Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #9: Challenge Modes and Godlike Races

[Jasede]

Eww, don't quote the post directly above you. It's needless clutter.
To make up for my criticism, here is a brofist.

Oh god, the Obsidian forums are changing me already...

 

[Volourn]

"I don't disagree that it should be difficult for a mortal human being to come up with a way to intimidate an immortal daemon. But as long as the daemon in question isn't the super duper supreme divinity of all time and existence, it probably shouldn't be outright impossible. If it's possible for our daemon to get royally fucked in some manner, the mortal can ensure it happens, and our daemon is bright enough to understand the causal relationship, then there's an in-fiction reason the daemon shouldn't be immune to intimidation."

DM can role-play these type of situations.


"Again, why would that be a bad thing? Isn't it appropriate that naive sucker PCs behave like naive suckers?
What about if we were talking pickpocketing instead, should PCs be immune to that?
What about an NPC beating a PC with a Befuddle Check vs. a hostile wizard NPC casting Paralyse on a PC vs. a hostile gladiator catching a PC in a net?"

Role-play.

These are situations where role-playing comes into it.

Next youa re gonna claim dice rolls should be sued tod ecide if a PC will fall in love with an NPC or another PC. LAME

 

[Misconnected]

DM can role-play these type of situations.

Right. Could you explain to me the difference between a GM deciding the possible outcomes of a skill check and their probabilities, determining which occurs and roleplaying it, and a GM deciding on an outcome and roleplaying it?
As far as I can see the only differences between the two methods, is that the former is consistent usage of the system and as such builds verisimilitude, and (if you ask me: far more importantly) makes life more interesting for the GM. I see no in-game difference between them.

Role-play.

Assuming I'm interpreting that borderline nonsense seeming statement correctly, you're confusing roleplaying with narrative control. Neither precludes the other. Indeed, plenty of systems have mechanics that award players some degree of narrative control resources for acting in character (roleplaying), which they can then spend on, for example, avoiding having their sucker character exploited. But regardless of whether such a mechanic exists, roleplaying can and should still be occurring. That Lughead the Barbarian failed a Commerce check doesn't say anything about his state of mind and behaviour in general. Even though he's sure he got a good deal he still might be pissed about the price. Or he might be thrilled. Or indifferent. That something beyond the direct control of the player but involving the player's character has happened, does not mean the player has suddenly lost the ability or opportunity to roleplay. I'm sure that if you think on this for a bit you'll come to realise that both players and GMs are only rarely in complete control of the characters they roleplay.

Next youa re gonna claim dice rolls should be sued tod ecide if a PC will fall in love with an NPC or another PC. LAME

Social skills aren't (generally speaking) super-powers. There tends to be limits to what you can achieve with them. A skilled trader NPC beating a sucker PC wouldn't be able to demand the crown jewels and five dragon hoards for a battle axe either.

 

[Balor]

Well, in VTMB I liked how LaCroix used Domination on you, when you tried to be too uppity. It resulted in a three dialogue options, each identical: "I will do this." Cracked me up, it did.
Also, I liked how Kreia manipulated you and other characters in KOTOR2 - mostly behind the scenes though.

So, it can be done, it WAS done, and can be fun.

 

[Zero Credibility]

Making all PCs immune to social skills (used either by NPCs or other PCs) sucks. I mean, where do you draw the line then? Can an NPC lie or manipulate the PCs using bluff / fast-talk / acting or whatever the skill your system has for that? Even if the player knows the NPC is lying? Why couldn't a skilled NPC successfully lie / haggle / intimidate / convince or seduce the PC?

As Misconnected said, there are reasonable limits to what social skills can produce, regardless on who they are used. So nobody can convince a PC or NPC to commit suicide or fall in love (unless there are very, very good reasons for it). And if the players are that worried about having somebody use social skills on their PCs, good systems also have defences that they can take. Call it willpower, wisdom, sense motive, detect lies, or just use the same skill that the opponent is trying to use on the PC - whatever makes sense. That way you can actually build characters that are immune to manipulation without making a whole range of skills useless against PCs.

 

[Balor]

Well, if we are to continue this logic, we should make PC immune to NPC barter skills as well. After all, we know that this item costs 10 Gp, and this damn vendor is selling it for 100! Outrageous, and surely breaks IMMERSHUN.

 

[Volourn]

"Well, in VTMB I liked how LaCroix used Domination on you, when you tried to be too uppity. It resulted in a three dialogue options, each identical: "I will do this." Cracked me up, it did."

He uses a special power to do so.


"Also, I liked how Kreia manipulated you and other characters in KOTOR2 - mostly behind the scenes though."

Not because of failed skill checks but simply because of role-playing.



