Research Retool Poll

[Eden Jones]

I have a lot of thoughts on this, which is probably unsurprising to anyone who knows me out of game.


[quote]Research will never unlock production recipes, only information[/quote]

I don't have any production skills and likely never will, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think this would not be helpful. If you limit recipes to hidden headers, and whatever recipes are given out in hidden headers, that means that players a) have to hope they are able to get a hidden header, and in a reasonable timeframe to purchase and use the skill and b) they don't have the opportunity to come up with recipes of their own that might not be covered by what is dispensed in the headers.

[quote]Researchers can only ask one question, # of points determines answer quality[/quote]

Oh please, no.

There are so many things that seem to require research for us to succeed, or even to make any progress. Coupled with #3, this makes things nigh-impossible. It means we either have to completely give up researching the big problems, like radiation and shadow unpleasantness, or we can't look into anything smaller, like personal or character history questions. Since we have no downtime actions, only research, it means we can,[i] at best[/i], make progress towards one goal between events and must let everything else fall by the wayside.


[quote]Questions have a difficulty. No partial credit, but full answers to all helpers[/quote]

Questions having a difficulty for a complete answer is something I can understand and support.

I am very opposed to "no partial credit" Honestly, that makes me feel like it's pointless to even try to research anything beyond the really easy, fluff stuff -- which is further assuming that I am right in guessing what the easy questions are. Lack of partial credit means I would feel like I needed to walk away from looking into the big questions because I wouldn't want to risk wasting my research and the research of anyone who teamed up with me.

Not allowing us to continue to research the same question over multiple events, thus necessitating that we hit a home run on the first try or fail and waste our points, is also a big problem. It's clear that you want us to combine our points, but doing it this way, as opposed to letting smaller groups chip away at a topic over a few events, makes it feel like a popularity contest. The ones who can draw the most other players to their topic will succeed, the ones who can't are out of luck.

I think part of the problem might be whether research is seen as The Answer To Everything or if it can also be a pointer in the right direction. Honestly, I wouldn't enjoy completely solving a plotline or problem solely with research (and I say that as the Mayflower Madam of Info Whores). I want it to help me gain a means to solve a problem, and then we have the tools to deal with things successfully during an event.



[quote]Research points can be combined regardless of genre.[/quote]

I'm curious how this would work out. Would it mean that any genre has a chance of making headway on a particular topic? Would it mean that genres simply don't mean anything anymore?plot Would the genres lend flavor to your research? Or would it only come down to the total number of points you accumulate and nothing else?

Adding to that, would there be any point in including how I'm going about my research? Should I just say "I'm spending my 3 points on looking into the Shiny Pants Conspiracy" and leave it at that? Is there any point to detailing a possible angle to take or backgrounds that might help like I mentioned here? (http://occamsrazorlarp.com/forum/viewto ... =398#p5826)


[quote]Research will never lead to mods.[/quote]

I agree with the Professor on this -- please let them lead to mods! Rather than exclude players who don't have research skills, this would enable them to be included. This also dovetails with #3 in that research doesn't have to yield the One True Answer, but could instead give you the means to find that answer or that solution. Making a mod would mean that more players, even those not research-inclined, would be able to participate in reaching that solution.


[quote]Researchers can "common sense" check on questions.[/quote]

If there is a difficulty rating, and especially if there are no partial answers and no opportunity to repeat questions in an effort to reach the Difficulty Number, then I think we would have to have this in order to make research at all useable.


[quote]Status quo--leave things as they are.
[/quote]
Bluntly, I've been having a hard time making research work for me in OR, and I am frustrated.

I understand you don't want to hold our hands. I think that research is an excellent way to [i]not [/i]have to hold our hands. If we can't take our own steps to solve a problem, then we are completely reliant on Plot Staff to run solution-getting plot for us. If that plot doesn't happen, I don't see how we wouldn't fail. Players hoping that there will be Fix-It Plot feels more hand-holding than giving us a nudge or two so as to make sure we're barking at the right volume under the right tree.

