[OOC Thread] [The Resurgent]

[Kalarix]

In this case, it seems the attack is (while based on presence dice) an investigation like:


"Do you agree to not using charms against one another?"


but purely to find out if we agree, not in any way persuasive.


The result for not defending/failing to defend means you have to respond tell the truth on any investigative attack (regardless of what ability is being rolled)?


Similarly, dodging means you'd ignore it, parrying means you could answer with another question or deflection of the question, etc,


What would the result of burning a virtue/wp be for investigation style attacks?


Other styles I know it just fails to persuade, in this case, less clear.


As an aside, to me, "natural" means not a compulsion, I'm not reaching inside someone's mind and turning the dials, but rather convincing them through standard pathos, logos, ethos, that something is correct. Your character will believe that is still correct even if I stop trying to influence you (until convinced otherwise).

 

[Tikor]

In this case, it seems the attack is (while based on presence dice) an investigation like:
"Do you agree to not using charms against one another?"


but purely to find out if we agree, not in any way persuasive.

I think I addressed the case of the stunt fluff not matching the mechanics somewhere - I'm calling on you, my loyal players, to find that instance. I think the resolution was a downgrade in stunt dice and I believe it was brought on by a mismatched stunt of Balthazar's. It's all fuzzy so I wanted to go find it but it is evading my every search.

The result for not defending/failing to defend means you have to respond tell the truth on any investigative attack (regardless of what ability is being rolled)?

Quoting myself in a previous OOC post:

Now, Social Combat isn't mind control (though compulsion attacks border on it). The resolution could not be straightforward but still get the message across. For example an Investigation Social Attack of "Did you shave this morning?" could be unsuccessfully defended against with MDDV such that the defender is startled and puts his hand over his chin (and specified under the dashed line that he, in fact, did not shave). The attacker now knows the defender didn't shave, though the defender didn't actually use any words.

I should add "Or show his face to the investigator".


This is the domain of fluff, it can go down any number of ways. But in all ways, mechanically, meta-gamey, the truth is revealed by successful Investigation attacks.

What would the result of burning a virtue/wp be for investigation style attacks?

Again, the domain of fluff. Mechanically, meta-gamey, the truth does not come out - the trush is obscured via the character drawing on her inner resources. You could have the better angels of your Compassion remind you of the consequences to others should a secret be revealed - even in a state of drunkeness and asked by a very beautiful woman. You could have your burning desire for battle (Valor) enable you to deliberatively omit a scout's report that lays out a well-reasoned case for retreating and tell the general to charge ahead into battle even after the general you're loyal to has asked you a direct question.

As an aside, to me, "natural" means not a compulsion, I'm not reaching inside someone's mind and turning the dials, but rather convincing them through standard pathos, logos, ethos, that something is correct. Your character will believe that is still correct even if I stop trying to influence you (until convinced otherwise).

See Core page 180-181 on NMI and UMI. Anything not said there (or in the Social Combat chapter) about 'natural' or 'unnatural' influence should be regarded as an opinion - it is not a statement of fact on how Creation works. You as characters can have differences in these opinions, but the Loom has spoken. The Loom has not exhaustively spoken - but it defines what NMI and UMI are and are not.


On duration:


It takes (Conviction) scenes to establish an Intimacy (which could be to an argument - say Capitolism). Whether a character internalizes and keeps a successful NMI or not beyond a given scene and before an Intimacy is developed is the domain of the player playing the character - firmly out of the grasp of mechanics and into roleplay. After an Intimacy is developed the character is mechanically convinced until the Intimacy is destroyed (i.e. convinced otherwise). A person with Conviction 1 displays the behavior Kalarix describes above. Higher Conviction characters are much harder to sway for long periods of time, but once persuaded are generally loyal for a longer period of time.

 

[Tikor]

I would just like to point out how low some of the MDVs got with respect to that last attack. MDVs swing like crazy.

 

[Kalarix]

Yeah, Chuck and I were discussing earlier tonight how much you can decrease with intimacy, virtue, and motivation hits.


I don't think it'd be a bad idea to state the style of the attack virtue wise.

 

[Tikor]

I don't think it'd be a bad idea to state the style of the attack virtue wise.

Thanks. I will do this in future Step 1's.


Rillard, are you ending you guard this tick, or can I go to Petrin?

 

[Tikor]

Balthazar, NC has straightened me out, but I still want some clarification on your end. The way I see it:


NC: No Charm usage? Yes/No.


BZ: Yes, but I really mean no.


These do not reconcile.


Please clarify that you really mean no - I will use Charms on you when I feel it is right to.

 

[Kalarix]

I want to post something tonight, If I don't have anything up by tomorrow, Petrin can take his turn.


We have more posts than all but 3 games on here...

 

[Tikor]

I want to post something tonight, If I don't have anything up by tomorrow, Petrin can take his turn.

K, will do.

We have more posts than all but 3 games on here...

That's because recently our views were contracted to games we have posting rights to. If you want to see other games, follow the instructions here.


Last time I checked (before the customization switch) we were at 6th or 7th. There are games that go much faster than ours, and those that are about the same speed that have been going for years.

 

[kaliket]

Re: [Act 4] The Negotiation


Re-phrasing the exchange:


NC: We shouldn't use charms on each other, right?


