Influence/Reputation system?

[Lithium]

@lordbelh

I also thought they were for npc's, sort of like the instagib of Gauru being only for NPC's I could and probably am wrong though.

[surreality]

@lordbelh said:

@Derp The Beaten Down and Surrender mechanics are optional, though.

...just like social vs. PCs is, yes.

And in both cases it's for a reason.

[Derp]

@Lithium said:

@lordbelh

I also thought they were for npc's, sort of like the instagib of Gauru being only for NPC's I could and probably am wrong though.

The gauru mechanics are not optional, no, nor are they only for NPCs. Eldritch has HR'd them to be so. Down and Dirty doesn't apply to PC's via House Rule, not because of any actual mechanics. Even against other werewolves, you negate any athletics or other skill-based bonus to their defense. Beaten down, while considered optional, are optional in such a way as the ST can choose to ignore them, as they are 'on' by default. Most places, that I'm aware of, currently use them. They don't apply to most Supernaturals, though, so I can see where it might create confusion.

[surreality]

@Derp said:

@Lithium said:

@lordbelh

I also thought they were for npc's, sort of like the instagib of Gauru being only for NPC's I could and probably am wrong though.

The gauru mechanics are not optional, no, nor are they only for NPCs. Eldritch has HR'd them to be so. Down and Dirty doesn't apply to PC's via House Rule, not because of any actual mechanics. Even against other werewolves, you negate any athletics or other skill-based bonus to their defense. Beaten down, while considered optional, are optional in such a way as the ST can choose to ignore them, as they are 'on' by default. Most places, that I'm aware of, currently use them. They don't apply to most Supernaturals, though, so I can see where it might create confusion.

This is a little disingenuous, though, because the whole Down and Dirty mechanic is optional for use on anyone. It's not the actual standard, no options, combat system.

[Derp]

@surreality said:

@Derp said:

@Lithium said:

@lordbelh

I also thought they were for npc's, sort of like the instagib of Gauru being only for NPC's I could and probably am wrong though.

The gauru mechanics are not optional, no, nor are they only for NPCs. Eldritch has HR'd them to be so. Down and Dirty doesn't apply to PC's via House Rule, not because of any actual mechanics. Even against other werewolves, you negate any athletics or other skill-based bonus to their defense. Beaten down, while considered optional, are optional in such a way as the ST can choose to ignore them, as they are 'on' by default. Most places, that I'm aware of, currently use them. They don't apply to most Supernaturals, though, so I can see where it might create confusion.

This is a little disingenuous, though, because the whole Down and Dirty mechanic is optional for use on anyone. It's not the actual standard, no options, combat system.

It's really not. Down and Dirty is not an optional system. Hell, Beaten Down in WtF is not an optional system. Go look at pg 165. Neither of those systems are stated as optional. They're simply under Combat.

Not only is it not optional, it's an explicit facet of the gauru mechanics.

WTF2 p 97

Primal Fear: Gauru force all lesser enemies — including most humans, spirits of lower Rank, and non-supernatural animals — to use Down and Dirty combat (see p. 165). If the prey hides in a group of more powerful enemies, resolve the combat as normal. In normal combat, opponents count only their Dexterity or Wits to their Defense; they may not add the appropriate Skill (normally Athletics).

[surreality]

@p. 165

If that’s the case, the Storyteller can opt to use a Down and Dirty Combat.

I rest my case. It is not the standard combat system. Corner cases don't change that.

[Derp]

@surreality said:

@p. 165

If that’s the case, the Storyteller can opt to use a Down and Dirty Combat.

I rest my case. It is not the standard combat system. Corner cases don't change that.

Except that, again, this is a default mechanic of gauru form. It's not an optional system for use in that shape. Outside of gauru a storyteller can also choose to use it, but in gauru, it's the way things go down.

So I see your point, but it's really sort of moot. And since the entire discussion rests on finding a way to choose in-game systems of influence, etc, and we've been talking about one that is, in particular, already built into the system, I'm not sure that your points are entirely relevant to the discussion at hand, as you seem to be arguing 'don't use one' instead of 'which to use', like the OP asks.

