This is largely train of thought and not a well put together article. You have been warned.
***
I still don't think PVP can result in consistently good results without some good rules to support that. I find a lot of parallels in MMORPGs to LARP. Both involve lots of players, minimal GM input ability, and a lot of interaction between players, especially when PVP comes up.
Modern Model: Now, a lot of PVP is neutered in MMO's to avoid the bad parts- small gains to get new gear, points, etc. with no real penalty beyond wasted time. The downside is it's very hollow. So you win the super bowl- so what? Maybe you get a little belt or title or cool sword, but you don't really do anything even kind of permanent. But at least the losers don't lose their characters. Unlike...
Early/MUD Model: Before the MMO, we had MUD PVP, much like LARP PVP. Usually kind of free for all, fight whoever for whatever reason, often getting to gank stuff and ruining a persons day, if not outright killing their character forever. Everyone has learned the perma-death in MMO's is not fun at all- or at least, no way has been found to make it fun. The good thing was, this kind of environ let PVP shape the world, and in games like EVE, it still can... only it CAN ruin your day, easy, especially if you play more casually.
In both models, there is a sense of winners and losers, which really is sort of the name of the game. Mitigating the loss is something, but what if loss had it's own 'kind' of gain to it?
New Model Possibilities
I like the idea of a structure where in PVP win leads to bigger changes, stuff that can lead to epic stories like in EVE or some LARPs I've played. Only... it more often just makes a mess and causes hurt feelings. The problem is, losing stings so very, very much in most LARP environ. You build a guild, you lose, guild is dead, legacy and character defecated on, end of story. So, where does the balance between softening the blow and having consequence lie?
I think, that maybe we need to start rewarding loss a little more. Cure frustration. XP systems in which character loss equals loss to the player feel unappealing anymore with MMOs doing away with it- you, the player, invest all the time and effort into playing, why are we punishing you for 'failing'? Does it make the game more fun for you? Others? Consequences are there for a reason, yes, but perhaps we should not be focused on the competition and 'winning' and rather what consequences do for a game.
In MMOs with mitigation to PVP, the biggest loss is time. Time kills. A lesser but equal reward could be offered, but I think this actually just drives away anyone who is not yet 'on top' of the competitive pyramid.
Same often happens in LARP like Vampire or most medieval. You come in at the bottom and have to fight your way up to 'noble' or 'elder' or whatever other badge you have- and it's such a long battle, you have to really be willing to pay dues to claim it. Then once you have, your just a few losses away from losing it all too.
So, it's the whole, what does it matter game? We want the best of consequences while avoiding the worst.
Rewards for Losing:
I think the best way to get this is to look at what winner's typically get and loser's typically lose. Since mostly I'm concerned about traditional larp, I'll start there.
Winner Gets:
*Loot of loser
*Survival
*Perma-death of rival (sometimes)
*Harm to Rival faction
Loser Loses:
*XP
*All work done on character, including bg, clothes, etc as character is now an ex character
*Letting down others in faction
So... mitigation, then something new. No XP loss- you lose the character and faction, might as well keep the general level so time is not totally wasted. Now... I had a thought that big wins and losses might be accompanied by some big ST type powers for the slain foe- not so much to make things 'even', but enough that, when killing a character, they have the option to bring about more drama into the lives of people who laid them low.
This is easiest in more complex games where there are more resources than loot and XP. Land is a good one to play with- if after your death, a horde of goblins start to plague trade routes for those who laid you low, it gives you faction a little breathing room and provides at least a little teehee after you die.
I think also, there should be something along the lines of a 'will', something that goes into effect upon character death- something that guarantees, that in some small way, your character mattered.
Back to Basics: RPG's at tabletop are fun, because it's usually not a case of winners and losers, but how you play the game, fun times with friends. PVP moments often guarantee one person will not have fun or will have their contributions diminished. SO, to fix PVP, one must minimize the fun of losing and perhaps even give incentive to lose characters with dignity- rewards, not punishments.
I think a 'will' is something to explore. Next time.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Things that Piss Off Players
I've been thinking about it for a while, as I know there are certain things that will aggravate people more than anything else. The unfortunate thing is, they are possible consequences of almost any game, usually stemming from one root theme.
De-protagonization
Basically, this is anything that takes the character out of the 'focus' of the personal story. It could be becoming irrelevant, it could be losing control, it could be simple death, but all of these can lead to an alteration of the character which puts them in a light the player never wanted to deal with. Things that can happen that cover this:
1. Death: Most common issue. You die, and outside D&D and some other games with resurrection, you're done. Death CAN be fun when it is timely or makes some kind of impact, but pointless deaths can happen, especially in LARP. LARP is clumsier in it's story aims, often due to PVP and live incidents outside of GM control. As this occurs, more and more 'poorly plotted' deaths will occur- outside of last stands, poignant speeches, heroic sacrifices, it's very likely to suffer 'monster with a grudge', 'overestimated encounters', and 'caught going to bathroom or sleeping' syndromes.
Sometimes, in LARP and tabletop, deaths like these have a wonderful realism to them, and can add a Joss Whedon-like shock to them- other times, they are just ill timed and unfun.
2. Crippling/Imprisonment: Much rarer, occasionally a PC is captured or put in a position they cannot get out of, or made so ineffective due to injury or other detriment as to be unplayable. I think, this is even less fun then death as you must 'give up' on your PC to move on. Imprisonment can be a little better, as sometimes you have to just sit it out and play another character while the other does their time, but it's still aggravating, especially when the imprisonment is annoying- I has a character sold into slavery for good role playing at a LARP one time. THAT will teach me to treat NPCs and PCs the same...
3.Utter Defeat: If you lose when you bring all your guns to bear, all your strategy, and find yourself just stomped in a game, it's extremely disheartening- sometimes worse if it's part of the plot. In these cases, the GM at least ought to be able to kind of give you an aside, tell you 'this is necessary for the plot, everything will be okay' so that you don't blow a gasket, but moments like this often leave one feeling like they shouldn't even bother trying. This is part and parcel to most 'rail roaded' plots.
4. Transformation: This is a weird one that happens rarely- sometimes, weird crap happens and a character finds themselves with an alien parasite, a different body, altered stats, etc. It's a coin flip as sometimes this will be an awesome RP opportunity, and other times it will be a huge problem. I would say only 1/5 to 1/10 male LARPers could role play their character being Gender Bent without having serious issue- and I'm being generous. This wouldn't be an issue, but I've heard stories of stuff like this happening, and sometimes rules make allowances for this kind of craziness. Granted, sometimes people love to be able to transform, perhaps taking on the form of a dangerous animal or monster, but it's up to individual taste, and certain characters in the wrong body will, flatly, be ruined by the experience.
5. Mind Control: I think this is the worst one. Mind control takes away one's only real interaction with a character- the ability to decide what they do. It's almost like getting to a car race and someone taps you out, says you're fired, and starts driving your car- there is nothing fun about this. The ability itself may be a necessity for the setting or game you play, but serious thought must be given to how much it can effect fellow players. I think, at a certain level of control, a player needs to be allowed to step away in some fashion, as forcing them to role play while mind controlled is a certain level of horrible that comes very close to mental torture OOC. Even limited Mind Control is annoying, with short phrases, emotions dictated, etc, but FULL mind control will leave a person wondering why they are playing at all- as they certainly aren't getting to PLAY anymore.
Minimizing Impact:
Think it comes down to a few things-
1. Lenient Death Rules: Most games have a down before out aspect to them. If you have some time to bleed without dying, you have time to be healed. This is absolutely necessary. In some cases, I think it should go further, LARP being one of them- too often, players vindictively confirm kills, which will lead to most baddies doing the same, and then why bother? I think Coup De Gras needs to be limited, to keep a certain level of believability on both sides for assuming that, when you put a sword in a guy and he stops moving, he's dead or soon will be. And for most NPCs, this will hold true anyhow.
