City of Shadows
-
I think the reasons why the hurdles got so stringent are because WoD has two kinds of players (when it comes to sheets and dots)
-
I want to explore my character discovering and learning through IC experiences
-
I need renown 5 for this one gift, and if I get that gift and apply it to my other skills and merits I can do parkour ninjustu with a claymore and ride a motorcycle in full blown Crinos form. So fuck it, let's check those renown boxes off.
#2 is why these games got in the habit of making players to through hoops for renown. Some players want the dots more than they want to earn/justify them.
I'm a personal believer in requiring story development to justify the deeper dots on a character sheet. This requires ST oversight, which is something that's very important to the system(s) <oWoD, nWoD, v5>. Unfortunately, the more distanced STs and staff get from whats going on ICly, especially given dozens of players at a time, this gets more difficult.
Sadly, it's the truth: WoD was designed to have an ST in place most of (if not all of) the time. So you're gonna run into logistics issues with the MU format.
-
-
@faraday said in City of Shadows:
Well umm... some of us in some of our systems do?
WoD did. They did away with that when they shifted stat development from an exponential spending system to a linear one. I've already exhausted the conversation regarding why that was a stupid idea.
And here we are.
-
I won't dismiss an idea to spread things a bit. The problem is a lot of the time it becomes 'x sphere jumps through y hoops' while 'z sphere has v hoops' and it's all a big, inconsistent mess between the spheres.
So I guess that's the root of my idea that it's one of those energy sink things.
I want my consistency and simplicity, damnit.
-
@Ghost said in City of Shadows:
- I need renown 5 for this one gift, and if I get that gift and apply it to my other skills and merits I can do parkour ninjustu with a claymore and ride a motorcycle in full blown Crinos form. So fuck it, let's check those renown boxes off.
#2 is why these games got in the habit of making players to through hoops for renown. Some players want the dots more than they want to earn/justify them.
#2 is avoidable with low/slow XP games. Most of the complaints that players have about WoD are fixable by putting the breaks on XP. WoD, like many RPGs, goes off the rails at a certain XP level. That's fine when in a TT setting when you have STs that can cater to that XP level, but it really isn't healthy in a MU.
I'm a personal believer in requiring story development to justify the deeper dots on a character sheet. This requires ST oversight, which is something that's very important to the system(s) <oWoD, nWoD, v5>. Unfortunately, the more distanced STs and staff get from whats going on ICly, especially given dozens of players at a time, this gets more difficult.
I'm fine with needing stories/backgrounds if those stories/backgrounds etc come into play on-grid. But when you have to write pages of text, the only purpose of which is approval of a single stat or character sheet, and then it's never touched on again, that seems a bit excessive.
Granted, I don't play werewolf, It's not my thing, so I don't know how renown usually works out on grid. I just know what usually happens with the notes/bgs/justifications that I tend to write, which is nothing.
-
@Ganymede said in City of Shadows:
@faraday said in City of Shadows:
Well umm... some of us in some of our systems do?
WoD did. They did away with that when they shifted stat development from an exponential spending system to a linear one. I've already exhausted the conversation regarding why that was a stupid idea.
And here we are.
Yeah, but by fiddling around with the beat:xp ratio, you can create an exponential system, which may be wise for a MU.
-
@Taika I think there's a worthwhile conversation there about game cohesion.
In truth, WoD was designed to involve 1 ST at a table with x# players consisting of either PCs of ONE supernatural type or a small spread. (I.e. 4 vamps, one mortal)
LARP expanded it to focus on 1 or more STs at a venue with a larger number of players, usually all the same super type, and could interface with other separate chapters (note:separate) for coordination purposes. These chapters also followed a unified ruleset. These LARPs typically did not run multiple supertype venues all in unison, but with some coordination and occasional cross-over.
So with all of this in mind, what is a good answer for spreading out so many STs across so many players, with coordination, across so many spheres? I dont know, but my initial gut feeling is to treat the mush like a single sphere LARP with less sphere options but more ST oversight.
-
@Lisse24 However staff in this game have expressed the desire to not change systems and introduce HRs as much as possible.
As for XP starvation that, too, has its side-effects which most of its supporting arguments don't consider. It is an important factor for players driving their activity without waiting for months for the next raise, and a carrot incentivizing character participation in plot.
In other words it's not an improvement to go from "Renown is artificially slowed to a near halt" to "everything is slowed down to a near halt". People, well, like buying toys.
-
@Arkandel said in City of Shadows:
@Lisse24 However staff in this game have expressed the desire to not change systems and introduce HRs as much as possible.
