Posts made by Arkandel

@surreality said:

@Arkandel, be careful, this is so on point with things I want to do with half a dozen projects you may find yourself begged to join staff somewhere, some day!

Hah! No. My times of insanity and managing egos are behind me; I toil from a mortal coil these days.

@crusader said:

@Arkandel
Honestly, what you have described sounds less like a Consent-based game (which I find boring) and more like an ICA=ICC game, which I approve of.

I think that's by design. See, I don't believe consent-based games are so far from the model of player collaboration we (the hive-mind of MSB) often refer to as the gaming nirvana. In its heart that's what such a system represents, the ability to play and communicate with other players so that everyone walks away from scenes satisfied in some form even if their characters are not.

My assertion here (in its very rough form) is simply that the system itself could, and should, reinforce that notion - I suspect I'm being influenced, some might say corrupted, by @Coin and @tragedyjones' notions of nWoD's Conditions and Beats, which are meant to reward adversity, although I don't want to limit the discussion to nWoD.

So, I'd like to not simply expect players to be mature but to offer active incentives for them to occasionally lose, as a game of "bang! I shot you!" "no you didn't!" won't be fun for long. So perhaps if we condition the playerbase to take the occasional hit we could (always theoretically ) end up with a culture shaped to accept mishaps to their characters as part of simply playing, and more so in the absence of paranoia of losing a beloved PC whose story isn't yet told.

@Glitch said:

It all sounded good until I read your PvP example. I read your basic consent policy as "don't do anything too stupid, and you're not likely to lose your character." I don't read it as being able to deny simple shit like being intimidated. There's nothing permanently scarring about a social interaction you lost, or the permanent loss of a character in a quick ass-beating that leaves you hospitalized for a couple of days

No, I can see that. It's possible I put the barrier on loss arbitrarily too low there, and that PCs experiencing non-permanent setbacks isn't something they should be coddled about. The proposed plan looks roughly like this: (volunteer to lose from dice) -> (get a bit of XP), (volunteer to lose outright) -> (get more XP), but there's no real reason to shield players from what amounts to minor inconveniences otherwise either.

What I'm thinking is that ultimately a consent-based game, at least in this context, isn't that far from a... what's the opposite of it? Free-for-all? Bareback? It's not that far from it though when done right. What sane game isn't built around the concept of players figuring outcomes out for themselves and, if not, use dice to arbitrate for them?

Now, ideally what I'm looking for is a way to have the system itself gradually condition its participants into a cultural shift - and cultural shifts, bar nothing at all, is the hardest thing to achieve in MU*. Well, intentional shifts that is, with a somewhat specific goal in mind.

But I think this debate here is in the right direction even if specifics can and should be tweaked.

@crusader said:

Votes are the best, albeit imperfect solution.

There is no such thing as a "best solution". You know how you can tell? Because not everyone is using it.

I'm waiting for a VM to finish updating so I've been meaning to write this up for a while. Time to get to it.

So I've been chatting (more recently with @Misadventure) about how to set up a consent-based game, and I believe there is potential in at least discussing it here. Parts of that could apply to a fully consentual environment and other elements, such as collaboration between players, could perhaps be useful to people running games without such clauses.

Before we go further I'd like to ask that this thread remains (roughly ) on point - it's not supposed to be a discussion on whether consent based MU* are worth it and/or superior/inferior to other games but how to implement one.

So here's what I'd like to see in such a game.

1. I believe mechanics should be present. Frankly, an environment like Shang where you can roll whatever you like might have its advantages (such as a very minimal CG) but ultimately it deprives players of a common framework for abilities, randomizing the chances of success or failure, and having a standardized character progression curve (i.e. "XP", or something like it) which has its own uses. Characters only possess powers and abilities they have purchased.

2. Consent, in the context that I'd like to see, is defined as such: A character may not be removed from play long-termly or physically altered in a permanent manner without the explicit consent of their player. It's good to leave a loophole there (which perhaps doesn't need to be stated) that staff can override this at their discretion; this could entail cases of harassment or even players writing themselves into a corner ("No, I want to jump into the active volcano. Yes, I know there's a pool of hot lava there, I'm doing it!").

3. Consent does not shield characters from social or political consequences. I.e. it doesn't matter if you refuse to have the Sheriff title stripped from your PC, no one is asking.

4. Once consent has been granted for an IC path it cannot be taken back. If Bob accepts vitae from Jane then it happened, with all of its consequences (addiction, etc). This overrides the first condition above - if Bob's player agrees to drink three times his PC will be blood bonded (which is otherwise a long term change).

