@A-B said in Tips for not wearing out your welcome:

I was not asked to leave, I was thrown out without warning. If you'd told me you wanted me to stop blethering, I could have stopped blethering.

This right here. You keep repeating this part that comes off angry. Everyone has answered. You are not owed an explanation. They gave one here. It is time for you to move on from this topic. You're getting answers just not the ones that work for your logic.

I work as an interventionist irl, this is the same thing I say to my high functioning Asperger's teens. Just because it's not the answer you're looking for doesn't mean it wasn't an answer. You just disagree and nothing wrong with disagreeing but there is a time to let it go. Good luck finding another game.

@Derp said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

You don't actually read a single thing I write, do you?

The problem as presented says people are open to be abused, how can we help them, what systems can we use. And you're saying, any system you implement can be abused, lets not do anything.

From the standpoint of rhetorical argument, you're not contributing to the discussion constructively. It can all be abused, we've established this. How do we address the former if the latter is not a solution? And if you don't think the former is a problem, start another thread, this feels like derailing.

@Ghost said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

What? The pretty girl I like also enjoys X-Men comics? I will woo her by testing her width of knowledge and then proving to her that I'm more of a superfan! She will be overcome by sexual attraction to my dominance that SHE WILL BE MIIIINE.

As this is the Real World Peeve thread and a lot of fellow fans/nerds/etc. do this among their friends, in the middle of movies ... a PSA, please stop. We don't care if the dagger Clint Barton used when his arrows ran out was from issue 12 of secret avengers which foreshadows that Ronin, the original owner of the dagger, would be involved and you're predicted this will relate to Kree/Skrull stuff in later movies. Honestly, whether a fellow nerdist knew what you're poining out or not, or the person next to you is a new fan to the movie-verses, we don't need to listen to you talking over five minutes of movie time to impress your friends or some girl or boy or whatever you think you're impressing.

My daughter is old enough to enjoy easter eggs and surprises and then asks for confirmation on what she sees sometimes but I remind her to ask after the movie - and we'll gladly talk about it after the movie over a burger or ice cream or something. She's learning not to talk about this stuff during movies, you the adult should know this by now too.

@kalakh said in Something Completely Different:

You broke the community trust. There's an unspoken understanding in any community of people, anywhere, in any medium, but particularly online, that those who hold the authority will use their authority fairly, that they will listen to complaints and concerns, and that they will take appropriate action. This does not mean bowing to every whim or allowing every fire to burn uncontrolled - and you are well aware of that - but it does mean that when a bunch of people have a problem with something you've done or not done, your response needs to measured, your response needs to come from a certain understanding of why the problem has sprung up, and it needs to adequately address the issue.

The trust was broken in a seeming majority of the vocal, not the majority at large. The bowing to every whim is the most accurate thing in here and frankly a lot of that bowing has gone to the vocal majority in the past 3-4 years, including allowance of skirting the letter of the ‘law’. Again, call me ignorant, but this continued pressure by a select group that has been a vocal majority has the perception of bullying; and I understand they don't want to hear that term when its applied to them as they like to believe they have the moral high ground. It reads as if, we got some changes here to make MSB better, we should have some control over what's allowed/disallowed from our viewpoint. From outside that viewpoint it looks a lot different. I'm not friends with Mods here, but I can see that being the perception while trying to point out this as a third party. I can be a scape goat/flying monkey/sympathizer if that makes folks feel better in some need to polarize sides here.

Cold rules-pounding does none of this. I think you fell back on it because you were unprepared for protest, you did not know how to respond to the size of said protest, the vehemence of it, the direct attacks and the anger, because iron-clad rules are comfortable for you, because you feel you can draw a line in the sand and everyone worthy will find where you draw the line to be acceptable, or at least satisfactory in the moment, and everyone unworthy can be kicked out without guilt, because breaking rules and crossing lines are in and of themselves proof that someone who receives a ban deserves the ban.

