So, I'm new to MSB, and still a relatively new player to MUs in general. I have noticed a trend among the games that I've played on, and maybe it's universal or inevitable. But I feel the need to try to correct it. Most MUs I've encountered are prone to favoritism or just inconsistency/craziness by staff. Either it's a clique game where headstaffers' pals get all the glory, or it's just a situation where staff is less than ideal with dealing with issues in a fair and impartial manner.

It's something that I want to change.

So, I'm looking to start up a new game. I'm going with superhero based because it's fairly freeform, and easy to do with little coding. The focus is mostly simply on RP and storytelling. Less mechanics and systems to deal with.

The idea is to get some people together who can be fair and impartial, and run plots for people. Staff will be responsible for moderating each other, as much as moderating the players. No single individual has the absolute say-so (I'm looking at BNW, Elsa) and there won't be instances where staff sticks up for other staff members when they do skeevy things (Like things I've seen happen on Comux).

I don't know the first thing about setting a game up, or coding. I'm just a moron with a head full of ideas for stories and theme, and a dream of a game where people can actually go and not have to worry about insane or just blatantly corrupt staff. A drama free environment that encourages cooperation and roleplaying.

Is there anyone out there that is looking for this, too? Am I the only one? Is that goal just too idealistic to become a reality? I don't know, but I'm willing to try it and see. And if you'd be willing to help me with the experiment, I'd like to hear from you.

I'd need people who know how to get a game set up and running, a coder or two (with only some minimal input, really), people who are good with building, and maybe a person or two who's good with wiki stuff. Other than that, anyone else who might be interested would also have a place as plot-staff and such.

If you're interested, feel free to message me and we can talk more in depth about it. Thanks for reading.

It is about expectations, though. Most games, that I've seen are set in a certain number of ways. Homebrew settings often come with some sort of system of stats and abilities, or the games are based off an existing ruleset such as WoD or D&D or some other game. Now, granted, my experience with MU*s is still pretty limited to only a few genres, but really the only games I see that are consistently rules-light/consent based are the comic book based games. Sure... anyone could make a game that has little to no rules that involves vampires on the moon... but we don't see those. So, we (or at least I, and apparently others, as well) don't think of that. I went straight to what I know has a playerbase, and is something that I, myself, have a pretty rock solid working knowledge of.

Again, perhaps it is idealistic, but I also don't think it's impossible. It's more about creating a small set of checks and balances when it comes to staff decisions.

And maybe the staff favoritism/corruption stuff isn't as prevalent as it once was, but you still have a lot of talk about the Troy/Sonders, VASpiders, Zero/Elsas and whoever else I'm not thinking of at the moment.

In my particular case, I'm wanting to experience a game that is similar in feel and playerbase as Brave New World is, without the crazy shitstorm that is the One Staffer To Rule Them All. HeroMux isn't a bad alternative, but it certainly has it's share of staff problems, too. Comux is fine, for the most part, but then there, you have two staffers who make up about 80% of the total PC population of the game and run pretty much everything.

I've spoken with a number of players from these games, and they're all pretty much in agreement. They stick with these games because they're what they've got. I just... would rather try to make something that's better, even if only incrementally.

@Miss-Demeanor

I'm not talking about Civil War, or the X-Men's place in that story. I'm talking about the overall theme of the X-Men/mutant stories in Marvel before, during, and after the Civil War storyline. Civil War was a story that had the other heroes facing something similar to the things that X-Men have been tackling since the 60's, but it wasn't so much about the "racial prejudice" aspect like the X-Men concept.

Mutants are supposed to be analogues for minorities, but when they exist in a world full of other people with superpowers, too, the "mutant scare" of "living weapons" just doesn't really hold any water. We are led to believe that there are people out there who think that Thor is just the coolest thing ever, but Storm is a demon from hell that poses a threat to our very way of life. Basically, the concept of the mutant as a displaced societal class just can't hold up to scrutiny under the umbrella of a world where aliens, robots, genetically modified weapons, and the freakish results of lab accidents all run around with the same or even more destructive or invasive powers.

I was thinking of a civil war/split scenario regarding Atlantis, with a New Atlantis and an old one, myself. Namor maybe leading the old Atlantis, and Aquaman leading the New Atlantis. Lemuria is another good idea, too. Thanks for the suggestions.

