Lords and Ladies Game Design
-
@Faraday I think I get what you’re saying and I agree with that perspective. Rolls should not be a crutch to make up for not being able to play a concept properly. They can help drive RP and perhaps point you in directions you hadn’t considered, but they definitely can’t make fundamentally poor roleplay enjoyable.
And yes, someone shouldn’t be able to play a character poorly but then fall back on “But my +roll says yes” as if that overrides everything else. There’s definitely some murky water where playing poorly because someone doesn’t care (and isn’t even trying) crosses over with someone who is genuinely doing their best to play the concept well but might need some mechanical support.
I think the ideal is when dice mechanics enhance good-faith roleplay efforts rather than replacing them. A player genuinely trying to portray a brilliant tactician might benefit from dice mechanics that help bridge the gap, while someone just going through the motions and expecting the dice to do all the heavy lifting is missing the point of collaborative storytelling.
-
@Raistlin said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
A player genuinely trying to portray a brilliant tactician might benefit from dice mechanics that help bridge the gap, while someone just going through the motions and expecting the dice to do all the heavy lifting is missing the point of collaborative storytelling.
The counterargument is the equally bad-faith ‘oops, you wrote one wrong word in your pose, which you may or may not have OOCly known would destroy the whole thing, so we’re going to pretend the character rolled a botch instead of looking at how many successes are on the dice’
-
@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.
-
I am not going to live up to @Roz 's praise of me, but I do have thoughts. So many thoughts. I will not share them all.
But I will say that I absolutely agree with what was up above - you need to distinguish what matters to you about a L&L game. I want a political game, and my biases are towards systems that promote and perpetuate a political game. The degree to which lords, ladies, fancy balls, or fashion are involved is very irrelevant to me. In fact, one of my never-gonna-happen “would love” MU* games is a political game centered around a free city with power split between elected citizens, powerful merchants often from outside the city, crafting guilds, and the mercenary forces the city needs to keep from getting eaten by outside powers. Balls and parties would probably still be involved, but they’re not the draw to me, even though I know that they are the primary draw to a lot of other folk. The Prince/ss fantasy is real and valid!
That said, my other bias is systemic - I absolutely think you need a mechanized system for political play so that people can risk actual (in game) resources on their goals, and gain or lose those resources. But if you’re looking to make a sustainable system, it also has to be cyclical and avoid either the death spiral where a character can lose everything and have no way of getting it back, or the dominance spiral where someone can amass enough power that they effectively will never be able to lose enough power to fall off the top spot. Players are going to naturally try to accumulate all the power and influence they can in a game, and while some folk absolutely do play “for the story” and will set themselves up for major losses or reversals, those folk are not a large enough segment of the population to keep a power structure from stagnating.
There are a lot of different ways to build a system - dice are easy, but it doesn’t HAVE to involve dice. But my three principles for it are:
- There has to be meaningful in game stakes involved that PCs have influence over. (Maybe not sole influence, but PCs need agency.)
- There has to be scarcity in resources so that no one PC or group of PCs can be self-contained.
- There has to be mechanics to resolve meaningful conflicts and the loss/gain of resources.
- There should be mechanics built into the system that make it hard to maintain dominance or be stuck in perpetual failure. Floating somewhere in the middle should be relatively easy for those players who really want to just play fantasy rich people and hang out.
The specifics of what those things LOOK like? There’s five million ways to do it, you just have to think about what conflicts you want to promote and what resources you want players to focus on.
-
@Pyrephox said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
I am not going to live up to @Roz 's praise of me, but I do have thoughts.
Joke’s on you, you always live up to my praise
-
@Faraday said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
I’ve just literally seen too many cases through the years where people will do something like RP the worst line imaginable and think that a +roll Con or +roll Seduction should somehow make that work. For me, it doesn’t. If you can’t even get in the ballpark of portraying a convincing con artist, maybe that’s just not the right role for you.
Exactly.
In tabletop it’s pretty ordinary for a GM to say, “Woah, hold on, roll intelligence,” and then inform the player (on success) that their scheme is flawed and why, and help them come up with a good one. It’s harder to do that on a MU, where play continues without the GM watching.
