Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff

[GreenFlashlight]

@betternow said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff

Really? https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/f/bianca

Yes, really. That site is lying. Literally no one named after 1990 is named Bianca. In 1989, a mutation occurred in every human's genes that deactivates the region of a person's brain that allows them to think of that name as a potential name for their child or themselves. That mutation has bred true 100% of the time ever since, so we may safely conclude no future generations shall have people named Bianca, either.

[Too Old For This]

@greenflashlight said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

@betternow said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff

Really? https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/f/bianca

Yes, really. That site is lying. Literally no one named after 1990 is named Bianca. In 1989, a mutation occurred in every human's genes that deactivates the region of a person's brain that allows them to think of that name as a potential name for their child or themselves. That mutation has bred true 100% of the time ever since, so we may safely conclude no future generations shall have people named Bianca, either.

This is the Mildly Constructive section. If you're going to be sarcastic and trollish, take it to the Hog Pit.

[Arkandel]

Can we please go back to pointing out unrealistic consequences of gaming mechanics trying to describe how the real world would work if magic and possibly inhuman races existed in alternate realities, then quantifying all of a person's skills and abilities with a flat number on a character sheet?

[Wizz]

So to sum up, @GreenFlashlight arbitrarily picked the wrong name to represent her otherwise valid and independently observable peeve, and because she made the choice to try and laugh it off instead of apologize, y'all are going to be passive aggressive and mean and take potshots for the next seven pages or so.

Just checking, carry on MSBing MSB.

[Reason]

@greenflashlight said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

That mutation has bred true 100% of the time ever since, so we may safely conclude no future generations shall have people named Bianca, either.

As a time traveler from the future, can confirm this is correct.

As far as weird/unrealistic gaming stuff, I hate how characters in d20-based worlds mature and grow their skills to increase success in 5% increments. Linear probability is garbage, and game systems that adopt it should be ashamed of themselves.

-r

[GreenFlashlight]

@too-old-for-this Very well, then I will be as sincere and literal as I know how to be.

When I originally wrote the sentence "No one born after 1990 is named Bianca," I was aware that it is an inaccurate sentence, but the hyperbole of it seemed useful to illustrate the dissonance I perceive when I see names that were popular in older generations being given to characters who are not of that generation. The hyperbole seemed so plain to me it did not even occur to me that so many people would think I must have been literally arguing that all parents in every part of the world regardless of circumstances came to a silent but unanimous and presumably telepathically agreed-upon decision on December 31, 1989 that no one would ever name a child Bianca again.

That idea is so wild to me that I cannot make myself feel certain that anyone who's trying to correct me actually thinks I must believe this species-wide naming taboo was enacted. Because of my uncertainty, I have framed my responses in a way that I hope is ambiguous enough they would be equally applicable whether or not their posts are sincerely intended rebuttals against what they imagine must be my honestly held accusation, or are some sort of obscure "um, ACKshually" joke of their own that I should play along with rather than take at face value. I am aware my unwillingness to simply ask my accusers if they think I actually believe the Never Again Bianca Naming Summit of 1989 happened comes off as somewhat insecure, but I decided that's fair because I actually am insecure about my ability to read the tone of these counterarguments that baffle me to a degree I have difficulty conveying, so I may as well own that. It is frustrating and shameful to me that I cannot tell these kinds of things without asking, so sometimes I just try to fake my way through it in the hopes that my sarcasm will either prompt a response that makes the correct context clear (which I guess it has, in your case, so I wish succeeding in that goal felt less shitty) or at least make the confusing attempts to correct me stop.

I infer that my chosen tactic has offended you. I apologize. It was wrong of me to try to play along with a joke that I did not understand the rules of well enough to even feel confident it was a joke. In the future, I will endeavor to remember not to do so again, but I say that with a dark certainty in my heart that I will, in some moment of confusion or frustration or panic, revert to this same maladjusted coping technique again. Because of this inevitable failure to live up to my word, I cannot in good conscience ask you to forgive me. I can only say that I am sorry for having hurt you with my selfishness and for the day I know is coming when I will do so again.

In the meantime, if you require me to delete my comments so they will not be there to continue hurting you when you read them, please let me know, and I will do so. Otherwise, I am inclined to leave them in place, as deleting posts one has been criticized for strikes me as a cowardly and egotistical thing to do.

[mietze]

@greenflashlight I don't think that there's really anyone counterarguing anything. Certainly my posts were not, nor were they corrective. I think honestly that you can kind of tell the base age range of the PLAYERS of a "modern, non fantasy/historical game" by the names they choose, but I think that's WHY you see so many "old fashioned" names because people sometimes utilize web searches and the like. (Also why some of the names that people choosing names outside of their cultural experience and so rely on translation sites can sometimes be unintentionally amusing).

