@Derp See, and I hate the Doors thing GMC introduced. Hate. It. I would rather completely fuck over my character by having them immediately and unequivocally agree to whatever the Social Mogul wants than be subjected to the torture of the GMC Social system.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
See, and I hate the Doors thing GMC introduced. Hate. It. I would rather completely fuck over my character by having them immediately and unequivocally agree to whatever the Social Mogul wants than be subjected to the torture of the GMC Social system.
Why do you hate it?
As described, it seems like a good system for an ST to employ to coerce NPCs. Which is what I think it was calculated to do.
+1 to @Arkandel because I am completely baffled by the idea of people 'ignoring striking looks'.
My 2 cents -- Where in the world does that happen? Almost every MU I've played, if you are the appropriate gender for somebody to fuck, they want to fuck you, whether you have SL or not.
There is no "ignoring" SL. What is it you think SL does? Make everybody instantly fawn over your pretty, pretty character? Or cower away by default because you have a "totes badass" Striking Looks (Scary Rawr)?
Striking Looks gives a /bonus to a roll/, like a lot of other things. People can't "ignore" it unless you're not actually trying to use appropriate social rolls to get something out of them.
@Ganymede It was. And if that's all it was used for, I wouldn't care. But its not. It gets applied to player against player social interactions as well. And that's where I draw my line.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
@Ganymede It was. And if that's all it was used for, I wouldn't care. But its not. It gets applied to player against player social interactions as well. And that's where I draw my line.
See, I think it should be applied to PvP situations. It's a neutral way to resolve a social situation that doesn't end in 'nuh uh because I said so, my person would never do that' which gets applied to just about every social roll ever. Which is lame as fuck.
I wouldn't mind tweaking the system a little bit right now, though. As it stands, everyone just assumes that everyone is hostile to everyone and like some sort of dark magic, you can't roll. There should be intervals between there that are missing. 'Uneasy' and 'Unfriendly' are the ones that I would add in, personally. Hostile would be -strictly- for active hostility, in the form of blows are being thrown, or something like that. Some very real, clear and present danger outside of 'ugh, what a dick'. Because dicks can still get people to do what they want, and people work with people they don't like after some convincing that it's the best way to go about things.
With reputation and status, I feel like one thing we need to do more of is incentive BOTH ends of the scale. Everyone wants to have high rep and status because you /get stuff/ by doing so, and no one wants to be shut out of potential RP or plot because their character has low status or rep. So of course, there's a race for the top, and of course people get upset when their characters lose rep, because now those characters are objectively less effective and connected than before. Which means less RP for the PC.
But I think if we offered appropriate incentives for having both high OR low status/rep, then people would be more willing to take the hits. Like, there should definitely be events tied to and benefits for having a low or negative rep, to make it fun for those players to play that, and give some compensation for not having the bennies of high status and rep. Whether it's having targeted RP where enemy factions try to recruit you, or events where there's a Status ceiling of people allowed to join (the police commissioner should not be investigating the gritty street crime), or high risk/high reward plots that require a bit of "plausible deniability".
@Derp said:
@Miss-Demeanor said:
@Ganymede It was. And if that's all it was used for, I wouldn't care. But its not. It gets applied to player against player social interactions as well. And that's where I draw my line.
See, I think it should be applied to PvP situations. It's a neutral way to resolve a social situation that doesn't end in 'nuh uh because I said so, my person would never do that' which gets applied to just about every social roll ever. Which is lame as fuck.
I wouldn't mind tweaking the system a little bit right now, though. As it stands, everyone just assumes that everyone is hostile to everyone and like some sort of dark magic, you can't roll. There should be intervals between there that are missing. 'Uneasy' and 'Unfriendly' are the ones that I would add in, personally. Hostile would be -strictly- for active hostility, in the form of blows are being thrown, or something like that. Some very real, clear and present danger outside of 'ugh, what a dick'. Because dicks can still get people to do what they want, and people work with people they don't like after some convincing that it's the best way to go about things.
And the first time someone wants me to sit around for two hours while they figure out if their PC can sway mine? My reaction is this. And since we're on the subject... hostile is a lot more than 'I will punch you if you speak to me'. There's plenty of hostile people in the world that never lift a hand towards a person. So no, I don't think Hostile is JUST meant to cover 'ready to inflict physical violence'.
@Derp said:
See, I think it should be applied to PvP situations. It's a neutral way to resolve a social situation that doesn't end in 'nuh uh because I said so, my person would never do that' which gets applied to just about every social roll ever. Which is lame as fuck.
Yes, it is. And that player is lame as fuck too.
But I don't think GMC's Doors system is great for what you're suggesting. The Danse Macabre's social combat system, in my opinion, was a better approach; it's quick, it's dirty, and it's about who looks better in the end, ultimately. It's not about making someone suck your dick as much as it is convincing everyone else around that the eschewing of your penis makes that person looks totes ridic. That's kind of better for PvP conflict.
