Phonelobster's Current Social Mechanics How Do They Work?

[PhoneLobster]

Usually the failure of multiple damage tracks is due to not having attack type parity, isn't it? If a character can only get Red or Blue damage, then of course the optimal choice is to make all Red or all Blue parties.

If you allow any choice in specialization that's going to happen.

But if each character can provide both Red and Blue damage on demand, you can keep the types different and make the optimal choice be per encounter or per enemy instead of per everything.

Partitioning character build resources to attempt to create balance is all well and good. But partitioning character resources and saying "You must deal Nice Damage with these character resources" is unpalatable.

Also, per encounter and per enemy tactical homogeneity motivations are still really bad. They lead to "FINISH HIM! FINISH THEM ALL!" as a strong motivation and that is somewhat MORE of a "moral" issue in actual practice for D&D style gaming.

Because remember we still actually DO want to be able to actually switch from our combat encounter to a social encounter. Smoothly and without fuss no less. You actually want to be able to potentially stop shooting and make friends, otherwise it's permanently take no prisoners and kill them all every time a stray shot is fired. That's an extreme level of psycho murder hobo behavior that actually does happen and actually would be nice to have an alternative to.

Granted, it's a shell game

If I wanted to play a shell game I'd just rename my HP resource from "Injuries" to "Stamina" or "Resistance" or something else to reinforce the abstract nature of it.

It wouldn't make a difference. Rape crowd will still call rape like they have since before the unified damage mechanic.

Instead of Naughty/Nice

Nasty or Nice. If you care about branding enough to call your "bad" damage something sufficiently condemning for PR reasons you don't want to call it Naughty.

For the really serious end states, both bars would need to be depleted.

Er... wait... doesn't that just mean that you've just written a system where the ONLY way you could create a "really serious" end state flavored on romance would be to combine physical violence and social attacks?

I see that as being a problematic move in attempting to appease the rape crowd.

[Mask_De_H]

Really serious as in "essentially dead", PL.

[Fuchs]

I really don't get this whole "it allows rape" complaint. As was pointed out before, D&D allows rape already by allowing characters to knock foes unconscious. It also allows rape through mind control spells.

Having the "saved one" falling for the "rescuer" or the wounded one falling for the healer has a lot of tradition, so being more vulnerable to social actions while wounded makes sense as long as said action is positive. Even if the wounds are done by allies of the character he can still play good cop to their bad cop. (Becoming friends after beating each other up is also quite common in a variety of genres, from superheros to various manga.)

Of course that can be used for rape, but then, so can the normal combat and magic system.

[Kaelik]

No one in the entire universe outside of PL's imaginary strawmen is complaining that is allows rape. People are complaining that it mechanically incentivizes rape by making people more likely to have sex with you if you have previously beaten them to a bloody pulp. Or alternatively, if you stood by and watched them get beaten to a bloody pulp.

Which is why PL's long tirade about how he won't make his system less rapey because people will still call it rapey so he stand strong on the principle that Casanova's regularly beat people to a pulp before they seduce them, and that combining the two is the only possible way to have a Casanova type character, is so fucking stupid.

Because if you make it less rapey, possibly even not rapey, no one will call it rapey. But notice the distinction is not whether rape is possible, it is whether it mechanically incentivizes rapey behavior.

[Fuchs]

Because if you make it less rapey, possibly even not rapey, no one will call it rapey. But notice the distinction is not whether rape is possible, it is whether it mechanically incentivizes rapey behavior.

If anyone wants to commit rape in the game, there are already easy to use ways through mind control magic. Is anyone here really, honestly arguing that setting up complicated plots to beat someone and then seduce them is somehow more likely and more offensive than someone using charm person, or potions, or simple force?

People are screaming about an edge case of this system, while happily accepting clear-cut rape facilitators in the core System of D&D?

[Almaz]

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. Does that make the critics shut up about the terrors of daring to have social actions in combat? No. It won't. They'll continue to run around like chickens with their heads cut off and ignore every reasonable interpretation of the mechanics that are less "creepy" than their worst case "well if I try really hard and squint sideways" scenarios.

Did . . .
Did you just Oberoni yourself?
Like, you're the very game designer, and arguing you can rule zero yourself.

Well, I legit don't see how anyone is supposed to have a conversation with you. Have fun!

[Kaelik]

If anyone wants to commit rape in the game, there are already easy to use ways through mind control magic. Is anyone here really, honestly arguing that setting up complicated plots to beat someone and then seduce them is somehow more likely and more offensive than someone using charm person, or potions, or simple force?

People are screaming about an edge case of this system, while happily accepting clear-cut rape facilitators in the core System of D&D?

Fuck, did you even read a single goddam word of what I said? A system is bad if it mechanically incentivizes rapey behaviour.

D&D does not mechanically incentivize rapey behaviour because people are not more likely to want to have sex with you after you punch them in the face.

That is it. That is all that needs to be said. You don't need stupid defenses of FATAL that say it is a fine game if you just don't rape people in it. You can just accept that systems which make people more likely to say yes to sex after face punchings as bad systems.

