IoD ponderings...
Dec. 20th, 2009 12:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annwfynSo. There's an MC debate. And since all the Cool Kids are doing it, I figured I'd write my little essay.
Personally, I do think MC is a bad thing. I think in the long run it does need sorted. I think any kind of resolution is going to be icky and painful and will lose the society players. I think about half the suggested resolutions would probably lose the society me. Or me the society. Or maybe it would be a pleasant and mutual agreement that we will go our separate ways, and I'll actually get a healthy hobby, with more outdoor activities. Others will cost the society people that I like and enjoy role playing with. I don't think any will be painless or reasonable or make everyone happy. I think that all we, as a society can do, is work out what we want and what kind of price we are willing to play.
I'm trying to put together a list of possible solutions that I've heard, along with the pluses and minuses to each solution, which are, of course, entirely biased and me-centric. If there are any I've forgotten, feel free to poke me.
Solution One: A Hard Reset
This has the advantage of being the cleanest solution. Kill them all, let God know his own. Stand amidst the rubble and then build again. Make a totally new chronicle, with a different (or no) prestige system, less XP, less weirdness, or maybe more weirdness. Cleanse the current game of all that is wrong and make it better.
This also has the disadvantage, I think, of being a bit like an amputation. I mean, sometimes it's necessary, but sometimes it kills the patient and it pretty much always leaves you somewhat smaller than you started. From a purely personal point of view, I played through the last hard re-set this society instituted. It sapped my will to live. It was hell. I hated it, I still don't especially like to think about it, and it took me four years before I was willing to come back.
I'm also not entirely convinced that the benefits you get from a scorched earth policy are really worth the hassle. So we end the game. What then? We have another two years before we've made a whole new bunch of mistakes? Another set of issues to argue with? Maybe two years is the natural life expectancy of a game, in which case the IoD needs to start advertising that from the start, instead of selling itself as an ongoing game.
*ponders*
Actually, I think that might actually be the only way a hard re-set would be reasonable; if you start selling the IoD as a two year chronicle which re-sets after that. Would that even work as a society? Or would that be a game which basically faded and died after the first couple of re-sets?
Solution Two: A Soft Re-set
This can happen one of two ways. One I loathe, one I have grudgingly come to realize I could endure as a way of avoiding the far worst options.
Option One is A Soft Re-set With A Wonky Plot To Explain It All. This is always excrutiating. This is because there is no good plot that can explain why Rosie has lost her gardening skills, and all her Vainglory, whilst retaining her healing and her stealth, especially when Venice, for no readily discernible reason, has apparently lost none of her special fairy magic at all (all one contract) but has apparently got fewer friends than she had before. Furthermore, it's just no fun to play through. It's like being told that you're having a special themed party called 'let's go to the dentists'. I don't like going to the dentist anymore than I like having a bunch of stuff taken off my character sheet. I can just about endure the idea of it being for the greater good, but I don't think I should be made to pretend to enjoy it.
Option Two is A Soft Re-set That We Never Speak Of. Basically, one day you re-stat your character and everyone ignores it and tries to pretend that things were always this way. It's a mechanical thing, not an in game thing, and you just try and overlook the weirdness that features Rosie (who used to be a healbot) suddenly having to leave all her friends to die.
This also sucks in that it fucks with the internal consistency of the game something chronic, and I don't, for a moment, believe in that great pile of ridiculous which says "you can pretend you're an elf, why not pretend [insert totally inconsistent thing here]". Every story needs to have its own internal consistency. It's important. It's what makes that one main pretense seem believable. However, whilst it sucks, it probably sucks slightly less than most of the other options. It's become one of the few options which I think I would, grudgingly, trudge through. I might retire Rosie, upgrade Venice to a primary, and thus avoid having to mess with my own internal consistency, but I think I could cope. Ish. Resentfully and stroppily.
I think maybe I'm not selling this option very well, right?
