Alternate Game Systems

Thenomain

@lithium said in Alternate Game Systems:

I know a lot of people don't like it, but outside of Fate points themselves, I do think Fate actually works pretty well in this format, in my opinion.

Well, how do you think Fate could be tweaked to be Mu* friendly? What would you do? I like the system myself, so the more ideas the merrier.

Lithium

@thenomain I think get rid of the spend a fate point mechanic being tied to aspects being used against you. Every 'plot' scene maybe people have their left over Fate in fate points to spend, or, make it so spending down to 0 fate is the norm and everyone gets like 3 fate points to use over the course of the scene, plot, week, whatever.

Then you can have it be set so that there is advancement based on time or plot involvement or a combination of the two so and you could then curb power creep by making it take longer/more plots for each successive advancement point available.

Of course if people use your aspects against you, then maybe you do still get a fate point to spend but it's only for the scene/plot.

Other idea is to remove needing to spend fate points entirely (I know there are stunts that require them for example) so that if there is an aspect that's been added anyone can tag it and people automatically remove one aspect from themselves per round and if they spend their action to recover/remove aspects they could get rid of another 1 (or more).

Obviously there's some balancing to do here, but the biggest hangup with Fate not really working in a MU* environment is the reliance on Fate points to be 'cool'.

Thenomain

@lithium said in Alternate Game Systems:

Obviously there's some balancing to do here, but the biggest hangup with Fate not really working in a MU* environment is the reliance on Fate points to be 'cool'.

Mine is the vague yet absolute way that aspects can be interpreted. Each table can come up with their own standards; I'm not sure what a Mu* would do.

Lithium

@thenomain I dunno, we've worked to create cooperative stories from the get go, surely we can make it so people can read the whole of an aspect and why it is a thing and work together for why it would do something. After all, the mechanic is, take a fate point and the negative happens. If you don't agree with the negative being tied to that aspect, don't take the fate point.

Ganymede

@thenomain said in Alternate Game Systems:

What the game didn't do was help people figure out how to play. My gaming group, who loved original Changeling for instance, absolutely hated the CF card system. They attempted things specifically to fail them so they could dump cards from their hand and force a re-draw. So.

You could always limit the CF card system to where it matters, like in a plot.

The thing I like about it is that it is different. And it is brutally random at times. Sure, you can go ahead and fail a whole bunch of shit to game the system, but that makes you a system-gamer and, as far as I'm concerned, you can eat a bowl of dick for that.

The point of this thread, I think, is to present alternatives that could be fun. I think this could be fun. I could very well be very wrong.

Auspice

@ganymede said in Alternate Game Systems:

Sure, you can go ahead and fail a whole bunch of shit to game the system, but that makes you a system-gamer and, as far as I'm concerned, you can eat a bowl of dick for that.

This also falls on STs and Staff to keep an eye out for. I definitely call people out if I think they're gaming things.

Like I appreciate faraday's general ruling on BSU that you can't change stance in reaction to being targeted. It's a rule I've always held, personally, in FS3, but would have players fuss at me on other games when I'd enforce it. Because it's cheating things.

'Oh, I posed being Reckless, but I'm being targeted now, so I'll just change codedly to Defensive!' Nope, nuh-uh, Auspice don't play that game.

Thenomain

@ganymede

The point, however, was that it wasn't fun. It could have been, maybe, but it wasn't. I posit that if a game system explains how it's meant to be used then at least everyone is on the same page. The World of Darkness games have always held the position that you only use the systems when you feel like it, and if it doesn't fit the situation then do whatever you want to make it fit. I think most people who play WoD games subconsciously remember this, even if they are doing such annoying things like arguing whether or not you use Crafts or Science for explosives.

The official answer is, "Whatever you decide." This doesn't work for a Mu*, and I'm snobbily analyzing answers with that in mind. Apocalypse World has a very alternative way of playing games (and FreeMarket used a similar conceit), but if you dropped it straight into a Mu*, I doubt people would know what to do with it.

They sure as hell don't know what to do with Fate, even though it's a hell of an engaging system.

Ominous

Mystic Empyrean has a system I haven't seen used anywhere else. It's built into the setting of the game, so it would require a adjustment if someone wanted to use it for something else.

The setting is multiverse that has been broken apart. The universe has seven elements that also represent all abilities and skills - fire, light, lightning, water, stone, darkness, and air - arranged in a wheel. If you want to punch someone, that's fire. If you want to sneak by someone, that's darkness.

Each "realm" of the multiverse has a different balance of these elements. When you travel to the realm, you create that realms "world balance" by forming a deck consisting of a number of cards equal to the stats for each element (or a bag of beads with different colored beads for each element). It's easier to fight in a fire oriented realm and to sneak in a darkness oriented realm.

When a player wants to resolve an action they draw a card from the deck. Exact match is a "success and", one step away on the wheel is "success", two steps away is "success but", and three steps away is "failure". If a player doesn't like the result they can redraw a number of times equal to their own score in the element they are trying to use.

Lithium

@ominous Sounds intriguing but I don't really see /how/ to efficiently convert that to mu code much at all.

Thenomain

@lithium said in Alternate Game Systems:

@ominous Sounds intriguing but I don't really see /how/ to efficiently convert that to mu code much at all.

Zones or parent rooms. Both would fit the bill easily. What I don't see is how this would effect the entire world, unless you ran the deck-generation for each event/scene. I'd have to look at the system.

Lithium

@thenomain said in Alternate Game Systems:

@lithium said in Alternate Game Systems:

@ominous Sounds intriguing but I don't really see /how/ to efficiently convert that to mu code much at all.

Zones or parent rooms. Both would fit the bill easily. What I don't see is how this would effect the entire world, unless you ran the deck-generation for each event/scene. I'd have to look at the system.