The having rules and sticking by it, including what to do about direct attacks and anger, was ironically advocated by the a large portion of the folks recently banned or having just walked. The irony is there. When this change came into being, a few years after the switch to this incarnation of MSB/WORA/Predecessors (or the one that wasn't hosted on digital ocean I suppose), some folks spoke up in anger, many older folks walked then not liking the change. A whole host of old faces walked then. They said MSB was dead as they walked out the door disgruntled. but it survived.. Then, which lead them to walk, there as a big advocacy for less silent observation by mods to more hands on administration. Just when it didn’t work, more recently, for the advocacy group, its now a bad thing - having some rules were good until it was applied to them. Again, I know I’m viewed as a flying monkey for admin, when I have zero contact with any of them.

A lot of people disagree.

A lot of people do not (I am not saying they agree either, but they are not upset over recent Mod activity) - they're just not largely vocal as the current posters have been in the last few years.

@devrex said in Review of Recent Bans:

Raw, cruel nastiness. Which. Cool. They have a spot for that now but equating “let’s stop the cyber bullying over here now” with what’s being said and has been said is an egregious false equivalency. And this whole group of folks once told me with straight faces they would gladly accept a ban from a game just so they could abuse Derp some more

I agree but I want to point out some of the conflicting thoughts on this. The 'whole group' does not equate with all those banned. From what I've seen @RightMeow is friends with (only from what I've seen, not saying they are or not) some of those banned that aren't in with the group in question. All the banned are not part of the same groups of friends so there is some confusion. That said, a lot of the virtue signaling that doubled as dog whistling, which came off as sometimes bullying to me, was joined in by a lot of various groups and other independent parties.

I agree though, if folks want the freedom of speech as a pretext to slander, start dumpster fires, and munch popcorn while seeing how funny (mean) someone can be, there is a forum for it. Its no longer here. There are multiple forums for it actually, prior bad actors here have started similar places for similar free speech.

ETA: The funny thing is while I've been openly attacked plenty in the history of this place, I've never had a personal (DM/PM) attack until I made the comment about what it looked like from a third party, which was pretty much an insult intended to say I'm not a third party.

Time for a Friday Update.

House tracking/sheets/trading/purchasing is up and running. Trades work, but its not a total system, there is no counter offers, bantering, etc. That is left to RP, the system is the end product to interactions between houses and house members on the grid; not a replacement for RP.

We’re delving into the heart of theme at present. Taking a closer look at Vindicti, the art of formalized vendetta for our game. A good quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, near the heart of day to day play; politics, alliances, vendetta.

These divisions [conflicts of nobility often along political lines of Guelf and Ghibelline] in fact largely reflected personal, economic, or quite local political rivalries—all inflamed by ideals of chivalric honor and an everyday acceptance of the traditions of vendetta.

It is highly more formalized for dramatics of play, named Vindicti. Vindicti is not unlike Kanly in Dune (based off a similar real world concept from the near east). We’re taking careful steps as we work this out for now. Our intent is not to make it simply some form to allow excuse of PK, to the point directly killing someone in another house is not honorable. Dueling is a highly accepted form of conflict, something like the final escalated conflict in Vindicti. For those not familiar with Pendragon, drawing swords is a little more than pretend fun time, even pulling blows for half damage, can be deadly and have lasting repercussions with a potential slim chance of dropping someone for good (armor/shield/hp dependent). Killing someone in a duel will come with investigation by the judiciary council to determine intent and recompense between houses. Not only does the offending house in a death have to pay the recompense, but the individual will suffer a tarnish which requires IC atonement; not some spiritual blessing, but the physical act of atonement whether to simply show publically, or for personal reasons to feel better, just that its a hit on reputation.

Other forms of conflict are more acceptable as well. Means of sabotage, social slander, even capture/ransom. Our goal is not coded systems for this, with statistics tracking behind the scenes, our focus is RP, we’re just giving more attention to Vindicti both in formal IC law and OOC policy/theme to assure its an RP tool only. This will most likely play into the idea of politics as discussed, such as the wooing of needed political NPCs for alliance and to sway votes/politics in Matora and abroad. Part of the sabotage could affect attempts to form/gain alliances or the attempts to gain favor/rep/info as well.

We will then further define the religious spectrum in the game which is reflective of the real world theme we are borrowing and altering. This was a big debate on Realms that we do not wish to get into, we’ll define more up front, from hierarchy on down. This will be a basis for religious groups, knighthoods and perhaps other groups with agendas that could be anti-religion (illuminati-esque). This is needed before we fully flush out neighbors in the city states from aristocratic cities that are probably supporting patrizio in our city in attempts to oust/remove nobility from their positions, or risen ventura (our condotieri), many also cavalieri/knights with no land holdings thanks to the numerous wars and entrada (crusades).

