New Prospect MUSH
-
@Orange At least in my mind (I'm sure that's not universal though) consent-based games tend to be somewhat diceless, or at least keep mechanics around to see if specific actions succeed or fail or how powers work.
How are the WoD mechanics implemented there in that regard? For example you state that you "would so completely and severely lose to just about anyone who'd been there longer" but how can you lose if loss has to be consensual? Or what happens if you're in a PrP, you have all but two boxes of aggravated damage filled and an NPC rolls and scores 3 damage on you? I'm not sure if the limit of consent here is PC death (I haven't read the entire thread), what happens if you win the contested roll for Obfuscate vs Auspex so you start spying on someone but they say they don't want to be spied on?
Consent-based MU can be quite a lot of fun, I'm just not sure how the implementation works for the WoD.
-
Honestly? Coming from a world of 'consent' games with combat that could lead up to just shy of death? If you consent to combat, you consent to the things that come from it, short of death. You get curbstomped and left unconscious in the street if you lose combat, but without your express permission you can't die. Most of these have been consent MU*s with a coded combat that determines who hits and such, like a dice system but automated.
But conversely, consent should also really follow some methods of logic; you can't go try to smoosh the Prince then scream consent when the Prince's bodyguards want to stop you and take you out during that.
-
@Bobotron It just sounds like the combat system is a bit of an illusion, you know? Sure, dice might not go your way but there's only so much it can go the other way, too. And sure, oldbies might be more powerful than you but that's not exactly a big issue since if they try to throw their weight around you can shrug them off - it's not like they can ever get permanently rid of you.
I'm not saying I dislike the idea, it just doesn't sound like the two concepts - WoD mechanics and a consent-based game - are that integrated together, but more like one has been tossed on top of the other. I'm sure it is fun for people who like both of those things, especially in the nearly absolute absence of consensual games in the genre, but it sounds like perhaps it could have been done better.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Arkandel
The combat system is honestly just something to make it function smoothly and integrate everything (most of what I've seen has functioned on the same concept, and I used WoD-style dice, but with d6s, for the TF game I ran for a while), and acts as a veneer over the top of the dice. It's just a lens through which the outcome of the dice, comes through (and often simplifies, since you can set weapons/attacks/whatever to automatically take into account variations).My comment was more 'you can have consent, and bad consequences, but staff and players must also have some logic to consent' otherwise it's always 'I DID THIS AND I GOT AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE CONSENT'. And I've seen that and it doesn't add to a game. Consent by itself is fine, particularly when tempered by logic and intent.
-
The intention is what I'd describe as "compromise-based" rather than "consent-based". That said, I'm about to just state my vision of how consent works.
A situation begins where chance can be a factor. The players briefly discuss what kind of risks they see to their characters in the scene, then hash out what outcomes they're willing to consent to. The storyteller may indicate that certain risks are critical to the story. If one character isn't willing to accept those risks and the group can't work out the kind of compromises that @Orange and @Bobotron indicated it may not make sense for that player to participate. Once everyone can accept the worst case scenario, the dice decide outcome.
I like to believe that players are less risk-averse when they know they can set a limit on how much control they give up. When players indicate that they are unwilling to lose at all they self-identify as being limited to purely soft RP. When they fail to self-identify it can be disruptive for a scene or PRP but they probably won't be/shouldn't invited back for that kind of RP.
They key to it working is participants communicating expectations. I'm not aware of any problems so far but to be frank I don't feel like we've done well to establish this as a cultural norm.
-
I struggle to think of anything more boring mush-wise than playing on a pure Consent-based game, without ICA=ICC. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, when it comes to RP staff.
-
This post is deleted! -
@orange So uh, are you actually surprised by that or is this fake surprise? If it's real surprise, I'm gonna assume you never played CoH.
-
Also, back up your stuff. You can do it before someone announces a shutdown just as easily.
-
This post is deleted! -
I know how that goes. That is part of why I love the Mac Atlantis client, as it enables easy logging. That saves everything in game more or less, and then I just have to go after the wikis.
I highly recommend writing these things in a local form then converting/copy-pasting for MU* or wiki use.