[surreality]

@Derp said:

@surreality said:

@p. 165

If that’s the case, the Storyteller can opt to use a Down and Dirty Combat.

I rest my case. It is not the standard combat system. Corner cases don't change that.

Except that, again, this is a default mechanic of gauru form. It's not an optional system for use in that shape. Outside of gauru a storyteller can also choose to use it, but in gauru, it's the way things go down.

So I see your point, but it's really sort of moot. And since the entire discussion rests on finding a way to choose in-game systems of influence, etc, and we've been talking about one that is, in particular, already built into the system, I'm not sure that your points are entirely relevant to the discussion at hand, as you seem to be arguing 'don't use one' instead of 'which to use', like the OP asks.

I'm saying there's not parity between the combat system and the social system -- which is, in fact, relevant, as it refutes the 'but but but but but combat!' whining bullshit.

I play predominantly social characters so I feel the sting, too, but jesus.

Edit: Gauru combat, again, is a corner case and exceptional mechanic. It isn't too far off from how disciplines have similar effects to social maneuvering (and often much faster or more intense) without an optional rule involved.

[Derp]

@surreality said:

I'm saying there's not parity between the combat system and the social system -- which is, in fact, relevant, as it refutes the 'but but but but but combat!' whining bullshit.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. But anyway, back to the topic of choosing systems to use -- if not Doors, then what would you suggest?

[surreality]

Frankly, I'm letting people set a wiki-visible opt-in for it. So the people who wish to use it can, and the people who don't, don't. Which is a lot fucking farther than most games are presently going with it.

That's a real option with 'optional': let the players decide for themselves, and those who won't enjoy it aren't dealing with it, and those who are down with it, they can enjoy themselves without the thing they want to do -- from either side of the coin since some players are totally cool with being targets of this -- being removed from play entirely.

Since it's wiki-side, if someone wanks out and changes their setting the moment it could potentially apply to them as a target, that is visible to abso-fucking-lutely everyone through the wiki log -- with what content changed and a timestamp for when it happened. They can then be handled accordingly.

[Derp]

@surreality said:

Frankly, I'm letting people set a wiki-visible opt-in for it. So the people who wish to use it can, and the people who don't, don't. Which is a lot fucking farther than most games are presently going with it.

That's a real option with 'optional': let the players decide for themselves, and those who won't enjoy it aren't dealing with it, and those who are down with it, they can enjoy themselves without the thing they want to do -- from either side of the coin since some players are totally cool with being targets of this -- being removed from play entirely.

Since it's wiki-side, if someone wanks out and changes their setting the moment it could potentially apply to them as a target, that is visible to abso-fucking-lutely everyone through the wiki log -- with what content changed and a timestamp for when it happened. They can then be handled accordingly.

Hmmmm. It's not a terrible idea, though I'm not sure that I agree with it. I'm not entirely sure that allowing immunity to an otherwise universal system is really a good solution. Sometimes, there are people who you're going to need to affect, with stats, and if they just decide that they don't wanna deal with that, they can ignore a third of the character sheet. Not what I would consider an ideal solution.

However, it's a start, and a good idea. I think that I'd alter it to be somewhat universal, with players able to set a list of things on their wiki that are 'impossible' and will automatically result in finding some meaningful alternative, that way there is clearly something up and there are no surprises on that end. They'll always have the option to take it to negotiation, naturally, as the system allows, but it at least gives a clear idea of 'nope, not interested, not gonna happen' for specific things.

[Lithium]

@Derp said:

@Lithium said:

@lordbelh

I also thought they were for npc's, sort of like the instagib of Gauru being only for NPC's I could and probably am wrong though.

The gauru mechanics are not optional, no, nor are they only for NPCs. Eldritch has HR'd them to be so. Down and Dirty doesn't apply to PC's via House Rule, not because of any actual mechanics. Even against other werewolves, you negate any athletics or other skill-based bonus to their defense. Beaten down, while considered optional, are optional in such a way as the ST can choose to ignore them, as they are 'on' by default. Most places, that I'm aware of, currently use them. They don't apply to most Supernaturals, though, so I can see where it might create confusion.

