@jonah42175 said in How to start?:
I know I should throw out a "Scene anyone?" line, but most of those seem to get frowned upon and considered needy.
It's not considered needy at all on the games I've been on - in fact it's the principal way for people to get together outside of events.
Bar/coffee RP is still a staple of MUSHing but I think it's better if you can come up with a more creative way/place to meet new people. Games should have multiple hangouts for such purpose.
@sockmonkey said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
I wouldn't say '...if I win, then you are persuaded'. I'm more of the flavor of '..if I win, then what I am saying/doing probably appeals to you, maybe more than it usually would' and then let you take it from there.
I agree with you. In fact, the BSGU rule on social rolls is almost exactly what you just described. Yet "if I win, then you are persuaded" is exactly what many folks (on this thread and every other time this topic comes up) seem to want.
The presumption is that if you don't allow your character to be conned, then you're a Cheating McCheater, even if you have good reason. And that folks who prefer to control their character's thoughts (i.e. the agency argument) are only interested in "rolling up characters who are perfect at everything". That's just flat-out, demonstrably wrong.
There are bad actors on both sides - the "I'm going to force-roll seduction against you" skeeves and the "nah nah you can't intimidate me no matter what you roll or what the circumstances" nitwits. But painting everyone who favors a certain playstyle with the "bad actor" brush is wrong. (and just to be clear - I'm not saying you did that; I'm just clarifying my original point.)
@pyrephox said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Even WoD has a merit called Common Sense that allows...
That's my point though ... having GM advice is not a foregone conclusion in every system. Some games make you pay for a Common Sense merit. Others have a Wisdom stat.
I've played in lots of different TTRPG groups - both conventions and various clubs/friends - and it was rare for anyone to ask the GM for direct help in solving the problem. Sure, you could ask informational type questions like "Do I know anything about ork customs so I don't inadvertently offend him?" But never "What's the best way to win this fight?"
I make no claims that this experience is universal, but I do believe it's fairly common. Whether you believe that or not, though, you have to acknowledge, as @Ganymede said, that people come to MUSHes with different experiences and assumptions about how the game "should" be played. Navigating that lack of a common ground is difficult.
@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
I am starting to develop an intense dislike for that word - agency. It's being overused to mean "I never lose". That's not what it's supposed to stand for.
See, the thing is - people are claiming it's being used to mean "I never lose" but that's not what many (most? all?) of us are actually saying.
I use agency in the dictionary sense of exerting control. Not over what happens to my character - because that would actually mean exerting control over the environment, the NPCs, and other PCs - but over my character's thoughts and attempted actions. Deciding what a character thinks, says and does is literally a player's job IMHO.
And yes, of course, you have to respect the rolls if rolls are part of the game. But there are lots of ways to do that. Feeling intimidated and doing what the person is asking you to do because you're intimidated are two very different things. Perhaps I take a negative modifier on an attack, or pose standing up to them while literally quaking in boots, or any number of other possible actions that respect the roll while still retaining control over what I feel is my character's most appropriate reaction to that roll.
That's what agency is to me. And if folks don't like that way? Hey, I respect that. All I'm asking for is the same degree of respect in return.
Because it's really not about never losing. My characters have routinely been duped, intimidated, seduced, and manipulated into doing dumb things, and I personally know that's true for several other players who advocate for agency. It's just about staying true to the core of who that character is in your mind.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
If so, how?
I think if you want widespread buy-in (and bear in mind you'll never please everybody) to a social conflict system, you need to develop one that at least vaguely resembles the way actual humans work, with a slightly heroic slant because in RPGs people want to be The Special.
You can use physical combat as a model of how to do this. Almost nobody would have fun if physical combat were completely realistic - with a low degree of accuracy and high degree of injury - but we have an approximation that a wide cross-section of people can buy.
Nobody's successfully done that for social combat. Such a hypothetical system needs to include some concept of armor for deeply-held beliefs, and some way of reflecting personality and things in our backgrounds that shape how we respond to things. It would need to reflect the fact that social manipulation is usually a long-term endeavor. It would need to reflect social relationships - you're far more likely to buy a lie from someone you trust than your most hated enemy.
