Best posts made by BobGoblin

Unfortunately I avoid the politics forum because if I wanted to see rabid animals I'd go to the vet on rabies day.

God. The thought of regrinding my warlord pvp title....

South Park MUSH.

I agree with Jaded on that. Tyranny was a more satisfying experience for me.

Also, I do not play games for graphics. I play them for story, mechanics, and fun. There just was something about Torment that left it feeling lackluster to me. I prefer Planescape over Tides. It's not the worst game ever made, but as I said I just value it at about $12. Tyranny I value at around $16.

As point of reference, I value Skyrim at around $40, Fallout 4 is a $5 (I decidedly hated that game), Witcher 3 was a $25 on the Goblin scale. It's all about $$$ for value/time put in that's fun. Best value atm on Steam for myself; Stardew Valley which I value at about $30 based on time I've enjoyed playing it and Darkest Dungeon which is about a $30 value as well.

I have both played and ran a Marvel Heroic game at a table top.

Good experience, gives a very epic heroic feeling. Good system.

If you're looking to utilize it however I would suggest looking into the Cortex hacker's guide to modify the system a little bit to make it fit better the theme/feel you're going for.

@Auspice

I believe with a fully OC game though you have less issues with the 'my character should be x' perceptions based off the 'canon' bullcrap. That said, FATE would be a solid choice. There's a ton of other amazing choices out there also and I'm very curious to see how the community responds to the game.

To note, The Expanse did start off as a table top game. Likelihood of getting approval: High.

I'd love to see a nice Star Trek game that had some meat to it beyond 'command consoles'.

@auspice said in Mutant Genesis (X-Men):

One part of the issue I've had lately is people "want" to RP, but they don't want to be responsible for any part of the generation process.

They don't want to come up with where, what, or the set.

They'll ask me if I want to RP.
"Okay."
"Where to?" or "What should we RP?"
...like you asked me. Why do I need to come up with it all now?

When I approach someone to RP, I generally try to have something in mind to RP. A goal in mind.

This is why most of us hate BaRP. It's meandering, pointless.

It's why I personally generally don't reply to the call for 'anyone wanna RP?' in OOC Lounges because 9 times out of 10 when I do, it's followed by them wanting me to come up with the where and what.

Like hey, if I have a where/what in mind, I'll put up a call for RP. If I'm responding, the onus should be on you to have those things in mind, damnit! Hell, if you have a where/what, I'll generally even set!

I call shenanigans!

I've considered the travel time element in various design spaces over the years. I think in some areas travel times are good and necessary; I also strongly believe they should never be a deterrent to RP.

This was an issue on a Star Wars game back in the day called Dark Horizons. If anyone is familiar with that game, they may remember incidents when a conflict would break out people would just 'appear' there to join the fight despite having been RPing hours before across the galaxy. It led to horrible ideas of 'time slowing' or putting people out of scenes because it didn't fit. But also the idea of this immediate join in without having 'been' there was problematic as well. In fact a lot of times I see this as an issue on games that have those large IC grids (space games come to mind mostly).

My suggestion to at least start a solution? Allow fast travel at a 'mechanic' penalty. If I'm going across the galaxy for the purpose of just RPing then who gives a shit if I have a mechanics penalty for a bit (it doesn't even have to be that long, just enough so that you can't immediate travel in order to 'game' the system). If I do want to jump the galaxy to join my buddy in a fight that I really shouldn't be at? Well I still can; I'm just at a disadvantage. Not restricting RP this way but still having accountability and a benefit to 'preparation'.

It's really a fine line between having something to do on a game when the RP is sparse and those things becoming something that replaces RP. But let's be honest as well, how many game runners/admin have within the past year bitched about how players have 'no self motivation to do things' or the like. That they constantly wait around for plots and events to happen but won't start stuff themselves and that as admin you're tired of feeling like you have to spoon feed players.

Flash back to the 90's and 2000's. I'm thinking of games like CrystalMUSH, Wing Commander Red Horizon that come to mind where the games went and there was activity and RP happening without the constant hand holding of staff. Yeah, staff dove in and made things happen but there seemed to as well constantly be something to do as well. Right now it seems most games exist for players to log on and mill around in rooms; hope that some plot or some person is interested in RP, and then if they aren't they wander off. They do this for a few weeks or months then they stop logging in and staff wonder why their game is dead; blame the players for not being self motivated and there you go.

There must be some kind of balance out there right? Somehow? Not a MUD where it's automated existence, but also not a MUSH (Multi-User Sit and Hover).

What I want is a Multi User Fantasy.
Something I can dive into.
That I can really eat up.
I just want a MUF.

I also believe the inception of the Wiki for record keeping alleviates some of that 'report' burden.

Based on this thread, there seems to be enough general interest in a WoT setting game that maybe there's enough room for a pair of different flavors. At one time in the day there was like 3-4 WoT games in existence at once and all were doing relatively well (during high times of MU of course).

There's like this TV show on Food Network called 'The Best Thing I've Ever Eaten' and it makes me feel glorious and fat watching it. But I thought about it from a gaming landscape so I wanted to pose the following to everyone.

The best ______ I've ever experienced was:

For the ________ let's do 4 topics.

• Policy

• Game System

• Setting

• Code

If you could, perhaps list game and description for whichever topic you talk about. But I'd be very interested (and I'd venture some of the developers out there would be too) about some of the best stuff people have experienced over the years.

Basing on the supposition that the plot modules could be pre-generated and handed out to others, or checked out by story tellers, etc.

I think a scene distribution setup of some kind might include an estimated time to run component. That would make it much easier to accommodate one. But I agree, I think a large number of scenes have no idea how long they're going to take.

I think this is the same as the first. It could be structured if action was taken that way in the design phase.

This is the real struggle, the carrots. What I find interesting is that XP is for character growth, but we often utilize it for player action. If you think about it, that's really not the goal. The question becomes what carrot can we offer to PLAYERS for PLAYER actions? Myself, I'd love to keep XP to Character Actions and some other sort of currency/carrot for Player actions. However, what that is? I don't really know, I think that's why XP becomes the default. There might be an opportunity here for some deeper delving. What would PLAYERS like versus CHARACTERS?

Yes, Yes, Yes. There's a distinct lacking of NPC data. I know on the SAGA games that went around for awhile there were pregenerated stat blocks - but that's also very cumbersome. Is some of the issues about Storytellers running things the complexity of the systems? I think we talked about that before that walking STs through things with experienced GMS as a sort of training would be good, which I agree. But if the 'conflict resolution system' is easier to manage does it entice people to do more? And if it's easier to manage it should help address this topic.

I haven't touched the Arx fad, but I'd be interested to hear more on the implementation of incorporating others. I have had a few ideas myself on how to encourage CHARACTERS to interact with new CHARACTERS. One of which is the first time a Character interacts with another one they can establish a 'bond' or some other short statement. A lot of times we see vote systems or the like to support quality of RP, I'd maybe see about shifting to a system where players signify the impact another character has had on theirs. Give a nice little chunk of character development for every new bond, a smaller chunk for updated bonds to incentivize meeting new people rather than staying with the same people? Just batting around.

Feature Characters: Staff controlled alts to lead the charge.

Force Characters: Staff controlled alts to show off.

Player Characters: non-Staff controlled alts to look on at awe as the staff does stuff.

Staff: Get frustrated players never do anything.