Controversial posts made by Derp

Well, if we're sharing:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. XP & Beats .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Normal: Experience: 3, Beats: 2

• Earned: 79.5
• Spent: 76
  Player: Experience: 0, Beats: 0
• Earned: 2
• Spent: 2
  ................................................................................
  You have been approved for 5M 3w 1d 17h 9m 58s
  You are auto-gaining 10 Normal Beats per week
  You have earned 4 out of 10 Normal Beats this week
  It will be reset in 1 day

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Starting XP: 10 (Chargen 7 + BG 3)
Aspirations: 9.0
Newbie Bonus*: .2
Conditions: 2.6
Dramatic Failure: .4
Scenes: 5.0
ST XP: 2.0

29.2 (I think. Quick mental math)

Which would leave auto-gains at something like 50, if my lazy math is correct, which at just shy of six months ain't bad. Plus that leaves like 5xp until I'm down to half xp earnings on auto-gain (since I think the threshold for that is 55?) And then it goes down again at something like 80, and then again at... some other point. Point being it goes down to 1 beat per week on auto-gains at some point, which will probably happen sooner rather than later.

@SG said:

I think freeforming social is the best way, at least when other players are involved. NPCs it's fairly easy to run because most GMs don't take things too personally with mooks.

But then how do we avoid the 'physical stats are the only ones that matter' problem? Does everyone have to be a combat mook? Is the combat mook the master of the game, because there exists no scenario in which your Intimidation 5 can have a meaningful effect on the dude with brawl 4?

If freeform social is the only way to go, how do we resolve the problems it creates? Is losing a bit of ultimate control over action really worth the continued issue that creates? And if not, what other option is there?

@lordbelh said:

Or in the case of @Derp they want to make the straight guy suck their dick regardless of said person's sexuality.

Once again, seduction was used as the previous example because it's the most contentious, and even then I included the fact that you can offer alternatives, much like what people above have already suggested. Come on. Is this homophobia or willful ignorance?

Instead of settling for using social dice to bend the other person a little bit rather than all the fucking way. Okay, so persuading you to give up your lover for my friends to kill her isn't going to happen, but if I instead settle for persuading you to tell me where she usually frequents, or even just persuade you to try to persuade her to make good on whatever bullshit caused our beef, then that's a lot easier for people to swallow. If you want to straight up force to go counter to their character, sincerely, stick to mind control style powers.

Also called offer an alternative. Which people have pointed out. Numerous times. It's already built into the system.

@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?

@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.

@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.

@Miss-Demeanor said:

@Ganymede It was. And if that's all it was used for, I wouldn't care. But its not. It gets applied to player against player social interactions as well. And that's where I draw my line.

See, I think it should be applied to PvP situations. It's a neutral way to resolve a social situation that doesn't end in 'nuh uh because I said so, my person would never do that' which gets applied to just about every social roll ever. Which is lame as fuck.

I wouldn't mind tweaking the system a little bit right now, though. As it stands, everyone just assumes that everyone is hostile to everyone and like some sort of dark magic, you can't roll. There should be intervals between there that are missing. 'Uneasy' and 'Unfriendly' are the ones that I would add in, personally. Hostile would be -strictly- for active hostility, in the form of blows are being thrown, or something like that. Some very real, clear and present danger outside of 'ugh, what a dick'. Because dicks can still get people to do what they want, and people work with people they don't like after some convincing that it's the best way to go about things.

@Seamus said:

@Alzie I seriously must have missed that because I do not recall seeing that in the main GMC book. Could you enlighten me?

You're not the only one that missed that. Nobody that I've talked to about it is aware of this either. Can you give an example in the books of where this is located?