Posts made by Derp

@lordbelh said:

@Derp Even when individual rolls may be contested, there's no parity in the Doors system. There's one active participant, and one passive participant. For what it's there to do, its a good system. But not for PvP.

Which is rather easily addressed, as well. The other party can attempt to counter-influence the person who is attempting to influence them, using the same system. There is nothing preventing that. NPCs don't normally do that, true, but another PC could very easily try and convince the other person that it's not a path they wish to go down. There is parity, in the form of equality. The rules apply equally to all parties, and can be used on all parties at the same time, in the same way.

@lordbelh said:

@Derp said:

They don't actually say that they aren't good for PvP. They say that they recommend things be worked out in RP, and then go on to provide a system for how to use them in PvP.

As always you seem to have some real trouble with reading only what you want to read. The developers very much states that it isn't useful for PvP because only one side is active.. Basically its like physical combat only just the aggressor is allowed to roll. Which would be bad enough if social interactions aren't also a million times more complicated than physical ones.

Except it's clearly you that has trouble reading, as they go on later to say that the rolls can be contested. As has been stated before. Countless times, now.

@HelloProject said:

If the system literally says that the social combat rules aren't optimal for PVP, then they really aren't even necessary as anything more than a novelty, which seems to be what @surreality did.

That said, if the system is in a PVP environment where people have stuff like XP and other resources that can be gained through dice mechanics, then me, personally, I'd go with a different system entirely. What system, I have no idea, since I'm not sure what theme you're trying to use the system with.

They don't actually say that they aren't good for PvP. They say that they recommend things be worked out in RP, and then go on to provide a system for how to use them in PvP.

But because it’s the persuader’s player making the rolls, the target is left without a way to say “no.” As such, it’s our recommendation that this system be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters rather than on other players’ characters. If one player’s character wants to seduce, persuade, convince, or intimidate another, leave it up to roleplaying and let players make their own decisions about what their characters do.

Which is a real concern, certainly. But then they go on to provide a solution for this as well.

If you allow players’ characters to be the targets of Social maneuvering, resolve this stage as a negotiation with two possible outcomes. The subject chooses to abide by the desired goal or offer a beneficial alternative.

Wherein if they go with the flow, the person affected gets a beat. (Part of the XP system)

These lines come from the GMCRU. They weren't included in Vampire or Demon. This has caused much, much contention. Hopefully, the WOD2 book that comes out clears at least some of this up.

The people saying that it's in absolutely no way intended for PvP situations tend to be reading a bit too much into it, IMO.

@surreality said:

Something not that system that is universal is very much a needed thing, as that one is not really appropriate for PvP, which is even noted empathically by the people who created it.

But the problem with the system, in the developer's eyes, is that characters should keep some control over their actions, particularly because they tend to be working together or toward the same goals. The groups in question, around the table, are all on the same team. This cannot be said for those in the MU environs, and again, we need to distinguish what is meant by NPC in the books versus NPC in something as wide as a MU.

If you continue to say that Doors as a system is inoptimal for PvP purposes, you have to consider why. The why, as noted, is because of player control of characters. But if that's the problem that you think is too much to allow Doors to be used, then what real resolution can you have for social systems? You are still allowing a player to ignore a function of the dice. Until we agree that some things in social combat are not entirely under the control of the defender, and acknowledge that sometimes, there has to be give and take on both sides of the equation, we're left with little more than the freeform systems that we currently have.

Just saying that the developers intended it to be an optional system isn't a real defense against not using it, as the very reason they say not to use it is the problem that this thread is attempting to address -- you cannot have a system that both determines social resolution and allows players unlimited social control.

@surreality said:

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

In the interests of not derailing it too far, let's just say that you and I have differing ideas on what is relevant to the OP's question, and then we can both stop harping on each other and try to get something constructive done, yeah?

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

Agreed, sure. But a lot of that really boils down to 'shall we create a universal system or not?' Which in the OP's thing, they've already moved beyond that point, and are now debating what sort of system to create. Whether some people like it or not is always going to be moot. Some people will like things, others won't. You will never have any system that everyone loves. Some people will outright loath it. Them's the breaks. But after you've decided the system needs to be put in place, all that's left is deciding the system itself.

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.

You've created a tool to enforce this? Because from what you posted, I saw a lot of 'you can put that you're okay with this on your wiki and use it'. Which isn't a tool, so much as giving someone permission to do something that they absolutely could have done anyway.

Encouragement, maybe. I'll give you that. But you've done nothing exceedingly new. You always have people that will or will not go along with the system for the sake of streamlining, if there's nothing in place that applies to everyone.

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.*

Emphasis mine. They have impact. They absolutely should have impact. And they absolutely should not be allowed to be ignored if they have impact. Because, again, they are stats. Which you buy with xp. And are part of a game system. And should be respected as such for more than just what they happen to be prerequisites for.

Is that really such a hard point to grasp?

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.

Oh, yeah. It's just me that has a problem with this. I'm the only one leading the charge, there. But to answer your question, I have an issue with this because I've seen so many people ignore this system, and more people just not even bring it up even though they absolutely should have because their players had the oomph, sheet-wise, to make a real and relevant change happen.

I'm tired of social-primary characters being relegated to second-class citizens because Punchy McPuncherson and his girlfriend Queen Can't-Touch-This just decided that the other person was powerless to try and influence them, because there was no rules in place (or worse, a rule in place specifically taking away their power to do so).

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.

The difference being, of course, that @HelloProject suggested countering the culture issue with rules, whereas you obstinately state that you'll create no such rules because of the culture. Thus why they get a +1, and you get criticism. Terribly arcane and borderline moronic, I know.

@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

@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 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.

@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 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 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).

@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 said:

@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.

Few differences.

