Quote from: Omega;964216How? I dont recall any mechanic or even GM advice in the game for that past the obligatory "this isnt real" disclaimers? Then again its been a decade or two since last looked at it much.

The Humanity Track tries to force players into playing the game the 'right way', and we suddenly have a group of players who want more, to the point of Exalted's Social 'Combat' garbage.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964222The Humanity Track tries to force players into playing the game the 'right way', and we suddenly have a group of players who want more, to the point of Exalted's Social 'Combat' garbage.

While 2nd edition "Social combat" was wonky in a number of ways (3rds Social System is actually fairly good) I don't see where it comes from what you're comparing it too. A number of games have social resolution mechanics. I'd say the Virtue and Limit Break mechanics are more akin to Humanity and trying to enforce a certain style o play (doomed classic hero who go crazy/destroy themselves) in a pretty, IMO, heavy handed way. 2nd edition did tie more of the social resolution with the Limit rule though.

I would recommend something like the Red Rule instead of an actual card, but yeah, that is good advice not just for horror games.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;964170The X card is something I've never really quite understood. Roleplaying isn't BDSM.

But BDSM is roleplaying, and the distinction is lost on some.

Quote from: Nexus;964181I assume that, like the Red Rule, the thought is that having  a codified rule they can point too will empower people to speak up because game's designers have their back?

Believe it or not, I can think of newbies who were trying to withstand stuff that made the game deeply unfun for themselves, because they thought being uncomfortable was part of the game;).

The #XCard is a throttle, not a break. It's not there to establish the things a player wants to avoid (because that should be done before play), but to act as a safety net for the times the things a player wants to engage become too intense. Sadly it's been appropriated as a political tool, which makes it extremely difficult to demonstrate why it's effective or implement it without a lot of unnecessary flak.

Quote from: Omega;964163See it more often in board game design like "How do I introduce a mechanic to stop players from talking to eachother during game play?" or "How do I introduce a mechanic to stop players from becoming leaders in a co-op game?" and so on.

Thing is, I've seen rules successfully solve these 'problems', as long as they're implemented.

Quote from: Omega;964163And they allways ignore the simple advice to just add a note like "Players should not discuss their plans with other players" or "give everyone a chance to input ideas. Dont hog the spotlight." so instead you end up with a page or more of mechanics to prevent something that you cant prevent unless the players just agreed with the basic suggestion in the first place.

Back on topic: Which rolls back around to the Vampire topic. GM tips are fine. "Dont do stuff that is inappropriate at the table. And heres what you can do if problems arise. Take the player aside and tell them curb it please. Failing that. Remove them."

Quote from: Omega;964164Someone doesnt want sex in their RPG. Then just add a DM advice note like "Hey. Dont do this thing unless everyone is ok." or "These subjects dont fit the theme and tone of the setting." which I've seen a few times like "Dont name your character some cutsy, joke, or cliche name as it in no way fits the setting.."

You dont need 5 pages of rules and laws and mechanics to get across.

I agree, and even that would be a good start.

Quote from: Baulderstone;964167There was a document I was sent when I was playtesting a game. I can't recall specifically, but I think it was one I did for Pelgrane. It spelled out the expectations they had for the playtest. They made the point that they weren't interested in feedback on what happens when players try to break the game or cause trouble. They were designing the game for people that sat down in good faith to play the game that as presented, and they were only interested in hearing about problem that occur naturally. The document made the point that people can always act like assholes and ruin a game no matter what you put in a game to stop them, so it just weighs down a game to no purpose.

Then that's one shitty playtest.

Seriously, there's no such thing as problems which occur 'naturally', and were I to apply that philosophy to any other field I'd be fired for incompetence. If an RPG can be exploited in a way which leads to unintended behavior, then it is broken, full stop. It's one thing for a GM to add/modify a rule during play, but quite another to fix a broken one. And I hate having my time wasted by people who under the pretense of testing actually just want approval for their current design choices.

Out of curiosity, what changed between the playtest and the final product, and if under an #NDA, did anything meaningfully change at all?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;964171That is a really strange way to think about RPG rules. We are talking about whether you need rules to protect people from uncomfortable things in games. This isn't about preventing the break down of society.

My point is that written rules can direct behavior as long as they're enforced and implemented. And that includes preventing the breakdown of the social dynamic at the table.

Quote from: CRKrueger;964200What controls can you possibly have against people who can't control themselves?

None.

