SCRIVENER
"
I tried abiding by Zak S's rules, in not assuming anything, not attacking or insulting him "
""Your rule makes everyone a whore"?
"
even though he began by attacking me,"
You said that--why woudn't I attack you?
"
"
Because you rule turns everyone into a whore."
You're lying. Now this isn't even a mistake since you've read over this: this is an out and out lie.
I've said several times an NPC can only do things that the GM decides are within their range of possible behaviors. You read and responded to those posts. Here's evidence:
QUOTE:
"Just as the GM decides (totally legit) a monster is a fire elemental or what its strength score is, the GM decides if Billy is a "whore" (i.e. will render service of x type in exchange for mundane services) or not. And whether Billy is a cobbler or not. And what color Billy's shoes are. And whether Billy is a wizard or not. And…. "
LINK:
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55189& ... &start=525
It's nice to see the response to your last post contains such a blatant example of you lying, so there can be no doubt for anyone reading that you are a liar. You don't even have the defense that you didn't realize that the GM controlled who was a whore or not because of the late date.
You are caught in a blatant lie that cannot be explained away as a mistake. Stop doing that--it slows down the conversation.
"
"
Zak S has tried to change what the original challenge was about more than once,"
Not once.
PhoneLobster: "If you make a ruling your game it'll bit you on the ass"
Zak: "Ask me for a rule"
PhonelLobster: (request in the OP)
"
Then Scrivener posts this:
"
Holy Shit, I think just figured out what the problem is here:
Because PL is an idiot and communicated the request incorrectly, he never got this across, and the words "Social Currency System" were too vague to do it-- I think you guys don't just want a Social Currency System--you want something more like a Social Conflict/Combat System.
I look at the request and thought he was asking for:
A method of making basically apathetic NPCs choose to do what you want (via fear or obligation) (Including a lot of things that are probably in their best interest anyway). Basically a formal structure to track existing relations in the campaign vaguely like a better version of Oriental Adventures' Honor System.
What he wanted was:
A method of forcing NPCs to do your bidding through a dynamic and battle-like interaction of intimidations, gifts, and creations of obligations More like a perhaps more time-drawn out version DC Heroes' interpersonal system which had 3 mental stat that paralleled the 3 physical stats (dex, str, body) and that you basically attack against in order to force a result out of them.
This explains most of the differences between what y'all casually assumed the request was describing and what I casually assumed it was describing.
My system treats the NPC's personality like a wall you have to get past. Like the PCs get to a wall. The wall doesn't care about them either way. This works in the game 2-3 ways, the PCs:
--investigate the method of destroying the wall (which I assume is a fun and interesting thing to do--in the social mechanic that would mean asking locals overtly or covertly what the target NPC wanted
-Go acquire the resources necessary to do that. (which I assume is a fun and interesting thing to do too--basically fetch quests for things the NPC wants or a mission to inflict intimidating damage on them. I.E. Knowing you need dynamite involves the PCs (depending on the heaviness of the wall) in an interesting quest to get enough of it from various sources.
-Also possibly investigate rivals and then get rid of them, distract them or change their priorities via these same social manipulations. Which is supposed to be fun for the same reasons
The system y'all want would treat the NPC's personality as a monster you have an encounter (long or drawn out over years with). i.e. you have to engage in a dynamic and tactical/strategic situation with the personality over time that involves choices of what to apply and when at precisely the right time. And you want the NPC to be malleable enough that you can force them into actions they'd (as originally described) perhaps never do. Walls don't care if you knock them down, they just aren't down yet--monsters do.
-
If this is right, then it explains most of the beefs here--
When Ancient History was going "But Charm is less broken than this because with Charm the target saves" I kept thinking "So? Why would an apathetic person who gets gifts or threats such that its in their clear best interest to do what you want need a save? Why are they resisting?"
And then I'd go "But investigating and going on fetch quests and outdoing rivals is as hard or harder than making someone fail a save" and he go "No, it's different because…" and that argument went nowhere because the point wasn't really "This is easier to do than Charm" but rather "Charm is a system where there's a conflict, whereas your system is just one where you go get dynamite to blow up the wall and then do it and the wall's got no say.
And he'd go But Your System Can Grant an Overwhelming Bonus and I'd go "So?" because in my mind if you are on a fetch quest for dynamite and you overkill it, the game effect is Oh no we did too much fun adventuring to get dynamite and now the trivial part (actually demolishing the wall) is now finally here whereas in his mind the PCs are bringing dynamite to a knife fight (and so making the knife fight unfun).
