Best posts made by Seraphim73

I've swung wildly between the "Oh god, dice will totally screw with my immersion by making my character change their mind due to a crappy pose and good dice" side of things and the "Oh god, why must everyone pose like they're perfect liars and perfectly charming we need a damned social combat system" side of things during my time MU*ing.

The system I've been designing currently has a "hard" social combat system (based on a simplified version of A Song of Ice and Fire's system), but I do have cut-outs--winning social combat gets you toward your goal, it doesn't necessarily get you all the way there (physical combat is the same way in that you generally have to keep attacking after someone has fallen to actually kill them), and you can always walk out, although that may very well have social consequences as well.

I don't think there is a "base" way to handle social dynamics--I certainly don't want people acting as @SG described (posing in such a way that does not back up their stats), but I also feel that a badly-written pose punching someone with a ton of successes behind it is a lot easier to roll with than a badly-written pose convincing or seducing someone with a ton of successes behind it.

We're back up. Sorry about the delay.

@surreality said in Earning stuff:

@faraday FS3's learning curve was a little slow for me, but I'm not into the free-for-all 'do whatever' from things like TR, either.

This can absolutely be tweaked by game staff to be as fast or as slow as they want. You could have every step take 1 XP and the cooldown by 1 day, or you could have every step take dozens of XP, and the cooldown by a year (this would be insane and foolish, but the other extreme would probably be pretty unfun too, as everyone maxed out Action Skills and started making up more BG Skills very quickly).

Beyond that note and getting back to the original question, I believe that everyone should start in a place where they have access to the general story (this is why I like slowly increasing "starting level," whatever that means for the game, as the average level increases), but that past performance should provide additional opportunities. Basically, everyone should have the same opportunity to earn their shinies, but those who put the effort in (however the game's Staff defines effort), should get the shiniest shinies.

To be clear, I don't mean "put in the effort" as in "is online 24/7 and joins every GMed scene," I mean it more like "provides input that moves the story along and/or changes the world in interesting ways." This could be a single bbpost that sparks a whirlwind of RP, or it could be the cumulative result of two dozen GMed scenes.

@Lithium Two ways to fix your second system. Either go for 'equal or over' and have everyone -start- with Dodge 1 (the simplest solution) and buy it up from there, or go with 'over' and allow the dice to explode. If you roll a 6, you add on an additional d6-1, giving you a result from 7-11.

My problem with 1d100 is that it's much more random than anything involving multiple dice. It's such a wide array of possible results, with none of them being more likely than any other. This makes a single die roll very susceptible to swingyness, as someone with a really high skill can roll a 99 just as easily as they can a 01 and still whiff. With a bell curve from multiple dice, these outlier events are less likely and you get more consistent results.

I know I've banged the 1d100=random=bad drum before, and it's a personal pet peeve of mine, so I'll leave it at that.

@Groth said in Social Conflict via Stats:

So if you were player of A, having succeeded on your dice rolls to seduce character B, and you're then treated like a creepy stalker. You'd be fine with that?

I think this is actually an important point. I think that--like physical combat--the attacker's roll determines the end result, it doesn't determine how that result takes place. If the defender wants to pose that they slipped on a banana peel and that's why the attacker hit them in the face, that's their right to do so (it's being an asshole, unless the defender totally outclassed the attacker and happened to botch, but that's another matter entirely). Likewise, if the attacker's goal is to get access to the defender's bank account, they got access to the defender's bank account, didn't they? Perhaps they didn't look as smooth doing so as they would like, but they still attained their goal.

In any open-pose system, the attacker is responsible for the goal and the approach, and the defender is responsible for the result and how it is attained. Why should social combat be any different (besides letting the dice handle the result)?

@Obie said in Star Wars Republic d20 SAGA - (Prequel Era):

As a result of last night's actions, past experiences, and also from observing player behaviour in chargen, I've decided to nix the random generated ability rolls that came with the system and stick with 32 point buy.

I think that this is an excellent idea -- although I think I'd suggest a 36-point buy. Just a slight preference, but the 32 works plenty well too.

As for keeping dinosaur characters, that's a hard no from me. I had a very powerful character way back on Generations of Darkness, but a) I have no interest in bringing that character back, because I already told story with him, and b) even if I did, there is zero way I would ever expect or ask to be let back in with XP and gear that took me months (a year?) to earn. Saga Edition already has a major problem with dinosaurs, allowing dinosaur characters at starting is just exacerbating the problem.

