Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?

DarkDeleria

Roz

@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

@Sunny I feel you on this. I love -- love love love -- some world-building, but the amount of info needed is not easy for something that doesn't have an RPG book handy that people can get and read through.

That said, most games involve at least one RPG book that someone has to get and read through. (Or a television series to watch, or a series of novels, etc.)

In my two decades of MU*ing, I've only played two that involved an RPG book. And one of them I only played on for like two scenes, so I don't really count it. There's a lot of games around that don't involve any RPG books. Which is not to say that the overall encouragement you were giving Sunny is wrong, just that there are a lot of lot of games around that aren't WoD or based on other written tabletop systems.

surreality

@Roz Agreed, but even many of those involve a fair bit of media to consume -- whether it's a comic to read, a series of novels, a series of television shows to watch, etc.

Usually, any given game system that's going to work well on a MUX can be explained simply in a few pages. It's the setting info that's always going to take some time to digest, no matter what form it takes.

Basically: even if it's 'oh, we're all familiar with this material, and that's why we're here!' (any GoT, BSG, etc. game would count here) still took time for the players to digest the setting information, even if that happened before the game was a twinkle in somebody's eye.

Roz

@surreality Yes, totally. I'm admittedly reacting to a pet peeve of mine which is the sort of "MU*s = WoD games" that tends to be pretty prevalent on MSB (as it was on WORA). But I wasn't arguing that there is always setting info to read and players should just read it. That part is 100% true.

surreality

@Roz It's a shared peeve, really. Which is why 'television series, series of novels, etc.' is in there, even in what you quoted. Trust me... I am beyond tired of arguing about why an idea won't work based exclusively on why it wouldn't work in WoD, which is prevalent.

Edit: People saying this who still play on WoD games are IMHO the worst offenders, because as far as source material goes, it has the most I've seen that people are expected to be familiar with. Dozens and dozens of books. So when typically WoD players complain about having to read something on a wiki being too much work, they deserve the full anime mallet treatment for having the gall to be whining about this. That's why they're singled out there.

Tat

I will posit, however, that there is a pretty significant difference between watching a tv series or reading several novels and then finding a game set somewhere you love, and reading a bunch of wiki text explicitly to play a game.

One is something you did because it is entertainment in and of itself, and is probably of some degree of quality.

The other is something you'd be motivated to do... why? Personally, I'd probably only do it if someone I know and trust went 'read this, play this, it's AWESOME!' There's a super slim possibility that I'd just like the idea enough, but it's super slim. And on top of that, the wiki text is often (IME) not very entertaining, and sometimes not even very well written.

If, on the other hand, I spied a game set in a beloved franchise, I'd be interested in a moment.

Tabletop source books are not the same as wiki setting, in part because they have been heavily tested and have a reputation. The starting point isn't the same, and I think you really do have to consider that when designing games.

surreality

@Tat said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

Tabletop source books are not the same as wiki setting, in part because they have been heavily tested and have a reputation. The starting point isn't the same, and I think you really do have to consider that when designing games.

I can't really agree with this one, since over the years, I have seen a lot of complete garbage tabletop games and systems, and there are a number of people I know of who have contributed writing to RPG sourcebooks and MUs alike.

There's crap and gold in both, same as any fiction or television or video game or other media.

Tat

@surreality Sorry, I don't exactly mean 'RPG books are automatically better quality'.

I mean that they have a /reputation/. That is, people know them, and know about them. Maybe I'm wrong in this and there are lots of people regularly picking up sourcebooks they are completely unfamiliar with to play a M* they know no one on, but I personally don't think that's the general trend.

I think people play games for two major reasons: they love the theme/setting, or their friends are there.

An original setting can manage both, but it has a much higher hurdle. It's gonna rely more strongly on the second reason, and has to worry about how to get the first crop of players to draw others in. Basically, the bar is higher, and I think anyone building a game should consider it.

surreality

@Tat I don't see people picking up new and unfamiliar sourcebooks for MU, but I do see them do it with tabletop a fair bit.• It's pretty much the same thing -- just in MU form. Pick it up, skim through it, if it looks like garbage, don't bother with it.

It's the 'OH MY GOD THE WORLD WILL END IF I HAVE TO LEARN A NEW THING!' hand-wringing that's common (and super overwrought) on this generally accepted and normal practice that boggles the mind.

