Best posts made by Pyrephox

@arkandel Indeed. I am still intrigued by the possibilities of playing BATTLE CHEF. Or throwing elemental magic around, too. That would work. (but...battle chef...)

@derp I have not enough upvotes to give for this.

At some point, players who want to play a game with other people have to recognize that they are playing a game, and that games have rules that abstract certain aspects of reality to make those aspects of reality /playable/. No social conflict or resolution is ever going to take in all the deep aspects of your character - it's not supposed to, it's not fair to expect it to, and /that's part of the point/. Social resolution systems are consistently held to a completely unrealistic set of high expectations, higher than any other aspect of the game.

In order to have a working system, people have to adjust their expectations and work within the stat and skill system given, whatever that might be. If they can't do that, then they need to find a different game with different rules. But refusal to spend the points the game gives to make a 'strong-willed' sort of character, and then insisting their character should be treated in all ways like they are Ironwill McUnflappable because it 'violates their agency' to do otherwise is not a reasonable objection - it's part of the problem that makes having decent social and political play nigh impossible on MU*S.

@cobaltasaurus ...and now I'm scared. Good job!

I do have an actual question, though: Do you plan to support 'foreign' PCs as concepts, or keep PCs to native concepts? My personal preference would be for the latter, since I think it's much harder to keep people to theme when you have half a dozen foreigners running around who don't have a very good connection to their 'home' culture, but I can definitely see an argument (especially for intrigue) in having at least ambassadors/etc. represented by PCs who can be around and active more often than an NPC would manage.

I think, ultimately, any game that wants to have a decent social resolution system is going to have to define the outcomes it wants to enable, pick mechanics that create those outcomes, and then ruthlessly enforce those mechanics for a while, until people who can't abide that particular system have self-selected out, and it's become part of the game's culture. Because there will never be a consensus on what 'good' social mechanics are, because of the wide variety of assumptions and desires regarding them among the collected playerbase. This is one case where you definitely cannot make a game that makes everyone happy.

But I think the one thing you shouldn't do is what too many games actually do - include a system's full range of social maneuvering mechanical options, expect people to pay equally for them as they do combat or magical options, and then refuse to allow them to be useful in actual play. Often against PCs /or/ NPCs.

I am perfectly happy without an OOC room, and prefer games without them. They don't hurt me to exist, but I'd rather they didn't.

One thing I would suggest is that a tabletop character progression expectation does not work in a persistent, indefinite environment, which means that XP or how it's used needs to be rethought. Giving out lots of XP is an easy way to attract players, but it leads to long-term difficulties with a game, because tabletop systems aren't built with the expectation that someone will simply progress forever but that the challenges and plots they encounter will not fundamentally change with them. And MU*s typically don't have the level of staffing needed to be able to provide diverse experiences to both starting players and 'dinosaurs', which tends to cause a lot of long-term difficulty.

How do you fix that? If I knew that definitively, I think I could win hearts and minds. Sadly, I don't. My gut feeling is that it lies in recognizing that MU*s provide a 'slice of life' experience, and vastly cutting down on the amount of character improvement points received, and instead get people invested in more temporary and environmental improvements like territory and status. Things which can be built to decay or be challenged more readily than inherent character power.

@three-eyed-crow If you wanted to try to cater to both bases, I think you'll struggle, BUT, you could essentially make slow travel and fast travel different actions with different risks and rewards. Fast travel might cost resources, but gets you to Place X for plots or what have you without incident. Dramatic travel might involve traversing a grid, does not cost time resources (because it takes actual time), and might also include optional opportunities to gain or lose resources along the way - so, for people who like the journey and exploring, and aren't under a deadline to get somewhere Right Now for a plot, etc. And in exchange for the extra time they invest, they get the opportunity to have Adventures along the way.

That's not perfect, of course, and there are players that would be deeply offended that the other option than their preference even exists, but it might work.

Honestly, this sounds like catnip to me. I love hearing these updates!

