Posts made by Seraphim73

I agree with @Packrat in particular that swashbuckling is as much in the feel of the game as the dice system. Granted, there are some dice systems that are very anti-swashbuckling, but as long as the game is permissive of swashbuckling poses, most systems will work. For instance, in a swashbuckling piracy game in FS3, the only tools you have to penalize or benefit actions are stances and attack/defense/wound mods. You could either let the PCs pose most whatever they want alongside the standard rolls (with stances factored in... swinging at someone from a chandelier certainly sounds Aggressive or even Reckless to me), or you could ask them what they're doing ahead of the rolls, and then provide bonuses for doing swashbucklery things. Personally, I think that the latter, while cool, sounds like a lot of slow-down for a system where one of the benefits is fast resolution, but it could certainly be done.

Anyhow, I think it's a lot more game culture than it is system. If you have a game culture where you're allowed to pose a good die roll as leaping over a table, tucking into a roll, and popping up just in time to skewer them with your rapier... you have a swashbuckling game. If, instead, you have a game culture where you have to check with the GM before your actions, and possibly get penalties or have to make additional rolls to no benefit based on wanting to do awesome things... you don't have a swashbuckling game.

@faraday said in New MUSH 'Game' Mechanics:

Does anybody really need points to use in private scenes to jump across a balcony to kiss their love?

Nope! Doesn't stop some people from rolling to see if they can (usually when they have a ton of dice and want to look schmoove with dice as well as pose, but occasionally because they have very few dice and want to see if the scene is going to change into 'tending the wounds of the overconfident idiot). (also, that would be jump across -to- a balcony... because yeah... jumping across a balcony is way underwhelming)

Totally get where you're coming from though. I just wanted to have some use for voluntary failures in non-plot scenes. Theoretically, these Storypoints could also be used in larger "social" scenes too, although I would stop short of them being used in any sort of PvP (again, the whole "tea parties to become a badass" problem).

@Lotherio If you're looking at two pools anyhow, how about Storypoints and Plotpoints? Other players can give you Storypoints (or fractions of Storypoints, or however you want to handle the math) for taking a failure in any scene (they're given sort of like noms) and can be spent in any non-plot scene to gain a success. They can be used to effortlessly leap across to the balcony to kiss your lady love, but they can't be used to slay the dragon. Plotpoints, on the other hand, are given by GMs (player GMs provide a fraction of a point, Staff GMs provide whole points? Any GM provides whole points? Any GM provides a fractional point?) for failures during plot scenes, and can be spent on successes during plot-scenes.

That keeps all gains based on character actions, not sitting semi-active and gaining points weekly (I have no problem with weekly XP systems, because your character is theoretically training during that down-time, but weekly Wins are a little more troublesome to me), but also provides a divide between teatime losses (and wins) and chips-are-down-swords-are-up losses (and wins).

I think this has potential. I like the idea of having to take a loss to gain points.

That said, let me get into this with my playtester's mentality: there are going to be players who want to take a fail in a private scene (tripping while dancing in private with their lover, say) in order to save up points to be awesome in public (defeating the dragon single-handed). This is a similar issue with noms--you can have tea parties until you're a combat badass.

To "solve" this, you might require that all points be gained and lost in GMed Events (player-run, Staff-run, all of the above). Then you could still have players picking up fails in "minor" player-run events to use wins in "major" staff-run events, but they would still at least all be public(ish). I think that the reason that a system like this works in TT, but not as well in a MU* is that everything in TT is 'public' in that all the players see it, while on a MU*, most things are only seen by a small fraction of the playerbase, so they have less impact.

First, my asshole--I mean opinion--on what a metaplot is: The spine of the game, the over-arching story that draws players through the world. Many (but not all) plots will either feed into it or extend from it.

Second, examples. From an actual game!

In The Fifth World, the metaplot was that there were beings (Hostiles) from another planet in the same solar system that were attacking the inner planets where the PCs lived. It was war. How do you fight them?

There were a couple of parallel and related mini-metaplots that weren't directly tied in as well: a councilor maneuvering for power and a crisis of faith within the Church.

