The Gaming Den

PhoneLobster wrote:After all I notice you DIDN'T ask "How do we stop a reality where someone can just stab their way into your private sanctums and treasure vaults?".

I didn't ask that because we can already do that. You can place more and/or tougher guards, or traps, or barriers, or magical wards, or whatever. D&D already does an acceptible job of governing bypassing obstacles via knowledge or force. It does less well with stealth. It's really unsatisfying with social interactions.

I'd really like better social interaction rules (because MTP is terrible, unfair, and inconsistent) but I just don't know what would work well enough in D&D.

Dogbert wrote: So is it a better idea to instead do competitive play by sucking more G.M cock than the other players? Because you know, that's what MTP boils down to.

I think you guys just need to find better DMs, because I have never actually had that problem. In general, the DM has something in mind for what you're supposed to say to win the scene. It's a case of trying to understand the NPC and working with that. There's no GM cock sucking involved.

Guessing what the MC thinks is the best way to do something sucks and is not fun.

How can you even say that's a good way of dealing with that? That's sucking MC cock because you're just trying to please the MC, not playing the game.

Swordslinger wrote:I think you guys just need to find better DMs, because I have never actually had that problem. In general, the DM has something in mind for what you're supposed to say to win the scene. It's a case of trying to understand the NPC and working with that. There's no GM cock sucking involved.

In my experience, attempting to get players to "solve" a social challenge results in blank stares from normally intelligent and proactive players. The players do not share your thought patterns and cannot read your mind. Even if it works, you're still playing the metagame and rendering the abilities of the characters meaningless. The success of one's character should not be tied to personal skill. Unless every character is a carbon copy of the player, allowing the DM to substitute the metagame for a real system destroys roleplaying.

LR wrote: In my experience, attempting to get players to "solve" a social challenge results in blank stares from normally intelligent and proactive players. The players do not share your thought patterns and cannot read your mind. Even if it works, you're still playing the metagame and rendering the abilities of the characters meaningless. The success of one's character should not be tied to personal skill. Unless every character is a carbon copy of the player, allowing the DM to substitute the metagame for a real system destroys roleplaying.

It's fine to have a skill like knowledge (nobility) which might tell you what a king's goals are. It's quite another issue to enforce role protection on the "I talk to people" role, which I think is a terrible idea. It is a roleplaying game and all characters are supposed to be able to interact.

Whatever social skills do (if you have them at all), it should not act to exclude people from interacting with NPCs. Because that right there destroys roleplaying. It's fine for a diplomancer to be a little bit better at interaction than your average character, but the average dude has to be able to get something done too. Otherwise the game is going to treat him as a silent protagonist because he didn't choose to be a rogue or bard.

Hey look swordslinger didn't read the post he quoted in full at all and responded with a big fat utterly unrelated strawman tangent that requires about three stupid assumptions no one has even mentioned in order to exist.

I say it's a diversion so he can avoid answering the rather direct criticisms of his "guess what number I am thinking of!" style of game play.

PhoneLobster wrote:Hey look swordslinger didn't read the post he quoted in full at all and responded with a big fat utterly unrelated strawman tangent that requires about three stupid assumptions no one has even mentioned in order to exist.

I say it's a diversion so he can avoid answering the rather direct criticisms of his "guess what number I am thinking of!" style of game play.

For the love of god, ignore him.

Which one?

Chamomile wrote:Which one?

Yes.

If it wasn't such a long quote string (3!) to get to the funny that would be my sig.

One thing I'm really interested in, how does the social combat faction handle things if NPCs want to get the PCs to do something or convince them of something?

I don't suppose you roll some dice and tell the PCs, all right, all you guys now really want to do is give the BBEG all your gear, suck his cock and then manacle yourselves to the walls of his throne room, right?

Please no tantrums, I'm genuinely curious.

That's always a terribly sticky situation. The best solution I've yet seen for it is to offer the defeated party a choice; submit to the will of the social victors, whatever that may be, or else suffer some kind of mechanical consequence (which was determined and made known to the players in advance). This also leaves a bit of room for some defeated haggling. "I wouldn't suck your cock to avoid the crippling morale penalty to all combat rolls for a week, but I'd go into the handjob market at that price..."

tenuki wrote:Please no tantrums, I'm genuinely curious.