@derp said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
even physical combat isn't all that complicated at its core. It's just a roll.
That's just not true though. Different weapons have different effects. Damage has degrees, it's not just "oh you succeeded in one roll; I'm dead". Tactical choices like called shot, stances, positioning, reach, etc. matter a lot in most systems (sorry it's been awhile since I did a WoD-based combat so maybe their system isn't that nuanced). And there's a shared understanding that no matter how well you roll, you can't kill a dragon with a butter knife.
There is a ginormous difference between rolling intimidation for "Hey give me your lunch money" and "I've got a gun to your daughter's head, now go in there and rob that bank for me or she's dead". Yet the systems we use are woefully lacking in accommodating those subtleties. We've got a weapons chart with dozens of weapons and effects for physical combat. For social combat it's like... "eh, take 3 extra dice". That is just a pitiful way of trying to abstract the range of human behavior.
So to @Ganymede - yes, I think a better system will help. It won't satisfy everyone, but it can go a long way.
@tinuviel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@derp The mechanics might not give complexity and nuance, but rules certainly can. There is a difference.
And GMs can weigh in even more. I wouldn't let an IC dermatologist try brain surgery in my game even if they did have Medicine 5. Common sense should trump mechanics.
This "just play by the rules or play a different game" argument is getting tiresome. The entire point of this thread was Gany pitching different rules and asking for people's input.
There are reasons why the "just make a roll" social mechanics in WoD and other games get so much resistance and a lot of it is because they suck. Sure, you can suck it up and suffer through them or you could, y'know, improve them. That's what good GM-ing and/or house rules are for, and that's what this thread is about.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Would people still use social stats to resolve conflict? Why or why not?
Probably not, for all of the reasons that @Thenomain and @Arkandel already mentioned. Also..
Agency. Folks can mock it and dismiss it all they want, but it is a thing that a significant number of people really care about. NOT because they can't bear to lose, but because it's kind of insulting to have someone else tell you how to play a character you created. It's the MUSH equivalent of someone telling JK Rowling "Harry Potter would never do that!"
Appearances. Without conducting a scientific poll or anything, I would venture to say that most MU players would rather their characters die than be humiliated. It just goes against why a lot of people play these games, which is escapism. Die gloriously in battle? Sure, whatever. (Though some folks hate that too.) Become a coward? Dealbreaker.
@thenomain Yeah I mean there’s something to be said for that. I prefer some randomness though. Even Hank Aaron struck out sometimes, even against average pitchers. But I think the general principle is the same - give the players vague guidance on the outcome and let them sort it out. Some folks like that. Others prefer more concrete answers like “Faraday takes a moderate wound to her right arm.”
@mietze said in Historical settings:
I really dont get why making some alterations to other parts of history would be somehow a more immersion breaking thing.
For me it's not about immersion-breaking really. It's more about having a solid footing for reference about what my character would know/think/feel.
Like I can imagine how a regular old 1866 human would react to "ZOMG ALIENS JUST ARRIVED".
But what would a regular old 1866 human even be like if racism or sexism didn't exist? Would females have been allowed to be regular soldiers in the Civil War? Would there even have been a Civil War without slavery and all its evils? What about relations with the Native Americans? It feels like going down a rabbit hole of dominoes hitting dominoes, and I no longer feel like I have a solid foundation on which to base my character. It's no longer historical; it's an uncanny valley of similar-but-not-quite-the-same parallels that I have a hard time wrapping my brain around.
That's just me, anyway.
@Ganymede said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
There is always an element of discretion -- most complaints aren't so dire -- but I think that any complainant who wants some level of confidentiality or non-action would make that request before informing me of a dumpster fire.
I understand your point, and like you said - it kind of depends on the situation. Some things you can act on without compromising the confidential source. What I usually get is something like:
"Harvey is harassing Julie but she doesn't want to cause waves and would get mad at me if she knew I said anything so let's just keep this between us." There's a few things going on here. One - I have no details to support this accusation. Two - This is coming second-hand and could all just be a misunderstanding. Three - Julie is a grown-up and if she's having issues she should talk to me directly (which is what I would encourage the white-knight friend to tell her). I will keep an eye on what Harvey says on channels and keep this info in mind if future complaints are leveled against him, but it's not going to be enough by itself for me to take direct action.
