Posts made by Ortallus

@arkandel And this is why I do not and will never have an account on reddit. If the internet is a cesspool, reddit is the film at the bottom.

@thenomain said in Social Systems:

@faraday

I posit that Leia won the social roll (intimidation) and gave up false intel to make the other player believe otherwise, or only partly won/lost it (did not betray her cause, but gave up something important).

There are several systems that go this way.

Both require players willing to do this, a GM, or Apocalypse World.

Lost the intimidate, succeeded on bluff?

@ghost said in Social Systems:

@faraday In TT/MU I think that can be handled with a policy that states that you can't persuade someone to do something that they knowingly have no interest in doing.

Knowingly

In your example, if you neither want nor need a 2018 BMW, no amount of critical successes would make you decide to throw yourself into debt to buy something you don't need.

BUT... said salesman could leave such a good impression that when your character decides they want a BMW...Charlie was so awesome and comfortable that HE is gonna get that sale.

Using an old example again:

You will never be able to persuade Leia to agree to a Death Star test against Alderaan. Never. BUT you can persuade her to give you information under threat of blowing up Alderaan.

Using social rolls has to include some kind of reasonable context for the social attempt. As fun as it might be, a roll to try to talk the Pope into knowingly leaving the Vatican to make live broadcast midget porn doesn't make sense.

...but you might be able to get him to privately put a porn DVD into a laptop that contains a Trojan virus.

It's all in the context.

Update: I've added Ortallus to ignore. He's just trying to instigate snippy BS.

Once again, you instigated the snippy BS. But way to announce you're pissy at not being able to have a reasonable discussion about something, and would rather throw insults and storm off when you lose. applauds Very mature. Big awesome.

@ghost said in Social Systems:

@lithium Yeah, I don't think this person is really gathering that it's not a fight when you're reiterating the thing that someone else said that is being ignored in favor of picking a fight.

I'll post it again.

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

@Ortallus take it to the Hog Pit.

I saw it. it's just not relevant.

What he is saying there is that social systems shouldn't be included because they're not used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed. So, they're just completely not needed, or physical builds in games with those systems are inherently superior, if you read the context of the rest of his posts.

But keep trying, and keep trolling. If you got something you want to say, you take it to Hog Pit, I'm not the one who started calling names or being an asshole.

@ghost said in Social Systems:

Nice. Way to lose an argument like an adult.

@ghost said in Social Systems:

@ortallus You are correct, the logic would be flawed had he said 75% of all social interaction required arbitration through dice rolls.

I will concede my point under the overwhelming threat of your greater wit and intelligence.

Now who's putting words in whose mouth and being snippy?

@ghost said in Social Systems:

@ortallus said in Social Systems:

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@ortallus
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not against social skills I am against the idea that they are should only work on NPCs.
And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

K, I could get into the math here, but I'm not going to get all fancy with it.

tl;dr

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with PCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're way too aggressive. Or they are.

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with NPCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're a gamer. Congratulations.

Let's not get snippy and hyperbolistic. @ThatGuyThere wasn't saying that 75%+ of PC to PC interaction required dice intervention. Don't put words in their mouth. @ThatGuyThere simply said that 75%+ of their interaction on MUs is with PCs, not NPCs.

Frankly I agree with them.

So there has to better a better resolution system to tasks, including social challenges than "whatever they agree to", because in many cases "whatever they agree to" consists of ONLY what works for them.

Let's be cool here and not put words in people's mouths.

I'm not disagreeing with his statement. Nor am I putting words in his mouth. I'm merely point out the fact that his logic is flawed. But keep trying.

Since it seemed to go over your head, I'll elaborate.

Yes, you spend 75% of your time interacting with PCs, and 25% interacting with NPCs.

That does not mean that 75% of the time you're using physical conflict dice arbitration, and 25% of the time using social dice arbitration. It was a flawed comparison.

What I was trying to point out is that during that 25% of interacting with NPCs, you're almost always going to be using dice resolution. But how much of your PC interaction do you spend using dice? Unless it's a very aggressive type game, probably 10% at most.

Now, I'm also not saying that 100% of your interaction with NPCs is going to be social based. Sometimes an NPC needs their ass kicked. However, I've had characters that -did- spend a good 85% of their social interactions with NPCs using social tactics.

tl;dr once again: "If you're using more physical stuff than social stuff, that's on you, not the system."

I'm also not saying THAT is inherently bad. I'm saying it's one option, but it's not the only option. Some people like playing the wompy scrapper, some like the social guru, some like the mental master. Lots of styles. Just don't go invalidating the social style because you don't think of opportunities to use it.

@sunny said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@cobaltasaurus I got stuck in someone's driveway once. Snow and ice, couldn't make it up the hill. Dude (that did not tip me) stood on his porch eating his pizza and watched me struggle, then watched as his neighbor came out and helped me escape. Waved as I finally made it up the hill.

As you're pulling out, you yell, "I spit in your pizza!" and enjoy the look on their face. If they call your manager you say, "I never said that. They must be trying to get free pizza. Who would say something like that?"

