Posts made by Pyrephox

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.

@arkandel That last paragraph is a key piece, I think. I've definitely had the thought of "Why am I bothering to buy these social/intellectual skills or stats, when I know that I'll never get to roll them to do anything, anyway, without someone screaming 'social skills are not mind control' at me? Why not just stack up on combat skills and recognize that my character will always only be as effective as other people and the GM want them to be in the social arena, no matter what skills or abilities they supposedly have."

And then I go ahead and buy the social skills anyway, because I carry the tiny hope in my heart that somehow, someway, this game will be different.

@seraphim73 said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

I enjoy playing characters with large dice pools. Some of this is because I love posing people doing awesome things, and some of it is because I have to make up for my generally horrid dice luck. But as long as my character is within the same range as other PCs at what they're supposed to be good at, that's plenty good for me. Because posing utter incompetence can be entertaining too, as long as you know that's what you're in for.

As I've gotten older, this is one reason I've become more and more a fan of systems with some sort of metacurrency that lets you counter dice luck when it REALLY matters. Hero points, Fate points, Luck, whatever. There's nothing more frustrating than finally getting a chance to shine in your character's area of expertise only to roll a gigantic pool of NOTHING, or a Nat 1, or whatever outcome represents embarrassing failure.

And honestly, that's more a MU* thing. In a tabletop, I know that I'll get more chances to let my character shine. But in a MU* with a lot more players and a lot less attention to go around, there might be months between chances to Do My Thing, and of course all anyone's going to remember about my character from now on is that they Botched That Thing.

Wanting to have a character who is really good at the thing that you want them to be good at isn't wrong. But both systems and playstyles mean that having a character that is too optimized (either to 'do all the things' or so focused on a single scenario that they can do nothing else) tends to create some problems, in my experience. Some have already been mentioned, but also:

1. The player doesn't have fun when their character is outside of their 'niche', and torpedoes the 'nonfun' scene to get quickly to whatever it is their character is good at. ("Court is boring, so my barbarian punches the King.") Or they just tune out, which can be almost as bad, if it's a small tabletop group.

2. Other players start to tune out when the MinMax character does THEIR thing, because they feel like they have nothing to contribute to the situation. Ideally, in my opinion, every RP scene should have something for every PC to do (whether they choose to DO IT or not is up to them).

I believe in niche protection - I think every PC should have something to contribute to a group or game that other PCs can't easily replace. But with a group of minmaxers, that can be taken to too much an extreme where you're almost running four separate campaigns, where only one player is engaged at a time. Some systems almost demanded this (Early Shadowrun, particularly, had the game everyone else was playing, and then the game the Decker was playing), while others incentivize it (especially systems that tend to set difficulty levels for tasks high, and have high penalties for failing for tasks), so it's not something I tend to blame on players.

A lot of us have been trained to make the most maximized character we can have. And in MU*s, I notice this is promoted by people who ask for/demand a certain skill level before even letting you into a plot or giving you RP. Hell, even on ARES, with F3S - which is NOT a particularly 'high threshold' system - I've had to shut someone down because they wanted to find the mechanically "best" person to take on a plot scene, rather than base it on RP factors.

@alamias said in The Work Thread:

Lost my job today...while I was on vacation. Called me to tell me, wheefun.

Anyone know of need for a react front end developer?

Wow, that's a major dick move. I'm sorry.

@jennkryst said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

So WotC has lied about this too many times before for me to be 100% on-board. BUT.

Spelljammer confirmed?

Oh man. That would be delightful.

@betternow I'm...pretty forgiving with everyone I play with when it comes to actual play. I'm not interested in judging people's GMing or playing ability, and I try to come into every scene with an attitude of 'I'm going to have fun here'.

Does it always work? No. But it's usually because of OOC incivility or behaving in a way that suggests that the other player doesn't care about me being a human being who's just here to have fun (or even see me as a person).

So, yeah, I'm happy to forgive Random Player X when they run something that isn't brilliant, so long as they tried give everyone the opportunity to have fun.

I don't need to play against a grandmaster to enjoy chess. I just need someone to know how to move the pieces in the right directions, and not be a dick about how the game turns out. That's where I keep my expectations, and I end up enjoying a lot more scenes than I don't.

@bear_necessities said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

@arkandel said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

The problem with that is exactly what you'd expect. It's not coming up with the concept that's the blocker. Most people can cook up a "my dog was kidnapped by a goblin, get her back!" questline, WoW-style.
It's running it. That takes more time, effort, following up.

