A Regency MU (Conceptual)

[Pyrephox]

@auspice Right. But, well, would a seamstress character even be approved, when the game isn't set up for that sort of character to have a lot to do?

[Auspice]

@pyrephox said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

@auspice Right. But, well, would a seamstress character even be approved, when the game isn't set up for that sort of character to have a lot to do?

You even quoted the bit where I referenced this. I feel as if you hate this concept but don't want to outright say so and have chosen to nitpick. But at least read what I've said. Especially when you've quoted it yourself.

@auspice said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

Gambling halls and the like would be present, but characters populating them would be alts as opposed to someone's primary pc

To rephrase since apparently it was ignored: non society PCs would be allowed as alts.
(This both gives a broader world and allows potential to rise in society such as, say, an entertainer)

[krmbm]

@auspice said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

I feel as if you hate this concept but don't want to outright say so and have chosen to nitpick.

o.O

Righty-o then.

[Pyrephox]

@auspice Actually, I love the concept, or else I'd do what I do with ninety percent of the games that get talked about, which is nod, go, "Sure, I'm sure someone would like that," and then move on.

My questions are mostly meant to try and clarify what sort of game it actually is. For example, I do think that 'commoner' alts whose only real purpose is to 'fill out the world' are a bad idea if your focus, the thing that /excites/ you about it is the upper class balls shenanigans. Judging by the effects of 'mortal alts' on WoD games, that ends up with a lot of throwaway characters who get locked out of most of the things the game is about, and you'd be better off filling out the part of the world you actually want to play with PCs who fit that world.

If you want to have entertainers, I would suggest let people app in at entertainers who have already reached the level of ton-engagement, /or/ provide very clear systems for how a commoner character is supposed to 'ascend' to that height. Which Ares doesn't really do well. The social divide between those with entrance into the lords and ladies side, and those who don't have it, is sufficiently wide enough that it's basically running two separate games.

But I'm sorry for harshing your buzz, and this'll be the last comment I make regarding the game. Good luck with it, and I hope you have fun!

[Auspice]

Here is the thing: when someone is rapid fire responding with what is just negative critique and a lot of it seems to be ignoring things you've already said...

It takes the wind out.
I spent a few minutes just debating deleting the whole idea because 'Well shit if I'm just going to be nitpicked to death for my hey this isn't meant to be ultra realistic idea not being realistic enough why even bother?'

It didn't come across as something you were interested in at all @Pyrephox but rather something you wanted to tear down.

Personally? I'd like a game to be 1 alt at a time but I know how people are and they want a whole fleet of characters. So my solution is: 1 society alt, 2 commoner alts. Will those commoner alts have a big impact? No. They aren't meant to. But they also can't be played unless you have a society PC.

Is this idea going to stick? I don't know. Maybe in working on this I'll decide yeah no, 1 alt per person starting out.

This is just feeling out for ideas but boy it fucking sucks to feel out for ideas and have half of what you say glossed over so someone can tear it all apart going 'no no no this is all wrong'

[bear_necessities]

@auspice said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

I spent a few minutes just debating deleting the whole idea because 'Well shit if I'm just going to be nitpicked to death for my hey this isn't meant to be ultra realistic idea not being realistic enough why even bother?'

Welcome to creating a game, where you will be nitpicked to death about everything and anything during all phases of the game's life.

FWIW, I never thought @Pyrephox was being negative. Instead, she sounded interested and excited.

[krmbm]

@auspice Not for nothing, but if @Pyrephox's perfectly reasonable questions, phrased politely and inquiringly, made you feel torn down? Running a game is gonna be brutal.

[Aria]

FWIW, I didn't read the comments and questions as being particularly critical or negative.

I did, however, read them as being hyperfocused on a level of historical accuracy that it seems the game wouldn't be interested in recreating as indicated in Auspice's original post mentioning satire, comedy, and modern sensibilities because -- as she said -- most of us aren't intimately familiar with the nuanced details of Regency society (do you know the social significance of arriving in a phaeton over a closed carriage?!?) and also because frankly, the Regency era (and broad swaths of history, really) sucked a whole lot for basically anyone who wasn't either wealthy or landed, preferably both, and also preferably both while also being white, straight, and male.

Oh. And born first. Let's not forget the unfortunate lot of the third brother who gets shunted off for an unwanted career in the church because the man needs to have a living!

So basically varying levels of "hot garbage and no fun" for pretty much everyone except those ten people.

Given the general readership of most Regency novels and audience for costume dramas in comparison to those demographics, I sincerely doubt that most potential players want to have 87 scenes in a row of sewing circles, nothing but sewing circles as far as the eye can see, and that a decent amount of realism was going to be punted into a corner never to be mentioned again for the sake of actually being, like..... enjoyable to RP.

[Roz]

I also read excitement and interest from Pyre's questions and just trying to suss out the lines between history and fantasy, but maybe that's because I'm familiar enough with her manner to recognize her interest.

