@Sovereign said:
What do you believe the benefits to this style of game to be? At first glance, I see all downsides and no upsides, and that influences my responses in critical ways. I could give better-tuned feedback if I had some idea what you desired from the system.
You sound like the people who said "If God meant for man to fly, he would have given him wings!" when Aeroplanes were being invented.
That's not my intention. I am all for revolution and radical forays into largely unexplored territory.. but I'm not so much wed to doing so blindly, or to the idea that different is good simply because it's different. It's far more effective to clearly establish hopes and intentions and then tailor responses to that.
@Sovereign said:
That's not my intention. I am all for revolution and radical forays into largely unexplored territory.. but I'm not so much wed to doing so blindly, or to the idea that different is good simply because it's different. It's far more effective to clearly establish hopes and intentions and then tailor responses to that.
Fair enough.
My initial thoughts.
*( 3, 4, 5 ) Being staff is a role, not a privilege. All staff must contribute and their number should be small. Since the importance of handling +jobs is minimized the main duty is handling interpersonal issues, auditing potential cases of system abuse, but mainly running and coordinating running plot. Staff never decides on character positions or non-mechanical eligibility for ability or power purchases.
This works fine and is, broadly speaking, what most games should aim for. A small staff is more efficient and has fewer points of contention. That said, it's a privilege, no matter what you say. Those on staff are marked as different and have authority others do not, even if it's slight. This is avoided solely with staff anonymity or nonexistence.
*( 3, 6, 8 ) Characters decide their own groups' composition. Status-weighted votes determine ranks, positions and membership. To facilitate early game launches NPCs are set in place who can be voted out or competed with as normal by PCs. Conversely that means there are no protections for IC actions; highly ranked characters are bigger targets who may be eliminated in the same way as NPCs. Staff only audits this process to ensure OOC behavior remains civil and, to the extent it is possible for them to establish, that no OOC means or information were employed.
This immediately makes your game slave to the most aggressively pernicious cliques. The most damaging of OOC behavior breaks no rules and isn't even uncivil on the face of it, but rather is a competitive volley of status-game posturing and passive-aggressive smack talk. The MU* community is, on the whole, socially maladjusted and loathe to indulge any sort of direct confrontation, leaving the environments to be led by the heavy hand of staff or the sly remarks of queen bees.
I don't mean that cruelly, but there's really no nice way to phrase it. These games are filled with people who don't interact with others so well in an astonishing variety of ways. You will want checks and balances in play to counter this.
*( 2, 3, 8 ) Plot is the game's lifeblood. The game comes with its own metaplot which is written to be modular and altered by characters. Staff's primary concern is to coordinate players and either run plots contributing to the overall story themselves or support players in running their own. This takes precedence over all other staff concerns save ones which make the game actually unplayable, staff should never feel they can't run an event because they're busy dealing with a troublesome player. Move the distraction in whatever manner is most appropriate and run the event.
Running events is good. Showing the world has consequences and tying players together through their (in)action is superior. No amount of activity helps when that activity fundamentally feels like pointless fluff.
*( 3, 6 ) There are no feature characters, restricted features or application-only concepts. Anything up for grabs is available to all players. Characters are elevated based on the merit of their own ability to roleplay.
This suffers the same problem noted earlier: "ability to roleplay" translates to "ability to schmooze and direct friends OOC".
*( 1, 2, 4 ) CGen has no non-automated approval conditions and there are no 'special' cases; roll what you will. It will check if you have a description and that your numbers check out, then you're on your way. If (due to code limitations) staff has to set things by hand it can happen after characters hit the grid with the understanding you can't use any missing attributes or resources in the meantime, in order to prevent mistakes or misunderstandings about mechanics ('oh, sorry, I thought I could buy Sleepwalker merits as a ghoul' -- which would be an example of one of the 'good, thematic reasons' to say no, as described above).
This is largely fine. The problems that ruin games are never mechanical; there's no such thing as a character so overpowered they cannot be challenged within the system, even if the only thing that can challenge them is one that cloned their sheet. You run the risk of concepts and characters anathema to the theme crowding in, but this is a matter your staff ought to be able to handle promptly. It is trivial to address on a case-by-case basis.
