I believe that speech should always be unmoderated and that social admonishment will take care of course correction, if necessary.

Coming from a place with actual limitations to what they call freedom of expression, down to and including the very necessary element for freedom of speech called anonymity, I find that calls to moderate and squelch 'undesired speech' in any way is like adding a ball and chain to one's own ankles.

Because the goalpost of what's acceptable will keep moving, the more you call for said moderation, until it's 1984 (see my forum avatar) and Big Brother is watching you for signs of Oldspeak.

@three-eyed-crow said in Horror MUX:

@botulism
Yeah that totally wasn't directed at you. Tho even the softer concept of 'seasons' where there are contained story campaigns and then you shift to another (with mostly the same characters) I've been on a handful of places that have done them to varying degrees of success/failure. I think there's more experimentation in smaller games than the not-so-vast masses see sometimes. This is a cool approach to it and its exciting to see it tried, tho.

I think people get more attached to their characters the more is at stake. Such as: if you've invested a lot of time to get something neat, like a sword that screams and can kill vampires, or if you spent a long time to poise that character for a position of import in the setting. It is admittedly fair to be frustrated if the wrong timing has you lose those two investments in the next 'phase', but I like how tabletop games like Pendragon and others deal with this. It gives you a sense of continuity without forcing you to think your game ends with the death of your character, even if Pendragon is really, really punitive as far as systems go. The wrong 20 in a roll can spell your death.

@bored:

Conrad has tons to do (to the 'I have people griefing me because I'm RPing with someone else instead of dealing with their request' level. I know his player very well.

I have a character whose entire initial personal agenda was to fuck with Conrad. That personal agenda lasted exactly one day/night because everyone is either in it together or they'll have to be the only man/woman on the island. The inherently cooperative nature of a game where the individuals odds are bad for everyone, regardless of their concept or IC connections, is really, really interesting to see play out.

Essentially, you either build a bridge with others or you get stuck and possibly perish. Ultimately, though, I made my own fun and my character, who started out as the odd man out, made connections with people that I think are very interesting to play out.

What I would like to see is a MUSH based on the same world as Guy Gavriel Kay's Lions of Al-Rasan, A Song for Arbonne, etc. It's close enough to some themes in our world's medieval era to make it easy to play, extremely low-magic and very engaging, if you ever read either of those books.

@horrorhound A horror game.

As someone who suffers from inattentive ADHD, I have to say it's very fascinating to hear these stories, particularly from other Inattentive types. It was an uphill battle to figure my shit out, and it continues to be, every day, but I'm happy with the progress I've made. Granted, the med I take is just legal amphetamines on an extended release capsule, but it helped.

Skype dates. JFC.

@tinuviel We've made it into a time-honored tradition. Along with ruining livers.

I think HorrorMUX essentially proves that it's possible to make an episodic game that is enjoyable throughout limited runs. A lot of concerns about making serial games were basically of the 'What if people get too attached to their characters' category, but let's be honest, as long as you have a sense of continuity you don't really need to be playing the same person for 3+ RL years. I'm looking forward to seeing how the next iterations of the game play out.

I suspect the transient nature of the characters themselves, with the underlying sense of permanence of the Archetypes themselves gives us less of a sense of competition with each other, so it feels more like an OTT game of Mafia or something.

IE: It's not a game where there are defined winners, but survivors, and it's definitely PvE with the expectation that you will most probably die, but at least those that survive you will probably have more interesting story because of it.

When a single conversation leads to discussing philosophy in a way that makes sense to both characters involved, and understanding the how-to of goals is achieved not because of a mechanical fluke, but due to the flow of conversation. Also, when it helps you figure out the between-the-lines part of a background you yourself wrote.

@Tempest Remember to choose your color when you do that.

@Auspice

Staff needs to set some guidelines as to what is reasonable as far as decision-making goes and what isn't. And if a player is adamant on something happening or not happening, they need to negotiate with staff to come up with a compromise for playability and enjoyment.

Players should have no responsibility to 'play right' according to other players, but they should according to theme, setting and canon. Of course, sometimes a player earns a reputation as being able to recite canon or thematic guidance in what some people call 'backseat staffing', and this can be a problem. Especially since it can undermine staffers.

If there is something I learned with the study of law, though, it's that any decision that doesn't work or can't be implemented should be overturned for something that works and is easily implemented. Staff should always have reserve the prerogative to revise policies, including retroactively.

I think some games have it right, regarding safe middle-grounds, that trying to avoid interaction that isn't purely in-scene helps to decrease attrition.

@dvoraen Garruk is a funny PW because he's insanely good for some token-centered decks. Sarkhan Dragonspeaker does the same thing with Red, that said.

A lot of PWs are afterthoughts, more or less. I'm glad they killed Gideon. Just a shame they couldn't kill the rest of the Gatewatch with him.

@Auspice Not gonna lie, a Dark Ages: Vampire game would be great. But that requires oWoD.

@insomniac7809 Nothing wrong at all! Just to add another name: Tobias. Frequently used.

William

@Livia Something like that.

Who wouldn't want to play Sorin Markov or Sarkhan the Dragonspeaker, though?

My best played (as in, 9 w/1 l) deck in Magic Arena was, ironically, a monoblue Jace control/denial deck.

@Bananerz So basically everyone vs Emrakul or Nicol Bolas?

@Arkandel Just as in a sword fight, politics take a level of strategy. You can turn that early loss into a long-term consolidated win if you have the right resources or if you manage to make your interests align with those that have said resources, while trying to obtain a measure of them for yourself in order to be autonomous. Pulling rank almost never works in MUSHes; players are very oppositional to this kind of stuff and would rather have their character be seen as the rebel if they're overt, or they will subvert your character's demand of obedience with a subtle power play if they're not. There's no outcome that's pre-written when it comes to human dynamics, because the human element strips politics of determinism.

You're right regarding the best politicians on MU being also the friendliest.

@Tempest Which is something most Lords and Ladies games sorely lack: compelling political vicissitudes to drive a story. It always ends up being a zero-sum game where two political interests are aligned in complete opposition, because even if there's a peaceful transition for someone's rise, someone likely gets dinged for it. Conversely, it is why player vs player action like civil wars and stuff never end well or are just killed in the cradle by staff: because the attrition will cost the game players or derail the theme.