I have found your responses after to be a bit weird/hostile, but as you have now said you interpreted everyone as arguing or correcting you, I guess that's more understandable. And for the record, I don't see anything that you need to apologize for either. It's something you see as weird/unrealistic. Other people might agree or not. It's okay for them, and you. And sometimes you'll make a joke that falls flat or people don't get. That's okay as well? It happens.

[BetterNow]

@wizz said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

So to sum up, @GreenFlashlight arbitrarily picked the wrong name to represent her otherwise valid and independently observable peeve...

I was just kind of confused. I mean if they said Ethel or Eustice or Jehosephat, it would have landed the way they intended. I was just surprised they would think Bianca is an "old-fashioned" name.

[Ominous]

@reason said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

As far as weird/unrealistic gaming stuff, I hate how characters in d20-based worlds mature and grow their skills to increase success in 5% increments. Linear probability is garbage, and game systems that adopt it should be ashamed of themselves.

-r

The problem there is finding a resolution system that includes enough of a range of sigmas, while also making it so that a +1 bonus is still meaningful without being too meaningful.

[Arkandel]

@ominous And that the underlying game is still easy to understand, teach, and you know - play.

[faraday]

Dice mechanics are HARD. You have to have something that is:

• Intuitive enough for people to understand (FS3v1's custom dice curves did NOT go over well)
• Have enough variation that the dice feel meaningful, but... not TOO much, because it's frustrating when your character's performance is wildly unpredictable (I'm looking at you D20).
• Have enough ability for modifiers that you can account for difficulty/wounds/etc., but not SO much that a +2 mod changes you from a complete noob to a professional (I'm looking at you FUDGE).

Sometimes it feels like an impossible balancing act and at some point you just have to say "screw it, roll some dice and have some fun".

[Misadventure]

Not to derail from the fun of being able to fall from a great height and have the ground "miss" the attack and cause no damage (Chill 1E), but I think its best to focus most games results on its dramatic power over its literal step by step success or failure gates.

On the other hand, there are games where you can BE the greatest swordsperson ever, but rate your sword skill low such that while you handily defeat everyone when it doesn't matter, when it is important to the story, you have little chance of affecting the outcome. Try to get your players to wrap their heads around that one.

Thats the inverse of the superhero systems that rate street heroes the same as godlike beings, because it's not HOW they achieve the result, it's that they can. (So as the typical example goes, Superman cuts a giant robot in half with his heat vision or rips it to shreds, Green Arrow hits it with a special carrier arrow, or targets the one weak spot etc because they have both paid to have their approaches be SIGNIFICANT to the outcome).

[Tat]

@betternow said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

I was just kind of confused. I mean if they said Ethel or Eustice or Jehosephat, it would have landed the way they intended. I was just surprised they would think Bianca is an "old-fashioned" name.

THESE kinds of names actually very common now - among the preschool set. There seems to be a cycle of folks naming kids after their grandparents/looking backward for classic names. My kids' classes (preK and 1st) are full of kids with either the 'new spelling or variation' type name (think Jaxton, etc) or old-fashioned names that make me think of grandparents (their great-grandparents). Think: Eleanor, Maude, etc. Incidentally, I've noticed that boys names tend to stay more classic - Joseph, Benjamin - than girls names.

@faraday

Dice mechanics are HARD. You have to have something that is:

Intuitive enough for people to understand (FS3v1's custom dice curves did NOT go over well)
Have enough variation that the dice feel meaningful, but... not TOO much, because it's frustrating when your character's performance is wildly unpredictable (I'm looking at you D20).
Have enough ability for modifiers that you can account for difficulty/wounds/etc., but not SO much that a +2 mod changes you from a complete noob to a professional (I'm looking at you FUDGE).

Sometimes it feels like an impossible balancing act and at some point you just have to say "screw it, roll some dice and have some fun"

Oh my GOD I cannot even put into words how hard balancing a system is. I had an inkling before we started building ~400 custom-made spells to slide into FS3, but I had no true idea.

All the things Faraday says here, but also add things like

• Is a +3 initiative as useful as a +3 defense?
• How does being able to turn into a mouse balance against being able to turn into a bear?
• Is a stun that lasts 3 rounds for one person equal to a stun that lasts 1 round for 3 people (given that both have the possibility for being resisted)?
• Are 3 level 1 spells equal to 1 level 3 spell?

And on and on.

I think it IS an impossible balancing act. At the end of the day you just kind of do the best you can and go and hope your players show you grace and manage to have fun despite the fact that you sometimes got it wrong.

[Arkandel]

@tat Also keep in mind balancing for a MUSH is much easier than doing so for a table-top RPG because you can always patch things retroactively, especially if it's automated.

