Posts made by Arkandel

@cobaltasaurus One question (I might have missed the answer at a first read) - why would you say someone might play a Seedless? Unless it was meant specifically to be a 'becoming' arc, what's the niche for a PC Seedless?

Is there truly nothing we can't bicker over? Because this time we're bickering over a flow chart.

@aria said in Good TV:

Aggretsuko makes me happy. : D

Wtf is Aggretsuko?

@bad-at-lurking said in Gamifying Plots:

@ganymede

I'd love to have that kind of time, but MUing is not a job and I'm fairly sure that if I stopped feeding him, my dog would eventually eat me.

You need to first figure out how to strike a balance between what you can invest into staffing for a game and the rest of your life. It's pretty much never a good idea to over-invest, since either your initial efforts will be taken for granted then they'll go to waste once the production drops off, or you'll burn out badly which isn't good for you or anyone else involved.

The unicorn solution is to find player Storytellers. Delegate tasks and let them run things too since then as your playerbase grows so do your plot-runners by association.

But how you will find them? Best of luck.

I like 2E mainly since it's better (not perfect, but a massive improvement) in terms of inter-sphere balance.

1E didn't even try in that regard; Werewolves are written as badasses but mechanically they're the golden retrievers of the WoD, and Sin-Eaters are written as quirky mediums but play like juggernauts.

@bobgoblin said in The Basketball Thread:

If those players are really that bad, then the GM needs to be fired immediately and sent to a Gulag in Serbia.

The Cavs' roster isn't bad - that's not their problem. It is overpaid, that's their actual problem.

In today's NBA it's all about the salary cap and how it's utilized. In this case LeBron was the actual cause of his own team's greatest issue, since after they won in 2016 he got J.R. Smith and Tristan Thomson paid. Neither of them is producing reliably, and certainly not at the levels their contracts would demand, and they can't get rid of them because other teams are aware of their actual value.

So the Cavs are stuck with what they have. I'd be shocked either if they do better in the Finals than a gentleman's sweep (5-1) or if LeBron sticks around next year. He's 33 years old, he can't be carrying people playing 48 minutes a game forever.

@faraday said in Earning stuff:

Side note - it's FS3 not FS. Faraday's Simple Skill System.

Oops, my bad. Someone called it FS and I guess I went along with it.

@faraday said in Earning stuff:

For example - say that the Captain gets killed and somebody needs to be promoted to take their place. IC advancement would be based on some logical IC criteria - time in rank, political achievements, whatever. That's a very different metric than you'd find on a game that values OOC advancement more, which might make the decision more based on OOC factors of who could handle the role better or who had been around longer.

Let's put a twist on that though.

There's are some IC candidates for the position, none of them a clear forerunner but there's interest in the vacancy. Then a new person, OOC friend of the Captain's and known by staff creates a new character and voila, that PC is handed the keys to the Captaincy.

It's where the allegations of 'earning it' usually come in. Do you (as staff) want a non-ideal but already IC positioned person who has taken some steps in taking up a role, or someone who hasn't done anything for it yet but who you expect will be a better fit? And should it matter what 'you' want or should it come down to actions and decisions made in-game?

@thatguythere said in The Basketball Thread:

As much as I dislike Harden I will have to cheer for Houston tonight. I have been dreading Warriors -Cavs for for the last 6 months.

Yeah, as much as I like Steph as a person I despise the Warriors. What KD did was the most bitch move ever by a top player. I'd love the Dubs to go out, but even though the game's playing as we speak I seriously doubt it - they just have too much talent stacked up.

Actual (*) conversation I had with my lower back:

Me: Let's do all the things!
Lower back: I'm tired. Let's not do these things.
Me: You're not the boss of me! I'll what I want!
Lower back: Hold my beer.

(*) Dramatization.

@faraday said in Earning stuff:

In theory maybe. In practice, when I played, I was perpetually behind everyone else because they were hard-core and I was casual.

Sure, and that same effect (being unable to play with your friends as a peer) is in place for MUSHes as well. In fact it's more pronounced there since socialization is pretty much the only way to enjoy the game - there's no solo content! That's why I said earlier activity is the ultimate player resource.

