RenoMUSH - The Biggest Little Game on the Net
-
I really ought to get out and RP on my char. I always read the stuff for Reno and get interested. Then RL meddles or I get distracted by games and I forget to RP.
-
Yeah, I didn't do everything perfect. I admit that, I always have. Myself and the people I worked with built what we hoped to be a fun game. We're working to make a place that is fun to play on. I even had a scene this year myself, so there's that.
-
@Thenomain said:
@Kireek said:
Listen man, if it hurts your feelings, that's fine
Keep it civil, please.
Really, Theno? You've got nothing else to do but cherry pick one sentence out of a guy's post and admonish him? When he's not even being terribly uncivil? He's giving his opinion, and the truth as he sees it, but isn't insulting or degrading anyone. If you're going to be over-moderating this forum, let me know in advance.
RE: Reno
It's a fine place in theory, but has all but died owing to Blackjack's strange combination of both:
- Wanting to focus power in the hands of NPCs under his direct purview by restricting status, and intending for all status raises to somehow come from plots run by him or interactions with NPCs. Maybe it's changed, but I know at least 2 or 3 players that would have thrived in leadership roles and creating plottage for other people were basically turned off by his management style. I talked to him briefly months ago, and was also not particularly inspired by his vision, so this isn't entirely secondhand.
and
- Getting a severe case of the burnouts, which happens to everyone and was completely predictable.
No MUSH is ever going to thrive which relies on heavily NPC-driven plots. For the record, I think RDC is doing good work (from what I've heard, I didn't know he = RDC until I read this thread), but Blackjack doesn't seem to have a realistic grasp of what makes a game successful in the long term. Setting aside the complete FUBAR which was their attempt at a werewolf sphere. I forget the person's name who they had 'running' it back when Reno first came out of Beta, but that person had no idea what they were doing.
-
This post is deleted! -
Yeah, I'm not sure where the status thing is coming from. It was only ever time-based, though you were expected to be active and provide RP related to the influence you held. I got a character up to 4 without any sort of trouble from staff.
ETA: For me, this was way back in July and August.
-
@RDC said:
Status has never been restricted. You can buy it at 3 at CG, and raise it to 4 after one month, and to 5 a month after that.
Well, as I said, I'm not hip to the game's current standing beyond it being fairly quiet. But back in June-July, and what little I've heard since, it seemed power/influence/plottage was far more NPC-centric than PC-centric. If I'm wrong, or it's much changed, this is certainly the place to correct such apprehensions for anyone reading the thread.
I personally have seen so many burnouts and aborted plots, that I can't get seriously invested in any environment which depends on one or two people's creativity and drive at the top.
You have to, of course. Pandulph, Mozart, Roanoke. I know you've seen the same situations.
-
This post is deleted! -
@RDC said:
Status was never restricted, beyond the "no more than 3 at CG", as far as I know, and I've been playing since the beta opened. Anyone can take Status and rise through the ranks. There is an NPC leadership for the city at large, but they're very hands-off and let the Covenants run themselves, ICly. (For the most part, and as a matter of status quo, which is always up for change especially when it comes to Season plottage now).
As far as I know, no player has bought/expressed interest in buying City Status higher than 2.
Well. I don't want to derail this thread, because a lot of what your post made me think about, isn't Reno specific. So I'll keep this concise. I'll use The Reach/HM/Metro as an example. Barring the fact that all those places had other flaws, there was still the fact that the kind of player who is inclined to a leadership-style position (and you know the kind of people I'm talking about)...are the kind that tend to organize like 4-5 people to app in with them, and load up on status and influence.
People did it in HM all the time...all it would take was 2-3 people apping in, and it was like, "Oh hey, there's an Albanian/Russian/Italian/Turkish mafia now.' Or some new covenant. And then there's be drama and conflict. Happened on Metro, still happens on the Reach. They come in as a fully realized entity, not as a cog in the machine.
The character creation process is essential for people like this to fully articulate and realize the vision they have for their character as a mover and shaker. If you restrict people from reaching towards those kind of leadership/mastermind roles, it becomes much easier for them to simply not bother at all.
Climbing up the status ladder with a bunch've powerful NPCs at the top is more or less unattractive. Its basically restricting players to coming in as middle management, and for whatever reason, that tends to not excite the really hardcore political, Machiavellian types. Which is why I'm not surprised there's been no push for city status.
A healthy game is one in which players are creating and driving the main dynamic for conflict, from the top down. Presumably, you want as few NPCs as possible, because realistically, you'll never be able to give them all justice as a storyteller.
