Best posts made by Pyrephox

@zombiegenesis Oh, that's cool! When you're able or if you're willing, I'd love to know how that works out at the end of the experiment - what worked really well, what some of the challenges were.

@betternow Although, I'll throw something out from the other side of it:

Matt Mercer is not a perfect GM. He is a good GM where characters and dramatic moments are concerned! But he forgets rules, misapplies them, does asspulls, drops plotlines or closes them out abruptly, etc. The players aren't perfect, either.

But they still have fun. Lots and lots of fun.

Because someone doesn't have to be a perfect GM or a perfect player to have fun playing or running. They don't even have to be very good - I've had some really fun times playing with GMs who were clearly floundering a bit both IRL and in MU*s, and I've had great scenes with other players who maybe weren't the greatest roleplayers or didn't know the rules, or weren't sure what they wanted out of the scene.

It's true that you're never going to find 20-30 people who are objectively GOOD at running scenes and who WANT to run scenes regularly all on the same game. Luckily, "good enough" is fine, and you can have a lot of fun with "good enough" as long as you remove the legitimately bad actors who make scenes unpleasant for other people (running or playing).

Although, back on the actual topic of this thread: I really want a human-focused urban fantasy game that's all about spooky shit, urban legends, horror, and being that tiny spark of light in the darkness. Set in a city, not a small town.

It might be worth considering what is meant by "enforce", as well.

Setting a strong SENSE of theme is a good start. But telling people who you've approved that they're "playing it wrong" is unlikely to lead to a better game culture and happy players. I'd argue that we should be finding the RP and characters who best exemplify whatever theme we're going for, and reinforcing that positively. If, for example, you're running a zombie apocalypse game, publicly give bonus XP to posted scenes that, for example, have a group of survivors killing and eating one of their own because they're starving. Publicly praise the player who has their PC die in a zombie attack, or do Something Stupid that imperils the community because they're starving or crazy.

@faraday said:

@Arkandel said:

But it is. I mean it's still considerate to ask before joining but if you're in an actual public place - I'm not talking the back room of a bookstore but a busy restaurant or something - then being annoyed if someone walks in is unreasonable.

Being annoyed is unreasonable, but so is being annoyed if you ask to join and they tell you 'no'.

If you're having a nice private conversation at a bar table in a public room and someone else walks into the bar, I don't feel that you're obligated to include them. It's nice if you can, but sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes your character is crying in their beer or talking about Something Serious or Something Secret and it just doesn't make sense for them to start chatting up some random person who walked in. I don't feel it appropriate to tell the original people: "go find someplace other than the bar to RP your bar scene".

Now if that happened, I would politely and apologetically explain to the newcomer why I can't work them in, and do my best to make it up to them next time.

Yeah. As much as I like being inclusive (and I do - I try to make it a policy to play with lots of different people, because I enjoy the variety in interactions), sometimes a scene - not necessarily intentionally - has turned to something where it's very awkward to shoehorn another person in. And you can't necessarily predict what that scene is at the beginning.

I can remember once scene, in a public room, I was in where it started as a standard sort of 'run into you' scene between my character and another. It grew tense and confrontational, although not obviously antagonistic in a way that would draw public attention. A new character entered, posed walking up to the two and just saying hi. My character's next pose only acknowledged that in a terse nod, because most of his attention was focused on this very tense interaction. The player then had their character walk off in a huff because they weren't instantly included.

There was just no way to DO that in that moment that matched both the scene and the personalities involved. And 'take it to RP rooms' doesn't really help when the scene wasn't planned to be tense or private, but just...turned that way.

@Arkandel said:

@faraday said:

@Arkandel said:

But it is. I mean it's still considerate to ask before joining but if you're in an actual public place - I'm not talking the back room of a bookstore but a busy restaurant or something - then being annoyed if someone walks in is unreasonable.

Being annoyed if they walk in is unreasonable, but so is being annoyed if you walk in, ask to join and they tell you 'no'.