1. Active and reactive aren't at parity.
2. Some (admittedly flawed) systems exist that demand that reaction in WoD, actually. (Kuruth, I'm looking at you and your triggers list.)

I'm not talking about forced roleplay, as FTB covers that and most sites allow for it.

I'm talking about people dictating the particulars in ways that are unreasonable bullshit and expecting you to suck it up.

I don't disagree that it's about forcing the player to do something in most cases. These situations get even uglier. The moment you say: I am not keen on this we need to ftb, which is intended to be 'drop to ooc negotiation and summary about what happens', people who aren't getting the TS (or whatever else they were looking for) tend to escalate to dictating a scripted outcome under their exclusive control into which you are not given as much input as you are due. And it's usually much nastier when it's due to the kind of thing you're talking about, re: the player isn't getting the joy they wanted out of the scene and directed at fucking up the other character as much as possible, and this is not what you get with combat. You can't recalibrate your combat damage to 'extra dickbag screw you damage' level after the roll is made like you can in this scenario, and that's an issue.

To put it on parity with combat, people behave as though the moment they succeed on the first roll, they get to ignore your defense and anything else they feel like to keep whaling on you. And that is not a thing.

Perhaps not. But even in combat, you now have the Beaten Down system, which also kind of forces the person to at the very least cede the point, or spend a fuckton of willpower or something continuing to resist. Even if you think your dude would never give up, never surrender, if you run out of willpower that's pretty much what happens. Because the game system determined that.

And that's what it is. It's a system to determine outcomes. There is negotiation involved within it, but no matter what, it limits character agency in some way. It's a system with encoded stats, you know? Just like you're probably not a gymnast without a fair few dots in athletics (or I guess you could be a -bad- gymnast...), you probably aren't a tower of iron will without some fair resistance attributes, nor are you a smooth-talking ladykiller without some Persuasion and Presence.

It all just comes down to whether people are willing to accept the systems in place, I guess. There are dicks on both sides of that line.. The one that digs their heels in and refuses to compromise, on either side, is equally guilty of such.

@ThatGuyThere said:

In the seduction example Person A rolls well and say gives Person B a 2 or 3 dice penalty on all roles in the presence of Person A because they get flustered. Still no player is forced to do something they really don't want but Person A has definite advantages in a situation of Person B.

Yep! That's the entire purpose for the Swooning condition. I agree that I think this is what the Conditions system is meant to be used for. Nobody loses control over their character (which is why there is a condition associated with offering an alternative). There are incentives for going along with the dice results, and other incentives/disincentives for going with an alternative approach. It's all narrative cooperation.

.

@crayon said:

@Thenomain said:

Yeah, something like that. Maybe there's more to a code-base than simply the code.

Absolutely. I wouldn't call it definitive, though. There are plenty of cultural trends in code-bases that have contributed to their becoming both engines and, in a sense, their own genres. I definitely think this creates a lot of misunderstanding and confusion, but this is basically why I'm more interested, personally, in categorizing games based on their design approaches and philosophies and the sort of gameplay culture they're trying to build than by their codebase itself. While the codebase may or even oftentimes says a fair bit about the game, it doesn't always and it doesn't necessarily. If that makes any sense?

I'd rather talk about a "Storytelling Game" or a "Hack-and-Slash Game" etc. than the MUD/MUSH classifications because while the latter can say something about the game the former doesn't really leave a whole lot of room for confusion.

But then how do you distinguish a 'Roleplay Intensive Game' from something like that? If a MUSH is about having a player-driven storytelling culture, that's ... as roleplay intensive as it comes. Part of this thread's existence is to figure out what divides what a lot of us do from what you're looking for, and time and again, it seems like you're wanting 'a little something other', but we have no idea what this 'other' is because those sorts of games seem, to us, to meet all of the criteria that you present.

So what is this mysterious philosophy? This design that you speak of? What separates these two beasts?

@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:

@Alzie said:

@Ganymede Social combat is just as valid as physical combat.

I'd say social dice is as valid as physical dice. But there's no good social combat system. Actual combat is fairly straight forward, but social combat never will be, because it actually requires you to take into account motives, personalities, histories, etc for it to work on anything but the most superficial levels.

I can see where you're coming from with this. It is a rather complicated system, and there will never be one system that pleases everyone, just like some people are displeased with physical combat systems. I do think it's important, however, to at least choose one system so that it's universal, preferably one that gives actual meaning to social stats, since you pay as much for Persuasion or Intimidation or such as you do for Brawl or Firearms.

If there were no social -stats-, then you could completely freeform it. But since in most systems that's not the case, it's important to give the people who invest in them a meaningful way to use them as well. Reactions and interactions aren't completely left to players. Some of them are left to dice. That's just a reality that we're going to have to face if we have any sort of meaningful resolution to this question. There is still a wide spread of possibilities, but it can't just be 'whatever we feel like' if the stats are going to have any sort of real meaning.

@Ninjakitten said:

@surreality said:

These terms are for the codebases, they are the names of the codebases, not 'philosophies of game design'.

This is why I would like there to be a good, preferably not codebase-synonymous name for the general philosophy-of-game-design I favour.

So, like, player-driven storytelling community?

I mean, to me, that's what makes the difference. The stories being told are told by other players. It's people interacting with other people, with the coded systems serving as a functional support to that. MUD's, on the other hand, sometimes require no interaction at all. It's a lot more automated enemy-killing dice rolling foo. In a MUSH, the story is quite flexible, and told by people who specifically tailor stories for other people rather than there being a coded challenge open to everyone.

@TNP said:

@WTFE Which part of that are you questioning? The donut bacon cheeseburger?

I have had this thing. This thing is a delicious thing. It would be even more awesome with ginger beer and fries.

I'm hungry.

@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.