Posts made by Arkandel

Zero tolerance for doxxing. Account banned.

If he returns please flag him and we'll take measures. If posts remain with RL information on them please let us know and we'll delete those, too.

Locking this thread.

@arkandel

Generally speaking I prefer weighed randomness as well if for no other reason than because otherwise all outcomes are predetermined; if I made you believe my lie (or punched you in the face) today then I will be able to do so tomorrow, guaranteed, every time.

Now, for a mostly statless game this isn't a bad idea. It simplifies a lot of things without letting people be perfect at everything (hence the 'mostly' part). If I know you're a better liar than I am at reading you then I pre-emptively pose buying into your shit - how much? Well, by 15% or so.

Yeah, I can see that working out.

@skew said in How to use Potato MU Client:

@testament I don't use spawn windows

I'm so sorry.

@tinuviel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

MU* and table-top are simply different mediums

Media.
The plural of medium is media.

Thanks for the correction!

I would argue, however, that comparing how one adapts a tabletop game to their group with adapting the same tabletop game to a MU is perfectly sound.

I still disagree as long as we're discussing the effects of adapting the mechanics, and the original system is actually written for small parties with a GM present.

The WoD is a rather obvious example to use for why the comparison fails, as I've been in numerous campaigns myself with both short and long term arcs yet never faced even a fraction of the complaints about social skill abuse, powers creeping people out, players losing agency in unwanted ways, etc.

Of course such observations are anecdotal but I still believe they're about the same as most people have of playing the 'intended' way versus what we are using them for.

@thenomain ... I just did notice. Well, got told. So.

@misadventure said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

MU* RP is more socially oriented than (almost all) tabletop for many reasons. Moreso than deadly danger, it should offer interesting choices, and make for an interesting story.

MU* and table-top are simply different mediums. Comparing them is a task bound to fail the same way discussing a movie versus the book it was derived by would.

In table-top something is, or had better be, always happening. That's what the ST is there for, after all; downtime can and should exist but it's kind of like a cinematic experience where these pockets of exposition and character development are then thrown into perpetual upheavals.

MUSHes, and I don't mean that in a bad way, are kind of the soap operas of roleplaying. Most of the time nothing is 'happening' per se, and the vast majority of a character's played life is spent talking about or dissecting either the official storyline (rather than actively participating in or directly affecting it), or of course expanding the relationships between themselves and others.

That's conversely the exact reason social skills need to be really easy to use. It's something you'd have to put into play all the damn time, so if you have to go consulting tables (let alone involving staff) and shit the boat has already sailed.

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Okay, so, let me try by Socratic method: why do World of Darkness players so readily buy into the Violence section (combat) of the rules, but sometimes vehemently oppose any attempt to use rules regarding social influence and maneuvering?

I've got it on good authority the Socratic method would entail leading me to the truth by asking me questions I answered them myself. The truth was in me all along!

We can blame it on that dragon, agency, or we can presume that it is because the Violence section creates a cognizable framework to resolving the confrontation. If it is the latter, then players who seek to resolve the confrontation without staff intervention can either work it out OOCly or use the system that is provided.

Socrates aside, that is a fair question. The answer, IMHO, is threefold:

1. In many/most of violence there is an arbitrator (ST) present who can double as a guide, answering quick questions with authority.

2. The rolls tend to be very straight forward and the effects quite well defined. +roll strength+weaponry+3-4 (where +3 is your weapon's damage, -4 the opponent's defense+armor) is a very straight forward thing; if you roll 3 successes that's 3 lethal damage. If the damage brings them to 0, they are dead. It's all nice and neat, prepared in advance, and even most powers that modify it do it in a direct way (you have Vigor? Well, add it).

3. It's something we do in PvE. PvE is cleaner, there's way less bitching. Notice how violent PvP scenarios very often do need arbitration (staff acting as a ST, basically) and the simplicity described above is thrown out the window - players contesting each other invalidates the element of collaboration, and that's the result.

And from what I can tell, anecdotally and by report of others, is that players usually resolve things OOCly by collaboration, and when they cannot, well -- you have a situation.

Yup.

I'm proposing that a more robust system, like what was proposed in the Danse Macabre, might get more players to engage in using social stats to resolve social confrontations. Maybe it will, and maybe it will just make people want to engage in OOC deliberations to resolve confrontations (who the fuck wants to use my system, fuck it, let's just work it out rather than look to crazy-lawyer-system). It does not matter to me in the slightest.

You'll notice I've long been supporting the idea any system we use for social encounter resolution must enhance what we already have. It can't just add an element of complexity, it has to be better. People need to want to use it - else they won't. It's because, unlike violence, they'll be doing social stuff all the time; it can't be a chore.

