@DownWithOPP said in FS3:
I just need to work on getting myself out of that mindset, of really, treating the Timber Wolves like GI Joe, a highly trained special missions force where everyone had that one or two things they did really really well that made them get picked.
It's not really a bad mindset to have. In which case, I want to be the nerdy recon girl that gets distracted by weather patterns from watching troop movements.
So where's the disconnect? Is it documentation? Expectation? I'm just being too nitpicky?
Player understanding. Now that I know, I know.
Don't fret about it. I just found it funny.
Heh, that actually happens a lot and makes me wonder sometimes if I'm being overly pedantic about it or if the BG skill levels are either wickedly unclear or out of whack. I think it's probably one of the things I've written most on apps: "Sooooo you've got Math at Expertise. Did you really mean to be a PhD? If so fine but... I'm guessing not."
Look, I just thought it would be cute to have my scout get lost in examining water patterns while out on a recon mission.
@Arkandel said in Identifying Major Issues:
I'd say the biggest problem, and I include myself as part of it, is we're reluctant to try something new.
Speak for yourself, bucko. Otherwise, I concur.
Many interesting ideas are failures to launch, usually for the lack of a pocket coder to do some customization although that's not the only reason... and going through all this, investing tons of hours and sweat into the gruelling process making a new MU* is only to see 10 players on at launch can be heartbreaking.
In my case, I'm the only one working on my project. @Thenomain has looked at it and offered suggestions, but I'm toiling in the paper mine. Building and describing a system from the ground up is a slow grind of love, not a quickie.
I think it'd need to start with coders.
I think you'll find that the known coders that frequent here are pleased to assist once you pique their interest and agree on a step-by-step plan to execute.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. That's the easy part.
You think so?
Getting a game started may be easy: there's a lot of available code out there and people knowledgeable in how to implement the code.
But seeing a good idea through properly is not easy at all. @Faraday has spent years with her code and system. @Thenomain has spent years developing his code. @SunnyJ has been very meticulous with Fallen World. Fate's Harvest took 2 years to pull together. I can't even imagine how long it took for whoever to code SW:DoD or SW:FoH.
If I had an issue with games these days, it is that they are rushed. A Beta open is to detect bugs, not to open a game and add content, ideas, rules, history, etc. to it. My main project has been in development for 4 years, but that has been accelerated recently.
Of course, FS3 is configurable and games don't have to follow that advice. Dilute the Action Skill list too much and there ceases to be a meaningful distinction between Action/Background skills. Then you end up with a lot of min-maxing ("Eh, I can skip swimming I guess") and weird stuff like "Wait, you're saying my doctor doesn't know basic science because I didn't pick up Biology and Chemistry too?"
Or me, where I shoved too many points into my Sciences, and was politely told that my PC was probably too good at them, based on her background.
@Lithium said in CofD and Professional Training:
The problem comes down to /players/ who abuse/break the rules, and the staff has to be willing to show those types to the door. At least in my opinion, because a problem player or three can chase people away from a game just as easily as bad staffers can.
And this, we definitely agree on.
@Ghost said in CofD and Professional Training:
So in this, a massive social monkey character who didn't spend points in socialize shouldn't be very good at socializing, dice rolls or no. The stat isn't there. But in many cases what I see are highly sociable characters with no dots in skills they RP their chars appear to be very good at, but disnt take the skill because they needed the dice for other rolls that they would need more frequently...like claymore fencing for auto damage.
What I got from your post -- this especially -- is that Professional Training should be taken out because incompetent players will abuse it. This seems reasonable, but it defies the maxim of not setting policy to cater to the lowest common denominator.
That said, I still think it ought to be limited to a mortals-only game.
@Lithium said in CofD and Professional Training:
Admittedly I've not played on every WoD game there was, but if you know of a game where social rules were actually enforced, I'd like to hear why that didn't work. If it was a problem with people not liking the rules, or /other/ problems that usually end up with a mu* dying, like bad staff etc.
In those old days, it was very tiresome to have to be called in, as staff, to watch rolls for something as simple as getting information. Tedious, even. But that's what's required if the rules are enforced as they should because, as you've pointed out, these games were made with the idea of an Omnipotent Overseer ensuring the system works.
I'm on your side, mostly. The rules have to be enforced, or else the stats are pointless. But, as I've pointed out, you can still put an "escape" in there that will allow a player to leave a situation if they are genuinely uncomfortable with what another player wants to put them through. That's what I've elected to do for my own system.
Improv has rules, and the cardinal one is making sure everyone's comfortable. If someone is making others uncomfortable, taking that someone out of play if a necessary step even if he or she is not breaking any rules. I'd love it if people worked things out -- I generally do this -- but it's even better when everyone agrees to play by the rules.
@Arkandel said in CofD and Professional Training:
I feel we just haven't shifted the paradigm enough. There will be a breakthrough but we just haven't made it.