I know this is a dark conspiracy game, but it's a game. If I have skills that I've spent a lot of CP and a lot of effort on using, and I cannot use those skills successfully, that is not fun for me. And even with all of the horror and the trauma and the screaming and the running, at the end of the day, I'm here to have fun.

[sndwurks]

As someone who is heavily invested into the Research system, overhauling it to work better is of particular interest to me. So, I will answer the questions below, then speak to my personal experience with the system.

[quote="Jacob"]
1) Research will never unlock production recipes, only information. Production recipes will be restructured to be released through hidden headers and the like.[/quote]

This was actually mentioned during a game on meeting, I believe? You states that Research can be used to add Abilities and Traits to the Crafting Matrices as available options. As a non-Crafter, I have never used Research for this, but I do not see that this is something that should be taken away from Research. However, making it more inclusive would be a good thing. So, why not both? Why not make them gated by either Research or hidden headers?

[quote="Jacob"]2) Each individual researcher can only ever ask 1 question. The number of points at their disposal will determine the quality of the answer they receive.[/quote]

Please. No. Dear God, no. This is a game filled with so many questions. Only getting to ask one per event, while good for Staff, would be terrible for the players.

[quote="Jacob"]3) Research questions will be assigned a difficulty--likely 1 for Common Knowledge, 5 for Obscure Knowledge, and 10 for Secrets. While no partial credit would be given for insufficient expenditures, anybody who contributes to a successful research will get a full and complete answer.[/quote]

I could be okay with this, so long as we would be able to build towards information over the course of multiple games. I do not care if the actual "Needed Research" was known as well. However, requiring all the Research to be spent at once would be counter-intuitive. Allowing us to work towards a goal through research is pretty necessary.

As a note, at your current totals? Most PCs would only be able to get common knowledge on their own. Those of us who have invested heavily in research (40 CP to get 5 Research points, with me as an example) might be able to get Obscure Information on our own. It would be necessary for us to have to team up to get Secret information.

[quote="Jacob"]4) Genre will no longer be applied to Research Points--they will treated as entirely fungible and anyone can combine any set of points.[/quote]

If you go with 3? You HAVE to go with 4, though the best way I might suggest for this would be making it so Knowledge is still separated by Genre, and you can only go one step in use. In short, any Genre can research Intrinsic knowledge, and Intrinsic Knowledge can research any Genre. However, Paranormal Research cannot be used for Technological Knowledge, and vice versa.

Admittedly, I am biased, as I am split between Paranormal and Intrinsic Research.

[quote="Jacob"]5) Research will never lead to mods. Ever. This would make sure that while the game is still a conspiracy game based on information, people without research skills won't be left behind in terms of mod finagling.[/quote]

Please do not do this. Denying anything being able to lead to a mod just limits your own hands as Storytellers. However, a good answer might be "Do not require Research to unlock a mod." This way, not having Research is not an impediment to plot, but having Research can still get you access to delicious, delicious plot.

[quote="Jacob"]6) Researchers will be able to have a "common sense" check on research questions.[/quote]

Please. If nothing else, it would be good to go "Is this a valid question?" and "Is this Paranormal, Intrinsic, or Technological?"

[quote="Jacob"]7) Status quo--leave things as they are.[/quote]

I would be okay with this.

Presently, Research seems to be this grab bag of pushing or pulling plot, as well as getting some information. I have been told that I have to spend Paranormal Research to achieve things which might be otherwise considered "Downtime" actions in other games, to pursue personal plot (both myself and others), and thirdly, to actually get information. How much Research I have lost chasing down false leads and using it for the wrong investigation? No idea, but it is more than once.

So, in conclusion, getting the Research system overhauled would be a good thing. It's presently clunky and obscure. Having more clear rules, which justify the high cost of the ability, would be welcome.