My point is just that advancement/earning systems all have the same potential pitfalls: the Dino Effect, OOC jealousy, alienating casual or disconnected players (as some were talking about on the other gamification thread), and other unintended consequences.

Right. Mine is that there even on games designed around these pitfalls - such as FS - you noted yourself people still find a way to compare themselves to each other and complain about it. I can't say if it's human nature or a cultural norm cultivated over all the other games they're playing but it's there. For example we've seen how even non-systemic elements such as who's hanging out with whom ('those guys are always locked up in a room together, they must be TSing!') are viewed enviously.

I wonder though how you feel about the observation made earlier in this thread - that what's earned is valued more. Do you find from your point of view as staff on a FS game that it's true? Do players seem to prize their achievements less or do they make up/use metrics (such as kills) they can feel proud of? Are they missing out?

@faraday said in Earning stuff:

And forget about ever trying to catch up to my friends, who have been playing longer. Even with the bonus rested XP or whatever, it's the Dino Effect on a massive scale. I hate it.

I honestly feel the rat race (har har) in regards to leveling is an artifact MMOs are simply copying over from one to the next any more or a money grab to prolong subscriptions. There's no point in it. In the majority of games there the progression from 1 to $MAX_LEVEL doesn't count anyway since gameplay (be that raiding, PvP or whatever else) is aimed for the max. For example any new storylines WoW introduces is only available for 110 (the current maximum) so leveling an alt there is, at best, a timesink.

However to truly catch up on the power curve all that matters is gear. To avoid the dino effect you mention WoW has periodic catching up events - basically when they have a big patch every few months to introduce fresh, harder content they also open a new quest nexus or vendors who hand out cheap gear just high enough to handle that content enough to farm better stuff.

That doesn't mean either is bad though, as millions of players who do play those games illustrate. It just means people look for different things in their games.

Yeah, if one kind of game was what everyone enjoyed then by now we'd have figured out what it is, and that's all we'd be making.

@surreality said in Earning stuff:

When it comes to individual character advancement, I am very biased in favor of 'earned', to the extent that the 'just handed out' portion I've considered implementing remains consistent and has a 'catch up' metric to not benefit early adopters to the detriment of new arrivals

I have two caveats about what you're saying sur. Let me break those down:

This is because different players have different strengths, and ultimately I believe in rewarding the player's contribution to the game (as a community) as much as anything any given character has learned or accomplished.

This is really important because you've seen how we all value different playstyles here on MSB even when it's a theoretical thought exercise and not a matter of dictating policy; anything from posed tense or length, playing to win or not, sharing or hogging the spotlight, PrPs versus grid play... it would be very easy for staff (and thus systems) to bypass players whose contributions are using a different vector than expected.

To give an example consider the stereotypical "quest-giver" type of high end noble. It's a pretty useful archetype - you're in a position to delegate responsibilities and thus generate RP for others, but depending on how that's measurable (or if) it can slip under the radar since you're facilitating rather than directly determining the outcome of RP. The party you just inspired to go investigate the attack at that farm got a sweet PrP out of it and some extra XP, but maybe your efforts weren't recognized the same way.

Earning things depends on observable contributions.

This means you can do what Apos describes quite well: reward the behavior you want to encourage, whatever those behaviors may be. It may be volunteering to help newbies at certain times, it may be running plots, it may be creating on-grid businesses, it may be creating new items in character, writing up specs for items/magic/rosters/what-have-you for the game on the whole to benefit from out of character, going for the compromise rather than the kill, taking a loss... the list is practically endless.

Again I agree, but again I'll present a counterpoint - in this case that what staff wants to incentivize isn't necessarily what they are actually doing.

For instance +vote based systems are supposed to reward socialization by crowd-sourcing the act... yet they have been known to go awry either because players mishandled them ('YOU get a vote, and YOU get a vote... everyone gets a vote!') or the carrot itself distorts the nature of interactions on the grid by creating gigantic scenes people join to try and milk votes. Both HM and Arx have suffered from the same issue, at least for those who prefer smaller gatherings, since they can force players to choose between comfort and advancement.