We will offer a number of houses, with heads open to app. Dependent on growth, we could open more but are going to offer group entrance/applicaiton to form new houses as needed as well. From the Conte level, which our opening houses start at, on down. While we will start play with an NPC at the level of Duca/Duchessa, the intent is not to keep it this way. This is an elected position and the intent is after play is established, to hold the next election for players to move into and rotate in this position to control the thrust of what our city does, leaving its success and failures in the hands of the players and the player houses.

The rest of the world will act, giving focus for the players to react to and, depending on player action, the world will react accordingly. Note that while it is very lightly fantasy and there could be some potential of real divinity of some sort, this is not a focus. There is no invading shadows or scary stuff coming, there are no end of the world/save the day/save the world plots. There is a socio-political focus on working together even while being enemies and rivals and making the overall success relevant to the city itself. Or, being enemies, removing enemies and changing the political landscape. We will offer challenges, dilemmas, hurdles and obstacles.

All said, we’re nearing that point of opening, knowing code may be added or altered to reflect need and want by the players, the basics are laid out to get there. Its is near, but I can’t say a time as that my jinx such a deadline, just we are getting closer.

Having risen in influence and power, the city of Matora is readily focused on its own affairs. The Great Houses of the city, with trade empires stretching to the corners of the world, have a greater interest in valor and vengeance. Disputes and conflict between the families is a primary focus while neighboring city-states are on the rise. The wealth of the city has drawn the eyes of foreign interests wanting their own share.

While the families utilize small personal armies to conduct their wars of personal vindication with each other, they have relatively small armies to defend their cities. Here the companies of mercenary warriors known as the Ventura have played a vital role. Following years of conquest in foreign lands, mercenaries returning form companies for hire, waging the wars between cities that the families cannot. The families can, however, supply the coin to fuel this constant struggle for power in the city-states while growing their personal empires.

This is Valorous Dominion

Valorous Dominion is an online role-playing experience in an alternative setting based roughly on the northern Italian city-states in the proto-renaissance period; roughly the mid 14th Century. We are a mix of the King Arthur Pendragon RPG for characters and our own system for house management and growth.

Connect: 71.171.93.80:1510
Wiki: http://valorous.wikidot.com

We’re narrowing down time to open to the scale of weeks here, started out as undefined months when we dusted off the code from Realms.

As mentioned last week, we really focused on Vindicti (formal vendetta) over this past week. In the end we’ve concluded it would work best as a formal ‘event’ entered between two houses. A challenge issue/accepted system that will be monitored through the code to allow communication between Heads of the Houses and Staff as needed. At any time two houses start to argue/fight (You sir are a codfish, you ma’am are a spendthrift, I invoke Vindicti, Concurred), one makes the challenge, the other accepts. At that point, within the system they are each awarded 1 attempt of vindication. Once per week, they may submit an attempt including a log or logs. Whether that is an honorable duel, a social slander, some chicanery, some attempt to poison the other house, or user defined form of vindication, they get one attempt for the week. The only caveat is that killing is not acceptable, so even poison its more a sick, with most likely a time to RP recover (get an antidote, hire a special physician, etc.).

If one succeeds in the attempt, the targeted house then gains another attempt to exact revenge/vindication. Only one attempt may be made in any given week. If both succeed, each house gets another attempt. A house may choose not to use the attempt and let it expire, once all attempts have failed or are expired the vendetta is ended. However, this may continue for an uncertain amount of time. Once a Vindicti expires both houses will gain reputation commensurate with the total number of successes accumulated during the formal feud over its duration. Full award to the victorious house, marginal award for the losing house. This will, thankfully, not conclude as the traditional feuds of the time did; no tower houses will be torn down and destroyed.

Logs will be required. Logging is not necessary to play Valorous Dominiom, participating in Vindicti is not necessary to RP here as well. Houses are a supplement that will hopefully drive RP, we’re viewing them something like factions and those willing to be the heads of houses are akin to faction heads. A little more will be required as such, as we expect this to help drive RP for those in and around active houses. Again, the focus is away from PK, death will result in negative outcomes for PCs that kill. This system will be monitored, as success is subjective, likewise if they seem to grow with no possible end, total time limit may be set to force expiration of the Vindicti.

