@lordbelh I know, right?! I do have an alt on BITN. I think you've met my partner in crime IC, but we haven't run into each other yet, I don't think. We gotta fix that some day.
Posts made by surreality
-
RE: Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning
-
RE: Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning
Keeping my fingers crossed this goes well. It sounds very promising thus far.
-
RE: Play-by-post analog to MUSoapbox
@Sandor Not WoD, no. I'm working on an original system thing, and want to have 'play by wiki' as an option for it. If someone does want to set up a WoD that way, I can wiki it up to a certain extent (though sadly not soon, even my project is in slow motion with RL work) and get the stuff required for the basics on PbW to function, though.
(I'm aiming for something a little more camp/adventure/less grimdark than the typical WoD. It's horror, it's just more League of Extraordinary Gentlemen/Penny Dreadful-ish in intended vibe than it is Underworld.)
-
RE: Play-by-post analog to MUSoapbox
@Sandor I'm gonna try and set up some stuff like this for the place I'm slowly tinkering on; I'll have a copy of the templates and stuff up there if you want to copy them over for a place. Setting a wiki up on digitalocean is SUPER easy -- and if it isn't a mux alongside it, even easier than the tut in the tuts section. I'll ping here when I have something workable and grabbable up.
-
RE: Play-by-post analog to MUSoapbox
@Bug-In-A-Jar With the way people set up wikis for existing games, the basics for the setting (any necessary canon, systems, links to dice rollers since sadly the experiments in that for wiki are not super viable yet, etc.) can go on the same site, really.
The cool thing is that you could technically link to location pages, character pages, any visual reference material/etc. right on the wiki, too.
The input box extension could handle adding poses to a page without things crossing or screwing up edits, since they're technically added as a new page section with its own distinct title/etc., so even if two people are editing at the same time, the wiki is handling the edits almost like two different pages are being edited.
The sad thing is less live chat options, compared to what you're describing. Most of the chat extensions for mediawiki I've seen are not per-page based, but are more a 'everyone logged into the wiki is in one chat room' type deal. Which could work, but is a bit meh.
-
RE: Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems
@acceleration said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
@surreality
If players are actively bitching out another player or the ST (openly or not) in the middle of a plot, something is wrong with the flow of the plot. Engaged players will be busy thinking about how to salvage the situation or turn it to their own advantage ICly if the opportunity is created correctly.Can players be bitchy, catty assholes? Absolutely.
...and there are some players who are, the moment something doesn't go the hero wish-fulfillment way, going to devolve into catty bitchiness and never come back. This is not a good thing, and it's not the ST's fault.
Do they complain less when they're having fun? Definitely.
...please stop speaking in universals. This is not always the case, and this is the problem I have with the way you're presenting your arguments: as if they're universal truths. They're simply not. If you don't prepare for situations that absolutely do exist -- even if you have not experienced them yourself you're getting reports here of others who have encountered these player behaviors -- you're going to get blindsided when they occur, or may not see the issue for what it is when it presents itself.
Can they have fun even when they're failing? My answer to that is hands down, yes.
Oh, we agree here in full. I enjoy screwing up as much as I enjoy succeeding, personally -- but I am also aware that not every player feels the same way, and players who do not feel the same way may behave differently in these situations.
This seems to be where you and I differ, @surreality , because my experience was that an engaging storyline would keep players, well, engaged and coming back even though one or two characters might have (quite often) made terrible decisions. I did see players choose to take dramatic failures and I didn't see people bitching about the OOC choice to do so (which may have just been me with the blinders on, but I'm judging mostly by the fact that they came back for more.)
I see this happen more often than not, too. Most players are absolutely down with this, and embrace the play style we both seem to agree is ideal (partly why I'm not quoting some of what's below, since it describes this in more depth), and believe to be the way the game is intended to be played: with success and failure as part of the story.
It's just that not everyone is on board with this. Some people take the first sign of adversity as time to take their ball and go home. Some people can't handle the idea of not winning, not being the hero, or of that guy screwed up my chances of being a hero!!!
Crappy players are, sadly, out there. Sometimes the ST can get them to come around, sure. Not always, though.
Pressure from other players to metagame toward a positive outcome is a real thing. It's been discussed here and even argued by some that players should behave in this way. (I don't agree with this, obviously.)
