Posts made by Seraphim73

@surreality said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

@seraphim73 Yup. (And at some point I am going to try to borrow you and @faraday or something because y'all and math are friends and math's mean to me, she won't let me sit at the cool kids' table. )

Any time, I'm happy to talk game design, even if most of what I do is by feel and brute force, rather than crunching the numbers super-hard.

"Oh, honey. That's why you don't play with people that stupid, it's not good for you."

Observe the complete lack of any actual clarification in this answer, and... <clink> ...cheers.

Yeah, that's not just a bad game designer, that's a bad listener and a bad person. Cheers. And yes, bottoms up.

@packrat said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

It is really hard to balance both character generation and system though to make a non specialist viable without turning everyone into some kind of omnicompetent demigod.

It shouldn't be hard though, should it? Just use XP in Chargen. Everyone is on the same footing. You can make a Specialist, but they won't have the same supporting skills as the Generalist. But since chargen uses the same system as in-game advancement, if the Generalist wants to match the Specialist, they can, right about the same time the Specialist matches them.

Then it's just a question of whether you want to do that, or you want to enable different starting points so that people can tell different stories.

@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

Make the system you like and then never share it with anyone.

Noooooo!

@surreality Yup. I'm one of those nutjobs working (on the side) on his own system. No matter how much I love Ares. But you knew this already.

I cannot tell that story sober any more. I just can't.

Start drinking. I'll start with you, because that sounds like my own experiences in game design, when the designer says, "But that's not how this works. It works like that." And I, the playtester, have to say, "Yes, you know that's how it's supposed to work, but that's not how it reads to someone who wants it to read another way."

@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

On BSG:U, the +census feature was great because it allowed you to see how others built their PCs. I strongly advocate for open sheets on all games, even PvP ones. This is a good way for folks to meet expectations.

Yes, yes. 100 times yes.

Also, staff. As I've said countless times, I carefully look at applications when I'm staff, and I offer up suggestions to folks where I feel it is appropriate. Because sometimes a person is a newbie, doesn't know how to strategically allocate points, and genuinely appreciates it when someone takes an interest in their enjoyment on a game.

Also yes. Suggestions from Staff are great, and should always be appreciated.

The things that I look at in particular for a TT system that I'm looking at for inspiration/transition to a MU*:

1. As @Lithium said, can this be run without a GM present? Seventh Sea 2nd Edition and FFG Star Wars are hard in that way, because there are so many effects to play with. Savage Worlds' Bennies are hard too. Shadowrun is hard too, because most action takes place on Runs which either require plots-in-a-box or a GM. Any game with an integral crafting system is hard for this too, because crafting -usually- takes Staff input (crafting is the easiest of these to overcome with a little code, of course).
2. How does this work with 24 hour, long-term play? In other words, how does it do with dinosaurs? If there's no cap built in, how am I going to institute something that will limit the effects of dinos? Is the game/setting built for interesting downtime, or is that usually just handwaved? Most RP will happen during downtime, and if it isn't compelling, there won't be RP.
3. How will new characters still be valuable to older characters? This is at its worst with level-based systems, because a Level 15 character doesn't really need a Level 4 character for anything, while a 100 XP WoD beatstick may still need a 0 XP WoD techie for something.
4. ... that's what I've got for now. There's lots more, but that's what I thought up off the top of my head.

@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

However, [WoD/CoD] the system in use in most places.

I would bet that it's not. The plurality of places, perhaps, but not the majority. It's just MSB that is soaked in WoD.

@sockmonkey said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

I suppose I am conceptualizing a super broad design that is low on complex systems (physical combat, social combat, etc) that ends up being much more freeform:
'Hey, your character is good at this stuff, your character kind of sucks at this stuff. With that in mind, here's the world: role play.'