@faraday Or it requires players to be kind to one another and recognize that not everyone is playing a character who matches with their skills. JanePlayer: "Hey, MaxPlayer, Jane would like to try to get Max to drop some juicy pillow talk about that secret project he's working on. She's got a fairly high Seduction and Charisma skill."
MaxPlayer looks at Max's social resist skills, winces: "Well, Max is pretty weak-willed, so she can probably get SOMETHING out of him, but I've previously played him as not being into the kind of persona Jane usually projects."
JanePlayer: "Huh. Could I roll Seduction and see if Jane could pick up what WOULD get him to drop his defenses?"
MaxPlayer: "Sure."
roll, moderate success
MaxPlayer: "Okay - he's more into the strong, forthright type. He doesn't like coy or innocent (or fake innocent). He's also probably not going to actually sleep with her any time soon - he's a slow moving kinda guy."
JanePlayer: "Darn. Okay, she doesn't want to put in THAT much time. But she could approach him boldly, ply him with alcohol, and get him to slip something, maybe?"
MaxPlayer: "It's possible! Let's roll and see if he's able to resist her charms."
roll
*roll
MaxPlayer's roll fails.
JanePlayer: "Yaaaaas."
MaxPlayer: "Damn. Okay, let's play it out for a bit, and he'll slip up and give her a juicy clue before he realizes that he's too drunk to be talking about this and runs away. Sound good?"
JanePlayer: "Sure."

Now, does that assume two reasonable players? Yes. But a social mechanics system can facilitate that, especially if it can reward MaxPlayer in some way for 'playing along' AND reward JanePlayer for not pushing past MaxPlayer's comfort level even though she won the contest.

And (and this is a big part of it) if the game culture is very explicit about maturity being required between players, and removing players who can't or won't follow through with that. The people who try to abuse systems to creep, and the people who try to no sell other character's skills and abilities? They both need to be vigorously removed without hesitation. As long as you're wishy-washy about it, no matter WHAT you choose as your system, cheaters of both types will manage to squirm around in the cracks, ruining it for everyone.

@jibberthehut said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:

@jeshin cane was 300k of grayson money, 348k of my own. I have blown probably a good almost 2.5 million on the project with about 425k coming from pc houses.

You haven't built an Amber Room, yet, so I don't think there's anything excessive in that or the prestige gained from it. ( The Amber Room at its height before its destruction would have been valued, roughly, like 124 million modern dollars. Great Houses should spend lots of money on beautiful, useless things! It's their job! https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-brief-history-of-the-amber-room-160940121/#bCX1mj3uTlrvtfjm.99)

@sparks I agree! Which is why I suggest being able to make significant mods to how people are seen by orgs (affection and respect), somehow. Or something like having their own version of Favor/Disfavor to bestow which boosts org or personal power. Like, if people who have the buzz are all talking about a particular org, that org rises in prominence/power if it's good talk, and has to struggle if it's bad talk.

Unfortunately, there just aren't a lot of actual social systems on Arx to give social characters as their domain - we don't (yet) have big NPC factions to manipulate, there's no social conflict dynamics where social characters could shine, and all the systems which exist have slowly turned towards producing silver and resources in ways that, unfortunately, create some serious distortions around wealth and the expectations thereof.

So, I guess I'd turn it around and say, when you say you want social characters to have meaningful systems to interact with, what sorts of systems do you envision as "meaningful" in the context of the sort of game staff wants Arx to be? Like, if you didn't have to code anything, and could just wave your hand and declare, "This is what social power MEANS in this setting," then what would it be?

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in If you work hard, son, maybe someday you'll RP:

@Ninjakitten
I also feel bad for 'wasting' scene numbers but for no real good reason. I've had decent luck with just starting open scenes and saying they exist, though, so I figure that's worth the occasional scene going unused and deleted.

It would be really awesome to be able to delete unshared scenes, though. My few false starts just hang out there, forever, and I haaaaaaaate it.

@Coin said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

@Sparks Yeah. I think "no, but" is a different but related problem. I am okay with being told 'no' if it's to save me time and redirect my actual efforts into something productive. If it's just a straight up dead end, though, it's super frustrating.

