Status in Play

[Alex Rourke]

Beads are kinda along the star system, that ross proposed, then there's the idea of titles or cards taped to our chest. I think what we should do is get a poll going on what method every one thinks would work best. Don't get me wrong, I agree that Status should be as much an IC thing as an OOC thing, but the instant a character with Camarilla Status 5+ introduces themselves, any one with less should be like "Oh... you're that guy... It's an honor to meet you...." Unless of course they're independent, Anarch, Sabbat etc. Or maybe make the system Status vs Cam Lore.

ie if a character has Cam Lore 1-2 they've heard of really high status people (Justicars, Archons, Princes). If they've got Lore at 3-4 they've heard of the highest of the high and some up and comings (Primogen, Sheriffs, a few notable whips or deputies) and if they've got Cam Lore 5 they've got a rumnor here and a rumor there about any one who's more than acknolwedged. (Billy Brujah slew three Sabbat members in defence of New Orleans, the Prince, while he still held the title, found it to be a rather "Daring" from what I've gathered).

Just some thoughts.
R.

[Barnaby Cuthbert]

As for visual status in general, Perception+Politics is the roll needed to understand what status a person has. It's not free. If you have low perception+politics, you should be oblivious to status. If you're not testing others for status levels, that's your bad.

Visual indicators for status are like free auto-successes for something that normally requires a roll. I'm against that rules/game balance-wise.

In character I'm also against that. There are times I don't want my character's status to be immediately known. He's sort of champion of the downtrodden-y, and that cramps my style (not to mention it's unrealistic) when a n00b walks up to me and immediately knows about Scion. It limits my RP options.

On a completely seperate note (that sounds like I'm being all poo poo about it, but I'm really not) From experience, Ribbons, beads, cards, etc are all great right up until whomever has purchased all of these runs out, and nobody else really wants to pick any up, or it falls out of use. We had ribbons when we started running, we've had badges in the past, how many of those do you see around? Not many.

[carlogiovanni]

I am in agreement with Chris, the obvious marking of a character with status in or out of character is generally not something that happens because it is basically giving out free information about a person, with no roll or even effort to speak of.

However I also understand that if everyone does a good job roleplaying, then that means that visual "markers" of any sort won't be a detriment.... however the annoying aspect of being human is, that it's never that perfect.

SO, my suggestion is this, fix it In Game. As mentioned before, this means that you will have to approach others. If you don't like how the piddly little Neonates aren't respecting you cuz you have more than just "Acknowledged", approach your local Harpy or your nearest Lesser Harpy, they of all people will be most interested in punishing those Neonates because, their job depends on Status being respected. Of course there are others you may approach, like your clan Primogen or Whip, or even another Elder/High Status individual. Tell them the situation, and maybe you can form a small movement to create more order in the Domain through Status enforcement.

But keep in mind. Status is not a hard and fast system. We may have rules written out for it, but those rules were created in a "In Game" modality. This means that the Status system is a completely "In Game" construction, thus it is best solve "In Game"

[Shakir Movre']

I see the wisdom of this and I have to agree with Chris and Phil. Forget the tags and "Play-On"

[Alex Rourke]

I deffinately see where you guys are coming from, and that's a viable point. I agree that Status should be something paid more attention to IC rather than it being a reward system for doing cool things. Ross was looking for more tangible status ideas, I'm personally combing through Guide to the Cam to come up with some ideas that might help.

But it also comes down to the fact that Status is a Kindred's worth in the Camarilla. I think that, from time to time needs to be taken into account. Just some thoughts there.

[Kenneth Ashland]

I've been hashing out a couple of further "semi-tangible" benefits in regards to status.

You might see/hear a couple of changes/additions next game.

[Daddy]

At the heart of my role playing ideals, I feel that Chris and Phil are correct. But I have to say that ideals don't always make for a smooth game.

Right now, people are not highly motivated to treat status as an important aspect of the game. That's why we're having this discussion. Personally, I want status to be important. Hell, Daddy views status as his shield against the dangers of the kindred world. When you're a weak little man in a wheelchair, you have to have either a great reputation, or a gang of blood bonded thugs to keep you safe.

The thing is, when I consider having to make that perception politics roll against every person I talk to every week, I become motivated to stop caring about status. Now, Daddy does have enough status that he can just ask the harpy about people's status, but I don't want to say "Hang on, let me talk to Ashland so I know how to treat you." I don't want status to turn into a big social challenge style mob combat just so we know how to act.

Additionally, I don't actually know how much information I get from a perception politics roll. The rules say you can do it, but give no guidelines on what info you get at how many successes. If we had a chart up for that, I might be less put off by the idea. As it is I feel like I'd need to find an ST to make the check, and I try to go to the STs as little as possible, simply due to the time and fluidity of scene lost in the search.

