nexus

Re: Social effects If nothing else we're getting a slew of interesting NPC names out of this thread.

Re: Social effects Or, since we have no way of seeing the "dice rolls" or "character sheets" in reality, they were very hard to hit, the "attackers" had low skills, the situational modifiers were high or their "defenses" were. Just because social "attacks" tended to fail against them and we don't know ALL of them did just the ones important enough for history to record. If anyone ever managed to talk them into changing their mind on anything, they're not Immune just resistant too them and possibly only about certain things. As far I know there has never been anyone that has been shown to be totally immune to social pressure, manipulation, torture and persuasion in all its myriad forms History gives us thousands of thousands of example of people failing to live up to their loyalties, converting under pressure or being convinced to do wrong or even appalling things (or at least allow them to happen) too. And of course, these are just the things history recorded. There's uncountable untold stories that go either way. History basically seems to say "It depends" and in rpgs generally the rules work out those kinds of situations. That my opinion at least. Your experiences have been very different from mine. I've seen many people that -say- stuff like that but when it's tested, tend to crumble or it's never actually tested. But that's really neither here nor there as far discussing game mechanics. Overall I agree with Sean's summation. Some social "attacks" miss, some bounce of "defenses", etc. Nothing is guaranteed. But in Hero System you have to expend points to be exceptional in a area. If you want to be exceptionally resistant to social manipulation the player the should have to invest something. To make that worth it, Social attacks would have to have weight because if they can dismissed out of hand anyway most players won't waste points getting a defense. It would be like the GM saying you can ignore Stun and Body Damage from attacks at any time when you don't feel its appropriate. I'd imagine in most games with all but the most hardcore "I build to concept" type of players expenditures on Defenses would see a rapid drop off. As it stands, Interaction skill border on being a sfx. You can use them but they can be dismissed for whatever by PC or NPC even a whim. A major assumption within this thread appears to be that if it was other wise, the GM would be jerk about them though I've seen more GM denying PCs what they've invested in as far as Interaction skills go because they threaten the plot train than leading the PCs around by the nose with them. Which isn't to say it can't or doesn't happen, that's just been my experience. I do think any good social system should have some way to reflect things the character feels very strongly about and is thus difficult to budge on (and conversely easier to manipulate with if they're used as leverage. Say someone that values his family above all else would be easier to motivate if they were threatened or would be helped by going along with an offer but extremely difficult to persuade to hurt, abandon or portray them).

Re: Social effects Why not just not use that aspect of the system? I do that with some of it as it stands.

Re: Social effects In a social resolution system the incidences were individuals never broke would be represented by people with strong resistance abilities, large negative modifiers to actions and failed attempts at skill use. Looking at it from a gaming perspective the victim "won" the social interaction and the "sfx" vary as always: the person dies under torture, their persecutors decide continued effort isn't worth it or the victim is becoming a martyr and inspiration to others to resist so much be dealt with, etc. History is also full of individuals that did convert or perform actions completely against their apparant nature under threat of death or even lesser reasons, of course Social mechanics don't equate to "Every attempt at social skill use will succeed eventually" it would simply codify the results and what can (or can't) be attempted in specific situations to sharper degree than simply GM fiat. "If it has Ego we can break it" is no more automatically true than "If it has Body was can kill it". You TRY to do either but the mechanics and tactics/roleplaying involved will determine the outcome.

Re: The Distinctive, The Special, The Cool Body/Stun: I love being able to duplicate out but not dead or dying but still active effectively and simply Comeliness: It seems allot of use in my games and I think it fits the cinematic realism the Hero System models very well. KS/PS/SS: Sometimes hard to define exactly but allow for a great deal granularity when defining a character's abilities Martial Arts: It has wrinkles but, IMO, is one of the best simulations for martial art of all sorts.

Re: A Thread for Random Videos Possibly the most blasphemous fighting game ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2vUM-yulx4&feature=related But, all in all, he's still quite as cheap as allot of the SNK bosses.