It's not something that's resolved with carrots, and is a case in which sometimes a hint of stick needs to be applied.
@Warma-Sheen said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
Tasks are supposed to be failed because of fear and groups are supposed to be hindered. A lot of people don't play it that way without some incentive to do so. And even with incentive, some people still don't do it.
^ This nails it. Some people don't like to lose. Or lose face. Or just not win. Or not be the star. They definitely exist in this hobby. Throwing in 'someone as a player is choosing to fail, which affects my ability to succeed' is going to be a complicating factor when dealing with these personalities. It's not that complicated a problem to recognize as one that definitely exists.
-
RE: Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems
@acceleration said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
Rather than blaming the players, I personally think more emphasis should be put on how STs handle failure. Dramatic failures should be being treated as story opportunities, not scene enders or dead ends.
This I agree with; creating opportunities through adversity is what these things exist for, ultimately.
Players don't ostrasize if they're having fun,
Here is where that agreement dissolves dramatically.
First, yes, plenty of players actually do precisely that, even when they're having a blast. Never underestimate the ability of a person to create a tempest in a teapot over absolutely nothing in this hobby; it's almost a secondary hobby to plenty of folks.
Second, enough players have a hazy enough grasp on IC/OOC as to have embraced the belief that while a character may 'technically' remain ignorant of the proper means of identifying or confronting a threat, the player should nudge-nudge wink-wink them along to the right conclusion anyway, and can become extraordinarily cross when they do not do this on the player-to-player level. (I have seen grudges spawned by a single instance of this span years and games.) Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements on this point in terms of its severity or bizarre, corner case permutations of this issue, but it absolutely is a thing that does happen. Either way, this makes failure even without conditions in play or choices that aren't ideal a problem.
Conditions complicate this in a very important way: the player is choosing specifically to resolve the condition. Not only that, but the player is gaining XP for doing so when the condition is resolved. Now combine this with the attitude above, and you get this: "Not only is this guy hampering us/not playing the wink-wink nudge-nudge game to move things along, but he's deliberately choosing this failure/detriment to our group and he's getting XP for it, too!"
Yes, that absolutely can cause friction in a scene, wholly independent of whether people are otherwise having fun. Players with this attitude feel they are being put at risk and/or being wronged by someone 'not playing properly' from their perspective, or someone 'too greedy for XP to not put other people's fun at risk', etc. The list can sprawl on quite a while there.
If you want to change how the game is played I think it needs to be from that end, unless you're talking about emphasizing PVP, in which case failure conditions and dramatic failures turn into a player trust issue.
It's a trust issue in PvE games as well; PvP isn't a factor. Players who choose to play faithful to the character and the character's limitations still engage in roleplay with others as team mates, fellow investigators, etc. will still fall victim to the issues above.
This issue tends to be why you see fumbles, minor fails, or things that players choose to ensure will only have an impact on their own character when they're off wandering the woods and run into a tree and break a limb (or similar solo resolutions) to these conditions -- it isn't the storytellers that tend to be failing on this one. Certainly some may? But there are certainly players who behave as has been described regardless of what the storyteller does.
-
RE: Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems
@acceleration Part of the issue with the fear-based conditions is that a few of them include things like 'deliberately fail a roll' or 'do something that hinders the group'. Often enough, the rest of the group, OOC, will jump your shit for simply playing to the limits of what your character knows (vs. what you know as the player) that might lead them to making the wrong choice or a mistake, no matter how IC that action is -- when you're stuck with one of those conditions, it can be tricksy at best to handle it in a way that is not going to get you practically crucified OOC.
-
RE: Play-by-post analog to MUSoapbox
@Apos That's definitely an option. It may not be much of one on my end, since while I'm a relatively OK wiki coder, I am very much not a coder.
I know there are ways of getting decent MUX/wiki integration that can be further explored -- I just don't really have the skills to accomplish that, unfortunately.
One of the options with wiki uses the 'input box' extension, which comes bundled with mediawiki now. I use it for a comments/bug/feature request thing on BITN's, and have managed to rig it up for something rumors-like elsewhere. It essentially creates a new 'section' on a pre-defined page, and lets people just enter text in a page box. It's super simple, and doesn't require any fancy code at all. It's just a matter of setting up the css to do it, really, in a way that formats something that looks less awkward than its defaults, I think.