No. Really if you NEED to add a "don't get angry at me for saying this stupid thing" proviso then you already know that you are being intellectually dishonest. You certainly aren't "curios". If you WERE "genuinely curious" you MIGHT have noted that social defeat of PCs is NOT unique to "social combat" systems, and is in fact potentially a "problem" in MTP as well.

And that's the thing. In MTP or in a formalized system PCs can fall under enemy control in some way. In a formalized system we can however say things like "you guys had a fair chance" and "don't worry this defeat has strict formalized implications". In MTP we cannot say those things because in magic tea party you were defeated "because the GM said so" and the implications are "whatever the fuck the GM wants".

And anyway if you were in anyway honest with your "curiosity" you might also have noted that dealing with even fairly extreme formalized social defeat should be very familiar to D&D players by means of their experiences of Charm Person and Dominate Person and a dozen other effects like Fear, Hold Person and so on. People do not have serious issues dealing with a PC that got feared or charmed, so why do you suddenly forget all that and wring your hands over it now?

Total Sidetrack! But I couldn't resist it, because this topic has come up before and I've got a handy reference guide for "how is social defeat any worse than normal defeat?".

Q: Why do many players dislike "hard" social combat (as in, forced to abide by any consequences) when they don't mind lethal physical combat systems?

A: The circumstances and results of social combat are different than the circumstances and results of physical combat, in most settings. If physical combat worked this way, they'd hate that too. For example, with social combat:
* It can happen anywhere, the town is definitely not a "safe zone".
* You often go into it alone, or at least without a full party.
* It's not as obvious how big a threat somebody is before you engage them.
* The results are more like maiming than death. Note how most RPGs don't have maiming results in their combat system - if you die, you just make a new (non-maimed) character.
* The fact that a high death rate seriously sidetracks the continuity makes many MCs reluctant to include one. And players know this.

For a physical combat system that works how many social combat systems work, look more toward horror movies or CoC:
* PCs are often separated.
* Anywhere and anyone can be potentially deadly.
* Instead of death, you often get maimed or go insane.
* The MC pulls no punches.

That's not a totally undesired style - Call of Cthulu is still around. However, it's not what most players want in a heroic fantasy game.


Now Re: Mind Control spells - it's my belief that most MCs just self-limit these. Just like the BBEG doesn't scry-n-die the PCs even when he totally could, he doesn't (usually) wait until they're separated in town and then mind control any susceptible ones. And if more MCs did that, then more players would probably complain about the existance of those spells.

Ice9 wrote:Total Sidetrack!

Yes rather shamelessly so. Perhaps you should have I dunno, made a thread or something.

A: The circumstances and results of physical combat are different than the circumstances and results of physical combat, in most settings. If physical combat worked this way, they'd hate that too. For example, with physical combat:
* Physcial Combat can happen anywhere, the town is definitely not a "safe zone".
* You often go into physical combat alone, or at least without a full party.
* It's not as obvious how big a threat somebody is before you engage them in physical combat.

Unfortunately the hilarity of your INCREDIBLE limitations you apparently place on normal combat falls down into TOTAL insanity with the following...

* The results of [social combat] are more like maiming than death. Note how most RPGs don't have maiming results in their combat system - if you die, you just make a new (non-maimed) character.

WHAT? That isn't true at all. A social defeat state is NOTHING like being maimed. Even if it were, physical combat mechanics VERY FREQUENTLY have "maiming" and a wide variety of non-fatal defeat states and persistent effects. D&D itself specifically does, indeed it has various major actual social defeat states IN COMBAT. And "you just make a new non maimed character" first of all NO you heal the old one, that's how it IS currently done, for good reason, and second of all there is NO "just make a new character" about it because doing that as opposed to this dreaded, undescribed and irrational "maiming" you speak of is fucking destructive to game play and continuity.

* The fact that a high death rate seriously sidetracks the continuity makes many MCs reluctant to include one. And players know this.

WTF? Did you just forget what the fuck you were even talking about?
What in the where who how has what "high death rate" ? Are you on fucking crack? You APPEAR to have FORGOTTEN to actual BUILD your fucking strawman before attacking it. If you don't build your strawman we can't tell what the fuck you are even pretending you are saying when you attack it.

it's my belief that most MCs just self-limit these...

