Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana

[The Sands]

@thatguythere said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

the it should be like physical combat, doesn't take into account that there are certain principles people and character won't cross, the agency side of things doesn't take into account these principles tend to be quite a small number of things.

Yes and no. On one level I would be much happier with a system that is able to take into account things like a character's principles. The issue is that on a more practical level enforcing it becomes very problematic. You run a real risk of the people who want to avoid social combat simply stacking up any mandatory social combat with 'principles that must not be violated', even when it becomes something trivial like trying to go ahead in line, at which point the system is so broken that its no fun being forced into it.

The principles a character 'absolutely will not violate' might be relatively small, but there's a larger number of issues that a character 'won't violate without a very good reason' (and an even larger range of 'resistant to violating). If Sarah looks like a strung out drug addict and she begs Joe not to take her in and says she's only robbing the store because otherwise her pimp is going to have her son killed then Joe might actually go along with it. He probably won't let her take anything (or if he absolutely has no choice he may limit what she takes), will force her to tell her who her pimp is and then makes her agree to a plan so that they can rescue her son and then she turns herself in, but he could conceivable go along with the request under those conditions.

In this context it isn't that he simply won't allow anyone to commit a crime. His principles recognize that the world is not black and white and sometimes rules have to give. However, just because he hasn't taken the absolute 'no exceptions to the law' stance doesn't mean an alternate Sarah should have a hope in Hell of convincing him to allow her to make off with all the loot in exchange for a kiss. In fact, given Joe's 'drive for justice' personality something like that should not only fail outright but it should probably make it -more- difficult for Sarah if she realizes that is a hopeless avenue and moves to some other form of manipulation (such as intimidation), because now Joe is pissed at her.

[Lithium]

@peasoupling I agree that timescale is a big thing, but the ongoing thing is that people are /ignoring/ all the social fu that they /shouldn't/ be. Social Combat should be worth investing into, and it's not, except against NPC's most of the time.

This idea of player agency is just /bad/ imho, because you lose player agency the moment you start playing with others. It isn't /you/ being manipulated, it's the /character/, it's a role-playing game, not a self-empowerment fantasy.

The character is going to /change/ and it is the point of the game to /enjoy/ those changes, and role-play them.

If you want player agency that is completely inviolate, then play on consent games.

The entire point of a non-consent game is the player does not have control.

NOTE: The you in this is not directed @peasoupling or anyone else, but just the nebulous 'you'.

[Thenomain]

Incidentally, does this mean that the CoD "Doors" system is being abandoned?

[The Sands]

@jennkryst said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

So... I just have to make Sally's concept 'Unbeatable swordswoman who can never be killed,' thus making losing physical combat or death a violation of my concept! Easy peasy.

Earlier I mentioned the implicit aspect that any character can be overwhelmed by force. You can't simply decide that your character concept violates implicit concepts.

If you want a world where the idea of characters having any sort of personal core violates implicit concepts you can certainly do that but I don't think I particularly want to play there. I'd rather play in a game where a player can decide on aspects of their character's personality, and I think that's part of the issue. I'm unbeatable isn't an aspect of personality. I won't accept a bribe is. Mandatory social combat provides excessive limitations to my character's personality.

[Ganymede]

@jennkryst said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

Can players similarly elect not to accept the outcome of mundane physical combat?

No.

You probably weren't there when we all got into a down-and-dirty fist-fight about player agency. If you were, you'd know that I'm generally in the camp of "whatever happens, happens." As long as I don't have to play through certain things, I'm just fine. I recognize, however, that I don't usually have people creep-paging me for scenes, or trying to use social skills to convince my PCs to sleep with them.

Naturally, as an old veteran of these games, I have the wherewithal and moxie to out these sort of pricks wherever I can. I don't mind doing that at all. But there are people who, for whatever reason, just aren't able to speak up for themselves, and get railroaded via social rolls into situations that they are uncomfortable with as players. These players need a way out of such situations, so that's why I believe an opt-out provision is necessary.

So that this isn't entirely one-sided, the system still has tangible benefits for social-heavy PCs. If the target opts-out, you get Beats -- and you could get a substantial number of them. And there's even a strong incentive for socially-inept PCs to just give in at the outset of encounters, in the form of Beats.

That's why the opt-out is only for social combat situations. There are tangible penalties for getting into fist-fights with people, which are tied into our Status system.

---

@lithium said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

The idea that nobody can be manipulated is just obtuse.

I understand. That's why there's also mental combat. If you want to sabotage a rival's Domain, you don't need to lie to them about what you're doing; you just need to be better at using existing legal tricks and influence to get what you want. That's a mental game, and this, like physical combat, has no opt-out provision.