[Fuchs]

Fuck, did you even read a single goddam word of what I said? A system is bad if it mechanically incentivizes rapey behaviour.

D&D does not mechanically incentivize rapey behaviour because people are not more likely to want to have sex with you after you punch them in the face.

That is it. That is all that needs to be said. You don't need stupid defenses of FATAL that say it is a fine game if you just don't rape people in it. You can just accept that systems which make people more likely to say yes to sex after face punchings as bad systems.

If you want to have sex in D&D with an unwilling subject you can use charm person or other mind control spells. Anything else is more complicated and less likely to work.

If we already have a system that offers perfect tools to a rapist, complaining about a system that may offer a rapist another, inferiour set of tools as an edge case is stupid.

[PhoneLobster]

Did you just Oberoni yourself?

...No?

In what imaginable way is "the people using this criticism aren't satisfied with anything" suddenly "Oberoni"?

[Dean]

Fuck, did you even read a single goddam word of what I said? A system is bad if it mechanically incentivizes rapey behaviour.

D&D does not mechanically incentivize rapey behaviour because people are not more likely to want to have sex with you after you punch them in the face.

Well D&D has no seduction mechanics. But lets pretend it exists and is being handled by either Charisma checks, Will saves, Diplomacy, or Bluff. In second edition it was a Charisma check opposed by an Intelligence check for instance. Regardless of what it used it WOULD be mechanically incentivized to make the target Sickened, Shaken, Cursed, Energy Drained, Crushing Despaired, or Feebleminded for instance.

The only reason D&D's seduction mechanics don't synergize with attacks is because D&D has literally no seduction mechanics.

[Almaz]

Did you just Oberoni yourself?

...No?

In what imaginable way is "the people using this criticism aren't satisfied with anything" suddenly "Oberoni"?

"I could edit this out, but I will instead leave it in the text because the audience can easily do so to their own tastes."

It is, no matter how you slice it, rule-zeroing yourself. I don't actually care about your stupid vendetta against Frank or anyone else, and you can pretend that it doesn't incentivize beating people in order to get them in bed (which, fyi, is not welcomed in the BDSM circuit either - that's after negotiations), but if "they can edit it" is your counterargument for "why not," then you just demonstrated the logical processing power of a broken circuit that can return 0 and only 0. So to speak.

[PhoneLobster]

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.

[Almaz]

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. . .

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?

[Blade]

In Shadowrun, wound penalties are negative modifiers to all actions (except soaking). Social skills are resisted with an opposed roll.

This means that a wounded character is less likely to resist seduction.

Does it mean that Shadowrun is a rape simulator as well?

[Username17]

In Shadowrun, wound penalties are negative modifiers to all actions (except soaking). Social skills are resisted with an opposed roll.

This means that a wounded character is less likely to resist seduction.

Does it mean that Shadowrun is a rape simulator as well?

That's factually wrong. You aren't penalized on resistance tests by wound penalties in Shadowrun. Wound penalties make you worse at negotiating, they make you worse at seducing people, but they don't actually make you any more likely to be seduced.

Having an incentive structure in which punching people makes them more likely to want to become your girlfriend is fucked up. There isn't any amount of lipstick you can put on that pig that makes the spousal abuse simulation part of a game be something other than horrible. If you found such a case in another game, it would mean that there was something in another game that was also fucked up, it wouldn't mean that the underlying idea was somehow OK.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

SR4A:

Seduction is a specialization of con

Con checks are opposed by the target's con or negotiation and Intuition.

Note, it's an opposed test, not a resistance test.

Wound modifiers apply therefore.

So, SR4A is fucked up?

[PhoneLobster]

Perhaps I am simply an idiot, yes?

You just wrote 869 words which consisted largely of complaining about people daring to disagree with people who aren't even you on an internet forum. The high points were personal attacks and strong evidence of your very own strange obsession with Frank.

But I liked the whole thing where you went on an over 200 word tangent where you criticized my argument that I shouldn't try and appease unsatisfiable demands by... rebuking me for trying to appease unsatisfiable demands. And then finished that up by just telling me to ignore everyone "sell my product" better and also to shut up.

That was nearly surreal comedy gold. Do you ever write for the Shadzar collective?

[Almaz]

Perhaps I am simply an idiot, yes?

You just wrote 869 words which consisted largely of complaining about people daring to disagree with people who aren't even you on an internet forum. The high points were personal attacks and strong evidence of your very own strange obsession with Frank.

But I liked the whole thing where you went on an over 200 word tangent where you criticized my argument that I shouldn't try and appease unsatisfiable demands by... rebuking me for trying to appease unsatisfiable demands. And then finished that up by just telling me to ignore everyone "sell my product" better and also to shut up.

That was nearly surreal comedy gold. Do you ever write for the Shadzar collective?

Oddsok mangrove shrooms creep blisteringly below drunkenness.

[PhoneLobster]

Do you ever write for the Shadzar collective?

