Influence/Reputation system?
-
@surreality said:
You want the quotes? 'cause I don't have a lot of time today but oh honey, can I find them.
In the interests of not derailing it too far, let's just say that you and I have differing ideas on what is relevant to the OP's question, and then we can both stop harping on each other and try to get something constructive done, yeah?
- And all of those concerns need to be taken into account when crafting a system.
Agreed, sure. But a lot of that really boils down to 'shall we create a universal system or not?' Which in the OP's thing, they've already moved beyond that point, and are now debating what sort of system to create. Whether some people like it or not is always going to be moot. Some people will like things, others won't. You will never have any system that everyone loves. Some people will outright loath it. Them's the breaks. But after you've decided the system needs to be put in place, all that's left is deciding the system itself.
- I said "I don't like systems"? Where, precisely? And if I didn't like systems, why am I going to let people use one? Why would I be creating tools to help people use the systems in place with minimized drama? Oh, maybe because you're completely full of shit and projecting what you want to read onto what's actually been said.
You've created a tool to enforce this? Because from what you posted, I saw a lot of 'you can put that you're okay with this on your wiki and use it'. Which isn't a tool, so much as giving someone permission to do something that they absolutely could have done anyway.
Encouragement, maybe. I'll give you that. But you've done nothing exceedingly new. You always have people that will or will not go along with the system for the sake of streamlining, if there's nothing in place that applies to everyone.
Any system needs to take those people into account to prevent abuse. The current system you're trying to insist upon does not in any fashion do so in terms of either its mechanics or any policy anyone has crafted to date to supplement it, and as such, your suggestion to just use what OP actively advises against and people have to suck it up or make social stats,* which have an impact on actual powers rolls and so on**, completely free.*
Emphasis mine. They have impact. They absolutely should have impact. And they absolutely should not be allowed to be ignored if they have impact. Because, again, they are stats. Which you buy with xp. And are part of a game system. And should be respected as such for more than just what they happen to be prerequisites for.
Is that really such a hard point to grasp?
I've actually met with very little resistance anywhere but this forum, truth be told, outside of a select few situations, but we all face those from time to time.
Then why bitch so hard about this so very frequently? If you are running into only a few difficult corner cases, and that's worth bitching about so hard you have to keep beating this particular dead horse, why are the other difficult corner cases instantly dismissed? Hypocrisy Olympics silver-medal grade bullshit, buddy.
Oh, yeah. It's just me that has a problem with this. I'm the only one leading the charge, there. But to answer your question, I have an issue with this because I've seen so many people ignore this system, and more people just not even bring it up even though they absolutely should have because their players had the oomph, sheet-wise, to make a real and relevant change happen.
I'm tired of social-primary characters being relegated to second-class citizens because Punchy McPuncherson and his girlfriend Queen Can't-Touch-This just decided that the other person was powerless to try and influence them, because there was no rules in place (or worse, a rule in place specifically taking away their power to do so).
Sometimes you seem like an incredibly intelligent person and then you come up with something like this and I shake my head. No snark there, just simple truth. And it's funny how you immediately thereafter +1 someone saying it's a culture issue, because bwahahahahahahaha that's kinda special win, man. Policy needs to be in place to prevent abuses of any system. Sometimes it's HRs, sometimes it's rules, sometimes it's player or staff tools or code -- but those things are not in place and all of those things are not 'the system', but they are essential to implementing one successfully.
The difference being, of course, that @HelloProject suggested countering the culture issue with rules, whereas you obstinately state that you'll create no such rules because of the culture. Thus why they get a +1, and you get criticism. Terribly arcane and borderline moronic, I know.
-
@Derp said:
But a lot of that really boils down to 'shall we create a universal system or not?'
Uhm, no. Not even slightly. Not by twenty country miles. "An issue exists" is part of the processes even more importantly once that question is answered, because that means it is time to address that issue in effort to prevent it from being an issue in the implementation.
Seriously, this is not hard logic.
You've created a tool to enforce this? Because from what you posted, I saw a lot of 'you can put that you're okay with this on your wiki and use it'. Which isn't a tool, so much as giving someone permission to do something that they absolutely could have done anyway.
