@Miss-Demeanor That is a problem on games where +votes are limitless, and you have things like +room/vote. I rememer how silly it was on Metro. More restricted votes, contrary to popular expectations, do encourage the majority of players to reward the best RPers.

There will always be cliquish/circle jerk behavior, but most people on mushes don't even have 5 real friends in their inner circle, and they really do try to give their votes to the most deserving, while presenting themselves as the most deserving.

Nothing on a mush is true or false with anything more than scattershot precision. But some policies do hit more of the intended target than others.

@Arkandel Of course there is a best solution. There's always a best solution. It simply depends on your priorities. If you have one set of priorities, then the XP solution which is 'best for you', is the one that hits the most high notes and the fewest low notes that you're trying to prioritize or de-prioritize.

To my own priorities, which is maximizing activity on the grid, I find a limited vote system to have worked best. I've drawn this conclusion from nearly twenty years of observing various systems in action, and what they encouraged or discouraged. Someone that has different priorities is free to disagree with me.

But I would have reservations about anyone who approached the XP system as anything other than an incentive to encourage activity on the grid.

@Coin said:

Nnnnnot the same thing when you're offering a product you expect people to pay for. Not even close to the same thing.

It's not the same thing. But it's close to the same thing. You're trying to draw in strangers, and make them interested in what you have to offer.

I've over it, though. I had my immediate reaction, and now I hope Supes and the game all the best. I hope he attracts enough likeminded people to create a fun and sustainable RP environment.

@Arkandel
Honestly, what you have described sounds less like a Consent-based game (which I find boring) and more like an ICA=ICC game, which I approve of.

All games should be ICA=ICC. Purely consent-based games always end up as very dull, sandboxed affairs.

Not to mention, the more agency you take away players to affect things ICly, the more they turn to OOC methods. Which is probably why every purely Consent game I've ever seen, was a hotbed of drama.

As unpopular as this opinion will be, I actually think that PrPs have had an overall negative effect on MUSH culture.

Some of them are great and well done, but a lot of them aren't. I've also never seen players take them particularly seriously. They phone in participation, never expecting that they'll face any danger from a PrP that could threaten their character.

There's something about staff running a plot, which has always made players sit up and take notice and invest more in the outcome, even if XP wasn't given as a reward.

I'd rather create more vehicles and conflicts for players to ICly hash out on the grid amongst themselves, because at the end of the day, only players can keep up with other players. A cadre of dedicated storyteller staff (not headwiz types, and not approval or administrator types...just storytellers), kept around to spice things up, would be better than random PrPs.

If someone has a great idea, or a great story to tell, then they can get 'deputized' for a temporary duration.

Obviously, current culture is almost 90% prp and 10% staff-run, where it used to be 90% staff-run and 10% prp.

I miss owod werewolf and I like Detroit as a setting, so was semi-tempted to make a character here. But the werewolf applications page is such pretentious bullshit that I couldn't bring myself to.

The Bone Gnawers section was especially stupid. Gee, being poor is hard? And it's harder for people of color? AND it's usually not a choice? Holy shit.

This tribe draws on stories about the poor and working-class. Regardless of race, being poor is hard, though it's harder for people of color, and stories about Bone Gnawers should reflect that. Most poor people aren't that way by choice, and stories about Bone Gnawers should reflect that too. Bone Gnawers are looked down upon by the other tribes for all the same reasons that poor people are looked down upon by the more affluent. Most of us have some amount of privilege--we all have computers, after all--and so it is of utmost importance that we all show some respect when telling these stories.

I'd think it'd be harder for whites, since people of color are used to being poor, amirite?

In all seriousness, I honestly don't know how anyone can take you (Supremes) seriously, after writing that. You don't care for my opinion, fine. But the ambition of any game should be to lure people in before making them close a browser tab at its sheer stupidity in the first five minutes.

At the end of the day, no XP system has yet improved on a simple format along the lines of '5-10votes a week, only vote for one person'.

All of these games that give free XP weekly, really only encourage people to never log in and amass huge sums of it on alts.

Past games, like Haunted Memories or Dark Metal had their monsters, of course, but they were cyclical. It encouraged twinks to go out and RP at the very least.