[Auspice]

@roz said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

I also read excitement and interest from Pyre's questions and just trying to suss out the lines between history and fantasy, but maybe that's because I'm familiar enough with her manner to recognize her interest.

This is entirely probable. Tone in text is difficult. It's possibly a large part of why feedback in professional quarters is encouraged to be a 'compliment sandwich' (say something good, input critique, finish with another compliment).

I didn't read excitement in it. To me I just got a heavy weight of 'this idea is bad and you should feel bad' and I felt buried under it.

[Roz]

It also looked to me that at least one of those exchanges was just a plain miscommunication, because I ASSUME that when Auspice said that gambling halls would be "populated" by commoner alts, that meant more like the staff? Not that the ton wouldn't be able to go to them. But I think Pyre was confused at the perceived idea that the ton wouldn't be allowed there since that would be a common way of socializing. But also maybe I am assuming incorrectly.

[Auspice]

@roz said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

It also looked to me that at least one of those exchanges was just a plain miscommunication, because I ASSUME that when Auspice said that gambling halls would be "populated" by commoner alts, that meant more like the staff? Not that the ton wouldn't be able to go to them. But I think Pyre was confused at the perceived idea that the ton wouldn't be allowed there since that would be a common way of socializing. But also maybe I am assuming incorrectly.

Well yes.
But it also seems like having commoner alts is a really disliked idea unless they get all the same access and treatment as the society PCs. So it might be best to nix that altogether.

[Roz]

See, I read the comments about the commoner alts more from a game design standpoint, like, "Is this something you want to open up on the game when they're not designed to be able to engage with the main story of the game," not that people were leaping to play commoners. The question of "What character types do we allow and encourage" is pretty fundamental, and it's a fair for people to ask the wisdom of allowing character types that aren't going to be allowed to engage in the central story, because I imagine we've all played on games where something like that has been the case but there's still been friction with players wanting to pick up those types and still feel central, etc. It was just a question of game focus.

[Auspice]

@roz

I guess I don't understand where it becomes 'you can't engage in the central stuff' when to play a commoner (under what I outlined) you are required to have a society PC as a primary alt.

Personally I prefer when there's just one PC allowed. But my experience has been that people get very antsy and such when they can't have multiple characters. So my thinking is: 1 PC for society stuff (allowing staff to not be overwhelmed with handling stuff for tons of alts there) and commoner alts for people who have a need for alts or just want to mess around with other ideas.

Essentially a form of: you get your primary PC that staff will give time and attention to and if you want alts they'll be there for fun but won't get the same focus in the story.

I'm not sure how much more I can explain this but having to keep reiterating is making me think it's a terrible idea.

[Aria]

@roz IME, the two fastest ways for a game to spiral out of staff's control is a) taking on more players than they can handle and b) not communicating (or maintaining) a fairly tight theme re: characters and their backgrounds. There's a tendency to want to be inclusive so as not to stifle creativity or be perceived as "mean", but it just makes it harder to GM when you've got the narrative equivalent of a dozen people in a room for a chess match but three of them have decided they want to go play the Monopoly minigame instead.

[bear_necessities]

@auspice said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

I'm not sure how much more I can explain this but having to keep reiterating is making me think it's a terrible idea

Tbh this is why 99.9999999 percent of the concepts that get talked about here never finalize. Just build the game the way you want and then post about it. If people want to play they will. If they dont they won't.

[Tributary]

@auspice said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

Personally I prefer when there's just one PC allowed. But my experience has been that people get very antsy and such when they can't have multiple characters. So my thinking is: 1 PC for society stuff (allowing staff to not be overwhelmed with handling stuff for tons of alts there) and commoner alts for people who have a need for alts or just want to mess around with other ideas.

Honestly? Just limit people to 1 PC. Allow them a time period to tweak it (some concepts work out better than others) and then ask them to stick to that single PC.

If people do want to mess around with other ideas, permit a certain amount of emitting of NPCs: no one important. No one who can seriously influence anything or needs stats to do things. But perhaps someone who can sort of interact in ways their PC cannot; i.e., a nobody sailor interacting with naval officers for the player of a female peer. Essentially, backdrop NPCs. If their NPC ends up being more appealing than their PC, let them drop the current PC and make the NPC as a PC.

Sometimes it's okay to just say, "No." Especially for your own sanity.

[Rucket]

@tributary said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

Honestly? Just limit people to 1 PC.

I agree with this. I'm not the biggest person when it comes to tons of alts, but I'm not sure why every game sees the need to have an alt policy either. Sometimes only having one character can fit the desired size of the game better than allowing alts.

[reimesu]

@Auspice

I'd play hell out of this. (Also, if you haven't read Georgette Heyer's Regency romances, they're utterly brilliant for this concept. Faro's Daughter in particular deals with a society gaming hell.)

[Auspice]

@reimesu said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

@Auspice

I'd play hell out of this. (Also, if you haven't read Georgette Heyer's Regency romances, they're utterly brilliant for this concept. Faro's Daughter in particular deals with a society gaming hell.)

I'm starting to read more and I'll absolutely check these out! Thanks for the recommendation