Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems

[acceleration]

I really like the CoD beat system for various reasons, but I think in an MU* environment a lot of the opportunities CoD creates get missed.

Primarily this has to do with condition resolution and dramatic failures.

Dramatic failures are great for a variety of reasons. I'm all for rewarding story failures, but these are highly dependent on ST style, and the reality is in 90% of the types of PRPs I see run, there is either 1) no adequate opportunity for failure or 2) dramatic failure is simply treated as a particularly bad fumble that happens and is shortly forgotten.

With condition resolution, positive conditions appear to be very easy to resolve, particularly in a low XP setting. Have a problem you need to succeed on? Go ahead and resolve that Steadfast! Problem solved, free beat for resolving it. Oh hey, did you just get another exceptional success? Rinse, repeat.

Negative ones, particularly socially or terror-inducing negative ones, are much more difficult to resolve. Player STs might not be able to see a condition sheet, so they don't know what to tailor their plots to in order to create an opportunity to resolve a negative condition (and tailored plots tend to be, well, tailored to specific characters, meaning STs running general PRPs pretty much don't bother with this at all) and players can rack up numerous conditions fairly easily if they're following the book rules of breaking point rolls. The end result is probably a sheet full of unresolveable conditions without specifically finding a situation where negative conditions can be resolved.

[surreality]

@acceleration Part of the issue with the fear-based conditions is that a few of them include things like 'deliberately fail a roll' or 'do something that hinders the group'. Often enough, the rest of the group, OOC, will jump your shit for simply playing to the limits of what your character knows (vs. what you know as the player) that might lead them to making the wrong choice or a mistake, no matter how IC that action is -- when you're stuck with one of those conditions, it can be tricksy at best to handle it in a way that is not going to get you practically crucified OOC.

[ThatOneDude]

@surreality said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:

@acceleration Part of the issue with the fear-based conditions is that a few of them include things like 'deliberately fail a roll' or 'do something that hinders the group'. Often enough, the rest of the group, OOC, will jump your shit for simply playing to the limits of what your character knows (vs. what you know as the player) that might lead them to making the wrong choice or a mistake, no matter how IC that action is -- when you're stuck with one of those conditions, it can be tricksy at best to handle it in a way that is not going to get you practically crucified OOC.

This is so true, but maybe its time we make a conscious effort to put people in their place for that type of behavior. So often we have people jump on the bandwagon for a number of things to "shame" or "talk down" players but this type of situation is rarely addressed in game. It is a part of the game...

[Warma Sheen]

@ThatOneDude Agreed on that. To say that part of the problem with the game system is that people are asshats is applicable to a great many things. It isn't the system that needs adjusting. Its the people.

Most CoD conditions can be easily resolved. Its just that people don't want to because of they don't want to lose the scene or, as mentioned, they are worried other players will ostracize them for ruining their flawless victory. Conditions aren't just 'stuff I gotta get rid of'. They're guidelines by which characters should be played based on the story that has affected them. Fear based guidelines need things like this because they're routinely ignored or played as 'OMG I'm SO scared... but that won't stop me from expertly performing this intricate task requiring concentration and calm without any hindrance whatsoever.'

Tasks are supposed to be failed because of fear and groups are supposed to be hindered. A lot of people don't play it that way without some incentive to do so. And even with incentive, some people still don't do it.

[acceleration]

Rather than blaming the players, I personally think more emphasis should be put on how STs handle failure. Dramatic failures should be being treated as story opportunities, not scene enders or dead ends. Players don't ostrasize if they're having fun, and players take more risks if there is reward for doing so. A good ST needs to be able to read the mood and adjust vs boredom and OOC irritation. If you want to change how the game is played I think it needs to be from that end, unless you're talking about emphasizing PVP, in which case failure conditions and dramatic failures turn into a player trust issue.

[surreality]

@acceleration said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:

Rather than blaming the players, I personally think more emphasis should be put on how STs handle failure. Dramatic failures should be being treated as story opportunities, not scene enders or dead ends.

This I agree with; creating opportunities through adversity is what these things exist for, ultimately.

Players don't ostrasize if they're having fun,

Here is where that agreement dissolves dramatically.