Sunny, I'd like to hear your thoughts about what you find the differences are in today's comics between DC and Marvel. Maybe you have some insight that I miss or something, and I'd really be interested to get a different perspective. Like I said, when I look at both companies now, the themes seem to be indistinguishable from one another. They tend to deal with a more cynical outlook on the modern world, showing that even heroes have to fight one another, and the government is always interfering in some manner or other. To me, it seems like both companies have moved away from the ideal of superheroes and seek to explore more about the issues of superheroes in a modern world with increasing political pressures and restrictions (ie Superman right now in DC) and things of that nature.

Alright. Sorry I've been away for a bit. RL has been hectic, so I haven't had the time to devote to being online much lately. Hopefully it'll clear up in the next week or so.

In terms of which way I'd want to lean thematically, DC or Marvel, I'm not so sure that there's enough of a difference in the modern era to make that much of a distinction. I understand, and totally agree, that DC was more utopian, and Marvel was more cynical, but... I think that over time they've both become pretty cynical at this point. I mean, it was DC that gave us a story about a two-bit villain raping a hero's wife, and the greatest heroes of the world retaliating with what amounted to a gang beatdown and then altering one of their own's mind to cover it up.

To answer questions about organizations and their backing or whatever... that's actually very easy to answer. Nova Corps and Green Lanterns are just law enforcement agencies. Often, in real life, law enforcement agencies overlap in duties and jurisdictions. I'd personally lean more towards the Nova Corp being like county sheriffs, with the Green Lanterns being State Troopers. Green Lanterns are usually assigned one to a large chunk of the universe, while the Corps tend to have more people working in each sector.

Avengers and Justice League are also pretty easy to reconcile. The Justice League, by itself, could be a private organization. Not backed by any government. If people want a JLA, then it's backed by the US. The Avengers, though? It's a bit of a common thing since the Ultimates came about to have the Avengers be a SHIELD pet project, and SHIELD is now usually depicted as a UN based group. So, you could have a Justice League of America that represents the American people, while the Avengers act more as an arm of the UN as a whole. Also, it should be noted that both the Justice League and the Avengers, for most of their history, were just groups that formed themselves and had no political or official economic backers, and that this could be an option, too. Avengers hanging out in a mansion, rather than a helicarrier, and Leaguers chilling out in the Hall, donated to them by Wayne Enterprises or something.

Someone mentioned the exact answer I'd give about mutants and metas, as well. Mutants are people with mutated genes that manifest their powers naturally. Metas would be all those people who were given their powers by some external means. Spider-Man wouldn't be a mutate. He's be a metahuman. It's also interesting to note that some recent Marvel comics have referred to powered people as metahumans.

The biggest conundrum, really, that I see is the Atlantis issue, with Namor and Aquaman. I've been talking to some people, and there are some ideas about how to resolve it, but it can still be a bit tricksy to work around in a feasible manner.

Another thing that's come up is SHIELD and ARGUS. I've pretty come to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be to have ARGUS be a US based organization, and SHIELD, again, to be under the direction of the UN. I've also considered I.O. from Wildstorm, and figured having that be an extension of the CIA fits it the most, thematically. This way they can all coexist side by side and have some ways to differ from one another, while still retaining their core. We can even take this further and have the Joe team be an extension of JSOC, and be exclusively an arm of the US military, as a result.

Also, Exiles was a fantastic book. I loved it. I wouldn't want to base an entire game around it, simply because of mass appeal, but I'd certainly be happy to incorporate it as a group/theme that exists within the game, because a lot of really fun stories could be told through that premise.

@Miss-Demeanor

I'm not talking about Civil War, or the X-Men's place in that story. I'm talking about the overall theme of the X-Men/mutant stories in Marvel before, during, and after the Civil War storyline. Civil War was a story that had the other heroes facing something similar to the things that X-Men have been tackling since the 60's, but it wasn't so much about the "racial prejudice" aspect like the X-Men concept.

Mutants are supposed to be analogues for minorities, but when they exist in a world full of other people with superpowers, too, the "mutant scare" of "living weapons" just doesn't really hold any water. We are led to believe that there are people out there who think that Thor is just the coolest thing ever, but Storm is a demon from hell that poses a threat to our very way of life. Basically, the concept of the mutant as a displaced societal class just can't hold up to scrutiny under the umbrella of a world where aliens, robots, genetically modified weapons, and the freakish results of lab accidents all run around with the same or even more destructive or invasive powers.