But that's what I'm saying, it depends on the context.

For starters and before I say anything else, I'm not staying for a scene where I'm not wanted. That'd be ... well, it wouldn't happen.

Otherwise if the scene is about people talking on their own then yes, trying to butt in - especially if they're not particularly welcoming, let alone actively adverse to the idea - is a douche move. But if it's about something else that specifically draws attention and invites intervention fuck that. If my character pulls a gun in a downtown restaurant at lunch time I don't get to tell people they can't be there because they might call the cops or try to stop him and that 'ruins it for me'. It's not cool.

If the setting is some seedy watering hole in a bad part of town at 1 am then there's argument to be made.

It's all context dependent.

That said, there's also the phenomenon of people jumping into a scene because Something's Going On, and immediately bogging it down. If, for example, a character is pinning another character to an alleyway by their neck in an argument, there is no real reason for there suddenly be 5 extra characters who appear out of nowhere or were "there are along" and now they want to break out all their combat dice, and call in all the PC cops, and so on and so forth. The PCs originally involved should absolutely be able to say, "we'd prefer not to be ICly interrupted until this is resolved."

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

@Arkandel That would be an awesome relationship. Especially for vampires, who literally CAN nurse grudges into eternity.

I always wanted a Professor X/Magneto relationship - where two people who were very close personally had been split by ideology, and were each passionately committed to destroying the works of the other...all the time hoping that "winning" would make the other person realize that they were Right All Along and they could be besties again.

Dibs on the Ordo Dracul vs. your ... honestly, the Order can be an ideological enemy to just about any other Covenant. >.>

But they're all vampires. And vampires are terrible.

So picky.

I'm a picky bitch, it's true! I just never got into the appeal of playing Vampire. At least, as it seems to be played on MU*s. I can see the appeal of the scrappy, newly-dead trying to maintain sanity in the face of an eternity spent playing meaningless political games with corpses that literally have nothing better to do with their lives.

I have never been able to understand the appeal of playing the corpses that literally have nothing better to do with their lives than meaningless political games, and...that's the game.

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

@Arkandel That would be an awesome relationship. Especially for vampires, who literally CAN nurse grudges into eternity.

I always wanted a Professor X/Magneto relationship - where two people who were very close personally had been split by ideology, and were each passionately committed to destroying the works of the other...all the time hoping that "winning" would make the other person realize that they were Right All Along and they could be besties again.

Dibs on the Ordo Dracul vs. your ... honestly, the Order can be an ideological enemy to just about any other Covenant. >.>

But they're all vampires. And vampires are terrible.

So picky.

I'm a picky bitch, it's true! I just never got into the appeal of playing Vampire. At least, as it seems to be played on MU*s. I can see the appeal of the scrappy, newly-dead trying to maintain sanity in the face of an eternity spent playing meaningless political games with corpses that literally have nothing better to do with their lives.

I have never been able to understand the appeal of playing the corpses that literally have nothing better to do with their lives than meaningless political games, and...that's the game.

All right. Mage then? [ducks]

Only if I get to throw some goddamned fireballs.

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

@Arkandel That would be an awesome relationship. Especially for vampires, who literally CAN nurse grudges into eternity.

I always wanted a Professor X/Magneto relationship - where two people who were very close personally had been split by ideology, and were each passionately committed to destroying the works of the other...all the time hoping that "winning" would make the other person realize that they were Right All Along and they could be besties again.

Dibs on the Ordo Dracul vs. your ... honestly, the Order can be an ideological enemy to just about any other Covenant. >.>

But they're all vampires. And vampires are terrible.

So picky.

I'm a picky bitch, it's true! I just never got into the appeal of playing Vampire. At least, as it seems to be played on MU*s. I can see the appeal of the scrappy, newly-dead trying to maintain sanity in the face of an eternity spent playing meaningless political games with corpses that literally have nothing better to do with their lives.

I have never been able to understand the appeal of playing the corpses that literally have nothing better to do with their lives than meaningless political games, and...that's the game.

