Posts made by Arkandel

@HelloProject There are so many ways you can do this it's not even funny.

For example consider horizontal rather than vertical progression paths. This is pretty common on many MMORPGs for example; on WoW the maximum level you can attain is 110, and XP get you there, but every 110-level character isn't at the same power level - they can get gear through doing dungeons, they can improve their artifact weapon through questing, and you should absolutely consider cosmetic improvements as separate progression paths as well because they are, ranging from achievements, titles, skins, mounts... players spend hundreds of hours on those things.

In a MU* you can do the same thing. XP could be absent or be tiered, allowing the fastest/most active players to get to the cap each time and then while they wait for everyone else to catch up you can give them different carrots to gain; reputation, ranks, in-game items, resources, land... then once the game begins to stagnate up the odds again and let the chase start anew. Or don't.

Game design is one of the most exciting parts of making a game, allowing you to pour a ton of creativity and cool new stuff into it. The only catch is once you commit to it you're sort of stuck, since converting to a new one after the MU* has launched and people are using it is a huge pain in the ass, so you want to hopefully figure this shit out before you implement it.

It baffles me some MU* runners redo what the last game did almost verbatim. It seems like such a waste of perfectly good fun on their behalf.

Also who thought this was a good idea? I mean aside from the concept itself being stupid, who approved of that poster alone with that tagline? Come on, people.

@HelloProject Try this 20-page thread about an XP-less system instead then.

But all I meant is whatever you do has consequences, good and bad. For example you can also consider 'open' systems to be XP-less - they can be stat-less, or everyone gets a certain amount of points and they distribute them, or anything else. It's easier, it involves less work from staff, you're probably reducing CGen to nearly nothing so people can get on the grid faster... but you eliminate the carrot of progression. Is that better ? For some games, maybe? For others not so much? You're the judge, headwiz person!

Really, Lebanon?

@HelloProject said in How Do I Headwiz?:

Is there a way to eliminate XP? Should I even try? People have seen my game thread and my concept, is the elimination of XP an endeavour worth pursuing, or should I just try to refine XP to work in a way that's not shitty?

The question to the first question is always yes. You'll find the answer to almost all of those questions is the same; yes.

The catch is there's also always going to be a tradeoff and, you guessed it, the person who gets to decide whether that tradeoff is worth it is you.

Game design is largely a matter of picking your poisons.

@Coin I was actually talking about this with a friend recently but one thing is... the definition of what conflict of interest entails tends to be pretty damn fluid, and sometimes downright unfair. I've seen staff (not just headwiz) being complained about because they ran plot for their friends, even if it wasn't metaplot or gave those PCs any particular advantage that a normal ST couldn't convey.

And the funny thing is the ways around it are just as baffling to me. For instance running those same plots as your alt - using the exact same commands - sometimes mitigates such complaints when really, all that changes is which tab you're typing from.

Anyway, that's why having a thick skin is so important though since otherwise it's easy to be worn down from being nagged at while genuinely trying to just help people have some fun, and having others go "well, why are THEY having more fun than ME?". However I'd still rely on trusted outsiders I can go to for an objective sanity check because there is always the chance I might be doing something borderline unethical and not realize it - wholesale assuming players are just being whiny bitches about it is probably going too far.

@HelloProject said in How Do I Headwiz?:

One thing I've noticed about a lot of places, is that the places aren't really made with the amount of work it would take to maintain such a place. Like, making incredibly long apps even though that would obviously be a huge workload if you got a ton of players, or straight up lacking a firm advancement policy, so you end up with a fuckload of jobs that all have to be handled somewhat differently, with no real guide to look at for how to handle any given one.

Ever since some friendly neighborhood coders made it easy(..ier) to run certain kinds of MU* we've seen a lot of them showing up, that's true, and some barely had any effort put in them at all. It's as if the ones responsible genuinely felt the real hurdles were figuring out where to host it and how to pick a city to run it (San Francisco... or maybe New York?!?). Or there is very little thought put into basic systems - an easy one is deciding characters will get <X> XPs per week but they haven't crunched the numbers to see what that means in terms of advancement, or to ensure they'll end up getting the kind of game they seem to want to this way. Or they take it for granted there'll be STs to pick up the slack because they had friends who totally promised they'd come and run stuff, but they never made arrangements for it or actually put a framework in place for these plots to occur.

I'm not saying that you can entirely eliminate work, but just, from my general observations, people seem very prone to adding more work than necessary rather than designing things to the best of their ability to minimize work where ever it's actually possible to do so. MCM for example, even though I like their current app in theory, in practice this app seems like it adds a hell of a lot more and emotional labor for staff than the old one.

It does. The sad thing, which I've literally never seen averted, is that the higher up you are in the staff hierarchy the smaller the chance you can actually play the very game you're pouring all that work into. You just can't; either there's never enough time to or the chance for conflicts of interest is too high.

So if you are going to do this then staffing itself had better be fun enough for you to keep doing it. You might have 'a character' but that character can never be or do what other PCs get to. It'll always be the headwiz's alt, never Bob or Jane.

@HelloProject The best piece of advice I have is unfortunately not actionable.

Have a thick skin.

That's it. But it's not something you can do, it's just ... developed over time. I hope for the sake of anyone staffing at all, let alone running a game, that they have it because it's an often thankless job and an endless grind which starts at 100% inspiration and creativity but ends up being 10% of that (... if you're lucky) and 90% work, maintenance, and handling people.

@HelloProject said in RL Anger:

So I try to remember the consequences of hitting people, because there is a limit to the pure goodness in one's heart to simply not hit someone when they become grossly racist every time you're alone with them and none of your other friends are around to see it.

Hey, I never said I never wanted to hit someone. And sure enough there are folks who can get under your skin (usually because that's exactly what they're trying to do) and make you do things you'll regret later.

