The elusive yes-first game.
-
@Apu
Which is a fallacy (unless there is no point when you say 'and we may say no, because of these reasons', but even then, reasonable, y'know?) -
It might be one but I can see the logic behind why one would believe that.
-
If you market yourself as a yes first game then the first no will cause people to bitch regardless of how reasonable that no might be.
Do I think this is right? No not at all. but it is will happen.
If you want to have a game that yes first and not lead to a lot of drama I think you almost have to go the small game or invite only route. -
@ThatGuyThere
So maybe titling it 'yes first' is a bit of a misnomer, because it seems like part of what we're discussing is more of an allowance w/review game. Perhaps stating it in such a way that players are made aware in the newsfiles that 'your concept will be reviewed; you can go IC and RP, but upon review, if something is iffy it may be denied. Typically this is primarily due to odd concepts such as Vampires that were Mages before the Embrace, or a Malkavian who thinks he's a Jedi, etc.'Clarity. CLARITY CLARITY CLARITY. I think that's a big problem. Clarity, reasonability and compromise. If we have those, perhaps things can change without the dramasplosions. But people have to be taught the new way.
-
@Bobotron
Yeah I think that would work better. I would avoid using the term yes first at all in the process.
Every person ad a slightly different idea of what is reasonable with in a theme. So saying something like Yes first as long as things are reasonable is asking for drama.
But yes saying you can go ooc and anything staff finds unacceptable on review will be retconned or whatever. That way you get the same message across but with out implication that wanting something staff disallows makes you some how unreasonable.
Trust me telling someone they are being unreasonable rarely gets them to think over what they are doing you are more likely you to get the oh you this this is unreasonable I will show you unreasonable response. -
And you just touched upon the big thing. Clarity. That can be hard to achieve when you're running around in all sorts of mental circles when trying to get a new game off of the ground. What I suggest is before you even start the 'alpha' invite-only beginning stages is to have someone sit with you as a layman and go over theme/help/etc files. That way if they wind up having any questions they can point it out to you and you can write things in a more concise manner. Always helps to have an extra set of eyes, yadda yadda.
"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
Don't tempt me, Apu. I may ask you to do that for me for some additional stuff I'm writing. -
Depending on what it is, I could very easily be tempted into helping.
-
@ThatGuyThere said:
If you market yourself as a yes first game then the first no will cause people to bitch regardless of how reasonable that no might be.
Do I think this is right? No not at all. but it is will happen.
If you want to have a game that yes first and not lead to a lot of drama I think you almost have to go the small game or invite only route.Sadly, quoting for truth.
People will absolutely log into your game and ask to play a Strix.
Not a vampire claimed by one, but an actual, free-floating, Strix.
And this will not be the stupidest thing to happen if people get an inkling of the 'yes first' thing, terminology wise.
Wish it was not so, but this is a really, really good point. -
@Ghost said:
If it works, then it works, and if it's working, then fuck it, make a character, yeah?
Fallcoast appears to be working okay. That does not mean I will set foot there.
Again, it appears that, even if the game works exactly as calculated, I would still not play there. The policy of yes, yes, yes! is patently and demonstrably ill-advised.
I mean, how contentious is any debate on any law that might remotely relate to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? That's just a shitpile I don't intend to put my boot into.
-
@Apu said:
@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?
But that's a bad implementation.
To offer a counter-example, if a traditionally ran MU* with a mandatory CGen didn't allow almost anyone through without nitpicking through every little detail in the background and forcing everyone to conform to a very narrow, arbitrary standard set by staff it'd be an equally bad way to run their game. That's not on the overall philosophy of filtering new character creations, it's on the particular staff members being anal about it.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@ThatGuyThere said:
If you market yourself as a yes first game then the first no will cause people to bitch regardless of how reasonable that no might be.
Game design is not magical. It won't make everyone quite reasonable all of a sudden.
Any game runner who doesn't know in advance people will bitch shouldn't be getting started.The question is, are they right? Do they have a point?
In this case they wouldn't. It's 'yes-first', not 'yes to everything'. The advertising is quite honest, and if someone reads what they want into it that's on them. Having said that, it's a fair point that things should be clear on the wiki about matters such as house rules, forbidden concepts, etc so they don't merely apply to everyone (which they must) but are also easy to review from day one.
Here's a question though for y'all; what do you do about grandfathered concepts in a game like this? Two examples:
-
The game launches and doesn't allow "minor nWoD templates such as ghouls or Sleepwalkers to become major ones in a different sphere (a mage former Ghoul, Embraced Sleepwalker)". During its course staff changes their minds - hey, maybe some good stories can come of this. Does it create the impression - or reality - of wrong-doing since people might have been unable to play it in the past, even when they are able to now?
