Posts made by Ganymede

@seraphim73 said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

I agree completely. I also think that NPC influence should be more readily used on most games, both as a way to drive friction (conflict-lite) and as a way to theme-correct.

I think that staffers these days are hesitant to use their NPCs and power to make the PCs' lives difficult. I can understand this reluctance; we talk so much about staffers using their influence and power in a bad way to make playing unpleasant. But in the World of Darkness, there is to be expected, I think, a bit of NPC antagonism. Friendly antagonism with purpose, of course, but antagonism nonetheless.

That's why, to this day, I still think it is better to have an NPC Prince and Court. If the Court abuses its power, then the players can take steps to work against it. It puts the players and their PCs in an environment where collaboration is the best way to ensure that "what is right" remains right, and that the Prince is left twisting his moustache and brooding about how he longs for an autumnal mead.

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

Then this answers your question: Social and mental stats should be usable against other characters. (Maybe you've already said this amidst your responses; it's been a busy day on the board.) The question is then how to implement it, what to allow, and how to allow it.

I thought this was clear from the three points I posed in my original post, but yes. I suggested the limits and permissions.

@thenomain

Yes.

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

And, what I MIGHT suggest, if you don't want PCs to be able to affect each other directly with social skills/abilities, is to have robust mechanics for affecting NPCs in meaningful ways. Like, going back to the games up above, on Kingsmouth, social skills made your character better at controlling territory, and allowed indirect conflicts by screwing with NPCs within other territories.

I like your suggestion, and that's why I've already come up with that kind of system for my game, so that, as you put it, social skills and stats aren't useless.

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

That is: if your policy supports the idea that player talent in regards to social maneuvering is what is going to win the day, it will encourage players who want to basically try to do their maneuvering OOC.

Whoa, okay, no, I don't think that's what Pyrephox was getting at, and it certainly wasn't what I was aiming for either. Maneuvering OOC through pages and @mails is very different than a player relying on their own intelligence and communicative abilities to maneuver their PCs politically; the former I oppose because that's totally out-of-character, whereas the latter keeps the action in the IC realm.

... if you create policy that sets up how your game wants social systems to work and spend time working out how it happens on a character to character basis, and take steps to reduce ways in which people can basically use their OOC wits to make up for a lack of IC wits, I think you'll actually be building towards what you are describing, Gany: that when players understand the expectation and the normality of social maneuvering, it can actually reduce the OOC drama surrounding it.

Yes, but I go back to the underlying presumption of my position, which, for right or wrong, is that players, to some extent, will always use their OOC wits when playing their PCs. Understanding the normality of social maneuvering, and the expectations thereof, is a separate issue; that's up to the players to figure out, mostly, and very difficult to create policy for.

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

So I wouldn't be the target audience for a WoD game without social stats in the first place.

I hate canards. Damn ducks.

You are actually my target audience, so I'm trying to work through things carefully. There are a lot of strong, good opinions. My goal is to gather the thoughts, and figure out what is best for what I want to set up.

Thanks for discussing this with me.

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

... if your policy is, "IC social contests are contests between players," then you're going to get a higher percentage of players who have poor separation of IC/OOC to start out with.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I have been in many spheres with IC social contests, and, for the most part, have found that, given the amount of potential conflict, there was little actual conflict that bled OOC. However, in a bizarre inverse relationship, games with less potential IC conflict socially bred much more conflict IC and OOC. I couldn't tell you why this was (with any authority, but I have some ideas), but that's my experience.

And a higher percentage of people who THINK they are far more seductive/charismatic/clever than they are, and who are not going to deal well with finding out otherwise.

This sounds like a problem for the player. Frankly, when they find that out -- and they find no social stats to use as a sword to enforce their delusion -- they may leave to find more tolerant pastures.

"High charisma! Plz RP accordingly!" Yeah, go fuck yourself, no.

You're also going to dissuade people who are uncomfortable with that sort of boundary crossing, and who prefer to be able to recognize that a character and a player can be good a very different things, without it being a judgement on the player.

Again, I am of the belief that the existence of social stats to influence others isn't going to change this.

