Posts made by Seraphim73

@botulism

@mietze said in Historical settings:

So that's one thing that you'd need to take a hard look at. What DO you want in the scope of your game? Then be honest about it.

I really wish that every game started out with a Mission Statement:

We're making this game to do this. Characters will generally be doing this. This is what we want from the game.

Then every decision made in creating the game and staffing the game should flow back to the mission statement and support it. If you find yourself chafing under the "restrictions" of the mission statement, change the mission statement. I think it's a good way to get everyone--Staff and players alike--on the same page from the start. This also helps with the theme-flouting assholes you mention, you can always refer them back to the mission statement and say, "Here's where it says the type of game this is, your choice goes completely against that, that's why we're retconning it."

As you might imagine, I think that directly confronting theme-drift-players immediately is the way to go. Let them know where they're going wrong, why you're concerned, and ask them to stop. If they don't, they clearly don't want to play the game you're running, so remove them. Losing a player or even a few players will be better for your game in the end compared to allowing theme to drift into something you don't want it to be.

I completely agree with you on making sure you've thought of what you want the players to do. I believe that should be the first question every game-runner asks themselves: What will my players -do- with their characters day-to-day.

@tinuviel I don't think I'm looking at the widest possible audience, just like... more than a dozen players. I may be underestimating the audience for a hard historical game, but I'm pretty certain that if one existed it would a) be very small (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and b) be filled with arguments about what's actually historically accurate (which is not a bad thing if everyone digs it, but usually is a bad thing).

@faraday I agree that you absolutely need to define your setting, including how "Hollywood" it is. Just saying "Hollywood history" isn't enough for exactly the reason you mention. And I think that there is room for semi-wide-audience (like, more than 20 players) games at every point across the spectrum you mentioned (Band of Brothers would have to be more like TGG, and I would adore playing on a game like that, but I think that's the "hardest" end of Hollywood history that I think is feasible).

So a game's mission statement might be something like: "A paranormal game set just behind combat lines in WWII France, The Darkest Day (alternatively, A Bridge Too Dark) explores the terror and thrill of combat and war from a paranormal perspective. Werewolves, Vampires, and Fae stand alongside mortal heroes in a view of history similar to Fury, Enemy at the Gates, and Defiance."

I would take that to mean that it's less realistic than Band of Brothers, but a lot closer than Kelly's Heroes. Sidenote, I'm not huge of paranormal games, but I would play the hell out of that one.

I'm a firm believer in Hollywood Historical Accuracy when it comes to historical games.

Mostly, I think that the vast majority of players aren't going to do the research to portray "proper" social mores, even if there's a page on the wiki describing them. So trying to go "full historical" is just setting Staff (and the few players totally into "real historical accuracy") up for disappointment.

That being said, I still think that a single page on the wiki (or maybe 2-3 tops) with "differences from modern life" would be a great idea. Cover social structures, technology levels, and any majorly different things from modern life ("people talk a good game about sexual propriety in public, but behind closed doors, things are craaaazy" for a Victorian game, for instance).

While the PCs are of course going to stand out from the masses of NPCs, I still think that PCs who publicly flout common standards should get pushback from NPCs, and that this pushback should matter (want to lead a public faction? Don't tell society as a whole that they're wrong). Then again, I think that NPCs should pushback against non-thematic actions no matter the setting.

I think whether you allow history to be altered depends on the type of game you want to run. If the historical setting is the most important part of the game, then I would only allow minor changes to be made. If there's another part of the setting that's more important than the history, I would allow more sizable changes to be made -- as long as there's a good history page to catch new players up. Either way, the players should be able to make some change to the setting, even if only on a local scale, or else why are they playing?

@misadventure said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Physical combat and its accepted model works fine because it has one end state: defeated (yield, unconscious, dead, etc). That result is typically dull to RP.

I disagree with this.

Social interaction should not be modeled after physical combat, because simplistic to say that all forms of social success "defeated" anyone.

And with this.

I think that you're short-changing physical combat and social combat alike.

