Vulcan

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... What, no rivers? Not even a pond?

Re: Social effects Sure, we can increase the options for those who want it. I just don't want someone shoving their gourmet meal down my throat; I hate gourmet food. Give me a simple, unseasoned steak any day!

Re: Social effects Isn't 'a series of ranked modifers' just a clumsy way of referring to Psychological Limitations? Besides, if the character has the Womanizer Psych Limit, he actually has to make an EGO Roll to stay on task and not take the lady up on her offer... assuming the player doesn't just relent.

Re: Social effects Got me on that one.

Re: Social effects What a way to punish your players. Good job there. Not! I simply cannot understand what you're trying to illustrate here. Lord knows I've tried, but I just can't. Maybe it's time for me to stop beating my head against the wall, it's giving me such a headache...

Re: Social effects Bull. Right now, Persuasion can be ignored by the player when he feels it would not be fun to play along. Make the system 'objective' and now he has no choice but to play along even though he's not having fun anymore. That is what makes those points in social skills more valuable than anywhere else - they allow the player to continue having fun. For you. Other people do have different opinons. We are talking about making Persuasion (and such things) more binding, aren't we? If they are more binding, you bet your bottom dollar that people are going to change their characters to make them more resistant to it! Just what the game needs - more paperwork!

Re: Social effects Now you're talking about POWERS, which are literally worlds different from SKILLS. It's not in the same ballpark, it's not in the same league, it's not even the same f*****g sport! (I always wanted to use that quote... ) I don't care if you have Persuasion at 300-, you're not going to convince Superman to kill Lex Luthor. Mind Control him if you want to do that. That's what it's for. That's why it uses different rules. That's why you generally get two separate breakout rolls before you actually have to act on a Mind Control. Because when all the rolls are done, you now do as you are commanded. That's why it's a POWER, not a SKILL.

Re: Social effects Totally agreed and repped.

Re: Social effects Oh, dearie dearie me. I see that someone really doesn't have any idea what I'm talking about, do they? I'll try explaining it this way. In our roleplaying group (and, I suspect, most others) we generally go with the Interaction skill rolls of NPCs (or even PC's) unless a) there is a pressing in-character reason not to, or doing so would not be fun. This fits in with the rules which say (quote is taken from the Seduction skill, p48 of 5E) "This skill is normally only for use on NPC's; a player should have more control over his character's actions." Thus, we contol our character's actions by going with it. Call it 'voluntarily relenting' if you will. In a 'hard' system like what you seem to want, there is nothing 'voluntary' about it. The skill roll is made; you will go along with it no matter what or you're breaking the rules and subject to whatever railroading the skill-using character decides. Isn't that what we have now? Only the optional part of your statement isn't optional right now, is it? Ultimately what we are arguing about isn't "Should there be a more detailed/binding social resolution system?" but "Should a more detailed/binding social resolution system be optional or not?" I think it should be optional, so the players who want it can use it, and the players who don't want it don't have to use it - or more likely, find another game to play. You, on the other hand, seem bound and determined to make it a core rule and shove it down everyone's throat whether they like it or not. I've said repeatedly, if you want it you can have it as an option. Why are you so deadly opposed to that? Why does it have to be the default rule for you to accept it? Why can you not compromise? This sounds suspiciously like some of the straw men who marched back and forth in the COM debate... And that is why we will always disagree about this subject. I see the roleplaying as the living, beating heart of the HEROs social system. Without the roleplaying - without the social interaction between the Player and the GM! - then there is no social interaction at all. The rules allow Shy Sally to play the Faceman sucessfully. They are not supposed to totally replace roleplaying all together. Sure. That's fine. That's even great. I won't be playing in those games because they would bore the heck out of me - but that's just me. I'm sure there are others who would be delighted with that so I'm fine with a set of optional rules to suit them. However, the core of the HERO System is that it duplictates the sort of physical action seen in comic books and action movies. It's at it's core a physical system. That is what it does best, and for the most part the players of the HERO System not only expect that, but actually play it for that reason. That's why such a detailed and binding (objective, if you will) social system should be an optional rule. It does not fit smoothly in with the core of the game.

Re: Social System This is an excellent suggestion, and not just for social interaction. Many skill rolls could benefit from being broken down into smaller stages to avoid the 'one failed roll = failed mission' problem.

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... Must spread rep around yadda yadda...

Re: Social effects One more thing to bear in mind when looking at social effects - PC vs. PC interaction. Much has been said about GM's abusing a 'hard' system, and the comebacks seem to center around 'doing that makes you a BAD GM and therefore that is not a good argument. Nothing has been said about players making a hardcore social b*****d and taking control of the other PC's with his mad social skillz. Remember, if the NPC rolls are binding on PCs, then PC rolls on PCs are just as binding! And now the potential for abuse depends not on how unreasonable the GM is, but how unreasonable the most unreasonable player at the table is! I cannot see such an affair ending at all well. I see hard feelings, wrecked game nights, and lost friendships over it. Not what I would call a good time.