5. Handling failure should be a fundamental part of a consensual game in order to promote collaboration between players even if (or especially since) their PCs are safe from permanent harm - the two don't need to be exclusive. There are two cases here:

• Player versus environment. A player can simply assume an action their PC takes is successful ("Bob climbs the wall"). They may choose to roll the dice with the appropriate mechanical penalties according to the difficulty of the task. If they fail they have to accept any consequences of the action that doesn't violate the first condition above ("Bob fails to climb the wall and the cops catch up to him"). Either way waiving the roll should award them a small amount of XP, with more given for failure than success.

• Player versus player. This doesn't need to be PvP, it would be any contested action ("Jane uses Awe to intimidate Jill"). If players can agree on the outcome award an intermediate amount of XP to them both (collaboration!). If the players cannot agree on the outcome and the defender wishes to automatically resist against the attacker's wishes then that's what happens, so roll no dice - but this awards no XP. If they cannot agree but agree to use mechanics use the dice to determine the action's outcome, then award a large amount of XP to both characters.

That's what I got so far. Thoughts, troubleshooting, counter-proposals, devil's advocacy and brainstorming are all welcome.

@crusader That depends on your definition of improvement. What do you want out of your XP system - what are you rewarding, what do you want the XP curve to look like? And just as importantly, what are you prepared to sacrifice to achieve that?

For example it seems you value activity and want to reward it in a simple manner. Yes, votes do that. They also alienate newbies compared to established players (if I have 5 votes a month you better believe I'm saving them for my coterie/pack) and exchange easy XP for dinosaurs (it's what a year of trading votes with said coterie/pack does, after all).

Different games have been known to experiment with their approach on this. Some of the new generation nWoD MU* for example employ Beats and Conditions to reward adversity and being challenged at the cost of simplicity.

Either way what I'm getting at here is that there's always a trade-off, and players value different goals differently.

@Coin I stand informed! Thanks.

Does anyone know (it's not clear to me) just what they're planning to do with assorted factions' powers in the various splats?

For example is this LS stuff, when they finished testing, going to be released as part of 2.0 Vampire or in a book of their own? Are all Covenants (/Tribes/etc) going to get a similar treatment or just some?

It all just seems to be poorly documented, but it might be that I'm not paying too close attention or not checking the right parts of Onyx Path's web site.

I didn't know where to stick this so we might as well have a generic thread to put in weird/cutesy/creepy stuff in, right?

Is this cat going UP or DOWN the stairs?!

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/no-one-internet-figure-cat-170530609.html

@Admiral said:

I'm dating a girl almost half my age who makes twice as much money as me. I'm filled with equal parts shame and pride. I understand the concept of mixed feelings.

Careful, there's a lot of our friends in MU*land who would kill for a girl to date, any girl to date.

@Admiral I was unemployed semi-recently for over a year when bureaucracy hit me the wrong way. I know exactly what that is like.

Which is why an offer like this is so risky - I'd need to leave a country where I have status and can work freely to one where I'm essentially bound to one company. So if anything didn't work out I'd be back at square one. You know what's worse than being unemployed? Being unemployable.

Interviews for job offers I don't want or even applied for, but which come from companies I can't just reject.

I don't want to relocate to the US, it doesn't make sense at this point in my life... but if I don't get offered the position I know I'll feel bummed , even if I'll reject it anyway otherwise.

@Rook I don't think it's that important which command does this as long as the playerbase adopts it. It can be +info, +glance, whatever.

@Coin said:

I like customizable content, in that I think some people will use it well. I think it should probably be left up to the game how much custom stuff you can add to it.

This.

Now, it'd be lovely if +finger was settable to display different things to different groups to facilitate first meetings, which is something we sometimes do in a very disorganized fashion in wiki pages. I mean otherwise +finger is nearly useless (unless you're on Shang ) since other than to check an idle counter why would I +finger Bob after I've met him a few times? I already know IC/OOC more than enough.

However let's say I meet Bob for the first time in a bar. What's the biggest obstacle to such scenes? Awkwardness, right? Striking up a conversation, finding something to talk about. What if I can +finger him and based on our perspective groups I get a bunch of stuff he volunteered to be public knowledge for them? So, if we're both Vampires I'd get his Clan/Covenant and maybe position if any. If he has a mortal standing (say, Fame 1 as a blogger) it lists that. If we're both in the same Covenant I might have even heard a tidbit about him, included in a field (with a twitter-like limit of 128 chars, no novels).

So that takes a nearly defunct command and makes it into something usable, even useful.

@EmmahSue Yes, but did she fight crime?

@Rook There are a few issues with that though.

1. I don't think it's up to me (or any ST) to define what rewards are given, it's up to game policy.

2. Just because it's my preference to throw powers/dice around less and pose more it doesn't necessarily mean I'm right, you know? That's why I'm asking here, maybe this is a legitimate play style, dunno.