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

Getting away from a system with a binary succeed/fail system would also help.

King's Advisor: Milord, the princess might be taken hostage or her life be put in jeopardy.

Longshanks: Oh, my son would be most distressed by that. Uh, but in truth, if she were to be killed, we would soon find the king of France a useful ally against the Scots. You see, as king, you must find the good in any situation.

The situation is only binary if you cannot see the other possibilities. This is another cognition problem.

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

If you're actually saying as a game policy that social contests between characters will be resolved based on the skills of the players involved, then a loss for a character IS a loss for that player. Assuming they were trying their best to be a slick social maven, they've just been labeled a failure in that endeavor, possibly in a hugely public way on the game. Not their character, but THEM. So it certainly isn't going to help.

This is the sort of discussion I want to engage in, because this is a good point.

Take the contrary situation. Let's say Player A wants to play a slick social maven, and loads up on dice and powers to do this. If Player A rolls poorly, then they have failed, may be labeled as a failure in that endeavor, and that may be hugely public. If they still hold to the cognitive issue -- "if my PC loses, I lose" -- then the dice and stats have not helped either. And that's the situation, I think, that arises now, and why players often engage bitterly and hotly about what pool to roll.

The cognition problem doesn't go away with social stats.

@pyrephox

I'd like to think that too, but we are presuming arguendo that there is no IC/OOC divide. There are arguments on both sides as to whether it is possible to completely divorce the player from the character, so as to support the conclusion that the characters alone are competing.

The entire belief of "if my PC loses I lose" is a matter of player cognition. This is not something we can eliminate by policy, so I don't consider it an issue. But, again, I am arguing from the perspective that there is no IC/OOC divide, so I have to, for the sake of the discussion, avoid any digression into whether there should be or can be a separation between IC and OOC. I see your concern, but it's not really in my mind right now.

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

People gravitate to quality, for which there is no stat you can buy with XPs.

I don't necessarily believe this, but I like to think this is why I get nice RP partners.

That said, sure -- and so what? Maybe I used that "quality" to get my PCs into political situations. Maybe I used that "quality" to punch above my weight class politically, so to speak. What I do know is that I didn't cheat with my PCs; they were either built to be political, or hustled their way up the ladder IC.

So, maybe I'm good with the political game, and maybe my PCs are.

But I can say, with some confidence, that I didn't rely on or roll my social stats to get there unless asked to. And my experience leads me to believe that players, if they gravitate to quality RP as you say, are more than happy to play with what they see on the screen. I feel that players are willing to adjust their PC's habits and behaviors to stay with other PCs that they enjoy playing with. And they are willing to let things go, and just go with how things are written.

If so, then do we really need social stats?

I mean, D&D campaigns seem to go just fine without players using social stats to sleep with one another. D&D is built to cater to player v. GM RP rather than player v. player. And people like D&D just fine.

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

This is not a trick question: If we can rely on playing the character sheets with each other, why allow one player character to be physically antagonistic to another?

Because, as a player behind a screen, I can out-think you and persuade you to do what I wish through my writing, scheming, and planning. I usually build my PCs to be able to do that, so that I'm not cheating. But, no matter my sheet, I cannot jump through the screen and punch you in the face, so I have to rely on my PC to do that.

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

The lack of central agreement social systems is the main problem of using tabletop RPGs on a Mu* setting.

Hence, why I brought this up.

And you're right. We're joking or lying if we claim a complete divide between what we do IC and what we think OOC. I don't think that's possible at all times.

But let's suppose that to be true. All the more reason to abolish social and mental combat, and simply rely on our wits and writing, as players, to convince others to do what we want.

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

It's not that hard to apply the exact same paradigm with social stats. I give what I try to be an impassionate speech meant to inspire you but I just come off as a sanctimonious self-serving prick, making you wonder what are you doing following my lead.

I think what Pacha means is that players of PCs with Presence 1 and Expression 1 will make impassioned speeches, but not tell people that it should come off as sanctimonious horseshit. And that's part of the reason I am examining this issue again.

@aria said in RL things I love:

NASA has apparently declared that the Curiosity rover is a girl.