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@ortallus
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not against social skills I am against the idea that they are should only work on NPCs.
And yes I do think if they are an NPC only thing then they are mostly pointless since I would say 75 % of mushing (at least in my experience) has dealt with the interaction between PCs. True not all of it is diced out or need to be but I think that any system that is being used should be used for the majority of situations where mechanical arbitration is needed/desired.

K, I could get into the math here, but I'm not going to get all fancy with it.

tl;dr

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with PCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're way too aggressive. Or they are.

If you're spending the majority of your time interacting with NPCs as needing mechanical arbitration, you're a gamer. Congratulations.

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@ortallus said in Social Systems:

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@wildbaboons said in Social Systems:

@arkandel I agree... but why I like things affecting NPCs instead of PCs. There was a whole thread on this not that long ago that we don't need to rehash.

My question would be if social can only be used on NPCs but physical can be used on PCs and NPCs and they cost the same , you would be doing yourself a disservice to not buy physical over social.
Especially because in most RP environments a well written pose describing IC awkwardness will win you more friends than a poorly written one describing social awesomeness, so you can follow the mechanical rules pose your low social stats yet get the full benefit of having higher ones except for the occasional use on an NPC.

So, I guess you're going to beat up the NPC to get better prices on goods then? I mean, I guess it could work? Once?

Or steal them after all thieving most often gets listed as a physical skill.
And lets face it how often on a MU do you actually barter with someone for a price? Maybe it is the games I am on but most of the places I have been things like equipment get handled in jobs. Or if it is a plot specific do-dad is it likely from an NPC introduced in that plot never to be seen again once the plot is over so how many times does it need to work?

Evidently you haven't played on any of the Shadowrun MU*'s.

I'm not saying it comes up often, but maybe it should? =P Things like negotiation and etiquette are extremely useful for interactions with NPCs, and if they don't have a system allowing you to roll on jobs, you should find better MU*s. =P I've used intimidate during interrogation jobs, and seduction during legwork jobs where I was trying to find information from certain people.

So yeah, you can stack up on physical skills, if you're not creative enough to understand how to use social skills, or if your MU doesn't let you. But that's the fault of the MU, not the skillset.

@thatguythere said in Social Systems:

@wildbaboons said in Social Systems:

@arkandel I agree... but why I like things affecting NPCs instead of PCs. There was a whole thread on this not that long ago that we don't need to rehash.

My question would be if social can only be used on NPCs but physical can be used on PCs and NPCs and they cost the same , you would be doing yourself a disservice to not buy physical over social.
Especially because in most RP environments a well written pose describing IC awkwardness will win you more friends than a poorly written one describing social awesomeness, so you can follow the mechanical rules pose your low social stats yet get the full benefit of having higher ones except for the occasional use on an NPC.

So, I guess you're going to beat up the NPC to get better prices on goods then? I mean, I guess it could work? Once?

When your cat yowls you awake, and you realize it's the litter box, so you go to clean it, and before you even get started he jumps in and drops the big stanky.

@lisse24 said in Social Systems:

@ortallus said in Social Systems:

An interesting idea. Also, I believe in Fate system, if you have something negative proposed, like a shot at one of your weaknesses, you can choose to take a Fate point and roll with it, or effectively burn the Fate point to get out of it. Pretty nice mechanic.

I'm not familiar with Fate, but that system certainly seems neat. I think the way I view it is that you want to give people something so that they don't view it as a loss and to take the sting out of it.

Yeah, totally. I think a general sort of like, "Okay, if you roll with the punches, you get an XP. Or you can burn the XP to resist the effect and get called out of the scene somehow, your choice."

Could make for an interesting house rule in MUSH games. I mean, most of the time in RP systems, they're designed so you can use the social systems against NPCs (or occasionally vice versa) but typically not against other players. There's a definite distinction in how players feel about the two. Letting players RP it out is, imo, generally a better option. However, the MUSH environment often requires another way to resolve things if the player is just being stubborn but it is within reason his or her character would behave a certain way. Especially on RC/FC type places.

Though again, nobody is going to talk old school Batman into killing someone, outside of some serious mojo or chemical manipulation. And thematically probably not even then. I mean, see "The Killing Joke." On the other hand, convincing Sherlock Holmes to take a case that he claims is boring can be done with some subtle manipulation to convince him it's not. If the player isn't that good at that sort of manipulation, but their character might be? Roll away.

@lisse24 said in Social Systems:

I agree with everyone else that relative simplicity is a must. I'm a fan of a simple contested roll for direct interactions between players.

I think these contested rolls should be done fairly frequently, because then they become part of the games culture. To encourage this I think players need to get something when they lose a contested roll, xp comes to mind. Giving XP for losing a contested roll, would also be a way to help new players catch up to dinosaurs, since the lower-xp players will lose rolls more often.

An interesting idea. Also, I believe in Fate system, if you have something negative proposed, like a shot at one of your weaknesses, you can choose to take a Fate point and roll with it, or effectively burn the Fate point to get out of it. Pretty nice mechanic.

I like the idea of status systems, when I've seen them on a game. I'd like it if they actually did something and were tied in better with social rolls. I think they could give players with social stats something to do. I don't have firm ideas on implementation.

