Posts made by ShelBeast

@Ganymede

This may be. I have absolute zero experience with FS3, though. I'm not really all that involved in the MU* scene. I come from a tabletop RPG background, and so I tend to gravitate towards games based around the tabletop RPGs that I play RL.

Does FS3 take care of things outside of combat? My understanding was that it was just that. Investigation and research should be a big thing in an AC game. inventiveness also always plays a big part of the game, so crafting should be a thing. Lastly, AC games are typically, at least, some part political thriller, so social maneuvering and such should be reflected as well.

I'm assuming the BSG game you mentioned earlier uses FS3. How do they handle resolutions for actions outside of combat?

@Bobotron said in Interest Check: Assassin's Creed (CofD/2nd Ed) Game?:

@ShelBeast
Why use CofD? Because it's known to many MU*ers?

Pretty much. And I think it does have all the necessary components to make it work for an AC game, just generally speaking.

@Wizz

I get what you're saying. I'm saying that they've gone beyond that model in the games, now. Here...
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Abstergo_Entertainment

You'll see that Abstergo focuses on social gaming and they're working on this "sample project" where people can donate their genetic code to them for "new and exciting scenarios". So, the idea of a shared simulation (social gaming) is already there, as is the possibility for someone to just be playing the life of a blacksmith... because... that's just what this donated sample has to offer.

The Animus has evolved, over time, and Abstergo (Also now known as Abstergo Entertainment) now packages the "memories" gleaned into video game entertainment, and they mass market animus devices as a video game console. The "main characters" of the AC franchise after Desmond died haven't even been experiencing their own genetic memory, but the genetic memories that Abstergo harvested from Desmond's corpse. They have entire offices full of people hooked up to Animus machines, each rummaging through "Sample 17" memory sequences, and others. So, the concept of people mucking around in a historic playground through the animus isn't really much of a stretch.

But, I'm all for a narrow focus, in the end. As for the diversity of roles within a narrow focus, I think that, really, CofD/WoD lends itself to that really easily, in that there are no classes or levels, or anything. You can make your character into damn near anything, and it will lend itself to a purpose. In the Assassin Brotherhood, you have more than just the assassins running around parkouring up the place. You had support players who did research, tech work, bartering, trade, and on and on. So it would support most people wanting to play something other than the typical robed and hooded assassin type.

Another thing about the AC games is that they are very much a game of politics. Both sides are not just out stabbing each other with hidden blades, but they're making alliances and treaties and interspersing themselves in with causes that aren't necessarily their own in order to gain advantage over the other in some way.

I kind of think it could wind up being a lot like a game of classic Vampire The Masquerade, with two factions fighting a shadow war and manipulating or participating in political events of the time.

@Ganymede

I would worry about that, because like @Ominous said, with too narrow a focus, you could have a small number of players dominating things.

At it's core? I'd be content to just do Assassins versus Templars. But I don't think that would be as appealing to people generally. I worry that it would be too restrictive. There are always those people who like to play people who are in the dark about the things happening around them, and want to peel back the layers of mystery, etc.

So, what do other people think about this? Is it better to narrow the focus on the faction war, or to let it be a playground through history?

@Ominous

That's just it... the stage of history is the setting in AC. While the Assassins and Templars do take center stage in the game, they're also surrounded by equally larger than life figures, embroiled in epic plots and even more historic conflicts.

You could play in any number of factions. You could play an alt that's part of the redcoat army during the American Revolution. Maybe a member of the Horde of Genghis Khan during the invasion of China. You can just be a craftsman who happens to make strange tools for stranger clients. Literally, the number of different aspects to play are only limited by the page of history you're playing in, but that's often super diverse.

@Tempest

You hit on something yourself that kind of undermines the point you're trying to make. It's a collaborative writing thing. That implies collaboration.

Again, i go back to people needing to stop, collaborate and listen.

