Posts made by Coin

It's always been a quick recipe to "I don't play with you anymore", for me.

Compatibility is an issue in every aspect of life no matter where you go. You are never going to agree on anything with everyone all the time. It just won't happen. Sometimes you can't Rp certain things with certain people because it's just not fun. And if it stops being fun, it stops being worth it. I am willing to often go above and beyond, and exclude my own fun, for other people. Everyone has a different threshold. But at some point you have to say, "this isn't working out" and not really care if the other person agrees or not.

@Miss-Demeanor

Unless Mary rolls really well and John doesn't, that last Door will open and Mary should agree to go out with John.

Or Mary could roll badly and her player could say, "Mary is still more interested in Steve. I can take a Condition that you can use for something else, and Mary can have coffee with John instead." This is perfectly viable. If John's player can't accept this, or won't, or whatever, then he's not acting in good faith, he's being a dick, and I would suggest Mary's player stop playing with him.

In any case, again, the system is not meant for PvP, which I have stated I agree with a fucking dozen times. Your entire argumentative post is made inconsequential by the fact that I already agreed it's not a good system for PvP, and that it would require changes if it were used in PvP as anything but optional. What part of that isn't coming through?

ETA: Just like there exist in the real world people who reject advances because theya re interested in someone else, there exist people who don't. Maybe John is just that smooth. Who knows? This is the sort of thing that good faith means--it's not just good faith from Mary's part--it has to be from John's part, too. And if Mary's player isn't actually interested in that sort of story, why doesn't she just tell John's and be done with it?

@thebird said:

My first real 6am shift in over a month.
On new meds - stupidly drank caffeine after taking them, so I was up until 2am.
Dreamed about not getting enough sleep for three hours (there were at least puppies involved).
I'm angry at my brain
(and anyone perky at 6am. Fuck you people)

I don't get up until 6:30-ish. And I'm sure as fucking hell not perky. I do arrive at work around 7:30 in a better mood than I used to be at that hour, but that's largely because I bike to work and that helps a lot. Endorphins, et al, are amazing.

@Ashra said:

I think a Firefly or Killjoy type space opera would be interesting, if you structured it in such a way that each "crew" had a storyteller (one or more) who ran stuff for other crews, and they in turn would run things for you.

So many people have tried this "St exchange" and it just never ends up working out. No reason not to try, of course, but yeah. It looks great on paper, not so great in practice.

@surreality said:

Thing is, the 'changing up the roll types' thing is a two-edged sword and doesn't necessarily allow those things to apply in every instance. The 'he fixed my car with a repair roll' example, for instance -- wouldn't make those things relevant. Essentially, you could fix someone's car, bake them a pie, and drop off a package for them across town before the post office closes and magically they want to hop into bed with you provided you succeed in doing those things. Which makes zero sense, and the resistance stats someone paid for don't come into play the way they're designed to.

See, I don't agree, because if someone actually came to be and said, "this guy wanted to bake me a pie and fix my tire to opens doors so that I would sleep with him", I would laugh and tell that guy "no". The system assumes some sort of basic common sense, so using really dumb examples of how it can be gamed is against the actual spirit of the system.

That said, I don't disagree that it's basically meant for NPCs. I've said that a thousand times.

Iron Will shouldn't do any more than it already does. I mean, shit, as far as Merits go, it's basically the best thing in the game. It lets you spend 1 WP point to add your Resolve (a minimum of 4) to your action instead of 3, and then it lets you use 8-again if it's contested. That's crazy good.

I could see another, different Merit that added Doors, sure. I don't disagree that if the system was used for PvP, it should balance out. But again, advocate of NPC use, over here.

I was just pointing out that the book has an ENTIRE PARAGRAPH about making rolls Resisted and Contested, so it doesn't actually do away with them at all. The player who is actually using Social Maneuvering is not the person who decides what penalties or rolls they use. They can suggest, but the decision is ultimately on the Storyteller, and in a PvP system, it should be on the opposing player (within reason). If the person using Social Maneuvering feels that the rolls the other person is calling for, or the penalties they want are wrong or too high, but want to insist, then you call Staff.

I can assure you that the vast majority of the people who will try to use the Social Maneuvering system to pressgang another player into something they don't want to do, that isn't legitimately important to a story that goes beyond some basic player desire, do not want Staff involved.

Someone told me yesterday that in the game they run, they have social systems in place, and they also have an "emergency opt-out" rule where if you really don't think your character would do something, you can opt-out. They also told me that usually, the opting-out happens for dumb shit that isn't actually important to an overall story, so it doesn't really matter. Random seduction would fall into this sort of scenario.

I'm sure we can sit here and dissect this to the point where we find all the flaws evaaaar, but it's not the point. The point is that playing in good faith is a hell of a lot more fun than being a jackanape, and social systems require good faith. If you can't accept that someone else is playing in good faith as a default and keep a wary eye out for outliers, then you're obviously never going to be able to function with a PvP social system, because you're constantly going to be looking for the other person's ulterior motives or "angles" that go beyond thebasic reasons for the action.

