[OOC Thread] [The Resurgent]

[Tikor]

Kalarix, from the post aimed at Thanatos:


"Letting someone chain a Solar will spark a Conviction roll. Failure means you allow the Solar to be Chained and take a point of Limit. Success means you somehow attempt to prevent Noisy Cricket's imprisonment, no Limit. 1 WP can change a Success to a Failure or vice versa, but take the limit so long as the ultimate decision is to let Noisy Cricket be chained."


This is it, minus the Limit business.


<Just a reiteration of my ST style and mental effects>


Virtue Checks, NMI, UMI and anything else that 'forces' you to play your character a certain way:


You can tell them all to go to hell with the proper resource expentiture. Play the character the way you want to. I will not begrudge you this as an ST, but you may gain a reputation for being hard-headed in-character if you always contradict sound arguments with stubborn refusal, and you'll be down a WP here and Virtue channel there.

 

[Kalarix]

Yeah, I'm not worried about playing my character, just the actual mechanic involved. Was very not clear on that.


In any case


Conviction (3) : 1 success


will go about my business

 

[kaliket]

Where am I on the Tick Order? I don't see where my next action will occur.

 

[Tikor]

Balthazar, your last action was a move action (which can happen while you're guarding). You can take an action at any time.

 

[Tikor]

"Letting someone chain a Solar will spark a Conviction roll". If you don't let him, the Conviction roll is never sparked.

 

[kaliket]

Yes to stealthing although its the "lost in a sea of faces" stealthiness, not necessarily the "you can't see me" stealthiness. Not sure if that's a difference of not.

 

[NoisyCricket]

Yes to stealthing although its the "lost in a sea of faces" stealthiness, not necessarily the "you can't see me" stealthiness. Not sure if that's a difference of not.

This might be manipulation Socialize, as that is used for Social Surprise attacks.

 

[Tikor]

Yes to stealthing although its the "lost in a sea of faces" stealthiness, not necessarily the "you can't see me" stealthiness. Not sure if that's a difference of not.

Hiding in plain sight is Larceny - they can see you but they don't suspect you. Please roll Manipulation+Larceny with a 1 die stunt for explaining it OOC and 1 automatic success because you look like a mortal and other reasons I won't go into.

 

[NoisyCricket]

Apparently, we need to tap more mana to summon Rillard.


>.>


Now...what color is it we need?

 

[Kalarix]

My apologies, I had planned to write my piece yesterday (have a good bit of it jotted down), but I was ambushed when I came home.

 

[Tikor]

First off, saw the post, Rillard, thanks. I will meditate on how to handle this. Rocky crag optional.


In the interim, I present SOL MOTHERFUCKING INVICTUS.


Because if you've got 4 hands and one of them isn't mocking you're opponent, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Tikor]

I will meditate on how to handle this. Rocky crag optional.

I have completed meditation. I think the best way to handle this is Mass Social Combat with at least 3 groups: Villagers, Guardsmen and Solars (Solars can start in any combination they desire, decided here in OOC). Each will have their own 'Policy' and goals for the scene and interact using the Mass Social Combat rules.


If I've decided what's best, why is this here instead of the in-character thread? Because I want to get an opinion or two before I introduce another system (Mass Social Combat) even if the similarities to Social Combat are many. The relevant pages are Core 175 (Mass Social Combat rules) 169-175 (Social Combat rules, which Mass Social Combat referres to) and 166ish (Mass Combat actions, which Mass Social Combat uses). Many of you might not be familiar/might not like the Mass Combat rules which are reflected in Mass Social Combat. I am using Core Mass Combat, not the Scroll of Kings additional rules.


So - do you want me to introduce Mass Social Combat which is imho is the best implementation or do you want me to just throw some bonuses and penalties around in regular Social Combat?


Further - If you want to use Mass Social Combat, who do you want to lead/select as your leader (think in-character) or do you want to stand alone? The Policy difference I see in this scene that might divide you is the question : Will you allow Solars to be chained? (Thanatos, you are stand alone at the current tick at least since you aren't at the scene, but you can join any of the Solar group(s) when you return).

 

[NoisyCricket]

Mass Social Combat:


My assumption (at the moment) is that we are ignoring fairly insignificant people. This would include the guy I nodded to earlier, as well as any random bystanders who are just hanging back on the streets, watching what is going on.


Otherwise, they might need to be another group. They could possibly have the motivation of "Don't get involved" or "Wait around until we know what is going on."


(I'm shoehorning this in, as I just thought of it, but there is that one random guy off to the side, he probably counts as his own group.)


The only bit of shoehorning I'm seeing is with the Solars.


According to Social Combat, the Leader is someone who has control over a certain group.


This is fairly easy for the guards. The leader is Black Wavecleaver


This is not quite as easy for the crowd, but it's probably one of the elementals or the knife guy.


For the Solars, we would normally be two groups, with either Rillard or Balthazar as the leader of one, and Thanatos as his own.