Like many others, I'm in favor of allowing respecs--with restrictions.

First of all, I would allow significant respecs within the first couple of weeks a character has been in existence, because we've all had that moment where we realized that we totally forgot Gunnery on our Viper pilot and somehow it slipped past Staff too (or more realistically, when we later see that someone has a Tactics background skill and our character has been described as tactically-inclined). So long as the skill(s) being lowered haven't been the focus of a scene on-grid or aren't the "core" of the character (definitions may vary, Staff's definition wins), I don't have any problems with them changing.

Secondly, I agree that if the system ever changes dramatically, respects in the areas that changed should be allowed (again, so long as they don't wildly change the character's core).

Thirdly, if it's a minor side-note on the character that's never come up (my character happens to be able to play the violin a little, but it's never been mentioned before) and the player wants to change that minor side-note to a different minor side-note (I'd like my character to be able to dance a little rather than play the violin), I've got no problem.

I don't think that major changes to character capabilities should be allowed (the character was a swordsman before, now they're a bowman? What? Or even worse, now they're a politician who can't fight at all?) unless they're triggered by something IC (possession, massive head trauma, I don't know... a creative player can usually find an excuse, but there should be one).

If one of these tweaks causes them to become slightly more mechanically powerful? Meh, don't care. If it changes them from a pushover in the system (which they were by choice rather than my lack of system knowledge) into a badass? Naw, I'd say that significantly changes their character... put in the time and spend XP to get there.

I also think that there should either be a limit to the number of times someone can respec, or a "cooldown" before they can do it again, and that cooldown should be relatively long (I like @Sunny's 6 months).

@ThatGuyThere Oh yes, you absolutely have to tailor your system to your theme. That's actually why D20 works so well for D&D: it's heroic fantasy and characters start out really quite bad at what they do, so wild swings of luck are appropriate (obviously, some D&D campaigns aren't this way, I'm generalizing). Something based on a radio serial series (or, in the same vein, Indiana Jones), would also do well with a single-die system.

Non-action-movie modern systems, gritty investigation, or systems where you come out of chargen quite capable... I'm much more in favor of a bell curve for.

@Bobotron I'm a big fan of A Song of Ice and Fire's social combat system (which this basically is), but while such a hard-and-fast combat system for social interactions is great in tabletop, where you (theoretically) trust everyone around you, it's a little more difficult on a MU*. This is, in fact, exactly the point that I'm struggling with, as the system I'm working on is (generally) based on ASoIaF as well.

I like the idea that @Arkandel put forward about instant modifiers based on the actual words/arguments used, although as others have mentioned, I would absolutely make choosing the modifier open for all to see. Another friend made another suggestion that she said would help assuage her concerns about a hard-and-fast social combat system, something I'm calling "Hills to Die On." At Chargen, each character gets to pick three ideals (with the approval of Staff, of course) that their character can never be forced by the combat system to betray. If they choose to have their character betray them in RP, that's something else of course (and would probably remove the ideal from the list). These would have to be policed carefully, because something as broad as "Loyalty" or "Unseduceable" won't work (unless the character is a eunuch?), but something like "My Word is My Bond" (if my character promises something, they will never go back on it) or "Never a One Night Stand" (self-explanatory) would.

@Rinel A displaced German leftist would certainly work, especially a Catholic given Chancellor Joachim Kott’s recent feud with the Pope during his visit to Italy (https://savageskies.aresmush.com/forum/11/616). But Coin’s point is a good one: all character have to be volunteer members of the Sky Guard (volunteer in that they signed up to be there, they definitely get paid).

I’d suggest starting with the Overview page, as it has a broad view, plus some links to check out next.

@arkandel said in Rosters: To PB or Not To PB?:

I used to use artwork for PBs. I was told that was weird.

I kind of like artwork so long as it fits the "style" of the game. And yes, that's incredibly subjective.

@Thenomain
Actually, most of the original writers of Shadowrun lived in Chicago (there offices were right where the Bug City nuke went off). When they moved to Seattle later (WizKids days), they noted that if they'd written the books again, they would have mentioned all the damned hills in Seattle.

I believe that they used Seattle because it's got a great combination of Asian influences, High Tech influences, natural surroundings, and Native American influences.