My suggestion for this is super-broad skills (like Savage Worlds). If there are like... 5-6 skills (maybe Athletics, Alertness, Technical, Social, Ranged, Melee (or even just Combat)) and no one can be great at everything? That prevents some min-maxing (especially if you don't get points back for 'lowering' skills), because if you want to be good at any of the stuff in that category, you have to be good at the category, and it (hopefully) encourages players to decide for themselves what part of that category their character is good at. Do they always use a sword even though the system says they're just as good with a lance, axe, mace, or martial arts? That's character-driven!

The more of a system there is, the more emphasis there will be on the system.

@surreality Ares has that too. You can drop a skill to Unskilled from Everyman. You just don't get points back for it, which I think is great.

@sockmonkey said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

Should there be +census for attribute and skills so players get a sense of what the actually playerbase spread is?

This is one of my favorite things about Ares. You can see what other characters have for all Action Skills, and for any Background Skills that at least 3 characters already have. It's awesome (for Staff too, making sure that they're being consistent in what they allow onto the grid.

@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

That is, if you have Strength 2 and Melee 1, your total pool is 3 of a possible 10 dice, which is the same if you had Strength 1 and Melee 2.

This is what I would do differently if I did skill descriptions again for a game (besides putting in Everyman ratings appropriately). The numbers wouldn't be your skill rating, the numbers would be your dice pool. Because as you say, someone with 5 Reflexes and 1 Sword is just as skilled as someone with 1 Reflexes and 5 Sword.

@faraday I quite agree that the skill descriptions on The 100 were... not particularly right. I think we actually talked about it at one point while the game was active, and rewriting them was on the to-do list if we didn't close the game.

That being said, Resolve and Alertness are skills everyone should have at 3 in my mind, unless you want a character who is deficient in them. In fact, I think that they were set to 2 for everyone by default (but of course could be lowered from there). Dodge was the same way (ahh, FS3 2nd Edition, and The 100's perversion of it...). Now, for the rest of the skill descriptions... I agree with you. They weren't particularly good, because as you say, (almost) everyone has told a couple of lies here and there and been believed. To go along with the point that @The-Sands made, everything probably should have been shifted slightly so that 1 in Deception was "You told a lie once and it was believed" and the previous level was actually 0.

Now that I've totally ruined the spirit of teasing (sorry), I agree with you that games should plan for a default set of skills that everyone has and tell the players what they are and that they have them already. They should plan their points outlay so that everyone can get those, and still have enough points left over for a well-rounded character with an area or two of expertise. To do otherwise is to encourage min-maxing and ignoring the areas of weakness, especially if you're just waiting to pump some XP into them to get them to where they "should" be.

Like @Arkandel and @SG, I tend to be a powergamer (I prefer that description to Min-Maxer, but in my darkest hours when I'm being honest with myself, I'm a min-maxer at heart). However, I think that the difference between a powerful character and a (negative connotation) min-maxed character is actually not the 'max' part, but the 'min' part. If your character still has all the skills they "should" have (some Alertness, some Athletics unless they're a couch potato, some Resolve/Composure, maybe some social skills unless they're explicitly anti-social, whatever they learned in school, etc), and their BG and age justifies it, I don't have a problem with a character with a high skill or two. It's when every point on the sheet except for the bare minimum has been poured into being very good at one thing (usually combat, but sometimes social or medical)... that's when I start to have a problem with the character.

@misadventure said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

For combat, this sort of detail has in some games come in the form of hit locations, and variable weapon performance against types of armor. Different moves based on weapon type and reach, different defenses based on mobility, and of course differences based on fighting styles and or feats and advantages.

This is a really interesting point, I think. Most humans have the same hit locations for physical combat, but most humans don't have the same "hit locations" for social combat. Trying to use a generic combat system without taking into account the target character's personalities, passions, desires, and stubborn points is like trying to use a fish hit location chart for a person. Sure, you might get a "head" or "abdomen" result that works well enough, but you might also get a "tail" or "dorsal fin" result that... doesn't really work for the situation.

