[OOC] The Halls of Discussions [The Nightmare of Telistar]

[CrazyIvan]

On the social-combat/no social combat issue, Yavandir is a Sid. Outside of MA, she has no ability to create custom charms. This pretty sharply limits what she can and cannot do with her Essence.
Also, I, personally, feel that instituting a 'no social attacks on other PCs' rule is a bad idea, as it instantly rules out pretty much the entire Performance tree without creating custom ones to limit the effects. Which Sids can't do. (And, well, of Yavandir's 12 charms, 5 are Performance ones. If we do ban socially attacking other PCs, she's either going to have to be rebuilt, or waste a lot of XP to be effective.)

It wasn't so much a call for banning social attacks on PCs, because honestly, wtf else are most Sids supposed to do.


It was more a call that on this particular occasion, perhaps it is ill advised. Because the flip side is true - if we *do* start hurling about social attacks, almost none of Lenaria's are in that arena. Which leaves two choices, one is to either roll over and play dead or bloodshed. Neither one of which is particularly desirable.


So less calling for a ban, and more a call for everyone backing off, because when you start swinging abilities at PCs that are currently pretty hostile towards each other, there's a not unlikely chance they'll swing back - and I would like us to all survive to Calibration >.>

 

[Red Shadow Claws]

Well, hopefully beyond Calibration...

 

[CrazyIvan]

Well' date=' hopefully beyond Calibration...[/quote']
I have modest goals.

 

[Persell]

Perhaps my lack of writing skills have failed me or maybe it is a limitation of the venue in which we are currently playing in, but I do not support a ban on social attacks. I do want the other players to recognize that social combat and social attacks are at least as damaging and invasive to a character as well as a player's ego, as physical combat and physical attacks are. Even if you don't believe so, if you were to act as if you do, then I would have no complaints about it.

 

[Andrensath]

On the social-combat/no social combat issue, Yavandir is a Sid. Outside of MA, she has no ability to create custom charms. This pretty sharply limits what she can and cannot do with her Essence.
Also, I, personally, feel that instituting a 'no social attacks on other PCs' rule is a bad idea, as it instantly rules out pretty much the entire Performance tree without creating custom ones to limit the effects. Which Sids can't do. (And, well, of Yavandir's 12 charms, 5 are Performance ones. If we do ban socially attacking other PCs, she's either going to have to be rebuilt, or waste a lot of XP to be effective.)

It wasn't so much a call for banning social attacks on PCs, because honestly, wtf else are most Sids supposed to do.


It was more a call that on this particular occasion, perhaps it is ill advised. Because the flip side is true - if we *do* start hurling about social attacks, almost none of Lenaria's are in that arena. Which leaves two choices, one is to either roll over and play dead or bloodshed. Neither one of which is particularly desirable.


So less calling for a ban, and more a call for everyone backing off, because when you start swinging abilities at PCs that are currently pretty hostile towards each other, there's a not unlikely chance they'll swing back - and I would like us to all survive to Calibration >.>

Fair enough. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Perhaps my lack of writing skills have failed me or maybe it is a limitation of the venue in which we are currently playing in' date=' but I do not support a ban on social attacks. I do want the other players to recognize that social combat and social attacks are at least as damaging and invasive to a character as well as a player's ego, as physical combat and physical attacks are. Even if you don't believe so, if you were to act as if you do, then I would have no complaints about it.[/quote']Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree. Physical combat already trumps social (we've all seen the 'NMI? I roll Join Battle' guy, right?) enough that I can't support restricting the likelihood of social combat to the same level that we would physical.

 

[Ligier]

Which leaves two choices, one is to either roll over and play dead or bloodshed. Neither one of which is particularly desirable.

Simply not true, and I don't know why you're still saying this.


Like I pointed out in my last post, you can just not get engaged in social combat if you don't want to. Saying that the only way you can stop someone from socially attacking you is just completely over the top, the kind of overreaction that caused me to need to try something like a social attack in the first place. You could, for instance, have had your character simply leave the room and do something else rather than listen to the social attack, like meeting the NPC exalts who're approaching.


That seems like a reasonable response to me, especially compared to attacking someone, but in the end the only reason your character suffered the social attack I made is because you thought it best to roleplay them standing there and listening to it.

I do want the other players to recognize that social combat and social attacks are at least as damaging and invasive to a character as well as a player's ego' date=' as physical combat and physical attacks are.[/quote']
So you're saying that if Pilgrim had suddenly physically attacked every other PC physically and done damage to them, you wouldn't be any more annoyed or shocked than you are now? In fact, you're saying that you could well have been less annoyed if Pilgrim had just beat your character about a bit?

