What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?

[krmbm]

@Arkandel said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

And for the love of Cthulhu don't make any last-second melodramatic motions, long posts or bridge-burning to signal your exit. Inform any actual friends or regular partners you're going or how to reach you if they want to, then make a graceful exit.

Needs more up-votes.

[Auspice]

@krmbm said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

@Arkandel said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

And for the love of Cthulhu don't make any last-second melodramatic motions, long posts or bridge-burning to signal your exit. Inform any actual friends or regular partners you're going or how to reach you if they want to, then make a graceful exit.

Needs more up-votes.

but if I don't kill off my character in a super dramatic way how will anyone know how important I was?!?!

(I have never done this. I have, however, in the past absolutely done a Pubchan 'This is the problem here. Peace. I'm out.' I regret it in one case. Not in another.)

[surreality]

@Ganymede said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

I used to think that staff victimized players. Now I realize we just victimize ourselves.

Even IC, the character I've been playing for the past year or so now (OMG, it's been more than a year?!) has come to the following conclusion:

"You're sometimes the hero of your own story. You're ultimately also its principle villain."

[Apos]

I think the baseline behavior in the hobby is pretty good, and a lot better than I expected. If you have clear guidelines for what's reasonable and a well defined culture, most people line up to it well. I wasted a whole hell of a lot of time early on trying to design around countering exceptions for bad behavior that people have just never attempted, when just saying, 'No one do X' would have been fine.

On the flip side, how well people handle conflict or loss of anything they are invested in is way, way, way worse than I expected. Like by orders of magnitude.

I started worried about trolling and bad actors, and almost never found it. But people going apeshit over setbacks from individuals that are normally 100% fine and even positive was way worse than I ever anticipated.

[Derp]

@surreality said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

"You're sometimes the hero of your own story. You're ultimately also its principle villain."

I'm stealing this line.

[surreality]

@Derp I seriously think that ends up being a good explanation of much of life. That dang character is smarter than me. She really is.

[Lemon Fox]

@Apos said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

I started worried about trolling and bad actors, and almost never found it. But people going apeshit over setbacks from individuals that are normally 100% fine and even positive was way worse than I ever anticipated.

Sorry!

[reversed]

This post is deleted!

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

I used to think that staff victimized players. Now I realize we just victimize ourselves.

Sometimes we get help.

[Arkandel]

One opinion I wanted to bring up in this thread was that each game really should have a firm design from the ground up. That doesn't mean it ought to be 'complete' on day 1 - or even day 365 - since that isn't feasible (or even fun). But it does mean each game ought to have its principal administrators put in some honest thought in how it's different than every other MU*; why does it even have to exist? What are their goals? What excites them to create this new thing? What would make it exciting for players to come in and participate?

It always drove me a little crazy when the whole process became "let's put this new thing out with as little work as possible, as soon as possible". I've maintained that thought through the years because this is the whole thing about a MUSH - the possibilities are endless. You're basically staging an interactive, multiplayer novel-slash-improv theatrical production whose characters can be any damn thing you choose, you can set it on any stage (today's Earth, a galaxy far far away, Westeros, Gotham City, anywhere)... so why would you choose to just copy/paste what the last three MU* did pretty much verbatim, slap a new name on it and call it a day?

And this kind of hurried let's-just-go-ahead process can infect other important decision making due to the lack of a central focus or guiding set of principles throughout the way an entire MUSH is being ran. Decisions get made in a hurry without real thought behind them; for example it's very common to see fledgling games create a larger issue than what they're trying to solve by creating hoops good players need to (and will, since that's what makes them good) jump through trying to prevent the symptoms of bad players' behavior - only most often they won't, since those folks will ignore or go around the obstacle to get what they want, since that's what makes them bad. The result is alienating the former and barely inconveniencing the latter. The cause varies.

Another example is games which simply copy house rules or policies from other MU*, a tactic that can result in perpetuated systemic issues, mixed signals and conflicting goals if other aspects of those games don't match them. For instance one sphere can be ran very liberally ("spend your XPs, y'all!") while another in a draconian fashion ("to buy Renown 3 you need to cut yourself and show me the wound") or treat PrPs as an afterthought or even a net negative - and all of that results in isolationism, not being able to create any kind of sustainable culture not to mention - quite often - a revolting door of staff who come in and go right back out.

[Warma Sheen]

The main thing I regret about MUs when I was younger was just getting started. If I could go back and not start, I would. It wasn't at all what I thought it was while I was playing it and it wasn't what I wanted it to be. I wanted an online version of a tabletop game (because my gaming group broke up) and it wasn't that at all. I wanted action and adventure and everyone around me wanted drama and TS. People would constantly look down on me and bad mouth me because what and how I wanted to play "wasn't the right way" (or some version of that). By the time I learned what was "socially acceptable" on a MU, I was so angry and resentful at having to play everyone else's way that I was just pissing people off and allowing people to piss me off on a constant basis. I never believed (and still don't) that MUing was a "collaborative writing experience". I'm not sure where that concept came from but I've rarely seen it apply to any MU*.

