The Gaming Den

Draco_Argentum wrote:I'm still right to say that NPCs should have some mechanics that back up whatever their personality is. Then the PCs can try to diplomance them from there. Personality is equivalent to terrain in combat, it provides some modifiers and rules. Exactly which ones are there in any encounter is DM fiat after that its on the players to come up with something.

I agree.

MGuy wrote:Again you are either misreading what I've said deliberately or just being plain stupid. I honestly don't know what thread you're reading. I didn't say the witch should just have an attitude to the players I'm saying she should have a general fucking attitude for uninvited guests.

Exactly. This is precisely how things work in reality, in my experience. If I get on a subway car with a bunch of more-or-less interchangeable strangers, I'd feel indifferent towards all of them (at least until one of them says or does something specific to change my opinion). I don't feel indifferent to 65% of the passengers, feel unfriendly to 15%, feel friendly to 15%, feel hatred towards 2.5% and feel love towards 2.5%. That's how an insane person would react.

Now a game obviously doesn't have to model reality in every aspect; that would be stupid. But it's equally stupid to insist that the GM should never be allowed to build encounters where the PCs can't use a particular ability (whether it's diplomacy or gnoll-killing or whatever). To quote another poster: "What are you, five years old?"

hogarth wrote:Exactly. This is precisely how things work in reality, in my experience. If I get on a subway car with a bunch of more-or-less interchangeable strangers, I'd feel indifferent towards all of them (at least until one of them says or does something specific to change my opinion). I don't feel indifferent to 65% of the passengers, feel unfriendly to 15%, feel friendly to 15%, feel hatred towards 2.5% and feel love towards 2.5%. That's how an insane person would react.

I guess I look at that situation slightly differently.

Those 65% that you're indifferent to are probably non-descript. There's nothing remarkable about them on which to form an initial attitude one way or the other.

The 15% friendly/unfriendly probably have visible markers associating them with groups you like or dislike. Maybe they're sporting tea party protest signs or subversive tshirts or something.

The 2.5% hatred/love are the rare people that provoke a slightly irrational response from you. Maybe that guy looks like someone you can't stand, or maybe that lady reminds you fondly of an old girlfriend.

In any case, your attitude is alredy colored somewhat in the event that any of these people walk up to you and engage you in some way. You don't feel exactly neutral about all strangers all of the time. That's how a robot acts.

violence in the media wrote:

hogarth wrote:Exactly. This is precisely how things work in reality, in my experience. If I get on a subway car with a bunch of more-or-less interchangeable strangers, I'd feel indifferent towards all of them (at least until one of them says or does something specific to change my opinion). I don't feel indifferent to 65% of the passengers, feel unfriendly to 15%, feel friendly to 15%, feel hatred towards 2.5% and feel love towards 2.5%. That's how an insane person would react.

I guess I look at that situation slightly differently.

Yes, you're looking at it differently because you're changing my example. I specifically said "more-or-less interchangeable" for a reason and you deleted that part for your response, instead noting that noticeably different groups can provoke noticeably different responses. Well, duh.

hogarth wrote:

violence in the media wrote:

hogarth wrote:Exactly. This is precisely how things work in reality, in my experience. If I get on a subway car with a bunch of more-or-less interchangeable strangers, I'd feel indifferent towards all of them (at least until one of them says or does something specific to change my opinion). I don't feel indifferent to 65% of the passengers, feel unfriendly to 15%, feel friendly to 15%, feel hatred towards 2.5% and feel love towards 2.5%. That's how an insane person would react.

I guess I look at that situation slightly differently.

Yes, you're looking at it differently because you're changing my example. I specifically said "more-or-less interchangeable" for a reason and you deleted that part for your response.

I deleted it because it's exactly as stupid as saying, "I step into a subway car with a bunch of clones." You have no control over who these other people are, why they're there, or the likelihood that one of them will have some marker that predisposes you to a particular attitude about them.

