Game Discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

Since the maker of the OOC chatter thread requested that it be used for something else than it has been used for, and there is a very clear need for a thread for the sort of discussion that occurred there:

Here it is.

I don't feel done with the intrigue debate tbqh, but if we are to continue with it, I think we ought to call an impasse first, because the track we got ourselves into doesn't lead anywhere nice.

But the main subjects IMO:

-Choice of Technique
Using charm (and sticking with charm) for an intrigue in order to be better equipped for the next intrigue is a very legitimate use of the technique, Theo has done that twice, the first time he did not succeed, the second time he hasn't "
cashed in"
that +1D yet, might be he never will in a very un-Theoish fashion. If you are upfront about aiming for this, then I *might* be enough of a gentleman to give you that chance. That does, after all, give me two shots at defeating you, and the option to employ the same gambit right back, I'd estimate that Theo's act has 55-45 odds against Baelon's Charm on account of my reputation die being a tie-breaker is pretty much the only thing that would separate us statistically (and you'd still need to do 6xDoS of influence in the next intrigue for me not to be able to get out with a yield or quit if I don't like the counteroffer). But if I have little idea if your planned finishing move could be something else than charm, then it would be extremely unreasonable for me to accept that risk IMO.

However, I would be weary of this strategy being employed against someone that you would have a good shot at beating without that 1D in the first place and doesn't have much chance of winning an intrigue when you employ charm. That is, IMO, rather unsportsmanlike from an OOC point of view, as is leading with charm and then switch technique in the same intrigue.

-Hidden Objectives
Another point I want to bring out here is that keeping it hidden OOC, under the assumption that most PC vs PC intrigues ends in yields, opens up the realm of OOC negotiations. There were people in SA that played to win, those people would apply lessons from RL negotiations to gain whatever advantage they could out of that situation (if they had any of that, though, I didn't get the impression that the one I have in mind did). I do not believe anyone consciously goes into this with such an attitude, but this sort of game tends to bring out a bit too much competitive spirit out of people.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Charm

I want to be clear that I have no problem with Charm being used as intended.

I also want to note that Charm is an excellent countermeasure. If someone comes up to you and wants to Intrigue you for information or a service, if you have nothing in particular you want from them, choose Friendship as your objective and Charm them. They usually won't quit the Intrigue because they have a vested interest not to.

I should also say that quitting in pure friendship Intrigues irritates me a bit, unless you have a strong narrative reason why you wouldn't want to be their friend. If someone comes up to you at a party and wants to be friends, how often do you just slag them off, and how often can you do that before people just don't want to be bothered being around you. Remember you can always adjust your Disposition later due to circumstance if you have to. Also, I think I need to point out that if you use Persuasion to Charm in a Friendship Intrigue, it means you really want to be friendly. If you are playing them for a sap, then you should be using Deception.


Hidden Objectives

I have nothing further to add on this subject. I think my position is pretty clear.


Intrigues

I think we got away from Baelon's original post, which was to encourage more PC Intrigues, something I completely agree with. (And I don't think the resulting debate did much to encourage that, which I am sorry for even if I believe the discussion was important.)

I do not think all PC Intrigues, (or even many) should end in yields. If that was the case, there would be actually no point for the Intrigue. You would simply RP the situation out without any need for mechanics. If you have a pretty good idea your going to quit the Intrigue, or move towards some defined compromise, why bother with the mechanics at all.

There is also the question of quitting. Too often the person is quitting because they are losing OOC mechanically, not because of narrative circumstance. 'I thought I had a shot at beating you, but I am losing, so I'm going to quit.' or 'Your Persusasion is 5 and mine is 2. I have no chance at beating you, so I am just going to quit the first chance I get.'

I'll be honest. While my character may be an Intriguer, I Intrigue very little in DD. Most of the time, I can get what I want just from conversation and RP. Very often, the other PC gets what they want as well. Why waste my time if people are just gong to run away when they are losing or don't get the yield they want, or demand an outrageous yield when they are winning. I would love to see more good quality Intrigues where there is drama, conflict, winners, and losers. However Intrigues between PCs in DD often amount to sparring matches with no winner and little narrative impact. I don't really have the time or the interest for that.

