Posts made by Glitch

Personal preferences: Sword & Sorcery or Space Opera (with psionics).

Conditions, and the beats that arise from them, make more sense to be included when considering GMC, which I overlooked when I responded. In that context, I'd still like to slim-down on sources of XP and the tracking thereof (aspirations, perhaps). If those sources are included, then the non-primary character would still have a method to advance.

@Arkandel said:

Do we want to lessen the focus on gaining XP though? And if there are other methods of gaining XP (Aspirations, Beats, etc) then is it really relieving the overhead at all? I mean it's a flat number added on top, so what's the difference?

Perhaps I should've instead said lessen the focus on how to gain XP, rather than the actual gaining of it, though I think it'd end up being less of a concern if you always knew when, where and how much.

I was also speaking generally, neither in the context of status nor of WoD. I'm only speaking in the context of XP in a MU'ing environment with the expectation that "always-available" is the norm. In the case of WoD, I probably wouldn't include beats and aspirations as a method for gaining XP and so yes, overhead would be reduced.

@Coin
Just because I never RP doesn't mean I don't want to buy stuff.

The benefits as I see them:

• It lessens the focus on gaining XP.
• It removes a dependency on type and level of activity.
• It makes the power-curve more shallow and gives a general power-level to the game.
• It removes staff and player overhead involved in variable XP tracking and awarding.
• It gives a reliable, known quantity of XP for expenditure.

@Coin
It does let people buy stuff without RP'ing, but it's still less work implementing a minimum activity expectation and enforcing it than it is doing all of the work involved in tracking, validating and awarding XP. Also, I don't mind the player XP idea and agree putting the choice in player hands is probably a good reason to do it.

Yeah, there are a few possible solutions I can think of off the top of my head:

• Allow relatively free switching (1/X weeks) between all alts
• Allow a switch away from an alt, but it can't be main again
• Allow a switch away from an alt, but lose the other character like a retirement

I lean more toward the second one (with maybe a short cooldown period that allows you to change your mind). It keeps the decision substantial, maintains the "focus" on one character and lets you keep your old character.

@Coin said:

Though, if you're going to do that, why not have passive XP just be Player XP that the Player can spend on any alt, and be done with it?

I generally lean toward the the character-based version to try and keep focus on a single character, but it could be done that way as well.

@Ganymede said:

The proposal is for a Mage game, so I'm presuming it's Mage + Mortal (and by that, I also mean Mortal+). So, for that kind of game, 1 alt is just fine.

A Mage + Mortal game with one alt is a Mage - Mortal game with the odd exception. What is the benefit of restricting a single super sphere game to a single alt?

This system is very labor-intensive for staff

Not a positive.

it has the side-benefit of providing a "player RP report" on a weekly basis

I also can't see this as a positive either.

On the XP system proposed, RfK is again my model. There, you can claim beats for having a scene (1), meeting or working towards an aspiration (1), RPing a particular theme (1), attending an event (1), resolving a Condition (1), and other events. You can also give a Beat for good RP, which they call Squees. The amount of beats you can accumulate in a particular time frame for a particular type of claimed beat is capped. And you have to provide a brief justification for each claimed beat.

Or, flat-rate XP with the assumption that people are doing some occasional RP to warrant it and, if not, a very minimal pulse check. Also, on a game with multiple alts, now-a-days I lean toward only a single one of your characters getting this flat-rate. If you want to explore other character archetypes or blow off steam on your mortal or whatever, have at it, but pick one character to be your main and that one gets the XP benefits.

There appears to be a network problem at the physical location of this server. It is causing intermittent connectivity issues, so there may be problems with connecting to the forums. There will also be a point when the server goes down for approximately 10 minutes sometime this evening, or into the morning, for them to replace network switches. If there are any updates or changes, I'll let you know.

It's software called NodeBB, you can find it here.

ETA: As to the second part of your question, I'd say it's probably harder to setup than some other forum software, but that's mostly because it requires a few more steps. If there's interest, I could do a tutorial about it.

@Cobaltasaurus has a topic for that here. Not that you have to move it, just saying she's started up a topic devoted to low-brow romance.

@Arkandel said:

Again, you (the generic 'you') are free to do what you wish with yours. I'd never discourage someone from running their own thing, there's nothing wrong with that.

