IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Player vs. Player intimidation
Troyminator
post May 23 2011, 02:54 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 12-June 06
Member No.: 8,703



Hi All,

In my last session, one of the player characters was trying to intimidate one of the other player characters. Would there be an opposed test for that or would it be handled by role playing?

Thanks and be well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fatum
post May 23 2011, 03:04 AM
Post #2


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,801
Joined: 2-September 09
From: Moscow, Russia
Member No.: 17,589



Roleplaying. I might've allowed an intimidation test, and, depending upon the results, tell the player intimidated something like "You really feel scared" or "He's putting so much effort it's just making you laugh inside", but I wouldn't in any way force his further actions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post May 23 2011, 03:50 AM
Post #3


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



I agree. The trouble with social skills used against PCs is that the modifiers are so subjective, and generally resolved by the GM. So it can feel like your character is being essentially played by the GM, or the other player. And being told that your character snivels and does what another character says, because he is scared, can all but ruin some character concepts. It can make you think, why even bother writing a character background, if your deepest personality traits can be overridden by the almighty dice?

That said, the player doing the intimidating did pay for the ability to intimidate others, and the player no-selling that intimidation would not be allowed to do the same if being successfully shot at, or mind controlled, or cyber-hacked by another player. Unfortunately, the result is more ambiguous, and adjucated by the GM - so there will likely be plenty of disagreement on just how obedient the character will be, how long it will last, and so on.

The best way to resolve it, without breaking the immersion of the game, is by the character being intimidated roleplaying it out, based both on how successful the dice roll was, and how the character would generally react to being intimidated. If that is not feasible, I would let the character react as the player decides, but either penalize the player karma for poor roleplaying if the intimidation is completely ignored, impose dice pool penalties for actions going against the intimidation, or both.

The trick is to let the intimidation ability count for something, without taking control of the other player's character away from him. And yes, there are plenty of other game situations where the character's liberty or free will are affected, but imposing social skill results on a player is affecting their very ability to actually play the character - without that, there really isn't much point to even showing up to the game.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post May 23 2011, 04:50 AM
Post #4


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



This is a complicated subject since it boils down to managing expectations. Ultimately, I think how you handle it has to come down to attitudes and respecting what kind of game the majority of the group is trying to play. Personally, I usually forbid this stuff because most of my groups have approached SR from the perspective of collaborative problem solving w/ light escapist roleplaying as opposed to a drama production in which everyone is willing to roleplay out pretty much whatever happens to their character, for good or ill. That's important because with the former type of group two PCs resorting to dice usually just leads to dissatisfaction for the loser and boredom for everyone else. After all, they probably signed up to beat security systems, not watching the other characters have a pissing match. Meanwhile, with the latter group they just roll with it because to them it -is- the game and because they understood going in that perhaps they shouldn't write up their character as being practically incapable of fear. I have sympathy for both attitudes, really, since it's just a game and because nobody likes feeling that they've wasted some of their precious free time.

Anyway, despite my willingness to just nip that shit in the bud, I do think that games with politicking and inter-pc drama can be a lot of fun. I used to run oWoD Vampire games back in high school (I know, I know, shut up, it was the '90s), and while the mechanics were basically trash I did find that groups are entirely capable of having fun and practically writing their own campaigns via the magic of backstabbing and angst. But conditions have to be set up to support that and people need to understand going in that not everyone has to play nice. And that's not just a matter of picking the right set of mechanics, either. For example, there's going to be chances for people to metagame no matter what you do, but letting everyone know to create their characters sans-collaboration and that they should realize that they are not a capital "T' team is a nice start at keeping some mystery alive. After all, one of the lamer things about getting ambushed with PC vs. PC developments is that oftentimes you suspect that players wouldn't even try this crap on you if they hadn't of seen your sheet and that they are all but perfectly safe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post May 23 2011, 04:54 AM
Post #5


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



I'm not so sure I see it the same way as you, Glyph. I mean, if you have a character concept, it should be reflected in your character sheet, right? Character doesn't intimidate easily, as a concept? Then he should have guts / high chr / high intimidate + spec...you know, something. Same way it's not remote-controlling the character to have a guard shoot them, and have them take damage and thus have dice penalties and unconsciousness etc. If it kills a character concept when that character is easily intimidated but the player didn't want it that way, maybe the concept wasn't really that well executed.