Oh, really? Because if we're talking about a game where it's not default opt-in, which I am, no, they really couldn't have done it anyway.
Emphasis mine. They have impact. They absolutely should have impact. And they absolutely should not be allowed to be ignored if they have impact. Because, again, they are stats. Which you buy with xp. And are part of a game system. And should be respected as such for more than just what they happen to be prerequisites for.
And there are optional systems that combat stats can be applied to, too, that aren't in use in many games. There are other stats I haven't seen a hell of a lot done with that aren't social -- mentals are big here -- that people spend on and unless they're a prereq for something they never come up. Why aren't you banging that drum, too?
I have an issue with this because I've seen so many people ignore this system, and more people just not even bring it up even though they absolutely should have because their players had the oomph, sheet-wise, to make a real and relevant change happen.
And it's because you keep doing it on games that don't use social maneuvering, ffs, or didn't opt-in. Which makes you come off as a crazy, whiny child. Over and over and over again. And when you try to force the use of such a system on a game that hasn't opted-in to using it, you are being a rules bully, full stop. How hard is this to grasp? This is the crux of your problem and why you keep running into them: the thing you want to do isn't in use and no amount of crying and whining about how unfair it is is going to change the fact that you went to a game where it's not in play and built your character to use something that's not in use. That's on YOU, your choices, and if you're having a shitty time about it, it's really on you, not 'all of these other people aren't playing right!'
If you ran into this on a game that has implemented the system universally -- and other than RfK I don't know of any that have -- you might have a leg to stand on. But right now the crying and hand-wringing you do any time this comes up about how people aren't playing right is absurdity on its face because the conditions we're discussing are for a system that does not exist yet.
I'm tired of social-primary characters being relegated to second-class citizens because Punchy McPuncherson and his girlfriend Queen Can't-Touch-This just decided that the other person was powerless to try and influence them, because there was no rules in place (or worse, a rule in place specifically taking away their power to do so).
And this is why the #1 culture change that needs to go down is an understanding that an ST should be called when these rolls start to drop, and it has to be treated with the same seriousness as combat. Because nobody would be let to weasel around combat like that with witnesses -- and nobody is going to try to push for a creeper agenda and act like a giant bag of cocks on the escalation the moment someone suggests ftb out of frustration that their little text-based fantasy never got typed out. Hello, easy policy/rule to write.
The difference being, of course, that @HelloProject suggested countering the culture issue with rules, whereas you obstinately state that you'll create no such rules because of the culture. Thus why they get a +1, and you get criticism. Terribly arcane and borderline moronic, I know.
...I said I'd create no such rules where exactly? That's right: I didn't. Because I kinda have, and continue to do so. I said I wasn't implementing shit as a universal requirement -- and guess what, that's a rule, too. It's just one you don't like.
-
If social combat is treated as lesser than regular combat by staff, it'll be treated that way by players. If you put more emphasis on one thing than the other, then that's what players are going to do. Staff have to lead by example. If you present things a certain way and then say "But my intent was this other thing", it's simply not going to work.
That said, optional social combat rules, even if treated as equal to traditional combat, are not going to really change anything at all. It's true that you could make them be taken a bit more seriously by treating them as equal, but if people can pick and choose when rules apply to them, why have them?
Granted, I primarily only feel this way about tabletop games, I feel non-tabletop games without XP and stuff to gain are a little different when it comes to code. But in a tabletop game, where people actually have something to gain by using the code and following the rules, then everything you do affects the overall fairness of the game.
When it comes to a tabletop game, once social rules become optional, which is how they've been treated for a long time, then that option to opt out of social combat becomes a tactical aspect of the system rather than just a favor for the comfort of the players. It's a decision with consequences.
"I could get screwed, but if I opt out, I can save myself and possibly gain something/protect my character by not engaging in social combat."
Optional social combat rules always benefit the person with something to lose. The person choosing to engage in social combat, because it's what they've built their character around, has a significantly less useful character than everyone else, even though the system itself puts them on generally equal footing.