@Pyrephox said:
Like, there should definitely be events tied to and benefits for having a low or negative rep, to make it fun for those players to play that, and give some compensation for not having the bennies of high status and rep. Whether it's having targeted RP where enemy factions try to recruit you, or events where there's a Status ceiling of people allowed to join (the police commissioner should not be investigating the gritty street crime), or high risk/high reward plots that require a bit of "plausible deniability".
You know, I kind of like that 'status ceiling' idea. That ain't bad. There should be some bennies to offset that, too. The commissioner should be able to change the rules, give out perks or hits to things, etc. But that could really be a workable system.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
And the first time someone wants me to sit around for two hours while they figure out if their PC can sway mine? My reaction is this. And since we're on the subject... hostile is a lot more than 'I will punch you if you speak to me'. There's plenty of hostile people in the world that never lift a hand towards a person. So no, I don't think Hostile is JUST meant to cover 'ready to inflict physical violence'.
And that reaction is part of the reason that conversations like this get sparked in the first place. People are unhappy with people ignoring the fact that a mechanical / sheet trait has effectively no impact, largely for examples like the above. Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.
@Ganymede said:
The Danse Macabre's social combat system, in my opinion, was a better approach; it's quick, it's dirty, and it's about who looks better in the end, ultimately. It's not about making someone suck your dick as much as it is convincing everyone else around that the eschewing of your penis makes that person looks totes ridic. That's kind of better for PvP conflict.
I agree that it's not a bad system. The problem with it is that it requires an audience. It's a political debate between two people wherein there are spectators involved, which works great for things like Elysium, but not so great when you just need to convince a person to do a thing and there aren't a hundred people around to witness it. Doors, on the other hand, work in both situations, which makes them slightly better, IMO.
@Derp said:
I agree that it's not a bad system. The problem with it is that it requires an audience. It's a political debate between two people wherein there are spectators involved, which works great for things like Elysium, but not so great when you just need to convince a person to do a thing and there aren't a hundred people around to witness it. Doors, on the other hand, work in both situations, which makes them slightly better, IMO.
Yeah, but the Impression limitation makes it so engh for a MU*.
I generally stick to the old "Roll Manipulation + Persuasion" method, myself.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said:
@Derp said:
I agree that it's not a bad system. The problem with it is that it requires an audience. It's a political debate between two people wherein there are spectators involved, which works great for things like Elysium, but not so great when you just need to convince a person to do a thing and there aren't a hundred people around to witness it. Doors, on the other hand, work in both situations, which makes them slightly better, IMO.
Yeah, but the Impression limitation makes it so engh for a MU*.
I generally stick to the old "Roll Manipulation + Persuasion" method, myself.
Yeah, that's why I suggested the change to Impression. Currently, Hostile works like what @Miss-Demeanor says, which is pretty lame when you have a whole spectrum of 'friendly' impressions but only one 'unfriendly' impression, and anything below neutral prevents rolling. You should be able to convince more than just your friends to do things, and while leverage has its place, it's a limited system. It's why I would include Uneasy and Unfriendly, and have Hostile be just for when there is actual violence or some other real, tangible harm going down, since at that point all negotiation has failed.
@Pyrephox said:
With reputation and status, I feel like one thing we need to do more of is incentive BOTH ends of the scale. Everyone wants to have high rep and status because you /get stuff/ by doing so, and no one wants to be shut out of potential RP or plot because their character has low status or rep. So of course, there's a race for the top, and of course people get upset when their characters lose rep, because now those characters are objectively less effective and connected than before. Which means less RP for the PC.
But I think if we offered appropriate incentives for having both high OR low status/rep, then people would be more willing to take the hits. Like, there should definitely be events tied to and benefits for having a low or negative rep, to make it fun for those players to play that, and give some compensation for not having the bennies of high status and rep. Whether it's having targeted RP where enemy factions try to recruit you, or events where there's a Status ceiling of people allowed to join (the police commissioner should not be investigating the gritty street crime), or high risk/high reward plots that require a bit of "plausible deniability".
Yes. I think a reputation system where there are appropriate benefits for being low rep would be really cool.
@Derp I will be happy to be part of the solution, when the solution doesn't require me to sit around for HOURS AT A TIME, while YOU get to do things and I wait on you to be done. See, that whole 'roleplaying' thing? I kind of want to do the PLAYING part of it. Not the 'sitting around whilst Other Player rolls 2 dozen times, having to pause between each roll to check for the next step or figure out what is the next best move'. Its the equivalent of having 2 people get into a combat and then having one person sit around constantly waiting for the other person to decide what type of attack they want to use. I won't do the latter any more than I would the former, so why should I be forced into doing the former? Where's the fun in it? But then, I never bitched about the previous social rules of using 1-2 contested rolls determine the outcome. I rather liked it that way. It was efficient and got people back to the RP that the hobby is supposed to be about.
You want to play with Doors, throw it into a job and let me know when you're done. I'll be over there, having an actual scene with actual posing.
