PhoneLobster wrote:So in summary Almaz. You don't seem to know what the Oberoni fallacy is, what rule zero is, what a vendetta is, what a counter argument is, or what an incentive is.
Now, to go through your main issue slowly for you. It is not "Oberoni" to outline an alternative rule and then point out that people will still be critical of it. In fact it's in no way an "Oberoni" to outline an alternative rule at all.
OK, perhaps I need more coffee in me. Rereading it, yes, I am wrong. My mistake, I assumed you typed something more intelligent (but still wrong) compared to what you said. But what I was initially twigging on was. . .
PhoneLobster wrote:There is a simple solution. Don't include romantic social actions. At all. Just remove the related skill sets and the default Seductive social flavor option.
And you opt not to take it because . . . people will still be upset?
I can see why, considering you're neutron star dense, and no amount of following good game design advice will remove that.
Your assertions about what Frank will or will not do are unimportant and meaningless outside of the context of you hanging around a message board that is, amusingly, socially dominated by Frank (I guess he wins at social combat regardless of what system you're using!) for no apparent reason other than to . . . I don't know, harass him with your continued existence? 'cause it's not like you ever get a positive reception, nor does this seem like a good use of your time, nor do you seem to derive anything from it. I mean, if I'm actually wrong, retract this entire tangent, but I don't think I am, and that's why I mentioned a vendetta - it seemed like the simplest explanation for why you're still talking here, so I'm operating on that until demonstrated otherwise. It could be a softer, gentler vendetta, like, "I want to post here until I am vindicated by people's responses," sure, rather than the blood-and-murder types, but, you know, it's what I've got for an answer right now, and it seems like the explanation that will furnish me with the most useful answers. You're kinda like shadzar, except more capable of stringing together coherent sentences.
If Frank has a point, and it is more proper for you to not include mechanics which encourage people to punch people in the face and then seduce them, then you should operate on that point regardless of how much you hate his guts. If all that is holding you back is whether or not it will silence social outcry, then I can only presume "whether or not it will receive or evade social opprobium" is also the sole determining factor in whether or not you choose to avoid doing bad things or pursue doing good things. In which case I feel sorry for you, and I will have to shoot you first in the postapocalypse since the breakdown of society will evidently leave you as coherent as a thrashing rager zombie, any sense of right or wrong destroyed by the absence of potential social consequence. If you believe that it should be included for (whatever reason), then remarking that the solution can be taken is meaningless, as you do not believe excising the mechanics will improve anything. Also, I will not shoot you in the postapocalypse, because you've demonstrated the ability to think as an agent beyond a purely social context, even if I don't particularly favor your conclusions. Given that you are focusing mostly on whether or not you can silence Frank's criticisms, rather than actually engaging with the point, I can infer only that you mostly are acting on some kind of hate-impulse against him and perverse concern about your social image on . . . this board, of all things, rather than actually worrying about whether or not it should be in there. So, jury is still out on how you will behave in a Left 4 Dead or Fallout type of scenario.
Engaging with social response is utterly futile when considering whether something is a good idea in game design. If you are worried about it, you will never make anything. Personally, what I've observed is people will randomly approve or disapprove of mechanics that encourage rapey rape action based almost entirely on packaging and presentation of it. The entire argument of "but how will people think about it?" is unfortunately actually not as important when considering the mechanic itself. If you give it a sexy packaging and softpedal the hot rape action, you can and will get away with it. If you suck at writing erotica, well, you end up in the same bin as CthulhuTech. So, the best choice is in fact to do what you think is best, and then
shut up about why. You are right that people will go on criticizing you either way, because if it's not RPGPundit then it's Ron Edwards et alia, basically, and then the misoludic Gaming Den hates everything, but that does not mean you should never listen to critique. It also doesn't mean you should keep
talking - if you think defending your design decisions is a losing battle, then surely trying to undermine the social position of those who criticize you by casting aspersions on them is also one.
Which is an excellent reason to not listen to me.
And if that is a better use of your time, by all means, please do so.
You can presume I have my own depraved reasons for posting here. Perhaps I am simply an idiot, yes?