Posts made by Arkandel

I restored the thread to its former dubious glory. Please note its removal was not an administrative action in the first place.

@Tempest Wut? I didn't delete anything.

@Apos However it is also known in the hobby there is a type of player who wants to have the pie and eat it; they want to be playing with that-one-friend-there but also enjoy the benefits of establishing an IC foothold in the game's niches.

For instance on TR I remember this person who held rank... I want to say it was in the Circle of the Crone but I could be mistaken. He was always behind closed doors, but kept buying up Status every chance they had, and was running for every rank available for the Praxis based on the aforementioned Status; when he finally attended a meeting required for that position and he confronted with "uhm, who are you?" he pointed hard at the +sheet merit points to justify his contributions.

So the question of how inclusion into the metaplot depends on a player's personality, the character's achievements or coded traits does still exist. Which combination of those should exclude someone from participation? At which point do I come out of nowhere and tell the GM I want to go north of the Wall with Jon Snow to capture a wight and get told I can't because none of the squad knows me?

This is not a far fetched scenario at all - it's in fact quite common in many games even for 'regular' everyday PrPs, where PCs show up in the middle of an +event series without taking either OOC or IC effort to figure out the plausibility of their inclusion causing the person running it to make an awkward call.

"My name is Barry Allen, and I'm the fastest man alive!"

No, man, you're not. Every goddamn season there's a villain notably faster than you. Stop lying.

@surreality Now I want TJ to admit he stole it from me and we just got ourselves a full-on inception.

@Sunny It sounds like someone who screwed up by doing things at the last second and she's trying to shift the blame.

Well, usually the absence of a metaplot signals a sandbox game, and I've yet to see a non-sex MU* where that approach is successful.

But there is room between these two extremes, or there ought to be.

Although I don't think @surreality came up with it in the first place it hadn't occurred to me before she mentioned it a while ago that episodic TV arcs are a good translation for how metaplot 'should' work on a MU*.

On TV there's an actual formula they had come up at some point to accommodate both new and regular viewers - something like "1 episode in 3 advances the plot and the other two are whatever else". That lets casual viewers tuning in once in a while to not be completely lost if they start watching in mid-season but it also gives more dedicated ones a reason to plant their ass on the couch every Tuesday at 8 and watch the next one once they are hooked; likewise it allows a periodic renewal so you're not exposed to the same damn plot for years by switching old arcs up for new ones before they get too stale.

MU* can absolutely borrow a page from that recipe. For instance you do want to cater to newer players who aren't as integrated into your plot; if I roll on today and existing characters who have been leading the war against the evil vampire chief for months then there may not be a niche for my PC to do anything. There are guys around who have personal relationships with NPCs, who've done the research, fought the bloodsuckers and have tales to tell.. my guy has nothing, and catch-up isn't always fun.

But if this is just an arc, not all there is then I could just bide my time and wait it out; in a month or two the bad guys will be defeated and maybe we'll find out it was demons behind it all along using the other stuff as a distraction for their invasion - ah HAH, there's my chance to shine.

On the other hand if the whole game is about fighting vampires for years it gets repetitive. Worse, after a while all characters start specializing for that one thing, which deprives the game of other fun niches; who needs a demon expert if everyone knows it's vampires all the way down?

@WildBaboons The WoT in general suffered from a bad case of the power creeps, where they kept discovering channelers, angreal and tricks more powerful than anyone we'd ever seen before.

@surreality said in World Building: What are the essentials?:

As a player, what information do you want and need about a game world to effectively play the game (ex: be able to formulate a character you feel fits the world and knows what the characters should know about it)?

My first question when I come across a new game is to know what it's about, and if it interests me. That information needs to be right there, smacking me in the face; if you are going to run a swashbuckling pirate game then tell me. Don't leave any room for doubt, I don't want to have to read between the lines to figure out if it's a tactical simulation, a sex game or whatever else. Be explicit.

Then I love it when there's an 101 after that - don't just toss walls of text in my face since, at this point, I don't know yet if I want to invest so much time. Just ease me into it, give me the basics, tell me what the environment is like in general (is it historically accurate? pure fantasy? is there magic?) and some tidbits about the political/social status of the time so I can already start pre-thinking about cool concepts I can play.

This is the stage you're getting me excited about your game.

As a player, what kind of information do you find gets in your way more than it helps you accomplish this?

If you still have my attention now I want to see if it's actually worth diving into... start giving me some meat. Organization here is key - break it down! A history section to know what the world is like, a few systems entries to know how mechanics work, if there are classes, what the factions are. Categorization here for me is key so I can pursue what I'm curious about at my own pace without having to cherry-pick through the 18 pages of prose you wrote that night you were feelin' it in order to find what I'm looking for.

Is it important to you, as a player, to have information available that distinguishes 'what locals would know' vs. 'what out of towners/new arrivals' would know?

To me it is, but I'm weird about information. And it's not just locals, it's... I need to know if the metaplot is common knowledge for example. If I'm applying for an vampire would he know the Gangrel Prince who vanished was in truth Malkavian since you mention it in the helpfiles? Is it known the Sabbat have been trying to infliltrate the Camarilla for the ten years? Seperating OOC from IC knowledge somehow comes in very handy for me.

