Space Lords and Ladies

[Chuma-Del-Tort]

@Vorpal said:

Geez, Chuma. You're only supposed to have a little Captain in you, not the entire goddamned Spanish Armada.

This made me laugh pretty hard.

[mietze]

I guess having slaves means that there is an option for people who don't want to play a noble, if/when the non-noble alternative "spheres" don't get much play?

I still think that having one 'class' of people more focused on self-driven things and coded management and another that needs a lot of staff/ST management to actually be able to be effective/advance/get neat things (unless there's coded exploration/scavenging/whathaveyou? I don't know how difficult that would be) will mean that you'll eventually just have the easier group be the only one where there's significant RP because they're less at the mercy of staff inattention/busy-ness. This isn't a slam at staff, just a thought of what seems to be the reality of games these days now that we are, as a community, a little older with more lives than just the game? (Though that too may be an incorrect observation).

[Lithium]

Ummm there are plenty of options for not being a noble. There is merchants. There is farmers. There is spaceship captains. There is spaceship crew. There is people who work for the nobles, for the government, there is a lot of options in this type of game beyond just those select few things.

[Sammi]

Having the option doesn't necessarily mean that the game will be supportive of people who choose paths other than the primary one.

[ThatGuyThere]

I have seen multiple games that attempted to be both Lords and Ladies as well has having other options available , every time the L+L part has been dominant the other side withered one the vine usually fairly quickly. Star Crusade for all it's faults had more adventuring actually taking place then most , so my question for those that are championing having the perspective game be both is how do you succeed where the other s have failed?
The character I love to play are the lower nobles usually third sons out of any real inheritance structure out on adventures. I have learned that regardless of intent for the most part games to not support this, regardless of what they say. The support you making it but when it comes down to what actually goes on it tends to be the same old L+L stuff.
I would recommend that unless you have a solid and detailed plan to be different that you cut out the adventurer side of things and just let those that want to be L+L have their stuff. You will likely get fewer players but also don't have to deal with the disgruntled adventurer players you will end up with either.

[Apos]

@ThatGuyThere I actually don't think it's because L&L players prefer political RP over adventure-style RP, even though it seems that way from how the games develop, but more of a consequence of the way MUs tend to operate.

I think it's more of a natural progression of what happens during downtime. In between plots, on more sandbox-y games players feel a lot more freedom to run meaningful PrPs since there's more of the expectation that it doesn't really effect other people very much. In a lot of L&L games, that's not really the case, so PrPs tend to be de-emphasized and that leaves players doing political RP as one of the more consequential forms of RP they can pursue without GM assistance. Then that RP produces actions that require GM response, and you are getting in a cycle of players RPing about what they can away from adventuring stuff and GMs just responding to it, and never creating the kind of stories a lot of people would find interesting. So I think it's more of a sign of a less robust GMing approach than it's really just, 'All the players here love politics and nothing else', and I'd wager a lot of those players are just doing it to pass the time when they'd really enjoy the same things you would.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Apos
I agree with you to extant. My initial post was not an attempt to put blame on things or even say what I want is better. It is just looking at how this things have developed and saying unless there is a set plan in place ot prevent it , how the next iteration will likely develop as well.
For my perspective it matter little to me weather they are playing politics by design, desire, or default the end result is still a mostly political game.

[Arkandel]

@Apos said:

I think it's more of a natural progression of what happens during downtime. In between plots, on more sandbox-y games players feel a lot more freedom to run meaningful PrPs since there's more of the expectation that it doesn't really effect other people very much. In a lot of L&L games, that's not really the case, so PrPs tend to be de-emphasized and that leaves players doing political RP as one of the more consequential forms of RP they can pursue without GM assistance.

That's pretty accurate. For example I had never been on a game where I actually put a decent amount of time in and never STed until Kushiel's Debut - but I just didn't feel comfortable running plots there. Everything I did could affect people's roleplay even through its ripples and I was paranoid about stepping on toes or not have a great grasp of current politics and relationships.

On a WoD or a comic book MU* on the other hand I give no shits about such things and I can afford to just come up with stuff then put them into play - with staff permission if needed but with no worries about where that leaves players who can't take part in them.

