Posts made by Ganymede

@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

1. It expects that people will be familiar with the dice mechanic and associated statistics to figure out what those pools give them in practice, which is often not at all obvious when you factor in modifiers, merits, etc. Especially for new people.

You're right. Merits and things like that throw everything off a little. But the Storyteller system, at its basic, is Attribute + Skill. This is what you should expect for your pool, and all situational modifiers and merit adjustments are frills that apply sometimes, but not all the time.

So, I've described the basics of the Storyteller System in three sentences. That doesn't mean it's a good system, of course, but I concur with The Sands in that it is pretty basic.

I like it better than THAC0, at least.

2. It doesn't provide any consistency across players. Two people may intend for their characters to be comparably skilled (let's say... both modestly successful pilots fresh out of flight school) and end up with wildly different dice pools completely by accident because they're just not on the same page as to what's appropriate.

On BSG:U, the +census feature was great because it allowed you to see how others built their PCs. I strongly advocate for open sheets on all games, even PvP ones. This is a good way for folks to meet expectations.

Also, staff. As I've said countless times, I carefully look at applications when I'm staff, and I offer up suggestions to folks where I feel it is appropriate. Because sometimes a person is a newbie, doesn't know how to strategically allocate points, and genuinely appreciates it when someone takes an interest in their enjoyment on a game.

But I think that they can provide a lot of value if you can manage to get them right.

And I agree. That's why I like L5R's roll-and-keep system or DP9's Silhouette system. In fact, the latter is probably the best system I've found to accurately describe skill level, skill complexity, and attributes. Basically:

• You roll a number of d6 equal to your Skill Level, generally 1-5 (although it can go up to ten).
• You pick the highest result if you roll more than one die. If you roll more than one 6, you get a +1 to the result for each additional 6; so, if you rolled three dice and got 3, 6, and 6, the result is a 7.
• If unskilled, roll 2 dice and pick the lowest result.
• If your result is a 1, you fumble.
• Apply your Attribute modifier to the result. An "Average" attribute gives you a 0.
• Apply your Complexity modifier to the result. If your PC's Skill Complexity is equal to the Task's Complexity, you get a 0 modifier.
• Compare the result to the Threshold or opposing roll. Determine Margin of Success or Margin of Failure to determine outcome.

It sounds more complex that it is, but, really, the Silhouette system is light and very versatile.

@sockmonkey said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

Should there be +census for attribute and skills so players get a sense of what the actually playerbase spread is?

Unsurprisingly, Faraday's code has this.

@sunny said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

How is a newbie supposed to know that the stats of the pistol there DON'T represent what the game says it does? They are a newbie.

I believe The Sands is operating from the premise that you should not take the skill descriptions for the Storyteller System as indicative of true meaning within the system because the system is understandable absent those descriptions. That is, if you have Strength 2 and Melee 1, your total pool is 3 of a possible 10 dice, which is the same if you had Strength 1 and Melee 2. So, the skill descriptions in the Storyteller System are patently and obviously misleading, if you rely on them alone.

This does not mean I agree with The Sands, though. I don't put the blame on the Newbie; I put the blame on the stupid people at White Wolf that came up with the idea of skill descriptions. As a veteran, I will tell you that they are patently misleading; all you need to know is: (1) having a 0 in a skill will result in a penalty to such rolls, either -1 or -3; (2) 4 is the supposed average for a person considered "skilled"; and (3) look at the total pool.

@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

That now means I'm now 2 dots "behind" someone else who comes along and ignores the skill descriptions and plays a driver without the Drive skill. It creates a situation that is inherently unfair between those who follow the rules and those who don't.

A driver without the Drive skill has a -1 penalty to their rolls to Drive. So, if that ever comes up, you have a 3-die advantage over the other driver. How a driver ever managed to get by without Drive is a staff-side problem.

@thenomain said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

(Dove-tail into the Social Stats discussion.)

The first chance I get, Imma gonna vote you off the island.

@apos said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

So imo the way to stop min-maxing is to make strong, effective ways of designing characters be very, very, very intuitive and what someone would do anyways.

In my opinion, the way to stop min-maxing is by providing multiple avenues of "attack." In a competitive PvP game, give people more than one way to knock their opponent on their ass.