Having said that, my first inclination was to simply do what the players seemed to be more accustomed to and run the part of the plot for them over a +comm job. The idea was they'd simply roll dice in there and I'd act as a glorified 80s text adventure game engine - but it doesn't work.

For starters usually this is happening alongside other people in a 'live' PrP so there are some really impractical logistics in having to run two separate things simultaneously if one is in real time and the other basically play-by-job. The other issue is that it scales very poorly since I have to basically play 1 on 1 story vendor instead of running one plot that 4-5 people are part of. It's the rough equivalent of table-top where one person in the party has to be taken to another room and treated separately, it's a lot of extra work.

I find it hard to believe it's a unique experience that I simply ran into more than one player like that. Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation (possibly while running plot for Mages) and if so, how did you deal with it?

Let's talk storytelling versus play styles, shall we?

I had this... let's call it a concern, since it's not a problem per se. While running plot some of my players (almost always Mages but the same principle probably applies to anyone with sufficient telepathic/foretelling abilities) would switch to dice and powers before or even in the place of interactions.

To give an example, it'd go something like this (greatly simplified for expedience's sake):

<the players are expecting a representative of an NPC group to negotiate with>
Me: "A man walks into the bar. He looks like <X> and says <bunch of IC things>."
Them: "I cast Supernal Vision. Then I scrutinize him for spells. Then I read his aura. Then I read his mind."
Me: "Okay, roll and pose it please?"
Them: "I'm sitting at the bar. I say hi." <rolls bag of dice>
Me: "The man does <Y> and says <other IC things>"
Them: "I'll open a +job so I can spy on them after they leave here with Scrying."
Me: "...Okay, roll and pose it please?"
Them: "I take a sip from my glass and smile enigmatically." <rolls bag of dice>

So it kind of goes like this; it doesn't happen often but when it does it's a bit frustrating to me. I get little feedback from the players - although when I ask them over pages if they're enjoying this they are, which, okay - but I can't engage them in actual roleplay.

In fact I get the feeling they'd have been okay or even preferred if the whole interaction had taken place in a +job so they can throw powers at the situation and get answers back from it.

Is that something you folks have dealt with and, if so, what do you think is an acceptable compromise?

@Bobotron It just sounds like the combat system is a bit of an illusion, you know? Sure, dice might not go your way but there's only so much it can go the other way, too. And sure, oldbies might be more powerful than you but that's not exactly a big issue since if they try to throw their weight around you can shrug them off - it's not like they can ever get permanently rid of you.

I'm not saying I dislike the idea, it just doesn't sound like the two concepts - WoD mechanics and a consent-based game - are that integrated together, but more like one has been tossed on top of the other. I'm sure it is fun for people who like both of those things, especially in the nearly absolute absence of consensual games in the genre, but it sounds like perhaps it could have been done better.

@Pyrephox Generally speaking I'm delighted when players in my plots volunteer glimpses of where their PCs' mindsets are, what they mean to do or why. As STs we don't necessarily know every character in the plot, or we know their public persona more than the more intimate workings of whatever's happening in their heads, so the more hooks I'm given the more buttons I can push.

In that light that'd make a great idea - the only caveat is whether goals PCs have are achievable. So the Emissary is in town to warn about these dangerous addicts but he doesn't have the authority to bring in a kill squad from his own Praxis to help out, so no matter what great arguments or how eloquent the Carthian Primogen is that's not going to happen. You could always throw them a bone ('I'll do whatever I can, I'll send out a letter to my Prince right after this!') but it's often the case that players' reach greatly exceeds their grasp in these things.

My last infodump scene didn't go so well. Essentially I had two goals going in; there was a plot point to be resolved (a PC had hurt an innocent bystander) and a larger one to be advanced (a larger meeting had to be arranged).

The sheer number of PCs (I think something like 9?) present presented the greatest difficulty; it was simply impractical to deal with the spam, both for my sake - trying to keep the NPCs address everyone's comments made it somewhat commical - and that of onlookers who were starting to lose track of what was happening. Furthermore, PCs with authority were frustrated because they couldn't deal with the matter at hand had to swim through the same amount of raw text.

Now, let's use a sample generic plot just to make things more clear if no one minds? Say, we have emissaries in Vampire coming from a different Praxis to bring news of a dangerous group of vitae-addicts who might have found refuge to their city.

1. There's a balance to consider between only involving the big-name PCs in closed meetings (which seals the majority of players out of the plot, turning it into something they care less about) and making every scene chaotic. If possible, breaking it up between public forums and private addresses seems like a good idea; for instance NPCs could address each Covenant separately.

If interaction is not going to add to the plot at that point, maybe consider doing it via announcements, although that risks detachment (reading about things isn't the same as being part of them).