That's the part I meant, the building a deck part for every room/scene/plot maybe? I dunno.

Thenomain

@lithium

It sounds like you'd have a single system which reads the settings of the world and generate it based on those settings. (Imagine how Places code works: It's all the same code, it's just using different settings.)

You have to be much more picky about its use-case, though. On a tabletop game, well, it doesn't matter if the entire world uses the same simple deck, because there are roughly 5 or so (give or take) people using it, including the GM. This is a classic example of a tabletop RPG not translating to a Mu*, because the coder is going to say something unhelpful like, "How do you want this implemented?" And then you go from playing a tabletop game to game-designing a LARP or an MMO using tabletop rules.

I'm in no way saying this shouldn't be done, but the question is still hangs there: How do you want this implemented?

Bobotron

@thenomain
Re: Computer Aided

Because, as I think has been discussed before, who has the time/energy to code WoD in such a way that everything is automated (and then how to account for RAW vs. interpretation, etc.).

@faraday
Which is exactly the opposite of some corners of the MU*; they like to know how the stats interact and things like diminishing returns when your stats get above X, but... in general, that corner of MU*ing has never had a problem with computer-run stuff. But that's also never been based exclusively on an RPG system.

Re: PbTA games
I think the biggest problem with PbTA games in a MU* environment is 'moves', and that they're meant for Player vs. Environment narrative, and so making CvC work with Moves (which are 'things you do when the narrative ticks them') difficult to do.

Re: LARP on MU*
Probably highly dependent on the system. I think Sanguine Nobilis (and its successor, LAMUSH?) used some concepts from MET Masquerade but built an entirely original system around them. I know that LAMUSH's wikidot explains combat and such in a way that is not how MET Laws of the Stuff runs at all. NWoD LARP is literally just NWoD, roll a d10, convert total into succeses, for example. So you'd still have to find something that fits/gets into what you need.

Thenomain

@bobotron said in Alternate Game Systems:

@thenomain
Re: Computer Aided

Because, as I think has been discussed before, who has the time/energy to code WoD in such a way that everything is automated (and then how to account for RAW vs. interpretation, etc.).

I'm not sure if that was you agreeing or disagreeing. Because I have. Because MUDs have. Not WoD specifically, but certainly there are games with high levels of complexity in their code, even when it's a far lighter touch at the user's end. They may not be finished all in one go, but who expects a system to be finished at time of game open? Certainly not Electronic Arts.

Re: PbTA games
I think the biggest problem with PbTA games in a MU* environment is 'moves', and that they're meant for Player vs. Environment narrative

Except for the moves that specifically say, "if against another character", where the move acts slightly differently. NPCs don't get agency, but PCs do. It's a beautiful solution for the "I roll my Persuasion against you" situation.

And if you don't like playing a game where someone could force your character into a bad spot, you'd probably better just stay away from PbtA games entirely. Apocalypse World is kind of the opposite of a power fantasy, without being degrading and hopeless.

Bobotron

@thenomain
I'm agreeing that it can be done. I'm noting that, with something like WoD, which seems to be 'the Culprit' when it comes down to this discussion, is difficult to make work in that kind of situation.

Re: PbTA
My experience with this is very limited, as I found 'narrative moves' to be... a bit odd, personally. Like, the 'narrative moves' are already things I'm doing/RPing in general. I don't disagree with you; I don't have problems with losing socially or physically or whatever. But a lot of people do.

golgoth

Wyrd: Into the Breach is a card based system you might find interesting.

Thenomain

@bobotron said in Alternate Game Systems:

Re: PbTA
My experience with this is very limited, as I found 'narrative moves' to be... a bit odd, personally. Like, the 'narrative moves' are already things I'm doing/RPing in general. I don't disagree with you; I don't have problems with losing socially or physically or whatever. But a lot of people do.

This is one of the reasons why I think that each game should have a clear explanation of what playing the game is about. "Apocalypse World is a game about the difficulties of survival in a post-apocalyptic Earth. ThenoMUX focuses on life in the remains of Boston after the Psychic Maestrom and ensuing nuclear war (or was it the other way around?) reduced most of it to rubble. Technology is blamed, even hated, and fought over by two of the most powerful factions, while green mutated human monsters roam between old neighborhoods. What do you want? How will you survive?"

Or something.

This has nothing to do with alternate game systems, other than this late mention that in PbtA games, especially Apocalypse World, the stats/moves are little systems tied irreplaceably to theme and setting. I still like that idea. More than most system ideas.

Ominous

@Lithium

I would change it so that instead of areas have balances, characters have balances, so a character's stats would determine what their deck has in it.

Ganymede

@thenomain said in Alternate Game Systems:

The point, however, was that it wasn't fun. It could have been, maybe, but it wasn't.

You mean you and your group didn't find it fun, right? Because me and my group found it a lot of fun.

I'm just talkin' Falkenstein here, man.

Thenomain

@ganymede said in Alternate Game Systems:

@thenomain said in Alternate Game Systems:

The point, however, was that it wasn't fun. It could have been, maybe, but it wasn't.

You mean you and your group didn't find it fun, right? Because me and my group found it a lot of fun.

I'm just talkin' Falkenstein here, man.

I kind of hoped my original post where I said it was just my group would have transitive properties so I didn’t have to say it every time. Sheesh.

Really I think my point was more that games need to teach you how to play it. Even board games. Can you imagine a group of people reading the rules to poker and trying to work out why it’s supposed to be fun? Or chess? It can be super fun to work out the mechanics from scratch, but it can also be frustrating as hell.

And this is why a lot of people refuse to switch over their game of choice. The payoff is uncertain for the work involved.