Influence/Reputation system?

[Pyrephox]

@Coin said:

@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.

Agreed with this. The Doors system is not meant for social manevuers that take place in one scene, /generally/, unless the impression is great. It's meant to represent the work put in over days and repeated interactions in swaying someone to your point of view via favors and currying goodwill. A typical PC vs. PC Doors interaction should really be something along the lines of:

Player A: My PC wants to persuade you to vote for him in the next election.
Player B: Hmm. Well, my PC doesn't have much of a stake in it one way or the other, so I'd set the Impression at Neutral and the number of Doors is 3 for her.
Player A: Hmm...what if my PC invites yours out to a fancy restaurant to talk about his run for office - on his tab, of course! (Soft leverage!)
Player B: ...well, one of my PC's Aspirations IS to make a favorable impression on some of the local social scene, so we could run a scene with going out to Fancy Restaurant X, and if it goes well, my PC would be favorably inclined to yours. (Impression goes up!)
Player A&B scene the scene, during which, Player A has their character roll Presence + Socialize to ensure that the couple make a favorable impression on the local socialites, then Manipulation + Politics to introduce Player B's PC to the office PC A is running for, and some of the reasons it would be important to have a Good Person in that office. Player B agrees that this opens one of PC B's Doors.
Player A&B split up, go out and play other scenes - maybe Player B is approached by another contender for the office, and when Player A comes back, Player B says, "Hey, my character has been talking to PC Rival, and has a different perspective on the vote, now. You won't be able to use Politics again to sway them further."
Player A: Damn. Umm...hmm, okay. My PC is gonna use Wits+Investigation to see if there's any favors your PC needs done that he can fulfill. If he's successful, he'll drop by and casually mention that he can solve that for her because he's well-connected and concerned about people's well-being (and therefore she should vote for him!)
Player B: Hmm. Yeah, sure. That'll open a door. Roll it.
Player A rolls Wits+Investigation, fails.
Player A: WOE.
Player B: Sorry - you just don't have the right connections to fulfill any of PC B's needs right now.
Player A: Okay, okay. Time for the big guns, then. He figures she's pretty concerned with her status in the community, so he's going to use Presence + Persuasion to get the Ladies Who Lunch to invite her out for one of their hoity-toity lunches.
Player B: ...hell, you manage that, and I'll give you two doors, since it directly plays into PC B's vice of Easily Flattered by Rich People.
Player A: rolls successfully! Okay, so you want to play a scene where he introduces them and she is shamelessly flattered by rich old ladies with too much time on their hands?
Player B: Hells yeah. And your PC has her vote!

I.e. it should be a conversation and a back and forth dynamic, with the players talking and working out what is going to have a chance to sway a character one way or the other. If Player B is a passive recipient, then someone is playing it wrong.

[Tempest]

If only those conversations ever went like that.

Even if the first part did go smoothly like that, I'm pretty sure things would blow up around 'my pc talked to other dude and negated your rolls/whatever in our previous scene!'

[Coin]

And, to add to @Pyrephox's example, there's no reason why things can't happen in the scene that change it. Maybe there's a tense moment of sexual interplay that leads to a steamy night--how does that influence whether or not you'll vote for them?

Honestly, the problem is:

1. People who want something out of people who have no interest in giving it, regardless of how important it is or not (such as Player A randomly deciding they want to either scare the hell out of, or super-seduce, Player B, and whether they can or not having no effect on the story whatsoever);
2. People who engage every social contest as if it were actually a competition. It's not, it's cooperative.
3. people who get super butthurt when shit doesn't go their way.

[Pyrephox]

@Tempest said:

If only those conversations ever went like that.

Even if the first part did go smoothly like that, I'm pretty sure things would blow up around 'my pc talked to other dude and negated your rolls/whatever in our previous scene!'

Except that it didn't negate the roll. Mechanics-wise, what probably happened was Rival PC opened a Door for the PC B, and how Player B decided to reflect it was "Hey, you can't use the same skill again." The previous Door was still opened, and PC A didn't lose ANY progress.

[Coin]

@Pyrephox said:

@Tempest said:

If only those conversations ever went like that.

