@kanye-qwest said in Make Evennia 'more accessible' - ideas?:
There is copious information on the basics of python available, I feel like also including all that in the Evennia documentation would make it unwieldy.
That may well be, but you also have to recognize that the copious information on the basics of python can be overwhelming to someone who's only ever coded via MUSHcode. Server admin, python, source control... it's a lot to take in.
@arkandel - Absolutely; I'm just giving my perspective on the reality of how much technical experience people come in with. The project has to decide how far it wants to bend to accommodate those folks. For Ares, the answer was "as far as I reasonably can" because my driving goal was to make Ares accessible to people with minimal tech experience who want to run their own game. If Evennia is assuming a higher level of experience, there's really nothing wrong with that - it's just probably something that should be stated up-front.
@griatch said in Make Evennia 'more accessible' - ideas?:
Our documentation aims towards that goal. But the fact remains that it is hard to know, not only what people from vastly different backgrounds find difficult...
I just wanted to echo what @Thenomain has been saying. The biggest issue I've had with writing the Ares documentation is that a lot of the folks coming into it lack a foundational experience that most programmers take for granted.
(This is not a knock against them at all. They're very bright people, but either they haven't done coding/server administration at all, or have only done MUSHcode.)
So with a programming audience you can just say "connect to the server shell and run this command" but to someone who's only ever connected to a game from a MUSHclient, they need more guidance in terms of what a server shell is and how to connect to it with SSH/PuTTY/Powershell/etc. Otherwise the documentation is, as Theno said, like speaking Latin.
@derp said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
If this super-important thing to the character is so SUPER IMPORTANT, shouldn't it already be reflected in their attribute/skill levels and or merits?
This is the crux of what I'm saying. There are, IMHO, SUPER IMPORTANT things that affect human behavior that are not in any way reflected in WoD stats or the social conflict system used to resolve them. If you disagree with that and think the social rules are fine? Great, use the rules as-written on your game and insist people abide by them. (and/or recommend that Gany do so)
But it's not cool to demean people with arguments like "just because you think your character should be more resistant to this, but don't have the stats to back it up" when we're saying the stats themselves and the rules behind them are an unsatisfactory abstraction. Also, it works both ways. Sometimes those same factors should give the attacker an advantage.
ETA: And yes, I do think it's possible to come up with a system that will be reasonably simple and effective and satisfactory to most people. @Seraphim73 has done a lot of good work to that end with his Furystorm system.
@tinuviel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@derp The mechanics might not give complexity and nuance, but rules certainly can. There is a difference.
And GMs can weigh in even more. I wouldn't let an IC dermatologist try brain surgery in my game even if they did have Medicine 5. Common sense should trump mechanics.
This "just play by the rules or play a different game" argument is getting tiresome. The entire point of this thread was Gany pitching different rules and asking for people's input.
There are reasons why the "just make a roll" social mechanics in WoD and other games get so much resistance and a lot of it is because they suck. Sure, you can suck it up and suffer through them or you could, y'know, improve them. That's what good GM-ing and/or house rules are for, and that's what this thread is about.
@derp said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
even physical combat isn't all that complicated at its core. It's just a roll.
That's just not true though. Different weapons have different effects. Damage has degrees, it's not just "oh you succeeded in one roll; I'm dead". Tactical choices like called shot, stances, positioning, reach, etc. matter a lot in most systems (sorry it's been awhile since I did a WoD-based combat so maybe their system isn't that nuanced). And there's a shared understanding that no matter how well you roll, you can't kill a dragon with a butter knife.
There is a ginormous difference between rolling intimidation for "Hey give me your lunch money" and "I've got a gun to your daughter's head, now go in there and rob that bank for me or she's dead". Yet the systems we use are woefully lacking in accommodating those subtleties. We've got a weapons chart with dozens of weapons and effects for physical combat. For social combat it's like... "eh, take 3 extra dice". That is just a pitiful way of trying to abstract the range of human behavior.
So to @Ganymede - yes, I think a better system will help. It won't satisfy everyone, but it can go a long way.
@sparks FWIW the bbs/forum system on Ares uses markdown, which translates pretty readily between mush and web.
