The Desired Experience
-
This is the premise I used to build a PC on Liberation, and he is a popular goof.
-
@ominous said in The Desired Experience:
@arkandel said in The Desired Experience:
There is definitely an expectation, whether voiced or implied, from players who want to play 'movers and shakers'.
The issue here is, not everyone should and not everyone can be that. Especially in smaller games.
I think you meant to say the opposite, or, if you didn't, that's incorrect. It's easier for everyone to be a mover and shaker in a smaller game than a larger game. If a game has 15 noble houses vying for influence and there are 15 players, it sounds like everyone that wants to be the head of a noble house gets their wish.
To clarify:
If you have a game like say, Arx, then you have a large playerbase split between X factions such as factions and organizations. These need to be both populated and led; that means you have someone (hopefully at least a few someones!) to play guardsmen types and someone to play their Lord Captain Commander. But at least there are X factions which are not empty. The LCC position could be classified as a 'mover and shaker' in this context.
On a much smaller game this isn't quite the same. You may have, say, Lancea Sanctum with 1 character, Crones who are empty, Carthians with 3 characters, etc. You can easily end up with too many chiefs and too few Indians, so to speak (and apologies for the outdated figure of speech
). If almost everyone is a 'mover and shaker' then no one is.I don't know if you'd still disagree but I hope that further elaborates on my initial statement a bit.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:
I will even notice that the area is deadsville and yet be extra naive about it, assuming that staff's attempt to grow that area will include making it attractive.
I have been this sucker an embarrassing number of times.
Later, if I bother to inquire, I'll learn that staff feel there aren't enough players for them to bother giving the ones who exist something to do, and are mystified that players walk instead of waiting indefinitely.
And I've seen this lack of all capacity for rational thought an infuriating number of times.
-
@tmr said in The Desired Experience:
What also happens (ask me how I know) is that a player asks "what kinds of characters are needed?" because they have no fixed preference. Then the staff says, "well there's an important shopkeeper role in town we've been wanting to fill" so the player does so.
And then gets no RP.
And then complains about not getting RP.
And then quits the game for lack of RP.This is absolutely not on staff.
Staff can point you to a role that is available. They can tell you what might fit in with demographics, and where you might be able to carve out a niche.
That's it.
What you do with that character to attract RP from that point forward is on you. You can be playing the most important character in the known universe, and if people don't want to RP with you? Then they won't RP with you. If you don't give them a reason to want to RP with you, in particular, in that role, then there is absolutely nothing that staff can do to change that.
As a staffer, I would not RP with that character either. Precisely because I pointed someone to that bit. Staff characters already get the celebrity treatment: the target of constant speculation and gossip, no matter how innocuous of a thing they're doing, and endless rumors about favoritism and TS. And even barring that, if we dare to take a day for ourselves to just, you know. Play, and have fun with our characters, then we're slacking at our jobs because god forbid other players aren't getting instant gratification.
So, no. This is not on staff, even if they point you toward that role. They cannot make RP for you, they cannot predict whether you will play the role in a compelling way, and they cannot force people to play together who don't want to play together.
That's where your skills as a player come in. Staff can only help there so much.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@derp Rubbish. You can't make people RP with someone they actively wish to avoid, but you can make them play with someone they'd otherwise ignore, by dropping plot points over there.
"... you'll find the story doesn’t end how you think, and the most important characters aren’t who you expect.” - Penny 40 to Derek, The Magicians S04E07 ‘The Side Effect’
-
Only if people beyond that bit want that kind of plot. And, if those people, in return are willing to engage the bit in question and not force the plot to be all them. (Literally. I had a GM throw poses specifically so my character could get involved and someone else went "I HAVE THE THING NEEDED" and so despite the best efforts of said GM my character ended up being absolutely unnecessary.)
I feel like this is, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."
-
@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:
you can make them play with someone they'd otherwise ignore, by dropping plot points over there.
Why should you have to though? Just because somebody had no idea what to play and you said "Well we don't have any Raptor ECOs at the moment", that doesn't in any way oblige you to drop special plot points just for New Guy ECO.