@Ganymede said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
This is not to say that Faraday's more hands-off approach
Just want to be clear: If someone comes to me with an actual complaint that involved them personally I am anything but 'hands-off'. I will deal with a problem directly. Where I draw the line is vaguebook third-party whisper mills about alleged issues or spending precious minutes of my life wondering: "Gee, I wonder why Ganymede quit. Was it because of unmentioned harassment or do they just not love me any more?"
@Lotherio said in Historical MUSHes:
I brought up Magnificent Century on here, cause its sort of the gateway to more Turkish historical drama I feel, or at least opened the gates for others. Many of the negative'ish critiques point out the costumes are definitley not period, from cuts and excess skin exposure to the fabrication needed to make them so elaborate to the material itself. I don't care, I like it, it captures enough of the perception of the period in my mind even if embellished quite a bit. Even the storyline, as much of Suleyman's (Suleiman) life is known, far less is known about what actually may have happened among the woman and the harm; but damned it is good drama - I bought into historical portrayal of the time of Suleyman, and after half the first season finally realized I'm really just watching an historical soap opera and I couldn't stop watching.
Then I ponder if such a place opened and I imagine if it was presented just like the show, how much negative feedaback would it receive from portrayal of costumes, to gender, to religion itself.
I agree with everything you said. I don't know the show you're talking about, but I've watched plenty of historical movies/TV shows and they're all like that. They use the historical time period as the general setting, but it's a rare show indeed that gets higher than "eh...kinda, I guess?" on the accuracy-o-meter.
A movie might get MST3k commentary or people griping on forums about them using the wrong patches on their uniforms or something, but we'll still watch and be entertained. MUSHes don't seem to get the same treatment.
@GamerNGeek said in Picking the community's brain...:
1: Game has to be some flavor of Mush or Mush. I've looked at the Ares stuff, and I'm sure it has strengths. But it is too different for me, and when I can't do little things I'm used to, it stresses me out.
Only tangentially related to your query, but I'm curious what about Ares you found stressful. The web portal is something new, for sure, but it's wholly optional. When you connect to the game via a MU client pretty much all of the player-side commands (posing, channels, pages, bbs, etc.) should work the same as what you're used to from MUSH/MUX. In fact I've had people who've logged on and thought that it was just PennMUSH with some extra softcode. Feel free to PM me if you don't want to get into it on this thread.
ETA: Keeping things familiar and approachable for veteran MUSHers is an important design goal for Ares, so if there's something missing I'd love to make it better. (there's an article summarizing some of the differences from Penn/Tiny btw)
@Sunny said in SerenityMUSH - Discussion:
It's not a fair request to make of somebody.
It's a fair thing to discuss the pros/cons of a fresh start with somebody who's professed goal is "we want people to come play on our Firefly game". Nobody has a right to demand anything of them, sure, but I don't see anyone doing that.
They can't escape the fact that SerenityMUSH has a lot of red flags that others have already pointed out (lack of control over the server and database, lurking dinos who could come back and upend things at any moment, fragile code, etc.). To say nothing of just the horrible reputation the game has acquired over the years. They have to decide whether the nostalgia factor is balanced out by that baggage.
@SerenityMush said in SerenityMUSH - Discussion:
If it were only a question of digging a few rooms and handing out a few weapons and ships, sure, I'd be happy to do it, but it will require so much more.
That entirely depends on what kind of game you want. If you think that the coded H-Space/DSS/Com/Medpack/Econ code is an essential selling point of the game you want to run - then yeah, absolutely, starting from scratch makes no sense.
In contrast though - here's a game I set up this morning using the Cortex skills system (which is what the Serenity RPG uses) just to prove a point that it can be just a question of digging a few rooms (with ships represented as rooms) and telling stories if you want it to be.
And if you don't? That's cool. Best of luck to you.