That said, we’ve delved deeper into theme. The main faiths of the game are well underway, as is general history of the world and of our fair city. We’re turning towards neighboring kingdoms and city-states. While all of this is generally done, just adding a little more depth to give options for things previously mentioned, including politics and local NPCs that can act towards or react against the thrust of our primary city. Plots that will affect the city as a whole are in the works for launch shortly after opening as well.

Going forward, we’ll code up the Vindicti system in conjunction with +jobs. We will finalize valor (our version of Glory) and how it is gained along with how to use it for personal improvement. We are looking at both valor gained and time on for personal improvement (a specified amount of improvement per season or month even).

@Thenomain said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

A mage, a werewolf, and a vampire walk into a plot. What happens next tells us a lot.

You can only take one to the bar at a time by crossing the floor. If you leave the werewolf with the vampire, the werewolf stakes them, if you leave the vampire with the mage, the vampire drains them. How do you get all three to the bar.

@Carex said in The Dark Side of online Role-Playing:

None of us ever died or got kidnapped or had anything bad happens to us just because we were outside in the world.

Speak out of your own ignorance. We entered a falstaff brewery, my friend fell off a metal later and landed on a pipe. The rest of us watched as his sucking chest wound made fucked up noises and we waited for him to be airlifted out of that abandoned building. Shut the fuck up in your ignorance, your experience isn't the same for everyone else.

Legend of Rollerball (and other better known movies), James Caan.

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

The BSG games (mine and others) I think show a sort of environment where players with different preferences can peacefully co-exist most of the time. In a more adversarial environment, I can certainly see where clashing expectations would be a bigger problem.

First, completely agree, its a bit of all combined somewhere in the middle and not always clearly defined to what extent of each any given Mu* might be. I do like the improv acting as another part of the spectrum/gauge, and that needle fluctuates too (is it completely improv seeing what actors come up with giving a situation, or is there more system to it such as cues from the audience, the director, other actors that can modify this situations - or in a dice game like pendragon, when I'm about to behead the leader of the revolt on my land do I roll to see if my character is more Forgiving or more Vengeful - and it comes down to how much am I the player deciding vs how much am I taking cue from the system).

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

The BSG games (mine and others) I think show a sort of environment where players with different preferences can peacefully co-exist most of the time. In a more adversarial environment, I can certainly see where clashing expectations would be a bigger problem.

I'd just like to say also, especially concerning @Faraday's BSG and the way stats are presented. The in between places of must Mu*s, I think they are better suited in more universal systems. FS3 on the surface is easy to understand, attributes and skills; WoD on the surface looks easy to roll those things to determine various outcomes; Open D6 is similar. This is good for MU in a not related to the topic sort of way, its when system becomes more complex does the question of how much are we following the rules system vs the spirit of creating story and groups having different levels and not getting along comes up. On the backend or under the hood, FS3 has a easy yet complex combat system. Attack/defend isn't too hard but the realistic side of a few modifiers and determination of hit location and for how much damage and what location, how much splash damage, does shrapnel hit people in a vehicle when its shelled, does someone pass out from some damage or are they strong enough to keep standing, can other rally them, etc. Its straightforward but a lot of steps to try to remember and its why the coded combat resolution through an interface/HUD is great and helps folks only focus on the sheet.

In a universal system, folks are left to play in their way when the see the sheet. Me and my friend could 'brawl' and decide we do best of 5 rounds and the loser is knocked out, we just roll strength or we roll the melee skill (or, more universal and part of the system, if someone has melee the roll that as the roll includes strength, and if not, they just roll strength). Beavis and Bill might like the 10 charts of does it hit, what part of body, is it covered in armor, does some of the armor absorb or outright block the damage, does it depend on type (piercing goes through leather easy but not so much through metal), is it more likely to hurt when it hits (5.56 ball rounds bounce around and are designed to put you down so your friends and medic pause a little to help you out while firing incendiary rounds at peole is going to slice and dice), etc.

That level is where the gauge moves when universal systems come into play for me, the mix of is it more straight system or are folks playing in favor of a story or more just improv acting to see what the characters are going to do/how they'll respond etc. But just a little spiel for I like more universal systems.