I’ve had this experience where some PC was supposed to be, and statted to be, incredibly observant and cunning. The player, however, wasn’t, or wasn’t paying attention. So the PC did dumb shit. Then the GM fudged things so they worked out. Sounds kinda fair, and it’s not even PvP. But like Faraday says, it’s jarring. And hard to RP around. The PC is supposed to be Machiavelli, but what I see is Mr. Magoo.
"This is Liberty Hall; you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard!"
– A. Bertram Chandler -
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
The PC is supposed to be Machiavelli, but what I see is Mr. Magoo.
So Magoo, it’s Machiavellian
-
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
The PC is supposed to be Machiavelli, but what I see is Mr. Magoo.
One sort of sub-genre I like is the clueless/misinformed protagonist ending up being attributed masterful abilities. Things like Demon Lord, Retry, Please Let This Grieving Soul Retire, or The Eminence in Shadow. Or something like the Ciaphas Cain series (though that is less that Cain is clueless rather than a complete coward).
That is sort of the inverse of what you’re talking about here, but I wonder if the same sort of idea could be applied with the characters attributing amazing plotting abilities to the bit after-the-fact even if the players all know that what happened was ludicrous.
It’d take cooperation with others, of course, and the person playing the fluffed character would have to be pretty up-front about their inability to actually be Machiavelli, but it could be an interesting roleplay challenge.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
In tabletop it’s pretty ordinary for a GM to say, “Woah, hold on, roll intelligence,” and then inform the player (on success) that their scheme is flawed and why, and help them come up with a good one. It’s harder to do that on a MU, where play continues without the GM watching.
Yeah totally. And also that sort of thing is less jarring in tabletop because it’s far more common to just give the broad outlines of a plan, like “I try to convince the guard that I’m part of the cleaning crew ((rolls dice for bluff))”. That just doesn’t work as well on a MU where the RP is typically more down in the weeds.
Of course you have to handwave sometimes, but my issue with social conflict (back to the topic at hand) is that you tend to be handwaving, like, the core of the RP.
Something like @Roadspike suggested could be a decent compromise though. Being able to influence NPCs, gossip, etc. without having to make PCs behave in a certain way. It’s one thing to inflict something upon a character (“you’ve been hit in the head” or “there’s a mean rumour swirling about you”), it’s another to control that character’s thoughts and actions.
-
@STD That sounds like it’d be hilarious and good fun.
I think of that short-lived TV 1990’s show Strange Luck where the protagonist is invariably drawn into things and solves them via a series of weird coincidences. The only one I can actually remember was him finding a glass eye in a can of beans, and later in the show dropping it and narrowly avoiding getting shot because he bends down to pick it up.
-
@Faraday I do remember a WoD +rumour system that I think was good – you rolled to see what rumours you heard. You rolled to see how easy it would be for another PC to hear a rumour you started. You could attempt to change that difficulty by boosting or quelling the rumour. You could investigate rumours and roll to see if you could find out who had started, boosted, quelled or investigated the rumour.
It might have seemed wonky if there was somebody who was really good at those rolls, but in RP nobody listened to them or told them anything. But it did put a sort of buffer-layer simply by making it not so immediately obvious.
Sometimes I’ve found even the “your social conflict dice work on NPCs, PCs react to your RP” jarring. 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. Though really, this sort of thing may have less to do with social-stats and their use and more to do with players who want to play total assholes but not the consequences of assholery.
"This is Liberty Hall; you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard!"
– A. Bertram Chandler -
I had an idea awhile back for a system where characters would be able to acquire social Influence points through role-playing events such as hosting a ball, or spending large quantities of in-game cash on “gifts”, or winning a battle, etc. These points could then be spent on influencing the NPCs of the world. Player social battles however would be resolved as 5 hands of Texas Hold-em with the currency being Influence points. No dice involved, but some real player skill with bluffing, betting strategy, etc.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
I think of that short-lived TV 1990’s show Strange Luck where the protagonist is invariably drawn into things and solves them via a series of weird coincidences. The only one I can actually remember was him finding a glass eye in a can of beans, and later in the show dropping it and narrowly avoiding getting shot because he bends down to pick it up.
I think I remember that show. One bit I remember from it is that he would buy scratch-off tickets and always win the exact amount he needed to pay for a meal.
