nWoD2.0 Support Code?

Arkandel

@faraday A lot of the time the implementation, unless it's horrible (complicated interface, etc) is almost irrelevant in regards to its adoption by the playerbase. It's very often just a matter of it being culturally accepted, which is often just a catch-22 - if the first few players are using it and newcomers see it being used then they pick it up too.

Introducing new toys is usually harder once people's habits are set unless you're actually offering something shiny they didn't know they wanted until they had it.

Ganymede

@faraday said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

The trick is to figure out what the people on your game need/want and then give it to them in the most usable way possible.

Unless there's something you want people to use, for one reason or another.

On RfK, there was a phone system. You were encouraged to use it. +Txts sent through it were monitored for any potential breach of the First Tradition. That could result in you being hunted or bad juju happening on the Grid, which would then mean IC repercussions if other vampires discovered the message.

Admittedly, we just started writing notes and letters via @mail after being IC told not to text messages including breach material. Still, if there's something you want people to use, no reason not to code it up and push them to do so.

faraday

@Ganymede said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

Unless there's something you want people to use, for one reason or another.

I was counting the staff under "what the people on your game need/want". Though if you don't provide something that has inherent value to the players, you'll be fighting tooth and nail to get them to use it (as you mentioned with people bypassing +txt with mail).

Thenomain

@Arkandel said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

Introducing new toys is usually harder once people's habits are set unless you're actually offering something shiny they didn't know they wanted until they had it.

@Cobaltasaurus' Events.

... I'm just saying this because it was a toy she coded for herself, thinking that people might like it, and now it seems to be a must-have at least on WoD games, and hopefully on every games.

This is a pure vanity post saying that awesome things come from everywhere. Thinking too hard about it can be what kills it.

Arkandel

@Thenomain said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

Thinking too hard about it can be what kills it.

Speaking of, I think what kills innovation a lot of the time is people micro-analyzing it preemptively. "It won't work because $reasons". "I saw it tried once in 2003 and it didn't work then so it won't work now". Etc.

There are just some ideas whose time has come, or which happen to be implemented better even if the core concept is similar to something else that crushed and burned.

Also, fuck naysayers. If they don't like it they don't need to play/use it. It's better to try 50 things and see 1 work out than never trying anything because oh-my-god it might fail.

Jennkryst

I may or may not have missed it above somewhere, but an idea that I've been wobbling about for a while, with masqs and such:

+identities

A way to link different log-ins/player-bits to the same +sheet, so folks don't necessarily know who is who. And stuff.

I dunno.

faraday

@Arkandel said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

Also, fuck naysayers. If they don't like it they don't need to play/use it. It's better to try 50 things and see 1 work out than never trying anything because oh-my-god it might fail.

To some extent I agree, but I also think it's good to take under advisement the lessons of the past. Saying "We tried X on game and it failed therefore it can never work ever!" -- that's naysaying. "We tried X, Y and Z on some game(s) and it didn't work because reasons" is information. If you believe you've got a different set of circumstances or a better idea, or you just think they've flat-out got it wrong, then go for it. At least you know.

Thenomain

@Arkandel said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

@Thenomain said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

Thinking too hard about it can be what kills it.

Speaking of, I think what kills innovation a lot of the time is people micro-analyzing it preemptively. "It won't work because $reasons". "I saw it tried once in 2003 and it didn't work then so it won't work now". Etc.

I will own this. I've been trying to say, "But try it anyway" to soften my pessimistic tone. A lot of people use 'pp' ("phone-page") and '+txt', regardless what I think about it. I mean, a lot of people, enough to overwhelm whatever I think.

And it's a coder's prerogative to name things silly or stupid things to fit their mood. Until now, nobody has done anything more but roll their eyes and tell me I'm wrong and code it anyway. And I sighed and said "fffiiiinnnnnnneeeee," because I'm harboring a cynical teenager in my psyche.

What @faraday and I have warned is extremely real. What we experienced was directed by users, not (just) coders. Coders don't usually have enough time to fight about this stuff.

Also, fuck naysayers. If they don't like it they don't need to play/use it. It's better to try 50 things and see 1 work out than never trying anything because oh-my-god it might fail.

