Best posts made by Pyrephox

@ominous said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

@pyrephox said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

Which isn't to say such a game would fail or be a bad idea, just that it probably would need to consider its audience, because some of the immediate appeal of the genre for a lot of players would be absent. You DON'T see people lining up to play political games centered around guilds or senates or free cities, even those would be valid settings and even easier to have a wide variety of characters in a MU* setting.

I fucking would if a decent one was available somewhere! That's right in my wheelhouse.

I would, too! But I think we both can acknowledge that it's not the most popular of themes. And I know the game I want to play would not appeal to very many people, thanks to the dreaded SOCIAL ROLLS, but it lives in my head, quietly and happily.

@faraday said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

@pyrephox said in Weird or unrealistic gaming... stuff:

@carma In Ares, I really wish there was more cultural acceptance of, "Joey filled in Susan on the events of <link to log>last night," instead of having to do direct dialogue.

The expectation of direct dialogue has been a thing since I started playing in the 1990s - it really has nothing to do with Ares.

That said - yeah, MU conversations are pretty absurd. That's partly why I can't do big scenes any more (even more than 3 people). Everyone is putting so much into their individual poses that by the time it comes round to me there are like 27 conversation threads to keep up with and my brain cries uncle.

No, I understand that. I'm not blaming Ares. I'm just saying that in an environment where most games have every meaningful scene logged and every log public, it should be more of a thing to just be able to condense a recap to a link to the relevant logs.

@seraphim73 said in Balancing wizards and warriors:

@arkandel I play character types that I like, not power sets that I like (usually). I often play troopers or pilots in Star Wars games, I played Children of the Light on WoT games, and I play Punisher, Arsenal, etc on superhero games. I do it because I like being sort of "the default," something that helps reinforce the setting. Also, I like having to think of a creative solution rather than just throwing a big fireball. I also enjoy being set up to be JUST THAT AWESOME //despite// not having powers. When the Clone Trooper can drop the Dark Jedi Acolyte because the Clone Trooper is just that badass (and that high level), it's a lot more awesome than when the Jedi can drop the Dark Jedi Acolyte. When Frank Castle figures out a way to take down Abomination, it's a lot more impressive than Hulk doing it.

@greenflashlight said in Balancing wizards and warriors:

"It's not harming a human! It's just throwing a boulder! GRAVITY is hurting the human!"

This one is even easier: "Are you telling me that your character is stupid enough to think that dropping a boulder on that human with the One Power (magic) isn't going to hurt them? Because your character is actually magically bound to not hurt humans with the One Power."

The thing about this is that while that is absolutely a conversation people have at tabletop tables, it tends to be one that doesn't always happen in a MU*. Different GMs have different levels of confidence, and if you're using player GMs, the person loopholing might be their friend, or their main connection for RP for their character, or the GM may genuinely not see anything wrong with 'gaming' the system like that.

And every time a GM says, "Okay, I'll allow it," then that player is emboldened to push again, and other players who saw that work start pushing for their own clever workarounds, and it can become a rancorous process where people are accusing other people of favortism, or cheating, etc.

My preference tends to be to have system defined boundaries, state them clearly, and apply them as consistently as possible. It builds a sense of confidence in people that they understand the rules, and what they can and cannot do, rather than encouraging them always to see what THIS GM will tolerate.

I don't see any inherent problem with a for-pay MU*. The biggest thing is that if you were going to make it a business, you would need to run it like a business. And I don't think most people who make games really want to take that on, even for money.

I suspect the right MU* could make decent bank. And by 'right MU*', I honestly mean a sex MU*. And probably furry.

There's also a tension between two motivations for creating a MU* - One, that you get to do lots of fun things and feel powerful/impactful/meaningful in a persistent setting...and Two, that your character is imbedded in a persistent setting that maintains itself over time.

I think this is more an issue in large games or non-original games - if you want to play in X game/tv/book setting, then for many people, part of the appeal is that the game is going to continue to look like that setting. Which becomes less and less likely the more 'protagonist level' PCs that are involved, because part of being a protagonist is changing the world and being an integral part of resolving whatever plots there are. Which is even a problem in original settings once they get large enough that the immediately visible 'protagonist roles' seem to be filled: see Arx and the number of PCs who immediately jumped in with the idea of 'reforming' various parts of the setting, or those who immediately tried to figure out who had 'the right secrets'.

Which isn't to say that 'every PC a protagonist' isn't something to strive for. But as mentioned, it takes a tremendous amount of work, and would also probably work best in an original setting with no more than 20 regular PCs, along with a fair amount of OOC niche protection so the inevitable super active people can't dominate the whole thing. I'd suggest a large amount of OOC communication, being very explicit about expectations/theme, and possibly even a sort of metacurrency that could be used to help people moderate their spotlight time according to their desires and RL commitments.

@Ninjakitten Yes, yes, yes.

