Essentially, this game approach is saying that the more experienced a person becomes, the more difficult it is for them to learn anything new. A side-effect is that the system funnels players into one-dimensional concepts, because developing skills and gifts outside of the initial core takes so long that the game becomes no longer interesting. What's wrong with increasing the rate of earning for more experienced characters and pro-rating the scale accordingly? There are plenty of Lore requirements and other prerequesites that will govern the pace of advancement without putting a 'glass ceiling' on advancement points.

Am I way off-base here, or am I missing something? If I am, then I welcome other thoughts and opinions on the matter.

First, there is no ICA==ICC on this game.

Here, more formally, from the Consequences page:

Some MUSHes (and players) have a philosophy of "ICA = ICC" ("IC actions equal in IC consequences", used to describe a tenet that amounts to "if you did something IC that deserves punishment, you should suck up whatever punishment someone deems ICly logical"). We firmly reject that philosophy here. It's not about logic — it's about story, and consent always applies. There should certainly be consequences to one's actions — but those consequences should be fun and play-fostering. We feel it's the responsibility of all players to exercise the creativity necessary to make them so — and to exercise the good sportsmanship to ensure that other people can make consequences fun for them without having to twist their characters up in knots.

However, on the consent page, our actual right to consent is effectively limited to these four points:

• Always retaining control over your own character's actions
• Not playing with a certain other player
• Refusing to agree to something dealing with an offensive matter (such as rape)
• Refusing a particular RPG consequence (requiring negotiating an alternative consequence)

So why is refusing a consequence in order to negotiate something more fun to play…."whining"? And in the absence of an actual +compare, how do rules of consequences and consent apply anyway?

Some people will inform you bluntly that they don't believe in consent, and will slap you with whatever they feel they have the authority to do IC. When this happens, any appeal to the pre-existing conflict resolution structure is of very little use. And many situations don't lend themselves to a +compare regardless. Or perhaps, the player base does not know how to make use of that structure. Or doesn't think to use it.

I myself have never yet seen storybuilding used even once (although I've no doubt it has been, I've just never been privy to it.) I have never seen the +compare system used to take a non-combat conflict (such as two people arguing IC to the point they're becoming upset OOC) out of the realm of emotion, so it can be resolved without people just logging out, or damaging a playgroup. I would not know how to lodge a reasonable protest, as described on the protest page, to negotiate a more fun alternative consequence……without perhaps derailing an entire scene at the expense of multiple people, and looking like a whiner in the bargain.

One can of course always just walk away. And one can avoid other players or groups with which one is not compatible. Too much of that, and my mental picture is of hell, as described by C.S. Lewis (in The Great Divorce), people moving further and further apart from each other until each one lives quite alone). One can closet one's self up with those few players one trusts (smaller as time goes by, and playgroups fragment as they always do). The game structure is supposed to facilitate inter-group play, by taking conflict and putting it on things, not on people, to take it out of "I win, you lose" and into "We're having fun together."

I wonder if we need more examples of how to use the conflict system for non-combat conflicts. For example:

Character A wants a relationship, which would be fun to play and maybe even character-developing, etc. A's propco/boss/lord/whatever (B) has forbidden it. There are probably good reasons for it IC, but from A's point of view OOC this simply stifles his play without giving him anything in exchange - no *other* play, just limitations. Maybe there are arguments about it IC (or OOC), which result in bad feelings and avoidance after. Or maybe there are no arguments, just bad feelings and avoidance.

A can always defy 'B' and play what he is fun for him anyway, but then ICA==ICC seems to apply, and you're back to the question of 'just exactly what consequences are reasonable without even MORE play being stifled' and 'how much say does the A have in negotiating an enjoyable, yet true consequence'?

Is there ANY way to bring this into the realm of game-designed conflict-resolution, so that A has some possibility of pressing his case in a dispassionate way, maybe even changing B's mind? And so that if there are consequences, they are guided by the conflict system, and not left to trust and compatible ideas of fun?

It also seems like it should be possible to use a resource to get a group of thugs who are better than you at a given stat. If I'm a typical Evil Weakling Mastermind (Wits-10, Force/Resolve-3, for example), one would think I could use my Evil Henchmen resource(TM) to get a group of Force-6 thugs to go beat someone up. (Thugs aren't known for their Wits.)

I think that indirect conflicts just take a lot of negotiation to figure out what model to use in any given situation. Sometimes a +compare, but other times a +challenge, or just plain negotiation and skip the mechanics. From a story point of view, these kinds of scenes are often more "set-up" than "culmination" anyways.

There's something I've been meaning to ask, and now seems a good time: Is there a way to "fake-down" a stat?