"Social skills aren't (generally speaking) super-powers. There tends to be limits to what you can achieve with them. A skilled trader NPC beating a sucker PC wouldn't be able to demand the crown jewels and five dragon hoards for a battle axe either"

Wy not? You are claiminga skill check success or fialure should be able to tell a player what to do but youa re wrong.

As you say skill checks aren'ty super powers. Theya rne't meant to magically force people (PC or NPC) to do what they otherwise do.

ie. As a DM, I don't care if your PC has a perfect intimidate score and rolls a 20; you will not intimidate thyat 7 and a half foot ogre. Period. read the fukkin' rules. All skill checks are at DM discretion and cannot be sued tof orce PCs to do what they otherwise wouldn't or NPCs for that matter.

ie. You cannot use your persuade skill as a PC to force the NPC prince to betray the king his father no matter how good you roll it.

Use your fukkin' common sense. I know that's hard on the Codex.

 

[Infinitron]

Well, Josh doesn't want to answer my question on Formspring. To the forums it is then: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60758-talking-to-people-with-your-companions/

 

[IDtenT]

ITT: We learn Volourn is a LARPer.

 

[Volourn]

That's not larping, dumbass. That's role-playing. Unless you are the type that feels you should use dice rolls tod etermine when your PC goes for a shit, or has to roll a dex check to make sure he can walk down the street without falling down. FFS

 

[catfood]

Bullshit.

 

[Misconnected]

Wy not? You are claiminga skill check success or fialure should be able to tell a player what to do but youa re wrong.

Volly if you want to convince me that I'm wrong, you are going to have to explain to me why I am wrong.

As you say skill checks aren'ty super powers. Theya rne't meant to magically force people (PC or NPC) to do what they otherwise do.

I know you're so desperate to convince everyone you were drop-kicked for a week by a Blood Bowl team as an infant, that you spend several hours on each and every one of your posts trying to make them reflect your pretend brain damage. Unfortunately, this time you actually succeeded in making it impossible for me to understand you. I guess congratulations of some sort are in order, but the flip-side of your accomplishment is that you make it kind of hard to have a conversation with you.

Social skills are what you call on when actors have conflicting interests, and the ability to override or subvert each other's interests. When your PC is using his Commerce skill to get a good deal from a merchant NPC, you're resolving a conflict of interest between your PC and the NPC.

Social skills aren't magic, usually. But they very much are about changing the behaviours, attitudes and whatnot, of actors. Rarely to the extent that an actor ends up doing something he really doesn't want, but quite often to the extent that an actor ends up doing something he wouldn't have done otherwise.

ie. As a DM, I don't care if your PC has a perfect intimidate score and rolls a 20; you will not intimidate thyat 7 and a half foot ogre. Period. read the fukkin' rules. All skill checks are at DM discretion and cannot be sued tof orce PCs to do what they otherwise wouldn't or NPCs for that matter.

Let's say your meathead, but ordinary human PC is trying to intimidate a 7ft Ogre. If you're going to have a go at it based on your meathead's bulging biceps alone, your PC might very well auto-fail. But if you do it based on your PCs status as an honour guard of the Ogre King instead, your PC might very well be able to intimidate a 7ft Ogre. Perhaps even automatically.

ie. You cannot use your persuade skill as a PC to force the NPC prince to betray the king his father no matter how good you roll it.

Wouldn't that be entirely dependent on the basis of the persuasion attempt?

Use your fukkin' common sense. I know that's hard on the Codex.

Try following your own advice. You argue as if skill checks are pure meta events, entirely disconnected from the fiction. They're not. They're resolutions of in-fiction conflicts and obstacles that have multiple possible outcomes. Some NPC isn't going to seduce your PC spy in a James Bond-like setting, by spending all night talking about your PCs character flaws and her own contagious skin condition and then rolling a Charm check. But the NPC might seduce your PC despite his better judgement, if the NPC has the opportunity to and actually behaves in a charming manner, and then makes a Charm check (or more likely, a series of them, each gradually changing your PCs opinion of the NPC).

 

[Jaesun]

Wlcome to the RPG Codex Misconnected! I see you are arguing with Volourn, so you must be new here.

Plese remeber Volo is ALWAYS right and correct. Even when he isn't.

Enjoy your stay here, and don't let the trolls get to you!

 

[Volourn]

"If you're going to have a go at it based on your meathead's bulging biceps alone, your PC might very well auto-fail. But if you do it based on your PCs status as an honour guard of the Ogre King instead, your PC might very well be able to intimidate a 7ft Ogre. Perhaps even automatically."

The DM would rule on it. DM discretion is key to everything in pnp. If you come with a huge army the ogre - not usually a cowardly creature - will likely 'fail' it's morale and flee or surrender (if it can).