You know, speaking of X-Men, that actually brings up something I want to look at with this game. The theme of X-Men is this big civil rights issue, with Professor X acting as MLK, and Magneto being a stand in for Malcolm X. But... in a world where you have Thunder Gods beating up on rock aliens and guys who can create magical power armor and manipulate the threads of reality itself... why on earth does anyone have this big major prejudice against this one particular subset of people who have powers? Functionally, to the standard person on the street, what would really be the difference between Cyclops and the Hulk? They're both people with unnatural abilities that could wreck your day... and your city, within a matter of seconds.

Does anyone else ever feel like the theme of the X-Men stretches the suspension of disbelief too much? It'd be perfect if they existed in a world by themselves, like the movies, but in the context of the marvel universe at large, or in the case of most comic based MUs, an integrated universe, how does one really reconcile that?

Cool. This is a direction that I would like to explore more. I'd be grateful for more ideas about policy that people think actually works on a game.

Right now, my ideas are fairly basic. Like I said, I'm an other-oriented person. I get more enjoyment from other people having fun than I do myself. I want to make the game reflect that. So yeah, I'm looking to make a game for people, not just myself and my circle of friends, but rather an inclusive environment. I know that cliques form and are inevitable and all that, and that's fine. It's another issue altogether. I'm just looking at making a game that allows people to have a good time telling stories together.

So, the primary things I have in mind are that the majority of staff will be required to run things. I've thought about setting perimeters on this, but I'm not sure what would be considered reasonable, so suggestions would be awesome. I would like for the people who want to staff to be people that enjoy running things. This is pretty much a common factor in all the people that I've talked to about this already, so I think that's a good thing.

Another policy would be to create a list of high-profile characters that people would want to play and limit them. Basically, taking the characters like Batman and Captain America and restricting people to only one such character. No one running around with Batman, Cap, Wolverine and Superman all at once. Spread out the love, so to speak.

For those major characters, I was also thinking that a minimum activity requirement should be maintained, so as to ensure people aren't just squatting on them. This would be a bit more strict than the requirements for holding less in-demand alts.

As far as the world goes, I'm looking at creating an integrated universe, and currently working on the ways that I can make those puzzle pieces fit. This means that it's not just DC comics stuff slapped in with Marvel stuff, but rather a cohesive whole. I want to fold things in to make them actually a part of one another. Establish the relationships and differences between ARGUS and SHIELD, for example. Or explain how Aquaman and Namor can both be rulers of Atlantis. I have some ideas about these things, and have been talking to others about it, as well.

As far as system goes, I'm looking at primarily consent based as the primary, since this is how most of the comic based games I've encountered are set up, anyway. I do want to include a trait/sheet system to help regulate the drawbacks of that, and maybe a minimal optional rolling system if an agreement can't be reached.

Coming from a primarily tabletop RPG background, I've also been thinking a lot about the idea of experience and growth, which is something that comic based games don't really deal with very much. I personally enjoy the aspect of a game where I earn things and have the ability to improve or change aspects of my character. I'd ask if others would be interested enough in something like that for me to consider developing an XP system to help their characters develop their powers and abilities.

As far as staff rules go, I've outlined the basic jist of what I'm looking for. Don't be a jerk. If you have a problem with a player, for whatever reason, let another staffer interact with them. I would be looking at creating the means for accountability in such instances.

As far as approving or denying sheets, and providing suggestions, any staffer would be allowed to do so. If something is denied, for whatever reason, the player should have a chance to explain why they think it should be allowed. If the staff member still feels that it's unallowable or too much, then, and only then, should it be brought to other members of staff to have a discussion about it. It doesn't need to be all staff that agrees with one side or another, but there should be some consensus. Really, as long as the issue is given serious consideration, instead of just being dismissed outright, then I'm happy. If the result is that staff agrees that something should be denied, we should also take the time to outline the full reasoning behind the denial. And yes, I know that this is standard.