The rolls, as all rolls, should be discussed OOC, to determine how best to resolve their outcome. This includes giving the player the cues they need in order to achieve the desired result. This is not rocket surgery. There is literally no argument ever that can be made to actually justify that someone cannot play a social character if they are not socially inclined. Even if they're not generally a good writer, you have the ability to help them and, in turn, help them improve their skill.

In the end, no one can or should force you to play with these people. That's totally your choice. Just don't try to make it out to be anything other than you being an elitist snob who thinks that they're literally too good to play with someone else. And also, don't try to invalidate the rules to suit your inability to tolerate someone who doesn't live up to your standards or to just generally try to help someone grow. Most of the people who fall into these categories are the newer players and the younger players, after all. They don't last long, because they get ostracized and feel dejected. Go figure. Then people whine about how the MU* community is dying.

@deadculture said in Eliminating social stats:

Bob can have his moment of triumph the moment he can use his character as described by his sheet for maximum effect. Otherwise, always replacing social acuity for the roll of a die means that not only are you unable to play the social character you've envisioned, you need to reconsider how you work your interactions with other people as a whole.
Last second edit to add: It also defeats the purpose of playing a social game to begin with. If you can't put in a pretty turn of phrase, what the fuck are you doing?

Bob can have his moment of triumph the moment he can use his character as described by the sheet...Isn't that what the roll is for? I mean, I hate to beat a dead horse, but until someone can accurately and technically describe their other actions in totality, this argument literally has no merit. If Bob rolls his dice, and he succeeds at the action, he is using his character as described by the sheet. Period.

Also: It defeats the purpose of playing any game if you have to be as good as your character, or better. We play games to be people that we aren't. We play characters to be better than we are. We're not here to play ourselves. We're not here to play mediocre.

@Jennkryst

So far, the AC series has never shown any hint that anything overtly and truly supernatural is real. That being said, there definitely seems to be some things that seem to push that idea in the new game. Like giant snakes and being able to warg a hawk or something.

I was having a conversation the other day with someone and I don't even really remember how, but we got onto the idea of an AC game.

Last night, while I was feebly trying to sleep, my brain decided to go into fever pitch full on creative mode, and it struck on this.

So, what would people think about an AC game, using the Chronicles of Darkness/2nd Edition ruleset? For obvious reasons, it would be a Mortal only game, but overall the basic elements are all there. Tons of mystery and strangeness to the world, based on lost Ancient Aliens style tech and such... perfect for mystery cults (the Templars and Assassins basically fit this mold nearly perfectly), relics (again, the tech of the progenitor race fits this perfectly), and generally a cool world setting.

As for the breakdown of the way the game would function, the biggest problem would be on what time period and location to set it in. I had a few ideas about that. For example, it could run in seasons, with each season being a new story in a different period and location. One season could be ancient vikings, the next could be 1960's NYC, and the next could be the fall of Carthage.

Then I had another idea about it. Instead, there could be multiple timelines. Each player would log into the game with a sort of "OOC" account, and in the actual game, chose their alts. The timelines offered would act as "spheres", and you could have one alt per sphere. The OOC area would be, essentially, an Abstergo Entertainment office, and the login PCs of the playerbits would be Abstergo employees from an "IC" standpoint. So, even your OOC chatter would be a sort of metagame IC situation. From the OOC/Abstergo office, you would go into the Animus room, which is where you would select which alt you want to play and that would launch you into the grid for said alt.

With the Dark Eras sourcebook, we'd even have good coverage for replacement skills for those that wouldn't work. Perhaps some of the psychic/supernatural merits could be implemented, as well.

Anyway. Just kind of tossing out an idea, and seeing if this is something people would think would be fun to play.

@TimmyZ

In statless MU*s (which I do play, too), there is far less of a focus on these things, in my experience. People just kind of do what they want, though sometimes there is the problem of cliques doing OOC politicking for certain advantages to varying degrees.

But, specifically, in playing games based off of tabletop RPGs, the system is kind of an inherent part of that experience. Also, there is often a large element of political based RP, which relies a lot of social ability.