2. Avoid Imprisonment Plots: They tend to suck. I think, in some cases, imprisonment might be a fair alternative to death for the sake of believability, but it's not exactly fun without the possibility of rescue or escape. Crippling, on the other hand, feels like a roleplay opportunity that ought to be taken up if one chooses to- take a crippling injury and play it out, win some kind of reward.
3. Know Your Players and Your Game: Nothing can stop the mistake of bad rolls/bad days from causing the NPCs to occasionally run roughshod over players- it happens. But the better you know what they can do and their power levels, the better you will know how to run an encounter that challenges without destroying them. And learn to pull punches- if you overbalance an encounter, cut stats or give them a break. If larping, make sure your NPCs know their role in an encounter- divert, challenge, or destroy.
4. Think It Out: Don't Transform people, unless you really, really, have to. It's an extra level of RP and logistics thats hard to maintain. At minimum, ensure what you might transform someone into is something that is 'fun'- a werewolf, a powerful monster, a dangerous animal, etc. Turning someone to stone, a worm, or some other annoying thing is grounds about as terrible as getting killed or imprisoned.
5. Limit Severely the Control of the Mind: This sucks even for a short time, and prolonged periods, far worse. Short commands and reactions are not too bad- a fear, a love spell, etc can be fun to RP. Total possession or domination can be less fun in most cases, especially when turned on one's friends or put in for the duration. It's worse than death as you not only lose the character, but watch as they do all sorts of things you never wanted them to do. Death is destroying a character sheet; mind control is smearing the sheet in poo.
Now, in Vampire, there are a LOT of mental powers- two and a half clans worth minimum. Taking Nightmare into account alongside Dominate and Majesty, with a hint of Auspex's telepathy to make you betray your thoughts, and the viniculi/blood bond, we find ourselves surrounded with mind control BS. Is it any wonder why there is so much PVP conflict? The game is set up to piss off players, the only control being themselves not screwing each other over- so, no control at all.
This makes me think, how could Vampire be set up to avoid this while maintaining similar themes and a 'balance' among the unique disciplines? I might tackle that next time.
De-protagonization
Basically, this is anything that takes the character out of the 'focus' of the personal story. It could be becoming irrelevant, it could be losing control, it could be simple death, but all of these can lead to an alteration of the character which puts them in a light the player never wanted to deal with. Things that can happen that cover this:
1. Death: Most common issue. You die, and outside D&D and some other games with resurrection, you're done. Death CAN be fun when it is timely or makes some kind of impact, but pointless deaths can happen, especially in LARP. LARP is clumsier in it's story aims, often due to PVP and live incidents outside of GM control. As this occurs, more and more 'poorly plotted' deaths will occur- outside of last stands, poignant speeches, heroic sacrifices, it's very likely to suffer 'monster with a grudge', 'overestimated encounters', and 'caught going to bathroom or sleeping' syndromes.
Sometimes, in LARP and tabletop, deaths like these have a wonderful realism to them, and can add a Joss Whedon-like shock to them- other times, they are just ill timed and unfun.
2. Crippling/Imprisonment: Much rarer, occasionally a PC is captured or put in a position they cannot get out of, or made so ineffective due to injury or other detriment as to be unplayable. I think, this is even less fun then death as you must 'give up' on your PC to move on. Imprisonment can be a little better, as sometimes you have to just sit it out and play another character while the other does their time, but it's still aggravating, especially when the imprisonment is annoying- I has a character sold into slavery for good role playing at a LARP one time. THAT will teach me to treat NPCs and PCs the same...
3.Utter Defeat: If you lose when you bring all your guns to bear, all your strategy, and find yourself just stomped in a game, it's extremely disheartening- sometimes worse if it's part of the plot. In these cases, the GM at least ought to be able to kind of give you an aside, tell you 'this is necessary for the plot, everything will be okay' so that you don't blow a gasket, but moments like this often leave one feeling like they shouldn't even bother trying. This is part and parcel to most 'rail roaded' plots.
4. Transformation: This is a weird one that happens rarely- sometimes, weird crap happens and a character finds themselves with an alien parasite, a different body, altered stats, etc. It's a coin flip as sometimes this will be an awesome RP opportunity, and other times it will be a huge problem. I would say only 1/5 to 1/10 male LARPers could role play their character being Gender Bent without having serious issue- and I'm being generous. This wouldn't be an issue, but I've heard stories of stuff like this happening, and sometimes rules make allowances for this kind of craziness. Granted, sometimes people love to be able to transform, perhaps taking on the form of a dangerous animal or monster, but it's up to individual taste, and certain characters in the wrong body will, flatly, be ruined by the experience.
5. Mind Control: I think this is the worst one. Mind control takes away one's only real interaction with a character- the ability to decide what they do. It's almost like getting to a car race and someone taps you out, says you're fired, and starts driving your car- there is nothing fun about this. The ability itself may be a necessity for the setting or game you play, but serious thought must be given to how much it can effect fellow players. I think, at a certain level of control, a player needs to be allowed to step away in some fashion, as forcing them to role play while mind controlled is a certain level of horrible that comes very close to mental torture OOC. Even limited Mind Control is annoying, with short phrases, emotions dictated, etc, but FULL mind control will leave a person wondering why they are playing at all- as they certainly aren't getting to PLAY anymore.
Minimizing Impact:
Think it comes down to a few things-
1. Lenient Death Rules: Most games have a down before out aspect to them. If you have some time to bleed without dying, you have time to be healed. This is absolutely necessary. In some cases, I think it should go further, LARP being one of them- too often, players vindictively confirm kills, which will lead to most baddies doing the same, and then why bother? I think Coup De Gras needs to be limited, to keep a certain level of believability on both sides for assuming that, when you put a sword in a guy and he stops moving, he's dead or soon will be. And for most NPCs, this will hold true anyhow.
2. Avoid Imprisonment Plots: They tend to suck. I think, in some cases, imprisonment might be a fair alternative to death for the sake of believability, but it's not exactly fun without the possibility of rescue or escape. Crippling, on the other hand, feels like a roleplay opportunity that ought to be taken up if one chooses to- take a crippling injury and play it out, win some kind of reward.
3. Know Your Players and Your Game: Nothing can stop the mistake of bad rolls/bad days from causing the NPCs to occasionally run roughshod over players- it happens. But the better you know what they can do and their power levels, the better you will know how to run an encounter that challenges without destroying them. And learn to pull punches- if you overbalance an encounter, cut stats or give them a break. If larping, make sure your NPCs know their role in an encounter- divert, challenge, or destroy.
4. Think It Out: Don't Transform people, unless you really, really, have to. It's an extra level of RP and logistics thats hard to maintain. At minimum, ensure what you might transform someone into is something that is 'fun'- a werewolf, a powerful monster, a dangerous animal, etc. Turning someone to stone, a worm, or some other annoying thing is grounds about as terrible as getting killed or imprisoned.
5. Limit Severely the Control of the Mind: This sucks even for a short time, and prolonged periods, far worse. Short commands and reactions are not too bad- a fear, a love spell, etc can be fun to RP. Total possession or domination can be less fun in most cases, especially when turned on one's friends or put in for the duration. It's worse than death as you not only lose the character, but watch as they do all sorts of things you never wanted them to do. Death is destroying a character sheet; mind control is smearing the sheet in poo.
Now, in Vampire, there are a LOT of mental powers- two and a half clans worth minimum. Taking Nightmare into account alongside Dominate and Majesty, with a hint of Auspex's telepathy to make you betray your thoughts, and the viniculi/blood bond, we find ourselves surrounded with mind control BS. Is it any wonder why there is so much PVP conflict? The game is set up to piss off players, the only control being themselves not screwing each other over- so, no control at all.
This makes me think, how could Vampire be set up to avoid this while maintaining similar themes and a 'balance' among the unique disciplines? I might tackle that next time.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Movie Trends: Aliens in Post-Bush Era
There have been some trends in movies this year, little things that I feel like analyzing- they may not give great insight into mankind, but they may forecast movies to come.