I think that about sums it up. Having the tools available (bingo cards, random plot generators, actual dungeons they can crawl) is great and I think it can be helpful but I don't think it makes an actual noticeable difference to the players who are willing to run scenes on their own. I would actually say that the people who would use those tools are already the people who would run small one-off scenes without them.

Yeah. I think this is where support comes in. @Devrex 's suggestion about having staff partnering with potential runners, working through mechanics with them, or being on hand to provide pinch hitting support (whether it's running a specific NPC, or what.)

Which is also an idea. When I played on a private pick up sort of MU*, one of the things that we did was have other players play specific NPCs for scenes. So there might only be one PC doing something important for their personal growth, but other players got to play from a stable of NPCs to be involved in that scene.

It's a 'small game' adaptation, for sure, and helpful in that it was a private MU* and so we didn't have to worry about Weird Player X having a meltdown and trying to burn the whole thing down with an NPC.

@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.

@zombiegenesis said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

@arkandel I agree with you on all points except one; the 'let's all' part. I can't speak for everyone but that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to find ways to encourage those who can and those who may want to try. Part of that is finding the right incentive system that doesn't ostracize those who can't or don't want to.

I really like the idea of automated prompts. Even something as simple as using an online writing prompt generator could be interesting.

This.

No one - except Derp, apparently - expects every player to be willing to make and run plots. That's an unreasonable expectation if for no other reason than these are games and not everyone finds GMing fun. Playing a game should not feel like work, and for a lot of people, GMing feels like work more than it does play.

That said, more people would probably be willing to try to run scenes (if not plots) if they got more support and guidance from games on doing so, and people could tackle the level of 'stakes' that were comfortable for them. The automated prompts and bingo cards are a good step forward - but it's a matter of encouraging and supporting players who do it, knowing that taking 'charge' of something is scary AND that their first experience might not go great because of a lot of different factors.

I.e. do not treat it like a job that is being delegated to someone, but rather treat it like the opportunity to get to introduce someone to something that is fun but stressful, and know that you're going to have to give some support along the way.

You still won't ever get to 100% comfort/interest in GMing. Probably not even 50%. Hell, I love GMing and sometimes I just...can't. Or an experience is so unpleasant that I just remember that I am not being paid for this shit, and walk away. But every single person who takes a chance with it, and has a good time is a win. Both because they did the most important thing in a game, have a good time, but also because they might be willing to do it again, one day. And again. And hell, maybe one day they feel up to doing something more complex. Maybe one day they even feel up to trying their own game.

And that would be cool. So, yeah, I'm all for trying new and/or interesting ways to get people to branch out into running things.

Sometimes the biggest rewards are non-mechanical. You might be amazed what people are willing to do just for recognition, visibility, or something OOC to collect. Way back in the first iteration of Darkwater, there were two neat things:

1. +votes that did nothing as far as XP, but just sent sent your RP partner a fun/quirky randomized message about awesome RP.

2. Badges. Badges were entirely OOC, much like Ares' achievements, and just granted for doing various things (sometimes helpful, sometimes just goofy).

By and large, players crave a sense that they are seen and that they matter - that they have an impact on this social space of the game. Acquiring XP and getting the 'biggest numbers' is one way to gain that, but it doesn't have to be the only way. A sincere "thank you" or "you make this game a better place to be" is every bit as much a positive reinforcement as XP is for most people.

@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.

@zombiegenesis One thing I've noticed about games meant to be sandbox is that they don't necessarily give people the tools they need to take full advantage of them. A sandbox game can't be too open or people get choice paralysis. But if you have 'mysteries' that only staff can know the answer to, or the setting/framework isn't well described, then people don't know how to create something that isn't disruptive or 'wrong'.

Sandbox games IMO really need to open the box, lay out the toys for players - and make sure those toys have clear, exciting hooks at several different levels: something that can easily be thrown into a single scene, something that can easily be spun into a 2-5 scene adventure, and then something that can play into an overarching, complex plotline (if you're doing those).

@sixregrets SF is always fun, and there's a lot of interesting stuff to do on a space station. I'd tend to not prefer statless - even something minimal like F3S lets you put additional tension into resolutions through uncertainty. But something like Fate might be fun, too. Just...something.