@HelloProject said in RL Anger:

While I think all of these "white nationalists" as they like to be called, are garbage human beings, I also don't believe in hitting them, because, as much as people hate to hear this, that makes average people sympathize with them before actually hearing the crazy racist bullshit they have to say. It makes your Average Joe dude go, "Wow, this is just like the time a black person was mean to me, I guess all this white nationalism stuff must have some weight to it".

I could care less who sympathizes with whom. I wouldn't hit anyone other than in direct defense of myself or another because that's not what I believe in or how I want to behave.

@HelloProject You're gonna fuck up. You're gonna make mistakes. You're gonna annoy people you like.

The least you can do is make your own mistakes and decisions while you're at it. Own the game, own your calls and whatever happens, happens.

Maybe this should be in the "things I love" thread. I dunno.

But last day at my (soon to be) old job! And last time I'll ever see a bunch of people who're very familiar to me, most likely. Feels kinda weird, and meh, and exciting.

@surreality Yeah, some amount of flexibility might be a good thing anyway even if it increases complexity, for very specific cases.

For example you might want to have two rolls - a Persuasion one to convince Molly you it's okay if you just go into her boss' office for a minute to drop off a memo and a Subterfuge roll to make it sound like you'd be in trouble if she told on you ("sighs I forgot to do it last night, I'm so dumb!") to keep her quiet. Failure on either could produce different results - not being allowed into the office, or letting you in but telling her boss afterwards to cover her ass, or both.

I mean theoretically you could do these things in any system. An empathy or intelligence/wits roll on nWoD could let you know a probable cause why this weirdo is asking all these questions for example, before or after the fact.

The attacker's successes have nothing to do with it. A used car salesman might charm you into buying a piece of shit rustbucket for a lot of money, and you can fall for it while he's doing the talking, but figure out what happened once you go home and sigh at yourself.

@surreality said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@Arkandel said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

On the other hand - for example - I keep going back to having too many possible specialties and sub-cases is a systemic problem; with physical confrontations I could conceivably specialize and be entirely functional at a far smaller cost than it takes to be versed enough to cover their every social equivalent - grab Weaponry and Strength... and you're done, you're now useful in 90% of fighty situations where you have access to an axe. But if you get Presence and Intimidation you might be useless to a diplomatic meeting; no, the ST called for Manipulation and Persuasion. D'oh!

This is really not hard to manage. It's not even hard, man.

There is a reference list of what the rolls entail in most systems. (Not all of which are WoD. WoD is more flexible with this in ways that plenty of games are not -- and this is quite relevant in a general discussion. Don't hang the problems of WoD around the neck of every other potential game out there, essentially.)

Yes, sometimes people can fudge them in special circumstances.

That doesn't mean that a standard reference does not -- or cannot -- exist to almost completely if not completely resolve this issue.

I've played two kinds of games in the last 3 years; nWoD {1,2}.0 ones and Arx. They both had this problem. In fact Arx specifically attempted to fix it by making physical skills twice as expensive and still landed squarely into it anyway in the end.

I agree that a solution is possible but our chronic inability to implement one suggests it's not that easy, if only because the issue is downplayed or misidentified.

Some issues, as @Sparks and others noted, can't be fixed. The same kind of player who won't accept 'losing' anything ever would also pitch a fit in a physical confrontation as well anyhow, and combat is supposed to be a solved problem for us.

On the other hand - for example - I keep going back to having too many possible specialties and sub-cases is a systemic problem; with physical confrontations I could conceivably specialize and be entirely functional at a far smaller cost than it takes to be versed enough to cover their every social equivalent - grab Weaponry and Strength... and you're done, you're now useful in 90% of fighty situations where you have access to an axe. But if you get Presence and Intimidation you might be useless to a diplomatic meeting; no, the ST called for Manipulation and Persuasion. D'oh!

To be honest after discussing these things at length in threads like this I'm inclined to agree with an earlier approach @Ganymede suggested; just not have social stats. I'm not satisfied with it, it reduces the number of different niches and 'builds' in games, but it still seems better to what we're coming up with so far.

Then again someone will come with an easy to use integrated solution one of these days to make it all come together... I hope.

@surreality said in Social Combat: Reusing Physical Combat System?:

@Coin They're definitely out there, yeah. (Especially irksome are the ones that love to talk endlessly on channels about the ninety things that they could do to <any random person>, but flip their shit if there's even a snowball's chance in hell that someone could do something that might have an impact on them somehow. )

I've found people love to brag on channels, and that those more prone to doing so are those who actually play the least; they just like to imagine what they would do with their stats and powers, but it's rarely to the point they put that to a test. This often comes with comments like "I'm considering making him pay for what he just said!" - but always exclusively on the channel and where the target of that ire doesn't have access.

It usually don't mean anything. People, as noted, don't like to 'lose' even if 'losing' is actually a net gain.

@Coin That's why I always advocate rewarding confrontations. If the only outcome of social 'combat' is that you either 'win' or 'lose', and winning essentially means you retain the status quo then from that perspective being challenged at all is never a good thing. The best case scenario for you is that nothing happens - at least from a systemic point of view.

This looks interesting TJ. Just one comment:

@tragedyjones said in Sin City Chronicles:

• Every year, The Compact shall appoint 6 citizens from each Society to act as enforcers of the Compact among their own.

I'd advise against these being PCs. A finite small number of characters hand-picked by staff to hold special thematic positions might be a bad idea. NPCs would work better, then you can use them as quest givers.

@Cobaltasaurus said in Chronicles of Darkness Game: Seeking help:

Y'all're literally no help!

Welcome to MSB!

Maybe I'll do this:

That does sound cool. Basically make sure you're not too restrictive in terms of concepts and it'll be fine, I'm sure.