Not applying to supernatural's is what I meant (For beaten down). And by instagib, I mean that really unless it's a bad ass spirit, most npc's are plain jane mortal and are instantly erased by Gauru.

[surreality]

@Derp said:

allowing immunity to an otherwise universal system

Except that it's not a universal system the game is going to adopt, period.

It is, as the books state with progressively strong emphasis, is not for PvP use and is not recommended for it.

If someone comes up with something else that's reasonable as a universal, that's something worth considering. But the system the creators themselves recommend against for PvP and deem 'optional' and not recommended? Yeah, that's going to be opt-in only and the people who twink around with opting-in and immediately hide behind the opt-in consent factor are going to get hammered hard. (Because that's cheatin' bullshit.)

The only difference really here is that instead of opting-in game-wide, the players who are cool with this are able to do that and use their stuff, and the players who are against it and agree with the not recommended factor are not dealing with it. They may have to deal with something else -- but it won't be that.

However, it's a start, and a good idea. I think that I'd alter it to be somewhat universal, with players able to set a list of things on their wiki that are 'impossible' and will automatically result in finding some meaningful alternative, that way there is clearly something up and there are no surprises on that end. They'll always have the option to take it to negotiation, naturally, as the system allows, but it at least gives a clear idea of 'nope, not interested, not gonna happen' for specific things.

While I'm not keen on the idea of universal, the 'nope' list is a very good idea and that can be implemented fairly easily. I can fold that into the pc page template. There's a generalized preferences system set up already in which players can state a lot of the things that are 'this is completely not fun for me, please don't' that other players can peruse to avoid potential pitfalls -- or volunteer to be a target of other things, etc. It is much better, in my estimation, to allow players to state their preferences about a number of potentially controversial subjects and let them decide for themselves about going there, with the 'most people are not dicks' principle firmly in mind. (The 'most people are not dicks' principle: most people are not dicks, and will not try to go places the other player has made clear are uncool, if they know this, and there are alternative options.) The opt-in is on that list, along with a lot of other things some games just ban outright rather than ever having to deal with, since it allows the people who are interested to find each other and have their fun in peace, and the people who wish to avoid it to say so in a non-confrontational manner, etc. There's nothing binding in there unless it says as much, which only applies to the things usually straight up banned (rape-related subjects, system-level opt-ins) but it operates on the same general premise: people are not dicks, and would rather have fun with people who share the same idea of fun than inflict shit on people who want nothing to do with any particular subject.

[Derp]

@surreality said:

@Derp said:

allowing immunity to an otherwise universal system

Except that it's not a universal system the game is going to adopt, period.

It is, as the books state with progressively strong emphasis, is not for PvP use and is not recommended for it.

If someone comes up with something else that's reasonable as a universal, that's something worth considering. But the system the creators themselves recommend against for PvP and deem 'optional' and not recommended? Yeah, that's going to be opt-in only and the people who twink around with opting-in and immediately hide behind the opt-in consent factor are going to get hammered hard. (Because that's cheatin' bullshit.)

The only difference really here is that instead of opting-in game-wide, the players who are cool with this are able to do that and use their stuff, and the players who are against it and agree with the not recommended factor are not dealing with it. They may have to deal with something else -- but it won't be that.

However, it's a start, and a good idea. I think that I'd alter it to be somewhat universal, with players able to set a list of things on their wiki that are 'impossible' and will automatically result in finding some meaningful alternative, that way there is clearly something up and there are no surprises on that end. They'll always have the option to take it to negotiation, naturally, as the system allows, but it at least gives a clear idea of 'nope, not interested, not gonna happen' for specific things.