• (We are very lucky to have a local mom&pop gaming shop in the area that's been around FOREVER AND EVER, and they're big on carrying everything, even rare indie stuff -- so I will admit I may see more of this than is common experience.)

JinShei

@Seraphim73 Dunno, discworld mud is still thriving

Arkandel

@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

It's the 'OH MY GOD THE WORLD WILL END IF I HAVE TO LEARN A NEW THING!' hand-wringing that's common (and super overwrought) on this generally accepted and normal practice that boggles the mind.

See, this isn't necessarily the way it looks. From a game runner's perspective I can see it; they picked a system which might be a little unfamiliar but not that hard to figure out, why won't players take the time to familiarise themselves? From the players' perspective though, they just logged into a game they're not sure if they'll like yet, so they're sceptical about learning a new system just so they can even get out of CGen.

This doesn't explain everything of course - I know people who've been playing nWoD MU* for years and they still have gaping gaps in their understanding of its mechanics - but it's still very much a thing. Add to it the fact not every roleplayer cares for or even about systems at all; to many they are unnecessary abstractions. Yes, folks still need to respect a game's right to choose and have such things apply to every character, but it does explain why they do so half-heartedly.

surreality

@Arkandel Here's the thing: if all of that information is on the wiki, people can skim through it before they even make a login on the game. If it looks too complex, opaque, or unappealing, it's a good reason for them to not bother making a login.

Same is true of setting, or anything else. Look it over, then decide if you're going to make a bit or not. Same with the logs page -- if the place is deader than dirt and nobody's ever posting logs, it doesn't matter how awesome the setting is or how much they know or love a system.

This is really not even the slightest bit complicated or hard.

It's basic common sense. It's basic enough that even if somebody knows a system already for an existing property, they should be doing thing -- maybe there's a HR or setting element that's a deal-breaker for them.

Do people typically dive into a game and begin CG before skimming the information available on it? That's not a snarky question; it's a serious one. The very idea is completely alien to me, as I always valued my time enough to glance through these materials before ever coming within a mile of a login screen.

If this is common, this would explain a lot about why people encounter so many of the problems they do when expectations clash -- but they have only themselves to blame for this, IMO -- and I really doubt this is the norm for most players.

Nobody likes wasting their time. This is one instance in which spending a very small amount can save you much, along with much disappointment and/or frustration.

People who cannot be bothered to take this step and dismiss things out of hand because they don't want to bother to skim something are not people I have much sympathy for in a hobby all about reading and writing, and really, none of us probably should.

Arkandel

@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

Do people typically dive into a game and begin CG before skimming the information available on it? That's not a snarky question; it's a serious one. The very idea is completely alien to me, as I always valued my time enough to glance through these materials before ever coming within a mile of a login screen.

Obviously I can't speak on other people's behalf, but just from my own experiences and conversations... yes, absolutely.

For example a very common scenario is being invited to a game by friends. A while ago I was asked to go play a comic book MU* and I did so - I had to familiarise myself with a (pretty interesting, as it turned out) system but that was after the fact... my real interest was rolling Dr. Strange, figuring out what the theme was, etc. There was a lot to absorb.

There are also folks who simply go and play where most people are - you know, that whole 'numbers beget numbers' thing. This happens with Mage all the time but its mechanics are just tricky enough that I know players who've been playing for years and don't really know how it works.

This is by no means unique to MU*, either. There are players on WoW who barely know their own characters' abilities despite raiding with them, they just learn the minimum required to get by and... well, that's it, really. They're there for the companionship, not the game itself.

Ominous

Also a lot of MUs have wikis that leave a lot to be desired. On one page, give me an elevator pitch of the theme followed by a "It's X meets Y with a touch of Z" of other IPs summary of that theme. Then lay out the history of the setting, recent history prior to the start of the MU* preferable to getting Tolkien-esque, a breakdown of what has happened on the MU since launch is even better. Add a description of what roles the players will be filling and what direction the server is currently headed in.

On another page explain the game mechanics the server uses for resolution and any other idiosyncracies needed to play the game. Do I need to eat and sleep to get back my energy? Let me know here. I don't want to realize after 5 hours of playing that I signed up for MUSH the MUD when I was looking for something a lot less mechanic driven.

Lisse24

@Ominous Totally agree.

