Posts made by Ganymede

@faraday

That's totally unfair. I'd only have 2 dice to resist.

(This is totally awesome, though.)

@tragedyjones said in General Video Game Thread:

Is anyone going to be playing Fallout 76 on the Xbox besides me?

I won't.

I use the PS4.

Because of The Last of Us 2.

That, and it's just better.

@mietze said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

I can't answer for Apos but I read their comments to mean more like even though people turn up their nose at allowing other pcs to affect them with dice rolls or social appeal, when it comes to a situation where they are facing real destruction (instead of losing face) they will privately or suddenly embrace it.

That's fine.

People can live their lives believing that there is a house over their roof when there is none, but when the rain comes I wouldn't blame them if they tried to build themselves one well after-the-fact.

In this case, the system is for the other PCs that they want to brush off. If you ignore it, the other PC can bring this to staff. And I, as staff, will ensure that people know that if people use the systems to reach an outcome, you will follow that outcome or you can find another game.

Real simple.

@apos said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

I've only been MUing for a few years compared to most people and I can think of 3 cases off hand of someone asking some version of the question, "Can I roll my social stats to try to talk my way out of this and not die?" when they were faced with imminent execution. There is basically zero chance someone doesn't try that if social combat exists and someone is trying to PK them, and whether it's allowed and reasonable is one I'd have a handle on.

I concur with Seraphim73 on this point.

I wouldn't say that it would be appropriate for a social combat issue, but rather a long-term objective that would be resolved with the Doors system. It would be a Herculean task, but that's kind of how good RP arises. Also, it is a good reason for the Prince or the High Authority to be in the hands of staff.

Maybe it's not execution, but the confiscation of the PC's worldly possessions, lands, and title, and a public flogging. That's a reasonable substitute for execution. And then the punished PC can play out trying to work his/her way back up the social ladder as a RP path.

To me, that sounds like a good story -- one I'd engage in.

But, yeah, I can see how another player might stomp their feet, whine, and rage-quit. Heaven forbid there be consequences for their actions.

@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

problems on MUs are, more often than anything else, problems between people - it baffles the shit out of me that helping people learn to/be able to successfully resolve interpersonal problems themselves is not considered a viable course of action here!

To the contrary, I consider this a given. Yes, helping people successfully resolve interpersonal problems is not only a viable course of action, but a commendable one. I've acknowledged this several times, and would heartily promote it.

What I'm looking for is a system to implement when this is simply not possible. Perhaps the players don't trust each other, but that's a rare occurrence; rather, a system is usually necessary when the objectives cannot be reconciled. When reasonable people cannot come to an agreement on how a situation shall unfold, that's when they turn to whatever system exists to resolve the problem.

There are also holes in the system in general. For example, PC A sucker-punches PC B, but PC B just wants PC A to back down and away. So, in the situation PC B just wants to make an Intimidation roll against PC A to stop the fighting, but what are the appropriate modifiers? Is a single success all that's required; if not, how many? What if PC B wants to beg forgiveness to mollify PC A for the purpose of ending the combat? Is that a Persuasion roll? One success or many? And what about parity: why does PC A need to engage in combat over several turns, but PC B able to succeed with a single success on a social roll?

And so on.

Yes, a Ventrue Prince could use Dominate to cow an opponent, but she also should be able to do so with but a look, yeah? Because she's the Prince: she's got Status; she's got power; and vampires know you just don't want to fuck with her. So, other than turning on her Dominate-eyes, why can't she stare down a Gangrel neonate into submission? I see that as completely feasible.

Or what about a Rahu? Yes, there's Dominance, but Uratha know not to bitch-slap a Rahu. She should be able to cow someone with a damn glance -- but how? Without a clear system, welp, it's time to slash them to bitty pieces.

Anyhow, yes. Yes, I understand what you're saying. And when I said "irrelevant," I meant "as to the construction of a robust social combat system."

But if the result is a system that removes the need to problem solve or cooperate OOC in order for players to butt heads ICly by mathematizing social encounters as thoroughly, or even more so, than physical combat? You're not going to reduce OOC hostility very much, you're just going to reduce the ability for people to throw tantrums when they don't get their way (and note, people still do this over physical combat, in any system, so idk what kind of platonically ideal social mechanics you had in mind but even they might not do what you're hoping for). (Emphasis added.)

Yes, this is what I'm aiming for were I to create or implement a more robust system of resolution.

@derp said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

At the end of the day, the rules don't get taken seriously because of desuetude, essentially. It's not that the rules aren't there, it's just that people have gotten so used to being able to break them that they have come to expect they will be ignored.

Let's suppose for a moment that the rules will always be enforced by staff when needed.

Would people still use social stats to resolve conflict? Why or why not?

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

A system can't be successful unless players buy into it.