L&L games though on MU* tend to be more cliquish in my experience because of it. You can't just join a random event and bond with others by going out to kill orcs since as PrPs are often dominated by social events whose bonding potential is smaller as for characters without ties they are at best meet-and-greet opportunities. On the other hand it's easier to join a clique simply by signing up for the right House/faction.

[Kanye Qwest]

@Packrat said:

• Make the game an actual sandbox, that does not mean staff should not introduce plot elements and run NPCs with agendas but they should be deciding 'Where do we want the story to go?' then railroading things. The meat of the game should be competition between player characters and the environment they find themselves in.

It sounds fun, but how do you go about this? I expect when you open a game you need to have plot ready to go for people to sink their teeth into. Like that ambiguous 'strong opening paragraph' they tell you about in creative writing.

[Seraphim73]

@Packrat said:

• Make the game an actual sandbox, that does not mean staff should not introduce plot elements and run NPCs with agendas but they should be deciding 'Where do we want the story to go?' then railroading things. The meat of the game should be competition between player characters and the environment they find themselves in.

I don't think that many people would suggest that Story Staff decide where they want the story to go and then railroad it in that direction. In my opinion, storyline should always be a collaboration between Staff and players, with Staff dropping in story hooks and players following them (or not) as they please. Of course, not following a plot hook can have consequences as readily as following one can, but Staff should see what sort of stories -do- get interest from players, and tailor future stories in that direction.

My own favorite Story Staff style is dropping hooks, and then reacting to player actions to let them drive the story while Staff nudges it in a way that can keep it going.

[bored]

@ThatGuyThere said:

I have seen multiple games that attempted to be both Lords and Ladies as well has having other options available , every time the L+L part has been dominant the other side withered one the vine usually fairly quickly. Star Crusade for all it's faults had more adventuring actually taking place then most , so my question for those that are championing having the perspective game be both is how do you succeed where the other s have failed?

I think a big part of this is that the L+L games are usually so fetishistic about how awesome the Ls are that they make the other types so neutered as to be pointless. IE, you can look at http://eternalcrusade.wikidot.com/economy and see it in action, even the best merchants don't really come close in money to the top nobles, and the top nobles get all sorts of other snazzy titles and lands and armies on top of that. People just want to masturbate to how awesome their noble is.

One of the reasons it comes close to working in Fading Suns is that the books, at least, do treat the Guilds as roughly equivalent entities to the noble houses. They have fleets, they have massive assets, and even hold some planets, if not as many as the nobles, but then they also outright control various spaceports on most worlds.

People have already made suggestions along this line, but it can't really be said enough. You need an interlocking web of power players, not a hierarchy, or people will just gravitate to the top.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

I think all these factors sort of feed upon themselves.

There's definitely a lot of Ls are Awesome masturbation happening, but I think @Apos hit on something important in that the structure of MU*s kind of feeds this. These games are typically set up so most of what you can do without ST staff is play The Game of Marriages and do petty, rumor-y "politics" that doesn't lead to much game-wide. I think there is an audience of players who is really into this (and it becomes very easy, in my experience, for them to completely dominate RP), but I also think more structure would keep all RP from drifting toward it. It's the kind of thing where staff has to work constantly to keep other stuff going on, though (or enlist players to keep other stuff going on).

[bored]

Sure. Although I think that's probably part of a bigger argument about modern PrP-focused MUing in general, as it applies to any genre (outside of L+L, just replace 'marriage and petty rumors' with 'sitcom style petty rumors about who is sleeping with who this week'). If staff doesn't provide some motivational energy, any game will settle into lower-stakes RP of this kind.

[Packrat]

I am honestly thinking that I would want to focus on most/all player characters being L&L given how things inevitably end up in such scenarios and the impossibility of actually balancing alternatives, but different varieties of them.