I agree with a lot of what @Ghost is getting at. Its the age old diametrically opposed viewpoints. Roll vs Role, MUD vs MU^others. Various levels of intermixing that doesn't always work out as noted.

It also begs the argument, folks that roll hard dice and abide by the systems interpretation (ie playing Pendragon and failing my virtue then proceeded to critically succeed on my vice roll) ... and then role play the results would feel offended if someone said they weren't creatively telling a story and inversely, if fols are in a game that assumes some success level for easy to moderate rolls based on how many points they put in a stat or how they described it but expresses a level of failure and they sometimes like to roll to see if they fail and/or how bad they fail might feel offended if you say they're not using some form of game system or rules.

In the end it comes down to be clear how much of each MU is, but the needle on that guage is mostly jiggling back and forth between yellow caution and red danger such that we don't really know and as @Ghost mentioned, there is some kowtowing to appease a broader player base on most places.

That said, I do have some thought on a part of what was brought up. This could be in a breakout thread; 'incentivizing systems for the more story telling focused group'. But this thread is still incentivizing failure, so here goes ...

@ghost said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

Don't mix. if you're making a "cooperative creative writing game", you should explicitly state so and do away with codifying extensive dice systems into your games (which will only confuse the RPG players), and instead incentivize cooperation over pass/fail results. Create the game, environment, and social structure as a showcase of writing and stories, sharing written works, and remove the game concept from the MU altogether.

Now there is lot of systems out there that steer away from RNG and dice towards a storytelling system of fairness in who wins and loses, and even plays towards the wrestling stuff @Ghost has brought up in the past (every takes a fall every now and again so others get some spotlight and the understanding is when you fall you do it to help the winner look good in their moment, honor system sort of stuff). Amber diceless had players bid on stats to see who was best/etc. and its assumed the person great in one attribute is always great but circumtances can change that. Other systems have come along to introduce good karma/bad karma and mutual pools of luck (players take a loss but gain a few successes to use for their big win, or win they win the GM gets a few successes to increase story challenges and adversaries). @Ganymede brought up CoD brought parts of this into the system with taking the beatdown for XP or some boon for later.

I've brought up this idea before but it was shut down, taking a loss for a win later in a static system of character representation not unlike comic places. Like strong char has lift 75 tons as their strong, they can fail a few times for whatever reason that builds up whoever is taking the win - kryptonite got them, the winner was stronger in that moment, they had the higher ground, the other one had belief in themself more than the char had in themself and clearly defeated them through this sheer will of strength. They take the good loss but later in the story when their friend is trapped under the 85 ton building, they have the karma pool to exceed their limit to save their friend.

It was pointed out folks would game the system for losses to only use them in the most crucial moments. However, I still believe somewhere is a medium middle ground where this could work in a MU.

That was a lot of rambling, not sure I went anywhere but there are systems for story-oriented folks just I haven't seen any make the transition to MU and maybe cause folks still hold onto wanting the game aspect (sometimes to let dice determine if they win or lose)?

@tooters said in Crusader Kings III Console/PC:

CK3 isn't a bad game, but it seems like it's the same thing happening over and over again. Just like CK2, the strongest tree is knowledge bar none (I can go into detail if prodded, if not, trust me, it's Knowledge).

Never played Crusader Kings, but sounds like most Civilization games and needing writing/literacy to get advanced things like governments and such to springboard technology in other areas to get advantage over other civilizations in that game?

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

Han Solo could meet his end tripping on a flight of stairs because he failed a Dex check is not a world I want to RP in.

Not that its relevant to the conversation but in the original D6 system for Star wars, this wouldn't be possible. The dice pool system then, like a few others, was a total of all dice rolled vs the WoD version (each dice that totals X number is a success). In the D6 version, it would be an easy task, Han Solo had a dice pool of 3d6+1. Stairs would be too simple to assign a DC too, but giving it say, its missing a step, its still easy for most people to do this so very easy difficulty would be 1 to 5 as assigned by a gm. Han would qualify for an automatic 4 on his dice pool and wouldn't need to roll unless the difficulty became sufficient to become a challenge (stairs are open over a ravine, missing a stair, and some storm troopers are shooting at him from one side as he tries to escape them). Unlike WoD, where each die needs to be X number to net a success, or all dice lower than X number is a failure (I think the rules somewhere point out an easy thing or something reasonable for the char to pass doens't need to be rolled).

