What is the 'ideal' power range?
-
@faraday said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
I don't see why this needs to be a global decision.
Here's why:
Because for these games to function properly all players need a clear vision of what the game is and how it is to be played. This also requires an understanding of what the game is not. Generally speaking, a game of players approaching horror like it's Hellraiser is fine, but the 5 players approaching it like it's Buffy the Vampire slayer (while this may be fun for them!) is distracting. Theme is important for cohesion, as is an expected playstyle.
You also mentioned about whether or not it's NOT FUN for newPlayer to be left out of the Hellraiser scene. Here is why that matters:
Because if GAIN matters (xp, level, stats, skills, equipment) and the MU designs rewards related to those, then those rewards are meaningless if a new PC can come in and ball at the same level as a character who has 3 years invested. Allowing this lessens the work players put into getting to that level. If the 3 year player is supposed to be reacting to a scene as if it's dangerous and some 1 day out of cgen player can join in and operate at the same level, then the importance of those rewards is drastically lessened.
Of course, if FUN and WRITING are the goal, then by all means let the 1 day old character get in there, but if it's a GAME, then those rewards determine capability and ultimately the 1day character should be in mortal danger fighting with the dragon with their scrawny arms next to the elder.
This is where cohesion and vision often fails in MUs. BSG games made sense because xp level didnt affect the outcome because those stories were more about survival. In the show even Starbuck died. The setting begins with literally billions of high level NPCs dying due to wrong place, wrong time.
But the classic game experience where xp/skill level matters introduces Luke Skywalker as a bratty teen in part one, not "able to fight Vader alongside Obi-Wan because standing by the Falcon watching isnt fun"
-
@Ghost said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
Because for these games to function properly all players need a clear vision of what the game is and how it is to be played.
Yes, all players on THAT GAME need a consistent vision. But not all MUs need to share that same vision. That's what I meant by global.
Also a missed reply...
@Ghost said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
Using systems like WoD/StarWars/etc and then not fully utilizing these systems is confusing to half of the playerbase.
I agree that you need to pick the best system for your game; many TTRPGs are not well-suited to MUs. But I also think that you can use any die-roller you want for lightweight conflict resolution without using all of a RPG system. We did that on Babylon 5 by using just the dice and basic stats part of Storyteller. It works just fine.
Can it cause some confusion? Sure. But it can also provide a common frame of reference for folks already used to how those dice work. You just need to be clear up front what you're doing.
-
@faraday Right.
I LOVE the effort you've put in and your attitude. I think you are 100% on-point as to how a game focusing on story over game-elements is run. FS3 is great for it. Focusing on getting players involved and everything? 100% on point.
My opinion is that implementing TTRPG systems into the hobby (WoD, SWRPG, etc) should ONLY be done if the game is being treated like an online TTRPG, which is not the same as a baseline MU. My opinion is that in providing the facade of using the system as a means of importance you're going to create a split playerbase of "story rpers" and "ttrpg players" that never mixes well.
In short, the crunchier the sheet/system, the more importance those elements need to distinguish players and their capabilities from each other.
-
Maybe I'm a dinosaur here, but this conversation has been going on for years.
Does anyone else remember mIRC or AOL RPG gaming? This got talked about a LOT because you'd have games that expected you to know the rules, have some convoluted notepad character sheet with a lot of "STRENGTH: 0000", and a lot of die rolling.
The end result was a number of side games called "Free Form RPG" where they did away with sheets altogether and turned everything into opposed d100 rolls.
It's pretty simple to me:
MU TTRPG=Uses the system.
MU Story RPG=Free form. Statless super hero games. Universal dice systems like FS3.
Back in the day the freeform people didnt mesh well with the WoD players, either.
-
@Ghost While I agree that games using systems should, in fact, abide by those systems (as should be obvious by some of my pot-shots at people who posture about being 'above' dice) , I think you're missing one really obvious reason that you see this weird ambiguity. It's especially relevant to WoD, if not exclusively: the games are IPs that people like.