My contention is that you willnever step into a subway car full of "more-or-less interchangable" people.

violence in the media wrote:I deleted it because it's exactly as stupid as saying, "I step into a subway car with a bunch of clones." You have no control over who these other people are, why they're there, or the likelihood that one of them will have some marker that predisposes you to a particular attitude about them.

My contention is that you willnever step into a subway car full of "more-or-less interchangable" people.

Bullshit -- your response above even specifically mentions the possibility of a group of "non-descript" people with "nothing remarkable about them":

"Those 65% that you're indifferent to are probably non-descript. There's nothing remarkable about them on which to form an initial attitude one way or the other."

That's because I'm contending that while even a majority of "non-descript" people are possible, ALL people being non-descript is not. Nor am I saying that the group of people who are non-descript to me are also non-descript to you.

FrankTrollman wrote:There can be no agreement, partial or otherwise, so long as you continue to contend that a witch can have an attitude to the players without actually have the players be part of her world yet.

I can't believe you are serious on this. It's a lot easier to give a real world example: Joe example is a person from Boston and is a Red Sox fan. I don't know him. I have never met him. My first encounter with him will probably start out as hostile. All I have to do is see the Red Sox cap and her him say "wicked good" and it's going to go downhill from there, I guarentee you.

It's called predujice. Everyone has them. The ability to "pre judge."

violence in the media wrote:That's because I'm contending that while even a majority of "non-descript" people are possible, ALL people being non-descript is not. Nor am I saying that the group of people who are non-descript to me are also non-descript to you.

No one is contending that all people are nondescript.

tzor wrote:All I have to do is see the Red Sox cap and her him say "wicked good" and it's going to go downhill from there, I guarentee you.

Only backwards-ass townies from the Cape say "wicked good", tzor, and EVERYONE hates them.

[quote="MGuy]No one is contending that all people are nondescript.[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to indicate that I was referring to all the people in the subway car, from your point of view.

Just because someone is nondescript to you, doesn't mean he's not predisposed to dislike your stupid face when you walk up and ask him for directions. Hence, the reaction roll.

violence in the media wrote:[quote="MGuy]No one is contending that all people are nondescript.

Sorry, I meant to indicate that I was referring to all the people in the subway car, from your point of view.

Just because someone is nondescript to you, doesn't mean he's not predisposed to dislike your stupid face when you walk up and ask him for directions. Hence, the reaction roll.[/quote]
Now you've got it backwards. I'm talking about my reaction to Mr. X, not Mr. X's reaction to me.

violence in the media wrote:[quote="MGuy]No one is contending that all people are nondescript.

Sorry, I meant to indicate that I was referring to all the people in the subway car, from your point of view.

Just because someone is nondescript to you, doesn't mean he's not predisposed to dislike your stupid face when you walk up and ask him for directions. Hence, the reaction roll.[/quote]I am also not contending that I'm nondescript to everyone else.

tzor wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:There can be no agreement, partial or otherwise, so long as you continue to contend that a witch can have an attitude to the players without actually have the players be part of her world yet.

I can't believe you are serious on this. It's a lot easier to give a real world example: Joe example is a person from Boston and is a Red Sox fan. I don't know him. I have never met him. My first encounter with him will probably start out as hostile. All I have to do is see the Red Sox cap and her him say "wicked good" and it's going to go downhill from there, I guarentee you.

It's called predujice. Everyone has them. The ability to "pre judge."

That's exactly the point though. You actually have to see and hear the hated Red Sox fan before you actually hate him. If you saw him in another context, you'd pass by without a second glance.

There are very real prejudices in play that could easily cause the encounter to turn to hostilities if they come up during the meeting, but if they don't then they won't. You cannot assume that you'll roll initiative before the meeting actually happens. Because if he doesn't have the cap on and doesn't happen to say "wicked good" at any point, you won't be moved to action at all.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: That's exactly the point though. You actually have to see and hear the hated Red Sox fan before you actually hate him. If you saw him in another context, you'd pass by without a second glance.