Maybe this gets into system incentivizing, where reasonable tasks are assumed to succeed (playing up to everyone winning)? Establishing reasonable tasks that don't require rolls per say. Then the thing that becomes more a consideration is when two players get together they get into competitive situations to get to the excitement of dice rolling, whether its arm wrestling, playing darts, writing songs, or stacking crackers, they want to roll a few dice for random determination to see something happen that isn't predetermined. Reasonably, if John has a high dex and Ted has a low one, John should win darts 9 out of 10 times, but bring in RNG and Ted might win more than expected.

Sorry, spammy, just putting out thoughts on this is all.

ETA: On the Han vs stairs roll, even if he failed, I'd imagine some GMs would allow a second dex roll to grab something before plunging to make it more exciting. So they fail, but their decent dex has a chance to make it not a total failure. Instead, it puts the rest of the party into a situation to pull him up before a storm trooper blasts him ala Han getting Lando from the Sarlacc pitt with the pike - a great story part from a few successive failures that gets them in a dire situation.

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

They are not being used. Most players don't roll in social encounters unless there's some kind of pivotal moment, usually around conflict. That's pretty rare. They do get used in PrPs when prompted by a GM but of course that, too, is biased toward those with access to such scenes.

Totally agree, but I don't see that as a problem. My games always contain this guidance:

Well it is a problem if the game runners assume their players are +rolling on a regular basis, and distribute XP based on that assumption.

This is a bit of a difference. For time-based XP rewards, the assumption isn't that players are even +rolling. The assumption that between RP sessions, characters are smart enough to do their own training/knowledge seeking/self improvement. Just because Player A can log on daily and pose bench pressing to get a strength increase at some point, doesn't mean Player B that only logs on once every two weeks is completely avoiding training. Even if folks only bar-RP, the character isn't a lush who sits at the bar all day (funny as that may be and some of us have played chars this way), they go out and pursue their interests off-camera. MUSH vs MUD, you don't have to do the menial stuff on MUSH, its assumed off camera.

ETA: In the time based XP/equal distribution, losing still has gains by still getting 'better' as a character/set of numbers.

Similarly when it comes to incentivizing failure, a lot of the scenarios leading to it cannot be summed down to a single roll of the dice. If the Council votes against your IC interests (which they do based on individual scenes leading up to it, the voters' private IC motivations, political maneuvering etc) what is the roll going to be?

This on the other hand gets at the heart of your initial question , incentives that aren't just XP handouts but are rewarding for all. How does one get their title reward when failing if it can't be summed down to a single roll. How is it rewarded and how do the failures get some incentive when only one person gets the reward in the end? I think some consensus (not all) is that it can't just be a XP bonus to the failing folks but needs to be more substantive story wise (and supported OOCly by the community in some aspect to give it more meaning)?

I've been stewing on this for a couple days (and enjoy the extra day off by not doing much).

@horrorhound said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

CodeMagic, make it so skills are raised by the number AND quality of rolls made.

I think this gets to the crux of what everyone is saying. If rolling the skill a lot, success or failure, nets some gain ... then folks will game the system by sitting together in a room and spamming rolls throughout the day.

On MUDs this works, my favorite type back in the day was Nightmare LPMUDs, where I didn't get XP for killing mobs, I got it by using my skills. The higher the skill the harder the tasks I could do to raise those skills more. I couldn't kill the noob squirrels in noob woods 500 times to raise stealth by burning XP at my rogue class trainer, I had to go pick pocket the merchants a lot then when stealth was ready to train I asked the rogue trainer to raise my stealth.

On MUSH, the assumption is folks RP together, incentivizing rolling skills moves the needle away from RP'ing and more towards rolling skills, more like a MUD.

I know I'm being dicey there are fine RPI/RPE MUDs that blur the lines. But, for me at least, this is the distinction, on a MUD I could theoretically spend all day doing things solo to raise skills and such while on a MUSH, if I'm solo in a room nothing at all is happening.