As for XP starvation that, too, has its side-effects which most of its supporting arguments don't consider. It is an important factor for players driving their activity without waiting for months for the next raise, and a carrot incentivizing character participation in plot.
In other words it's not an improvement to go from "Renown is artificially slowed to a near halt" to "everything is slowed down to a near halt". People, well, like buying toys.
I think there's a vast difference between XP starvation and slow XP. Also, if the ONLY thing characters are striving for in your game is XP, then you probably don't have enough for them to do. This is where the territory system Gany's working on comes in. Give people something to create and build and use that isn't XP.
I mean, sure, that's a new system, but I'm not sure you need to house-rule anything existing thing to make it work.
-
It's not just XP starvation or slow XP that makes that whole system not always the best option, its when raises make sense and they can't be made due to the artificial wait times that it becomes a problem.
-
Regulated XP gain is important. Coming out of the gate with a massive XP monstrosity might be fun in the short term but it allows for very little growth or progression.
Balance is difficult but I believe those running this particular game have a good handle on it.
-
@Admiral I agree. There should be a progression for WoD to make sense in a MU* context, which is why neither bucketloads of XPs right after CGen nor starvation from that point on would work. You need to be looking forward to the cool things you'll get in 2-3 weeks, and then in 2-3 weeks after that.
But let's be clear here. The deathbed of WoD MU* has little to do with mechanics. These games die for lack of things your character can get involved and have some meaningful agency in.
-
@arkandel Which is interesting. And I don't think you mean 'just plot', either. I think you're more referencing that sense of /investment/. Shoving plot at people isn't the magical fix-all. When I can catch @Ganymede I'm going to pick her brain and show her what I've got in my head and what the grid is looking like.
One of the ideas was for the coin system to set minimum payments based on various Statuses.
So a Status (Organized Crime) 4 favor will have a base cost of, say 40 coins and negotiate up/down from there. Which'll bring status back into favor as something people invest in, and have use for. Even mortals, since, if they know of the supernatural world, they can negotiate for coins, just like anyone else.
But that's spitballing! We'll see how the chatter goes and what comes out the other end of it.
-
@Taika said in City of Shadows:
@arkandel Which is interesting. And I don't think you mean 'just plot', either. I think you're more referencing that sense of /investment/. Shoving plot at people isn't the magical fix-all. When I can catch @Ganymede I'm going to pick her brain and show her what I've got in my head and what the grid is looking like.
What I mean is what I've observed in several WoD games in a row. They all fall within a pattern of a spike of activity right at the beginning, followed by this weird dance where everyone tries to fit in a group (find a coterie, a romantic partner, etc) while the only plot offered is either made up of these massive scenes there's nothing personalized and little agency to be found - which in a scene with 9 people is understandable - or really generic. A birthday party, yay. So slowly anyone who hasn't gotten into those early groups loses interest, and then the groups themselves come to realize there isn't anything happening outside of their own circles, so attrition continues until the game is dead in the water.
I'm suggesting to break this circle by giving people things to do. It's that simple. Things to pursue and to oppose. I should have a reason - a tangible one - to get out of my room and try to play with that new Mekhet since I need their support.
Staff's role in this would be twofold:
- Figure out what tangible benefits the Mekhet's support conveys.
- Give me something meaningful to get utilizing that support.
- Make it so there's a limited number of things to be gotten, so it's a zero-sum game. We can't all have the great things, but we should all be able to get them.
If you implement those then no matter the system and its specifics you've already done your job because RP will perpetuate from that point on. Factions will continue to look for ways to get more people involved, shifting the political map each time back and forth as they make gains or lose them.
What's even better is then any other kinds of plot through coteries, romantic entanglements but also PrPs or staff-ran scenes will enrich all that instead of being the only options without which you resort to just sitting there checking out +where to see everyone idling for 35 minutes+ in their own separate rooms.
-
@Taika said in City of Shadows:
When I can catch @Ganymede I'm going to pick her brain and show her what I've got in my head and what the grid is looking like.
Honestly, you probably just want to message me through here. It's been a busy week at work and in life, so I am only able to respond when I can, from where I can.
-
If you want to keep people energized you need to divide them into neat little chunks and shove them through the plot-sausage maker.
Form players into groups and throw as much plot as you can at them. How? There's lots of ways.
-
Each group has a player-ST - This is my favorite approach. Every group has a designated ST and is given a plot to run for the group. This can be static or a rotating position and the ST gets bonus XP on their charbit for their service.