If you handwave-handwave research that allows you to learn Lore level X…..then you not only have it, but you have it on your +sheet. In other words, you officially have it and can if necessary prove that you know it, just as you would do with any other sort of gift or token or other RPG-related ability, knowledge, or item.

If however you learn information IC from somebody else who has that lore….of course you *have* it, but its possession is not reflected in your +sheet. Some GMed plots and scenes are designed *specifically* to distribute information that would otherwise be acquired through the purchase of Lores. Is it possible or desirable for - at the end of such a plot or scene, for the GM to drop the staff a note saying something like:

In plot thus-and-such, on date blah, char1 char2 char3 and char4 learned Lore X to level Y, through RP.

Those lores might then even be added to those characters' sheets (with or without cost - I would think without cost, personally, as my understanding is that the expenditure of Focus represents time spent….and RP *is* actual time spent) to reflect this knowledge. And of course, that report of participating and learning would HAVE to come from a GM for a verifiable scene or plot, so you wouldn't have Joe Fulano claiming "Oh yeah, I taught my friend this, jack up his sheet please".

I bring this up because I recently spent…what was it, something like 12 Focus to buy up a level of a Lore, which upon reading….I discovered I already knew a month ago through RP. I felt those Focus points might have been better spent elsewhere, to learn something I didn't already know. Except that I didn't know I already knew that secret, because (of course) you can't read those secrets until you've paid for them.

Thoughts?

I've been RPing now for over 30 years. Obviously, not all of that was online in a MU* setting. Actually, very little until about 3 years ago, starting with AmberMUSH. So, most of my RP has been in tabletop/face-to-face (F2F) gaming. I'm not sure about others' experience, but in all this, we really never had major conflict between players — it was all players vs. NPCs run by the GM. Of course, that's easy to do in this format. And, it probably is encouraged by the fact that we rarely ran in large groups, and we rarely played in "open" settings — we RP'ed among friends only. Interpersonal conflict between PCs was generally kept to a minimum. Thus… that is really my "norm" for RP. I have been, and still am, far more interested in PvE (player vs environment) rather than PvP (player vs. player) play.

I can't be certain, and maybe I'll get a few replies about this, but I would guess that maybe a lot of long-time MU* players have taken PvP to heart, as MU*s tend to be PC-centric. So unless players made NPCs for a TP, conflict between PCs was much more common.

I agree that conflict drives story. But I think that is too broad a statement. There are many flavors of conflicts, not the least of which is internal conflict. And I see MUs trying to drive conflict, because, yes, without it, there's only coffeeshop RP. That's not to say that such isn't fun, but just that it is ultimately limiting.

But the problem as I see it, is that the current trend in popular storytelling is to have rather one-sided conflict. In fact, I'll go on to say that popular storytelling is more like PvE than PvP. The conflict is generally shown only from the perspective of the "good" guy. And, while there are bumps in the road, the "good" guy always wins. For better or worse, adaptations of books to movies tend to emphasize this (often much to the author's chagrin).

So, getting back to RPGs and MU*s, I think this is why efforts to promote conflict feel like they are pushing a rock up a hill. In fact, looking at the current crop of graphical MMOGs, I think we see similar trends — easy content, low penalties, optional PvP. I think the idea to make conflict indirect, and about "things", can only have limited success. It might work if such conflict is mainly minor — competition for some minor ebb and flow. But once it becomes major, or if there's any personal investment by a PC in a prop, such things escalate quickly. In fact, a major tenet of storytelling is that you hurt a hero not by attacking them, but by attacking that which they hold dear. Thus, the distinction between a direct and indirect conflict will likely be lost.

And like I said, I guess I fall into the happy-ending crowd too, though I am not opposed to bad things happening in-between. From my viewpoint, I would be more happy with lots of player-run stories where the opposition was an NPC villain. Maybe it makes me a wimp, or maybe I'm not suited to the MU* environment, or maybe it relegates me to "color" play, but I really have very little interest in PvP conflict, direct or indirect.

I'm concerned with the continued - and ever less optional - press toward the use of tokens, resources, gifts, lores, and other code-heavy aspects of the system as it is developing. While I think I understand the purpose (to simulate limited resources and abilities, and keep people honest about what they actually have), I see the system morphing more into a trading game or even a kind of +sheet arms race - where unpopular characters, characters whose players have less time to play, or characters whose players find the OOC system unwieldy or simply not an enhancement to their RP, will "lose" – and less about having fun telling stories together. I’m worried: after all, it’s the love of Amber and RP that brought me here in the first place…not this RPG system, or any other RPG system.

