While browsing I found a game with this explanation of its risk policy,
I don't have any experience playing on a game like this so I'm wondering if people who have can comment on how it works in practice?
The Tree of Woe last edited by
It either completely protects people from all consequence or it's meaningless because there are added loopholes which can allow people to jack up the Risk regardless of what another player would like.
TL;DR, it's a shitty and ineffective policy instituted by games that want to try to go the "No GMs" route, itself a shitty idea.
Sponge last edited by
This reads somewhat similarly to the Risk system we created on City of Hope. Our intent was to help prevent people from getting run over by the Welcome Wagon.
A few people would hide behind it but that was rare. A similar subset of players would use it as a metagame element. For us the fundamental aspect that was misunderstood was that consent on CoH drew a line on where consequences should be enforced by players vs staff. For it to work properly, players have to adjust their behavior to the people they are with which is difficult for some. It attempted to codify the spectrum between safety and spontaneity with mixed results. When we made our successor game we dropped it for full Consent.
Anecdotally the level of Risk players would set themselves to correlated to the risk inherent to their play style.
AmishRakeFight last edited by AmishRakeFight
It doesn't work.
This whole thing relies on having staff as the ones that arbitrate what the percentages mean and enforce them. Generally, this seems nearly impossible on most games.
It's also a lot of arbitrary/magical thinking math with too many loopholes, as already pointed out.
I wouldn't bother with this game unless your intention is conflict-free, bar rp as the only thing you intend to do there.
TiredEwok last edited by
I find it admirable in the way it allows someone to choose a risk-level they are comfortable RPing in but I can see where it might be easy to abuse as the lowest level seems like a very good way to avoid ICA=ICC. Or... maybe I am just reading too much into it due to my expecting the worst out of 95% of the people who mu*.
Sponge last edited by
In our case, the meaning of each level was spelled out with respect to the character. We didn't anticipate things like risk to character property and the few players we had with bad intentions identified that fairly quickly.
For something like this to work it really does require having everything spelled out unambiguously and my intuition is that they can't be spelled out enough to not require staff interpretation. If it ultimately relies on staff interpretation it becomes more an advisory thing. In that case it's just RP Prefs on a game that's consent or not.
I kinda like the idea of players setting their own risk level when they make their character which also determines things regarding those same characters' potential.
Maybe not this particular implementation, but the idea is sound.
ThatGuyThere last edited by
From what I have notices games with limits on risk tend to encourage players to let their characters face more dangerous and interesting situations then full non-consent.
Though this might be a self selection issue as people tend to gravitate like players and I know that without some sort of system to check risk that i pretty much limit myself to bar rp with those I do not already know ooc.
I can think of RPG systems where the mechanics limit risk (you can't PK someone off the bat). Like @Arkandel I was intrigued by the idea that more risk equals more opportunity, but maybe there's a better way to that goal than an ambiguous risk setting.
I saw this thread and thought someone wanted to have a MU Soapbox group that plays Risk together.
I felt cheated.
3543thrh67 last edited by
@Admiral Now I want to play Risk even though I am terribad at such things.
Thenomain last edited by
This system looks similar (either on purpose or through parallel evolution) to Dark Metal's old Fate system. The more you're willing to take, the more you're allowed to dish out.
I can't think of how this is unfair without knowing what things like "50% Share" means, nor what "the most dangerous and most rewarding parts of the game" mean. In short, what @Ide and @Arkandel and @Apu said.
And in a way, what @AmishRakeFight said. Sound in theory; in practice I'd have to see it operating.
Rook last edited by Rook
Uh.... so this is interesting. This is my game (renamed to Umbral Shards). I will say this, though, that the Risk file was one of the first I put up out of notes and such... and then had several conversations on here about the very same thing. Given the vehement opposition in conversation, I might likely go back and either rewrite it, or just scrap the idea because, well, subsequent conversations right here.
With that said, I haven't had time due to work to do anything but code on the place.