I was a very negative person for several years in large part due to my frustrations on MUs and with life. Eventually, it made me hate online gaming altogether. Self sabotage is a bitch like that cause I was basically addicted like a crackhead. I loved the high of MUs but couldn't see that the fun times were increasingly outweighed by the frustrations and shit slinging I was taking my way. Whenever a new game would pop up and I'd get that little spark of hope that this one would be better and I'd be let down all over again. I've spent hours, days, weeks, months, years of my life online on a MU, trying to get 'fun' to happen when I could have been out actually doing fun stuff.

It wasn't until I was older and wiser that I realized that the trade offs were not worth it and I was happier not playing at all, than finding little bright spots here and there while being frustrated and annoyed (or worse) all over the place more often than not.

I still think the biggest problem in MUs is the toxic community of players that doesn't really change. Not a lot of new MUers. Same bad people, only a few of which grow and mature. Others carry grudges for years or decades.

I still think too many people bring their RL issues (mental or emotional) to games and expect other people to accommodate them. MUs are not group therapy sessions or outlets for you to unload on others.

I used to think it was fun to find new and unique ways to "win". I swear I learned that from reading "Ender's Game" when I was little. But I missed the part where everyone fucking hated Ender and wanted to murder him. So I don't think its applicable on MUs anymore, if only because it annoys everyone else and ultimately makes everything else less fun for you in the long run.

I still think ICA has to equal ICC if you expect to have any theme on a MU. And not just between PCs, but from staff too. They need to bring the NPC folks that keep people in check in the first place, not just the NPCs that end up as event fodder. Every MU I've been to people do eyerolly stuff consistently because there are no real consequences. People are far too touchy about character death and character control and so consequences go out the window and inanity builds more and more until it overflows into complete theme abandonment and obliteration and even the staff can no longer rein it in.

I have learned to temper my expectations on what I'm getting out of a hobby (not just MUs but any hobby) and that has helped me enjoy the things I do in my life a lot more. And to better evaluate if it is something I want to keep doing or when to quit. I've learned that I'm not responsible for anyone else's fun so if I want to quit a game I can do so and not feel guilty for the people left behind.

I've learned that good staff are undervalued and underappreciated. I used to believe that anyone could be a good staffer so long as they had the right mindset of what the game is about. I've since learned that such is not true.

I've learned that bad staff are overly tolerated. I used to think you can just ignore bad staffers, but I've learned that just their presence infects the game and spreads negativity which spoils a game from the inside out.

And I've learned that no matter how right you are or how great your idea is, it is far more important how you express those ideas or opinions that determines whether people will take you seriously. It applies to RL too, but far, far more on MUs.

[Derp]

@Arkandel said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

Another example is games which simply copy house rules or policies from other MU*, a tactic that can result in perpetuated systemic issues, mixed signals and conflicting goals if other aspects of those games don't match them.

Tangential peeve to this one: when people have been playing under weird house rules for so long that they insist that they're the actual base rules.

For instance one sphere can be ran very liberally ("spend your XPs, y'all!") while another in a draconian fashion ("to buy Renown 3 you need to cut yourself and show me the wound") or treat PrPs as an afterthought or even a net negative - and all of that results in isolationism, not being able to create any kind of sustainable culture not to mention - quite often - a revolting door of staff who come in and go right back out.

Here's where I disagree with you, though.

In a multisphere game, you're actually running overlapping games. Because those things aren't created equal, and we've seen that time and time again.

A vampiric discipline, for example, is a discreet thing. It has a set, fixed purpose to it. The same with a devotion.

Renown, on the other hand, touches on so many aspects of werewolf and gives so many benefits (increased rank, increased 'status', free gifts, larger dice pools, the list goes on and on -- Renown touches on literally every part of werewolf) that you're not talking about buying even remotely the same kind of thing. In that case, 1xp does not equal 1xp, and treating them like they're the same thing, or should be the same thing, is a ludicrous way to unbalance your game very fast.

Not all things are equal, and therefore you shouldn't try to treat them like they are. Some things have a hell of a lot more bang for their buck, and those things should be gated appropriately.

[mietze]

I used to think that if I waited my turn patiently, complied as best I could with the stated rules, or was as generous as I could be with my time and sharing plot and other things with others that I would receive reciprocation or it would somehow come back to me in rewards or whatnot at some point.

It didn't/doesn't.

Then I believed that either there was something intrinsicly wrong with me or that I was boring/yucky/whatever OR the other people might just be kind of turdy people.

