@Arkandel Probably because it means that no matter what we say and whether or not this turns into an echo chamber, there will always be people with their own opinions who formulate them without MSB, or WORA, or us, as sources or influences.
And for people who value freedom of thought, that's important.
@Ganymede said in Social Conflict via Stats:
@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:
I'm an Carthian atheist and you're playing a Sanctified. I sit down with your character and he/she 'wins' the religious argument? The IC result could be some more respect for you people. You win another of those? I understand better the role you play and maybe am a bit more sympathetic toward the overall cause. Another? I could be convinced to take minor action - nothing that could do my causes damage but giving you a freebie piece of information maybe - to help you guys out. And so on - each of those arguments being an entire scene.
This is a good description of a normal, mundane situation of influencing others and making friends. It's a bad example because vampires have ways of short-cutting that abruptly.
It's also a bad example within context because we're talking about social (and in a way, mental) stats. So either the PLAYER needs to have a compelling argument, or you can have the dice decide who has the better argument, otherwise, why both rolling? And if you're not gonna roll, why bother with the stat? Just dump it all in physicals...
... and back to square one.
@Pyrephox said in Social Conflict via Stats:
One of the big problems when we start talking about "accurate" depictions of social skill use is that we dump it all on the actor, when one of the major problems is the target. PCs do not act like real people. PCs act like puppets moved around by real people who know that none of the shit in their lives is real. There is no way for an IC actor to authentically recreate the pressure and influence that a good social manipulator can bring to bear, because the target, fundamentally, /does not care/ about the things that a real person in that situation would care about, and don't make decisions as if they do. Instead, the player behind the person is always evaluating on a primary level, "Does this make for fun for me," rather than "would this be compelling for a person who really lived this life". Which is why threats and intimidation hardly ever work in RP - it doesn't matter that someone in that position might actually be terrified of losing their job/life/family, because the PLAYER is more interested in "plucky hero resists" than "cowed victim retreats".
Yep. This paragraph in specific.
My only response to that is that two people who can't agree on what method would and wouldn't work are two people who really shouldn't be playing that together, which goes back to my earlier point. Everything I said is just as valid with "method" instead of "outcome".
Anyway, I agree with you. But let's make it more explicit:
I think social combat should take this into account by implicitly giving the person initiating it a broad notion of what may or may not work on their target. Do they like puppies? Is their daughter the most important thing to them? Will buying their daughter a puppy and then saving her from a car accident (engineered, of course) put them in a favorable disposition? Will offering their daughter a full college ride? Will just being friendly to said daughter and having a nice puppy be enough? These are things that should be implicit and somewhat easily acquired by someone with social acumen. You might want to say "only if they have Empathy" (if such a stat exists in the system) and that would be fair. Maybe even add an Empathy or whatever roll to determine what might or might not work on a person (also fine). But this also expects the opposing player to be honest about it. "Oh yes, my character will totally do anything for a hot blonde in a tight dress" can't become "god, you dirty slut, I wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole" because that's the equivalent of RP entrapment (MUSHtrapment).
Of course, you could do research on your target's daughter and her love of puppies and fail to notice that she was mauled by a dog a while ago, and your research is out of date, or whatever.
But my point is: physical stats get less flak because there's this tacit and implicit agreement in the hobby that you don't need to get along OOC to get into a physical bloody brawl IC, and "oh well, I killed your character, SUCK IT". And it's a shitty position to take as a hobby.
Talk to each other. Figure out what sort of RP you want from your fellow players, play with them.
This again.
Some people want to play their characters; some people want to play the stories; some people want to do both.
In the end you just have to decide what you expect and then play with people who match that; or be willing to put aside your own expectations if the people youd ecide to play with don't.
I love Social dice and I would totally play a game that uses them heavily for shit, like most games use combat dice. But if I am playing in a game as part of a group with, say, @surreality, I'm just not going to go into it expecting my social dice to have much weight with her. Should they? Should they not? Irrelevant. I am forewarned and thus forarmed when it comes to her preferences.
Yes, we play with strangers a lot so we don't always have that foreknowledge to our advantage. That's why games have "default rules". If a game has default rules you are categorically against, it might not be a game for you, or you will need to at least steel yourself against whatever aspects of those rules you dislike, both IC and OOC. e.g. if @surreality plays on a game where the default rule is "players must abide by social combat as per the rules in the book" and the rules in the book make her want to retch, then she needs to 1) not play there or 2) make a character that is damn near immune to the outcome she dislikes, and build that PC around it. And probably try to avoid those situations as much as possible.
That said, while I enjoy the social combat stuff, I think it works best--as with physical combat--when the two players are in agreement as to how the scene can broadly play out.
We're gonna fisticuffs: either I win, or you do. But neither of us is gonna kill the other, right? Great. Let's do it.
We're gonna have a little bit of a seduction-of-a-married-woman match, so I can get information out of her. You're probably not going to want to have your character end up in bed with mine, since she's happily married, but her getting a little tipsy and spilling some information because it feels good to have someone lavish attention on her isn't necessarily the worst. I could also botch the rolls and your character could throw a drink in my face.
See how both examples lack real extremes? That's because the players can come to an agreement.
