My friend in college invited me to try out Star Wars 1. It didn't really grab me, but the style of gaming was intriguing enough that I started looking around for other games. I stumbled across Maddock, where they were all kind enough to mentor a pathetic newbie. (OMG I was so awful!)
@SG said:
I'm in the crowd that doesn't like IC conflict.
There's a line, I think, between "OMG I hate you!" and "Hey let's be BFFs even though our characters have IC reasons not to get along so great." A line between being an ass and being at odds over conflicting political/social beliefs.
I get that people are leery of walking that line because of the potential for others to get pissed at them. I just think that MUSHes are a little more interesting when everyone doesn't see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
@thebird said:
Lately, I've wanted an IC Nemesis so bad... Not just some NPC, but an actual character on a game. I feel like, sometimes, just because my characters have boobs, means that people can't not (double negative for the win) get along with them. I know that, generally speaking, people don't want to overstep, or whatever, but come on...
Yeah that's been my biggest disappointment as a player. A couple of times I've made up a char that was supposed to raise eyebrows and hostility (like my Wild West ranch hand girl) but everybody wants to be BFFs. Then you have to emit NPCs giving you crap just to be remotely thematic, but everyone acts like the NPCs are the crazy/unreasonable ones just for expressing appropriate IC values. It gets weird.
I totally get why people do it, on a social level. It just always struck me as a missed opportunity for some good IC conflict.
@Arkandel said:
Speaking as a Storyteller, not as a player.
I always wanted PCs who are overwhelmed or afraid for their lives.
Seriously. There have been two times where I've been running plots and nearly had a total player kill just because nobody would listen to IC and OOC advice to just RUN AWAY when they were ambushed and badly outnumbered!
But it's not all bad. One of my favorite logs was from The Greatest Generation, where the characters' ship was attacked by a U-Boat on the way to Gallipoli and all they could do was cower in the cargo hold and hope the ship didn't sink.
Shadowrun is my favorite RPG, especially since they streamlined the rules in 4th/5th ed. Such a rich universe, and I enjoy the mix of heist and combat RP. Earthdawn is fun too, but I haven't played it in forever. I like the interwoven backstory between SR and ED.
I don't think either of them translate well to the MU front though. I'm naturally partial to FS3 there because I think complex systems get in the way of RP more than they aid it. The FS3 dice mechanics are somewhat similar to SR4.
@Thenomain said:
Dare I ask without doing my own research, what is docker?
It's a package installer, sort of like a mini-virtual-machine that runs on your OS. Installing with Docker gives you basically one command that installs the thing you want plus all of its dependencies and (I think?) configuration.
Will add... the trouble with making a 'one size fits all' code system for WoD is that it's insanely difficult to make a code system that 100% models a RPG system with all its various nuances. You have to make compromises.
So what ends up happening is that Game A wants these rules and Game B wants those rules, and trying to make that all fit into a nice one-click install package is a nightmare. Throw in all the different versions of WoD and the different spheres... yeah, there's a reason nobody's done it.
But you could probably at least code something as a starting point, and let the individual games build on it.
It's totally possible. Just nobody's done it for reasons @Thenomain mentioned.
If you're looking for something to model it after, you can check out my softcode system, which has both a default database with everything installed, and a set of installer files you can run on an existing game to install and upgrade.
I don't have WoD skills though, because I have my own skills system. If you could find a willing coder, they could make a WoD AddOn that fits into that same installer framework.
@Thenomain said:
So as you said about themes else thread, what kind of isolation are you going for?
Oh, I wasn't going for anything in particular. I asked this after my friend and I were discussing some of the challenges involved with isolation on Battlestar games. Even with a big fleet, most of your players are going to be military in small to mid-sized departments, so isolation is still a problem. And then we got to talking about whether something like a 'deserted island' type of setting could ever work without either rosters or a deus ex machina system feeding the island with new people.
So I was just curious what experiences others had.
Everyone has different tastes. It also comes down to what kind of theme you're going for.
I've heard several suggestions about having multiple grids/communities/etc. but that's kind of going against the theme of isolation. If you're doing Battlestar, and the central theme is "this fleet represents the last survivors of mankind", then it gets a little jarring (for me) if you're constantly running into other survivors. Occasionally it's fine (like in the new BSG when they came across Pegasus). But do it too often, and you're disrupting your central theme.
Now it would be totally valid to structure a different theme where your goal is "round up other survivors" or "become a bastion of civilization where other survivors can congregate" or whatnot, but those are fundamentally different, not-so-isolated themes.