Also the system I get asked for a tutorial the most is chargen. That’s pretty involved and not a great starter project, but a simple one could work. One of the Ares tutorials breaks down the cortex skills plugin.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Earthdawn did, for what it had. And the Condition system for SW: Saga is an interesting basis to use for "social damage," if you will.
Earthdawn did? It's been ages since I've played/GMed ED but I don't really remember it having a particularly interesting social conflict system. Never played SW: Saga so I can't comment on that one.
But what I really meant was that nobody (to my knowledge anyway) has come up with a set of principles for social combat that have really taken off throughout the industry in the same way that it has for physical combat.
With physical combat, the mechanics, of course, differ from system to system, but the guiding principles -- to-hit mods for range/reach/etc., armor, dodge/parry, different weapons doing different damage, damage tracks, KO rolls, etc. -- are pretty similar across systems and generally understood and accepted.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
If so, how?
I think if you want widespread buy-in (and bear in mind you'll never please everybody) to a social conflict system, you need to develop one that at least vaguely resembles the way actual humans work, with a slightly heroic slant because in RPGs people want to be The Special.
You can use physical combat as a model of how to do this. Almost nobody would have fun if physical combat were completely realistic - with a low degree of accuracy and high degree of injury - but we have an approximation that a wide cross-section of people can buy.
Nobody's successfully done that for social combat. Such a hypothetical system needs to include some concept of armor for deeply-held beliefs, and some way of reflecting personality and things in our backgrounds that shape how we respond to things. It would need to reflect the fact that social manipulation is usually a long-term endeavor. It would need to reflect social relationships - you're far more likely to buy a lie from someone you trust than your most hated enemy.
@pyrephox I see that as being open to a lot of interpretation. This is why TTRPGs have a GM. And if you're going to use that system as-written on a MU, you always have the option to call in staff and they can arbitrate whether the way I'm having my character react to the intimidation roll is in accordance to the rules or not. Obviously my choice then is either acquiesce to their decision or quit.
Nobody is saying players have a right to not follow the rules. We're having a discussion, solicited by @Ganymede, about what rules would be appropriate/acceptable. The whole thread is predicated on not using the rules as-written.
@pyrephox said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@faraday "Feeling intimidated" is defined by the system. If the system says, "when a character successfully wins a contest of intimidation, X happens" then that is what happens, and if you don't like that, then don't play the game.
If the system says that, then yes. But I have not seen a system that says literally "If you win an intimidation roll against someone they must do exactly what you demand". Most don't go into that much specificity. (And if the most recent version of CoD says that, then obviously nevermind. I don't have those rules.)
@pyrephox said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Even WoD has a merit called Common Sense that allows...
That's my point though ... having GM advice is not a foregone conclusion in every system. Some games make you pay for a Common Sense merit. Others have a Wisdom stat.
I've played in lots of different TTRPG groups - both conventions and various clubs/friends - and it was rare for anyone to ask the GM for direct help in solving the problem. Sure, you could ask informational type questions like "Do I know anything about ork customs so I don't inadvertently offend him?" But never "What's the best way to win this fight?"
I make no claims that this experience is universal, but I do believe it's fairly common. Whether you believe that or not, though, you have to acknowledge, as @Ganymede said, that people come to MUSHes with different experiences and assumptions about how the game "should" be played. Navigating that lack of a common ground is difficult.
@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
I am starting to develop an intense dislike for that word - agency. It's being overused to mean "I never lose". That's not what it's supposed to stand for.
See, the thing is - people are claiming it's being used to mean "I never lose" but that's not what many (most? all?) of us are actually saying.
I use agency in the dictionary sense of exerting control. Not over what happens to my character - because that would actually mean exerting control over the environment, the NPCs, and other PCs - but over my character's thoughts and attempted actions. Deciding what a character thinks, says and does is literally a player's job IMHO.
And yes, of course, you have to respect the rolls if rolls are part of the game. But there are lots of ways to do that. Feeling intimidated and doing what the person is asking you to do because you're intimidated are two very different things. Perhaps I take a negative modifier on an attack, or pose standing up to them while literally quaking in boots, or any number of other possible actions that respect the roll while still retaining control over what I feel is my character's most appropriate reaction to that roll.