Let me attempt to persuade you otherwise.

rolls dice

Okay, so, let me try by Socratic method: why do World of Darkness players so readily buy into the Violence section (combat) of the rules, but sometimes vehemently oppose any attempt to use rules regarding social influence and maneuvering?

We can blame it on that dragon, agency, or we can presume that it is because the Violence section creates a cognizable framework to resolving the confrontation. If it is the latter, then players who seek to resolve the confrontation without staff intervention can either work it out OOCly or use the system that is provided.

And from what I can tell, anecdotally and by report of others, is that players usually resolve things OOCly by collaboration, and when they cannot, well -- you have a situation.

I posit that if players cannot agree OOCly on how to resolve the confrontation, then they may not be able to agree on the method by which to resolve the confrontation, even if they are provided with a method in the core rules. This may be because what is provided is too vague or simple to be of use; indeed, the Storyteller System is very loose with how to resolve social confrontations between player-characters. Maybe this is because the system expects players to resolve it among themselves or to not be such babies about what happens with their PCs, but it is a super big problem. (GODDAMMIT SUPER WHY.)

I'm proposing that a more robust system, like what was proposed in the Danse Macabre, might get more players to engage in using social stats to resolve social confrontations. Maybe it will, or maybe it will just make people want to engage in OOC deliberations to resolve confrontations (who the fuck wants to use my system, fuck it, let's just work it out rather than look to crazy-lawyer-system). It does not matter to me in the slightest.

What matters is that social combat has been the red-headed step-child on World of Darkness games. I believe that making them on par with physical combat will make people stand up, notice it, and pay it some more goddamn attention. And, as per the example I gave, using social combat may be a way to avoid physical combat as the end-all-and-be-all of confrontations. Further, game lines like Vampire make social combat the front-and-center of a story's focus, yet never make it something as tangible and complex as politics ought to be.

Anyhow, I don't want to complicate things, but if there's a way to raise the power level for social stats, I figure it's worth going after.

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

The more a social system tries to do the less successful is poised to become.

I whole-heartedly disagree with the statement because what I think you mean to say is:

The more a social system tries to do the less likely players will want to use it.

We should probably add to this the following truism:

The more complex a system is the less likely players will want to use it.

And that's fine. I never said that players had to use a physical, social, or mental system if they do not want to. I've been in plenty if IC sparring matches that did not become a full-out physical contest. The fundamental focus of both the initial and subsequent questions is whether there should be a system, and, if so, what would the aims be.

In the morass of comments, I have made a couple of conclusions that are guiding my thought processes regarding the system I want to create, using the Chronicles of Darkness' Storyteller system:

1. Players want some parity between physical and social combat insofar as its effectiveness in role-playing.

2. Players do not want a social system that is empty or powerless.

Some of the ideas arising out of these conclusions are as follows:

• Make social combat on par with physical combat, going so far as to adding advantages to the system like "Social Initiative" and "Social Health" that can be affected by social attacks.

• Have concrete results for victory in social combat, which as physical combatants must declare their intent prior to engaging in physical combat.

• Make clear rules for the victory results, such as using Conditions.

• Award players for electing and abiding by the victory results.

As an example:

Arkandel is sick of Ganymede's shit in public, and decides to engage her in social combat by delivering a cold, icy stare to make her shut her damn trap. Arkandel declares his intent, and he and Ganymede roll initiative. Arkandel rolls a 8, and adds his Dominance (Social Initiative), and ends up first, so he takes the first attack by delivering the stare and telling Ganymede to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

Rolling his eyes, Arkandel finally turns to look at Ganymede with an expression and gaze of steel. "Why don't you have a seat now? No one cares what you have to say, you glorified pencil-pusher?"

Arkandel rolls his Presence + Intimidation pool. Unfortunately, Arkandel is seriously milquetoast, and can only roll 3 dice: 1, 4, 8. Ganymede takes 1 damage to her Nerve (Social Health). With some Nerve left, Ganymede isn't fully convinced, and returns Arkandel's stare with a cool one of her own, along with sending along a witty remark about his mother's expansive waistline.

The lawyer blinks at Arkandel, and puts a hand over her mouth for a moment. "I would, buddy, but -- " She sighs. " -- I think the last person to use this chair was your mom, and her ass done up and broke it, son."

Ganymede rolls her Manipulation + Intimidation, which is exceedingly high given that she is a world-class lawyer, and rolls: 6, 8, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10. This thumps Arkandel's Nerve hard, reducing it to zero. Ganymede chooses to give Arkandel the Cowed Condition as a result, which reduces Arkandel's Intimidation pool for the rest of the scene, and requires him to spend a Willpower point to engage in any other kind of combat.

Something like that.

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

I'd be willing to bet big internet bucks the major reason social powers are so rarely even attempted on PCs is the potential for headaches following it.

