@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.
Here's the current draft write-up:
IV. Social Combat
There are three “levels” of social combat: (1) immediate; (2) scene-length; and (3) protracted. The appropriate level depends on how difficult or quickly the challenge can be resolved; a little white lie or appearing to be honest would be immediate, whereas convincing another to support you for an election may require a number of rolls over time. (Note: The following rules are optional, but should be used where parties cannot agree on an outcome.)
A. Immediate
Telling a lie and getting away with it. Convincing a police officer you are telling the truth – and you are. These are challenges that must be performed in an instant.
The first step is for the aggressor to determine intent: what are you trying to do? The second step is to determine what pool should be used by the aggressor and the defender. The final step is to roll, and determine the result.
For example: Arkandel needs Ganymede to believe him on an important issue, for which he is telling the truth, but Ganymede is suspicious and stubborn. The Storyteller determines that Arkandel rolls Presence + Sincerity, and Ganymede rolls Composure + Etiquette. Arkandel gets 3 successes, and Ganymede gets 4. Despite Arkandel’s best effort, Ganymede does not believe him, and, because the result was in her favor.
Unlike other forms of social combat, a defender cannot opt-out of the result. This is because the scope of the roll is not calculated to include actions that would lead to behavior that might trigger a player. If this form of social combat does end up with a result that causes the defender to suffer some sort of discomfort, the next step is to call in a staff member to mediate the situation. A single roll may be used to get someone’s attention, or even their favor, but should not be used to determine an attempt to seduce.
B. Scene-Length
Attempting to win the favor of the Prince over a rival in court. Trying to shame someone in front of others in Elysium. These sorts of challenges take some time to complete, generally occur where others can witness the fight, and work very much like physical combat. Each participant calculates the following three scores:
• Dominance: Presence + Manipulation. This is your PC’s social initiative.
• Guile: Wits or Manipulation, whichever is lower. This is your PC’s social defense.
• Nerve: Composure + Etiquette. This is your PC’s social health.
The participants then determine their intent, and then engage one another. This system is generally similar to the Social Combat system found in the Danse Macabre, starting on page 127.
Like physical combat, each participant determines initiative by rolling a die and adding their Dominance. Next, each participant decides how they intend to act that round. There are three different kinds of actions:
• Antagonize: (Presence + Sincerity or Manipulation + Chicanery) – Opponent’s Guile, if the opponent is not deflecting (see below). The roll depends on how the PC intends to go about wearing down his opponent; attempting to prognosticate or compel the crowd to the PC’s side would use Sincerity, whereas belittling, browbeating, or making fun of the opponent would use Chicanery. The PC may add his or her Majesty score to these rolls. For each success, the opponent loses 1 Nerve. On a successful attempt to antagonize, the PC may also add a veiled threat to further wear down his opponent’s Nerve; by spending 1 Willpower, the PC may automatically cause the opponent to lose Nerve equal to the PC’s Intimidation score.
• Deflect: Guile x 2. A PC may defend himself by deflecting the attempt to antagonize him. Like Dodging in physical combat, roll twice the PC’s Guile. The PC may add his or her Animalism score to the pool to roll (which is not doubled). Each success reduces the opponent’s result to antagonize by 1.
• Regain Composure: Composure. A PC may roll her Composure in order to regain Nerve; for each success, the PC regains 1 Nerve. The PC may add his or her Animalism score to this pool.
At any time before his final Nerve point is lost, a PC may surrender to his opponent’s intent. Doing so means that the PC gains Beats equal to the amount of Nerve he has remaining, up to 5 (or 1 XP). If the PC loses the challenge, he may still decide not to abide by the result; if so, his opponent gains a number of Beats equal to the amount of Nerve remaining, up to 5.
C. Protracted
Winning patronage from a noble. Trying to convince the Prince to call a vote. These sorts of challenges take a lot of time to complete, and implies more than a few meetings between the PCs involved. This system should be used by a PC against an NPC, but can be used on another PC too. Generally speaking, this system is similar to the Doors system proposed in the Chronicles of Darkness, starting on page 81.