Or alternatively they ARE in fact widely used and in fact are rather popular and in fact people talk about them all the fucking time and you are on a fucking fantasy trip of utterly evidence free speculation in a blatant attempt to self justify your lame unsupported assertions in the face of actual examples of evidence to the contrary.

You have stated at various times that the existence of Charm Person means everyone would kill all wizards on sight. Charm Person exists, it IS used, players do NOT kill all wizards on sight. You then make up a "what if" story to pretend that charm person MAYBE KINDA SORTA doesn't exist if you squint at it sideways, click your heals together and wish real hard. Thus vindicating your claims in your mind and nowhere else.

The simpler and more evidence based interpretation is charm person exists, and almost no one has a problem with that. And further most players would rather be hit with a Charm Person than a god damn Color Spray as they get to interact with the game more and are more likely to shake the effect more easily and sooner.

Your ACTUAL argument ACTUALLY presented in your ACTUAL last post that Charm Person is a hideous maiming LITERALLY worse than your character dying and being replaced by a new one is FUCKING INSANE.

Yes rather shamelessly so. Perhaps you should have I dunno, made a thread or something.

Implying that this thread isn't already a pit of failure and repetition - dubious.

Your ACTUAL argument ACTUALLY presented in your ACTUAL last post that Charm Person is a hideous maiming LITERALLY worse than your character dying and being replaced by a new one is FUCKING INSANE.

In D&D, losing all your possessions will in fact cost you a lot more than death, yes. Non-mechanically speaking, a lot of players would rather go out in a burst of glory than betray all their friends and publicly look like an idiot/asshole. Also, who's talking about Charm Person?

Lesson learned though - I'll avoid threads with frothing idiots, no matter how bored I get.

Well now, two whole posts before declaring yourself too good for the thread and leaving without defending your laughably false claims about the function of physical combat.

Close to a record.

And...

Ice9 wrote:In D&D, losing all your possessions will in fact cost you a lot more than death, yes.

I wonder whether he was talking about physical or social combat? Since either could have that outcome.

And I wonder why he thought losing your stuff to bandits (who just beat you up with clubs) is WORSE than a TPK?

And I wonder why he thinks that valuing your items more than your character is "real role playing" and "doing it right"?

Now we shall never know... not that we would if he actually spewed more insanity out of his mouth hole...

What an arsehole.

Yes. Mind Control is worse than getting killed. Dominate/Charm turns an enemy into an ally. In the case of Dominate, it turns you into the casters puppet. From an RP perspective, that is a hideous violation. From a gamist mechanical perspective, it's better than simply killing an opponent .

The point made was about Mind Control, not Charm specifically, so keep your impotent, frothing nerdrage in your pants.

Winnah wrote:The point made was about Mind Control, not Charm

He spoke briefly about mind control spells in general in a thread and topic where they are spoken about with significant if not prominent reference to Charm Person which IS a mind control spell.

His mention of "Mind Control spells" was in fact A DIRECT REPLY to the point I had made in the IMMEDIATE PRECEDING POST

Phonelobster wrote:dealing with even fairly extreme formalized social defeat should be very familiar to D&D players by means of their experiences of Charm Person (top billing!) and Dominate Person and a dozen other effects like Fear, Hold Person and so on. People do not have serious issues dealing with a PC that got feared or charmed, so why do you suddenly forget all that and wring your hands over it now?

And as a reply he was, as an aside to the rest of his post that was otherwise irrelevant, giving his own excuse about why he thinks players tolerate what he has described as intolerable. (Which is apparently because he believes those effects are never actually used in practice. )


And regardless much of my reply, and your own was in reference to THIS...

Ice9 wrote: "hard" social combat (as in, forced to abide by any consequences) when they don't mind lethal physical combat systems?

So when you talk about hideous violations and an "RP perspective" perhaps you should take the time to read specifically what you are defending and realize that he actually said that if the "results of social combat" were even as bad as specifically "losing your stuff" and more generically "being forced to abide by any consequences" that was WORSE THAN KILLING PCs.

And by extension told us that bandits clubbing you and taking your stuff, no mind control OR social effect involved, is worse than a campaign ending TPK.

And to bring it back to your "waaaah he meant mind control specifically and only being worse than PC kills!" as a simple reading comprehension exercise go back and look at Ice9s little "this is why social combat is badwrongdifferent!" post and see if you can find ANY reference to "Mind Control" as a specific effect in the text prior to "Now re: Mind Control spells-" . Then ask your self if "Now Regarding" might just sound like a change of subject and if "being forced to abide by any consequences" sounds like "mind control" specifically.