There's been a lot of aliens popping up in the movie landscape lately. Short list from the top of my head:
The Battle for Terra
District 9
Avatar
Aliens in the Attic
Monsters versus Aliens
Now, three of these five movies have some things in common- Aliens in the Attic and Monster vs. Aliens being the outliers.
In District 9 and Avatar, we have:
1. Humans being assholes
2. Aliens playing the part of oppressed minorities whose human rights are violated
3. Messages about War profiteering/environment
4. Evil corporate entities
Something is obviously skipping merrily through the cultural consciousness of America for all this to hit at the same time, and it's pretty obvious the anti-war, pro-environment, cultural tolerance messages (all things I generally support) are a direct product of the Bush era, manifesting roughly a year after his exit.
It's pretty interesting that "Aliens as Foreigners" angle has been hit so hard so quickly. In many ways, we can just skip the plot of these films to get more of the jist, the essential salts for the alchemical creation of these movies.
District 9- Blood Diamond + Bug Monsters
Avatar- Dances with Wolves + Blue Cat People
Battle for Terra... I have not seen, but I get the feeling it's more of the same.
Using this formula, we merely need to find the next film meant to highlight the oppression of a human culture, throw in some lasers and CGI aliens, and we may have a critically acclaimed piece of sci-fi on our hands...
Come to think of it, both Avatar and District 9 have a transformational element in them, of people becoming aliens as well... and Monsters vs. Aliens... huh. Maybe some vibe of how our only real differences are superficial in nature...
I suppose in some ways, this feeds right back into Star Wars characters being bad racial stereotypes, though so far the new wave of aliens have been far more tasteful in their depictions over all. The Navi of avatar seem to be a blend of various tribal peoples of earth in their culture, so they really don't come off as any other race per se, not to mention their image is largely positive. The Prawns of District 9 are so alien, being bug monster, they really don't come off as anything other than poor aliens.
Since I try to bring things back to gaming when I can, I figure there might be a few lessons somewhere in this mess as far as creating alien cultures. I think the best way to go is that if you can't make something new, rip off so many things nobody can tell where it came from anywhere (credited to this guy). While he may not be able to make a decent film himself, the technique is sound for gaming- the Navi of Avatar come off as tribal, but it's hard to pin down what tribe they come from.
The other lesson might be that aliens are great source material as representing something other than the obvious- they take up classic roles readily.
Aliens work well as Gods, Angels, Invaders, Devils, Natural Forces, or any other role you want to throw them in without having to give 1)Supernatural reasoning nor 2) Sensical reasoning. Aliens are different, their ways of approaching the world strange. If an alien wants to hunt you for fun, give you superpowers, or blow up the planet, don't question it- they're alien, and whatever they are doing must obviously be science and makes sense to them. This isn't an open invitation to hand waving aliens doing stupid crap, but it is reason enough to squeak by with some odd behavior and unknown motivations at times.
There's been a lot of aliens popping up in the movie landscape lately. Short list from the top of my head:
The Battle for Terra
District 9
Avatar
Aliens in the Attic
Monsters versus Aliens
Now, three of these five movies have some things in common- Aliens in the Attic and Monster vs. Aliens being the outliers.
In District 9 and Avatar, we have:
1. Humans being assholes
2. Aliens playing the part of oppressed minorities whose human rights are violated
3. Messages about War profiteering/environment
4. Evil corporate entities
Something is obviously skipping merrily through the cultural consciousness of America for all this to hit at the same time, and it's pretty obvious the anti-war, pro-environment, cultural tolerance messages (all things I generally support) are a direct product of the Bush era, manifesting roughly a year after his exit.
It's pretty interesting that "Aliens as Foreigners" angle has been hit so hard so quickly. In many ways, we can just skip the plot of these films to get more of the jist, the essential salts for the alchemical creation of these movies.
District 9- Blood Diamond + Bug Monsters
Avatar- Dances with Wolves + Blue Cat People
Battle for Terra... I have not seen, but I get the feeling it's more of the same.
Using this formula, we merely need to find the next film meant to highlight the oppression of a human culture, throw in some lasers and CGI aliens, and we may have a critically acclaimed piece of sci-fi on our hands...
Come to think of it, both Avatar and District 9 have a transformational element in them, of people becoming aliens as well... and Monsters vs. Aliens... huh. Maybe some vibe of how our only real differences are superficial in nature...
I suppose in some ways, this feeds right back into Star Wars characters being bad racial stereotypes, though so far the new wave of aliens have been far more tasteful in their depictions over all. The Navi of avatar seem to be a blend of various tribal peoples of earth in their culture, so they really don't come off as any other race per se, not to mention their image is largely positive. The Prawns of District 9 are so alien, being bug monster, they really don't come off as anything other than poor aliens.
Since I try to bring things back to gaming when I can, I figure there might be a few lessons somewhere in this mess as far as creating alien cultures. I think the best way to go is that if you can't make something new, rip off so many things nobody can tell where it came from anywhere (credited to this guy). While he may not be able to make a decent film himself, the technique is sound for gaming- the Navi of Avatar come off as tribal, but it's hard to pin down what tribe they come from.
The other lesson might be that aliens are great source material as representing something other than the obvious- they take up classic roles readily.
Aliens work well as Gods, Angels, Invaders, Devils, Natural Forces, or any other role you want to throw them in without having to give 1)Supernatural reasoning nor 2) Sensical reasoning. Aliens are different, their ways of approaching the world strange. If an alien wants to hunt you for fun, give you superpowers, or blow up the planet, don't question it- they're alien, and whatever they are doing must obviously be science and makes sense to them. This isn't an open invitation to hand waving aliens doing stupid crap, but it is reason enough to squeak by with some odd behavior and unknown motivations at times.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Superhero Squad or Why Marvel Getting Bought by Disney Matters Little
The Superhero Squad Show
So, here we have a goofied up, kiddified version of Marvel, with squidgy little versions of almost the entire Marvel Universe. It's the latest in the line of proof that whatever Disney might decide to do to the Marvel Universe to try an ruin it, Joe Quesada will likely beat them to the punch.
I suppose I'm being a little unfair- it's light hearted children's fair, and I'm all for letting kid's get into comics, right? Well... yes, I am, but I also don't think going quite this stupid is doing kids any favors.
In this show, a group that strongly resembles the Avengers fights Doctor Doom in an anime-esque quest to collect all of the MacGuffin fractals to give him awesome super powers to win. Doctor Doom has assembled a Lethal Legion (read: basically every bad guy in the Marvel Universe) to fight against the Squaddies. I'm all for big superhero battles of epic proportions, and oddly, this show sort of delivers- there are more Marvel characters in this show than any I've seen before it. That being said, there are a lot of simplifications made, essentially putting the rubber claws on Wolverine.
1. It takes place in Superhero City. The city is walled off to keep the Lethal Legion out (ignore the whole flight thing).
2. The characters are all basically school children-esque.
3. Four fingers.
4. Dumbing down in general.
So, children of this generation will first see Marvel superheroes as daft, squishy, four fingered mutants who go around throwing temper tantrums, get sent back to school, and generally act like mild looney tunes. Bad guys are more Naughty guys that only really work in cartoons (the Ring Master dresses up like a lunch lady and waltzes into the X-Mansion. The Danger Room doubles as a cafeteria. Collossus is a dumb jock, Jean is a cheerleader. Only one character notices the yellow swirling eyes associated with hypnosis and Professor X has his mind controlled...).
Quelling my inner geek, this show does have a few things I like.
1. Dr. Doom is the main bad guy.
2. There are about as many marvel characters in this show as there are in JLU.
3. Each episode is inspired by a classic comic, apparently.
These few things don't really excuse the show, but they to me are signs they could have made a better show.
Youngerizing Heroes and the Slope They Slipped Off:
This trend is understandable, in some ways. X-Men was originally mutant teens at a school and X-Men: Evolution brought it back to those roots. Same thing for Ultimate Spiderman. But then we start to go further...
