Alliance LARP: The Quest for Stuff

[Wraith]

Rune : I agree wholeheartedly with your premise, however I feel that it is an unfixable issue given that the people who have the most to lose by it being changed are the ones who get to vote on rules changes. The powerfully stuff-hording players who are also generally very loyal players are the ones who will keep paying to play as long as they're getting their shinies, so it is not in the business interest of the owners to change this policy just to make the game more casual player/newbie friendly.

I ask nicely, as I have in the past, that you not make blanket statements about the player base. Not everyone that "has things to lose" and lot of "shinies" are against changes. And not all the people who have a vote are against it. To insinuate the only reason people play is because they get their "shinies" is insulting to the idea of live action role-playing and the people who are working to improve things.

If you'll note, I didn't say they were against it, just that they have a business case to be so as anything that cuts into the playerbase they can count on to pay them every season is bad for finances. I don't know most of the owners, so I can't speak for what they are or aren't against. The bits about the unnamed and generalized stuffquesting populace are, on the other hand, from direct experience with players and my own desire not to name names and point fingers.

I'm sorry if you are offended by my having a negative opinion, though.

 

[Dreamingfurther]

The bits about the unnamed and generalized stuffquesting populace are, on the other hand, from direct experience with players and my own desire not to name names and point fingers.

I'm sorry if you are offended by my having a negative opinion, though.

Wraith I'm curious, when was the last time you played Alliance and had this direct (negative?) experience? And how many different chapters did you have it at? I'm honestly curious and you don't have to name names.

 

[Paladin of Death]

Please stick to the topic.

 

[James Trotta]

I think the elemental blade / magic blade / earth blade 10 minute spell helped here but I certainly agree that playing a high level fighter without a magic weapon can be frustrating. If we got rid of 'magic to hit' and immune to normal and silver weapons' and changed it to takes reduced damage from these things, would that help? People might still not get to go on certain mods if they lack the magic sword or whatever. But at least a 19th level fighter wouldn't be totally useless against certain monsters.

My desire is for a game where no one HAS TO have stuff to actively play the game at whatever lvl they are at.

Playing an -anything- in a game where the norm is high-level characters gets frustrating for this reason. Things that are scaled to be able to survive in an environment that contains wandering PCs of level 30+ will eat low-level (I am using 'levels 1-15' as low-level here, given the state of the game today) PCs alive while being mostly immune to anything they've got.

Remember that in this particular thread we're not talking about the hardships of low level characters. We're talking about a 19th level fighter that misses out on large segments of the game because the character didn't do enough stuff questing. A 19th level scholar doesn't have that problem. It's kind of funny, because overall I think fighters are the most overpowered class. But in the need for a special weapon to affect many of the monsters in the game, I do pity the fighter and the rogue.

I was a fighter back in Ashbury in the 90s, and we had the same problem then. The dude with the magic sword would get picked for the mod before the dude without. Back then, magic blade didn't last ten minutes, so that change is helpful but we still have a problem with fighters and rogues needing stuff in order to access the entire game.

 

[beboped]

So here's a challenge: Can anyone design a system which both empowers those who do enjoy the stuff-quest and does not force players who are not interested in it to participate? I would posit that any system which allows for an uncapped stuff-quest (i.e. not instituting hard limits on the number of usable MIs, etc) will inevitably create the need to scale assuming players have at least some of those MIs. This will then require the uninterested players to do stuff-questing to keep up with the minimum scale.

So the question here is actually very fundamental: Are the preferences of the stuff-questers or the non-stuff-questers more valid? What is the exact relationship of their validity? Answer those, and you can then design a system to implement that relationship. Unfortunately, everyone's answers are different. Right now, Alliance allows for a mostly-uncapped stuff-quest, while also providing avenues for dedicated players to side-step the stuff quest through gobby ritual purchasing. This is a balance in favor of the stuff-questers which doesn't entirely disenfranchise the non-stuff-questers. Could we tweak it? Sure, but you'll have to convince the voters that the current value judgments are wrong, and that the adjustments hew to a better value judgment.

 

[Alavatar]

So here's a challenge: Can anyone design a system which both empowers those who do enjoy the stuff-quest and does not force players who are not interested in it to participate? I would posit that any system which allows for an uncapped stuff-quest (i.e. not instituting hard limits on the number of usable MIs, etc) will inevitably create the need to scale assuming players have at least some of those MIs. This will then require the uninterested players to do stuff-questing to keep up with the minimum scale.