There are very real prejudices in play that could easily cause the encounter to turn to hostilities if they come up during the meeting, but if they don't then they won't. You cannot assume that you'll roll initiative before the meeting actually happens. Because if he doesn't have the cap on and doesn't happen to say "wicked good" at any point, you won't be moved to action at all.

-Username17

Frank that is profoundly stupid.

He doesn't actually have to see or hear the preson at all, all he has to do is be informed in someway that the person is a red sox fan. He can hear it from his friend days or even weeks before meetnig the person and already have a clear dislike of said person.

For instance, if a person got a reputation as a memeber of the klan there are plenty of people who would never need to see them in robes or lighting a cross of fire in order to be determined to take violent action against them. Heck, the violent actors could be mistaken or misinformed and it wouldn't matter at all.

Further, there is a whole class of people that are quite common in D&D that are authorized to take violent action first and ask questions later. GUARDS

There are places where simply being armed and not a member of the owning team means that you are going to be violently punished. If you are lucky they may allow you to try and surrender but that is not a universal.

So yeah, there are a lot of times that are likely to pop up in D&D where simply seeing the other side ought to result in the battle music starting because there are plenty of things that have a KOS attitude towards the heroes RACES.

FrankTrollman wrote:

tzor wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:There can be no agreement, partial or otherwise, so long as you continue to contend that a witch can have an attitude to the players without actually have the players be part of her world yet.

I can't believe you are serious on this. It's a lot easier to give a real world example: Joe example is a person from Boston and is a Red Sox fan. I don't know him. I have never met him. My first encounter with him will probably start out as hostile. All I have to do is see the Red Sox cap and her him say "wicked good" and it's going to go downhill from there, I guarentee you.

It's called predujice. Everyone has them. The ability to "pre judge."

That's exactly the point though. You actually have to see and hear the hated Red Sox fan before you actually hate him. If you saw him in another context, you'd pass by without a second glance.

There are very real prejudices in play that could easily cause the encounter to turn to hostilities if they come up during the meeting, but if they don't then they won't. You cannot assume that you'll roll initiative before the meeting actually happens. Because if he doesn't have the cap on and doesn't happen to say "wicked good" at any point, you won't be moved to action at all.

-Username17

Here is the part you're fucking up on. He is not talking about action, he's talking about his attitude toward the person. If I were to meet lets say a Klan member I will have a "hostile" disposition toward them as soon as I identify the person as that. That is not an action toward the member but it is the attitude I will display should a conversation come about. I can't count on my fingers how many times I've gotten into racially charged confrontations with people. They all played out as appropriate. Some ended violently some ended more peacefully but in all situations I had a hostile disposition/demeanor/stance/attitude/whatever the fuck you want to call it toward whoever the racist motherfucker was. You seem to think attitude translates directly into behavior.

FrankTrollman wrote:That's exactly the point though. You actually have to see and hear the hated Red Sox fan before you actually hate him. If you saw him in another context, you'd pass by without a second glance.

I have to observe the trigger conditions. Clearly it's hard to be angry with any silent invisible creature. Remember, that trigger condition could just as easily be "it looks human" or "it's wearing chain mail and carrying around a damn good holy symbol." It's not that you hate him, you hate the trigger conditions and when you observe the trigger conditions you apply that hate towards the one who has triggered those conditions.

souran wrote: Frank that is profoundly stupid.

He doesn't actually have to see or hear the preson at all, all he has to do is be informed in someway that the person is a red sox fan. He can hear it from his friend days or even weeks before meetnig the person and already have a clear dislike of said person.

For instance, if a person got a reputation as a memeber of the klan there are plenty of people who would never need to see them in robes or lighting a cross of fire in order to be determined to take violent action against them. Heck, the violent actors could be mistaken or misinformed and it wouldn't matter at all.