2. Introducing an internal structure to the larger scenes. This may require IC authority but imposing strict pose order (my usual 1PR failed me) could help. Each Covenant picks their representative and there's a bigger scene with its own drama and revelations, each Covenant sits at a +place together so they can pose at each other, but only their representative gets to pose giving voice to their questions, remarks and proposals.

3. A plot device I really like to use is to turn PCs into mouth-pieces. That scales up very well (since I don't need to be present for every scene) and puts characters in the driver's seat - in our case an old blind monk could ask the Ordo Dracul to do research on his behalf, a fanatical Inquisitor could be - barely - constrained by the Lancea Sanctum while they go around recruiting help to drive the pagan demon-worshippers from the city, etc. I hate micromanagement, so finding a few proactive players, giving them the spiel and unleashing them on the grid is an excellent practice if you want information to spread out.

4. The KISS principle really helps. A complex plot full of jargon will be much harder to catch on than a more straight-forward enough - stories don't need to involve every word in italics from the splatbook to be fun. In case anyone has managed to miss it I'm also pretty wordy (why use one word when ten will do?) but walls of text put people off too, so when I need to dump plot on people I try to keep it as compressed as possible.

5. I try to give the social challenge here room to grow. Did the lowly lay LS member just oppose that Inquisitor's wish to drown the mortals in the homeless shelter (beneath which the invaders are hiding) in their own blood 'just to make sure' ? Make him remember it and make sure the PC knows it is remembered. Choices made have to mean something and have consequences just like in combat - only it's more delicious for STs because the worse you can usually do in a fight is kill a character but using an encounter gone bad you can torment them for months to come, and in the process make the nameless NPCs be memorable.

Just some notes.

Let me try to clarify.

My problem/peeve/objection has to do with PrPs in which there is no plot. That's it, that's all I've an issue with.

Non-combat PrPs are fine and, in fact, often preferable. Risk comes in more flavors than filling out damage boxes and confrontation isn't always bloody. Challenges of all kinds should be present for characters with a different focus (stealthy, investigative, hackers, socialites, tricksters, etc) and not just the violent variety.

Finally, plots without wide-reaching consequences are fine in my book; not every PrP has to be about saving the world. A small, personalized intimate plot is worth as much (hell, probably more) than cinematic blockbuster events.

All I ask is that some sort of actual plot exists in a PrP.

Does that make it any clearer?

@mietze said:

If Jane interacted out on the grid 4 times with different people,, even if it was social, why shouldn't that be rewarded, vs. Bob who only shows up for 'important' plot scenes? (I think we all know people like that).

The problem isn't Jane (who just goes and joins whatever), it's the 'ST' who runs PrPs because of those rewards. And the reason the practice shouldn't be encouraged is that, essentially, it comes down to grinding XP - at least that's my observation from seeing how often such throwaway meet-and-greet - to use your term, I like it - scenes rather than something more engaging.

Furthermore, as @Coin said, most games already reward people for just existing and that's through fixed XP at the end of every cycle. Yes, I would agree there should be some way to differentiate players who showed up and actually posed, albeit in bar scenes, and those who sit in the OOC room and chat on channels.

But here are a couple of reasons they shouldn't be incentivized further:

• they become a way to grind XP; it's easier and faster to run a meet-and-greet, and it can happen recurringly forever. I can come up with nameless, plotless scenes several times a week, at a Beat each that adds up.
• it cheapens the efforts of other characters and STs. If you run an involved story with a half dozen carefully designed NPCs and answer +comms from people investigating IC events while I run a non-plot in which nothing happens, should our incentives be the same? Likewise if your Ventrue diplomat keeps being part of extensive, complicated negotiations to keep the Primogen from each other's throats while mine chats about the weather, should our growth through adversity be the same?
• it affects the game's culture. Expecting something extra for very little effort goes against attempts to reward involvement or engagement, plus it turns rewards into something to be taken for granted. Do we need two ways to give players something essentially simply for existing?

Personally I enjoy risk a lot. Not all the time, but I feel most engaged with a mix of both. I have had PCs that only showed up for shoot 'em up scenes though. And my favorite PC primarily did social and networking stuff for like a year because nobody invited me to anything more than that (and I was too intimidated for awhile to realize that I could run my own stuff, once that changed then I was a lot happier!)

You won't hear me protest about IC networking or advancing social agendas through PrPs. In fact I wholeheartedly advocate their use.

I guess it's a pet peeve of mine when people who are consistently active (they say yes to a lot of folks seeking rp, they're willing to meet new folks even if it's not super exciting environments, ect) are perceived as less deserving/good than people who can't be assed to show up unless it's a Super Important Metaplot Thing.

Well, I agree, I just don't know what you are referring to. Who suggested players showing up only for important metaplot scenes are better than anyone else? I just don't see what meeting new people or showing up for RP on the grid regularly has to do with PrPs, they are just completely different things.