The Gaming Den

Bigode wrote: High diplomacy's rare and exclusive, but exists in the real world, and it does make people into reprogrammable robot sheep.

No, it doesn't exist in the real world. Otherwise, we'd have peace in the Middle East and one unified world government under this uber charismatic leader.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Bigode wrote: High diplomacy's rare and exclusive, but exists in the real world, and it does make people into reprogrammable robot sheep.

No, it doesn't exist in the real world. Otherwise, we'd have peace in the Middle East and one unified world government under this uber charismatic leader.

Wait, so you're saying that the people who rabble rouse groups in the Middle East to rise up and murder groups of people who are ostensibly no different from themselves over and over again and divide and redivide their nations against themselves against their own interests don't represent giant diplomacy tests, and having the entire region forget its bullshit bickering and unionize together along lines of common economic interest would?

What the hell man? I thought diplomacy was for getting people to act against their own interest. I mean, in the absence of some kind of social motivator, you'd think that everyone would just follow selfish advantage to the limit of the law like they were a statistic in a Chicago Economist's model.

-Username17

RandomCasualty2 wrote:No, it doesn't exist in the real world. Otherwise, we'd have peace in the Middle East and one unified world government under this uber charismatic leader.

What makes you think that any man would use such a thing for good?

Psychic Robot wrote:

RandomCasualty2 wrote:No, it doesn't exist in the real world. Otherwise, we'd have peace in the Middle East and one unified world government under this uber charismatic leader.

What makes you think that any man would use such a thing for good?

Not for good, but for power. Unifying the world under one leader would certainly be something any tyrant would want. Yet, we have many separate nations.

While it's true that a significant amount of influence and brainwashing can convince the poor and desperate (religion, the world's largest lie), this has to require years and years of indoctrination.

There is no D&D diplomacy where someone just walks into a room and in 10 minutes everyone is his ally.

RC wrote:Not for good, but for power. Unifying the world under one leader would certainly be something any tyrant would want. Yet, we have many separate nations.

You do realize that if we had D&D style diplomacy, that you would expect a more fractured planet, right? Since any tyrant wants to increase their controlled group size, and there are more than one aspiring tyrants, and it takes some amount of time to persuadatron each individual person - you would expect to see a large number of competing groups.

Your argument is a non-sequitur. You should be arguing that D&D style diplomacy can't exist because nation states are too large, not because they are too small. Remember: persuading everyone in the US to become your fanatical ally would take 5703 years at D&D diplomatic time frames. Getting even half the vote should be impossible within the lifetime of the country using D&D diplomacy mechanics.

With D&D diplomacy you would expect the world to be divided up into villages and fiefs defined by small populations and geographical areas that each had local strong men that called the shots. The fact that nation states exist at all calls for some kind of secondary mechanic that takes over for large populations that allows one to consider large populations as anything other than feudal alliances.

-Username17

But what if you have diplomancers spread their control from the checks in a manner not unlike a vampire/shadow?

Yeah, people ignore me because I don't have points. Sure.

You know, we are talking about Diplomacy being able to turn people into mindless automatons, it doesn't have to be D&D style.

One example, it could be exactly like D&D style in every way but not have flat DCs and instead have opposed checks with bonuses based on initial attitude.

Suddenly Obama and McCain can't convince each other, and instead fight for numbers of little people.

And that's why everyone's first order of business is to tell everyone else that their opponent is secret muslim terrorist. So that way Obama can't convert them because they get a +40 for being hostile or whatever.

Similarly, Obama only needs them to be unfriendly towards McCain, because McCain isn't that charismatic.

Kaelik wrote:You know, we are talking about Diplomacy being able to turn people into mindless automatons, it doesn't have to be D&D style.

One example, it could be exactly like D&D style in every way but not have flat DCs and instead have opposed checks with bonuses based on initial attitude.

Suddenly Obama and McCain can't convince each other, and instead fight for numbers of little people.

And that's why everyone's first order of business is to tell everyone else that their opponent is secret muslim terrorist. So that way Obama can't convert them because they get a +40 for being hostile or whatever.

Similarly, Obama only needs them to be unfriendly towards McCain, because McCain isn't that charismatic.