All right. Mage then? [ducks]

Only if I get to throw some goddamned fireballs.

Changeling, then. I woudln't want Paradox to outshine me as your nemesis.

Hell yeah. Changeling crazy is the best crazy, and I get to throw goddamned fireballs.

@skew said:

@Pyrephox said:

(I actually have a whole plot worked up for this one that I've never gotten to run.)

We are going to make a big effort to enable non-staff story tellers. That's one of the reasons why we're gathering this list, so we have ideas we can have people pull from and run. I've found there's a fair number of people willing to run things, just not having an idea ready when they're inspired.

@tragedyjones is also working on a storyteller role, which will give some of the meager "tools" we have available to those that are interested in storytelling regularly (but are not staffers). I won't say more on it, cause I don't know any more!

And for everyone else, thank you! This is great stuff, keep it coming.

Yaaaaaaay! I love storytelling, when I'm in the mood for it.

@Lithium http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/justice/wisconsin-girl-stabbed/

Oh, no! SLENDER MAN IS THE CAUSE OF MURDER! Clearly, all horror stories are evil and turn innocent children into crazed killers, and if you like horror, you are aiding and abetting murder!

Man, I love most of that. I love having Lost use Touchstones, the universal contracts, the changes to Wyrd. I'm not thrilled by the changes to glamour harvesting, but honestly, it was needed - as it was, Lost received their power fuel pretty much at no moral cost, which isn't really in tune with the WoD's overarching theme. One thing where they have, I think, missed a major opportunity, though, is in the nature/demeanor analogue. It looks like they're using the tired old Vampire one. With Lost, they REALLY should be letting people pick fairy tale archetypes. My Mask is the Princess, but my Mien is the Grand Vizier, that sort of thing.

@Coin said:

@Pyrephox said:

Man, I love most of that. I love having Lost use Touchstones, the universal contracts, the changes to Wyrd. I'm not thrilled by the changes to glamour harvesting, but honestly, it was needed - as it was, Lost received their power fuel pretty much at no moral cost, which isn't really in tune with the WoD's overarching theme. One thing where they have, I think, missed a major opportunity, though, is in the nature/demeanor analogue. It looks like they're using the tired old Vampire one. With Lost, they REALLY should be letting people pick fairy tale archetypes. My Mask is the Princess, but my Mien is the Grand Vizier, that sort of thing.

Or at least have Mask be a dull human-type archetype and Mien be something fairy-tale ish.

And, while I'm critiquing, use different words. "Mask" and "Mien" ALREADY MEAN SOMETHING within the game mechanics - don't reuse the words to mean something else. That's just asking for trouble.

@Arkandel said:

If I don't want to adhere to a roll's result I won't ask for it.

This is something I've had to get better at, and part of that has meant /calling for fewer rolls/. I've had to remind myself that I should not be calling for a roll for the expert investigator to pick up the basic clues at the crime scene that will give them a few ideas of where to go next. That's their /job/, and it should not necessarily be trusted to the whims of dice. Now, if they're a rank amateur, or they've snuck in and are trying to get the same information while avoiding people who want to kill them, that's enough tension and stakes that a roll is warranted.

@Three-Eyed-Crow I do that as well. Usually, I explicitly put the ball in their court at this point. Like, "That's cool. Let me know if your schedule frees up and you still want to RP," and then I go ahead and move on with my character's life.

@faraday said:

@Arkandel said:

The only real problem with this is that most players would need to know the ins and out of the bureaucratic system itself to do the concept justice. And most wouldn't.

It'd be kinda sorta like having an E.R. MUSH set at a hospital - if most characters need to know at least some basic things about medical practices but most players don't, it'll hit a wall really fast.

Military games manage okay despite most players not having the faintest idea about how the military really works. As long as your suspension of disbelief is set at an appropriate Hollywood type level, and you manage the purists who want to go around correcting everyone (guilty, your honor, but I've learned), it can be done.