*( 4, 6, 7 ) All automated XP are handed on a weekly basis to characters who were in at least two scenes (detected automagically by the code) in that period. Characters also receive a smaller portion of their XP based on incentives - Beats, PrPs ran, etc. Beats are earned on request, audited after the fact if needed to prevent abuse, up to a modest cap per week. New characters receive more automatic XP than older ones until that portion of their XP is equal, although incentive-based XP remain on the characters who earned them without catching up mechanisms. On character death or permanent retirement the majority of all their XP may be transfered to a new PC.
This will lead to dinosaurs if the game lasts long enough and that can be incredibly demotivating to bump into as a newcomer. I prefer experience caps that can, perhaps, be slightly overcome with tremendous contribution to the game's health and enjoyability.
*( 4, 6, 7 ) There is no justification requirement for any XP expenditure. If you have the XP you can purchase anything you wish that's mechanically available to your PC. There are time delays to preserve a believable progression in raising skills, attributes and abilities. However justifications are still optional and, on staff's discretion and subject to incentive-based caps, may be rewarded Beats by staff.
Perfectly fine. Characters never make any sense. Policing expenditures is unnecessarily antagonistic. Yes, going from waitress to Wonder Woman in two weeks is impossible. It's also impossible to do that in two years. Ultimately, you're arguing degrees of absurdity. Focus on player enjoyment.
( 4, 5 ) Cut down on building delays; in most MU this is time consuming, requiring checks on behalf of staff, setting exit/entrance messages, etc. It's cool to see 'Bob gets in from the street' but it doesn't provide enough to the game - "Bob has arrived" is sufficient if it cuts down on time. Let players make their own rooms on the grid, even businesses, and simply have a periodic auditing process to make sure they comply with writing regulations (tabs, linefeeds between paragraphs) so the game maintains a consistent style.
This ought to be fine.
@Arkandel said:
It's not consent which allows the worst of these offenders to create horror stories the rest of us repeat here afterwards and go 'whyyy was this allowed?'.
I can tell you why it was allowed if you want, @Ghost. And what the most major reason it doesn't get reported is. I didn't really want to because it might derail the thread - but it's got nothing to do with what administrative system the game is using or what its goals are.
PM me if you really want, but there's no real need. I'm not one of those people that really demands anything. I'm more that comfortable taking your word on it. This thread is about experimentation and everyone seems to have differing grades of opinions on what will or will not work, but I commend your efforts to try.
@Sovereign said:
You run the risk of concepts and characters anathema to the theme crowding in, but this is a matter your staff ought to be able to handle promptly. It is trivial to address on a case-by-case basis.
How I wish this was actually true more often than not. 
Never underestimate the level of raw chaos that can be unleashed by a player or group of players when they are told they will have to adapt an idea to fall in line with theme or even the rules of the game.
Players have absolutely no power save that granted to them by the patience of whoever is in charge. If you are willing to indulge tantrums, you deserve them. Essentially all player concerns can be addressed by firmly, albeit politely, stating the way things will be, and removing those who won't fall in line.
@Sovereign ...yeah, I think we have a very different approach to staffing. That, or we've encountered a very different sort of player.
It's also sorta adorable how you think every staff member can 'remove' a player from the game for their behavior, no matter how egregious the behavior may actually be. The person suffering the poor behavior is often enough stuck putting up with it because those with the authority to remove the problem child won't.
I admit this does not work if you are a staffer without any such authority. In that case, your next action is to communicate the problem to the one who is in charge, and trust them to address the problem. If they won't, passively accept it, or protest, with resignation if necessary.
I've been MU*ing for a long time now. I don't believe in problem players; the problem is always the authority that won't chastise them by whatever means necessary.
If you're at one of those places, all you can really do is not give them your patronage. There's a reason I will never staff at a game I don't own and will not play at one I don't trust the staff of.
@Sovereign said:
What do you believe the benefits to this style of game to be?
The idea for the entire game is to allow synergy between its methods to achieve two things:
Hey, maybe it'd work, maybe it wouldn't. I'm pretty sure some of the means would have less synergy between them than I'd like and as a whole - as usual it'd probably come down to the implementation, not the theory. Such is the way of things. 
I'd just like to think though if such experiments fail it wouldn't be because we are all just horrible people who can't get along with each other except under the constant supervision of adults. That shouldn't be something we take axiomatically for any design because then... well, that's pretty sad.