This is because characters built around actual combat have the option to literally opt out of something they'll have trouble defending against.
The only thing that would make that fair is if you give social characters an equal option. If a combat character comes after a social character with a rocket launcher, the social character's player should be able to say, "Sorry, I don't really do rocket launcher RP with code, my character would probably duck under it", because they didn't build their character around dodging rocket launchers.
Otherwise, you essentially screw an entire type of character and give another type of character a gigantic advantage.
-
One of the key things with the specific system folks are discussing at the moment, though -- GMC Social Maneuvering -- is noted specifically in the book text as not recommended for use on players, and that it should only be used on NPCs. It's partly due to how the system itself is constructed, and the lack of resistance permitted by it by design. (Hence, why it's not often adopted.)
No one is arguing that some sort of system is necessary. A number of people have real objections to the specific system some are advocating, however, one that actually is, by design and intent, optional for use on PCs (though each edition of the text recommends all the more strongly against doing so).
It makes for a bit of a complication, to say the least!
The game developer's intention for that one allows opt-in if desired; it's right in the game's structural design.
Something not that system that is universal is very much a needed thing, as that one is not really appropriate for PvP, which is even noted empathically by the people who created it.
-
@surreality That makes a bit more sense in that context. As it's more opt-in than opt-out. So yeah, I can support that position in a system that isn't made specifically for PVP social combat nor revolves around it.
It would make no particular sense, with what you described, to make it mandatory. Though I do stick to my previous post with stuff like WoD.
-
@surreality said:
Something not that system that is universal is very much a needed thing, as that one is not really appropriate for PvP, which is even noted empathically by the people who created it.
But the problem with the system, in the developer's eyes, is that characters should keep some control over their actions, particularly because they tend to be working together or toward the same goals. The groups in question, around the table, are all on the same team. This cannot be said for those in the MU environs, and again, we need to distinguish what is meant by NPC in the books versus NPC in something as wide as a MU.
If you continue to say that Doors as a system is inoptimal for PvP purposes, you have to consider why. The why, as noted, is because of player control of characters. But if that's the problem that you think is too much to allow Doors to be used, then what real resolution can you have for social systems? You are still allowing a player to ignore a function of the dice. Until we agree that some things in social combat are not entirely under the control of the defender, and acknowledge that sometimes, there has to be give and take on both sides of the equation, we're left with little more than the freeform systems that we currently have.
Just saying that the developers intended it to be an optional system isn't a real defense against not using it, as the very reason they say not to use it is the problem that this thread is attempting to address -- you cannot have a system that both determines social resolution and allows players unlimited social control.
-
So, uh, design your system?
Decide how far you want to require players to be controlled by dice results.
Decide how fast you want that to be able to happen.
Decide if others, or strong beliefs can fight this, and how hard.
Figure out how much pre-made detail you want (lists of traits, convictions, personality traits) you want to include.
Decide how much you want the players to detail their characters prior to social encounters, sp they can be held to playing consistently.
Figure out how to reward playing this in the way you intend. -
If the system literally says that the social combat rules aren't optimal for PVP, then they really aren't even necessary as anything more than a novelty, which seems to be what @surreality did.
That said, if the system is in a PVP environment where people have stuff like XP and other resources that can be gained through dice mechanics, then me, personally, I'd go with a different system entirely. What system, I have no idea, since I'm not sure what theme you're trying to use the system with.
-
@HelloProject said:
If the system literally says that the social combat rules aren't optimal for PVP, then they really aren't even necessary as anything more than a novelty, which seems to be what @surreality did.
That said, if the system is in a PVP environment where people have stuff like XP and other resources that can be gained through dice mechanics, then me, personally, I'd go with a different system entirely. What system, I have no idea, since I'm not sure what theme you're trying to use the system with.
They don't actually say that they aren't good for PvP. They say that they recommend things be worked out in RP, and then go on to provide a system for how to use them in PvP.