I'll allow that maybe the social modifiers are more subjective than other modifiers, but I don't think they're WAY more subjective. They've got their own (too short) table and everything...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post May 23 2011, 05:04 AM
Post #6


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



I have some sympathy for that attitude, but uh, well, this is Shadowrun, and defending against some shit is just plain super hard. After all, sometimes that Face just happens to have 90 hojillion dice and could feasibly ask the GM how many net successes is enough to strike that nun PC temporarily gay. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanRay
post May 23 2011, 05:11 AM
Post #7


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,358
Joined: 2-December 07
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 14,465



Out Of Character, I talk about firearms (My hobby) and Explosives (I grew up in a mining town), and just explain that my Character is talking about similar things that creep out the player just as much. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post May 23 2011, 05:12 AM
Post #8


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



I know this is hyperbole to prove a point, but...really? A huge edge-case character concept doesn't make me want to change the rules that much, it just makes me want to ignore anyone with a character like that.

I guess it depends on the game...when people lawyer-up, anything can happen. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post May 23 2011, 05:25 AM
Post #9


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



Oh, yeah, it was hyperbole, but Shadowrun is a definite eggs armed with hammers kinda game and good base pools very readily overshadow the situational mods that are available. It really wouldn't be my first choice for this kind of thing at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post May 23 2011, 06:29 AM
Post #10


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



The thing is, you shouldn't have to load up on special skills just to be able to simply play your own character. And this isn't an exercise in drama or a character study portrait - it's a game. A lot of characters are going to tend to be tough, fearless, ass-kickers and similar action movie tropes. The trouble with rolling intimidation is that simply rolling the dice doesn't tell the other player why the hell his character suddenly turns into a wimp.

And the argument comparing it to things like being shot was addressed in my first post. I'm fine with my character being shot, stabbed, mind-controlled, imprisoned, or called mean names. But if I don't get to play my character, then, again, there's no point in my showing up. Just roll the dice to see whether my character shoots, runs, or poops his pants, and I'll be somewhere else doing something that's not wasting my time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post May 23 2011, 06:52 AM
Post #11


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



Depends on the table. Some tables want the run-n-gun. Some want games that involve social stuff +. I'm assuming that the social skill stuff we're talking about involves the latter type of table, otherwise sure, 2 or 3 skills is all the char needs.

I mean, if you want to play a great sharpshooter, why is it fair that the char has to "load up" on those shooting skills? If you want to play a tough, fearless character, but only have Chr 1, no social skills and no perks like Guts, well then, yeah, I hope you're playing at the former table above.

Where's that post from Yerameyahu about social skills being like shooting skills...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheOOB
post May 23 2011, 09:55 AM
Post #12


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,290
Joined: 23-January 07
From: Seattle, USA
Member No.: 10,749



The use social skills PC to PC is always really hard to arbitrate. Your best bet is to avoid it, when PC's have to lie, intimidate, or persuade other PCs, it's usually due to one of two things, the players are being silly, or the players see the other players as opponents in some fashion. The first is best handle with roleplaying, or a quick check followed by "he was intimidating" or "he was trying to be scary but made a fool of himself". When players see other players as opponents, you usually want to discourage that behavior, not enable it with mechanics. When players are playing against one another, about the worst thing you can do is let one player control another player with a roll of the dice.

That said, if I've decided the result of the action could be important, and it won't damage my group dynamics, I would require a test. Characters are very rarely as skilled as their players in any given field(usually more, sometimes less), and I am loathe to let a player get away with something important without seeing if the character could actually pull it off.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ascalaphus
post May 23 2011, 12:39 PM
Post #13


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,899
Joined: 29-October 09
From: Leiden, the Netherlands
Member No.: 17,814



We tend to have more-or-less-written house rules that say that social skills can't force another player to play his PC one way or the other, although you could point out that your character is really good at for example intimidation; it does depend a lot on whether the target really believes he should be scared by it.

That said, it also feels somewhat lame if people can entirely ignore your social skills because they're PCs. Maybe there's a possible compromise?