And this also explains (finally) WTF apple-stacking really means. Lobster's description was:
Quote:
it is important that you cannot accrue large amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom.
And I thought "Oh easy, the keywords are "small" and "kingdom". In my system the only things that count for NPCs who'd have kingdoms would be large. So: sorted.
Whereas what he should've written was:
"it is important that you cannot accrue any amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom--or indeed to in any way guarantee the success of requests."
And it also explains the "but your system doesn't do anything" complaint. Yeah-I thought I was being asked for a system like honor or xp that just tracked relations arising from existing campaign events.
(Look at the description:
"Some people around here want a "Social Currency" system. A way of representing and recording gratitude, fear, and honorable debts.
Stated requirements include that in the event of gathering large amounts of "Fear Currency" by winning a war that a bunch of high level characters can give it to a 1st level Herald and he can go make the high level enemy generals surrender by cashing it in. ")
Ok: the herald carries the news of the defeats (defeats=currencies exchangeable for bonuses like fair prizes) to the NPC. And the herald delivers the dynamite charge, as it were. )
What you wanted was a system that influenced campaign events forcefully by being gambleable at the right moment and in the right way. That is: a tactical resource rather than just a tracking one. Or something like that.
Which is not a bad thing to want--it's just not clear in this text:
Quote:
Some people around here want a "Social Currency" system. A way of representing and recording gratitude, fear, and honorable debts.
Stated requirements include that in the event of gathering large amounts of "Fear Currency" by winning a war that a bunch of high level characters can give it to a 1st level Herald and he can go make the high level enemy generals surrender by cashing it in.
However at the same time it is important that you cannot accrue large amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom.
Make THAT work. You have 1 Minute.
So..yeah. If I look back now on the criticisms assuming you guys want the Social Conflict/Combat System then they make a lot more sense.
Basically, PL was inarticulate and everybody else was too busy being a dick to me to:
-realize a person could intelligently and in good faith not assume the same thing as them from PL's request
and
-clarify what that request actually was trying to ask for, in total
Does that make sense? Or do we get another dogpile?
And then Scrivener says:
"This is the most recent, instead of accepting the many ways your rule has failed, and that it does not hold up to any standard you tried to say that you made a rule for something different."
There is not a single word of that that makes sense--sine the whole point of contention is whether my rule failed. PL wrote something vague--I interpreted it one way, you interpreted it in another, failures to meet your standard are down to that.
Since you point to no part of this long quote that proves I don't actually believe what I wrote, then it's hard to say where to start on this.
"
" refused to address issues"
Z: Quote one time I did that.
"
THAT'S FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE. YOU DIDN'T RESPOND TO VALID POINTS THEREFORE THERE IS NOTHING TO QUOTE. YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. "
Simply post a question about the rule (from further upthread) that I failed to answer, then.
If I cannot then cut and paste a response, you will surely have won.
Surely you can do that, right? If you're sooooooo sure I haven't answered sooooo many questions you should be able to find one?
Again: it is fitting that your last post will contain such blatant evidence of your insincerity. I've written "If you have a question I haven't answered post it here" so many times in this thread it's ridiculous.
"
"attempted to entrap someone by having them agree to statements as opposed to being honest and laying out his reasoning, "
Where The Fuck Is That?
"
50ish leading questions to Ancient History. "
Those were investigative not leading questions. Trying to figure out the source of his beef.
What was I leading him to? It benefits me in no way to trick him into saying things that agree with me--I need to understand the nature of your complaints before I can address them or see if they are valid.
You are just so fucking full of assumptions you assume everyone else shares that when someone tries to hack through the thicket you evilly and narrow-mindedly assume they're asking questions in order to…what? What they hell would it accomplish? I don't even know.
You seem to think
I secretly believe I am wrong and am
pretending to not agree with you for some vile end that I don't understand. What would that get me?
"
"
and now not only is he backing down from his own challenge but he is trying to change the goalposts he set."
Where The Fuck Is That?
"
you won't even consider an argument as to how to arbitrate this if you feel my standards are insane. Nor will you even entertain doing the same offer for gnorman without having caveats added.
"
The Gaming Den (as has been extensively illustrated) is not an unbiased court. I mean: it defends Kaelik. That's a preposterous suggestion. If you offer a non-preposterous "objective body" (randomly chosen gamers?) then I will, of course, consider it.
