Posts made by surreality

@Ganymede said:

@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.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this one. It's just another manifestation of the 'any outcome that isn't exactly the thing I want is cheating' problem that makes this issue a disaster on the whole.

@Ganymede said:

@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.

...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.)

@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!'

Which is more or less a giant disaster for players who are ethical and honest and want to play fair.

@Coin said:

And if Mary's player isn't actually interested in that sort of story, why doesn't she just tell John's and be done with it?

People do, though. I know I've been in the position to say: "I'm willing to do X, Y, or Z -- pick your favorite or if you have another suggestion, cool -- but I am not interested in RPing A." Not even once has that been respected in my experience. It is, and has always been, "Nope, I rolled and I want A and you have to A or you're a cheater."

The 'well we just won't play that' thing... "You have to play it, even if the X is FTB, and now you're this and you must continue to interact with me whether you like it or not." Which is a quick recipe for retiring a character.

Well, it isn't intended to be used on PCs, so it's... kinda more proof of that. If it was intended to be used on PCs, we'd see defensive merits like we do for anything else. We have them for the old style social rolls (iron will) but really, I think we'd see a broader range here of options, 'cause they're pretty limitless.

It would be possible to create such things, which would actually go a long way toward balancing the scales on this.

Something akin to the 'fast-talk' merit, but geared toward empathy and picking up on manipulation/deception, for instance, would be a good start. ("Is he only fixing my car because he wants something?")

A notation on supernatural merits -- telepathy in particular -- in regard to being able to pick up on ulterior motives? Yeah, they would, and that's a reasonable defense to bring to bear as well that isn't mentioned. There are some other merits and powers that should give someone a leg up in this particular regard.

An 'aware' merit, for instance, that would allow someone to apply res + comp instead of the lesser of the two only to their base doors, to be the case if they succeed on a roll to determine there's an ulterior motive of which they should be suspicious and perhaps be more on guard against the instigator? Exactly the kind of thing that would make this much more reasonable. Give it a wits threshold on par with Iron Will and some kind of Empathy requirement, make it not cheap, etc.

@Miss-Demeanor You'd think Iron Will would add a door per dot or something -- but no.

@Coin said:

@surreality said:

@surreality said:

@Ganymede said:

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.

The single roll isn't great, but it's much better than social maneuvering. Single roll has resists, and takes the target's stats they spent on -- like iron will/etc. -- into account. SM doesn't. It completely ignores the stats of the target save for in setting the base number of doors. I can kinda see why players don't accept outcomes from a system that only takes the aggressor's stats into account.

Edit: ignores modifiers, too, and that's just bad.

What? No it doesn't.

Social Maneuvering rolls can be Resisted and Contested, depending on the type of roll and what you're trying to do. In fact, if you have Iron Will, for example, and someone is trying to do something that you would resist or contest with Resolve, it would absolutely count.

There is nowhere in the books that says 'Social Maneuvering does away with resisting or contesting rolls'.

This is literally in the second paragraph of GMC p. 193 "Opening Doors":

As Storyteller, be creative in selecting dice pools. Change them up with each step to keep the interactions dynamic. Similarly, consider contested and resisted rolls. Most resisted actions or contested rolls use either Resolve or Composure or a combination of the two. But don’t let that stand as a limit. Contested rolls don’t require a resistance trait. For example, Wits might be used to notice a lie, Strength to help a character stand up to threats, or Presence to protect and maintain one’s reputation at a soiree.

Single roll isn't better, because single roll accomplishes things and it feels like "magic". One roll and done. 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.

Yeah, I've seen that -- but it's 'consider' which... is not the same as the requirement for these factors in the single roll system (which is usually timed out extended rolls, so 'single' is a bit of a misnomer).

If someone is using the (extended, modifiers in place) single-roll system rolls with it? That's a lot more reasonable.

Thing is, the 'changing up the roll types' thing is a two-edged sword and doesn't necessarily allow those things to apply in every instance. The 'he fixed my car with a repair roll' example, for instance -- wouldn't make those things relevant. Essentially, you could fix someone's car, bake them a pie, and drop off a package for them across town before the post office closes and magically they want to hop into bed with you provided you succeed in doing those things. Which makes zero sense, and the resistance stats someone paid for don't come into play the way they're designed to.

@surreality said:

@Ganymede said:

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.

The single roll isn't great, but it's much better than social maneuvering. Single roll has resists, and takes the target's stats they spent on -- like iron will/etc. -- into account. SM doesn't. It completely ignores the stats of the target save for in setting the base number of doors. I can kinda see why players don't accept outcomes from a system that only takes the aggressor's stats into account.

Edit: ignores modifiers, too, and that's just bad.

@Ganymede said:

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.