TL;DR: Social systems only work well if you're not hyperparanoid and/or a dick. You know, same as most everything else.

@surreality said:

@surreality said:

@Ganymede said:

The key word is: acceptance. The problem is: most players don't accept what happens to them.

That, and the Doors system seems unnecessarily complicated given that there's a perfectly-viable, single-roll system available.

The single roll isn't great, but it's much better than social maneuvering. Single roll has resists, and takes the target's stats they spent on -- like iron will/etc. -- into account. SM doesn't. It completely ignores the stats of the target save for in setting the base number of doors. I can kinda see why players don't accept outcomes from a system that only takes the aggressor's stats into account.

Edit: ignores modifiers, too, and that's just bad.

What? No it doesn't.

Social Maneuvering rolls can be Resisted and Contested, depending on the type of roll and what you're trying to do. In fact, if you have Iron Will, for example, and someone is trying to do something that you would resist or contest with Resolve, it would absolutely count.

There is nowhere in the books that says 'Social Maneuvering does away with resisting or contesting rolls'.

This is literally in the second paragraph of GMC p. 193 "Opening Doors":

As Storyteller, be creative in selecting dice pools. Change them up with each step to keep the interactions dynamic. Similarly, consider contested and resisted rolls. Most resisted actions or contested rolls use either Resolve or Composure or a combination of the two. But don’t let that stand as a limit. Contested rolls don’t require a resistance trait. For example, Wits might be used to notice a lie, Strength to help a character stand up to threats, or Presence to protect and maintain one’s reputation at a soiree.

Single roll isn't better, because single roll accomplishes things and it feels like "magic". One roll and done. With Social maneuvering you actually have to put your Skills and other stats to use, figure out how to properly engage your target from one Door to the next, etc.

@Monogram said:

However, in the end, more original theme, sci fi that's not Firefly/SW/ST would also be a breath of fresh air.

I would love a Space Fantasy Opera setting--but really high-powered. Exalted in Space, if you will.

The Strange. I want a The Strange game.

@Faceless said:

I'm most curious about who you were on Masquerade.

Your mom.

He was your mom.

@The-Tree-of-Woe said:

Also man, this post is old. Maybe you did die.

Unlikely. He's like a cockroach.

Or a Twinky.

@Lithium said:

@Usekh I've only cursory glanced over them to be honest, I mean I understand how it'd be possible in TT I mean on a mush wide setting.

For example:

In ShadowRun the PC's are usually a single runner team. On a MU* you've got runners, mafia, gang bangers, cops, fixers, faces, so on and so forth. It makes the game get diluted because there's not a single team focus anymore. You hope you can find a single team to run with but it never seems to work out that way. So nearly every run you go on you end up going with different people, which makes it hard to build a collective story and history between the PC's which makes it MUCH easier to just kill someone who pisses you off...

Which is the same issue I see with a Warhammer 40K MU* and it's a dilemma I am working on trying to solve myself for my own game so thoughts appreciated

This is pretty much the same issue all the games have. It's largely because pretty much every roleplaying game out there focuses on a "party". they call them different things (runners, coterie, ring, cabal, crew, pack, whatever) butthe game is designed for a cohesive group narrative that we lose almost entirely on MUs. It's especially difficult to build a stable and engaging group for roleplaying on MUs. And you can't get out of it by playing a system that doesn't use that, because even if you built it yourself from scratch--there's a reason the systems are almost universally built that way: it's good for the narrative focus of the game and story.

It's not really a Shadowrun issue so much as a MU issue in general.

@Pyrephox said:

@surreality Of course, then you run into those folk who say, "My character doesn't back down when intimidated, they go crazy and fight with every bit of combat dice they have." Which means that you get people walking around with all RAR I'M TOUGH because they put all their dice in combat, and none in social skills or resistance abilities. Because they know that if it comes to a social test, they can just move things to a combat footing, where no one doubts the effectiveness of their skills.

Basically, there are always assholes. You can't define a system by how assholes will use it, because every system just privileges a /different set/ of assholes. A system also can't stop assholes from being assholes - that job needs to fall to staff, and trying to offload basic game management skills to the system is one of the reasons why game cultures BECOME toxic. If, when someone skeeves on you by trying to dice-force you (and this kind of abuse is often really aimed at getting the /player/ to do something sexual) into TSing with them, then if you don't feel supported to say, "I don't feel comfortable with that kind of play with you. I don't mind if they get seduced, but we're not going to play it out, and my character will feel guilty in the morning, not fall in love with yours." and know that the staff has your back, then that's something wrong with the /game culture/. Because that sort of situation is not what any social resolution skill system is meant for. For that matter, you should be able to go to staff if someone is stalking you around the grid and /constantly/ rolling combat dice at you. "What my character would do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. "What the rules will technically let me do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. But as long as we keep trying to build and run games with the design goal of "not having to confront assholes with their asshole behavior", then game cultures are going to continue to be toxic, no matter what system is used.

This. All of this all the time forever.

I think @HelloProject is basically our communty's version of Shia LeBeaouf.

@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!

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

Deja vu, mother fuckers.

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

I don't have this game. Sad.

@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.

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.