@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:
The problem isn't enforcement - you can have players perfectly willing to use social conflict rules and it's still inconvenient to do so, unclear how it works (the last time I asked on the vampire channel with multiple staff there how a basic thing worked it took a while going through books to come up with 'it depends'), and slow.
And what exactly was the problem? Because I have had zero problems understanding Conditions as written.
@Arkandel said in Social Conflict via Stats:
But how?
Enforcing them?
I mean, nWoD 2E has a very robust system. People just choose to ignore it sometimes. Most players go along with it, but some do not. If staff would step in and mud-stomp the cheaters, that'd be great.
@Pyrephox said in Social Conflict via Stats:
They fell down a bit - namely, they had a GREAT system for the long-term, big influences, but not the small-term, immediate influences, particularly where NPCs were concerned.
Every system needs a tweak, RfK included. However, the game demonstrated the utility of having a system.
@Pyrephox said in Social Conflict via Stats:
Social stats/skills don't need to work on PCs, IF they work on NPCs and work in meaningful, predictable, usable ways.
And this is why I have yelled, up and down, that a successful game is going to need some sort of off-screen system that allows the players to directly affect the setting. That's where Social/Mental skills come into play. RfK did this well, and that's why it was so kick-ass the first time around.
@Kanye-Qwest said in Social Conflict via Stats:
Conversely, if you spend your cg points to pump up social stats, why in the world would you not use them? If you don't use them, what is the incentive, ever, to pick up those mental/social stats?
Ending combat. It's like whipping out the Majesty card in V:TES. You can effectively end a combat scene in moments with a few easy rolls.
A good game takes this into consideration, though, and makes social/mental characters useful.
@Ominous said in Social Conflict via Stats:
I would rephrase what I said to "Once the details of what your goal is known, then you have that discussion, make the rolls, and RP it out." The doors system might work if we can trust people to offer a fair number of doors.
Many people have argued that OOC discussion of RP should not occur, for a variety of reasons. How do you have any discussion where one side refuses to engage in OOC conversation about goals?
@Pyrephox said in Social Conflict via Stats:
Short-term interactions are those off-the-cuff attempts to talk your way past a guard, or get someone to follow you into that dark alley, or get someone to rethink drawing that knife on you. Your long, drawn-out mechanics are going to make these things /nightmares/, which means that people are going to be even more resistant to them.
Long-term interactions are things that involve lasting or major shifts for a person - coaxing someone into giving up their society's secrets, or blackmailing someone into supporting your next proposal at council, seducing someone into betraying an ally, or talking your way into an important position you're probably not qualified for. Having an easy, abbreviated mechanism for these tasks makes them feel pushy and too easy, which means people are going to resent being subjected to them.
This, succinctly, demonstrates when and where the Doors system should be applied in nWoD 2E.
@surreality said in RL Anger:
That mine like to blackmail and strongarm me about shit to force compliance (@Ganymede, I need to take some notes... ) with their views (which they have had almost no luck with since I was 8, hence the strongarm bullshit) is not something I am much looking forward to.
Here's what to do to discourage compliance.
This really pisses people off. Here's a snippet from 'Fences' that I like:
Cory: How come you ain’t never liked me?
Troy: Liked you? Who the hell say I got to like you? What law is there say I got to like you? Wanna stand up in my face and ask a damn fool ass question like that. Talking about liking somebody. Come here boy, when I talk to you. .. Straighten up dammit! I asked you a question… what law is there say I got to like you?
Cory: None.
Troy: Well, all right then! Don’t you eat every day? (Pause) Answer me when I talk to you! Don’t you eat every day?
Cory: Yeah
Troy: Nigga, as long as you in my house, you put that sir on the end of it when you talk to me!
Cory: Yes…sir
Troy: You eat every day.
Cory: Yessir!
Troy: You got clothes on your back.
Cory: Yessir.
Troy: Why you think that is?
Cory: Cause of you.
Troy: Ah, hell I know its cause of me… but why do you think that is?
Cory (hesitant): Cause you like me.
Troy: like you? I go out of here every morning… bust my butt putting up with them crackers everyday… ‘cause I like you? You about the biggest fool I ever saw.
(Pause)
It’s my job, it’s my responsibility! You understand that? A man got to take care of his family. You live in my house, sleep on my bedclothes, fill your belly up on my food… cause you my son. You my flesh and blood. Not cause I like you! Cause it’s my duty to take care of you. I owe a responsibility to you! Let’s get this straight here, before it go along any further… I ain’t got to like you. Mr. Rand don’t give me my money come payday ‘cause he likes me. He gives me ‘cause he owes me. I done given you everything I had to give you. I gave you your life! Me and your mama worked that out between us. And liking your black ass wasn’t part of the bargain. Don’t you try and go through life worrying about if somebody like you or not. You best be making sure they doing right by you. You understand what I’m saying boy?