The welcome page of the wiki also says the game isn’t about winning and losing, which means we can just play for color if we want. But the more heavily the system is tweaked toward code, the harder it seems to be to play for color. There are already points at which it feels as though choosing to play color is tantamount to “choosing” to find a creative way to be the loser – not because it makes the best story, or even because it’s fun, but because the system leaves no other choice, and that this is progressively more true as time goes on.

I want to believe that this game is a level playing field for people who play for the joy of color as well as those who thrill to finessing the details of the system. Is that true? And if so, what is the best way to navigate so everyone has the maximum fun possible?

Resource Gifts - A 'Personal Resource' costs the IC owner of the prop 5 points for a special gift. I'm assuming by 'Personal' you mean Level 1 Resource props.

- Does everyone have to pay this cost? IE, would each house Lord be required to pay 5 points for their House?
- Do higher potency resources cost more?
- If you don't pay for Potency 2 and above, what happens when you build up your Resource from 1 to 2? Do you get the points back?
- Earlier reports were that Resources weren't going to require Gifts (and thus costing points). Why the change?

Potency 0 - Okay, so making an 'effort' token is Potency 0.

- Just what does that mean? You put 3 points of focus into something that's effectively a 'color' token?

When someone uses a Gift, or a Resource, (or currently their own focus reserve) to produce a focus invested token, right now the mechanical burden is entirely on the person making the token. So, if Cyndre creates a token for Benedict representing a surplus of weapons and armor that he can apply to a battle, Cyndre's the one left holding the bag mechanically. Presumably, she's compensated in some form of IC currency. And, there's definitely the reward of RP in the process.

So, my question is how should one go about 'charging' for their services in a reasonable manner? The idea behind it is to create some sort of give and take that helps encourage using one's gifts on behalf of others, and /adds/ to the game.

Now that I read the write up more, two things stand out:

One is that every token placed on it should be the result of some action performed by you (at least, and can include other PCs or maybe NPCs you control—especially for support/oppose tokens). Information, or "influencing opinion" seems to be +gossip, that may eventually turn into a +flag.

Given how support/oppose tokens work to resolving the plot, and even how color tokens are used, it seems that GM (staff or player) consent should be needed to attach tokens. I think that it should take negotiation and consent to have the plot progress (or not). Perhaps every token placed on the flagpole needs a signature by the Author of the root token? That might be easier to check than having some approval handshake commands.

The question I would like to discuss is the amount of RP that should be accompanied to this. To me, Tokens and Gossip of NPCs are not really RP. They are part of the 'conflict resolution' tools or "RP stimulating" aids. In my opinion, there should always be RP to back them up.

But one thing I question is the use of focus in the process. To me, the negotiation done through the system is an OOC process, but focus use is an IC concept (as I understand it, you are applying your character's IC efforts towards something when you spend focus). To have your ability to respond based on the amount of focus you have seems like something that can be "gamed". One player tries to get the other to spend their focus under theirs where they can't respond to increasing demands at the end. Or… it bogs down as people wait for their focus to rebuild.

Or maybe I just don't understand it… which gets me to the second point. I'm unclear how this integrates with contests and wars, since it doesn't involve the determination of who "wins" a stage, but just the outcomes.

Maybe it's coming, or maybe we'll see it in playtest, but a fully fleshed out example of its use might answer this question.

It might be nice to look at all the commands, and try to have the same conceptual function use the same /option. For example, we have:

• +compare/ok and +war/accept
• +compare/deny and +war/reject
• +war/against and +conflict/init

From previous experience with options like /delete /remove (and /undraw), I find myself either getting it wrong, or having to look up +help all the time. I think that using a unified /option convention would be well appreciated.

I'm personally not in love with the @exitformat used on rooms. It looks nice… but to me, I find it very inconvenient in usage. The problem is that unless you really know a place, the cardinal directions have very little meaning. Sure, there is +compass, but if you end up having to +compass after most moves, it defeats the terseness, not to mention the inconvenience of having to enter the +compass command.

Maybe it's just me, but I've never found the more standard format to be hard to use or really very ugly. If most people like the new format, OK (I have a trigger and some softcode give me a full exit list after every look using the current format, so I can deal with it. :) )

We welcome feedback, whether positive or negative. Don't be afraid to raise issues — it's sufficient to state a problem, and we don't expect you to propose solutions. We want to understand why you feel particular ways about aspects of the game, whether those feelings are positive or negative — the more clarity you can bring to your explanation, the better.

We do, however, expect you to remain polite, both to your fellow players and to the staff. Please refrain from making personal attacks, or generic remarks like, "X idea is stupid" (unless you then go on to explain exactly why you think X is an ill-conceived idea, and even then, we'd prefer that you chose some more tactful way to express yourself0.