@surreality said in RL things I love:
Goofy Halloween decor on sale. Specifically: dorky little bottles with creepy labels and their ilk.
The only upside of Halloween stuff coming and going so fast: by the time you know it even exists, it's usually already on clearance.
Target has some BALLER stuff this year.
(I WANT that neon bat sign SO BAD. And the purple chandelier? GODDAMN SON.)
The problem I have with most of it?
I have no goddamn surfaces to put any of it on.
@Roz I've always been one of those people tbh. I unravel shit and pick up on clues really easily. I love puzzles. It also means I have to frequently try to check myself and shove my character off into a corner to try not to spotlight because I go 'ooh ooh I see the solution!' I'm not always successful because I get really excited about a story and lose myself in it (I hope the ST sees this as the flattery it's meant to be ;.; )
As an ST, instead of putting a lot of puzzles in, I instead put in Alertness rolls or rolls geared to peoples' skill sets (Bob, roll your Computers, Jane, roll your Lockpicking) and just hand out information because I know not everyone can pick up on things that easily (and as mentioned earlier in the thread: no one wants to spend hours beating at the wall trying to find the single obscure answer in the stack of 500 source books).
And people wonder why people don't ST.
'If some people get it and others don't, it's because the ST is giving someone an unfair advantage.'
So now I'm sitting here going: shit, I don't do that. But now people might think I do. Awesome.
@Arkandel said in PC vs Player Assumptions:
@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.
People really, really like to play smart characters though.
It's a hard balance to strike.
I try asking people what their goal is.
People tend to throw 'catch all' nets which is... difficult as an ST (so, pro-tip: please don't do this). What I mean by 'catch all' is jobs like:
'I want to find out everything on...'
'I want to get all I can about...'
These are frustrating as an ST. Because what I come up with might not be fun for you. It might not be what you wanted.
A much better job is:
'I'd like to eventually find a door to the Underworld. Can I do that?'
'I want to craft a tool that will let me hurt supernatural beings. Is that something I can do? What would my first steps be?'
Tell me your goal and I can help you get on the path. But casting out a wide, broad, vague net may seem like a good idea because it means 'ha ha I can't fail!' but it also means that I have no clue what your goal is so it's like ehhhhhhh.
Anyway, off-topic.
Back on topic:
So @bear_necessities feels that if someone is RPing about the wrong thing it might be best to correct them (I'd probably want to be corrected, personally).
But Gany's more in the camp of: it's on the player to ask for clarification.
It's a difficult thing!
I've had scenes where all the correct information is there, in the scene. And I know it's not a 'I failed at presenting it wrong' because other players got it right. It'll just be one or two who got it wrong. (if EVERYONE got it wrong, then I'd know: okay, I fucked up and was too vague.)
So while, yes, it might be interesting to see where it goes: maybe it'd be best to reach out and guide them back so they don't get lost in the weeds.
@bear_necessities said in PC vs Player Assumptions:
Isn't this basically just a discussion of "yes and" and "no but" storytelling again? In GH, some of my better plots are about the minor detail that my players jumped all over that, during the time, had no story attached to it.
Yes and no.
What if you see a log go up and it's Player A talking to Player B about a plot scene and Player A is giving Player B all the wrong information?
Or Player A puts in a follow-up to research something and they're going on all the wrong assumptions?
This isn't just the path they're following in the plot scene, but everything they pursue after it.
@Ganymede said in PC vs Player Assumptions:
I really don't understand the question.
Can you clarify succinctly?
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.)
I am, obviously, super-biased, but I feel like we've hit sort of a sweet spot on SGM.
Both @Paradox and I review every app. It adds a bit more of a workload, but one thing it means is accountability. And this is something I'd like to see on other games. One issue I've had in the past on games is I (or a friend) will hit a wall of dealing with that Staffer who is just draconian in their standards. Everything has to be absolutely perfect. 'You can't have this stat at this level: your BG doesn't explain in intricate detail how they have Empathy 3...' - 'But I wrote 2 paragraphs about...' - 'It's not enough.' Whereas your buddy got through with max stats in all kinds of obscure stuff and a one-paragraph BG of fluff under another staffer who pretty much hand-waved.
Paradox and I reviewing every app not only holds us accountable, but it means when we run scenes and develop plot, we can keep certain PCs in mind ('Hey, I see So&So signed up for your scene next week: try to include a hook for their Physics BG skill.'). Now, of course THAT part is easier since we're a small game, but it's part of our vision.