Re: Social effects If social mechanics with weight and influence are so universally bad and do nothing but destroy all that is good in gaming...why do so many games both narrative and mechanistic have them and why do people play those game and praise those mechanics? People actually do use them and enjoy them. Not everyone, people have different tastes but they don't destroy everything that they touch. And if they aren't this universal bane to gaming and it's just a matter of preference and opinion... what the heck are we arguing about here? This isn't even the 6th edition threads so no one need hope or fear that anything will be taken from this thread and used in 6th edition even as a presented option. The thread has rapidly gone from talking about a game and different ways to play Let's Pretend to a battle between Good and Evil instead of talking about opinions which is all this really is.

Re: Social effects Edit: stepping away from the thread

Re: Social effects A so called "hard" social interaction system, IMO, should be designed to facilitate the judgment of social/personality conflicts just the other system determine the outcome of their specific types of conflict (combat, physical, etc) in a (mostly) objective fashion. It shouldn't be used as a new toy to drag the PCs around by the nose or remove any choices in the game by having amazingly skilled NPCs pop up and guide them along. Yes, the GM can set up scenarios that place the players in specific conditions but that is a meta game issue, the GM creating an adventure thus not really handled by the mechanics at all. Social mechanics would be in game, used as part of character (PC or NPC) motivation and goals as a tool written down on their character sheet and handled by the dice, just another mechanic in the tool kit that should be used with the moderation and forethought as any other.

Re: Social effects Neither would I; I don't think the majority of people advocating a social mechanics system would either. That's another extreme examples that no one is really suggesting be the norm. It is the bad way some GMs have abused "loosey goosy" social rules because those system had no moderation but binary pass/fail which works well enough with most physical actions but generally isn't the way to go with subtler abilities. A decent developed system would make "Random Stranger walks up to you and in one simple declarative sentence tells you to murder a loved one." be all but impossible or require a level of ability that is actually supernatural and probably best represented in Hero with a Power unless the campaign is using Extreme Skill use or a similar rule. Why is this meme that social mechanics will turn everyone into a asshat with no common sense, a tyrant or will lead to automatic abuse and instant failure. It's okay to railroad the players with Mind Control or "plots" that go off without a hitch (planting evidence and such requires skill use, could be detected by various means, etc but it will be assumed all that succeeds) until they're allowed to find out about the scheme and finally react to the loaded deck that's been dealt but for an NPC to use Skills to influence PCs actions is innately wrong and instant bad fun? It's okay to railroad the PCs one way manipulating the background and assuming Skill rolls and I would imagine limiting their actions (What if a PC takes the bold approach of talking to his wife and trying find out what she's acting so strangely? Wouldn't a well connected Streetwise PC have a chance of catching wind of Susan's schemes or if someone has contacts and influence in Police Department). I agree, it would. And it would be a crap social interaction system that set it up that way and a pretty lame GM that handled it that way. A good social system is going to make that fundamental a change take a long time, eroding the target's trust and affections in his spouse, planting the seeds of doubt and suspicion in his head and manipulating his reactions towards rage. Exalted social system models this pretty well with it's Intimacy mechanics for example.

Re: Social effects I'm not sure I follow Vulcan's point. I know he dislikes "hard" social systems. That's not a problem. It just a preference like anything else. What I don't get is why he seems to trying to argue that hard social mechanics "in and of it self" are wrong and produce bad games by corrupting GMs down the dark path. There are many games with them, many people play and enjoy them on a daily basis (and many do not), some people even add harder rules to the games that lack them. Are these people all so stupid that don't realize they're constantly being railroaded and not having any fun or some kind of gaming masochists? For instance, when the characters were social'ed into assisting a bank heists what the story behind it? What approach did the "villain" use? I use quote because in the WOD it's hard to tell who's a villain and who's a "hero" much of the time. Did the GM just roll some dice and declare you're doing it? Where any of the PC built to resist such manipulation (which is major part of the game, it's up front about that) or where they built around more "important" things like physical combat? Vampire is a game about social interaction and politics among age old undead manipulators after, physical combat is almost an afterthought (though many people run it like Shadowrun or Champions with fangs). What was the players' reactions to the situation? If they were not pleased did they make that clear to the gm and what did he do? Talking PCs into criminals acts would be very different from talking PCs into criminals acts in a typical superhero game where it would be a major issue that would be difficult and probably take awhile with lots of manufactured evidence of how, for example, the bank was a front of major criminal and there was not time to investigate before they launched their nefarious scheme. Comparing GM a typical Vampire game to GMing a typical superhero game is kind of comparing apples and oranges except in the very broadest sense that some basic goals would be the same like everyone should have fun for example.