Iron Man armored adventures I think was the first step into hell. Here we have a young Tony Stark (okay), in a futuristic city (wait), and his father dies early (huh?) and the Mandarin is a teenage son of a crime lord with some rings (my mind!) and he fights against the evil designs of Hammer Industries trying to steal his fathers... no. Sorry, this is just TOO different in my mind. Pepper Potts is a perky teen, Rhodey is his teen buddy... this isn't Iron Man's roots, it's Iron Man skewed and re-imagined entirely.
Basically, in the Quesada era of Marvel, we know one fundamental truth: Nothing is Sacred. Not characters, origins, continuity, sense, NOTHING. If it makes a buck, it will happen. The line stops at Spiderman condoms... I'm pretty sure.
Disney, the big red M is in your court. Do your worst.
So, here we have a goofied up, kiddified version of Marvel, with squidgy little versions of almost the entire Marvel Universe. It's the latest in the line of proof that whatever Disney might decide to do to the Marvel Universe to try an ruin it, Joe Quesada will likely beat them to the punch.
I suppose I'm being a little unfair- it's light hearted children's fair, and I'm all for letting kid's get into comics, right? Well... yes, I am, but I also don't think going quite this stupid is doing kids any favors.
In this show, a group that strongly resembles the Avengers fights Doctor Doom in an anime-esque quest to collect all of the MacGuffin fractals to give him awesome super powers to win. Doctor Doom has assembled a Lethal Legion (read: basically every bad guy in the Marvel Universe) to fight against the Squaddies. I'm all for big superhero battles of epic proportions, and oddly, this show sort of delivers- there are more Marvel characters in this show than any I've seen before it. That being said, there are a lot of simplifications made, essentially putting the rubber claws on Wolverine.
1. It takes place in Superhero City. The city is walled off to keep the Lethal Legion out (ignore the whole flight thing).
2. The characters are all basically school children-esque.
3. Four fingers.
4. Dumbing down in general.
So, children of this generation will first see Marvel superheroes as daft, squishy, four fingered mutants who go around throwing temper tantrums, get sent back to school, and generally act like mild looney tunes. Bad guys are more Naughty guys that only really work in cartoons (the Ring Master dresses up like a lunch lady and waltzes into the X-Mansion. The Danger Room doubles as a cafeteria. Collossus is a dumb jock, Jean is a cheerleader. Only one character notices the yellow swirling eyes associated with hypnosis and Professor X has his mind controlled...).
Quelling my inner geek, this show does have a few things I like.
1. Dr. Doom is the main bad guy.
2. There are about as many marvel characters in this show as there are in JLU.
3. Each episode is inspired by a classic comic, apparently.
These few things don't really excuse the show, but they to me are signs they could have made a better show.
Youngerizing Heroes and the Slope They Slipped Off:
This trend is understandable, in some ways. X-Men was originally mutant teens at a school and X-Men: Evolution brought it back to those roots. Same thing for Ultimate Spiderman. But then we start to go further...
Iron Man armored adventures I think was the first step into hell. Here we have a young Tony Stark (okay), in a futuristic city (wait), and his father dies early (huh?) and the Mandarin is a teenage son of a crime lord with some rings (my mind!) and he fights against the evil designs of Hammer Industries trying to steal his fathers... no. Sorry, this is just TOO different in my mind. Pepper Potts is a perky teen, Rhodey is his teen buddy... this isn't Iron Man's roots, it's Iron Man skewed and re-imagined entirely.
Basically, in the Quesada era of Marvel, we know one fundamental truth: Nothing is Sacred. Not characters, origins, continuity, sense, NOTHING. If it makes a buck, it will happen. The line stops at Spiderman condoms... I'm pretty sure.
Disney, the big red M is in your court. Do your worst.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Bionic Commando vs. Dragon Age
Not my usual, but it feels like one of those things worth mentioning, if only because I don't know if I'll see much on it elsewhere.
The New Bionic Commando game is a classic mismatch of great gameplay and a lame, lame story. The gameplay is the proper mixture of challenge and intuitiveness- getting new moves does not add needless complication, or just make the game harder. The advanced techniques add to a growing repertoire of combat options that only serve to make an already solid combat system grow even more so. More enemy types are introduced, slowly, a good deal of the environment can be climbed or used as a weapon, and they manage to recapture much of the fun of the 2-D platforming experience in 3-D.
The plot in many ways follows the opposite course, having a hackneyed plot you can see coming from a mile away. The twists are assumed almost from the beginning of the game, from the first cinema. We see Nathan 'Rad' Spencer jailed- fair enough, public fear of bionics sends them underground, puts them in jail, etc. We see Super Joe, an obviously evil old military man, unlike his heroic former identity from Captain Commando, sending Nathan off to fight the baddies that have blown up the city and conveniently set up the radiation clouds that keep this game from being an open environment- which is fine, for the most part.
I'd call the following spoilers, but it's not like it's spoiling much of anything. Nathan finds out the baddies are not new baddies, but the same old baddies, led by Groder. Only late in we find out Super Joe is evil and, gasp! was using you to claim the MacGuffin for his own nefarious ends. The cliche Dead Wife is also, gasp, murdered by Super Joe, but for perhaps the stupidest reason ever- her... well... somehow she was turned into his bionic arm. Which would be really, really creepy, if it wasn't so stupid. I mean... how? Fleshy person to cyber arm. That makes no kind of sense at all. There is a girl with cybernetic legs and super speed... while the game progresses in a way where you think you'd fight her, or she'd do something important, she instead shows up a few times, then dies horribly- she made ZERO impact on the plot. None.
The game is such a stinker that GRIN, the parent company is dead. So, no chance of redemption. Which goes to show... plot matters.
Now Dragon Age: Origins is out, and I can't help but feel this game is truly the reversed situation. The game itself is, to be blunt, awful. It doesn't play in such a way that makes me feel that all classes or paths are truly viable- pick the mage's tower too early, with a week class, and it will be a long ugly trudge through it. The combat often feels random, many enemies having 'finisher' style moves that will kill a character, without fail, unless the AI messes up and forgets to do you in. Rogue's seem virtually worthless as their inferior combat skills make them a detriment to many parties. Mages show such flexibility as to be almost invaluable. Warriors play pretty much like better rogues, as they are basically a big sack of armor, hitpoints, and damage. The combats are HARD, but not in a way that I would call challenging- they're tedious affairs, victory more dependent upon enemy mistakes then player skill.
The plot of Dragon Age is absolutely amazing though. Ferelden is a fully realized world, characters all seem to have a place in it, with deep backgrounds and sensible relations to events around them. Each of the race, gender, class combos have their own little twists and options, putting much of the story squarely in the players hands to determine, with so much detail, there's even lore scraps you can pick up.
Bionic Commando is considered an utter stinker of a game, while Dragon Age is considered 'amazing'. Which leads to a few thoughts:
1) Gameplay is starting to matter less than visuals and story
2) Bioware can ride its success hard, even glazing over their bad games with positivity carry over from old
3) If you're plot seems unconvincing to a 6th grader, you might want to rethink a few things.
Usually, I do tabletop stuff, but I think this points out some parallel: good rules alone cannot sell a game, and a beloved setting can sometimes glaze over awful rules.
Only you can prevent Wife arm.
The New Bionic Commando game is a classic mismatch of great gameplay and a lame, lame story. The gameplay is the proper mixture of challenge and intuitiveness- getting new moves does not add needless complication, or just make the game harder. The advanced techniques add to a growing repertoire of combat options that only serve to make an already solid combat system grow even more so. More enemy types are introduced, slowly, a good deal of the environment can be climbed or used as a weapon, and they manage to recapture much of the fun of the 2-D platforming experience in 3-D.
The plot in many ways follows the opposite course, having a hackneyed plot you can see coming from a mile away. The twists are assumed almost from the beginning of the game, from the first cinema. We see Nathan 'Rad' Spencer jailed- fair enough, public fear of bionics sends them underground, puts them in jail, etc. We see Super Joe, an obviously evil old military man, unlike his heroic former identity from Captain Commando, sending Nathan off to fight the baddies that have blown up the city and conveniently set up the radiation clouds that keep this game from being an open environment- which is fine, for the most part.
