Roster Characters & WoD?

[Tinuviel]

@pyrephox said in Roster Characters & WoD?:

Just because something isn't to a player's tastes, doesn't make it wrong.

Of course not. Nobody's saying that. "I hate the roster style" is not the same thing as "the roster style is inherently bad." So don't equate the two.

I personally think it's far too much work to put on the plate of staff. Creating or approving roster characters, then reading and approving roster applications, ensuring that roster characters are kept updated, balancing to ensure there are enough roster characters of various types, etc, etc etc.

I also don't see the point, and see far more detriments similar to the ones @Solstice posted above than benefits.

Any time you make, add, or change a way of doing things you have to be careful that the change has a point. Changing for the sake of change is fine, I guess, but in this case it's a fundamental one.

[Derp]

@tinuviel @Pyrephox

Just to be clear here:

I am not saying that rosters are wrong. I'm saying that they are problematic, both for the players picking up the rostered characters and for everyone else who's had to interact with those rosters. It's not just in WoD, it's in every system, but WoD rosters are especially problematic this way just because of the gritty nature of the games themselves and the baggage that comes along with them.

So while, no, I don't have anything against adding new games using different philosophies, I'd warn against this particular one. There is a difference between 'not for me based on preference' and 'problematic for other players', and I think rosters fall into the latter more often than not.

[Tinuviel]

@derp Oh, I know you're not saying they're wrong. That's what I meant, even those of us arguing against them or saying we hate them aren't saying they're inherently the devil.

I do think they make more problems than they solve, they're a headache to work with, and they're a climbing wall instead of a door.

[Pyrephox]

Personally, I think it's worth giving it a shot. There's not a lot of real downside - if it ends up being too much work or too difficult, the easiest thing in the world is just 'we're not going to do that anymore', and if it excites and energizes people who do get excited by that - either as players or staff - then it's a net good.

Although I most like the suggestion made earlier in the thread of, essentially, a 'partial roster': a character which inhabits X particular space, and must have skills/abilities A, B, and C, but is otherwise customizable.

Or, honestly, I think full rosters would be a good choice for powerful mortal characters when you want to really emphasize that side of the game. Have a roster character mayor, or police chief, or crime lord that outlines exactly what power such a character can wield, and encourage people to take that character as something more than an 'instant victim'. It tends to be the mortal side of the WoD that needs more love, and break people out of their 'humans are furniture' sort of mindset, and some strong rosters with deep hooks into the meta, built by someone who can set them up not to be insta-jobbed by random supernaturals, could help a lot.

[3543thrh67]

You're equating that kind of stuff to just rosters. I mean, you could interact with an original character and have all sorts of meaningful relationships then poof that person is gone and/or idles for a long time then come back playing their character completely different. Or they get 'bored' and want to end the relationship, etc. Then you pick up the same relationship and it feels disconnected. The problems you're saying with rosters is basically any character created. It is just more apparent with rosters and people feel more attached (in my opinion) because that character can return with a new person who interprets things differently.

[Tinuviel]

@icanbeyourmuse said in Roster Characters & WoD?:

The problems you're saying with rosters is basically any character created.

Sure, but the problems we're placing on the head of the roster is that it's sort of designed that way.

A character relationship can go poof, sure, but someone new isn't going to pop up to play that character in a month and try to rekindle that initial magic. Rosters are designed to have multiple people playing a character over its lifetime.

[Tinuviel]

@pyrephox said in Roster Characters & WoD?:

It tends to be the mortal side of the WoD that needs more love, and break people out of their 'humans are furniture' sort of mindset, and some strong rosters with deep hooks into the meta, built by someone who can set them up not to be insta-jobbed by random supernaturals, could help a lot.

Honestly, if you want mortals to actually matter in WoD, you'll want to make a mortal only game. Mages think mortals are basically sheep, Wolves think they're pets, Changelings don't count for anything, and Vampires think they're cattle. Mortals are furniture when anything else is the focus.

And this is just a me thing, but I'd never want to play a mortal that stays a mortal. I am a mortal in a crapsack world with a shitty life. I sure as fuck don't want to play one.

[Derp]

@pyrephox said in Roster Characters & WoD?:

Although I most like the suggestion made earlier in the thread of, essentially, a 'partial roster': a character which inhabits X particular space, and must have skills/abilities A, B, and C, but is otherwise customizable.