But because itâs the persuaderâs player making the rolls, the target is left without a way to say âno.â As such, itâs our recommendation that this system be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters rather than on other playersâ characters. If one playerâs character wants to seduce, persuade, convince, or intimidate another, leave it up to roleplaying and let players make their own decisions about what their characters do.
Which is a real concern, certainly. But then they go on to provide a solution for this as well.
If you allow playersâ characters to be the targets of Social maneuvering, resolve this stage as a negotiation with two possible outcomes. The subject chooses to abide by the desired goal or offer a beneficial alternative.
Wherein if they go with the flow, the person affected gets a beat. (Part of the XP system)
These lines come from the GMCRU. They weren't included in Vampire or Demon. This has caused much, much contention. Hopefully, the WOD2 book that comes out clears at least some of this up.
The people saying that it's in absolutely no way intended for PvP situations tend to be reading a bit too much into it, IMO.
-
@Derp said:
They don't actually say that they aren't good for PvP. They say that they recommend things be worked out in RP, and then go on to provide a system for how to use them in PvP.
As always you seem to have some real trouble with reading only what you want to read. The developers very much states that it isn't useful for PvP because only one side is active.. Basically its like physical combat only just the aggressor is allowed to roll. Which would be bad enough if social interactions aren't also a million times more complicated than physical ones.
-
@lordbelh said:
@Derp said:
They don't actually say that they aren't good for PvP. They say that they recommend things be worked out in RP, and then go on to provide a system for how to use them in PvP.
As always you seem to have some real trouble with reading only what you want to read. The developers very much states that it isn't useful for PvP because only one side is active.. Basically its like physical combat only just the aggressor is allowed to roll. Which would be bad enough if social interactions aren't also a million times more complicated than physical ones.
Except it's clearly you that has trouble reading, as they go on later to say that the rolls can be contested. As has been stated before. Countless times, now.
-
@Derp Even when individual rolls may be contested, there's no parity in the Doors system. There's one active participant, and one passive participant. For what it's there to do, its a good system. But not for PvP.
-
@lordbelh said:
@Derp Even when individual rolls may be contested, there's no parity in the Doors system. There's one active participant, and one passive participant. For what it's there to do, its a good system. But not for PvP.
Which is rather easily addressed, as well. The other party can attempt to counter-influence the person who is attempting to influence them, using the same system. There is nothing preventing that. NPCs don't normally do that, true, but another PC could very easily try and convince the other person that it's not a path they wish to go down. There is parity, in the form of equality. The rules apply equally to all parties, and can be used on all parties at the same time, in the same way.
-
@Derp said:
But the problem with the system, in the developer's eyes, is that characters should keep some control over their actions, particularly because they tend to be working together or toward the same goals. The groups in question, around the table, are all on the same team. This cannot be said for those in the MU environs, and again, we need to distinguish what is meant by NPC in the books versus NPC in something as wide as a MU.
Oh that's what they said? Except it just fucking isn't.
Under a strict reading of these rules, one character could use Social maneuvering to get another to do whatever she wants. Thatâs not quite right, since itâs the persuaderâs player making the rolls. His victim doesnât get any option to say âno.â As such, this system should only be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters. Leave the manipulation of other playerâs characters to roleplaying, and let the players determine their charactersâ respons- es.
- (WTF2e Final.)
It is not always possible to get someone to do what you want. For instance, no amount of Social maneuver- ing is going to convince the chief of police in a large city to hold a press conference and admit to murder, even if the player has a dice pool impressive enough to make it happen. This system is designed to allow characters to manipulate or convince other characters to perform favors or undertake actions, but it does raise the question: Is one character dictating anotherâs actions, and how much of that should be allowed in a role-playing game? Or, put a different way, can one character seduce another with this system?
Under a strict read of the rules, yes. The goal is âget that character to sleep with my character,â the number of Doors is decided as explained below, and impressions and other factors play into the final result. This is not too different from how se- duction and other, less carnal, forms of persuasion actually work â the persuader tries to make the offer as enticing as possible.
But because itâs the persuaderâs player making the rolls, the target is left without a way to say âno.â As such, itâs our recommendation that this system be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters rather than on other playersâ characters. If one playerâs character wants to seduce, persuade, convince, or intimi- date another, leave it up to roleplaying and let players make their own decisions about what their characters do.- (GMC.)