---

@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

Incidentally, does this mean that the CoD "Doors" system is being abandoned?

No.

[Thenomain]

@ganymede said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

Incidentally, does this mean that the CoD "Doors" system is being abandoned?

No.

Then what is it about the Doors system that is being hotly contested, here? I get the feeling that there is an argument going on in this thread that is only half-informed.

[Tinuviel]

@thenomain SAY IT AIN'T SO

[Ganymede]

@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

Then what is it about the Doors system that is being hotly contested, here? I get the feeling that there is an argument going on in this thread that is only half-informed.

We're re-visiting the age-old question of whether it is good policy to allow an opt-out provision in social combat situations.

[Thenomain]

@ganymede said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

Then what is it about the Doors system that is being hotly contested, here? I get the feeling that there is an argument going on in this thread that is only half-informed.

We're re-visiting the age-old question of whether it is good policy to allow an opt-out provision in social combat situations.

Why for social situations and not physical situations? Why social situations and not supernaturally-powered situations?

I personally think there already is a provision: Fade to Black. Nobody should be forced to RP out a situation they don't want to, tho that doesn't give them the right to say it didn't happen. (With a few exceptions that almost every game made this decade has gone with.) Even PK doesn't usually hit this list.

[Ganymede]

@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

Why for social situations and not physical situations? Why social situations and not supernaturally-powered situations?

I think I've already explained why, but I'll do it again, in a brief version.

Some people done in the past fucked shit up for everyone, and now we better slip a provision in place to make sure it done not gonna happen again.

RfK proved to me that an opt-out provision isn't the end of anyone's world.

[The Sands]

@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

Then what is it about the Doors system that is being hotly contested, here? I get the feeling that there is an argument going on in this thread that is only half-informed.

No. The argument is about mandatory social combat, not any particular system (Doors or otherwise).

I so badly want to make a joke about the fact that the person who said people are only half-informed didn't understand what the argument was about but I'm worried it will come off as a kind of mean/nasty snark rather than joking/teasing.

[Thenomain]

@the-sands

Yeah, even mentioning it makes it come off as antagonistic.

I was going to say "fuck you" about it, but decided that it might come off as caring anymore.

I ask questions to learn. You're assuming I'm saying it's the wrong approach. You would be wrong.

So, yeah, enough of that please.

[Lithium]

If a characters social stats cost the same as physical stats and mental stats, and if physical/mental combat is mandatory, then social combat should also be mandatory.

If the system isn't to your liking, change the system, use a different one, but completely invalidating a huge chunk of character concept?

That's just shitty.

It's not even /hard/ to make your character be resistant to social combat, if you can step away from MurderEverything101 build.

[Ganymede]

@lithium said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

If a characters social stats cost the same as physical stats and mental stats, and if physical/mental combat is mandatory, then social combat should also be mandatory.

Who said anything about it not being mandatory? Perhaps I'm not communicating myself well, but I've described what I've intended to do what feels like countless times in the past. Doing it again is sort of like me telling my children for the eleventy-billionth time that, no, they can't eat the French fries off the floor.

So, I'll try one last time.

Yes, social combat is different than physical or mental combat in that there is an opt-out provision. Yes, this means you cannot force someone to sleep with you. I'm sorry that this might make you upset that your seducer Daeva isn't going to hot-bang everyone he wants to, but I'm also not so sorry because there have been a number of motherfuckers out there who have used social rolls to coerce people who may not be quite as outspoken or savvy as the rest of us into situations that have been OOCly disturbing.

But that does not mean that social concepts aren't powerful on a game that rises and falls on one's Status.

Start a gossip campaign against them. Get others to vote against their interests. You can use your social stats in countless other ways that indirectly have an effect on your target. Sure, you can't force them to sleep with you through sheer force of personality and attractiveness, but that doesn't mean the game's over for you. I mean, Harvey Weinstein, by all accounts, was quite successful.

(I realize how distasteful that joke was, but I mean to use it as a visceral point.)

If that seems shitty, I can deal with it. But we have carefully considered this issue front to back, and have taken it into consideration when drawing up ideas for other systems. There are a myriad of other ways to trick, manipulate, mindfuck, and socially outmaneuver people that don't involve social combat.

[Bobotron]

@thenomain
Yeah, but you're also going to the most extreme point. But much of this also comes from the discussion of 'player agency'. I'm not talking about 'seduce to typefuck,' but things like 'I'm going to use social-fu to get you to back me to be Duke/get the password to the secret society/to plant this evidence against Lord Farfignuten' and people are extremely against the idea that they can be manipulated AT ALL. Unless you're just saying enforce FtB just like 'HP = 0 = unconscious' and have it otherwise notated, IE: Social HP = 0 = You plant the evidence/give false testimony against Farfignuten via this +note that is enforced on you by staff'.