On The Reach, everyone is a monster to a ridiculous degree. It's not even worth playing when after a few months, you can basically be a master at everything. No one can have a niche.

@Wizz Because four pages is such a lengthy and comprehensive discussion. It must not have been, if the creator still thinks that apps page is a good idea, or else it's a deliberate move to lessen interest in his game.

@Coin said:

P.S. I find the comparison with Vampire and how Vampire relates to vampire fiction writ large pointless.

If we use that as a base with which to decide what elements we should and shouldn't keep in the games, Mummy would be a shell of what it is, Demon would be something completely different, Promethean would have no lore, Mage would be even more watered down hermeticism, Changeling would have none of the socio-political backdrop, and Geist just wouldn't even exist.

Changing Breeds might stay more-or-less the same. Maybe.

So basically, the only things that would stay the same are Vampire (not really, IMO, but sure) and possibly the worst game nWoD put out. And maybe Hunter? Maybe.

So that logic just doesn't scan with me.

You're not following the logic very closely then, but I can see how you missed the thread, as we got off onto a real tangent. Essentially, it was along the lines of werewolf being no less WoD for choosing which source material to emphasize at the expense of other sources, just as the writers themselves have suggested or offered examples of.

I also don't understand your statement that my claim to make werewolf more WoD-y is blatantly false. Where in the nwod main book is the Shadow dealt with? In any case, all I've claimed is that my hacks would shift a greater focus of werewolf onto nwod's general preoccupation with primal horror and the human condition, and more away from a pseudo Native American cosmology and spirit world.

Disagree with me all you like, but that seems so far from blatantly false as to basically be unarguable. Of course anything that removes the Shadow is going to focus the game more on werewolf and human interaction. So it really makes me think you're reaching, there.

@HelloRaptor said:

If somebody posted in the constructive forum that they felt Twilight was the definitive modern vampire fiction, ergo vampires being damaged by sunlight is a design flaw and here's a hack to fix it so people can play Vampire: The Requiem the way it should be played (and why not, since I bet way less than 1 in 4 players or staff ever have sunlight act as any appreciable threat, and just run 99.9999% of their scenes as if it's nighttime anyway), it's entirely likely they'd get mocked and ridiculed instead of getting constructive criticism or feedback.

It's interesting that people are so attached to certain things. The Shadow is not as core to the werewolf thematic experience, as fire is to a vampire, or ghost is to a geist.

I personally think claiming it as such is more an example of a rose-tinted argument. I get it though, that it was an extremely provocative idea to lead off with, and I've considered all the feedback on it valuable. That said, I must reiterate that the idea wasn't even originally mine, but came from a lore hack out of White Wolf's own Chronicles supplement.

What's your attachment to Auspices? The Pure don't have them, and I found the lack of Auspices made pack forming easier and more natural. People gravitated to what they wanted to do and not what they felt like they had to. Auspices were only included as a way to make chargen easier for some people, and function like classes. I've only had a chance to see Pure packs form on a mush a couple times, but both times seemed less stressful without deciding who got stuck as the Elodoth, etc.

What's your attachment to tribes? White Wolf itself will discard the tribes at a moment's notice, depending on the setting, or else break their backs trying to explain away their existence. Tribes were improved in 2.0, but there is still nothing 'core' werewolf about what you choose to call them.

@Miss-Demeanor said:

Basically... what @HelloRaptor said.

I have zero issues with your proposed changes for whatever games you're running in TT Land. But its not WoD. That's what your group wants, then run with it. But the things you want to remove from the game are what make it a WoD game. Tribes, Auspices, Shadow, Loci, actual raising and lowering of Primal Urge and Harmony... those are all the core precepts of WoD Werewolf.

Also... because I Am Nerd... the movies you're thinking of? 'Alaska vampire' movie is 30 Days of Night. James WOODS and Daniel Baldwin were in John Carpenter's Vampires.

I disagree with what's a core, sacred precept of werewolf. But I understand and respect your position on the matter. But I do think you have it backwards...All that stuff you mentioned is what can work on a tabletop, if you and the group are all on the same page.