In order for this to work, though, you have to guarantee some sort of advancement cap, or else people will increase their stats until there is no weakness.

In the Chronicles of Darkness, capping stats at 35 XP is reasonable. That allows for min-maxing if you want, but doing so is going to open up vast holes in your PC. If you go combat-masher, you're going to get capped badly by sneaky (filthy hobbit) types, politico-make-you-look-dumdums, and double-up-ungh-ungh seducers.

@sonder said in Visit Fallcoast, sponsored by the Fallcoast Chamber of Commerce:

We’re hope to come up with something a little bit different this time. I’m reading everyone’s suggestions and feedback, and I appreciate it.

Here are some suggestions based on my experience.

• Please, for the love of Pete, cut down on the number of alts.
• Please, for the love of Pete, cut down on the number of spheres.
• And, please, for the love of Pete, adopt some sort of system that allows PCs to engage with the world without staff intervention.

Most of us have fond memories of The Reach and Fallcoast, and would like that to continue, but there are better products being put out there.

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

Too bad White Wolf’s Paths write-ups were just as bad.

Eh.

I think a good idea, here, is to allow every player to give their PCs 3 additional Breaking Points, set at the 7, 5, and 3 levels. While this may increase your chances of losing Morality/Humanity, you can use the opt-out provision if the intent of the social combat/roll is to get force you to a Breaking Point. A careful reading of the book suggests that you cannot use social rolls to force a person to compromise a Breaking Point.

You can choose to do something that leads to a Breaking Point, mind, and a person can certainly convince you that they may harm your loved ones if you don't do something that is a Breaking Point. It just isn't a direct thing.

I think I may be re-writing my social combat stuff a bit.

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

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.

Maybe Paths?

I mean, maybe. I never liked Humanity as a universal basis of morality. Ever.

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

So to be more productive and thinking about system design, what about... a player defines an inclination, defined with a descriptive string and then an integer for magnitude. So 'Total Coward: 10' and then defines a will and won't, for something they won't do because of it, and something they will do because of it, for a vulnerability and defense. Could be a secret, or could become known and publicly viewable due to their reputation. Players could have fun with defining them.

That sounds pretty close to what Pendragon has. It's a system that I liked.

@faceless said in Visit Fallcoast, sponsored by the Fallcoast Chamber of Commerce:

Beaver City, Nebraska by Night.

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

The systems I’ve seen for social in WoD are like Ganymede mentioned. Have you shown anyone else your Vampire regions system, @Sunnyj? It’s just...right. It’s Reign (the RPG) for vampires.

Hey.

Hey.

You stay the heck away from my development team, sir.

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

However the one compelling argument I've found people who support dice and mechanics have, and which I am swayed by, is to facilitate the possibility of occasional failure and provide a scale to success. Even the practiced politician will misread a situation or say the wrong thing at the wrong time after all, so a roll could make for an interesting scene since the result is truly unexpected by all participants.

Then agree to use the dice. Do that.

Or don't, and agree to an outcome.

Like, just do something? And stick with it. That's totally fine. And when there's a system available, use it if you want -- or don't.

But if you opt-out of a result of social combat that I engaged in, and I don't feel your reasons are justified, that's probably the last time we'll be doing that, and I'll make sure that whatever plans I come up with work around you.

Or, maybe next time I push your PC's face in instead.

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

Or at the very least you should work with Space Cowboy to make your awesome intimidation/persuasion/seduction check believable.

That's Rule No. 1 for me when it comes to just about any game.

Try to figure things out before resorting to dice.

Because, man, dice totally suck sometimes.

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

If you want the kind of character that never blinks in the face of such things, then -invest in the stats that make sure you rarely lose those rolls-, and then when you do lose one, figure out why this time is different.

Super major peeve -- your character doesn't get extra stats/immunity based on backstory.

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

What I am starting to think is social attribute should be balanced in relation to their physical counterparts. Not in the same way, because that's comparing apples to oranges. The more we try to shoehorn a more direct equivalence the more we'll be bashing our heads against the wall.

This, this, this is what I'm meaning to get at when I say "there are a million other ways to use social stats than direct confrontation." And, when there is direct confrontation between players, yes, there will be an opt-out provision (for long term things that can have meaningful, character-changing consequences).