Except that:

Our time is limited.
This is a forum wherein a lot of people speak without consideration toward the audience, which makes a lot of what you see here stated as or taken as hyperbole. (I'm getting deeply sick and tired of that. I'm truly sorry that not everyone says things in the way that you want to hear, but when they clarify themselves for you, you can at least respect the effort. Fuck's sake, people, we're only human.)

If I say, as coder, that I do not want to take the time to allow users to color their own +txt, then you're either going to have to live with that answer or find someone who has the time. Would this be cool? It turned out that it was extremely well-recieved! Am I a jackass for saying 'no'? I don't think so.

This might not be the kind of person you're talking about, Ark, but I do think that pointing out possible hurdles and issues with a plan is not being a "nay-sayer".

Apos

I'm not going to think less of any coder that also just says, 'I don't wanna implement this' for any number of reasons, including they don't have the time or consider it a monumental pain in the ass. I think that's perfectly valid. I would just argue against things when I see them as being like, 'I think this is bad for games' if I strongly disagree and consider them net positives done in different implementations.

Arkandel

@Thenomain said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

If I say, as coder, that I do not want to take the time to allow users to color their own +txt, then you're either going to have to live with that answer or find someone who has the time. Would this be cool? It turned out that it was extremely well-recieved! Am I a jackass for saying 'no'? I don't think so.

This might not be the kind of person you're talking about, Ark, but I do think that pointing out possible hurdles and issues with a plan is not being a "nay-sayer".

I'm talking about the exact opposite, in fact. The coder who says "hey, I wanna make it so users can color their own +txt" and people tell them it's not worth doing.

Thenomain

@Arkandel said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

I'm talking about the exact opposite, in fact. The coder who says "hey, I wanna make it so users can color their own +txt" and people tell them it's not worth doing.

Maybe it's not worth doing. Maybe the game has incomplete systems that need stabilized. Maybe the staff is overworked and creating an in-depth phone system interjected with layers of mutter code (can you overhear the conversation better at a table than not at a table?) is going to do nothing to reduce their accelerated burnout. I wouldn't blame a staffer in that situation saying, "This is not worth doing." I would blame anyone for taking this to mean, "This is never worth doing."

I think the best we can do is express how we feel about the project, give some explanation and some justification, and do what we can to understand the decisions made.

ThatGuyThere

I only have one comment for phone code. For the love of God do not require players to keep track of fake phone numbers. I have a old ass phone RL and I can still call someone using the name of the person so if your code makes me +call a string of numbers instead of +call Bob you are a bad person.

skew

If it wasn't made painfully clear in multiple threads already...

We want a messenger code that you can use to mark communications as IC, as opposed to @mail, which would be used for OOC.

Everything everyone's went on and on about is just weird nonsense. I don't get it. We're going to have code that goes +email Cobalt=This is a message. And then Cobalt's going to get a line that says "You have new e-mail".

Stop making this weird.

Cobalt

@skew +1

Tempest

Idle thought. My problem with this sort of mechanic, specifically on WoD games, is it winds up just being a tool for the equivalent of crappy bar RP/dating crap.

It'd generally be unwise to talk about the demon you fought the other night via text message, which means most messages wind up being--

+text Jane=Hey what's up?
Jane's brain - "I really have better shit to do than exchange some bullshit meaningless string of texts with you."

IMO, if you're going to do this, include some sort of MAGIC TECH GURU NPC that secures everybody's phones, so they can actually talk about shit and not worry about 'omg the masquerade' or whatever.

Jennkryst

@Tempest How else do you think the Technocracy tracks everyone down?

Cobalt

@Tempest Frankly, that's up to the staffers that use it. I could code it so there's an opt in to where shit goes to a staff monitoring channel. But, you know, as a staffer I'm not going to be too concerned about monitoring someone's +texts/+calls, since I know it'll be used for tiny+textsex.

Thenomain

@Tempest said in nWoD2.0 Support Code?:

IMO, if you're going to do this, include some sort of MAGIC TECH GURU NPC that secures everybody's phones, so they can actually talk about shit and not worry about 'omg the masquerade' or whatever.

Why are you not using Signal?!