While I'm not keen on the idea of universal, the 'nope' list is a very good idea and that can be implemented fairly easily. I can fold that into the pc page template. There's a generalized preferences system set up already in which players can state a lot of the things that are 'this is completely not fun for me, please don't' that other players can peruse to avoid potential pitfalls -- or volunteer to be a target of other things, etc. It is much better, in my estimation, to allow players to state their preferences about a number of potentially controversial subjects and let them decide for themselves about going there, with the 'most people are not dicks' principle firmly in mind. (The 'most people are not dicks' principle: most people are not dicks, and will not try to go places the other player has made clear are uncool, if they know this, and there are alternative options.) The opt-in is on that list, along with a lot of other things some games just ban outright rather than ever having to deal with, since it allows the people who are interested to find each other and have their fun in peace, and the people who wish to avoid it to say so in a non-confrontational manner, etc. There's nothing binding in there unless it says as much, which only applies to the things usually straight up banned (rape-related subjects, system-level opt-ins) but it operates on the same general premise: people are not dicks, and would rather have fun with people who share the same idea of fun than inflict shit on people who want nothing to do with any particular subject.

Which is all cool, but this still doesn't address the original point of this thread, which is discussion of a universal system of influence regarding social stats. Because they are game stats like any other, and should have weight, especially when it comes to influencing actions.

The long and short of it is that unless and until you remove any and all requirement for social stats (i.e., you take them out of the system completely and require no xp to ever be spent on them) then you can't truly have a fair way of resolution if you allow it to be a freeform 'whatever the player feels like' sort of system. And so, the necessity of a universal path of resolution.

So while universality might not be your bag, it's the part of the system being address right now, and should be largely the focus. So, what sort of universal system would you be comfortable with that still reflects the fact that they are xp-bought stats?

[surreality]

You can stop dismissing relevant points any time now, and hiding it behind 'focusing the discussion'. It's more than a little condescending since I don't see any solutions posited by you other than "give me my way" and a lot of strawmen and denial.

This is more of a policy issue and culture issue than it is a rules issue, and it always has been. If we saw timestops called to resolve these situations like we do combats -- which may happen but I've never seen it -- I suspect we'd see less twinking in either direction.

From the way you're talking in this thread, it's pretty clear you have some issues with respecting others in the broad sense, so frankly... I'm not surprised you've met with resistance if you've approached people on games the way you've been talking to me. I sure as shit would not want to play with you, because you're behaving like a bully. That would be part of the cultural issue. If you can't discuss the issue respectfully with an ear to the concerns of others, no fucking way would I trust you further than I could throw a piano in an actual OOC negotiation around a contentious proposal in game. You have to respect other players for that shit to actually work.

[SparklesTheClown]

From what I've seen, since I assume we're talking about WoD, there's nothing inherently wrong with social combat rules. In MU*s, it's treated as optional just like regular combat is. People freeform when they feel comfortable freeforming.

If you want to solve the problem of twinking as far as people avoiding social combat when it's convenient to avoid it, then make it not optional, and regular combat too. Simply say "We are not a freeform game, dice rolls are used for combat and social combat".

Make sure that there are thorough idiot-proof explanations for how social combat works. Don't try to get too fancy with your house rules, just try to thoroughly explain. "This is/isn't mind control. As a guideline, the following things are the following difficulty", etc.

People need to understand the limitations of what social combat can do. They need to understand what it means in the context of their character. And they need to understand that it's something that is used on your game. A lot of people seem to have a problem with social combat because they want an extremely high measure of control of their character in relation to other people's characters.

A lot of people aren't cool with social combat (where dice are involved), because if they fail a roll they think, "Well, my character was outsmarted, but my character would never be outsmarted by this!"

Making social combat mandatory means attempting to create a culture that does not yet actually exist. People within that culture will be from this current one. Some will like it, some won't, or maybe it'll fail entirely. That's the risk you run with trying new things. You can't make everyone happy, you have to find a vision and run with it.

There is no social combat, like, ever, anywhere, that exists, period, that people will magically be alright with. The problem is not the system, but the culture. So, you can address the culture by making it mandatory, clearly explained, and seeing what happens, or you can go in infinite circles wondering "What's wrong with social combat?"

