Social Maneuvering

Discuss rules and clarifications for Chronicles of Darkness (aka 2nd Edition/2E) publications.

Discussions can include books not available for play in Wanton Wicked.

Moderators: WW7 Rules Master, WW7 Administrators

Locked
Ephsy
Wicked Supporter
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Up the ventilation shaft.

Re: Social Maneuvering

Post by Ephsy » Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:46 am

Here's the thing. The use of violence (specially mindless violence) carries consequences. If you allow anyone to just flex a dice-pool with negligible boundaries in anything resembling verisimilitude, that will cheapen everyone's experience. If I'm cold blooded killer, talks about Jesus to make him repent are going to strain my suspension of disbelief. I love the SM system but there has to be clearly defined notions on where it just doesn't works because the system itself assumes it doesn't works in every situation.
Curiosity killed the mage.

Player of Aaron Buel & Shosuke Ishio.
magus666
Integral Player
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:21 pm
Contact:

Post by magus666 » Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:31 am

Yes, you keep saying that. "It wouldn't work." But you still fail to provide any proof or evidence, either within the game system or IRL to support that claimed impossibility. Difficult? Maybe. Impossible? Cite proof. Of course I will admit that finding proof that something is impossible is usually difficult. Finding proof that something ISN'T impossible is much easier. A single case proves that. Like for instance-
http://www.christianpost.com/news/chuck ... ife-73496/

Taking specifics out of it, like religion and atheism, you are effectively saying "It won't work, because I don't want it to." That, as far as I know, is not a mechanic in this game. Nor is it in the spirit of co-operative game play. If you and another player agree that it probably wouldn't work, that' fine. Unilaterally saying "No, that won't affect my PC" without something more than your feelings about it to support you, is not. This is specifically WHY we are discussing the Social Maneuvering system, and why it is a vitally needed mechanic. So that a player who HAS the dots on his character's sheet, HAS spent the xp for the abilities, and HAS had the IC justifications to have those abilities is able to USE them without another player saying "No, sorry, you can't use that on ME, because I don't feel like it."
Ephsy
Wicked Supporter
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Up the ventilation shaft.

Post by Ephsy » Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:34 pm

Character concept wise dude. There's your needed trait.

Trying to pitch some bullshit missionary discourse to say, a werewolf who's seen how the spirit world works, and does not clings to any human religion, for example, invites him to roll his eyes and shut the door.

Trying to do the same to someone who, for plot purposes, is a remorseless son of a bitch, entails the same. Some approaches simply won't work. And that's a given in any RPG, barring dramatic enough circumstances, such as impending death, or being high out of your mind. Which require fucking setup in the first place.

Yes, it won't work because it fucks with my character concept. I find it personally, irredeemably incongruent with how I envisioned the character to begin with.

As you said yourself, it's a collaborative effort. Why is the guy trying to initiate SM so dead-set on a religious approach? Can't he come up with something else?
Curiosity killed the mage.

Player of Aaron Buel & Shosuke Ishio.
magus666
Integral Player
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:21 pm
Contact:

Post by magus666 » Thu Apr 14, 2016 2:38 pm

So....yes. It won't work because "I don't like it". You could have just said that.
Ephsy
Wicked Supporter
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Up the ventilation shaft.

Post by Ephsy » Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:28 pm

magus666 wrote:So....yes. It won't work because "I don't like it". You could have just said that.
That particular approach? For that particular character? No.
Curiosity killed the mage.

Player of Aaron Buel & Shosuke Ishio.
User avatar
Falco1029
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:32 am

Post by Falco1029 » Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:51 pm

I think everyone's gone around in circles at this point; nothing new is being said, so let's just let the admins and designers figure out what's going to be used in what way, at this point?
"Do not suffer a sillyface to live :x"
NickP
Player
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:22 pm

Post by NickP » Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:52 pm

Ephsy, the error in your argument is that you are basing it on a completely incorrect premise.

'This is the character concept. It's the way I see the character. Therefore, anything that would conflict with this or change it is wrong and can't be allowed'

That's not right. A character concept is just an idea, not fact, and to assume that other players and PCs have to abide by that idea is wrong. You are assuming for this situation that because part of the character concept is remorseless son of a bitch, that the other PC has to agree and change their tactics to suit it. Could the other PCs concept be relentless evangelist? Whose concept should take precedent? Maybe the one who has the abilities to go along with it.

Here's a different example. This character's concept is super sneaky spy. He's got a Dexterity 2 and Stealth 1. Are you going to assume that other PCs will agree that you don't have to make a die roll for them not to see you, because your concept says you're super sneaky? That's what you're doing when you assume you are immune to some kind of social manipulation because your concept says so, if you don't have the abilities on your character sheet to back it up.
Last edited by NickP on Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
magus666
Integral Player
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:21 pm
Contact:

Post by magus666 » Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:01 pm

Agreed. The original discussion was...I think...should we use the Social Maneuvering System? I believe that we HAVE...more or less...agreed on that. What is being argued about now is whether or not you actually have to play by the rules if they are used. That is a topic for a different discussion.
Ephsy
Wicked Supporter
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Up the ventilation shaft.