Physical combat could be about counting coup, making a point, standing up for yourself even though you get beat up, beating someone up to shut them up, beating someone up because you like it, maiming someone, killing them... some of the best RP I've had has come from RPing physical combat (granted, a good deal of it came after the actual combat, but I also love posing physical combat.

"Defeating" someone in social combat could be intimidating them into backing off, it could be charming them into liking you a little more, it could be bribing them into taking your nephew on as an aide, it could be getting them to let slip that juicy little secret, it could be getting a discount on that car you want to buy... these are all victory/defeat situations, but through RP, they become much richer than that. Heck, you could even give in to what the other person wants, but get a valuable concession in return (being defeated, but doing significant "social damage" over the course of the interaction).

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Don't even ask me what that particular contest might represent, lol But it shows how the rolls can be arbitrary.

Clearly, Cate is trying to sneak past the tripwire mine Erin set up. Poor Cate.

@apos said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

I've only been MUing for a few years compared to most people and I can think of 3 cases off hand of someone asking some version of the question, "Can I roll my social stats to try to talk my way out of this and not die?" when they were faced with imminent execution. There is basically zero chance someone doesn't try that if social combat exists and someone is trying to PK them, and whether it's allowed and reasonable is one I'd have a handle on.

Shouldn't they be allowed to do this? Or at least to try? I mean, if they've spent the points to buy the skills to be super-smooth-talking, shouldn't they at least get a chance to roll against the massive modifiers for the Prince's higher status, their Resolve (or appropriate defensive stat), the evidence against them, the intimidation factor of all of the guards surrounding them, and the hostility of the crowd? At least to delay things "until a more detailed investigation can be completed?"

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Enforcing the rules should not be something that staff shies away from either.

I think this is just a MU* truism. If Staff is shying away from enforcing whatever rules they've implemented, the game is probably going to have problems.

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

What matters is that social combat has been the red-headed step-child on World of Darkness games. I believe that making them on par with physical combat will make people stand up, notice it, and pay it some more goddamn attention. And, as per the example I gave, using social combat may be a way to avoid physical combat as the end-all-and-be-all of confrontations. Further, game lines like Vampire make social combat the front-and-center of a story's focus, yet never make it something as tangible and complex as politics ought to be.

I realize that this thread is about WoD in general, but I would go so far as to say that social interactions have been the red-headed step-child of most RPG systems forever. There are a few, like A Song of Ice and Fire that have "full" systems the equal of physical combat, but most systems that I have experience with have pretty limited social rules. I posit that this is because we're all theoretically social creatures, so the designers a) think we'll be resolving in-game social issues socially, and/or b) social conflicts are damn complicated, much more so than physical ones.

@mietze said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Granted, this works a lot better one on one rather than in one vs. many (like a speech to a crowded room).

Absolutely, but if it was a crowd of PCs, the speech isn't likely to be tailored to each of them individually anyhow, and is likely to affect each of them differently (this is actually where each "target" getting different modifiers due to the tactic chosen would come in). Now, if it was a host of NPCs being spoken to, I could definitely see the PC stating their tactic, getting a modifier from the GM, rolling, and then talking to the GM about what would work well for the crowd.

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

So what you and @Seraphim73 are suggesting is a hybrid of the two approaches. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a big departure from what folks are used to. And I think there's resistance from both sides because it lacks the core elements that appeal to each (puzzle / consent).

I agree with almost all of what you just said, and think that the connection to the Discuss method (or whatever we're calling it) being a strong departure from tabletop RPG-playing is a good one (although I have definitely done a little bit of the latter point with my players, especially my less-socially-inclined players, in tabletop).

The one (minor) point that I disagree with is that the Discuss method doesn't support consent. I mean, it certainly isn't full consent, but it allows you to tailor the encounter to your preferences for your character.

The issue of the wide variety of uses for social skills that @surreality brings up is a good one, and one where I think modifiers should come into play. I admit I don't know WoD/CoD well enough to even know how prevalent or useful modifiers are, but it seems to me that 'buy me a coffee' probably doesn't have a modifier unless the target hates the character asking, while 'push the shiny candy-red button on the suicide vest' probably does... unless the target is a fanatic (turning them into that fanatic would be a longer social skill play... months at least, maybe years, and include a lot of Discuss method use and modifiers and RP).

