PhoneLobster wrote:
I've read through it and I see no clearly defined goals for what these encounters actually do.
I figured we don't need another tl;dr rant about it because everyone's done that - everyone has said "I want it to ___" and just not made rules from that.
The closest thing is your condition lists. Which I think are condition tracks,
Kind of. It depends on what you want to do. If you're being accused of being a thief, you might just want to confuse the accuser so he goes "Oh wait, my mistake." Often you'll want to make someone less violent and like you more - all the way to "Love", then maybe make them violent again. And hitting them with status effects during the debate makes it easier to do. But you don't always need to reach that point, and you don't automatically win an argument just because you made someone faint - otherwise you could make them pass out by hitting them with a brick. In an election, for instance, talking someone out cold won't automatically win.
at least relatively in line with my own requirements for acceptable social defeat conditions.
I feel it's important these things be possible but not essential. If you're going to negotiate cheaper stuff, then you just want them to like you enough or believe your lies enough that they agree with you. Failure means, at worst, they'll refuse service altogether or say "You're swindling me. Guards!"
If you're telling the demon to go kill the other dudes on your behalf, then you need to succeed without making him pass out (because that's a bit useless), and failure means that, even if all he wanted earlier was one soul, now he personally feels like feeding you your own asshole.
If that's the case that's kinda OK.
I'm glad it has some approval from you, oh great and mighty one who is the only person who can make social rules even worth typing.
If complex and as yet poorly written.
Complex is good if you're spending any real time on it. If you want social shit to be a major factor, complex is great. Otherwise just say "Roll diplomancy" and call it a day. As for poorly written, I was sort of assuming players don't have to be told what they want. If someone pretty much likes your idea, they will go along with it, you just need to give them an idea they pretty much like, or make them like the idea. It's as simple as that.
But I think you intend to modify difficulty by essentially having different starting points on these scales based on purely arbitrary goal and context fluff.
More or less. The natural state of all people is to not suffer from any of the status effects. Their natural point on the Attitude/Zeal depends on the individual - as well as what you're asking them to do. Yes, saying "I would like a free beer" is going to start off being more acceptable to the barman than "I want you to kill yourself".
Arbitrary goal and context stuff sort of have to come into play.
These progression tracks don't look especially equal, and would likely be less so if some of them can be arbitrarily shortened or lengthened.
I may or may not change them to be equal later. I'm also planning to make it so that the same path doesn't always work - OH NOES MORE ARBITRARY CONTEXT STUFF!
Seriously, yes, if a player has a fear aura then maybe they have an easier time scaring people into a coma (which isn't a guaranteed win) than confusing them into accepting their offer or befriending them. But guess what? Threatening to stamp on someone's colon isn't always the best way to get them to join your army or sleep with you or whatever.
But how do I start further down the Confused track, especially on any regular basis, and while I can imagine starting further down the Embarrassment track easily enough, I can't imagine it happening altogether very often unless your D&D world is somehow set largely in the works of Jane Austin.
True, but again:
1. Reaching the end isn't automatic victory. It is if your goal is for them to shut up, or to 'stop doing things', but a comatose person can't do much for you, either. You ideally want to use status effects in the middle regions to help alter their Attitude/Zeal to the point you're after.
and 2. The idea is not for you to cast Fear on someone then initiate conversation. Just like if you cut their legs off, it's a bit late to sit down and chat.
Also I'd like to see some serious reform and changes to the selection of these categories of conditions/condition tracks at a basic level.
My own broad generic fields of choice are effectively "Seducomancer", "Deceptomancer", "Scarymancer" and "Friendomancer".
I'll consider it. I'm more than happy to just ditch the Logic stuff, for instance, and Insight isn't an attack form, it's your basic defence (similar to how "Armour Class" isn't an attack form like [Cold], [Fire] or [Piercing]). But I like having "Threaten/scare people", "Be nice and make friends. Or just get your tits out.", "Make shit up." and "Insult them or impress them.", and the ability to be scared, confused or embarrassed.
Well once you do THAT you've brought your system back to the level of only suffering the criticisms I level against the pure arbitrary goal bullshitting "system".
I don't really know what you mean by this - it sounds like you hate the part where people have goals, and feel that social combat should be "Two walk in, one walks out after they TALK TO THE DEATH! No context, no consideration of outside factors, Fox only, FINAL DESTINATION!"
