Best posts made by Arkandel

@Royal said in City of Shadows:

Can we not? I'm tired as fuuuuuuck of this conversation. Let's move on from this 'Mage is OP' thing early, shall we?

I agree, especially since at some point staff has made a decision. Let's work with it instead of revisiting it.

Territories. That right there is what brought me to The Descent 1 and 2. @Ganymede hit it dead on. Give folks something to fight for, not against.

For and against. That's the beauty of territories, they can be imperiled by external threats and foes as well but also other characters. There are a few key concerns here, IMHO.

1. Making resources truly limited. If everyone gets to have amazing territory it invalidates the whole premise; why bother taking Gany's when I can build a new abandoned factory staff just gave me which is just as good?

2. Making it dynamic. If it plays out like a game of dancing chairs where the good spots go out in a first-come first-served fashion then it screws everyone over; if I already have great territory why put in any effort, and if I can't get it (or I 'theoretically can, but...') then why put in any effort either?

3. For all that is holy figure out a system where it's not all about punching people out of their territory. Sure, some things could come down to a brawl but that shouldn't be the primary way of taking it by any means; for example base it on Status, distribute it aspart of quest rewards, etc to encourage continuous engagement.

Just some thoughts.

To throw another log in the fire, I'd like there to be a clear place on MSB that you can go, hat in hand, and ask for help.

Maybe all you have is the glimmer of an idea, maybe you have a fully coded game but no staff, but where do you go to find collaborators?

So, a few more suggestions.

Keep the highest rank levels as NPCs until some latter point in the game's lifespan when you think they'd be more useful as PCs. There are multiple reasons for it:

1. IC continuity. Players drop out or become inactive all the time, do you want the Prince to be constantly toppled every few weeks? Let us vie for other positions though, as well as there are tangible agencies to go with the responsibilities.

2. Plot hooks. It's such a simple, effective way to kick start plots by using important figures to hand out tasks.

3. Rewards are easier to met out in the same fashion in an objective, systematized fashion relatively free of complaints. It's one thing to have a Winter Queen whose player can be accused of being partial and that's why she handed out that sweet plot of forest glade, and another to have it controlled by having factions or individuals bid on them using their Status (or whatever other metric). Plus that way you can offer different kinds of rewards, too.

4. The big one... there's less OOC jealousy and bickering that way. You'll have it even with lower positions but not to the same degree. Ranks drive MUSHers nuts, but as unfortunate as that might be there are significant upsides to having them if the game is set up right. You just need to have the tradeoff be worth it.

Finally I can't stress this enough but I'd strongly suggest to offer multiple power ladders to climb in your game.

XP is just one way to track power but status, territory, rank can and ought to all be formidable ways to exert influence over the game. Sure, I might be playing the powerhouse Gangrel loner who can punch through walls but if you can fuck me over - not just theoretically but in a quite real fashion - by using your Status to kick me out of my territory so now I have to work much harder to replenish my vitae supply after using it like it's going out of fashion then things are far better balanced. If my punching abilities convey to demonstrative, amazing benefits - easy inclusion in PrPs, mouthing off to people I don't like - and your political connections are just some figures on your sheet with theoretical upsides that never actually do anything in practical terms, that's not the case.

Same thing in Werewolf. Spheres are often full of Rahu death machines because that pays off much better than mastery over spirits. It's, on a very fundamental level, a matter of returns for the investment.

TL;DR: In games like these offering characters multiple ways to advance is a good idea.

@wizz said in Make MSB great again!:

I absolutely agree, I am not trying to say this place is some sort of horrible shithole, I've been here since the beginning and really enjoyed my time both lurking and participating in the past.

When ES asked me if I wanted to keep this place running - the alternative was shutting it down - it came down to a simple realization for me; the hobby needs a place like this. Well, it already exists. It's here, we might as well have it.

The reason I care about the forum is that it's here. It gives us an identity across games, and a place to discuss things both in and out of any single MU*'s context. It lets us keep in touch with old friends, most gathered in one place, and have conversations about them outside our friends' echo chambers. I use the forum to communicate with folks I haven't played with in years, folks use it who haven't played in years themselves, and I know there are others no longer in the hobby who might return - and it'll be there when they do.

Do I like the way we act toward each other sometimes? Hell no, of course I don't. If that means I'm a kumbaya-singing fool then so be it. I think we can improve, and I hope we will. I do need your help to do that.

@Lotherio said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

Look at the Deadlands discussion in this thread, it was popular but two different takes on the theme/setting. If a couple folks want central California deadlands (Zorro the zombie slayer) but others want Dodge Kansas (The Boothill Nightwatch), attrition will factor in and it'll go the way of ghost town.