Even if the first part did go smoothly like that, I'm pretty sure things would blow up around 'my pc talked to other dude and negated your rolls/whatever in our previous scene!'

Except that it didn't negate the roll. Mechanics-wise, what probably happened was Rival PC opened a Door for the PC B, and how Player B decided to reflect it was "Hey, you can't use the same skill again." The previous Door was still opened, and PC A didn't lose ANY progress.

Right. You only lose progress if the other person manages to beat you to the finish line, essentially.

[lordbelh]

While it is possible to do what @Coin says and just counter-play with equal aggression, in which case two opposite social actions are running forward that may or may not be mutually exclusive, the fact is that the Doors system is based around PCs working on NPCs with the ST setting the limits for what can be done. Apply it to PVP situations and the whole game is rigged in favor of the aggressor. The aggressor will always win eventually, and the only thing that's in doubt is how long it will take and how many resources you're willing to expend to get there. Which makes it rubbish both for cooperative RP and for PVP. Its basically rubbish. They even warn against using it vs PCs in the damn book.

I remember the last time we all had this discussion. @Derp was wrong then, too.

[Coin]

@lordbelh See my bold-italic disclaimer a few posts back.

[Derp]

@lordbelh said:

While it is possible to do what @Coin says and just counter-play with equal aggression, in which case two opposite social actions are running forward that may or may not be mutually exclusive, the fact is that the Doors system is based around PCs working on NPCs with the ST setting the limits for what can be done. Apply it to PVP situations and the whole game is rigged in favor of the aggressor. The aggressor will always win eventually, and the only thing that's in doubt is how long it will take and how many resources you're willing to expend to get there. Which makes it rubbish both for cooperative RP and for PVP. Its basically rubbish. They even warn against using it vs PCs in the damn book.

I remember the last time we all had this discussion. @Derp was wrong then, too.

Except that in this case, it's actually you that's wrong, since you have a limited number of rolls in which to try and get to your goal. You can't keep going about it indefinitely. It, like any other extended action, has a cap, a maximum number of rolls before the goal you wish to reach becomes impossible. If you're close, you can retry, though.

Another important point is that, again, the Core GMC book does not exclude the system being used on PC's, and in general, if you're at a tabletop game, it can be assumed that most of the time you are part of a team with said PC's and working toward the same, or at least similar, goals over a much shorter term than a MUSH. The only real difference between NPCs and PCs on a Mush is how often they appear on the screen, and who ends up controlling them.

[Pyrephox]

@Coin said:

And, to add to @Pyrephox's example, there's no reason why things can't happen in the scene that change it. Maybe there's a tense moment of sexual interplay that leads to a steamy night--how does that influence whether or not you'll vote for them?

Honestly, the problem is:

1. People who want something out of people who have no interest in giving it, regardless of how important it is or not (such as Player A randomly deciding they want to either scare the hell out of, or super-seduce, Player B, and whether they can or not having no effect on the story whatsoever);
2. People who engage every social contest as if it were actually a competition. It's not, it's cooperative.
3. people who get super butthurt when shit doesn't go their way.

Yeah.

It's worth noting that the Doors system incentivizes letting yourself be socially manipulated (you can get Beats from someone helping you meet your Aspirations or accepting a negative Condition, and recover WP from meeting your Vices, or Virtues), and explicitly encourages the target to negotiate what the effect of a loss is. In the case of that 'I want to seduce you', the target is entirely justified in saying, "Yeah, my PC isn't going to sleep with you, dude. But he's Swooning, so if you want to persuade him into anything /else/, then he'll go along with it despite his better judgement (and I get a sweet, sweet Beat for resolving that condition)."

None of which will stop someone who isn't playing in good faith from abusing the system. But I've yet to see a system that DOES stand up to someone not playing in good faith. One of the big issues with social systems on WoD MU*s is that we let far too many people get away with playing in bad faith in this particular subsystem.

[surreality]

@Pyrephox said:

None of which will stop someone who isn't playing in good faith from abusing the system. But I've yet to see a system that DOES stand up to someone not playing in good faith. One of the big issues with social systems on WoD MU*s is that we let far too many people get away with playing in bad faith in this particular subsystem.