Maybe we need to clarify: I don't think anybody's talking about actual RAW D&D 3.x Diplomacy rules. We're talking about how diplomacy that turns people into automatons (though it takes way longer than in D&D) does exist even IRL, which happens the ultimate source material for horror stories (or any stories). So, RC's argument that the horror vanishes when that comes into consideration falls ... I don't have an adverb strong enough to add to the adjective, so it shall suffice ... flat, since real-world human automaton stories tend to cause plenty of shock; so much that people have also stated that they are more horrifying than so-called "free-willed" wicked people.

FrankTrollman wrote: You do realize that if we had D&D style diplomacy, that you would expect a more fractured planet, right? Since any tyrant wants to increase their controlled group size, and there are more than one aspiring tyrants, and it takes some amount of time to persuadatron each individual person - you would expect to see a large number of competing groups.

Actually it really doesn't take time to persuade that many people. Simply because you can just run around persuading world leaders. So you don't go around recruiting minor people, you just meet with world leaders, and then you're set. And in a world that has aircraft and video conferencing, I just don't understand why it seems impossible that one guy couldn't get every major nation's world leader on his side in under a week.

You don't get votes, you just conquer existing world leaders, and then get them to turn over their governments to you.

With D&D diplomacy you would expect the world to be divided up into villages and fiefs defined by small populations and geographical areas that each had local strong men that called the shots. The fact that nation states exist at all calls for some kind of secondary mechanic that takes over for large populations that allows one to consider large populations as anything other than feudal alliances.

Not at all. D&D diplomacy leads to grand unification. Unless the world as a whole is fractured for other means. So long as your world has kingdoms and leaders, which both D&D worlds and the real world do, then those leaders make the greatest diplomacy targets ever. Let them do the grunt work for you and then just swoop in and diplomify them.

Basically in worlds of D&D diplomacy, the rule is "shoot first and ask questions later" because you can get turned into a mind controlled drone by just having someone talk to you. There are no peace talks in D&D, as a diplomatic envoy is perhaps a greater threat to your nation than an army is. In fact, in D&D, the answer to a diplomat is wearing earplugs and shooting him dead.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Actually it really doesn't take time to persuade that many people. Simply because you can just run around persuading world leaders. So you don't go around recruiting minor people, you just meet with world leaders, and then you're set. And in a world that has aircraft and video conferencing, I just don't understand why it seems impossible that one guy couldn't get every major nation's world leader on his side in under a week.

You don't get votes, you just conquer existing world leaders, and then get them to turn over their governments to you.

Um, no. If you convince governments of really insane stuff without convincing the people, you do run a risk of those governments being simply toppled.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Not at all. D&D diplomacy leads to grand unification.

Read my past post (again, if need be) on how D&D Diplomacy details aren't a relevant part of the issue.

Bigode wrote: since real-world human automaton stories tend to cause plenty of shock; so much that people have also stated that they are more horrifying than so-called "free-willed" wicked people.

In real life, yeah because turning someone into an automaton in real life is hard. It's not something that happens easily, and therefore when the point of the story is that mind control becomes easy, that's pretty horrifying. A world with easy mind control is fucking scary as hell. I mean imagine if D&D diplomacy actually existed in the real world, and you constantly have to worry that some guy might come in and diplomacy you and get you to drop every value you ever had and totally adopt a new way of thinking, all in the space of 1 standard action? Yeah, that's fucking scary as hell if that existed in reality.

But the average D&D player is used to that already, because the D&D world has had that for generations.

Again it's about supernatural versus natural. Mind control is actually natural in the D&D world and just a part of life. In reality, mind control would be supernatural.

Do you recall that the point put by myself was merely that real people are reprogrammable? And that real life mind control's way more than scary enough?

Bigode wrote:Do you recall that the point put by myself was merely that real people are reprogrammable? And that real life mind control's way more than scary enough?

Yeah, I do recall that, and I still disagree with it.

While there is some real life mind control (religion for instance), it takes a long time to pull off.

I have yet to see any kind of D&D instantaneous mind control or anything close to it.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:I have yet to see any kind of D&D instantaneous mind control or anything close to it.

Are you actually arguing that because D&D has a social system that has instantaneous mind control, any system that has mind control has to have it be instantaneous? Cuz that's what I'm seeing here. And even then...