.

[Nathaniel Mason]

I think, in some ways, people miss the rationalization that goes with Intrigues. Being defeated in an Intrigue is not mind control. It does not change their personality. If the Hound was charmed to an affectionate disposition, he would express that very differently than someone like Loras. If the Mountain intimidates someone, certainly much of that intimidation may be the threat of physical harm, but someone like Tyrion may be able to intimidate just as well or better because he has the money, intelligence, power and connections to really screw someone over if he wants to. Part of playing this game and proper role play is to rationalize the loss of Intrigue.

If Nathan were to successfully charm Ser Garred, the Knight would like Nathan in spite of their differences. I can tell you I have a close friend who holds some social views that I find deeply offensive. By rights, we shouldn't even be friends, but we are. If someone loses an intrigue, it is incumbent upon them to role play that loss, rationalizing it as best they can (as normal human beings often do). It only when an intrigue violates a core belief or demands an outrageous action that we have problems, and that is often far more infrequent than people would like to admit. Most people have real difficulty giving up any aspect of control over their character, and you simply have to in a game that has a mechanical means of forcing a character to act in a certain way.

(Looks like Walton deleted his post as I was responding to it, so this may not seem to make much sense, but I am posting it anyway as I think it's generally valid.)

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Since the maker of the OOC chatter thread requested that it be used for something else than it has been used for, and there is a very clear need for a thread for the sort of discussion that occurred there:

Any chance you could drop the passive-aggressive sniping, please? The other thread was created for off-topic chat, hence it's name "
General OOC Chatter"
. As in chat. As in not game-related.

[Theomore Tullison]

That was not my intent.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Since the maker of the OOC chatter thread requested that it be used for something else than it has been used for, and there is a very clear need for a thread for the sort of discussion that occurred there:

Any chance you could drop the passive-aggressive sniping, please? The other thread was created for off-topic chat, hence it's name "
General OOC Chatter"
. As in chat. As in not game-related.

While I understand that you are upset, would this not have been more appropriate as a PM?

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Perhaps, but it's done now, and I don't see why I have to defend myself in private, but others may make snarky comments about me publicly.

[Yoren longshore]

If withdrawing is a problem wouldn't it be easier to just create some drawbacks to do so? Like in the corebook it says that it'll lead to repercussions, as people see you doing the ostrich tactic.

[Athelstan]

If it's going to have combat repercussions, it better have social ones also.

[Theomore Tullison]

Why would withdrawing be a problem? You use your action on something else than influence. It can drag stuff out, sure, but intrigue has a tendency to be over much too quickly IMO, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Why would withdrawing be a problem? You use your action on something else than influence. It can drag stuff out, sure, but intrigue has a tendency to be over much too quickly IMO, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Actually, I think he was referring to withdrawing from the Intrigue, ie.. quitting.

[Athelstan]

Why would withdrawing be a problem? You use your action on something else than influence. It can drag stuff out, sure, but intrigue has a tendency to be over much too quickly IMO, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Actually, I think he was referring to withdrawing from the Intrigue, ie.. quitting.

Correct, you can't withdraw from combat without getting punished for it, why not social combat also.

Quit has no mechanical problem other than RP if at all.

[Septon Arlyn]

Maybe a - 1d to your next intrigue? That way for people who are not intriguers it would not be too punishing as they would not be looking to intrigue anyways where as it would be harmful to those with higher intrigue values as it would hurt your ability to convince people to do what you want if you are not willing to work with other people (finish an intrigue?)

[Yoren longshore]

Why would withdrawing be a problem? You use your action on something else than influence. It can drag stuff out, sure, but intrigue has a tendency to be over much too quickly IMO, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Actually, I think he was referring to withdrawing from the Intrigue, ie.. quitting.

Yeah, sorry about that...

[Athelstan]

-1 D is to much, I think, even if combat punishes and makes certain character combat styles just entirely non-existent, since it's a mechanic that just got added, but there is nothing to punish people that also quit in Intrigues or a fix for the "
Charm Hammer"

[Septon Arlyn]

well I think that the - 1 D for the next intrigue is less harsh then taking a wound in combat, which effects every skill check you make. Wounds can stick with you for an entire story if you roll poorly to ehal and you can end up with multiple wounds.