Thanatos is not really a part of our Circle at the moment, and should probably be his own faction until one of us recognizes him as one of our own (however we want to do that).


Unfortunately, we now take into account that the Policy of our group might not cover the rest of us.


Noisy Cricket's Policy for this particular scene would be "Protect Gateway" or "Protect the people of Gateway"


I'm not sure what Rillard's and Balthazar's motivations/policies would be. This might be "Prevent the Solars from being imprisoned", but I'm unsure at the moment.


Anyway, that's my understanding of the situation, the breakdown I would give is (ignoring the bystanders as not mechanically important at the moment):


Crowd: "Don't let Gateway be destroyed"


Leader: An elemental or someone charismatic in the crowd


Guards: "Keep order"


Leader: Black Wavecleaver


Noisy Cricket: "Protect the people of Gateway."


Leader: Noisy Cricket


Partial Solar Circle: "Protect the Circle"


Leader: Rillard or Balthazar (probably Rillard, as Balthazar hasn't outed himself)


Thanatos: "Punish those who have violated The True and Just Hierarchy with the Glorious Solars As Its Head" or "Prevent the Solars from being demeaned/harmed by Those Below Them"


Leader: Thanatos

 

[Tikor]

So - do you want me to introduce Mass Social Combat which is imho is the best implementation or do you want me to just throw some bonuses and penalties around in regular Social Combat?

I assume this is you for Mass Social Combat then, NC?

 

[kaliket]

Mass social combat is fine. For the time being, we're attacking units with magnitude 1-2. By making a single social attack against the leader of a given group, you can influence the whole. This isn't a Socialize action, which takes weeks if not hours.


We, as PCs, are treated as independents characters as in mass combat. Any loyalty we win from the crowd will add to our stats (like surrouding yourself with pikemen).

 

[NoisyCricket]

Mass social combat is fine. For the time being, we're attacking units with magnitude 1-2. By making a single social attack against the leader of a given group, you can influence the whole. This isn't a Socialize action, which takes weeks if not hours.

First, I think you meant 'hours, if not weeks'.


Second, this might not be Socialize, but your other abilities are capped by your Socialize ability.

We, as PCs, are treated as independents characters as in mass combat. Any loyalty we win from the crowd will add to our stats (like surrouding yourself with pikemen).

You can be treated as independent characters, or else we could probably be treated as 'A Circle' or 'Part of a Circle'.


In this case, it might be best for both of you to be independent units though.


I am almost certainly independent at this point, due to my motivation/policy.

 

[Kalarix]

just tell me what to roll ^^

 

[NoisyCricket]

chirps

 

[Tikor]

I blame myself for posting at midnight after a shot of vodka and some peach schnaps mixed with red bull for this mistake, but since it is my mistake I will let it pass instead of retconning.


All Social Ability use in Mass Social Combat is capped by Socialize, so Rillard would have 2 fewer dice on his roll. On the flip side, the Socialize Excellency can be used to benefit nearly everything. This does impact MDVs.


This will be in effect henceforth for Mass Social Combat.

 

[Tikor]

Memory roll - stunt die?
Wits(3) + Integrity(4) =7 - InternalPenalty(3) = 4 : 3 successes

Stunt dice apply to your whole action, so the stunt dice would apply here. Since you passed and are out of range for any cooler effect with 2 bonus die, don't worry about rolling them at this point.

 

[Kalarix]

All Social Ability use in Mass Social Combat is capped by Socialize.

This cap applies even with ability excellencies other than socialize, yes?


And no worries on the two less dice, I just rolled less successes instead ops:

 

[Tikor]

This cap applies even with ability excellencies other than socialize, yes?

Perhaps some Examples are in order:


Str 3


Charisma 3


Athletics 5


Presence 4


Socialize 2


Charsima+Presence Mass Social Combat attack = 5 dice.


Presence Excellencies can add 5 dice


Socialize Excellencies can add 5 dice


Both are applicable.


Str+Athletics checks are unaffected (8 dice). Socialize Excellencies are not applicable.

 

[Tikor]

Rillard - Roll Wits+Integrity at a -3 Internal Penalty. Also this is your declaration of your Step 1 for your attack : Charisma+Presence Temperence attack at a -2 external penalty for Mag 0 vs. a Mag 2 group.

Memory roll - stunt die?
Wits(3) + Integrity(4) =7 - InternalPenalty(3) = 4 : 3 successes


Attack Roll


Charisma(5)+Presence(4)+Stunt(2)+Conviction(3) = 14 : 5 - InternalPenalty(2) = 3

To reiterate, internal penalties subtract dice before the roll. External penalties subtract successes after the roll. Considering your colon placement I think you did this correctly even though you mislabled your penalties.

 

[Kalarix]

Ah yes, mislabled the second one (copypasta)


The colon represents the actual roll.


Editing label.

 

[Kalarix]

Step 5: Elemental's modified MDDV is 3, miss

Damn I need those combos :-p


I will settle for more favorable balance of chance.


Excellent rolls to well exceed my memory roll vs. poor roles on my social attack roll.