RandomCasualty2 wrote:While there is some real life mind control (religion for instance), it takes a long time to pull off.

There are plenty of ways to get instantaneous mind-control effects in real life as long as you're not clinging to "But it doesn't make them throw themselves in front of a rampaging dragon for you!".

Case in point: The Hare Krishna members at airports who collect donations? A method they use involves what's called the "Rule of Reciprocation". They give passersby roses as "gifts", then ask for donations. This triggers a little "bug" in the brain's social programming, which then causes the target, as it were, to almost always make a donation. This effect is powerful enough that targets will actually try to avoid taking the flower rather than violate the RoR. In fact, the only ways I'm aware of to defend against this are to be antisocial and not have the programming in the first place, or to actually understand the effect.

It's not total mental domination, but it's instantaneous and pretty powerful. And there's plenty of other things to take advantage of. Naturally, the mind control that takes longer to pull off is much more powerful, but you can actually design that into whatever system you use.

Giving a Hare Krishna a buck because he gave you a rose may be an ingrained social reflex, but it's not scary because you could choose not to respond. Giving a Hare Krishna a buck because you've been drugged/brainwashed to such an extent that you cannot refuse is damn scary.

By the same token, if I murder RC* because Bigode told me he was evil, that makes Bigode a bastard, but it makes me the scary murderer. Now if I murder RC because Bigode drugged me, then brainwashed me, then cast a dominate spell on me, I literally had no choice...this makes Bigode the evil murderer and me the pitiable victim.


*Purely a hypothetical example; I have no current plans to murder RC.

Edit: Damn spelling.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Bigode wrote:Do you recall that the point put by myself was merely that real people are reprogrammable? And that real life mind control's way more than scary enough?

Yeah, I do recall that, and I still disagree with it.

While there is some real life mind control (religion for instance), it takes a long time to pull off.

I have yet to see any kind of D&D instantaneous mind control or anything close to it.

How does your post disagree with mine?

Talisman wrote:Giving a Hare Krishna a buck because he gave you a rose may be an ingrained social reflex, but it's not scary because you could choose not to respond. Giving a Hare Krishna a buck because you've been drugged/brainwashed to such an extent that you cannot refuse is damn scary.

I used the example to demonstrate that instantaneous [Compulsion]-style effects actually exist IRL and can make you do things you normally wouldn't. While you *could* choose not to respond, especially if you know what they're up to, most people won't because it's actually going against ingrained instincts, and that's hard. In D&D3.x terms, "roll your Will save versus <moderate-for-CR DC>" hard. Which is, interestingly enough, exactly how you resist suggestion.

I find it puzzling that we're having this discussion about how Diplomacy works in D&D. D&D worlds have their own expectations that are radically different from real life. We're talking about a world where, if you're an adventurer, there's a good chance at least two of your buddies have magic powers, including possibly mind control. This proposed horror game would take place in a setting resembling the real world, where the only severe, instantaneous mind-control effects will be limited to the bad guys. The PCs won't be able to use mind control themselves, but might have it used against them or to produce minions who want to kill them. When you don't have the means to counter these effects, that's scary.

Query:






Are these location encounter decks sufficiently different? If not, what color modifications should be made to make them more distinct?

-Username17

The two greens look nearly identical to my eye.

I could also see a problem of people not knowing what color someone meant with the yellow vs. gold cards or the blues. Is that likely to be a problem

That's part of the charm of the Arkham Horror cards. They are often misleading. I always reach for the wrong ones when I'm at the Silver Lodge, every damned time. It's part of the horror.

Given the limited possibilities of color range for covering 12 different locations, I think the only good way to break suit is to have some patterns instead of all solid colors.

The cards all look pretty cool other than having to deal with the classic Arkham Horror issue of too many places not enough color variation.

I agree that the two greens look very similar. I'd also consider making the purple (lower-right) a bit darker, and moving the teal (top-right) a bit further from the blue.

Is there some reason you're not already using brown? I believe it's one of the colors in the actual AH game, and I think it'd be distinct from everything currently on your palette. A really dark blue/indigo might also work. And pink would be distinct, but might be objectionable on thematic grounds.

Well, I figured out how to change the pictures that I had previously uploaded. There are no longer two greens.

-Username17