Posts made by Arkandel

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

I think an even more arching issue is whether failure is really a goal to strive for in the first place. What is the problem that we're trying to solve here?

The way I see it the problem we are really trying to solve here is that, unlike table-top or video games, on a MU* there islimited access to desired venues, achievements or outcomes.

Some examples:

• In table-top you are never out of the group. But in a MU* access to structured plots varies.
• In a video game your character is special by default - in Skyrim you are the Dragonborn. On a MU* you're not special by default (or rather 'everyone is special').
• In table-top and video games you get to participate in all meaningful encounters. You want to face Arthas, the Lich King? You got it, baby! On a MU* you may never be in the same room as the Big Bad.
• In table-top access to your friends isn't compromised by failure. Even if your character dies in a campaign the DM will let you roll another and find a way to incorporate them fully into the group and current narrative. On a MU* that might not be possible at all. Even your name loss might have a social impact after a reroll.
• In table-top there is more social transparency. You are (presumably) playing with friends, people you know. The GM (probably) likes you enough to invite you to their campaign. The party likes your company. On a MU* especially for someone more socially awkward that can appear to be otherwise, while true or not, so when you 'lose' it can seem... personal.

And so on.

@doozer I've consider buying CK3. How hard is it to start? Does it entail arcane screens full of stats or is it intuitive enough to get started then harder to master later?

What's very interesting to me is how split people's opinions are while discussing IC failure.

Several people for example try to solve this issue through mechanics. "When you fail a +roll this is how I'd reward that failure".

Then several others are specifically pointing out they don't use rolls in social settings, they don't like using rolls even in plots for things their characters are supposed to be good at, and roll rarely otherwise.

There's a gap here I'm not sure is being bridged.

@faraday said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

They are not being used. Most players don't roll in social encounters unless there's some kind of pivotal moment, usually around conflict. That's pretty rare. They do get used in PrPs when prompted by a GM but of course that, too, is biased toward those with access to such scenes.

Totally agree, but I don't see that as a problem. My games always contain this guidance:

Well it is a problem if the game runners assume their players are +rolling on a regular basis, and distribute XP based on that assumption.

Similarly when it comes to incentivizing failure, a lot of the scenarios leading to it cannot be summed down to a single roll of the dice. If the Council votes against your IC interests (which they do based on individual scenes leading up to it, the voters' private IC motivations, political maneuvering etc) what is the roll going to be?

@faraday I think one of the least recognized issues with rolls in general is that staff who implement systems based on that system expect them to be used.

They are not being used. Most players don't roll in social encounters unless there's some kind of pivotal moment, usually around conflict. That's pretty rare. They do get used in PrPs when prompted by a GM but of course that, too, is biased toward those with access to such scenes.

However the Venn diagram of game-runners and roll-users is sometimes close to a full circle.

@il-volpe said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

@arkandel Yep.

I'm more-or-less against XP as a plot-reward on MUs, since getting to participate in a plot/event (especially one that's risky and meaningful and not a birthday party) is itself a reward more desirable than XP. The extra XP seems like, here, you did such a good job eating cake that you deserve an ice cream too. Some most intense 'no fair fucking favouritism' feels came from hearing somebody talk about how many "luck"/"karma" rescue-me-with-a-reroll-or-a-deus-ex-or-I'll-die points they'd spent when other (equally active with older or same-age PCs) players never had call to even consider using them.

Some good questions quickly arise; what you reward XP for, how one receives them (is it a 'pull' where you file a +job or a 'push' where somehow XP is granted to you proactively), and the most important one of all - what are you trying to promote through XP rewards in general?

The first question is perhaps the easiest. Is it participation? Achievement? Effort? Activity? But - as staff - you need to consciously be aware of what you're throwing XPs at.

With the second question gets trickier. For example a 'pull' system is by definition biased towards those who will file such +jobs; some players do, some really don't (or not nearly as often). Not everyone likes to type justifications or face scrutiny from staff, no matter whether staff will scrutinize or not; the expectation is often enough of a barrier. And yet 'push' systems are prone to their own issues - automatic systems don't understand nuance (how could they). But staff isn't always there at every scene either. +vote systems are notorious for promoting cliques. So how do XP reach your players? What is the poison you're willing to pick for your game?

Finally... rewards (including XP) are there for a reason. Which kinds of players - which sorts of behaviors - are you, as staff, directly promoting through its distribution? For instance noted above, if the main way to earn it is PrPs then those who run scenes (and those who befriend them ) are the main beneficiaries. If you only incentivize success then those who win get ahead; is it any wonder, then, that some folks metagame, get upset when they lose, etc? You could always reward things on a flat scale, too ("everyone gets <X> experience a week if they log on") which promotes... logins. Is that enough of a bar for you and your game?