Asking what kind of playerbase the setting can support is a totally good question. A Battlestar fleet with thousands of people is totally different than a single plane crashing on a deserted island.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Depending on how large an influx of new people you're looking at, one can always Deus Ex Machina a new person into the Isolation group. ... Another plane crashed on the deserted island, a small group of hikers found the crazy cannibal's cabin, someone got hit on the head and woke up inside the dome, etc.
Doesn't that get jarring though? I know it did for me on Lost when they were constantly running into other strange groups of people on this supposedly-deserted island. Walking Dead makes more sense because they're moving around, but if they were in a stationary setting like on a MU* would it make sense to always have stragglers stumbling upon them?
The other struggle is that those infusions of new people happen in groups, whereas MU players tend to arrive one-sy, two-sie. Still, it's a possibility.
@Ganymede said:
I realize I sound very hypocritical since I generally play on WoD games which usually end up just being a monitored setting with no particular direction or theme.
I don't think it's hypocritical, but as you point out - there are lots of games that aren't following any particular direction. When I built my Wild West game, for instance, I had a central plotline involving a range war but I didn't care whether players participated in it or not. If you wanted to do your own thing on your farm with your buddies, that was fine. When I ran BSP, there was a central plotline about the Cylon war, but if you really wanted to play a cook, I didn't mind.
There's no right or wrong way to run a game, so it all comes down to your goals and expectations. (And making those clear to the other players.)
Most of the apocalyptic games I've played on have suffered from what I'll dub Isolation Syndrome. When new players arrive, there's no easy place for them to arrive from. They often have to play the "I've been here all along, really" card, which can be awkward for a new person. When players inevitably idle out, there's nowhere for them to go. You're forced to roster/NPC them or kill them off.
I've had some experience managing these types of themes, but I'm looking for other peoples' insights. What's worked well, what hasn't?
(Btw, "never run a game like this" is not very constructive. It's just the only option for some themes.)
@Ganymede said:
@Derp and I had a discussion as to whether a non-inclusive clique with no influence and no desire for it is actually a detriment to a game. While we ultimately concluded that the influence would be minimal or nil, I asserted that such a group would also be pointless and, therefore, undesirable.
Well I said that it can be detrimental. It depends on what else is available on the game (to draw in new folks) and how influential the members of the clique are. For instance, if the small-town Sheriff, an important char, only ever RPs with Bob and Suzy, that might be a problem.
As for undesirable, it depends on what the point of your game is. If you build it so that players can log in and have fun, and those players are logging in and having fun - groovy.
Also, I rarely see a clique that never RPs with anyone else, so even if they mostly just RP with each other, there's still some net positive for the game as a whole.
@Arkandel, I think the strict dictionary definition certainly applies in many cases (emphasis mine):
a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes
This is distinct from what I presume @Thenomain was referring to as "play groups", which would be a non-exclusive circle or group of persons.
Having a lot of cliques can be very detrimental to a game, since new players just throw up their hands and leave when they can't break into RP.
At the same time, I think cliques are a natural part of any social endeavor. And frankly, if I choose to log into a game just to play with Bob and Harry, who are my best buds from elseMU and we've got our own little plotline going on that doesn't readily open itself to strangers, that's my prerogative. It may be a DUMB prerogative because eventually we'll get bored playing with just each other or Bob will idle out and then our story will be up a creek, but it's still my prerogative.
@Arkandel said:
But it is. I mean it's still considerate to ask before joining but if you're in an actual public place - I'm not talking the back room of a bookstore but a busy restaurant or something - then being annoyed if someone walks in is unreasonable.
Being annoyed if they walk in is unreasonable, but so is being annoyed if you walk in, ask to join and they tell you 'no'.
If you're having a nice private conversation at a bar table in a public room and someone else walks into the bar, I don't feel that you're obligated to include them. It's nice if you can, but sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes your character is crying in their beer or talking about Something Serious or Something Secret and it just doesn't make sense for them to start chatting up some random person who walked in. I don't feel it appropriate to tell the original people: "go find someplace other than the bar to RP your bar scene".
Now if that happened, I would politely and apologetically explain to the newcomer why I can't work them in, and do my best to make it up to them next time.
@Ghost said:
At what point is entertaining others required to become entertained yourself, because if we don't work hard and/or try to keep a game populated, we have to hit this RESET button on our fun and start someplace else.
I think that's the same thing I was trying to say with it being in your own best interests to involve as many people as possible. But I don't see that as a "contract" or "obligation" so much as a mutually-beneficial compromise.
But at the end of the day, if RPing with those people is such drudgery that it just isn't fun, then it's probably better to hit that RESET button than to go on torturing yourself playing with people you don't enjoy playing with.
Edit to add: Also it's not always black and white. There's a big difference between "OMG I hate playing with this person" and "Well, they're not one of my bestest buds but they're okay, and it'll be better for the game if I step out of my clique for a night and play with them..."