 

[Myllinnia]

Mind you. I'm happy for all the talk, I hope it stands at a truce somewhere. I'm in a horrible slump though, it's striking at all my games played and ran xD So tomorrow. I promise especially to the new player that I will post. it'll suck assuredly but atleast I can get Arynne's chara in.

 

[Arynne]

I'm in a horrible slump though, it's striking at all my games played and ran


Maybe we could loan you some artifacts to raise your soak? ;-)

 

[Red Shadow Claws]

I think it's more a question of raising Stamina or Resistance.

 

[Persell]

Integrity might work too.


In any case, I think we are very civil here. Andrenseth and I disagree I hope we have an understanding. Ligier makes a good point that I hadn't even considered before. I'll remember it in the future.

 

[CrazyIvan]

Which leaves two choices, one is to either roll over and play dead or bloodshed. Neither one of which is particularly desirable.

Simply not true, and I don't know why you're still saying this.


Like I pointed out in my last post, you can just not get engaged in social combat if you don't want to. Saying that the only way you can stop someone from socially attacking you is just completely over the top, the kind of overreaction that caused me to need to try something like a social attack in the first place. You could, for instance, have had your character simply leave the room and do something else rather than listen to the social attack, like meeting the NPC exalts who're approaching.


That seems like a reasonable response to me, especially compared to attacking someone, but in the end the only reason your character suffered the social attack I made is because you thought it best to roleplay them standing there and listening to it.

This roll also automatically activates Infatuation-Gathering Idol Methodology. You all gain an intimacy of respect towards Shining Pilgrim. While this intimacy is in effect Shining Pilgrim gets a further +3 to appearance in the eyes of anyone who has it. This effect should be able to be blocked via the normal 1 willpower plus gain a point of limit. Also at the end of this scene everyone within 4 miles of Pilgrim will suffer the same social attack again.

It's entirely true, which is why I'm saying it. I *threatened* a physical attack, after someone called my character's Solar mate, who I spent a considerable amount of points bonding myself to, "a dumb fuck", and indeed smeared my own character with the same brush after a roleplaying-mediated noncommittal response.


As for "walking away", see the block of text I quoted above. You can have one, or the other, but not both. So my options are to either leave the scene entirely by gaining a distance of four miles, or spend character resources to repel a social attack that would, among other things, add a respect intimacy for Shining Pilgrim, which Lenaria is pretty much flatly opposed to.


I mean, you can say that's true for anything, but the fact of the matter is that a social attack, rather than social interaction, escalates the matter, and depending on the nature of it (I didn't mind Pilgrim's so much, but there are considerably more hostile social attacks that could have come from that) leave non-social build characters with vanishingly few options beyond their own combat related charms.


Frankly, you could have done the same thing *without* a social attack and odds are thanks to badass oratory on your part, I would have gone along with it. Just like I managed to accomplish pissing the everliving hell out of a Sidereal without ever rolling dice.


TLR: I think you vastly underestimate other players perceptions of a social attack on their character.

 

[CrazyIvan]

>.>Fair enough. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

No worries. Sorry for my part in it as well.

 

[Ligier]

As for "walking away", see the block of text I quoted above. You can have one, or the other, but not both. So my options are to either leave the scene entirely by gaining a distance of four miles, or spend character resources to repel a social attack that would, among other things, add a respect intimacy for Shining Pilgrim, which Lenaria is pretty much flatly opposed to.

That's not how the charm works.

I mean, you can say that's true for anything, but the fact of the matter is that a social attack, rather than social interaction, escalates the matter, and depending on the nature of it (I didn't mind Pilgrim's so much, but there are considerably more hostile social attacks that could have come from that) leave non-social build characters with vanishingly few options beyond their own combat related charms.

Even if the charm works how you're assuming it does, you're then assuming that every single social attack in the game will come from someone with this charm rather than following the normal social attack rules. Pilgrim's own social attacks aren't even a concern because as I've said I'll turn of it's auto use function if Myllinia allows it.


Against the vast majority of social attacks, you'll have plenty of options.

Frankly, you could have done the same thing *without* a social attack and odds are thanks to badass oratory on your part, I would have gone along with it. Just like I managed to accomplish pissing the everliving hell out of a Sidereal without ever rolling dice.