So the question here is actually very fundamental: Are the preferences of the stuff-questers or the non-stuff-questers more valid? What is the exact relationship of their validity? Answer those, and you can then design a system to implement that relationship. Unfortunately, everyone's answers are different. Right now, Alliance allows for a mostly-uncapped stuff-quest, while also providing avenues for dedicated players to side-step the stuff quest through gobby ritual purchasing. This is a balance in favor of the stuff-questers which doesn't entirely disenfranchise the non-stuff-questers. Could we tweak it? Sure, but you'll have to convince the voters that the current value judgments are wrong, and that the adjustments hew to a better value judgment.

I think the "requirement" to stuff-quest is more inherent in the combat system's (a) accessibility to effects that can remove players immediately from the battle, and (b) monsters resistances and immunities that can deplete innate resources (memorized spells or per-day skills). I don't think a cap on the number of MIs a player can use will fix the root-cause. At best, in my opinion, it would just be a band-aid (on top of the rest of the band-aids this game has received over the years).

I bet that players who stuff-quest, but don't want to, do it because they feel they have to in order to have fun as they get higher in level. Getting hit by a "I summon a force to Disarm your weapon! I command you to Sleep!", and falling to the ground snoring, is not fun. Using your 4 90 Slays and 2 Eviscerates only to have them either Parried or taken with no apparent effect is also not fun. Encountering a creature that is No Effect to the Sleep you threw, ripped from the Confine, and Resisted the first 3 Prisons (oh, and 2 Deaths thrown by that Earth Caster over there) (thereby depleting the spells you can throw) and knowing there are 4 more is, once again, also not fun. Feeling useless or inadequate is not fun, so people stuff-quest so they can feel useful and therefore have some fun for just a little bit longer.

In Alliance, there are about 20 effects that can instantly disable a character. Fighter-types, as an example of the class that is screwed the most, can have innate resources (Parry/Riposte) to defend against only two of those (Eviscerate/Terminate) (assuming normal expected delivery) without relying on Magic Items. Scholars, similarly, can defend against more effects, per se, based on the delivery for the most part until they get High Magic.

If the combat system were dramatically changed to significantly reduce the number of effects that can instantly disable a player, change the defenses that completely stop effects to instead still have some effect bleed through the immunity/defense, and change the way Magic Items inherently work then I think there would be less perceived need to stuff-quest.

I would posit that any system which allows for an uncapped stuff-quest (i.e. not instituting hard limits on the number of usable MIs, etc) will inevitably create the need to scale assuming players have at least some of those MIs.

This particular part of your post confuses me. How can you assume everyone has stuff if it is possible for the stuff to be hoarded by a small number of players (thereby taking advantage of there not being an upper limit)? I would assume the opposite, actually; that a hard limit would spread the stuff around which would then lead to assuming people have stuff.

I have heard frequently from various folks that stat encounters is that the hard part is stating the encounter to give Mr. Magicstuffedpants a challenge while not completely overpowering Casual McTwoCloakSummonedForce guy.

 

[beboped]

I would posit that any system which allows for an uncapped stuff-quest (i.e. not instituting hard limits on the number of usable MIs, etc) will inevitably create the need to scale assuming players have at least some of those MIs.

This particular part of your post confuses me. How can you assume everyone has stuff if it is possible for the stuff to be hoarded by a small number of players (thereby taking advantage of there not being an upper limit)? I would assume the opposite, actually; that a hard limit would spread the stuff around which would then lead to assuming people have stuff.

I have heard frequently from various folks that stat encounters is that the hard part is stating the encounter to give Mr. Magicstuffedpants a challenge while not completely overpowering Casual McTwoCloakSummonedForce guy.

I'm not surprised you were confused; my wording was odd and incomplete. What I intended to say was that the cap improves the problem you mention at the end. Let's say a group consists of 3 players, one with no items, one with a 5 cloaks, mixed between eldritch force, gift, and command, and one with 25 cloaks across all takeout effect groups. I'd scale that for about 10 cloaks, but this means that if the biggest player is in front, the encounter is not scaled properly. If either smaller player is in front, the encounter is overscaled. If a magic item cap is instituted such that a player is capped at 10 cloaks, I can scale nicely at 5 cloaks. This is an oversimplified example, but it gets to the gist of it.

I do agree that reducing or removing takeout effects from the game will also significantly help. But the problem is eternal; all that we can do is find a balance, find a minimum. You cannot both have every player at a given level have the same potential power and also have discrete magic items with meaningful game mechanic effects. Heck, as long as you have players with different skill levels you'll never have true balance. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to keep the balance at meaningful levels, but it is something I think needs to underpin the discussion. In addition, some degree of imbalance here is desirable; players who are more active and invested should be rewarded for their effort. To not have this is to rapidly not have a player base.