If you're a new arrival, what kind of information is useful to you about your character's original culture? (This is more relevant in original settings than modern 'real world' setting games for obvious reasons.)

I suppose it'd be nice to have points of view. If my englishman is coming to this New World town how much has he heard about the weird shit that's been going on there? As a local what's the average perception of fresh fish coming in? Do we like Irishmen or do we hate these buggers around these parts? Have there been racial tensions or are people more or less united since there's a bigger threat around?

Does it help to have information about what misconceptions, rumors, etc. from your character's original culture's perspective about the game's setting?

The tough part there usually is keeping them up to date and current. It also does little good to have strange rumors about what's really going on if as soon as characters get into any scene they get the stock IC welcoming package telling them everything about the werewolf attacking the city and exactly how to kill one.

@WTFE said in The Metaplot:

No, the problem is when staff makes a metaplot so intrusive you can't escape it. And, indeed, when you try to escape it or avoid it they go out of their way to make sure that the plot follows you around.

I think a big problem we often make here is that we mistake a general concept with its worst implementations .In other words, that we look at the way staff at a specific game we played did a thing and extrapolate from that that the thing is always bad.

In terms of the metaplot in particular it shouldn't be something you want to escape. It ought to be the reason you are there in the first place!

Let me give an example. Let's say you make a post-apocalyptic game where characters are desperately trying to survive, barely able to stay one step ahead from annihilation using low-tech tools and trading with other survivors for basic necessities; you bust your ass to stack the odds so that they can be overcome and want to put the emphasis on character relationships and growth.

Then I come in and I want to do my thing; I want to bring back civilisation in a year or less. I toss +jobs at you with wikipedia links about making solar panels and try to build mech suits and use drones strikes to defeat my enemies; I mean that's definitely great, and it could be awesome for a game, but as long as you make it clear what game you are trying to play then what am I doing in it? Is it fair that I complain your metaplot sucks? It doesn't suck... it's just not what I like, and it's not your fault I tried to turn your MU* into following my vision.

@Gingerlily said in Eliminating social stats:

I understand where you are coming from here, but I think it is the sort of viewpoint that requires reflection.

Let's reflect then!

Yes, there are players who write far better than others, who can make convincing arguments and recruit allies regardless of what is on their sheet. There are also players who are newer to the hobby, who are translating in their heads from a language other than English, etc. If we decide that they don't get to rp a beautiful, charming woman who can flirt her way out of a problem, that's kind of elitist.

Elitism is part of the hobby though. It is a hobby, and it does require some skill to play; there is an unfairness in that some are just better gifted than others, I agree, but that comes with the territory. You can have a room full of aspiring writers, all of whom are working just as hard, but some are just more talented than the rest; or a team of basketball players who are busting their asses, but some are just more athletic, can jump higher or are just taller (and it's an old coaching adage - you can't teach height).

I can't tell you what makes a great roleplayer great. It's not just writing skill and it's definitely not language alone. There's no rote to follow - I've seen people who throw a thesaurus' worth of synonyms in every pose and the poses are still not that great. But I do know one when I see them.

Such a player will be more popular than another who isn't as skilled and that's just just how it is; it doesn't make a difference if their character has low social stats or that they are played properly, because even if they roleplay a Nosferatu whose nose has fallen off and can't open their mouths without making a blunder they are still more fun to hang around than someone else with Socialize 5 and Striking Looks. At least I know who I'd want my character to be buddies or hook up with or whatever.

On a language based medium we can decide that we only want to be affected by great writing, and that those without the same command of the language can't play with us. Whether or not that sits well with a game designer or a game's players is up to them, but own it.

I think I just did, but of course others' mileage may vary. I'd be interested in hearing from them. Notice however I never said I wouldn't play with people who can't roleplay as well - generally I'd play with anyone. But I don't shy away from admitting roleplaying skill matters socially way more than stats do, and that (for me) expecting it to be otherwise because of the system is a failure on behalf of the system.

@Tempest said in Wheel of Time MU(SH|X):

What MUs have you been playing?

My experience tells me the "regular PCs" will eventually (because omg what about CHARACTER GROWTH? If my character isn't getting stronger, why am I even RPing!? /s) be powerful enough to wipe out every single Forsaken at once without batting an eye.

But if we start with the assumption staff is bad, or at least that they aren't good at system design (which is what the symptoms you are referring to are caused by) then of course things will go south.

That's why threads like this exist, to help steer design around issues like power inflation to the point the game's theme is no longer challenging for its own PCs.

What's the consensus on NPCs?

For instance a problem with not having the Forsaken around is how neat they can be when they get involved in a plot. They're part of what makes the WoT so great - an identifiable individual evil cast each with their own motivation and methods.

The disadvantage of having the Forsaken around without the good-guy book characters to balance them out is that they should be able to curbstomp basically anything regular PCs can put together.

@Admiral Yeah, please don't promote genocide on MSB.

I guess the title speaks for itself.

@Collective Who did you play on Tyme?

TGIF jerks!

@Kanye-Qwest Nothing about the Ever Victorious Army is funny!

Actually I'm also confused now too. What is a RPI MUD and how is it different than a social MUD or a ... RP (?) MUSH in the context of roleplaying?