@Arkandel said:
Hey folks,
Some folks lately have argued we are settling into groupthink around here and they may have a point. That we have been doing something a certain way doesn't mean it's the only way it can work. So this is something I'm working on and I can use help with - namely, I am after criticism, ideas, brainstorming and fresh approaches.
My only request is this: Be as brutal as you need to be with the implementation but let's not waste time debating the core goals; those are axiomatic, a given. It's what I want a game to be.
In other words I'd like y'all to shoot as many holes as you like into the proposed means for this game to achieve its goals, but not those goals themselves.
The Goals:
- Create a liberal, yes-first roleplaying game. If we say no it's for a really good, thematic reason.
I'm a fan of 'yes, and' so I can get behind this.
- Focus on gameplay first, remove all possible obstacles and bottlenecks between players and scenes.
- In the IC setting roleplay and players decide as much as possible. Staff decides as little as possible.
There's a point where staff does have to decide things in order to keep theme going appropriately, however. Building a game with one focus and a group of players pushing against that focus can be fun play, but is not healthy for the people who came to the game for it's first, primary focus.
- Automate anything that can be reasonably automated. Job monkeys should be needed as little as possible, eliminate all needless overhead for both players and staff.
- Audit, do not approve. If possible including CGen in that. Do not pre-empty checks, trust players.
- Offer incentives to excel, allow casual players to keep up.
I like all these, and I'm a huge fan of automated character creation/generation (it's what I've had to redo twice for TheatreMUSH). Some things may require eyes though, just because of the complexity in things that usually come through +jobs like Influence or Downtime. The audit thing is something that I was planning on doing on TheatreMUSH, so if I ever get it open I'll let you know how it goes.
As far as incentives, I come from a MU* background without a lot of advancement systems, just primarily RP and coded combat, but I see where you're coming from.
- Limit the impact of character death, encourage new character ideas.
Easy and quick chargen helps with this.
- Coopt the game to its players so they will have a reason to invest creatively in its course. Allow them to have a lasting impact.
So, my means and methods. The numbers in parenthesis are there to designate which idea is aimed at which goal:
- ( 3, 4, 5 ) Being staff is a role, not a privilege. All staff must contribute and their number should be small. Since the importance of handling +jobs is minimized the main duty is handling interpersonal issues, auditing potential cases of system abuse, but mainly running and coordinating running plot. Staff never decides on character positions or non-mechanical eligibility for ability or power purchases.
To an extent. I have been on many games where this was more or less the model, though those were heavily themed games that never seemed to have the problems that persist on WoD games. Staff would decide on SOME character positions though, since most of the time that stuff was pre-determined by theme (Optimus Prime and Megatron are the leaders of the factions, for example). For WoD, staff deciding on the character positions at start and then going from there would work, with some staff oversight and review (it's a similar process to what the LARPs I play in use when we end up with PC Princes).
- ( 3, 6, 8 ) Characters decide their own groups' composition. Status-weighted votes determine ranks, positions and membership. To facilitate early game launches NPCs are set in place who can be voted out or competed with as normal by PCs. Conversely that means there are no protections for IC actions; highly ranked characters are bigger targets who may be eliminated in the same way as NPCs. Staff only audits this process to ensure OOC behavior remains civil and, to the extent it is possible for them to establish, that no OOC means or information were employed.
This is how things are done in the LARPs that I play in; it works okay, but you have to have 1) mature players who can do this without being cockbites about it, and 2) ensure the processes are streamlined and public, so that everything is above-board as far as the systems go (for example, in METVtM the Primogen can oust the prince by expending four Noble Status Traits, this stripping him of his Status Traits and finally the position. One caveat would be something like a staff-controlled NPC starting group of leadership (our LARP did the NPC Prince/Priimogen when we were small just to facilitate this), or the asshattery that might require an NPC to come in and take the position from an incompetent through story purposes.