Solution Three: Shifting Bumps
This, as a note, has always been my preferred option, but then I don't actually have an issue with the amount of xp in the game. High xp games don't seem to me to be desperately different to low MC games. Different numbers get thrown around, but as I'm dyscalculaic and barely understand what any of them mean, it makes very little difference. What bothers me about the MC situation is the unfairness of it all.
Therefore, I'd like to see the playing field levelled. And by that, I mean 'raise up the MC1'. Ideally, I'd like to see all the MC bumps brought down to MC1.
*ponders*
Actually, a combo of this and the soft re-set is probably my favourite option. Tell everyone that starting character points are now 100 xp, plus any xp you've earned in game. Then leave 'em to it. Suddenly everyone is on an even playing field. I honestly don't think I quite understand what the massive issue is with 'too much xp'. I mean, presumably NPCs can have more xp too? I dunno. I'm sure this just shows that I'm a dirty filthy power gamer. Which, to be honest, is something I seem to think more and more about myself every day.
I just wish I could be an efficient power gamer with it.
Solution Four: Nick's Solution
This is one I hate even more than the hard re-set. Um. Not that I hate Nick. I don't. He seems very nice and shiny and smears blood all over himself in a very artistic manner. But his solution does not appeal to me. Nick's solution, for those who are not on UK-General, is that every character which reaches a certain xp level, such as 500 xp, are forcibly retired to NPC status, or die, or sail off into the sunset. Now, as a total character sitter, I hate this idea. I hate it with the passion of a thousand firey suns. If you were to list this as a feature of a game that I had not already joined, I would make sure I never joined.
I really dislike this idea, mostly because I dislike any system which discourages people from investing and working towards a long lasting character. I like games with characters who can say "I spent two years working towards my revenge". I like games with familial lines built up in game. I like convoluted backstories and complex and realistically inconsistent characters.
I'm not keen on games in which you're told 'you have a set amount of time to do stuff with this PC and then it'll be taken away. So. Um. Don't get too attached. And blow some shit up. You might as well. You're on a fixed term life expectancy anyway'.
Solution Five: Let The Dinosaurs Die
I think this is Hooper's preferred solution. Or was. It might not be any more.
The basic idea here is that we just change the system, get rid of MC, let new characters be created with basic starting points and then just let the dinosaurs die out slowly over time. The main downside to this is that in the short term it creates an even bigger divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', and I suspect in the middle to long term would create the most hideous issue with character sitting, whereby characters which should be retired or let go of won't be, because the players know they will never get anything that hard again, and heaven help the person who gakks one of those PCs. I darkly suspect it will herald in a new era of player complaints and re-written scenes. In general, anything which actively disincentives people from making a new character, isn't a great thing.
And yet it's less painful than most of the alternatives. Again, I think I quite like this idea when combined with some of my ideas - ie - the dropping all the MC bumps to MC 1, and then maybe lopping off a lot of the xp you get at higher levels. One of my other small changes (which I made up randomly), which would give people only one primary in all the venues, so they had to chose one primary venue, was something I wanted incorporated with this premise.
It's a slow and gradual process. Not a bad one. Not radical enough for a lot of people. Probably a bit like the death of a thousand papercuts, but I don't think it would lead to the society hemorrhaging members like most of the radical solutions would.
So. Those are my opinions. As I've said, there are no ideal solutions. I think every single option would lose the society members. I think every one would lead to people bitching, but I think that's just going to happen anyway. There is no way to make a visit to the dentist's fun. I also think it won't be done by universal consensus. I'd actually suggest that eithersuave_steve picks a focus group, and goes with their recommendation, or makes a unilateral decision, or just holds a society wide vote and goes with whatever option gets the most votes. Those are the three realistic options I see as to how a decision could be made, and in all cases, much upset will proceed.
And this is my opinion. Of course, I may well be wrong. I often am.
Personally, I do think MC is a bad thing. I think in the long run it does need sorted. I think any kind of resolution is going to be icky and painful and will lose the society players. I think about half the suggested resolutions would probably lose the society me. Or me the society. Or maybe it would be a pleasant and mutual agreement that we will go our separate ways, and I'll actually get a healthy hobby, with more outdoor activities. Others will cost the society people that I like and enjoy role playing with. I don't think any will be painless or reasonable or make everyone happy. I think that all we, as a society can do, is work out what we want and what kind of price we are willing to play.
