I've been playing with the idea of having players either identify themselves as experienced, ready to go, or as new players wanting help, the first time they connect.
The idea being if they identify themselves as wanting help, a message would emit to connected staff and players who are interested in helping newbies so that they know to reach out to the player and make sure that they get help.
I've also never been able to mentally support more than one active PC on a game, and though I have PCs on many games, I'm usually only focused on one at a time, and letting my others idle. So here is why I like a restrictive alt-policy: It means that the players I see on the grid are as invested in their characters as I am in mine. I think it cuts down on having alts idle away in bedrooms and apartments because people who want RP only have one char to do it in. It cuts down on conflicts where a PC with one char is ducking me because they want to play with me on another alt. It stops PC-churn, because people are less likely to create a neat concept just because when they know they'll have to give up on their other concept.
Like Theno, I've seen games start with a restrictive alt policy and then have players start to ask for more alts. In my experience and perception, this happens when there are other, underlying reasons causing a games player base to flag and increasing alt limits is often seen as a panacea, under the reasoning if there are more charbits on grid then surely, RP must follow. It's also an easy fix to make, and typically much easier than finding underlying causes of disengagement and directing a fix at them.
I think that RfK's solution that @Ganymede brought up is a good one for people who need more than one scene going on to focus, but I think that it's also important to remember that part of the reason redshirts are needed there is because some people have too much RP going on, which is often opposite of what you see happening when people start clamoring to up the alt limit.
For the record, when I speak of a restrictive alt limit, I don't necessarily mean a 1-alt limit. I would count this as any game with a limit of three or under. I generally do not play games that allow higher limits than that, not because I haven't tried, but because when I do play those games, I find it hard to find and form relationships and difficult to find random RP. Since I rarely join a game with a group, if I can't have my char wander the grid and find RP, it's difficult for me to integrate into the game as a whole.
@Arkandel said in How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts:
The truth is this is a pick-your-own-poison proposition. Either you hire more staff so they can run plot, but then you get an inflated staff roster with all which that entails, or you try to keep it trimmed to work with a tightly-knit team and end up burning out to a crisp or relying on player STs to do these things.
I struggled with how to put everything I wanted to say, and kept falling short. So I'll leave it at the fact that I believe you can generate more RP with less ST effort if you move away from +events and big scenes as your primary mode of driving plot, and so I'm not sure that this really is an accurate choice.
*edited to correct a spelling mistake.
There's been a lot of talk of RfK's social system's, but no one's actually talked about it's social combat system. It wasn't used all that often, because social rolls still fail at being normalized, but it remains one of my favorite social combat systems, and was the driving force behind one of the best scene's I've done.
The game's gone, so I have to pull up memories from a year ago, but as best as I can recall, the system consisted of a list of 'actions' that players could take. These actions weren't the end goal of persuade or seduce, but they were the strategies that a person could take to get there. They were actions like 'fast-talk,' 'sweet-talk,' or 'intimidate.' Each of these actions had a different set of conditions as a result. For the most part, these were your WoD 2.0 conditions, but I think there were some game-specific conditions as well. They were mostly small and immediate, giving a +2 dice bonus or a penalty to a roll until the end of the scene, etc. etc. Conditions were also incentivized by getting a beat when resolved and at times, just for getting a condition.
It didn't really slow-down RP, but it did make persuading someone or getting someone on your side a process that involved a lot of back and forth. TBH, it made AJ persuading me to do something fun.
It wasn't perfect, and I would have changed things. I think the actions/moves were sometimes worded confusingly and were over complicated. I think there needed to be a wider variety of actions and conditions, and I would have simplified them to a simple 'method, roll, resist, result.' Also, I would have leaned towards letting the loser of the roll pick which condition they take, so as to avoid the whole 'You can't tell me what I feel!' argument. Nope, you get to decide how you feel, but you lost that roll, so you still get a consequence.
A social combat system does not necessarily have to dictate how someone feels.
Example:
Person A wants access to Person B's bank accounts. Without social combat, they're up a creek unless they're have skills in thievery, hacking, whatever OR they're a manipulative RPer.
With my ideal social combat system, Person A decides to Seduce Person B. They succeed at their roles which happen over several scenes and weeks. This doesn't mean that Player B is seduced. Player B does give over access to the bank accounts, but if Player B wants to decide that Player A is coming on really strong and they're a bit afraid of Player A being a stalker and that's why they give over access to their bank accounts. Good on them.
Because it happens slowly, if they also want to arrange an intervention with their PC buddies, because they think Player A is an asshole and they don't want to be mixed up with him, they have time to do so. They can also avoid the player in the future, just like someone might do RL.
@Groth Got access to the bank accounts, didn't I?
I mean, it's all what expectations are set by the rules being put forth. If you create a ruleset that is focused on results and everyone knows that they can't dictate feelings, then yes, people might be frustrated, but they should be OK with that.