A lot of what I'm looking for, really, is just kind of standard, common sense stuff. I just want to be able to find ways to target and mitigate, if not eliminate, toxic patterns of behavior that make the game less inclusive for everyone. This would require quite a bit of transparency for the staff, and a lot of communal effort on the part of the player base. That being said, my observations of the established playerbase for comic based MU*s has given me the impression that they are, generally speaking, a bit more communal and cooperative than what I have observed on the WoD and Cyberpunk/Shadowrun games that I've played on. I think it's a fairly positive community on the whole. It has it's cray cray, and it's dark spots, but the general feel I've seen has been fairly decent.

I'm also totally down for suggestions. I know I likely haven't covered nearly everything that should be talked about, but I'm currently dealing with a pretty intense headache, making it more difficult for my thoughts to come out cohesively. I just wanted to get a response out there.

Uh. Yeah. I'm not trying to make it out like it's something special. I'm just saying that it's what I'm trying to do. I've never, again, stated that this was something that was out of the ordinary, or any different than most other games start out as. I mean, in all seriousness, I just made a post saying "Hey, this is what I'm looking to do, and here are the expectations of it" and it spun into this whole thing of people blowing up those expectations to seemingly wild proportions, and me just trying to bring those perceptions back down to reasonable levels. But if that means I'm trying to say I'm special, or that what I'm trying to do is special, then... hey, whatever. Great sarcasm, though. Kudos, I guess?

Also, I have no clue who BigBad is.

Edit: Also... I'm not sure when or where I have given the impression that I'm superior to anyone or anything. I've just said that I'm just trying to make a game for people who are dissatisfied with the ones they have at the moment.

@surreality said:

@Entropy You seem to either not be grasping what's being said, or... something else is going on. Considering how you presented the contents of this thread in the BNW thread, I'm not terribly optimistic about your level of understanding or comprehension, since I haven't seen a single instance of anyone in this thread stating that 'being fair' is impossible, unrealistic, or even an uncommon goal.

In fact, every example you've provided as your methods of ensuring fairness is already standard practice on most games. And you've been informed of this by multiple people at this point.

What seems to be sailing over your head is that even with that being the case, things will not necessarily go smoothly because people may, for whatever reason, not perceive that to be the case, and you'll have to be prepared to contend with this situation when it arises.

That you, yourself, seem to perceive that 'most games are totally unfair due to staff malice and corruption' and whatnot, well, think about it a moment. Again, the things you talk about implementing to ensure fairness are already in place on most games... and you still perceive that the majority of games are unfair.

You, yourself, are an example of the perception problem most of us have been trying to explain to you as something you need to be prepared for, because no matter what you do, you will be on the receiving end of it.

I'm going to steal @Coin's line here, because I agree with it wholeheartedly: "More games is better." DO IT. Just be prepared for the reality of the situation, which is going to include a lot of people insisting you're unreasonable, malicious, corrupt, etc. no matter how ethical or fair or reasonable you actually are.

I've already stated, a couple of times, that I get that. I understand that there will always be players who think that I'm shit, and the game is shit. Again, it comes down to one thing being said and taken to a context that far outweighs what it originally started as. The conversation has focused on the staff side of things because it's focused on the staff side of things. Not because I disregard the player side of things. The main reason for that is because I am here to talk about expectations for potential staff.

I also never said that I perceive that "most" games are unfair, due to this... I've just said that I have seen it a lot. I've seen games where staffer characters are the only characters that have any meaning in the game. I've seen comic based games where people get to squat on high-demand characters just because they're buddies with such and such staff member. One game has a staffer who sits on three iconic, high-demand characters, and doesn't really play them outside of TSing in private. I've seen another game where two staffers essentially rule the game simply by having more alts than the rest of the playerbase altogether. I've seen WoD games where staff pets get all the cool toys and positions, and others are actively shut down. I've seen people get actions taken against them by staff that were clearly unwarranted and disproven by logs, but still went through just because they were initiated by a staff friend.

I feel it's also important to note that most of these things I have seen happen to people that are not me. I've only ever had one issue with staff on a game, personally. I'm not a person with a victim complex. I know there are a lot of people out there like that. I'm just an other-oriented person who doesn't like seeing people get treated like crap. And while I'm fully on board with the statement that most problems with staff and players are the result of oversight or miscommunication, and not from willful and malicious intent.... these examples I've seen are still enough for me to want to provide a game where I can ensure that kind of thing doesn't happen. So... I guess, in that regard, consider me the benevolent dictator.