-
When the game launched it allowed the becoming described above. It's creating more trouble than stories so staff decide it should no longer be permitted. Do they take existing characters away from their players (with a full compensation of course toward a reroll) or grandfather them in for fairness?
Discuss.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
-
The truth is, until someone runs a yes-game in which they are willing to transparently say no and it becomes commonplace enough that when a "no " is issued, it's seen as reasonable and all right, then the utopic yes-game will never see favor.
In other words, like most things, you need to deliberately fight past preconceived notions and rhetoric in order to make something uncommon commonplace. The only way to make something common is to make the first one, the second one, the third one, the seventy-fifth one--
There's a reason so many games have gone sandboxy: one did it, and then another did it, and now people expect it, for good or ill.
-
@Arkandel said:
@ThatGuyThere said:
If you market yourself as a yes first game then the first no will cause people to bitch regardless of how reasonable that no might be.
Game design is not magical. It won't make everyone quite reasonable all of a sudden.
Any game runner who doesn't know in advance people will bitch shouldn't be getting started.The question is, are they right? Do they have a point?
I think the 'if people don't know they won't bitch 'thing is another fallacy. Again, it falls to clarity, as described above. If you detail out exactly what you mean by a 'yes-first' game, people have an expectation. But you also must detail out shit like that (Strix, Brood, and VII are not an applicable PC type, etc.) in order to ensure that you have your intent and information. If people have the information, and they still bitch, then they're just whining about not getting their way. So they can have a point, but it's not a very GOOD point.
In this case they wouldn't. It's 'yes-first', not 'yes to everything'. The advertising is quite honest, and if someone reads what they want into it that's on them. Having said that, it's a fair point that things should be clear on the wiki about matters such as house rules, forbidden concepts, etc so they don't merely apply to everyone (which they must) but are also easy to review from day one.
All this. ALL THIS.
Here's a question though for y'all; what do you do about grandfathered concepts in a game like this? Two examples:
I have been fine with grandfathered concepts; I've played through long LARP chronicles in the Camarilla/Mind's Eye Society where grandfathering has happened.
- The game launches and doesn't allow "minor nWoD templates such as ghouls or Sleepwalkers to become major ones in a different sphere (a mage former Ghoul, Embraced Sleepwalker)". During its course staff changes their minds - hey, maybe some good stories can come of this. Does it create the impression - or reality - of wrong-doing since people might have been unable to play it in the past, even when they are able to now?
Honestly, it doesn't create the impression of wrongdoing if it is PRESENTED in that manner. 'Hey, guys. We made a decision at the start of game for <X>. Now, we have reviewed that decision six months into game life and are going to give it a try. We will be observing if this change causes problems. If so, we will rescind the addition. But if it maintains reasonable cool factor and adds to the story, and is reasonably handled by the playerbase, then we will continue with it'. And of course ensure that whatever rules you need about splat secrecy and such are enforced as needed (and this is one of those things that constantly pushes me away from mixed-splat MU*s).
- When the game launched it allowed the becoming described above. It's creating more trouble than stories so staff decide it should no longer be permitted. Do they take existing characters away from their players (with a full compensation of course toward a reroll) or grandfather them in for fairness?
I'd be for option 2, with the caveat that those characters will eventually leave play. I'd also be very clear that this is not a punishment for any other players, or a 'reward' for those players; it's a simple matter of maintaining continuity and continuing the stories. As LONG as those players had adhered to the appropriate rules regarding their Sleepwalker becoming Embraced or their Wolf-Blooded who knew a lot about Werewolves dying and becoming a Sin-Eater.
Discuss.
As always, it's a matter of being up-front and explicit in what you're doing, and the WHY behind that.
-
@Arkandel said:
@Apu said:
@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?
But that's a bad implementation.
To offer a counter-example, if a traditionally ran MU* with a mandatory CGen didn't allow almost anyone through without nitpicking through every little detail in the background and forcing everyone to conform to a very narrow, arbitrary standard set by staff it'd be an equally bad way to run their game. That's not on the overall philosophy of filtering new character creations, it's on the particular staff members being anal about it.
Of course it's bad implementation, just like always saying no or having a narrow standard as far as to what will be accepted is. Just got to find a way to find a middle ground, I guess.
-
@Arkandel I think your goals have too much methodology built in, and that's what people are objecting to.
It seems to me that your 8 goals can be distilled down to:
- Increase player agency - allow them to have a lasting impact and steer the game.
- Reduce bottlenecks and obstacles between players and scenes.
- Enable operation with a small staff.
Everything else you've outlined - "yes first", "audit don't approve" - these are methods. Means to and end, not the end themselves.
I fully support the three goals list above. In fact, I've used them on my own games. (I suppose folks can argue how successful they've been but I like to think it worked out okay.)