"Wouldn't that be entirely dependent on the basis of the persuasion attempt?"

The DM makes a ruling based on the npc's (the prince in this case) personality, and sucessibility to potential betrayal and bribery. The PC will never ever be able to make a loyal and loving son betray his ftaher. But, if the priunce is a greedy power hingry fellow than given the right circumstances, said prince may be able to be persuaded/bribed/whatever into betrayal. Skills like eprsuausion are to be used more in situations where it is a random PC that the DM hasn't fully fleshed out. Read the skill descriptions. Read the damn manual in how it is supposed to work. Skills aren't supposed to be simply non magical replacement for magical spells like Charm which is exactly what you want tthem to be. They aren't supposed to change the basic nature of a creature - PC or NPC.

"Plese remeber Volo is ALWAYS right and correct. Even when he isn't."

Yeah, because here on the Codex of all places, I'm the ONLY poster what that disease. HAHA L0L

P.S. I am right all the time, though. To say otherwise is to lie.

 

[Misconnected]

Wlcome to the RPG Codex Misconnected! I see you are arguing with Volourn, so you must be new here.

Sadly not new, just foolish it seems. I'm not actually sure how long I've been haunting the Codex, but at least a few years. Long enough to see Volourn make a perfectly good argument. But I suppose also long enough not to expect to ever see it again.

Skills like eprsuausion are to be used more in situations where it is a random PC that the DM hasn't fully fleshed out.

Or hey, maybe social skills - and skills in general - are tools for resolving events that have multiple possible outcomes. You make it sound as if skill checks can only resolve as "I win, with magic cherry on top" or "I fail so hard the sheer shock of it makes me trip and fall on my sword". More commonly, especially when it comes to social skills, they resolve the magnitude of success (or failure).

Regardless, let's pretend you're right for a moment and instead figure out why you are right, and how it relates to social skills in Project Eternity. Care to offer your insights?

While you're mulling over the answer, you may want to keep in mind that you probably don't want to accidentally argue that social skills shouldn't exist at all in PE, and that all actors, PCs and NPCs alike, should only ever act within the framework of the fiction. Yes, yes, I'm stating the blindingly obvious, but consider it in the context of event resolution mechanics; because actors can't (or at least shouldn't) act outside the framework of the fiction, event resolution mechanics cannot be used to define outcomes that fall outside the framework of the fiction.

You can't use a social skill to achieve an outcome the GM hasn't at least implicitly ruled on in a traditional RPG, because the GM in traditional RPGs has narrative control. Your PC doesn't get to decide what he can achieve by using a skill, and anything the RAW says only goes as long as the GM does not say otherwise. If the GM asks your sucker PC to roll a commerce check while axe-shopping, you don't get to decide what the possible outcomes of the check are.

Read the skill descriptions. Read the damn manual in how it is supposed to work.

You know what, if you can point me to the damn manual that explains how skills are supposed to work in all of TTRPG-dom, or hell, just in traditional TTRPG-dom, I'll oblige you. I'll even read it twice.

I did read a core rules book the other day. Not D&D, mind, but Dark Heresy. A 40K adaptation of the WFRP2e system. In it you have something called Talents, which are much like Traits in D&D3e. One of those Talents is called Chem Geld. In other words: chemical castration. I hope you're asking yourself why the fuck a player would choose to have his PC chemically castrated, but either way, the answer is: because it makes the PC very, very difficult to seduce. And that matters, because in Dark Heresy pretty much any actor can employ social skills against pretty much any other actor. What real world human beings happens to be roleplaying the actor has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the actor can employ or be the subject of social skills. But then, why would such meta have anything to do with what actors can and can't do in-game? Oh wait, you've failed to even attempt to explain that so many times by now, that asking you again and again is starting to seem like insanity. So.. Let's just pretend I was being rhetorical.

Skills aren't supposed to be simply non magical replacement for magical spells like Charm which is exactly what you want tthem to be. They aren't supposed to change the basic nature of a creature - PC or NPC..

Who are you addressing with this? I've never claimed social skills were magic or could change the nature of an actor. I've never said that, say, an intimidation check could be used to make a Pit Fiend break down in tears or run away screaming for mommy. What I have said is that legitimate threats to a Pit Fiend do exist in-fiction, and that Pit Fiends are not incapable of self-preservation in-fiction. As already mentioned, skill use isn't some silly nebulous meta shit like "I rolled a natural 20 on my charm check, so now my character can order the local mafia boss to gun down his own minions to protect my character." The only one that has come anywhere close to claiming otherwise in this discussion, is you, Volourn.

 

[Volourn]

Why did you spam all that when you simply could have posted that you agreed with me. Thank you.