First, the parties involved determine their goals, if any; sometimes, one party has a goal but the other does not. This system should be used for attempts to seduce other PCs and NPCs, if one wants to resort to rolls to determine the outcome.
Second, each party determines how many Doors they have for the challenge. A PC has a number of doors equal to the lower of the PC’s Resolve or Composure, but may add her Animalism score to that amount. If the goal would result in a breaking point, add another two doors. Other complications may add doors; see the Chronicles of Darkness, page 81.
Third, each party determines how they intend to accomplish their goal, if any. A party may try to use their personality and honor to open up her opponent’s Doors (Presence + Sincerity) through pleas and accomplishing tasks, or she may try to spread rumors and falsehoods in order to trick her opponent, and thereby open Doors (Manipulation + Chicanery). Their opponent contests this by rolling his or her Composure. If a party has no set goal, she may elect to resist only, and contest instead with Composure + Etiquette.
Finally, resolving the challenge. A PC may spend an Action Point to roll to open a Door, using either of the pools above, depending on how they are accomplishing their goals. She may add Majesty to her rolls. Their opponent then contests that roll, as above, and may add Animalism to her rolls. If the PC spending the Action Point prevails, her opponent loses a Door.
At any time before his final Door is lost, a PC may surrender, which means her opponent accomplishes her goal. Doing so means that the PC gains Beats equal to the amount of Doors she has remaining, up to 5 (or 1 XP). If the PC loses the challenge, she may still decide not to abide by the result; if so, her opponent gains a number of Beats equal to the amount of Doors she has opened, up to 5.
<< END >>
@jennkryst said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
Firearms attacks with 5 successes are abstract, because we assume you aren't holding the gun upside down, pulling the trigger with your thumb while your eyes are closed (note to self: use this for future gunbunny).
They are abstract to a point. Presuming your gun has a weapon damage bonus of 7, the result of your roll is 7 points of damage. If your target is mortal, that damage is lethal; if a vampire, that damage is bashing.
These are things I can look up and evaluate from the book.
Social dice rolls, meanwhile, are often opposed because of an assortment of reasons. The one I am going to discuss first involves similar assumptions: that a 5 success persiasion [sic] roll involves adequate body language, tone, facial expressions, reaction to social cues (possibly via an empathy roll), and... anything else I am forgetting. Social cues that people often do not include in their poses, so the cannot even be attempted to be responded to.
From what you're writing here, I have no idea how I'm to react.
What are you trying to use the roll for? Are you trying to persuade someone to buy into your explanation as to why you threw a rock at them? Are you trying to persuade someone to sign over the deed to their house? Are you trying to persuade someone to give you some of their salt-water taffy? Are you trying to persuade someone into putting the lube up their anus in preparation for a rough bout of anal sex?
The social combat system from The Danse Macabre isn't built for most of this. It's not really that good for the sort of sensual talk that may accompany a request for bum sex, and it's sort of overblown for an attempt to get some candy. It seems to be better geared towards public oratory or social situations, where one is trying to knock someone's Status down or convince them to do something while all eyes are on them.
And the Doors system? Also, not really good for any of the above examples. Except maybe the sex bit; it might take a bit of greasing up to convince me to do that (pun!).
I honestly don't give two shits how a thing is posed, and I don't really care what I'm to be convinced of, as long as the other person doesn't mind how my PC reacts to what has happened.
@bobotron said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
I applaud the intent there. Honestly, just outright banning the skeevy behaviors under social conflict is a generally better option than most anything. I hope you have luck in getting the things along the lines of your laid out 'gossip campaign/vote against your own interest/whatever' angle to actually work out.
I know I didn't say it, but, yes, those skeevy behaviors are out, out, out. Will not tolerate that bullshit; I don't got time for it. Similarly, people who are clearly abusing the system for their own benefit -- boosting up one's XP not included because, really, those are the incentives; I'm talking about fools who use social combat to coerce others into banging them, and then whine and cry when their lovers' domitors show up with Gangrel claws popped -- just aren't going to be tolerated.
The systems are so that people can have fun, all right? Not so people can run over other people rampantly with a ha-ha, and a ho-ho, and a "look I have a machinegun too!" mentality.