The one thing that I've noticed is that despite some claims to the contrary, there doesn't really seem to be anyone really objecting to the idea of working with another person to learn how to frame things. I may have missed something, but like... is anyone saying that?

@faraday said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

Nobody's successfully done that for social combat. Such a hypothetical system needs to include some concept of armor for deeply-held beliefs, and some way of reflecting personality and things in our backgrounds that shape how we respond to things. It would need to reflect the fact that social manipulation is usually a long-term endeavor. It would need to reflect social relationships - you're far more likely to buy a lie from someone you trust than your most hated enemy.

All things Furystorm tries to model, from setting ratings for Character Values (Community vs Self, Status Quo vs Change, etc) that provide modifiers for social rolls as appropriate; to armor for relative position in society, evidence contrary to what you're being told, and relationship with the person; to "weapons" dependent on the arguments being used; to the ability to play for advantage, fight aggressively, fight defensively, or gang up on someone just like in physical combat. It's not done, it'll probably never be used (because I'm not likely to run a game again), and it's certainly not perfect, but it's taking most of those points into account (mostly because you and I have talked about them quite a lot).

@tinuviel I agree completely. I also think that NPC influence should be more readily used on most games, both as a way to drive friction (conflict-lite) and as a way to theme-correct.

@pyrephox said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

[Good description of cooperative, rolled social combat.]

This is pretty much what I've used for my Furystorm system, but I think that it could become part of any game's culture alongside whatever system of social rolls you were using (WoD, whatever).

Given the collaborative nature of our medium, I think that a Discuss, Modify, Roll, Discuss, Pose system works best. First the "attacker" describes what their character is trying to do and the methods their character is going to do, then the "defender" applies appropriate mods based on how applicable the argument is to their character, rolls are made, the two discuss the results to come up with a plausible argument, and then the poses are written.

This prevents people from writing a "lame" pose (or one that would be offensive to the target character) and winning on dice alone, helps keep some agency for the target (they get to weight the strongly-held beliefs of their character, and to help come up with how the attacker gets past them), while still allowing social stats to weigh into place. It even helps those who come up with good arguments (by providing them with positive modifiers to their roll).

Unfortunately, it also requires reasonable players, because the defender is providing modifiers for the attacker's roll based on how the argument would affect their character, so it's all too easy for a bad actor to say, "That argument would be totally useless against my character, even though they have a soft spot for kittens on their sheet and you're arguing that we should save kittens" (yes, that's hyperbole). The solution to that, in my opinion, is to remove bad actors from the game.

If you're not going to have a collaborative system, I think you need to do as others have suggested (@Ganymede, I think?) and make social skills/stats only work on NPCs, probably discount their XP costs, and make sure they have some serious bite against NPCs.

@thenomain said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

There are some other RPGs where the stakes and rules for social combat are clear. If you want to use social stats with characters as a valid target, use one of them.

Green Ronin's A Song of Ice and Fire, for instance. Different tactics with different effects, the ability to specialize in each of those effects, social hit points, social armor... all of that. It still doesn't handle issues of agency very well, so it will never be for some people. For people who aren't as concerned about player agency, it might work very well.

Even then, however, there are limits on what social skills can force upon the target. As @Sunny mentioned on another thread, I believe, it's about influencing the target's position on a subject, not about changing their mind directly.

But yes, I'm sure we've all experienced something like the situation @Ziggurat is referencing, and it's frustrating as hell. However, I bet we've also all had a situation where someone makes a big huge speech that they think is awesome, but they were making a huge play to your character's honor... which they don't have (or something like that).

@thatonedude said in Paragraphs, large scenes and visibility:

Also I changed the color of text in between quotes.

I also love saycolor or quote-color or whatever you want to call it: colorizing the text between quotes. This helps me a lot in big scenes, especially when I get a wall of text. I also scroll up to read at my own pace, and start typing my pose while I'm reading.