I feel until questions such as these are part of a MU*'s design then working on how to mitigate the negative side-effects of IC failure itself is more challenging than it needs to be.

One of the common pitfalls in many of the games I've played is that risk is up to the GM running a PrP, but rewards are heavily restricted or simply not systematized in any way whatsoever.

So for example, I want to run a PrP where the characters are going after some gnolls. I arbitrarily decide to make this pretty hard (or don't know how to scale the challenge) so I max the NPC stats, add a higher level chieftain, etc... so the PCs barely make it out alive. Perhaps some don't. However since there's no staff oversight not much can come of it. I don't have the authority to throw some actually tangible rewards at the end - perhaps not even more XP than if this was a birthday party PrP. Certainly nothing like a title, recognition by important NPC leadership (who're only played by staff who may never even hear about the PrP), some kind of magic item, etc.

So essentially PCs were risked for, well, nothing more than what the exact same adventure would have been at a fraction of its difficulty.

This happened regularly in WoD games where combat was pretty bursty. It was possible even a solid character could get one- or two-shot by a solid roll. But on the other hand PrPs' rewards were often flat regardless of the challenge rating, or simply scaled terribly; if going to your IC cousin's engagement party is worth half the XP of a potentially deadly combat, the latter objectively isn't worth the risk. Sooner or later the dice would go the other way and you would be rerolling.

@ganymede said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

I thought we were talking about game systems which incentivize failure in resolving conflict.

In this context I mean 'systems' in a broader sense than the game mechanics. While those can play into it as well, anything from coded features or automation, rules and policies regarding IC position acquisitions, PrP scheduling, etc can all be part of it. Anything that can mitigate the OOC consequences of 'defeat'.

Mind you though, I am not saying they necessarily should be mitigated, and definitely not in every scenario or game. If someone wants to run a hardcore PvP perma-death MU* that's perfectly valid.

@kk I don't understand the distinction between what you're saying and what @faraday did.

But overall an issue we may want to debate separately here is that not all players are 'equal' when it comes to their ability to impact the plot. It's not necessarily a limitation imposed by their character's nature or stats either; there is a multitude of factors that allow some to take central stage more than others. I could name available RL time to play, timezones, personality, and of course skill (in whatever way that can be measured).

As such I'd expect also that some characters are more likely to fail than others. To use factors from that short list above, if my character and yours are both trying to become the new Sheriff but I only have two hours a week to log on and you are on every night, your PC simply has a better chance of making it.

What I'd ask though is whether we can - or should - systematize so that even when I don't get to play the Sheriff the impact from 'losing' is mitigated. Is it EXP to reflect learning from the experience? Is it a consolation rank/plot inclusion staff throws my way to keep me moving? An OOC requirement from the new Sheriff's player to find a way to let my PC tag along?

@kk said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

I think that looking at importance as ic importance instead of ooc importance is a good first step. It is common on games to see ic rank as ooc rank on a game and also see ic rank as access to plot.
...
As players we could all help out a bit by showing attention/interest/giving rp to characters who don't hold important rank.

I of course agree.

However, and I touched on it in this thread's initial post, these are all social problems. While they can addressed through individual games' cultures, and individual problems can be curated or guided by staff, I don't think they can be solved per se. I'm not even sure they can be 'systemically addressed' either through mechanics, code or rule adjustments; it's not like you can require players to help each other out.

@faraday What about the scenarios where the cost of failure isn't existential ("your character dies, RIP") but one of opportunity ("you don't get to be in the Important People group")?

One of the differences TT has over MU* is that as much as we want to consider PCs the protagonists, it's not necessarily the case. In a 5-man party the GM can ensure everyone gets their time in the spotlight but the model doesn't scale up well.

It seems to me the best case scenarios most games have managed after decades of evolving is either variations of musical chairs models so at least it's not always the same players who end up getting to play with the cool toys, or 'RP socialism' models where the Important Group {tm} isn't available for PCs at all ("the Prince is played by staff").

But to get back on point, failure in MU* leads directly to often avoidable consequences. For example non-consensual character death deprives players of a PC including identity death, loss of invested time, etc.

A question I could ask there is whether the associated stakes justify those costs; in the same example, does it actually cheapen risk sufficiently to take IC death off the table? Do (or how much) would it change the metagame if players knew going in that if they were willing to absorb some other, smaller cost their characters wouldn't die?

@zombiegenesis Right. I think there's some stigma due to the (admittedly often terrible) players who throw fits if their characters fail at something, but there's a legitimate argument to be made.

For example if succeeding at becoming the Sheriff means you are fed regular scenes by every new character in the sphere and automatic notifications or inclusion in plots that require an 'authority figure', but if your character doesn't get the job then you just... don't, it's not unreasonable that you are bummed by it.