Maybe it's just the circles you run with, but I can attest that social powers and rolls have been directed at me quite frequently. Strangely, more often on games without robust social systems, like games using FS3.

The use of social powers in the World of Darkness is amusing and fun if you don't take them too seriously. This is a culture thing that isn't going to be solved by a more robust social combat system.

But if one is provided, the outcomes should be clearer. Enforcing the rules should not be something that staff shies away from either.

@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Spoiler: Never lol

Did you ever play on Requiem for Kingsmouth? I'm guessing "no," but I could be wrong.

@derp said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

... maybe the system isn't broken, and maybe it's just the way we've been allowed to play it so far that's the problem.

Or maybe the system is woefully insufficient because it doesn't take into consideration that there is a difference between tabletop and MUSH play, and, for the fifteen or so years that we've been trying to play nWoD games on MUSHes, no one's ever bothered to sit down and think "why the fuck do we have eleventy billion merits related to fighting with different styles and weapons and have maybe one or two things for social play?"

@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Didn't I also suggest that it might be more expedient for us to approach these disputes, frustrations, and misunderstandings at the interpersonal level, using player to player conversations that are facilitated by staff through a framework of easy/simple prompts, or questions, an atmosphere which encourages collaboration, a willingness to remove players that cannot maturely navigate these discussions, and more than just oversight, a plainly drawn expectation (with explanation) that players make the effort to cooperate in the resolution of these things as much as they would in any other conflict...?

I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of this discussion. All of the above is simply irrelevant.

The first scenario was, literally, to pull social stats entirely out of the equation. Can't find middle ground in a dispute? Either fight physically or deal with it. That option had its fair share of dissent.

Now the scenario is to make social and mental combat more robust to solve disputes where the parties cannot otherwise agree. Collaboration is important and to be encouraged, but the aim of the current discussion is to examine what might be implemented when the lines of communication are cut.

@tinuviel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

The main problem I have with the Danse Macabre system is how it has been, in our more influential multi-sphere games, so poorly implemented. It is exclusively used by the Vampire sphere, rather than being a requirement for all.

To be fair, it is a Vampire supplement that was written with Vampire in mind, to the point where only Vampire powers have any supernatural effect on the results.

Point taken, though: a social and mental combat system would have to apply to everyone.

TETSUO! (I'm SORRY, I couldn't resist.)

@derp said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

That's not what this system does, though. At the end of the day, the exact step-by-step process doesn't matter, any more than the exact step-by-step process matters for determining damage in physical combat. We don't make people come up with exacting technical detail about how their characters duck under a person's punch and apply a certain pre-determined amount of force to a specific joint or nerve nexus in order to determine the level of damage, and we don't allow people to make arguments like 'Well my character is double jointed and extremely flexible so clearly that isn't going to have an effect on me'. The outcome is determined by a level of abstraction governed by dice.

I don't disagree with most of your conclusions, or your ultimate question. I do disagree that the exact step-by-step process is irrelevant, however, because the way that physical combat is laid out plainly makes how you get from the showdown to the outcome detail-oriented. What maneuvers you choose in combat will put you at an advantage or disadvantage as to the probability of the outcome.

You don't just roll Strength + Weaponry to put down your target; you are given a plethora of options and moves to determine how to best do that. Those options are, for the most part, ignored or unavailable for social or mental combat, even the more robust system offered by the Danse Macabre.

Plus, the system as presented makes available modifiers and penalties for good or poor planning, role-playing, and so forth (not that I necessarily agree with this).

So, there's another set of questions to consider: is a potential solution to the "problem" the creation of a more robust social and/or mental combat process? And is there value to that solution?

@apos said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

I generally think it is helpful to go to the endpoint first, of making characters with an equivalent degree of investment in them feel roughly equally threatening to other PCs and roughly equally powerful.

I concur.

But, frankly, I'm still trying to figure out how to make this the case.

Most, if not all, of the most popular RPG systems emphasize the use of physical force in order to reach an objective. Be it through magic or stealth, the idea is meeting the objective.

There isn't much thought put into defending against that, or providing effective, active mechanisms to do so.

@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

@Ganymede, I saw your comment about being able to manipulate and outwit other players, on an OOC level, and typically leaning towards manipulative character archetypes for that reason.

If I gave you that impression, I may have mis-typed.

I really don't lean towards manipulative character archetypes. (I tend to lean more towards broken people who have violent tendencies; please see Shrike.) What I know, however, is that I'm fairly good at manipulation, planning, and writing convincingly. Some people say it is part of my charm. As such, I feel compelled to put points into my social stats, so that I'm not cheating if my PC suddenly tries and succeeds in tricking someone else to do what they want. In other words, I make sure that my PCs have some social clout because I know that I sometimes fall in that direction.

