Posts made by Arkandel

@Thenomain said:

@Arkandel said:
No, the point of a game is to have fun within the constraints put upon you. Maybe you think throwing the Monopoly money into the air and stuffing the pieces up your nose is fun, but you're not playing Monopoly.

When Magic: the Gathering came out its developers had a vision for it. For the most part they were right; one of those gameplay elements they included though was having an ante. The idea Garfield had was that it was a collectible game, no one would ever have all the cards, but each player would pick a card at random in each game and the winner would take it. There were even cards which affected that ante card.

It was right in the rules.

No one used it. The game itself was a smash hit but that rule was unpopular in practice and was ignored. It doesn't mean the rules were thrown to the wind ("let's have more than four of each card!") because the limitation improved gameplay.

It's not all or nothing, either accept constraints or throw them all to the wind. Some rules make no sense for the actual environment they are implemented in, no matter its original purpose and intentions.

@Coin said:

@Arkandel, I can just as easily ask "who benefits from ANY sort of regulation as to Experience spending? Who benefits from any regulation in a game at all? Why have rules if someone doesn't benefit from them?"

But if you did ask it, you'd have answers. For example delay-spending on experience points improves the suspension of disbelief by making it impossible to be a triple Master the day after your Awakening, Otherwise it's literally inexplicable why this is happening in the IC world.

It's not just a philosophical question, it's the point of a 'yes-game' approach that when you say 'no', there has to be a good reason. That doesn't mean you don't say no.

That said, I'm not saying the rules for Eldritch will be draconian to the point of driving others away, which I think I have made abundantly clear by repeating it over and over that I want to find a compromise.

And even if no compromise is found that's not a bad thing. We are having this debates because you specifically asked for input, but ultimately it's up to you - and any game's administration - to make the choices they think are best. It's not the end of the world if some players disagree with any given decision.

You know what's common about D&D, Traveller, Fading Suns and World of Darkness? They are all games, played by players because they enjoy playing them.

The point of games is to have fun playing them. The theme is there to facilitate that fun, not the other way around.

If an element is not fun (for whatever reason) so your players actively avoid it then it should not be part of that game. If it is fun then you don't need to force people to participate in it; they will, because they presumably came to play because of it.

Finally, I've yet to see an answer (not from @Coin, I mean in general, over the many years of playing on MU*) that satisfied my question: Who benefits from forcing players to play out a particular aspect of the game they don't find enjoyable? "The game" ? "Theme" ? Those are abtract elements. Who, specifically, benefits and how?

@Coin

Argh. I won't try to explain after this post, either I'm not communicating it well enough or we're simply disagreeing. There's no need for me to spam the thread further though since we're just going in circles.

Here: Whether your character is hunting through a staff-accepted justification or through a PrP, it still happened IC. The Wolf Hunted. The character went ought, tricked enemies, killed them, negotiated with them. It took place. You are sacrificing no part of theme for it.

No more from me about Renown until the book comes out.

@Coin said:

I have no issue with people mostly playing relationship RP or bar RP, but that doesn't mean I think that them not getting Renown in a reasonable amount of time is a symptom of there being something broken.

And yet I believe it it is. Allow me to detach the matter from Renown per se (although after reading posts like http://theonyxpath.com/gifts/ I don't see how that aspect of the game will differ in the 2nd Edition, unless they've been invalidated since they were written) just to not be distracted by the lack of an actual book.

Here's my reasoning:

1. IC achievements take IC work, so introducing OOC factors leads down bad roads. Unless the intention is to make the barfly/TS hound vampire unable to raise their Cruac because they never go roleplay that stuff out, since the reasoning is that their character went and did what they had to behind the scenes (while possibly explained in a justification) this is fundamentally inconsistent; why is one trait more sacrosancth than another? The character who bought Cruac through a justificataion and the character who bought it after a PrP went through the same amount of anguish for their insights.

2. Not every player has access to the same resources. People from the wrong timezone already have smaller access to plot. Folks who're not OOC connected have less access to PrP invitations. OOC gripes between players often dictates IC inclusion. People work long hours, have children to take care of or whatever else and can't necessarily make the prime time 20:00 invites or stay at the keyboard for that 3 hour big PrP (but they can still play regularly over the week otherwise). Force advancement exclusively through plot and you are excluding part of your playerbase who might want to play but can't keep up with the additional requirement.

3. I don't believe something substantial is gained through these systems. Or, to reverse the statement, I don't think anything is lost when you let Joe Crone buy Cruac 4 with a justification. Someone who wants advancement strictly through plot can still do exactly that (in fact you can make it cheaper when done this way, thus offering additional incentive) but forcing someone to attain traits through any given hoop turns it into a chore, even if the deed itself in isolation is fun. But if it's not fun then why force it? Who benefits? How is the game made better by it?

Just some thoughts.

@Ganymede said:

@Arkandel said:

How was it received on Oathcircle?

If you're around and active, it made going up simple. Minimal effort to meet the milestones.