I also hate long backgrounds. I hate writing them and I hate reviewing them. So I really, really fucking love @Paradox 's BG method. He came up with it. He gets all the credit for it. We don't MIND if people write longer BGs, but we ask for 3 Questions to be answered in a BG:
That's it. If people answer those 3, that's all they need. They can write more, but they don't have to. A game that can encapsulate a 'concept' (I've seen WoD games use the 'concept' idea for example) like that make me happy. Give me a few questions to answer to sort of summarize my character. Let me provide a few bullet points.
Don't make me give you some long-form background where I detail out every single skill, merit, power, etc. at length to 'justify' it for the love of god. I think so long as a sheet 'makes sense' for the concept it should be good enough (aka: a 20-year-old bakery employee with PhD-level skills in theoretical physics and multiple world-renowned martial arts disciplines probably doesn't make sense straight out of CG :P).
How do you handle them?
How do you tell the difference?
I know, from what I've seen on the board, that they can be a big deal on Arx (for example). I'm already seeing them happen on SGM (the players know some of them since they know Stargate and they're having fun playing to their PC ignorance, but they don't know some others since they relate to game plot).
As an ST/plot staff, how far do you let it go?
I have no idea if and when a player is aware their player has it wrong and they're rolling with it (I for example sometimes consciously let my PC be wrong because ‘Well Jane wouldn't know this because it's not in her field of study’) or if they actually missed it. I know some people are totally fine with being wrong and I know others get ruffled feathers to later find out and will jab a finger at their sheet going ‘I have Intellect 5!’ (no matter their Notice is only a 2….).
So many things can factor into this as well.
Maybe they missed it because they followed a different path.
Maybe they followed the red herring.
Maybe they forgot about the huge plot hook you handed them last week and it was vital this week.
Maybe they misread what they were given in the scene.
At what point do you step in OOC and go hey, so, you're actually incorrect on your read of this… Or DO you step in? Do you let the fallout be IC?
I understand there may be different approaches to this and I'd love to hear them.
Personally, I love seeing how people open door number one, see their prize, then rush to door number two, see the trap, and report back to everyone that they need to go to door number two because it’s clearly the correct route. (assuming 'omg this is too obvious and blatant and we must be involved in a smoke and mirrors situation and and and and')
On SGM, the team once spent an entire scene investigating a well. A WELL. It became their version of the gazebo.
I find that shit fucking hilarious.
But is there a point you need to take them aside and go: hey, you’re chasing waterfalls here. When is that point? How do you know what player will appreciate the warning (to hold them back from going on a path that isn’t going to provide a tangible reward) and what player won’t appreciate it (they don’t mind potential failure; some people enjoy the character growth it entails)?
Now, as an ST, I will always insert something to guide people back on the path eventually (well, potentially guide: I won’t put things on rails, I’ll just add a new branch that COULD lead them back on the right path). I also have sometimes had these situations spark ideas in me that I like better than my original plan so I’ll follow the ‘wrong’ assumptions instead of my original plan.
@silverfox said in MU Things I Love:
I know this isn't for everyone, but I really do appreciate having a paged conversation out of the blue. Like, I like being reminded that there's a real person on the other side of the screen. Without those conversations I find it ~really~ difficult to get into an RP groove with someone.
I don't know what it is.
But I appreciate being paged out of the blue to just... talk.
I can understand this.
There have been people on games where I get this vibe of 'homg they hate me they don't want anything to do with me they can't stand me I'll never rp with them again' and then one day they'll page me to say hi and I just instantly feel more relaxed and chill and like everything is OK.
I have a major fucking love for skeleton gifs. I can't be the only one.
Post them. Feed my addiction.
@Thenomain said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
@Auspice said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
'Get the Nobel Peace Prize'
Why is this a bad long-term Aspiration? You get Beats for it when you work toward it, which is the goal of a long-term Aspiration. That it's not good for a Mush is a different issue.
It's probably not great for a tabletop, but the ST will see this and plan around it. Or not. It's their funeral.
This is one of those: for the fuck of everything theno can you just appreciate that I was trying to come up with something off the top of my head and didn't want to spend half an hour thinking of something you weren't going to nitpick?
clearly you understand the point I was getting at
