Posts made by surreality

@Bobotron said:

I'd love to see a game set in the 80's drawing inspiration from things like American Psycho, The Wolf of Wall Street, Cruel Intentions, Igby Goes Down and such things that present a dog-eat-dog high society world? Everyone is of the super-rich elite and it's a non-supernatural game of politics, backstabbing and who is screwing over who.

That or true post-apocalyptic supernatural ala Vampire Hunter D.

Either of those would be amazing. I'd actually love to see WoD (old or new, frankly) set in the early 90s -- which is essentially the world that it came out of.

@Sunny said:

@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.

This is exactly my thinking, honestly.

I would rather see smaller games with variations in place like this that suit the players and their general vibe than mega-games that aspire to be all things to all people. The mega-game just isn't terribly viable long-term.

@Sunny said:

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.

This, broadly, is the most important thing for any game to do. About everything. Really -- everything. Major kudos on this.

Again broadly, we seem to collectively be in a period of trying a lot of new ideas; labeling everything up front (or when a decision is made) is the best possible way of respecting player agency on the most fundamental level. (Read: "Do I play here or not?")

@Arkandel said:

That's a good idea. It could even potentially be improved by using @Sunny's XP system - i.e. where each source can amount for 30%, but you can only spend 100% (i.e. the cap is on spending, not earning).

Caps on spending are more the kind of thing I'm looking at as well, rather than the caps on earning.

You can't 'over-earn' on time, therefore the folks who focus on time spent on the game as their primary source aren't ever going to not get their fill; this is a major screw-over to the active folks running plots and getting out there and getting shit done to keep the game alive and active on a daily basis by comparison.

This issue generally was the "hill I chose to die on" on Reno -- the one I finally quit over the arguments about, and a desire being pursued aggressively by a few members of staff for 100% XP transfer at will. Looking at those numbers, this was a recipe for a dino crisis from hell, not in terms of "this character has been around forever, so they're strong", but "this player has been around forever, so anything they choose to play at any time is going to be that strong". I looked at a number of characters created at the same time and never frozen, with a focus on the active vs. inactive re: jobs submitted/plots run/etc.. The most active player on the game who was running multiple plots weekly for an extended period of time still didn't approach 50% XP from activity. (And this guy was a trooper -- he sometimes ran multiple plots in a day.)

The results I got were about the same as the above. It was a hill worth dyin' on.

Important difference there I think is that I think Fallcoast is using 1.0, and the other two run 2.0. If it's a good sphere, I personally wouldn't care -- but the difference is important to some folks so it seemed worth noting.

@AmishRakeFight said:

Over time a lot of very long metaplots have gotten into a corner where the staff running it get worn out by the demands and expectations and diva moments and freakouts of players participating. Sometimes players completely miss incredibly salient details and spend four hours of your life in running a scene where they stay fixated on the wrong thing and will not be gently or jarringly pushed towards the missed detail. A couple times is annoying but couple that with weeks or months of players refusing to roll with things and pushing back on a lot of fine details? A lot of staff understandably throw up their hands and say 'fuck it'.

I like the episodic approach best as well -- since it can be handled by teams swapping out or even a 'guest season ST' to guide it, to help prevent burnout; you just need a head person or people who people check in with on the whole -- but you hit on something really important here that others have touched on as well:

Plot, meta or otherwise, should provide people with things to do, not something that someone must do.

The former creates a range of evolving options and increasing amounts of story; the latter tends to result in dead ends of any number of kinds.

I really liked @tragedyjones's idea on Reno for 'Seasons' -- a staff-run broad-ranging plot that was planned to run around six months. While they tended to be sphere-based, they weren't other-sphere-exclusionary, which was useful; I could easily see the concept being opened up to broader plots.

The short term factor is helpful in that it isn't the "whole story" of the game: it's a big story in the game, but it isn't the only one and there are room for others thereafter. That means people who don't or can't get involved with, say, Season 1, can hop in on Season 2, etc. Edit: Also, and more importantly? Once "The Big Plot" is over, it can feel like the game has come to an end. If that's the design and intention, cool -- but if not, it can leave people floundering.

One of the things that has been off-putting to me about metaplots is the idea that it is the core story of the game: singular, in many cases. Realistically, I think a game (and its potential for longevity) are served better by something like the above: shorter-term, broad-ranging plots that can run their course with another picking up thereafter.

The other big bonus with this approach is that you can have multiple people running them, for instance: Season 1 is coordinated and headed up/run by Storyteller A and their team, while Storyteller B and their team work something up for Season 2 that has a different feel and focus and will have the potential to draw in a different core of players. This way, even if you have a few 'plot hogs', one story is set to start at the end of the last or with some overlap in one direction or the other. That gives the Season 2 interest group, if they're following the few teaser plot threads thrown out that aren't part of Season 1's plot, a potential jump on involvement while the 'stars' of Season 1 are still busy being spotlight hogs. (Some people do this on purpose, some don't, it's hard to avoid either way, and staggering stuff a bit like this can help avoid them always being at the center of absolutely everything.)