And while, sure, its possible to play free-form versions using the same world (as ye olde AOL chats proved), or use the setting while substituting a lighter dice system, its probably a bit counterintuitive and may dilute the experience. D&D without levels and d20s is generic fantasyland, and without the structure that informs you why a small armed militia may no longer be a match for a single 5th level spellcaster, it may feel loose and arbitrary. Ditto WoD. 'My vampire has supernatural charm' does not have the feel of ticking particular dots of Presence/Majesty, Dominate, etc and seeing those discrete tiers of power.
-
@bored I dont disagree there about the IPs being attractive. However, the theme of the settings versus the systems used I believe can be separated. Star Wars has had 4-5 different systems used, WoD has had multiple rewrites. TTRPG players often equate specific games with the systems in play, but not necessarily the theme with the system. Vampire: The Masquerade to a gamer is definitely d10s and additional potence dice, but you can still do this with freeform rulesets; I've seen it done.
In fact, we have seen an FS3 star wars game.
I suppose it all depends on whether or not one views the Shadowrun IP as being the whole "the game, the system, the setting, the deluge of d6 rolls, the experience of poring through cyber tech and equipment books..." experience, or if you can divorce certain elements from that and maintain the IP as a setting without it
-
@Ghost Although this lingers close to being out of topic, if you think of "the IP" as "common ground recognizable by players" then it becomes easier to see.
I might not have the time or inclination to invest in a new fantasy game - whether that means learning the lore or the mechanics. However if I know it's D&D set in the Forgotten Realms there's an instant association in my head with what it entails; it might be the d20 system or that there's a city called Waterdeep somewhere, there are sorcerers and bards and paladins, but the familiarity itself is informative and I get to make an easier, more informed choice of whether to play there.
-
And yet that still fuels the biggest complaint of the last several years, in that omg every game is just a cookie cutter, no originality, etc.
My big peeve, on the other hand, is that even if you give people a ton of original lore and details on the world, they just ignore most of it because of that same idea of "I don't have time to learn something new," and just do generic whatever system in whatever city, fantasy or otherwise that they usually do, which leads to a lack of cohesion.
There has to be some kind of buy-in on original content, and a willingness to learn. And frankly, if you don't have time to read a few wiki pages for general comprehension then I don't think you have the time to play a character in the first place.
Generic 'you', naturally.
-
@Derp said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
And yet that still fuels the biggest complaint of the last several years, in that omg every game is just a cookie cutter, no originality, etc.
My big peeve, on the other hand, is that even if you give people a ton of original lore and details on the world, they just ignore most of it because of that same idea of "I don't have time to learn something new," and just do generic whatever system in whatever city, fantasy or otherwise that they usually do, which leads to a lack of cohesion.
Yeah, I think it's been shown very clearly that it's the execution and not the concept that matters.
Arx is a completely new property and incredibly convoluted (in fact it's a genuine complaint people often seem to have that there's so much going on and they're so lost). Yet it's undeniably very popular and successful.
As for the World of Darkness it's perhaps the most well known IP in our circles but some games are completely forgettable or literal clones of each other, so they die a quick and quiet death soon after launching since players log on, create characters, get bored and leave.
It's all in the execution. There's no recipe of some system you pick and your game succeeds or fails. If only.
-
@Ghost said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
MU Story RPG=Free form. Statless super hero games. Universal dice systems like FS3.
I generally agree, and would just add to that list “stripped down or lightweight versions of TTrPGs that are clearly identified as such”. Th is is not a unique idea even in TT circles. Some games expressly make light versions for new players, cons, or a more narrative feel.
We once did a TT Dark Sun campaign using Shadowrun rules. We shouldn’t feel boxed in. The most important thing is to pick a system (or lack of system) that supports your vision and goals for the game.
-
So do you think there is a consensus here regarding what the 'ideal' power distribution ought to be on a game?
I think it was successfully argued by multiple people a high-level concept could work in the right MU* but it simply isn't for a number of reasons - the narrative changes, it's more (and different) work for the GMs, etc.
