Posts made by Sunny

@Derp said:

@Sunny said:

@Derp said:

@Sunny said:

To keep the game at a power level that fits with the campaign that I will be running while still allowing a very generous number of ways to earn experience.

This is not going to do what you think it's going to do.

Yes, it actually is.

Alright, then. If this is the intended goal, then I have to think you're just bad at game design, and shall choose not to play there.

Everyone wins, then.

How in the world do you figure this? Your methodology relies on the idea that characters who hit a certain amount of xp 'level up' in some fashion.

No, it doesn't. Even a little bit.

A character that has 200xp invested in Contacts and Retainers is in a world different place than a character that has 200xp dedicated to fighting styles and combat skills.

This is correct. But a 200 XP contacts and retainers character is vastly different than a 400 XP contacts and retainers character. I'm not sure how you seem to be missing this distinction. I can see how you can make the case that experience isn't the only measure of a character's power level -- build matters -- but to say that the number of experienced involved has nothing to do with it is absurd. Seriously. The premise you seem to be working with is ridiculous.

It just doesn't work that way, and you're treating the system as if it does, which is at best naive and at worst shortsighted.

No, I'm not treating the system as if it does. What I am doing is making experience easy to earn while still placing an upper limit so that power level doesn't grow ridiculously out of control.

Experience level does not relate to power level.

This is incorrect.

See above.

Man. 5 is less than 10. Seriously.

This is how tabletop works.

And you think that's it's not going to work that way in a MU?

No, I'm saying that it's not actually a major problem. It happens all the time in tabletop, where earning 100 XP in one year (presuming a monthly game) would be a ridiculous thought at all. People will have to actually make choices about what is important for their character, and what direction they take it. This is not actually a bad thing.

That the two are so magically different that something you would see in one can't happen in the other? Are you new here?

Are you just stupid? My point was that it happens in tabletop and it's not the end of the world. I literally said the opposite of what you're claiming here. Put down the crack, son.

If you're not looking for equality, then what the hell is the point of your xp cap?

Limiting the upper level of power.

Again, going back to the first statement, not only does this not do what you think it's going to do,

How does it not limit the upper level of power?

I'm not even sure that you're aware of what you want it to do in the first place, given that your premises contradict each other.

No, your premises contradict one another. You're off on the moon talking about equality; I'm over here talking about the upper limit.

WoD is not World of Warcraft.

No, but it is an online game that has lots of people trying to play in a shared world.

If that's the way you want it to work, try the D20 World of Darkness, Monte Cook's version. This is going to solve a lot of your issues.

No, it sounds like it would solve a lot of your issues, though.

@Derp said:

@Sunny said:

To keep the game at a power level that fits with the campaign that I will be running while still allowing a very generous number of ways to earn experience.

This is not going to do what you think it's going to do.

Yes, it actually is.

Not only is a 200xp human different from a 200xp vampire different from a 200xp werewolf, two 200xp werewolves are going to be worlds different from each other.

Yes, and there is yet more of a world of difference between a 200 XP character and a 750 XP character. I am more concerned about this difference than I am between the factions. Some character choices are more powerful at some things than other characters are. That's as true at 15 experience as it is at 500.

Experience level does not relate to power level.

This is incorrect.

That largely comes down to build choice.

Build choice impacts it; how many experience you have to spend on that build also has a significant amount to do with it as well. I can do more with 500 XP than I can with 50.

And as @coin mentioned earlier, when you set a hard cap, you're just going to end up with people who frontload a whole bunch of other stats and ignore others.

This is how tabletop works.

I see the reasoning that you have. But your reasoning in this instance is faulty. It's based on the false premise that characters at the same level of xp are at rough parities of power.

Er, no. It's not. It's a limiter on upper power level. It's a cap, not an equalizer. If I was (stupidly) attempting equality I'd simply give a flat rate of XP to all characters (including those not made yet) at a set time. This system is not an attempt at making things equal.

And that's simply not the case.

@Thenomain said:

So let's go ahead and make it WoD's goal. Why not; bringing in elements from other games to potentially solve a problem is a good thing. Think outside the box.

I'm incorporating things both from other systems, and also pulling in some elements from other genres of mushes. What we do online is different than what we do sitting around the table, and I think it's appropriate to make changes that relate to those differences. .

This doesn't answer the question: Why a spend limit?

To keep the game at a power level that fits with the campaign that I will be running while still allowing a very generous number of ways to earn experience.