Re: Social effects Then we're going to have to agree to disagree here. But since it seems like we're quibbling over frequency of extreme or other more than anything else and it's not precisely on topic lets just agree to disagree, if that's all right with you?

Re: Social effects The option exists for them to do so already. Its called Mind Control and it's already faster and some what more effective then social skills (it can be cheaper). Pre attacks can have similar effective. I am going to make a suggestion. it's not meant to tell you what you feel just laying the possibility out there Maybe due to bad experiences with social rules before, you are somewhat more sensitive to its use and quicker to feel that it's "railroading" or leading the character around by the nose. I really can't see social rules as the "Dark side of the Force" corrupting all GM (and players...) they touch since they are actually pretty wide spread and popular in a number of games.

Re: Social effects IMO, most of the time the viewers are being hypercritical. The character isn't an idiot, she just doesn't have the benefit of an audience omni perspective and awareness that she is in a story. She didn't see the cutaways to the villains lair and listen in on their plans, didn't see scenes that set up the lie, betrayal or whatever else that is going to happen. And don't have the comfort of having a list of who's the "good guy" and the "bad guy" laid out or completely stress and danger free place to sit and analyze the situation. Its an inability (for whaever reason) to separate being a part of a story from watching one. Everyone has made choices that, in retrospect were bad because they did have all the information involved. People get scammed, lied to, tricked and manipulated all the time because you -can't- have that kind of overarching perspective in the real world but for some reason when it happens in fiction it's "being an idiot".

Re: Social effects

Re: Social effects

Re: Social effects I think that's an excellent summation.

Re: Social effects I had a notion recently that the "I walk away/don't listen." issue could be resolved with what amounts to a Pre attack, probably modified (Comeliness or whatever replaces it would have an effect, for example). The aggressor in the social interaction could use it to try and capture/hold their target(s) attention, especially in they're deliberately trying to ignore them. It could also be used for things like the "beckoning glance from across a crowded room" and similar actions. I recall it also came up in the great conflict the Pre attack modifiers should really be reworded to "appropriate action" not just "violent action" to add more flexibility.

Re: Social effects What about PRE attacks? Which can compel behavior but have solid, codified mechanical effects (lose of actions, reduced DCV, etc that can't just be ignored when GM or Player wishes), are "free" (every character has some degree of PRE besides PRE is cheap) and take 0 Phase in combat. While all but the simplest Interaction skills often several minutes to upwards of hours to work, you have to pay for, suffer large penalties for combat use (and officially have no mechanical combat effect) but effects can be ignored at will.