No policy will force that breakthrough. Relinquishing agency voluntarily is something not everyone can do. That's all.
I recognize the arguments against very clearly, and I mostly agree with them. However, in pursuit of having a safe environment for players, I recognize that some players -- and, if you go with statistics, about 1 in 3 -- are going to want some way to back out of an uncomfortable situation ICly without making a huge OOC stink about it. And since the game is social, these tend to be social situations.
One way is to remove these sorts of rolls altogether. FS3 sort of does that: there's really no Action roll for "Seduce" or "Convince Someone of Something." The focus of BSG:U is mew mew mew PEW!PEW!PEW!. While the idea of seducing someone seems fun to me (and, fuck, my PB is Felicity Jones YAAAASSS), it's just not really part of the game at all, so any sort of cajoling and pawing relies solely on whether I can make a convincing enough IC argument.
But where there is a system, I believe it should be enforced to the extent it can while providing the target a way out. And that's why I laid out what I did.
@Arkandel said in CofD and Professional Training:
Even the best implementations I've seen on MU* so far were basically utilizing them in +jobs (or the equivalent, i.e. not in real time and going through staff) but I've never seen one that satisfied me for in-scene conflict resolution.
This one time on Eldritch, I was running a scene for three werewolves where they came upon a crime and were confronted by a handful of gangers. Two of them got ready for a fight, but one got an exceptional success on an Intimidation roll. So, the scene ended.
If you mean PC v. PC conflict, though, it will forever be difficult without someone of authority adjudicating the results of rolls.
@A.-Meowley said in CofD and Professional Training:
But doesn't ignoring a game's Social mechanics deprive me-as-a-Player agency over my PC, if I've invested in Socials? That makes me uncomfortable too.
It should because you're right. Don't mistake my explanation as condoning the rationale.
@Derp said in CofD and Professional Training:
So, really... how do we solve this in a way that makes the actual art of seduction useful for game purposes?
The system wonk that I think will work is as follows:
Players can enforce the results of social rolls regarding their own PC and how others perceive them. You roll to seem sincere or to fool someone into thinking you're trustworthy? That other player has to go along with it.
Players cannot enforce the results of social rolls to coerce other PCs to act in a certain fashion. But if you succeed in the roll, and the other party decides not to roll with it, you can take some sort of bonus or reward, like a Beat in CoD/GMC games.
I was not meaning different was bad. I agree with you in fact. But sometimes going with different can be detrimental because The Witcher, mostly because of the video games, has generated a huge following. So my big concern would be negative reception that would tank a tv show because 'it does not follow the VGs' when a lot of players are not familiar with the novels.
There are a lot of Star Wars video games, novels, and fanfiction, and the new movies don't really follow them.
People sometimes consist of idiots who will complain when something doesn't meet their unassailable explanations.
@A.-Meowley said in CofD and Professional Training:
Now this could just me being all green and naive and stuff, but... Why is it that some people are so anti-Social Combat?
Social combat often deprives a player of agency over their character, and there are a substantial number of people uncomfortable with this for a variety of reasons.
@HelloProject said in Fading Suns 2017:
If you want to do something, do it. Who cares if people on MU Soapbox won't play it, you can still get like 50-100 players without a single person in this area of the hobby wanting to play it.
I'd care because there are a lot of people on this board who: (A) don't play WoD games exclusively; (B) play in a lot of other genres; and (C) have experience and knowledge of issues that I may be unfamiliar with. If the concerns are great enough that someone won't play, I want to know the basis of their concerns because they may be legitimate.
I have read the translated novels. I am hoping that if they go with a recreation they stick close to the novels but from what I'm reading it sounds like it might be something a little different.
Hey, it's Netflix. They tend to do things right, and aren't beholden to the vagaries of a television schedule.
I trust it will be very good. Or, at least, better than the Shannara Chronicles, which seriously destroyed my childhood.
Yeah I heard this was coming to Netflix. Now that I've done some research into it, the author of the novels is being a collaborator for the show so this gives me some hope it will be good.
The novels are a lot better than the games, even translated awkwardly from the Polish. That should tell you something.
Is there anything returning or new coming up that anyone is interested in, in particular?
The Witcher.
Or maybe not interested in?
That new X-Men venture on Fox. Stephen Moyer can suck a bag of dicks.
@The-Sands said in FS3:
Missing on an 85% isn't that big a surprise. You should still be missing about 1 in 6.
I'm not surprised that the Trump Administration is a shitshow in wheels, but that makes me no less pissed off that it's happening.
@Cupcake said in Fate's Harvest BETA Live (Full Open Soon):
I'm bummed about it, because I really loved my character.
I'm bummed because I love my character too. I check in from time to time, but very few people seem to be willing to play out in the open during my normal hours. And when that does happen, the scenes get flooded.