@faraday said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

@lotherio said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

I could have fun doing like hotshots (the really good wild fire firefighters) but only doing occasionally fire fighting and the rest slice of life drama, whereas others would expect new bigger fires or something

I don't necessarily need it to be bigger better fires/catastrophes/etc. but I do need there to be a constant stream of something. Otherwise it just gets boring.

I haven't exactly done a scientific analysis, but just off the cuff I'd say that Chicago Fire has about a 30/30/30 split between "action" (fires, rescues, high drama), romance, and "fluff" (silly hijinks, slice of life, and randomness). That's always seemed like a pretty decent ratio to strike on a MUSH. The trouble is sustaining that 30% "action" for a much wider cast on a much more frequent basis.

I think something like this could really use a spotlight-focused metacurrency. Something that builds up (maybe by being a supporting character to other PCs' plots) and then lets you pitch a spotlight plot for your PC . If the inspiration is an ensemble drama, then the trading off of 'focus character' on a regular basis is an important part of maintaining that sense of forward progression while also not having to escalate to SAVING THE WORLD.

So, if you were doing a setting that encompassed, say, cops + hospital, and your PCs each had a personal plot that they wanted to progress, they could spend a certain amount of metacurrency and send in their pitch (Something like, "Victor is a talented surgeon, but I've been playing him as increasingly reliant on a combo of uppers and downers to stay focused and able to keep up with with his caseload and manage stress. I'd like to turn this into a full-blown addiction, and have him do something under the influence that he has to cover up.") and then staff could trigger that with their next big plot (let's say a Criminal Informant NPC is shot while trying to deliver some vital information to a couple of cops, goes under the knife and Victor screws up and the guy dies before he can pass on his message - now Victor scrambles to cover that up; his player can tap several other PCs to act as supporting cast if they're interested, whether it's the cops who have to figure out what happened, or nurses/other doctors who see Victor going off the rails and have grim suspicions about what happened to the patient).

If you set it very firmly in the TV World where these sorts of plots can happen without necessarily taking a PC out of play (where even if Victor's malpractice is uncovered, it just gives him a chance to angst and repent and be suspended from surgeries for a month while he does rehab, and then he can regain his status, etc.) and make those assumptions very explicit to players, then it could work! And be a whole lot of fun.

I think the biggest thing is that you'd have to have staff who are willing to be realistic about the number of people they can handle and close down apps when they reach that number, and who are firm about removing players who can't work with the theme - whether that's because they can't OOC handle unexpected IC drama or IC loss, or because they can't play a supporting character to someone else's even for a limited time, or because the lack of 'realistic' consequences drives them crazy. You'd really have to be willing to have those talks with players, and gently remove those who just can't jive with the theme.

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.

Agreed with the above. 2nd Edition is probably the most MU* friendly version of the system, by far.

@rucket said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

A Victorian-era Chronicles of Darkness game set in London.

Multiple spheres for multiple avenues of fun. Especially since Hunter 2E, Mummy 2E and Deviant all look kinda interesting as well.

Aside from the multi-sphere thing, that would be awesome. I'd love one focused on Mortals for a real horror vibe, or a Lost game that focused on Huntsmen and urban horror over Court politics or building a Freehold.

I would like to see another anthology style MU*. But - and this is important - /without amnesia/.

Also, one that focuses on telling stories that just wouldn't fly on the average MU*. Break the world! Grand wars, murderous rampages, technological revolutions that Change Everything. Let people really dig in and tell all those gloriously melodramatic plots we've got tucked away, safe in the knowledge that in six months, this world is going to flit away in the wind. Nothing small or slice of life and definitely nothing that worries about 'balance'.

It might not be a hugely popular game, but gosh it would be fun.

I admit to having unease when a staff member regularly TSes players, especially on an NPC/obvious staff bit. I don't care about relationships as much, but historically, MU*s have struggled a lot with people using coercion, threats, and manipulation to get their horny text RP on, and while the stakes in an online game SHOULD be low enough that no one feels coerced -- they aren't, and people do. And it's something that really does need to be kept in mind.

Like it or not, there's a power differential there within the context of the setting, and I think it needs to be kept in mind. With NPCs, really just...fade to black would be my preference. Do what you want on your PCs, although be aware that if people know you're staff, some of them will try to get into your pants for the perceived extra bennies of being involved with you, and other players may end up feeling that they can't be honest about their desire (or not) to engage in a romantic relationship IC because they're worried about retaliation, whether that is warranted by your behavior or not.