I'd call the following spoilers, but it's not like it's spoiling much of anything. Nathan finds out the baddies are not new baddies, but the same old baddies, led by Groder. Only late in we find out Super Joe is evil and, gasp! was using you to claim the MacGuffin for his own nefarious ends. The cliche Dead Wife is also, gasp, murdered by Super Joe, but for perhaps the stupidest reason ever- her... well... somehow she was turned into his bionic arm. Which would be really, really creepy, if it wasn't so stupid. I mean... how? Fleshy person to cyber arm. That makes no kind of sense at all. There is a girl with cybernetic legs and super speed... while the game progresses in a way where you think you'd fight her, or she'd do something important, she instead shows up a few times, then dies horribly- she made ZERO impact on the plot. None.
The game is such a stinker that GRIN, the parent company is dead. So, no chance of redemption. Which goes to show... plot matters.
Now Dragon Age: Origins is out, and I can't help but feel this game is truly the reversed situation. The game itself is, to be blunt, awful. It doesn't play in such a way that makes me feel that all classes or paths are truly viable- pick the mage's tower too early, with a week class, and it will be a long ugly trudge through it. The combat often feels random, many enemies having 'finisher' style moves that will kill a character, without fail, unless the AI messes up and forgets to do you in. Rogue's seem virtually worthless as their inferior combat skills make them a detriment to many parties. Mages show such flexibility as to be almost invaluable. Warriors play pretty much like better rogues, as they are basically a big sack of armor, hitpoints, and damage. The combats are HARD, but not in a way that I would call challenging- they're tedious affairs, victory more dependent upon enemy mistakes then player skill.
The plot of Dragon Age is absolutely amazing though. Ferelden is a fully realized world, characters all seem to have a place in it, with deep backgrounds and sensible relations to events around them. Each of the race, gender, class combos have their own little twists and options, putting much of the story squarely in the players hands to determine, with so much detail, there's even lore scraps you can pick up.
Bionic Commando is considered an utter stinker of a game, while Dragon Age is considered 'amazing'. Which leads to a few thoughts:
1) Gameplay is starting to matter less than visuals and story
2) Bioware can ride its success hard, even glazing over their bad games with positivity carry over from old
3) If you're plot seems unconvincing to a 6th grader, you might want to rethink a few things.
Usually, I do tabletop stuff, but I think this points out some parallel: good rules alone cannot sell a game, and a beloved setting can sometimes glaze over awful rules.
Only you can prevent Wife arm.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
LARP and the IC/OOC Barrier: The Religion
I've played in multiple LARPs, both boffer and non-boffer. I've gotten to soak up the stories of yesteryear, the events of the day, and seen where things later end up. They're certainly not what I would call 'young' entities, having existed for many years, but I think only now, with many of them running their course for long periods of time, can we see certain trends in them.
In this article, I'm going to deconstruct what I find perhaps one of the most abysmal institutions in LARPing, a strongly held belief that serves SOME of the gaming population SOME of the time, but perhaps at the cost of others.
I talk about the separation of in character and out of character actions. Primarily, this involves what I would call 'open PVP'.
Background Experience:
I'll leave names blank to protect the guilty and the innocent.
I first get into boffer LARP, and from the standpoint of immersion, it's a blast. I hear about someone who, over the course of a year or so, built a stockpile of bodies, used some janky necromancy rules, and damn near killed everyone in the game. Total pwnge. But rules we're changed to stop that. During this time, I'd also seen that the social structures of the game we're quite draconian, especially in the arcane magics- a rule had been established that to learn a skill, you had to roleplay out learning it from a teacher. A good rule for roleplay, that unfortunately formed into a stranglehold on the magic rules when the mages banded together and all but made one fourth of the game inaccessible to other players. This in a largely cooperative, adventure based fantasy in which players are most likely to fight orcs, and not each other.
I at first thought this an isolated case, until I reached the next boffer LARP. I then get hit with tales of the first LARP players were in, where a singular evil character played skillfully over many years basically nuked the player base. I got killed in my second game there due to a poorly planned open PVP event, in which I got to hear about my characters grizzly dismemberment, almost like verbal salt in the wounds- hey, you're not just dead, you're also mutilated! Granted, the oldbie important characters get rezzed despite all the difficulties later because people want them back that bad, and the usual unfortunate trend towards LARP elder status, but it leads me to questioning just WHY open PVP is good. And the basic answer I am given is that it CAN lead to good consequences, and that one should just have FAITH that one's fellow players will make tasteful choices, accept when things go wrong, and then hope things go better the next time.
I warned them once, about the syndrome of the super necromancer, of the psycho, of the slow building terrorist- they said it couldn't happen in their game. A few months later, one of the major PCs turned evil and kills half the players in the game- and escapes, and survives. Me one, the religion zero.
So now I'm playing Vampire. It's a cut throat game, with open PVP, so it's expected people will power play, politic, possibly assassinate one another. The chainsaw is gimped slightly by numbers being more powerful than stats, but that doesn't really change things here sociologically. No vampire terrorists yet, from what I can see, but rules created to enhance roleplay and prevent twinking may be quickly turned into weapons to screw people out of XP. Status strips, intimidation, and covenant rivalries allow for people to be much, much worse to one another in some ways then a fantasy based but of live action D&D- and they are. I got to hear a story of people getting forcibly converted to a new faction after being unmanned physically by their enemies- fun!
All of this behavior, these bad results, are direct results of the Religion of OOC/IC being completely separate. Unfortunately, they're not.
The Three Types of Gamers
There is a theory labeled GNS Theory, a theory used in roleplaying games for the three types of fun they can provide. Not everyone adheres to this theory, as it's strictest interpretations are sort of unrealistic, but the basics of it are there. We may come up with a better theory one day, but for now, the GNS theory is perhaps the first step in deconstructing what makes a roleplaying game fun for people. If you don't think there are any theories or methods towards making a roleplaying game good, go bang your sticks together in a cave and hope for fire, because you might as well say there's no difference between good and bad movies. This may be opinion, but it is an informed opinion.
The quick of it is that Gamists play the game to compete, and in some sense, win. They may want to just be powerful, they may want to overcome challenges, they may want to PK. The worst of these are power gamers nobody wants, with the best being the tacticians you always want on your side.
The Simulationists play the game as a what if, wanting to just see what happens. This is, in some ways, the core strength of LARPing. It's deeply immersive, something simulationists love, meaning they can more easily get the What If aspect of gameplay- its almost real, cause you talk to real people in real time, with real bodies rather than images provided by a gamemaster.
Narrativists play games because they want cool stories. Whatever happens in a game, they want to see neat things happen, have moments of drama, tales that keep them interested and worth telling to others. Narrativists, in many ways, want to see that a game has something that resembles a plot when all is said in done.
Why the Religion Works:
The religion works because it serves both Simulationists and Gamists to keep OOC and IC completely separate, at least as a creed to say, and on paper. The Simulationists are often the improv actors of the game, people who play a character to a hilt- whether they are psycho or hero, a bit part or a mover and shaker, the Simulationist loves to just see where things go with whatever they play. Open PVP and IC/OOC separation, to them, is only logical as it adds to their immersion, at least theoretically. For them, separating the two is second nature.
The Gamists benefit from this because it means they can do whatever they want IC and reap no OOC repercussions for it. They can be 'as bad as they wanna be', callously kill others off, and basically go around kicking ass, taking names, bullying people, and 'winning' and there is no game master intervention to get in their way. In some cases, the system even supports it, allowing them further ways to strike at their imagined enemies with zero risk to themselves- this is the perfect gamist solution.
Narrativists are left on the outs by this, and the whims of Gamists and Simulationists do not always lead to good stories. While Simulationists are far less guilty of railroading and ruining the game, being that they often add a lot of immersion with their roleplay skill and interesting characters, more often we have to deal with the Gamists. A Gamist might kill your character for fun and then slyly give a blaise IC reason- he annoyed me, I have low humanity, he was another covenant, etc. They may kill you out of boredom. Their reasons are ultimately that it was a path to them winning, and it means they will use whatever means they wish to accomplish that.