I'm confused. You're saying you'd happily roleplay your character as being affected by Pilgrim's speech, but for you to happily roleplay your character as being affected by Pilgrim's speech and note down on your character sheet that you've been effected by Pilgrim's speech is out of the question?


I'm afraid I just don't get the distinction.

 

[CrazyIvan]

As for "walking away", see the block of text I quoted above. You can have one, or the other, but not both. So my options are to either leave the scene entirely by gaining a distance of four miles, or spend character resources to repel a social attack that would, among other things, add a respect intimacy for Shining Pilgrim, which Lenaria is pretty much flatly opposed to.

That's not how the charm works.

I mean, you can say that's true for anything, but the fact of the matter is that a social attack, rather than social interaction, escalates the matter, and depending on the nature of it (I didn't mind Pilgrim's so much, but there are considerably more hostile social attacks that could have come from that) leave non-social build characters with vanishingly few options beyond their own combat related charms.

Even if the charm works how you're assuming it does, you're then assuming that every single social attack in the game will come from someone with this charm rather than following the normal social attack rules. Pilgrim's own social attacks aren't even a concern because as I've said I'll turn of it's auto use function if Myllinia allows it.


Against the vast majority of social attacks, you'll have plenty of options.

Frankly, you could have done the same thing *without* a social attack and odds are thanks to badass oratory on your part, I would have gone along with it. Just like I managed to accomplish pissing the everliving hell out of a Sidereal without ever rolling dice.

I'm confused. You're saying you'd happily roleplay your character as being affected by Pilgrim's speech, but for you to happily roleplay your character as being affected by Pilgrim's speech and note down on your character sheet that you've been effected by Pilgrim's speech is out of the question?


I'm afraid I just don't get the distinction.

I'm quoting *your* post. Because I'm not going to bother going home to look up someone elses charm at work. Your post absolutely implies that that is how it works. If you'd like to edit that to more accurately reflect the nature of the charm, I'll amend my objections accordingly.


And no, I'm not assuming all social attacks work that way. Indeed, you'll note that I gave a pretty broad leeway to our Sidereal because social attacks are a great grab bag of things, and their build is around the. What I *am* assuming is that all social attacks are not consequence free actions, and should be viewed as something that, especially when used towards player character, may have a response to them. Your social attack carried a relatively light response of "Nuts to you, manipulative Solar". The growing social attack from the Sidereal may have provoked another attack. If you read my posts above, this is the root of the "Social attacks are not free punches". If a social character is free to use their charms against another PC, they should not assume a combat character won't do likewise.

I'm confused. You're saying you'd happily roleplay your character as being affected by Pilgrim's speech, but for you to happily roleplay your character as being affected by Pilgrim's speech and note down on your character sheet that you've been effected by Pilgrim's speech is out of the question?

One is me making a choice of how I would respond to Pilgrim's speech, and the other one is you making a choice of how you intend to spend your essence or my willpower to do the same. If you can't see why there's a difference there, I'm afraid I can't help you.


Indeed, the social attack and my expenditure of willpower altered how I decided to respond.

 

[Myllinnia]

I'm so lost on this piece of the conversation/Debate. But since I mentioned debate, In the case of social attacks, and Pilgrim did fair in his attempt, if one doesn't care for it PC/NPC then that is what Join Debate is for xD .


With that said, Remember UMI Resisting gets Limit and as a group of players playing a good portion of Limit Breaking type Exalts, let's not do that too often, especially if half of our Solars have Limit Breaks that breakie people before the full day of it is over. And dare I assume right, this one is going to strike them not once but twice. O.o Resisting this one is a pain in the butt, as expected of DotFA's Solar charms. No wonder the Solar's were all wacky xD


Edit: This is Ligier. I meant to quote your post but I accidently hit edit and only realised afterwards. I've put it back to how it was, but I have no idea why I have the power to edit your posts.

 

[Ligier]

I'm quoting *your* post. Because I'm not going to bother going home to look up someone elses charm at work. Your post absolutely implies that that is how it works. If you'd like to edit that to more accurately reflect the nature of the charm, I'll amend my objections accordingly.

The performance attack is repeated in a (Essence) mile area. The performance attack in this case is the speech which reinforced the intimacy of “be nice to mortalsâ€. Also it comes into effect 'a scene later'. That's a bit vague, but at the earliest it would be at the end of this scene, at which point you simply have to make sure you're not walking home with Pilgrim.


I'm not going to be any more specific with the charm because it's copyrighted info, so if you want to read it properly you can find it in DotFAL Lords of Creation under Solar performance charms.