Suppose that achieving a good Intimidate result doesn't actually tell the target PC what to do, but it does give a small dice penalty to actions against the bully, -2 or so. Enough that it gets noticed; even though the target isn't cowering and sobbing, he's still somewhat thrown off-balance. The bully-PC gets some tangible result, but the target isn't too constricted in his responses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post May 23 2011, 01:13 PM
Post #14


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



First I would warn the intimidating character that intimidating your party members is an ass move, and likely to shorten your career with this party. Then I would require a test, then describe the situation for both players and ask that they roleplay it. Players who roleplay consistently get more karma. I generally have rules against PKing at the table, but players like to test those boundaries. Even without PKing, an angry team mate can make sure you pay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fatum
post May 23 2011, 04:21 PM
Post #15


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,801
Joined: 2-September 09
From: Moscow, Russia
Member No.: 17,589



QUOTE (nezumi @ May 23 2011, 05:13 PM) *
First I would warn the intimidating character that intimidating your party members is an ass move, and likely to shorten your career with this party. Then I would require a test, then describe the situation for both players and ask that they roleplay it. Players who roleplay consistently get more karma. I generally have rules against PKing at the table, but players like to test those boundaries. Even without PKing, an angry team mate can make sure you pay.
Minding how hilariously easy it is to PK in SR when you have Surprise, it's a really really really bad idea to spoil your relationship with the people who are supposed to be covering your back, I fully agree here.
But Intimidation is not actually any different from other Social skills from mechanical standpoint, so everything said applies to those, as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post May 23 2011, 05:22 PM
Post #16


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



Personally, I feel that if you disallow or heavily nerf the use of social skills on people you shouldn't let players murder each other with their automatics skill either. To me saying "Alright, he's convinced you to talk. Roleplay it accordingly" is less onerous than "Alright, he shot you. Roleplay as dead."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheWanderingJewe...
post May 23 2011, 09:33 PM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 183
Joined: 10-January 10
Member No.: 18,025



QUOTE (nezumi @ May 23 2011, 07:13 AM) *
First I would warn the intimidating character that intimidating your party members is an ass move, and likely to shorten your career with this party. Then I would require a test, then describe the situation for both players and ask that they roleplay it. Players who roleplay consistently get more karma. I generally have rules against PKing at the table, but players like to test those boundaries. Even without PKing, an angry team mate can make sure you pay.


We had that problem in my game. Player chose to make a 'evil' self-centered little shit of a character. When you manage to alienate your body guard to the point where he goes behind your back to have another guy show up and take the payment penalty on the contract....that takes work.

someone tried that on a NPC runner I had once. They got shot in the back of the head and turned into parts. Player never did that again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aerospider
post May 23 2011, 10:49 PM
Post #18


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 15-December 09
Member No.: 17,968



I've never seen a problem with letting PCs bully, intimidate, take advantage of or steal from one another - it tends to feel a bit odd when there ISN'T any animosity. It really isn't a big loss of player involvement to tell him he must hand over his gun, let the intimidating PC take the lead, etc. - after all, we aren't talking Control Thoughts or Fear here, it's a very short and limited effect. If someone makes a good intimidation roll against you then they have skillfully caught you off-guard and/or put you on the back foot to the extent that you instinctively concede before having properly thought it through - remember that this is not a persuasion attempt. If you don't think your character would consider the offender a threat or authority of any kind, then afterwards your character can chide himself and see about redeeming himself, but as a player you should (in my game at least) remember that people get influenced into betraying their nature all the time.

As for the actual running of it, I don't make them roleplay it verbatim (though they are welcome). Instead I hear the offender's words, actions and supporting arguments, applying bonuses if really deserved, see if the defender has any good arguments for a little bonus himself, then apply situational modifiers as I see fit. This is the kind of situation where my GM fiat is unassailable because PC-on-PC action should be dealt with succinctly - it's usually of limited interest to everyone else so best to just get it decided one way or the other and move on. Give it some colour, but don't let it take over.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post May 24 2011, 02:01 AM
Post #19


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



QUOTE (Whipstitch @ May 23 2011, 10:22 AM) *
Personally, I feel that if you disallow or heavily nerf the use of social skills on people you shouldn't let players murder each other with their automatics skill either. To me saying "Alright, he's convinced you to talk. Roleplay it accordingly" is less onerous than "Alright, he shot you. Roleplay as dead."

