MTP, Original Content

[zugschef]

PL, the response to "your system is shitty" should not be "WELL YOURS IS WORSE".

Actually my response is... mine is better than MTP and his is worse than MTP.

Acutally your system is MTP with rules attached, for if the players don't like what the GM is MTPing up.

[Stubbazubba]

PL's system is perfect because he has chosen one single kind of social interaction - intimidation - and made it work (I mean, it's predictable, not necessarily good, but it gets consistent results). He then says that any and all other interactions should just be MTP, so therefore his 'system' covers everything with 90% MTP and 10% rules for intimidation.

He will insist that the 90% of social interaction that is not intimidation is simply impossible to make mechanics for, therefore MTP is the best bet, but praise him because he made intimidation rules. and included a clause that says "everything else is MTP" and called it complete.

Why this is actually an incomplete social system should be obvious. PL pretends that since the question of how to do complex social interactions (the 90%) has yet to be answered to his satisfaction, that it therefore cannot be done, and that MTP is as sophisticated as those can get, and anything beyond that is a fool's errand, therefore his system is as complete and functional as could ever be asked for.

There are some major incorrect assumptions in his premise, which makes his entire errand, and his entire product, kind of inane. There's no reason to believe that further work and creativity in social systems won't eventually create something worthwhile, and that's even if you accept the premise that none of the current alternatives are adequate, which is also pretty untrue. There is no reason to accept his premises, therefore there is no reason to accept his conclusions, therefore there is no reason to accept his system as anything more than an intimidation sub-system.

[PoliteNewb]

Okay, thank you for the clarification. After hearing it put like that, I would tend to agree that allowing the dice to dictate a resolution which is counter to how everyone at the table believes it would/should go is...somewhat counterproductive to fun.

[...You Lost Me]

Oh oh my my god god god

A double post followed by a triple post.

[PhoneLobster]

PL's system is perfect because he has chosen one single kind of social interaction - intimidation - and made it work (I mean, it's predictable, not necessarily good, but it gets consistent results)

Intimidation is a weird ass choice of terminology there.

I chose one (main) goal, which was removal of enemies and potential creation of allies from them. I integrated this into the main combat mechanics. I threw in some other minor special attacks that achieved simple measurable combat relevant effects like hiding items, disguises, and tricking people so you could surprise attack them.

This results in playable, complex, and integrated options and character roles with social themes. Which include an intimidating theme... and a friendly and a seductive and a deceptive theme.

It doesnt cover "all the other bullshit" like "how hard is it to convince someone to give you something they don't care about, Beggar Simulator 2013, in stores now!". And I largely don't care.

But I think 90% is an over estimate of the value and volume of what "removing enemies, creating allies, and a few common minor social themed adventurer tricks" doesn't cover. I'd give it a 60% at best myself, but then, when pulling a number out of ones ass to cover the portion of the game that (at best) consists of pulling numbers out of ones ass one can generally assume the numbers will be pretty assy.

He will insist that the 90% of social interaction that is not intimidation is simply impossible to make mechanics for, therefore MTP is the best bet,

I will insist. And I really have tried. When I throw out various reasons why those things don't work, I happen to know those reasons because fuck it, those are the ones I hit when I tried it like that.

I've repeatedly stated that hey, sure, make it work maybe you can do it in some way that I couldn't figure out. But people consistently attempt the SAME failed methodologies I tried and consistently fail at the same hurdles I failed at when I present them to them again.

Repeatedly. The same story. Some of them go, "huh well social mechanics are pretty hard, guess I'll leave it to later", and a few too many go "waaaah an infinite list of infinite modifiers is still the only true way and totally works waaah" and run of screaming into the wilderness until next time social mechanics pop up only to do it all again without ever producing a working alternative.

but praise him because he made intimidation rules.

Fuck yeah why no, you should totally do that thing you suggest there.

Because failing anything else being a super nifty deceptive con artist character is something you can at least DO in my game. It's powerful, it's elaborate, and it achieves real and potent stuff in dramatic adventure encounters.

Liar is basically as viable a character strategy as Sword Guy or Lightning Dude. That's a big thing.

What the fuck have YOU got? What the fuck has anyone who went with the infinite list of infinite modifiers got compared to that?

[Stubbazubba]

As for the nothing side. Leaving voluntary actions that no players at the table have any conflict over to MTP is not precisely nothing.

So the half-orc barbarian can schmooze the princess just as well as the sex god elven bard so long as no one cares?

Unless you're fighting the princess, in which case the elven sex god gets sexier the more the half-orc barb slaps her around?

Honestly, how do you intend people to use your system to

• Win over the heart of a princess whose political loyalties lie elsewhere (as in you are a known enemy of her state)
• Convince an ally to overcome a fear and take action, (e.g. they initially refuse to cast a sketchy spell from a scroll)
• Persuade two opposing parties to set aside their differences and unite for the sake of the (theoretically greater) task at hand?

These are all ubiquitous plot devices, which may or may not be the same as "removal of enemies and potential creation of allies from them," but at the very least resemble it and would logically use the same skillset. Each presents a challenge to the party; the targets are universally opposed to the action in the beginning, and you want them to reverse that judgment. In your system the only way to leverage high charisma or social stats is to not do so by RPing it (destroying the distinction between the half-orc barb and the elven sex god), and should that fail, start the combat music to soften them up.

We have gone through this before, PL, and created frameworks for social systems that would do just fine, and be far more inclusive and less insane than yours. Remember what you do every time? Decry it as mandating the printing of infinitely varying modifiers from infinitely long lists of tiny factors in the interaction. It's nothing but you putting your fingers in your ears and telling us you're not listening. You're doing it pre-emptively now. But the fact is that no, a real social system does not require that. The size of a modifier to a social roll is the appropriate place for DM judgment calls, informed by sufficient guidelines, examples and restrictions. That is not an issue at all. The issue is how to make it work in a party-based game, determining whether or not it should scale with level, and finally how to make it interact with combat/other sub-systems in practical, effective ways.

