Best posts made by surreality

@Pyrephox said:

@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.

Few differences.

1. Active and reactive aren't at parity.
2. Some (admittedly flawed) systems exist that demand that reaction in WoD, actually. (Kuruth, I'm looking at you and your triggers list.)

I'm not talking about forced roleplay, as FTB covers that and most sites allow for it.

I'm talking about people dictating the particulars in ways that are unreasonable bullshit and expecting you to suck it up.

I don't disagree that it's about forcing the player to do something in most cases. These situations get even uglier. The moment you say: I am not keen on this we need to ftb, which is intended to be 'drop to ooc negotiation and summary about what happens', people who aren't getting the TS (or whatever else they were looking for) tend to escalate to dictating a scripted outcome under their exclusive control into which you are not given as much input as you are due. And it's usually much nastier when it's due to the kind of thing you're talking about, re: the player isn't getting the joy they wanted out of the scene and directed at fucking up the other character as much as possible, and this is not what you get with combat. You can't recalibrate your combat damage to 'extra dickbag screw you damage' level after the roll is made like you can in this scenario, and that's an issue.

To put it on parity with combat, people behave as though the moment they succeed on the first roll, they get to ignore your defense and anything else they feel like to keep whaling on you. And that is not a thing.

@buttercup While I'm not a parent, I've had a similar conversation lately with the husband. My health is not great, and we both provide some care for my elderly parents, which makes it similarly of concern.

(This applied to both the march and 'whoever is getting sworn in whenever Trump gets fired' in our case.)

We decided against going, both for my health and concern over the folks. Our insurance expiring if he can't start working soon played a non-trivial role in that call.

You can stop dismissing relevant points any time now, and hiding it behind 'focusing the discussion'. It's more than a little condescending since I don't see any solutions posited by you other than "give me my way" and a lot of strawmen and denial.

This is more of a policy issue and culture issue than it is a rules issue, and it always has been. If we saw timestops called to resolve these situations like we do combats -- which may happen but I've never seen it -- I suspect we'd see less twinking in either direction.

From the way you're talking in this thread, it's pretty clear you have some issues with respecting others in the broad sense, so frankly... I'm not surprised you've met with resistance if you've approached people on games the way you've been talking to me. I sure as shit would not want to play with you, because you're behaving like a bully. That would be part of the cultural issue. If you can't discuss the issue respectfully with an ear to the concerns of others, no fucking way would I trust you further than I could throw a piano in an actual OOC negotiation around a contentious proposal in game. You have to respect other players for that shit to actually work.

@buttercup I will ask him, thank you for that -- that is incredibly kind of you.

@Derp said:

But a lot of that really boils down to 'shall we create a universal system or not?'

Uhm, no. Not even slightly. Not by twenty country miles. "An issue exists" is part of the processes even more importantly once that question is answered, because that means it is time to address that issue in effort to prevent it from being an issue in the implementation.

Seriously, this is not hard logic.

You've created a tool to enforce this? Because from what you posted, I saw a lot of 'you can put that you're okay with this on your wiki and use it'. Which isn't a tool, so much as giving someone permission to do something that they absolutely could have done anyway.

Oh, really? Because if we're talking about a game where it's not default opt-in, which I am, no, they really couldn't have done it anyway.

Emphasis mine. They have impact. They absolutely should have impact. And they absolutely should not be allowed to be ignored if they have impact. Because, again, they are stats. Which you buy with xp. And are part of a game system. And should be respected as such for more than just what they happen to be prerequisites for.

And there are optional systems that combat stats can be applied to, too, that aren't in use in many games. There are other stats I haven't seen a hell of a lot done with that aren't social -- mentals are big here -- that people spend on and unless they're a prereq for something they never come up. Why aren't you banging that drum, too?

I have an issue with this because I've seen so many people ignore this system, and more people just not even bring it up even though they absolutely should have because their players had the oomph, sheet-wise, to make a real and relevant change happen.