...

So yeah, there are a lot of times that are likely to pop up in D&D where simply seeing the other side ought to result in the battle music starting because there are plenty of things that have a KOS attitude towards the heroes RACES.

A character in an actual RPG is not a character in an MMO. You are not a green dot. You do not have your name or faction written in colored letters above your head. Even if someone would attack you the very instant they identified you as an elf doesn't mean that they instantly identify you as an elf if you're wearing a fucking helmet.

Successfully identifying someone as a member of a hostile army may be grounds for starting the battle music (subject of course to extenuating circumstances like white flags or raised hands), but identifying someone as anything should not be automatic in any game that has a fucking disguise skill you can put points into.

The idea that prejudices are immediately acted upon as soon as the encounter starts is predicated on the monsters having perfect information like they were mobs in a computer game - and that's retarded.

-Username17

MGuy wrote:Here is the part you're fucking up on. He is not talking about action, he's talking about his attitude toward the person. If I were to meet lets say a Klan member I will have a "hostile" disposition toward them as soon as I identify the person as that. That is not an action toward the member but it is the attitude I will display should a conversation come about. I can't count on my fingers how many times I've gotten into racially charged confrontations with people. They all played out as appropriate. Some ended violently some ended more peacefully but in all situations I had a hostile disposition/demeanor/stance/attitude/whatever the fuck you want to call it toward whoever the racist motherfucker was. You seem to think attitude translates directly into behavior.

Here's the part you're fucking up on: people make their judgments based on a number of criteria relevant to the situation their in at the time.

If tzor met a Red Sox fan at The World Series and the fan was loudly proclaiming how much the Red Sox rule and tzor's favorite team drools AND tzor was drunk AND the Red Sox fan slammed into him in the isles THEN tzor might take a swing at him. But this is because at that moment tzor is defining himself on the axis of loving his team/hating the Red Sox AND the person is being irritated AND has impaired judgement AND the encounter began with a physical altercation.

If, on the other hand, tzor had a flat tire in the middle of an empty highway AND it was raining AND he didn't have a spare when that same guy stopped and offered use of his Fix-A-Flat plus help getting to the nearest service station, the fact that the guy was wearing a Red Sox cap and saying "wicked awesome" would be only tangental.

Here's what I'm arriving at from the arguments you've delved into. Feel very free to contest it or deride me for being obvious; I'm not sure I'm following any of you on your train of thought.

It's pretty clear that an NPC will not have an attitude/disposition/cause to action one way or another without first acquiring information about the players, through either observation, interaction or by proxy. This means the MC can't just decide that Bob Yankee already hates Joe Example upon meeting him. This is not ambiguous. For anyone who meets Joe Example, he's just some dude until it is revealed somehow that he's from Boston and is a Red Sox fan. These data inform the attitude/disposition/cause to action/whatever a given person will have toward him.

If you hate Bostonites and Sox fans, you can't have arrived at hating him specifically before any of this information comes to light. If that information provokes someone else into trying to flense him, then that is a result of a catastrophically negative reaction based on their acquiring the knowledge that he is one of their hated foes. (Hopefully, in all other cases, the flensing reaction would be the result of things that happen after they start talking.)

The order of this operation is still Observe -> Interpret -> Conclude. It doesn't matter if its direct observation or heresay, you still need to get the information first. Some of the situations you guys are providing are influenced by things that happen after the Conclude part comes in and the Diplomancing begins, and are entirely separate from the way an NPC will appraise the player initially.