Likewise, most bulletproof vests with trauma plates offer... relatively similar protection. But someone's rank/position/status might provide a great deal of protection from someone who respects the hierarchy, but someone who doesn't care what your title is? Doesn't help at all.

@kitteh I'm becoming more and more convinced that a short list of "Defining Characteristics" (need a new term for it) should be included on every character's sheet in a game with hard social skills (ie, social skills that can be used CvC and the results of which are IC). In most situations, they should provide bonuses or penalties when trying to influence the character toward or against them (respectively).

@MarsGrad That's exactly how my Furystorm system (still in development) works. You declare your intended approach, the defender declares how effective it is and you set your "weapon" accordingly for bonuses or penalties, you roll, and then you work together to determine how that dice roll happened ICly.

(reading on, I see that @surreality has a very similar approach here)

As @faraday notes (and @ixokai before her), however, there are some situations where it just won't work. If the character can't afford a new car and doesn't want a new car, it's not very likely that someone is going to be able to sell them a new car (then again, there must be a reason they're on a car lot, yes?). But you might be able to sell them on the idea that when they do need a new car, they should come to you to buy it, and this is a great model, so you should do it sooner than you otherwise might have. For the example @ixokai used, a gay male character being approached by a woman for sex... perhaps they can't get sex, but they could probably get you laughing and grinning and charmed by them (even if not sexually interested in the slightest), so that you let them get close to you so they can clone your phone (without you knowing what they're doing, of course). It's still a seduction, but it doesn't lead to sex.

So I think that what a good social system that most people are comfortable with needs is the understanding that some things just can't be done by social combat rolls (turning the gay character straight), but that there's always some positive result for the winner of the rolls that can come about.

@bobotron said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

(IE: someone killing their wife and their unborn child, for example)

Just to be argumentative: Iago and Othello.

That said, I'm generally on the side of "Social Combat with some no-nos" including forcing another character into an IC sexual relationship that the player is not comfortable with, just because even if you aren't typing up the sex, there's still a good deal of interaction involved (usually) that players should not be forced into.

Of course, many other folks are saying that that should be one of the exceptions anyhow. Changing sexual orientation and causing immediate betrayals are obviously others. I sort of liked the "defining characteristics" concept that Faraday and I talked over when I was working to create the Furystorm social combat system. It works better for a tabletop game with lots of GM oversight than a MU*, but it's still an interesting way to protect against sudden and overwhelming character changes due to dice rolls.

I also like the idea that Sparks put forth that you can only affect how others perceive you. It doesn't put social combat on the same level as physical combat, but it's an interesting middle ground.

@lisse24 Minor thing, but there is also some inconsistency on whether you use "the game" or "your game" in questions.

Is the idea that people would take the survey multiple times, once for each game they want to "report" on?

Also, in the game type, some pretty common ones are missing, including Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, and Game of Thrones in particular (maybe just 'established Fantasy' and 'established Sci-Fi').

@ghost said in Bad Actors, and Bad Behavior (extended):

I'm sure we can all agree that the following falls under BAD

• Sexual Harassment
• Doxxing
• Unwanted OOC tracking/stalking
• Abusing the game's code for personal benefit
• Quid-pro-quo harassment
• Giving personal information out on people's RL
• Other OOC abuses including slander? Pestering? Unwanted advances after being told to stop?

You just defined most of "Bad" right there (I would add metagaming to get ahead, but that's about it). Because there's a difference between "an asshole" and "a bad actor." @surreality specifically asked about Bad Actors, not people who are mean. Now, granted, mean people can be detrimental to a game's health as well, but I would put that under "Other OOC abuses." If a player is giving another player shit for their desc on the game, I say they should be warned, and if they do it again, they should be shown the door.

I also think that as a Staffer, it's often possible to tell whether a charge is accurate or not by talking to the person. Most bad actors (in my experience) will not demonstrate any hint of being apologetic, they will try to explain why things totally weren't that bad, or why their victim is just misunderstanding. If there's any question in my mind, I would certainly ask for logs, but I often don't feel that I need them.