Plus all games should have a 0 to character wiki page. This page should go beyond CG and cover the first steps that a character needs to get established including:

How to set up a wiki page
How to get housing
How to get equipment
What their first steps in getting integrated with their sphere should be, including which PCs to contact.
A list of basic PC maintenance commands (pool spends/regains, etc) including how often to run them.
How to get involved with plots.

You know, all those things experienced players like us just know how to do, but someone coming from a different setting would be clueless about.

Arkandel

@Ominous Remember though that there's only so much you can do on a wiki if you're using printed, copyrighted material for your game. At some point the players will need to consult their rulebook.

surreality

@Arkandel said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

Do people typically dive into a game and begin CG before skimming the information available on it? That's not a snarky question; it's a serious one. The very idea is completely alien to me, as I always valued my time enough to glance through these materials before ever coming within a mile of a login screen.

Obviously I can't speak on other people's behalf, but just from my own experiences and conversations... yes, absolutely.

Then that's on them if their time is wasted. Seriously. I'm not kidding. We are not children. "I can't be bothered to see if I like something or what it's about before diving in!" is the antithesis of logical behavior.

It should never be a reason people are given to not create original themes, settings, or systems, and yet it often is. This is the most stifling nonsense in the hobby and one of the most insidious problems facing anybody trying anything new -- from XP systems in existing RPGs to new settings to something completely new from the ground up. This is not even absurdist doom-saying, it's

(Generic)Your laziness or unwillingness to be proactive is not the creator(of anything)'s responsibility, full stop.

This is another of those lessons people should have learned in gradeschool: you don't do your homework, it's likely you're going to have some issues. This could be not being prepared for a surprise quiz and failing that, or having grades that suffer from just not doing the thing.

For example a very common scenario is being invited to a game by friends. A while ago I was asked to go play a comic book MU* and I did so - I had to familiarise myself with a (pretty interesting, as it turned out) system but that was after the fact... my real interest was rolling Dr. Strange, figuring out what the theme was, etc. There was a lot to absorb.

Again, things we learned in gradeschool: you should still be looking at what your friends are asking you to join them in doing. My friends have asked me to join them on everything from international cruises to bungee jumping to breaking and entering and hard drugs -- I did not just blindly follow them into these activities, and in three out of four of those cases, "Uh, no," was the answer they got. The 'yes' on that list -- the cruise -- involved a lot of 'homework' in securing visas, etc. that, had I not done it, the entire experience would have broken down entirely.

"My friends invited me," is common, sure, but it doesn't turn off one's critical faculties. Those friends should be helping you acclimate if they're going to extend the invite, and they should be pointing out things you need to know, or telling you important things re: what the place is about.

Would anyone here think 'my friends invited me, and didn't tell me anything, so I didn't look further, I just created my login and dove in' was an excuse to go on and on with horrified outrage about the things that go on if the place someone was invited was Shang or a game similar to it? To those friends, maybe, but not to the game, its creators, or to the game community at large, because it's not the fault of the game, its creators, or the game community at large -- it's on (generic) you and (generic) your friends.

"My friends asked me to" doesn't absolve someone responsibility at all, barring some pretty extreme circumstances that just aren't relevant to this hobby. ("Dude, that friend saved my life, I can't ever say no to that guy about anything!" is the kind of thing I mean here, and that's not really a common scenario in this hobby.)

There are also folks who simply go and play where most people are - you know, that whole 'numbers beget numbers' thing. This happens with Mage all the time but its mechanics are just tricky enough that I know players who've been playing for years and don't really know how it works.

...and this is not the fault of the game in any way, nor is it a reason people should be discouraged from building mage games. This is a real problem that really exists, but the blame for that problem needs to be placed where it actually belongs: with the people who are just too lazy to read or learn before diving in, not the people who make a Mage game.

The blame needs to go where it belongs. (If the information isn't presented well, as @Ominous and @Lisse24 describe? Then there's reason that blame should be shared to some extent -- but this is still wholly contingent on someone bothering to look before they leap, which is the behavior I am specifically calling out as problematic.)
"Some people can't be bothered to read it" should never be used as a rationale for not trying something new or to discourage innovation or new ideas no matter what their scope, and that is exactly how it is often used in this community. Stop it. Stop insisting we're all stifled and stymied and backed into corners and no one is willing to innovate and in the same breath insist that nobody should ever attempt anything new at all because some lazy and irresponsible people can't be bothered to even take a look at it to see if it seems like it's worth learning first. (Generic) You want new and different, (generic) you want things that work better than what we have now, then (generic) you better be willing to glance over new things to see if (generic) you think they might be for (generic) you or not before trying to shut down the very process of creating new things with the insistence that there is any legitimate excuse for people to not bother at least glancing through something to see if it seems worth trying or learning.