That actually brings me to the next thing I guess needs clarification. I really just want to make sure that these very extreme things don't happen. The common complaint about not getting this or that is one thing. The common railing against staff unfairness is going to be present. I do understand all of that. I've said this from the get go. But man... I've seen some really just super unjust things go down on games, and I've seen really great players leave as a result of them. If I can be in a position to mitigate even a little of that, then that's where I want to be.

Is that kind of behavior the norm? I can't say, as I don't play a TON of games. I tend to stick with a few genres, and don't really venture outside of those. But I know that this does happen from time to time, and, in the case of the comic games operating right now, there's a certain level of dissatisfaction from the playerbase on a whole across the three biggest ones I know. I just want to provide an alternative.

Can I make everyone happy? Of course not. Can I make everything run smoothly? Nope. Can I say that if one of my staff ever blatantly shows gross favoritism to certain players over others, just because of personal taste, I'll alleviate that person from staff duty? Absolutely.

Alright, look. I get what you're trying to say. I'm going to try to make this as clear as I possibly can, because I've tried to say this a few times now and it seems to go over people's heads. I am not looking to create a Utopian gaming experience. I know that it is impossible. I think you are all focusing too much on one thing that I have stated as a desire and blowing it out of proportion into this big idealistic thing that you have to try to shut down. It's not that.

I say I want a game where people can be fair, because I am looking to run a game, where I am fair. I'm looking to be the headstaff of this game, as I am willing to create the world from the ground up. I have a small handful of people that are with me, and want to see this happen as well. These are all people that I know well, and are of a similar mindset to me.

As a headstaffer, sure, I would be the final word, but with it being me, and me knowing myself, I know that I am the kind of person who is willing to listen to the advice of others, and I am able to consider other viewpoints other than my own. Something that I observe lacking from other places. The reasons for that lack may be many and varied, but it still happens and it causes a lot of people to turn away from games, and sometimes the hobby itself.

This translates to the comments I made about how one person won't have the final word. That means that myself, and the people I am looking to work with, are all of the understanding that if a problem arises, we are capable of being mature adults of discussing it among ourselves in order to examine the decisions that were made and why. As well as the reasons for the opposing viewpoint. This does not equate to a sunshine and rainbows view where everyone gets everything they want, or that the players get everything they ask for. This means nothing more than the fact that real consideration is given to both the requests and the reasons behind the request. After that, the decision is whatever it is. But at least it was considered.

In the end, it comes down to this. I have the ideas. I have the people. We have the stories. I have builders, and plotters, and creative folks around me already pitching in. The only thing I need is some people to help turn all this into something tangible. Whether or not people think the game will succeed, based on assumptions of naïveté, is a whole other matter, and inconsequential at this point in time. If the game fails, then it fails. In the end, the only thing I can say is that I am going to try, and that I know that in trying, I will do what I intend to do. I will be a staffer who isn't obsessed with controlling every aspect of the game, or someone who makes the game just a playpen for their buddies, but gives everyone an equal chance to tell the stories they want to tell and have fun doing so. I will provide a place where, even if your voice isn't heeded, you're at least heard.

Right now, I have everything I need to make it happen, with the exception of someone to help me set it up and get it going, and someone to do some minor coding for a few features I'd like to see implemented. That's it. I understand that some people might think certain things about my noble intentions, and all that, but that's not what this thread is about. The thread is about whether or not there are people who are willing and able to help me with these two last pieces of the puzzle to make this game happen.

@surreality

I get all of that. And I'm not expecting any sort of problem free environment. Again, I'm not naive. I don't expect to do the impossible. I'm literally just looking to give a group of players that I see with a lot of good people a place to play that is not run by a batshit tyrant. If I could, I'd happily just open BNW2, for example, and keep everything the same, but without the dictator. That's not possible, so I'm just wanting to do the next best thing.... provide an alternative/haven for those players who are less than satisfied but stick around for the other players.

@surreality said:

@Entropy said:

I think somewhere along the way my message of optimism got misconstrued to a call for utopia. I'm not that naive. I understand that there is no way to create a perfect game, or anything ridiculous like that.