And it's because you keep doing it on games that don't use social maneuvering, ffs, or didn't opt-in. Which makes you come off as a crazy, whiny child. Over and over and over again. And when you try to force the use of such a system on a game that hasn't opted-in to using it, you are being a rules bully, full stop. How hard is this to grasp? This is the crux of your problem and why you keep running into them: the thing you want to do isn't in use and no amount of crying and whining about how unfair it is is going to change the fact that you went to a game where it's not in play and built your character to use something that's not in use. That's on YOU, your choices, and if you're having a shitty time about it, it's really on you, not 'all of these other people aren't playing right!'

If you ran into this on a game that has implemented the system universally -- and other than RfK I don't know of any that have -- you might have a leg to stand on. But right now the crying and hand-wringing you do any time this comes up about how people aren't playing right is absurdity on its face because the conditions we're discussing are for a system that does not exist yet.

I'm tired of social-primary characters being relegated to second-class citizens because Punchy McPuncherson and his girlfriend Queen Can't-Touch-This just decided that the other person was powerless to try and influence them, because there was no rules in place (or worse, a rule in place specifically taking away their power to do so).

And this is why the #1 culture change that needs to go down is an understanding that an ST should be called when these rolls start to drop, and it has to be treated with the same seriousness as combat. Because nobody would be let to weasel around combat like that with witnesses -- and nobody is going to try to push for a creeper agenda and act like a giant bag of cocks on the escalation the moment someone suggests ftb out of frustration that their little text-based fantasy never got typed out. Hello, easy policy/rule to write.

The difference being, of course, that @HelloProject suggested countering the culture issue with rules, whereas you obstinately state that you'll create no such rules because of the culture. Thus why they get a +1, and you get criticism. Terribly arcane and borderline moronic, I know.

...I said I'd create no such rules where exactly? That's right: I didn't. Because I kinda have, and continue to do so. I said I wasn't implementing shit as a universal requirement -- and guess what, that's a rule, too. It's just one you don't like.

@Wretched To be fair, we have to have much more willpower anyway.

To, y'know... not bludgeon these people with a claw hammer.

And that's before the whole impulsivity facet is considered, dammit.

One of the key things with the specific system folks are discussing at the moment, though -- GMC Social Maneuvering -- is noted specifically in the book text as not recommended for use on players, and that it should only be used on NPCs. It's partly due to how the system itself is constructed, and the lack of resistance permitted by it by design. (Hence, why it's not often adopted.)

No one is arguing that some sort of system is necessary. A number of people have real objections to the specific system some are advocating, however, one that actually is, by design and intent, optional for use on PCs (though each edition of the text recommends all the more strongly against doing so).

It makes for a bit of a complication, to say the least!

The game developer's intention for that one allows opt-in if desired; it's right in the game's structural design.

Something not that system that is universal is very much a needed thing, as that one is not really appropriate for PvP, which is even noted empathically by the people who created it.

@Sunny That general thinking is why I went the way I did. Sometimes, it's instant-other, but others, there's the bonus of 'actually have to deal with this person as an individual'. Also, swing demographic, everybody pitches their team.

@Derp said:

But the problem with the system, in the developer's eyes, is that characters should keep some control over their actions, particularly because they tend to be working together or toward the same goals. The groups in question, around the table, are all on the same team. This cannot be said for those in the MU environs, and again, we need to distinguish what is meant by NPC in the books versus NPC in something as wide as a MU.

Oh that's what they said? Except it just fucking isn't.

Under a strict reading of these rules, one character could use Social maneuvering to get another to do whatever she wants. That’s not quite right, since it’s the persuader’s player making the rolls. His victim doesn’t get any option to say “no.” As such, this system should only be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters. Leave the manipulation of other player’s characters to roleplaying, and let the players determine their characters’ respons- es.

• (WTF2e Final.)