Yeah. The easiest way to overcome this is staff-side, with staff telling people how they want people to do various iconic cinematic political things - it's not so important that it be REALISTIC, as that it's a) interesting to do, and b) consistent from the start. So an explanation of how the staff wants people to use the systems is vital - how do I blackmail a rival? How do I leverage lobbyists? How do I change public opinion? Etc.

@Coin said:

@Tez said:

if players do something and you think it's stupid, think about how to make it awesome),

This can backfire if the same person always does really stupid shit and you always swing it around to being awesome, because other players will resent actually making good decisions when the ST is willing to make stupid shit awesome.

As an ST, I'd much rather have someone who's willing to do SOMETHING, even if it's non-optimal, than the players who are so busy trying to find the best action that they paralyze themselves, and then complain when other players go ahead and move forward with the plot. Incentivize action!

I don't ever recall staff coming down on me for running a PrP...admittedly, some times, it's probably because I just didn't say I was running a PrP, but rather it was just Stuff That Happened. But I think another big part of it is that I usually only ask anything for/about it if pushed to by other players. I rarely seek XP or other rewards for running Random Things - I'm running them because I'm bored and I want to. And I try to make sure that they're not 'and now you PCs get THESE resources', as well. Although sometimes that's rather stifling - I'm a big believer in PCs picking up random bits of trophies and artifacts that later turn out to be plot hooks in and of themselves, but staff tends to be so very twitchy about such things that I don't even bother, typically.

@surreality said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:

@Pyrephox I'm more a fan of restricting certain subject matter to consent-based, typically: rape, pregnancy, sexual preference changes, romantic relationships. These are the places where the most abuses seem to occur -- and by restricting the specific subject matter rather than the stats, you diminish the possible loopholes. For example, some of the above could be done socially or physically through force/etc. and if it's the subject matter that proves problematic, no amount of mechanics change is going to prevent the people dedicated to asshattery from seeking out alternate means of being that asshat.

I would be totally okay with all of the above. Because, after all, it IS a game, and there are some things that just should not be pushed onto players if they aren't fully on board with that. Sexual RP of any type is on that list, for me.

@Arkandel said in What do RPGs *never* handle in mu*'s? What *should* they handle?:

"But", someone might say, "for example the GMC mechanics have Doors and shit, what about that, huh?" Well... again, playerbase adoption is the key. The number of times I've seen a Door used in scenes is hilariously low compared to the punches I've seen backed with dice. Obviously YMMV but I'd be surprised if most people playing nWoD even knew the rules for Doors let alone have used them regularly in scenes; for every person well versed enough to have done so I feel confident - but feel free to prove me wrong - there are many more who kinda sorta know how it works but...

Honestly, the number of people who have clearly not read the rules of the system they are ostensibly playing in always surprises me. There's getting things wrong (which, in something as inconsistently written and with as many exceptions and corner cases and editions and modifiers as WoD/CoD is inevitable), and then there is "clearly has never even looked at that section of the book". Social skills seem to get this more than other areas (I don't know any modern system which still has "roll a simple seduction check and the target falls in love with you/must sleep with you" as an outcome mechanic, and WoD/CoD certainly hasn't for as long as I've been playing, which is nearly a decade at this point), but it happens all over the place.

The underlying problem here is fairly inescapable; most MU* use systems which have been built with social mechanics in mind so you can't simply not have them in your game without gutting the system completely, which is a task that requires massive houseruling. And they're in, they'll be used less than their physical counterparts although they cost the same and in theory are just as important; in practice not so much.

Yeah. And that's not good. Not only because it cheats people who try to faithfully describe their character's abilities, but also because it pushes the culture of the game towards physical combat to resolve any and all difficulties. Players, ultimately, want to be effective at SOMETHING - what that thing is will differ by individual (and it might be OOC as much as IC - I know some players who are happiest when their character is making other players laugh), but everyone wants to know that they're having an impact and influence on the game. So whatever is the most effective route for influence is where you're going to get a majority of people focusing their characters.