Shitty players will abuse whatever system you give them. If staff is good and responsive and deals with shitty players efficiently, then it doesn't remain a problem.
@Coin Agreed.
On more than one occasion, I've seen less ethical players on SuperConsent MUs claim a very powerful character and use said level of power as a walking justification for powerpose and/or ignoring the powers/skills of other PCs.
It basically ends up like a hostage situation. PowerPlayer feels powers justify success despite consent. Staff intervention may end up necessary to stop PowerPlayer, but then it could be construed as staff railroading.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
@Ghost said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
@Coin Agreed.
On more than one occasion, I've seen less ethical players on SuperConsent MUs claim a very powerful character and use said level of power as a walking justification for powerpose and/or ignoring the powers/skills of other PCs.
It basically ends up like a hostage situation. PowerPlayer feels powers justify success despite consent. Staff intervention may end up necessary to stop PowerPlayer, but then it could be construed as staff railroading.
This latter is a fallacy, though, since one of staff's roles is to stop abuse. Also, it's not railroading if you take the bit away, it's just taking the bit away.
<.< >.>
My biggest thing, re: statted systems vs. consent games (because consent games are not systems, so the term does not apply) is where the power lies.
On the latter, the power lies in the hands of Staff and whoever has the loudest voice. Your meek players and those who are not comfortable approaching authority are at a loss. How many people have just quietly left games because they don't feel comfortable approaching Staff?
I mean, shit, I am the person other people come to on games because I'm that person who will just bullshit with Staff on channels and even I have just left games rather than deal with some shit because I've encountered Staff I can't find that level of rapport with. I know people who can never, ever find that level of comfort. Faraday, for example, is one of the most approachable Staffers you will ever meet and I have had to shove people at her and tell them it is totally okay to talk to her and that is on mundane, happy issues and not 'hey this person is being a problem.'
In statted systems, you put power in the hands of your players. You give even your meek, anxious, introverted players something they can hold onto. You give people a voice. You give them something concrete they can hold onto, they can point to, they can back themselves up with. You give your Staff a base to work off of in arguments rather than he-said-she-said and hoping a smart third party or a decent log is available.
I love consent for storytelling and I still engage in a lot of it, even in statted systems, but even then only for people I trust.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
YES.
The problem with the 'play whatever' multiverse superhero games is that it's a pain to figure out how everyone fits in with everyone else. Limited focus (even to just one comic book company) allows for coherency, which creates continuity, which means players can have characters jump straight off of existing canonical relationships, events and conflicts. It makes finding and generating scenes a lot easier that way, and gives new people a chance to find their RP niche more rapidly.
@Auspice said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
My biggest thing, re: statted systems vs. consent games (because consent games are not systems, so the term does not apply) is where the power lies.
On the latter, the power lies in the hands of Staff and whoever has the loudest voice. Your meek players and those who are not comfortable approaching authority are at a loss. How many people have just quietly left games because they don't feel comfortable approaching Staff?
I mean, shit, I am the person other people come to on games because I'm that person who will just bullshit with Staff on channels and even I have just left games rather than deal with some shit because I've encountered Staff I can't find that level of rapport with. I know people who can never, ever find that level of comfort. Faraday, for example, is one of the most approachable Staffers you will ever meet and I have had to shove people at her and tell them it is totally okay to talk to her and that is on mundane, happy issues and not 'hey this person is being a problem.'
In statted systems, you put power in the hands of your players. You give even your meek, anxious, introverted players something they can hold onto. You give people a voice. You give them something concrete they can hold onto, they can point to, they can back themselves up with. You give your Staff a base to work off of in arguments rather than he-said-she-said and hoping a smart third party or a decent log is available.
I love consent for storytelling and I still engage in a lot of it, even in statted systems, but even then only for people I trust.
I disagree, but only because it can be switched.
In a full consent game, an honest staffer can't just, say, kill your character for no reason, or because they feel like it. You have the power to no-consent anything. Even if Mortiz tries to drop his Red Kryptonite plot and have Superman rape you because he's just soooooo craaaazy, you can say 'nope, not happening'.
In a stat system, if a staffer doesn't like the argument you're making and how you're using the system to back it up, they can (and will, in many cases) just House Rule that shit to the point where you're wrong, because that's not how it works here.
