Requiem 2e Bloodlines
-
This post is deleted! -
@rdc This is why I don't play anywhere, much less make games.
-
@rdc said in Requiem 2e Bloodlines:
I'm super into custom local flavor. That said, unfortunately, most of the local stuff I wrote for NOLA 1 didn't get read by...basically anyone. We had precisely one person not on staff significantly interact with one Mystery Cult, and that was about it. Benefit vs. cost doesn't seem to work out when you try to alter what people expect too radically.
Who do you find at-fault for this, is my question. If a game design element is not being interacted with by your player base, couldn't that mean it wasn't presented in an engaging way? Oftentimes, people shy away from something new not because it isn't interesting, but because they aren't sure of how to go about getting involved, and fear misstepping or making themselves look stupid by going about something the wrong way.
-
@rdc said in Requiem 2e Bloodlines:
I'm super into custom local flavor. That said, unfortunately, most of the local stuff I wrote for NOLA 1 didn't get read by...basically anyone. We had precisely one person not on staff significantly interact with one Mystery Cult, and that was about it. Benefit vs. cost doesn't seem to work out when you try to alter what people expect too radically.
To be honest, when I was playing on NOLA I felt as if staff wasn't running anything. It felt very DIY -- which is fine -- but that turned me away from things like Mystery Cults.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
I think there should be some background even if its not that deep of a background story.
From there a basic framework of the state of things.
This allows players a bit of freedom while allowing them to build story and history together.
From there staff could run fairly low key events/stories/etc to help push things along.
-
This post is deleted! -
@rdc IMO... the one setting where I have seen too much leeway cause absolute nothing is Vampire. If you want to invest energy on something, RDC, invest on making the Praxis work.
I have seen a ton of Vampire games that are basically 'eh, figure that out' and it turns into a mess of people who want NONE of that PvP wasteland and keep it to themselves, the people who want to try politics (and eventually leave the game because unless you have OOC buddies or a stupid sheet 'politics' is a vague dream) and the power hungry metagaming weirdos who take over, sit on top of the mount and... do nothing until they leave, bored.
This is my opinion. "Figure It Out" Praxis is no bueno.
-
@rdc said in Requiem 2e Bloodlines:
You may have felt that way, but I was running multiple plots a week and constantly had posts up saying: "Hey, I will run stuff for you, hit me up".
I know you were doing this. That doesn't mean I didn't feel like avoiding involvement or digging deep into your Mystery Cults. Maybe I should have done that, maybe not, but that's not really material right now.
I think your takeaways from your first iteration are inaccurate. Your code and your setting were fine, and I fully intend to re-visit when the time comes. I think that MUSHers actually do not want a generic setting, and actually want a specific setting -- like what you had -- that has structure to it.
I understand why you would want to have, and would let, players determine power structures through their PCs; however, as mentioned, players generally eschew PvP situations, which is sort of necessary to have a power structure. I would encourage you to go with an empty power structure, but you might want to court some players that you trust to start one up, just so that you have some assurance that whatever power structure arises is sensible and is watched over by responsible players that won't go out of their way to break the sphere or the rest of the game.
-
@rdc said in Requiem 2e Bloodlines:
@ganymede You may have felt that way, but I was running multiple plots a week and constantly had posts up saying: "Hey, I will run stuff for you, hit me up".
I do envision NOLA very DIY though. We specifically set it up so that there is no difference between a staff-run plot and a player-run plot, hoping to give players agency to interact with and even define the world. Nothing was off-limits to players, and that was called out (and still is for NOLA 2) in the PrP policy.
The first vampire who says "I'm the Prince" is the Prince. If they suck, it's the job of the players to remove them (unless they go OOC idle). Relationships between spheres are up to the spheres. I know the story behind why the Triumvirate went mad and killed most everyone and devoured one another, and if anyone's interested in investigating that it'll be a plot; if not, it won't be.
I posted this in the other thread, but to repeat here:
This is fine and all, but I predict it will fail unless you have a specific system set up on the wiki and in active use on the game for managing shifting power dynamics and/or conflict
You want this because:
a) It cuts down on arguments, which there will be.
b) It signals to the players that this is the story. This is what they're supposed to be doing.On a personal note, I kinda love managed conflict as a way to drive story. I'm not big fan of huge plot +events, and much prefer smaller, personal stories. But focusing on smaller, personal stories doesn't absolve staff of ST duties, it just changes how the staff approaches their STing.
-
I really cannot think of many games (and can think of no non-invite-only WoD games) that were improved in the quality of story or play by allowing 100 percent free reign and first come first served oocly to rule the day. It tends to make for a very toxic and unfriendly game environment. Maybe that would have been brushed off 20 years ago, but with people being much more time crunched now, most people will not fight to get their goals met if there happens to be someone gross in charge (ICly or OOCly) they'll just leave.
I do think managed conflict is the way to go. But it's very very VERY work intensive (see RfK and the shitshow that developed once that attention slipped/the person doing it was no longer there). It would be nice to see some attempt to meet in the middle.
But that still requires staff taking on a lot of work. Like maybe coming down hard on undesirable OOC behavior and removing people who engage in it, so that even in a IC PvP intense game, there are very clear boundaries for making and maintaining a healthy ooc environment.
-
Totally agree with @mietze here about needing to manage conflict.
At the very least, a minimal form of Arx's conflict system should be used. Namely, setting a date on which jobs dealing with such-and-such a conflict will be handled and only allowing people one action each cycle.
-
@ganymede said in Requiem 2e Bloodlines:
stuff stuff stuff I did a bunch for the Dark Ages game I was working on more stuff stuff stuff
Please tell me you are still working on this?
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
-
@lithium said in Requiem 2e Bloodlines:
Please tell me you are still working on this?
No. My team and I sort of petered out.
If they are on-board still, though -- they know who they are -- we can begin anew. Or we can start afresh?
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@ganymede I want downvotes back just so I can downvote someone with a cool game idea fizzling
-
@auspice I loved my Lasombra-Lite! Tempted to make another someday.