@Ganymede
I applaud the intent there. Honestly, just outright banning the skeevy behaviors under social conflict is a generally better option than most anything. I hope you have luck in getting the things along the lines of your laid out 'gossip campaign/vote against your own interest/whatever' angle to actually work out.

[Lithium]

@ganymede I was not responding to you. I was responding to @The-Sands viewpoint, I am starting to lean more in @Thenomain 's direction at this point.

Sorry if I was confusing you with this, I thought my tacit agreement with what you were saying was pretty obvious @Ganymede

[Thenomain]

@ganymede said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

There are a myriad of other ways to trick, manipulate, mindfuck, and socially outmaneuver people that don't involve social combat.

The thing about social combat (or social systems; I think calling it all "combat" is undermining what it can or should do) is that it allows people who are not themselves social devas to have their characters manipulate on a scale implausible in real life. This is true of physical, mental, and supernatural abilities, so it doesn't surprise me that anyone would focus on the social as an unusual exception.

I'm aware that you're nearing or at the point of saying "this is how we decided to do it, so this is how it's going to go", but the above did come to mind. I am fine with "because this is how we're going to do it" as an answer.

[Ganymede]

@bobotron said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

I applaud the intent there. Honestly, just outright banning the skeevy behaviors under social conflict is a generally better option than most anything. I hope you have luck in getting the things along the lines of your laid out 'gossip campaign/vote against your own interest/whatever' angle to actually work out.

I know I didn't say it, but, yes, those skeevy behaviors are out, out, out. Will not tolerate that bullshit; I don't got time for it. Similarly, people who are clearly abusing the system for their own benefit -- boosting up one's XP not included because, really, those are the incentives; I'm talking about fools who use social combat to coerce others into banging them, and then whine and cry when their lovers' domitors show up with Gangrel claws popped -- just aren't going to be tolerated.

The systems are so that people can have fun, all right? Not so people can run over other people rampantly with a ha-ha, and a ho-ho, and a "look I have a machinegun too!" mentality.

---

@lithium said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

I was not responding to you.

I'm sorry; obvious robot is busy cranking out situations where Status drops in the Status system, and debating the Territory/Domain system, and is just bwah social cues missed sorry.

---

@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

The thing about social combat (or social systems; I think calling it all "combat" is undermining what it can or should do) is that it allows people who are not themselves social devas to have their characters manipulate on a scale implausible in real life. This is true of physical, mental, and supernatural abilities, so it doesn't surprise me that anyone would focus on the social as an unusual exception.

I see what you're getting at here, and I guess I'm somewhat exasperated about plaintive resistance. To wit: can I opt out of physical combat?

But I promise -- like, really, I am -- that folks that make a social PC are going to get mileage out of that decision, even with this opt-out provision. And folks that make brainiacs for PCs (we will be putting Kiasyd out there as a Mekhet bloodline) are going to have some solid advantages (like, seriously solid, I expect to have a flood of Mekhet) when it comes to Territory/Domain building/keeping/developing.

And now you know why I put the deadline to open so far into the future. There's a lot to do.

[Thenomain]

@ganymede said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

I see what you're getting at here, and I guess I'm somewhat exasperated about plaintive resistance. To wit: can I opt out of physical combat?

This is, as someone said (sorry, would give credit where credit is due), is not an equivalence. I think they said it was stupid, but I think the lack of equivalence is why. But I think the concern is: Under what circumstances can I opt out?

I think we need to see the system to properly judge. Or I need to read the whole thread to see where the system is spelled out.

I'll wait.

[Ganymede]

@thenomain

Here's the current draft write-up:

IV. Social Combat

There are three “levels” of social combat: (1) immediate; (2) scene-length; and (3) protracted. The appropriate level depends on how difficult or quickly the challenge can be resolved; a little white lie or appearing to be honest would be immediate, whereas convincing another to support you for an election may require a number of rolls over time. (Note: The following rules are optional, but should be used where parties cannot agree on an outcome.)

A. Immediate

Telling a lie and getting away with it. Convincing a police officer you are telling the truth – and you are. These are challenges that must be performed in an instant.

The first step is for the aggressor to determine intent: what are you trying to do? The second step is to determine what pool should be used by the aggressor and the defender. The final step is to roll, and determine the result.

For example: Arkandel needs Ganymede to believe him on an important issue, for which he is telling the truth, but Ganymede is suspicious and stubborn. The Storyteller determines that Arkandel rolls Presence + Sincerity, and Ganymede rolls Composure + Etiquette. Arkandel gets 3 successes, and Ganymede gets 4. Despite Arkandel’s best effort, Ganymede does not believe him, and, because the result was in her favor.