Ship captains would be if anything the 'purest', I can see the in character 'ideal' Space Lord/Lady not holding anything on a planet or any stations but rather holding dominion over a region to receive taxes or tribute. You might for example gain a bonus to Prestige if you do not have any static holdings, but you still need some source of wealth and resources to keep your super cool spaceship/s working. Most ships would be relatively 'normal', but Space L&L ships would be extremely advanced and quasi-sapient vessels, irreplaceable in the area the game is set, each tied to a specific individual and bloodline. If you have a Space Cruiser then it will be a terribly lethal craft able to murder conventional ships like a wolf running rampant in a pen of sheep, innately tied to you or your heirs, with it's own personality, able to repair itself from near mortal damage given sufficient supplies of crazy rare materials and able to sustain your L&L lifestyle via its ultra advanced internal manufacturies.

Next would be L&L who rule space based holdings, orbital cities, asteroid mines, trade stations, etc. They would be intensely vulnerable to enemy space actions and thus rather 'ephemeral' but also controlling the greatest industrial strength, they are the ones who can field vast fleets of conventional starships, act as arsenals to equip planet conquering armies, build gigantic palaces or public works infrastructures.

The 'lowest' tier would be L&L with planetary holdings, which are vulnerable to murder from orbit but extremely hard to steal/conquer, looked down upon by their space dwelling brethren, but have immense wealth due to controlling huge populations. The other L&L would ultimately have to give reasons for these to share/spend said wealth in order to sustain their own lifestyles and requirements and they would also end up being the one's providing the manpower for conventional space fleets/armies.

[Apos]

@Three-Eyed-Crow I think these style of games benefit more from stronger code support than other games, in that either minigames or automation can help players drum up the kind of RP that will keep them from backsliding. That's my approach to the game I'm working on now anyways, along with trying to be extremely focused on a strong narrative and episodic metaplot. I kind of hope that keeps the sandbox from being a marriage sim, or at least not only one.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@Apos
Possibly. I always wonder, with these games, if it's a cultural question of what the players want (which is quite different than what I want) more than anything else. These games always get an influx of population that, while not massive, is bigger than the standard non-WoD MU*, so there's an audience that likes playing a half-dozen alts in the Game of Marriages to some degree. If it's that, I don't see a way of overcoming it, though I do agree it's encouraged by other MU* factors. But at the bottom of it might be a constant uphill battle for staff against what a portion of very active players will always want to play, whatever else you give them.

[deadculture]

@Packrat It's not a good Space Lords and Ladies without a share of the esoteric. Psychics, etc. Fading Suns did that aspect very well -- since you could, at any time, fuck yourself over by outing yourself with an Urge and trigger a power randomly in front of an inquisitor.

[BigDaddyAmin]

@deadculture

Warhammer 40K does the same thing.

[Apos]

@Three-Eyed-Crow I think it ultimately comes down to the game runner being willing to make more sedentary players unhappy as a trade-off for allowing a much more dynamic environment. The players that want to tell those kind of stories (like the very marriage focused ones) tend to not be big fans of unstable, shake up style meta plots that can throw their big carefully woven plans into the dumpster for obvious reasons and there's a lot of push back against it, much in the same way that some other political MUs (like vampire) can have players that get a position, feel they've won, and then fade out immediately which creates a stifling vacuum. It really just needs a story runner that's okay with, 'Yep, he's absent, so ignoring him and moving past him even though that means he'll come back and freak out' or 'Yeah sorry this story is going forward even if it means that carefully plotted marriage doesn't make sense anymore, sorry'. I think the ones that really would freak out are a tiny minority of even that subset of players, but for a lot of staff that are doing this on their own fun time and conflict averse, even one or two are enough to make them say 'yeah sure fuck it, I won't shake things up at all'.

[lordbelh]

@Three-Eyed-Crow said:

These games always get an influx of population that, while not massive, is bigger than the standard non-WoD MU*, so there's an audience that likes playing a half-dozen alts in the Game of Marriages to some degree.

I think Game of Marriages is more of a fallback option, and the easiest way to build RP without needing any sort of staff hand-holding. You get scenes re: arranging it, etc, etc. You get a bit of politics, you get a bit of romance, you get a bit of everything if there's nothing else going on. And to those players who only want to play Game of Marriages, they can do that even if you provide something else for the greater game. Its not an either/or scenario.

The main game appeal in my experience is being able in a non-modern WOD setting. Playing in fantasy worlds offers a different sort of fun. That's what draws players even to the really sub-par L&L games, the ones you know are being run by idiots.