Now if you're deliberately telling people to make characters on Mars knowing full well that there's no RP to be had on Mars, that's a jerk thing to do. But general recommendations of what you can play shouldn't come with a perceived entitlement that staff is going to do any more for that role than any other role on the game.
-
@silverfox said in The Desired Experience:
I feel like this is, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."
I'd agree, with the corollary that if you are actively telling people that X position is wanted/vacant, it sort of behoves you to provide a little somethin' somethin'.
-
@faraday You're quite correct. But I think what @tmr and I are talking about is encouraging people to make characters on Mars, followed by doing less for them than for other characters on the game, ostensibly because there are only 1d8 -1 of them and it's more efficient to amuse the larger group on the space station.
ETA: You kinda have to 'cause this started when you told the player, "Make a Martian, we're trying to grow that area of the game."
And, y'know, can do and are obliged to do are not the same, and leading a horse to water doesn't mean it won't drink.
-
@faraday said in The Desired Experience:
Why should you have to though? Just because somebody had no idea what to play and you said "Well we don't have any Raptor ECOs at the moment", that doesn't in any way oblige you to drop special plot points just for New Guy ECO.
Not just this, but -- I mean, honestly. How in the world is staff supposed to know what the hell is going to be fun for you, the probably brand-new player that they've only just met and likely never interacted with? Or who you are going to get along with / disagree with? Or whether or not you would even be good in any role?
Maybe stop expecting staff to make your fun for you? Craft something that you would enjoy playing. Staff are not diviners. They cannot foresee your future. Do the thing you wanna do, try to find a way to make it click, and if it doesn't work -- I mean. You know you best. How are staff supposed to do better than you yourself?
(Proverbial you, naturally. Not you-Faraday. You-Faraday seems to have your shit together.)
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
This is why when I have been asked on Arx what we 'need', I just tell the player to pick something that sounds fun. I don't like that question because it feels like it comes with an expectation that RP is just going to drop in that player's lap if they choose this specific role. Also, most of the time, I don't know the player in question at all and I don't feel comfortable playing a guessing game to see what they might find fun because, almost inevitably, if they don't find what they are looking for with my suggestion, they are going to blame me for not giving them the right hook rather than admit that they need to choose for themselves and stop making their fun my responsibility. I offer opportunities for fun, not guarantees.
-
@herja said in The Desired Experience:
This is why when I have been asked on Arx what we 'need', I just tell the player to pick something that sounds fun. I don't like that question because it feels like it comes with an expectation that RP is just going to drop in that player's lap if they choose this specific role.
I honestly wish that staff would tell me what is needed because I am bright enough to create a concept that: (1) fits the niche; and (2) I would enjoy playing. This is how Piccola came to be.
“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 I do it because many of my favourite and most fun characters came about that way. More often I end up alone on Mars, but it may be worth it.
-
@arkandel said in The Desired Experience:
To clarify:
If you have a game like say, Arx, then you have a large playerbase split between X factions such as factions and organizations. These need to be both populated and led; that means you have someone (hopefully at least a few someones!) to play guardsmen types and someone to play their Lord Captain Commander. But at least there are X factions which are not empty. The LCC position could be classified as a 'mover and shaker' in this context.
On a much smaller game this isn't quite the same. You may have, say, Lancea Sanctum with 1 character, Crones who are empty, Carthians with 3 characters, etc. You can easily end up with too many chiefs and too few Indians, so to speak (and apologies for the outdated figure of speech
). If almost everyone is a 'mover and shaker' then no one is.I don't know if you'd still disagree but I hope that further elaborates on my initial statement a bit.
Nope. Disagree entirely. For your premise to be correct games like Dune, Twilight Imperium, Cosmic Encounter, 1830, Republic of Rome, etc. where you play as the head of factions, stellar empires, or robber barons should all suck, since no one is playing the little people. They're fucking great board games. Now take that and add fluff and roleplaying. Done.
