Is this an unpopular opinion? The exact mechanics, XP availability, city selection and aspirations code aren't very significant in terms of making a flagpole game.
IMHO staff selection, plot availability and setting (meaning making different interesting concepts available, so think 'post apocalyptic' or 'dark ages' rather than 'Chicago') are all far, far more impactful.
Second opinion: these days modern codebases matter. An Ares nWoD MUSH would be something to see.
@Arkandel This is more a complaint about people but there is rarely enough reward to creating a compelling setting. The more you ask players to read and understand the less they seem to do. This is why it is so much easier to do a modern American city than anything remotely different. In my years I have seen many players not be too familiar with the lore in the books much less the custom background of your game.
Related, for those that do make the effort it can make things all the more frustrating when others don't. If I make a setting accurate character and everyone else is basically just a modern person in vague period attire, I lose interest.
I'm a rodeo clown.
@tragedyjones said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
@Arkandel This is more a complaint about people but there is rarely enough reward to creating a compelling setting. The more you ask players to read and understand the less they seem to do. This is why it is so much easier to do a modern American city than anything remotely different. In my years I have seen many players not be too familiar with the lore in the books much less the custom background of your game.
I don't know TJ. I mean... I see what you're saying and yes you're right historically but then I raise you Arx; it's crazy complicated (people playing there for years post they still don't know enough about the setting) but it's also crazy popular.
So perhaps it's not the idea that's not worked for nWoD but the way it was implemented, maintained, curated and got buy-in from players.
Related, for those that do make the effort it can make things all the more frustrating when others don't. If I make a setting accurate character and everyone else is basically just a modern person in vague period attire, I lose interest.
I quite agree with that. One of my favorite MUSHes in recent years in that regard was... damn I forget the name. Haven maybe? @2mspris' game. It had crazy potential as a post-apocalyptic The Reach sequel then within a few weeks I found myself sighing at the same kinds of characters played by the same player the same way as ever; birthday parties (what resource starvation?), ex-US army snipers galore, etc.
Maybe it does work sometimes. But I know I wouldn't bother to try again. These days if I want to make a complex setting no one cares about I just do it in private!
@Arkandel said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
I raise you Arx; it's crazy complicated (people playing there for years post they still don't know enough about the setting) but it's also crazy popular.
Arx has custom built everything. There are no books you have to go out and read. Everything is on the website, and it is literally learn-as-you-go. WoD is not those things, and people cannot be bothered to even so much as read their books, much less the website -- because it's not learn as you go. They expect to be taught the relevant parts.
Which is why I always include 'you are expected to know at least the basics of this material. It is a requirement for character approval'.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@Derp said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
Arx has custom built everything. There are no books you have to go out and read. Everything is on the website, and it is literally learn-as-you-go. WoD is not those things, and people cannot be bothered to even so much as read their books, much less the website -- because it's not learn as you go. They expect to be taught the relevant parts.
This always bugged the hell out of me.
I mean, you can learn as you go too, right? You can fake it until you make it. (It worked for my RL relationships, at least.) That's how I learned Mage 2E, which I'm still not proficient at: I made a PC that was magic-lite and learned more and more as I went ... which is kind of how the game is calculated to play out too.
I say the same things about Conditions, Aspirations, Anchors, and Touchstones. They are not difficult concepts. And, frankly, I don't know how you can actually play the game as designed without them. Which is why taking them out of a game is a hard-no for me: you're pretty much crippling the shit out of a large number of powers (especially Conditions).
I also want to add: WoD 2E is best-suited for the learn-as-you-go approach because of the linear advancement model.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede That.
Also, Conditions are GREAT. Yeah, they're a little clunky to do on the fly, especially as more have been created, but they give you a very clear mechanical effect for things without 'removing player agency', AND you get actual XP for leaning into the Condition and having fun with it.
It's not a bad thing! It's a learning curve, yes, but worth investing the time in for.
I feel like some of it is just inertia. A lot of people in CoD MU*ing seem, in their heart of hearts, to still be playing 1E WoD, and resent anything that reminds them that this isn't that game.
Please keep in mind @tragedyjones' note was about settings, not mechanics. The original argument and counter was whether original themes worked and whether their complexity was what would ultimately hold them back.
Conditions, aspirations etc do very little to affect that.
@Arkandel said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
Conditions, aspirations etc do very little to affect that.
If you say so. But let me go back to your original opinions.
@Arkandel said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
The exact mechanics, XP availability, city selection and aspirations code aren't very significant in terms of making a flagpole game.
What's a flagpole game?
IMHO staff selection, plot availability and setting (meaning making different interesting concepts available, so think 'post apocalyptic' or 'dark ages' rather than 'Chicago') are all far, far more impactful.
I think this is a truism. If you have good staff, good plot, and a good setting, people will tolerate the clunkiness of a system; conversely, if you have a good system that people like people will tolerate deficiencies in staff, plot, and setting. If you take the four different parts I think you could fairly debate that strength in one or more will off-set deficiencies in the others. So I don't think the opinion is really going to spark a meaningful or spirited debate.
These days modern codebases matter.
But this was always the case. We used to have spirited MOO v. PennMUSH v. TinyMUX debates.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
I think the only way you can have a cohesive, compelling setting is to be relatively rigorous in your enforcement of it. Including removing PCs that do not comply, standards before and after CG, ect.
I think the reason why it does not happen so much in big tent games is because the more spheres (especially the non mainline ones) you have and the more specialized rules you have the less likely you are to have all your staff be able to implement rules for setting and character standards across the board.