Oh god, there is nothing more frustrating than being told, "Yeah, even though you rolled incredibly well at this investigation/whatever, because you aren't taking the right OOC tack, you don't find anything. Sorry!"

Except maybe being told that at the end of a four hour scene in which you try every possible method you can think of to progress, only to have the GM eventually say the above.

@Killer-Klown These days, I take a lot of my GMing tips from watching really good movies and TV shows. Shows that deal with very competent protagonists (like Leverage, Person of Interest, etc.) give some very good tips on how to challenge characters like that without no-selling their abilities, and how to have setbacks, reversals, and complications that don't amount to 'and you find nothing' or 'this is a dead end'.

These days, I will sometimes literally sit down with a pen and notebook and watch an action movie, or a mystery show, and write down how it handles plot structure, revelations, setbacks, and clues. And try to translate those dynamics for RPGs. It's made for more interesting and dynamic games, to me.

I don't particularly care about stats, as long as the sheet is legal. But what I would like staff to look at and offer feedback on is the thematicness of the character, and if they see a) any positive plot hooks that can help the character engage with the game right from the start and b) any ways in which the character doesn't match with theme or might struggle to find RP in the current state of the game. I don't care how many schoolteachers who mysteriously have massive combat stats there are, as long as that's a concept that fits in the game theme and will find play.

@Coin said:

@Miss-Demeanor said:

Fair enough... but twice as bad. It really is just like combat now. Everything will take forever to resolve. Its bad enough combat takes forever to resolve, now going to hang out at the local bar can take just as long with less actual posing. Just agreeing to the whatever and avoiding the whole boring mess is looking more and more enticing as an option.

Well, I get the feeling you're equating "one roll, one pose", when it doesn't really work that way. If someone's impression only lets them make one roll an hour to seduce you, then they can roll, open one of your doors, and before an hour has passed, you pose leaving. You can--and should--interact between rolls. And if the person does or says something after a roll that would totally turn your character off, you inform them of such and suggest, "I think this would ad a door," or "I think this would reduce my Impression".

If you can only make one roll a week... well, that's only good for when you're working someone long-term, and hopefully to improve the Impression.

I don't know why you insist that you just sit there while someone else rolls. That isn't ever how I would play it, run it, or interpret it.

Agreed with this. The Doors system is not meant for social manevuers that take place in one scene, /generally/, unless the impression is great. It's meant to represent the work put in over days and repeated interactions in swaying someone to your point of view via favors and currying goodwill. A typical PC vs. PC Doors interaction should really be something along the lines of:

Player A: My PC wants to persuade you to vote for him in the next election.
Player B: Hmm. Well, my PC doesn't have much of a stake in it one way or the other, so I'd set the Impression at Neutral and the number of Doors is 3 for her.
Player A: Hmm...what if my PC invites yours out to a fancy restaurant to talk about his run for office - on his tab, of course! (Soft leverage!)
Player B: ...well, one of my PC's Aspirations IS to make a favorable impression on some of the local social scene, so we could run a scene with going out to Fancy Restaurant X, and if it goes well, my PC would be favorably inclined to yours. (Impression goes up!)
Player A&B scene the scene, during which, Player A has their character roll Presence + Socialize to ensure that the couple make a favorable impression on the local socialites, then Manipulation + Politics to introduce Player B's PC to the office PC A is running for, and some of the reasons it would be important to have a Good Person in that office. Player B agrees that this opens one of PC B's Doors.
Player A&B split up, go out and play other scenes - maybe Player B is approached by another contender for the office, and when Player A comes back, Player B says, "Hey, my character has been talking to PC Rival, and has a different perspective on the vote, now. You won't be able to use Politics again to sway them further."
Player A: Damn. Umm...hmm, okay. My PC is gonna use Wits+Investigation to see if there's any favors your PC needs done that he can fulfill. If he's successful, he'll drop by and casually mention that he can solve that for her because he's well-connected and concerned about people's well-being (and therefore she should vote for him!)
Player B: Hmm. Yeah, sure. That'll open a door. Roll it.
Player A rolls Wits+Investigation, fails.
Player A: WOE.
Player B: Sorry - you just don't have the right connections to fulfill any of PC B's needs right now.
Player A: Okay, okay. Time for the big guns, then. He figures she's pretty concerned with her status in the community, so he's going to use Presence + Persuasion to get the Ladies Who Lunch to invite her out for one of their hoity-toity lunches.
Player B: ...hell, you manage that, and I'll give you two doors, since it directly plays into PC B's vice of Easily Flattered by Rich People.
Player A: rolls successfully! Okay, so you want to play a scene where he introduces them and she is shamelessly flattered by rich old ladies with too much time on their hands?
Player B: Hells yeah. And your PC has her vote!