I definitely agree with the sentiment that removing rules in a way that makes social manipulation/conflict hinge itself entirely upon the abilities of PLAYERS and not about their characters, is bad for a lot of reasons.

I have concluded that whether there are social stats or not is irrelevant; social manipulation and conflict, without a strict, robust system, is always going to hinge upon a player's ability to communicate in writing. Period. It is neither a good nor a bad thing; it simply is this way. If a player wants to alter their PC's communicative skills, that is literally entirely up to them, if they are a skilled writer.

It means that players can really only play as characters with their level of social aptitude or less, with their talent for writing also applying, essentially, the lesser of their abilities as a socialite or writer determines how socially capable their characters can be.

I don't mean to be blunt or mean, but this is simply the case and I think it has to do with our medium; however, it is less about one's social aptitude and more about one's ability to communicate in the written medium. And it is not a limit on your characters' potential; it is a limit on how your characters will be perceived.

If you are unable to pull together a cogent sentence, constantly misspell words, or use confusing or improper syntax, many players are not going to consider your character persuasive, manipulative, or charming. If you roll to try to make the other players treat your character differently, I think you will find that quite a few people are simply going to avoid your PC. It's not a personal thing, necessarily; it could simply be that the other player wants to spend their online RP time with other players that type as well as they think they do.

I have seen countless times players electing to avoid other players because of their perceived inability to communicate well. No amount of social stats is going to change this. If that's the case, then why bother with social stats at all? People judge as they will judge.

… and those that lack social skills or even struggle with social interaction because of things beyond their control (maybe they struggle with a mental illness, or perhaps are on the autism spectrum, etc) are at a pretty steep disadvantage, and will struggle to have fun.

Anecdotally, I think this is the case already. And, unfortunately, I don't think any amount of system tweaking is going to change this. It's a social issue in our hobby.

@arkandel

@tragedyjones said in Do you read the book(s)?:

Do you devour the content, mechanics, fluff and all?

System mechanics, yes. Fluff, no.

Do you skim the character creation and wing it?

No, I read the character creation part very thoroughly. Yes, I wing what I can't fully understand.

Do you just hope people will be nice and helpful?

Of course not, what are you, dumb?

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

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.

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.

But there are two kinds of social combat, unlike physical combat. There's the long-game, which is what the Doors system represents, and then there's the short-game, which is the down-and-dirty single-roll interactions. The long-game is for trying to win over someone's vote; the short-game is for using a look to prevent someone from suckerpunching you for dissing his mama.

I think the key, as you say, is buy-in. And a very well-written, robust set of principles and rules.

@auspice said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

All of these still come down to one thing in the end:

Physical stats trump all.

Which is sort of the crux of the issue.

I disagree. This isn't what I'm asking about at all. It is, however, a very large concern.

If we want to delve into "reality," the vast majority of potential violence is sidetracked by concerns about consequences. People generally don't try to shoot me in the courtroom because there are bailiffs with guns around, and because I'm the Mistress of the Tae-Kwon-Leap. In a MUSH, however, the consequences to the player are substantially less, which makes physical violence a more-available option to resolve conflict.

Maybe I have this all wrong.

Maybe the solution isn't fewer social stats, but giving them more power. Maybe a successful intimidation roll would result in a Condition that would bar or reduce the ability to engage in a fight. Maybe a successful seduction roll would result in a Condition that would bar refusal of simple, non-Breaking-point requests.

So, let's flip the question:

Would you make social stats in the World of Darkness more powerful? If so, how?

(Note, I'm not talking about powers that rely on social stats.)

@mietze said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Given the nature of mushes, the interactions you have between PCs are very much as if you are sharing the responsibility of GMing/working it out amongst yourselves so why would it seem or be weird to engage each other in that discussion piece?

This is an important, crucial question.

My answer: because it is for some people. If I recall some of the MUSH/MUD discussions, this is a point of argument on the issue of what is "better." Do players prefer to share the responsibility of GMing and/or working matters out amongst themselves, or do players prefer to have the installed code resolve the issue? And when expectations or preferences do not match, there is a super big problem.

(Goddammit, now Super Why is infecting my invective.)

We should stop treating other players like they are NPCs in a tabletop game, but the Chronicles of Darkness system is structured that way. And the thing is that "normal" players (y'all muthafuckas not normal, shit) have different, equally-valid playing preferences or styles. Even were a game to make it absolutely, objectively clear what players should expect, I do not believe, from my experience, that this will solve the issue.

It never has.

There have been a lot of suggestions made, all of which I have examined and written down. I really like the way Requiem for Kingsmouth handled social interactions, but I'm not wedded to it. It has become clear to me that if a code or system could be created or implemented, it may be complex, cumbersome, and undesirable. But it could provide that third-party resolution (as a GM would) to a situation that would make those less-willing to discuss resolution prior more comfortable and validated.