First, yes, plenty of players actually do precisely that, even when they're having a blast. Never underestimate the ability of a person to create a tempest in a teapot over absolutely nothing in this hobby; it's almost a secondary hobby to plenty of folks.

Second, enough players have a hazy enough grasp on IC/OOC as to have embraced the belief that while a character may 'technically' remain ignorant of the proper means of identifying or confronting a threat, the player should nudge-nudge wink-wink them along to the right conclusion anyway, and can become extraordinarily cross when they do not do this on the player-to-player level. (I have seen grudges spawned by a single instance of this span years and games.) Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements on this point in terms of its severity or bizarre, corner case permutations of this issue, but it absolutely is a thing that does happen. Either way, this makes failure even without conditions in play or choices that aren't ideal a problem.

Conditions complicate this in a very important way: the player is choosing specifically to resolve the condition. Not only that, but the player is gaining XP for doing so when the condition is resolved. Now combine this with the attitude above, and you get this: "Not only is this guy hampering us/not playing the wink-wink nudge-nudge game to move things along, but he's deliberately choosing this failure/detriment to our group and he's getting XP for it, too!"

Yes, that absolutely can cause friction in a scene, wholly independent of whether people are otherwise having fun. Players with this attitude feel they are being put at risk and/or being wronged by someone 'not playing properly' from their perspective, or someone 'too greedy for XP to not put other people's fun at risk', etc. The list can sprawl on quite a while there.

If you want to change how the game is played I think it needs to be from that end, unless you're talking about emphasizing PVP, in which case failure conditions and dramatic failures turn into a player trust issue.

It's a trust issue in PvE games as well; PvP isn't a factor. Players who choose to play faithful to the character and the character's limitations still engage in roleplay with others as team mates, fellow investigators, etc. will still fall victim to the issues above.

This issue tends to be why you see fumbles, minor fails, or things that players choose to ensure will only have an impact on their own character when they're off wandering the woods and run into a tree and break a limb (or similar solo resolutions) to these conditions -- it isn't the storytellers that tend to be failing on this one. Certainly some may? But there are certainly players who behave as has been described regardless of what the storyteller does.

[acceleration]

@surreality
If players are actively bitching out another player or the ST (openly or not) in the middle of a plot, something is wrong with the flow of the plot. Engaged players will be busy thinking about how to salvage the situation or turn it to their own advantage ICly if the opportunity is created correctly.

Can players be bitchy, catty assholes? Absolutely.

Do they complain less when they're having fun? Definitely.

Can they have fun even when they're failing? My answer to that is hands down, yes.

This seems to be where you and I differ, @surreality , because my experience was that an engaging storyline would keep players, well, engaged and coming back even though one or two characters might have (quite often) made terrible decisions. I did see players choose to take dramatic failures and I didn't see people bitching about the OOC choice to do so (which may have just been me with the blinders on, but I'm judging mostly by the fact that they came back for more.)

Shaping OOC attitudes is to some extent in the hands of the ST.

I absolutely think wildcard characters and characters who fuck up make things interesting. I think wildcard characters create unexpected situations for everyone that can challenge problem-solving skills and encourage lateral thinking. It's the stuff of storytelling to deal with flaws and the unexpected, and even the winnering types of players can find these types of situations interesting if they're challenged to solve it and get rewarded at the end of the process.

This is a very difficult thing to learn as an ST, and I certainly don't claim to have mastered this talent, but like I said originally, I think the missed opportunities in negative condition resolution is a ball best resolved on the ST side of the court.

In many of the types of plots I've experienced, here are the common problems with STs addressing bad outcomes:

1. Railroad plots. There are one or two set ways to solve the plot, and the ST is inflexible about handling it. Due to the way this type of plot is written, failure will result in a dead end regardless of whether it is a rolled failure or not, leaving a player no choice but to go back to square one and try another option. This is a highly frustrating type of plot from the player side, and if multiple players are involved, bitching is likely. Because it's already likely, choosing to take a dramatic failure or resolve a condition in this type of plot is basically a free, very boring beat.