[Madrigus]

I don't know how many research points are floating around but this is my reed:

[quote]1) Researchers can ask one question per point group spent.[/quote]
More research seems to be better than less.

[quote]2) Questions have a common sense check and a difficulty rating of 1/3/5. [/quote]
Common sense check just seems like a good idea, and I doubt anyone would say no. A smaller difficulty rating will allow players who want to work solo on secretive backstory stuff to do so and not be penalized, as well as allow people who do want to group up to achieve full results faster. I think possibly an extra DR could be added for generic research, such as "I want to find everything I can about Sasquatch (DR 8)," and learn everything possible rather than spitting random questions.


[quote]3)Answers are given to all participants on individual questions provided. A full answer is given if the difficulty rating is met, and a partial if it is not met.[/quote]
I was surprised to find that people who were helping research did not receive answers as well. I think it's odd to have to start game with "So, I helped you read all this stuff but I don't remember any of it. Help?" I also think partial credit for incomplete research will allow people to chip away at more secretive stuff that they either do not or cannot get anyone to help with, so if something's a DR 5 and they only have 2 points to spend they can spend 2-3 events in research for it and finally get all their information in piecemeal.

[Coco]

A PSA -- Without reading or responding to everything above... In case it wasn't clear, our intention here is merely to offer options to work together on to alleviate frustrations rather than have anyone think we were using these options to comment on how Research has gone in the past on either side of the equation or to create further frustration. Generating conversation and trying to get votes from folks to see where the feelings lie. If the wording of an option is confusing, please continue to ask as people have above.

Thanks, friends.

[Owle Isohos]

I just wish it was possible to vote yes or no on each individual option! I think that would get you a more complete picture of where everyone's feelings lie, but I understand forum polls have certain limitations.

[lackey]

It seems to me that the GMs are trying to reduce the amount of research results that they need to produce. From the questions they asked, it seems that they want to go from giving out 30 partial answers and 1-2 good answers to giving out 5 good answers.

As players, it seems to me that we are frustrated because we try to research things, but don't know when we are wasting points or making any real progress. I know that I can't always tell if an answer given was a "final answer" or a hint saying that I need to spend more points on it. Never mind that I have 1 tiny little point, 4 reasonably urgent things to spend it on, and no way to get more without buying a new header.

I think what would help the most is letting the players see behind the curtain a little. This has already been done with the statement that difficulty levels for research might require 1, 5, or 10 research points. It lets us know that we shouldn't waste time organizing to give 2-3 research points to a dozen things, that we should focus more.

What I suggest is that we keep things the same as they are, except that both players and gms agree that an acceptable answer for research would be: [b]"You have 2 out of 5 points needed to discover something on this topic."[/b] That's it. No flavor, no in character description of how you almost learned something. Just basic mechanics that let us know what it will take. Maybe add in that when you get those 5 points, in addition to all of the in-character goodness we are looking for, we also get a message of [b]"You have discovered all you can on this topic"[/b] or [b]"There may be more to discover with further research."[/b]

This way we know what our goal is, and someone working on their personal plot can slowly put research towards it without needing to try and convince fellow researchers to ignore the fact that everyone is Irradiated, and instead focus on Uncle Henry's missing Toyota. For the writers it should be easy, they just keep a spreadsheet of progress and give a quick OOC message if enough progress hasn't been made. Efficient researchers can put 1 point towards something just to get an idea of how difficult it will be, and then next game rally exactly the support they need to make it happen.

And once every gets used to OOC research responses, then the GMs can start giving us other useful information, such as [b]"No need to research this more, this plotline won't be focused on until 2016"[/b] or whatever. Plus the GMs get a running tally of everything that the players have been willing to invest at least 1 research point into.

I think players have expectations in line with what the gms can and will give is the most important thing. And for that we need to see behind the curtain just a little bit.