@lithium said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
I was not responding to you.
I'm sorry; obvious robot is busy cranking out situations where Status drops in the Status system, and debating the Territory/Domain system, and is just bwah social cues missed sorry.
@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
The thing about social combat (or social systems; I think calling it all "combat" is undermining what it can or should do) is that it allows people who are not themselves social devas to have their characters manipulate on a scale implausible in real life. This is true of physical, mental, and supernatural abilities, so it doesn't surprise me that anyone would focus on the social as an unusual exception.
I see what you're getting at here, and I guess I'm somewhat exasperated about plaintive resistance. To wit: can I opt out of physical combat?
But I promise -- like, really, I am -- that folks that make a social PC are going to get mileage out of that decision, even with this opt-out provision. And folks that make brainiacs for PCs (we will be putting Kiasyd out there as a Mekhet bloodline) are going to have some solid advantages (like, seriously solid, I expect to have a flood of Mekhet) when it comes to Territory/Domain building/keeping/developing.
And now you know why I put the deadline to open so far into the future. There's a lot to do.
@lithium said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
If a characters social stats cost the same as physical stats and mental stats, and if physical/mental combat is mandatory, then social combat should also be mandatory.
Who said anything about it not being mandatory? Perhaps I'm not communicating myself well, but I've described what I've intended to do what feels like countless times in the past. Doing it again is sort of like me telling my children for the eleventy-billionth time that, no, they can't eat the French fries off the floor.
So, I'll try one last time.
Yes, social combat is different than physical or mental combat in that there is an opt-out provision. Yes, this means you cannot force someone to sleep with you. I'm sorry that this might make you upset that your seducer Daeva isn't going to hot-bang everyone he wants to, but I'm also not so sorry because there have been a number of motherfuckers out there who have used social rolls to coerce people who may not be quite as outspoken or savvy as the rest of us into situations that have been OOCly disturbing.
But that does not mean that social concepts aren't powerful on a game that rises and falls on one's Status.
Start a gossip campaign against them. Get others to vote against their interests. You can use your social stats in countless other ways that indirectly have an effect on your target. Sure, you can't force them to sleep with you through sheer force of personality and attractiveness, but that doesn't mean the game's over for you. I mean, Harvey Weinstein, by all accounts, was quite successful.
(I realize how distasteful that joke was, but I mean to use it as a visceral point.)
If that seems shitty, I can deal with it. But we have carefully considered this issue front to back, and have taken it into consideration when drawing up ideas for other systems. There are a myriad of other ways to trick, manipulate, mindfuck, and socially outmaneuver people that don't involve social combat.
@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
Why for social situations and not physical situations? Why social situations and not supernaturally-powered situations?
I think I've already explained why, but I'll do it again, in a brief version.
Some people done in the past fucked shit up for everyone, and now we better slip a provision in place to make sure it done not gonna happen again.
RfK proved to me that an opt-out provision isn't the end of anyone's world.
@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
Then what is it about the Doors system that is being hotly contested, here? I get the feeling that there is an argument going on in this thread that is only half-informed.
We're re-visiting the age-old question of whether it is good policy to allow an opt-out provision in social combat situations.
@jennkryst said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
Can players similarly elect not to accept the outcome of mundane physical combat?
No.
You probably weren't there when we all got into a down-and-dirty fist-fight about player agency. If you were, you'd know that I'm generally in the camp of "whatever happens, happens." As long as I don't have to play through certain things, I'm just fine. I recognize, however, that I don't usually have people creep-paging me for scenes, or trying to use social skills to convince my PCs to sleep with them.
Naturally, as an old veteran of these games, I have the wherewithal and moxie to out these sort of pricks wherever I can. I don't mind doing that at all. But there are people who, for whatever reason, just aren't able to speak up for themselves, and get railroaded via social rolls into situations that they are uncomfortable with as players. These players need a way out of such situations, so that's why I believe an opt-out provision is necessary.
So that this isn't entirely one-sided, the system still has tangible benefits for social-heavy PCs. If the target opts-out, you get Beats -- and you could get a substantial number of them. And there's even a strong incentive for socially-inept PCs to just give in at the outset of encounters, in the form of Beats.