I have moved away from demanding the player tell me Exactly How they're doing something for this reason. I'll happily take an explanation if they want to offer it, but I'm far more interested in clarifying /what/ information they're hoping to find, rather than /how/. Especially since, in my MU* experience, "how" is often used to shut down actions rather than facilitate them, because far too many GMs have this very rigid idea in their head of the "right" way to gather information on a particular thing, and if the player doesn't read their mind and do that thing, it doesn't matter how well their character rolls.

Personally, I've been steadily moving towards a more cinematic form of storytelling, where the whole idea is that you don't keep the PC away from the plot, but instead, failures add risk/complication/reversals. So, if a PC tells me that they want to investigate a murder but doesn't have an idea on how to do that, I first check their sheet to see what their relevant skills are, and then offer a suggestion that's in line with their character's skill. They roll, and a success gives them vital + bonus information, and doesn't alert their enemies. A failure gives them vital info, but creates some sort of threat or complication - why yes, you discover a witness to the crime, but as you arrive, a black car with tinted windows shows up and starts trying to murder you and the witness. Question the witness if you can get them out alive!

It's much more fun, in my opinion, than, "You found nothing. Sorry."

If you use CoD, then I'd say replace the Aspirations with Skeletons (in the closet). Whenever someone finds out about a Skeleton and successfully uses it against you to get you to do something, gain a Beat. You can 'neutralize' a Skeleton by coming clean and declaring your sinful repentance through the media, but you don't gain a Beat for that, and you immediately have to choose another Skeleton.

@surreality It is one thing that has always bothered me about WoD games. "Playing the monster" is not a bad thing - in fact, you can get some great, intense, fun, and also thoughtful experiences out of exploring what that means.

But WoD is not meant to be played with a random collection of internet strangers, and when it comes to making a space where everyone can play and have fun, it doesn't do it well, especially in the hands-off mindset that a lot of staff have. It's meant to be played among a small group of people who have agreed to the rules and assumptions of the campaign - if you're going to be full-blown horrific monsters, then everyone's on board with that, and you're probably going to be laughing as you stab each other in the back.

WoD/CoD isn't really even meant for PvP. All of those horrific, decadent elders/fun police/betrayers/etc aren't really meant to be the default PC. The default PC is the young convert, with their humanity still fresh in their minds, trying to buck the system as much as they can without getting horribly murdered. Those elders, etc, are the default /antagonists/, which is why the setting is built to make them horrible. Blood and Smoke is even explicit about this when they talk about the Laws: The Laws are literally written to be kinda stupid so that PCs have ample reason and opportunity to break them and create dramatic plot by doing so. They are NOT meant to be something that actually works and creates a stable and functioning society.

The mechanics are not written with an eye to using powers and skills on other players, and sure as hell aren't balanced for it. Even CoD, which has tried to make steps in this direction, simply isn't very good at making PvP an enjoyable experience for everyone concerned, and still has a huge amount of wiggle room for plausible deniability "I'm just playing to theme" when it comes to being a skeevy horrible harasser to other people.

Does this mean you can't have a respectful MU* set in the World of Darkness? No. But I will say that I think it takes a lot more thought and intentional management than it does in some other worlds and systems. And that very few games put that thought and intentionality into it.

@Packrat Yeah. Honestly, as painful as it would be, the game probably needs an XP wipe at some point before going to its final version. And probably while they're still testing systems, too - if they norm the systems for the current XP distribution, it's going to really hurt people who are new to the game.

Over the last few years, I've tried to turn a very critical eye to how I GM, in general, to try and bring it more in line with the things that, as a player, have been some of my best gaming experiences. I've also started watching and reading media with more of an eye to how stories are put together, and how that can be adapted to gaming without sacrificing player agency to define What Happens Next. A couple of general rules that I've embraced:

1. Information should not be the bottleneck. If there's a bottleneck, it should be as PCs try to decide what to do next. But they should always have enough information available to have an idea of at LEAST one option. And if players seem confused or lack understanding, it's on the GM to make sure that information is clear and informative.

2. Failure should bring complications, not dead ends. "You find nothing," does absolutely nothing for the fun of the game ESPECIALLY if a two or three hour scene comes down to a roll or two and the PCs manage to fail it. Instead, I've switched to having failure mean that finding the information either costs more than it would have with a success, or triggers a side diversion that is fun and stakes-ful in and of itself. I don't make people roll for the absolute basic information required to proceed in the plot, and if they're good at a particular skill, they may get more information for 'free' so to speak.