This is essentially the problem in a nutshell. There are plenty of people who have zero qualms about playing in completely bad faith.

@Derp said:

if you're at a tabletop game, it can be assumed that most of the time you are part of a team with said PC's and working toward the same, or at least similar, goals over a much shorter term than a MUSH. The only real difference between NPCs and PCs on a Mush is how often they appear on the screen, and who ends up controlling them.

This difference is an enormous one with myriad complications that would definitely need to be addressed.

[Pyrephox]

@surreality said:

@Pyrephox said:

None of which will stop someone who isn't playing in good faith from abusing the system. But I've yet to see a system that DOES stand up to someone not playing in good faith. One of the big issues with social systems on WoD MU*s is that we let far too many people get away with playing in bad faith in this particular subsystem.

This is essentially the problem in a nutshell. There are plenty of people who have zero qualms about playing in completely bad faith.

This, and...well, there are a lot of people playing WoD games who don't know the rules. Or who KNEW the rules when they were oWoD, and are still trying to play by those rules in GMC. More than a few of them are staff, who then enshrine their erroneous knowledge as house rules (often trying to fix something that didn't need fixing), which then gets internalized by other players as the way the rules are, when they aren't.

See all the many, many people who complained about 1st Ed nWoD social rules being "one roll and they get to tell me what to do".

[Arkandel]

@Pyrephox said:
None of which will stop someone who isn't playing in good faith from abusing the system.

No system can fix people who intend to abuse it, it's the combined role of administration and other players to keep such checks and balances.

What systems can aim for is to not encourage - or even force - players to do so by getting in the way of playing the game.

[lordbelh]

@Derp said:

Except that in this case, it's actually you that's wrong, since you have a limited number of rolls in which to try and get to your goal. You can't keep going about it indefinitely. It, like any other extended action, has a cap, a maximum number of rolls before the goal you wish to reach becomes impossible. If you're close, you can retry, though.

Another important point is that, again, the Core GMC book does not exclude the system being used on PC's, and in general, if you're at a tabletop game, it can be assumed that most of the time you are part of a team with said PC's and working toward the same, or at least similar, goals over a much shorter term than a MUSH. The only real difference between NPCs and PCs on a Mush is how often they appear on the screen, and who ends up controlling them.

No, it doesn't say you can't use it, it just says you shouldn't.

When the target amount of Doors are so low (which can in turn just be augmented by merits to be even more negligible) , I stand by my statement that it's just a matter of time and effort. If you want to succeed you will succeed.

[Derp]

@lordbelh said:

@Derp said:

Except that in this case, it's actually you that's wrong, since you have a limited number of rolls in which to try and get to your goal. You can't keep going about it indefinitely. It, like any other extended action, has a cap, a maximum number of rolls before the goal you wish to reach becomes impossible. If you're close, you can retry, though.

Another important point is that, again, the Core GMC book does not exclude the system being used on PC's, and in general, if you're at a tabletop game, it can be assumed that most of the time you are part of a team with said PC's and working toward the same, or at least similar, goals over a much shorter term than a MUSH. The only real difference between NPCs and PCs on a Mush is how often they appear on the screen, and who ends up controlling them.

No, it doesn't say you can't use it, it just says you shouldn't.

When the target amount of Doors are so low (which can in turn just be augmented by merits to be even more negligible) , I stand by my statement that it's just a matter of time and effort. If you want to succeed you will succeed.

They can fluctuate, too, and even be assigned according to inherent difficulty. I see your point, sort of, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees, and are just looking for a reason to dislike a system you've decided you don't like.

Which I'll admit, I kind of find weird. We have all these discussions about how we need a system to represent clout and influence and ability to get things done that can't get ignored, and then people bitch that the system built into at least one of the games is too hard to ignore and they can't just arbitrarily decide to do whatever they wanna.

If the ideal system is one in which people can't ignore your stuff, but you can ignore all their stuff, then there is no such system that can be.

[Coin]

@lordbelh, @Derp, you've had this exact argument before. Like, the exact same back and forth, order-of-words notwithstanding.

Deja vu, mother fuckers.

