@Packrat

I'd be happy to ponder FS3 in mildly constructive.

I'm fine with the abstraction (starting is set point limit, not defined by age), my interest is getting players into doing what they want. It can be min maxed, most systems can (even I partake, choose my WoD focus and snag a few high dots, round out with lower because it's cheaper in the long run). It's not gritty realistic, it's action oriented.

If both players app in and stay around for 6+ weeks, I'll be happy even if one went well rounded and the other min maxed.

Fifth Kingdom, but I'm Biased ...

A political system was being worked on. Prior to its potential release, we very publicly offered that we would be running political missions and events in July and asked for interested parties to respond. We received one reply. That one reply, we set up an event to see if others might show up, and one more showed. Spur of the moment, staff offered to run a hunt for new players playing huntsmen that same day. Two players for political and 6 showed up for the spur of the moment hunt, it felt that was the will of the players.

Slightly more successful for July was the beginning of the White Knight Quest. Folks were more keen to take and accept challenges from the mystery knight. This is still ongoing, with a chance to contribute, his identify revealed.

Ulster invasion is concluding at the moment, there was a lull in fighting (from the onset of news) to give the political missions a try. We'll conclude that.

July introduced fae-touched PrPs, a few took part in this, those touched now can meet with the fae courts.

Now, as far as chance of politics relating to strategy game between houses, this will most likely not happen. The interest has been low. We've been offering things to those who show activity, not making things to increase activity.

As far as marriage maker/TS game, lets be honest, marriages happen on all themes, as does the dating. Its going to happen here, but staff are more focused on continuing to do things. The first parts of August were reserved for the end of the year tourney. We're back into the swing once more.

For all it is worth, I'll be honest, don't expect daily events or staff to offer lots to do. I'm shooting for one event a week if I can, an occasional alternate for doing something Friday nights when I can be around. In the end, we are really seeking personal character stories, in line with medieval high Arthurian literature. There is RP and it is what you make it. Log wise, we average between 1-3 logs posted a day, a slight lull currently after the tourney, a few vacations and mishaps.

For politics, its literally up to players to decide if they want to politic (not strategy resource management simulation/game). I've pointed out on several occasions how easy it could be for anyone to actually politic (convince others to see things their way, not roll dice), to get the political powers that be to promote folks within the game.

All that being said, we've had many chime check it out then leave. The group sticking around is a damn good group of folks who enjoy a little bit of everything, the adventures, the tourneys, and yes the romance (even if they are holding out against Daithi). The RP is enjoyable to read in the logs. I enjoy the RP i can find when not running things. I've been very entertained by this group and will try to keep the pace and theme as it's developed by them too.

What we are not.

We are not a historical recreation; following history to a fault. We are not looking at any historical time points to feel, relive, or recreate parts of history that sound interesting to us.

We are not a typical fantasy game; magic is rare, and the other races are just that, other races. We are not a cut and paste fantasy with a mix of whatever game system we randomly decided to use full of options and sub options and complexities in just trying to be the unique version of a prototypical fantasy game.

We are not a strategy simulator; overly detail-oriented combat and options heavy large-scale battles. We are not after accuracy of detail in how sword and armor interacts to the point everyone else is bored and leaves to find fast-paced action elsewhere nor does understanding real world strategy in troop movement, placement and interaction play a part of what we have set out to create.

What is our focus: Character development and stories of those characters as they shape their environment. There is room for knightly adventure, courtly intrigue, and politics even, but the heart of our play is a focus around the characters in a fantasy-light, alternative historical setting. The central focus of play will remain the primary characters of our players, assigned to the court of a High King. It will follow their influence on the decisions and outcomes of that realm, of its trials and tribulations, the telling of its successes and failures to come, while retaining its focus on the growth and development of the interesting characters therein.

Interested: http://fivek.wikidot.com/

@krmbm said in Fifth Kingdom:

Could you please fix your wiki so the pages don't change transparency when you hover over them?

Done and done. Might not have been the most friendly on phone or tablet. Was: poke screen once for hover to solidify, all fully opaque now.