There is, as was expressed earlier, an element of elitism. Combine these factors, and you come to the need for social stats and systems to prevent basically one group of players shutting everyone else out and having all the "things".

In short, there's definitely a merit to playing statless games, but in my experience, those games are very different in nature to those that do. You couldn't run a WoD/CofD game without stats. It'd be a nightmare.

@Pyrephox

As an aside, I was discussing with staff on a game earlier today about the problem with XP on... well, WoD games, specifically.

TR/FC's approach isn't bad, per say... It's just not good. It tries to keep a balance so that there isn't a fall to the other end of the spectrum, which is the dino XP monsters who have been with a game for forever, and how that makes it so that newer, fresher players can't have any of the things.

On the other hand, the XP bloat gets to be ridiculous. Suddenly everyone has power the likes of which only the most powerful of NPCs should have.

I barely formed the thought, so it's not fleshed out, but it did occur to me that maybe a good solution would be an adjusting scale for how much XP people get for things (be it plot XP, weekly, votes, etc) based on how much XP they have, so that the older, dino PCs get less XP as they have more, while the newer PCs get more that slows to a trickle after they catch up.

I'm not sure if it would solve the XP bloat. Likely just delay it.

Another thought I had, long, long, long ago.... Was just to decide on a good, high level cap. Every starting character gets that much XP at CG. The choice then, becomes theirs. Do they spend it all in one go, and make some super powerful high-roller for their sphere, or do they parcel it out so that they can progress the character and have them grow in play.

XP regulation vs. accessibility and fun for players old and new is something I am very interested in trying to solve.

Really, and this is true of all roleplay in general, as far as I am concerned, but... with people who might not have the ability to roleplay that social aptitude up to the general "your" standards, which are nebulous and subjective to begin with... the real trick is to be more cooperative. Not elitist. Instead of being like "Well, that line was lame, so I'm not going to respond to it", instead be like "So you rolled really high on that roll, so your character would know that telling me X or saying Y thing to me isn't going to get the sort of response your character wants. Instead, if you say this Z thing, it'll strike just the right chord, and get my character to thinking."

But all too often, people consider all rolled actions in a game to be adversarial. Hell, I approach PK-combat from a cooperative standpoint. It really does make the game go a lot better, and lets you learn to divorce your ego and just enjoy the ride for what it is. A story.

@Gingerlily said in Eliminating social stats:

Sure, of course they will. It doesn't change the fact that I think overall, when considering the philosophy of all this and the opening question about eliminating social stats, it changes dynamics to reward that popularity contest without giving other players tools to participate. On a political game, that popularity isn't always IC talent either. With no stats to regulate social conflict, people win through uncoded social support. So any group of people applying in together, or any player who charms people into joining his or her group gets a pretty significant edge on anyone else. I think social stats help in eliminating OOC politics and demanding that they be IC. Which in my opinion is a good thing, and also a crucial one.

Just this. A thousand times, this. I don't care if elitism is part of the hobby. That really just comes across to me like an elitist trying to validate their elitism. The end result is that the argument against social stats is an argument about OOC politics affecting the IC, and that is, plain and simply, metagaming. It should be discouraged. It should be looked at with derision. The Nosferatu with his nose falling off and unable to open his mouth without a slew of slurred profanities spewing forth from it might be amusing as hell to play with... I'd want to be their best friend... but that person shouldn't be trying to play that character pursuing social endeavors and expecting to win, either. Another aspect of metagaming.

The argument that "social stats are different, because we play them out" holds no... absolutely NO weight when you look at combat. Period. If we say that your character can only be as socially able as you are because you're playing it out, then I straight up demand every single player with a firearms, weaponry, fighting style merit, parkour, etc. etc. etc. to provide verified video evidence to their own capability in doing such acts, because... you know... we play that stuff out.

@Lain But even you said it... you don't use social dice against players in games where the attitude isn't crap. Is this because you just don't want to, or is it because of the stigma that seems to be placed on their use?