@Kitty-Kat said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:
That said, I think before making any Staff NPC as a character bit, you need to really ask yourself if it could be accomplished by using your staff bit, and some emotes.
I tend to make my recurring NPCs as character objects, mainly because it's easier to pose them that way and I don't have to fix a bunch of logs where I accidentally said: "Faraday steps up to the podium..."
The character object is just a tool. It's how you use it that matters.
@juke said in Our Tendency Towards Absolutes:
On the other far extreme, though, you get people who are so picky they don't get RP, either, and I'd like to think that eventually both groups are self-solving issues because they'll drift off from lack of interest or activity eventually.
I don't disagree with that point, but I think you're looking at it from the player perspective. Which is fine, but I'm looking at it from the staff perspective. Making things that will generate RP when many of your players just don't want to play with each other often feels at best like threading a needle, and at worst like an exercise in futility. This is demoralizing as a staff member. Personally I think it's bad to have demoralized staff members if you want a healthy game, but I guess YMMV.
Because they don't want to be told what their character believes, wants, or has to do based on the game system...The x-card isn't entirely the same as people's aversion to social dice, but I believe it's in the same "spirit family", if you will.
I've stated my dislike of X-Cards as written, but I don't think the other "nope-out" mechanisms are the same category at all.
If I nope-out of a murder scene, that doesn't prevent everyone else from still doing the murder scene without me. If @surreality nopes-out of being strangled, that doesn't prevent the PC from getting clonked on the head (same end result, non-triggering mechanism). There are some gray areas ("I'm triggered by fire so I don't want you to burn down my PC's business" vs "But you pissed off an arsonist!") which I think need to be resolved by discussion, compromises and perhaps off-camera scenes.
@Coin said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:
Let me roll to find the right avenue of investigation or interaction.
There has to be a balance though. Everyone realizes that players don't have the same skills as their PCs. But without players making decisions as to the approach, everything boils down to just dice with no actual storytelling.
I play a lot of Shadowrun, which is often built around heists. Rolls are used to give you tips as to the feasibility of various approaches, but ultimately planning the heist is the whole point of the game. If you just boiled it down to "I roll to figure out what's the best way into this building" and then "I roll to figure out if we succeeded" then it's no fun.
Combat is often done this way too in most games. The GM doesn't make you roll to figure out what the best attack is. You choose the attack, and the dice tell you whether it worked. I don't see why investigation/bluffing/etc. should work fundamentally differently.
@Ghost said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:
All too often, GMs railroad, envision specific methods that are the only solution to their riddle, or punish players for making decisions that the GM may think are stupid.
Yeah, I agree with what you and @Coin said. Like I said in my first post, I think it's a balance. The GM's job is to enable the players to progress in the story, not to stump them, beat them, or railroad them. If they come up with a viable angle that you didn't consider - run with it. If they're going down the completely wrong path - either run with that in a fun way, too, or redirect them, or just handwave it not working out.
At the same time, I think players need to be willing to do some modicum of research into the world and the characters they're playing, and not rely on the GM to give them all the answers because they rolled well. You don't pick up a James Patterson murder mystery expecting the investigation to be written like "And then Alex Cross found some clues!" We get that it's fiction and it's not going to be perfect. We get that not all players/writers are experts in their subject matter. Anyone who's read a book or watched a TV show or movie in their life is quite adept at dealing with this phenomenon. But the good writers at least put forth the effort to make it believable.
@Thenomain said in OOC Knowledge Levels Question:
Ares encourages me to save a scene because it’s expected behavior when RPing on Ares.
Except... it isn't?
Ares encourages you to log a scene because logging enables a variety of useful features that would otherwise be unavailable to you (and everyone else in the scene) if you didn't. Such as:
But even so, logging is entirely optional.
Once the scene has ended, Ares does not care what you do with the log. The log is automatically kept around for a period of days to give people who want to a chance to share it before it gets deleted. Then as a courtesy, it warns people before it auto-deletes the log, in case they thought that they could just keep it around forever. This gives them a chance to save it to disk before it gets lost.
I acknowledge that there can be social pressure to post logs if everyone else is doing it, but I wish people would stop putting that onus on the game server.