I generally agree with @surreality and others -- I think that if you're borrowing ideas for systems or ways to approach bits of theme: give credit where credit is due, and you should be fine. If you're talking about the systems themselves ("dreams work like X, Y, and Z" as opposed to "dream RP is an important theme"), characters, locations, or code... talk to the creator first.

Oh, I don't know that either of us was trying to refute your points, @Admiral, except that PCs can die even if they don't want to. Just not from a single die roll (unless it follows PC decision).

@Warma-Sheen, I totally agree. It's been a worry of Staff from Day 1. We've been pleasantly surprised to see that although there are some cliques forming (there are on every game, no matter what Staff says), /thus far/, they seem quite willing to cross clique lines to RP, and there isn't a single one that's gaining power over the others thus far.

There are definitely some players who have grabbed the story by the reins and are directing it, but that's mostly due to them being very proactive, and those who have tend to be scattered across a couple of the loose cliques.

@arkandel said in Plot session duration:

2. I think if you're doing a combat in a non automated game, you can count on one hour per player. If you're throwing a plot twist at them, double it. FS3 throws these estimates out the window, because things go so smoothly, and you don't really have to wait on Slowey McBrokenfingers typing 1 wpm to keep things going.

That's a factor I hadn't considered. People in automated combat games with experience playing in non-automated games as well, how big a factor has this been for you?

Drives. Me. Insane. I've gotten so used to fast, smooth combat with FS3 that I almost choked (someone else) when I remembered how long scenes take with Saga Edition, for instance.

To prevent the Bottomlanders from finding out about us. Those bastards are terrifying, with their zeppelins and their goatees.. The players aren't just protecting the secret, they're protecting the world from the Bottomlanders (and occasionally crossing over to the Bottomland to foil expeditions there that might discover us here on the Topland).

@Arkandel In that case I would give credit to where you found the one you liked -- or where they give credit (if they do). Sure, you might miss, and at some point someone might contact you to say "actually, I did the events system that X game uses," and then you can just update it.

@Lithium Sorry to see you go. I was actually wondering what happened to Samson, because I enjoyed the one scene I ended up having with him as Grey.

@Miss-Demeanor If you played Mikaela (as is my assumption based on your posts), I would say that the antagonism that you were concerned about early on has lessened. It's not gone, but we never want the friction between characters to be gone, because if there's no friction, there's no story. Now, clearly some other former players agreed with your concerns, and we are continuing to course-correct as needed. For instance, we closed down apps for outright rebels against the Council/Chancellor for a while, because they're rather thick on the ground right now.

I actually do anticipate us polling players more formally at various points in the game to get their take on things, but we also chat OOCly with players (new and "long-time" -- I put quotes around that because the game is still only a month or so old) quite frequently to get their impressions of the game.

In line with Ixokai's comment, Andromeda and I (Orion) are happy to talk to any player who has questions, concerns, or just wants to check in.

@faraday said in Star Wars?:

@mr-johnson Well, hope you don’t mind your Jedi being wusses and your Stormtroopers mowing people down with full auto blaster fire and everyone complaining about the unfair power balance and slow XP progression. Good luck.

I would actually LOVE another shot at trying to make Star Wars work under FS3. There's definitely some hurdles to get over, but I think it could work. Jedi defenses are really the major thing here, plus balancing lightsaber melee vs autofire. I think that -except- for Jedi, FS3 would be pretty much ideal for Star Wars. With Jedi, it just takes some tweaking. Perhaps some very strong, very hard tweaking.

My initial suggestions would be setting blasters with very high recoil mods to discourage full auto, setting lightsabers and vibroblades as really high lethality mods, and using stances with massive boosts to defense (+3-5, probably) and no penalty to offense to represent Block/Deflect (and maybe some other mods for various lightsaber forms). Other Force Powers would be weapons or non-attack things done during "combat/pass" actions.

Sidenote: I'm actually against WEG D6 because with large amounts of XP (which is -going- to happen on a MUSH, all it takes is time) Jedi are just obscene. Like, Tartatovsky-Clone Wars-level obscene. And I totally understand that Saga Edition has pretty much run its course within the MU* community.

I'm not associated with the game in any way, but based on the web portal, it's definitely Ares.

I don't know that Ares really has additional support for larger ships than FS3.2 had, although I certainly could have missed an update. I totally agree with @Testament that capital ships (and probably anything larger/more powerful than the Roci) is probably a bad idea--there's just too much power there to leave things too far up to chance. In my opinion, for something like The Expanse, battleships should be plot points, not on-screen rolls.