@eddie I was going to go off on a bunch of your earlier points, but several others already got there with very similar things to what I was going to say. Plus… Woah… I just got to this post:

@eddie said in Star Wars Age of Alliances: Hadrix and Cujo:

Truth of the matter is…

And I’m pretty sure that your own story tells us everything we need to know about you. You “invested” time, effort, and in-game currency into something and didn’t get the attention of a player you were interested in, the attention that you felt was your due.

You realize that putting in time, effort, and money into another person without a business deal involved is called “being a friend,” right? And that you aren’t owed anything for it? Particularly not anything of a sexual nature? There is no ROI on being a friend to someone, you do what you do because they’re your friend, not because you’re going to get something out of it.

@sao This isn’t a direct reply to you, but you were the last one on the thread talking about this subject. For me, it’s the difference between “I don’t distrust you” and “I don’t trust you.” I’ll play on a game with Staff that I don’t distrust. I may not fully trust them, but I’m willing to offer them the chance to earn that trust. I will not play on a game where I don’t trust Staff. That is for the people who have already burned me or someone who I do trust.

And I agree that life is too short for the stress of “do I trust this person I’ve put in a position of power over my fun or not,” and this has only gotten more true as my life has gotten more full.

@Apos Agreed. Any time that someone asks me to define a term that should be common knowledge, I assume that they are just looking for clearly delineated rules that they can push the envelope on and then claim that they’re not breaking the actual rules.

Everyone should know what “creepy” means, and if they can’t avoid it, then they can’t play on any game I run.

Like a few of the previous posters, I couldn’t finish reading the log. It was disgusting. The use of the Luck point to gaslight a character “because it’s funny” was particularly heinous.

Apart from and beyond the horrific content, I also found the future-imperfect tense (or whatever ‘will’ and ‘would’ and the like are) posing grating.

Sorry, @Cobalt, that you had to deal with that, but also thank you for dealing with it so that it didn’t continue (even if it led to you closing your game down).

The parent(s) of student(s) at my district were picked up by ICE and detained. The student(s) are with family, but it’s still shaking up this tiny-ass rural, progressive island community. And it’s shaking up me too even if I’m white as Wonder Bread.

When you’ve got your brain-weasels going full-bore, and then someone reaches out about RP, and those nasty scratchy bitey things quiet down for a little bit.

@Pavel I get that you’re trying to take the most generous interpretation, and I was too – until I got to the talk about ROI. I completely understand being disappointed that a storyline didn’t work out how I wanted it to, how I planned for it to. I get that, it’s happened to me, and it’s sucked.

But, unless there was some specific agreement, no one should be talking about return on investment in interpersonal relations unless it’s some version of Prue Leith’s “It’s not worth the calories” where you’re deciding that the other person isn’t worth your time and so you’re disengaging yourself.

To expect a particular return on your investment from the other person, particularly where romantic RP/TS is involved… that’s way too close to “I bought her dinner and drinks, I deserve sex” for my comfort.

As for the other situation that @eddie mentioned – I really feel for them about that one. That sounds like an uncomfortable situation, and a boundary that they set properly and which was then crossed by another player. That’s not cool at all.

To me, the core of a Lords & Ladies game is that characters are grouped by families or groups that are competing for influence and prestige within a larger feudal or semi-feudal structure – and that the characters are influential people within the setting.

Now, this could be:

• wayfinders who lead family canoes between Polynesian islands, competing for pride of place
• competing cyberpunk megacorps all under a Corporate Court – so long as the PCs were high-level executives at the corps, rather than disposable espionage operatives
• knights and barons and viscountesses living in fantasy castles
• mafia families under a capo di tutti capi
• technoknights and starship captains in a semi-feudal, multi-system space empire
• daimyo and geisha in the Shogunate (or a fantasy version thereof)
• minor landed gentry in Victorian England (or a fantasy version thereof)

I don’t think that pseudo-European matters, but I agree that combat is usually going to be a means to gather influence or prestige rather than the point in and of itself.