That's why the opt-out is only for social combat situations. There are tangible penalties for getting into fist-fights with people, which are tied into our Status system.
@lithium said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
The idea that nobody can be manipulated is just obtuse.
I understand. That's why there's also mental combat. If you want to sabotage a rival's Domain, you don't need to lie to them about what you're doing; you just need to be better at using existing legal tricks and influence to get what you want. That's a mental game, and this, like physical combat, has no opt-out provision.
@thenomain said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
Incidentally, does this mean that the CoD "Doors" system is being abandoned?
No.
@saulot said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
You had me at Salubri.
skew drew them up, and did a great job with them.
@jennkryst said in Dark Ages Vampire -- Terra Mariana:
Can Social Combat be compulsory? Because that would be amazing.
Like any system, parties that can agree on an outcome can agree on an outcome. That's the lawyer in me talking.
Suppose you decide to engage in it; the other person has to engage as well. At the start of extended combat, the parties declare an outcome that they would like to have happen. That's what you're "fighting" for. There are two forms of extended social combat: (1) scene-length (Danse Macabre's social combat); and (2) protracted (CoD's social maneuvering).
In either case, if the defender elects not to accept the outcome, the aggressor gains Beats (equal to his remaining Nerve or the Doors he took down); if the defender surrenders prior to the outcome, then the defender gets Beats (equal to her remaining Nerve or Doors).
The system isn't perfect, but it provides the option to opt out and a reward to the aggressor when this occurs. Be advised, that this is mundane social combat; the use of disciplines to coerce others is another issue entirely.
See above, with the added comment that staff is going to presume the parties involved will police the outcome themselves to an extent. Where there is conflict, I do not mind dealing with it personally.
@roz said in Good or New Movies Review:
Branagh preceded Whedon in the MCU. Thor came out before The Avengers.
My bad. I thought he directed Thor: The Dark World. He didn't.
@roz said in Good or New Movies Review:
Wow my reaction was like the exact opposite
You are right.
Look, I like Joss Whedon. I like his tongue-in-cheek-but-formulaic groundwork for the MCU. It was awesome, and the other directors that followed -- Kenneth Branagh, Taika Waikiki, Ryan Coogler, etc. -- have honored that. But he could not, and did not, save Justice League, and Avengers: Age of Ultron was, in my opinion, more or less a waste of time and talent.
Batgirl needs a very, very serious work-over. She has been used primarily as a love interest and a throwaway victim more times than I care to think about. She is also my daughter's favorite DC Superhero Girl, and I, in my cynical way, want her to be more than just some PC that gets paralyzed as a MacGuffin Moment.
I want Greta Gerwig on board to direct. Or Kathryn Bigelow. I want Gail Barringer to produce it, and Felicia Henderson to write the screenplay.
I want Batgirl to be more than how she's been. And I don't think Whedon would have done that.
I'm being conservative here. In the team's discussions, we will likely need an ambitious coder on board. Sure, we could take stuff from other games -- we have a codebase to work with already -- but I'd rather say "we're looking at the end of the year" rather than "we're looking at the end of spring," even though I know the team's working diligently and actively.
We plan to roll out with a complete, or close-to-complete product, with a well-dressed wiki and game. I plan to ask some others to help along the way because I know where their skill lies.
And we want to make sure that folks come on board early to play test, poke at the theme, and all of that.
In short, we're serious about this project, we're working hard on it, and we don't plan on half-assing it (according to our rather lofty standards).
As hinted at in another thread, I and a small crew of developers are working on a Dark Ages Vampire game. The focus will be on politics on a grand scale, even though there will be a lot of space for stories and individual tales of adventure. On the former, I took inspiration from Birthright; on the former, the Witcher series. So, not Lords and Ladies: more like Monsters and Madmen.
The game will be set in Terra Mariana, aka Livonia, ca. 1250. We have a basic history up. I've finished off some system tweaks, as I intend to work Social and Mental Combat systems from the Danse Macabre and the Chronicles of Darkness into the mix, which will be sort of important for the political side of things. While history up to the date of the game is important, everything after that will probably be sort of fudge-y. We're going to try to put the emphasis on gameplay and fun rather than absolute accuracy, though.