Our game will be using Status. A lot. When we said "we wants politics plz," we meant it. I spent the better part of yesterday writing up how Status works on the game, what will cause your Status to go up and down, and so on. Now I'm on the part I called "Political Actions," which includes things like censuring people, allocating a Faction's resources, and so forth. What pools are going to be used? That's right, social pools.

Managing resources? Actual strategic warfare? You can bet that'll use mental pools. Because combat isn't always brought down to the individual level in the Dark Ages, and even William Wallace lost a battle to a foe with a superior mind.

A bully finds few friends in their time of need. Go around smashing things, and everyone'll come down on you hard until they will get political gain for sending you into torpor.

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

I don't see how the situation is salvageable when we're stuck trying to jury rig combat-is-king games with hundreds or thousands of xp worth of character growth space for murdering and maybe a couple dozen for 'social stuff.'

I've played enough 2E WoD to know that combat-is-king only works when you've got a lot of XP to work with. When you don't, it isn't a great strategy. And when you cap XP spending, it becomes even worse.

I'm turning my focus away from the "are these comparable systems?" question to what seems to be an underlying problem: what consequences are there to killing someone? Make tangible penalties for assaults and murders, and you'll probably see less of them.

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

I'm sorry. I'm a bit confused. It sounds as though you are worried that vampires would have an ability that mortals don't. Isn't that the whole point of a Discipline, that it's a power that exceeds the boundaries set on normal skills? For that matter isn't that why the character is a vampire and now just 'a mortal with an eating disorder'?

I wasn't entirely clear.

In my opinion, the designers of the Chronicles of Darkness conceived of situations where one PC could feasibly convince another PC or NPC to do something against their natures. Although, as Thenomain mentions, the designers stated they didn't want players at the table to start using their social stats against one another, the social stats were meant to be used to resolve conflicts, however they arise.

For example, the Leveraged Condition (CoD, p. 289) contemplates other characters being able to convince your character to do something they may not want to do. No mention of requiring some sort of supernatural power to inflict it. The Swooning Condition (VtR 2E, p. 306) weakens your PC's ability to resist his paramour's commands; and this condition can be inflicted if another PC helps your PC fulfill their Vice. In both cases, a non-vampire PC can inflict a Condition to cause another PC to do something against their natures, or even their interests.

If one were to say, "well, only vampires can force you to do something against your nature with a discipline," my response would be "no, that's not really how the system appears to work." Indeed, a Daeva who is dependent on a mortal suffers from the opposite problem. The only conclusion I can make is that the designers of CoD intended mortals to be able to affect other mortals in a way that allows you to twist them beyond their natures, or even in conflict with their natures. Or, as a counterpoint to Thenomain's statement, mortals can make other mortals do something.

We know vampires can do this far more easily, but that doesn't mean mortals don't have their ways.

@bobotron said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:

My only comment would be, you said you're getting rid of skeevy behavior. But one of your examples states that you can't roll to seduce on short-term. That implies the long-term ones can do that.

Seducing someone isn't skeevy behavior per se. Skeevy behavior is when someone sends pages, comments, hints, innuendo OOC, and then uses the IC system to force his way in. And maybe someone wants to be seduced because it opens up an avenue to influence the other way. The Chronicles of Darkness' system allows the defender to pursue the aggressor for something, hacking away at their Doors even as the former tries to assail theirs.

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

It was incredibly basic, but I realize now that it goes to what @Sparks is saying: You can't make other people do something, but you can still gain information or hide information in a way that doesn't overwrite player's ability to respond.

Insofar as a Vampire game is concerned, that would make Vampires powerful in ways that the game, I don't think, wanted to make exclusive. As if they don't have enough benefits, they have powers that literally make you do what you don't want to do.

I like @Sparks idea, and I would have put a lot of that into the system I proposed, but I came to realize that it's somewhat contrary to what the designers of Vampire had in mind, I think, so I went back to the social combat model.

Still, it's a system in development.

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

To me there's not much difference between physical combat "fuck, my character is dead" and social combat, "fuck, you seduced my character and now we've slept together ICly" or something like that.

See, I'm the same way, mostly because people who end up succeeding in the second part often find themselves saying what you say in the first part.