-
My desired experience is to escape the burdens of a dissatisfying work, family, and sex life to replace it with simulated romances that I carefully craft to fulfill my emotional needs. Then, should I find disappointment will attack it as a personal slight against me and then obsess over needing to find "safe" roleplay, which means pigeonholing my online activities to players and roleplay situations that will fulfill these needs, but do so under the guise of it being their fault and not mine.
TLDR - Roleplay is Escapism
-
@ominous said in The Desired Experience:
Nope. Disagree entirely. For your premise to be correct games like Dune, Twilight Imperium, Cosmic Encounter, 1830, Republic of Rome, etc. where you play as the head of factions, stellar empires, or robber barons should all suck, since no one is playing the little people. They're fucking great board games. Now take that and add fluff and roleplaying. Done.
Those are good board games, I'm sure. I've only played two, and not very often. But the experience of a MU* is vastly different than that of a boardgame. Boardgames discount internal politics completely, as well as cross-factional politics, which provide huge amounts of intrigue and excitement in RP. Those are just some of the many vast differences that make MUs far more interesting than simple boardgames - which is why MUs last for years and board games last minutes. A three year long boardgame of any of those would get boring quickly and turn to torture shortly thereafter.
What you look for in a MU* and what you look for in a board game are usually very, very different.
-
@derp said in The Desired Experience:
Craft something that you would enjoy playing. Staff are not diviners. They cannot foresee your future. Do the thing you wanna do, try to find a way to make it click, and if it doesn't work -- I mean. You know you best. How are staff supposed to do better than you yourself?
I agree with this, though I don't think there's any harm in having some general guidance. My games always have a "What Should I Play?" page with suggested roles, and I may supplement that with some extra info if someone specifically asks. "If you're looking to fill a niche, we don't have a lot of combat engineers" or "If you want to go where the people are, the Viper pilots have been doing a lot of RP lately."
But none of that is intended as a guarantee of future results. Maybe the main Viper RP-magnet quits tomorrow and that group falls apart. Maybe you and some of the Viper pilots rub each other the wrong way. Maybe you really hate being a combat engineer. I have no idea.
As @il-volpe says, recruiting somebody for a group/faction/role you intend to ignore is crappy. But sometimes as staff you just can't predict the way the RP blows, and no amount of breadcrumbs help.
The main thing is that If somebody asks for help getting involved in the central plotlines, I'm always happy to steer them in the right direction--even if that means concocting a plotline where their videographer starts a militia, or their priest becomes a combat medic. That still requires them to take some initiative and not just sit back expecting RP to fall into their lap.
-
I'd say that what a player should expect from staff after asking what's needed depends on staff's response.
If staff answers 'Well, there are no Gangrel bikers.' then staff is just acting as a talking +census command. However, if staff answers 'We need Gangrel bikers.' then they're speaking ex cathedra and implying there is an actual NEED for that role from staff's POV and that it comes with specific plot points and involvement.
-
@tnp said in The Desired Experience:
I'd say that what a player should expect from staff after asking what's needed depends on staff's response.
If staff answers 'Well, there are no Gangrel bikers.' then staff is just acting as a talking +census command. However, if staff answers 'We need Gangrel bikers.' then they're speaking ex cathedra and implying there is an actual NEED for that role from staff's POV and that it comes with specific plot points and involvement.
It might also be that staff are trying to correct a trend and, inadvertently perhaps, steer their new players to play archetypes without there being a plan to actually give them story hooks.
For example maybe there have been a few too many prominent Gangrel plutocrats and academic PCs and staff feels there should be some bikers to balance that trend out. If they don't think about it too much they may easily misguide (without any malevolence on their part) someone to play one without considering what RP or plot points they can make available for these new players so they are relevant and get started.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel said in The Desired Experience:
If they don't think about it too much they may easily misguide (without any malevolence on their part) someone to play one without considering what RP or plot points they can make available for these new players so they are relevant and get started.
But when you stop and think about it, this is really no different than if someone of their own volition decides to play a Gangrel biker. They should consider what RP opportunities would be present as a Gangrel biker, and whether that's something they would be interested in. If they're not sure, they can ask.
It shouldn't matter what staff needs/wants - what matters is what YOU are capable and willing to play.