[Derp]

@Coin

Oh, I'm aware. That doesn't change the fact that it's -a- solution to the problem that this thread is supposed to be discussing, even if some people don't like it. It's paradoxical. I just don't get it. 'We need a thing that can't just be ignored and gives game benefits, and there is a thing, but that thing sucks and we hate it because even negotiation doesn't allow enough gray area and wiggle room'.

There exists a system already, for one of the games. Use the thing that is there. What is this other mythical epic system that lets things be both ignored and not ignored?

[Coin]

@Derp said:

@Coin

Oh, I'm aware. That doesn't change the fact that it's -a- solution to the problem that this thread is supposed to be discussing, even if some people don't like it. It's paradoxical. I just don't get it. 'We need a thing that can't just be ignored and gives game benefits, and there is a thing, but that thing sucks and we hate it because even negotiation doesn't allow enough gray area and wiggle room'.

There exists a system already, for one of the games. Use the thing that is there. What is this other mythical epic system that lets things be both ignored and not ignored?

Well, the system isn't good enough/adequate in the opinion of some people, while for others it is. What's the to get? That some people have differing opinions? That's just kind of life, man!

[ThatGuyThere]

@Pyrephox
that would be an awesome way of social mechanics that I would support and would be really fun.
Sadly it is an example I have seen nothing close to ever in my history of mushing.
I have had scenes where social mechanics have been used without drama where both players works out what the different result would be before rolling then we rolled and played it out and fun was had by all even the loser but never anything close to that extended interaction. And sadly enough even the one scene uses without drama are rarer then hens teeth.
Edit to Add: It should be noted that physical conflicts between pcs are just as prone to be drama bombs.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Derp I will note that I did not and do not question Status as a way to represent influence in social situations. So the 'thing' that was originally asked for DOES exist... but some people ignore it anyways. Much like they do with nearly all social and/or mental types of manipulation or domination. You can't get away from it. The people that are going to scream and cry and swear on a stack of holy books that their character "SO wouldn't do that" are still going to scream and cry and swear regardless of any system that's put into place. You can't change the players. The question is moot because until people stop being so anal about having their characters manipulated or dominated, the problem will persist.

So no, GMC's social rules isn't an 'answer' to the problem. Because the problem isn't a rules problem, its a people problem. I hate the GMC social rules, so yes, I will gladly take the Go With the Flow option right off the bat, take my Beat, and be on my merry. But it has nothing to do with me wanting to ignore the social rules in place. That's my way of not having to draw out something that I find to be tedious, boring, and entirely unnecessary.

The long and short of it is that there is no fix to this problem. You can't make people not be people, and the people that ignored it then will ignore it now. Doesn't mean the system in place doesn't suck.

[Pyrephox]

@Miss-Demeanor said:

@Derp I will note that I did not and do not question Status as a way to represent influence in social situations. So the 'thing' that was originally asked for DOES exist... but some people ignore it anyways. Much like they do with nearly all social and/or mental types of manipulation or domination. You can't get away from it. The people that are going to scream and cry and swear on a stack of holy books that their character "SO wouldn't do that" are still going to scream and cry and swear regardless of any system that's put into place. You can't change the players. The question is moot because until people stop being so anal about having their characters manipulated or dominated, the problem will persist.

So no, GMC's social rules isn't an 'answer' to the problem. Because the problem isn't a rules problem, its a people problem. I hate the GMC social rules, so yes, I will gladly take the Go With the Flow option right off the bat, take my Beat, and be on my merry. But it has nothing to do with me wanting to ignore the social rules in place. That's my way of not having to draw out something that I find to be tedious, boring, and entirely unnecessary.

The long and short of it is that there is no fix to this problem. You can't make people not be people, and the people that ignored it then will ignore it now. Doesn't mean the system in place doesn't suck.

While I agree that it's a people problem more than a system problem, I think that it's a CULTURE problem. People throw shit fits over it because, honestly, we all allow them to get away with throwing shit fits over it, and would rather say, "Oh, well, we just won't have rules then/the rules are entirely optional (screwing the players who choose to buy social skills/abilities)" than say what we need to say, which is, "These are the rules this game is using. You have a choice of learning and using the rules, or playing a different game."

Much the same way we would if people started throwing shit fits about not wanting to take damage in combat.