@surreality said:
...except then you've got all the citations above about how that is cheating, too. (See all the references to reacting to advances with hostility of any kind.)
It's not cheating to shoot the people you love to death. That's pretty much the M.O. for most murder-suicides.
@AmishRakeFight said:
I'm trying to buy a house. Trying. The inflated prices on what are 900 sq. ft. heat traps with dubious ability to stand up to an earthquake are insane. The condo market is better but $700 mo. in HOA fees on top of a mortgage payment on a building constructed in 1969 and looking every minute of it?
Around my parts, $700/mo. will get you a pretty decent 3BR/2BA single-floor, stand-alone home.
Maybe you should consider moving elsewhere?
@surreality said:
@Coin Same -- but there are people who do continue to press the issue, and will use the argument that 'if you avoid me, you're cheating, because you lurve me now!'
I'm pretty sure Bryn Hartman loved Phil as well. We all know how that ended up.
@Coin said:
Single roll isn't better, because single roll accomplishes things and it feels like "magic". One roll and done.
To this, I reply: "it depends on what you're using the roll for." A Manipulation + Subterfuge roll to determine if a listener believes a lie is reasonable; the same roll to determine if the listener decides to give away his house to you is unreasonable. That's why the seduction "system" had many rolls to make.
With Social maneuvering you actually have to put your Skills and other stats to use, figure out how to properly engage your target from one Door to the next, etc.
This is fine, but, in application, this should be used to get the listener to give you his house, not to determine if they believe your lie.
@Alzie said:
@Ganymede Social combat is just as valid as physical combat.
I totally agree. But I also believe that the rolls presented for the system are valid, if the players accept the system. In fact, I think any method of resolution is acceptable, if the players accept it.
The key word is: acceptance. The problem is: most players don't accept what happens to them.
That, and the Doors system seems unnecessarily complicated given that there's a perfectly-viable, single-roll system available.
@lordbelh said:
I've gotten a ton of mileage out of social dicepools, but when I use them I try to play with the other person and their character. If I want to just railroad them, well, I'll use Dominate or its like.
When it comes to PvP social "combat," I find that people focus on getting a particular result rather than focusing the system on the process.
Let's look at the vote situation. Suppose David wanted Cai to vote for him, and presume that Cai wouldn't normally do it. It's reasonable for David to make a Presence + Intimidation roll, contested by Cai, to see whether a threat to harm Sarah works to convince Cai to do otherwise. If he succeeds, it's reasonable to presume that Cai thinks David means business, and he'll reach accordingly: he may immediately Frenzy; or he may capitulate. Either is a reasonable reaction to being threatened; and either has its consequences.
I will likely never apply the Doors system against another PC. I think it's silly; I think the Doors system is clearly calculated to be applied to NPCs only. If you want to convince a PC ICly to do something, then RP it. If you suck at RP, get better at it.
RPing on a MU* is way more than simply rolling some dice. Not coincidentally, I also find it much more satisfying and interesting.
@Derp said:
I agree that it's not a bad system. The problem with it is that it requires an audience. It's a political debate between two people wherein there are spectators involved, which works great for things like Elysium, but not so great when you just need to convince a person to do a thing and there aren't a hundred people around to witness it. Doors, on the other hand, work in both situations, which makes them slightly better, IMO.
Yeah, but the Impression limitation makes it so engh for a MU*.
I generally stick to the old "Roll Manipulation + Persuasion" method, myself.
@Derp said:
See, I think it should be applied to PvP situations. It's a neutral way to resolve a social situation that doesn't end in 'nuh uh because I said so, my person would never do that' which gets applied to just about every social roll ever. Which is lame as fuck.
Yes, it is. And that player is lame as fuck too.
But I don't think GMC's Doors system is great for what you're suggesting. The Danse Macabre's social combat system, in my opinion, was a better approach; it's quick, it's dirty, and it's about who looks better in the end, ultimately. It's not about making someone suck your dick as much as it is convincing everyone else around that the eschewing of your penis makes that person looks totes ridic. That's kind of better for PvP conflict.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
See, and I hate the Doors thing GMC introduced. Hate. It. I would rather completely fuck over my character by having them immediately and unequivocally agree to whatever the Social Mogul wants than be subjected to the torture of the GMC Social system.
Why do you hate it?
As described, it seems like a good system for an ST to employ to coerce NPCs. Which is what I think it was calculated to do.
@Thenomain said:
I don't think Eldritch has moving caps. It has diminishing returns for auto XP. All other beats are earned the same no matter who you are or how long you've been on the game.
I think your face has moving caps, bitch.
Seriously, I got nothing.
@Derp said:
So after taking some time away to consider some of this, I think that I partially agree with @ganymede. But only partially.
This is the slippery slope to indoctrination.
But, yes, Eldritch has a form of moving caps, as did RfK. It's not what I think would work best, but, at this level of academic discussion, it doesn't really matter. That XP gain is limited -- arbitrary or otherwise -- is something that we all ought to agree on. And each different model will have its merits and flaws.
I like the "cap things per season," if only because it requires a less complex calculation of what people earn per week on a flat-basis. The upside to spend limits, like on Eldritch, is that you don't have to watch what stats people are choosing to raise; they can only gain disciplines /so/ quickly. In a "cap per season" model, it's a bit more free-for-all; or, at least, that's how I imagine it.
