@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
And Arx precisely proves the point that people should not be told to NOT create these games because of this potential problem.
Who's telling people to not create these games?
@Arkandel I've had dozens of people I've had dev discussions with tell me this over the years, and in talking with others who work on such games, there's a lot of people hearing the same.
If I had a nickel for every time somebody told me to 'just use WoD or don't do it' -- which is a system I think is actually crap-awful for MU -- I could have paid all of my hosting bills for the entire time I was doing dev.
Edit: This is not presented as risk. It's presented as 'there is a group of people who have a bad behavior, and because of their bad behavior, you should not do something new'. And that attitude is garbage, as it doesn't call out the bad behavior for what it is, enables and encourages that bad behavior, and stifles innovation of any kind in the process.
If that's what people genuinely believe, they need to stop asking for new things, or resolve their cognitive dissonance on this issue.
Oh fucking well.
@surreality But... why listen to them? I mean, the idea that original theme games can't work is demonstrably false. Arx, Firan, Aether, Castle d'Image, Otherspace... some of the most famous and arguably "successful" games in MU* history have had original themes.
Incidentally, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with somebody not wanting to invest a ton of time to get into a game. This is not a problem unique to original themes either. I've seen tabletop players shy away from RPGs with heavy lore or complicated mechanics because it's too overwhelming. I personally wouldn't have bothered trying out the 100 MUSH if someone told me I had to watch all three seasons of the show to effectively play there. It's all about barrier to entry. How many hurdles are between me and the fun of actually playing the game.
@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
If I had a nickel for every time somebody told me to 'just use WoD or don't do it' -- which is a system I think is actually crap-awful for MU -- I could have paid all of my hosting bills for the entire time I was doing dev.
I actively avoid these games because I'm disinterested in WoD as a setting and very disinterested in buying 2 (or more - and yes I know I can pirate these easily but, ethics aside, it's still a lot of reading theme and setting material I am actively disinterested in) RPG books I will never use for any other purpose other than playing a game I do not know if I will like or not.
I don't say this to be contrary, I am well aware that WoD is a very popular genre in MUs and doing a game in it will get you a ready-made audience. But I am part of another audience and I don't think I'm alone, so I'm presenting the opposing point. I feel like it's less about catering to The Audience, and more about catering to an easily-corralled audience, rather than one that's more diffuse and less focused.
@faraday I don't think anybody should listen to them, for exactly the reasons you're describing, and @Three-Eyed-Crow is as well.
It's just exhausting to hear people who cry out for innovation in one breath, then insist no one should try something new 'because some people don't want to learn a new thing' in the next. It's essentially demanding the impossible, and is an internal contradiction.
'Some people won't' is a given with anything, and that is OK -- it is regardless of the thing they won't do, really. By extension, though, 'some people won't' isn't a reason for some other people to do it. Some people won't play scifi -- is that a reason to not make scifi games? Hell no! And so on. Any choice made is going to have 'some people who won't' based on that choice, even choices that are entirely neutral in one direction or the other (consent vs. non-consent, PvE vs. PvP, etc.).
Oh fucking well.
@surreality Okay. I guess I haven't heard a lot from either camp - neither "we need innovation" (I've actually heard the opposite mostly) nor "no one should try something" (though I have heard a lot of warnings that this or that didn't work in the past, which is a legitimate and true observation).
Anyway, I think people arguing "original themes can't ever work" have about as much credence as people arguing "the Earth is flat", so I wouldn't really get worked up about it.
@faraday The deepest irony is that it's often the same people who are saying both things. Mind-blower, you know? Internal consistency, it's a thing! Heh. It's kinda no wonder those are typically the folks never satisfied.
Your system is another proof that innovation is entirely viable, and while I haven't learned it myself, it doesn't sound like it's horribly difficult to learn if someone wanted to play on a game that employs it.
@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
If I had a nickel for every time somebody told me to 'just use WoD or don't do it' -- which is a system I think is actually crap-awful for MU -- I could have paid all of my hosting bills for the entire time I was doing dev.