Take a moment to realize that nobody is necessarily just one or the other of these things- people can derive fun from all the approaches, but there is probably one that is above all the others.
The Religion's main purpose is that it serves two kinds of mindsets- it forces everyone to OOC 'get along', but allows IC for people to be total assholes, even needlessly. This works into the hands of those who believe everyone could (and should) get along as well as those who wish to Win the game, because they can excuse even the most vile behavior IC as being 'just my character'.
Heresy: The Problems with the Religion
The First Heresy: My Character
It's just what my character would do is NOT an excuse. It's a reason, but it's surely not an excuse for ruining other people's fun because you MAKE your character. When you put the dots, the faction, and ultimately, when you dream up the persona of your character, you've decided just how they're going to act in the game. If you make a psycho killer who is going to PK at the drop of a hat and end people's stories then you DECIDED to make that. If you roleplay your humanity drop as a reason to PK, you DECIDED to roleplay that way.
Your character is not a ghost who possesses you and makes you do things.
The Second Heresy: Order
Some people think keeping IC and OOC seperate is the only way to keep people friendly, because when someone screws your character over, you should never hold it against the person who did it because it's just IC. There is some truth to this...
However, it contradicts human nature. When roleplay turns to PVP issues, it quickly goes sour. When playing against NPCs, nobody cares too much to look at your character sheet, but once it goes PVP people whip them out and double check and look at databases because the PLAYERS care about their CHARACTERS. It's a simple truth. No matter how good a dinner I am bought after getting assassinated, if the reasons were stupid or ill conceived, I'll probably be fuming the entire time. The hurt will likely remain. The people who are most equipped to get around this are the hardcore Simulationists, but both Gamists and Narrativists will hold the grudge both IC and OOC. Two thirds of everyone pays this rule lip service, ultimately.
There are big arbitration boards and rules in many LARP organizations as people take issue with one another, and I'm sure that PVP is due the lion's share of these conflicts.
The Third Heresy: Better Gaming
The final heresy on this rule is there is some belief that this divide leads to better gaming, despite evidence to the contrary. The best we can say is that open PVP and IC/OOC separation provide some element of 'surprise' to the game. Oh hoh, I never expected to be kill boxed tonight by people proxying their characters from half a world away! But this complexity doesn't necessarily lead to good story, immersion, or even a fun "I Win!" scenario for gamists. Gamists in open PVP are small sharks in a big shark pond and may find themselves on the receiving end of the same kind of action they deal out for reasons as simple as 'you were getting too powerful and I don't trust you'. Simulationists may have to deal with poorly reasoned PVP which they are then forced to rationalize away IC. And the Narrativist, as per usual, will probably watch as a chainsaw comes screaming through and killing a plot.
Oddly, most of the best gaming comes about from OOC/IC interaction- giving game masters character information to use in plots, establishing character ties with others. None of that is IC, but it effects IC for OOC reasons and its GOOD.
Losing the Religion or Where Do We Go?
It's a sad fact that to really predict LARPs, the easiest thing to model them on are MMOs. No, seriously. An MMO is a large social group of gamers, and while we stretch out our 'go time' and rules with talking IC and acting, MMOs function very similarly to LARP.
Add in long snippets of text in between each battle, and we're pretty close.
Now, in MMOs, we got to see the micro-evolution of PVP. Open PVP was featured in a lot of early MMOs, because people thought the What If machine and labeling something a roleplaying game would be enough to police the worst elements. Only it wasn't. People would still be cheesy assholes and kill newbs for fun, make the game a living hell if they were bored. Open PVP generally proves to be not very fun for anyone but the most hardcore elements.
A few years later and we get the flag system: we can challenge people to duels, which they can deny or accept. We can be Flagged, allowing ourselves to be attacked, inviting that misfortune and competition. And there are special areas where things like that can happen.
I give the Requiem Larp some credit for taking this last feature and introducing an inverse rule- Elysium's are places where it takes Willpower points to hurt and Willpower Dots to kill. This certainly cuts down on the direct violent PVP aspect of Vampire a good deal, adding an element of stability. However, we do not see any Flag elements- there is no 'duel' system, nor is there any 'flagging' for PVP. There is a 'parlay' type system to PVP, where one can negotiate consequences down, but it's rarely if ever employed.
So, to replace the religion, what would it take?
I think, a PVP flag of some type could be useful- there are people who want to engage in the extremely confrontational aspects of Vampire, fighting tooth and nail in the global game. I think a flag could include both benefits and disadvantages: unflagged characters certainly could not diablerize, but there may be other advantages available I am unaware of.
Meanwhile, those unflagged would be relatively 'safe', unless they initiated a 'duel'- duels being a PVP based situation both parties agree to engage in. Once someone duels, they are flagged for a certain period. I think a period of a year would be fair- this gives plenty of time to plot against and deal with said person if anybody wanted to. It also fosters reasons for new characters to get involved with the game without fear they will be killed, bloodbound, and diablerized a short time after joining- certainly not common events, but totally possible in the rules at this point.
I also think, dueling ought to have some Storyteller/GM intervention involved, for the simple following reason: I trust Storytellers, for the most part. Storytellers are there to make the game good, are voted in to do so, and they can look at the IC reasons for attack/declines/etc with a critical eye. Unlike a player, whose reasoning I have no input or effect on whatsoever, a Storyteller I can at least Vote on at a later date. If someone plays a horrible PK machine and runs rampant, I have no real recourse, no way of preventing him from coming back and killing my next character, or the next. BUT if the Storyteller decides to allow for PVP I thought was unfairly deserved, I can vote against him next term, even run against them if need be. There is a way to show my disapproval in this case without having to get a lengthy bureaucratic nightmare involved.
Summarized Conclusion:
The OOC/IC divide and Open PVP could be replaced by a flag and duel system with GM oversight and intervention. It let's new people play for a while without having the global game stomp them, it let's gamists make progress without getting utterly stomped, it assures most narrativists better story, and lets simulationists avoid the worst excesses of gamist attitudes.
In this article, I'm going to deconstruct what I find perhaps one of the most abysmal institutions in LARPing, a strongly held belief that serves SOME of the gaming population SOME of the time, but perhaps at the cost of others.
I talk about the separation of in character and out of character actions. Primarily, this involves what I would call 'open PVP'.
Background Experience:
I'll leave names blank to protect the guilty and the innocent.
I first get into boffer LARP, and from the standpoint of immersion, it's a blast. I hear about someone who, over the course of a year or so, built a stockpile of bodies, used some janky necromancy rules, and damn near killed everyone in the game. Total pwnge. But rules we're changed to stop that. During this time, I'd also seen that the social structures of the game we're quite draconian, especially in the arcane magics- a rule had been established that to learn a skill, you had to roleplay out learning it from a teacher. A good rule for roleplay, that unfortunately formed into a stranglehold on the magic rules when the mages banded together and all but made one fourth of the game inaccessible to other players. This in a largely cooperative, adventure based fantasy in which players are most likely to fight orcs, and not each other.
I at first thought this an isolated case, until I reached the next boffer LARP. I then get hit with tales of the first LARP players were in, where a singular evil character played skillfully over many years basically nuked the player base. I got killed in my second game there due to a poorly planned open PVP event, in which I got to hear about my characters grizzly dismemberment, almost like verbal salt in the wounds- hey, you're not just dead, you're also mutilated! Granted, the oldbie important characters get rezzed despite all the difficulties later because people want them back that bad, and the usual unfortunate trend towards LARP elder status, but it leads me to questioning just WHY open PVP is good. And the basic answer I am given is that it CAN lead to good consequences, and that one should just have FAITH that one's fellow players will make tasteful choices, accept when things go wrong, and then hope things go better the next time.
I warned them once, about the syndrome of the super necromancer, of the psycho, of the slow building terrorist- they said it couldn't happen in their game. A few months later, one of the major PCs turned evil and kills half the players in the game- and escapes, and survives. Me one, the religion zero.