Funny how their why and your why bear zero fucking resemblance to one another.
-
@surreality said:
@Derp said:
But the problem with the system, in the developer's eyes, is that characters should keep some control over their actions, particularly because they tend to be working together or toward the same goals. The groups in question, around the table, are all on the same team. This cannot be said for those in the MU environs, and again, we need to distinguish what is meant by NPC in the books versus NPC in something as wide as a MU.
Oh that's what they said? Except it just fucking isn't.
Under a strict reading of these rules, one character could use Social maneuvering to get another to do whatever she wants. Thatâs not quite right, since itâs the persuaderâs player making the rolls. His victim doesnât get any option to say âno.â As such, this system should only be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters. Leave the manipulation of other playerâs characters to roleplaying, and let the players determine their charactersâ respons- es.
- (WTF2e Final.)
It is not always possible to get someone to do what you want. For instance, no amount of Social maneuver- ing is going to convince the chief of police in a large city to hold a press conference and admit to murder, even if the player has a dice pool impressive enough to make it happen. This system is designed to allow characters to manipulate or convince other characters to perform favors or undertake actions, but it does raise the question: Is one character dictating anotherâs actions, and how much of that should be allowed in a role-playing game? Or, put a different way, can one character seduce another with this system?
Under a strict read of the rules, yes. The goal is âget that character to sleep with my character,â the number of Doors is decided as explained below, and impressions and other factors play into the final result. This is not too different from how se- duction and other, less carnal, forms of persuasion actually work â the persuader tries to make the offer as enticing as possible.
But because itâs the persuaderâs player making the rolls, the target is left without a way to say âno.â As such, itâs our recommendation that this system be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters rather than on other playersâ characters. If one playerâs character wants to seduce, persuade, convince, or intimi- date another, leave it up to roleplaying and let players make their own decisions about what their characters do.- (GMC.)
Funny how their why and your why bear zero fucking resemblance to one another.
Except see the part I quoted above, which comes after that part in the GMCRU, about using it with other players.
Damn. Funny how that works, huh? If you're going to get all frothy at the mouth and tell me I'm wrong, at least read what the hell I write and then go reference the later part of it. Goddamn.
-
@Derp said:
@surreality said:
@Derp said:
But the problem with the system, in the developer's eyes, is that characters should keep some control over their actions, particularly because they tend to be working together or toward the same goals. The groups in question, around the table, are all on the same team. This cannot be said for those in the MU environs, and again, we need to distinguish what is meant by NPC in the books versus NPC in something as wide as a MU.
Oh that's what they said? Except it just fucking isn't.
Under a strict reading of these rules, one character could use Social maneuvering to get another to do whatever she wants. Thatâs not quite right, since itâs the persuaderâs player making the rolls. His victim doesnât get any option to say âno.â As such, this system should only be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters. Leave the manipulation of other playerâs characters to roleplaying, and let the players determine their charactersâ respons- es.
- (WTF2e Final.)
It is not always possible to get someone to do what you want. For instance, no amount of Social maneuver- ing is going to convince the chief of police in a large city to hold a press conference and admit to murder, even if the player has a dice pool impressive enough to make it happen. This system is designed to allow characters to manipulate or convince other characters to perform favors or undertake actions, but it does raise the question: Is one character dictating anotherâs actions, and how much of that should be allowed in a role-playing game? Or, put a different way, can one character seduce another with this system?
Under a strict read of the rules, yes. The goal is âget that character to sleep with my character,â the number of Doors is decided as explained below, and impressions and other factors play into the final result. This is not too different from how se- duction and other, less carnal, forms of persuasion actually work â the persuader tries to make the offer as enticing as possible.
But because itâs the persuaderâs player making the rolls, the target is left without a way to say âno.â As such, itâs our recommendation that this system be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters rather than on other playersâ characters. If one playerâs character wants to seduce, persuade, convince, or intimi- date another, leave it up to roleplaying and let players make their own decisions about what their characters do.- (GMC.)