By clearly separating what you want to accomplish from how you want to accomplish it, I think it will allow you to be more open-minded about some of the other ideas on the thread.
Some other random thoughts:
- "Audit don't approve" is a big turn-off for me. All games have an unspoken rule that totally crazy things will be retconned, but saying it like this makes it sound like "we have limits but we're not going to tell you what they are until after you exceed them." That's going to make me very leery of running plots for fear of retcon.
- Speeding up chargen approvals is good, but I just can't get behind the idea of removing them entirely. As @ghost mentioned, I've structured FS3 to try and make approvals fast and easy. There's a tiny wait - often just a matter of minutes if I happen to be online, but that's a price I'm more than willing to pay to protect the existing players from crazy people hitting the grid and disrupting things. (And yes, you can filter out crazies in chargen. Not all, but some.)
- Having "yes first" as a staff mantra to encourage staff to be open-minded and allow players to steer the game is not so bad. Advertising a game a "yes first" opens yourself up to all kinds of bizarro player expectations and entitlement issues, as others have already said.
I'm not saying my ways are perfect. Every system has pros and cons. I'm just saying that clarifying your actual goals may allow you to consider alternative methods.
-
@faraday said:
- Having "yes first" as a staff mantra to encourage staff to be open-minded and allow players to steer the game is not so bad. Advertising a game a "yes first" opens yourself up to all kinds of bizarro player expectations and entitlement issues, as others have already said.
This exactly. Yes as Ark stated people will find things to complain about if they want to but it still makes zero sense to give them extra ammunition and while some people will complain the trick is to minimize that number if you have 5 percent of your player base unhappy that is a workable condition for the most part up that number to 25 and the game is in trouble. In both places people are bitching but the degree is the important thing.
-
@faraday said:
@Arkandel I think your goals have too much methodology built in, and that's what people are objecting to.
That's a fair point. And there is overlap in there.
- "Audit don't approve" is a big turn-off for me. All games have an unspoken rule that totally crazy things will be retconned, but saying it like this makes it sound like "we have limits but we're not going to tell you what they are until after you exceed them." That's going to make me very leery of running plots for fear of retcon.
The idea there is simple. The vast majority plots are fine, staff should only intervene if someone fucked up big time. So unless we compromise the principle of removing bottlenecks by letting players do their thing and only stepping in if absolutely needed, how would you ensure things which are quite out-there or unwanted don't become part of canon?
For example yes, your concern would be perhaps valid if staff has been known to be trigger happy about their audits, but it doesn't strike me as likely that trigger-happy staff would pick this philosophy to run their game under. And while there can be a more or less comprehensive list of Things To Not Do on the wiki ('don't burn down the entire city in your plot',) it's unlikely every single really out-there idea could be preemptively mentioned.
I don't think it's fair to say I'm being closed minded about this (which doesn't mean I'm not, naturally I wouldn't think that's the case
), but I like the idea of having control mechanisms in place meant to be used rarely to prevent extreme cases. As noted in the initial pitch, trust should go both ways; players are trusted, but so are staff. In a way that's the only way any game can truly function well. So if staff has to step in once in a blue moon to find a compromise the players involved should give them the benefit of a doubt and communicate to figure it out.- Having "yes first" as a staff mantra to encourage staff to be open-minded and allow players to steer the game is not so bad. Advertising a game a "yes first" opens yourself up to all kinds of bizarro player expectations and entitlement issues, as others have already said.
It does. But nothing is free in design. You pay something here to buy something there. What has to be decided is if the tradeoff is positive.
I'm not saying my ways are perfect. Every system has pros and cons. I'm just saying that clarifying your actual goals may allow you to consider alternative methods.
See above - I'm agreeing with you on much of this. I certainly don't think the proposed system is anywhere near ready - that's why I brought it to a peer review. I don't mind things being shot down as long as we try to build them back up afterwards.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
I think the reason most of us immediate approach this from an angle of, 'ways people would abuse a yes-first' game is due to our experiences. For just about anyone that's staffed, we immediately think of disruptive players that are unable to be reasonable and more importantly are unwilling to recognize that they aren't reasonable, and those players would be the ones most attracted to something advertised as a 'yes-first' game.
The most problematic players that want to assign blame for their own faults to others are probably the most likely to go, 'Finally a game without ridiculous staff where I can do what I want, about time' and gravitate towards it, so unfortunately the game type most dependent on players to create their own constructive environment are likely the ones to be the most toxic.
-
@ThatGuyThere said:
This exactly. Yes as Ark stated people will find things to complain about if they want to but it still makes zero sense to give them extra ammunition
Ammunition is only important if you're in a fight, and you'd only care about it if your intention is to win.
Staff shouldn't be worried about 'winning'. It's not about that.