And no, I'm not assuming all social attacks work that way. Indeed, you'll note that I gave a pretty broad leeway to our Sidereal because social attacks are a great grab bag of things, and their build is around the. What I *am* assuming is that all social attacks are not consequence free actions, and should be viewed as something that, especially when used towards player character, may have a response to them.Your social attack carried a relatively light response of "Nuts to you, manipulative Solar". The growing social attack from the Sidereal may have provoked another attack. If you read my posts above, this is the root of the "Social attacks are not free punches". If a social character is free to use their charms against another PC, they should not assume a combat character won't do likewise.

I think your values are a little skewed. I never said that social attacks are consequence free, but I have stated that the smallest, most risk free and the simplest consequence is you walk away, which I find true and hardly a reason for all this arguement. Besides, do you really think because you didn't roll any dice when you threatened to rip another PC's tongue, that it was in any way better thought out or more consequence free? Mechanically yes, but in terms of roleplaying certainly not .

One is me making a choice of how I would respond to Pilgrim's speech, and the other one is you making a choice of how you intend to spend your essence or my willpower to do the same. If you can't see why there's a difference there, I'm afraid I can't help you.

That's just not correct. Do I really choose how you spend your willpower? Fine, instead of spending a willpower to resist the social attack, I'm changing it so you spent a willpower to completely ineffectively channel conviction to your highest social defence. You now have one less wp and have an intimacy of respect towards Pilgrim as you didn't resist the attack.


Except that obviously doesn't happen because I don't choose how you spend your willpower and there's no point in claiming I do.


I think this has gotten so confusing and meandering that it's gotten off topic, so I'd like to just ask you two things to try and focus this. I'm hoping once I know where the actual areas of contention are, this can be settled in another post or two.


1) What is your complaint? After all this I'm actually not sure. That PCs should never be able to do social attacks against each other? That social attacks in general are fine but there is something wrong with this particular social attack? If so, because of the situation or because of the nature of the charm employed? That social attacks in general are fine, but you're protesting in case I start constantly social attacking?


2) On the rare occasions when social attacking is required against PCs (Like I've said, this is going to be a rare thing. It might not even happen ever again, but in my opinion this situation warranted it), why exactly should you get to choose how you respond to Pilgrim's speeches (Which is what I assume you are saying when you state 'One is me making a choice of how I would respond to Pilgrim's speech' being favourable)? I put a lot into making sure Pilgrim had a powerful personality while socially Lenaria is average at best, just like Lenaria is a powerful combatant while Pilgrim is at best average. Even without his charms she would stand pretty much no chance to resist his persuasions.


I couldn't simply decide in a middle of a fight that Pilgrim is fantastically strong, tough and dexterous enough to kickflip Lenaria's head off, so when she hears Pilgrim make a speech which inflames the hearts of men and could make a king give up his crown why should she suddenly have a mental bulwark that enables her to resist the most powerful of persuasions?

 

[Ligier]

I'm so lost on this piece of the conversation/Debate. But since I mentioned debate, In the case of social attacks, and Pilgrim did fair in his attempt, if one doesn't care for it PC/NPC then that is what Join Debate is for xD .
With that said, Remember UMI Resisting gets Limit and as a group of players playing a good portion of Limit Breaking type Exalts, let's not do that too often, especially if half of our Solars have Limit Breaks that breakie people before the full day of it is over. And dare I assume right, this one is going to strike them not once but twice. O.o Resisting this one is a pain in the butt, as expected of DotFA's Solar charms. No wonder the Solar's were all wacky xD

My reading of it is that only the actual social attack which triggered the charm occurs again. It says that the the performance attack is repeated. In the writing of this charm, the performance attack is referred to as the attack which triggers the charm. As that would be a NMI, it doesn't accrue limit. The 'people who hear it gain a positive intimacy towards you which grants an appearance bonus' part is never mentioned as a performance attack.


You're the GM though, so if you say differently I'll go with you.


Umm... Also, I meant to quote your above post but somehow managed to edit it

 

[Andrensath]

Umm... Also, I meant to quote your above post but somehow managed to edit it

Yeah, that's a problem with how the usergroups are implemented here. We're all considered mods of this subforum, so we can all edit everyone else's posts.

 

[Red Shadow Claws]

ooooh, that means we can change Pilgrim's roll to a botch ;-)

 

[Andrensath]

ooooh' date=' that means we can change Pilgrim's roll to a botch ;-)[/quote']See, this is why I use Invisible Castle. You can't alter the result that's stored on their server.