I can't think of a single RPG that has both XP as a limiter at both ends of the stat. Curtail, guide, discourage, but never cutting you off from your own character sheet.

Any MMORPG on the internet.

I'm not asking you to defend the choice (maybe explain it), but there's enough chatter that the idea is good and ... no, no it's not.

I disagree.

@surreality
Yeah; that's pretty much my number one priority. I want it all to be 'look, it was on the tin' when there are inevitably issues. I'm sort of extra attentive about it because I know damn well that my vision is not going to universally appeal. EVERYONE is happier if people can figure out whether they want to play or not BEFORE they have the time invested. Differing expectations are a huge huge huge huge huge problem with mushes.

@Thenomain

I don't think going into it in depth here is helpful to anyone, really; once we've got everything nailed down better it's worth folks poking at it to see what results, but I agree that it's topic drifting a little right now. Plus I'm prone to rambling when things are still fluid like they are. Once I have everything organized and presentable I'll toss it up on the forum for you to look at. Hopefully (good lord hopefully) it'll be a little clearer how I'm planning to accomplish what I'm after. It's very much based on the whole 'reward the behavior you want to see' deal.

@Coin said:

The only part of @Sunny's system that I thinkis a mistake (as opposed to my just not liking it, which isn't the same thing) is making the cap a yearly thing. It would be much better in my opinion to make the cap an constantly rising goal based on how long the game has been open.

I agree that this is problematic. We have not yet decided precisely how we're going to handle the changing of the cap; this is a good way to address it, certainly. We are still exploring options on how we're going to deal with this particular pitfall. The cap will be evaluated at the year mark; what we do with that evaluation is still up in the air. It will be nailed down and clearly marked when we do figure it out though, so that people can make an informed decision up front as to whether or not they're willing to play under the conditions in question.

If you raise the limit up by 0.25(-ish) per day, you can easily create a steadily rising "wall" without huge, sudden leaps of XP for those people who don't give a flying fuck about your transitory stuff, they just want MOAR POWAHZ.

This will be self-punishing.

Another thing to remember is that this system will undoubtedly generate further "front loading" on "useful" stats while people leave behind stats they would buy if it didn't mean it curtailed their ability to buy the useful ones.

Yep. This is a drawback of a spending cap. I don't know if there's a way to get around this beyond limiting things that I'm not interested in limiting.

@Derp said:

@Sunny said:

It's less meant to be a throttle and more a wall. It's not meant to slow growth, but to keep characters from going past a certain point at all.

+1 Theno. This sounds like a terrible idea. If you don't want them to spend xp, don't give it to them. Setting a hard upper limit like that is just depressing, and leads to periods of non-growth that will lead to more frustration than steady growth with a slow xp gain.

I can understand the perspective, but I disagree. Have you looked at Numenera at all? I ask, because the game assumes that you'll spend about half of your earned XP on transitory things. Our system isn't going to remove the ability for folks to spend XP, it will, once they hit the cap, prevent them from spending that XP on character stats. We're going to have other options available for putting XP into.

That said, yes, it does limit character growth. At a certain point, characters stop gaining points, but instead start shuffling them around. I'm planning on running, at least initially, a fairly low-powered campaign in comparison to some of the games that have existed. It's not for everyone, and I completely respect that, but the idea itself isn't actually terrible; it accomplishes precisely what I want it to. My goal might be terrible, but the system keeping the power level low is working as intended.

At the same time, I refuse to allow big group scenes, RP reports, +reccs, goals, conditions, etc -- I won't choose any specific way that folks can earn XP. I want people to be able to earn it as befitting their playstyle (within reason). Having the number of options we have requires limiting how many of them you can partake of. Having the Big Cap be yearly means that if I can't play this month, I can still catch up the following month or whatever.

Personally, I despise spend waiting times, or really anything that interferes with which stats someone is going to buy with their points.

So. I have three design goals I'm working with, here. One, low powered campaign. Two, wanting to provide WAY more than needed options for earning XP to account for the main differing playstyles. Three, no spend wait times.

The downsides to meeting these design goals are downsides that I have acknowledged as the cost of using this system, and I firmly believe that for the type of game that I want to run, this will work. We'll see.

@Thenomain said:

So what in Planescape is this meant to accomplish?

Long-term upper limit on power level so that with as easy as we're making it to earn and spend experience, we don't end up with characters that outgrow the stories being told. Telling a story for a 200XP character vs one for a 750XP character are very different things, and the scope of Dust is far more aimed at the former rather than the latter, at least for our first year.