- ( 2, 3, 8 ) Plot is the game's lifeblood. The game comes with its own metaplot which is written to be modular and altered by characters. Staff's primary concern is to coordinate players and either run plots contributing to the overall story themselves or support players in running their own. This takes precedence over all other staff concerns save ones which make the game actually unplayable, staff should never feel they can't run an event because they're busy dealing with a troublesome player. Move the distraction in whatever manner is most appropriate and run the event.
Except for some positions that only do non-game level stuff (Coders or web guys), I have never been on a game where staff wasn't part of running a lot of plot and coordinating for it with players who want to run PrPs and similar stuff. This is a foregone assumption to me from my history, anyway.
- ( 3, 6 ) There are no feature characters, restricted features or application-only concepts. Anything up for grabs is available to all players. Characters are elevated based on the merit of their own ability to roleplay.
This would really depend on the theme, but it's okay. I'm a fan of availability plus if someone wants to put in the work to build something with more depth, to have a 'feature' type access, but that 'feature' be beholden to working with staff. So technically it's separate from standard automated chargen in my ideal MU*.
- ( 1, 2, 4 ) CGen has no non-automated approval conditions and there are no 'special' cases; roll what you will. It will check if you have a description and that your numbers check out, then you're on your way. If (due to code limitations) staff has to set things by hand it can happen after characters hit the grid with the understanding you can't use any missing attributes or resources in the meantime, in order to prevent mistakes or misunderstandings about mechanics ('oh, sorry, I thought I could buy Sleepwalker merits as a ghoul' -- which would be an example of one of the 'good, thematic reasons' to say no, as described above).
Coding up an automated chargen isn't usually difficult, just time consuming (it's what I'm doing for TheatreMUSH, though I have the benefit of not having a lot of 'you must have X to get Y' stuff), and laying out all your choices. I have never seen a game that does the review-after-cgen bit, but it's something I was planning on doing here. I'l let you know how it goes if I get the game open.
- ( 4, 6, 7 ) All automated XP are handed on a weekly basis to characters who were in at least two scenes (detected automagically by the code) in that period. Characters also receive a smaller portion of their XP based on incentives - Beats, PrPs ran, etc. Beats are earned on request, audited after the fact if needed to prevent abuse, up to a modest cap per week. New characters receive more automatic XP than older ones until that portion of their XP is equal, although incentive-based XP remain on the characters who earned them without catching up mechanisms. On character death or permanent retirement the majority of all their XP may be transfered to a new PC.
Again, haven't been on a game that has lots of XP awards and upgrades. The couple that I have, that stuff has been automated, tallying at the end of the week or just being awarded on the spot. Usually it has a notation of who awarded it and why in the tally/XP log, which helps keep staff abreast of what's going on.
-
( 4, 6, 7 ) There is no justification requirement for any XP expenditure. If you have the XP you can purchase anything you wish that's mechanically available to your PC. There are time delays to preserve a believable progression in raising skills, attributes and abilities. However justifications are still optional and, on staff's discretion and subject to incentive-based caps, may be rewarded Beats by staff.
-
( 4, 5 ) Cut down on building delays; in most MU* this is time consuming, requiring checks on behalf of staff, setting exit/entrance messages, etc. It's cool to see 'Bob gets in from the street' but it doesn't provide enough to the game - "Bob has arrived" is sufficient if it cuts down on time. Let players make their own rooms on the grid, even businesses, and simply have a periodic auditing process to make sure they comply with writing regulations (tabs, linefeeds between paragraphs) so the game maintains a consistent style.
These two I don't have any real opinions on. As far as building, I use parents for rooms and stuff so all of that is reduced to @parent exit=#22 to get all the messages, to use a random example. I think a lot of places are so fired up about making each exit unique that they sacrifice utility and information for 'Bob climbs down the ladder into the bunker' or somesuch, and in many cases can end up leaving out info of WHERE Bob arrived from, if multiple exits come into an area.
This ought to do for the time being. I've other ideas, including some level-of-consent based schemas and consideration for power disparities across different character type tiers (thanks @Misadventure) but those probably fall outside the scope of this particular thread and can wait to be introduced later depending on how this goes.
So... the floor is yours, kids.
Any game runner who doesn't know in advance people will bitch shouldn't be getting started.