(Ominous and Lisse's points get their own post. Data organization, it's IMPORTANT, for real.)

Arkandel

@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

Then that's on them if their time is wasted. Seriously. I'm not kidding. We are not children. "I can't be bothered to see if I like something or what it's about before diving in!" is the antithesis of logical behavior.

That's an old problem though, and once again it's not limited to MU* but to most 'cooperative' MMOs in general. When MMORPGs were coming out more often it was a common disclaimer for reviewers that they were basing their impressions on a somewhat limited amount of time spent playing because compared to other types of games that's a necessary evil; you can look at a game on paper, or just from a few glimpses and rush to a conclusion but it's only after you invest considerable hours that you can see the devil in its details.

It should never be a reason people are given to not create original themes, settings, or systems, and yet it often is.

I don't see why people wouldn't create original themes. But they need (and do, I think) knowing the risks; it's easier to make a nWoD game today, right now, than to make a brand new kind with its own mechanics and lore. The number of reasons range from how easy it is to find code made for it, to recruiting staff, to attracting and keeping players... but I doubt any of us will dispute it's a fact.

That doesn't mean such games are doomed. Arx is one of the largest games right now, and it did its own thing. But for each of those there are probably lots of original MU* which are either non-starters or prove to be dead on arrival.

"My friends invited me," is common, sure, but it doesn't turn off one's critical faculties. Those friends should be helping you acclimate if they're going to extend the invite, and they should be pointing out things you need to know, or telling you important things re: what the place is about.

And they do (or did in my case) but it's still a fact learning a new system is harder than not having to learn a new system. And I think it's also an acceptable assertion that not all players enjoy learning new mechanics. We can argue this is right or wrong, but if it's a fact - which I think it is - then we have to figure out ways to deal with it, not chalk it off as their problem.

Else of course more players will gravitate to what's already known and familiar!

surreality

@Arkandel said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

It should never be a reason people are given to not create original themes, settings, or systems, and yet it often is.

I don't see why people wouldn't create original themes. But they need (and do, I think) knowing the risks; it's easier to make a nWoD game today, right now, than to make a brand new kind with its own mechanics and lore. The number of reasons range from how easy it is to find code made for it, to recruiting staff, to attracting and keeping players... but I doubt any of us will dispute it's a fact.

That doesn't mean such games are doomed. Arx is one of the largest games right now, and it did its own thing. But for each of those there are probably lots of original MU* which are either non-starters or prove to be dead on arrival.

And Arx precisely proves the point that people should not be told to NOT create these games because of this potential problem. Yet this regularly occurs, not as a warning of risk, but as an insistence that something is doomed to fail or should not even be attempted.

"My friends invited me," is common, sure, but it doesn't turn off one's critical faculties. Those friends should be helping you acclimate if they're going to extend the invite, and they should be pointing out things you need to know, or telling you important things re: what the place is about.

And they do (or did in my case) but it's still a fact learning a new system is harder than not having to learn a new system. And I think it's also an acceptable assertion that not all players enjoy learning new mechanics. We can argue this is right or wrong, but if it's a fact - which I think it is - then we have to figure out ways to deal with it, not chalk it off as their problem.

Of course learning a new system is harder. The first time someone plays an established system, they have the same learning curve, however, and it wasn't an obstacle to them then.

If someone doesn't want to learn new mechanics, it is on them to say 'no' to a game that requires them to do so, not on the game's creators to refuse to do something new or eschew anything that isn't repeatedly trod ground to benefit that person's laziness and/or preference.

Further, 'some people don't like learning new things' should never be touted as a reason to never try new things. It is. Regularly. And for a hobby that screams for innovation on the regular, there is no faster way to shoot innovation in the face and ensure it doesn't happen anywhere near as often as it could.

Ominous

@Arkandel Absolutely and in such cases give a very generic outline (Roll a pool of d10s equal to attributes + skill with successes being rolls of 7 or higher) and point to what books are needed, preferably with RPG Drive Thru or Amazon links for those books.