So now I'm playing Vampire. It's a cut throat game, with open PVP, so it's expected people will power play, politic, possibly assassinate one another. The chainsaw is gimped slightly by numbers being more powerful than stats, but that doesn't really change things here sociologically. No vampire terrorists yet, from what I can see, but rules created to enhance roleplay and prevent twinking may be quickly turned into weapons to screw people out of XP. Status strips, intimidation, and covenant rivalries allow for people to be much, much worse to one another in some ways then a fantasy based but of live action D&D- and they are. I got to hear a story of people getting forcibly converted to a new faction after being unmanned physically by their enemies- fun!
All of this behavior, these bad results, are direct results of the Religion of OOC/IC being completely separate. Unfortunately, they're not.
The Three Types of Gamers
There is a theory labeled GNS Theory, a theory used in roleplaying games for the three types of fun they can provide. Not everyone adheres to this theory, as it's strictest interpretations are sort of unrealistic, but the basics of it are there. We may come up with a better theory one day, but for now, the GNS theory is perhaps the first step in deconstructing what makes a roleplaying game fun for people. If you don't think there are any theories or methods towards making a roleplaying game good, go bang your sticks together in a cave and hope for fire, because you might as well say there's no difference between good and bad movies. This may be opinion, but it is an informed opinion.
The quick of it is that Gamists play the game to compete, and in some sense, win. They may want to just be powerful, they may want to overcome challenges, they may want to PK. The worst of these are power gamers nobody wants, with the best being the tacticians you always want on your side.
The Simulationists play the game as a what if, wanting to just see what happens. This is, in some ways, the core strength of LARPing. It's deeply immersive, something simulationists love, meaning they can more easily get the What If aspect of gameplay- its almost real, cause you talk to real people in real time, with real bodies rather than images provided by a gamemaster.
Narrativists play games because they want cool stories. Whatever happens in a game, they want to see neat things happen, have moments of drama, tales that keep them interested and worth telling to others. Narrativists, in many ways, want to see that a game has something that resembles a plot when all is said in done.
Why the Religion Works:
The religion works because it serves both Simulationists and Gamists to keep OOC and IC completely separate, at least as a creed to say, and on paper. The Simulationists are often the improv actors of the game, people who play a character to a hilt- whether they are psycho or hero, a bit part or a mover and shaker, the Simulationist loves to just see where things go with whatever they play. Open PVP and IC/OOC separation, to them, is only logical as it adds to their immersion, at least theoretically. For them, separating the two is second nature.
The Gamists benefit from this because it means they can do whatever they want IC and reap no OOC repercussions for it. They can be 'as bad as they wanna be', callously kill others off, and basically go around kicking ass, taking names, bullying people, and 'winning' and there is no game master intervention to get in their way. In some cases, the system even supports it, allowing them further ways to strike at their imagined enemies with zero risk to themselves- this is the perfect gamist solution.
Narrativists are left on the outs by this, and the whims of Gamists and Simulationists do not always lead to good stories. While Simulationists are far less guilty of railroading and ruining the game, being that they often add a lot of immersion with their roleplay skill and interesting characters, more often we have to deal with the Gamists. A Gamist might kill your character for fun and then slyly give a blaise IC reason- he annoyed me, I have low humanity, he was another covenant, etc. They may kill you out of boredom. Their reasons are ultimately that it was a path to them winning, and it means they will use whatever means they wish to accomplish that.
Take a moment to realize that nobody is necessarily just one or the other of these things- people can derive fun from all the approaches, but there is probably one that is above all the others.
The Religion's main purpose is that it serves two kinds of mindsets- it forces everyone to OOC 'get along', but allows IC for people to be total assholes, even needlessly. This works into the hands of those who believe everyone could (and should) get along as well as those who wish to Win the game, because they can excuse even the most vile behavior IC as being 'just my character'.
Heresy: The Problems with the Religion
The First Heresy: My Character
It's just what my character would do is NOT an excuse. It's a reason, but it's surely not an excuse for ruining other people's fun because you MAKE your character. When you put the dots, the faction, and ultimately, when you dream up the persona of your character, you've decided just how they're going to act in the game. If you make a psycho killer who is going to PK at the drop of a hat and end people's stories then you DECIDED to make that. If you roleplay your humanity drop as a reason to PK, you DECIDED to roleplay that way.
Your character is not a ghost who possesses you and makes you do things.
The Second Heresy: Order
Some people think keeping IC and OOC seperate is the only way to keep people friendly, because when someone screws your character over, you should never hold it against the person who did it because it's just IC. There is some truth to this...
However, it contradicts human nature. When roleplay turns to PVP issues, it quickly goes sour. When playing against NPCs, nobody cares too much to look at your character sheet, but once it goes PVP people whip them out and double check and look at databases because the PLAYERS care about their CHARACTERS. It's a simple truth. No matter how good a dinner I am bought after getting assassinated, if the reasons were stupid or ill conceived, I'll probably be fuming the entire time. The hurt will likely remain. The people who are most equipped to get around this are the hardcore Simulationists, but both Gamists and Narrativists will hold the grudge both IC and OOC. Two thirds of everyone pays this rule lip service, ultimately.
There are big arbitration boards and rules in many LARP organizations as people take issue with one another, and I'm sure that PVP is due the lion's share of these conflicts.
The Third Heresy: Better Gaming
The final heresy on this rule is there is some belief that this divide leads to better gaming, despite evidence to the contrary. The best we can say is that open PVP and IC/OOC separation provide some element of 'surprise' to the game. Oh hoh, I never expected to be kill boxed tonight by people proxying their characters from half a world away! But this complexity doesn't necessarily lead to good story, immersion, or even a fun "I Win!" scenario for gamists. Gamists in open PVP are small sharks in a big shark pond and may find themselves on the receiving end of the same kind of action they deal out for reasons as simple as 'you were getting too powerful and I don't trust you'. Simulationists may have to deal with poorly reasoned PVP which they are then forced to rationalize away IC. And the Narrativist, as per usual, will probably watch as a chainsaw comes screaming through and killing a plot.
Oddly, most of the best gaming comes about from OOC/IC interaction- giving game masters character information to use in plots, establishing character ties with others. None of that is IC, but it effects IC for OOC reasons and its GOOD.
Losing the Religion or Where Do We Go?
It's a sad fact that to really predict LARPs, the easiest thing to model them on are MMOs. No, seriously. An MMO is a large social group of gamers, and while we stretch out our 'go time' and rules with talking IC and acting, MMOs function very similarly to LARP.
Add in long snippets of text in between each battle, and we're pretty close.
Now, in MMOs, we got to see the micro-evolution of PVP. Open PVP was featured in a lot of early MMOs, because people thought the What If machine and labeling something a roleplaying game would be enough to police the worst elements. Only it wasn't. People would still be cheesy assholes and kill newbs for fun, make the game a living hell if they were bored. Open PVP generally proves to be not very fun for anyone but the most hardcore elements.
A few years later and we get the flag system: we can challenge people to duels, which they can deny or accept. We can be Flagged, allowing ourselves to be attacked, inviting that misfortune and competition. And there are special areas where things like that can happen.
I give the Requiem Larp some credit for taking this last feature and introducing an inverse rule- Elysium's are places where it takes Willpower points to hurt and Willpower Dots to kill. This certainly cuts down on the direct violent PVP aspect of Vampire a good deal, adding an element of stability. However, we do not see any Flag elements- there is no 'duel' system, nor is there any 'flagging' for PVP. There is a 'parlay' type system to PVP, where one can negotiate consequences down, but it's rarely if ever employed.
So, to replace the religion, what would it take?
I think, a PVP flag of some type could be useful- there are people who want to engage in the extremely confrontational aspects of Vampire, fighting tooth and nail in the global game. I think a flag could include both benefits and disadvantages: unflagged characters certainly could not diablerize, but there may be other advantages available I am unaware of.