I've been trying. One of the things my therapist and I have been working on is my tendency to take the blame for everything. So guilt trips work... too well on me. And it's so damnably hard not to revert to the shittiness when around a family that basically wallows in it.
I take the blame for a lot of things I shouldn't, but I don't get guilt-tripped easily. A personality index once told me that my "compliance" score was off the charts -- in the negative.
@Jennkryst said in Shadows over Reno:
Elodoth Iron Master daredevil ripoff is a very real possibility, but I may be convinced to vampire. Indecision abounds.
If you want to play a Gangrel Dragon, there's a coterie that may be interested in yooooooou.
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!
The irony is that this song is supposed to be ironic.
So, for the non-Americans among us, can anyone explain the result (yet)?
The United States contains a large number of people that used to not vote at all. They were your tired, poor, working-class citizens that lived in rural, small-town Bumfuck that didn't really give a shit about what was going on in the big cities or Washington. The government never helped them (or so they believe), so they didn't care what was going on. They were aware that the country was tumbling economically and in world rankings, but believed they couldn't do anything about it.
Trump made them believe otherwise.
The vote is ultimately a repudiation of modern, civil, urban politics. When rural America came in, they unbalanced the polls in Trump's favor.
Meanwhile, Clinton wasn't strong or persuasive enough to convince half of her own party that she deserved to be there. Bernie's supporters were still sore over the DNC's shafting, and disheartened when Bernie strategically switched sides in order to try and prevent the Trump ascendancy.
Clinton's campaign shifted to out-of-battleground areas where the DNC believed, arrogantly, that it could win. They had a shot, but the gamble failed. Meanwhile, Clinton failed to hit the grassroots areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio, preferring instead to speak in the larger, more Democratic areas.
Trump's message: You've been forgotten; I'll speak for you.
Clinton's message: Get out and vote, and I'll win.
So, rural America got out and voted. And Clinton lost.
And I have just the additive for that coffee. It'll make it taste richer and sweeter. 
@Auspice said in Shadows over Reno:
...you may not want ties. >.>
Why not?
We can be friends. I'll show you who needs to be hunted. Really.
What's the harm? I'm totally harmless. This is one of my few PCs without much in the way of combat stats.
Really. We should be friends.
Shall we go to dinner?
Eventually, I'll be playing the following, if anyone wants ties:
http://reno.mechanipus.com/wiki/Galina
Just need to work on that BG. Also, looking for good coterie-mates; Gangrel and Dragons preferred, for thematic reasons. Ghouls and hangers-on too.
Chat if interested.
This movie was the source material for the Simpsons' Episode 4, Season 6: "Itchy & Scratchy Land."
Michael Crichton wrote and directed the 1973 film Westworld.
Last week, Michael Massee died. He played "Funboy" in The Crow, and was the poor man who accidentally shot and killed Brandon Lee.
@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:
For me its not the issue of the spends exactly, its about the system. Systems are complex. Some people are experts or near-experts, they have no issue writing up a character in notepad. I like to think I fall into this group: so I usually don't have an issue. But a lot of people aren't experts, and do have difficulty with making characters and ensuring all the rules follow.
For the most part, CGens seem to presume expertise. I see where you are going, but I don't know if it is functionally possible to create a CGen that is both easy-to-use and complex enough to handle the uniqueness that some players aim for in their PCs. As such, I think having an expert (a staff member, presumably) to advise a new player going through CGen is a good idea. Maybe that's why I lean in the direction of more staff interaction in the process.
There are some good ideas. For instance, Arx sets up a template for you based on your choice of profession. So, for a WoD CGen, for example, you could have a "basic" CGen where someone picks a generic archetype that helps set up their attributes and skills for the most part, then allows them to tweak their +sheet after. That would cut down on the learning curve. It would work for plain mortals, but may get more complex when you add the various race templates. (Because why is Majesty based on Empathy and not Persuasion, right?)
@mietze said in Shadows over Reno:
So tempting @Ganymede, so tempting.
Would it help if I said that the Gangrel was a Kerberos, and I'm seriously considering using Idris Elba or Mike Colter?
@Arkandel said in 2016-2017 Basketball Thread:
I keep thinking "Lakers". But I think "Lakers" in regards to any superstar because I can't think of them without one. And they're without one.
Nick Young.
I'll be over here waiting until you get up off the floor.