Fantasy MU*s?

Derp · Jul 23, 2015, 4:45 AM

I've gotta say, ugh, Fantasy WoD? I so strongly wish for more things that are not WoD.

Could be worse.

Could be Monty Cook's WoD.

Ide · Jul 23, 2015, 5:15 AM

@Patty, in general it gives me the impression that someone studied all night for their certification in Business Process, fell asleep, woke up and opened a fantasy mu*. The 'rule of fun'. Idlenuking vanilla characters away for a month. The pages (and pages (and pages)) of generic fantasy mish-mash culture and history when the game has never had more than 35 average online (characters -- not uniques!).

Crysta · Jul 23, 2015, 7:27 AM

@BetterJudgment dinged my name here and I was all like "WTF I never post here..." but apparently I do.

I can safely say after dealing with the old set of staffers versus Mycol the latter is definitely more laid back and more comfortable with letting characters have actual freedom to do what they wanna do, and that @Ide assumption seems pretty on the mark with how the previous staff came off in general. I mean, it got to the point where you had to go to a staffer to make sure you found a family which fit your character concept so the precious family tree that was being set up wasn't slightly off or something... and I think names were decided for some people (who probably smelled the micromanaging craziness and fled shortly thereafter).

I can see Mycol being busy and unintentionally brusque, but he's not anal-retentive.

And yes, the wiki bothers me and it's taken some willpower for me to not complain about it because we don't even follow some of those dumb rules any more lol. Particularly the new (but supposedly old) rules about lethal combat which were implemented shortly before the banned staff members were kicked out (and only added after a staff character bit the dust - but of course didn't actually because of them)... which we have never followed since. There have been several characters who have not produced logs for months and they're still around, too... not sure why because I would think they would have gotten bored by now but whatever.

EDIT: And we need more Northerners dammit.

Bargle · Jul 23, 2015, 3:37 PM

If a game is trying to have any type of feudal politics going on, I'd think some type of family tree would be pretty necessary.

And there does look to be a lot of backstory, but is there an unspoken players:backstory ratio? Some folks like the world-building stuff. Could be better organized though.

Three-Eyed Crow · Jul 23, 2015, 2:23 PM

@Ide said:

@Patty, in general it gives me the impression that someone studied all night for their certification in Business Process, fell asleep, woke up and opened a fantasy mu*. The 'rule of fun'. Idlenuking vanilla characters away for a month. The pages (and pages (and pages)) of generic fantasy mish-mash culture and history when the game has never had more than 35 average online (characters -- not uniques!).

I can't level a general criticism, apart from the 'We will take your character away after two months if they haven't had a scene we consider substantive and posted it on the wiki' as a posted policy. But the whole thing reads as very high-handed to me. "Business Process" is a better way to put it.

Patty · Jul 23, 2015, 2:30 PM

@Ide said:

@Patty, in general it gives me the impression that someone studied all night for their certification in Business Process, fell asleep, woke up and opened a fantasy mu*. The 'rule of fun'. Idlenuking vanilla characters away for a month. The pages (and pages (and pages)) of generic fantasy mish-mash culture and history when the game has never had more than 35 average online (characters -- not uniques!).

Thanks, Ide. You're not the only one who feels that way. From what I understand, there's actually a review of Wiki stuff (as well as other remnants of the old guard) going on or coming in soon.

That being said, a small game it may be but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have theme written out, IMO. On the other hand, some very minor details (prostitution for instance) has been expounded on... at length, when it really was not necessary to do so. I think we could point the finger at some rather overzealous folks who got in their mind that, "Since women in this game don't have nearly the same restrictions as RL medieval times, then we have to write about the sexuaaal liberraaaation man!"

Anyways. Like I said, I'm told that they're looking into a lot of the dead weight.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Fantasy MU*s?:

@Ide said:

@Patty, in general it gives me the impression that someone studied all night for their certification in Business Process, fell asleep, woke up and opened a fantasy mu*. The 'rule of fun'. Idlenuking vanilla characters away for a month. The pages (and pages (and pages)) of generic fantasy mish-mash culture and history when the game has never had more than 35 average online (characters -- not uniques!).