3. The purpose of plot is player fun. In other words, the focus should always be on the PCs and what they are DOING about the plot, not about 'hiding' the plot from the PCs or what NPCs are doing. Corollary: PC actions should be the focus of every scene. If an event absolutely must happen that the PCs cannot affect, then it should happen in the first or second pose, and the rest of the scene should be how the PCs deal with it. Likewise, NPCs have the skills and abilities appropriate to their place in the setting, not at an arbitrary level of 'challenge' for the PCs: random street mugger does not have Firearms 5 Dex 4, and he does not have Willpower to spend to resist the PCs. CEO of a multinational corporation, though, probably DOES have Resolve 4 Composure 3, because she's a hard-ass who has powered her way to the top of the corporate jungle. If PCs figure out a way to get around that? That's perfectly cool. Her stats won't change.

Mechanically, I like when different character types can receive a variety of inherent features. I'm not as much into straight bonuses/penalties to stats - I feel like that's the most boring way to distinguish two different species. But things like, if we're doing D&D, darkvision? That's pretty cool. I liked the way 4E and 13th Age gave different races different ABILITIES - if you had the blood of dragons, you got a breath weapon. Fae got teleports. Etc. Things that could be adapted to a number of classes in different ways, rather than just being +2 to a stat (although they did that, too). I also like the way 13th Age gave each race AND each class a choice between two different stat bumps, so you could have almost any race/class combo without feeling like you were selling yourself short, mechanically.

Outside of mechanics, I enjoy being able to engage with concepts of prejudice and discrimination without necessarily having to bring 'real world' sexism or racism into a game; it gives it a little bit of distance, and sometimes it's fun to engage with a fight that isn't a fight you're in every day of your life. But settings without those factors are also good; I think it really comes down to what a particular group of players are comfortable with. That said, these days I have no love for 'always evil' races outside of the cosmic (demons, etc.); most of the time, it's just lazy.

Unbreakable is, without a doubt, one of my favorite Shyamalan films, and one of my favorite films, period. I'll definitely be watching Glass, even if it's likely to end in sadness and disappointment.

Mostly, I go to the bookstore and wander the shelves, looking at covers, cover copy, and occasionally opening up to the first few pages. I have never found Goodreads useful at all, and while I do listen to recommendations from people who I know have similar interests or enjoy similar things, the vast majority of books I've discovered are just...picking one up, reading a bit, and going, heeeey.

And that is super cool. I might check this out!

@Seraphim73 Honestly? If people aren't capable of or willing to read two short paragraphs one time, then I'm not overly interested in playing with them in general.

EDIT: Sorry, that was snarky. But more, if people aren't willing to read two short paragraphs fed to them right up front, they're /definitely/ not going to put in the extra work of putting in additional commands to read +views or +notes. You can't cater to people who simply aren't going to put any effort in.

Captain Marvel was wonderful! Loved it from start to finish. Lots of fun action, good humor. The theatre I was in seemed to agree - people laughed at the right spots, cheered, applauded at the end. It was great.

@roz It was beautiful but flawed. I really wish they had continued to refine the friendship and rivalry system, though. It was one of the things which should not have been dropped.

I would love a CoD MU* focusing on Mortal or Changeling (maybe Mortal/Changeling/Geist or Mortal/Changeling/Demon or something, if I'm going to get all greedy). Something that leans away from the psuedo-politics and heavy into the urban horror and fighting for survival against the darkness.

Alas, nothing exists. And I don't know that I could go back to a non-Ares platform, anyway. My last attempt - aside from reminding me of the flaws of the typical WoD playerbase - was painful, trying to navigate old-style MUSHcode once again.

But I waaaant it.

@Sunny said in Eliminating social stats:

@Lain said in Eliminating social stats:

@Sunny said in Eliminating social stats:

This is a great example of 'if you don't do it the way that I do it, you've got bad motivations/are a bad player' when it's actually personal preference.

No more than people insisting that if you are bad with people IRL then by extension so must your character. If "it's just personal preference" can justify abolishing social but not mental skills, then logically, the inverse can also be true. I'm in favor of neither, mind you.

There's a huge, very significant difference, actually. I can see why you would be in favor of rollplay instead of roleplay where it comes to social skills, if you seriously equate these things out to the same sort of thing. Apples and rocks.

I feel like the "rollplay vs. roleplay" thing ought to be the RPG equivalent of Godwin's Law, complete with the "and the invoker automatically loses".

Personally, I've never once had anyone be able to coherently explain to me what is WRONG with "rollplay". I, at least, am here to play a game. It's a game where you play a role, yes, but I've always been perfectly clear that it's a game where you play the interesting parts of a character in a world that is perceived, in part, through the abstracted framework of mechanics and rules, which also includes rolling dice to add an additional element of tension and chance to the game. I can accept that for hit points, for magic powers, for montage mechanics, for PC auras and every other silly, unrealistic, and often counterintuitive part of RPGs, and I can accept it for social mechanics, as well.

Because I'm playing a game. Games are fun, and I'm definitely not ashamed of playing one.

Soup. Not good, homemade soup. Canned cream of chicken, the stuff that is that weird yellow glob until it's diluted with water.