I'm trying to put together a list of possible solutions that I've heard, along with the pluses and minuses to each solution, which are, of course, entirely biased and me-centric. If there are any I've forgotten, feel free to poke me.
Solution One: A Hard Reset
This has the advantage of being the cleanest solution. Kill them all, let God know his own. Stand amidst the rubble and then build again. Make a totally new chronicle, with a different (or no) prestige system, less XP, less weirdness, or maybe more weirdness. Cleanse the current game of all that is wrong and make it better.
This also has the disadvantage, I think, of being a bit like an amputation. I mean, sometimes it's necessary, but sometimes it kills the patient and it pretty much always leaves you somewhat smaller than you started. From a purely personal point of view, I played through the last hard re-set this society instituted. It sapped my will to live. It was hell. I hated it, I still don't especially like to think about it, and it took me four years before I was willing to come back.
I'm also not entirely convinced that the benefits you get from a scorched earth policy are really worth the hassle. So we end the game. What then? We have another two years before we've made a whole new bunch of mistakes? Another set of issues to argue with? Maybe two years is the natural life expectancy of a game, in which case the IoD needs to start advertising that from the start, instead of selling itself as an ongoing game.
*ponders*
Actually, I think that might actually be the only way a hard re-set would be reasonable; if you start selling the IoD as a two year chronicle which re-sets after that. Would that even work as a society? Or would that be a game which basically faded and died after the first couple of re-sets?
Solution Two: A Soft Re-set
This can happen one of two ways. One I loathe, one I have grudgingly come to realize I could endure as a way of avoiding the far worst options.
Option One is A Soft Re-set With A Wonky Plot To Explain It All. This is always excrutiating. This is because there is no good plot that can explain why Rosie has lost her gardening skills, and all her Vainglory, whilst retaining her healing and her stealth, especially when Venice, for no readily discernible reason, has apparently lost none of her special fairy magic at all (all one contract) but has apparently got fewer friends than she had before. Furthermore, it's just no fun to play through. It's like being told that you're having a special themed party called 'let's go to the dentists'. I don't like going to the dentist anymore than I like having a bunch of stuff taken off my character sheet. I can just about endure the idea of it being for the greater good, but I don't think I should be made to pretend to enjoy it.
Option Two is A Soft Re-set That We Never Speak Of. Basically, one day you re-stat your character and everyone ignores it and tries to pretend that things were always this way. It's a mechanical thing, not an in game thing, and you just try and overlook the weirdness that features Rosie (who used to be a healbot) suddenly having to leave all her friends to die.
This also sucks in that it fucks with the internal consistency of the game something chronic, and I don't, for a moment, believe in that great pile of ridiculous which says "you can pretend you're an elf, why not pretend [insert totally inconsistent thing here]". Every story needs to have its own internal consistency. It's important. It's what makes that one main pretense seem believable. However, whilst it sucks, it probably sucks slightly less than most of the other options. It's become one of the few options which I think I would, grudgingly, trudge through. I might retire Rosie, upgrade Venice to a primary, and thus avoid having to mess with my own internal consistency, but I think I could cope. Ish. Resentfully and stroppily.
I think maybe I'm not selling this option very well, right?
Solution Three: Shifting Bumps
This, as a note, has always been my preferred option, but then I don't actually have an issue with the amount of xp in the game. High xp games don't seem to me to be desperately different to low MC games. Different numbers get thrown around, but as I'm dyscalculaic and barely understand what any of them mean, it makes very little difference. What bothers me about the MC situation is the unfairness of it all.
Therefore, I'd like to see the playing field levelled. And by that, I mean 'raise up the MC1'. Ideally, I'd like to see all the MC bumps brought down to MC1.