I think that maybe with PC vs PC you have to pick one technique and stick with it. I think that defeats the majority of concerns about charm hammer. With NPC's I feel like it should be open range.

[Theomore Tullison]

Quitting intrigue may well carry consequences, though mechanical ones I do not see the need for.

I don't think Baelon liked that Ben quit on him for example.

[Septon Arlyn]

Maybe if you quit if gives the person who was being quit on the option to lower there disposition towards the one who quit?

[Nathaniel Mason]

well I think that the - 1 D for the next intrigue is less harsh then taking a wound in combat, which effects every skill check you make. Wounds can stick with you for an entire story if you roll poorly to ehal and you can end up with multiple wounds.

This is what we have in our home game as a minimum.

We also added that you have to roll to quit an intrigue, but I wouldn't expect that here.

I think that maybe with PC vs PC you have to pick one technique and stick with it. I think that defeats the majority of concerns about charm hammer. With NPC's I feel like it should be open range.

I don't agree with this. It makes Intrigues static.

The technique should match the narrative, and the narrative can shift from exchange to exchange, depending on what is being role played.

In my opinion, the way to deal with charm hammer, is simply go in with the expectation that players will not try and exploit the rules.

Maybe if you quit if gives the person who was being quit on the option to lower there disposition towards the one who quit?

The player can do that already. A player sets their Disposition at the start of an Intrigue. I keep track of my Dispositions and they rise and fall based on both Intrigues and IG events. If someone were to walk away from Nathan, there is a good chance I would drop by Disposition by 1, depending on the circumstances.

[Athelstan]

You can have any disposition you want towards other PC's or NPC, regardless of intrigue, like 50% of the time depending on Dunstan and the IC circumstances my stance could be Neutral or Dislike.

It has to be something that stings, but not something as simple as disposition between PC's, NPC should naturally think ill of you or take your words in a very different way, even the fluff text of Quit supports that.

Also for combat we should have a LA called Withdraw that let's you move up to your movement without causing an attack of opportunity from your opponent. This way people light on their foot and small armor have a way to combat other more heavy and armored opponent's without destroying their chances or builds.

[Septon Arlyn]

Ive been thinking and you could always try a dodge action


Dodge Greater
In the face of overwhelming odds, sometimes it’s best just to get out
of the way. When you take the Dodge action, you may move up to half
your Movement if you choose, usually to reach cover. Roll an Agility
test (Bonus dice from the Shield specialty apply if you are armed with
a shield). The result replaces your Combat Defense (even if worse) until
your next turn. Add any Defensive Bonuses gained from weapons to
your test result.

The biggest problem is that passive attack you have to beat, with everyone rolling around at fight 5 you would have to roll higher then a 20, If the passive attack was simply fight x 3 (like endurance and health are based off of stat x 3 or will and composure ect) it would make the TN much more reasonable. Or even if they turned it into a active test;
(testing your dodge vs their fighting) then that would make things much less predictable.

[Dunstan Tullison]

I don't think there should be mechanical consequences for quitting the intrigue, since the potential for RP consequences is so high. Like, if you are playing a lowborn character and want to engage Daemon in an intrigue, why would he have a -1D in the next intrigue when he quits?

You could just simply rp it as a being disappointed in him etc.. Which could lead to you maybe lean a bit on the green stuff. I am just providing a very simple example in here, but you catch my gist.

[Nathaniel Mason]

In the case of Charm, I would also like to add I am not a fan of changing a rule simply because it can be exploited. If the rule works fine when used as intended, it should probably be left alone.

A shovel, when used as intended, digs dirt. A shovel can also be used to hit someone over the head. We do not redesign the shovel to prevent it from being used to hit someone over the head. The problem is not the shovel, it is the person using the shovel.

[Yoren longshore]

Guns don't shovel people, people shovel guns, to cite the third epic by homer :;
):

[Septon Arlyn]

As reader said, he will bring down the hammer on anyone who would abuse the rules as well. So there is that. But I personally am Leary of using intrigue's to get what I want, just because I feel like I've been able to RP with people usually to get what I needed, working kinda like a mechanical yield

[Sponsored content]