Yeah. The idea behind consent is usually to foster a sense of community that jointly drives that sort of jackass out. It doesn't always (usually) work all the way, but.
What I really don't get is why they're still going with dice when it's Consent. Either go full consent or don't, IMO.
If you're going to try your hand at storytelling for the first time, my best suggestion is:
Find a friend who runs stuff that you like, and run stuff for them (or a group that involves them), and let them know you might need help or advice. It's good to have someone there who can help you if you get stuck.
@Sparks said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
@Caryatid said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
Adding to the list: Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Oh no, I've created a monster...
She was already a monster.
@Goldfish said in Fallen World MUX!:
I'm getting better at this Mage creation thing. I kinda understand spell casting! Except rotes. I don't understand rotes.
Rotes are the same as Spells, with some specific changes. You pay 1experience for the Rote of a spell you can already cast. Because it's a Rote, you're casting a "codified" version of the spell--it's that same spell in a very specific way, and you do it that way every single time (thus the word "rote"). You can cast it a different way, but you wouldn't get the benefits of it being Rote, which are as follows:
Praxes, as a bonus, are like Rotes but more internal (less codified by mages in general) and provide two important benefits:
Rotes and Praxis benefits do not stack; if you have the same spell as both a Rote and a Praxis, you have to choose, at the time of casting, which benefits will apply.
Does that clear it up?
@Tez said:
if players do something and you think it's stupid, think about how to make it awesome),
This can backfire if the same person always does really stupid shit and you always swing it around to being awesome, because other players will resent actually making good decisions when the ST is willing to make stupid shit awesome.
@Bad-at-Lurking said in A fully OC supers MU:
I am deeply interested in an OC game because I like making my own superheroes. Loved it even when I had to do algebra to make a character back in the original Villains and Vigilante days.
Also, and there is no nice way to put this, OC games have fewer creepy dudes playing lesbian Emma Frost or gay harem-having Superboy, just because the fan wank material isn't there. (And this isn't me saying I think playing those characters as LGBTQ is wrong, playing them as sex dolls isn't even wrong. But it always comes across as desperately unpleasant to anybody who doesn't share that same sexual interest in those characters.)
Lol, this reminded me of when I played Superboy in a monogamous relationship with Nico Minoru and our Emma Frost was played by a dude with so little interest in TS we cycled through Cyclops trying to TS her like once every two months.
Hollywood-accurate Dark ages vampire/Mage/Werewolf game wherein the in-splat societies are kind of non-existent (at least within the immediately relevant setting) and the three splats have to integrate and work together to 1) keep the mortals in the dark, 2) keep the mortals in line, 3) protect the mortals from whatever--including perhaps more organized factions of their own kind outside the setting.
Vampire nightlords in large castles that hold court at night and haunt their peasants's dreams during the day.
Werewolf knights in full armor walking the land, Witchering their way through Ridden and Hosts.
Mage viziers and advisors whose prophecies and strange, versatile magics make them invaluable to others.
Really I would just love a Dark Ages game that gets rid of the divide between splats and the choice-factions (i.e. Orders, Covenants, and Tribes) and keeps natural-factions (i.e. Paths, Clans, and Auspices). Maybe in one kingdom a vampire rules with a mage advisor and a pack of werewolf enforcers. Maybe in another a death-sorceress rules and she and her werewolf concubines rule with the help of a colony of murderous night-dwelling bloodsuckers. Maybe in a third kingdom a werewolf pack rules as an oligarchical construct reminiscent to the incestuous families of old, keeping the vampires on a leash and the mages busy uncovering the strange mysteries, ruling trhough savagery and raids.
Maybe all three.
Whatever, just spitballing.
@Wizz, it'd be a great place to just stop worrying about shit, yeah.
@mietze said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
I keep thinking about a Fading Suns game and have a few ideas, esp now with Ares! I think what makes me the most hesitant is how to control numbers to make an active game with lots of GM/staff attention since I think at the very least that would need to be capped at a certain number of participants and I would probably want a 1 PC per player thing. I am def keeping my eye on the games lately who restrict slots to see how sustainable that is long term, and I am kind of curious as to how one arrives at that number.
Absolutely key: if the amount of players drops, open apps back up. Don't wait until 75% of your playerbase is gone to open apps again and certainly don't limit the new slots to less than your original number.
@Kestrel said in The 100: The Mush:
@Coin said in The 100: The Mush:
@Kestrel said in The 100: The Mush:
Slap me, I've never seen so much semantic furore over the particular arrangement of 5-10 words before.
Can we agree that he's an arsehole and move the fuck along?
I think the thing is that while @Misadventure has been known to be a little pedantic and sometimes quite literal and particularly nitpicky, he's never been an asshole. This, too, doesn't qualify him as an asshole to me; just surprisingly dense on this issue, given my experiences.