In other words even if you go in with the purest motives to reward what you want to encourage, it doesn't mean you don't end up inadvertently causing a different, possibly unrelated or even counterproductive effect.

@bobgoblin The addendum was already in there!

Hot take: Lebron could take an Eastern Conference team consisted of myself, the guy who drove my bus this morning, the cashier at the Tim Horton's around the corner and my cat to the NBA Finals.

@ixokai can we please move the 1E versus 2E discussion elsewhere as @Auspice requested? Feel free to start a new thread if needed.

@lithium said in Earning stuff:

I'm of the opinion that stuff /earned/ has more value... but being able to spend xp for stuff can also be nice for those who don't have the time to run multiple plots but still want to have stuff.

Although it's probably not debatable that earned stuff is more valuable, requiring it to be earned by both the person who can log on every day for hours and the one who plays twice a week introduces the same kind of barrier even if there are no XP involved.

For instance should you have to earn playing Batman? Should Batman go to a very active, great player as opposed to a somewhat active good one? We treat the answer as obvious sometimes but I think it's still going to be useful to discuss why since there are sideeffects; for instance a super involved character of this magnitude could have a cascading effect on the game's plotlines. Assuming he doesn't go to a bad player, should he be available on a first-come basis instead?

Activity tends to also be the ultimate player resource, perhaps even more so than XP, positions or in some cases even writing skill. Characters who get to be on the grid doing things more often tend to be more successful - powerful, influential, known - than those who are less active. How does this fact (if y'all agree it's the case, and feel free to debate otherwise) affect players having to earn things?

TL;DR: This is a discussion trying to answer a simple question - should players have to earn their stuff?

Usually threads like this attempt to discuss the nuts and bolts of progression; that is whether there is a hard or soft cap on XP, how or if newbies can catch up to oldbies, even if system A is better than system B. I wanted to see if there's interest in debating the same issue from a more fundamental point of view - namely whether a character's power should be offered based on performance (in other words, if it has been 'earned') or if everyone should get the same opportunities... and, more importantly, why. What is the reasoning behind choosing to go with either design option.

When we discuss progression here it should mean both directly quantifiable traits - typically numbers on a +sheet which players can raise with XP - and stuff like ranks, positions or titles bestowed on individual characters.

Some games try to boost progression to the players they deem worthy based on whatever criteria their staff sees fit; activity levels, peer recognition (think +votes), plot participation or running, and so on. It's a carrot of sorts to incentivize what the MU* wants to see more of. Furthermore important positions are either earned in-game or they only become available to trusted individuals in whatever way the game has implemented 'earning' them.

Other games offer the same opportunities across the board. Think a universal flat rate of XPs per week, rostered positions given on a first-come first-served basis, or even implement a completely statless approach; all characters are (at least theoretically) equal and if some are more recognized than the rest it's because of how they are played and recognized by their peers.

What works best and in which cases? What are we hoping to see and what do we actually get, historically, given either approach?

Discuss.

@magee101 said in Gamifying Plots:

@arkandel its a little more than that. Clqiues tend to be groups that alienate players that are not part of their group, have high barriers for entry, and tend to give far too many fucks about other groups or individuals to the point of bullying.

Sure, of course they are, but my point is distinguishing the difference between that and a group of friends who're just playing and sticking together is a very subjective deal.

With that in mind:

@bad-at-lurking said in Gamifying Plots:

the plot tokens can be a useful meta-currency for rewarding behavior we want to see or for taking up roles we want to see filled

That's a good idea, assuming you guys have enough resources to make it work in the mid/long term. The meta-currency idea is better - I think - than the custom plots one simply because it gives players more flexibility; some will have access to pocket GMs to run things for them if need be, but they might be attracted by the currency aspect.

I advise you to think of tangible 'roles' in advance though and monitor how they can be taken, or how attractive they will be in comparison both to each other but also to 'free' ones.

@alzie I wonder why some people think Mage is complicated. I don't get it.

@bad-at-lurking said in Gamifying Plots:

There is a difference between 'clique' and 'group'. At least in implication.

The usual difference is this: A clique is a group you are not a member of.