*ponders*
Actually, a combo of this and the soft re-set is probably my favourite option. Tell everyone that starting character points are now 100 xp, plus any xp you've earned in game. Then leave 'em to it. Suddenly everyone is on an even playing field. I honestly don't think I quite understand what the massive issue is with 'too much xp'. I mean, presumably NPCs can have more xp too? I dunno. I'm sure this just shows that I'm a dirty filthy power gamer. Which, to be honest, is something I seem to think more and more about myself every day.
I just wish I could be an efficient power gamer with it.
Solution Four: Nick's Solution
This is one I hate even more than the hard re-set. Um. Not that I hate Nick. I don't. He seems very nice and shiny and smears blood all over himself in a very artistic manner. But his solution does not appeal to me. Nick's solution, for those who are not on UK-General, is that every character which reaches a certain xp level, such as 500 xp, are forcibly retired to NPC status, or die, or sail off into the sunset. Now, as a total character sitter, I hate this idea. I hate it with the passion of a thousand firey suns. If you were to list this as a feature of a game that I had not already joined, I would make sure I never joined.
I really dislike this idea, mostly because I dislike any system which discourages people from investing and working towards a long lasting character. I like games with characters who can say "I spent two years working towards my revenge". I like games with familial lines built up in game. I like convoluted backstories and complex and realistically inconsistent characters.
I'm not keen on games in which you're told 'you have a set amount of time to do stuff with this PC and then it'll be taken away. So. Um. Don't get too attached. And blow some shit up. You might as well. You're on a fixed term life expectancy anyway'.
Solution Five: Let The Dinosaurs Die
I think this is Hooper's preferred solution. Or was. It might not be any more.
The basic idea here is that we just change the system, get rid of MC, let new characters be created with basic starting points and then just let the dinosaurs die out slowly over time. The main downside to this is that in the short term it creates an even bigger divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', and I suspect in the middle to long term would create the most hideous issue with character sitting, whereby characters which should be retired or let go of won't be, because the players know they will never get anything that hard again, and heaven help the person who gakks one of those PCs. I darkly suspect it will herald in a new era of player complaints and re-written scenes. In general, anything which actively disincentives people from making a new character, isn't a great thing.
And yet it's less painful than most of the alternatives. Again, I think I quite like this idea when combined with some of my ideas - ie - the dropping all the MC bumps to MC 1, and then maybe lopping off a lot of the xp you get at higher levels. One of my other small changes (which I made up randomly), which would give people only one primary in all the venues, so they had to chose one primary venue, was something I wanted incorporated with this premise.
It's a slow and gradual process. Not a bad one. Not radical enough for a lot of people. Probably a bit like the death of a thousand papercuts, but I don't think it would lead to the society hemorrhaging members like most of the radical solutions would.
So. Those are my opinions. As I've said, there are no ideal solutions. I think every single option would lose the society members. I think every one would lead to people bitching, but I think that's just going to happen anyway. There is no way to make a visit to the dentist's fun. I also think it won't be done by universal consensus. I'd actually suggest that either
suave_steve picks a focus group, and goes with their recommendation, or makes a unilateral decision, or just holds a society wide vote and goes with whatever option gets the most votes. Those are the three realistic options I see as to how a decision could be made, and in all cases, much upset will proceed. And this is my opinion. Of course, I may well be wrong. I often am.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 07:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 11:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 11:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 11:47 am (UTC)If, for example, you decide that Lost isn't the venue you thought it was when you started playing, and that Promethean is the one you want to focus on now, you're stuck with your original choice.
I'm also not sure the "top-of-the-tree" argument is as valid as you think it is. From what I see, most people play one or two venues at most, and I don't see too much of a situation where the same people are dominating every venue actually happening.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:22 pm (UTC)As for the 'king of the swingers' argument, I tend to agree with Sally. I really *have* seen quite a few examples of people who play most or even all of the games, and most of these seem to be high MC players.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 11:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:28 pm (UTC)Um. At least, that's how I remember it. It was a long time ago, and Rhona can totally correct me on this.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 01:00 pm (UTC)I wonder why it got changed in the first place?
no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:39 am (UTC)Pre-MC system (in place til late 2001) gave you the ability to generate a character of better generation than starting folks based on your officer position or the number of years you'd been in the society.