Right now, I'm working on the bloodlines. Here are the proposed lines for the Daeva and the Gangrel. I'll toss more up later:
Daeva
Gerasenes: Whereas the Sanctified believe themselves created to test humanity, the Gerasenes believe themselves to be possessed by demons accomplish the same task. Their belief is considered heretical, and is kept amongst themselves. Celerity, Majesty, Nightmare, Vigor. (Custom.)
Maenads: The remnants of a Grecian bloodline traversed north after Rome’s conquest of the Achaean League, along the Black Sea and into the heart of Sarmatia. There, their passionate traditions passed to the Rom, and to other pagan cultures, where they manipulate the emotions of others through music, dance, and sex. Celerity, Dominate, Majesty, Vigor. (Custom.)
Salubri: Humanists to a fault, the altruistic Salubri find themselves drawn to wherever the Crusades may take them, where they can tend to the needy, the sick, and the infirm, as much as trying to relieve the suffering of the victims’ family. Auspex, Celerity, Majesty, Vigor. (V20, p. 408.)
Gangrel
Anda: Savages from the East that have mastered combat from horseback, the Anda make for vicious adversaries on the medieval battlefield. The fact that they keep strong ties with the Golden Horde make them feared and loathed in equal measure. Animalism, Dominate, Protean, Resilience. (V20, p. 416; BL:Hidden, p. 96 (Oberlochs).)
Goji: Ancient Savages that have lurked in the hinterlands since time in memoriam, they rule the remote parts of the North, watching from mountains or parapets. The few that dare to wander near humanity have made a pact with the Second Estate to serve as their sentinels. Animalism, Protean, Resilience, Vigor. (V20, p. 401 (Gargoyles).)
Mystikoi: Scholars of God who seek to reconcile the Beast with the Divine, these Savages still remain in the Lancea et Sanctum, although their relationship is fraying with the Great Schism and the decline of the Byzantine Empire. Animalism, Auspex, Protean, Resilience. (AB, p. 130.)
If you want to help out, or have some ideas, feel free to PM. We're still in development, and will be for a while. There's no timetable on when we'll be up and running, but I personally hope to have something ready by the end of the year.
@pandora said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Assholes will be assholes, people have to be stronger. My daughter got physically hit in school today and tells me 'I didn't hit him back because I'm a pacifist' so I'm pretty sure I've completely fucked up something, somewhere along the way.
Your daughter sounds pretty fucking strong to me.
@thenomain said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
So you were jealous about a dog taller than you and got rid of it?
"Jealous" is the wrong adjective. "Famished" is closer.
@mietze said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I keep getting stuff like Corgi and Pomeranian. Apparently, I am a very cute little bitch!
That is called a porgi. I used to have one, but, you know, I'm Chinese.
I love you, man, but we both know how MBA programs often teach their students to prize short-term profits over long-term gains. Hell, that's one of the fundaments of classical economics.
I mean, it is empirically incorrect, but it's still embedded in some of the older texts.
@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:
To get back to your comment though, banks and investment firms had the same problem as the NBA does decades ago. How did they deal with employees who'd try to get some quick profits right now, since that's what their bonuses and job security were depended on, even if that meant they bet on portfolios that failed to return on the investment ten or fifteen years down the line? They gave them more stability, and tied their bonuses on their longer term performance.
Had? Brother, they still have it, they will always have it, and that's why our economy collapsed hard ten years ago. They found a way to fix the problem, and then they gutted it over time until, boom, we get fucked hard again.
For me, this is why I am not a fan of MBAs running things.
I think that's a pretty silly way of looking at things.
Basketball, like all sports, is a business. Teams are in the business of winning, but that doesn't explain why the Toronto Maple Leafs are still one of the most valuable hockey franchises, or why the Dayton Dragons are one of the most profitable baseball minor league teams. The recipe for success requires some winning, but there simply must be more to it than that.
Job insecurity might be why GMs take a lot of risks to win, but that does not explain why there is job insecurity in the first place.