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

The more a social system tries to do the less successful is poised to become.

I whole-heartedly disagree with the statement because what I think you mean to say is:

The more a social system tries to do the less likely players will want to use it.

I think the core of our disagreement here lies in the fact I see no difference between those two statements.

A system can't be successful unless players buy into it.

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

I'd be willing to bet big internet bucks the major reason social powers are so rarely even attempted on PCs is the potential for headaches following it.

For sure, culture is probably as developed within a tighter RP circle as it does in an entire game.

Complexity might be an issue too. If a generic, easy to memorize roll is enough for most purposes and it doesn't try to do too much or assume granural control of its effects then it's likely to be used more often; for example the Doors system is not 'easy'. If it's not 'easy' it won't be used nearly as much - period.

The more a social system tries to do the less successful is poised to become.

@faraday The question of scope when it comes to documenting code projects is still valid, though.

How far into linux sysadmin can such guide afford to go into, especially since minor mishaps from common tasks such as mandatory package upgrades (which can affect configuration files, require process restarts, checking logs to find the root cause of a downtime, etc) are probably too numerous to go into in detail, let alone a "if <X> happens then do <Y>" guide.

@thenomain said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Yet I almost never saw anyone use them.

I don't know if this is because there's a tacit "no social rolls against PCs", there's a more obvious "if I do this people will drag this into a headache that I can avoid", or what.

Yeah, a hundred per cent that.

I'd be willing to bet big internet bucks the major reason social powers are so rarely even attempted on PCs is the potential for headaches following it.

Strangely relevant!

@thenomain said in Do you read the book(s)?:

If you’re talking about WoD, the fiction and the theme and setting descriptions often do not match. It’s the job of the game lead to make sure all of this is consistent, but, well, Onyx Path is always under duress, and the original White Wolf was too stoned to care.

I don't know about Onyx Path these days but the original V:tM books were pretty much on point with theme - there were a few weird parts (the Tremere Clan novel described abilities I don't recall ever seeing the mechanics of, for example) yet overall I was quite pleased with how they matched the mechanics.

The one (hilarious) cacophony would be the Masquerade of the Red Death trilogy which was too funny for words, as nary a page turned without a fifth/sixth generation badass sword-wielding badass showing up to have an impromptu fight with someone else for no apparent reason, throwing powers around for the hell of it.

... Dammit now I want to read it again. It probably won't hold up twenty years later.

@mietze While I suspect no solution will solve this issue there are probably steps to be taken in order to mitigate its effects.

Some ideas:

• base your game on the idea the entire game is built around these things, and that social stats aren't merely adopted straight from the page. So while someone can still ignore you if you use Persuasion on them ("yeah, my guy is too strong willed for this shit") there are still tangible and powerful benefits from NPC perception, status gains, sphere influence, etc.

• enhance the social rolls with messaging guiding targets correctly. So if I +roll manipulation+persuasion against a PC the code catches it as a social roll and echoes something like "A Persuasion roll has been successfully leveraged on you. This will not change your character fundamentally or make them do things contrary to their nature but it may have temporary effects in whatever way you choose to incorporate" or whatever disclaimer the game runners want to attach.

• make it rewarding to lose social encounters. I've been advocating that for ages - literally give a Beat every time, open up venues where long term social rivalries are profitable for all parties (after all if you're a Primogen member's foil and regular public sparring partner in meetings then your own prestige increases at the same time).

And so on. I don't think this is the kind of problem one can fix with a post or a paragraph on a wiki page but if work is put in it can.

@tinuviel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

The objection is to using third-party sources when discussing rules-as-written. It isn't pedantry, it's requiring decent and generally constant accuracy. There's no guarantee that when/if this thread is read a year from now by someone new the information in that wiki will still be accurate, given it's neither a published source nor one any of us control.

They aren't even rules-as-written because they weren't developed for MU*. They were aimed for table-top - there are no official rules for what we need, thus no appeal to authority can work.

I do agree the very idea of trying to create any kind of exhaustive list of social rolls' effects is an exercise in madness though. In my eyes there are only two ways to go at it:

1. Don't allow its use on PCs (which doesn't solve the problem completely, and devalues the skills, but at least it takes creeping out of the equation).

2. Accept that interpreting what the roll results do falls to the target's player as they will differ from one PC to the other. Yes, that means some people will play being unphased by them, which you can't do with a combat roll. Them's the breaks.

I suppose there's a third way - removing social rolls - but that'd gut the system, so I don't really count it as a real solution to anything.

https://www.kalzumeus.com/2018/10/19/japanese-hometown-tax/

@tragedyjones Yes, you used nodebb's terrible poll plugin.