But that can't possibly be it, because that's fucking stupid. So I wouldn't mind you explaining what you're getting at.
"How to Write No Rules" thread.
I didn't read much into that. And not, as you'd like to say, because Frank was mean and stupid and shitted it up. But because:
A. It was very tl;dr without having a real point to it,
and B. I don't want to write no rules.
I don't fucking want a stupid latte-sipping, Hipster-jeans-wearing "Indie Gamer" wankfest where there are no real rules, just a very simple die roll that people create context for after the fact.
I want it to have an actual set of rules, with options and stuff, where different characters bring different things to the table. Anything short of that and it's dumb and should be replaced by "Roll a Diplomancy check" and moving on.
And bear with me I'm on serious weekend interstate party/flight sleep deprivation here.
I honestly can't tell the difference.
So trash social condition tracks.
I like having the lists of status effects. But I'll bear with you here, I'm not wed to the idea.
So when you try to win "get past the guards" you have to fight and defeat a Level 4 "I Loathe You", a level 5 "U noticed You Are Wanted in Seven States for Treason", and a Level 10 "But The King Will Kill Me!".
Whether you fight them with your own powers or you do it by proxy when you summon your abilities like they were pokemon and unleash "Level 4 Boobies" against the Loathing monster, "Level 7 Master Of Disguise" against the Wanted monster and a level 30 "Trust Me, I'm Cool" against the Certain Fatal Punishment monster I don't know.
You lost me. Are you suggesting an Indy Shit thing where these are just traits with ratings and you simply roll (rating)d6 or whatever and biggest number wins? Or are these actual statted monsters, like personifications? OS-tans, if you will. And it becomes a surreal case where two people haggling a pint start speaking monsters up which actually fight using actual attacks?
1) You can use it to generate transparent encounters that players can look at and understand, empathize with, and be entertained by more easily.
I don't want things too transparent. I want a system where yes, they totally do have to sit down and read the fucking rules and can't show up while stoned or drunk. They have to make choices for their character (in gaining abilities, then in using them) and can't just BS up an excuse to use their 1 good stat every round. And people who are too dumb to understand how it works? I'm not throwing them a bone, because I don't want to play with them anyway.
2) You can use it to generate level appropriate guidelines. So level 4 opponents maybe have limits to how many or what levels or what types of obstacles they can generate.
This one is good, however. Because if the king didn't get there by stabbing dragons in the face all meritocracy-style, then he's still a level 1 geezer who you can talk circles around, under this system, which can only really be combated by him having higher level guards and diplomats and advisers.
3) It's a lot more combatty flavored than progressing around esoteric condition tracks.
I still don't know how it's really being resolved. I don't now if you say "Ha! I use level 6 Tell me where the lich is hiding or I will cut your eyes out" and they need to pull out their level 7 "I'm more afraid of him than you" and you retaliate with a level 4 "I'll protect you from him!" combined with a level 4 "Also I'll pay you", and it's a fucking card game (in which case you are the weakest link, good bye) or if these things are actually monsters with statlines and we take abstract to a new level.
4) but at least SOMETHING).
I don't feel that every failed encounter has to end in death or whatever. It all depends on - and here's a tissue for you - the context of the situation. Yes, if you fail to talk the guard into letting you through, he'll tell his mate to put a warning shot into your head with his crossbow and encourage you to piss off, or even call for more. But you won't suddenly commit suicide over it.
5) Players can go around boasting about that time their Level 7 Boobies double teamed with their companion's Level 7 WTF and took out a fully evolved Level 12 "I Prefer Guys".
This is an important bit, yes.
Which as far as I can tell is your primary goal ahead of balance and functionality.
Balance is going to be worked in later, possibly by people who are better at that stuff than I am. I'm getting something functional up in the first place, then it'll get balanced, and then I'll be able to say I actually made a social combat thing.
just being interesting and fun rather than a pile of boring accounting is a (small) step forward.
Well at least there's that, but unless your proposed method is pokemon battles with actual "My argument has 24 HP left. It uses a Fireball-Chokeslam against your Passive Aggressiveness", yours sounds like being boring.
Laughed out loud upon reading this.