The single roll isn't great, but it's much better than social maneuvering. Single roll has resists, and takes the target's stats they spent on -- like iron will/etc. -- into account. SM doesn't. It completely ignores the stats of the target save for in setting the base number of doors. I can kinda see why players don't accept outcomes from a system that only takes the aggressor's stats into account.

@icanbeyourmuse said:

I am really tempted to scrap the mu* I've been working on for over a year in favor of a mobster or Firefly mu* (maybe a combination of both). I am so impulsive.

I have done this twice in the last six months, so I feel you on this, seriously.

@Chime said:

@surreality

Damn. I swear I just wasted like a whole hour drooling over espresso machines again.

I would probably go with more of the semi-auto style if I went that way, along the lines of Breville's BES920XL. But. Those brass Pavoni machines are so pretty~

I had a Saeco Talea for three solid years of heavy use that was my baby until I eventually killed it. It was a trooper. We would actually bury it in the yard if we wouldn't get fined.

"Try this."

I am so dying right now, because those words are potentially the most deadly in all of the language. It makes me cackle with sheer glee... and wonder where I can get a hold of some of the stuff to add to things when it gets this dangerously dire again!

I can see it now:

"What kind of sweetner are you adding to that coffee?"
"It isn't sweetener. It's extra caffeine."

@Chime said:

Seriously though, it's really good coffee.

takes notes You sound like someone in need of a superauto, in all seriousness. The suffering I have endured in the month or so mine's been broken while I wait for the replacement is proving what a good investment it was/is, and that's no joke! (And I didn't even have one of the super fancypants ones, but it's still grind-per-cup godlike awesome.)

(There's a reason I've been way less pleasant than usual this month, and I blame the perpetual withdrawl migraine. )

Pretty much.

There are, realistically, some cool elements of that system -- and I wouldn't be against hybridizing something, as the idea of 'doors as social health levels' is one that I think has some real merit. The no resist, no defense factor, however, is simply not viable.

Either tends to require oversight, but the cultural issue of 'STs are only needed for combat' is pretty pervasive and it's the #1 thing that needs to change. It resolves the worst abuses on either end of the spectrum -- namely: "I'm untouchable!" and "Now you TS me! Oh, FTB? I have one success so now I'm going to take over your character and rewrite them however I damned well please in ways that you as a player are screwed by utterly going forward... sure you don't just wanna TS me instead?"

@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 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.

@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.

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.

@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.

Truelands had it -- or they were the one I'm thinking of. I never played there but knew the folks who did.

MOO code, at least to me, was always as it made more sense to me than MUX code. It has its own failings, but the verb editor was easier to learn and tinker with than MUX code has been for me.

@Derp said:

I'm not dismissing relevant points.

You want the quotes? 'cause I don't have a lot of time today but oh honey, can I find them.

I'm stating that the OP asked for a system they could use in-game to help resolve these things, and you saying 'no I don't like systems' isn't conducive to the conversation.

1. And all of those concerns need to be taken into account when crafting a system.

2. I said "I don't like systems"? Where, precisely? And if I didn't like systems, why am I going to let people use one? Why would I be creating tools to help people use the systems in place with minimized drama? Oh, maybe because you're completely full of shit and projecting what you want to read onto what's actually been said.

I'm asking you to stop dismissing the fact that the OP asked for a universal system, which is precisely what you're doing, in favor of omg no there are too many bad people!

Yeah, you're missing the point by a mile. Any system needs to take those people into account to prevent abuse. The current system you're trying to insist upon does not in any fashion do so in terms of either its mechanics or any policy anyone has crafted to date to supplement it, and as such, your suggestion to just use what OP actively advises against and people have to suck it up or make social stats, which have an impact on actual powers rolls and so on, completely free.

Your solution is sheer genius there, really. Even without the optional, recommended against for PvP system, those stats have actual value. It's cute how you skim over that (kinda important) bit.

I've actually met with very little resistance anywhere but this forum, truth be told, outside of a select few situations, but we all face those from time to time.

Then why bitch so hard about this so very frequently? If you are running into only a few difficult corner cases, and that's worth bitching about so hard you have to keep beating this particular dead horse, why are the other difficult corner cases instantly dismissed? Hypocrisy Olympics silver-medal grade bullshit, buddy.

So if you could stop your ad hominems and get back on the actual topic, and discuss the point of the thread without just throwing your hands up and dismissing it as a 'culture issue' rather than a rules issue, that would be super.

Sometimes you seem like an incredibly intelligent person and then you come up with something like this and I shake my head. No snark there, just simple truth. And it's funny how you immediately thereafter +1 someone saying it's a culture issue, because bwahahahahahahaha that's kinda special win, man. Policy needs to be in place to prevent abuses of any system. Sometimes it's HRs, sometimes it's rules, sometimes it's player or staff tools or code -- but those things are not in place and all of those things are not 'the system', but they are essential to implementing one successfully.