Bz: While using charms on each other threatens our trust, extreme situations exist where it may be necessary.


I am replacing an absolute prohibition with a conditional prohibition This seems like a classic Parry Defense.

 

[Tikor]

Re: [Act 4] The Negotiation

Re-phrasing the exchange:
NC: We shouldn't use charms on each other, right?


Bz: While using charms on each other threatens our trust, extreme situations exist where it may be necessary.


I am replacing an absolute prohibition with a conditional prohibition This seems like a classic Parry Defense.

If NC had made a classic compulsion attack, your analysis is correct.


NC however put the compulsion in a different place. He compelled you to answer the question "Should we use Charms on each other?" while implying that he believes the answer is no. Your response ("I think we should in such and such conditions") is not actually a step 2 parry defense, but a declaration of no defense and skipping right to step 10, attack resolution - answering the question you were compelled to answer. The difference is in how NC framed his step 1 (which implicates what happens in step 10). I had a little trouble getting my head around NC's attack too, but I believe it is useful to understand now that I have the understanding.


However, I think the mechanics are getting in the way here - so we should quit paying them mind and not do any retconning. NC asked a question, BZ answered it without expending resources, social combat keeps on rolling.


There are two lessons as I see them:


1) Step 1 determines what Step 10 will look like if successful.


2) Virtues should be stated in step one of attack resolution. I will let the player of the character launching the Social Attack to get the first stab at this (which I will likely keep) but reserve the right to correct misclassifications and of course to fill in blanks.

 

[Tikor]

This analysis is coming much more from

Performance: I want to know if they agree or not to not using charms against one another. This is not a 'force them into agreeing to not use charms against one another. NC wants to know their honest answer' date=' not coercion into giving him the answer he wants.[/quote']
And IM conversations with NC than the stunt of the attack. Mechanical clarifications, however, will always hold more sway in the mechanics side of things than stunts. Just as stunts will have more sway in the details of how the mechanics are executed than the mechanics themselves (i.e. whether MDDV is outright blatantly and rudely ignoring people or just conveniently faking a loss of attention at the appropriate time (oh! shiny!)).

 

[Kalarix]

Have a couple of posts outlined depending on one thing.


How fast and how much does my caste mark fade?


1 level per scene means when I leave the room it's down a level?

 

[Tikor]

Have a couple of posts outlined depending on one thing.
How fast and how much does my caste mark fade?


1 level per scene means when I leave the room it's down a level?

I think you've already read Core page 114. The 1-3 and 16+ exceptions are listed on the table. Since this is Social Combat and lots of time has passed I will say at the end of this scene you will all go down one level, even the 1-3 level. So when you decide to end the discussion with Petrin you will all lose one level of glow as if your Animas know the need for Essence use has temporarily ended.


Do note that the 1-3 level will likely persist a while after the end of a combat scene since combat ticks are much shorter.

 

[Kalarix]

Right, so since I was at 5 glow, I'll now be at 1-3?

 

[Tikor]

Yes, 4-7 will go down to 1-3 glow.

 

[Tikor]

Rules clarification:


Simple and Supplemental combat Charms (that don't spark a Join Battle roll) used in social combat substitute long ticks for short ticks. It takes you 5 seconds to do x in combat, but 5 minutes to do x in social combat without sparking a Join Battle roll - you have to wait for the appropriate time. If you spark a Join Battle roll there's no issue, because we're in combat time then. As the storyteller I am the final arbiter of what sparks Join Battle and what doesn't (I am, of course, heavily swayed by mechanical clarifications like "I'm acting very threatening, I want to roll Join Battle now").


Reflexives remain reflexive, but they still take the Charm slot (this is different than Mass Combat, the wording specifically allowing free reflexives for everyone on p.166 is missing on p.171).

 

[kaliket]

Potential faux pas noted. I'm charged with the power of Awesome (so says Wikipedia), so I still want to make inquiries. Are either of them still at the party?

 

[Kalarix]

They're well known to drink long into the night comparing the virtues of forward square sailed brigantine vessels used by those from nearer the wind pole vs. the triangular sailed caravels used by people from nearer the fire pole.

 

[NoisyCricket]

They're well known to drink long into the night comparing the virtues of forward square sailed brigantine vessels used by those from nearer the wind pole vs. the triangular sailed caravels used by people from nearer the fire pole.

These conversations generally start with nearby maidens blushing, and usually end with a good old-fashioned brawl that spills out into the streets.


Or so I've been told. >.>

 

[Tikor]

Potential faux pas noted. I'm charged with the power of Awesome (so says Wikipedia), so I still want to make inquiries. Are either of them still at the party?

Go find out in character.

 

[Kalarix]

Potential faux pas noted. I'm charged with the power of Awesome (so says Wikipedia), so I still want to make inquiries. Are either of them still at the party?

Go find out in character.

OWNED!

 

[kaliket]

But the whole things started with trying to find out in character, so....


FOR LEASE!!

 

[Kalarix]

Sorry, been a little busy recently, will update today.

 

[kaliket]

XP for Act 4 plz! Also, when does Act 5 start?

 

[Tikor]

Act 5 was slated to start yesterday, but I've got a scene going on in PMs I'd like to finish to make sure Rillard and Noisy Criket don't get into any trouble. Expect it in a few days.