That's a different vector for game failure in general - some players being unwilling to compromise at all. I remember a while ago in a DCU superhero MU* discussion thread a player expressed interest based solely on if Flash was Barry Allen or not. So unless a game is 100% what someone wants or doesn't manage to dodge what appear to be arbitrary criteria on some very specific choices made then it loses some of those potential logins, and of course when you're dealing with a very niche setting to begin with, it can spell trouble before even considering the end result.

So the same thing could happen with, say, a D&D game. "I'd love it but I'll only play if it's set in Ravenloft" could be the exact same deal.

@thenomain said in Make MSB great again!:

This is mostly why I think it’s better to have the advert thread as being only advertisement information, and any commentary about the game, good or ill, in a separate thread.

The reason I don't like that approach is that I like gamerunners having a post in which they can just answer questions - "is this a L&L game or grimdark?", "do you plan to allow <X>?", etc. I think that information can both help others reading the thread decide if that's the MU* for them, but also game-runners who have this information locked in their heads realize that it's not readily available.

However none of this is set in stone. The guidelines so far are meant as an early bulwark against the negative threads we were seeing - maybe look at them as feelers for now.

What I'd like to do is give it a couple of weeks to see how this shapes out to see if there are improvements (or, well, blue smoke coming out of smoldering ruins) and then we can discuss it internally as well with @Auspice and @Ganymede to see what we can do based on our collective ability to shoulder the workload.

@ZombieGenesis said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

Again, sometimes I fail.

We all fail. I mean look around, we're all on MSB - FAIL!

However here's a suggestion. Instead of asking potential players what we'd be interested in and trying to determine if you can match up, why not tell us what you are interested in making? What are your goals, your limitations, your conditions? Are you into original games or based on existing RPGs? Or canonical settings like Stargate or <insert book fantasy series here>?

No one should expect a game made for free to match their innermost desires but that can help. For example if you have the most fun creating small, niche games then we can avoid asking you to make the Next Big Thing, or if you're into making a larger popular game then we probably won't pitch Gamma World as much.

@lithium No, I agree. I guess the other factor though is that sometimes TS (or private RP in general) is a last resort when nothing else is happening on a MU*, since you can at least roleplay something. FCs aren't immune to that.

Now, granted, a major FC should find it easier to get something going - but that's on paper. For instance if I have Lex Luthor then I don't want him going to random bars (or at least not too often) since it will trivialise the character and cheapen his appearances; in a way there are fewer scene opportunities than others get.

But Clark Kent could be anywhere at all, so he doesn't get that free pass.

@Ghost said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

@Sunny said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

@Ghost said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

@Arkandel said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

@Ghost Like there is a ton of potential game-runners/coders able and willing to take input from the masses about where they should invest their time?

I kid - mostly.

Lol right.

Mushing is 98% players to 2% coders, so the reason I proposed that idea is that making a mush takes time and effort. Maybe securing commitments to at least trying it out for 30 days will help a game launch.

Is this approach something that would help you make a game?

If I were inclined to make a game? Yes.

I would want to know that the idea was desired and get an idea as to who would pledge to try it out. I'd base the level of interest against the amount of time and effort put into making the game to determine whether or not the effort is worth it.

More seriously now - I don't think people know what they want until they see it. On paper something might look like a terrible idea, or a great one, and when you play it it's anything but that.

There's no real way to secure commitments either way. But that's what beta testing and gradually showing what you're doing to a trusted smaller subset of people you know, and whose opinions you respect, comes in; you get feedback and then you act accordingly.

@admiral Would you please not not-say it here either? It's not-not-not-constructive, you are right.

To be frank any player who goes to a comic-book MU*, picks a powerful character then tries to resolve plots by himself is a jerk.

It's kind of an honor system even in the comics themselves. Thor doesn't go after Daredevil's goons - of course he can take on a bunch of ninjas. He goes after his own threats.

Ultimately I think we might be trying to solve a social problem through mechanics here.

Unless the campaign is meant to resolve the matter of the God-Machine, its sheer size would probably still have it beyond the realm of understanding for PCs.

Such a behemothian structure would simply be unfathomable so that characters only ever perceive a small subset of the whole (the part which somehow affects them) but have no way of really knowing what the results of their actions are even if there are actions to be taken. It's just too complex, they're sort of like bugs in the dirt trying to figure out a lawnmower - it rearranges their entire reality when it works but what can they possibly figure out about the reason it exists or what lays past their sphere of awareness? Even if they somehow sabotage it so that it doesn't function any more it's just a tiny part of an incredibly larger whole.

Breaking down the 'machine' into manageable parts allows both for the mystery to be maintained and for the PCs to actually have some milestones to look forward to. It's not really the whole thing they're interacting with, it's one of who-knows-how-many subsystems within layers of subsystems.

@dvoraen said in Wheel of Time:

The reason I think it needs to be basically homebrew/customized has to do with addressing the channeler : non-channeler power ratio. Every PC being a channeler isn't precisely boring and stale, since channeling is a diverse system (who has what Talents and skills), but not every PC should necessarily be a channeler, considering that they are approximately 10% (I think that's the percentage) of the population at most.