2. Combat one-shots. This type of plot has mixed results for a variety of reasons. Not all PCs are created equal and not all MU*ers prepare for combat plots even when they sign up for them. Player STs often cannot see sheets of participating players in advance (and may not even know who's showing up) and therefore cannot design combat antags for them. Taking risks (dramatic failures) in these types of plots can be a bad idea, and are difficult to handle from an ST side. If you dramatically fail a clairvoyance roll, an ST has a lot of potential story to throw at that, but with a dramatic failure on a roundhouse kick, what kind of story can you throw at it? "X PC puts his weight down too soon and with a sharp horrible crack and a sudden stab of pain, he buckles to the ground, finding a gleaming white piece of metatarsal bone sticking out of a gushing red gash on his left foot. Take the leg wrack tilt." A bunch of mechanical stuff that can't really be handled within the scope of a one-shot. BUT! This can have pretty interesting ramifications on an extended plotline which if properly handled can engage the rest of the players on this plot.

3. Splitting the party. I definitely concede this is an issue with certain types of conditions, but still can be handled by a good storyteller who knows their limits and doesn't try to juggle too much at once.

Players are free to act as idiots as their characters. It's the storyteller's job to capitalize on that idiocy. Yes, there might be a few oddball players who will never use conditions properly, but I guarantee you most would if it got them an engaging story in return. (It might take them a few tries to get used to it.) The problem with 1e was that no one failed, ever. You never saw the WoD equivalent to DnD 1 unless STs stacked on several penalties, which was pretty rare in my experience. What does never seriously failing do for story arcs? It makes them pretty uninteresting. Giving a beat for dramatic failure means more players are willing to do it, and if it ends up being an uninteresting failure, that's sort of the STs fault (unless it's a no-ST scene, in which case, well.)

[surreality]

@acceleration said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:

@surreality
If players are actively bitching out another player or the ST (openly or not) in the middle of a plot, something is wrong with the flow of the plot. Engaged players will be busy thinking about how to salvage the situation or turn it to their own advantage ICly if the opportunity is created correctly.

Can players be bitchy, catty assholes? Absolutely.

...and there are some players who are, the moment something doesn't go the hero wish-fulfillment way, going to devolve into catty bitchiness and never come back. This is not a good thing, and it's not the ST's fault.

Do they complain less when they're having fun? Definitely.

...please stop speaking in universals. This is not always the case, and this is the problem I have with the way you're presenting your arguments: as if they're universal truths. They're simply not. If you don't prepare for situations that absolutely do exist -- even if you have not experienced them yourself you're getting reports here of others who have encountered these player behaviors -- you're going to get blindsided when they occur, or may not see the issue for what it is when it presents itself.

Can they have fun even when they're failing? My answer to that is hands down, yes.

Oh, we agree here in full. I enjoy screwing up as much as I enjoy succeeding, personally -- but I am also aware that not every player feels the same way, and players who do not feel the same way may behave differently in these situations.

This seems to be where you and I differ, @surreality , because my experience was that an engaging storyline would keep players, well, engaged and coming back even though one or two characters might have (quite often) made terrible decisions. I did see players choose to take dramatic failures and I didn't see people bitching about the OOC choice to do so (which may have just been me with the blinders on, but I'm judging mostly by the fact that they came back for more.)

I see this happen more often than not, too. Most players are absolutely down with this, and embrace the play style we both seem to agree is ideal (partly why I'm not quoting some of what's below, since it describes this in more depth), and believe to be the way the game is intended to be played: with success and failure as part of the story.

It's just that not everyone is on board with this. Some people take the first sign of adversity as time to take their ball and go home. Some people can't handle the idea of not winning, not being the hero, or of that guy screwed up my chances of being a hero!!!

Crappy players are, sadly, out there. Sometimes the ST can get them to come around, sure. Not always, though.

Pressure from other players to metagame toward a positive outcome is a real thing. It's been discussed here and even argued by some that players should behave in this way. (I don't agree with this, obviously.)

It's not something that's resolved with carrots, and is a case in which sometimes a hint of stick needs to be applied.

@Warma-Sheen said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:

Tasks are supposed to be failed because of fear and groups are supposed to be hindered. A lot of people don't play it that way without some incentive to do so. And even with incentive, some people still don't do it.

^ This nails it. Some people don't like to lose. Or lose face. Or just not win. Or not be the star. They definitely exist in this hobby. Throwing in 'someone as a player is choosing to fail, which affects my ability to succeed' is going to be a complicating factor when dealing with these personalities. It's not that complicated a problem to recognize as one that definitely exists.

