Posts made by Arkandel

@Ganymede said in L&L Options?:

@Lisse24 said in L&L Options?:

Obviously someone needs to work on a new option for a L&L game.

Most people on L&L games in my experience do not really want to deal with the unpleasantness that comes with statecraft. They would rather play with their titles rather than take the steps to earn or keep them.

I’ve had more political fun in the average Vampire sphere.

There isn't anything wrong with that, though. Sometimes it's because the game isn't setting up the pieces and that is wrong; politics is the art of getting shit done, and oftentimes MU* neglect to provide said shit.

For example some folks will bring nothing else to the table but a title which can be worked with if they at least have a goal. Yes, yes, you are the Lady of Rahrah. No, I won't do the thing you want done. So where do we go from here?

The key is in wanting - needing - that thing done in the first place.

@Derp said in How can everyone play the same game?:

ETA: The perfect example of this is the current mishmash of rules that govern the Werewolf renown system.

I find "no, and here's why" is a better solution for that, even if in actual practice it turns into more "no, and here's why, but we can maybe do this thing which might work for you."

Personally speaking I found that your Werewolf policies didn't fit me. Which was okay, since that meant it wasn't the right game for me, so at least I didn't have to invest too much in it before I found out.

The thread's title can cut both ways. Nothing wrong with that.

I like the conversations we are having here lately as they are quite constructive and the combined experience and wisdom and differing points of view are really interesting

One of their tangents was making sure everyone is playing the same game. That got me to thinking - how does that work? Once you have an idea, a vision for the kind of MU* you want to create... what needs to be done and what are some good ways to effectively communicate something locked in your head first to other potential staff members then to (heavens forbid) your players so everyone on roughly the same wave length?

For example:

• Is compromise a valuable principle at each stage of that process or does it dilute the vision? Do you need to draw lines in the sand ("my game will NOT focus on politics") or is it better to get buy-in from amalgamized contributions?

• How useful are wikis? Do you find the information is read? How hard is it to keep it from being stale? Can it serve as a 'true north' of the MU*'s mission statement or is it just words just read over once or glossed over?

• How important are in-game channels for the purpose of defining the game's goals and theme? Do they serve a purpose or is that lost in spam or read only by the players actively reading them at the time?

• How critical (if at all) are the first PrPs ran either by staff or players? Speaking of, is it important - or possible! - to monitor the latter, and how can it be done efficiently without coming off as micromanaging them?

Let's discuss.

@insomniac7809 said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

@Arkandel I'm not saying that you can't have a dungeon crawl with RP elements.

I'm putting forward that a rust monster is a thing that exists to fuck with the players, and expecting this fuckery to be met with 'well, my character might not know how to respond to this!' seems a bit disingenuous.

Yeah, now I realize I posted in the wrong thread. Uh, ignore me. If you weren't already.

@insomniac7809 said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

@Tinuviel True! But since the specific example is a rust monster...

Let's go with that example (and mind you, I'm not pitching a game now - just running with the narrative).

The game can be set around a city in decline until an earthquake unearths some kind of major ancient site in the nearby mountains; there are tunnels leading down into the earth and the first few brave souls to venture within came back with tales of strange creatures and vast riches.

Pretty soon the whole place is bristling with activity - the remaining noble Houses in the area trying to stake their claims hiring adventurers to man their excavation attempts, Guilds might see their own chance to take control of the suddenly shift in political dynamics in the area and of course privateers have opportunities to make a quick profit on their own.

I think all this is perfectly doable. PCs can run customary dungeon-crawling scenes based on their level and size the traditional way and when they're not out there killing rust monsters they can interact within that environment, play political sides against each other, make their own, recruit promising adventurers or... anything, really.

Obviously this is a skeleton of an idea but I think there's potential.

@RDC can you please give us a TL;DR synopsis of what the game is about, its spheres, or even just who it's suited for?