To get back to the original questions, I think that there are levels of bad actors. There are some (Elsa/Rex/Spider/Custodius/etc) who should just be removed from a game as soon as they're discovered. They have proven track records over years or decades of being bad actors.

For most others with reputations, I'll give them exactly one chance--and if I know that I have a suspected bad actor on the game, I'll actually make explicit check-ins with a scattering of players on the game from time to time (including brand new players), in case they don't want to come to Staff, but are willing to talk if Staff comes to them.

I'll excuse most people of one screw-up, because everybody has a bad day now and then.

As Staff, I really, really, really want players to come to me if someone is making them feel uncomfortable. It may be a case where I say "I'm really sorry that someone made you feel uncomfortable. I don't think that it's something that they were trying to do, but I'll certainly talk to them about how they came off--if you're okay with me talking to them about it," or it may be a case where I say "Nope, that's way too much. I'm really sorry that they did that crappy thing to you. I'm going to be giving them a single warning (or I'm going to be recommending to Staff that they be removed from the game), would you prefer if I not mention you by name?" Either way, I want to hear about it.

As a player, I want Staff to do some investigating, and then act quickly. I want them to make sure it's not a witch hunt, but I want the issue dealt with quickly, before whomever the Bad Actor is ruins the game for someone else.

@kitteh That was probably on me. Combat's definitely easier to put together on the fly than an engaging social "scene," so it tends to be my default.

But we've got some non-combat plots that we've been pushing along (including an awesome player-run plotline), several Quick Missions that players can run whenever they like that were written with non-combat in mind (although stats have been provided for combat and non-combat resolutions), and a good 50-75% of the ongoing plot threads can or really should be approached through non-combat means. (Which reminds me, I need to update the Plot Hooks page on the wiki.)

There can be more challenge getting some Shore concepts involved, because they don't have the easy in of "someone told me to do it," but we're definitely working on emphasizing some of the non-combat resolutions (the results of the poll we're running with our players has shown that as something they're particularly interested in too).

@lemon-fox said in The Eighth Sea - Here There Be Monsters:

I honestly think I was looking for more Arx.

Glad you found it then. Yes, T8S and Arx are very different games, and if one suits you better than the other, that's great. That being said, we have several business owners on the game, and while we usually suggest that they have a hook to get them involved in adventures, it's definitely possible. You're right that small business ownership isn't the aim of the game though, and yeah, it's all about finding what's right for you.

@secretfire Wow, we definitely have to do some polishing on how we're presenting things then. The Captains and Sailing Masters (and the pirate Quartermaster) are NPCs, but they should never be the center of attention. In my mind at least, they're more quest-givers than anything else, there to delegate to the PCs. The PCs are absolutely the heroes, and we have quite a few educated (formally or just from the school of life) PCs out there, as well as several officer and warrant officer PCs.

I'll take a look over the wiki/ads myself, but if you could point out the particular areas that suggested that we were looking for sidekicks to the NPCs or preferably uneducated, we'll definitely tweak the language, because we're not looking for either of those.

In fact, my absolute ideal would be players who are finding their own plot-threads out in the world, checking in briefly with the NPC officer (more so Staff knows what's going on than anything else), and then chasing them down in Staff- or Player-Run Plots that don't involve the NPCs in the slightest.

@aria I didn't take it as a trick questions or anything. There are two options for new characters joining the grid: 1) They were there all along since the Storm (for whatever value of "there" the player wants, either on one of the ships, in Tortuga itself, elsewhere on the island, or on a now-wrecked ship somewhere around the island), and 2) they wash up on Tortuga when they hit the grid, having just been drawn into the Storm in the Real World (yes, this a thing that will continue to come up for the duration of the Spirit World trip).