I dunno. I mean my project now (I'll ask for input on MSB soon) is pretty much different in just about every way it could be, but I'm going into it realizing the risks; both in that it might never happen, that I could easily attract no help staffing it, or that it could draw no players.
But I'd still take it over rehashing the same dish.
On the other hand it is important to walk into these projects aware of the 'risks'. If your goal is to get the maximum number of players you can, or even to have some players - it's quite an awkward realization but the reason some people make MU* is so they can be staff and be in charge - then the tried-and-true way is the one to go. If not... well, then there's no safety net but maybe the ceiling can be higher, too.
@faraday said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
@surreality But... why listen to them? I mean, the idea that original theme games can't work is demonstrably false. Arx, Firan, Aether, Castle d'Image, Otherspace... some of the most famous and arguably "successful" games in MU* history have had original themes.
I think some of this may also be that Aether, Firan, and Arx all built incredibly detailed worlds and libraries of lore, because they had no shortcuts. No "just watch the show/read the books" or "well, it's <City X> but with werewolves." They had to put together all the lore, and either present it in a nicely consumable fashion, or conceal it but provide a good IC reason that players would be unaware of some of it.
Conversely I'm trying my first WoD game out, and I find I'm stumbling and a bit lost in places. (Ha ha it's a pun because I'm playing a Changeling.) Much of this is the system—they have a ton of Random Capitalized Terms, some of which are the same as other Random Capitalized Terms but mean different things depending on which sourcebook you're in—but some of it is all kinds of little expectations that aren't communicated anywhere, in the books or anything else.
And I suspect this isn't because staff is lazy, but because the vast majority of the game have played WoD in the past and take all those little fiddly bits for granted.
This isn't a criticism of any game, merely an observation that in some ways, the extra work for an original theme—done right, at least—makes it easier for newcomers to dig into the game than a lot of us, me included, do when building games on established canon properties.
a.k.a. Packetdancer (or "Pax" for short)
It's been my experience that original themes are generally the kiss of death for a MUSH.
In those cases where original setting games have worked in spite of the odds, it was the people running the game, and the details of the setting, that made the difference. Lords and Ladies games are always popular, for example. Original sci-fi? Not so much. People with deep roots in the 'community', with lots of friends they can get involved, stand a much better chance of making it work than some random person
that no one knows. Who you know really does make a difference when so many of us are leery of getting involved in new projects due to the sheer number of unsuccessful games we've worked on over the years.
@faraday said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
@surreality But... why listen to them? I mean, the idea that original theme games can't work is demonstrably false. Arx, Firan, Aether, Castle d'Image, Otherspace... some of the most famous and arguably "successful" games in MU* history have had original themes.
These are also games based on generalizations. Aether was: General fantasy from the age of greek mythology. Castle d'Image was: Dimension of doors. Popular games not mentioned have similar generalist approaches, and I'll start with Shangril-La, because why not. (Yes, it has a detailed setting. Had, at least.)
The most famous Mu*s have no solid setting at all. FurryMuck, for instance. Almost any time I find an analysis of the hobby, this game is mentioned. I would describe FurryMuck as a "social", tho, in the way that Shang became, or HellMoo, or Islandia, all IRC channels with far more trappings. And I've had some decent role play on IRC.
Of the games you mentioned, though, you must know more of the setting than I mentioned. I loved (and still love) Aether's character test: Five very simple questions that proved you at least know what kind of game you're asking to play. Aether had a wiki before MediaWiki. Their news files were short and organized. Their newbie help channel actually helped newbies; you would usually walk away knowing how to find an answer next time.
If I had a nickel every time the answer to my question anywhere since Aether was "check the wiki"...
Or worse...