I can't level a general criticism, apart from the 'We will take your character away after two months if they haven't had a scene we consider substantive and posted it on the wiki' as a posted policy. But the whole thing reads as very high-handed to me. "Business Process" is a better way to put it.

Yup, agreed. It was overly harsh and ridiculous and I'm not sure what their intent even was with it. How do you grow a MUSH when you sound as if everyone is their at YOUR (the admins') pleasure and not for their pleasure? Some people micromanage way too much.

Bargle · Jul 23, 2015, 3:41 PM

I usually find when there's excruciating detail in odd places, it tends to come from having had issues with folks' in-game portrayal of whatever it is that got excessively detailed. It's reactionary, basically.

Tends to be the same with policies. Even ones written when a game is first made are reactionary to previous games the admin played on.

Ganymede · Jul 23, 2015, 4:21 PM

@Bargle said:

If a game is trying to have any type of feudal politics going on, I'd think some type of family tree would be pretty necessary.

Although primogeniture was used often, feudalism can still occur in the absence thereof. What matters is a line of succession.

Bargle · Jul 23, 2015, 4:59 PM

@Ganymede said:

@Bargle said:

If a game is trying to have any type of feudal politics going on, I'd think some type of family tree would be pretty necessary.

Although primogeniture was used often, feudalism can still occur in the absence thereof. What matters is a line of succession.

OK, so not any type of feudal politics. Just the type of feudal politics most people are most familiar with and often most interested in playing with.

Outside of the history-buff players (and I'd imagine there are more than a few on Game-of-Thrones-esque games), I'd be surprised if very many were interested in the finer points of Agnatic/Cognatic/Bunch-of-other-words-I-had-to-look-up-when-playing-Crusader-Kings II-ic, etc...

Crysta · Jul 23, 2015, 5:45 PM

Never really played a game were an elaborate, several-tiered family tree was innately important to politics. It's mostly flavor fluff.

Pretty much knowing who the next dude in line was all that was required, really.

Bargle · Jul 23, 2015, 6:21 PM

Guess it depends on how much of it is politics-via-marriage which seems to be the thing on the Lords n' Ladies games. Would be kinda weird/squicky for a lot of players to find out they married their first cousins long after the fact, for example (might be "within theme" for history but still the kind of thing some players might not be comfy with).

Anyway, not really important either way. I can just see how such a thing might be useful.

il-volpe · Jul 23, 2015, 6:20 PM

@Bargle said:

for example (might be "within theme" for history but still the kind of thing some players might not be comfy with).

Yeah. A lot of people show up at GoB really keen to play Targaryens, but few of them are keen to marry their siblings and cousins.

Misadventure · Jul 23, 2015, 6:21 PM

Mmm, children as chattel.

Owe the Church one son, owe my land one son, owe the troops a son. Pay for peace, pay for land, pay for trade with daughters.

Tempest · Jul 23, 2015, 6:21 PM

Lothston is best house!

Ide · Jul 24, 2015, 3:39 AM

Alright, what about Star Crusade, but high fantasy, high powered, and not Star Crusade?

ThatGuyThere · Jul 24, 2015, 3:53 AM

Using the Fading Suns setting or a generic version of Lords and Ladies in space?
Cause I loves me some fading suns.

Ide · Jul 24, 2015, 3:56 AM

Like FS, but the serial numbers filed off and a theme honed for the game. From what I recall SC had a huge theme/setting. I imagine that's part of the appeal, but it seems more appropriate for the star-spanning game FS can be.

ThatGuyThere · Jul 24, 2015, 4:04 AM

@Ide
Any thoughts on system to use?

Ide · Jul 24, 2015, 4:09 AM

I think it depends on what the players want to do.

I'd like to see an economic/war game for one.

Rainbow Unicorn · Jul 24, 2015, 4:11 AM

Can I make a suggestion?

To avoid getting bogged down too much in details, and to encourage plots, use the Reign company system to track people's individual power bases. It scales really well and can be added to any system.