@Arkandel said:
Hey folks,
Some folks lately have argued we are settling into groupthink around here and they may have a point. That we have been doing something a certain way doesn't mean it's the only way it can work. So this is something I'm working on and I can use help with - namely, I am after criticism, ideas, brainstorming and fresh approaches.
My only request is this: Be as brutal as you need to be with the implementation but let's not waste time debating the core goals; those are axiomatic, a given. It's what I want a game to be.
In other words I'd like y'all to shoot as many holes as you like into the proposed means for this game to achieve its goals, but not those goals themselves.
The Goals:
- Create a liberal, yes-first roleplaying game. If we say no it's for a really good, thematic reason.
I'm a fan of 'yes, and' so I can get behind this.
- Focus on gameplay first, remove all possible obstacles and bottlenecks between players and scenes.
- In the IC setting roleplay and players decide as much as possible. Staff decides as little as possible.
There's a point where staff does have to decide things in order to keep theme going appropriately, however. Building a game with one focus and a group of players pushing against that focus can be fun play, but is not healthy for the people who came to the game for it's first, primary focus.
- Automate anything that can be reasonably automated. Job monkeys should be needed as little as possible, eliminate all needless overhead for both players and staff.
- Audit, do not approve. If possible including CGen in that. Do not pre-empty checks, trust players.
- Offer incentives to excel, allow casual players to keep up.
I like all these, and I'm a huge fan of automated character creation/generation (it's what I've had to redo twice for TheatreMUSH). Some things may require eyes though, just because of the complexity in things that usually come through +jobs like Influence or Downtime. The audit thing is something that I was planning on doing on TheatreMUSH, so if I ever get it open I'll let you know how it goes.
As far as incentives, I come from a MU* background without a lot of advancement systems, just primarily RP and coded combat, but I see where you're coming from.
- Limit the impact of character death, encourage new character ideas.
Easy and quick chargen helps with this.
- Coopt the game to its players so they will have a reason to invest creatively in its course. Allow them to have a lasting impact.
So, my means and methods. The numbers in parenthesis are there to designate which idea is aimed at which goal:
- ( 3, 4, 5 ) Being staff is a role, not a privilege. All staff must contribute and their number should be small. Since the importance of handling +jobs is minimized the main duty is handling interpersonal issues, auditing potential cases of system abuse, but mainly running and coordinating running plot. Staff never decides on character positions or non-mechanical eligibility for ability or power purchases.
To an extent. I have been on many games where this was more or less the model, though those were heavily themed games that never seemed to have the problems that persist on WoD games. Staff would decide on SOME character positions though, since most of the time that stuff was pre-determined by theme (Optimus Prime and Megatron are the leaders of the factions, for example). For WoD, staff deciding on the character positions at start and then going from there would work, with some staff oversight and review (it's a similar process to what the LARPs I play in use when we end up with PC Princes).
- ( 3, 6, 8 ) Characters decide their own groups' composition. Status-weighted votes determine ranks, positions and membership. To facilitate early game launches NPCs are set in place who can be voted out or competed with as normal by PCs. Conversely that means there are no protections for IC actions; highly ranked characters are bigger targets who may be eliminated in the same way as NPCs. Staff only audits this process to ensure OOC behavior remains civil and, to the extent it is possible for them to establish, that no OOC means or information were employed.
This is how things are done in the LARPs that I play in; it works okay, but you have to have 1) mature players who can do this without being cockbites about it, and 2) ensure the processes are streamlined and public, so that everything is above-board as far as the systems go (for example, in METVtM the Primogen can oust the prince by expending four Noble Status Traits, this stripping him of his Status Traits and finally the position. One caveat would be something like a staff-controlled NPC starting group of leadership (our LARP did the NPC Prince/Priimogen when we were small just to facilitate this), or the asshattery that might require an NPC to come in and take the position from an incompetent through story purposes.
- ( 2, 3, 8 ) Plot is the game's lifeblood. The game comes with its own metaplot which is written to be modular and altered by characters. Staff's primary concern is to coordinate players and either run plots contributing to the overall story themselves or support players in running their own. This takes precedence over all other staff concerns save ones which make the game actually unplayable, staff should never feel they can't run an event because they're busy dealing with a troublesome player. Move the distraction in whatever manner is most appropriate and run the event.