[PhoneLobster]

Derp

Seriously that entire post was founded on such a vast level of ignorance that it boggles my mind. It's almost impossible to address because the second I start picking at one bit to point out just how fucking stupid you are... ten more pieces of stupidity raise their heads like vomit spewing hydras.

Seriously. Reread everything I've written on the subject. Reread SOMETHING I have written on the subject. You don't appear to get even the fucking basics.

But lets just get to this...

We have gone through this before, PL, and created frameworks for social systems that would do just fine, and be far more inclusive and less insane than yours. Remember what you do every time?

I say "Yeah. It won't work, but go ahead and prove me wrong by actually making it work!". Then no one fucking makes it work. Because it's not actually the case that they "would do just fine" and no one ever actually creates a "framework", they just write a moronic short list of bonus guidelines for MTP. That's it. That is all. And if you think ANY of those short lists "would work fine" as a system why is it none of them have. Ever. For years.

MTP bonuses are not a useful mechanic for anything that fucking matters. It doesn't make Liar a viable character role in the game like my system does. It does all the bad things about MTP which K was talking about in this thread. It creates an ability, an option, and a role that is governed utterly by DM whim and as such is just as useless as D&D Illusions are in most games.

[Orion]

So wait a minute, your defense of PhoneLobster's system is in two parts:

• You think that you should put in some sort of post facto Magic Teaparty penalty for using the system as intended to mix combat moves and polite social graces where people hate you later on through authorial fiat.
• Secondly, you think that social actions should not have long term consequences.

I would say that social mechanics should not necessarily have long term effects, unless the system is balanced around them. This is particularly true of PhoneLobster-style attacks. Look, if you beat people with swords until they fall down, you've won a combat encounter. And what you get from that is generally not a long-term benefit or a large-scale change in the game world. You get to bypass the people who were in your way, take their stuff, and optionally put them out of action for variable lengths of time (such as "until raised"). Since lobsterphoning is supposed to happen during combat and run off HP, the default case should be that when you lobsterphone someone you get to bypass, loot, and incapacitate them. Getting permanent extra allies should not be a default outcome of something parallel to combat rules. That doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it needs to come from some kind of character ability. If you happen to be a Necromancer then, "stabbing people with swords until the run out of HP and die" actually does give you permanent zombie minions. So, if you happened to be an evil faerie king, then "yelling at people until they run out HP and cry" could result in you getting longterm thrall minions.

If you start from the assumption that Lobsterphoning someone gives no longterm benefits unless explicitly specified, you can put on whatever restrictions you'd like. If you kill people with Disintegrate, that might prevent your Necromancer from animating them, and if you subdue people by yelling or hitting them with sticks, that might prevent your Paladin from using Inspire to create a longterm loyalty. Basically you would have bunch of lobster moves tagged [Nice] and some win results that required you to only use [Nice] attacks.

If that sounds stupid and limiting... well, that's because it is. There's a lot of problems with the PL system, especially if you're trying to use it as your only mechanic. I'm not actually invested in defending PL since I haven't read his system and doubt I would personally use anything like it. There are plenty of sensible criticisms you could make, and that have been made. I just happen to think that "it might sometimes be advantageous for characters to hit people with sticks before trying to befriend them" isn't one of them.

[PhoneLobster]

If you start from the assumption that Lobsterphoning someone gives no longterm benefits unless explicitly specified,

I'm not entirely sure it made it to the posted material on my Mousetrap thread. Though I think it did somewhere.

But there is an actual discussion of what the long term effects of social defeats in the system are, and how to get permanent allies from them (and other things like turning them into zombies and stuff).

Basically there is a method for obtaining permanent allies through the base building system. And you can keep your socially defeated allies by just allocating them to base space, or you can let them wander off and recover, which they will, if you don't allocate base space (or take the rather hacky "I have some minions" skills from Leadership or something).

Otherwise there is no guarantee that social defeat states will last for extended periods of time outside of the combat encounter, they might last longer, maybe even indefinitely, but they can basically end unexpectedly at any time without special investment in maintenance.

Also there are specific mentions on actions that end social defeat states regardless of duration, maintenance etc... And in fact some of those actions that end social defeat states do so because you did something exploitative that made the target hate you later on.

[Foxwarrior]

We have gone through this before, PL, and created frameworks for social systems that would do just fine, and be far more inclusive and less insane than yours. Remember what you do every time?

I say "Yeah. It won't work, but go ahead and prove me wrong by actually making it work!". Then no one fucking makes it work

I totally made a trust and credit system work, trust me. At least, I think it does, but I can find only 0 people (including myself) who are excited enough to try it out instead of playing other things.

[PhoneLobster]

For me getting people wanting to actually use a system is one of the basic tests as to making it work.

It's one of the reasons I moved to fully integrating my social mechanics into the main combat mechanics.

I used to do a separate Social, Chase and Stealth mini-game. It became apparent that these things all needed to be integrated to a single combat mini-game for a number of beneficial reasons, but right near the top was the very basic "People don't want to learn elaborate niche mini-games, ESPECIALLY if the rewards are less interesting than the main mini game anyway".

[Kaelik]

For me getting people wanting to actually use a system is one of the basic tests as to making it work.

I may be wrong, but based on how accurately it represents you, I assume he is parodying you, because you know, absolutely no one wants to use your shitty system that is shit.

[Foxwarrior]

Tragically, you are wrong. At least PhoneLobster wants to try out PhoneLobster's system, I think.