If someone comes up to you and says, "I'm going to roll to seduce you and if, over time, I win, you're gonna be gobblin' cock for a while," then that person is a fucking asshole that you should not, in any reasonable game with any reasonable behavior rules, have to play with. And I also believe this should stand for random people coming over and saying, "My character doesn't like your characters face, she's gonna kill'im!"
Yes, there are always mitigating circumstances, like: A does something horrible to B and now C really wants to fuck A's shit up; or Z is happily married to Y and X really wants to ruin Y's relationship because Y did something horrible before.
If you find yourself in these situations and they involve people you don't know or do not get along with, I suggest you either 1) involve staff immediately so that it can be sorted with mediation; or 2) (my preferenceº) tell everyone this shit is fucked up and walk away. If they are people you get along with, then make sure everyone is clear on possible outcomes and is okay with ANY of those outcomes. Hurt feelings are worse than lost characters in this hobby and I am so fucking tired of this shit.
Anyway, this conversation, god. Every year, I swear. Rofl.
º Actually, my prefernece is 3) play a psychopath who doesn't give a flying fuck about people's bullshit, and will shoot a fucker if they come at'em, but is otherwise chill.
@ThatGuyThere
I have been jibing on Supergirl since it started, and this season hasn't disappointed. I'm a fan of the three new characters they introduced (and it defied my expectations of the first character they introduced). Plus I love Maggie Sawyer, I hope they do a good job with her.Here I sit, though, still waiting for my Cyborg Superman villain.
POSSIBLE IMPLIED SPOILERS FOR SUPERGIRL BELOW.
.
.
.
.
.
How much you wanna bet Dean Cain is going to come back as Cyborg-Jeremiah-Danvers-possessed-by-the-consciousness-of-the-evil-Hank-Henshaw?
That's what I would write. >.>
@tragedyjones said in Good TV:
Supergirl is a treasure.
You are a monster.
Damn right. Also, what exactly don't you like? is it "too corny"? "Too obvious"? "Too childish"? ?Not well-acted"? "Any number of other subjective things"?
It has gays and POC and Superman smiled. Garbage show for garbage people.
So gays. Much POC. Smile.
Supergirl is a treasure.
You are a monster.
Damn right. Also, what exactly don't you like? is it "too corny"? "Too obvious"? "Too childish"? ?Not well-acted"? "Any number of other subjective things"?
Yes.
That's sad for you, then. But hardly a reason to call me a monster.
You should use one of the many other, more accurate reasons.
Supergirl is a treasure.
You are a monster.
Damn right. Also, what exactly don't you like? is it "too corny"? "Too obvious"? "Too childish"? ?Not well-acted"? "Any number of other subjective things"?
Solution: stop getting married and leave people's drinking to them.
Done deal.
Yesterday's Lucifer was really good. They're starting to really ramp up the mythology stuff and weave in the allegorical police cases week to week a little more tightly. Also, Charisma Carpenter was on it.
Supergirl is a treasure.
I stopped watching mid season 2-ish, I think. But I was told my favorite of the girls was just sort of faded out of the show without even an exit arc, so fuck that shit.
Kenna? The exit was really weird, actually. And what was most bizarre about it was that there was absolutely nothing in the way of articles or interviews discussing the actress' exit. Which I found kind of hinky. Keeping in mind the actress herself has some fairly "controversial" sex positive view points she's been very public about.
I'm still pissed abou how they wrote out Lola, though.
Yeah, Kenna. I hearted her, and her actress is awesome.
Reign had Lorde's Royals done on cellos, after all.
Speaking of, I love this trashy show, but with pretty much nobody left who's originally part of Mary's crew (I don't count Anne of Green Gables) I'm not sure if there's anything left in it for me. They are dangerously close to the shark. They may have already jumped it.
I stopped watching mid season 2-ish, I think. But I was told my favorite of the girls was just sort of faded out of the show without even an exit arc, so fuck that shit.
@surreality said in Good TV:
I really did enjoy the score. I only caught two of the songs covered for it (Black Hole Sun and Paint It Black) but am sure there are more.
Caught those, too, and really want to track down those versions of them now. They were fantastic. Both were "...is that... it is! Nice!" It's also a subtle mental cue: this show is set far enough in the future for those songs to get converted into good ambient muzak.
That, or they just really wanted to use them within the setting.
Reign had Lorde's Royals done on cellos, after all.
Writing.
Just writing.
Just, being in that place where I can crank out anywhere between 750 and 2000 words in the morning before the bulk of people show up at the office.
Also, strangely enough (especially for some of you who know me well): waking up to line edits on things I've written. One person in particular has been helping me with the story I'm writing and she leaves me line edits every few days and when I see them I just kind of grin like a doofus and then whistle my way through fixing whatever I did wrong.
It's liberating to finally realize internally that things don't have to be perfect the first time around, or even the second, or third, or ever.
I didn't even write that much today, but I am writing consistently every day, even on weekends when I'm at home and distracted by all the things.
It's pretty neat.
While I liked a lot of the stuff on Westworld, I am pretty over some of the tropes it's using.
It was way too serious. I was expecting at least some humor, a la Deadwood. But instead, you just get something akin to Game of Thrones at its most serious for an hour and eight minutes. Groan.
I'll keep watching, though. I really did enjoy the score. I only caught two of the songs covered for it (Black Hole Sun and Paint It Black) but am sure there are more.
This reminds me of something. Gosh, whatever could it be.