Well, s/he probably is. Most of us here on MSB are.
But yes, I meant @Zyrus specifically in this case.
P.S.: An ass is a donkey. It is not the same as an arse.
flees
Oh look, I'm so British, I refuse to give up my Rs even though I fucking drop them at every turn with every other word but OH one person spells it 'asshole' and suddenly Rs are SUPER IMPORTANT pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft I was taught RP in my Teacher Training Course you can take your R and shove it up y--
This escalated very quickly.
#sorrynotsorry
There is a certain banality to PRPs and events, a certain lack of organic development, which I think is what Thenomain is referring to.
It used to be that things didn't need to be scheduled days ahead of time; staff could drop in and run something randomly, with the people avialable; storylines between people led to plot because of the storyline, not the other way around; stuff like that.
It's easy to see where the distinction can be lost on some people, but others find it very different to play into a story that develops organically from the actions, inactions, and circumstances the characters find themselves in day in and day out, than they do playing a story that is essentially prepared: "guys, this Saturday we are going to have plot. It will be plot. Things with happen."
I have had people complain when I bill an event as something social and then drop plot into it, because "I wasn't really ready for a PRP tonight" or "if I knew there was going to be combat I would have brought my other PC" or "this isn't what I thought it would be" or...
Conversely, I've had people be disappointed because a PRP was not actually what they expected, either: "my character can't do anything because this is combat and he can't fight" or "what am I here for? my character is a two-dimensional brawler and this is clearly an investigation scene" or "I was promised a fight, why is everyone talking" or "this said LOW DANGER why are my extremely antagonistic actions leading to my inevitable death at the hands of understandably pissed off NPCs?" or...
And so on, and so on.
At least, the way @Thenomain says he likes it, there are no expectations other than what we create during play; there are no high risk/low risk separations, there are no social/combat separations, anything can happen because it's not something designed to be fit into a category and scheduled to happen at a certain time for a certain amount of time.
I like both styles, frankly; I think they both have their place. But it's absolutely true that one style has completely taken over the hobby, leaving the other as a rare, endangered practice we're all too old to really push forward with.
@Jennkryst said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
@Lisse24 said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
@Ganymede said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
@RDC said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
Unpopular opinion: Generic CofD 2e game where the defining feature is that staff just kind of stay out of your way and let you play the game without metaplot or too much staff-lead politics and stuff. >.>
It's a fair opinion to have, but I have not seen this work in practice for longer than a few months.
I think in order for this to work, you still need to encourage play. In most recent WoD/CoD games this has been through metaplot, which is top-down. I think if you want a game that is bottom-up, it can still work and would perhaps work even better, but only if replace the time you'd spend planning an elaborate metaplot instead focusing on systems that encourage interaction and RP. I think you'd really have to heavily think about design and how/why characters would interact and how do you push them towards that. And I don't think that relieves the staff from having to put in plot seeds, they'd still need to give story reasons for players to interact, they just might be smaller, more personal stories.
So fun story, I think about Reno? I dunno.
For the like... two weeks I was active there, I was HELLA active there. I don't really recall if there was meta plot at the time...
What they did have were the Aspirations. Like full on 'get XPz for doing the thing' along with the quick squirt of happy brain juice that goes along with that.
Which I admit I maaaay have over-used/abused.
Literally every scene involved fulfilling a short-term aspiration, or work towards fulfilling a long-term aspiration.Then again... if you're not working towards these things, why have them at all? They are designed to be a roadmap for what sort of RP path you would like to follow. So if you have staff that reacts to these aspirations, plot-wise, and weaves them into a meta-plot, instead of writing their own and hoping the players engage it... that might be a thing?
The key here is to make Aspirations 1) quickly approved; 2) easy to fuilfill; 3) quick to be processed.
Honestly, if the process can be mosrtly automated it would be great. I actually though about doing that once upona time. Like: pitching an Aspiration and getting it approved for play were automated and then, once you fulfilled it and put in for your XP, staff had X days (I think it was 3 for me) to approve or deny (some people will try to game the system) or it would be automatically approved and the system would just give you your XP.
So staff can basically just scan Asps and pluck out anything fishy without having to go through each one.
This is pretty great, but I was honestly expecting something a little more Night Vale-esque towards the end. XD
@Ninjakitten said in Finding roleplay:
Don't apologize to him. He's a monster. Look at what he did to that poor syntax. Just horrible.
@Cupcake said in CoD Ancient Rome game...:
Changeling in a period rich with mythology and ritual.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
it would be especially interesting if Changelings in Rome had Courts and Freeholds that really related to Roman mythology; there's a lot to work with there. Creating your own Kiths would be amazing so that they could really resemble the huge sources of inspiration in Roman mythology.
P.S. consider Geist when 2e finally comes out because lares and ancestor cults, just sayin'.