Meanwhile, those unflagged would be relatively 'safe', unless they initiated a 'duel'- duels being a PVP based situation both parties agree to engage in. Once someone duels, they are flagged for a certain period. I think a period of a year would be fair- this gives plenty of time to plot against and deal with said person if anybody wanted to. It also fosters reasons for new characters to get involved with the game without fear they will be killed, bloodbound, and diablerized a short time after joining- certainly not common events, but totally possible in the rules at this point.
I also think, dueling ought to have some Storyteller/GM intervention involved, for the simple following reason: I trust Storytellers, for the most part. Storytellers are there to make the game good, are voted in to do so, and they can look at the IC reasons for attack/declines/etc with a critical eye. Unlike a player, whose reasoning I have no input or effect on whatsoever, a Storyteller I can at least Vote on at a later date. If someone plays a horrible PK machine and runs rampant, I have no real recourse, no way of preventing him from coming back and killing my next character, or the next. BUT if the Storyteller decides to allow for PVP I thought was unfairly deserved, I can vote against him next term, even run against them if need be. There is a way to show my disapproval in this case without having to get a lengthy bureaucratic nightmare involved.
Summarized Conclusion:
The OOC/IC divide and Open PVP could be replaced by a flag and duel system with GM oversight and intervention. It let's new people play for a while without having the global game stomp them, it let's gamists make progress without getting utterly stomped, it assures most narrativists better story, and lets simulationists avoid the worst excesses of gamist attitudes.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Fast, Furious, Fuku
There are some anime type rules for Savage Worlds I'd kicked around a few months ago. The idea is to provide a plot point campaign as well as a rule set that allows for anime type fighting. That could mean a lot of things, but I'll try to get across a few.
Powerful: Anime characters have good fights when it's against a main character, but extras are REALLY extras. Savage Worlds is good for this since there are extra rules inherent, but a few more power moves and Edges to speed up minion clean up and create truly large scale battles seem appropriate. This part was easy, represented by a set of edges that are there to allow for characters to destroy multiple minions with one spell, as well as objects.
This also includes a sort of uber arcane background that, while using multiple skills much like super powers, provides more power points, as well as a penalty for rolling ones. It's more powerful than the average AB, but it 1) fits an anime setting style better and 2) is available for everyone to use during the game, for free at character creation.
One Upping: A lot of anime fights are a series one upping the other person- a new technique is broken out to overcome the last technique used, over and over again, until somebody ends up on top. These techniques may be secret or spur of the moment, or even just a sheer moment of Willpower overcoming the character and pushing them past their limits, but it's the way things tend to go.
A One Upping system has been discussed, an advantage that is passed around between characters as they bust out new powers, each time the advantage growing until it will almost certainly lead to characters being knocked out or killed from it's use with one side victorious.
The current system gives a lot of options for how this advantage is passed around and what it does for people, but I'm starting to realize that the list, while allowing a lot of flexibility, isn't necessarily fast, furious, or fun. So I think I'll change it from being a flexible list into something characters pick from, like a Limit Break from FF VII, maybe picking a single 'one up' advantage and one up taking technique per rank.
Vets and Youths: I kind of want a way to distinguish this in a way that feels 'fair'. I've been thinking about allowing Vet's to gain all the starting advantages but the special arcane background, instead getting a more focused, but less powerful arcane BG- they would be far more skilled and powerful starting off, but weaker in the long run. Probably, they'd have less power points, but a single controlling skill, and less powers over all. It would make them very GOOD with the power they had though. Just not having as much potential as the youth, which is the usual route of such things.
A Flexible Setting: Anime runs a gamut of genre's so no setting can be appropriate for everything. I think of things like Tenchi Muyo when I think broad- there's space, aliens, demons, magic, super powers, a little of everything. But it's not Savage at all, it's far too fluffy. Savage makes me think of Berserk, but that's just low fantasy. I'd love for a game to really fit things like Trigun, Cowboy Bebop, Gunsword X, and a few other types of shows with a nice ensemble cast.
My first try was the idea of a school that trained Earth's next generation of superhuman children after the Power Wars (a war fought with superpowers) destroyed most of Earth's infrastructure, leaving a large underground population of children, who are growing into teenagers, as the largest superhuman population in the world. Hijinks, calamity, and world saving ensue from the various Battle Schools.
The second idea I tried to throw around was one where a Colony Ship has flown away from a wrecked Earth to establish a new home on a colony world. Only the colony world seems to be on the rocks when they get there, small patches of lawless human civilization, lots of monsters, superhuman gangsters, etc. The young Colonial Troopers, using the disciplines of Martial Arts, Super Science, and Magic, must work to save this wrecked world and discover the hidden evil that plagues it. Kind of a Space Exalted feel.
No third idea at this point, but I really do want to figure out what would be better. The first seems more ready for some light hearted antics, while the second feels a little too close to the Phantasy Star series.
Really, my biggest obstacle is setting. I may post on this elsewhere to find some opinions.
Powerful: Anime characters have good fights when it's against a main character, but extras are REALLY extras. Savage Worlds is good for this since there are extra rules inherent, but a few more power moves and Edges to speed up minion clean up and create truly large scale battles seem appropriate. This part was easy, represented by a set of edges that are there to allow for characters to destroy multiple minions with one spell, as well as objects.
This also includes a sort of uber arcane background that, while using multiple skills much like super powers, provides more power points, as well as a penalty for rolling ones. It's more powerful than the average AB, but it 1) fits an anime setting style better and 2) is available for everyone to use during the game, for free at character creation.
One Upping: A lot of anime fights are a series one upping the other person- a new technique is broken out to overcome the last technique used, over and over again, until somebody ends up on top. These techniques may be secret or spur of the moment, or even just a sheer moment of Willpower overcoming the character and pushing them past their limits, but it's the way things tend to go.
A One Upping system has been discussed, an advantage that is passed around between characters as they bust out new powers, each time the advantage growing until it will almost certainly lead to characters being knocked out or killed from it's use with one side victorious.
The current system gives a lot of options for how this advantage is passed around and what it does for people, but I'm starting to realize that the list, while allowing a lot of flexibility, isn't necessarily fast, furious, or fun. So I think I'll change it from being a flexible list into something characters pick from, like a Limit Break from FF VII, maybe picking a single 'one up' advantage and one up taking technique per rank.
Vets and Youths: I kind of want a way to distinguish this in a way that feels 'fair'. I've been thinking about allowing Vet's to gain all the starting advantages but the special arcane background, instead getting a more focused, but less powerful arcane BG- they would be far more skilled and powerful starting off, but weaker in the long run. Probably, they'd have less power points, but a single controlling skill, and less powers over all. It would make them very GOOD with the power they had though. Just not having as much potential as the youth, which is the usual route of such things.
A Flexible Setting: Anime runs a gamut of genre's so no setting can be appropriate for everything. I think of things like Tenchi Muyo when I think broad- there's space, aliens, demons, magic, super powers, a little of everything. But it's not Savage at all, it's far too fluffy. Savage makes me think of Berserk, but that's just low fantasy. I'd love for a game to really fit things like Trigun, Cowboy Bebop, Gunsword X, and a few other types of shows with a nice ensemble cast.
My first try was the idea of a school that trained Earth's next generation of superhuman children after the Power Wars (a war fought with superpowers) destroyed most of Earth's infrastructure, leaving a large underground population of children, who are growing into teenagers, as the largest superhuman population in the world. Hijinks, calamity, and world saving ensue from the various Battle Schools.
The second idea I tried to throw around was one where a Colony Ship has flown away from a wrecked Earth to establish a new home on a colony world. Only the colony world seems to be on the rocks when they get there, small patches of lawless human civilization, lots of monsters, superhuman gangsters, etc. The young Colonial Troopers, using the disciplines of Martial Arts, Super Science, and Magic, must work to save this wrecked world and discover the hidden evil that plagues it. Kind of a Space Exalted feel.
No third idea at this point, but I really do want to figure out what would be better. The first seems more ready for some light hearted antics, while the second feels a little too close to the Phantasy Star series.
Really, my biggest obstacle is setting. I may post on this elsewhere to find some opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)