Except for some positions that only do non-game level stuff (Coders or web guys), I have never been on a game where staff wasn't part of running a lot of plot and coordinating for it with players who want to run PrPs and similar stuff. This is a foregone assumption to me from my history, anyway.
- ( 3, 6 ) There are no feature characters, restricted features or application-only concepts. Anything up for grabs is available to all players. Characters are elevated based on the merit of their own ability to roleplay.
This would really depend on the theme, but it's okay. I'm a fan of availability plus if someone wants to put in the work to build something with more depth, to have a 'feature' type access, but that 'feature' be beholden to working with staff. So technically it's separate from standard automated chargen in my ideal MU*.
- ( 1, 2, 4 ) CGen has no non-automated approval conditions and there are no 'special' cases; roll what you will. It will check if you have a description and that your numbers check out, then you're on your way. If (due to code limitations) staff has to set things by hand it can happen after characters hit the grid with the understanding you can't use any missing attributes or resources in the meantime, in order to prevent mistakes or misunderstandings about mechanics ('oh, sorry, I thought I could buy Sleepwalker merits as a ghoul' -- which would be an example of one of the 'good, thematic reasons' to say no, as described above).
Coding up an automated chargen isn't usually difficult, just time consuming (it's what I'm doing for TheatreMUSH, though I have the benefit of not having a lot of 'you must have X to get Y' stuff), and laying out all your choices. I have never seen a game that does the review-after-cgen bit, but it's something I was planning on doing here. I'l let you know how it goes if I get the game open.
- ( 4, 6, 7 ) All automated XP are handed on a weekly basis to characters who were in at least two scenes (detected automagically by the code) in that period. Characters also receive a smaller portion of their XP based on incentives - Beats, PrPs ran, etc. Beats are earned on request, audited after the fact if needed to prevent abuse, up to a modest cap per week. New characters receive more automatic XP than older ones until that portion of their XP is equal, although incentive-based XP remain on the characters who earned them without catching up mechanisms. On character death or permanent retirement the majority of all their XP may be transfered to a new PC.
Again, haven't been on a game that has lots of XP awards and upgrades. The couple that I have, that stuff has been automated, tallying at the end of the week or just being awarded on the spot. Usually it has a notation of who awarded it and why in the tally/XP log, which helps keep staff abreast of what's going on.
( 4, 6, 7 ) There is no justification requirement for any XP expenditure. If you have the XP you can purchase anything you wish that's mechanically available to your PC. There are time delays to preserve a believable progression in raising skills, attributes and abilities. However justifications are still optional and, on staff's discretion and subject to incentive-based caps, may be rewarded Beats by staff.
( 4, 5 ) Cut down on building delays; in most MU* this is time consuming, requiring checks on behalf of staff, setting exit/entrance messages, etc. It's cool to see 'Bob gets in from the street' but it doesn't provide enough to the game - "Bob has arrived" is sufficient if it cuts down on time. Let players make their own rooms on the grid, even businesses, and simply have a periodic auditing process to make sure they comply with writing regulations (tabs, linefeeds between paragraphs) so the game maintains a consistent style.
These two I don't have any real opinions on. As far as building, I use parents for rooms and stuff so all of that is reduced to @parent exit=#22 to get all the messages, to use a random example. I think a lot of places are so fired up about making each exit unique that they sacrifice utility and information for 'Bob climbs down the ladder into the bunker' or somesuch, and in many cases can end up leaving out info of WHERE Bob arrived from, if multiple exits come into an area.
This ought to do for the time being. I've other ideas, including some level-of-consent based schemas and consideration for power disparities across different character type tiers (thanks @Misadventure) but those probably fall outside the scope of this particular thread and can wait to be introduced later depending on how this goes.
So... the floor is yours, kids.
It sounds like this thread is running into two very old, as-of-yet unsolved dilemmas:
Both of these directly affect a yes-first game. #2 involves whether or not the populace can be trusted not to wreck a yes-first for everyone. #1 involves how long a yes-first game will last before it turns into a banana republic or tyranny.
Yes-first, as outlined prior by Arkandel, can work with certain themes, and perhaps as an invite-only "yes after verification". However, I do not for a moment believe that there can ever be a hard-and-fast set of policies, rules and game mechanics that work across the board for every game. You MUST pick a theme first and build rules, policy, code and even player proclivities around it. One-size-fits all does not.