This gets to the issue @Arkandel made, a GM scene has weight where as a PRP does not. There is no incentive to winning or failing in the PRP. My usual caveat, I've played for 30 years no without being in GM scenes/plots/events.

The places better for me have been the ones that do periodic XP regardless of activity. This has been the more universal system games. FS3 has given a small but even amount of XP to players on a weekly basis. The old D6 games (Dahan's included) would give so much CP per week.

The non-XP incentives and rewards can be distributed evenly between GM events and PrP, the issue then comes in accountability. Three players can sit in a room together for 8 hours and say they ran a plot to defeat the lich king to become Thespian Guildmaster of the Bardic College. But how do we know they did that with some risk/reward type rolls aside from trust? The answer has been logs but then there is a really high push back about some folks not wanting to provide logs, or not liking to log their RP or some such.

So what I'm seeing overall, is a system to reward RP and incentivize IC failure would be good but a system to reward RP and incentivize IC failure is a lot of effort?

I think adventure ideas for PCs in which they post the logs after and get some rewards is fine, but I know most folks won't do this even if you code it all the way through (+adventure/next to go to next scenario when all criteria are met, such as +roll/lute vs lich king/8 three times and the system tracks wins/losses on those three rolls). A system could easily be smart enough in old/new MUSH codes to do this. A +adventure system that initiates a scene when two or more folks agree to start it, then the first scene is so many of X rolls, it captures the first three they can't roll 12 until they get three successes. The +next part can see if they've done the rolls and to what degree and advance to the next scenario. This can be done on a MUSH (just like the Ares CG of being anywhere can be done in old MU softcode, rooms are not needed). I've literally done things to try and incentivize RP by saying do one of the following (argue with a stranger, get pick pocketed, stop a criminal, etc.) and post a scene to get some XP and no one posts scenes.

I'm falling in line with if the culture doesn't incentivize on its own for failure, then its more like what everyone has been saying. Folks just want to roll their good skill and win. I've played all walks of Mu genre, and comics are my favorite because those are the ones where more folks tend towards the sparkle rotation. They spotlight this week but spend a few weeks letting others rotate through the spotlight. @Ghost had something of this concept to transfer to other genres in his wrestling talks when saying the loser takes the fall to help make the winner look better. Or the Loser poses the results but not in a manner of, the sun was in my eyes cause I would have won on a thousand other days. Not everyone on Comic mu*s takes the fall like that, but more often than not that's where I see failure being more accepted as part of the rotation to get back to your spotlight time.

The thing that makes comics different is everyone is a snowflake, they just have their unique thing. Batman, Superman, Zatanna and Wonderwoman can rotate being badass because they each have a unique thing they tend to do. Some blurred lines with Superman and Wonderwoman sure, but they can juggle enough between backstories that they can take turns being masters of kick assery. Most comics places aren't always stat based and more folks look to the descriptions (can lift X amount of pounds, or master of fist-jitsu, or withstand heat of sun).

I don't know if this is going anywhere, but I think a game that focuses less on the rolls and more on the story may be better towards incentivizing IC failure system-wise; and good players, regardless of system, are going to make failing into a story no matter what I think.

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

What I'd ask though is whether we can - or should - systematize so that even when I don't get to play the Sheriff the impact from 'losing' is mitigated. Is it EXP to reflect learning from the experience? Is it a consolation rank/plot inclusion staff throws my way to keep me moving? An OOC requirement from the new Sheriff's player to find a way to let my PC tag along?

I think aside from trying to affect the culture to embrace failure as a positive to storytelling, a boon to character development, and/or a contribution to the meta of the Mu/game, the system side comes with the caveat of what makes failure incentives fair, does it come down to staff only monitored failure, and who much more work goes to the staff. I only ask the later because to me its a cause of you can lead the horse to water (but you can't make the horse drink).

Ideally, system-wise, in my mind: Failure is noted/tracked and some form of points are denoted. PC can change in for little things like dice rerolls, dice bonuses, XP, leads/info, etc. I'd lean towards automated, some conflict type roll (roll thing vs thing, however one specifies the context), someone loses and they get their karma chit or whatever its called.

The concern/con of this is that if its just baked into the system, what prevents it from being abused; ie Bill & Ted RP playing darts, they roll their dart skill vs each other each round. Piling up karma chits, then go fight Fred and cash in their chits to put the whooping on Fred.

