Posts made by Pyrephox

Darkwater was my second long-term MU*, and still one of my favorites. I've enjoyed a number of the games you've run, and will miss you! But you absolutely have to do what's best and healthiest for you.

@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.

A large number of people almost always want to play the coolest character archetype. In settings with magic users and non magic users, that designation almost always goes to the magic users.

Especially in a set up like that - it doesn't sound like the Warders have any sort of purpose other than 'follow around the Aes Sedai and keep them from being ganked' if it comes up. And if you're letting magic user players apply magic freeform and creatively? Any magic system WILL be broken in a large group setting. It's a little different in a tabletop where you have a GM who can just say, "Jeez, Sam, no. That's not the intent and you know it."

Large settings where players may be dealing with multiple GMs or running their own scenes, really need to have magic with more structure and firm boundaries. Otherwise, it's forever at the mercy of player creativity and people can be VERY creative.

It doesn't really sound like a WoT setting is the best for a MU*? That doesn't make it unique, of course. But if you're wanting to expand it and you're not chained to a tabletop system, then you might want to spend some time really thinking of Cool Things that Warders and non-Aes Sedai characters can do that don't require Aes Sedai. And knowing that a lot of people are still going to want to play Aes Sedai, a major focus of GM time/effort probably needs to be devoted to making those mobs with pitchforks matter.

This could be by making sure that a large number of your important, active named NPCs are magic-hostile, if that's in theme for the setting. This could also be by establishing firm boundaries - even if they weren't in the books - for what magic can and can't do to keep it from being the Swiss Army Knife of abilities. If you don't want the artificial barrier of just saying, "The intent of the setting is that the Aes Sedai don't use their magic to cause harm to non-X targets - thus, any spells of hostile intent will fail on those targets, whether it's throwing boulders or just holding them down for stabbins'" then you probably need a system that can measure power and resistance to magic, and make sure that the 'average angry human' has a resistance against magic that is high enough that it's comparable (or even more) than their resistance to being stabbed by your warrior.

It's a lot easier to do these things, of course, when you're building a custom setting. Novel settings usually aren't meant to be balanced - they have protagonists who exist to stretch the 'rules' of the setting to their limits, either through natural talent or cleverness. And it works, because a fantasy protagonist often exists to be an agent of change or herald of revolution.

It works less well with 50 protagonists.

@insomniac7809 said in Balancing wizards and warriors:

@pyrephox said in Balancing wizards and warriors:

I don't know much about the WoT setting, so I can't speak to it in specific, but when I think about balancing 'wizards' and 'warriors' in a more overarching sense, it comes down to making sure that every character type can contribute in a fun, flavorful, and effective way in a combat situation, and to do so roughly to the same extent as any other character type.

I do agree with the post as a whole, I'd just quibble with this in particular, depending on how things are supposed to work.

In a game like D&D where the mechanics are basically a combat engine interspersed with improv freeform, yeah, I'll agree that everyone needs to be able to contribute meaningfully to combat. But in a system where, say, investigation and diplomacy are given just as much mechanical weight as the murdery bits, there's nothing wrong with having the PC who kills things real good getting to dominate the scene, in the same way Sherlock Perot gets to shine in the locked room murder scenario and Wilhelmina Foppingtin XIV gets to rock in the socialite ball.

This is fair! When I said to the same extent, I was more thinking of 'has something to do that's interesting and effective at each phase' of a given scene. The warrior might be best at smashing heads, but that doesn't mean that she should just have to stand there and do nothing (or make things worse) in an investigative scene. Likewise, your clever wizard might excel in a scene about uncovering a mysterious writing and translating it on the fly, but they shouldn't be so useless in combat that their job is basically 'stay out of the way', either. Even if it's 'realistic', it's not typically very FUN for players to be Sir Not Needed In This Scene.

I don't know much about the WoT setting, so I can't speak to it in specific, but when I think about balancing 'wizards' and 'warriors' in a more overarching sense, it comes down to making sure that every character type can contribute in a fun, flavorful, and effective way in a combat situation, and to do so roughly to the same extent as any other character type.

One part of this is that while wizards/magic users might have spells that do Really Cool Things, they probably shouldn't have spells that can end a typical combat/conflict flat out with a single action or roll (unless other character types also get that). You have to think about how you're defining the bounds of magic in your setting, and what you want your spells to be able to do, or not do.