Funny how their why and your why bear zero fucking resemblance to one another.
Except see the part I quoted above, which comes after that part in the GMCRU, about using it with other players.
Damn. Funny how that works, huh? If you're going to get all frothy at the mouth and tell me I'm wrong, at least read what the hell I write and then go reference the later part of it. Goddamn.
We're aware of the 'if you really want to, try this option' rules you keep banging on about. But you know, the conditions noted right up front? Yeah, kinda relevant, and about fairness, not teamwork. As is the word option. Amazing how they don't ever suggest dehumanizing other players in regard to fairness by designating them NPCs, seriously wow, man.
So stop pretending you're arguing for the need for a system when you really want that system, which the creators themselves describe as unfair to use on other players, and not for the reasons you cite.
-
This seems to be going in an unproductive circle. I mean, not to shit on the discussion or anything, but you guys are kind of wasting your time and being stuck at the same stage of the discussion infinitely.
-
@HelloProject said:
This seems to be going in an unproductive circle. I mean, not to shit on the discussion or anything, but you guys are kind of wasting your time and being stuck at the same stage of the discussion infinitely.
Pretty much. A system is needed -- that one just isn't a good candidate for many reasons.
I think more folks are open to the idea of having one than it may appear, that one just... is likely not going to be it.
Anything with no resist or defense is not really appropriate for PvP encounters, much like any combat. Imagine combat if it was all done via surprise -- and continued to flow that way for the second, third, fourth strike, while you are not actually not necessarily allowed to know IC that you're even being attacked and should possibly defend yourself or GTFO. There are or have been special powers that allow for elements of that, but as a default system for casual daily use it would be absurdity incarnate. (This is part of the issue with the one being pushed for by @Derp, and one of the reasons a lot of people have enormous issues with it.)
Also, how it's to be administered is pretty relevant. If it's ST-administered, it can be a little more open-ended than if it's meant for use directly player-to-player without a need for oversight to ensure proper situational modifiers are in play. I'm personally a fan of 'call a ST' for these encounters as a means to avoid the worst abuses, which are outliers. (They're just outliers that have a way of scattering like the cockroaches they are the moment the light shines on them.)
Pretty sure it was HR who noted the need for modifiers in these situations, for instance, 'that's a really horrible approach in this case' would lead to a negative modifier on the roll, which is realistic. A good one, a positive modifier. (This isn't hard to accomplish with some cooperation and some decent empathy rolls in advance, either -- it's a step people shouldn't skip and they tend to.) It also goes a long way to resolving the OOC issue of, "My character would never fall for THAT!" when the actual approach makes sense for the character, and there are existing systems to accomplish this through empathy rolls or OOC negotiation.
-
@surreality D&D/Pathfinder and nWoD have perfectly functional systems for this stuff. A lot of people always say "The system doesn't work", but if you just approach and implement it in a reasonable way, like you suggested. With either of these situations that you mentioned, house rules wouldn't even be required, because they -already- note that you get negative modifiers for approaching something in a shitty way.
All that's really left is enforcement of the rules and taking them seriously, in a non-optional way. If the rules are used and executed correctly, then you're good to go (Again, now I'm talking about D&D/Pathfinder and nWoD). There are obviously systems outside of those, but people should worry a lot less about finding one particular ideal system, and more about finding a tested and functional one that people are familiar with, and actually bothering to tell people to use it.
-
Pretty much.
There are, realistically, some cool elements of that system -- and I wouldn't be against hybridizing something, as the idea of 'doors as social health levels' is one that I think has some real merit. The no resist, no defense factor, however, is simply not viable.
Either tends to require oversight, but the cultural issue of 'STs are only needed for combat' is pretty pervasive and it's the #1 thing that needs to change. It resolves the worst abuses on either end of the spectrum -- namely: "I'm untouchable!" and "Now you TS me! Oh, FTB? I have one success so now I'm going to take over your character and rewrite them however I damned well please in ways that you as a player are screwed by utterly going forward... sure you don't just wanna TS me instead?"