Posts made by Ganymede

@seraphim73 said in Encouraging Proactive Players:

... I would like to hear thoughts on how to find, cultivate, and encourage proactive players. Whether this is from a Staff perspective ("I was on a game and Staff did X and it encouraged players to be proactive") or from a player perspective ("When a game does/has X, it encourages me to be proactive"), I'm curious and interested.

Staff's Perspective:

Be responsive to +requests and @mails. Make suggestions on channel. Help link new PCs with old PCs. Keep your spheres small and cozy. Provide tangible rewards for desired behavior.

Player's Perspective:

Be responsive to my +requests and @mails. Help me start or complete your helpful suggestions on channel. Help me link my new PC with old PCs, and then help others link with my PC. Keep your spheres small and cozy. Provide tangible rewards when I do something you like.

Overall:

Staff proactivity encourages player proactivity. Cultivate player proactivity by knowing your limits, and ensure your staff can meet the demand for staff attention. As a player, be patient and follow the clues; where the hints are too subtle, ask what staff would like to see.

Also, staff needs a vision as to what they want to see. Players generally are smart enough to follow.

This is a good thing.

I concur regarding the apparent problem.

@surreality said in Social Systems:

P.S. Will want to pick your brain for appropriate expertise categories for Law task. As in, I doubt 'Civil, Criminal, Contract, Prosecution, and Defense' would cover all the bases. (Or maybe it would? Maybe that's too fussy already? I dunno. But will be asking when I get there, as fair warning. )

Honestly, you could probably lump those into Academics, like WoD does, or Bureaucracy, like the old World of Darkness did.

Should probably note that while Sincerity in L5R is essentially Persuasion and Subterfuge rolled into one, the "social offense" skill is Courtier and the "social defense" is Etiquette. Causing someone to misstep via your skill in Courtier can lead to a loss of Honor, whereas making the right move to save face or avoid a loss is, of course, one's knowledge of Etiquette.

@surreality

You may be interested in actually looking through L5R's skill descriptions, because they have things like Intimidation and Etiquette too. For a samurai game, it is deep in the social aspects.

@surreality said in Social Systems:

Question: do you think it's necessarily relevant whether someone is telling the truth or a lie when it comes to convincing another character about the story they're telling?

@apos said in Social Systems:

No. Only how sincere they seem. Someone that's telling the truth but looks nervous probably seems insincere and are thought to be lying. The actual truth doesn't matter imo. I'd just make a check on how sincere they seem in regards to how convincing the pitch is.

I concur with Apos here. L5R even has the skill "Sincerity" to reflect appearing honorable when you are actually being honest or you are attempting to deceive. In that system, you can oppose the roll with an Investigation check. It can additionally be rolled when you're trying to convincingly flatter someone or are trying to be political about pointing out how much someone is a fat ass (that's the example in the L5R 4E book, and it is hilarious).

@thenomain

How about something like "major project coding"? Because there are things that I'd like to have built from scratch (which you can use elsewhere), and your pricing structure doesn't take that into account.

@bobotron said in Social Systems:

This is essentially also how the NWoD Requiem social combat rules work, though your health is involvedi n your Willpower. It's done with calculations that are familiar to people. It's detailed out in Danse Macabre and Invite Only.

More accurately: your Nerve, which is your Composure + Highest Social Skill.

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

I have not read Danse Macabre sicne I think it was a Vamp book and not a big vamp person, I do like the Doors system from 2nd ed. NWoD in theory but think it is a bit heavily tilted toward offence over defense but then most of NWoD is.

I am not as big a fan, because the Doors system is for long-term outcomes. Short-term outcomes were very difficult to get ... but really shouldn't be.

@buttercup said in The Basketball Thread:

No idea what to do in Cleveland for a day.

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Canton's not too far away, so you could try the Football Hall of Fame.

@bobotron

I get that, but, to be frank, it doesn't bother me that much because, well, I know how to influence fairly well.

So, cheat all you want, cheaters; I will still "win."

@bobotron said in Social Systems:

And yet, the whole 'match of wits and writing,' on a game that has a social stat system, then turns right back around into 'Roleplaying Stats Not On Your Sheet' which I think the majority of us have said we find bad sport. And again, we swing back around to devaluing the purchase and, to be blunt, purpose of those skills and stats.

I agree that not roleplaying stats properly is being a bad sport. Consequently, I do put points into things like Politics, Socialize, Persuasion, and Subterfuge when I play a World of Darkness vampire. Because I know it's going to come up, and I know my proclivities, and, fuck it, me likey vampire politics.

But that doesn't mean I've ever rolled those stats. Ever. Players' PCs just go along with things, most of the time, because what my PC proposes is often of an obvious benefit to them. And if someone asked me to roll, I'd be more than happy to because I take stats appropriate for my character.

If people cheat, they are cheaters. Doesn't mean I do, or that my proposal is immodest.

@ghost said in Social Systems:

PLAYING THE PLAYER

This is when people make their RP decisions poker-style based on what they know about the OOC person or their likes/dislikes. It's a form of metagaming that is hard to catch and even harder to convince players to stop doing.

Sure, I understand your point. And I see why you'd think social rolls would alter this. And I agree that it would.

But, to my point, so what?