I would actually love to see a Lords & Ladies game using FS3 autocombat for attacks on reputation – leave any physical combat to just straight rolls, because it’s just not as important as the social maneuvering.

@Pyrephox said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

There are patterns of abuse that can really on be seen AS A PATTERN, because each individual incident is small and easily dismissed.

This is why reporting even just “a creepy feeling” is so important. More than once, I have gotten reports from multiple players (and noticed myself) that a player was giving off a creepy vibe, testing those boundaries with people. When confronted, the creep revealed themselves via their responses and were removed – after they were removed, several additional people came forward to say that they had been targeted.

If you are being victimized by someone, chances are that you are not alone in this. If I (as Staff) get one report of someone being generally creepy, I’ll watch them more closely, but if I get four reports from people in three different playgroups? Yeah, that person’s probably gone, even if each of the reports is just “felt like they were pushing boundaries.” Unless it’s obvious, I’ll talk with the prospective creep, but it’s definitely going to be easier a) to be direct with them about the problem, and b) to obfuscate those reporting the problem, if I have multiple reports.

@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:

I think handling intrigue with dice-mechanics is kind of a problem.

This is always going to be one of the biggest debates in MU*ing. I have many thoughts about it, but I think there’s a way to avoid that entirely:

Have dice determine affects on reputation (which I would use like health in an L&L game), but not interpersonal RP. So there’s no “convince another PC to support your cause by throwing dice at them” and there’s no “fantastic RPer with crap dice wrecks everyone around them despite having the stats of a mostly-dead tortoise.”

Have social dice work on Society, but not on PCs. So even if Lord Cantwrite blathers on about “toxic ruffle syndrome,” in his pose, if he’s got the dice (and presumably the background) to back it up, he can cause people to look in askance at Lord Rufflelover, at least for a while. This might be because Lord Cantwrite’s mommy is a Duchess, or it could be because he’s well-known to have influence at Court… whatever the case, Lord Rufflelover can still stand up to Lord Cantwrite’s bullying, but Society is going to notice Lord Cantwrite’s disapproval, and Lord Rufflelover’s suit for Lady Biginheritance’s hand might suffer until he can do some damage control.

@Jennkryst I would probably let it sit organically for a little while (whether that’s a few days or a week), and then put up a time limit warning (about the same length of time) after that. Mostly that’s just because I would rather teach people to react on their own, rather than wait for a prompt, but I recognize that sometimes the prompt is necessary.

I always want to keep in mind that I want to reward the behavior that I want to see, so giving those who respond on their own a little bonus (and letting them know it) would be reasonable.

Agree with @MisterBoring’s note that some people will complain even if you reach out and ask them directly to intervene… and you’re never going to please those people. And there is value to @Jennkryst’s yeetable sign.

I think that there are several interconnected issues at play here in how PCs interact with plot:

• Plot Hoarders who don’t like to share because they want to do all of the things.
• Making sure that NPCs aren’t being used when there are PCs to get the spotlight.
• Making sure that plot doesn’t get hung up due to inactivity and just linger.
• People who “should” have been involved in the plot not hearing about it.

At their core, it feels like where this becomes particularly applicable to L&L games is where you have a feudal basis, so the Lord of Crakehall really should be brought in to deal with things happening around Crakehall, but if the player is idle or not in the right crowd, someone else might come in and fix the issue, even if that would “never happen” ICly. A good Staff team with good players can rationalize this away well enough, but one bad apple will spoil the whole rationalization and turn it into a morass of blame and disgruntlement.

I think that an effective way to deal with this is what was referenced above but not quite laid out directly: a chain of impact.