It's generally discussed here I think:
http://musoapbox.net/topic/68/random-bitching/3098

There's a lot to it. I think all that can be said without treading on the privacy of other players is probably covered there, though.

It boils down to piles of sexual harassment, gleeful OOC predator behavior (proudly admitting he loves the hobby because it's full of emotionally damaged women he can manipulate into doing whatever he wants), being abusive on channels and to other players with zero remorse and no knocking it off when told to by staff because "I don't respect any of you so I'm not going to change my behavior", etc.

D'oh: http://musoapbox.net/topic/68/random-bitching/2969 -- there. That's the actual discussion. Didn't skim back far enough.

Going to second @ThatGuyThere on this one.

Some folks are in this hobby for the wrong reasons entirely. It's usually a guessing game as to whether that's the case or not with reasonable arguments on all sides.

When someone brazenly admits it? Yeah, time for them to be shown the door.

There's a short list of people I'm willing to pre-emptively ban from any game I run. He's on it. People I clash with constantly and/or despise are not on that list and I have zero desire to add them to it. He is. That should speak volumes.

@il-volpe Yup, I was thinking of Ghostwheel, with their 'screaming along on a <hilariously laughable by today's standards>!!' login screen message, but since they had a very similar setup to Cybersphere at the time... yep, probably about the same!

@Autumn said:

I'd be a little surprised if it's even particularly laggy. Very large games have run perfectly well on 66MHz 80486s with 128mb of memory and 10 megabit ethernet.

I'm pretty sure the MOO I started on was running on something like that, and MOO has a lot more demand on the server than MUX from what I recall.

I have shrunk, apparently. Thank you, doctor, last news I was expecting. I have crossed beneath the 5ft-nothin' line, barely topping 4ft 11.

I feel the compulsion to app a WB again...

@Jaunt said:

ETA: And what you're doing, creating an environment that's not been done to death, is a great first step. I always like to think about 'surprise', too. When players aren't being surprised, then they're basically just walking through a story in their head for which they already know the ending. That's one aspect of a GM approach that can work wonders; you can kick players off of their straight, well-paved road, and then let them explore the woods. Who knows what they might find in there?

It's more or less the point. I... actually do kinda know what I'm doing. I just don't tend to run things unless I like the idea enough due to the volume of work involved.

(edit: Or I get so irritated with something I have to have a project, but those don't get far without the former.)

@Jaunt said:

@surreality

You can always go the fun route of introducing an STD "plot" to deal with the starlets. It's LOL every time.

Nah, since it has too much of a 'wrongfun' vibe for an RPG that does heavily feature sex and seduction in its real thematic elements. The 'sit around TSing all day thing' has zero to do with the type in question, it's the thematic thing.

It would, for instance, be hilariously thematic for the locals to get drunk, head out to lover's lane, and screw like bunnies because there's nothing else to do. There absolutely will be things for people to do in the game because of the game themes, but if you think of your classic podunk town where there's nothing else to do but that? That would be this town. They don't draw movie starlets by the truckload.

Most folks go for 'big enough city to allow for anything'. I fell in love with a real place because it was so chock full of classic horror movie tropes and unintentional references (like a real 'Crystal Lake' covered in camps) that it begged to become a game setting for that vibe, which isn't modern gritty urban horror covered in slick neon, it's campy 80s-90s horror film horror, which often enough involves just such places, and just such people going off to Lover's Lane because they're bored (only to find themselves the new seed of a local urban legend when something staggers out of the brush and chases them off again or eats them).

Anytown by Night has been done, and a number of players just port their character from one to the next whether they fit or not. That makes me sad, because one of the truly amazing things about this hobby is the chance to make new things and tell new stories. I just felt no need to pick a place for people to tell different permutations of that story again.

@HelloProject said:

@surreality said:

That was the original plan. There was... really quite a lot of screaming.

Honestly, that's one of the pitfalls of the WoD community, I feel like. People devolve to screaming and mob rule because it -works-. On some level staff needs to be willing to say fuck off when it comes to decisions that could possibly be good for the game, and not get held back by people who piss their pants at the idea of trying something new.

There's going to be a lot of that anyway, that much I'm sure of. I pick my hills to die on, and the lines are in sensible places appropriate for the game.

God help the first person who screams for a megayacht for their hollywood starlet, though, because they'll have the book thrown at them.

@HelloProject said:

But personally, if I was running a WoD game, I would completely abolish fame as a system, period. It would simply not exist. It's stupid. I'd keep influence for organizations, but that's all. If you want to be famous, do shit. If people don't know who you are and don't care about you, you're not famous.

That was the original plan. There was... really quite a lot of screaming. And unfortunately I know a handful of people in the real region the place is based on who, in their niches, are actually known world-wide. It's just that they're known for things that the vast majority of people have probably never heard of -- creating an especially sought after microbrew, being an internationally-known yarn-dyer, one I know of no longer there but had been for a while was/is the heir to a major DuPont patent... niche for that level is super niche and I really have no objections to people making characters like that.