Many of the other plots were tied to one, two, or all three of these story spines, ranging from semi-random skirmishes with Hostiles that we tried to tie into the results of the larger war effort to grand battles that decided the fate of whole swathes of territory. There were plots started by players that involved a group of Hostile worshipers that tied into both the overall war effort and the Church's problems, there were investigations into the role of some of the Church members who were acting sketchy, there were scenes providing opportunities for people to get involved in the power grab by the councilor, there were dreams that magic users were getting that were driving them to organize together to figure out what was coming... but everything tied back to the war effort.

That's what made the war effort the metaplot, and everything else limbs or bones depending on that story spine.

@Darinelle said in How much plot do people want?:

1. GM Buy-in
2. Player Buy-in
3. Communication.
4. Trust.
   I like telling a story together. It's my favorite part of MUing.

Yes. Just, so much all of this. Nicely put. As to your post a bit later, I think that "world-changing" doesn't have to mean that the whole world is changed by your actions, just that some corner of it is. That's a big part of why I play, for example: to see the impact my characters make on the world and on other characters (and the impact that the world and those other characters have on them in turn).

@Sparks said in How much plot do people want?:

I would say that having a concrete goal for your character is also key.

I think that this is spectacular advice for ANY character on ANY game. It doesn't even have to be a goal that they can achieve. In fact, in many ways it's better if you have one overarching goal that you know they will never achieve, with micro-goals beneath it to let them (and you) feel like they're making progress toward that main goal.

You don't have to have a goal at chargen, sometimes it takes some time to figure out what your character wants to do (or what you want your character to do), but having a goal to work towards helps so much in making sure that you aren't stuck in neutral with just bar scenes to keep you busy.

I also don't think, as @Arkandel mentioned, that your character has to be laser-focused on doing a single thing... but having an overarching goal that they are working towards can be incredibly grounding when you're flailing around, not sure exactly what they should b edoing.

@Auspice I like the folks who made it, but I was never wildly impressed with the Eclipse Phase system. I think that there are definite similarities between the Eclipse Phase world and the Expanse world, but they certainly aren't one-for-one.

I agree with a lot of what has been said before: enough plot to feel like there's always something to do/talk about without it feeling like there's no breathing room, save the ending of the world for never (because you'll just have to top it next week, and averting the apocalypse should never feel like something that's done every year or so), allow time for recovery and to find a new status quo after major upsets, and dangle plothooks for players rather than shoving plot down their throats (and as a player, grab hold of those plothooks with all of your might and try to hook others on them too).

@deadculture said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

My money would be on a city per 'season' more or less.

I would love to see more seasonal movement on MU*s. Shifting setting based on the metaplot. There are, however, a couple of problems with that: a) You have to have every group of players hooked into the metaplot, or give them a reason that they have to move (like being part of the crew of a single ship like on BSU), and b) shop owners or those who have progressed in local politics get kind of screwed--the seasonal approach inspires less connection with the setting (again, unless there's a part of the setting that always moves with you like a warship).

I think that the solution is to be very clear about the plan from the start, noting it in a mission statement several places, and enforce that plan through the app process. At the very least, make sure people who want to app in shopkeepers and the like know that the RP will be moving, and that they will have to come up with reasons to move with it.

My current favorite is probably Robo Rally. At previous points in my life it would have been Stratego, Risk, or Last Night on Earth. Formula De is also the bomb (I just need to buy it so that I can play it more often so that it can become my favorite).

However, my favorite end-of-the-night boardgame is definitely Tsuro. It's so freaking easy and simple that you can play it for two-four rounds without really paying attention and without that screwing up the game for anyone else.

If we're adding in card games, then Love Letter is actually my favorite--it's just so dang clean and well-designed. The Game of Thrones LCG would also be way up there too, as would Cards Against Humanity.

Mafia/Werewolf/etc can be fun too, but I hate, hate, hate, hate Pandemic. I think that it's fundamentally broken (although I've only played it three times). I much prefer Flashpoint--similar goals/idea, but much more fun and better designed (in my opinion).

@Thenomain said in Eliminating social stats:

Hey, at least you'd be doing it in an FS3 way. @faraday can't fault you for that, can she?

Pretty sure she'd see it (I'm 90% joking here) as perverting the intent of FS3... but no, I don't think she'd fault me for trying.

@SG said in Eliminating social stats:

@Seraphim73 Maybe as some sort of election cycle special event. If you roll poorly, you have to pose your candidate doing something goofy.