It's less meant to be a throttle and more a wall. It's not meant to slow growth, but to keep characters from going past a certain point at all.

Yeah, we're basically doing two caps; you can earn X amount of XP in any month, made up however you want to of (a very long list of things, from what's in the book that you earn beats for to the additions we're making, and it can be in any combination you desire -- the hope is that we end up including a reasonable way for everyone to earn something that fits with what they want to be doing anyway -- I don't want folks going to huge scenes just for the XP, they should get rewarded for doing library researchy stuff, instead!). Then we'll have the yearly spend cap.

All earning is going to be automated; you type the +beat/earn Type=Brief reason, and it posts to a staff only bboard and gives you the XP. This is the same general thing we're doing for spending it, too. Staff never has to get involved unless they start seeing a problematic pattern. nWoD's system can get annoying on the bookwork side; keeping all of said bookwork as automated as possible helps keep it from being as annoying as it could be, I think.

The big thing for us is making sure that once the spend cap is hit, the big earners still have something to do with their XP, so that it doesn't seem pointless. The XP sinks are stupid important for making a cap work, I think.

It would be SUPER AWESOME if someone would pick Naia up. The character is all made, she just needs a player!

I think Echoes is invite-only at this point, and Lights Out is the one that ripped off the other games for their setting stuff.

Yeah, Dust is slated to open Jan 1st, provided I can pull it off. It's turning out to be a lot more work to get going than Ashes was. Not that this is much of a surprise, given I'm putting the decade of experience I've had since to good use.

...fuck me, it's actually been a decade. Wow.

@Coin said:

@Sunny said:

@Arkandel said:

@tragedyjones said:

Starting to sound like we may need a TT via Skype going on.

I don't think "table" means what you think it means!

Yeah, if I'm going to do it online it's another beast entirely; doing it via skype...loses something. Online tabletop is stupid fun, but it isn't the same.

I don't know. I think it could be lots of fun.

No, it's stupid fun. A lot of fun. Enjoyable. Yes. It's just not the same experience as actual tabletop.

@Arkandel said:

@tragedyjones said:

Starting to sound like we may need a TT via Skype going on.

I don't think "table" means what you think it means!

Yeah, if I'm going to do it online it's another beast entirely; doing it via skype...loses something. Online tabletop is stupid fun, but it isn't the same.

@tragedyjones said:

Do/did you play in a tabletop game now or in the past?

Yep! And I both play in one and run one, currently. I've also both played in and run LARPs, though never ever again on that one shudder I was a teenager, okay.

What games(s) do/did you play as tabletop?

Okay, so I started to list them out but it was getting ridiculously long. There's very little I haven't played, from Warhammer through HERO through Blue Rose through BESM. I've played Earthdawn and Rifts and Runequest, and that horrible game that...Rolemaster? Yes, that's correct. Ugh. I've played a LOT of tabletop games. We just paused a Numenera campaign, and I'm running a Pathfinder game; the other ST in our group is just kicking off a Dragon Age game.

Are/were you the GM/ST/DM at your tabletop?

Mostly.

Would you tabletop if you had the opportunity?

Not with anyone but the group I already play with.

Do you have the opportunity but choose NOT to tabletop?

There are many many many creepy groups out there.

Misc:

I have to agree; doing both fairly heavily, they are two very different types of fun.

This feedback from everyone is super helpful; I'm glad this topic came up for sure.

My working definition for a metaplot is the overarching plot of the game -- much like a season plot on television. Most of the other plots/side quests should be tied in in some way. It's essentially a way to tie together the story of a game.

I define it because I'm curious, do other people view it differently?

Lords of Waterdeep.

I just realized I missed @Arkandel's question regarding how the fate points will be used in impossible-IC situations. Basically, it'll be situational. Our storytelling staff will work with the player of the character in question to find a "reasonable" IC explanation within the context of the game's story. Thankfully there are a few metaplot things that could be responsible for severe weirdnesses happening IC. Really, though, I'm looking at the Cinematic Unisystem's way of handling things. There will be a certain amount of handwavium going on, but I don't anticipate this violating the suspension of disbelief for folks, particularly given that character death is rare in the first place.

I don't think it's bad, but I do think it's a sign of being an ancient musher.

Yeah, my other half is the one that got me watching it, @mietze. It's fun. Crazy, super wtf, but very fun.

Hemlock Grove is one of the shows we binge-watch at my house. I really enjoy it, too.