Not interested | Eclipse Phase

Thu, 2009-09-10 04:43

#2

SnowDog

While I would like all those

While I would like all those above mentioned things to a game, I would still want a good combat system. Call me an old school gamer if you want but an occasional life threatening situation adds a lot to a game.

Thu, 2009-09-10 07:21

#3

Admini

Call me whatever age school

Call me whatever age school you like, I want multiple deadly combats per gaming session.

Fri, 2009-09-11 16:59

#4

Tearlach

Call me oldschool, but I want

Call me oldschool, but I want a combat system that favour one combat sequence, after which all players decide to find peaceful solutions lest it happens again.

Sat, 2009-09-12 00:32

#5

The Doctor The Doctor's picture

...

I like how you think.

—

[img]http://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/info_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/argo_userbar.jpg[/img] [url=https://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/blankbadge.png][img]http://drwho.vir...

Sat, 2009-09-12 03:08

#6

Tearlach

Like old-school kult, damage

Like old-school kult, damage was rolled with a d20. Most ranged weapons killed outright at 15+ no saving throws.
The most powerful ranged weapon killed at 11+. Yup, a 45% chance for instant character sheet shredding.

Sat, 2009-09-12 09:13

#7

Lucidshifter Lucidshifter's picture

Isn't it?

Isn't combat a very deadly social interaction? I hear what you are saying, but no need to insult us.

Tue, 2009-09-15 07:53

#8

Cardul

Why do you need rules for

Why do you need rules for fast talking and social stuff? Hacking is pretty
much just using the appropriate skills, I would think. And, you as a player
are not in charge of anything, so why would you need rules for managing
stuff that you are not in charge of? Just go ahead and backstab your fellow
players like any good political player would! No need for special rules for
that!

Fri, 2009-09-18 06:37

#9

HappyDaze

Re: Why do you need rules for

More interesting mechanics for social manipulation are a good thing, just as combat rules with more options than "roll to attack - roll for damage" are appreciated. It would have been nice if social interactions (manipulations/attacks) had more crunch to them in EP.

Considering that social interactions target the ego while combat is almost enitrely about morph-busting, I'd say the social stuff is really FAR more important.

Fri, 2009-09-18 09:02

#10

Tearlach

Re: Why do you need rules for

Well, it is quite common to just roleplay the social bit.

Fri, 2009-09-18 09:17

#11

HappyDaze

Re: Why do you need rules for

That breaks down in a system where some characters have superhuman levels of Persuasion when their players do not.

Fri, 2009-09-18 17:02

#12

Tearlach

Re: Why do you need rules for

Yeaah, it does. But characters with little social skills and a very social characters gets rather awkward rather quick.

Or to reverse it, if a player who is rather social plays an akward character and he uses his own experiences to pull a fast one on another character or npc. Would you allow him?

I find that if my players pull a good one which their characters wouldn't be able to do, I generally allow it and thus social character skills aren't really useful.

Fri, 2009-09-18 19:42

#13

HappyDaze

Re: Why do you need rules for

AS a GM I do my best to always consider the social and mental actions of the players to be focussed through the lens of the character. I would not allow a socially adept player with a character boasting SAV 5 and Incompetent (Persuasion) to make a convincing argument - the player might sate his case brilliantly, but when it comes out of the character's mouth it's more like Kanye West's recent debacle. Likewise a player of only average social ability can make something inane sound good when they have a character with SAV 30 (including morph bonus), First Impression, and an upgraded sylph morph with Striking Looks (Level 2).

Sun, 2009-10-11 06:35

#14

Ramidel

Re: Not interested

A major note: Your character is probably a hell of a lot smarter than you are (the average PC COG is 15, the average modern flat or Jovian is between 6 and 10). If your character is mentally focused, they are definitely smarter than you. In fact, it's entirely possible that your character is better than you in every way. That's why we've got stats; if your character is better than you at savvy, then the player's more inane comments are likely to be glossed over by good rolls.

Sun, 2009-10-11 06:35

#15

Ramidel

Re: Not interested

A major note: Your character is probably a hell of a lot smarter than you are (the average PC COG is 15, the average modern flat or Jovian is between 6 and 10). If your character is mentally focused, they are definitely smarter than you. In fact, it's entirely possible that your character is better than you in every way. That's why we've got stats; if your character is better than you at savvy, then the player's more inane comments are likely to be glossed over by good rolls.

Mon, 2009-10-26 17:30

#16

Klinktastic Klinktastic's picture

Re: Not interested

It's easy to make rules for combat, because it's typically a series of rolls to determine the outcome. In essence, it is structured. The choice made are typically things like finding cover, choosing weapons, etc. For social encounters, these is a very lose structure. There are rules for rolling to persuade NPCs etc. But there is typically a role play element to it. As in, PC1 could tell the GM, "I want to persuade NPC1 to give me some info." The GM says, "Roll the dice." Or you could have a situation were PC2 says, "NPC1, I know you know about the case. We need to know what's inside. If you do, we'll spare your life." and then rolls. Depending on the situation, the GM might add or subtract from your roll based on your roleplaying. That's just 2 ways it can go down. There's so many more. That's why, if you make a strict social system, you lose the flexibility and reduce it to dice rolling, which is what combat is. Just my take.

Thu, 2009-11-05 10:21

#17

Unaltered Carbon Unaltered Carbon's picture

eh...