I.e. it should be a conversation and a back and forth dynamic, with the players talking and working out what is going to have a chance to sway a character one way or the other. If Player B is a passive recipient, then someone is playing it wrong.

@surreality Of course, then you run into those folk who say, "My character doesn't back down when intimidated, they go crazy and fight with every bit of combat dice they have." Which means that you get people walking around with all RAR I'M TOUGH because they put all their dice in combat, and none in social skills or resistance abilities. Because they know that if it comes to a social test, they can just move things to a combat footing, where no one doubts the effectiveness of their skills.

Basically, there are always assholes. You can't define a system by how assholes will use it, because every system just privileges a /different set/ of assholes. A system also can't stop assholes from being assholes - that job needs to fall to staff, and trying to offload basic game management skills to the system is one of the reasons why game cultures BECOME toxic. If, when someone skeeves on you by trying to dice-force you (and this kind of abuse is often really aimed at getting the /player/ to do something sexual) into TSing with them, then if you don't feel supported to say, "I don't feel comfortable with that kind of play with you. I don't mind if they get seduced, but we're not going to play it out, and my character will feel guilty in the morning, not fall in love with yours." and know that the staff has your back, then that's something wrong with the /game culture/. Because that sort of situation is not what any social resolution skill system is meant for. For that matter, you should be able to go to staff if someone is stalking you around the grid and /constantly/ rolling combat dice at you. "What my character would do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. "What the rules will technically let me do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. But as long as we keep trying to build and run games with the design goal of "not having to confront assholes with their asshole behavior", then game cultures are going to continue to be toxic, no matter what system is used.

I have much of the background, first plots, setting, and theme for two Ares games, but don't have the brain to do anything mechanical with Ares:

• A fantasy exploration/archeology game about people coming to explore in the wake of a centuries-long magical apocalypse that transformed one half of the continent. Ruin delving, discovering weird new magical species, and making magical food from them. Sort of a cross between Annihilation and Battle Chef Brigade.

• An original urban fantasy game set in a fictional city, meant to evoke a lot of the urban drama/police procedural cinematic drama, with extra magic.

Will the game engage with the underside of Regency London, at all? Gaming hells, the rookeries, riots, Bow Street Runners, brothels and actresses/mistresses, etc? It sounds like you're going for a very lighthearted take on it, but at least including gaming hells might allow for some tension and scandal that isn't entirely manners-based. I admit, I mostly read Regency romances, but the gambling-debt-dodging lords (or ladies who must marry Well to buy their families out of debt their fathers/brothers acquired) is a fairly common trope.

I'd also suggest including at least a couple of gentlemen's clubs (for male characters), and regular salon/charity organizations (for female characters) to gather outside of balls/etc. It might be worth thinking of things, especially, to engage women outside of the social scene, since activities that don't imperil a debutante's reputation were somewhat restricted. Even if you lean into the idea that PC ladies are all Originals and the good kind of eccentric, giving an idea of what that looks like could help people consider what their characters DO in a Regency environment.

Four is my preference, but I'm flexible to what the game requires, although I do wish artwork were more acceptable across games. I would rather have a character sketch of /exactly/ how my character looks, then spending hours trying to find a model or actor that gets 80% of the way there, and becoming sadly resigned to the fact that no one will read or note the physical characteristics that differ.

I also usually only have one or two pictures; I try to find the one that best fits the tone of the game and the 'emotional feel' of the character - the same actor can look a lot different from different angles or in different outfits, and I like to keep it as consistent as I can.