But why should you have to roleplay if the other character just plunks down a bunch of dice? Personally, I would have a lot less problems with someone shooting my character than I would have with not being able to play my own character. I suppose it depends on how it is adjudicated. I would probably run it more like Ascalaphus than Aerospider, but I could live with how Aerospider runs it - the problem with social skills is when they are used continuously against a PC, or when the GM does treat them like mind control.

I guess intimidation is especially hard to rationalize to me, at times, because other than composure tests (and mind you, those are generally only for unfamiliar things), PCs can be more or less fearless - they have professionalism of 4+, facing down horrors that would send other people screaming, defying the odds, and doing crazy, daredevil stunts. But suddenly they are backing down from a teammate that they probably know is less physically imposing than they are?

My attitude about intimidation is that against PCs, it should usually have some hefty negative modifiers; it should be hard to frighten someone who does what they do for a living. Not impossible, but while the Yakuza oyabun might make them sweat, I have a hard time seeing them backing down from a punk with a streetline special. The bounty hunter archetype is Uncouth - he can't even resist intimidation. So does he cower before schoolgirls? I would say that most people would face penalties trying to intimidate him, and have a moderately high threshold to actually make him do something like back down from a public confrontation. So he might still be more susceptible to being intimidated, but he wouldn't be a total pushover.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post May 24 2011, 02:34 AM
Post #20


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



QUOTE (Glyph @ May 23 2011, 08:01 PM) *
So does he cower before schoolgirls?


By the RAW, I would say yes. I don't believe that social skills are something Shadowrun does particularly well, frankly, and that's why I'd rather just tell players to knock this crap off or at least start up a game where everyone isn't invested in being total hard-asses despite the fact the game is really asymmetric. If players want to play against eachother I'd rather move to a system in which dice pool sizes are narrow enough where you can't just steamroll past situational penalties so easily. That goes for both combat and social skills, by the way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dez384
post May 24 2011, 02:53 AM
Post #21


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 3-May 11
Member No.: 29,372



QUOTE (Glyph @ May 23 2011, 10:01 PM) *
I guess intimidation is especially hard to rationalize to me, at times, because other than composure tests (and mind you, those are generally only for unfamiliar things), PCs can be more or less fearless - they have professionalism of 4+, facing down horrors that would send other people screaming, defying the odds, and doing crazy, daredevil stunts. But suddenly they are backing down from a teammate that they probably know is less physically imposing than they are?

My attitude about intimidation is that against PCs, it should usually have some hefty negative modifiers; it should be hard to frighten someone who does what they do for a living. Not impossible, but while the Yakuza oyabun might make them sweat, I have a hard time seeing them backing down from a punk with a streetline special. The bounty hunter archetype is Uncouth - he can't even resist intimidation. So does he cower before schoolgirls? I would say that most people would face penalties trying to intimidate him, and have a moderately high threshold to actually make him do something like back down from a public confrontation. So he might still be more susceptible to being intimidated, but he wouldn't be a total pushover.


Would you make NPCs unable to use social skills against the part as well? That would give the players an ace in the hole, a whole skill set that the enemy can't use. The outcomes of social skills should be roleplaying guides. The difference of succeeding in an intimidation test by 1 die is the tough Merc scowling and aborting his course of action whereas a success of 4 or more dice could have the Merc drop his gun or stumble backwards. This goes for all social skills. A con success of 1 is a Face making cops think the donut stand he is running is legit, in comparison to a success of 5 dice in which a previously straight ork wakes up in bed with an elf.


Player versus player social skills can get annoying. But the Face did pay for those abilities and if that is his only way of having the gunbunny from pointing a gun in their face, then he should be allowed to use it to defend himself. If the martial artist keeps breaking his teammates thumbs, then the team should get bonuses to dodge his attempts to breaking their thumbs. It's like a sibling rivalry; the younger sibling gets better at avoiding the torments of the older brother (though the older brother still wins at times).

Now players of all kinds can be asses, both the social abusers and the DPS guys. It's the GM's job to moderate player interactions. If the Talker keeps trying to intimidate other players, then he should get growing penalties as his teammates get used to his abuse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post May 24 2011, 03:28 AM
Post #22


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



QUOTE (Glyph @ May 23 2011, 09:01 PM) *
My attitude about intimidation is that against PCs, it should usually have some hefty negative modifiers; it should be hard to frighten someone who does what they do for a living. Not impossible, but while the Yakuza oyabun might make them sweat, I have a hard time seeing them backing down from a punk with a streetline special. The bounty hunter archetype is Uncouth - he can't even resist intimidation. So does he cower before schoolgirls? I would say that most people would face penalties trying to intimidate him, and have a moderately high threshold to actually make him do something like back down from a public confrontation. So he might still be more susceptible to being intimidated, but he wouldn't be a total pushover.


