booday
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 8
|
Post by booday on Jan 16, 2018 2:49:34 GMT -8
I just wanted to put this out there for the community at large to mull over. A few times now I've heard the cast mention how they were looking for something to do with the Help-A-Player system. It tends to be disruptive and they can stack up quickly when we (the fans) get excited, which throws off encounter balance in detrimental ways. One suggestion I thought of, not to claim any creativity for it, was to adopt a similar system to a number of HyperRPG games. They treat their participation system like a fundraiser with each benefit having a high price-tag, but viewers can buy them incrementally.
In our case a single HAP may cost 1000 beers or some-such, much higher than now, but ten viewers could each put in 100 to get there. This would let the viewers keep involved, even for newcomers, without letting us hamper the game we're viewing. I'll get ahead of the boat here and acknowledge that this would require more infrastructure than is already in place and might be more than HJ wants to get involved in, but just the same I wanted to put this idea forward and open the floor to further brainstorming.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 16, 2018 10:56:08 GMT -8
I think that rather than dis-incentivizing the purchase of HaP, limiting it's impact would be a better choice. Allow the purchase and hoarding of effects, but restrict how much can be used on any specific event.
For instance, in Stu's Vampire game, each HaP was a bonus die (maybe two?) that could be used. Instead say that there was a limit of one or two bonus dice per roll. This provides dual benefits in that you should have overly skewed rolls, and the players will be incentivized to spend them more often (as there isn't a real reason to stock up for "that one important roll")
|
|
SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on Jan 16, 2018 12:40:06 GMT -8
I just wanted to put this out there for the community at large to mull over. A few times now I've heard the cast mention how they were looking for something to do with the Help-A-Player system. It tends to be disruptive and they can stack up quickly when we (the fans) get excited, which throws off encounter balance in detrimental ways. One suggestion I thought of, not to claim any creativity for it, was to adopt a similar system to a number of HyperRPG games. They treat their participation system like a fundraiser with each benefit having a high price-tag, but viewers can buy them incrementally. In our case a single HAP may cost 1000 beers or some-such, much higher than now, but ten viewers could each put in 100 to get there. This would let the viewers keep involved, even for newcomers, without letting us hamper the game we're viewing. I'll get ahead of the boat here and acknowledge that this would require more infrastructure than is already in place and might be more than HJ wants to get involved in, but just the same I wanted to put this idea forward and open the floor to further brainstorming. I was thinking along the same lines recently because I saw it on another actual play(it might have been HyperRPG actually I don't remember). I don't like the idea of making it monetarily incentivized though, I already put a decent amount of money down for Happy Jacks every month(Not that I mind, just saying), and I buy things like bits whenever I can. Adding another thing in that requires money would really turn me off to the idea of watching live. I would feel like I couldn't be a part of things because I don't have the spare cash. BUT I do like the idea of a communal pot for things. Each game could have their own. Like for L5R you could say 1000 beers gets someone a reroll. 2500 beers gets them a Void point. 10000 allows them to gain an Advantage with no XP cost, etc. The only problem I see is tracking it. Not sure if this is something that StreamElements can do or not.
|
|
booday
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 8
|
Post by booday on Jan 17, 2018 9:58:26 GMT -8
I was thinking along the same lines recently because I saw it on another actual play(it might have been HyperRPG actually I don't remember). I don't like the idea of making it monetarily incentivized though, I already put a decent amount of money down for Happy Jacks every month(Not that I mind, just saying), and I buy things like bits whenever I can. Adding another thing in that requires money would really turn me off to the idea of watching live. I would feel like I couldn't be a part of things because I don't have the spare cash. BUT I do like the idea of a communal pot for things. Each game could have their own. Like for L5R you could say 1000 beers gets someone a reroll. 2500 beers gets them a Void point. 10000 allows them to gain an Advantage with no XP cost, etc. The only problem I see is tracking it. Not sure if this is something that StreamElements can do or not. Oh, yeah, I meant still tied to Beers rather than to cash, or something like that. I would be able to afford to sub and throw cash up for bennies either. ayslyn- An interesting idea. Not sure I'm on board, but I've been wrong before. I guess another solution could be just to throttle the Beer acquisition rate, or at least the bonus Beers for subs. I HaP fairly regularly and I still have a terrifying amount of Beer banked. Also, could cut down on disruption by having predetermined Bennie tokens and whoever watches chat just hands them out and we settle for praise in text. I know this misses the notoriety aspect, but its difficult to balance discretion with fanfare. Just more spit-balling! Late idea for decreasing interruption, HaP only get handed out at the start of session and at a determined point mid-game? This might get too complicated. On second thought, no, I don't like this idea for too many reasons.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Jan 17, 2018 23:35:30 GMT -8
I just want the GM to be helped too.