I was actually pondering whether to put social skills/weapons/etc into the basic combat system, and try to let people intimidate others in the midst of a swordfight, but realized that even if players were okay with such a "hard" social system, armor just wouldn't work -- if you have social weapons, you also need social armor, and I didn't want an armor system of "Plate Armor and High Status," "Plate Armor and Low Status," "Plate Armor and Equal Status" or anything like that.

My next thought was to just duplicate the combat system in FS3 and make combat and scombat, so that they could happen simultaneously, but a) I'm not a coder, and b) I'm not that crazy.

I kind of like the idea of a short-lived, half-parody election mini-game that used social combat like that.

@SG I... have actually considered this. I decided against it in the end, but I did consider it, because I thought it would be a fun test (and then realized that it would be a nightmare to play, and would probably give @faraday hives at a distance to see FS3 being used for hard social combat).

@Chet I would love to see a Crimson Skies game. It would combine my love of the '20s-'30s and crazy air combat action.

@Wolfs Yeah, I vaguely remember that from my short period of time on BoD. Definitely janky. FS3 is smooth and pretty seamless, except when you use it for uses for which it is not intended. With FS3.3 (Ares), that's really only mounted combat and magic. And you can fake magic a bit.

@Wolfs Cuendillar's system... when it was used... was pretty similar to FS3. FS3 just has the benefit of coming with completely coded combat (including weapons or armor), and not having the automatic successes mechanic or the variable TN mechanic.

@BobGoblin With the changes to FS3.3, Ares is actually pretty neatly set up for general fantasy. Melee combat is no longer totally awkward, there's no Dodge/Defense skill necessary (I'm sure Fara works very hard to ensure that, given her hate for the concept), you can have mixed armor... it's pretty solid, really. A good system for cavalry and a way to enable "weariness" or something like that from magic use is... most everything necessary with a little imagination.

On the cavalry question, I've been pondering it myself, and there are a couple of semi-awkward solutions, but nothing really elegant. Those semi-awkward solutions should be plenty, really. They're just not pretty.

I think that FS3 with a system for using magic (via roll and via using certain weapons in the combat system) dealt stun damage (resistible) to the user would work very nicely for WoT. Just something to provide a little bit of pain to go with the power of channeling (and it should be pretty overpowered, given the setting).

This leads me to the other problem with the WoT setting: channelers are just utterly OP. Without an ambush or a foxhead medallion, a non-channeler just isn't going to be able to beat a trained channeler. This means that combat will be wildly imbalanced. You kind of have to accept this, if you want to keep the setting intact, and it's not the end of the world, just... part of the setting.

@faraday You're quite right. And if the cues seem to get missed the first time or two I pose them at a player, I tend to get more blatant, leading up to something like your example. It's slower, and it's not perfect, but I prefer to go with the most detailed, least blatant example that the rest of the folks in the scene will pick up on. It's elitist of me, and I don't much care. grins

@Sunny I would actually go so far as to say that it takes more skill as a writer to get caught lying ICly than it does to lie ICly. I'm not talking about some stupid 'The sky is green' lie, I'm talking about an attempt at subtle manipulation that you've decided is beyond your character (or the dice have decided is beyond your character at the moment) and have posed the little cues that suggest a lie.

Certainly, you can type things like @faraday suggested, and I have, frequently. But there's something of an art (in my opinion) to showing the little cues like avoiding eye contact, a faint stutter or hesitation, that sort of thing, that suggest that a character is lying without blatantly saying so.

In my mind, metaplot is (or at least should be) the stories created by Staff and Players that other Players pick up on, woven together into a cohesive whole with the direction of Staff.

I think that it's important that these stories start not just with Staff (the top-down metaplot approach mentioned by @Lisse24), but with Players themselves. I also think that it's important that Staff be as flexible as possible with how these stories progress to allow Players to have significant impact on the outcome without breaking theme (as @Arkandel mentioned). The stories should allow for physical, social, or mental outcomes (so that players like @icanbeyourmuse and the many others who don't play combat characters can get involved), and should provide hooks to new stories with their endings.

In my opinion, it is the stories ending with additional hooks that turns them from stories into metaplot, because I believe that metaplot should be ongoing, the spine that ties all the stories on the game together, and that can't happen if there's an end to it.