But again, that's not what we're talking about here. Very few problematic players set out to willfully harm another player, but many fall victim to eagerness, entitlement, and miscommunication. And in my experience, a set of rules can very much help in those regards.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964222The Humanity Track tries to force players into playing the game the 'right way', and we suddenly have a group of players who want more, to the point of Exalted's Social 'Combat' garbage.

It really didn't though. The Humanity rules in Vampire 1st Edition were utterly toothless. You could be a typical RPG murderhobo with no real risk of bottoming out.

I don't really think it was about making players play properly though. It was just a ported in version of Call of Cthulhu's Sanity mechanic, which is there create tension with a slow, downward spiral as you pursue the games central action. In Call of Cthulhu, investigating the Mythos is the central activity, and it eats your sanity. In D&D, going into the dungeon eats your hit points while you try to gain treasure. In Vampire, gaining blood points is supposed to eat away your Humanity.

In its intentions, Humanity is just a classic case of a resource that is expended in undertaking the game's actions.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;964306Seriously, there's no such thing as problems which occur 'naturally', and were I to apply that philosophy to any other field I'd be fired for incompetence. If an RPG can be exploited in a way which leads to unintended behavior, then it is broken, full stop. It's one thing for a GM to add/modify a rule during play, but quite another to fix a broken one. And I hate having my time wasted by people who under the pretense of testing actually just want approval for their current design choices.

Out of curiosity, what changed between the playtest and the final product, and if under an #NDA, did anything meaningfully change at all?

Sure. The game got more streamlined and the mechanics got smoother. The usual things that crop up in playtests.

Not everyone needs the game rules to prevent us from engaging in "unintended behavior". Do we really want an edition of GUMSHOE with rules on how to stop players from murdering every suspect before questioning them?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964222The Humanity Track tries to force players into playing the game the 'right way', and we suddenly have a group of players who want more, to the point of Exalted's Social 'Combat' garbage.

But the humanity tracker is more about the cosmology of the setting than enforcing morality I think. In a game that is supposed to be about the loss of your humanity, having a stat like that makes a certain amount of in setting sense.  You could make the same argument about alignments in D&D.

Quote from: Baulderstone;964309It really didn't though. The Humanity rules in Vampire 1st Edition were utterly toothless. You could be a typical RPG murderhobo with no real risk of bottoming out.

I don't really think it was about making players play properly though. It was just a ported in version of Call of Cthulhu's Sanity mechanic, which is there create tension with a slow, downward spiral as you pursue the games central action. In Call of Cthulhu, investigating the Mythos is the central activity, and it eats your sanity. In D&D, going into the dungeon eats your hit points while you try to gain treasure. In Vampire, gaining blood points is supposed to eat away your Humanity.

In its intentions, Humanity is just a classic case of a resource that is expended in undertaking the game's actions. ?

Agreed. I had allot less issue with Humanity than the later Angst o'meters like Limit. It seemed less tacked on and like the game designers shaking their fingers at you chiding you to "play right" like Limit *or a ham-fisted attempt to give an aspect of the setting with a pseudo scientific explanation a moral/Spiritual component like Taint in Aberrant.

*I read a statement from a Exalted writer/staffer (maybe former one at this point) that said that pretty much flat out. Limit was something put in a enforce the 'right' playstyle because too many players supposedly wouldn't get it or wouldn't follow it unless the rules make them and making it a setting aspect (The Great Curse) was mainly sugar to help the proper rp medicine go down for those to simple minded to get it.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;964306The #XCard is a throttle, not a break. It's not there to establish the things a player wants to avoid (because that should be done before play), but to act as a safety net for the times the things a player wants to engage become too intense. Sadly it's been appropriated as a political tool, which makes it extremely difficult to demonstrate why it's effective or implement it without a lot of unnecessary flak.

I don't doubt it is useful for some people. I just don't see the value myself. Again as you describe it here, it just seems to be another way of saying "That was a bit too intense for me, let's turn it down a little". Whatever it is meant to signify, it just seems like everyday speech can manage it just fine without having a special card.

Quote from: Baulderstone;964309It really didn't though. The Humanity rules in Vampire 1st Edition were utterly toothless. You could be a typical RPG murderhobo with no real risk of bottoming out.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;964310But the humanity tracker is more about the cosmology of the setting than enforcing morality I think.

What the players did with the tool and what the designers were going for, you'll find, are often two different things.  The Humanity track was there to push players into a specific method of playing.  That gamers didn't was, I believe, a constant source of frustration for White Wolf, there's a reason the 'Superhero with Fangs' style has been derided and used as a pejorative.  It's an example of the subtle 'You're doing it wrong' attitude that White Wolf and a good chunk of their fans is famous for.

