Posts made by faraday

@mietze said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

I guess I fail to see why somehow the person rolling the social dice is somehow more taking away agenc

The agency argument isn't about "I should get what I want all the time". That's not agency, that's just being selfish.

Player Agency is about being able to control the character's thoughts and decisions.

That doesn't mean your character's thoughts are correct. You may completely misjudge someone or misjudge a situation.

That doesn't mean you character's decisions to act will be successful. There may be rolls involved to see whether your decision to do a cartwheel on ice results in a really cool move or you falling on your butt and breaking your leg.

And it doesn't make you immune to consequences or to random acts of nature or intentional acts from other players or NPCs. A building falling on you doesn't deprive you of agency, nor does a bullet fired by a sniper a mile away.

So yes, a social character rolling social skills to make my combat expert not kill the person they wanted to kill does deprive me of agency. Not because it invalidates my character's concept or combat skills, but because it takes away my ability as a player to control my character's thoughts and decisions. Incidentally, so would a social character manipulating my combat expert into killing someone, even though that is perfectly aligned with their concept.

Either you trust players to know their characters or you don't. Frankly I don't want to play on a role-playing game where someone else gets to play my character for me. That's agency.

@ganymede said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

Maybe Paths?

I'm not really familiar with that. My WoD experience consists of playing a mortal in a short oWoD campaign back in college so...

@thenomain said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

You know, here’s a case where the D&D Alignment Grid may actually make sense.

Maybe you could come up with an expanded version that mixed alignments with something like the old WoD virtues. Give characters simple ratings in things like loyalty, compassion, courage, selflessness, justice, and a few others. There's some limit so you can't be a saint across the board.

Every trait could work both ways - a high compassion means you can't be persuaded into harming someone but it means you're a sucker for a sob story. I dunno. I still prefer coop/consent, but if you're going to have PVP politics as a core facet of your setting I can see the need for a more codified system. And even if you do have a consent-oriented or opt-in system, some more detailed measure of personality could help keep people honest.

@apos I like the general idea. I prefer a more minimalist approach (assigning a number and defining will/won't for "Total Coward" or "Soft Spot for Kids" seems a bit overkill, but I'm all for something like (Trait - Description).) But I think we're on the same page in principle.

@apos said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

I think it just helps to take any personal strength as also a potential vulnerability, and make that implicit into the characters as a tradeoff.

I agree completely. The 'Death Wish' RP hook might make you immune to being intimidated by physical violence (hello, Martin Riggs) but make you more vulnerable to being manipulated into doing something by being told how dangerous it is. It works both ways.

(Not directed at Apos...)
All these "you're not playing by the rules" comments... come on. All skill systems allow for situational modifiers. And all skill systems make allowances that some things just aren't possible no matter how well you roll. You can't jump the Grand Canyon no matter your athletics, and you can't resuscitate someone who's been dead for an hour no matter how well you roll your Medicine.

All we're fundamentally disagreeing about is whether "convince Bernie Sanders to give up Medicare for All" should be a -3, -30, or just not possible no matter what you roll. Any social conflict system needs to give better guidance than just "roll manipulation vs wits" for what should/shouldn't be possible in social combat and what appropriate modifiers should be.

@bobotron said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

But there's tons of 'NON INTIMIDATABLE' or 'OH YOU ARE SO TRUTHFUL BUT I THINK YOU'RE LYING ANWAY'. None of us want Social Stat Dominate, or at least that's how the thread has read to me.

I don't see anyone arguing the 'you're so truthful but I think you're lying anyway' stuff in this thread, and yet you and I both know it happens sometimes in games.

I don't see anyone arguing 'Social Stat Dominate' in this thread, but people trying to use it that way has actually happened a lot in games too.

And that's why folks on both sides are so darn sensitive about this issue. We've seen these systems (or lack thereof) be horribly misused in ways that few on either side are advocating for.

Side note: Even the 'not intimidatable' arguments posited were about someone who couldn't be subject to a particular kind of intimidation. Not someone who couldn't be intimidated ever.

@arkandel said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

It's not an accident no 'social system' has really been presented as a yardstick, that none of the mechanics our collective hobby has come up with have gotten any closer than "well, roll manipulation+persuasion versus composure or something"-type rolls.

I agree it's not an accident, but I think the reasons are very different. I don't think it's about trying to equate physical or social combat, but rather:

1. Social stuff is typically secondary (or even lower than that) in Tabletop RPGs. It's frequently just handwaved with RP or a couple die rolls.
2. Tabletop RPGs aren't geared towards PVP.

Nobody(*) has any problems implementing these sorts of manip+persuasion rolls against NPCs. The GM typically doesn't care, and if they do - they have executive fiat, rolls behind the screen, etc.