A second part to this is making sure that fighter/warrior characters also get Really Cool Things to do that aren't just "I roll to attack". Consider the purpose that you want warriors to serve in a combat scenario - are they bodyguards for physically weaker characters? Then give them 'tanky' abilities that allow them to grab and hold the attention of enemies. Are they single-target destroyers? Then make sure their damage scales with it, and consider giving them abilities that let them demonstrate their might - destroying weapons and armor, intimidation effects, powerful grapples and throws. Are they meant to be weaponsmasters who excel in one style of combat but are flexible enough to deal death with anything that comes to hand? Then make weapons flavorful and distinctive, with powerful special effects in the hands of skilled fighters that become even more awesome when the fighter invests their training in a particular weapon or style.

Likewise, really think about who your "wizards" are, or are supposed to be. There's something to be said for distinguishing between, say, a ritual magician who won't be casting spells in battle, but rather casts rituals at the beginning of the day to create favorable bonuses and special effects for the whole party, vs. an elementalist who flings fire and ice in the heat of the battle. Any wizard-type should be able to do some contribution in combat situations, because it's no fun for a player to sit twiddling their thumbs while everyone else smashes things, but you have to be careful not to let magic dominate the field. As such, I'd avoid spells that do a lot of damage to a large number of foes, spells that get categorized as 'save or die' (or be turned into a chicken, or whatever), and any sort of spell-casting resource that can run completely out so that wizards are reduced to hitting someone with a stick if you have multiple combats before rest/recharge.

Outside of combat, I'd recommend eschewing the 'dumb fighter/warrior' stereotype in mechanical benefits. Magic users get a lot of utility abilities in almost every system - they can read minds, or speak with extra planar entities, or fly, or teleport, or find lost objects, or WHATEVER. Make sure to give your warriors cool shit outside of fighting to do, as well - don't stiff them on skill points/backgrounds/whatever just because they swing a sword, and if your other character types have Cool Utility Powers, consider writing some in explicitly for your warrior types. A knight should be able to handle themselves in a court setting, a duelist might have the ability to size up other people's competence or abilities, a mercenary might have a an excellent understanding of tactics and geopolitics.

In my experience, most players aren't so much interested in total mechanical parity as they are in feeling as if their character meaningfully contributes to whatever scenario they're in, in a way that feels true to what the character should be able to do.

@silverfox Your fosters never fail to give me joy. Thank you for sharing them!

I have complicated thoughts about -isms in play. I absolutely see the appeal for a game to have certain sort of -isms excised, where those aren't required for the authenticity of the setting or provide interesting and important sources of conflict. Or if it's set in a secondary world inspired by a particular time period, but not actually on Earth.

But I do have problems with completely whitewashing past eras of history, because those prejudices were incredibly important in shaping that era. I think you generally position PCs as being on the side of the people fighting against injustice, and you definitely do not tolerate OOC bigotry of any sort, or the use of IC realities to harass or ruin the fun of players whose PCs might be targets for prejudice, but I think you absolutely lose some important things if you try to have your Victorian era without acknowledging the effects of imperialism, the impacts of anti-immigrant rhetoric used to discredit labor movements, the battle for suffrage and how that both supported and clashed with movements for racial equality, not to mention the disruption of rapid industrialization to constructs of class and changing centers of culture.

And not all of that has to be front and center, at all. You don't have to have, say, Victorian Misery Simulator, but these things should exist in your game (or be replaced with constructs that can reasonably stand in for those conflicts) in order to provide a robustness to the world, I feel.

That said? I also think this is a great part about having MANY games. There's absolutely a place for a game that's like, "Yeah, we just want the fancy clothes and hats and pea soup London nights, and we don't want to worry about any PCs having barriers to achievement because of race, gender, or orientation." And it's also okay to have a game where those elements are explored, even knowing that it's not going to be the right game for every person, because some people don't want to deal with that even in a fictional context.

And that's okay. Your fun time should be FUN. So, generally, I support games that have a variety of stances on the issue of inclusion of realistic prejudice.

@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.

@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.