The other potential goods, enforcing winner to give some RP time to loser, giving some shiny to loser, still needs tracking. Still needs coding or back end hand tracking on spread sheet or something too.

For me ideally though, a chit system where the loser can save/use them for different things is idea even with the risk that Bill & Ted can cheat the system (which could probably be monitored and Staff can be like, why are they rolling dart vs each other 20 times?).

I agree there is probably not one answer to the question.

I think part of the inherent root, as folks have pointed out in other ways for years, is that the basis of MU arises from TT RPG and in the small group environment success is generally rewarded more often than failure.

There are quite a few RP'ers out there though that see it the way I do, failure is often a chance for more story and development. This more often arises out of PrP when we ST for each other over events and big things Mu-wide. But we go to get the goods, it comes down to a couple rolls, we succeed and the day is done. We tend to forget about those times, its when we fail and have to recoup, regroup and find another solution that more story is created. This is cultivated rather than assumed by most though. Those of us who do this on Mu also have done this on TT.

I freeform my campaigns as a GM/DM. A lot of other campaigns more and more seem to take a prescribed route, the group has to deiscover the evil demons are taking over the world and eventually stop this, its the overall meta amidst which all the other adventures and sessions evolve with an end point in site. I see a lot of folks prefer this for a Mu* as well. But in my campaigns, the group is prevented with various ideas and mysteries to explore and they choose what they want. I've briefly mentioned it before but long ago during an Al-Qadim campaign I saw a random encounter suggested somewhere of 'PCs find a golden feather' and I included that while they were traversing the desert to cut time between two cities. One character took the feather and wanted to explore it and this developed into the feather belonging to a swanmay sort of being that was a member of the Court of Birds, they decided they liked the swanmay and courting ensued and they traveled to meet the Sultan of Birds the char expressed their intentions they received some crazy quest to prove themselves to the court of birds which involved a challenge that could easily be solved by flying at a time no PCs had access to flying magics (easily at least). I think they spent six months traipsing about this part of the desert in RL time (24 campaign session give or take). Most of it stemmed from series of 'lost' resolutions and figuring out how to overcome and get what they wanted for the character.

Incentivizing a loss to me is rewarded by the extension/creation of story and the development of the char. I think if this could easily be made incentive it would help. More XP to represent off-camera development to overcome the failure, more story time dealing with the loss, then that would help but ...

Folks have in the past pointed out that the incentive for failure would be a lure for folks seeking mechanical advantage, if there is a reward for failing more folks will choose to fail rather than win. I brought up once a different sort of MU based on PACE rpg by Evil Hat (which was free from their site once upon a time). I don't know the name for this genre/type of RPG system but it was based on the karma pool concepts that have floated around in various incarnations. Basically there is good/player pool and evil/GM pool, if a player needs extra successes to succeed they can take from the player pool, add it on their challenge, but this moves it to the GM pool that can be used to help NPCs rolls, bring some bad karma to the group, and other misfortune. I proposed that two players in conflict could also dice/face off, but the player that loses gets a karma point. The issue became that if created so players can do their own stories, some players would milk the system and do duels with each other so one looses to gain karma points.

I guess it comes down to culture, I think it failure is an incentive of its own as a player because I tend to have more memories and create more stories out of it. I think to help it could be incentivized in some fashion but I don't know the right balance to make it enjoyable in some way verses a new way to compete for the shiny by trying to out-loose as well.

@zombiegenesis said in Comic Games And Scope:

As for Ares plugins, what kind are you looking for? There's a general dice plugin that lets you roll dice in the scene system(and there's a dice command in-game). What kind of things were you looking for, plugin wise?

If I was looking for one, I'd be shooting for the moon. An admin 'sheet' builder, that helps create a sheet and define what type of dice to roll using the dice plugin, so I can roll ability or roll skill.

I like universal systems, FS3 is good for me, but I want a little more for supers. I don' t need the awesome meat of the combat system that is there for FS3. I was spoiled ages ago being a D6 fan when Dahan made their D6 system - not to be confused with Dahan Skill System which I think is more percentile based. In Dahan's D6, they made it universal for staff such that staff had easy commands to make the abilities and skills and such for the system if one didn't want the Star Wars parts of it.

This is belated, I did want to respond.