Jump to content

jenh

Member
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jenh

  1. 2 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

    I have found over the years that it is very easy for Players to forget various NPC's and promises.  Does that mean the Character has forgotten?  Maybe or maybe not, and I find it easiest to put it in the roll of the dice at that point.

    This seems a common sentiment among respondents to this thread, and I'm really curious as to why. If the player remembers, they are choosing whether the character remembers or forgets. This is the ideal state - we'd all like our players to remember everything, and make choices for/as their character. When the player forgets, we don't get to the ideal state by introducing a new mechanic to figure out what's going on with the character. We get there by reminding the player.

    Is it that there is an assumption that if the player remembered, then of course the character would remember and do the thing? And that in such a case, where the player forgets, there is now an opportunity for the GM to slip in some drama that would otherwise never occur? I'm really grasping at (terrible) straws here; I just don't understand what the desired goal is for any approach other than reminding the player.

    • Helpful 1
    • Thanks 1
  2. 10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

    Absolutely not, I don't know where you got that from!

    Call me "baffled". If I had posted "I'm going to punish them for this, har-de-har" then I would expect a response like that. If you re-read my post I think it's clear that is not what I am saying.

    You said you didn't want to be too mean, nor too lenient, and that you were not wanting to be punishing. You explicitly want to know how mean to be. I think that being mean at all is not really what I'd consider part of a fun game, and that the simplest and best solution to the underlying matter of whether it's the players or the PCs who forgot is to ask the players. No meanness, no leniency, because it's not operating on that spectrum at all.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  3. On 8/15/2022 at 1:38 AM, PhilHibbs said:

    So far, two seasons later, they seem to have forgotten about their promise. Do I presume that this means that their characters have forgotten, or is it something that the characters are less likely to forget than the players?

    I would just remind the players OOC that the PCs made the promise, and let them determine what their PCs do. I don't know what leniency has to do with it, unless you think there is a problem with your players' behaviour that you're trying to correct by punishing them. At that point I wonder whether this is about playing a fun game. The players are absolutely more likely to forget than their characters, and it's vastly more interesting to have the fulfilment or not of promises be a matter of intention on their part.

    • Thanks 1
    • Confused 1
  4. So it seems the Chaosium announcement of suspending plans was in fact because they believe that we're all confused and bewildered, but will either stop fussing and learn to love NFTs, or just quieten down so they can get back to being part of this horror.

    Is that about right, Chaosium?

  5. JonL said: "Or it can not be, as the marketplace is infested with bad actors and there is no meaningful oversight."

    5 hours ago, g33k said:

    But, has this ever been documented?

    Yes? There are numerous examples in the video, or you can read the never-ending stream at https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

    Rather than assume that everything is surely fine and that there must be lots of legitimate and good uses of NFTs and cryptocurrency out there, perhaps find examples where everything is good and above board and not an environmental disaster scam with no upside for non-scammers (whether witting or not).

    • Like 1
  6. 5 minutes ago, g33k said:

    (but note that the "Ponzi" scheme is something else entirely -- that's where you get more and more people to invest in a fraudulent asset, so you have their cash; and you use some of that cash to reward the early-buyers, encouraging them to buy-in further and recruit their friends/etc while siphoning a bunch of the cashflow out)

    In order to buy the NFT, you have to buy into the cryptocurrency. In order to mint the NFT, you have to buy into the cryptocurrency. Both of these bump up the value of the cryptocurrency. So people with cryptocurrency want more and more people to make NFTs and buy NFTs, so that they can sell the cryptocurrency that they have for a lot more than they bought it for. Now a whole bunch of new people have cryptocurrency, because they want to sell it when the price goes up. That requires that other people buy cryptocurrencies. Your profit depends on more and more people buying into the scheme.

    It is a scam. It is not merely speculating, it is an environmentally disastrous scam predicated entirely on greed where whatever the NFT points to is absolutely meaningless. You can argue that a Pollock painting and speculation around that is predicated entirely on greed, but NFTs are vastly worse in multiple ways.

    • Like 2
  7. 8 minutes ago, JonL said:

    If someone still called the unique item IDs in that registry "non-fungible tokens," would there be a problem?

    No, but the entire point of NFTs is for people to cash out cryptocurrencies into actual money. It's not about whatever the NFT is pointing to, it's about speculating on suckering more people into the scheme so that you can sell the NFT on and get out. The whole thing is laid out well in the video posted in the other thread.