@Coin I think you were crying. Or facepalming. Or facepalming while crying.

Granted I have driven folks to the bottle before with my inability to read the actual words in other people's posts in large scenes as opposed to what I assumed they had typed.

I fondly remember @Coin's reaction when I misread his set at one point and thought combat was about to start, leading to me shifting out of the blue into full Garou murderform in the middle of the street at some random time while people were still just getting out of their cars and shit.

@Thenomain said in Staff scrutiny during CGen:

I often don't know. I play to find this out. If this creates a flat character that I can't engage with I don't think that this is the problem of the game or game staff. Someone can convince me that these two questions are critical for playing a character, but I will do a complete 180° on the third one:

I don't think it's critical that you have an answer. I think it is critical you are aware of the fact yourself.

For example "Joe is a regular person. He wants to make a decent living, get good dental and perhaps retire in his forties to focus on his real passion which is gardening. He was never exceptional at anything but decent at a lot of things so since the paycheck for this Stargate program came with great benefits he decided to join it".

Then you have this guy who's not trying to save the world and who might become a walking redshirt, an unwitting hero, an incompetent coward or anything in between determined by what happens to him after play begins; you don't know how he'll react or turn out any more than he does.

As staff I'd have no issues with this as long as I knew you knew. For example if you're going to play him as a Man in Black who's unphased and regularly tackles existential threats like it's another Tuesday at the office I'd like to be aware of it since that may or not fit the kind of game I have in mind, but a blank slate is fine.

https://www.insider.com/the-murder-of-jamal-khashoggi-2019-10

TL;DR; if you're wealthy and connected enough you can have a man killed and chopped to pieces, be caught doing so, and nothing at all will happen to you.

@Auspice said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

I've encountered people who rail so hard at 'being wrong' that they get incredibly upset about it. You can approach it as being helpful, wanting to make sure no wires got crossed, and it becomes the end of the world.

Once egos get in the way RP goes out the window. The moment your character's success or failure at anything begins to reflect emotionally to you as a person there's no coming back from it.

This is far, far from a rare condition. In fact all but a handful of players I've ever met in MU* were truly immune to it; most are simply able to handle it. Some fail, often in spectacular ways. But it's really not a given in any way.

@Ghost In my experience the question of "what, exactly, do Players In General know about <X>?" has rarely been sufficiently answered.

However that's not the most important element here, IMHO. The real issue is the expectations gap between what some players want in terms of their IC/OOC separation compared to others. Maybe I'm hardcore about my bard's knowledge of the world and thus I play him as not knowing what a mimic is or even that such monsters exist; however does that stance bind other players? Are you borderline cheating by assuming your character has heard of things that can take the form of a chest and attack when he tries to open it?

I don't believe addressing this issue is a trivial or straight-forward task because it involves communication, which rarely is.

@Paradox said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

D&D is a system, not a setting or a theme. What would an 'ideal' D&D 5E game entail and encompass?

Speaking for myself I'd love a D&D MUSH. Something based on a city in any of the official settings with PCs starting out as nameless nobodies hoping to get a job in local taverns becoming seasoned adventurers or growing to legends.

There'd need to be some adjustments, such as accounting for how multi-party environment can cause issues not present in table-top D&D games - inflation comes to mind, for example, if higher level characters pass down their gear to newbies.

But otherwise a game like that can be anything - a more action-oriented L&L political setting, or themed after the survival of a city besieged by dark powers, or focus on exploration and discovery if some kind of site is unearthed whose secrets characters are challenged to unlock, etc.

I'd love to play out something like that.

You people are making me sad there's no great option for a 5th DnD MUSH out there.

@Ghost said in The Work Thread:

@Auspice said in The Work Thread:

@Sunny said in The Work Thread:

Office365's web interface now lets you 'like' emails and things. I made the mistake of ranting about this (having likes in a professional environment) to my coworkers...

Yeah. My boss 'likes' every email I send her now.