Besides, from what I can tell, it would take someone with low social stats and/or horrible luck rolling to actually -lose- a social contest. Much like with nwod physical combat, it seems weighted on the side of the 'attacker' with the 'defender' simply sitting there being worn down by a barrage of verbal assaults until they either give in completely or do the offer an alternative thing. I have yet to see anything set in the rules for the target to actually fight back, verbally speaking.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Besides, from what I can tell, it would take someone with low social stats and/or horrible luck rolling to actually -lose- a social contest. Much like with nwod physical combat, it seems weighted on the side of the 'attacker' with the 'defender' simply sitting there being worn down by a barrage of verbal assaults until they either give in completely or do the offer an alternative thing. I have yet to see anything set in the rules for the target to actually fight back, verbally speaking.
Lots of people think this, and I'm really not sure where it comes from. Rolls can be contested, and you still have a limited number of rolls, etc, and modifiers for things can still be assigned.
Aside from that, you of course have the option of trying to convince the other person to do something at the same time. The 'Defender' isn't a passive actor. They're only a defender against a specific roll. They can just as easily be the 'attacker' on the next roll, and if leverage and such are used creatively, you can even have one person capable of making quicker rolls, or having fewer doors than the other, etc. It's chess, not darts.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Besides, from what I can tell, it would take someone with low social stats and/or horrible luck rolling to actually -lose- a social contest. Much like with nwod physical combat, it seems weighted on the side of the 'attacker' with the 'defender' simply sitting there being worn down by a barrage of verbal assaults until they either give in completely or do the offer an alternative thing. I have yet to see anything set in the rules for the target to actually fight back, verbally speaking.
Keeping in mind that I generally prefer to keep the Doors system for use versus NPCs...
There is absolutely nothing barring you from countering with your own Social Maneuver, really. For example, if Pushy McCreepy is insisting you sleep with him with a Doors roll, you could counter with your own Social Maneuver in which you attempt to intimidate him into running like a little bitch.
Fair enough... but twice as bad. It really is just like combat now. Everything will take forever to resolve. Its bad enough combat takes forever to resolve, now going to hang out at the local bar can take just as long with less actual posing. Just agreeing to the whatever and avoiding the whole boring mess is looking more and more enticing as an option.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Fair enough... but twice as bad. It really is just like combat now. Everything will take forever to resolve. Its bad enough combat takes forever to resolve, now going to hang out at the local bar can take just as long with less actual posing. Just agreeing to the whatever and avoiding the whole boring mess is looking more and more enticing as an option.
Well, I get the feeling you're equating "one roll, one pose", when it doesn't really work that way. If someone's impression only lets them make one roll an hour to seduce you, then they can roll, open one of your doors, and before an hour has passed, you pose leaving. You can--and should--interact between rolls. And if the person does or says something after a roll that would totally turn your character off, you inform them of such and suggest, "I think this would ad a door," or "I think this would reduce my Impression".
If you can only make one roll a week... well, that's only good for when you're working someone long-term, and hopefully to improve the Impression.
I don't know why you insist that you just sit there while someone else rolls. That isn't ever how I would play it, run it, or interpret it.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@Coin I'm on a different boat than @Miss-Demeanor although we're headed in the same general direction. When it comes to social rolls my problem is that what gets rolled sometimes doesn't match what's posed.
For example a manipulation roll followed by saying something dumb and transparent - it's harder to go with it than say, someone who rolls brawl then poses a crappy one line about tossing a punch.
You can only screw up physical actions so much, you know? But some of the vampires playing politics I've seen... man, all those aeons of unlife and you didn't pick up any subtlety?
@Arkandel said:
@Coin I'm on a different boat than @Miss-Demeanor although we're headed in the same general direction. When it comes to social rolls my problem is that what gets rolled sometimes doesn't match what's posed.
For example a manipulation roll followed by saying something dumb and transparent - it's harder to go with it than say, someone who rolls brawl then poses a crappy one line about tossing a punch.
You can only screw up physical actions so much, you know? But some of the vampires playing politics I've seen... man, all those aeons of unlife and you didn't pick up any subtlety?
There are only two solutions to your problem:
Some people are just bad at it, man. And no amount of you explaining it to them will get them to understand that their pose isn't conveying the emotion you think their roll would.
On the flipside, this is sometimes very subjective. One person might find a pose terrifying while another might sort of yawn a little and be all "whatever". Sometimes you have to accept that the limitations of person's ability to write shouldn't dictate your reaction to what's written. Alternatively, if they are doing things you think their rolls don't support (or that don't support their rolls) you can suggest, kindly, that they try something else.
If they don't agree/can't take the suggestion, then... well... welcome to roleplaying.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
See, and I hate the Doors thing GMC introduced. Hate. It. I would rather completely fuck over my character by having them immediately and unequivocally agree to whatever the Social Mogul wants than be subjected to the torture of the GMC Social system.
Why do you hate it?
As described, it seems like a good system for an ST to employ to coerce NPCs. Which is what I think it was calculated to do.