So if there are zombie coyotes in the Westwood, then Staff first has some folks at the lowest tier of PCs run into them (squires, unlanded knights, nobles out of direct succession, etc). If those PCs report it up the chain, then everything is good and Staff doesn’t have to intervene further except to run scenes for folks as the problem gets passed up (and hopefully back down) the chain. The Captain of the Guard is warned, assigns several PC guards to deal with it, reports up to the Head of House who adds a noble leader to the group and a few NPCs who will serve as off-screen beaters to bring the zombie coyotes to the PCs. Excellent. When the Captain of the Guard is warned, a bbpost goes up, so if some nobles are often in the Westwood for other reasons, they can reach out to you to see how they could be involved. If there’s a Bandit King of the Westwood… well, hopefully you reached out to him and his people at the same time as the squires, but if not, he can get involved now too. You have some social scenes and some hunting scenes, and your plot is off to the races.

If, on the other hand, the squires never report the zombie coyotes (they’re idle or hogging plot or whatever), then the Captain of the Guard gets an official report from a hunter that there are zombie coyotes in the Westwood attacking hunting parties (slight escalation from the first incident), and now hopefully the rest of the plot works as above (and the squires get chastised ICly for not saying anything if it was a choice they made). If the Captain of the Guard doesn’t do anything either, then there’s a bbpost about an attack on an outlying village, or maybe random nobles are pulled in for a picnic that goes horribly wrong. Either way, the Head of House is now involved (whether they’re a PC or an NPC), with bigger consequences because two levels of folks haven’t handled the problem, and your plot can continue. And if the bbposts go out when it’s still a problem, not a solved one, then your Westwood-frequenting PCs can either ask to get involved at that stage, or can integrate the incidents into their RP and stay uninvolved otherwise.

As for the tangential problem of having NPCs do the work of PCs, I think that this can be addressed directly and OOCly by Staff to the PCs who control those NPCs. If your Captain of the Guards puts in a request to have a group of NPC guards go out and hunt down the zombie coyotes, a note that they have PC guards who might like to be involved, and that the plot can hold for a few days while they reach out to those other PCs, should handle that. Of course, if a couple of the PC guards were the first ones to encounter the zombie coyotes, they’re already involved, and are likely to want to stay involved – hopefully they’ll be working with the Captain of the Guards to pursue the plotline.

I feel like if there’s a system to allow a character to affect the world with dice, they’re great. If there’s an attempt to allow a character to affect another PC with dice… I’d prefer not to.

@Gashlycrumb Then don’t let PCs app into immediate positions of power. Create a setting where your succession rules are flexible, and have the Faction Heads and their current #2s be NPCs to start with, and then move people up as they “prove” to the players and staff that they’re worthy of it.

Heck, that would even allow for some in-faction competition as opposed to only between factions. And if the succession rules are flexible enough, you can encourage rising above people rather than killing them off to get ahead.

@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:

If Abelard has enormous influence in ‘society’ and everybody loves him based on his dice, but every single PC thinks he’s an insufferable prick and an idiot, it’s rough.

See this just tells me that Society doesn’t actually “love” him, but they fear his family’s influence (or the dastardly things he’s done to others, or even that he’ll get his stink of failure on them) so they let him do what he wants. The PCs, being special as PCs are, might stand up to Abelard despite his influence on Society.

@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:

I think handling intrigue with dice-mechanics is kind of a problem.

This is always going to be one of the biggest debates in MU*ing. I have many thoughts about it, but I think there’s a way to avoid that entirely:

Have dice determine affects on reputation (which I would use like health in an L&L game), but not interpersonal RP. So there’s no “convince another PC to support your cause by throwing dice at them” and there’s no “fantastic RPer with crap dice wrecks everyone around them despite having the stats of a mostly-dead tortoise.”