It's reasonable enough to keep it low level and enforce the niche factor, and justifications/background foo will be required.

@HelloProject said:

Focusing on fitting as much stuff into a single game as possible, to get as many players as possible, is a mistake. Trying to define your focus and your world, and actually give people something to care about, should always be the priority.
This is why I don't play many games for a long period of time anymore, and focus on just a few. I don't care about having a fancy sandbox, I want to play in a world. The trend lately seems to be fancy sandboxes where everyone can do anything but almost nothing matters.

This is pretty much my concern.

Re: fame -- it has to do with the way the stat works. It has 3 rankings, roughly translating to: regional, national, worldwide. It is supposed to be restricted to a reasonable niche, but people go for the biggest niches they can find. It is super-inexpensive as a stat, and each level gives you +1 to all social interactions with anyone who would have heard of you. If I had a nickel for any 'Bumblefuck by Night' game crammed to the gills with internationally famous movie starlets, I could probably pay for a month of hosting. That is hopelessly implausible for the place I'm building and I'm not going to let it happen. Is this 'restricting players'? I'm sure the long-lost elven princesses will think so. And not one single fuck was given this day.

What isn't implausible for a small town where everyone is into everybody's business is to scale it down. Regional is now the top end (or a very specific niche for national). Think of a band that's big in your region and plays everywhere all the time, but no one has heard of on the opposite coast or maybe was a one hit wonder everywhere else or is just big overseas and in your specific area, or someone known nationwide for something not everybody on the planet knows about as an example. That's the +3 level, 'cause nobody in this town is Brad Pitt or the president of the US, nor would they be. The +1 level is 'that lady who always wins the pie-baking contest every damn year', etc. +2 is your classic small town harvest queen that year that everyone fawns over, a popular radio DJ, etc.

Because that's what makes sense. I'm generally not inclined to break theme for everyone to satisfy a small group of players' wish-fulfillment fantasies.

@il-volpe said:

@Thenomain said:

This shouldn't be a rule. It should be a definition of playing an RPG. You follow theme and setting. If you don't want to follow theme and setting, please find your entertainment elsewhere.

Cue 'Fight Club' clip of Marla Singer walking into the testicular cancer support group, "This is cancer, right?"

Cue me getting yelled at by players who are mad that I refuse to approve them to play an elf or a French princess on a Game of Thrones MU.

Yeah, this is pretty much the #1 factor when it comes to 'how to keep theme cohesive'. What you don't let in the door in the first place is not just an important step, it's an important signal re: no you can't just do whatever you goddamn please.

Frankly, if anyone feels too restricted by 'no, you can't drop your porn palace glitterbomb of celebrity starlet hookers and their international cartel-running boyfriends who hobnob with celebrities from Hollywood in this town that is too small for a McDonald's', I... well, I can't say I'm going to miss them.

The type of player who can't come up with a concept other than this tends to be a giant ball of OOC drama anyway. Plenty of totally cool people play these in appropriate settings and have no trouble playing something sane that isn't that when that option isn't available. It isn't the concept itself. It's 'but I have to play that and I won't play anything else!!!' that's a red flag in my book.

@Thenomain Exactly. That isn't 'shutting down player options'.

Shang is a brilliant example of what happens when anything is permitted. Cohesive theme? They try. Some people pay attention to it. Most don't.

We still had people on Reno showing up and asking if they could pretty please play a Strix (which is not even a character class) in the source material. We still had people asking to play mages, which, while they are a character class, were not in play. (And so on.)

@Jaunt said:

@Thenomain said:

as what tends to happen when people are more concerned with enforcing rules than using the rules to enable gameplay.

Yep. It's one of the big reasons that I'm opposed to over-policing "theme" and other peoples' roleplay. Micro-managing players is a slippery slope to No-Fun-for-Anyone Town.

Policy should create options for players and not reduce options for players. That can also mean making sure that staff aren't playing the leadership characters in a game, so that players can drive that bus themselves.

There are a lot of ways to go about it. Some are more heavy-handed than others.

I don't see telling someone 'there are no skyscrapers here, and no you can't build one just because you feel like it' as heavy-handed if skyscrapers don't suit the setting.

When discussing setting cohesiveness -- as @Groth was -- what you can and can't do is entirely relevant. That's part of world-building, and plenty of RPG systems MUXes are built on already have a giant mountain of 'can't do' all over them. Every game decides which parts of those systems to use.

Using WoD as an example, if you are making a game in the Arctic designed for werewolves hunting down The Thing, and it says so on the tin, you are generally going to say no to the player who wants to come in and play a vampire running a sun-and-surf beach resort there because that's not the game you're running, because that player is out there. They are not looking for that game, they're looking for a game that will let them do that thing, and if yours isn't it, and if you don't say: 'no, that isn't going to work here', you can say goodbye to whatever coherent world-building you've done, for the most part.