It is not always possible to get someone to do what you want. For instance, no amount of Social maneuver- ing is going to convince the chief of police in a large city to hold a press conference and admit to murder, even if the player has a dice pool impressive enough to make it happen. This system is designed to allow characters to manipulate or convince other characters to perform favors or undertake actions, but it does raise the question: Is one character dictating another’s actions, and how much of that should be allowed in a role-playing game? Or, put a different way, can one character seduce another with this system?
Under a strict read of the rules, yes. The goal is “get that character to sleep with my character,” the number of Doors is decided as explained below, and impressions and other factors play into the final result. This is not too different from how se- duction and other, less carnal, forms of persuasion actually work — the persuader tries to make the offer as enticing as possible.
But because it’s the persuader’s player making the rolls, the target is left without a way to say “no.” As such, it’s our recommendation that this system be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters rather than on other players’ characters. If one player’s character wants to seduce, persuade, convince, or intimi- date another, leave it up to roleplaying and let players make their own decisions about what their characters do.

• (GMC.)

Funny how their why and your why bear zero fucking resemblance to one another.

@Selira Seconding Wretched on this one. Some forms of stress or crisis can force focus. A lot of ADD/ADHD folks are kickass in a crisis as a result, while everyone else is running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

...if only we weren't, you know, the headless chickens the rest of the time, dammit.

I hit this one hard when my gall bladder went to hell. Literally dying, and I was like 'you are going to wake up and we're going to the hospital now, be ready in 15 minutes'. Everyone else, freaking out. Me? Weirdly calm, cooperating with the things that normally freak me out without a ripple.

Like... I normally flip out any time blood needs to be drawn. They had to do so several times a day for two weeks, until I was very literally so out of veins they were having to go for things in the joint of my upper knuckles with my fingers bent down, and they had to run a picc line which is... really just body horror like whoa to me.

Normal me: "OH GOD I'M GOING TO DIE".
Crisis me: <snapshot of calm stoicism>

@Derp said:

@surreality said:

@Derp said:

But the problem with the system, in the developer's eyes, is that characters should keep some control over their actions, particularly because they tend to be working together or toward the same goals. The groups in question, around the table, are all on the same team. This cannot be said for those in the MU environs, and again, we need to distinguish what is meant by NPC in the books versus NPC in something as wide as a MU.

Oh that's what they said? Except it just fucking isn't.

Under a strict reading of these rules, one character could use Social maneuvering to get another to do whatever she wants. That’s not quite right, since it’s the persuader’s player making the rolls. His victim doesn’t get any option to say “no.” As such, this system should only be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters. Leave the manipulation of other player’s characters to roleplaying, and let the players determine their characters’ respons- es.

• (WTF2e Final.)

It is not always possible to get someone to do what you want. For instance, no amount of Social maneuver- ing is going to convince the chief of police in a large city to hold a press conference and admit to murder, even if the player has a dice pool impressive enough to make it happen. This system is designed to allow characters to manipulate or convince other characters to perform favors or undertake actions, but it does raise the question: Is one character dictating another’s actions, and how much of that should be allowed in a role-playing game? Or, put a different way, can one character seduce another with this system?
Under a strict read of the rules, yes. The goal is “get that character to sleep with my character,” the number of Doors is decided as explained below, and impressions and other factors play into the final result. This is not too different from how se- duction and other, less carnal, forms of persuasion actually work — the persuader tries to make the offer as enticing as possible.
But because it’s the persuader’s player making the rolls, the target is left without a way to say “no.” As such, it’s our recommendation that this system be used by player-controlled characters on Storyteller characters rather than on other players’ characters. If one player’s character wants to seduce, persuade, convince, or intimi- date another, leave it up to roleplaying and let players make their own decisions about what their characters do.

• (GMC.)

Funny how their why and your why bear zero fucking resemblance to one another.

Except see the part I quoted above, which comes after that part in the GMCRU, about using it with other players.

Damn. Funny how that works, huh? If you're going to get all frothy at the mouth and tell me I'm wrong, at least read what the hell I write and then go reference the later part of it. Goddamn.