Have social dice work on Society, but not on PCs. So even if Lord Cantwrite blathers on about “toxic ruffle syndrome,” in his pose, if he’s got the dice (and presumably the background) to back it up, he can cause people to look in askance at Lord Rufflelover, at least for a while. This might be because Lord Cantwrite’s mommy is a Duchess, or it could be because he’s well-known to have influence at Court… whatever the case, Lord Rufflelover can still stand up to Lord Cantwrite’s bullying, but Society is going to notice Lord Cantwrite’s disapproval, and Lord Rufflelover’s suit for Lady Biginheritance’s hand might suffer until he can do some damage control.

To me, the core of a Lords & Ladies game is that characters are grouped by families or groups that are competing for influence and prestige within a larger feudal or semi-feudal structure – and that the characters are influential people within the setting.

Now, this could be:

• wayfinders who lead family canoes between Polynesian islands, competing for pride of place
• competing cyberpunk megacorps all under a Corporate Court – so long as the PCs were high-level executives at the corps, rather than disposable espionage operatives
• knights and barons and viscountesses living in fantasy castles
• mafia families under a capo di tutti capi
• technoknights and starship captains in a semi-feudal, multi-system space empire
• daimyo and geisha in the Shogunate (or a fantasy version thereof)
• minor landed gentry in Victorian England (or a fantasy version thereof)

I don’t think that pseudo-European matters, but I agree that combat is usually going to be a means to gather influence or prestige rather than the point in and of itself.

I would actually love to see a Lords & Ladies game using FS3 autocombat for attacks on reputation – leave any physical combat to just straight rolls, because it’s just not as important as the social maneuvering.

@helvetica I’ve poked at mechs vs mechs and mechs vs kaiju combat on FS3, and it can definitely work. But changing types (ie, hitlocation charts) during combat would be very difficult.

I would still love to do a Pacific Rim-style mechs vs kaiju game.

The parent(s) of student(s) at my district were picked up by ICE and detained. The student(s) are with family, but it’s still shaking up this tiny-ass rural, progressive island community. And it’s shaking up me too even if I’m white as Wonder Bread.

@Tez said in Metaplot: What and How:

How often did you get players running things?

I don’t remember off-hand, but I’d say it was probably somewhere around 75-25 Staff-run and player-run for straight up combat scenes. But this could also be because I had just fallen in love with the FS3 combat system and was running a ton of scenes.

Seeding plot points to PrPs has to be done carefully, and if I’m being blunt, only with trusted plot-runners. On The Savage Skies we had a few player-run-plots that went off the rails and had to be reined back in via minor retcons. I would only provide metaplot seeds to plot-runners who have demonstrated a good handle on the basic setting, and only then after having an explicit back-and-forth conversation so that they knew what they were introducing and at least some of why they were introducing it.

@Tez said in Metaplot: What and How:

Did you get a feel from players or any feedback as to how the political side worked for them?

There were certainly players who were chasing that side of things pretty hard. Interestingly, it was particularly the players who were on the side gaining power who were chasing after it, because they knew they weren’t doing anything, and yet their side was still gaining power and influence and they wanted to know who was doing it and why. Knowing players in general, I expect that they would have found the person who was gathering the power and done their best to shut them down – and I think they would have succeeded, but it would have caused a power vacuum in the Crown Council that would have caused short-term chaos in the war effort (but probably would have come out ahead in the long term).

@Tez said in Metaplot: What and How:

TWOP definition

I had only tangentially heard of this source (Television Without Pity?). I think that my definitions came from working in gaming companies (tabletop and video) where there are some things that are immutable or relatively immutable (setting) and some things that can change with the story being told (metaplot). Looking at the wikipedia definition of metaplot, I don’t think that I disagree with the first two sentences at all:

The metaplot (also, metastory) is the overarching storyline that binds together events in the official continuity of a published role-playing game campaign setting, also defined as an “evolving history of a given fictional universe”. Major official story events that change the world, or simply move important non-player characters from one place to another, are part of the metaplot for a game.

I definitely think that that’s talking about metaplot – the events taking place in the setting that connect all the various storylines going on at once – rather than setting – the details of the world where the action is taking place – by my definitions.