"
"
Zak S is a hypocrite and a coward."
Then:
1. What principle do I claim but not hold to (support with quotes)
"
ZAK: People are allowed to say mean things on the internet (like Kaelik did) with no prompting. They are not, thereafter, allowed to complain about anything bad that happens to them as a result. "
SCRIV: "The first thing you say towards me is to call me a dumbass."
ZAK: As soon as you come out of the box saying my system makes everyone a whore, you are a dumbass. An evil dumbass. There is no nonstupid nonevil interpretation of that. Sorry. I upheld my principle.
"
ZAK: 2. What am I afraid of? (Support with facts)
"
"
Your OWN CHALLENGE. Heck, I even accepted your clearly set up to fail challenge and you don't respond to it. "
The one where you said I never responded to questions and then….totally repeatedly and are still now not cutting and pasting such alleged questions? That challenge? The one where you proposed using totally biased people as the Neutral Arbiters in hilariously bad faith? What next: propose your mom judge it?
Fuck off with that.
"
You state clearly what it will take to change your mind. "
Well why didn't you just ask?
What would change my mind:
Evidence drawn from talking to my players (who are all reachable on social media) or my blog or just talking to me that this system was "biting me on the ass" (or making my game suck in some way) as I used it.
or
Evidence drawn from asking me questions that revealed I was unprepared for some clear consequence of the system.
or
Evidence that the way I interpreted the requirements of the rule would be impossible and that therefore I must be lying.
Wouldn't make me lose the challenge but would be helpful and prove you are smart :
The best criticism would be a system that makes you happy but
also works as well or better than this one for my group.
"You apologize for attacking without provocation."
Since I never did that, I can't.
Also: Repeatedly demanding someone agree to a premise they do not believe rather than simply trying to prove the premise just slows the conversation down. I simply believe your whore remark is evidence you're an idiot, jumping to that conclusion is evidence you're an idiot. Until you recognize that that was inappropriate and caused you to be classified with all these other dipshits, I cannot honestly change my estimation of you. Your defense that "it's true" is a terrible defense because I've repeatedly demonstrated it's not.
If you have good faith, what you need to say is: "I am sorry, that was rude. I could not see the reasons your system does not make everyone a whore, and I do not understand them yet, however I will now ask some questions to figure out how you manage to run your game sans ubiquitous prostitution despite using this rule since you do." (or, if you don't believe me that I do "I will now endeavor to do research to prove you are lying about this and that there are whores everywhere in your game")
"You do not attempt to entrap anyone via attempting to solicit agreement to separate clauses, "
How the FUCK are two people in a disagreement supposed to figure out their point of disagreement if they can't, from the ground up, figure out which of their assumptions don't match?
Asking you "Would you agree…?" is not a
trap for you. What would I gain if you are "trapped"? Nothing. I gain nothing from persuading you--I am merely attempting to understand the problem you see and figure out why you see it.
"and you adhere to the challenges you set out for."
I'll accept any fair challenge. You haven't proposed a fair one. I'm allowed to believe that. If you doubt me: make an argument for it.
"To be clear, I will agree your rule is good once you show that it will not A-Make everyone into a whore and B- Is better than DM FIAT."
Ok. I am not endeavoring to make you agree to things or persuade you--merely to discover what it is that makes you assume it is wrong. However, persuading you may be a side effect. I do not know or care.
"The "attack" bonus is the same as your rule. It is a number you can only use when the DM says you can. This has always been a charge against your rule that you have NEVER addressed. "
No, this restatement of the question --while it seems the same as other statements of it
to you and to someone who already understand your POV --seems
very different than previous criticisms to someone who does not start with your assumptions. This is, to me, a new question:
You asked before What's the point of a stat if it only works sometimes? To which I said What's the point of GP if you can't buy peace of mind. i.e GP is good for many but not all things so it is useful.
This statement of your question looks very different to me than any I have seen before in the thread: " It is a number you can only use when the DM says you can. "
That is true. Simply true. Yes: it is a number you can only use when the DM says you can. So is Pick Lock. That does not mean that every single lock is subject to GM fiat. On pickable locks, it's subject to dice. On unpickable locks, it's that way because the GM said. Just like there's a door and a dungeon and a monster behind the door because the GM said.
So: what exactly is the problem with "a number you can only use when the DM says you can. " that makes it not like Pick Lock? Or any of the billions of other numbers you can only use when the GM says in D&D?
--
-