Again, context is irrelevant when we're talking about shitty people vs. decent people.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@Auspice said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
(because consent games are not systems, so the term does not apply)
I just want to pop in to say-- Like, yes, but you're being a bit pedantic with that, to be honest. It's like when someone talks about anarchy as a type of government. No, it's technically /not government at all/, but when you're discussing types of governments and you bring up anarchy, it's being a bit nitpicky. We all know what is meant in both contexts if I say 'Anarchy is the best government' and 'Consent is the worst system'.
I appreciate everyone's constructive feedback. This is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped to see.
@Coin said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
@Auspice said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
My biggest thing, re: statted systems vs. consent games (because consent games are not systems, so the term does not apply) is where the power lies.
On the latter, the power lies in the hands of Staff and whoever has the loudest voice. Your meek players and those who are not comfortable approaching authority are at a loss. How many people have just quietly left games because they don't feel comfortable approaching Staff?
I mean, shit, I am the person other people come to on games because I'm that person who will just bullshit with Staff on channels and even I have just left games rather than deal with some shit because I've encountered Staff I can't find that level of rapport with. I know people who can never, ever find that level of comfort. Faraday, for example, is one of the most approachable Staffers you will ever meet and I have had to shove people at her and tell them it is totally okay to talk to her and that is on mundane, happy issues and not 'hey this person is being a problem.'
In statted systems, you put power in the hands of your players. You give even your meek, anxious, introverted players something they can hold onto. You give people a voice. You give them something concrete they can hold onto, they can point to, they can back themselves up with. You give your Staff a base to work off of in arguments rather than he-said-she-said and hoping a smart third party or a decent log is available.
I love consent for storytelling and I still engage in a lot of it, even in statted systems, but even then only for people I trust.
I disagree, but only because it can be switched.
In a full consent game, an honest staffer can't just, say, kill your character for no reason, or because they feel like it. You have the power to no-consent anything. Even if Mortiz tries to drop his Red Kryptonite plot and have Superman rape you because he's just soooooo craaaazy, you can say 'nope, not happening'.
In a stat system, if a staffer doesn't like the argument you're making and how you're using the system to back it up, they can (and will, in many cases) just House Rule that shit to the point where you're wrong, because that's not how it works here.
Again, context is irrelevant when we're talking about shitty people vs. decent people.
And yet, in the case that killed consent games for me, this is exactly what happened. I hit a situation in a scene with a staffer that went past my level of comfort. It would have ruined my character's playability. It made me insanely uncomfortable OOCly (anyone who has RP'd with me for an extended period of time knows that I can handle just about anything, too).
I called a stop and they refused. It was go through with it or be banned from the game.
I was given absolutely no option and cussed out.
So this is not the case at all.
Edited: I was not even allowed to request a FTB. I was told to RP it out or be banned. I have never, ever encountered that sort of shit on a statted game.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
@Auspice that is super shitty staffing.
@Auspice said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
@Coin said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
@Auspice said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
My biggest thing, re: statted systems vs. consent games (because consent games are not systems, so the term does not apply) is where the power lies.
On the latter, the power lies in the hands of Staff and whoever has the loudest voice. Your meek players and those who are not comfortable approaching authority are at a loss. How many people have just quietly left games because they don't feel comfortable approaching Staff?
I mean, shit, I am the person other people come to on games because I'm that person who will just bullshit with Staff on channels and even I have just left games rather than deal with some shit because I've encountered Staff I can't find that level of rapport with. I know people who can never, ever find that level of comfort. Faraday, for example, is one of the most approachable Staffers you will ever meet and I have had to shove people at her and tell them it is totally okay to talk to her and that is on mundane, happy issues and not 'hey this person is being a problem.'
In statted systems, you put power in the hands of your players. You give even your meek, anxious, introverted players something they can hold onto. You give people a voice. You give them something concrete they can hold onto, they can point to, they can back themselves up with. You give your Staff a base to work off of in arguments rather than he-said-she-said and hoping a smart third party or a decent log is available.
I love consent for storytelling and I still engage in a lot of it, even in statted systems, but even then only for people I trust.
I disagree, but only because it can be switched.
In a full consent game, an honest staffer can't just, say, kill your character for no reason, or because they feel like it. You have the power to no-consent anything. Even if Mortiz tries to drop his Red Kryptonite plot and have Superman rape you because he's just soooooo craaaazy, you can say 'nope, not happening'.
In a stat system, if a staffer doesn't like the argument you're making and how you're using the system to back it up, they can (and will, in many cases) just House Rule that shit to the point where you're wrong, because that's not how it works here.
Again, context is irrelevant when we're talking about shitty people vs. decent people.