It's what I've never seen handled satisfactorily on a MUSH. Not as much Tribes and Auspices, (which is more of a setting, creation thing and actually has almost zero relation to werewolf's core themes), but Loci and Harmony. I've seen very few players handle Morality check requests well. Most try to rules lawyer around them or get offended when brought up. And if Loci at the Reach are anyone's idea of what works on a MUSH, then I pity them.

Anyhow, what's most important is that you solved my mind-itch, as to what those two movies' titles were.

I'm not upset that people disagree with me. But I am bemused at the passion I've seen broached for certain concepts vs the attitude towards them I've seen in practice from the majority of casual players.

What do you think of removing Dalu and Urshul?

There's also an issue with each new pack app on a grid believing they have a god given right to their own loci in their own private building project, or else they're getting fucked. And then when they're gone, the loci is forgotten.

The best way to do loci, would have been like you said...already predetermined leylines that had to be claimed and protected on the grid. Not nestled away inside someone's home (how convenient!!). Loci should be in somewhat awkward places to perfectly control or contain. That's probably how they became loci in the first places.

It just seems so much cleaner to tie it into territory (how many grid spaces a pack can claim and patrol) and how large their numbers are.

@Alzie said:

Bunch've a stuff

Some good feedback here. You sort've misread what I meant on a few points, (judging by the rebuttal to 4, 5, 6, 7 and ), but I get where you're coming from. I know what the ideal is (and you have done a very good job articulating what the ideal is).

Generally speaking, I think storytelling 'spirit content' as opposed to actually running a werewolf-focused game, doesn't provide the same exposure.

Not because this makes your opinions anymore or less valid (I find your objections perfectly valid), but because I think there are certain elements in each game or splat, that are not as readily apparent or more easily overlooked without that focus. And I don't think it merely boils down to bad staff or bad players, because it's just so common.

I'm going to pose a few questions to you. They do not align with the points above, but are a new list.

1. How many storytellers have you seen ever consistently bring a pack's totem to life? Or was it mostly ignored and its existence/demands/activities handwaved, except where brought to life by one of the players?
2. How many storytellers have you seen consistently play up the spirit drama, scavenging and predation around a loci? Do you acknowledge that no game has ever coded a logical loci? The Reach is a great example of completely silly and illogical loci which amass hundreds of essence points and are never needed anyways (cause of the chron).
3. How many times have you RPd a scene, where you had to hunt down a spirit for its essence?
4. Do you acknowledge that on most games, the whole concept of essence maintenance is more or less coded into a completely handwaved, non-issue? There's actually a few highly specific ways that werewolves gain essence, and in tabletop, players are rarely if ever topped up, but its such a bureaucratic nightmare that no known MUSH has ever done anything but set it on a chron.
5. Have you ever ST'd a scene where a player tracked down a spirit to learn a gift, or had one run for you? Was it a common experience, or was it virtually always handwaved?
6. Instead of speaking in broad terms, do you have any realistic or pragmatic experience with a werewolf sphere's Renown issues? It's a constant hotbed of discontent, as to who deserves what renown, and why Glory 4 was approved for Bill but not me. Keep in mind, I wouldn't remove Renown, but I would treat it more like a focus than earned from merit.
7. Kingsmouth is a vampire only game, and Humanity at least, is a very clear cut theme. Do you acknowledge that Harmony is completely overdone in Forsaken 2.0? There's literally a potential for dozens of rolls a night, and it's extremely easy to return to the 'optimal' baseline of 4-6 (such as simply by having intercourse with a human, or not shifting for a bit, etc).
8. Do you not acknowledge that on many games, perceived unfairness in Morality check demands often makes for +job drama? It makes many players feel that their agency is being taken away from them or enforced arbitrarily. It often devolves into rules lawyerings as to what people can get away, and is often either pushed for little things, or ignored when it should've been a huge deal. There's no consistency.

It's true that a lot of these points can be answered with a hypothetical ideal staff or player substituted, but you have to be realistic about what bar the majority of staff is capable of meeting. If something vital in the books is mostly handwaved or ignored on a MUSH, or done extremely inconsistently, it might be doing more harm than good.

Lastly, re Primal Urge. That really wasn't what I was talking about at all, but perhaps it was more my fault at not conveying it very well. I love drawbacks, and I don't know how you got the impression that I didn't like Primal Urge's drawbacks. I just didn't like players being too obsessed about the power stat, and wanted them to see it as something they needed to raise to remain competitive, but as more of a roleplaying decision.