Anyhow, I had this answer in my head before hitting @Sparks' answer, and I also realize that it's quite different and almost opposite. We do both agree that for games based on an existing property a lot is taken for granted, but even original games have to be careful not to fall into that trap. I tried to draw out Aether as having the one thing that many games don't, and while I don't know about Otherspace I don't think any of the other games listed did that very well: Making it easy to get there.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@Thenomain Otherspace was also very helpful when I was a newbie there, and I recall being impressed by their detailed chargen PDF. There lore files were a bit lacking for me, which is ultimately why I didn't stick around... I didn't feel comfortable extrapolating day to day RP details in their world. But lots of people obviously didn't suffer that same problem.
Having an original theme presents many extra challenges, no doubt, but these games prove that it's possible to succeed in spite of those challenges.
It also helps if you have reasonable expectations. Martian Dreams only had about a dozen players, but we were a tight knit group who had fun for many months in a world I had lots of fun building. Some might consider that a failure or at best an open sandbox, but it was a success by my expectations.
@Sparks said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
I think some of this may also be that Aether, Firan, and Arx all built incredibly detailed worlds and libraries of lore, because they had no shortcuts. No "just watch the show/read the books" or "well, it's <City X> but with werewolves." They had to put together all the lore, and either present it in a nicely consumable fashion, or conceal it but provide a good IC reason that players would be unaware of some of it.
This is just it, I think. Original themes absolutely need this -- as do less common canon themes, really -- but this is the very thing that kinda kickstarted this general tangent: being concerned that doing this would be wasted effort due to too many people insisting: tl;dr. It's required effort on the part of staff, really, for things to work, IMO. It's also where the 'can't be bothered to skim over things before jumping into chargen' is the biggest problem -- for the person doing that and everyone around them, staff and fellow players alike.
@Thenomain said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
Their newbie help channel actually helped newbies; you would usually walk away knowing how to find an answer next time.
This is also key, but I think it's another thing that comes up naturally with successful original themes. There's no "just check the sourcebook" or "oh, you can check the wikia for the show/books" type shortcut answers to give for original themes, after all.
You already called out Aether. And whether you like or hate the rest of the game, I think Firan's "Help" channel was pretty active and generally helpful to folks feeling lost or needing info. I think Arx's Info channel is similarly pretty active and helpful (even if like 70% of it consists of @Roz beating everyone else to the answer).
Conversely, on many another game I've been on, there may not even be a 'Help' or 'Info' channel.
I think my takeaway, anyway, is that anything that's run based on something else should be set up with the assumption that a new player won't know the system/setting, and at least give them clear avenues to get answers.
a.k.a. Packetdancer (or "Pax" for short)
I think that the real point is that, no matter what your setting, you should write your helpfiles for newcomers, not experts. If you're building a wiki for a WoD game, yeah, a lot of your players are probably going to have a lot of WoD experience, and yeah, you have source books which is where a lot of this stuff lives and you can't put it all on your wiki because copyright. But make it easy for newcomers to understand what the path is. "Here are the books, here are the pages in the main books that talk about Merits, here are the pages that talk about Attributes, here are the pages for X specific thing for this sphere, Y specific thing for that sphere." Yes, newbies will have to buy or borrow the source book, but make it as easy as possible for them to understand the connection between the parts of your chargen and the parts of the book. And the same thing for games based on a movie or TV show or whatever. Don't just kind of half-ass a whole "well we've all seen the show, you know what it is." You don't need to explain the entire plot of several seasons, but try to approach things from the angle of "How do we explain this setting to those who aren't coming in with preexisting knowledge."
BONUS! If you actually take time and care to think about how to write out helpfiles in this way that's designed to be efficient and informative, you'll also tend to make things easier and clearer even for your more experienced players.
@Sparks said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
I think Arx's Info channel is similarly pretty active and helpful (even if like 70% of it consists of @Roz beating everyone else to the answer).
Sometimes I have to go to the bathroom, okay. I'm putting the squeeze on that last 30%. 
@Roz said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
I think that the real point is that, no matter what your setting, you should write your helpfiles for newcomers, not experts. If you're building a wiki for a WoD game, yeah, a lot of your players are probably going to have a lot of WoD experience, and yeah, you have source books which is where a lot of this stuff lives and you can't put it all on your wiki because copyright. But make it easy for newcomers to understand what the path is.