This has been done well, and this has been done poorly.

@thenomain said in General Video Game Thread:

@sg said in General Video Game Thread:

@thenomain said in General Video Game Thread:

@tnp said in General Video Game Thread:

One word: Triss.

For whatever reason, Witcher 3 didn’t let me romance her. And in the end I’m glad, because Triss was a whiny do-gooder, and I’m always too nice in all the games I play. The way I played, tho, Yennifer was a complex and interesting woman.

I had the opposite experience. Triss was all about getting her hands dirty and getting things done. Yennifer was pretty awful and bragged about using mind control on Geralt to get what she wanted.

This ends up being a whole lot of deflection. Like the hint to me below about Triss, Yennifer is a proud woman who doesn't trust easily.

To me, Triss was super-whiney.

But whatever we think, that we had different experiences and still enjoyed the game means it deserves some kind of Most Amazing RPG To Date award.

Wait, what? No. No it doesn't mean that at all. <.<

@zombiegenesis said in Social Systems:

@wildbaboons said in Social Systems:

Agency is the big one here. Social stuff against NPCs all day, but no, I don't care how high you rolled on your manipulation/persuasion/whatever roll. You're not going to convince my character that drowning kittens is a good idea.

I think that's a bit hyperbolic. I think people have a hard time separating themselves from their characters and it's not just online that this happens. In my TT group we had one player who refused to use the intrigue system when an NPC was trying to convince her to dedicate soldiers to some battle. Her stance was "My character would never do that" and that was that even though there was no reason why her character wouldn't aside from "I don't want her to". Which is fine but part of the fun we were trying to have with this game was rolling with all the punches, even and especially the social punches thanks to the intrigue system. Ultimately the GM said "Ok, spend a destiny point for the auto-win" and we all moved on but it left a stale taste in everyone's mouths.

No, no one could ever convince you to do something that goes against your moral character (drowning kittens) without supernatural powers but maybe a friend convincing you do make a bad decision in the heat of the moment? Maybe! To me that's part of the fun of playing a character that isn't me, using their various stats and in-game systems to determine what they would do. Maybe not all the time but some of the time, sure.

Okay, maybe he's being hyperbolic. But I can potentially see the other player's point about 'my character would never do that'. Maybe not in this specific situation, but as a general thing.

I mean, look at the Charm Person spell in DnD. You can convince intelligent creatures to do things within their nature. The more convincing you are the better the effect. "Hey little chief... that other goblin wants to kill you and take your job... are you going to let him get away with that?" Would work. "Hey little chief, attack that big dragon to get his shiny" would garner, "Fuck you dude, I aint stupid."

Again, maybe hyperbolic, but this is when using full on magic to influence someone's thoughts. Now, take the magic out of the equation and I don't care what your 'persuasion' skill is, if I think sending in my troops is a bad idea for me, them, or my homeland, and you've offered nothing to convince me otherwise, then yeah, I'm not going to budge either. If your character has seduction over 9,000, but my character doesn't like were-badgers, I'm not going to TS with you.

I'd say a GOOD social system is one that allows both players to say, "Okay, I'm not sure how my character would handle this. He's sort of on the fence about sending his armies. I mean, on the one hand, Mr. McBaddington IS a threat to the whole realm, and you've made a convincing argument of that. On the other hand, Angry Ladygal is on my western boarders, and if I send my troops I might be leaving myself vulnerable. Let's make a roll to see just HOW convincing you're being."

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this question, in the grand scheme, as it really is opinion based, and as with many things, you can appeal to the widest audience, but you'll never ever appeal to everyone.

@cupcake said in Dead Celebrities 2018:

@ortallus said in Dead Celebrities 2018:

@cupcake said in Dead Celebrities 2018:

@tnp said in Dead Celebrities 2018:

Glee's Puck hung himself.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

I wish I could say I was upset. I didn't even know who he was, but after skimming the article, I think he took the easy way out.

I didn't mean to infer I was upset. Or let me rephrase:

Mark Salling had been an enjoyable actor with an enjoyable character on Glee and after discovering what he'd done it is also clear that he is a vile human being and pretty much taints all of his work. The fact that he killed himself out of what I assume is shame and desperation doesn't surprise me. He did indeed take the easy way out.

You didn't imply you were upset. I'm sorry if you inferred that I was suggesting such. I just meant my statement as a sort of addition.

@cupcake said in Dead Celebrities 2018:

@tnp said in Dead Celebrities 2018:

Glee's Puck hung himself.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

I wish I could say I was upset. I didn't even know who he was, but after skimming the article, I think he took the easy way out.

@jaded said in General Video Game Thread:

I could not stand Yennefer as a character and I'm glad that Wild Hunt addressed Geralt's compulsion regarding her.

I'm never going to play the games, but I'm curious if it's anything remotely close to what actually happened in the books.

@arkandel said in General Video Game Thread:

@ortallus said in General Video Game Thread:

Okay, not QUITE how I meant it, but I see how it came across that way. Ew Ortallus. Just.. ew.

Wait, what if @Ortallus is Trump's account?

This could explain a lot!

Hey. Seriously, talk about fucking crossline lines?