    Without the cryptocurrency element, there wouldn't be NFTs. There would be a few collectors buying actual things.

    • Like 2
  8.  

    21 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    Each side has at least one item on their list, and an item of the same level or one lower than the highest level item on the other side.  This fulfills the ending criteria.  End of negotiation.

     Now is that satisfying? 

    Do you have the feeling that bargaining took place? 

    How about if the GM role-plays it a little, providing a conversational interchange (to be modeled)?

    It seems okay to me - it's mechanically quick to resolve, involves the players deciding which bits of the Aldryami position they find most appealing/least unappealing, and has concrete outcomes.

    It would definitely benefit, for my tastes, from the process of selecting items including bits of roleplay. The point of this process is to allow for not roleplaying the whole thing (whether for speed, to explicitly include character skill and/or randomness, to cover player gaps of knowledge, or whatever), but to end up with something that isn't abstract. The concrete results are good, but knowing the end result then also enables the roleplaying to be done that gives all of the really good stuff - how people interacted, what they feel, etc.

    I think I mentioned earlier that you can use the other side's list to include things that are negative consequences that aren't part of the literal bargaining position, that can also feed into the roleplaying: eg, a loss of respect by the Aldryami for the PCs. Indeed, such items might be the majority - I'm always going to be more interested in personal relationships than who gets what. I can easily imagine setting up a negotiation in which - if the negotiation doesn't break down entirely - the other side is guaranteed to get various things, and the list items are all negative consequences. The better the PCs' roll, the fewer negative consequences they need to take.

    I should point out that this is all something of an inflection on the general system in 7th Sea 2nd edition (or what I recall of it).

    • Like 1
  9. 47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    1) How many total points?  For the initial points, and for the total point value of the bargaining items? 

    I think (in my quest for something really simple) that I'd have a baseline of 0 points when the negotiation's opposed roll comes out with both sides equal. If one side is in a superior position, I'd reflect that with a negative modifier to the PC's points, meaning that they must buy more of the stronger sides items. I'd possibly couple this with the other side having more items on their lists, if necessary.

    47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    2) How do we set the point value of items from the two sides' lists?

    A item costs 10, B item costs 5, C item costs 2? If a really good opposed roll (critical vs fumble) gets four points, that's a big chunk but still requires negotiating.

    47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    4) What are the rules for the negotiation continuing or ending?

    Each side has to get at least one item on their list, and must have an item of the same level or one lower than the highest level item on the other side. So you can't have one side get their A item and buy it solely with C items. This might only apply to the non-PC side, so that PCs who rolled very poorly might decide to settle for C items when the others get their A item.

    Since this is all PC driven, they determine if they can get a set of items that fulfill those criteria and which satisfy them. If they can't, the negotiation ends with no one getting anything, if they can, each side gets the items the PCs selected.

    47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    5) What impact will augments have?

    Modification to the skill used in the opposed roll, I assume.

  10. One issue I have with that system is that it doesn't feel like a negotiation, because the two sides are operating almost entirely independently. I suggested earlier have an opposed roll that determines the starting number of points the PCs get to spend on items on the lists. A really good success compared to the others means starting with a few points - but still not enough to get their A item. The only way to get more points is to select items from the other side's lists.

    This I think would make it feel much more like a negotiation, even if the GM doesn't get involved at all after making the lists (which I would - this is where I'd roleplay out arguments in favour of or against particular items).

  11. 15 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    Would you care to set a scenario from which we can derive a test set of issues or proposals? 

    The PCs are involved in a dispute between an Orlanthi stead and a nearby Aldryami enclave. The Orlanthi have recently had a significant increase in population due to their acceptance into the group of refugees. The Orlanthi have increased resource needs (firewood, grazing land, etc) and want to extend the traditional borders of their holdings further into the forest that the Aldryami hold. There is a second Orlanthi settlement, of another clan, also nearby, who have been encroaching on the forest. The PCs are representatives of the first stead.

    This only really becomes interesting though when it is enriched by more specific contexts, of the people involved, the history of the people and places, etc. Those are the sources for many of the items on the lists that I'd construct.

    I hope this helps!

    • Like 2
  12. 1 minute ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    Question, how would you decide that "know well" issue with or without dice?

    I would be operating, I think, on a slightly different scale than the one you're trying to model; I'd want the whole negotiation encompassed by the one roll (or a few in a row; augments or some other bits and bobs). So rather than the mechanics simulating a step by step process, I'd have an initial phase of IC talking that sets up the negotiation, which would provide the basic context for what is happening. It's partly from that that the lists would grow from. Then, since the one roll is covering the whole negotiation, the interpretation phase would then retroactively generate the fiction of what occurred - such as the PCs learning of something the others wanted and which was rejected, causing the negotiation to break down, or whatever.

