Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

​What breaks if... Presence gains more effectiveness when it 'laps' Resolve?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Social Charms are hard for me to totally gauge, I’m inclined to make it once per day and maybe 1m, 1wp but give it a do-able reset condition.

    Right — re bargain threaten— I read it as allowing you to perform that action with nothing to leverage (hence my example).

    Comment


    • #17
      I honestly question the 1/day ideal. Heck I'd not sure it deserves a 1/scene limit. A will cost maybe, but this isn't an effect that will break the system or make mindless puppets. It's just forces the person to have a more solid reason for not listening to him then 'He's a demon, even though I don't care about the immaculate faith at all and I don't have strong feelings for other reasons." I'm literally just making a economic Dragon Warlord’s Convocation with a third of it's benefits and easier to resist even then.

      Perhaps keep it at 5m if they are able to use the intimacy that raised there resolve as a special rules exception? In short as long as they have at least one reason to say no.

      Comment


      • #18
        I find all of this unnecessary. If STs abuse their privilege of spending WP to ignore social influence, that is a ST problem, not a social influence system problem. Educate your ST.

        I mean, how is this any different from STs simply railroading their players in other aspects of the game? E.g., 'No, you don't find anything in this area for your current plan. I don't care if you rolled X successes; it just doesn't exist.' If the ST is playing so adversarially to the players that people view the social system broken because of how the ST is simply preventing social influence from ever occurring... that is a far more systemic issue (and, again, a ST issue) than 'the DBs got a Charm that the Solars didn't get'.

        Some guidelines might be helpful. Something I do think might work out well is if you can call on a target's Intimacy that is stronger than the task you're asking of them, they are either not allowed to spend WP or they need to spend more.

        E.g., if you have a Defining Intimacy of 'Mo Money, No Problems' (which, no joke, was an NPCs Defining Intimacy), and I ask you to do something that could be supported by the Intimacy at a minor level, you simply can't resist with WP. This isn't mind control, because you're not controlling the Intimacies. You're appealing to the core of that person to do something frankly that isn't that important to the NPC. Why not?

        A real example is a bureaucrat that has the above Intimacy in a bureaucracy where bribery is an accepted part of the culture. I offer a small bribe to change a name on an inconsequential form. The bureaucrat doesn't resist, because why would he?

        At the end, I think people are getting hang-ups over the fact that spending WP is part of the rules structure. It kinda needs to be, to avoid the traps of earlier editions. But I do think people act like because the rule exists, the rule should be routinely used. This can lead to... issues like this thread, which proposes fairly drastic shifts in the rules to accommodate a certain playing style (which I've discussed in the other thread) or a perceived power imbalance because of misuse of a game rule.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ulthwithian View Post
          E.g., if you have a Defining Intimacy of 'Mo Money, No Problems' (which, no joke, was an NPCs Defining Intimacy), and I ask you to do something that could be supported by the Intimacy at a minor level, you simply can't resist with WP. This isn't mind control, because you're not controlling the Intimacies. You're appealing to the core of that person to do something frankly that isn't that important to the NPC. Why not?

          A real example is a bureaucrat that has the above Intimacy in a bureaucracy where bribery is an accepted part of the culture. I offer a small bribe to change a name on an inconsequential form. The bureaucrat doesn't resist, because why would he?

          At the end, I think people are getting hang-ups over the fact that spending WP is part of the rules structure. It kinda needs to be, to avoid the traps of earlier editions. But I do think people act like because the rule exists, the rule should be routinely used. This can lead to... issues like this thread, which proposes fairly drastic shifts in the rules to accommodate a certain playing style (which I've discussed in the other thread) or a perceived power imbalance because of misuse of a game rule.
          I actually don’t even think the above examples could spend willpower, even by the rules. To resist a persuade action that targetted a defining intimacy you NEED another defining intimacy that directly opposes it, and it can’t be one that you’ve already used to boost your resolve with. That’s a tall flippin’ order.
          Last edited by DrLoveMonkey; 02-14-2019, 02:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DrLoveMonkey View Post

            I actually don’t even think the above examples could spend willpower, even by the rules. To resist a persuade action that targetted a defining intimacy you NEED another defining intimacy that directly opposes it, and it can’t be one that you’ve already used to boost your resolve with. That’s a tall flippin’ order.
            I was arguing for an additional rule that said that even if you had another Defining Intimacy to oppose, if the Persuade didn't need a Defining Intimacy but you exploit it anyway, the target couldn't spend Willpower. But yes, it's likely a 'low probability scenario'.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ulthwithian View Post

              I was arguing for an additional rule that said that even if you had another Defining Intimacy to oppose, if the Persuade didn't need a Defining Intimacy but you exploit it anyway, the target couldn't spend Willpower. But yes, it's likely a 'low probability scenario'.
              Oh, yes, I see now. It is a good strategy.

              Comment

              Working...
              X