Before you attempt a yes-first game, you need to pick a theme that suits a yes-first. Code-Plot-Staff-Chargen is the engine in your Theme vehicle, and if you try to slap a 2-cylinder into a jumbo jet, it's not going to go well.
I have been on and even helped start a few of these 'yes-first' games. In theory, it's a lovely idea, never saying no. Makes the players happy and happy players means a happy staff. But this has been my experience with such games:
Players on game x become unhappy with the heavy handedness of staff.
Players decide to make a game of their own, a game where they'll never say no and always say yes, wanting to cater to the needs and wants of the players.
Game opens and for a while the 'never say no' thing works and everyone is happy but over time staff comes to realize that it doesn't really work, mostly due to unrealistic demands/expectation of the players, and they really do need to say 'no' more often. Thus the policy changes and saying no becomes more common.
Players become unhappy, citing the heavy handedness of staff as the reason why, make their own game...
And the cycle repeats itself, over and over and over again.
In other words, works great in theory, doesn't work so much in practice.
"Just leave me alone. I'm not myself. I'm falling apart, and I don't want you here." - ― Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon
@Apu
The thing is, if players are REASONABLE, a 'no' shouldn't come across as heavy-handed. And staff should also use 'yes, and...' and 'yes, but...' as often as they use 'no'.
Ideally? Yes. Realistically? Eh, not as often as one might wish. Sometimes wanting something causes people to become anything but reasonable, as is my unfortunate experience, especially if what is being requested is something the player REALLY wants.
"Just leave me alone. I'm not myself. I'm falling apart, and I don't want you here." - ― Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon
@Apu
Oh, I agree. That's why I said 'if'. And conversely, staff have to be willing to be explanatory and very specific in WHY they are saying no. It takes reasonable personalities on both sides, and sometimes you don't get that. But it's what we should strive for as MU* staffers, because games continue to tank because of people not being reasonable and being all "MY WAY ONLY'. Compromise is necessary to make things work.
@Apu said:
- Players decide to make a game of their own, a game where they'll never say no and always say yes, wanting to cater to the needs and wants of the players.
I don't know why "yes-first" means "never-say-no".
If a character makes a Jedi for your nWoD game it'd be your job to have The Talk with them and figure out an alternative where they can play something roughly similar to the concept of a mystical warrior - maybe in Mage or Changeling? If they want to do something you don't want in the game across the board (and it should be on the wiki since it'd be applied to everyone unconditionally) similarly, don't let them - that's what the audits are for. So as an example if you rule for the game that characters can't change from one supernatural type to another then someone who wants to play an Embraced Mage will not be able to; again, talk to them, maybe they could play a Theban sorcerer instead.
Of course the game will have a theme - it can be as strong a theme as needed - and reinforced, too, without sacrificing the basic principle. If there's interest we could even sit down and figure out how a harder concept for a game than a generic north american metropolis could be implemented well using a framework like this just to see what gives.
@Apu
@Bobotron said:
@Apu
Oh, I agree. That's why I said 'if'. And conversely, staff have to be willing to be explanatory and very specific in WHY they are saying no. It takes reasonable personalities on both sides, and sometimes you don't get that. But it's what we should strive for as MU* staffers, because games continue to tank because of people not being reasonable and being all "MY WAY ONLY'. Compromise is necessary to make things work.
I agree. Compromise is one of those things that is needed, from players and staff.
I think a lot of why staffers get a bad rap isn't because they are truly as bad as they are but because the players in question are not willing to work with them and try to find a happy middle ground. Maybe people would find less to grouse about here if they were willing to do that.
@Arkandel said:
I don't know why "yes-first" means "never-say-no".
I think for a lot of people, there's an assumption that if you put saying yes ahead of everything else then how can you possibly say no?
I like that comic. 
"Just leave me alone. I'm not myself. I'm falling apart, and I don't want you here." - ― Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon
@Sovereign said:
What do you believe the benefits to this style of game to be? At first glance, I see all downsides and no upsides, and that influences my responses in critical ways. I could give better-tuned feedback if I had some idea what you desired from the system.
You sound like the people who said "If God meant for man to fly, he would have given him wings!" when Aeroplanes were being invented.
