like, the way beats and conditions work, interesting, checks out with my math-brain, but I just find it less appealing than 1E's alternatives, which I recognize plainly as often being more clunky and inconsistent. Don't know why that is, I guess my brain is broke. Anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up kind of wonky.

The social combat of 1E, which is pitched in Danse Macabre (a vampire sourcebook from whence a LOT of ideas were taken to create GMC, and eventually 2E), is something I definitely recoiled from more than Doors. It's similarly interesting, but much more easily broken, and actually designed to allow LESS negotiation between players. By systemizing and gamifying social conflicts, it necessarily establishes a set of results whereby the winner is able to strongarm the loser in various ways. In vampire, this is especially troubling when you consider that Nosferatu lose 10-again and subtract 1's from their successes on any roll requiring Manipulation or Persuasion.

@faraday Didn't I already explain earlier how, even in 1E, lots of social challenges should be contested, EXTENDED rolls (representing the length of a conversation rather than a single quip), with target numbers that are variable based on circumstances, but many players and STs default to making them instant actions with a single roll? Is it really accurate to portray the Doors system from GMC and 2E as one which relies upon players 'just making a roll'?

I think it's intellectually dishonest to put the full weight of the blame for the issues you're describing upon the mechanics themselves, "just make a roll" social mechanics as orthodoxy are a product of the WoD MU community moreso than the World of Darkness rules as written, I think.

Didn't I also suggest that it might be more expedient for us to approach these disputes, frustrations, and misunderstandings at the interpersonal level, using player to player conversations that are facilitated by staff through a framework of easy/simple prompts, or questions, an atmosphere which encourages collaboration, a willingness to remove players that cannot maturely navigate these discussions, and more than just oversight, a plainly drawn expectation (with explanation) that players make the effort to cooperate in the resolution of these things as much as they would in any other conflict...?

No one has really responded to those ideas, so... is that just naive?

I mean, if my character has a rivalry with another character, and I just attack them in the street without warning, even right there, most players will hit the pause button and ask what's going on, OOC, ask about talking things out player-to-player, or involve a staffer. If they consent to PVP of that nature, then for it to resolve, we need to communicate each round - we need to tell each other our defense pools, we need to make each other aware of resistances, we need to make each other aware of weapon bonuses, and the abilities of different powers. But that's still not a pleasant experience for most folks. But when you start talking about your goals, turn to turn, your ideas for ways to get a leg up, explain your rationale prior to the conflict or possibly even ask about the other player's comfort level, or when you allow physical conflicts to de-escalate in order to brew more RP or instigate another fight later - at that point you're collaborating, you're working together to make story, not pwn each other, even if you do pwn each other in the story. Why the hell can't 'social combat' or social encounters be expected to have a similar etiquette??? Seriously? Why not?

I read them pretty voraciously, including the books that no one ever uses, random sourcebooks, etc. I'm surprised by how many people have read the corebook but missed big parts of the mechanics for things like combat, or just don't bother with them.

How often do you use the concealment and cover rules in combat scenes? How often do you see people using Willpower to add a +2 to defense for a single attack (so many folks don't even know they can do that)? What about Charging - you move twice your speed and stage an attack, but you lose defense - is that something you've used or seen used?

I'm the kind of nutter that even reads the fiction, depending on the book. Skinchangers, Promethean, the Lancea Sanctum book (that first story with Solomon Birch is gr8), Requiem for Rome, Changeling, and Slasher all have some real cool bits in there imo

Here are some thoughts I'm having, as this thread has progressed:

1.) With regards to some of the scenarios, and the disparity between them in severity, presented by Surreality: using Persuasion in a conversation to get someone to hide contraband in their house, buy you coffee, or come down a dark alley with you, would probably all be extended rolls with variable target numbers using WoD rules. They'd vary based on a lot of factors - how you present, how well you know each other, what the characters are like, etc etc, so there's no way to create concrete numbers but there are rules that already distinguish these sorts of requests as requiring variable levels of skill/success to accomplish. Maybe it's lazy, or dubious, for us to default to the idea that you roll a social skill once and if you succeed, you succeed - maybe, anyways? This brings me to point number 2

