Posts made by Lisse24

@Rook Well then, now I know why I'm not popular and have no following.

In my mind, a good pose should:

a) Be detailed enough to give flavor and be interesting.
b) Be clear enough to avoid ambiguousness or an interpretation different than the author's intent, in grammar, spelling, and style.
c) React to and respond to the scene in progress.
d) Provide something for others to respond and react to.
e) Does not overwhelm or dominate the scene.

@surreality I feel you, it's the same here.

Don't let these guys discourage you! I'm of the opinion that you ignore the attempt to derail and focus on the people that are engaging with what you ask.

@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.

@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 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!).

@Gilette I definitely see the need to have a place where players can brainstorm and bounce around. I think the problem is that because these rooms are the default place to be when your OOC, they don't serve that purpose well.

Why not have the default OOC landing room be a quiet room, and then designate a room just for players who want to plot or brainstorm PRPs and the like?

@Ganymede said in PC antagonism done right:

Many do, perhaps. I actually try to pick loser concepts. Makes gaming more interesting.

On Vampire games especially, I'm interested into the descent into darkness, rather than overcoming the darkness. One of the reasons that ghouls interest me more than the Vampires themselves.

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.

@Arkandel
That's what I always liked about the Deryni books. They were the first books that I read where magic cost.
Magic drained the user and could leave them incapacitated both mentally and physically.
Use too much, and the practitioner could die
Extensive use of rituals (based on Catholic practices) to focus abilities.
Oh, and everyone hated you, so if it was ever discovered that you could do this, they'd probably burn you at the stake.

I know now that other books (like Wheel of Time) incorporated similar themes, but to my little high school brain it was game changing, and I'll always love the series for that.

@Auspice Great British Baking Challenge always intimidates me! I mean if those guys struggle making something yummy, what hope do I have?

@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.

@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.

@Tinuviel said in PC antagonism done right:

@Lisse24 I don't like the idea of a 'designated antagonist'. if someone sees my PC as their PC's antagonist, but my PC doesn't give a shit about their PC... then what? And what about when antagonisms change, as they often (and imho should) do.

Secondly... to be antagonistic is a choice. Just because you're Catholic and I'm Protestant doesn't mean we have to be antagonistic even if our organisations are supposed to be.

But I was actually thinking of your char on Arx, while writing that!

And yeah, I don't think having a designated antagonist should ever be required, but just by having the command you're sending the message "hey! conflict can be fun! You can work with someone to create conflict and have a grand old time!" Sometimes, having the option to do something is as important as actually doing it.

@Arkandel said in PC antagonism done right:

@Lisse24 said in PC antagonism done right:

1. An open and transparent OOC atmosphere, where character motivations are clear and clearly separated from players, and where players are nudged towards seeing disagreement as healthy.

How, though? I agree, that'd be great, but what do we do to make it happen?

I'm mentally playing around with a couple of ideas like allowing characters to pick certain characteristics/personality traits/beliefs, and then gaining XP when a RP-partner certifies that they were in conflict due to that characteristic.
On a more wholistic side, encouraging conflict is going to require a lot of staff presence on channels, in pages, etc. to just let players know that disagreeing is OK and that disagreeing doesn't mean that the other person is bad.

2. Make sure that conflict is driven by character motivations and setting and that character driven conflicts are reinforced.

Same question as above - how?
See above. factions, dynamic environment, etc. etc. etc. Getting into details would require a 10 page treatise, sorry.

3. Providing disincentives to what is normally seen as winning. (ex. Your faction is in charge! Yay! But now, any time you try to do something shady, there's an increased chance the IC newspaper is going to find out about it and splash it all over the front page)

I think the key to this is providing systems where interesting choices are made. For example... you lead a barony. You also want a larger army but someone has to work the fields since that's where your money comes from - and armies cost money. It'd be great if you could afford a glowing sword for yourself, too but those farmers need physicians to look after them. So where do you draw the lines? Is your land an authoritarian one (so you're playing a 'bad guy' because it gets you things you want) or do you forego military power?

In my opinion one of the main hurdles in MU* is we can have our pie and eat it. It's more fun when we can't.

YES. Exactly. Players need to make choices. They can have the spotlight, or they can be a criminal. They can control territory, or they can hold office. They can attack another person's political standing, or they can keep their factory running. Limited actions/choices are key.

4. Providing incentives for disagreements, rivalries, and what is typically seen as loss.

I offered an idea in your thread about long-standing feuds granting XP over time. I think it's a good one, although the implementation might actually decide that.

I liked that. See what my previous post:)

5. Create a dynamic environment where characters can expect to go through both high and low points as a natural part of playing the game.
6. Proactive staffing that is regularly checking the pulse of the player base, and stepping in on potential OOC conflicts before they become issues and encouraging frustrated players.
7. Clearly defining actions you do not want to see and actions you do want to see and rewarding/clamping down on those actions as necessary.