Or maby a "hurt a player" thing.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 27, 2018 0:41:25 GMT -8
I just want the GM to be helped too. Or maby a "hurt a player" thing. Please pardon the cut and paste from Discord, but I said this there when this sort of thing was discussed, and I don't think I could do better (and don't feel like typing it up again. ^.^ ). I think that, personally, hinder a player just sounds antagonistic, rather than interesting. Although, I would still argue that it would seem more antagonistic. My take is that the player influencing purchases should be a resource for the players to spend. The story should be their’s. If they wanted to fail, because it would be interesting, then they could just do so. I don’t think that we should be making them fail. That takes agency away from them. But I am philosophically opposed to a system that makes us the storyteller. This is their game. We’re just the audience. Giving us little ways to participate is great, turning the hosts into our proxies, less so. That’s why I like the philosophy behind the original HaP. We invested in the players, trusting them to guide the story, and we got to assist with the grunt work. Perhaps it’s a bit hypocritical of me, but I see the NPC buy as a similar thing. Perhaps I don’t understand the extent of that purchase, but it would be best, IMO, if you could give very minimal details, but the GM did what they wanted with that character.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Jan 27, 2018 0:56:03 GMT -8
I just want the GM to be helped too. Or maby a "hurt a player" thing. Please pardon the cut and paste from Discord, but I said this there when this sort of thing was discussed, and I don't think I could do better (and don't feel like typing it up again. ^.^ ). I think that, personally, hinder a player just sounds antagonistic, rather than interesting. Although, I would still argue that it would seem more antagonistic. My take is that the player influencing purchases should be a resource for the players to spend. The story should be their’s. If they wanted to fail, because it would be interesting, then they could just do so. I don’t think that we should be making them fail. That takes agency away from them. But I am philosophically opposed to a system that makes us the storyteller. This is their game. We’re just the audience. Giving us little ways to participate is great, turning the hosts into our proxies, less so. That’s why I like the philosophy behind the original HaP. We invested in the players, trusting them to guide the story, and we got to assist with the grunt work. Perhaps it’s a bit hypocritical of me, but I see the NPC buy as a similar thing. Perhaps I don’t understand the extent of that purchase, but it would be best, IMO, if you could give very minimal details, but the GM did what they wanted with that character. I like the help a player idea but it almost feels like cheating. I agree that hurt a player isn't a great idea but I think some kind of balance is needed. Most game systems have rules that are balanced to have a certain flavor and the help a player changes the way the game works. It's like playing a module made for level 5 characters at level 6 or 7, it works but it isn't what was intended.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 27, 2018 1:00:30 GMT -8
.... I just know that I'm going to regret this....
Just how is it cheating? The GM is good with it, the players are good with it.... It's a house rule. Whether or not it was intended is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Jan 27, 2018 2:02:12 GMT -8
.... I just know that I'm going to regret this.... Just how is it cheating? The GM is good with it, the players are good with it.... It's a house rule. Whether or not it was intended is irrelevant. It's not cheating but it does make the game less difficult. I like when the characters are challenged during the game, more risk give me more enjoyment and help a player remove some of the risk.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 27, 2018 3:31:38 GMT -8
.... I just know that I'm going to regret this.... Just how is it cheating? The GM is good with it, the players are good with it.... It's a house rule. Whether or not it was intended is irrelevant. It's not cheating but it does make the game less difficult. I like when the characters are challenged during the game, more risk give me more enjoyment and help a player remove some of the risk. That's an argument for removing Help a Player, not for adding a Harm a Player mechanic. Your opinion is that the game is better if it's challenging for the characters. That's fine. I absolutely urge you to advocate for that. Perhaps there's enough people that agree with you that they will remove it. Me, personally, I don't agree that it's less challenging, per se... Mechanically, sure, obviously... But there are a LOT of ways to challenge the characters, and mechanics are IMO the least interesting way.
|
|
|
Post by akavidar on Jan 28, 2018 11:02:30 GMT -8
I just want the GM to be helped too. Or maby a "hurt a player" thing. I have to agree with Stu that he doesn't really need any help, he can add whatever he wants to a scene.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Jan 28, 2018 12:29:54 GMT -8
I just want the GM to be helped too. Or maby a "hurt a player" thing. I have to agree with Stu that he doesn't really need any help, he can add whatever he wants to a scene. Yes a GM can add whatever he likes but I do think a help a GM could legitimate a GM ramping up the difficulty a bit or bring out another complication for the players. I think the HaP need a counterpart, not because I want the players to fail but because I want the NPC's to be more badas. Would you object to a "Help an NPC" mechanic?
|
|
|
Post by akavidar on Jan 28, 2018 12:51:04 GMT -8
No, I am actually the only person who has been allowed to help an NPC! In the Dead Reign game, but Dave and Stu didn't use the help, and immediately reversed the decision to allow them.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 28, 2018 17:44:23 GMT -8
I have to agree with Stu that he doesn't really need any help, he can add whatever he wants to a scene. Yes a GM can add whatever he likes but I do think a help a GM could legitimate a GM ramping up the difficulty a bit or bring out another complication for the players. I think the HaP need a counterpart, not because I want the players to fail but because I want the NPC's to be more badas. Would you object to a "Help an NPC" mechanic? Again, there's nothing stopping the GM from doing just that without us. If encounters that I designed turned out to be too easy, I adapt and adjust later ones. If the GM wants an NPC to be a badass, they'll just do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 22:50:55 GMT -8
I'm against audience participation during the game. Acknowledging that someone gave you a "thing" is just another distraction from the game and a break in immersion. As someone who never watches live, it only makes the show worse.
|
|