Unlike other forms of social combat, a defender cannot opt-out of the result. This is because the scope of the roll is not calculated to include actions that would lead to behavior that might trigger a player. If this form of social combat does end up with a result that causes the defender to suffer some sort of discomfort, the next step is to call in a staff member to mediate the situation. A single roll may be used to get someone’s attention, or even their favor, but should not be used to determine an attempt to seduce.

B. Scene-Length

Attempting to win the favor of the Prince over a rival in court. Trying to shame someone in front of others in Elysium. These sorts of challenges take some time to complete, generally occur where others can witness the fight, and work very much like physical combat. Each participant calculates the following three scores:

• Dominance: Presence + Manipulation. This is your PC’s social initiative.
• Guile: Wits or Manipulation, whichever is lower. This is your PC’s social defense.
• Nerve: Composure + Etiquette. This is your PC’s social health.

The participants then determine their intent, and then engage one another. This system is generally similar to the Social Combat system found in the Danse Macabre, starting on page 127.

Like physical combat, each participant determines initiative by rolling a die and adding their Dominance. Next, each participant decides how they intend to act that round. There are three different kinds of actions:

• Antagonize: (Presence + Sincerity or Manipulation + Chicanery) – Opponent’s Guile, if the opponent is not deflecting (see below). The roll depends on how the PC intends to go about wearing down his opponent; attempting to prognosticate or compel the crowd to the PC’s side would use Sincerity, whereas belittling, browbeating, or making fun of the opponent would use Chicanery. The PC may add his or her Majesty score to these rolls. For each success, the opponent loses 1 Nerve. On a successful attempt to antagonize, the PC may also add a veiled threat to further wear down his opponent’s Nerve; by spending 1 Willpower, the PC may automatically cause the opponent to lose Nerve equal to the PC’s Intimidation score.

• Deflect: Guile x 2. A PC may defend himself by deflecting the attempt to antagonize him. Like Dodging in physical combat, roll twice the PC’s Guile. The PC may add his or her Animalism score to the pool to roll (which is not doubled). Each success reduces the opponent’s result to antagonize by 1.

• Regain Composure: Composure. A PC may roll her Composure in order to regain Nerve; for each success, the PC regains 1 Nerve. The PC may add his or her Animalism score to this pool.

At any time before his final Nerve point is lost, a PC may surrender to his opponent’s intent. Doing so means that the PC gains Beats equal to the amount of Nerve he has remaining, up to 5 (or 1 XP). If the PC loses the challenge, he may still decide not to abide by the result; if so, his opponent gains a number of Beats equal to the amount of Nerve remaining, up to 5.

C. Protracted

Winning patronage from a noble. Trying to convince the Prince to call a vote. These sorts of challenges take a lot of time to complete, and implies more than a few meetings between the PCs involved. This system should be used by a PC against an NPC, but can be used on another PC too. Generally speaking, this system is similar to the Doors system proposed in the Chronicles of Darkness, starting on page 81.

First, the parties involved determine their goals, if any; sometimes, one party has a goal but the other does not. This system should be used for attempts to seduce other PCs and NPCs, if one wants to resort to rolls to determine the outcome.

Second, each party determines how many Doors they have for the challenge. A PC has a number of doors equal to the lower of the PC’s Resolve or Composure, but may add her Animalism score to that amount. If the goal would result in a breaking point, add another two doors. Other complications may add doors; see the Chronicles of Darkness, page 81.

Third, each party determines how they intend to accomplish their goal, if any. A party may try to use their personality and honor to open up her opponent’s Doors (Presence + Sincerity) through pleas and accomplishing tasks, or she may try to spread rumors and falsehoods in order to trick her opponent, and thereby open Doors (Manipulation + Chicanery). Their opponent contests this by rolling his or her Composure. If a party has no set goal, she may elect to resist only, and contest instead with Composure + Etiquette.

Finally, resolving the challenge. A PC may spend an Action Point to roll to open a Door, using either of the pools above, depending on how they are accomplishing their goals. She may add Majesty to her rolls. Their opponent then contests that roll, as above, and may add Animalism to her rolls. If the PC spending the Action Point prevails, her opponent loses a Door.

At any time before his final Door is lost, a PC may surrender, which means her opponent accomplishes her goal. Doing so means that the PC gains Beats equal to the amount of Doors she has remaining, up to 5 (or 1 XP). If the PC loses the challenge, she may still decide not to abide by the result; if so, her opponent gains a number of Beats equal to the amount of Doors she has opened, up to 5.

<< END >>