I'm still not clear on how this is different from like a 'wanted concepts' posting somewhere. In this one, you'd still have to create the actual character and do the chargen work, which is what rosters are supposed to be alleviating.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, at all. I like having direction on what's wanted and where. But it doesn't address the core of the issue which is 'I feel intimidated by chargen'.

To me, this kind of thing is desirable but isn't what people are talking about when they talk about a roster. They want fully formed characters they can take off a rack and slip on like a prom dress.

[Tinuviel]

@derp said in Roster Characters & WoD?:

But it doesn't address the core of the issue which is 'I feel intimidated by chargen'.

Well I'd say it depends on why one is intimidated by CG. I get overwhelmed, especially on multi-sphere games, because I have a billion choices. I could play this kind of a mage or that kind of a vampire and I could join this group with this skill set or that group with this kind of power.

If it's the burden of choice, I guess, which could be mitigated somewhat by having the sheet already done. Stats set, with some wiggle room if you need it, but on the whole a mechanically complete character that you can do the actual character building for.

[Lotherio]

@icanbeyourmuse said in Roster Characters & WoD?:

Thundergultch, I haven't asked about it on there.

Just ask, we always give a few weeks grace.

[3543thrh67]

The partially done characters idea sounds more like a partly done template over a roster to me. In my head roster characters are basically plug and play. Eerything you 'need' is all done for you and you just need to play as you interpet the character. There for those who don't like doing CG, want to see what the game is about on a bit 'done right by the staff/theme', dip their feet in before deciding to make something.

[faraday]

I think part of the problem is that roster systems have several potential applications. Each application has pros and cons. The net benefit of those pros and cons will vary depending both on the game and your personal values.

One application is having pre-made characters so you don't have to deal with chargen. On games with lengthy, complex chargen systems (e.g., WoD), this may be more of a benefit than ones with simpler chargen (e.g., FS3). But there will always be some players who like to try out a game with minimal personal investment.

Another application is having existing relationships with other characters. Some players may see this as a net benefit (they don't have to be "the new guy") while others see this as unwelcome baggage. A game that lets stuff be retconned easily can undermine this potential benefit.

A third application is controlling the pool of characters. A game with noble houses may prefer to keep the family members consistent as players come and go. A game set on a deserted island may need a static character pool since there's just no easy way for characters to come and go.

These variations mean that you're not going to achieve universal consensus. You just have to look at how the pros/cons of rosters map to the goals of your game and the preferences of that game's specific playerbase.

[Tinuviel]

@faraday The main part of the problem though is that things are new and different and I am old and hate change so it must be the children who are wrong.

[faraday]

@tinuviel I mean, roster games have been around since the early 2000's, so I'm not sure what is new and different? Have they never been tried on WoD before?

[Tinuviel]

@faraday It's new and different to me in WoD.

And I was being facetious.

[Derp]

@faraday said in Roster Characters & WoD?:

@tinuviel I mean, roster games have been around since the early 2000's, so I'm not sure what is new and different? Have they never been tried on WoD before?

Haunted Memories had some. They were quickly abandoned for a host of reasons.

[mietze]

I think old school players and old fogey WoDites are going to reject rosters out of hand, for the most part. People always scream bloody murder about anything new, whether that is mechanics or shifting of theme as game lines are updated, to staff structure, to how big a game is, whether or not players or staff control the ultimate power positions, ect.

However, if someone wanted to experiment with rosters, then maybe new or more open minded folks would be willing to give it a chance. I don't see the harm in that. It would possibly attract a different community, which to me is neutral. Yeah, a lot of people who are die hard WoD by Night MUSH fans would not show up (hopefully, rather than bitching about it endlessly on pub as they flail about the ooc room, but you know, let's be realistic about the community, maybe). I don't see that as a bad thing necessarily.

I think we need to get away from the idea that a game in a beloved genre must cater to all people, past and present.

[Tinuviel]

@mietze said in Roster Characters & WoD?:

I think we need to get away from the idea that a game in a beloved genre must cater to all people, past and present.

I think we need to get away from the idea that voicing any kind of dissent or negative opinion is screaming bloody murder.

[Roz]

Didn't the thread start just with someone asking if there were any WoD games using roster systems? Is all the discussion just surrounding -- why the OP should or shouldn't be looking for one?

[Tinuviel]

@roz said in Roster Characters & WoD?:

Is all the discussion just surrounding -- why the OP should or shouldn't be looking for one?

No, it's just discussion about the concept.

The initial question was answered quickly. "Are there any WoD games with roster characters that exist?" "No."