Again... how? Those are worthwhile goals, but how do you make them happen?

5 is difficult and will depend on the game. I'll happily involve you in those discussions if you'd like to help create said game.

6 and 7 are what they say on the tin, I'm not sure where the confusion is?

7. Since players are going to talk OOC, encourage the talking and plotting to happen on game where players can be nudged in a healthy direction if possible.

I suspect this one will be really tricky. Look at MSB - even when we have no stakes at all (no characters affected by the topic at hand) things get... heated sometimes. Do you think having the game's direction and plot open for OOC conversation somewhere (on a wiki?) will be a net positive?

I actually think having channels and maybe even OOC rooms where players can meet and talk and work on things is the proper way to handle it, but again - if you have ideas and want to help with a game, I welcome that.

@Tinuviel @Misadventure

What you could do, is allow PCs to designate another PC as a 'rival' and then give them bonus XP when they are in conflict with each other. This can be paired with small in-game nudges to rp with their rivals, and given public kudos to a pair of players who are really taking advantage of the system.

@Ghost said in PC antagonism done right:

IMO, many antagonist MU players play it like a trope. They put on a goatee and an eyepatch, say ya cunts! a lot, and antagonize other characters, but still assume this weird stance that they shouldn't suffer any ICC for their behavior unless it's a consequence they approve of. Players of antagonist characters tend to get upset when socially or politically they become uninvited, avoided, etc.

I disagree with your basic premise that people need to 'play an antagonist.' I think in many games factions are in natural conflict with each other. Players from opposing factions can easily play the antagonist for each other while both being the 'good guy' in their own mind. The role of staff should be to reinforce this.

Obviously, I don't think it's a lost cause. I want a game where political play is active and players can be in conflict with each other. To that end, this is where my thoughts are:

1. An open and transparent OOC atmosphere, where character motivations are clear and clearly separated from players, and where players are nudged towards seeing disagreement as healthy.
2. Make sure that conflict is driven by character motivations and setting and that character driven conflicts are reinforced.
3. Providing disincentives to what is normally seen as winning. (ex. Your faction is in charge! Yay! But now, any time you try to do something shady, there's an increased chance the IC newspaper is going to find out about it and splash it all over the front page)
4. Providing incentives for disagreements, rivalries, and what is typically seen as loss.
5. Create a dynamic environment where characters can expect to go through both high and low points as a natural part of playing the game.
6. Proactive staffing that is regularly checking the pulse of the player base, and stepping in on potential OOC conflicts before they become issues and encouraging frustrated players.
7. Clearly defining actions you do not want to see and actions you do want to see and rewarding/clamping down on those actions as necessary.
8. Since players are going to talk OOC, encourage the talking and plotting to happen on game where players can be nudged in a healthy direction if possible.

@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.

I love the ideas being thrown around! A lot of them are similar to or elaborations on or clarifications on what I was already thinking I would like to see.

I'm just trying not to get too excited though. While this is something that I really would like to work on, and while I think there'd be an audience for a game like this in the MU world, I really can't do too much planning until I know I can move forward with this. I really can't move forward with this until I know that I have at least one other person who's willing to work with me on this.

So, like, back to original point, anyone wanna take a stab at making a game?

@Arkandel said in Make a Game with Me!:

Speaking of, what are your plans for the power curve? How will advancement (XP?) work?

I want XP to be tied to good RP, not just any RP, and loss. I would like to award a limited amount of XP for a) working towards player goals, b) acting in theme, c) acting according to characteristics and an unlimited amount of XP for 'loss.' Yes, @Pyrephox, I know loss isn't a great term for it yet. Should someone come on board and I can work on this project in earnest, that would be the type of thing that gets refined.
Anyway, I think a good way to handle this would be through player verification similar to how @randomscene works on Arx. You type in a command that says why you deserve XP, the other people in the room verify it. Use of the command gets stored so if there is XP cheating, we can go back and look at it.

What are character archetypes you have in mind for this game? Are there factions and what kind? What's the political environment like in very broad terms?

I want the political environment to be fluid and changable, with different factions and players gaining power and then waning as time goes on. I would like factions to have various benefits to being in power and benefits to being out of power.
I'm thinking of 4 different types of factions, which right now, I'm referring to as:

• Heritage (How did you get to the island?): Western Continental (Spanish/British influenced), Eastern Continental (Russian/Asian influenced), Mainlander (American influenced), Foreign born/Tourists, Native Islanders, Mixed Native, Sea Farers (Traders/Pirates)

• Political Philosophy (What do you want to happen to the island? - these factions totes need cooler names): Colonial Rule, Mafia/Mob Control, Democratic, Socialist, Theocratic, Military Rule, Native Reversion

• Spheres of Influence: Political, Industry, Trading, etc.

• PC created families/allied groups