@bored said in Star Wars Stand Alone - Staff Sought:

Stormtroopers (who are kinda scary in this game)

I just want to say that while you bring up worrying notions of balance, even without my having read the book, this makes me grin with glee. Any game/system where Stormtroopers are scary, elite fanatics is good in my book; any game/system where Stormtroopers are hapless mooks is bad in my book.

I have very little knowledge of the FFG Star Wars system, and no time to actually Staff a game, but I'm absolutely happy to help bounce ideas around. I think that you're going a good place by focusing on a very narrow slice of the universe, although it might be nice to look at a couple of very close systems (like a couple hours in hyperspace tops) rather than just a single planet because smugglers are a major theme in Star Wars, and people are going to want to have their own starships. I would also be very curious on what your thoughts about Force Users and lightsabers are, because that's another hot button issue for Star Wars players. The third hot button issue (as far as I can remember) is factions. Are you planning to have Imps, Rebels, and Indies? Or just focus on one side and Indies who are associated with that side (I like this style and think it saves a lot of headaches, no matter how much I enjoy playing Imps).

@twinprince I agree with mixing up how you start your poses/emits/whatever, but I always always always (try to remember to) include my character's name in the pose. Anything else is just asking for confusion. However, I definitely like to use other descriptions for my characters alongside my character's name in the pose. In one sentence I'll use the name, and in the other I'll use a descriptor.

I also like to make sure that if I started my last 2 pose/emit/whatevers or so with the character's name, I'll start the next one with a quote or a verb or whatever. Just to mix it up so that not all of the poses look the same.

@ganymede said in Do we need staff?:

I am of the opinion that every game needs not a PHB but a Hammer: the person that will come down and without hesitation intervene when a player comes off the rails. Too often, there's no such staff member; everyone believes that if we all just play nice, everyone will play nice.

Agreed 100%. When Staff hesitates to remove problem players, or hesitates to approach borderline players before they become problems, the game suffers. You need a staffer to be the hatchetperson (that can be the sole staff member if that's all you feel the game needs, but there needs to be someone willing to do the dirty work).

I do, however, agree with @Arkandel also that Staff needs to be a mediator -- that should be their default in my opinion, but sometimes you need the hammer.

@arkandel said in Potential Buffy Game:

@zombiegenesis Not that I want a game to be delayed but come on man, if you have the option of launching this right on Halloween then g'dammit, you take it.

I would actually suggest launching it 1 week before Halloween (maybe 2), so that the first RP after characters are approved can be on Halloween.

My opinion is that you can run a game with minimal staff (1-2 Staffers) so long as it's under about 40 regular players. I think that a game without staff/GM works just fine around a tabletop with the right group of people, and could work on a closed-invite online game as well (there are even systems designed this way), but for an open-invite game, it's just asking for bad actors to come in and effectively take over.

I do think that system is very, very important if you want to have minimal staff, and I think that the importance there is simple Chargen where questions should be minimal, sheets should not be complex, and combat should be either automated or so frickin' simple that anyone can run it after trying it once (I don't know... flipping a coin to decide who wins, maybe).

@bad-at-lurking It could be witches, some evil witches, which is ridiculous, 'cause witches they were persecuted and wicca good and love the earth and woman power and I'll be over here.

@faraday said in Player buy-in:

Even something as universally recognized as Star Wars can veer sharply in tone between A New Hope and Rogue One.

Heck, it gets worse than that. You could have the difference between Solo/Rogue One and The Force Unleashed.

I think that buy-in is critical, especially on original-theme games, but also media-based games. I also think the most important things for attaining and maintaining buy-in for players are:

1. Being very clear and up-front about Staff's vision. I still like the idea of a mission statement on the front page of a wiki describing Staff's vision of the setting. Having some examples of feel ("the game is set in the Dark Times, but more of a Solo version than a 'The Force Unleashed,'" or "True Grit -- the new one -- not American Outlaws," or "The Walking Dead not Shaun of the Dead") can only help too.

2. Talking to players who haven't bought in. Depending on their reaction, this can either be a Come-to-Jesus shape-up or ship-out, or it can be a gentle nudge and a query about what would help make the setting clearer.