Universe Unlimited had the plus of having mixed the two universes very well. I mean, some things were ignored and caused some continuity/logical problems, but I did sit in there and fix some of those, at one point, at least to most people's satisfaction.
I think if you make a mixed game you have to accept two things: 1) you'll disappoint some people with any changes you make to fill in gaps or explain discrepancies; and 2) you'll have to shift the ambience and feel of both, if they're very different, until they can cohabitate.
For example, in the Marvel universe, mutants suffer a lot of persecution (let's ignore the fact that Average Joe and Jane seem to have a special radar and are always able to tell when someone is a mutant, and thus worthy of persectuion, and when they aren't, and thus worthy of trust because superheroes). Meanwhile, in DC, most metahumans (many of which are essentially 'DC's mutants' since it's basically just 'born with these powers randomly') are not.
So you pick one. Since Marvel's is a much more integral and important part of a lot of characters, I usually favor using that.
Other things are just fun to mix and match and see what you can do!
Namor does not rule Atlantis. He rules Lemuria! His people are an off-shoot of Atlanteans that left Atlantis centuries ago. They have a wary truce with Aquaman and Atlantis.
The Kree are descended from ancient Kryptonian explorers. It explains their higher physical powers, probably diluted (maybe they once lived with a yellow sun, but it's been millennia since then). (And hey, their naming conventions are very similar!)
The Nova Corps was an attempt by the Guardians of the Universe to create a new intergalactic police force when [x thing with the Lanterns] happened, but they ended up separating from the Guardians and now operate on a different scale than the lanterns (or whatever).
Quicksilver's mutant power allows him access to the Speed Force. (So many people hate this idea, and I don't know why, or care.)
The Celestials are responsible for [name any number of weird fucking things in the DC Universe, including even the Anti-Monitor].
Galactus and Mogo are totes frenemies and Ego constantly feels left out.
@silentsophia said in Something similar to WoD, but not quite:
I miss Scion ever so much.
RIP Miruan the Introverted Sniper of Ares.
RIP Shou the Hawaiian Flying Surfer Ronin of Susano-O.
@somasatori said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
True, I think that Monsterhearts would have to exist on its own with the goal of trying to emulate a very specific fictional genre, like you're suggesting. As I was writing out my game idea, I figured that the core AW ruleset would probably be more effective.
That said I would absolutely love to play in a MH game. We could port it to a college campus with limited adjustment to the rules. College student politics work differently than high school politics (you wouldn't have the regular touchstones like prom and whatnot) however there are enough similarities to allow for most of the moves to function as they should. I think the main issue with attempting to port it to where the PCs are universally adults is that MH includes a lot of familial drama regarding your characters' playbooks. A family of werewolves, for example, is going to be angry when their darling hooks up with the local vamp. At a college, it's likely that the werewolf PC won't tell their family about their indiscretions with the vamp they met.
What are your thoughts on that?
@ZombieGenesis said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:
I think a MH game would be best set in a college town, for sure. One where the college is maybe even assimilated right into the town and caters as much to townies as to outsiders.
PbtA games should probably be small ones, not the hulking behemoths so many people seem to want their games to be.
@Coin said in Make a Game with Me!:
One thing I recomended to someone recently is the Conflicting Interests System for any type of political faction play.
For example. You have factions 1, 2, and 3.
You also have interests A, B, C, D, E, F, any of which can succeed or fail.
You give each of these factions interests they want to succeed, and interests they want to fail:
Faction 1 wants A, B, and C to succeed, but they want D and E to fail.
Faction 2 wants A, D, and E to succeed, but they want B and F to fail.
Faction 3 wants B, F, and D to succeed, but they want A and C to fail.And then you, the person running the game, decide when each of these interests are important. Maybe A has to do with passing a law about the restriction of magic--Faction 3 is heavy on the magic use and the other two Factions band together to overwhelm them, but Faction 2 needs to be careful, because very soon, Interest E (certain gentrification platforms) will come into effect and Faction 1 is very against it, so they might want to curry Faction 3's favor...
... and so on and so on. Might get a little complicated, but only if you spread a little too far. The key is making sure every issue is represented (and reviled) equally, and that every Faction has a stance (even if the stance is 'neutrality') regarding every issue.
You can also give it a success sale, for example:
Faction 1 needs A to succeed, wants B to succeed, doesn't care either way about D, wants E to fail, and needs F to fail. This gives them a lot of room to maneuver and see what to support at which point.
This also lets you retroactively decide what's important for a faction and why, creating something that a lot of people might be much more invested in.
I think one of the things I hate the most about +jobs is that they have to be accessed on my client.
If I could go on a website and look up the entire job on a webpage and scroll up and down and whatnot, etc., without having to interface with my client save but for inputting into the job? That would make it infinitely more tolerable, IMO.
But that's probably just a personal quirk.
(Sorry,