I've been thinking about something lately, and may post my ideas on it later. I think we might all do well to consider it. The nature of status. We spend a lot of time dealing with status in the OOC format that has been created to facilitate people caring about status. We use a system of titles that can be bestowed under certain circumstances that simulate reputation. We spend a lot of time thinking about the system, but not much about what it means.

Let's take Scion as a convenient example. Scion is, by nature, broody and mysterious. I respect that Chris may not want everyone to know Scion's status, because it gets in the way of his social mobility sometimes. Scion is currently known to be Fearsome. Let's say Scion does a really good job hiding his status, so that the downtrodden can approach him. In fact, no one even realizes that he's fearsome anymore. No one's mentioned it, he doesn't bring it up, even the guy who said he was fearsome in the first place has forgotten about it. Can we still really say that Scion has a reputation for being fearsome? It seems to me that Scion may be better served by not having too much status.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on Chris. His Scion example is just very good and I'm running with it for comparitive purposes.

Anyway, the question we need to ask is whether we want to stick to the original intent behind status (reputation in society) or if we want to change the focus to better suit the dynamics of our game.

Do we want to go full bore into the way it's evolving and just admit in character that status is a heirarchical system handed down by elders and their pawns and enforced by the power of those elders? Do we want to admit in character that it is just a bunch of pips on your lapel and that no one would be better than anyone else if Justicars weren't backing the system?

[Ivaret]

Hell, this is one time the malks have it easy. They can all just start wearing medals and military ranks to show status.

[Barnaby Cuthbert]

There's the system, and there's the 'system'.

Our way of tracking status in game relates to, but is not always in total synch with the mechanics of the prestation that occurs in game.

You can fight the system, but you probably shouldn't fight the 'system'.

Status is meant to be pretty fluid in game. Codifying it into harpynet has been a stroke of genius. Creating the upper deck was equally awesome. Thesee things put a spine beneath the gelatinous world of prestation that has some real, well backbone to it. And there could be more things done. I just don't feel giving status away (as in giving a free peep on your lapel) is the key.

It's the easiest answer, but not the best I feel, for the reasons I mentioned before. Free stats are broken. They can be manipulated OOC. Knowledge of status should preceed you if you wish and surprise others if you wish IC. It's a tool and a weapon in the context of the game that if wielded with finesse can do wonders.

What it sounds like you are saying though is something to the effect of:

I want my character to be able to blood bond/maim/capture/kill somebody IC and I want guarantees that the status system (OOC) will save my character's ass from reprocussions IC.

The answer is, and should be - it might and it might not.

Vampires have more than one tool to satisfy their desires. If many of them desire you take a fall, you are going to fall. All that takes is the ability to effect public opinion at the time your fate is decided, through boons, allies, beating the unliving crap out of your accuser in the back alley, etc...

Now to go back to Adam's statement about Scion's status as Fearsome, (I don't feel picked on, i'm just rolling with the metaphor/example) again, I say that status is a tool. If you own a gun, and people know about it, they may behave a certain way around you. If you own a gun and carry it around with you, they may act another. If you own a gun and you walk around pointing it at people, again, different reaction.

All I'm saying is, from a roleplaying perspective, I'd like the option to carry the gun, holster it, or leave the knowledge that I could be packing IC.

And if I have a concealed weapon and you want your character to notice that, will you complain about making a Perception+Firearms check?

I hope not.

[Alex Rourke]

This is my big angst with Status: High Status generally means better reception. Joe Neonate with Status 2 goes up against Joe Elder with Status 5 and accuses Joe Elder of say, breaching Domain. Now, Joe Elder is three steps up on the ladder in the world of Status. Joe Neonate should have to work his ass off just to get the ear of any elders, let alone those capable of saying "Joe Elder, we believe that Joe Neonate is correct and your are, infact, a 'Tradition Breaker.' And this is how you shall be punished."

Anothr question I have, is why does our status stop at 6 max (if you're including acknowledged) Some one once told me that Paris has Status 8's and 9's coming out of it's ass. Does this mean that the Primogen of Paris is a 4th or 5th generation vampire? Or is it that 9th gen vampires in Paris are "cooler?" I mean, in the book, it stats that Status 3 is the recognized status of most elders and we're handing that out to Neonates like it's candy. Examples of some Neonates with high status: Kenneth Ashland, Charissma Starr, hell, Ashwin Sood had Status 4. Seriously, at what point did neonates become as cool as elder vampires who've slain countless packs of Sabbat in their time or brought about the fall of industrial or governmental empires or single handedly salvaged the Masquerade in places like Hong Kong, Mexico City or Vienna?