MC system rewarded you for letting folks crash on your floor, giving people lifts, or running the social you mention (as well as more reasonable stuff like running games, setting up Domains and booking venues).
A lot of the same people who advocated the MC system (I was a staunch opponent from the outset) were also against rewarding roleplaying. Hmm.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 11:02 am (UTC)Other than that I don't have an opinion - by which I mean I do but as soon as I mention what my opinion is people assume it is what I am about to implement from on high and start forming battlelines so I don't have an opinion. ;P
no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 12:54 pm (UTC)From what I can see, there are two major issues with MC and resets - recruitment and retention. A reset will cause people to leave, however it's done. Not changing the system causes havoc with recruitment, as people won't stick around if they feel totally outclassed.
Frontloading the system with XP cuts down on that gap between high and low MC, and brings the system more in line with how I believe it was originally intended - a reward system that doesn't break the game.
As a note, I really like the MC system, and the fact that people's hard work is rewarded, and I've always felt that it's a good idea, even when feeling outclassed by the top end of the table.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 09:26 pm (UTC)With, say, 300xp on a character I can make a mage that can teleport LA to the moon, a Vampire that could kill anything with lungs in two rounds, a promethean that could literally throw you into orbit (I got bored and did the math once) and a whole plethora of other horrors.
A lot of characters have reached that point where there's nothing sensible to buy to round out their characters any more and a few have even advanced into that "I might as well buy my Sta, Res and Com up to seven while I have the xp spare" state. I underestand that folk like to keep their stories going, but what's the challenge when nothing can hurt you and you've got nothing you want to buy any more? And characters of that potency tend to just *demolish* any plot that doesn't involve some kind of insane demon-god and a thousand minions, just by having more dots.
For gods sake my (relatively tame) Lost character fought an army of fifty fairly potent hobs and got hit with a cannon (20L!) all in the same fight and survived. It's a bloody joke! I'd rather be struggling to hold down mortals in dark alleys for a few drops of precious vitae than summoning a rank 5 spirit of obedience to take over BT headquarters so I can track Seers more easily.
I understand people think they *need* all this xp due to the system being *abhorrent*, and god knows I'd change the system at the same time as changing any xp system, but some stuff you can buy with xp isn't limited by the system as much as a normal dice pool is, so high xp allows for some real abuse in talented/evil hands.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 09:35 pm (UTC)In my opinion, what you'll end up with if you lower the XP in the system is a whole bunch of "cookie-cutter" characters, as there will only be certain combinations of things that are worth picking up - all the things people pick up to be characterful will be left to the wayside. Social skills will not be picked up, as no-one ever makes social rolls, so they'll be seen as a waste of XP.
And in the example you give, if you end up surviving that kind of situation as a 'relatively tame' character, there's a problem with the STing of the scene, not the XP available.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 01:13 pm (UTC)But I think that may be part of my point. :-/
no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 01:15 pm (UTC)What is 'fairly potent' at the start of a chronicle will be weak after 2 years of PCs gaining xp. Basically, the power level of games changes over time. If this is an issue, then we need to look at the basic premise of PCs getting xp, because as long as that happens, you don't have a static power level.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 01:22 pm (UTC)I think the fact that some PCs are now harder than things statted in the book labelled "so ungodly hard the players should never be able to beat it" or "just there as a foce of nature" is rather telling though.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-22 11:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 08:08 pm (UTC)Awww, thank you but you're mistaken. I suppose getting one out of three right is better than none ;)
no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:32 am (UTC)Step 2: Go "say, weren't people saying this would solve all these problems even before we introduced MC in the UK?"
Step 3: Send me a thank-you note.
*grin*
no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:35 am (UTC)I should have added that in as a solution. I forgot the rightness of Joe. ;)
no subject
Date: 2009-12-21 10:39 am (UTC)This is so incomprehensible that I cannot properly acknowledge it. *grin*