And instead of letting players do the personal horror thing organically, White Wolf doubled down on it, expanding it for the second editions, making the Great Curse/hubris for Exalted and even all the way to Exalted's Social Charms that force players into expending a resource to allow them to play the way they want to.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964315What the players did with the tool and what the designers were going for, you'll find, are often two different things.  The Humanity track was there to push players into a specific method of playing.  That gamers didn't was, I believe, a constant source of frustration for White Wolf, there's a reason the 'Superhero with Fangs' style has been derided and used as a pejorative.  It's an example of the subtle 'You're doing it wrong' attitude that White Wolf and a good chunk of their fans is famous for.

And instead of letting players do the personal horror thing organically, White Wolf doubled down on it, expanding it for the second editions, making the Great Curse/hubris for Exalted and even all the way to Exalted's Social Charms that force players into expending a resource to allow them to play the way they want to.

Personally I don't have a problem with games that enforce conceits of the setting (or at least have systems that act as a kind of gravity in that respect). Ravenloft had powers checks for instance and I was fine with that (I thought it added a great deal of fun and atmosphere to the game). That is different in my mind from trying to create mechanics that stop problem players or enforce 'healthy social dynamics' at the table. Those are two very different agendas. One is about the setting and how those mesh with the mechanics (and some players are going to prefer games with a lighter hand, some a heavier). The latter is more about the designer as babysitter.

Again this sort of brings me back to distinguishing between designers choosing to do something and players demanding something be part of all games. I am fine with the designers choosing to add in whatever they want to a game (whether it be Humanity, X Card, etc). I just don't get when people suggest that all games should have these things, or that all games should encourage healthy social interactions at the table. I see that as being more something people negotiate themselves. A game offering that for such people, I am fine with. I just don't want it to be this thing where all games are expected to cater to people who can't get along at the table.

I just don't like the idea of a mechanic to tell players how to play the game 'the right way' as frankly, there isn't any.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964319I just don't like the idea of a mechanic to tell players how to play the game 'the right way' as frankly, there isn't any.

Fair enough. But I don't think there is anything wrong with designers trying to make a game that does something, and having mechanics to support that something. I mean if you want to make a game that is meant to be about body horror and there are mechanics in the game to emphasize the body horror aspect of it and encourage engagement with the body horror, it isn't like it is coming out of left field. It is what you might expect to encounter in a body horror RPG. D&D is largely a game of exploration and going into dungeons, and the XP mechanic rewards that sort of engagement with the game. I don't see anything wrong with that.

That said, I don't think every game has to have that sort of mechanic. Personally I like having a wide array of gaming options.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964315What the players did with the tool and what the designers were going for, you'll find, are often two different things.  The Humanity track was there to push players into a specific method of playing.  That gamers didn't was, I believe, a constant source of frustration for White Wolf, there's a reason the 'Superhero with Fangs' style has been derided and used as a pejorative.  It's an example of the subtle 'You're doing it wrong' attitude that White Wolf and a good chunk of their fans is famous for.

And instead of letting players do the personal horror thing organically, White Wolf doubled down on it, expanding it for the second editions, making the Great Curse/hubris for Exalted and even all the way to Exalted's Social Charms that force players into expending a resource to allow them to play the way they want to.

Social Charms didn't force players to expend a resource to continue to play the way that wanted too. Players could spend a resource to ignore/blow off the effect of supernaturally effective social skills and straight up mind control in some cases if you fail to resist them. How and when they were used and how the a character felt or responded to their use was up to the players.

Its similar to saying "Charm Person" spells are the to force a players to play a specific way. Unless that "specific way" is social abilities actually have some teeth when it comes to PCs. Which some are okay with, others aren't like pretty everything else in rpgs. Hell, White Wolf didn't invent that idea. A major complaint about social charms and mechanics was just how toothless they were. Spend a tiny amount of an easily regained resource and you could ignore them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964319I just don't like the idea of a mechanic to tell players how to play the game 'the right way' as frankly, there isn't any.

There isn't an objectively right way to play but there is designer intent. Genre or whatever enforcement rules are a way of getting that across. Like any rules some are better than other. The first really strong genre rules I ran into weren't white wolf, it was FASERIP Marvel's Karma.

Quote from: Nexus;964328There isn't an objectively right way to play but there is designer intent. Genre or whatever enforcement rules are a way of getting that across. Like any rules some are better than other. The first really strong genre rules I ran into weren't white wolf, it was FASERIP Marvel's Karma.

And I hated the Karma rules then too.