Really guys, I think Status should not only be incorporated, but be harder to earn. The more you have, the easier it gets, true, it's like money well invested and when a Kindred's worth is measured in how much status they have and how many boons they own, those things become second only to Blood. Money, Sex, Fame, Worldy power are nothing to a Kindred in the face of blood. In the face of anything else, these things are still nothing more than tools. Taking away a Ventrue's Resources 5 is like taking away their toys. Take away their status and it's like taking away a persons food, take away their boons and you decrease their worth, take away their blood and you take everything. just some things to think about in the future.

[Kenneth Ashland]

Status does get thrown around fairly fast and loose...but it all depends on who you're talking about, and under what circumstances.

Most status I end up recording has more to do with what someone brought in from character generation, rather than what they 'earn' IC.

Putting your fist through a wall might earn you "Strong" from the Brujah, but to get "Gracious" from the Ventrue might be a lifelong endeavor (from personal experience, the Ventrue of Seattle *rarely* give status to their Clanmates, unless they've done something far over the top).

As far as IC gifts of positive status go, I can only name perhaps 5 incidents of it in the last month, and some of those are already questionable becuase of...political circumstances.

But yes, perhaps ideally, Vampire status should be treated like Deed Names in Werewolf: rarely given, and truly earned.

But, this is LARP. And though I've been trying, moreso than before, to get a clear explanation from people as to why Joe Vampire is really that 'Useful,' it's hard to argue with a Primogen's word if he/she's really wanting to give it.

Though, I'm keeping an eye out for those that mess up soon after a Primogen's backing...cuz it might come back to haunt the Primogen.

I might suggest, though, that instead of giving more status to someone who might not realistically "rate" it, given their age/circumstances, players consider giving small Boons from one's Clan/Office, or even IC gifts instead.

Tossing a neonate a nice new apartment haven, or a Trivial Boon from the Office of the Sheriff, in recognition for something, can be far more useful than being known as "Diligent."

[Steve]

*wince* When casual conversation can make me shiver, I know I am screwed.

[Daddy]

It looks like what I'm saying isn't coming across clearly. This happens with the internet. Let me clarify.

I did not mean that "I want my character to be able to blood bond/maim/capture/kill somebody IC and I want guarantees that the status system (OOC) will save my character's ass from reprocussions IC."

I meant that I want to be able to drive people out of town by socially assaulting their reputation, so I don't have to resort to things like blood bonding, maiming, capturing and killing. Unfortunatley, it seems to me that you can reduce someone to -10 status and they'll be unhindered, as long as they don't try to talk to the 10 people who give a shit.

I mean that a guy in a wheelchair should be able to depend on his reputation in the city to make it worthwhile to the government to give a shit about his fate. If not, he'll have to force others to care enough to stand guard against soul-hungry neonates.

I'd really like to solve problems politically, but I still find myself looking at politics as an ineffective route to success. I'm still tempted to shove a stake in Nermal's heart and mail him to Abu-Dabi.

Hopefully that will clarify my position on the brute force method.

And continuing with the Scion example, I don't think status can be used like a gun. It's intended to represent reputation, and reputation exists because people know about it. If we were using a military heirarchy style system, then I could see people going "undercover." I could see someone pulling rank all of a sudden after pretending to be a private. But the game wasn't originally designed to work that way, and I haven't heard any house rules that say we do it that way.

I just don't think reputation is something you should be able to fold up and put in your breast pocket when it's convenient. I think reputation is a double edged sword.

[Candeth]

alexrourke said:

I look at the Status of people like Alixandra, Morris Tobias, Charissma Starr, Jean Lionel, Scion and IC, unless I'm playing a loud mouthed Anarch, I'm not about to talk down or back to them...

;D ;D ;D

[Kevin K]

Just to comment on Adam's bit about running people out of town....

I wanted to say that when I played Jelly, I felt that I had enough of a reign and reputation in Elysium that if Jelly didn't like you, Elysium was a very uncomfortable place. Now, that's just one colossal jerk, but it is somewhat possible.

I think they key point here is made by Broney, in that not enough people have a *reason* to care about status. People perceive that there is not enough incentive, or not enough of a drawback to take it seriously. As an AST, that's something I might be able to address, along with the work that Ross is doing to make status apparent.

The hard part, of course, is that the "stick" part of this is supposed to be done by other players. One elder or high status person paying attention to a low-status person is supposed to be noticed, and acted on. My speculation is that the reason that this doesn't happen is that it's perceived as aggressive, and people are rather more conservative than that. Until that perception changes to "they're protecting the priviledge of status", I think it will be difficult to see the kind of widespread status usage we all want.