You did say do what you want, but that was a throw-away at the end of a long argument expressing exactly why they shouldn't.

I am saying there's no such thing as 'should'.

Do you prefer can?

What does that even mean?

Do you have trouble with is too?

If anything people should try to have fun.

Look, you found a meaning astonishingly close to my meaning in the very next sentence.

I am asserting - and there's no way for me to prove it other than empirical evidence so I can only push the idea that far, but I find it far from hard to defend otherwise - the majority of players don't care about the mechanics they're using, they care about the game's themes, roleplay being available, their friends being around.

If people don't care about mechanics, but instead care about having fun, enjoying a good theme and finding roleplay with new people and friends, a new system won't be much of a hurdle. It'll be more of a hurdle for some, but that's hardly a reason not to do it.

It's alright to value different things. I place great value in being able to play with more than the same 2-3 people I have been all week because no one else is logging on. I find no inspiration in that.

See, this is the worst part of your argument. You say people can do what they want, but you spend a lot more words saying how they shouldn't (or asserting something so you can imply it without having to use the word should). Or, like this comment, say it's all right to value different things and then immediately offer a backhanded reference to what you "greatly value" that, shock of shockers, implies otherwise.

@Ganymede
I did make the caveat that if you like the system or had readily available code to go for it. That's for the person starting their game to prioritize, like your own prioritization of your homebrew. What I'm arguing against is the suggestion that popularity should be the primary consideration of a system.

The conversation on systems has been moved here.

@Tempest said:

I really disagree and think this is an attitude that is cancerous to the future of the hobby.

Not every game needs to use WoD because 'omg the most people know it'.

If people want to ignore a game just because they don't feel like learning a new system, hey whatever, but that doesn't mean everybody should stop making anything that isn't WoD.

I would say, if you're going to do something like this, you do not need to fully code/etc the game before opening. Because yes, you MIGHT be wasting a hell of a lot of time. And if people log on and give you shit about the game being 'in progress', fuck them.

I wish I could upvote you more for this. People should be running these things out of passion because they really want to play or make the game they envision. If others don't share their vision, the game will fade or die, but always deciding to go with what you think will be popular is worse than going with what makes you happy.

@Arkandel

No, it's not cancerous to the future of the hobby, it is the opposite. We are a shrinking community, not an expanding one, and further fragmentation into ever-smaller niches damages instead of reinforces whatever it is that's still holding us together.

No, it's not opposite. You're talking about hunkering down and sticking with the familiar as the community shrinks, because we all know how well that ever succeeds at making anything better. Instead, people should try new things, experiment, fail or succeed based on their attempts and do what inspires them to tell stories and roleplay (even if that is WoD or D&D). Maybe the community still shrinks, but it's also not the option that is guaranteed to make it stagnate further.

I'm not theorizing most people don't want to read new rules and be introduced to fresh mechanics for a game they might or not even keep playing after a week. I consider it to be obvious.

If everyone was like this, there would never be anything new or even the impetus to try new things. I consider this to be pretty obvious too.

If WoD or D&D is your passion, then make a game on that system that you love. If you're trying a new setting and want some easy code because you're experimenting and @Thenomain's nWoD code is just sitting right there? I'm not going to begrudge that. Having enough players to make a game viable is important to the game's success, but not taking any risks with a system you might like more because "the community is small and doesn't want to learn and you shouldn't make them because then they won't come to your game" is the worst reason I can think of to select a system.

Though now I want to start calling varieties of MU splats, just to further muddy the waters.

@Tempest Sorry, I haven't seen anything like that before.

Can you give an example of the what you expect to type and what you expect to be the output?

Okay, so I've gone through and created some more groups and related topic categories. Check the groups page for a list. All of the groups except tutorialist should be free to join without need of an invitation. If you get ideas for any more groups, let me know!

@Shebakoby @WTFE Actually, I think if you pay very close attention, the little divider line briefly highlights blue.

Sorry, I haven't actually made the other groups yet. When I do, they'll show up on the groups page like Book Club and Tutorialist. Once you join a group, the related category should be visible to you. It might help to also link the category within the group itself, but I'll add some more of the groups today.

@Cobaltasaurus Okay, changed the arrow's color. Just need a hard refresh to see it.