I kind of think that making a massively multisphere game with no population caps means that you are agreeing to sacrifice some degree of cohesive setting and consistent standards of characters and storytelling eventually. I'm sure there are teams that can sustain it for a little while. But you cannot expect everything from every game. I think players (and staffers too) need to cut the big box game staff a little slack in this regard, especially on places that allow for every player to have tons of alts, meaning the volume of PCs is high.
If you want to prioritize player freedom that's great, but that also comes with costs. And it's definitely a truism that people tend to want what they want with NO sacrificing anything else. 
@Ganymede said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
@Arkandel said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
The exact mechanics, XP availability, city selection and aspirations code aren't very significant in terms of making a flagpole game.
What's a flagpole game?
I don't want to define it in the context of this thread since that's for the OP to determine. The way I took it though it's a game aimed for a 'greater audience' - something that's meant to be popular and appeal to a greater number of players rather than be a niche, intimate MU*.
IMHO staff selection, plot availability and setting (meaning making different interesting concepts available, so think 'post apocalyptic' or 'dark ages' rather than 'Chicago') are all far, far more impactful.
I think this is a truism. If you have good staff, good plot, and a good setting, people will tolerate the clunkiness of a system; conversely, if you have a good system that people like people will tolerate deficiencies in staff, plot, and setting. If you take the four different parts I think you could fairly debate that strength in one or more will off-set deficiencies in the others. So I don't think the opinion is really going to spark a meaningful or spirited debate.
The reason I brought those elements up was to argue that the emphasis in nWoD games often is on things that matters less (pick-a-City-of-Darkness, XP availability, exact mechanics) but the three things you just named - setting, staff and plot.
I do disagree that there's no meaningful debate to be had about the importance of plot availability since there has been in this thread. Opinions do differ, and I can respect that. My take for example is that PrP-runners are among the most important assets a game can possibly have, yet not everyone consents.
These days modern codebases matter.
But this was always the case. We used to have spirited MOO v. PennMUSH v. TinyMUX debates.
The difference between any of those is trivial compared to being able to play the game over a web browser with rich text, have automated scene logging and posting on integrated wikis, automated combat, etc.
Let’s set aside the flagpole question.
As I implied, the staff, story, setting, and system are all important to me. I believe the tendency to get mired in mechanics is due to a reasonable reaction to announcing what system will be used. That said, when announcing new games here, posters tend to lead with the system used, so that’s the first thing to hook onto. And some people have strong feelings on particular systems, so they get caught up with that issue rather than examining the other important issues.
I’ll stop there for now.
One advantage discussing the system has over 'PRP' is that the system is something you can easily look at and evaluate while the PRP support of a hypothetical game, not so much. Everyone is always going to say their game is going to have amazing plot and plenty of support for PRPs but that doesn't usually shake out in practice for a host of reasons.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
@Groth said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
One advantage discussing the system has over 'PRP' is that the system is something you can easily look at and evaluate while the PRP support of a hypothetical game, not so much. Everyone is always going to say their game is going to have amazing plot and plenty of support for PRPs but that doesn't usually shake out in practice for a host of reasons.
Okay, that's a fair point. You can count on your system's strengths but you can't (and history shows, shouldn't) rely on the good will of STs to stay active and run the things they promised they would.
@Ganymede said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
I say the same things about Conditions, Aspirations, Anchors, and Touchstones. They are not difficult concepts. And, frankly, I don't know how you can actually play the game as designed without them. Which is why taking them out of a game is a hard-no for me: you're pretty much crippling the shit out of a large number of powers (especially Conditions).
No one has really convinced me of the value of short term aspirations yet.
Conditions I do like, despite earlier comments. There's just something about stopping and thinking about aspirations that really takes me out of the game.
Short-term aspirations are directions that you want to take your character down. In role play, it can be as simple as “my NPC daughter wants to go dress-shopping.” Why? Because if you are a paranoid changeling going out in public can be an awful experience.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
Short-term aspirations are directions that you want to take your character down. In role play, it can be as simple as “my NPC daughter wants to go dress-shopping.” Why? Because if you are a paranoid changeling going out in public can be an awful experience.
I know what they are. I don't see how that adds any real value. And again, all these examples, on their own, are fine.
It's when staff is telling me I should be resolving 5+ of these a week I start to wonder how often you can come up with these throw away quick aspirations.
@Livia
The way RFK handled those beats was pretty manageable.
https://requiemforkingsmouth.fandom.com/wiki/Character_Advancement
I will always advocate towards tuning the system to work better for a MUSH then copying the TT rules straight.
@Livia said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
@Ganymede said in What game system would you prefer for a big-tent nWoD project?:
Short-term aspirations are directions that you want to take your character down. In role play, it can be as simple as “my NPC daughter wants to go dress-shopping.” Why? Because if you are a paranoid changeling going out in public can be an awful experience.
I know what they are. I don't see how that adds any real value. And again, all these examples, on their own, are fine.
It's when staff is telling me I should be resolving 5+ of these a week I start to wonder how often you can come up with these throw away quick aspirations.
For me, I use it as a guide to think about what kind of scenes/activities I'd find exciting for this character in the next few days. If I'm a social mood, I'll throw out a "meet someone new". If I'm working on a plot, then, "talk about X", if I'm feeling restless and want some action, I might say, "get into a fight", or "go into the Hedge". I don't stress about meeting 'a certain number' of Aspirations per week. I just think about what would be fun, write it down, do it, get XP!
For me, it's both motivating and helps serve as a quick reminder of "Oh, yeah, I wanted to track down this character for a scene," or "right! I'm working on X."
How many times do you do 'meet someone new' though.
I dunno. I guess I don't plan things out that much and am very spur-of-the-moment when it comes to RP.
Suffice to say, every time I am supposed to come up with new short-term aspirations, I always stumble and spend literally hours trying to think of something.