    The more intermixing of non-IC with IC there is, the more disruptive I find things, so I try to avoid having to jump out and back several times to build up what's happening.

    Does that help at all? Sorry, I don't want to distract from the actual mechanics, since that's the topic of the thread and I don't have any more of a system than what I presented initially. I'm glad it's something you're taking and generating something more robust from!

  13. 11 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    That is my first draft of the negotiation model / form.  Your thoughts?

    It's more involved than suits me, in terms of mechanics used to engage with the lists. But that's no surprise: my aim in play is to introduce the minimum level of abstractions necessary either to speed up a process that would be too slow run real-time IC and/or to accommodate players unwilling or unable to run the situation IC. So I would have the interpretation phase of a fairly simple mechanical element (likely just an opposed roll, or maybe a few) be the meat, where the abstraction of the lists gets fleshed out by partially IC discussion. Basically, I"m a bad person to give feedback on this sort of thing - what you have might be amazing, and work really well for many people, but I wouldn't know because mechanics aren't my jam. (I ran a HeroQuest game once, that almost immediately turned into a systemless game because after rolling the dice once I realised I never wanted to do that again.)

    There must be others reading this thread who have an opinion.

    Having said all that, I don't like the GM's list being secret. It's pretty hard for someone to get what they want in a negotiation without telling the people they're negotiating with what they want. Sure, you have the insight rolls to find out, but that seems both punishing and misaligned with the fiction. I imagine that you have it that way because it adds more doubt and more mechanical engagement, which will suit those really wanting to engage with the game side of things?

  14. 6 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    It strikes me that we should define one single process, not two, if it is to be revealed to the players.  Why?  Because it's not good for suspension of disbelief if you can tell from the process whether the GM cares and has fleshed out the NPCs. 

    Go for it. I wasn't really thinking about it in terms of which NPCs are fleshed out, though, but rather whether the interaction is one where the other parties are trying to get something and that is important to the situation. So when convincing a guard to let one in, what the guard "wants" is better expressed through the lens of potentially negative elements for the PCs. Given, as you mentioned above, you would only use this for negotiations rather than persuasion, you'd only want to use the second form.

  15. In case anyone is wondering, I'm enjoying reading the thoughts on this thread - I just don't have much to say in response at the moment. Except that I'm rather amused that we've gone full-steam into removing death, which is a bold move that certainly wasn't on my agenda! I'm fascinated to see where that thread goes, though.

    Also, I'm wondering if any of the misgivings about the concept would be (partially) alleviated if the "violence is not an option" approach were implemented sort of like a Spirit of Reprisal - people who engage in violence are breaking a cosmic law much as if they were offending their deity. I say "sort of" deliberately there, to avoid statements that then of course the Lunars will go and fight and win due to having lots of illuminated folks.

  16. 2 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    You had a more detailed bargaining concept started with writing down goals.  What steps would you suggest for carrying it out?

    I might handle it in one of two ways, depending on whether it was entirely PC-facing or not. A negotiation might be one in which I only care about what the PCs get and give up (PC-facing) or one in which I want greater detail on what the other sides get.

    For the former, first I'd work with the players to create the lists of things they want, things they might give up, and negative consequences/elements that tie into the other sides' desires etc.

    Then comes an opposed roll, and with some degrees of success determination from that we'd enter the interpretation phase. Based on that degree of success, items are chosen from the various lists to end up with something that feels like the right balance of positive and negative items. I wouldn't bother having much if any formal quantification of weightings for various items; I think that would become pretty clear through discussion. If it was really wanted by a group, perhaps both the list making and item choosing could be regularised so that each list has three weights of items, and each degree of success/failure is a point in the starting pool. Then buy items off the positive list, balancing where needed with items off the negative lists, with the different weights having different costs.

    For situations that are not entirely PC-facing, I'd change the lists so that each side had a list of things they wanted and things they were willing to give up. The opposed roll and degree of success would be used as above for interpreting results, except that now the desired items of the non-PC sides would be involved in the balancing. Not a huge difference, but does make the situation one which allows for far greater win-win outcomes.

    Please note that I've never used this process in this form, so it may not work well at all. I'd dislike it as a player, but it seems a reasonable way to introduce some abstraction, randomness, and character skill into a process that most of those I GM for would not always want to just play out in character.