Re: Social effects Here's a summation of some things I said in the great debate. I am in favor of mechanistic social interaction systems. The problem with discussion which largely makes it pointless is that most of the opinions seem to have been formed by -bad- players and GM and are thus pretty extreme. Not all games with social resolution mechanics are about the GM guiding their players around by the nose and never letting them make their own decisions. All "Pure roleplaying" systems are not the players always doing what they want to do regardless. The participants assume the opposition is supporting the abuse of the system. I am coming from a perspective of playing social characters to the best of my ability and investing a ton of points, skill slot whatever into being good at something and then having my success or failure reduced to GM/player fiat which was usually just being stubborn about "losing control of their character" But those are the assumptions both sides of the issue usually go with. The GM can abuse any mechanics but that's not a guarantee that he will and resolution mechanics run both ways. Having played socially oriented characters who's skills were brushed off and nerfed to ineffectualness anytime I tried to use them I'll say that having actual rules aren't just a beat stick for the GM. It give structure and mechanics that the player of such character can point to and say 'Yes, I succeeded. What happens?" just as you can say that in physical conflict. Not everyone that proposes such a system is looking for something to GMs (or glib PCs) can control PCs like robots. A structured system allows for social defense and some tactics (which generally lead to role playing and more diverse interaction. IMO). And also you can disregard it if you feel you don't need one. Social systems can help alleviate the social interaction version of "I shot you!/No You didn't!" objectively (dice can't play favorite while human can, even unconsciously) The players aren't generally even in the same headspace as their characters. They in a totally different setting, situation and state of mind playing a (when it comes to Hero highly tactical) game. They KNOW is usually up when the GM pulls out dice and most of them, IME, go on the defensive on some level where their character might be sitting in a bar having a drink and relaxing when a friendly looking person walks up to them and tries to start a conversation. My ideals include negotiation in the outcome of social interaction based on the margin of success and the two players being a little mature about things. Sometimes your character will lose in various fashions after all and the intent of the social action For (often used) example, an attractive woman (NPC or PC) approached a chaste PC and tries to pick him up. Her player succeeds but her margin of success isn't enough that the other player feels would compel him to violate that aspect of his personality. After some discussion, the player says his character is shaken up by how close he came to doing so and goes back to his room to reflect and maybe a take a cold shower which served the original intent of the social action which was to get him alone. Not mind control, not taking the character out of the player's control but allowing Interactions skills to have meaningful impact on play. Besides, I really enjoy having my character surprise me or the coming up with reason they might act 'out of character" when suitably manipulated anf how they will react. If I wanted scenarios where I controlled every outcome or reaction I'd write a story. I don't think I'm the only gamer with this preference. I don't think the two side can over come to an agreement on the issue, their perspective just seem too off. The best compromise for a generic game seems to be make social resolution mechanical optional. Use them or don't. It puts a bit more of a burden one those that want them if that system involves many additional mechanics since those won't be included in NPC designs by default though. OTOH, people that don't want them might find themselves pressured into it if they're the default but optional.

Re: What would be your take on She-Grond? That is really nice work! I wouldn't have thought of using that model but now that you'd done it , its perfect. Kudos.

Re: What would be your take on She-Grond? Plot seed: Grond-ette's genetics are unstable (not surprising given her father's unusual origins and her hybrid nature). The problem is getting worse and the young meta human likely won't survive much longer. Her mother has managed to peacefully contact the green behemoth since she thinks he does have a right to know about his child. And the news awakened surprisingly paternal instincts in Grond who has become kidnapped various scientists to with make his daughter well or he makes them chunky salsa. Unfortunately Grond's knowledge of science is limited to "Smart people know how fix things" so his targets are practically random, mostly limited to researchers and scientists he's encountered in the past, not the medical and metahuman specialists that might be able to help. The PCs must find where he's stashing his targets, defeat or calm the worried father down and hopefully save Grond-ette, who has the potential to be as powerful as her father and much more rational so potentially a powerful force for good.

Re: Worth a thousand words? A couple of NPCs from my Wyldstrike Universe campaign to get the thread moving again

Re: The Reason Behind Teleios The module should open with the PC investigating the murder of a well known if someone shady superhero in Hudson City. He was severely beaten and hurled to his death through the his apartment window....

Re: The Reason Behind Teleios Am I alone in the sick desire to have Foxbat turn out to be the greatest master villain in the Champions U? His master includes every unexplained or mysterious even in the setting, a plan so vast and all encompassing it cannot fail to lead to his dominance of the Universe. He is the inevitable something Capt Chronos is futility trying to stop.... without knowing his interference is part of the plan too. and he's doing it all in plain sight, even announcing it and chuckling AT not with his detractors.