The dirt grovelers were going for dirt floor/thatched roof concepts. I think it stemmed from Vikings and folks pushing for homes closer to where Ragnor started. In my mind, the period was closer to the homes/abodes of the Jarls. A gathering hall, separated private rooms (solar) for the family, possibly an extension or two. We specifically opened the manor homes with some history in the area, not newly enfoeffed knights given a plot of dirt to build up, they were at least established. The gripes were the few extremists wanting dirt poor and those wanting super fancy, ignoring that most were at about the right level.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Good TV:

@Meg said in Good TV:

I plan to, one day. But I started with the books first and I want to end with the books first.

Oh, honey.

Well, maybe GRRM will live.

They'll put his head in a jar, next to Walt Disney. We'll get our final books. Because of the plotlines and characters the show skipped or never included that I'd like to see what GRR intended no matter what folks think of his writing.

@Packrat said:

With 1xp a week, lets compare two people who are not that extreme. The first person takes (Skill) at 8 and (Skill2) at 8, the second person takes (Skill) at 8, (Skill2) at 4 then (Skill3) at 2 and (Skill4) at 2.

It would take the second person 5+6+7+8 or twenty four weeks to raise (Skill2) to 8.

It would take the first person 1+2 plus 1+2 or six weeks to raise (Skill3) and (Skill4) to two each and catch up on the 'well rounded' skills of the second person.

This is something i wanted to look at. It's only looking at how fast to catch up.

I wanted a common goal, all four stats at master level (10).

This takes first player 146 weeks, the second 160 weeks. Four less weeks than the catch up math, 14 weeks difference.

But honestly that may takes years to get to an end build.

Also for putting in a warning that the system can be min/maxed is kind of silly. No game system does this, I'm not sure why FS3 would.

@faraday said in Fifth Kingdom:

The design of FS3 expects you to combat this with a soft app review (e.g. "no, sorry, there's no way your nobleman doesn't know how to ride or deal with politics - spend some points in those") and by setting minimal starting skills. For example, on BSGU everyone has to start with a set of skills to represent basic military training, plus some background skills. As long as you meet those minimums, you can min/max yourself to your heart's content.

This, yes. Our focus is a kings court and players taking positions of importance. Most chars should have some thought given to being in said court. They have the position, their skills should reflect this.

End of the day if a player hardwires for combat, and the adventure of the week is dealing with the plague. Your just out of luck with no skill to help.

Secondary we're looking at it as PvE. Group effort, when it comes to needing a tank, the non combatant types will appreciate the min/max overload.

Action skills will all be relevant to play on a regular basis. Limiting to 3 to 4 at a high level would sell the character short on versatility more than anything else. If they want to sit in the tavern to wait for the next combat to shine, that's the choice they made.

@Packrat said in FS3:

If deliberately (and very strongly) encouraging specialized characters without any skills outside of their focus areas is the goal then the FS3 character generation/advancement system certainly works but the issue is that in most cases? People are not in fact aiming for that when it comes to making their MUSH, or fail to realize that this is a goal of the system they are using because it is nicely coded.

It's not encouraging either way. Because someone with a more mathematically aligned perspective sees this, get big silks now, slowly round out others as needed, it doesn't mean that is encouraged or intended.

My experience: take advantage of min maxing, be tough from the get go, others get tired of it and go play with other people.

Deliberately encouraging or forcing specialist approach isn't necessarily by design. Plenty of systems do this. I have no problem with them. It just seems there is a mindset to single out FS3.

Honestly the weeks one spends getting politics or hunting could well be the weeks of time lost not rping with the right individuals, no matter how stacked the dice or build is.

@Bobotron said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

@Arkandel
Nice snark. I was more meaning that 'there was a game based on this'.

There still is a game and the 10 players enjoy it and still play as far as I know.

@ShelBeast @Apos I know why folks like stats and have a need for arbitration. I'm pointing out Mu is a multiple user environment, not only for games.

I'm with @Arkandel here. Social elitism if you will. I stop playing when it's dice only. Sorry to ESL or less adept writers. I'm forgiving too, I don't need spelling and grammar. I'm horrid, at times, with both myself. I'm here for story and if a fellow writer can't entertain me with story I'm sorry to say I'm moving on. Roll social stats to your hearts content, I'm moving over to rp with the other story teller.

I enjoy games, tons out there, tons that include rp. These days I'm leaning away from stats. I still MUD occasionally, on a low player base, stat heavy mud, when i want something crunchy.