@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:
The problem generally is that people don't roll up Swordsmen to kill people, they do it because they want to be awesome at swording. If you offer them the ability to kill all their enemies through carbon-monoxide poisoning, while having a terrible reputation as a swordsman, that would probably not feel very fulfilling. In the same way I don't think I'd feel very good about my Casanova character if it was talked about as a pushy stalker.
The problem from a game design standpoint is that when you look at the actual situations in which people want to use persuasion, they tend to either be rather short term (Hostage negotiation, wanting to get through a door, offering a bribe etc) or they're about changing someones mind. In a purely results focused system you can support the former however to be useful, it would need to be resolved within a single scene and that's the use-case most of the single-roll social combat systems attempt to fill.
Then design a system that caters to what you think players want. What I don't get about this discussion are the people arguing that because not everyone will be happy with a social combat system then no one should ever attempt to make one. Look, you may not want social combat in your game, but I would actually love to play a game that had that as an aspect and based on this thread, other people would like to try out a game with that, too. If other people don't want to play on a game with social combat then they can stick to games that don't implement that as a system, but why does this have to be an all or nothing proposition?
@Arkandel I want to make clear that I think plot is extremely important. I just think the PRP/+event system is a terrible way to run plot.
In my experience, PRPs/+events are disconnected, isolated events that have no connection to what my character has done in the past or what my character will do in the future. There is little attempt to wrap things into the broader sphere or my character's development. Players pick them up and drop them with little care or consequence. Maybe yours are different, I dunno. Can't say that I've ever been on one of mine, but the strength that MU's have over TT's is the ability to tell a long, sustained character driven story. To that end, if a +event/PRP is a nice way to spend an evening if I have absolutely nothing else to do, but I'd much rather be chewing down on some nice, meaty plot goodness.
I also have a very specific opinion about pacing. In that I like things to be slow. I want to find out a little bit of info, have a week (or two!) to RP that thing to death and make decision. Then act, find out new plot info, and RP that thing out. Bonus points if the plot-RP leaves some effect on my char for the between down-time.
So, people will doubtless argue with me on this, but I don't think the "Looking for RP" command/channel is effective when it comes to people actually finding RP. Yes, it switches a tag on, but most often the tag gets ignored. I think this is because so and so doesn't know you from Adam.
In the mean time, there is no good way for me to let a person know that I would like to RP with them other than paging them. If they're a busy person, it may take a while before we can connect, and because I'm proactive, I page them, and then I page them again the next day, and the next day and the next day. It gets annoying. Having been on both ends of this, it is annoying to be both the person paging and the person being paged.
Most recently, I've been on the receiving end. I've been busy and coming onto a game and getting pages every day, or every other day from people who I know want to RP with me and who are waiting so patiently makes me feel awful. And when I feel awful, I tend to try and avoid the person and situation making me feel awful, making me even less likely to RP with them.
There has to be a better way. So, what would people think about a command that worked like this?
PlayerA types: +wantRP PlayerB=Need update on plot.
Player B then gets a notification that PlayerA requested RP. Plus, PlayerB can also type something like +wantrp on its own and get a quick list of people waiting on scenes, and people that they've requested scenes from.
After PlayerA and PlayerB RP, PlayerB could type something like +wantrp/clear PlayerA to remove them from their list.
It's only a rough idea, and I have no authority to implement this anywhere, but thoughts?
@Thenomain said in +wantrp Command Suggestion:
Yet here we are, on a board, having a civil conversation about tools. I can still use email for useful conversation even though it's mostly filled with cruft. I couldn't possibly use a Mu* bboard nowadays, I wouldn't ever go back to my old email client. The tools have changed, the applications evolved, but they are fundamentally the same.
And yet, bboard doesn't fulfill the basic function of serving as a reminder to a particular player that I'm waiting on them for a scene and what I want that scene to be about. I mean, you can create a LRP/Want RP board, and some people might post to it, and the posts will be ignored and then usage will drop off because boards are a terrible way to organize RP.
The path I've been down before is working to create an awesome new system that would help resolve a common complaint...and it's never used. The culture has to want to use it. This very much starts with one person saying, "Hey, can I have this?" And for all my navel-gazing, that's enough to code it.
Here's the thing - I think something like this is wanted, even if people don't know it yet. Not only do I want a discrete, non-invasive way to remind people that I want RP, but what prompted this post was a discussion with a player. In this discussion, the player lamented that she was shy, and had no problem paging people once or twice, but felt self-aware doing it more than that. She admitted that she probably wasn't being aggressive enough in seeking RP, while simultaneously bemoaning that she hadn't really made "friends," despite being (from what I saw) a pretty decent RPer. I enjoyed my RP with her, and saw immediately that the chars could have connection and we agreed that we should RP again, and then that desire disappeared into the either. Maybe we will RP, but my life is busy and maybe I'll get distracted with people closer to me and she will be too shy to page and when her character drifts away, I will silently bemoan that we didn't RP more.