But that aside, I agree with your basic argument that games need to approach it differently. And I'd find it impossible to define all those personality traits in chargen. Heck, I'd have a hard time putting them to paper for a BSG char I've played for 3 years! I know her personality, but I'd have a hard time spelling it out.

@marsgrad said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting 'my characters has goals and personality quirks' should act like ironclad armor.

Just to be clear: Yes, I am suggesting exactly that. Some things just won't work on some people, just like you can't take out a tank with a pocketknife. Just like no matter how many points I make or how well I make them, I won't sway some people here to change their views on social combat. But those "hills to die on" should not be unlimited.

@derp said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

Those resistance stats are what should be determining how much of a badass this person is in their backstory. Not the other way around.

That's where we inherently and fundamentally disagree.

And that's okay.

I feel that a simple stat like "Willpower" is a woefully inefficient way of modeling something like: "Space Cowboy has a death wish, but is super afraid of losing people close to him, has a soft spot for puppies, and a weakness for gambling and redheads." Even merits/flaws don't come close to reflecting that sort of nuance.

Everyone keeps talking about Consent/Non-Consent like it's a boolean, but in reality it's a spectrum.

There are plenty of games that are "Consent, but... staff can overrule you if you do something insane." or "Non-Consent, but... you won't die without consent unless you do something insane."

All that some of us are talking about here is "Non-Consent, but... players have agency in their character's feelings and decisions." That doesn't mean they have unlimited agency. If a building falls on them or they get shot on the battlefield, that's something outside of the character's control. But whether they buy a car - that's a decision the character is making.

These are just different play-styles. Neither is right or wrong - they're just different.

The arguments (not you personally Derp - I mean in general) that people who like to play a different way are inferior, wrong or cheating are ridiculous, insulting, and frankly really annoying.

@marsgrad said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

Then he rolls dice, gets an awesome result and Space Cowboy is expected to be cowed by this, even though it's been established that Space Cowboy is a masochist and doesn't fear death. It overrides his admittedly cliche character and ignores his personality.

I think this is in large part due to the inadequacies of social conflict resolution systems. There's no nuance to them. It's just dice vs dice. Like @kitteh said - there's no way to reflect situational Willpower on a character sheet. Space Cowboy might have a death wish and be utterly unafraid if someone puts a gun to his head, but be soft-hearted enough to be completely cowed by someone putting a gun to the head of an innocent bystander. Both are forms of intimidation, but the execution is very different.

I have a problem with some of the pitches that say: "Well he rolled well, so you need to work with him to figure out what would've worked on your character." That's like having someone roll Salesmanship, get a good result and say: "OK clearly I've done a good job selling you a car - you tell me what kind of car that might be." It doesn't work that way. Maybe my character doesn't need a car. Maybe they can't afford one. Your salesmanship roll doesn't give magical insight into my character's thought patterns - it just means that you made a good sales pitch.

@rnmissionrun said in Chronicles of Darkness cyberpunk game seeking help.:

The hard part is usually code, but the fact they'll be writing that code in Python rather than MUSHcode should speed up the process considerably.

On the one hand you've got "installing @Thenomain's ready-to-go WoD library and tweaking it on TinyMUX" and on the other hand you've got "learning a new framework + building an entire WoD chargen/skill system from scratch in Python + redoing lots of MUSH globals that don't exist in core Evennia". There are many reasons to use Evennia. But there's no way on earth it'll be faster - or even vaguely comparable in effort.

@surreality said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

That high social score should inform female seductress 'this isn't going to work due to improper equipment, I need the right tool for this job to get what I want' just like high firearms is going to inform ace sniper that a twig and the word 'bang' isn't going to blow a hole in someone; they also need the right tool for that job.

I don't agree with that analogy. High firearms people can see the target and pick the appropriate weapon for the job. A squirrel (that you want to eat afterwards), a human wearing kevlar 100m distant and a tank all require different weapons. This is obvious at a glance.

A female seductress can't read @ixokai's character's mind to know that he's gay, or read my character's mind to know that she was traumatized by something in her childhood that makes her particularly receptive or resistant to a particular sort of manipulation.

Also - we accept that a high degree of randomness in physical combat. "Yes, you shot him, but you hit him in the leg and only grazed him." That same degree of randomness is nonsensical in social conflict because people (generally) do not behave in a completely random manner. They behave in ways that are informed by their personality, their experiences and their values - none of which is reflected meaningfully on a character sheet.

So I agree with @ixokai - people are way more complex than physics.

I favor an approach similar to what @Sparks mentioned awhile back: Social skills are a form of performance art. You roll for the performance. How someone reacts to that performance is based on a host of other factors out of your control. Just as two people can react to the same painting in completely different ways, two people can react to the same social roll in completely different ways.