2.) I don't think the mechanics of social skills are the issue, and I do think varying degrees of IC/OOC delineation is part of the issue. I think the issue is that people don't communicate very well on MUs, in general. When characters are in conflict, players feel they are in conflict, and so they tend to keep their distance or even sometimes get hostile. Fostering an atmosphere where players communicate openly about their conflict, and negotiate an outcome that is fun and interesting for both of them, is gonna be the real ticket, I think. If you're going to try and use a social skill to convince a character to do something awful or uncharacteristic of them, you should be able to talk to the other player about your expectations, and hear what they think. This is collaborative storytelling - why avoid collaborating? If someone is obstinate or being a bad sport, unwilling to compromise on anything, then I think you bring in staff to mediate or you step back and say that the two of you are not going to be able to RP out this sort of conflict.

PVP requires maturity and honesty and transparency, it necessitates those things, and thats with physical PVP as well as social PVP. So idk, I think if you sit down and create that foundation, and say, 'Here are some ways to approach another player about these things', 'Here are some questions you can ask', 'Here are ways you can compromise and collaborate to create meaningful RP', 'Here are things that, if you intend to do them, you need to talk to the other player about', 'Here are examples of things you simply cannot use social skills for, and use your common sense from there, please', 'If you get into IC conflict with another character and it escalates to OOC hostility, talk to a staffer immediately - your players may be enemies, but you are both players on the same team, trying to create the same thing, even if you have different visions of the outcome'. At some point, things can't be totally negotiated. You won't always have a player willing to take the L, of course, often both players will want to win, and of course their characters will. So it becomes about hashing out how to create an environment where both can reach for success, and the one with the better stats takes the gold. 'I'm going to roll this to try and make this happen, what do you think?' 'I would be able to resist with this or this, I think, do you think it's reasonable for me to get a bonus because of X reason? I also have Y merit!' 'That sounds good!' If players can't conduct themselves like that, or agree on a target number that's appropriate for an extended roll (as mentioned above) or agree on the particulars of the Doors system, have it be part of the game atmosphere that they can grab a staffer to mediate those particulars. This brings me to point 3

3.) Social combat is almost as much of a mess as removing social skills altogether, imo, because most social combat systems in WoD are easily broken and allow certain archetypes to have an unfair amount of control over the trajectory of the game. This is less of an issue in 2E, but still, be careful about solving things in that way

4.) Finally, @Ganymede, I saw your comment about being able to manipulate and outwit other players, on an OOC level, and typically leaning towards manipulative character archetypes for that reason. I definitely agree with the sentiment that removing rules in a way that makes social manipulation/conflict hinge itself entirely upon the abilities of PLAYERS and not about their characters, is bad for a lot of reasons. Firstly, it means that players can really only play as characters with their level of social aptitude or less, with their talent for writing also applying, essentially, the lesser of their abilities as a socialite or writer determines how socially capable their characters can be. That inherently benefits more socially talented and academically oriented players; those that don't have a lot of talent for writing and/or the academic background that might improve one's ability to write, and those that lack social skills or even struggle with social interaction because of things beyond their control (maybe they struggle with a mental illness, or perhaps are on the autism spectrum, etc) are at a pretty steep disadvantage, and will struggle to have fun. Furthermore, I think it really does encourage a toxic atmosphere where there's less incentive and fewer tools for players to communicate directly about what's going on with their players, and I think the erosion of an IC/OOC delineation (by making it a contest between PLAYERS) will inevitably create bad feelings, distrust, resentment, and the like.

I've had PVP that was great, where both I and the other person spoke often and openly about the talents of our characters, some of our goals and plans, keeping secret what we needed to but being otherwise transparent. I was open to even allowing the other character to kill mine, in a gambit to perhaps change their mind, and I'd have been comfortable with that outcome. I've also had PVP that was really NOT great, where the other player barely spoke to me and was very opaque, I could tell they didn't like me OOC, and it literally felt bad. Like a weight in my chest, and it made my anxiety and paranoia flare up. We make ourselves vulnerable, a bit, when we portray these characters and open ourselves up to this community - especially when those characters embody parts of us. When other players are hostile, distant, and interested in winning or harming your character more than collaborating or telling a story with you (even if its a story where your characters are in conflict!), it is uncomfortable and anxiety inducing.

Create tools that help players use the tools that are already there, for resolving social skill checks.

ETA: I'm sorry this is so long