And it's not an easy problem to solve, either. Not every character can be the Sheriff!

A recent debate prompted me to create a new tangent to avoid derailing it.

One of the issues plaguing this hobby since its inception has to do with perceived unfairness - usually by staff. Someone succeeds because of favoritism. another is defeated because one person cheated to get ahead.

Even though these types of allegations will likely never go away, it strikes me that one of their underlying causes is that IC failure is often perceived as OOC failure, too. And I wanted to see if - and how - we can do better systemically to better distinguish between the two and ultimately incentivize conflict more than its resolution.

To get things started I don't think we (as a community) can really rely on "people being mature". Some will be, some won't be, but it's a social problem that neither code nor staff can really solve. I wouldn't spend much time debating that - but y'all can, of course.

Perhaps more interestingly though, why is IC failure so bad? Let's see:

• You want an IC position. If you don't get it, you don't get the perks of the position.
• You are in combat. If you don't win your character dies, is maimed, etc so your ability to RP them is similarly hobbled or even removed.
• You strive for an IC ruling that would affect the game's theme. If your side doesn't prevail you are barred from certain RP directions which are no longer on the table.
• Your IC opponent(s) succeed in task(s) which offer them access to perks or RP not available to you.

I expect there are more items this list could include but just as some starting questions:

1. Are any of these issues valid? In other words are these problems to be solved in the first place?
2. Assuming the answer to (1) is 'yes' for any of those items, how would you - systemically, in a game - address them so that the impact of failure is mitigated, and players don't mind losing as much?

Note that I suspect the OOC ego hit will always be there. But there may be steps to be taken to at least soften the blow if not actively reward good IC 'losers' as much as games naturally incentivize 'winners'.

What do you think?

@warma-sheen When I was still playing one of the questions what often came up was how to handle PC-killing when their players clearly valued their characters differently.

That is... you're playing a witty rogue. You've invested time and effort, expanded his alliances and made sure he's been involved in some plotlines for months. I roll a thug with the most basic background staff is going to accept.

Then when we get in a scene I pick a fight. Sure, your character might still win (assuming he has some combat stats, since you've been playing him for longer). But the stakes are different. If my PC loses what is actually lost? I could get the next thug on the grid in a few days. If the dice don't go your way, well, you have to mourn a prized PC.

@visquaine Aren't a lot of these tropes applicable to actual comic books as well, though? I feel it's not MU*-specific.

When you sign up to write one of the DC Batman titles you have control over what the character does today (within, I'm sure, some narrow rails as well) but none of it is permanent. None of it will 'stick'. You may write a great antagonist for him with a personal vendetta and a twisted relationship to the hero, and then the next writer after you might never reuse any of it or butcher the nuances that made it work, change its core themes into something completely different or... whatever. Comics are packed with this kind of thing.

It's a package deal. If we want control over a character, we can create one. If we play, write or use a canonical one with others - it's temporary. Our story will never be the definitive version. There is no definitive version.

@faraday Yeah and that's the thing, too. Some of us do have friends who send weird messages, start playing new games, join different guilds etc... and from whom randomness like that wouldn't be completely out of place.

@gremlinsarevil said in Don't Join Discord Servers!!!:

@juniper the message should really be more "Don't join random discord servers out of the blue."

That's the catch, it wouldn't appear to be out of the blue. One of your existing contacts would be 'inviting' you to join them.

@zombiegenesis said in Comic Games And Scope:

The Hulk, for instance. Superman is just as strong but can fly, is super fast, has heat vision, super-senses, etc. It's mitigated by the fact that on a Marvel game you might see someone like Hyperion or Blue Marvel or Sentry. Which is why I've played it, I've run it, and it's entirely possible I run one again someday. Even so, there is something about characters being less special.

Is that a real problem, though? I mean, is balance the reason you'd want to mix Marvel and DC characters in the first place? Or is it to see these different heroes interact?

Because balance doesn't work internally either. Superman has those powers in the DCU whereas say, Robin doesn't have any. And yet it's perfectly doable to have them share the screen in the right plot and as long as their players play them according to this dynamic.

I see no reason Superman and Daredevil wouldn't mix just based on their power sets.

Obi-Wan Kenobi might have started slow, and the first few episodes definitely had their flows...

... but what a goddamn finish. Damn.

@derp said in How do you discover books?:

@reimesu said in How do you discover books?:

@derp Luke? No. Leia was, but that's because she was adopted by royalty.

Yyyyeah but their mom was a queen, and then went on to be a galactic senator.

Right?

Padme wasn't royalty, that was 'just' the title she got as an elected representative of her people. Her children, if Anakin hadn't gone uh a little off the rails, wouldn't have had inherited titles even if she had lived to raise them.