@Lain said in Eliminating social stats:

Just imagine if it was acceptable in this hobby to say "your emote about shooting my character was retarded and also betrays your lack of firearms knowledge; what you just did would make the gun jam. Therefore it does just that and you deal my character 0 damage in spite of your eight successes."
Or
" If you reject my emote where I shoot your character in the head and therefore likely kill them just because I failed to get even a single success then you're not acknowledging my creativity as a writer and are just being a butthurt rollplayer."
Just imagine if this psychology about social rolls got applied to anything else.

I wish I could upvote this more. So. Much. More. I'd upvote this with the fury of a thousand exploding suns.

Playing social based characters (and doing a damned fine job of it, if people talking to my face should be believed. They shouldn't.) I have encountered these arguments SO damned much. And... and now... Mind you... In all this time that I've been playing social based characters? I've literally rolled social dice... get this... a grand whopping total of ONE. SINGLE. TIME.

@Lain

Man... don't even get me started... Have you ever read a combat log between two combaty characters? It's so stupid, most of the time. Not to talk about how badass I am IRL (I'm not. I'm fat, old, slow and creaky), but I did spend a really good chunk of my life being like... obsessed with martial arts, weaponry and fighting... From a technical standpoint, I read logs and they're just so completely dumb. Moves that don't make sense. Moves that would leave someone so off balance or open to pre-emptive attack... it's like reading a story about two mall ninjas trying to outclass one another at their Movie-Try-Do art (they see it in a movie and try to do it).

Anyway, that being said... I accept it. I even participate in it. Because why the hell not? Also, because I'm playing a character who is better than me at something.

People should be allowed to play characters that are smarter/better looking/more charismatic than they are. We don't always have the capacity to reflect this. We don't have the right social know-how to say the clever things our characters would say. We don't have the technical know-how to say that our characters aren't doing a full spin to backhand someone in the face. Same thing, man.

Let people make a stupid pose. Forgive them. As long as they're trying, let's let them have their fucking fun, man. They deserve it as much as you do.

Am I the only person who sees that declaring an FTB (not just talking about the seduction angle, but literally using FTB for damn near any "undesirable" social influence) as still having agency? You, the player, get to decide whether or not you want to play a thing. But in the end, what was said about the "movie logic" nature of the game being sufficient for every other part of the game, rather than social rings true. But even going on the flip side of that, in reality we have things like con artists. They literally make their lives by going around convincing people that don't think that they can be bullshitted into bullshittery. That is literally what they do. So, you're telling me that you can't be seduced by the chick with 5 presence, persuasion and striking looks? Tell that to any of the hundreds of people who fall prey to "pickup artists". You can't be talked into buying something you don't want? Tell that to the car salesman who just tacked on an additional grand to your car loan for the extended warranty. You only respond to being threatened by an intimidating bully with violence? Let's see that in play when the 6 + foot biker is looming over you with closed fists and a clenched jaw.

Let's get real, people. This happens to literally every single one of us. Every. Single. One. And most people, it happens to on some small scale nearly every day. We are always being talked into things we don't initially want.

@Misadventure The problem with FATE is that it's a boring system and generally not well liked. Barely more than Savage Worlds.

Personally, I don't think that the system for the FFG Star Wars game is overly complicated. And... starting characters should be mediocre. It's not like you don't get better. I was fairly satisfied with my character after only having a handful of XP to buy up a skill or two and buy my way along my talent tree some.

I dunno. Maybe it was the D20 Star Wars games that turned me off to the idea that everyone should be super duper the best in the galaxy at everything they do... but... fuck that. I want to have a chance to miss with my blaster when I'm a green gun-for-hire. Makes the journey to ace shot all the more sweet.

Rebellion is boring. Jedi are boring. I'd like to see a MU* based off of the new Fantasy Flight Star Wars gameline. Specifically, an Edge of the Empire MU*, where all the characters are the "scum and villainy" type characters. It'd be fantastic.