I'm pretty sure it is a cat.

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

Also at least in Requiem 2E you can attempt to resist the blood bond. But you will probably fail and/or end up a vitae addict.

That's fine, but in Requiem 2E the blood bond is also represented as a substantial penalty to resist your domitor's whims, and not a fiat to do as he/she says.

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

I love the investigations/doors/chase/quick combat stuff. It's really useful and fun once you get to know it.

I built my last mage, Shrike, based on all of these systems. And she was very good with them.

I mean, a terrible mage, but someone you don't want looking for or chasing you, ever.

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

Has any game actually used the Investigation system?

Yes.

And the Chase system.

And the Doors system.

It's called 'reading and playing the nWoD 2E / CoD system as written'.

And it should be on any game that claims to follow that rule set.

@arkandel said in Good TV:

I really liked Titans. All the casting choices were really good, the effects were pretty decent (for a TV show) and hopefully when the full roster is on the screen it won't feel crowded.

It looked so horrible in the trailer(s).

Plus, I mean, what's with Beast Boy showing up in my backyard? There are better places in the world than Covington, Ohio, man.

@faraday

Seem.

(Yes, I know, lawyer, boo me.)

I saw the suggestions. I'm looking for more.

@killer-klown said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

The biggest argument I tend to see is that there's no real restriction on using physical stats against other pcs - like you could beat someone into submission if you were stronger, but couldn't use Charisma/Presence/whatever to convince them to submit.

On that note, no one really talks about Mental Combat. There is Mental Combat in the World of Darkness, and it comes in the form of Investigations in CoD. But there's more to it, and it's a long-game process.

This is a subject that has roiled back and forth for years. Years, you say? Yes, because I have no less than three different write-ups on how I'd manage the expectations of "social combat" and "mental combat" on a MUSH, for different systems (one for FS3, one for the Mass Effect game I was working on, one for another WoD game). And it does not seem as if there will be any middle ground.

That's the thing about politics, I guess.

One thing I wanted to clarify:

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

Will this 'PC's are Immune to social rolls Include...

Empathy rolls to get better insight, Subterfuge rolls to shield emotions or pick up on lies, or Expression to be a dramatic bitch.

Going to the first point of my original post, the social roll cannot influence or change the feelings or thoughts of another PC. Using Empathy to get better insight does not influence or change the thoughts of the target. Using Subterfuge to shield emotions or detect lies does not influence or change the thoughts of the target. And using Expression to be a dramatic sex-starved bitch named Count does not influence or change the thoughts of the target, as the goal is focused on the acting PC.

I realize that this may not be workable without substantial changes to the rules to balance things out. That's why I'm enjoying reading everyone's (I mean, everyone's) thoughts on the matter. We've talked in previous threads and topics about adapting systems to the MUSH environment in order to make those games more viable for the same, and that's why I wanted to embark again on this journey. It seems worthwhile to do, and now we have a dedicated topic for it.

I'm still open to suggestions and ideas, and criticism.

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

I have a system all written up nice and neat for "Social Fu". It's similar to what we used on RfK. The summary, though, is that you can use social stats on other PCs. If you do, they can comply or not. If they comply, they get XP (A beat, whatever). If they don't, they don't.

Funny; I also have such a system. It's almost like we're great minds, what?

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

Seems like that would more or less hamstring a daeva if mental and combat stuff could still be used but social could not.

That's only if you don't properly adjust powers as they are, and the application of the rule(s) relate to PCs only. Majesty would work just fine on an NPC.

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

I don't know if it's the right question. I think a better one is to ask if you want PCs to have complete control to be able to attack/kill/do whatever to other PCs, regardless of the kind of attack, whether physical, social, whatever. I think if the answer is yes, then you don't need to really restrict social skills that remove agency. If the answer is no, then I think you remove them.

I think this is a red-herring question, but I'm pretty sure that no one wants PCs to have that kind of complete control. And I know of no game that permits PCs that kind of control.

Example: I know of no game that would allow a player to use his PC to threaten another player's PC with death if they did not engage in TS.