-
Modular Plots - Write up a bunch of small plots and hand them off to PrP runners. They can be modified and repeatable endlessly to give players stuff to do. (You'd be surprised how a little window dressing can make the same plot look very, very different every time.)
-
Goal-based Plots - Every group must have a purpose/goal that they are working towards. Cleaning up a section of the city, obtaining a rare artifact, destroying a certain monster/group. Require a goal for every group and you will find that players will get a lot more out of their RP.
But that's just some crap off the top of my head. I'm sure folks actually running a game can come up with much better.
-
-
The problem is that ST's are getting harder to find. And -good-, flexible, non-railroady ST's are harder. Not -here-, of course. But on games, they're like unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.
That's part of why ST'ing is so heavily incentivized on CoS.
Base xp: 1.4/week
ST a scene: +.4 for the scene, +2 for ST'ing it.
ST a scene from +plots? Have another +.2 -
Idea: Perhaps a different approach needs to be concocted for WoD MUs.
One thing I've noticed is that single sphere-type nonWoD games often have some pretty good cohesiveness. Take the BSG games, for example. I've also heard good stuff about HorrorMux. There are lots of other examples.
I've noticed that multiple sphere games (be they factions, mostly houses, or supernatural types) begin as LETS TRY TO KEEP THINGS ORGANIZED and very quickly fall into FUCK, I DUNNO WHO IS DOING WHAT AND I'M NOT SURE IF 3 OR 4 FACTIONS ARE EVEN PLAYING THE SAME GAME. I've seen this happen in Star Wars games with Republic|Empire|Sith|etc factions, Firefly, WoD...
(anyone remember the Star Wars Mandalorian pirates in hip-hugging blue jeans, lip gloss, and baby doll tees?)
What the single sphere games have in common is usually a tentpole metaplot designed for all players to involve in, but also have mutual stake in. When you spread out your players, as well as their interests, some players simply don't understand that the further they distance from the GM-run realm, the less viable their characters are despite the players still wanting to have a meaningful impact on the game.
Rhetorical Idea: I know some people are die-hard Changeling fans or Vampire fans, but would more staff metaplot and less sphere options create a more cohesive gaming experience?
I'm talking about the classic VtM setup, for example, where everyone is either a vampire or a ghoul. Staff may control the Prince over the city. PCs focus on clans and coteries within the city. The problems of the city become the metaplot that EVERYONE has stake in. Werewolf NPCs are sniffing territory, ghosts in the subways, vampire hunters in the city, shifting mortal politics, ancient vampire rumors living in the sewers, the Ventrue Justicar is visiting...all with Storyteller cohesion focusing on clan leads as opposed to spread out sphere admin.
Have places tried this? Feedback?
I just can't help but feel that sometimes the spread of spheres actually seems to make it harder to get a large group roleplaying together, as well as getting an entire cast of characters to give a shit about something.
ETA: I know that WoD works this way. I.e. This game focuses on the lives and times of the Kindred of Chicago where Werewolves and Changelings are visiting plot devices to explore. Then, if so inclined, you don't open the game to Changeling Pcs, but instead create a second venue/game altogether where Vampires are the NPCs and all PCs stick together. I know this works with LARP and TT. So...run it like a LARP.
-
I don't know if it helps, but I'm taking (sort of) a more single sphere approach to the game as a whole? Rather than 'X staff is only Y sphere', it's more 'staff is staff, and some staff just know more about Y splat, so ask them about those specifics'. I agree that a lot of times each sphere becomes it's own island, and I really want to work towards breaking that down some, so there's less isolation that regard.
-
@Taika said in City of Shadows:
The problem is that ST's are getting harder to find. And -good-, flexible, non-railroady ST's are harder. Not -here-, of course. But on games, they're like unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.
That's part of why ST'ing is so heavily incentivized on CoS.
Base xp: 1.4/week
ST a scene: +.4 for the scene, +2 for ST'ing it.
ST a scene from +plots? Have another +.2Also groups are hard to find.
Look, we're antisocial people as a whole. We don't easily form coteries, packs, etc - that's why for everyone willing to put one together there are 8 people instantly trying to join, but without that someone there are 8 people sitting on their thumbs instead of... well, forming two groups.
A 'single sphere approach' might work conceptually if it can automagically herd people into organic factions but you need to figure out your IC carrots. What's in it for the them? Why are werewolves, mages and vampires allying with each other and what are they all after that's worth so much?
Then you can give bonuses to the STs running plot, give rewards to the characters in those plots, etc.
-
Has anyone considered forcing players into groups? If there's an IC reason to squash people together then at least you're making folks interact.