Take the example of the lady getting caught robbing a place and trying to convince the cop to let her go with a sob story about her kids at home. She rolls well. That means her act was convincing.

• Officer McOrderly might believe her but still say: "Well you should've thought of them before you decided to break the law. I'll make sure CPS goes and takes care of them."
• Officer McBleedingHeart or Officer McRaisedByASingleMom might be swayed into giving her a pass outright.
• Officer McReformedDelinquent might take pity on her and make her a reformation project.

All of these are viable reactions to the situation that still respect the roll and the XP the social character spent on the dice. In fact, the only invalid reaction IMHO would be something like: "Save your fake tears for the judge, lady!"

Just once, it would be nice to have this debate without folks rampantly demonizing and attacking the other side.

Not everyone who favors social combat is a Creepy McCreeper who wants to go around intimidating or typef—-ing everyone they meet.

Not everyone who favors agency over their character’s thoughts and actions is a selfish sore loser who doesn’t know how to play by the rules.

There are extremists on both sides, yes, and to dismiss that with statements like “literally no one is saying...” is a cheap shot way of undercutting legitimate concerns.

But even so, the majority of players fall somewhere in the middle. Wouldn’t it be nice for a change to look for common ground and ways to compromise instead of flaming each other?

Lol wait... I forgot where I was for a second. Never mind. Carry on. I’ll be at the bar.

@lithium said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:

There's a lot of things that make a successful game, but I don't personally believe that being 'niche' is one of them on general principle.

I agree. I was making the opposite point - that being niche is an additional challenge to a game's success. Not that it makes it impossible, just harder. Because as @Arkandel pointed out in another thread...

@arkandel said in Activity and Aid:

What it comes down to is... if I see a post like this then I might log on tonight (for example). If it happens to be when you're busy IRL taking care of perfectly important stuff, things no one can possibly blame you for prioritizing, it could still mean there are no plots being ran or things happening, and I'd just spend a few minutes bored before logging out. Well, you lost me. It's not your fault, it's not mine either... it just happened.

Lots of MUSHers are like this. A lack of RP when you want it is a major turn-off, and most people won't give a game many chances before they just bail completely. Wider appeal gives you the chance for more players. Then it's up to you to keep them, which gets into the other factors you mentioned.

Theoretically, a niche game could generate more enthusiasm, even though the audience was limited. In my experience, that's still not enough to overcome the lack of people.

@lithium said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:

The problem is that most 'niche' games are opened by a small group, who then only cater to that small group, and everyone else is left high and dry.

My problem with niche games has been that there is no "everyone else" and so the game never achieves the critical mass necessary to get people to stick around. It's quite possible we've just had different experiences, or different degrees of "niche".

@nightshade said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:

Yeah, I think this hesitation is why we've had a slew of boring, setting-less, theme-less WoD sandboxes over the last few years.

I think that extends beyond WoD games too, but on the flip side - it goes both ways, yo. If the overwhelming majority of players are either unwilling to expend any effort to learn an unfamiliar theme, or unwilling to expend the additional effort to find roleplay / stick with a smaller game with fewer players, then you reap what you sow. Niche games can work if people are willing to play them, but frankly most people aren't. So you end up with a niche graveyard.

@the-sands said in MU* Activity Survey 2018 - DRAFT:

(Raw) Data itself is not really subjective

I think we're talking apples and oranges here. Activity metrics captured from an actual game in an automated fashion are, of course, objective. The questions in this survey (which is what I was talking about) are subjective.

@thenomain said in MU* Activity Survey 2018 - DRAFT:

What is the purpose of this poll?

Yeah, I don't mean to be overly negative, but I think studies/surveys like this work best when they have a thesis in mind. Otherwise it's just a random collection of disjointed, inconsistent and intensely subjective data that IMHO will be impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

Just an update... Ares is one step closer to a stable release. The web portal overhaul is complete and you can see it in action on BSGU. I'm churning through some bugfixes and installation script updates related to the separation of the portal and the game engine, and working on some more tutorials.

Here's a breakdown of the web portal features.

@zombiegenesis said in Star Trek Adventures Thoughts:

If I took his middle scores he's have a target number of 12, giving him a 60% chance of success on 1d20. For his best combination (Presence + Command) he'd have to roll a 17 or less giving him an 85% chance of success on 1d20. See again for variables though.

If I did my math right, you've got an 84% chance of at least one success with 2D20 counting successes against a TN12, so that's probably not too bad. But @Lithium is right - D20 is a very "swingy" die and you're going to feel the randomness more over the small-ish sample sizes you'll encounter during a typical gaming campaign than you would with any other die size. It's not a reason to deep-six the system in and of itself, but it is something for GMs and players to be aware of and cautious of when selecting their skills.