One question I was curious to see your answers was whether a varied distribution was actually helpful - i.e. if the mere presence of some characters who are more advanced than others is better overall for a game or not.
Please keep me honest if I misinterpreted but I think although we focused on how that should be implemented there was no generally agreed on take for what it does to a game if this is the case or if it's not.
For example would you prefer to play on a MU* where mechanical power uniformity is enforced ("all characters fall within levels 4-6")? Or one where the majority might be levels 4-6 but some (regardless of the method they're chosen) are 8-10?
I know this question is based on a abstract model made in a vacuum, and that in fact several excellent points were made in this very thread about how 'levels' or even attributes on a +sheet don't mean the same thing in every system or game, but I think we can still get some interesting answers about the concept itself of how to distribute power to a playerbase.
-
@Arkandel said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
For example would you prefer to play on a MU* where mechanical power uniformity is enforced ("all characters fall within levels 4-6")? Or one where the majority might be levels 4-6 but some (regardless of the method they're chosen) are 8-10?
For MU where writing and inclusiveness is expected for all players at any given time: uniformity.
For MU where the TT RPG elements are enforced and a factor to results: Power levels and gated scene attendance based on "level".
My personal preference is the latter. I'd play in either game, but if it has a system I'd prefer my level 18 Jedi Consular isn't, by system or roleplay, considered to be just as capable as a level 1 Jedi Consular. I prefer to fight level 18 things, prefer TT RPG and sheets, and am of the opinion that most players aren't the best at acknowledging their "level one-ness" in the presence of Level18 PCs. If anything I think gating scenes based on power level to determine "right fit for the scene" may be a bit more honest than simple "whoever signs up first" but this is just my outlook.
Then again, my preference is also to go back to the days of +warn and moderated PVP if warn is ignored.
-
I am not sure I ever encountered +warn. How did that work?
As to the central topic, I think high level play can work, but the server has to be designed for it.
-
@Ominous Someone's character starts doing something stupid - getting in a high-Rage werewolf's face on full moon about eating venison, while wearing a meat suit, or something - I hit +warn <whoever>. It gives people the chance to think twice about whether they actually, really want to keep doing that, because they've just been told that there will be consequences.
Sometimes, they'll back down. Sometimes, they'll ask for clarification. Sometimes they'll keep doing it, and when my character walks away having administered (or occasionally taken) a beating I can say 'Well, I warned you'. Either way, I found it solved a lot of problems.
-
So it's sort of a one-scene unplanned thing? It's not like "I am plotting again Lord Targetonback so I need to send him an OOC warning."
-
@Ominous Yeah, it's a right-here-and-now thing.
-
@Ominous said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
I am not sure I ever encountered +warn. How did that work?
As to the central topic, I think high level play can work, but the server has to be designed for it.
+warn was basically a thing you would do when another PC was bringing things to a point of conflict. So if you were threatening a biker PC, their player would hit +warn. If you continued threatening, a GM would get called to moderate combat.
It was basically a warning of "you are choosing a course of action that could lead to PVP" and gave players the opportunity to choose an out beforehand.
I may be opinionated, but IMO IC PVP/PK is a tool/lost art that never should have been completely taken off of the table.
-
@Ghost said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
may be opinionated, but IMO IC PVP/PK is a tool/lost art that never should have been completely taken off of the table.
Preach.
-
@Ghost said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:
I may be opinionated, but IMO IC PVP/PK is a tool/lost art that never should have been completely taken off of the table.
Who exactly took it off the table?
it's no secret that I don't favor PVP (I get enough drama with people's egos and undue investment in their chars on PVE games, thanks) but even my games don't have a prohibition against it. Heck, one of the plots on BSP (inadvertently) pitted mutineers against loyalists.
It may have fallen out of favor, but there's nothing stopping anybody from making a game that features it.
-
Hey, my last 'AHEM THE THREAD IS GOING OFF TOPIC' post of this decade!
So does the existence of PvP/PK and/or a +warn mechanism relate to whether the power curve is normalized (and where) on a game? If so, please carry on. If not let's discuss that in a separate thread.