@Derp said:
Have you proven that the reasoning is both flimsy and arbitrary? Because I've not actually seen that, outside of you basically just saying that you think they're flimsy and arbitrary.
To my satisfaction, yes. To others, maybe not. It's up to others, not me, to make up their own conclusions.
As I'm speaking personally, then, yes, the reasons are both flimsy and arbitrary. You're welcome to think differently, but then, you'd be wrong.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
By insisting on making everything 'equal', you're actually telling the people that put in the time and effort since the beginning that they're LESS valuable than the person just stepping in the door. Because that person can simply buy the dots and ruin your work.
This is not an argument for or against XP caps. This is about staff policy regarding what you can and cannot purchase without effort. If you force one player to do eleventy-billion PrPs to get Status 4 (MU* Nerds), then a person that wants to get the same should also have to go through the same labor.
I never said anything about making things equal. I'm simply tearing at the flimsy, arbitrary reasons why we explain away policies aimed to maintain a benefit enjoyed only by pre-existing players. Once we all come to terms with the fact that it all such reasoning is hokum, then maybe we'll start thinking about adopting different, potentially-better oplicies.
@Derp said:
There absolutely should be some clout for those that came in the door first.
Let's test this out, then.
They've already been on grid, they've helped to shape things around them, etc.
You presume they've helped shape the things around them. You presume that they were of positive net worth to the game. I know plenty of players that wouldn't fall into either category.
I'm against people who 'just came in the door' having the same amount of influence as someone who's been there consistently for a year.
Why? Are new players somehow not as valuable? Is the point of running the game to cater to the pre-existing players first, to the detriment of the new?
Spend timers are redundant, in my opinion. You don't need them if you're being judicious about doling out XP. And if you aren't giving a shit as to how XP is giving out, then there's no reason to concoct any notion of sensibility when limiting it.
For the record, RfK's system was a nifty combination of capping XP and basing it on activity.
Shit, just try moving caps. It isn't difficult to unwind or change.
What @Derp said.
Deviant and the core staffers recently posted a projected withdrawal from active plot running, which I think have soured some of the playerbase. Add to this the edict that apps will not re-open for Demon and Vampire.
That said, there are a number of folks there running plots, trying to keep the game active. If you're interested in playing a fang-bearer, you might want to try Reno. But I can say that people on both games seem fairly active.
@Derp said:
"We are limiting the thing you can do arbitrarily for now, no matter how much of a justification you have for raising it more, but we'll up it later, because that's sensical right?' How does this accomplish anything more organic than spend timers?
I see no reason not to set arbitrary limits for arbitrary rewards. There is no rhyme or reason to how players gain XP; there can be no reasonable argument to disregard arbitrary limits of the same.
Spend timers are a fantastic idea, but they benefit those who came in through the doors first to the detriment of those who came in later. And for all of the clamor of players that insist that they should have an advantage for simply applying for a PC earlier, I respond with: "that is the most absurd reason for maintaining a superior position."
Moveable caps address the problem of: "how can we give newcomers a fair shot of meeting the power and prowess of their elders?" Moveable caps address the problem of: "how do we ensure that everyone is reasonable level in power when it comes to resolving plots?" They are no different than the level caps that exist in many video games after you've resolved all the side-quests you can. At some point or another, you're going to have to kill the Arishok if you want to hit Level 30 in DA2.
Stat-shifting goes hand-in-hand with moveable caps. Let folks re-arrange their points within reason intermittently.
If you give this a shot, I think you'll find a happy playerbase and happy newcomers.
I mean, just try it. Shit, it's like people think I'm suggesting drinking Drano or something equally stupid.
@Derp said:
I'm against xp caps, mostly for the reasons everyone else has stated: That is the end of the character's growth, and that's all they can ever learn, ever. It creates an inorganic finish to an otherwise vibrant character.
So, make it movable. Problem averted.
@SG said:
I've had fun on games that ran in 'seasons.' You basically have the same sheet for a season of the show/major plot arc, and then at the end of a season, before the start of next season, you can rearrange your sheet and if you were around for a complete cycle, you get a few bonus points to add up.
I concur here. This is what I called a "moving cap" in the eleventy-billion times I've railed against current XP-gain models.
Capping also forces people to do shit. If you want to sit around jerking each other off, that's fine, but if the story isn't moving, who cares?
@Arkandel said:
@Ganymede said:
I think you're putting too much stock in Durant's ego. I don't see it in him.
In context, I'll give him a pass. He was promoting his shoes; he is really freaking good; and, but for LBJ's performance in the playoffs, there would probably be a debate.
@Arkandel said:
But KD wouldn't be the leader at all in Cleveland, ever. It's a lose/lose for him; if he gets a ring it'd be because of LeBron and if he doesn't it'd be because he's unable to do it even with LeBron. It'd always be about LeBron.
So what?
I think you're putting too much stock in Durant's ego. I don't see it in him. You want to talk about gentlemanly conduct in the league, Durant seems fine with letting Westbrook be the lightning rod in Oklahoma City. I don't see him caring as much about being second-seat to LBJ. I see him caring more about always coming in second (or less).
Durant is young. He'll want to win one or two quickly, then move to lead another team. Like, oh, what LBJ did.
