Best posts made by Misadventure

I didn't say you insulted me, I said you had an insulting attitude. I am fairly sure most folks do not feel being called son by anyone they don't know is a good thing.

I could swear you posted saying you'd like to see a MU* that broke some mols, some rules, etc. See sounds pretty passive, not much like you are going to make one. Nothing wrong with asking questions and making suggestions or just goals known.

Main point being, I get the idea of breaking a rule, such as the idea you get to make your character (see roster games), you get to play a character forever (see games with set times of play like Greatest Generation), or letting players create NPCs and locations on the fly that are supported and potentially added to the game as code, but certainly approved of to refer to as existing in the setting (many games for many years now).

I get the feeling you are looking a little more radical, so got any ideas? 4 of 5 will sounds nuts, but you may come across a gem, either on your own, or by sparking the discussion.

Runequest 6 may either contain, and would at least be very compatible with Legend and Renaissance, which are all RQ based, but add in things like motivations, social contests, skill and combat feats.

I vote Quiet Room. No pages, no connect or disconnect messages, no speaking, no emits. You show on +where/who as being in the OOC Quiet Room.

Okay, maybe pages.

Seriously, I think the question is what do you want your players to spend their time doing?
Posing awesome fight scenes?
Having intense personality conflicts?
Undergoing painful character growth?
Designing powerful characters?
Playing out tactical battles?
Emulating known properties?
Emulating the event structure of comics?

What are the points you want to hit?

I don't think there is a specific meaning on a MU* to White Knight/Hat beyond they gather up and take on the bad people, whether anyone wants them to or not.

It can refer to being a bully for "good" IC, or the dogpile of good folks all looking for something to do because they are do-gooders.

@derp Two things going on there, the White Knightism, and the Only Killing is Winning.

It's been said before, but few players want to see their characters as the truly bad people, AND many people are adverse to "starting something" first. So they play the nicest vampire who ever had to murder an innocent because well they didn't want to, and if this one didn't die, many more would have to die later. And you know those vicious faction enemies, well they exist no matter what, and you can't fault their players for wanting to be on the grid. And there might be peace based on assured mutual annihilation.

Until The Incident.

Then you have unleashed the Hounds, and the more people are involved the more likely the path of Final Victory will be selected, and achievable.

I'd say make it pay off more to be more diverse forms of bad, and to hold relationships with entities you don't like. And then damage your goals when something you (unhappily) relied upon falls apart. Chaos happens, new players arrive who don't have sustainable goals. More is lost. Etc.

That's right, don't fix a social problem with code, fix it with game systems and story. TAKE THAT Tweed Robot!

In case anyone missed it, someone took the FASERIP system and modernized it a little. The new product is called G-Core and can be found on places like RPGNOW.com.

Social systems, if they are to be normative, need a norm. Staff needs to provide a market for the typical behaviors.

You could only reward actual stories. Or adversity. Or working with new players/characters. You don't even have to do it with xp/power increases. These games aren't D&D, you don't need to level the characters up after fighting off goblin bandits. The saving throws don't get harder, and they don't need seventy rolls on Table III so they can get that sword +5 vs undead to take on your Vampire Prince.

It's a game about entertaining one another.

Strong guidelines on what generates XP from letting people roll everything out? Some sort of scope of magnitude of consequences? So neither "give me that flyer!" nor repeated intimidates on a subordinate get rewarded?

Many components can be fit into the consent structure. It's a matter of do they help create RP, prevent player conflicts, and prevent whatever else peeps don't want to see for the given game.

How about a different thread with the wider focus of why all games are doomed to fail or whatever?

There is no excuse for this level of failure. Anyone person can make a new thread AND mention @coin or @surreality in it and chatter on.

JFC people.

Vote whoring is tedious.

I say this as a person who earned over 100 xp in a month at Whispers and Dark Secrets which had decreasing returns on votes from the same person in a month. I made sure every scene was one I wanted to be at, it was a lot of deal brokering and planning ahead. It was still terrible.

Votes for actual meaningful and enjoyable RP get drowned out by people getting ten times as many from doing public scenes and healthy RP-->vote circles. Your reward must be capped, and that caps peoples participation rate.

So instead of flaws, read the word as issues, and get onto discussing whether players will miss these things, or if there are other approaches to fixing the issues, or related issues, mentioned.

Atop much of what is mentioned here, I like it when your relationships with other PCs, and NPCs, change and grow.
I also like it when my character changes and grows, though many object to that being something that has any sort of system attached to it.

I'd require something on the spot. A date, something about what it was "a RP scene" "a paged conversation" "a channel discussion". I'd like to not write anyone a blank check.

I guess if I was going to have a complaint "system" I would have it be anonymous, and provide a specific set of kinds of problems, so the player complained about could get an idea of what was going on.

I have seen SO FUCKING many staffers and players assert that people are doing things on purpose with nefarious purposes ending with "You know what you did so I won't tell you." Fuck that. I never forget that sort of behavior.

I am big on the idea that complaints, and any form of voting really, be tracked per topic, and never summed. Ideally, it would be able to do 25 players have seen player X do something that could bother someone but didn't bother them, and 14 players say that they had an IC conflict that went swimmingly with player Y. I also think with some time delay, such as weekly, that number should be known to the player.

"Losing" can be reinterpreted to "not how the character thought it was going to go".

I really think the Players should learn to see that what they want (fun, RP, drama, etc) does not equate to what their PC wants.
IF you are a player where you want everything to go peachy all the time, then you shouldn't be conflict oriented at all.
IF you are a player seeking drama, then you should realize that your character getting what they want, how they want it, is self defeating.

Some day I will care enough again to try to apply some of the yes, no, and, but, trade up result for a cost, trade down a result to avoid a cost, packages of exchanged social effects stuff I have in my head.

@ThatGuyThere Much of the issue with agonizing over cgen can be avoided by:

1. using the same costs in cgen as in play
2. allowing some amount of redoing after play