Also keep in mind the power disparity in the books exists but it's also exaggerated by the book characters; Rand, Mazrim Taim or Nynaeve aren't exactly typical channelers, for example.

One of the (many) ways this could be reflected in mechanics is having players make meaningful choices. Sure you can build someone who can slice weaves and heal or blast with impunity but they'd be a glass canon as well - after all there's a reason Aes Sedai had Warders around and Asha'man started carrying swords. Not everyone should be a top-end channeler and a near Blademaster. Then enforce the natural limitations channelers have, too; for example that they need training to do anything useful (or, hell, to not burn themselves out) so people don't end up making nobles who're also secretly great channelers, too.

But also in my experience in most games people don't necessarily go for the 'power' templates. They go for where the RP is, which sometimes happens to be where the power is because staff don't do their jobs right; the WoT theme provides ample opportunities to go in different directions - there's a full Lords-and-Ladies minigame baked into the settings so you can have cutthroat politics, you can have tournaments and PrPs for weapon wielders, etc.

In other words if you make your game support both channelers and support diversity you'll be fine.

Right? I hadn't heard of this particular anecdote but it sounds plausible.

Look, there's a kind of player who're basically Storyteller jocks. With them it's all about the things they can do to others, the monsters with big stats they created or the gross things they threw at the PCs. They brag about it, too ("so the spirit had 15 dice and it negates defense, AGGRO! Hahaha!") like it's a mark of pride.

I was lucky enough to not be that familiar with the practice until some time on TR when I was invited to some plots which literally started before +inits were rolled; like, we'd start in front of a house where Things Had Happened (how did we get there? who are the other characters? why is my PC with them?), then the bad guys spot the party and they attack. I think at this point since there's nothing else to take pride in - I mean it's not like it'll get marks for creativity or development - the Storyteller just goes overboard with stats and grossness of guts and innards hanging from walls, or giant bloodshot eyeballs with teeth and whatnot doing the attacking.

So it's possible those people @Coin is talking about add NPC casualties in the same list - which is lazy more than anything. If you're worth your salt at all you don't need to go kill the characters' Best Friend merit NPC if you want to create an emotional impact; instead buckle up and use your keyboard to type things which amount to an NPC of your own who's interesting and cool enough for them to care about them. Give them a sense of purpose, generate ties with the party, create rapport, breathe life into them... then butcher the living fuck out of that fucker. Then enjoy the players' hearts breaking and relish in the taste of their tears.

Or, you know, whatever.

@Ganymede said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

To be fair, I was making a move but kept on getting my head cut off.

<Connor MacLeod disapproves>

@shelbeast I know. I didn't want to single you out, but I wanted a meaty quote to anchor what I had to say and yours worked.

I don't agree that the relegation to that forum was uncalled for. It wasn't picked because it was opt-in but because it was the correct one. Let me say that again - the reason it's in the Hog Pit is that things were already getting pretty personal even from the first couple of posts.

However and aside from that please consider this: Placing it in Mildly Constructive means we'd have spent the whole time trying to prevent people from personal attacks which go against the forum's rules, and since one of those attacks was bound to be aimed at a forum administrator (since we are gamers too, and two of us play on F&L) then that would have been called biased administration and that it looks bad.

You can see that, right? The first time I stepped in to tell someone to back off from Gany (which I'd only do because the forum rules say so, not because the lawbot can't tear someone to shreds without my help) I'd be accused as well of backing my fellow admins.

Well, now it's in the Hog Pit where none of us is any more sacrosanct than anyone else.

@Sunny Did someone say spreadsheets? Bahgawd, that's EVE Online's music!

@sunny I think 15 years ago (or even earlier...) there was just... a sense of the unknown. No one really knew how things were supposed to be done, and that allowed for a lot of things which have been normalized since to not happen today any more.

When it comes to borderline antisocial behavior though the most fertile ground for truly horrid behavior is the promotion of the idea we are all terrible people but only some of us admit it or are brave enough to act on it. I don't know that even WORA started out they way it turned out in the end, but it was coopted by certain people as a venue to try and claim their attitude is commonplace and thus somehow acceptable. We certainly didn't know each other - there was no... history there. No reputation, nothing. We were just letters on someone else's CRT screens.

These days... well, we don't all have to like each other here; I'm sure I'm not some misguided souls' favorite person myself, and I don't cherish every single one of you the same either.

But that doesn't mean we are bad people or that we can't work together to help identify and isolate the fuckheads who sneak into our hobby and try to screw it up.

@TiredEwok I hate the self-proclaimed "experts" in every genre.

@sunny The weird part is denying it. Who do they think they're fooling if it's literally word-for-word?

... The other (scary) case is they've actually convinced themselves they did come up with it.