Depends on if it's combat or not. If it's not combat, I generally go with Rule of 3. Three poses after yours, you can go again so long as it's not an action pose, this is pure social because large scenes tend to devolve into circles responding to each other anyways since 10 people rarely have a conversation. It's one person talking, 3 people listening, 3 other people talking about something else, and a pair of people mocking everyone.
For combat scenes I have the five minute rule. Pre-type your actions so that you can declare easy and roll then pose the attempt/effect whatever.
It's still a long thing depending on how many npc's there are and whatnot but that's what I do.
@AmishRakeFight I think the problem most games come across with PvP is that they lack mechanics for alternate conflict resolution, let alone incentives for them. On RfK there were both, which is why I think it worked so well. You had boons as a way of settling matters and backing off, or by way of making a loss or a win mean something, and proxies in the form of actual territories/influences you could attack instead of blowing the person up. Then you had further incentives to avoid killing anyone because it was against City law. Vampires being vampires (with all manner of ways to ferret out a secret), and players being players (mostly incapable of keeping secrets, IC or OOC), if you did do a PK you'd probably lose the character.
Sandboxes are ruled by combat thugs because inevitably all conflict boils down to a question of if you can PK the other, and the only consequences come from the possibility of some buddies seeking revenge.
I play characters that as far as other folks would consider run the range from psychotocally dominating to very submissive.
I haven't had any complain about me doing it wrong because I don't structure their thoughts on "I am the submissive one" or "I am dominant in this." Normal thoughts in normal people don't usually work that way. For me if a character has a dominating personality is entirely based on how hard they are willing to fight to get what they want.
Highly driven characters might be very dominating, dragging their poor submissive partner along on something they are woefully unready for just because they want the other around. They may even make themselves feel better by belittling the other sometimes, but that doesn't mean they won't want to be held, or maybe even let the other partner tie them up during sexy times. They are just formost focused on either their needs or a goal that is bigger than the other person is in their life. Conversly others may seem submissive just because their priority is making the other happy.
If you set out from the start only thinking about how to make one person or the other dominant or submissive you're going to run into a lot of situations that just aren't going to make sense anymore and get stressed from having to act in ways that are non-intuitive.
Necromancer using dark magic to animate the corpses of villagers killed in a disaster to dig out and rescue other villagers... while the paladin watches. Cue two hour long discussion on if this was still evil.
I find that once I meet and spend time with someone RL I have a far more generous read of their tone and behavior than I would otherwise.
If we have different perspectives on certain ethics (such as CoI) once I get to know someone I have a more nuanced view (also aided by the fact that I know better how to start the conversation about something that is bothering me) and do not feel as autodefensive as if I have no frame of reference.
It doesn't mean I don't understand when behavior is shitty. I once reported face to face RL friends to Sunny because of cheating issues amongst other things, and that in part detonated many of those RL friendships for nearly a decade, others never recovered, and most were changed.
But I disagree that online behavior should be seen as an accurate and sum total reflection of a person. I think it's a snapshot. And can be concerning. But there's a greater context most of the time and so I disagree that it should be taken as the "truest" reflection.
I don't really care because I don't play there. I just got an e-mail, which was deleted as soon as it was read (cuz I don't play there), that said they switched servers. So I don't even know if I /have/ an updated server address for it. Mudstats has it operational though so, I dunno.
Either way neither here nor there, now, to figure out how to create a poll!
Yea me to, but I did actually go there. It was up for a while and then went down down. I almost want to know the back story behind it but.. Everything must die.
Shadowrun is my favorite RPG, especially since they streamlined the rules in 4th/5th ed. Such a rich universe, and I enjoy the mix of heist and combat RP. Earthdawn is fun too, but I haven't played it in forever. I like the interwoven backstory between SR and ED.
I don't think either of them translate well to the MU front though. I'm naturally partial to FS3 there because I think complex systems get in the way of RP more than they aid it. The FS3 dice mechanics are somewhat similar to SR4.
It wouldn't be that difficult to have multiple games on the same port, you could even use different code for each you'd just have to differentiate the commands so as to make sense.
I remember there was a GI Joe and Super Heroes mixed game, and Tarterus had like 3 games on it I think...
I just wish I could actively use more ports though, then I would build all four of the ideas running around in my head, and open them all at the same time.
Plenty of Forum(Play By Post) platforms. Jcink lets create message boards and have accounts (that can be linked together in a ''Player" to "Character" account and allow for switching, Most forum gamers use this sort of model.
Jcink is also Free.
There's nothing specifically anti-genre in survival about pre-existing couples, but yes, if your premise is totally random strangers only it obviously messes with that and probably won't work great in a MU environment, separate areas or otherwise.
Generally the issue with splitting the playerbase has less to do with splitting up OOC couples (I've never seen people split randomly as you're suggesting, typically it's a choice of apping to play in X region or Y region) but simply one of population density and the whole 'critical mass' concept that is a feature of game survival. Splitting people up reduces chances for public interaction and self-sustaining RP, and encourages people just to RP in their insular groups. And as much as it seems like that's often what people want, they also demonstrate a propensity for growing bored when they don't have the alternate option. At the more cynical end I'd say its because people want an audience for their PDA, on the more generous I'd say its because outside stimuli makes even the personal RP more interesting.
Big surprise im gonna mention Firan. (mostly because since quitting its the only game Ive played for any decent amount of time) The liberation of Ellish was a massive scale campaign (easily 75-100 players) that had a solid opening middle and close. Many died. Many succeeded. Lots of unique mechanics and such in play. It was really the only time the Firans won against the Shamis from what I heard. It was good tho, not perfect in any way, but good. All down hill from there.
@Arkandel Yeah, I found that one of the largest problems from a design perspective for me too for fantasy games. I decided to go with, 'Focus on a single area, make virtually all the RP happen there, and then abstract everything else for plot'. I'm still not very satisfied with it, but I think trying to do all the areas and then having players teleport between them in something supposed to be gritty and realistic is just too damaging since there's very real problems of fucked up continuity in people being two places at once.