[acceleration]

@surreality

I'm not arguing there are crappy players out there. I just think the ST has a lot more power to change how crappy players play than anything else because they're in the position to tailor a story to deal with them.

I as a player, and as an ST, do not feel the need to continue to play with people who decide they want to spend their entire session bitching, and I also think that people who spend entire sessions bitching don't come back to scenes run by those STs, so they're sort of self-solving problems unless you're dealing with particularly masochistic individuals. If they do come back, I expect STs to be able to handle this by ejecting disruptive players from their scenes, and if they can't do that, those players are a staff problem, not an ST problem. Therefore I don't think there's any particular need to argue about those players and am not talking about them when I say 'players complain less when they have fun'. I guess I should have been clear about that point, but I don't think I'm going to be blindsided. Thanks for the concern.

I feel most players are in the game to have fun. Some people can't help complaining, and it's a perfectly decent way to blow off steam, so fair enough. However, there's a difference between bringing up issues with how a game is being run (criticism) and general bitching which accomplishes nothing. I have experienced both and been guilty of both, from both a player and an ST side. My ST side attempts to address this by encouraging direct criticism/suggestions from players after sessions. IMO, transparency is a pretty decent way to deal with this issue. Obviously these things get harder to deal with as games get bigger and there's no perfect system for dealing with it.

Okay, I'm really tired and feel like I've gotten way off track at this point, but basically: STs can be the difference between a storyline and a fetch quest chain. If you want to change player perception of negative conditions/dramatic failures, empower and encourage your STs.

Really Tired Edit: Oh yeah, encouraging things to be better from a player side is good too. I'm not knocking that and didn't mean to sound like I was, in case I did. But it's really important to handle conditions/dramatic failures from the ST side for reasons I think I already stated (or as an arbiter between PVP condition resolution, although we don't seem to be talking about PVP XP systems here yet.)

[Warma Sheen]

@acceleration Many storytellers do handle failures and dramatic failures as story opportunities... but many players view them as dead ends and scene enders. Rather than making lemons out of lemonade they throw up their hands and cry about everything being sour. As an ST, I'm not going to give the players rainbows and butterflies when they dramatically fail. It is, by definition, a fail. And it is a dramatic fail. Is there a way out and to overcome? Yes. Is it easy to do? No. Is it going to come without some bumps and bruises? Probably not.

Dealing with dramatic failures sometimes require humbling ones character to the scene. And for some people, they just can't have fun unless they are the bestest ever alltimes. They view humbling one's character the same as humbling one's self and that isn't fun for them. As an ST you might hear something like, "you're just trying to humiliate me!" because the player's self image is attached so closely, if not entirely, to their character.

The problem becomes the uncertainty in how an ST is going to handle something. When you know and trust your ST you're much more likely to have fun. If you're playing in a scene with someone you don't know as an ST, sometimes people get this fear that their character is going to be killed - even on games where a PC has never been killed by an NPC. So people sometimes err on the side of pessimism and develop the viewpoint of 'this is a scene ender because chancing anything further could get me killed so I turn around and go home'.

The same can be said of players. If you join a +event, the 'fun' of what happens is sometimes tempered by the unfamiliarity of the other players involved. This is why storylines with friends are usually much more full and engaging, because things can go sideways without the apprehension that someone is gonna break the scene down the middle with some crazy character choices. If I choose to take a dramatic failure because it can create a fun opportunity, is the guy next to me gonna choose to frenzy and kill my character because he thinks that's a fun opportunity that was created? I was having great fun with a gaming group on one particular MU* and I made a character choice to go off on his own and handle an IC situation away from the rest of the group. Many others in the group took it as I, the player, didn't want to play with them anymore and they shut me out completely OOCly. They wanted to know OOCly what I was doing in order not to freak out. I wanted to keep things IC. It ended poorly.

The bottom line for me is that whenever I've had a bad experience in a scene it is usually because I'm not familiar with or used to the style of either the ST or the other players I'm with. Not everyone views the game (or gaming in general) the same way I do and that presents for very different outcomes in story and in satisfaction with a scene. I get the feeling it is like that a lot and many of the views and preferences we carry clash with others we encounter on games from both a player side and an ST side.