@bored Yes, again, hindsight, we should have made the English ship (if we had it at all) NPC. We should have focused on the pirate ship and the Spanish ship and shore-folk. Turns out, on a pirate(ish) game, most people want to be pirates (or shopkeeps or prostitutes or hawkers), most of them don't want to play the Navy.

@thatguythere said in Creative Outlets:

...if my PC who is a jeans and t-shirt guy is wearing a suit then I will have his suit desc on.

I tend to be somewhere in between. If my PC is usually a jeans-and-t-shirt-guy is wearing a suit, I'll have a suit desc, but I'll also mention that he's wearing a suit in my intro-pose. Just one little mention, not any detail about the suit (unless it's bloody or rumpled or something very distinct). If they want detail, they can look at my desc, which will (usually) be a suit desc. Because I'm a desc nerd.

@arkandel I thought that there was a lot of stuff for diplomats, investigators, and rogues to get involved in -- we tried to populate plot hooks for those who wanted to play social engineering between PC and NPC crews (or multiple NPC crews), those who wanted to see why there were all these monsters, and those looking for scarcities that they could exploit. That may not have come through. If so, we may need to emphasize them more.

@scar We've added another couple of rooms to the ships, and I'm looking to put another couple together. Probably not crows' nests or individual quarters, because in my mind, those are sort of what the scenes code is for, but definitely a couple of the decks/areas of the various ships. I don't really want to make the grid too big though, I'm a firm believer in the fact that every single room should have a specific RP purpose to it.

@bored The Storm was definitely there to bound RP and to try and get characters interacting (with each other and with Tortuga) before opening up the Caribbean as a whole (or some portion of it) to them. We're... and I'm trying to be honest here... we're not aiming for what the average MSBer wants, we're aiming for a game that a critical mass of players wants to play. We felt like we had that critical mass of players pre-holidays, but it's possible that most of them were one-and-dones who were, like you and @Scissors, looking for more Black Sails than Pirates of the Caribbean (I would say that our aim is somewhere between Pirates 1 and the later movies... Pirates 3 is definitely too far, but oddly, Pirates 4 -- the one with the Fountain of Youth -- isn't, except for the Queen Anne's Revenge).

As for the cat being out of the bag, we have a way to put at least its back legs back in the bag, so there isn't quite so much cat... this metaphor is really falling apart, isn't it?

@bored I hear you on the bait-and-switch between pirates and monster-hunters. It wasn't our intention, and we're definitely going to try to course-correct back to more pirate-y stuff. As for the combat-of-the-week... yeah. You've got some valid complaint there. We've been pushing several more non-combat plots, but a lot of the plots are currently combat plots.

But as far as grid RP, it's absolutely an option. There's a 25-30 room grid where you can absolutely wander around and RP straight on the grid. There are an additional 10-15 scene-rooms built out from there that can be used with the scene code. We've heard that having too many scene-rooms and not enough actual grid rooms was putting some people off, so we shifted some of the scene-rooms over to the grid (it used to be more like 10-15 grid rooms and 25-30 scene-rooms).

@Roz There's currently no doubling up -- we aren't using the web portal except for Admin access (and if someone wants to do chargen there or connect from there). All the theme files, character pages, and logs are currently on the wiki -- that's the place to be.

@surreality Definitely not. As great as playing from the web portal is if you're on someone else's computer, MU* clients are totally the default as far as we're concerned.

@nyctophiliac Ack! I'm sorry you got creeped out. If you want to let me know the character's name and what creeped you out about the interactions (PMs are great, or a request or mail on the game), we'll certainly address the player. As for the PrP, it slipped through the cracks during the holiday nastiness (one Staffer had a death in the family and a new baby between late November and late January, another Staffer had a massive amount of work over Christmas and hurt their hand, and my mother was diagnosed with brain cancer -- it was not a good holiday season for the Staff). I'll try to get a response to it tomorrow. My apologies for the horrible amount of time it's been.