And yet, in the case that killed consent games for me, this is exactly what happened. I hit a situation in a scene with a staffer that went past my level of comfort. It would have ruined my character's playability. It made me insanely uncomfortable OOCly (anyone who has RP'd with me for an extended period of time knows that I can handle just about anything, too).
I called a stop and they refused. It was go through with it or be banned from the game.
I was given absolutely no option and cussed out.
So this is not the case at all.
That's because the game had a shitty staffer, though. Like, we have to be able to talk about systems in terms of how they would work with good staffing. The problem you're describing is not a problem because it was a consent game. It was because you had a ridiculously terrible staffer being awful to you.
But what Coin is saying is 'This stuff happens on statted games because they are statted.'
I'm saying I've seen it happen on a consent game.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
@Auspice Tbf he also specified that the problem wouldn't happen with an honest staffer on a consent game. I mean, I guess you could say that the asshole you encountered was honest about it, but I generally take "honest staffer" to also mean "decent staffer," which said asshole was clearly not.
Anyways, my larger point is that players and staffers can be shitty on every kind of game. The ways in which they are shitty can adjust to most exploit whatever type of game they're on. We've all seen shit. If the shit we've seen comes down to "a player or staffer was allowed to be shitty without being disciplined in some manner," then it's a player/staffing problem, not a system problem. And if the conversation is trying to focus on systems, then those sorts of problems end up conversational smokescreens.
To be honest, I am 100% sure that, between everyone posting on this thread right now, we can find bad experiences on both sides of any fence when it comes to MUing. I have been blessed with a MU life with no bad experiences on consent games, but I am not under any illusion people haven't abused, and still abuse, it over the years. The way I deal with it is that I just rather trust staff, whom I need to trust anyways, to balance things out.
That being said, I am afraid we are MSBing this thread and letting this paralyzing love for theorycrafting getting in the way of getting things done. There is really no right answer on this matter of consent or no consent, I think, and both sides have merits. As do many things on MUing. A version of this talk has been had countless times, and I hope @Ghost doesn't get stuck on any particular subject for too long!
We do have the bad habit of... going on and on and on and on and on about basically everything around here! Do your thing, dude!
@Auspice said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
But what Coin is saying is 'This stuff happens on statted games because they are statted.'
I'm saying I've seen it happen on a consent game.
I did not say that at all.
I said that shitty people will find shitty ways of being shitty regardless of context.
I absolutely did not say what you quoted above.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@Coin said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
@Auspice said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
But what Coin is saying is 'This stuff happens on statted games because they are statted.'
I'm saying I've seen it happen on a consent game.I did not say that at all.
I said that shitty people will find shitty ways of being shitty regardless of context.
I absolutely did not say what you quoted above.
That's how your argument came across to me, at least, in the wording used. That statted systems enable people to be assholes.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
@Auspice said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
@Coin said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
@Auspice said in POLL: Super Hero MU Gut Check:
But what Coin is saying is 'This stuff happens on statted games because they are statted.'
I'm saying I've seen it happen on a consent game.I did not say that at all.
I said that shitty people will find shitty ways of being shitty regardless of context.
I absolutely did not say what you quoted above.
That's how your argument came across to me, at least, in the wording used. That statted systems enable people to be assholes.
That's because you were arguing that consent games enable people to be assholes, so I provided examples of the benefits of consent vs. the pitfalls of statted systems.
But I have maintained, throughout the entire thread, in pretty much every post I have made, that it is shitty people at the core of the problems and not the context.
Consent games staffed and played by decent people? Decent game.
Consent games staffed and played by shitty people? Shitty game.
Statted system staffed and played by decent people? Decent game.
Statted system staffed and played by shitty people? Shitty game.
Sure, there are other things to take into account (is the theme interesting, are the rules balanced, does everyone have stuff to do, etc.,) but in this conversation about what people can and can't abuse, it's shitty people that are at fault.
And all this because I said it'd be nice to have a heroes mu with some stats instead of just consent based. And then you communist bastards come in and say all mus must be consent based because statted games have assholes
Go back to 1940 Stalin
Lets offline this discussion about what was and was not said or shitty people consent/statted to Random Bitching, plz.
RE-THREAD:
From a super hero perspective, what settings do you feel would work from a tighter focus?
What about DC Cosmic, such as Green Lantern Corps and the ROYGBIV spectrum of heroes and villains?
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
And all this because I said it'd be nice to have a heroes mu with some stats instead of just consent based. And then you communist bastards come in and say all mus must be consent based because statted games have assholes
Go back to 1940 Stalin
