@BobGoblin said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
Of course. I'm stuck in development meetings for work and bored out of my mind. If I hate my life why not spread it?
HOWEVER, to clarify for the meg
I believe the reason I see this more prominent in consent games is because of the type of player that open systems appeals to. Again from experience, when there is no real risk of negative consequences other than self imposed ones it encourages a different mentality than one that has checks.
To further as I stated I'd like to see a heroes game that used some kind of system for checks rather than solely consent largely in part to see if it would alleviate this problem. So yes. It is a player issue but I believe it's a player issue because the system appeals to that sort of player.
In fact I'd be curious to see how much of our player base overlaps between pure consent and checked consent games.
In discussions with my circle of associates (I don't have friends clearly) about the topic of heroes mu the consensus with them is that the lack of structure system is a problem. This is both from people who play open consent heroes games and those who refuse to. So I'm not pulling this topic from my ass but rather bringing up something that I've had discussions with no less than 8 people over.
Tldr someone should try a system for heroes games that involved some kind of check consent rather than purely open consent
IMO, it's only a problem because it doesn't fit their view of what a good and entertaining game should be, which is probably not a universal constant.
I've played in all sorts of game, both with stats and those that are pure consent, and while there are certain people that only play one or the other, my experience [anecdotal, but extensive enough that I could probably apply some experimental methods and processes if I were so inclined (which hahahaha fuck off, I'm not)] is that those people willing to cross these system-based genres are perfectly willing to realign to the new paradigm and play within those rules.
You're always going to have drama and I have found that while it's true that consent games tend to have a much lower rate of 'haha, I KILLED YOU' drama, both from assholes PKing people and from people wanting to avoid a legitimate PK (however you measure that within context) because consent means the subject is moot, I have also found that consent games tend to provide sometimes much more satisfactory story and generate much more trust between a storyteller and a player. I have, in no particular order, been allowed to kill, maim, imprison, torture, clone, replace, brainwash, and a host of other things, other player characters (as an ST) in consent games because they trusted me to tell a good story and because they knew if it got too far, when they said 'this is too far' I would find a way to accomodate that limit. Statted games don't have this, and it's as much of a problem as your alleged problem stemming from a 'lack of structure'.
Yes, consent can be abused, but let's not pretend that it's some flaw that can't be overcome, or that adding stats and taking that consent away fixes a problem without opening up a huge fucking door for a host of other problems.
It's all about what makes you comfortable playing and the people that you surround yourself with.