Re: Social effects

Re: Social effects To say that "She looks attractive" is appropriate. To say that "You think she looks attractive" is not. Because you're dictating to the player what his character is thinking, rather than let the player think for his character. There are a couple of questions left unanswered before I can give you an real answer of my own. Is Roger currently single? Does he have disads like 'Womanizer' on his character sheet - or 'Compulsively monogomous?' Is he just here socializing, or is he shadowing someone - and does he have disads pertaining to that (Obsessed with Crimefighting vs. Easily Distracted)? In short, the situation is so vague that a simple yes or no is flat-out impossible. Having said that, well, unless there was a compelling reason it would be out-of-character, I'd totally go along with the results of her seduction roll. (And if I was playing a womaizer, compelling reasons wouldn't stop him either! )

Re: Social effects I would have to see this system and toy with it a bit before I would endorse it. But if this sort of philosphy was behind it, and worked into it, then maybe - just maybe - I could get behind it. The point being that the sort of change that would ruin the character and make it totally unplayable should be very very very hard to do. Certainly for a single roll - or even a single set of rolls - it should be virtually impossible.

Re: Social effects

Re: Order of the Stick Hanging out with Xykon, mayhaps?

Re: The Distinctive, The Special, The Cool The social systems in the rules - Interaction Skills, PRE attacks, and even Super Skills built as Mental Powers . They provide enough assistance for me to play a character who is really persuasive (or seductive, or good at making a speech) without straitjacketing me into one option when someone else persades me. Our group refers to it as 'getting the rules out of the way of the roleplaying!':D COM. Sometimes I want my character to be visually striking without bothering to make them really social-oriented. COM works perfectly for that! The SPEED CHART! Core of the whole system, without it there simply is no HERO System! And Disadvantages. That is such a great tool for communicating with the GM about what aspects of my character I really want to see emphaiszed in game play. My only complaint is that perhaps we should change the name to 'Complications,' because to call them 'Disadvantages' puts a rather negative spin on one of the best parts of the game!

Re: Social effects In other words, it sounds you want a stick to whack players who don't 'roleplay' the way you think they should. And once again you're insisting in equating the physical - which is quantifiable - with the social - which is NOT. Someone can act convinced without being convinced, and how the heck would the person doing then convincing be able to tell the difference? On the other hand, someone swings a sword and it's pretty obvious what the result of the swing was... There is that, of course. Until Puck (the GM) makes another persuasion roll to force the issue - "You MUST kill her, Jack, there is no time to save her!"

Re: Social System Exactly. Although the more I look at what you posted, the more I think you're on the right track.

Re: Social System If the player is roleplaying Piffany, +3. Otherwise he's not roleplaying Piffany. Congratulations! You're a good roleplayer! Look at that! We totally agree! Sometimes a character does things the player would never do because it is in character for them to do so. Notbecause the dice said so, because it was in character. It's that simple. My bad. I'm bringing the 'yes-no' argument over here. Sorry... So. How do we go about making this thing work again?

Re: Social effects I may, indeed, get a bit worked up during these discussions. But generally I keep it in check and don't let it get personal. On the other hand if the parts I emphasised were not actually intended to be insults to my gaming preferences, then you certainly worded them... poorly. Doc, I am willing to see a 'hard' social system in the rules - so long as they are kept clearly optional. Why do you seem so strident about making them 'the one true way'?

Re: Social effects No, Jack's PLAYER determined in character creation that Jack is the type of guy who believes in the goodness of people in general, and Lily in particular. In light of that, he decided that Jack was not swayed by Lily's act, or by Puck's argument. Could it have backfired on him? Heck Yes! What if Lily really had turned? Jack's shot at Darkness would have allowed Lily to kill the Unicorn, and Darkness wins anyway! That's where the uncertainty lies: has she turned, or hasn't she; do you believe in her, or don't you? And that is the heart of it. Yes, there are more than two options. Do I believe that Jack belives that Lily has really turned? If so, what does he do about it? If not, why not? And what can he do to best help her in that case? Can he do something self-sacrificing and dive in the way? Sure he can. Granted, that's a long way to go to get there, with no guarentee that he'll get there at the right time, plus even if he does it he's just dead and the Unicorn is still chained down and vulnerable. And he already has his bow in hand and a held phase....

Re: Social effects Not to metion that Glamdring wasn't the tool he needed for the job...

Re: Social effects Flabby roleplaying, hunh? Why should he be concerned? Jack now truly believes that Lily has made her choice, and it wasn't him. Not to mention the little detail that she's threatening to kill the last unicorn and damn the world to eternal winter... So why not kill her? She's evil now, right? Sure he could have. He chose to believe in her heart, not in the proof before his eyes. I insist on the most unsatisfactory one? It sounds like you are quite convinced that I am the one pushing everyone else to accept that my opinion is the ONE TRUE WAY for the future of HEROs. And yet, I'm the one who is willing to compromise between our positions by making it an optonal rule.... You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, telling me I am guilty of 'flabby' and 'unsatisfactory' gaming is quite insulting. Please refrain from doing so in the future.