But certainly I can help create one that is better than the choices we have at the moment. Which is all I'm trying to do.

Sure.. Staffer A is always not going to like Player B. They might have some bad blood. I just want Staffer A to be able to let Staffer B take over things for that player so that their personal issues don't negatively impact the game.

Here's the thing: you can do that, and obviously that is what one should do and what I'd do and what every sane staffer ever has known needs to be done, but that is absolutely zero guarantee of the result you're hoping for. Why? Because staff behaving badly are not the sole cause of trouble on a game. Bad players are the other side of that coin. And a bad player may still not be satisfied with that outcome, or may be convinced there's something shady going on behind the scenes, or think Staffer A still made the call but Staffer C just signed their name to it, or Staffer C is just Staffer A's lapdog, etc. -- and said player decides to tell everyone with ears exactly this. They may scream and kick up a fuss, demanding they will never get fair treatment so long as Staffer A is staff at all for any number of reasons from the reasonable to the ridiculous.

You cannot overlook this source of strife. As someone who went through more or less exactly the above for months of genuine insanity, I can tell you from first hand experience, this player is as common as the actually malicious shady staffer is -- but they are equally toxic to the environment of your game.

You keep focusing on 'good staff', but you can actually have good, ethical staff, and still encounter these problems, these accusations, and a whole pile of completely crazy bullshit that's just as unreasonable and broadly damaging as the Elsa example described above.

You need to be prepared for this, and accept the reality of it as something you will absolutely have to contend with -- and unfortunately I'm not really seeing any evidence that it's even a part of your understanding of the kinds of actual problems one can encounter as you're considering taking this all on. I'm not saying this to be a cunt here, I'm saying this because I know from experience that all the sincerity and transparency and honesty and good intentions and best practices in the world cannot prevent this or other problems from the player side from emerging.

If you are only looking at 'staff being a problem', you're only seeing half the picture.

Think of it as a math problem written on a page in front of you. Cover half the equation with your finger, and try to come up with the right answer, while missing half of the mechanics required to arrive at that answer. Maybe you can? But you're going to get a lot farther a lot faster if you're looking at the whole thing.

You need to look at the whole dynamic and you need to be realistic.

Or when Staffer B makes a judgment about Player A's request, and Player A isn't satisfied with the result, Staffers A and C might take a look at it and open a dialogue with Staffer B so that it's not just "Oh, this is my call and I don't need a reason for things being my way".

And some people are never satisfied until and unless they get their way, exactly. This is another area where you're going to have to get realistic and understand that sometimes it's staffer caprice, and other times, it's that the player asked for something that's completely batshit cray cray, because both things happen.

You talk about digging in on situations like the above, but in the example you've presented? We have one side of the story. We don't know what the app entailed. We don't know if it was asking for restricted or forbidden things. We don't know if special exceptions were being requested, if there were special criteria that needed to be met, and so on. We're just supposed to assume, I gather, that everything asked for was above board, and you can't do that as staff.

Is that a giant pain in the ass? Damn right, it is. But that's the reality on the ground, and it isn't so cut and dried as one might think.

I actually do take into account the idea of problem players. Part of the reason that I've stated that I'd want to do a comic based MU* was because I find a more (generally speaking) positive playerbase on these games than I do on the WoD and Cyberpunk/Shadowrun based games that I've been on. They're not perfect, and there is definitely some cray cray out there. I realize this. And if that player in the example was requesting something retarded, then it's the job of the staffers to realize that. Having a dialogue and discussing the issue doesn't mean that the player is going to get their way. It just means that people aren't going to be just shut down arbitrarily.

I speak mostly about the staff side of things because I feel that a competent staff can handle the problem of the player side of the equation. And because I'm not here to just talk about this utopian theoretical game, but asking for people who feel that they can be mature and work with a team to follow the expectations that I'm laying out. Those expectations aren't "I need you to be totally cool with everyone", or "I need you to give the players anything they desire". Those expectations are "Don't be an asshat", and "If you have a problem with someone pass that person off to someone else" and lastly, "If you shut something down and the player tries to make a clear point of why it should be, then hear them out and consider it, rather than taking umbrage that they dared question you".

I don't really think that these are unrealistic expectations to have.