Author Topic: I disagree with a statement by Josh  (Read 41377 times)

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2011, 01:31:54 AM »
Then explain to me, clearly, why am wrong, and why veekie is wrong, by having experiences that contradicted your experience.  Simply stating I'm wrong is not sufficient; dismissing my experience as an outlier is not sufficient.  Explain, don't dismiss.  Otherwise, your responses don't present as contributing anything meaningful to the conversation.

Your experiences do not contradict my experiences (indeed such a thing is logically impossible, but I get that you meant your experiences seem to contradict the conclusions I have drawn.)

You, and the others, keep presenting evidence perfectly in line with my conclusions.  But ultimately we cannot have a discussion until you give your point in a clear declarative statement.  Remember this whole thing started with the specific.  Not the general.  The original poster acknowledged that he disliked WoD and that it was inferior.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #41 on: December 11, 2011, 11:27:44 AM »
How about this, D&D does have some social mechanics, albeit not in the core rules and implemented poorly at best.  Such things like Fame/Infamy in UA, Guilds in a variety of books (particularly FR books), and, to some extent, organization affiliations.  I believe these are what you're talking about when you mention social mechanics, since these things are mechanics geared to chance how the NPCs and PCs interact with each other dynamically based on the PC's actions.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2011, 11:57:02 AM »
How about this, D&D does have some social mechanics, albeit not in the core rules and implemented poorly at best.  Such things like Fame/Infamy in UA, Guilds in a variety of books (particularly FR books), and, to some extent, organization affiliations.  I believe these are what you're talking about when you mention social mechanics, since these things are mechanics geared to chance how the NPCs and PCs interact with each other dynamically based on the PC's actions.

By the terms stated, no.

Even expanding the terms, no.  These systems are at best color that may affect the GM's decisions slightly.  But you cannot, for example make a roll that makes another player do something.  And you don't ever do something that changes the game.

In DnD and similar if you make the persuasion roll, the GM gives you a good result.  If you fail you get a bad result.

In some games, you pick what you want and if you make the roll it happens.  That kind of game is a paradigm shift from games like DnD.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2011, 12:07:38 PM »
Its arguable that mental control and influence spells do just that however. In Exalted they are part and parcel of social conflict(indeed if your opponent is stubborn you'd HAVE to do that to wear down resistance)
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2011, 12:18:39 PM »
Wait a second, so you're saying that these games don't have social mechanics because the players don't have the same kind of control over the game that the GM has?

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 617
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2011, 12:19:59 PM »
Well, while it's not core, the Sway subsystem I mentioned from the Mirrors book, for WoD, does exactly that kind of control, even on other players.

So I'm calling that one a win.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #46 on: December 11, 2011, 12:20:32 PM »
Its arguable that mental control and influence spells do just that however. In Exalted they are part and parcel of social conflict(indeed if your opponent is stubborn you'd HAVE to do that to wear down resistance)

iirc exalted has a social conflict system.  The game is unbelievably terrible but it has one (again iirc).

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #47 on: December 11, 2011, 12:24:28 PM »
Yeah but extend the same, unnatural mental influence charms vs Charm person/Dominate. It may not be particularly well done, but in D&D, as usual, everything falls under spells in the end.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #48 on: December 11, 2011, 12:25:40 PM »
Well, while it's not core, the Sway subsystem I mentioned from the Mirrors book, for WoD, does exactly that kind of control, even on other players.

So I'm calling that one a win.

So one specific sub WoD has one.  Bully for them, and when they put it in the core book they will still have a lousy game. But they wont be liars.  When that day comes. 

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #49 on: December 11, 2011, 12:30:03 PM »
Wait a second, so you're saying that these games don't have social mechanics because the players don't have the same kind of control over the game that the GM has?

No, why would you think that.

They "don't" have something.  You can only directly show what things "do" have.  Don'ts must be indicated more indirectly.


Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #50 on: December 11, 2011, 01:05:11 PM »
Wait a second, so you're saying that these games don't have social mechanics because the players don't have the same kind of control over the game that the GM has?

No, why would you think that.

They "don't" have something.  You can only directly show what things "do" have.  Don'ts must be indicated more indirectly.
Because that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying.

Even expanding the terms, no.  These systems are at best color that may affect the GM's decisions slightly.  But you cannot, for example make a roll that makes another player do something.  And you don't ever do something that changes the game.

In DnD and similar if you make the persuasion roll, the GM gives you a good result.  If you fail you get a bad result.

In some games, you pick what you want and if you make the roll it happens.  That kind of game is a paradigm shift from games like DnD.
What it sounds like you're saying here is that unless the players pass around the GM hat, or get rid of the GM hat altogether, it's impossible for a game to have some kind of social mechanic.