If your 'real' metrics, unlike theorycrafting, show that +3 initiative is better than +3 defense you can adjust it on the fly. Maybe you'll refund some XP spends for those who invested based on the old system.

Once you print then ship rulebooks out it's a pain in the ass to create and distribute errata.

I play Magic: the Gathering which makes all of this even worse. You opened packs or traded for a mythic card that got banned? Well, sucks to be you!

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

is much easier than doing so for a table-top RPG

I mean... kinda? Having done both, my 2 cents is that they're each royal pains, just in different ways.

A MU is kinda like a MMO in that you can adjust on the fly (like you said), but it's also like a MMO in that people get very attached to doing things in a certain way. If you change (or heaven forbid nerf) something, people can get super pissed off. They also have a direct channel to gripe at you about it.

Also you seem to be presuming that you've got some kind of metrics to tell you whether +3 initiative is as useful as +3 defense. But how? How many combats have you really got going on in your game on a daily basis? How many skill rolls? How many times does the 'mass stun' spell get used? Probably not many. Compare that to how many vocal players who are just ticked off because they imagined their character performing differently than the dice worked out to be. That's not necessarily a problem mechanics (or with the players, for that matter), it can just be a clash of expectations.

On topic though, the whole idea of skill points, levels, dice... it's all just weird. It's a pretty crappy way of modeling humans.

[Tat]

@arkandel said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

@tat Also keep in mind balancing for a MUSH is much easier than doing so for a table-top RPG because you can always patch things retroactively, especially if it's automated.

If your 'real' metrics, unlike theorycrafting, show that +3 initiative is better than +3 defense you can adjust it on the fly. Maybe you'll refund some XP spends for those who invested based on the old system.

Once you print then ship rulebooks out it's a pain in the ass to create and distribute errata.

I play Magic: the Gathering which makes all of this even worse. You opened packs or traded for a mythic card that got banned? Well, sucks to be you!

I'm not entirely sure that's true. We're 3 years into this system now - at what point do we make giant changes and say that people who've invested in this system and RPed a lot of 'canon' stuff around it just suck up the changes?

We have made SOME changes - including actually some fairly big ones about how things roll, etc. But there are also changes that would be so fundamentally theme-changing or discount a lot of established RP that they'll absolutely wait on a sequel, if one happens. I'm not changing those things mid-stream, because the story and the characters are ultimately more important than the balanced numbers.

I mean, no, there's no cost associated - but something like Magic is also (presumably) doing a lot of their playtesting BEFORE they print materials. We had a pretty meaty Alpha period where we did the same, but we're a handful of people over here - there's only so much playtesting we can do before we go live.

I think the challenges (and solutions) are probably just different. And I imagine that if I end up doing a Magic System 2.0, it'll still have things I'd adjust if I were Doing It All Over Again.

[Arkandel]

@tat said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

I mean, no, there's no cost associated - but something like Magic is also (presumably) doing a lot of their playtesting BEFORE they print materials. We had a pretty meaty Alpha period where we did the same, but we're a handful of people over here - there's only so much playtesting we can do before we go live.

One advantage Wizards of the Coast (and professional companies) have is playtesters picked specifically among powergamers. M:tG for example hires professional players who try their damn best for months to break and exploit the cards. They also have teams who have been working together for multiple expansions so they can learn from their failures and build up playbooks over time.

When it comes to MU* I don't think it's unreasonable to reach out to a game's playerbase and come clean. "Hey skill A turns out to be more powerful than we thought, and it's causing <X> side effects. We feel we need to fix this, but we can reimburse anyone who's bought if".

Which to bring us back on-topic is another weird thing that's different between RL and gaming. People feeling they can appeal to the GM and get a bad outcome overturned. I shouldn't have died falling off the cliff, rule 2.3 on page 105 can be interpreted as such!

Or, hell, the rest of the group intervening during the making of a questionable action even if a character is alone IC. "I pull the lever". "What? No, fuck, NO DON'T DO IT JOE I don't have any heals left!". I wish I had invisible voices double-checking my dumb decisions in real life.

[Derp]

@arkandel said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

I wish I had invisible voices double-checking my dumb decisions in real life.

...isn't that what we're here for?

[Arkandel]

@derp said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

@arkandel said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

I wish I had invisible voices double-checking my dumb decisions in real life.

...isn't that what we're here for?

Yes, when I want to figure out something important in my life I always ask myself "what would MSB do here?".

[Derp]

@arkandel said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

@derp said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

@arkandel said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

I wish I had invisible voices double-checking my dumb decisions in real life.

...isn't that what we're here for?

Yes, when I want to figure out something important in my life I always ask myself "what would MSB do here?".

We are no more or less reliable than your random friend who's out of heals!