Other things, are less worth hashing over. But I thought I'd clarify that. (I still think if anyone actually liked werewolf, played werewolf, and ST'd werewolf, they'd see an improvement in the game's dynamic by focusing on three forms rather than 5, but there's not much more to be said on that).

@Alzie said:

@crusader Before I answer that. Am I answering them in the context of Forsaken 2.0 or in the context of a non-forsaken 2.0 game that just happens to draw some rules from Forsaken 2.0?

In the context of either Forsaken 1.0 or 2.0, and in your experience, what most players (not the hardened vets) seem to struggle with comprehending or doing justice. I'd also be curious if your perspective was as a fellow player observing other players, or if you've ST'd or helped people through Werewolf chargen, and what they might've struggled with there.

I think my solutions might not be the best, or right for everyone, but I do think Werewolf has a disparity vs some of White Wolf's other splats, in how comfortable the majority of casuals are with its highly intricate lore. Whereas say for Vampire, they just need to have seen Blade or Interview with a Vampire, to get like 90% of its main tropes.

What I've noticed is that for a surprising number of players (probably 1/3rd to 1/2) even after years and years, they never make any real progress with it.

@Alzie said:

Chapter 5, P 200. Spirits. All about spirits and how werewolves hunt them.

I didn't say it was entirely de-emphasized. Just that it wasn't emphasized as much as Forsaken 1.0. Clearly, we have differently nuanced barometers for judging such things.

I respect your opinion on it.

What did you think about the other eight points, purely from the perspective of introducing casual people to the game? (Those who will probably never own a White Wolf book, but will still play it).

@Thenomain

Tangental Ad Homenem Theatre has ended.

Tangential Ad Hominem Theater begins.

Can't you find someone else's thread to troll?

http://i.imgur.com/fhUtdpI.jpg

Honestly, if you weren't a decent coder, website builder and community organizer, I don't think anyone would have a use for you.

@Wizz said:

Why have you been referring to 2.0 in the thread title, even before the edit, if you were talking about 1.0?

What?

I said the Shadow isn't as emphasized in Forsaken 2.0 as it is emphasized in Forsaken 1.0. I already described how. It was in response to a post someone else made, which mostly relied on Forsaken 1.0 assumptions.

Just out of idle curiosity, has anyone else in this thread even read the Forsaken 2.0 pdf, and compared it to the first book? Has anyone in this thread even storytold a game of werewolf? Aside from Glitch.

@ThatGuyThere said:

So things being done badly on a mush is only a reason to get rid of something if you don't like it?

You've nailed it.

@Thenomain said:

Follow up: I asked, he refused. Made my night. Tangental Ad Homenem Theatre comes to close. Thanks to everyone who enjoyed this, if anyone did.

To be fair, I didn't refuse outright. I gave an extremely reasonable precondition.

I guess this means we won't be friends, after all.

@ThatGuyThere said:

Ok now I have a question, you mentioned before one of the reason to get rid of the Shadow is that few people in your mind do it right.
But then you play up the theme of the primal horror of shape shifting which granted is in the books but I have never seen touched on a mush except for first change/ becoming plots. So wouldn't by your own arguments mean that should be cut as well?

Perhaps if things were streamlined a bit, one could sustain focus in areas closer to werewolf's theme. Shapeshifting, and the act of changing itself (often involuntary, frightening and violent) is supposedly as central to the werewolf experience as drinking blood is for a vampire, or avoiding sunlight.

@Alzie said:

Again, you're reading far too much into the shapeshifting thing. The book does not spend that much time on the shapeshifting hurts bit.

I didn't go on about it 'hurting'. I just said that it repeatedly advises the storyteller to play up the drama of the transition.

Forsaken 2.0 emphasizes the shadow to an extreme. The entire origin story is about the shadow. You realized this right?

It's not as emphasized as in Forsaken 1.0. You realize that was the point I was trying to make, right? I came to this conclusion by various means, such as there no longer being spirit children from taboo matings, its harder to step over into the Shadow and more discouraged, and only Bone Shadows are as focused on spirits as all uratha were in Forsaken 1.0.

Thanks for the feedback.