[Derp]

@surreality said:

You can stop dismissing relevant points any time now, and hiding it behind 'focusing the discussion'. It's more than a little condescending since I don't see any solutions posited by you other than "give me my way" and a lot of strawmen and denial.

This is more of a policy issue and culture issue than it is a rules issue, and it always has been. If we saw timestops called to resolve these situations like we do combats -- which may happen but I've never seen it -- I suspect we'd see less twinking in either direction.

From the way you're talking in this thread, it's pretty clear you have some issues with respecting others in the broad sense, so frankly... I'm not surprised you've met with resistance if you've approached people on games the way you've been talking to me. I sure as shit would not want to play with you, because you're behaving like a bully. That would be part of the cultural issue. If you can't discuss the issue respectfully with an ear to the concerns of others, no fucking way would I trust you further than I could throw a piano in an actual OOC negotiation around a contentious proposal in game. You have to respect other players for that shit to actually work.

I'm not dismissing relevant points. I'm stating that the OP asked for a system they could use in-game to help resolve these things, and you saying 'no I don't like systems' isn't conducive to the conversation. If anyone's being disrespectful right now, it's you. I'm asking you to stop dismissing the fact that the OP asked for a universal system, which is precisely what you're doing, in favor of omg no there are too many bad people! 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.

So if you could stop your ad hominems and get back on the actual topic, and discuss the point of the thread without just throwing your hands up and dismissing it as a 'culture issue' rather than a rules issue, that would be super.

@HelloProject

It's not necessarily even WoD. It's just the example we're using here. Any game with social stats should be able to be used in the same way. Bluff or Diplomacy in DnD follow the same sort of pattern. We could just as easily switch it up. Any system in which social things are resolved with stats are equally meaningful.

A lot of people seem to have a problem with social combat because they want an extremely high measure of control of their character in relation to other people's characters.

I agree with this. Quite a bit, actually. People want to be able to have influence on the people around them without having to be influenced themselves. If that's the cultural thing that @surreality is talking about, then I think we've fostered a culture of cheating, and that's really no good for anyone.

The problem is not the system, but the culture. So, you can address the culture by making it mandatory, clearly explained, and seeing what happens, or you can go in infinite circles wondering "What's wrong with social combat?"

+1

[lordbelh]

@Derp said:

I'm not dismissing relevant points. I'm stating that the OP asked for a system they could use in-game to help resolve these things, and you saying 'no I don't like systems' isn't conducive to the conversation.

When you offer up a bad solution, it is constructive to the greater conversation to point out that it is, in fact, a bad solution. Contrary to some people's beliefs, any solution is not always better than no solution.

[surreality]

@Derp said:

I'm not dismissing relevant points.

You want the quotes? 'cause I don't have a lot of time today but oh honey, can I find them.

I'm stating that the OP asked for a system they could use in-game to help resolve these things, and you saying 'no I don't like systems' isn't conducive to the conversation.

1. And all of those concerns need to be taken into account when crafting a system.

2. 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.

I'm asking you to stop dismissing the fact that the OP asked for a universal system, which is precisely what you're doing, in favor of omg no there are too many bad people!

Yeah, you're missing the point by a mile. 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.

Your solution is sheer genius there, really. Even without the optional, recommended against for PvP system, those stats have actual value. It's cute how you skim over that (kinda important) bit.

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.

So if you could stop your ad hominems and get back on the actual topic, and discuss the point of the thread without just throwing your hands up and dismissing it as a 'culture issue' rather than a rules issue, that would be super.

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.

[Arkandel]

@Derp said:

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.

It's interesting you phrase it like that - 'met with very little resistance'.

@lordbelh said:

When you offer up a bad solution, it is constructive to the greater conversation to point out that it is, in fact, a bad solution. Contrary to some people's beliefs, any solution is not always better than no solution.

Amen to that. "We've got to do something so anything will do" is just about always the wrong approach. You can absolutely make things worse with a bad solution than the original problem was.