Oddsok mangrove shrooms creep blisteringly below drunkenness.

So that's a yes then.

[Almaz]

Do you ever write for the Shadzar collective?

Oddsok mangrove shrooms creep blisteringly below drunkenness.

So that's a yes then.

If shadzar paid me 5c a word to troll these forums with inane rants and a fairly open-ended word count, I would do it in a heartbeat. The rant I posted just there would more than pay for the amount of alcohol it would take, and then I'd just be getting started.

[Lago PARANOIA]

This is changing the subject (thank fucking God) but one of my pet peeves is the meme floating around these boards that 'beating someone in combat = friendship'.

That's fucking retarded. People don't make friends, even in the middle of a sword duel, by getting their ass kicked. They do it by respecting their opponent's shiny sword/technique/honorable actions and use it as a basis of friendship. The actual damage done is irrelevant. Hell, depending on how one of the aggressors behaved in combat -- by, say, using hostages or poisons or demonic transformations or pointed insults -- it's pretty fucking likely that you've damaged your standing.

So for the love of God, please shut the fuck up about saying how in-genre it is to make friends after you kick someone's ass. You are missing the point.

[Fuchs]

This is changing the subject (thank fucking God) but one of my pet peeves is the meme floating around these boards that 'beating someone in combat = friendship'.

That's fucking retarded. People don't make friends, even in the middle of a sword duel, by getting their ass kicked. They do it by respecting their opponent's shiny sword/technique/honorable actions and use it as a basis of friendship. The actual damage done is irrelevant. Hell, depending on how one of the aggressors behaved in combat -- by, say, using hostages or poisons or demonic transformations or pointed insults -- it's pretty fucking likely that you've damaged your standing.

So for the love of God, please shut the fuck up about saying how in-genre it is to make friends after you kick someone's ass. You are missing the point.

Becoming friends after a drawn-out fight that resulted in one losing but both ending up quite beaten up is quite common in fighting mangas. Kenichi has a few of those happening. The damage done is not irrelevant, but often the reason why a technique is respected.

So, yes, making friends after kicking someone's ass or getting one's ass kicked is absolutely in genre.

Edit: Not to mention that with hitpoints, one can often assume the damage done is more like exhaustion from glancing blows and dodging than actual wounds. Some systems that combine HP and wound points actually state so.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Becoming friends after a drawn-out fight that resulted in one losing but both ending up quite beaten up is quite common in fighting mangas.

Hey, you know what else is common?

[*] One of the combatants being provoked into a homicidal rage after a drawn-out fight (Fight Club, Star Wars)
[*] The combatants becoming friendly after having a long fight which resulted in little bloodshed (The Princess Bride)
[*] A long fight actually breeds contempt into one or both fighters (Dark Knight Rises, Dragonball, Star Wars again)
[*] A long fight which makes one of the combatants filled with hopelessness at their situation after being optimistic (Naruto, YGO, Star Wars yet again)

Having combat damage stack with friendship invalidates these common results of fights. Luke and Anakin Skywalker and Bane were less inclined to negotiate with, let alone make friends with, their opponents after exchanging in fisticuffs, but a system like that wrecks those moments. Fight Club (probably THE movie about making friends through fighting) had Jack and Tyler become friends after an extended fight but also became irreconcilable after an extended fight. That should be more enough evidence to show that, no, beating people up does not generically help with friendship negotiations.

Take that shit out of the game.

[Fuchs]

Becoming friends after a drawn-out fight that resulted in one losing but both ending up quite beaten up is quite common in fighting mangas.

Hey, you know what else is common?

[*] One of the combatants being provoked into a homicidal rage after a drawn-out fight (Fight Club, Star Wars)
[*] The combatants becoming friendly after having a long fight which resulted in little bloodshed (The Princess Bride)
[*] A long fight actually breeds contempt into one or both fighters (Dark Knight Rises, Dragonball, Star Wars again)
[*] A long fight which makes one of the combatants filled with hopelessness at their situation after being optimistic (Naruto, YGO, Star Wars yet again)

Having combat damage stack with friendship invalidates these common results of fights. Luke and Anakin Skywalker and Bane were less inclined to negotiate with, let alone make friends with, their opponents after exchanging in fisticuffs, but a system like that wrecks those moments. Fight Club (probably THE movie about making friends through fighting) had Jack and Tyler become friends after an extended fight but also became irreconcilable after an extended fight. That should be more enough evidence to show that, no, beating people up does not generically help with friendship negotiations.

Take that shit out of the game.

As I said, you don't need to have hit point damage be bloody at all, so Princess Bride is actually in favor of this system. Dragon ball too had such examples, as a fighting manga. I don't give a damn about fight club, nor do I care about Batman.

But you are not forced to become friends with this system - it's one option among some. And even less are you forced to make friends after winning a fight - you can always kill the enemy you vanquished off.

[nockermensch]

Frank calls it a Rape Simulator, I call it a Nanoha Simulator.

Probably still not the correct genre for D&D, but whatever.