Or, honestly, on all MU*s, a little more acceptance of, "Joey spends some time explaining the benefits of this arrangement," <roll for relevant skill>, rather than poor Joey having to come up with specific points of an arrangement that relies on bits of the setting that haven't been explained or operationalized, but PROBABLY exist, but don't really matter in the details. Not every conversation needs to be verbatim! Joey can condense it into 'makes an argument' and roll for how GOOD an argument it is, and Susan can condense into "responds with her own concerns about her personal priorities", and roll for her counter, and then they can decide on the end result and flesh THAT out.

@misadventure said in FFG L5R:

Anyone ever considered role rosters, meaning you list the skills and relationships needed (or already established) but the rest of the character is up to the player to create?

Not useful where you want specific family members probably, but a good way to both demonstrate thematic skill sets and tell players where there is a need.

I'd considered this as a possibility, especially for games with high turnover where it wasn't hereditary relationships. Like, "Police Chief: must have X skill in Politics, Y level of status, minimum age Z, will have a corruption hook to the underworld" and then when one Police Chief character disappears/retires/idle out, you just stick the role back up there with any tweaking that needs to be done for hooks, etc.

@il-volpe Also, XP caps. Most games are not adequately designed to handle the quantitative and qualitative differences between most characters with little XP and most characters with massive amounts of XP, and especially not both categories existing on the same game. Particularly in systems and settings where XP doesn't just make chance of success go up, but gives you the opportunity to purchase distinct abilities. Without an upper cap, your dinosaurs inevitably end up able to be the astronaut doctor forensic scientist superhero mentioned above, even if they're not actively trying.

Now, there's nothing wrong with a high-powered game, but unfortunately, a lot of GMs aren't necessarily comfortable with the kind of world/setting-changing influence that high powered characters can/should have in many settings, so the plot challenges tend to be 'more monsters, just bigger numbers', which means that lower level PCs can't participate in those plots without exploding on contact with the monster, but the upper level PCs can trivialize any plot beneath them.

@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.

@pacha said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

@misadventure

Yeah, I mean, in the historical example I gave that is what happened. It was very common in ancient Rome. I just find it odd that we can accept dragons and magic and sentient animals but adoption is the thing that breaks immersion.

I think, for the answer to that, you'd have to explore why people want to play L&L games in the first place. It seems to me that quite a few - maybe even the majority - of people who are attracted to these games do so because they WANT to play marriage RP with Important Babies and powerful lineages. The prince/ss fantasy isn't quite the same if anyone gets to be a royal just by being adopted by one.

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.

@songtress I am here to destroy your illusions about humanity!

@packrat said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

One thing that I do feel is valuable in a Lords and Ladies set up is a large population of NPC nobles and society. Then you can have people with social stats or plots influence things, or social pressures be applied, etc, without having to rely on player characters entirely.

Another consideration, for me at least? Player characters almost always have 'above average' stats and skills for good reason but if player characters then make up the entire structure of an inherited noble caste? That starts to create a world in which those of noble birth are inherently superior even if that was not the intention.

I am to be honest a big fan of making that kind of thing based on 'level' of nobility also, if you are a knight/dame? Be really good at stuff! There might well be thousands of NPC gentry and you are one of the people who stand out. Somebody is playing a duke or duchess? Have them given points to be statted like a vaguely kind of competent person because they are going to get plenty of spotlight and agency from their position and power. They do not also need to be a master duellist or peerless tactician or unmatched courtier, actually if they are merely decent at stuff then they have much more reason to want to recruit, retain the loyalty of and have to delegate power to other player characters.

I agree with this. Rank, honestly, should be a purchasable ability, not something you get just by saying 'I want to play a Duke'. In most L&L settings, it comes with too many inherent bonuses for people to ALSO get full stats/skills/other abilities. Particularly when you add in personal wealth from being nobility, it's very easy to have Nobles Who Do Everything - they're warriors with the best equipment, they're researchers with the greatest libraries and assistants, they're diplomats with the ability to pay massive bribes, AND they receive an ongoing source of income and their own armies.

However, if you do that, I'd also recommend standardizing and being specific about the privileges of nobility: at X level, you have access to Y personal troops, X ongoing wealth, Z bonuses to social interactions with people beneath you on the chain, etc. And instead of letting people change rank (unless you have a setting that allows that), let people gain and lose temporary titles. Many royal/imperial courts had loads of minor titles JUST so that they could award good service (or punish someone who fell out of favor) in ways that were under their control. It's one of those things that a lot of games don't bother with, and it's a shame. 'The Keeper of the Royal Bedchamber' doesn't sound like an exciting title until you realize that in some places, the monarch took personal audiences in their bedchamber and it was the Keeper who decided who got in.

