Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8475319" data-attributes="member: 71699">I noticed it could be exploited. It is common in game design to count exploitable mechanics as undesirable. Therefore I offered the critique that it could be exploited.I skimmed it, but that blog gives helpful context. Is this the final version?Parley (vs. PCs)When you press or entice a PC and they resist, you can roll +CHA: on a 10+, both; on a 7-9, pick 1:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They mark XP if they do what you want </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They must do what you want, or reveal how you could convince them to do so.</li> </ul>(+ several paragraphs of guidance and example)You can see that I was responding only to the material presented in the OP. In response to my criticism, you might have said that the final version adds the context that I was calling for. Instead, you seemed to say that it wasn't necessary and escalated to denigrating my input. Let's set aside umbrage going forward, because on my side I rose to words that I found inflammatory in your post. And I feel sure it was neither of our intents to provoke the other.There still seems to be a problem in the rule, and this is more in the way of a bug than an exploit. On 10+ I choose both, on 7-9 I choose one. But how is choosing one any worse than choosing both? Can't I just always choose - they do what I want and mark XP? Also it seems like I roll if the other PC resists, which seems worse to me than the version in the OP. The other PC can't just nope my move on them anymore, that could easily feel unpleasant in play. (Say yes, or let me roll and perhaps still force you to say yes.)Seeing as I understood the OP to be discussing an unfinished work, I asked if there were other other references for the move. Possibly you would have pointed me to them in your first response to me, had you read into my point as I intended that I was looking for further context, generally.I have a few conflicting feelings about this. I accept you didn't intend to write anything provocative. You might accept that I found it provocative, and that I did not intend to write anything hostile. I was aiming for objective criticism, but I accept that you found what I wrote to feel hostile.That said, the proposed mitigations for the possibility of exploits in the blog seem problematic.It's right to say, don't tell them how they feel, and consider querying the table, but bringing in something outside of it as your DM move is choosing a move that doesn't follow. Turning the tables would be perfect for a player-to-NPC interaction, but feels clunky to me for a player-to-player interaction. Imagine this move used multiple times: it's going to be problematic for some groups. Possibly the best way to use it will be as rarely as possible, which typically isn't what one aims for with a game mechanic.In the interest of moving forward, I will set aside most of your closing sentences. I was wrong in saying patent bug, I should have said it was an obvious exploit, as that would have been the more correct characterisation. The rule worked, but could be exploited. The new version is buggy, because it has a redundant state. Or you could say inelegant, perhaps that's better. I don't put that pejoratively: it's not a sweeping critique of Stonetop. And it is only a narrow critique of the designer.Narrowly, the game designer hasn't hit the nail on the head with their Parley mechanic. From skimming their notes, it seems for most of its evolution Parley was for pressing NPCs. Perhaps coming out of dissatisfactions with DW Parley. Is it right that only later iterations brought in its use against PCs? When I read their examples (of PC-to-PC) it's not clear why the PCs can't just roleplay it out? Why impose a mechanic at all. What is the PC-to-PC problem we hope to solve with this solution?To my evaluation, it is even now a piece of flawed game design. I like what is being attempted. I don't think that the attempt is yet successful.</blockquote>

Verification