  17. 7 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

    I am extrapolating the way I have seen guys play female characters. There's a tendency for them to end up like a grown-up version of Mathilde from 'The Professional' in which Leon did not die and trained her, with various tropes added (on top of beautiful & deadly, men-hating, overly-sexualised, perpetually under-dressed, with even more offensive depictions of sexual orientation or kink). Someone could take that forumla and make a BG character a joke.

    I'm actually relieved that's it's not more than the 'standard' horror. Thank you.

    • Like 1
  18. 2 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    My purpose is to put a definite mechanic out in public in accord with the theme of the thread.  This suggestion is  intended to get  players and GMs thinking about non-combat events.

    Oh yes, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't good to put forth such mechanics, especially in a thread precisely about that! I was just registering, poorly, that my feedback can only be minimal and ill-informed, given my tastes. Sorry about that!

    And I totally understand your reasons for wanting mechanics, and look forward to seeing your bargaining template. Even when I don't use explicit mechanics for such things, having a rough framework for judging how I (if GMing) might factor in character skills and such can be useful.

  19. 34 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    What do you think of that as a mechanic for simulating the group?

    Sounds sensible to me. I expect that in play, under whatever system (definitely including my outline above), I'd very quickly get frustrated and want to run everything as in-character conversations with outcomes determined solely on what feels right, but that's neither a mechanic nor something many people find at all satisfying (for a variety of entirely valid reasons). I'm at the extreme end of not caring about gamist concerns.

  20. 11 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    To me, the difference is that persuasion is for a yes/no result, and negotiation is for an exchange of actions, favors, or goods; and as you indicate, a probable result is  "requires recompense of goods or favour" .

    Interesting - thank you for going into such detail with your example! How would you handle attempts to persuade an influencer (say, the weaponthanes) via multiple different arguments? I can see how it's convenient to have a binary pass/fail for persuasion when there's one argument in play (an appeal to glory), but is there a simple way to model a second bite of the apple (potentially but not necessarily affected by earlier arguments and their reception)? 

  21. 3 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

    But, yes, I think that guy's should normally not tread there unless they are going to play with sincerity rather than as some kind of parody.

    I feel certain that I'm going to regret asking this and gaining fresh causes of disappointment, but what problems in the portrayal of BG followers do (too many) men fall into? Or should I just be grateful that I can't think what a parody would look like?

    • Like 2
  22. 4 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

    I think it is important to distinguish between persuasion and negotiation.  These seem to me to need two different templates for game mechanics.  Just as opposed skill rolls and the resistance table are two different mechanics for different situations.

    Can you elaborate on what the distinctions you want to make are?

    I think I'd be happy to run at least some instances of persuasion using the same framework as I outlined. (Which of course are lacking the actual mechanical bit where luck and character skill are mixed together in some way to get the result that is interpreted.) For example, if Vasana is trying to convince a guard to let her in to some compound in Prax, I as GM might put "will accompany you", "requires recompense of goods or favour", "will notify superiors" on a list, while the player might have "remind her of that time I bailed her out of trouble", "pay her to look the other way", "appeal to their shared faith", "threaten her with future retribution".

    Since there would be no point having the mechanical bit if persuasion was either unnecessary (the guard is always going to let her in) or ineffective (the guard is never going to let her in), Vasana has to provide some reason for the guard to do what she wants.

    The key aspect of this is to be able to ground the outcome in particulars: not what exact words were said, but at least the topics and tone of what passed. If I don't have that, the entire exchange loses all reality for me.

    I don't know whether that example is something you'd want to handle in a different way from a negotiation. If it is, I'd love to hear more!

  23. 1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

    Perhaps we misunderstand, and Jenh does intend to do a "Session Zero" to get player buy in.  It would be nice to get clarification.  And, maybe, as she says, her players will be fine with the unusual premise.

    Oh yes, this will be part of the campaign premise that I pitch to my group before we decide on what we're playing. It would be one of a number of options. I don't have any interest in, and can see no good results from, suddenly changing whatever world I'm playing in ways that change what the PCs do.

    As for more specifics about who the characters are and what they do, I'm currently thinking of the PCs being individuals selected by high-ups in the Shaker Temple (and/or more directly divinely inspired) to (pave the way to) bring the exiles back to Tarsh. This might either start small (go see what's happening in the nearest settlement and proceed from there) or large (open negotiations with the closest person to the Red Emperor they can get to).

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...