That's what agency is to me. And if folks don't like that way? Hey, I respect that. All I'm asking for is the same degree of respect in return.
Because it's really not about never losing. My characters have routinely been duped, intimidated, seduced, and manipulated into doing dumb things, and I personally know that's true for several other players who advocate for agency. It's just about staying true to the core of who that character is in your mind.
@mietze said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
It's just a part of the game. Maybe we should stop treating other players like they're NPCs in our tabletop game, where we can be very passive in what is done to/with us?
I've been all over this topic advocating for a more consent-based approach. You're reading more into my post than what I actually said. I was just trying to point out that "roll then discuss" is a hybrid of what I believe are the two more common forms of conflict resolution (roll and deal with it // consent). I never said that No RPG EVER did it, or even that it was a bad idea. I just think there are pretty obvious reasons why a lot of folks are resistant to it.
Also? MUSHes are not TTRPGs, but when you are building one based on a TTRPG system with a slew of versions, I think peoples' past TTRPG experiences are relevant to the discussion because they come in as baggage.
Side note: I never played CoD I played a really ancient version of WoD. So even if it has been that way "for a long long time" it wasn't that way when I played.
@mietze said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@faraday the last time I saw this on a TTRPG was Chronicles of Darkness. It's WoD.
Okay? I'm not doubting you, though personally I've never seen it. (ETA: I've played TT WoD but not the latest version. I think many people are probably in the same boat.) I'm just saying that if it that were the norm then we wouldn't be having this issue. Everyone would just be used to that. My point is that they aren't.
@mietze said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
I don't understand why there tends to be so much resistance (I've seen this a lot) to the idea of "discuss" when it comes to social skills.
I think a lot of it is just because that's not how RPGs traditionally work.
When's the last time you saw any of this on a TTRPG?
It's just not how the games are structured. There's a puzzle aspect to RPGs that challenges the players almost as much as the characters.
Now there's a contrasting type of game that's more cooperative (ala consent games), but even there it's not "I rolled well and beat you; let's talk about how to make that make sense" it's "Let's talk about what makes the best story here, dice be damned."
So what you and @Seraphim73 are suggesting is a hybrid of the two approaches. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a big departure from what folks are used to. And I think there's resistance from both sides because it lacks the core elements that appeal to each (puzzle / consent).
@thenomain Nobody said it was easy. Nobody (at least not here) said not to take WHO apart and rebuild it from the pieces. (I've been saying that for years.) I really don't know how "F--- 'em" is meant to be constructive toward well-meaning people trying to help strangers learn to code in their spare time, but... yay for making awesome things, I guess?
@pyrephox said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Or it requires players to be kind to one another and recognize that not everyone is playing a character who matches with their skills. ... Now, does that assume two reasonable players?
I disagree with the assertion that wishing for some degree of verisimilitude in the writing on a game is unreasonable or unkind.
But I do agree that when players cooperate to reach a mutually-agreeable resolution to conflict, it's better for everyone.
@pyrephox To each their own. But I think it cuts out a giant swath of RP if all social interactions come down to:
"Bob bluffs his way past the guard." (roll Con)
"Jane tries to seduce Max into giving up the state secrets." (roll Seduction)
etc.
I think there needs to be more back-and-forth than that. And that requires people to be able to convincingly play their characters.
I, too, am sorry for coming across as "try harder", which was certainly not the intent. As @Wyrdathru said - programming is hard, and everyone learns differently. Dissecting code is a common way to go, but it is by no means the only one.
I can't really help with Evennia, but for anyone interested in learning Ares code there's a whole suite of tutorials and I'm happy to answer questions and help out those who want to learn.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
"High charisma! Plz RP accordingly!" Yeah, go fuck yourself, no.
I think this is an important issue when it comes to social stats.
We don't handwave social interaction in a MUSH.
The only way to get to the place @Pyrephox is describing where your OOC skills don't matter is if players are willing to accept:
Joe stands up and makes a stirring speech.
Most players are not willing to accept that, and I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to see that - any more than I'd want to read a crime novel written by an author who handwaved all important details with "And then Holmes questioned the suspect."
So like it or not, your OOC social savvy matters. A lot.