Post by Ephsy » Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:05 pm

NickP wrote:Ephsy, the error in your argument is that you are basing it on a completely incorrect premise.

'This is the character concept. It's the way I see the character. Therefore, anything that would conflict with this or change it is wrong and can't be allowed'

That's not right. A character concept is just an idea, not fact, and to assume that other players and PCs have to abide by that idea is wrong. You are assuming for this situation that because part of the character concept is remorseless son of a bitch, that the other PC has to agree and change their tactics to suit it. Could the other PCs concept be relentless evangelist? Whose concept should take precedent? Maybe the one who has the abilities to go along with it.

Here's a different example. This character's concept is super sneaky spy. He's got a Dexterity 2 and Stealth 1. Are you going to assume that other PCs will agree that you don't have to make a die roll for them not to see you, because your concept says you're super sneaky? That's what you're doing when you assume you are immune to some kind of social manipulation because your concept says so, if you don't have the abilities on your character sheet to back it up.
That's not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that there are some approaches that are simply incongruent with a given character to conform to a given approach, such as the examples I've listed above.

A character concept should be as valid as any other sheet trait. Every freaking trait in the game is an idea. Even your strength score.

Your notion of a "super sneaky spy" with just 3 dice to Stealth is flawed, an any ST would tell you as much. Where's the merits that augment his "sneakiness"? Why is it just 3 dice on stealth?

How does that concept informs his personality? It doesn't. Shitty concept.

Which concept should take precedence? If I'm playing a son of a bitch and you're playing a relentless evangelist, having the evangelist keep attempting and failing at converting the asshole pays tribute to it's concept. Having the asshole convert because the evangelist has some ungodly dicepool doesn't pays the asshole any tribute.

Dr. House 1 - God 0
Curiosity killed the mage.

Player of Aaron Buel & Shosuke Ishio.
NickP
Player
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:22 pm

Post by NickP » Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:26 am

This is the argument you're making. The approach is incongruent with the character to conform to so the character can ignore it. Not the numerical traits on the character, the concept. The approach doesn't conform to the idea you have of the characters concept, so it won't work. Just said the same thing in different words.

Yes, right. The idea of a super sneaky spy with just 3 dice is flawed and any ST would tell you as much. Where's the merits that augment his "sneakiness". Why is it just 3 dice on stealth?

Change super sneaky spy to remorseless son of a bitch.

Where's the merits that augment his "remorselessness"? What are his dice on resolve and composure? The idea of a remorseless son of a bitch with just low resolve and composure is flawed and any ST would tell you as much.

Character Concept is just an idea. Strength score isn't, it's a quantifiable value that costs experience and has justification. Strength score adds a specific number of dice to your rolls using that trait. Those rolls can either succeed or fail. If you've got a lot of dice, you've got a better chance to succeed, but you can always fail, even if failing is incongruent with the concept of the given character. If the quantifiable traits don't support the concept, you don't get to decide that something someone else does is incongruent with your concept and so they lose, don't have to roll.

And you can't roll more dice than God.
magus666
Integral Player
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:21 pm
Contact:

Post by magus666 » Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:07 pm

If the quantifiable traits don't support the concept, you don't get to decide that something someone else does is incongruent with your concept and so they lose, don't have to roll.
The point has been made. Re-made. Re-Re-made. Signed, sealed and delivered. Continuing the discussion now is like trying to teach a pig to dance. It just wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
Ephsy
Wicked Supporter
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Up the ventilation shaft.

Post by Ephsy » Fri Apr 15, 2016 2:36 pm

NickP wrote: Where's the merits that augment his "remorselessness"? What are his dice on resolve and composure? The idea of a remorseless son of a bitch with just low resolve and composure is flawed and any ST would tell you as much.
His breaking points.
Curiosity killed the mage.

Player of Aaron Buel & Shosuke Ishio.
User avatar
JillA
Defender of the Faith, Keeper of the Scrolls
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:43 pm
Contact:

Post by JillA » Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:07 pm

Falco1029 wrote:I think everyone's gone around in circles at this point; nothing new is being said, so let's just let the admins and designers figure out what's going to be used in what way, at this point?

This ^

Thanks again everyone for your feedback. There is a lot here to read and digest, and a lot of opinions that can be applied to more than just social maneuvering as they speak to a greater desire (both for more agency or for more controlled responses). At this point, a lot of the same points have been made, and the thread has gotten to a length that it's only useful for those who have been actively participating the whole time.

I'm going to go ahead and lock the thread so that it can be something anyone can read through without a risk that it gets even longer. Thanks again for your feedback.
~Wiki and Forum Admin~
Player Handle: eiragwen
Locked