-
@crusader
This basically just tells me that people like that want to app in with power, not play the game to gain it. So no, those people aren't really going to have the BEST time at a game with NPC powers they need to overcome. -
This post is deleted! -
@crusader said:
A healthy game is one in which players are creating and driving the main dynamic for conflict, from the top down. Presumably, you want as few NPCs as possible, because realistically, you'll never be able to give them all justice as a storyteller.
That's a play-style choice, not a sure indicator of a game's health. I tend to prefer an NPC at top, partly so that 5 people can't group-join and take over leadership solely due to numbers.
-
I am back and forth on leaders at top. There's some players, @Fortunae as an example, who are /good/ leader types. Inclusive, tries to put people who want to do things in places to gain things, friend or not. They try to stay to theme as well as their character concept. I don't mind people like that in IC leadership positions. If there's people trying to stuff friends in every which position, regardless of more qualified/makes more sense in the position being present, that comes up then I'd rather have NPCs. But as I stated somewhere else.. I already forget which thread.. I'm more inclined to put trust in players.
-
@Coin said:
@crusader
This basically just tells me that people like that want to app in with power, not play the game to gain it. So no, those people aren't really going to have the BEST time at a game with NPC powers they need to overcome.Well. It's a tricky situation. Those same PCs often end up driving most of the RP in a sphere, while at the same time, even the best staff inevitably succumb to fatigue when trying to portray multiple NPC powerbrokers.
It's not a knock on anyone. But in nearly twenty years of MUSHing, I've noticed that no staffer can handle serious NPC involvement in an ongoing story without going insane. AQ might have come the closest on HM to making it work, and if AQ were with us today, I'm sure he could tell everyone how fun that was.
The best, long term solution, is to shove as much of that power and influence onto the playerbase, while keeping perhaps, one or two 'pivot' NPCs in reserve, and basically let them be responsible for the dynamic. The counterpoint to that, is designing resources, territory and influence in such a way that makes players want to meaningfully compete for such things. This doesn't lead inevitably to PK and conflict.
A good solution I saw once was to use an NPC archon type character, who would come down harsh on anyone who was threatening the masquerade or breaking the rules by drawing attention. (So firebombings and rampant stakings were discouraged). This forced players into a more subtle, long-term conflict with each other.
But yes, sadly, you really only get the kinds of people who want to play mastermind/political type concepts who come in as them, and not gradually work their way there. It's less selfishness (since those roles are typically an ass ton of work) and more about the nature of writing and envisioning a character.
-
@RDC said:
In my opinion, what's been keeping people from climbing the ladder to leadership positions isn't the Senate - it's the requirement we have that IC leaders also be OOC leaders, with a dialogue with staff about what they're doing to move their group forward, create RP, et cetera. That's the kind of job not everyone is cut out to do. I may be wrong, though!
Also, in my opinion: The benefit of NPC leadership at the top of the city over PC Princes far outweighs the downsides. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than a revolving door of PC Princes who rule for 1-3 months, like most games.
Much like in the modern army, finding the player equivalent of 'noncoms' is the hardest thing to do, but also the best indicator of success. It's difficult to do though, and sometimes involves creating incentives that not everyone is comfortable with. Hence why so many games have fallen back on a 'tier' system. Which is unfortunately, just as open to abuse. For every good player you snag with such incentives, you get a waste of space.
All the same, when I staffed, I found tiers the only way to attract high quality players, and even though half were great, the other half I usually had to get rid of after a month. This is just a long winded way of saying you're not wrong.
-
This post is deleted! -
The only restrictions we have on status are: I, personally, cannot have status 4+ in any organization (or any other headstaffer), you can start with up to 3 dots in status, and anyone with 4+ needs to do some OOC stuff to benefit the organization. The only change to any of that from launch was that I allowed non-headstaff types to not be status capped.
Why would I make everyone go through me to raise status on a sandbox type game anyway? Reno doesn't even require Renown justifications, and that hurts my soul.
-
Renown 25 here I come. I've always wanted to make a Lodge of Scars werewolf.
-
I really enjoyed my brief time on Reno. Throwing dogs at people is and always will be a memorable experience in RP.
Also, you know... I liked the staff and players just fine too!
-
The setting is truly a lot of fun. I had nobody pull me over, I just joined because the southwestern kitsch setting really appealed. If it hadn't gone into its multi-month slump, I might still be there.
-
I too enjoyed Reno. Staff was helpful and there were regular code updates.
I didn't like the absence of metaplot so I didn't keep playing there but that's an intentional choice for the MUSH. The same thing probably holds appeal for others.