It's not very likely that those schoolgirls will have any dice to roll, so I don't think there's any fear of them making him cower:

  • -1 Suspicious at a bare minimum, since there's not much more suspicious than a schoolgirl trying to stare down a heavily armed thug. If the player pushes it I can easily see him giving them a -5 for him being hostile.
  • -3 Result is harmful (up this to -5 if there's anyone watching, since being terrified of schoolgirls is disastrous to a runner)
  • -3 Subject is physically imposing (Body 8 & Strength 8 vs. schoolgirls? That'd be more than 3 if the chart allowed it)
  • +2 Outnumbered (though they're school girls, so I'd probably handwavium this away unless he's seriously outnumbered)
  • -2 Subject has a weapon (technically several weapons, but that doesn't matter)


They've got a total of at least -6 to their pool, probably more. Meanwhile the Bounty Hunter's pool is 4:
  • 0 Skill
  • 0 Attribute
  • +2 because he doesn't think they'd be that stupid
  • +2 because he has an ace in the hole (in the form of several different ways to kill all of them)


Make them tougher than schoolgirls though, and he's probably going to be scared. He might want to think about getting one rank of Intimidation. He got the points for Uncouth, he pays the penalties for it too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LurkerOutThere
post May 24 2011, 05:15 AM
Post #23


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,946
Joined: 1-June 09
From: Omaha
Member No.: 17,234



QUOTE (Dez384 @ May 23 2011, 08:53 PM) *
Now players of all kinds can be asses, both the social abusers and the DPS guys. It's the GM's job to moderate player interactions. If the Talker keeps trying to intimidate other players, then he should get growing penalties as his teammates get used to his abuse.


I don't see why, abusive relationships tend to observe the opposite trend.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post May 24 2011, 05:25 AM
Post #24


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



QUOTE (Glyph @ May 23 2011, 08:01 PM) *
But why should you have to roleplay if the other character just plunks down a bunch of dice? Personally, I would have a lot less problems with someone shooting my character than I would have with not being able to play my own character.



Didn't have time to get to this earlier. To suffice it to say, I would not have the same problem aside from maybe requesting a FTB and providing a brief outline of what my character would do in the case of my character deciding to do something I personally would not like to roleplay. I honestly don't see this as much different as failing a sanity check in other systems. Remember, not all games necessarily hinge on the concept of total player agency. It's in part the difference between viewing yourself as a writer or director of a story vs. being merely a performer whose part is in part dictated by outside circumstances and third parties... like the dice. Fun can be had either way, but the trick, however, is to get everyone on the same page first, which is why I'm uncomfortable allowing such happenings with your average shadowrun group given that it's quite likely that at least one person didn't sign up to play the game that way. After all, my own personal approach to Shadowrun is really more along the lines of a highly game oriented problem-solver than someone particularly enamored with the setting fluff and roleplaying opportunities.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fatum
post May 24 2011, 06:06 AM
Post #25


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,801
Joined: 2-September 09
From: Moscow, Russia
Member No.: 17,589



QUOTE (Dez384 @ May 24 2011, 06:53 AM) *
Player versus player social skills can get annoying. But the Face did pay for those abilities and if that is his only way of having the gunbunny from pointing a gun in their face, then he should be allowed to use it to defend himself. If the martial artist keeps breaking his teammates thumbs, then the team should get bonuses to dodge his attempts to breaking their thumbs. It's like a sibling rivalry; the younger sibling gets better at avoiding the torments of the older brother (though the older brother still wins at times).

Now players of all kinds can be asses, both the social abusers and the DPS guys. It's the GM's job to moderate player interactions. If the Talker keeps trying to intimidate other players, then he should get growing penalties as his teammates get used to his abuse.
Will you share your life of crime with someone who routinely points a gun in your face or tries to intimidate you? As soon as the players are using their abilities against each other, the game's steady on the road to falling apart.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:25 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.