ETA: I need to clarify. It is all in good fun.

iOS lets you 'like' text messages.
My recruiter does it (she's a very bubbly, perky girl in her mid-20s so it's fitting I guess!) and it throws me off every time.

I found this out while buying my house. My realtor would "like" messages, and it would resend the ENTIRE text back to me.

Ex: I texted "hahaha cool"

I'd get a text that reads:

NameOfPerson liked "hahaha cool"

A+nnoy+ing

(She's on iOS and I'm on Droid)

Hahahah cool

@Auspice If your happiness resolves around no one having something they feel entitled to complain about you will not be happy. This applies pretty much across to board to just about anything.

Some people will complain about others having fun if they are not, and think it unfair. Whether they have a point or not is nearly irrelevant - they can, and will, voice their discontent.

If you are really lucky or good they will voice it to you, directly, so you can at least address it.

If anyone knows good system administrators, Technical Operations or DevOps people looking for career opportunities in Toronto, ON please send them my way.

@Auspice said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

How do you know if a character's read on a plot/scene is the character getting it wrong or the player getting it wrong?

And do you correct them or not? (Because some people get very upset at being wrong and some don't.)

There is no succinct way that fits-all-sizes.

Players with PCs who are smarter, more social, craftier or generally apt in an area they themselves are not are always going to have issues which can range from minor incidents that might be missed to drama that explodes all over MSB.

It's why generally speaking I advise against non-physical stats. You can't really really screw up playing someone who's 'strong' or 'fast' or 'a good archer'. You can fuck up playing a master detective who fails to pick up cues time after time even after the GM is hand-feeding them over.

In table-top games you can regulate this much easier - the GM and player are more familiar with each other, they can communicate more efficiently and they emphasis on the party is greater; in a MU* no such link exists, which leads to mishaps.

I've been meaning to start a thread like this for a while and now is as good a time as any.

Games' approach to character generation pipelines vary a lot. Some MU* use a more open approach ("create characters as long as the +sheet numbers work out then we'll catch issues on the grid"), others take a more draconic view of their role ("I can't approve you until you flesh out at least two childhood friends in your background"). Most games fall somewhere in the middle.

What do you want staff's role to be in that process? What kind of CGen are you in fond of or what do you dread seeing? What, if anything, does it tell you about how a MU* you're just starting on is being ran?

How much staff oversight or scrutiny do you want to be there right as new PCs are being rolled and what should the limits to that be - if any?

@dvoraen said in Wheel of Time:

The reason I think it needs to be basically homebrew/customized has to do with addressing the channeler : non-channeler power ratio. Every PC being a channeler isn't precisely boring and stale, since channeling is a diverse system (who has what Talents and skills), but not every PC should necessarily be a channeler, considering that they are approximately 10% (I think that's the percentage) of the population at most.

Also keep in mind the power disparity in the books exists but it's also exaggerated by the book characters; Rand, Mazrim Taim or Nynaeve aren't exactly typical channelers, for example.

One of the (many) ways this could be reflected in mechanics is having players make meaningful choices. Sure you can build someone who can slice weaves and heal or blast with impunity but they'd be a glass canon as well - after all there's a reason Aes Sedai had Warders around and Asha'man started carrying swords. Not everyone should be a top-end channeler and a near Blademaster. Then enforce the natural limitations channelers have, too; for example that they need training to do anything useful (or, hell, to not burn themselves out) so people don't end up making nobles who're also secretly great channelers, too.

But also in my experience in most games people don't necessarily go for the 'power' templates. They go for where the RP is, which sometimes happens to be where the power is because staff don't do their jobs right; the WoT theme provides ample opportunities to go in different directions - there's a full Lords-and-Ladies minigame baked into the settings so you can have cutthroat politics, you can have tournaments and PrPs for weapon wielders, etc.

In other words if you make your game support both channelers and support diversity you'll be fine.