That said, looking at other alternatives: I'd love to see a game that played around with something along the Imperial Exam system. Blue Rose does this in part: you have to past tests of nobility, the last of which is the scepter test. But you could go more into an Imperial Exam kind of thing where your scholar class ARE your nobility, and the 'noble families' are the ones who push their children to study, take the exams, and get bureaucratic postings, including things like governorships. It also gives you characters who may be raised to wealth and privilege, but failed the exams or didn't take them, and now fill different positions for their family.

Also, @Songtress - it's a nice thought, but people do not pretend bang animals because they just don't have a humanoid form for that character they're in love with to bang. They pretend bang animals because the idea of getting ridden by a wolf, or cat, or whatever REALLY turns them on.

I think there was a Legend of the Five Rings MU* for a while - I remember playing on it briefly. I think the problem is that it's a very rigid setting, meant to provide a small tabletop group plenty of opportunities to have to navigate high-stakes social interactions with unforgiving rules of conduct. This works a lot less well in a MU* setting, so you might have to think about how you want that to work, and give people some specific guidance on what the OOC expectations are for certain IC constructs like etiquette and honor.

@ominous Possibly! Although it's also likely that both of them took inspiration from other sources - the Ten are basically highly formalized merchant guilds when it gets right down to it. The Empire has a hereditary monarchy, but it's VERY strange. (The Twin Kings rule; they are the sons of the gods of Justice and Wisdom. They take human wives, who the gods of Justice and Wisdom then procreate with, and those god-born children become the heirs, who take wives...etc. But half-god children are fairly common in that setting, and generally can talk to their celestial parent, etc.)

@sunny said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

I still have permission to set a game in West's universe. ^^ I doubt I'll have energy any time in the foreseeable future, but it's still something I think about a lot.

Holy shit. That would be AMAZING.

I don't know how anyone would do it, though. It's so high fantasy and there's so MUCH. It's also so--there are so many genuinely hard IC choices to be made in that world, and so many MU* players are not capable of dealing with difficult choices. I feel like it would be a horrible disaster.

But man, I would play that disaster for as long as I could.

@saosmash said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:

@pyrephox so you're saying this is another book series i should read

I mean. Yes? But also...maybe. It is a DOORSTOPPER of a series which got so long that it is no longer being published by traditional publishers. It starts with Hunter's Oath/Hunter's Death, which primarily involves another part of the world which another interesting take on hereditary nobility (where the hereditary noblemen adopt commoners to be 'huntbrothers' and grow up with them as nobles throughout their lives, because the duty of nobility is to take part in a Sacred Hunt every year, and one of them - nobleman or huntbrother - will die horribly on that hunt), moves down to a very patriarchal and restrictive land in the southern part of the continent.

There's also a fair amount of difficult content - the protagonists of the House novels, for example is a child thief whose found family is comprised of children she rescued from a brothel. So. Yes, it's very good if you like epic magic, epic politics, and very LONG plots - but it also hits some painful content along the way.

I've always wanted to adapt the Ten Houses from Michelle West's House War series. As the series names indicates, it's not a happy fun lords and ladies setting, at all, but it's also not hereditary. The way it works is:

There are ten major Houses, who are more like empowered Guilds than traditional 'noble families'. They are the Empires nobility, but run entirely on a type of meritocracy - you can work for the House, or you can earn the 'House Name' - the right to call yourself Johnny <House>. House name doesn't necessarily get you noble privileges or wealth; there are servants who have earned their House Name, but it does indicate that you are valuable and protected by the House. Generally you get housing, protection, salary, etc. People can work their whole lives to earn a House Name, and just being married or born to someone doesn't get it for you. You can be disgraced or give up your House Name, but no other House would ever take you in that case, even as an unnamed servant.

The most powerful/prestigious people in the House typically form the House Council, who advise the House leader. The House leader is theoretically chosen by the last House leader and accepted by the Council. In practical terms, the House leader can name whoever they want, but the Council almost always goes to war after the leader's death and the winner succeeds to become the head of house.

And, of course, the Ten are constantly politicking against each other, with various degrees of murder. You get all the good stuff (for me) about Lords and Ladies - the politics, the intrigue, the dealmaking, the power, without any nonsense about marriage or babies.