That sounds reasonable to me.

I felt the same way about accruing Arcane XP on TR, to be honest. It was a little too easy to get them if you were a ST as well but that's probably a happen problem to have as long as people didn't run faux 'plots' just for that reason - otherwise if you were active and playing, you got them.

I'd be happy with a similar implementation. Or, to reverse it, if someone is active and playing but can't get Renown in a reasonable amount of time, something's seriously broken.

@Thenomain said:

@Arkandel said:

You can't make a game that will appeal to everyone

That doesn't stop people from saying what is and isn't, what should and shouldn't, and other forms of academic entertainment. The number of times someone has said "you can't please everyone" should be a score-counter at this point.

I feel that it's becoming cliché, in the true sense of the word: A phrase repeated often enough that it's becoming meaningless. Idealism leads us toward seeking out better solutions, as long as it doesn't overwhelm us.

But it's true. In fact I gave an example about this very thing we're discussing.

Sure, I and others like @Miss-Demeanor have an issue with the traditional way of achieving Renown to the point we don't play Werewolf because of it. But others arguably like the sphere specifically for that reason (I've heard it being referred to as 'hardcore mode nWoD').

In this case it's pretty hard to please everyone. Even a compromise stands the risk of not being acceptable by either type of player. So it's not a truism; sometimes you got to make a choice for your game even if it means some players really hate it.

Pet theory: Most players who aren't @HelloRaptor (and thus know ALL THE SYSTEMS) find themselves learning the mechanics and inner workings of spheres slowly over time. So once they've mastered Vampire or whatever that's what they find themselves playing the most.

I know it's hard to believe but some people don't enjoy learning mechanics. It's true!

@Ganymede said:

I understand why folks don't like how Renown works, especially on a MU*. Oathcircle had an interesting way of handling it, and it can be adapted as follows.

Yes, this is like the dreaded "report writing." But it puts the burden of advancement on the PC's player. It's no different than playing through "Renown PRPs," and achieves the same goal: creating a rich history for each PC, which ought to exist for high-Renown Werewolves.

How was it received on Oathcircle? It seems interesting (and Arcane XP is always a challenge to implement on MU*, since it's one of those things clearly developed with table-top in mind).

But it reminds me - another issue is that running PrPs takes a huge chunk out of STs' time. I really enjoy running them (or I wouldn't do it) but the time I do have left for RP I'd rather spend it on things I legitimately enjoy doing rather than crossing off boxes ('is this good enough for Cunning 4? Dammit, it seems more like a Cunning 3. Build more cunnings!"). I imagine it's the same with other regular MU-related activities - building, +job monkey stuff, whatever. You know?

Anyway, I need to stop ranting, the point is well received that the book's not even out yet and this is already being argued to death.

@Eerie said:

So really, don’t abandon hope just yet. Again, this is meant to be a cooperative process so it’s not like we’re not interested in listening and working out kinks if people are like ‘this is ruining it for me’. But I think that more non-PRP plot will actually help solve a chunk of this too.

You can't make a game that will appeal to everyone, so it's not about hope. For all I know there are other players who desperately want a game based around the idea of 'earning Renown' as it's been implemented by HM and TR rather than how it was on Reno.

I like your guys' policies on many things. I disagree with others, such as not having XP transfers for character retirement. That's not a bad thing.

@Miss-Demeanor said:

Nnnnnnnnnnngh... hate Werewolf Renown. Renown is why I DON'T play Werewolf.
...
Which in turn leads to Ark's point. I don't want to have to ask someone to run a scene for me just so I can advance normally within the splat. Especially when no other splat really demands such things.

That's pretty much where I stand. But I think the case for this has been well stated, and since the books aren't actually out it's a waiting game. I think nothing will change in this manner because the actual material is meant for table-top where there's always a Storyteller so by definition you get custom-made content but who knows.

If all else fails I can roll a bloodsucker or join the bandwagon for a Demon, I guess. But I hate the current way of gaining Renown enough to not participate in it.

@Spitfire said:

Why does everybody love Vampire?

Why do some people like chocolate and some don't?

@Coin said:

At the same time, @Arkandel, accepting that someone who does nothing but sit around talking OOC can, be sheer dint of having accumulate enough passive XP, buy a Renown trait at 5, without doing anything in-character to justify it, makes my blood boil. If it were Arcana? Bah, whatever. If it were a Discipline? Bah, whatever.

Absolutely. But any justification works the same way. If I do a +req/xp Stamina 4=My guy has been going to the gym A LOT and you accept it, it means that no matter what I've explicitly roleplayed about, my PC has actually gone out there and done a bunch of barbell squats. It's an IC fact, I just never had to have a scene where I posed him getting an 1RM record on his deadlifts; I could have, and it might have been fun, but it wasn't necessary.

If that's alright that then it's not any kind of leap to also accept +req/xp Glory 4=My guy fought five Dickwolves in the Shadow and kicked their asses because then that, too, happened IC. The lunes (or whatever in 2nd Edition) saw it!