If you want to talk about how this could be represented mechanically, you could rigorously track the variable factors (like prejudices, politics, whether they've eaten today and are cranky, the weather,) that could influence a given NPC's attitude toward the player(s), with a baseline of Doesn't Give a Shit and with these factors positively or negatively influencing their current mood accordingly along a track of attitudes, after they become privvy to those factors. Players would have agency to do things like obfuscate holy symbols or sheath weapons or hail or lie or wave a white flag or whatever if they are engaging the NPC, or maybe given a single thing to try to do if they're good at being sneaky when the NPC engages them, etc. But those would just be similar factors that determine the NPC's starting position on whatever track you want to use. I imagine this would be time-consuming to resolve but indisputably fair as long as everyone's agreed about it before the game starts. After that, players could Diplomance their way to getting what they needed.

Or you could roll for it, and say that whatever you arrive at, either good or bad, represents the things that both the PC's did to make themselves look better and the NPC's prejudice and the context of their meeting, maybe modified by explicit actions made by the PCs. To me this would be vastly quicker to resolve but nominally "unfair" because the PC's have little in the way of agency/it's random. Then we get into the Diplomancing, which is another item to resolve.

Or a combination of those two. Or you could do something else we haven't mentioned. Whatever.

Sashi wrote: Here's the part you're fucking up on: people make their judgments based on a number of criteria relevant to the situation their in at the time.

I'm not disputing this. I've said that factors like this can swing disposition. My point has, and will always be that this shit shouldn't be random. In fact you only back up my claim because I believe that these eventful modifiers should have an effect on initial disposition. I'm not saying people have a set in stone disposition that can't be changed by a situation. In fact the witch example is situational. The witch is at her secluded home. I'd assume that she's not expecting company because of her situation and when uninvited heavily armed adventurers come to her doorstep I expect that she should be antisocial. If the players DO something to identify themselves as otherwise that is fine and totally within the realm of shit I've already said.

@Artless: Yes you've got it exactly. I'm saying that the initial meeting's initial disposition shouldn't be random but based on the influences relevant to the character and the situation. I believe that making mechanics that surround each and every possible situation and background would be impossible so its best to keep it abstract and just let the DM decide what the character's disposition is at the get go. The most unbelievable thing about this argument is that Frank actually agrees with me:

FrankTrollman wrote:An NPC can be angry, jumpy, fearful, tired, aggressive, peaceful, exhausted, territorial, or whatever before the PCs round the corner. The MC is well within his rights to set those kinds of conditions. But they can't be friendly or hostile to the player characters until the player characters and the NPC actually meet. Because being hostile to someone is a transitive fucking verb. It requires not only the NPC (who is hostile), but also the interaction of the PC (who the NPC is hostile to).

But because of some sort of semantic snafu he insists on hanging on to though he can't even meet me half way and he won't admit it. He says they can be "angry" but if they are "hostile" they have to be "hostile" to the players and can't just be generally "hostile" as in hungry animal hostile.

Mguy wrote:I believe that making mechanics that surround each and every possible situation and background would be impossible so its best to keep it abstract and just let the DM decide what the character's disposition is at the get go. The most unbelievable thing about this argument is that Frank actually agrees with me

Alright asshole, you're going on ignore.

I do not fucking agree with you that things too complicated to be be tallied up deterministically should be left to DM fiat when they are important contingencies that define whether and how player characters can use their primary shticks. I have never agreed with you on this point, and I will never agree with you on this point.

If the PCs try to do something, they should have a chance of success. Chance. A roll of the fucking dice. Otherwise the players have no chance to succeed and they have no agency.

There are two points of failure of th 3e Diplomacy rules before we even get to the numerics of DCs and skill modifiers and RNG limits:

• The MC determining whether the NPCs start the combat music or not before dice are rolled robs the players of agency and in many cases prevents the diplomancer's abilities from even existing in the game.
• The MC determining whether the NPCs start the combat music or not before they've identified traits, behavior, and circumstances related to the PCs violates causality.

If you accept either or both of those premises, I do not agree with you and I never fucking will!

-Username17

Sashi wrote:Here's the part you're fucking up on: people make their judgments based on a number of criteria relevant to the situation their in at the time.