Something else that might be occurring here is that we've got different ideas of what the GM is supposed to be.  Your GM sounds more like a nation's overlord, where every facet of the game is controlled by him, and that if you roll well, you are rewarded by the GM somehow.  On the other hand, I see the GM as more of a judge, or perhaps referee is a more appropriate term.  The rules of the game are put forward at the start, and then he just applies those rules according to the actions and die rolls of the players.  If you have a GM that runs the game in that fashion, then rules that dictate a character rising through the ranks of a guild would seem to be, by definition, a social mechanic, if not a system unto itself.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 617
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #51 on: December 11, 2011, 02:22:57 PM »
So one specific sub WoD has one.  Bully for them, and when they put it in the core book they will still have a lousy game. But they wont be liars.  When that day comes.
Wow, okay.

Honestly, at this point, it doesn't matter if you're right or not, you're just being a jerk about it. Please calm down, you're not helping your position with that kind of tone.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2011, 04:29:33 PM »
Wait a second, so you're saying that these games don't have social mechanics because the players don't have the same kind of control over the game that the GM has?

No, why would you think that.

They "don't" have something.  You can only directly show what things "do" have.  Don'ts must be indicated more indirectly.
Because that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying.

Even expanding the terms, no.  These systems are at best color that may affect the GM's decisions slightly.  But you cannot, for example make a roll that makes another player do something.  And you don't ever do something that changes the game.

In DnD and similar if you make the persuasion roll, the GM gives you a good result.  If you fail you get a bad result.

In some games, you pick what you want and if you make the roll it happens.  That kind of game is a paradigm shift from games like DnD.
What it sounds like you're saying here is that unless the players pass around the GM hat, or get rid of the GM hat altogether, it's impossible for a game to have some kind of social mechanic.

Something else that might be occurring here is that we've got different ideas of what the GM is supposed to be.  Your GM sounds more like a nation's overlord, where every facet of the game is controlled by him, and that if you roll well, you are rewarded by the GM somehow.  On the other hand, I see the GM as more of a judge, or perhaps referee is a more appropriate term.  The rules of the game are put forward at the start, and then he just applies those rules according to the actions and die rolls of the players.  If you have a GM that runs the game in that fashion, then rules that dictate a character rising through the ranks of a guild would seem to be, by definition, a social mechanic, if not a system unto itself.
In DnD that's what the GM is.  Like I describe, not an overlord.  But according to the rules he creates the challenges and doles out the rewards.  It may seem like he is just "applying" the rules but in DnD unless you run only prepackaged adventures he does more than that.  If you want to see a game that's actually like that check out "Misspent Youth"

But anyway.

So, DnD does not have a social mechanic.  If you want one thing and the other players want another, there is no roll you can make to get your way.  It would at minimum require that.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #53 on: December 11, 2011, 04:43:52 PM »
If that's what your definition of a social mechanic is, then screw that.  Having one character dominate the others in the party is just plain shit design.  It condones one asshat at the gaming table ruining the game for everyone else by compromising their ability to play their characters.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #54 on: December 11, 2011, 05:15:24 PM »
So one specific sub WoD has one.  Bully for them, and when they put it in the core book they will still have a lousy game. But they wont be liars.  When that day comes.
Wow, okay.

Honestly, at this point, it doesn't matter if you're right or not, you're just being a jerk about it. Please calm down, you're not helping your position with that kind of tone.
I was being funny.  WoD is a joke, for the most part.  Most modern game design is based on people reacting to how bad WoD is.  Ron Edwards famously refers to WoD as causing brain damage.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 617
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #55 on: December 11, 2011, 05:22:19 PM »
Ahuh.

News to me; I like the design of WoD. I've never seen it mocked on that level, or even really heard any tear-apart criticism that calls it 'lousy'.

Oh the other hand, I'm new here, I was never on the old forums, so maybe for you and others, the WoD mockery is old hat.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #56 on: December 11, 2011, 05:29:52 PM »
Ahuh.

News to me; I like the design of WoD. I've never seen it mocked on that level, or even really heard any tear-apart criticism that calls it 'lousy'.
Me neither. That's the first time I see such hate towards it.
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #57 on: December 11, 2011, 05:59:03 PM »
Well, I do play it on a regular basis, its not bad in itself, but I do have a few choice words about the dice mechanic. All it boils down is stat+skill and more or less freeforming the rest.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #58 on: December 11, 2011, 06:03:05 PM »
If that's what your definition of a social mechanic is, then screw that.  Having one character dominate the others in the party is just plain shit design.  It condones one asshat at the gaming table ruining the game for everyone else by compromising their ability to play their characters.

Yeah, no. The thing you have never seen, in a type of game you have never played, does not act as you assume.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #59 on: December 11, 2011, 06:12:25 PM »
Ahuh.

News to me; I like the design of WoD. I've never seen it mocked on that level, or even really heard any tear-apart criticism that calls it 'lousy'.
Me neither. That's the first time I see such hate towards it.

I don't hate it.  It's like hating people in the 20's for being sexist. 

I find it amazing you have never seen any criticism of WoD.