And yeah, it's too early to talk before the rules are out, but better early than late right?

@Coin said:

@Luna, I actually want to be able to get on from work because I usually have a boatload of free time in the morning before work starts filing onto my desk, and I'd like to be able to use it to get through Eldritch's +jobs. So, you know, constructive use of time I'd spend reading webcomics and forums anyway.

If your SSH port isn't blocked, you could use a client to connect to any SSH server outside of work, then telnet to the MUSH from there.

It's what I do. Hell, if you can't find a server (although you could simply use Elditch's shell most likely for it) let me know and I'll create a local user on my machine for you to use. It's encrypted traffic so I won't even need to bleach my eyes out after seeing your TS.

See, I'm one of the people who writes long-ass justifications by default. Even when it makes no difference, since spends often include things that don't come up in daily RP (my character goes to the gym --> his stamina increases) I like to sit down and actually put the process in words. And since I ST, it's not that big a deal to swap plots with someone else.

What I intensely dislike is having to do it. Why? Because it's mandatory, it turns RP into a chore. It's not at all organic, you know? And it doesn't even serve a purpose - it's not like my roleplay will get better because I was in a hastily put together custom-made plot until a checkbox could be crossed.

I remember on HM when you needed a log to 'prove' you were taught something (or players might lie, as they do) and I was roleplaying teaching someone... I think it Spirit. The scene was horrible, the other person very clearly didn't want to be doing it so their poses were unimaginative as hell, there wasn't even a build-up. Neither of us enjoyed it at all. So why did we have to do it, who benefited from that?

Yes, if someone wants to play something out then by all means they should, it's fun! But the mandatory aspect of it, arghh. "Hey, can you please run me a Glory 3 scene?" is one of the things I don't like having to type, I hate asking for scenes - in fact I hate asking people for things in general.

At least - unless of course the 2nd Edition ends up changing how Renown works altogether - consider accepting justifications for the "act-dependent stat" portion of the exercise.

</endrant>

@Eerie said:

@Arkandel Well, despite STILL not having seen a the new Werewolf.... pause for obligatory grrr... I don't know if I would assume they'll be the least popular sphere. My expectation is that werewolves will end up being more the death machines they were conceptualized as but were not in nWoD, and closing that gap between theme and fact may make them more interesting to people.

This would be my third attempt at playing Uratha. The first time it just failed because HM's sphere was made of cliques where RP went to die; you were either in a pack with the staff alts or you didn't exist. The second time was on Reno and I honestly liked the RP but nothing was happening (at the time); no metaplot, no direction, no theme.

Either way yes, having upgraded mechanics so your all-powerful foe-grinder isn't actually made of wet toilet paper would be great.

The other thing I actually meant to ask is, how are you planning to handle Renown? One of the main things that drew me to Reno in the first place was that raising it didn't involve jumping through hoops, hoping for oh-so convenient PrPs to fill the exact thing you needed a lot for and trusting that the powers that be granted you that next spend - all while your Mage could get Life Mastery for the price of an one-line +job.

I hate bureaucracy in spends so much. Just let me buy things with my damn XPs.

“People are going to die who don’t die in the books, so even the book readers will be unhappy,” Martin said. “So everybody better be on their toes. David and D.B. are even bloodier than I am.”

Kill everything! All of the things!

@Thenomain Sounds good to me, then.

@Miss-Demeanor That's true. My main concern here is that if most plots work internally per sphere then due to population alone it's possible the disadvantage regarding finding meaningful non-bar RP to begin with would simply become more evident.

So making metaplot and staff-ran PrPs be crossovers by default would help this issue a lot.

The rest of the idea was meant to help people within spheres find some plot anyway since not every group has access to a ST by default.

So I was thinking lately (no, it didn't hurt) about a PC for Eldritch and although my immediate inclination was for an Uratha, I was a bit concerned about a potentially not-very-popular sphere's place in a game. Namely, about being stuck in a position where all the other kids are doing their thing in sphere-specific events while the minorities might not have as many things to do.

Remo was like that once with Werewolf (although I'm happy to hear it's much better now) since everything was happening in Vampire to the point where Wolfbloods were actively trying to get Ghouled just to get out of and find things to do. In other words this isn't a theoretical concern, it can happen very easily.

So how about this as an approach to address these things:

Have most meta-plots thrown by staff be crossovers by definition. Then require rank holders to throw thematic PrPs for their groups; so the player of whoever's in charge of the Lancea Sanctum has to run (say) two scenes a month for that Covenant.

The latter not only ensures you'll still get regular sphere-specific plots anyway (which is on top of what players themselves decide to run as PrPs, of course) but also addresses a chronic issue with MU* where people chase ranks for their PCs but, once achieved, they do little with them other than throw them around in posts.

I think this way you'd find fewer people isolated in the smaller spheres in the long run and get the players who are the most involved to be the ones achieving ranks. Of course I don't know how you folks feel about requirements like that.

Just an idea.