To get more specific: We've created an environment in MUs where it's hard (not impossible) for people to break out of RP cliques and for new people to break in. We expect people to act in a way that is not in line with human nature and then bemoan the results. I think this command will be used because it will appeal to the people who are not on this board - the people who want RP, but who come onto games and struggle to get it, and don't know the crowd well enough to page or who feel self-conscious about it.
@Ganymede
Pretty good list, but I think you're missing:
I also want to put this in:
I think both RfK and Arx, the two politically driven games I've been on recently, suffer(ed) because of commands that are/were over-fiddly and opaque to the new player. The learning curve on both games to learn their systems was steep, and I'm not sure that the complexity added much to player engagement in the game.
@Gingerlily said in Politics etc.:
@lordbelh Yeah that's a good point, about trying to keep it more chill and being able to deescalate. RfK clearly had systems for that but they are very grounded in vampire. What do you think would work for something that wasn't WoD?
Yeah, you just need an easily trackable way for people to exchange favors or 'boons.' The exchanging of favors is the backbone of any working political system, in game or irl. Political people need to know who owes them and be able to call in those favors when they're needed.
@WTFE That's how I feel about superhero.
Although, to be honest, while theme is important, it's probably the least important factor to me when choosing a game. I look first for player size, game atmosphere, how easy it is to find RP, how easy it is to get involved in plot, etc.
@Misadventure
So, here's my idea, starting with my idea for XP.
To get XP, the player types a command like the following:
+xp/conflict JimmyBob=JimmyBob and I fought over whether or not to use stealth to fight the bigbad!
JimmyBob confirms that yes, they did have that fight, and they both get XP.
There is now a record that Player and JimmyBob had an argument.
JimmyBob and Player liked the RP even though it was tense, so they RP a few more times and have a couple more disagreements.
The third time they claim XP for a disagreement, a little emit pops up:
*Player and JimmyBob seem to have a lot of disagreements. Did you know that Player and JimmyBob can be rivals? Rivals get extra XP when in conflict with each other and get bonuses to rolls when in conflicts with each others factions. To set your rivalry, type, +rivalry/set JimmyBob vs Player. Both players must agree. Players may only have one set rivalry at a time.
Insert appropriate commands and incentives where appropriate. The idea is encouraging disagreements, tracking them, and then using them to help players play up their disagreements with other players in a congenial fashion.
Before Arkandel asks: How do you encourage congenial disagreements? You work at it. You have staff on the ground, listening to channels, paging players to check in, and giving kudos to friendly competition, etc. Is it a lot of work, yes? Will it make a better/more fun game? Yes.
@Arkandel said in PC antagonism done right:
My concern with this is if people would try to 'designate' their allies into these roles. "Oh, Bob always likes to antagonize me" even though they're in it together for everything important.
I have no problem with people designating OOC friends as political rivals as opposed to just automatically being on the same side. The thing about my system is that the players only get the incentives when they're in conflict. If they're on the same side vs big bad, no bonuses. If they're both trying to poach the same trading conflict, bonuses.
I prefer a more organic approach; say, all game-wide political decisions involve NPCs as well, and they go through a centralized system. Characters vote (which might be a literal vote in a council or other means of applying pressure in the direction you like - say, if you have a wealthy merchant it could represent bribing nobles, if you're part of a criminal organization you lean on certain people, etc). Everyone's 'vote' has a different weight based on their stats, and it's fed into a formula to determine what the outcome was in the end of an alotted time period.
At this point it gets simple. Every time two characters' votes clash the code keeps track of it; the higher their disagreement, over time, the more rewards they get from it. Characters who usually agree get almost nothing from each other - their 'reward' is simply that they get a higher chance of winning IC goals. In this system there's no need to designate anything, probably no need for staff to track things 24/7 (which can be very tiresome) and probably just works. Maybe.
This is similar to what I'd like to do on my game, although exact mechanics aren't worked out yet. The one area of concern I have with what you've laid out is that it may be too black boxy. If players don't see the connection between action and incentive then they won't take the action.
That doesn't mean there needs to be big glaring signs that shout "Incentive here!!" It just means that a player needs to be able to mentally put together that he can push button A and get a fish biscuit.
I absolutely agree with the idea that choices need to have consequences--it's not just "which shiny do I want right now," it should (almost) always be, "What shiny do I want now, accepting that it will hinder me in some other way." You have no action without tension, and there is no tension without consequences to choices.
Yeah, I think that's a major piece missing from most games. Being a selfish bastard gets you nothing, since there's an infinite pool of goodies (or at least being a selfish bastard doesn't grant you better access to it). So why be one? It only makes you less likely to succeed, not more.