Even beyond this, people really do have different takes on WoD in terms of its general themes. For some, it is a wholly bleak place where everything is merely a spiral into endless decay and suffering and life is cheap and character deaths are commonplace. For others, it's a dangerous world with things that create awe and terror all at once, balancing horror and wonder as the characters navigate that strange reality full of enormous risks and rewards that are sometimes even more dangerous in the long run. Others still take the 'resist the darkness at all costs and preserve your humanity despite nearly impossible odds' route, losing and gaining ground over time in that pursuit.
All of these are equally valid interpretations of the game's tone, and all of them can co-exist on a game fairly well. Often enough, though, staff will pick one of these and focus on it strongly or exclusively -- and that has an enormous impact on the kinds of stories told and the experience players will have there. Making known which of these -- or something else, if you're aiming for something else entirely -- you aim to highlight or blend in your game is important information for players to be aware of.
@faraday said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
Having an original theme presents many extra challenges, no doubt, but these games prove that it's possible to succeed in spite of those challenges.
Except I think that these challenges are the same challenges faced by using existing IP: How to teach people to play.
Unlike @Sparks' experience, for instance, I think Arx is horrible at this.
(edit: Sorry, that's my continuing bitterness speaking. I think Arx is no better than the bulk of WoD games at teaching people how to play the game they've presented. They have a few passionate people who are eager to help, but I can say the same on the average game I've ever played. Aether stood out as a level of drawing people in that I have never seen since.)
It also helps if you have reasonable expectations. Martian Dreams only had about a dozen players, but we were a tight knit group who had fun for many months in a world I had lots of fun building. Some might consider that a failure or at best an open sandbox, but it was a success by my expectations.
if (( enjoyed( players ) && enjoyed( creators ) == TRUE ) then success = TRUE
Even the more laid back Soapbox community is pretty nit-picky about what to consider a success.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
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.
The odd part of this phenomenon is that, while the World of Darkness' mechanics are simple its content is not. Meanwhile, Arx's mechanics are arguably even simpler, and people will still consider it an impediment to play.
As another example, Star Wars SAGA edition has simple mechanics, but its Feats and Talents require an almost-encyclopedic knowledge in order to manipulate those mechanics efficiently to your benefit. Meanwhile, some people believe that Unisystem or FS3 is hard to grok, when they are anything but.
I think it's just familiarity. I like the World of Darkness because I know the source material so damned well, or well-enough that I can work my way through games easily. It wasn't as easy when I was on Arx not because Arx's mechanics were hard but because I have over two decades of familiarity with White Wolf's stuff.
That said, getting into White Wolf stuff takes a considerable amount of time and guidance. Vampire is particularly complex, even as Mage is system-wise.
@Thenomain said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
@faraday said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
Except I think that these challenges are the same challenges faced by using existing IP: How to teach people to play.
To an extent. But having created both original and existing IP games, my personal experience is that it's WAY easier to teach people to play when 80-90% of your player base comes through the door with a basic familiarity with the universe.
@faraday said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
@Thenomain said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
@faraday said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
Except I think that these challenges are the same challenges faced by using existing IP: How to teach people to play.To an extent. But having created both original and existing IP games, my personal experience is that it's WAY easier to teach people to play when 80-90% of your player base comes through the door with a basic familiarity with the universe.
And I completely agree, which is why I wanted to note that all the games you noted were pretty generic at its base, and I threw in two of my own. Hell, even Amber, an established IP, can be described as: The rulers of the universe at the only true reality(-ies) of it.
I think that a one-paragraph hook and then about 2 (minimum) to 5 (maximum of my personal attention span) pages to get people into what the game world is about would serve a fantastic start to drawing people in. We should see this more.
@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:
And Arx precisely proves the point that people should not be told to NOT create these games because of this potential problem.
Who's telling people to not create these games?