I tend to find that no matter how sophisticated combat rules are, Players will find a way to break them. They will find one weapon, one set of traits, feats, advantages or whatever that permit them to utterly break the system. Organized rules for social combat are a new idea that is starting to appear, but if history is any indication, players will have little to no problem breaking those as well. Organized rules for social combat seem largely anathema to role playing. I love it when a gamer outwits the GM using good ol' common sense, ruthlessness, and plot development. Everyone who's paying attention loves it, and a respectful (i.e., good) GM should let it fly. Solid rules for social combat do not necessarily ruin a game, but they can break one rather easily if we take a completely formulaic approach to them. A face in Shadowrun has an important niche to fill, with fun role playing rewards when executed properly. He also tends to have a higher survival rate as losing arguments is different than losing gunfights. It will be interesting to explore the reputation system in EP, as this may become reversed in certain scenarios.

Sat, 2009-11-14 12:00

#18

JimJim

Re: Not interested

Dagonweb wrote:
I am not interested in combat. I have played campaigns with months of play without combat, and no kiddie stuff or carebearing either. I don't like zerosumming. Give me robust rules for social manipulation, of hacking, or avoiding enemies, or managing power factions and organizations, or anything. Combat is for idiots stuck in previous millennium. Soooo bores me.

Your game, your call (at least if you're running it). And EP seems to have pretty good rules for all of what you mentioned anyway, so I'm not sure where the gripe is. Personally, I like a bit of the ol' ultraviolence myself, though I also tend to prefer systems where players know that the cracking of bones and puncturing of vital organs isn't just a point-based contest, and so go into it with no small amount of trepidation. If that makes me an idiot, then so be it.

Mon, 2010-01-11 14:39

#19

Sunchaser

Re: Not interested

Violence good! An exciting fight is good for the game. I've run plenty of sessions with little or no combat but combat remains one of the highlights that players talk about and like. That said I like RPing too. But the freeform style of most games is preferable to a collection of strict social rules. I play Exalted by White Wolf and it has one of the most complete set of social rules I've ever seen...and its a huge pain in the ass to work with since it stymes player spontonaiety. I do try to use PC social skills as a arbiter of sorts when I'm in doubt about a social actions success.

Mon, 2010-01-18 06:46

#20

standard_gravity standard_gravity's picture

Re: Not interested

Sunchaser wrote:
I do try to use PC social skills as a arbiter of sorts when I'm in doubt about a social actions success.

Totally agree. The players in my games have to roleplay, but I can look at their skill values to determine how NPCs react. Sometimes I even let the player make a dice roll, but again, the success (or otherwise) of the test is never a substitute for roleplaying, simply something that may influence my as a GM.

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/ext_userbar.jpg[/img] "People think dreams aren't real just because they aren't made of matter, of particles. Dreams are real. But they are made of viewpoints, of images, of memories and puns and lost hopes." - John Dee

Mon, 2010-01-18 05:54

#21

Iv

Re: Not interested

Social interactions like persuading, requiring a favor, etc... usually require a roll in my games but I am quite generous with the bonus a good story or argument can buy. +20 or +30 seem the norm.

Thu, 2010-02-04 20:56

#22

humapuma

Re: Not interested

IMO most GMs/Players aren't too concerned about strict rules and rolling lots of dice for the 'social' activities that characters do, because that's normally the Role Playing bit - and because it rarely results in direct harm/damage to characters. Combat, on the other hand, gets characters killed (though not for long in EP). That's why there's lots of rules for it so that the GM can be neutral(ish). That's the Game part. But as GMs we all do things the way that works for us and our players, so it's all good.

Fri, 2010-02-05 18:35

#23

Mike Taylor Mike Taylor's picture

Re: Not interested

Quote:
Combat is for idiots stuck in previous millennium. Soooo bores me.

I can respect your opinion and agree that endless combat situations can become tedious and dull. However, [i]insulting players who happen to a enjoy a style of play that you don't is a bad idea[/i]. It makes them less inclined to listen to you and paints you as somewhat arrogant. I sincerely hope that the latter is not the case.

Sun, 2010-02-07 20:41

#24

Thunderwave Thunderwave's picture

My 2 cents

For me it depends on the game. EP I'd be happy with a lot of, as some of my players put it, talky talky and social problem solving if that's what the plot/style calls for. Legend of the Five Rings is about samurai-ish drama. Violence is almost a must, even if it's the classic quickdraw duel in the bamboo forest at sunset. Different games call for different playstyles. Sometimes a bit of ultraviolence can get a point across a lot better then a million words. As the old saying goes "A live enemy raises an army. A dead one fills a grave.". 'though, I may be an idiot. I call myself that a lot, usually after doing something dumb. But if being an idiot means my players and I have fun, partake in a little virtual violence, and play our game our way....then I'm a Mother F^%@*^% Idiot and proud!

Thu, 2010-02-11 11:57

#25

Leaps-from-Shadows Leaps-from-Shadows's picture

I like combat, social or otherwise...

I happen to like combat, especially in EP. There are so many options, so many opponents the PCs can run into where it seems they have no hope and yet they still pull it off by the skin of their teeth. Plus, in EP there are few consequences to to being beaten in combat, as long as the PCs took some precautions beforehand. I also like social combat. Most of the time, our group's social situations are resolved with dice rolls, as we like a more structured social game. That gives our less-social players an equal shot at portraying the characters they want rather than limiting them. Just like when playing EVE Online, where I like the financial combat of the Market just as much as I like the 'physical' combat of blowing up someone's ship.