If a player doesn't want to go along with my PC's suggestion to theirs to do something, that's fine. I'm okay with that. I can lay out why, reasonably and accurately. And their PC may roll to see if mine is lying or being disingenuous, and that check would come up negative; in Vampire, lying is stupid because it is so easy to detect.

My remedy: remove that player's PC from the political arena.

If we are gaming, and we are playing a political game like vampire, then you must know -- you must realize -- that everything that happens around my PC is likely according to some sort of plan. This is because you are actively losing in politics if you cannot predict what will happen next. Players like me -- Lisse24, Caryatid -- enjoy the interaction, the meddling, and the positioning because that's what Vampire is about. And setting yourself up where you cannot lose is less about power and stats than it is, simply, about positioning.

I'd really like to play this game. A lot.

Instead, we have people using Dominate to blood-bond neonates into divulging secrets of blood sorcery for the purpose of growing magic dicks.

Like, seriously, I have that power so that no one can accuse me of trying to get it from someone else. Like, fuck y'all, I have a futanari penis omgsoecchiheehee.

@buttercup

Fuck, dude. Can I presume that your budget's around $1,000 for the entire trip, given your plan of saving $10 per weekly paycheck?

@thenomain said in Social Systems:

This is my point and has been my point. If the game is about a thing, you play about the thing. Imagine how dull a Shadow Run game would be if you weren’t engaging the conceit there in the title of the game!

Imagine how fun it would be if vampires were to play their requiem rather than their players' erotic fantasies birthed from teenage fiction.

My eyes did glaze over Arkandel's example of a process. If one of the fun parts about MUSHing is being able to engage in social play, then I don't see the need to codify it so. And I know, that sounds funny from someone who is pro-code-lots.

But part of the fun of vampire political play is when people don't use the dice. Then it is a match of wits and writing. Or maybe someone tosses in a power to make it all come apart, only to have another person toss in, and, boom, the dynamic changes, and --

Anyhow, I still would never use a power to compel someone to act in a way they did not mind. That's some bullshit right there.

@thenomain said in Social Systems:

This is what most social systems lack.

Fix this.

I think I did, personally.

1. In PvE, players can roll to see if their PC successfully influences NPCs.
2. In PvP, players can roll to see whether they project their own PC in an intended manner.
3. In PvP, players cannot enforce the results of a roll on a target PC, but the target PC may elect to accept the outcome in exchange for a reward; if they don't, then the player's PC gets a reward.

As far as MUSHing, I think that having to roll to lie is silly; I think it may be more important to roll to see if your PC seems credible. Why? Because you could be telling the truth, but just come off as a liar because you can't keep your shit together.

@lisse24

I'm not a praying robot, and do not necessarily believe in God, but for what it is worth I shall pray for the child. Mine were in NICU for a month, so I can only imagine what 8 months must have been like.

No child should have to go through that.

@arkandel

bitch I wil kut u

They released an infant from NICU while she was still have BP issues and taking Viagra for it?

Not meaning to cast aspersions, but you may want to check with a pediatrician about that. That sounds very wrong and dangerous to me.

@arkandel said in Arkandel's Playlist:

I brought back Richter at Reno. Let's see how it goes this time around!

Goddammit, I'm applying for someone new, you dip.

@arkandel said in Social Systems:

Thoughts?

Sorry, man, I can't say that I favor what you're suggesting.

I wrote the following up for my Mass Effect RPG regarding "social actions." Note that "checks" are rolls, and "Drama Points" are earned and can be used to get re-rolls in combat and other stressful situations:

2.4.3 Players Determine their Characters’ Actions – Always

The thorny issue: can a player undergo a task to convince another player’s character to sleep with his?

The answer: not unless the other character’s player agrees to it.

Players should be able to create characters that are socially or mentally powerful, and have that mean something. Many times, this is not the case, and, where players can compete against other players, it becomes a bit of a problem. Finding the balance between player-control and skill-efficacy is often a struggle, but here are some general guidelines and systems.

A. Players can use checks to manipulate and convince NPCs. As above, GMs are there to tell a story and provide challenges. NPCs, or non-player characters, are story elements. The GM controls them. Whereas a player may have personal investment in their character, a GM’s NPCs are simply tools.

B. Players can use checks to manipulate and convince other PCs regarding their character. A PC can seem genuine. A PC can seem convincing. When it comes to talking about themselves, players can use checks to convince other PCs that they are telling the truth or being sincere. Concealing or shading a fact may require a contested check, but the results of these checks must be respected. If the game’s events give rise to a situation where the other PC may doubt the lying PC’s story, then another check may be necessary if the liar is confronted.

C. Players cannot enforce checks to cause other PCs to act one way or another. This is where it gets tricky, so consider the following example: a player wants another player’s character to sleep with theirs. Suppose that the defender’s player does not want to sleep with the aggressor. The aggressor’s player can make a check for success, but, if successful, the defender can elect not to abide by the results. If this occurs, then the aggressor cannot attempt to seduce the defender for a reasonable period of time, like the rest of the scene, a day, a week, or whatever’s reasonable to the GM or the players involved; however, the aggressor gains a Drama Point. On the other hand, if the defender’s player decides to abide by the results, then the defender gains a Drama Point for accepting the result of a check that he had the right to refuse.

Ultimately, players should respect one another. GMs should keep an eye out for abusers of this system, and remind them that this game is about everyone having fun, not forcing one’s will on others.