-
RE: Play-by-post analog to MUSoapbox
I've been looking at options for something kinda 'play by wiki'. I want to make that at least an option for stuff I'm developing, mostly based on this same general need/concept.
If I come up with something, I'll add it here.
It would be relatively easy to do without any special bells and whistles, with people just taking turns editing the page, but there are some minor tweaks to that for flow/format/etc. that might make the experience a little easier and cleaner and prevent potential conflicting edits if people are writing at the same time/etc. I'd like to explore before actually testing it out.
It'd be a nice way to integrate various kinds of content, too.
-
RE: Grid building theory?
I would to see how it could be done in MUX, definitely, and that would be very appreciated. MOO was pretty easy because of its existing exit format. My room parent fiddling skills are still... dodgy. I can sometimes almost not break everything. (But it's better than last year? I figure that's at least progress!)
-
RE: Grid building theory?
@Cobaltasaurus I'd be willing to be a testbot on that, since I have to grid things some time this year, possibly, and could pass along whether people scream or not. An +exits command that returns something like the list shown at the top would actually be kinda epic in combination with the desc-flow version, I'd think.
-
RE: The 100: The Mush
@Admiral said in The 100: The Mush:
I looked around at the place and there's two things that I think hurt an otherwise fine game.
1.) Lack of consequences. It's made clear that PCs can't die unless they want to die. In a survival setting like this it invalidates a lot of the risk. Even a super low risk of death from the environment/NPCs/plots/etcetera would help.
Is there a 'you're being deliberately stupid?' clause to that? Like, "I think that Reaper just needs a hug!" should definitely result in some kind of consequence.
But death is certainly not the only consequence someone can face; if it's just death that's off the table and other major consequences are in play, I have a hard time really calling this a problem.
A surprisingly low number of characters actually die on the show for what might be expected in the period of time the game is likely exploring, shortly after landing, after all. And they weren't necessarily all being the smartest tools in the shed about things.
(Not playing there, but have been considering it. Kinda a lot.)
-
RE: New forum version
@Coin I has a sad. BUT NO SADFACE EMOJI.
Therefore I feel nothing. I am an empty shell.
Which is also an emoji I miss.
-
RE: New forum version
@Coin ...but then I can't make aquariums. Or cha-cha dancers. Or a conga line into a love hotel. COME ON, man, you're killin' me here!
(I initially hated them, actually. That's how the interpretive dance thing happened... and then I liked it. So much shame.)
-
RE: Grid building theory?
@Cobaltasaurus said in Grid building theory?:
Frankly, my all time favorite grid never got used. It was my Caprona grid that didn't have exit names listed at all, they were put throughout the desc, and it was up to the players to move where they went. (I thought the exploration aspect as amazing. However, probably not helpful or ease-of-access-friendly).
This is kinda what the MOO approach was like; I loved that one for the same reasons. It vibed more immersive, somehow. It felt more 'literary' in a way, like it reinforced the whole 'interactive fiction, and details are important' vibe.
-
RE: New forum version
@Coin DOWNVOTE DOWNVOTE DOWNVOTE
...I liked using the emoji as a forum incarnation of interpretive dance.
-
RE: What would a superhero game need to be/do to bring in a new player base?
@Lotherio said in What would a superhero game need to be/do to bring in a new player base?:
Four Color was an old comic that changed title every issue. One Issue could be Hercules the next could be pulp detective, then the next could be Chilly Willy or Mickey Mouse.
In a twisted way, I'd... almost love to see a game that did this. Make a character, fairly basic with a basic set of abilities, and every so often, some weird event changes the world and suddenly your character is their noir incarnation, or even a cartoon one, as fits the weird change to the world. It'd almost be like any given 'changing channels' episode of a television show. (I'm looking hard at you on this one, Supernatural.)
It would be Very Not So Serious but probably a lot of fun, and likely a dang good characterization exercise for the writer contingent, since you'd be re-imagining your character's presentation (without changing their basics or sheet really) with each paradigm shift.
-
RE: Rick Sanchez' Banning
@Lithium I had a similar thought.
That said, there is always the outside chance that the reason he was here in the first place is because he was considered crazy over there in his native habitat, but that might be my naive optimism talking.