[kimp]

I am hesitating to vote for the statement “Research will never lead to mods”, though I do appreciate the point that is being made. If the statement was “having research doesn’t give you preference for mods” I would vote right now. But, Never…?

I think I understand why this is being stated – hinging mod targets on Research opens the door for resentment (I’m guessing which has been brought up to the writers enough times that this became a question on the poll). Hypothetical math – say there is only time and NPCs to run 5 mods in a weekend (no actual math here, I’m pulling 5 out of the air). 10 people have invested Research points into 10 different things that could lead to mods. With that 5 mod slot for the weekend thing only 5 of those 10 people – who spent Research – can get a mod. And people without Research or who didn’t spend Research on something that would lead to a mod will not be a target for a mod. Either those who don’t have research never get mods and blame this on not having research – which may not be the case – or someone without research does get a mod hook and people with Research say/think “But I spent Research – I should have gotten a mod. Why did So-and-So get a hook but I didn’t?”

There is a built-in expectation that if you expend resources you will get a reward – by stating implicitly that this is not the case you remove the potential for resentment (at least with this as the trigger).

I think we can all acknowledge mods are the Golden Ticket – the invite into the factory to eat all the candy we want, to find the secret recipe either because we are just interested in it or because we want to sell it to Slugwort, and the chance to be the heir to the factory. We all want mods – and when we don’t get them we start looking for reasons why. Remove the implication that mods can be ‘bought’ with Research and that’s one last person being accused of/or making the accusation of someone being Veruca Salt. Being Special/the Chosen One should not be something you can buy.

If you want somewhere to state you want a mod that’s what the PEL is for. There’s even a section in there that asks if there’s anything else you want to see in the future or are interested in.

I dislike the word Never, but appreciate the sentiment behind this. I’m with other people who’ve said they wish this poll would allow a Yes or No for every option – I do feel strongly that points should be allowed to accumulate over time (not throwing 4 points at something when it needs 15 and then losing those 4 points without knowing how many points are needed – and therefore eliminating ‘wasting your Research’) so I’m hesitating to vote No on this Research Doesn’t Lead to Mods.

Could the poll be changed to allow this or will we only have one option to vote for?

[Nick Sleet]

I think number 6 addresses most if not all of the complaints I've heard from various people. Basically a way to let us know if we're barking up the wrong tree. I like the system as it is other than that, but I'm biased because I've been reliably getting returns on my research.

Also, as someone whose dropped a ton of character points into research, PLEASE not option 5. I've given up on a whole bunch of useful combat skills and am about to sink another 9 points into 1 point of research. No extra limits on the skill please.

[Henry Gondorf]

I apologize if this is brief. Many here have put in earnest effort to make their cases. The best I have to add to proceedings is as follows.

As much as I would enjoy a standing "Hit this mark and you are golden" I would enjoy a common sense heads up more. Nothing is worse than expectation building for a earth shaking revelation only to find out it could be found on Bing or Google.

I also think a declassification of research pools will help over all. Rather than feeling spread too thin you have a wider field of knowledge.

[Wolfman2006]

[quote="lackey"]
As players, it seems to me that we are frustrated because we try to research things, but don't know when we are wasting points or making any real progress. I know that I can't always tell if an answer given was a "final answer" or a hint saying that I need to spend more points on it. Never mind that I have 1 tiny little point, 4 reasonably urgent things to spend it on, and no way to get more without buying a new header.

I think what would help the most is letting the players see behind the curtain a little. This has already been done with the statement that difficulty levels for research might require 1, 5, or 10 research points. It lets us know that we shouldn't waste time organizing to give 2-3 research points to a dozen things, that we should focus more.[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly. Conspiracies and not wanting to hold our hands aside if the game mechanics are resulting in people being more frustrated than fun, than clarity is the way to go.

But this idea would only work if you allow us to continue to research the same question multiple times, as it was also pointed out correctly often times people are not willing to contribute towards personal matters (or people are not willing to get others involved), making research results impossible.