Good luck with the take home exercise!

PhoneLobster wrote:

tenuki wrote:Please no tantrums, I'm genuinely curious.

<tantrum>

Works like a charm.

Thanks to Chamomile for the straight answer. May I expand the question? Do you also roll in non-hostile social interaction? Like whether the PCs accept a mission?

I would say no. It's only if the PCs refuse the mission and the quest ATM tries to persuade them to take it anyway (or the PCs try to persuade the quest ATM to give them the reward anyway) that you would have to bust out the dice. Basically, if no one is trying to change anyone's mind, you don't roll diplomacy.

Also, the more I think about it, the more I realize I absolutely despise the d20 as a resolution mechanic. 2d6, 3d6, d6 or d10-based dicepools, Xd6 where X is a relevant stat, X*1d6, etc. etc. are all much easier to work with. A significant part of the problem with coming up with a diplomacy system (for me, at least) has been the paradigm that it has to work with D&D...And that's just generally not an easy system to work with.

Chamomile wrote:I would say no. It's only if the PCs refuse the mission and the quest ATM tries to persuade them to take it anyway (or the PCs try to persuade the quest ATM to give them the reward anyway) that you would have to bust out the dice. Basically, if no one is trying to change anyone's mind, you don't roll diplomacy.

Where does changing people's mind start?

I mean, an NPC approaches the party and asks for help, tells them about a pile of loot buried under a pile of stone, whatever. A this point, he already is trying to change the PCs' minds because, great heroes that they are, they probably have personal goals to pursue and need some convincing to get sidetracked.

The MC is presumably delivering the NPC's pitch IC -- how else do the players learn about the mission objective? -- not knowing whether the players/PCs will accept. If he speechifies well and the players/PCs buy it, fine. But if not, does the MC get a second chance by rolling dice? And if he succeeds, are the players stuck with having to pretend that their characters just love it for the entire duration of the adventure?

Chamomile wrote: Also, the more I think about it, the more I realize I absolutely despise the d20 as a resolution mechanic.

Hell, yeah. The one thing I hate more is the open-ended d% ICE uses.

So, RAW there is no non-magical way to force someone to do something. I think that's ture with RAI as well, but I've always had difficulty reading designers' minds. (possible exception: the epic use of bluff duplicates suggestion, and may or may not be magical, because it's poorly written).

Bluff makes characters believe lies, and diplomacy makes them like you. Intimidate makes them scared of you. None of these are "makes them take _____ action."

Mister Cavern gets to be an untrustworthy narrator, so bluff is easy to handle ('yeah, he looks to scared to lie to you"). Diplomacy is a bit harder though.

The easy answer is you roll dice when someone decides to roll dice. The point when you stop informing heroes of the situation and start persuading them to take interest despite their first intention is the point where you roll for it.

And if he succeeds, are the players stuck with having to pretend that their characters just love it for the entire duration of the adventure?

No, they're only stuck with having to acknowledge that they got fast-talked, manipulated, charmed, or even just irritated into agreeing to do something. Particularly dishonest or irresponsible characters aren't even going to stick with it until the emotional rush passes, which mechanically speaking means until the mechanical blow will no longer apply should you abandon the mission, or the situation is such that taking the mechanical blow will be trivial (i.e. if it's a crippling morale bonus to all attack rolls for a week but you won't actually be fighting anything in the next week). More honest characters will stick with it because that's what they agreed to do, even if they later come to regret having agreed to it.

Chamomile wrote:No, they're only stuck with having to acknowledge that they got fast-talked, manipulated, charmed, or even just irritated into agreeing to do something. Particularly dishonest or irresponsible characters aren't even going to stick with it until the emotional rush passes, which mechanically speaking means until the mechanical blow will no longer apply should you abandon the mission, or the situation is such that taking the mechanical blow will be trivial (i.e. if it's a crippling morale bonus to all attack rolls for a week but you won't actually be fighting anything in the next week). More honest characters will stick with it because that's what they agreed to do, even if they later come to regret having agreed to it.

This gives me an interesting idea. I like the thought of diplomacy down like this when used against the players.