Playing doesn't mean game (dice, stats, needed resolution). Don't get me wrong not bagging on stat based systems. But I'd like to see some diceless or stat-less systems too. In Mu*, not forum or irc or sandbox with a friend only but amongst a group of players enjoying a theme.

I played Dragonlance Mux (the first DL Mu*) for years with multiple players and no stats.

A number of earlier 'games', especially Mushes, had no stats. It was all social story telling. It's where the concept, very common on comic mu*s, came from; Take turns in the spotlight, or take your losses let others win sometimes.

I'm sad that all mu*s have this relegation to 'game' and required 'stats' these days.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Good TV:

@Meg said in Good TV:

I plan to, one day. But I started with the books first and I want to end with the books first.

Oh, honey.

Well, maybe GRRM will live.

They'll put his head in a jar, next to Walt Disney. We'll get our final books. Because of the plotlines and characters the show skipped or never included that I'd like to see what GRR intended no matter what folks think of his writing.

I'll voice agreement. Sometimes they have made me smile, but mostly I see something new in a thread I like to only find a gif, then the next 2 to 10 times is gif replies. I'm meme'd out.

@Jennkryst I'd be interested if someone worked the old Dragonfist (2e D&D free pdf release pre3e) martial arts action bits into any system regardless of the theme/fluff. We had fun with just the combat bits in that system.

PS: Pendragon was aimed at knightly adventures, chivalry and, dare I say, romance. But I'm wrong on everything else.

@bored said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

You didn't do that on Realms. The issue is you're drawing an equivalency between people who were following the guidelines set for them (wood or weak stone halls, various fashion items on the wiki) and people who said 'fuck your theme, I do what I want,' and calling both sides extremists. You're acting like there's no fault to be found, which is ridiculous.

As has been pointed out by others, castles vs hovels was not a deal breaker to most of the players, by other players. As for fault, I present from the majority of my posts so far:

@Lotherio said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

Lack of theme understanding is entirely my fault.

@Lotherio said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

@kitteh Read all I wrote, that nitpicking as you call it ends with 'I am to blame for lack of theme understanding'.

@TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

I'm only offering the goal of realms was not dirt groveling land holders. Again blame me for theme misunderstsndings.

@TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

And I'll say again, lack of theme consistency is my fault, entirely. But know that dirt groveling landholders was not part of the theme.

@TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

You started with this ^ none of which is entirely accurate. I explained why we stopped Realms, player bickering (ie we're dirty grovelers vs we're glittering nobles; neither of which is accurate). I concur it's my fault. And you keep making jabs, such as the fae char which actually never was far, and even now against that house.

@TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

I take blame for misunderstanding and misrepresentation of theme at Realm, as repeatedly said. But as you can see how it mildly turns to disagreement here, this is foreshadowing what could potentially be expected.

I'm being accused of being a nitpicky anal historian who was not anal enough in enforcing my theme. Which shall I be for you? I am not a nitpicky anal historian nor I was not anal in enforcing them at the expense of pretendy fun time. This continually assault on my lack of tacking fault over dirt groveling or castles illustrates the points, pick your theme stick to it, damned those that disagree. Which is what I am doing now.

Its some of these pedantics and discussion of castles and manors that's part of the larger bickering issues that showed up at Realms.

Last August on the Historicla Mu's thread, there was discussion about folks discussing the finer points of detail vs the majority of players that just show up for pretend fun time and while to those who enjoy history, the semantics of a building that consists of a few rooms, maybe a wing, down to the invention of the chimney is what drives players away from wanting to wade into historical games. Low stakes seems to border into historical and inconsistency at a smaller level will be noted.

I take blame for misunderstanding and misrepresentation of theme at Realm, as repeatedly said. But as you can see how it mildly turns to disagreement here, this is foreshadowing what could potentially be expected.

The dirt grovelers were going for dirt floor/thatched roof concepts. I think it stemmed from Vikings and folks pushing for homes closer to where Ragnor started. In my mind, the period was closer to the homes/abodes of the Jarls. A gathering hall, separated private rooms (solar) for the family, possibly an extension or two. We specifically opened the manor homes with some history in the area, not newly enfoeffed knights given a plot of dirt to build up, they were at least established. The gripes were the few extremists wanting dirt poor and those wanting super fancy, ignoring that most were at about the right level.