This. This so much. Players need to make choices, have to choose between the things, and get less able to grow the more they have, necessitating them pulling people in so that they can get things done.
Let me second Burning Wheel. I've played it once or twice years ago.
I don't have the book or remember the particulars, but I do remember that I had fun and that it had social combat, which I'm always a fan of.
@surreality said in Strange Game Dev Inquiries from surreality (condensed):
@Lisse24 said in Strange Game Dev Inquiries from surreality (condensed):
@surreality This sounds a lot like the project that I'm working on, especially the (totes not Atlantis) lost island/civilization myths. Only you have to swap out the mermaid bits and replace with Tropico, because who doesn't want a Tropico/Pirate mix game?
I'm also playing down the spirit world, because I want my game to be more focused on politics and a wee bit more grounded than most MUs (demon bishops? What demon bishops? None of that here!).
I was actually so worried when I saw that, because I've been grinding away on this practically full time hours-wise since last year, and had been planning some of the concepts with someone for five (read: he told me I should do all the work because 'wow that would be cool', then flaked and vanished so I wasn't constrained by only working on it when he was around), so was initially like... oh, god, not again. The last three concepts I was tinkering with I dropped when I discovered there was too much overlap with stuff other folks are doing, so it's been rough on that front -- I'm a 'not wanting to step on toes' sort that way.
I suspect the end results will be pretty different. There are weird demonic forces!
Mostly based on the lore of Ys with some Lovecraftian themes (think Innsmouth) thrown in, though, with an odd race between Spain and England and odd disappearances and, well, who doesn't love the crazy theories about the Bermuda triangle?
I know! My initial thought was aghast that we might be overlapping and both lose players that way, but I think despite some overlap in setting and theme, we're actually creating two very different games and targeting different audiences. It'll be fun to see the end results!
@surreality said in Strange Game Dev Inquiries from surreality (condensed):
@bored I have to be honest here: the kind of negative assumptions that are being consistently made in your post are exactly why it took me since October to mention anything about what I was working on at all. I asked people to stick to some specific questions (and from the jump, nope), and that a lot of other information would have to wait, because there's a lot (to be specific, I'm betting 2-3 months of full time hours put into the setting/lore details in writing) left to do on it that exists in the brain, just not on paper with its various reference material and citations. I think it is pretty reasonable to say: please stow these questions and assumptions until that information is ready to be shared.
Unfortunately, that does seem to be the way that things roll. The same thing happened to my thread, immediate derailment away from the purpose I was looking for and immediately telling me the things that I needed to do. People just want to give their two cents, even when it's not asked for.
Nope, sorry, I have a very clear vision. I'll take suggestions and listen to ideas, but if you're not going to invest in the vision of this project, they're really not going to hold a lot of weight. On the plus side, it did convince me that I need to make a wiki and get my ideas more organized.
@Pandora said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Ominous said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Pandora How do you deal with people ignoring social skills, since they no longer do anything, and putting all of their XP into physical skills?
Social skills shouldn't be the equivalent of font-boxing. If you're cunning, you should be able to get people to believe things that aren't true. Make it a system of extra-powerful gossip, rumors that won't die, slandering your opponents to the NPCs effectively in plots. If you're charming, you can accomplish the same thing without lies, sway NPCs to your side in plots. Etc. and so on.
I remember when Arx was billed as a PvE game, not PvP; every character skill shouldn't be a way to ruin/kill someone's story or character. I got grief for simply not being ICly nice to someone that was slandering my character all over the city in a bid for power then crying to staff that I was a bully when I didn't cave to his demands. Now you lot think Arx staff is going to support your turning social skills into more methods of fucking with each other? Get a grip, and by a grip I mean learn to nicely hold hands tightly, because that's all you're really going to be able to do with other PCs if you don't want to pick up a sword. They've worked hard to give you enemies to fight against, why do you have to measure your
dicksocial stats against each other?
I don't think your tone is particularly helpful in getting your point across. However, if your point is that social combat is not something that was included in the original vision of the game, I think you're mistaken. If I recall correctly, Hellfrog has spoken multiple times about getting a social combat system in. There's even been talk of finding ways to weave fashion into it as a way to give bonuses and such. I know the game was advertised as a PvE game and this seems against the spirit of such, but I thought we'd concluded a while ago that it really is PvP.
@Sparks said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I think a social combat system on Arx could really benefit a lot of PRP GMs, and even staff GM'ing too, and make those manipulation dice just as potentially useful as medium wpn is.
Yeah, right now, Arx seems really gunshy about letting talkers do their thing. Last night, I sat in a meeting and laid out a potential diplomatic path to begin to work on a problem. It was ignored in favor of sending out more scouts and just keeping eyes open. I don't know all the solutions to this, but I am pretty sure that having a defined system will help with getting characters to view that option as just as legitimate.