We're aware of the 'if you really want to, try this option' rules you keep banging on about. But you know, the conditions noted right up front? Yeah, kinda relevant, and about fairness, not teamwork. As is the word option. Amazing how they don't ever suggest dehumanizing other players in regard to fairness by designating them NPCs, seriously wow, man.

So stop pretending you're arguing for the need for a system when you really want that system, which the creators themselves describe as unfair to use on other players, and not for the reasons you cite.

@RightMeow We are still in the process of cleaning out old stuff, and I still have a mountain of things my husband hasn't taken over to my mother yet so she can donate it to the church. Most right now is some decorative foo, but there's some kitchen things. Nudge if needed, ok?

Depending on how long you can wait, if there's a Target in your area, check their back to school stuff in a month or so. They have had a set of basic plastic dishware for the past few years in their college gear; the colors change each year, but they're actually really nice basics for everyday, and they're very very very reasonable. (Under $1 per piece last year. We got a pile in matte black and use them for our main every day dishes now, super easy care and microwave safe.) They don't LOOK cheap, which is a plus.

@HelloProject said:

This seems to be going in an unproductive circle. I mean, not to shit on the discussion or anything, but you guys are kind of wasting your time and being stuck at the same stage of the discussion infinitely.

Pretty much. A system is needed -- that one just isn't a good candidate for many reasons.

I think more folks are open to the idea of having one than it may appear, that one just... is likely not going to be it.

Anything with no resist or defense is not really appropriate for PvP encounters, much like any combat. Imagine combat if it was all done via surprise -- and continued to flow that way for the second, third, fourth strike, while you are not actually not necessarily allowed to know IC that you're even being attacked and should possibly defend yourself or GTFO. There are or have been special powers that allow for elements of that, but as a default system for casual daily use it would be absurdity incarnate. (This is part of the issue with the one being pushed for by @Derp, and one of the reasons a lot of people have enormous issues with it.)

Also, how it's to be administered is pretty relevant. If it's ST-administered, it can be a little more open-ended than if it's meant for use directly player-to-player without a need for oversight to ensure proper situational modifiers are in play. I'm personally a fan of 'call a ST' for these encounters as a means to avoid the worst abuses, which are outliers. (They're just outliers that have a way of scattering like the cockroaches they are the moment the light shines on them.)

Pretty sure it was HR who noted the need for modifiers in these situations, for instance, 'that's a really horrible approach in this case' would lead to a negative modifier on the roll, which is realistic. A good one, a positive modifier. (This isn't hard to accomplish with some cooperation and some decent empathy rolls in advance, either -- it's a step people shouldn't skip and they tend to.) It also goes a long way to resolving the OOC issue of, "My character would never fall for THAT!" when the actual approach makes sense for the character, and there are existing systems to accomplish this through empathy rolls or OOC negotiation.

@Derp I recommend the animated version of The Tick. It suddenly makes flawless sense.

It's not like the monuments are from the time of the Civil War, either. Some of them go omg so far back in history to... the late 1970s.

This alone should prove the intent behind them.

Pinterest is my friend for this.

I keep a personal collection of 'that person looks like they vibe right for someone I'd think about playing', and for the site I'm tinkering with, it has a pinterest page for its relevant images, with its own collection of 'here's a bunch of neat-looking people of all ages and races and genders for people to browse and claim if they're having trouble finding a face'.

If the specific 'look' for a game is fairly obscure (historical, space, odd setting with a distinctive look), collecting imagery of people that fit can be a great resource for a game. It can be a huge help.

@Goblin ...this looks so much like my cat I'm tempted to inflict this on her. Well. Tempted. I like my blood inside my body as much as possible.

Thus far, liking the Snowpiercer series. They do not seem to have spared the budget on this one. Same for the new Penny Dreadful.

Well-timed for both, too. The core issues in these two may have rung a bit hollow to the audience-in-a-comfort-bubble before we were, well, all living in bubbles more literally and the world exploded in ways that were impossible to ignore.