If tzor met a Red Sox fan at The World Series and the fan was loudly proclaiming how much the Red Sox rule and tzor's favorite team drools AND tzor was drunk AND the Red Sox fan slammed into him in the isles THEN tzor might take a swing at him.

Who's the PC in your example, and who's the NPC?

If tzor is the PC, why should the determining fact that tzor was drunk be determined by a goddamn die roll instead of whether the player said he was actually drinking?

If the Red Sox fan is the PC, why should the determining fact that he was bragging about his team be determined by a goddamn die roll instead of whether the player said he was bragging?

Why do we need players at all, if we're going to determine the PCs' actions through random die rolls?

FrankTrollman wrote:

Mguy wrote:I believe that making mechanics that surround each and every possible situation and background would be impossible so its best to keep it abstract and just let the DM decide what the character's disposition is at the get go. The most unbelievable thing about this argument is that Frank actually agrees with me

Alright asshole, you're going on ignore.

I do not fucking agree with you that things too complicated to be be tallied up deterministically should be left to DM fiat when they are important contingencies that define whether and how player characters can use their primary shticks. I have never agreed with you on this point, and I will never agree with you on this point.

If the PCs try to do something, they should have a chance of success. Chance. A roll of the fucking dice. Otherwise the players have no chance to succeed and they have no agency.

There are two points of failure of th 3e Diplomacy rules before we even get to the numerics of DCs and skill modifiers and RNG limits:

• The MC determining whether the NPCs start the combat music or not before dice are rolled robs the players of agency and in many cases prevents the diplomancer's abilities from even existing in the game.
• The MC determining whether the NPCs start the combat music or not before they've identified traits, behavior, and circumstances related to the PCs violates causality.

If you accept either or both of those premises, I do not agree with you and I never fucking will!

-Username17

Frank... You honestly aren't reading my posts. I even copy pasted your own statement showing how you basically agree with me and you still refuse to accept it. I've posted time and again how I don't agree with either of those things you've just associated with my argument. There's no way you can quote my actual posts in their entirety and have anyone believe that I actually want the DM to start the combat music without regard to what the player's are doing or that the player's should be attacked without the NPC actually knowing that they exist. I'm really really sure that you are still not even reading my post because I've laid down my actual argument again and again and again and somehow you're still, most likely intentionally, ignoring my actual argument. You putting me on ignore really doesn't change anything because you're already ignoring my posts by not using your reading comprehension skills.

MGuy wrote:@Artless: Yes you've got it exactly. I'm saying that the initial meeting's initial disposition shouldn't be random but based on the influences relevant to the character and the situation. I believe that making mechanics that surround each and every possible situation and background would be impossible so its best to keep it abstract and just let the DM decide what the character's disposition is at the get go. The most unbelievable thing about this argument is that Frank actually agrees with me:

Don't you think that keeping this in the realm of MC fiat acts as a roadblock to actually putting together functional diplomacy rules? It turns every "talking encounter" into a MTP dice charade where the MC has probably pre-determined the ultimate outcome (the sphinx will always eventually attack, you cannot provoke the baron to attack you in the square, the prisoner will always reveal/withhold information, etc.).

Not to mention, it leaves a lot of encounters wholly unprepared to mechanically deal with a social attack as a result. How many monsters/NPCs have noticable Sense Motive scores, for example? How do you even fairly determine a creature's bonus vs. a Bluff of, "Dad? Is that you?" I'm willing to bet that you've given no thought to the mating practices of the variety of people the PCs come in contact with, so how do you determine whether or not that's a -5 to +20 Sense Motive modifier without essentially deciding whether or not you want the PC to succeed at this gambit?

Yes, you have to be able to strike some sort of balance between writing rules and mechanically determining outcomes versus roleplaying, but I don't think sticking with MTP is the solution. We've had MTP for 30+ years and nobody's really satisfied with it. You have people that get pissed off because their awesome speech failed by the dice, and those that are pissed off because all the points they sunk into social abilities feel wasted.