That sounds kind of dire, but I think it gets to the heart of the matter. I'm at a loss as to what to do about it, though. My major tools as an AST are NPCs and systems. Neither seem applicable to what is mostly a setting problem, or at least not without being very blunt and heavy-handed.

If the privileges of high-status were somehow eroded as people ignored it, then that might help. Or it might be too severe. But how in the world do we do that?

-Kevin

[Jonathan Winters-Garden]

Here is my $.02:

===========================
Looking for clarification:
===========================

You're saying “give boons not status”. I remember a few months ago you where saying the boon economy was messed up. Can you clarify this ross.

====================================
Trying make a point here:
====================================

Status means nothing: that’s just utter BS. Status means quite a bit to Kenneth A and Kevin Z. Disrespect someone of higher status in front of either of those characters and see what happens… like Ivaret did. I know it's supposed to be your station in society but what does that mean to a Gangrel or to someone who just doesnt care. In the every day workings of private life, which a lot of people play their characters, it means nothing and shouldnt. In a social place such as Elysium it makes a difference. Also there is given status, assumed status and personal status. My character has a lot of admiration for O'Keef and would use his status to defend him... he has my characters personal status. Henrietta had lots of assumed status (not very much actual lol). That’s the way status works… some people care about it and others don't.


Should Primogen give status because you helped them or because you helped the clan? Well if everyone was puppy dogs and everything roses then it would be the latter; however, it’s the world of darkness people… where not everyone thinks alike and attack each other physically and politically regardless of if they have a legitimate reason to or not.

FIN
*sounds of claps from all those who wasted their time reading my ramblings*


Heavly modified post. Other stuff was useless to put in.

[Joseph Mayek]

Oddly enough he cannot lose the "disrespectful" negative status trait. How long ago was the last time he was disrespectful? Quite a LONG time ago... He has proven himself not to be disrespectful.

Hey, I've said many times that Jerris wasn't the disrepectful guy that he's made out to be! So bah!

[carlogiovanni]

The reason that this thread was created was because certain individuals were frustrated with the fact that their status didn't matter a whole lot... not so strangely enough the Harpy thought so as well... as the discussion continued these individuals (and several others) decided that Status should be more recognized... they are not forcing everyone into thinking their way... they are simply looking to make it disadvantageous to anyone who decides that Status doesn't matter.

I would like to point out that all of your above actions are very justified by your character's veiwpoint and look to be very nice examples of Status play

However I will repeat a point I made a while ago in this thread... Status is a completely In Game construction, which means that it must be enforced In Game, and if the Harpy and other High standing individuals want to make Status important, they are in the best positions to do so

Therefore it is of my opinoin that all of the "Forcing others into thinking a certain way" occurs only In Game/ In Character

Of course this is all my opinion. ;D

[Kenneth Ashland]

This is why I'm phasing more things/ideas into play via my character, rather than making the kinds of OOC announcements I had been pondering doing at in the beginning of this discussion.

An abstract concept like "Status," in the end, can only be "systemized" to a certain degree before it becomes too mechanical. It should be organic; a lot like LARP is in general.

So, I'm going to encourage people to take another look at Status through IC actions and IC conversations. In the end, it's up to the players as a whole as to whether/how Status becomes important in the game.

[Kevin K]

Phil's right to a degree about Status being an in-game concern, but only to a point. There is a line where character's decisions about Status begin to affect the setting of the game. As ST's, part of our duties are to find that balance between an appropriate setting, and creative roleplay.

Bad setting example 1: Prince named Charming. His clan is Malkavian. Everyone wears party hats.
Bad setting example 2: (insert all-sterotype situation with deviation disallowed)

The question for me is: is the current level of Status adherance/interest acceptable and appropriate to the setting? I think perhaps, but only just. Seattle is/was a very unstable place, and as a result Status tends to lose importance in favor of immediate dangers. However, Seattle is rebuilding, and there are a lot of top-down pressures to make Status (specifically Camarilla Status) an important consideration. This is obvious in the first "rebuilding" Prince's opinion of it (Prince Calebros).

I would expect that the NPCs in the setting will continue to increase pressure to pay attention for a while. Kenneth already obviously has a drive to increase it, which comes partly from PC, and partly from NPC (not ooc) pressures. Other PCs have similar situations, some may need to develop similar situations. (Primogen, high-status Kindred)

Did that make sense? I feel like I just said "we need to uh ... synergize the paradigms. And disassociate the negativisms to progress down a positive roadmap."

-Kevin