 

[Ligier]

I just use whichever dice roller it is that's suggested in the dice roller thread on the resources page. It logs rolls as well.


Edit: Also about the repeat performance attack that's going to happen, regardless of the effect I'd just say it goes off when Rynus gets back to his house and it can just effect all the mortals who work in his RPCs and the like. They've probably been around Rynus long enough that they're full of intimacies about things he preaches. I'd imagine this makes them some of the nicest and most compassionate mortals around, as well as those who might best recognise the lack of such virtues in other crazy Solars and be most willing to help usurp things so they can live in a world where those intimacies are valued.

 

[CrazyIvan]

1) What is your complaint? After all this I'm actually not sure. That PCs should never be able to do social attacks against each other? That social attacks in general are fine but there is something wrong with this particular social attack? If so, because of the situation or because of the nature of the charm employed? That social attacks in general are fine, but you're protesting in case I start constantly social attacking?


2) On the rare occasions when social attacking is required against PCs (Like I've said, this is going to be a rare thing. It might not even happen ever again, but in my opinion this situation warranted it), why exactly should you get to choose how you respond to Pilgrim's speeches (Which is what I assume you are saying when you state 'One is me making a choice of how I would respond to Pilgrim's speech' being favourable)? I put a lot into making sure Pilgrim had a powerful personality while socially Lenaria is average at best, just like Lenaria is a powerful combatant while Pilgrim is at best average. Even without his charms she would stand pretty much no chance to resist his persuasions.


I couldn't simply decide in a middle of a fight that Pilgrim is fantastically strong, tough and dexterous enough to kickflip Lenaria's head off, so when she hears Pilgrim make a speech which inflames the hearts of men and could make a king give up his crown why should she suddenly have a mental bulwark that enables her to resist the most powerful of persuasions?

Very well, since you asked.


1. I didn't have a complaint. The *entire* thrust of what I'm saying is that social characters should be cautious about their use of social attacks against their fellow player characters. Just as combat characters should. *After* your social attack, Andrensath had an OOC comment prepping another one - and I issued a cautionary statement regarding heading down that particular path.


2. Didn't say *that* either. The rules dictate what happens with a social attack, and that's fine. But not all social interaction *needs* to be a social attack. For example, could Lenaria could slap Yavandir - without rolling dice and compelling her to choose whether to dodge, parry etc. And I could respect her player enough to decide whether catching my arm and looking cold and badass, or letting it get through and build the affront, moves things in an interesting direction. And she could certainly do it without triggering charms and compelling her player to either expend resources or acquire an unwanted bit of character development.


This is *exactly* what happened. You're not inspiring a king, you're asking the party to knock it off after a conversation your character started took a turn you didn't like. And after both a post establishing Lenaria's feeling toward Solars, and in a End of the First Age game, you launched a social attack that dictates the addition of supernatural, coerced respect for a Lawgiver she has known for a matter of minutes, *and* to inform the party's stance on Operation Wyldhand.


To cool an argument down. It's the equivalent of me heading into Deadly Beastman Transformation because Adalron can't get a jar open.


So there you have it. I think it was unnecessary, and unwise given the circumstances. Because right now the party is down at least 3 points of WIllpower (assuming Adalron, Lenaria and Ryu all resisted) and that much closer to a limit break.

 

[Persell]

I think the 'complaint' was mine. My intent was not to complain, though, but to advise caution, as Crazy Ivan has stated so much more eloquently than I did. I believe that my point has been made and I hope understood, even if not agreed with. Since I don't want to bring down the game, I have now chosen to wait and see if it becomes a problem in my opinion. If it does, then I will react accordingly. I hope to enjoy a nice long game with all of you.

 

[Ligier]

Stuff

Stuff

Right, I see where you're coming from now.


I think all that needs to be said is I am cautious about when I use social attacks. My reason for using it here is that I found you physically threatening another PC (also the insults made by Andrensath to a lesser extent) to be ill-thought out, in no way necessary and entirely inappropriate to the situation, enough so that they're justification enough to use a social attack. Basically how you regard my social attack is how I regard you assuming war form and threatening to rip out Urdith's tongue.


I think the easiest way to settle this is to simply say that if you agree not to make any aggressive actions against PCs which might cause me to make social attacks to stop you, I'll agree not to make any social attacks which might cause you to make aggressive actions against PCs to stop me.

 

[Ligier]

Wow, this scene has seen me use medicine and linguistics. If Ryu says yes to my latest post then I'll use bureaucracy too. That's basically the trifecta of rarely used abilities all in one scene.