I also vaguely remember an episode involving a guy incorrectly on Death Row and scheduled to be electrocuted at midnight. The main character winds up tracking down the REAL culprit (who is remorseful to the point of attempting suicide), attempts to get to the prison to stop the execution, but instead ends up crashing into an electric pole… which electrocutes the actual culprit while saving the falsely convicted innocent man.
But, yes, stuff like that.
Demon Lord, Retry is especially good for that sort of thing because the titular demon lord is a both a complete conman yet also constantly insists that none of the coincides that happen around him are a result of meticulous planning (which all the other characters immediately assume is the case, especially when he denies it).
-
@STD oh god. Now I really want to work up a homebrew for my table-top game and do a Strange Luck game, where all the PCs have Strange Luck, and every time you roll anything you also roll for Strange Luck first, it’s just a pass fail, pass and the whole table quickly brainstorms some extremely unlikely result for your attempt. And there’s a timer set for a some random length of time between five minutes and half an hour, and every time it goes off you get another bit of Strange Luck. I wonder how far we’d actually get.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
@STD oh god. Now I really want to work up a homebrew for my table-top game and do a Strange Luck game, where all the PCs have Strange Luck, and every time you roll anything you also roll for Strange Luck first, it’s just a pass fail, pass and the whole table quickly brainstorms some extremely unlikely result for your attempt. And there’s a timer set for a some random length of time between five minutes and half an hour, and every time it goes off you get another bit of Strange Luck. I wonder how far we’d actually get.
That actually sounds really fun!
Though rather than a timer, you could do something like Fate points, where you get Strange Luck points for roleplaying certain things or accepting story complications or setbacks.
-
@STD I’d make the players (it is a big group) all roll 5d6 and write the total on a card, shuffle them and give them back to me and set the timer on my phone with the results but not tell them that’s what happened. But of /course/ it should have Fate points or their ilk.
But your ordinary before-you-roll SL roll doesn’t give you good or bad luck, just strange, so you still roll your attempt, you just succeed or fail in a strange way. You roll to search for clues in the room, you get strange luck and a success, you skid on the rug after being startled by a pigeon that’s in here for some undetermined reason, and uncover the hidden chamber. If you don’t get SL, you just look under the rug. Maybe if you get SL and fail you can spend one of your Fate points to make Strange Luck turn your failure to success, while if you don’t get SL and fail you must spend two.
ETA: Better yet, you roll a FATE system D6 when you get Strange luck, to determine if it’s good, bad, or neutral.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
The PC is supposed to be Machiavelli, but what I see is Mr. Magoo.
If I had a dollar for every instance the way someone perceived a character or the way a character is being played is wildly different from how it appears in their sheet & background, I’d be running DOGE.
Heck, I’m guilty of playing a character in a way that isn’t remotely how I’ve described them. Many many times.
It’s just a difference in perception. What one person perceives to be the actions of a genius is another person’s Johnny Bravo.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
PC was supposed to be, and statted to be, incredibly observant and cunning. The player, however, wasn’t, or wasn’t paying attention. So the PC did dumb shit. Then the GM fudged things so they worked out. Sounds kinda fair, and it’s not even PvP. But like Faraday says, it’s jarring. And hard to RP around. The PC is supposed to be Machiavelli, but what I see is Mr. Magoo.
-
@Gashlycrumb said in Lords and Ladies Game Design:
Sometimes I’ve found even the “your social conflict dice work on NPCs, PCs react to your RP” jarring. 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. Though really, this sort of thing may have less to do with social-stats and their use and more to do with players who want to play total assholes but not the consequences of assholery.
It’s fair to find that jarring, but there are a number of ways to deal with it.
You could try to figure out where the disconnect is. Is Abel just doing a spectacularly bad job of playing in line with his dice? Maybe he needs some help. Maybe there’s some kind of miscommunication. Who knows.
Or it could just be that the other PCs are reacting entirely appropriately from their character’s POV and what you have is just that the PCs are the outliers in society. You can then make clear through NPCs, plots, +rumours/IC news/whatever that Abel is in fact loved by the populace and the PCs are out of step with society at large. This could potentially lead them to some interesting RP and/or conflicts.
Regardless, I see no justification for forcing another PC to love Abel just because he’s got good dice.
-
@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.