That's not true either. (though I know some people DO think I'm boring or yucky, it's not like I don't have people I feel that way about too, so that's fair--but in general, nobody cares! And certainly I have run into some turdy staffers/players in my time, but that's not the majority of people).

I think now that most games are just not set up for the individual attention or small group attention that a lot of us crave, and because online RP is this very interesting mix of internal/external (at least for me, I love thinking about my PCs' backstory and hopes for the future and I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in that regard though who the hell knows, maybe I am weird?) it's easy for me to have expectations that when they go unfilled it's easy to get discouraged/resentful.

I think while I am a lot less tolerant of overt time wasters (if there's a culture of people being truly openly mean on chan/public in a game that's ooc, I leave without fanfare. If it's very apparent that literally no one but a chose/connected few will receive answers/scenes/ect from staff or a fac head, and interaction with that is very important to me, then if I can't get enjoyment after setting that aside, I leave. Same thing if there's some kind of staff decision policy wise that I just can't deal with.)

But have learned/am still learning how to gracefully hold others with an open hand, enjoy the RP they do give me, try just to be okay with sharing what I want and will have fun in the moment sharing and expect that they'll just go back to ignoring or not choosing to interact with my PC after that, and I also try to speak up and be sure to tell people what I enjoyed about a scene or their PC when it comes up in my mind so that maybe they get a little unexpected positive feedback too.

I no longer really feel a drive to "fight" to "fix" something unless I'm asked to, either online or RL. It definitely cuts the stress level a lot, and I'm happier in the hobby, though it's not like I do not experience downs like most people do, I definitely do and struggle sometimes. But I guess I no longer try to make anyone or any system a scapegoat for that discomfort/hurt--I can see that it's more environmental and that makes it easier to just let things go no harm no foul than it used to be.

[faraday]

@Warma-Sheen said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

I never believed (and still don't) that MUing was a "collaborative writing experience". I'm not sure where that concept came from but I've rarely seen it apply to any MU*.

One of my earliest MUs was Maddock MUX, a sandbox, consent-based western with almost no mechanics or code to speak of. There weren't even background approvals. I've played on numerous other pure-consent or mostly-consent games since. So to me - MUs as a collaborative writing experience has been a thing since 1996.

Which ties into the thing that it took me entirely too long to learn about MUSHing: I used to think we were a single hobby, but I've come to realize that we're really a collection of different game styles loosely unified by the technology we use to play them. I hear stories from @Thenomain about WoD games, or some other friends about comic games, and they may as well be as different from my experience as playing Bridge vs. playing Poker.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

I hear stories from @Thenomain about WoD games, or some other friends about comic games, and they may as well be as different from my experience as playing Bridge vs. playing Poker.

Unsurprisingly, I enjoy playing both bridge and poker.

Generally, I prefer the stratagem and outwitting in bridge.

This, unsurprisingly, is how my MU life goes.

[faraday]

@Ganymede said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

Unsurprisingly, I enjoy playing both bridge and poker.

There's nothing wrong either game, and certainly nothing wrong with liking both.

What happens too often in MUSH land, though, is that you have people who are:

a) Showing up to a bridge tournament expecting to play poker and then getting disappointed.
b) Trying to play both bridge and poker simultaneously with the same deck of cards and acting shocked when that doesn't work out.
c) Badmouthing those who prefer a different type of card game than they do.
or some variation of the above.

MUSH games are not very good about setting expectations of what kind of game they are, and players are not very good about respecting those boundaries even when they are established.

[Trix]

It's possible to have different elements in a game. I like mutiple-aspected games too, and yeah, am not alone. Else we wouldn't have Rune Factories, Persona's (3 and up), Fire Emblems, etc. Theme just has to be clearly laid out, rules enforced, and hopefully people can communicate issues from a place of respect before everyone is playing 52 Pickup.

[Sunny]

I used to think that the IC world and consistency trumped OOC considerations, that actions should always have APPROPRIATE consequences (emphasis oldme's), that things need to not be realistic (because lol magic), but SENSIBLE. Sensible was absolutely a requirement in every way.

I've totally given that up in favor of #1 priority being 'everyone enjoying themselves' -- it doesn't always work, and sometimes there are conflicting goals and things, but I think it's a better approach to the hobby than IC being sacrosanct like I used to feel.

It really is OK to have your bloodthirsty monster of a character NOT be a bloodthirsty monster if the other person isn't going to enjoy that. That's a change in the last 5 years or so for me.

[Thenomain]

@faraday said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

What happens too often in MUSH land, though, is that you have people who are:

a) Showing up to a bridge tournament expecting to play poker and then getting disappointed.
b) Trying to play both bridge and poker simultaneously with the same deck of cards and acting shocked when that doesn't work out.
c) Badmouthing those who prefer a different type of card game than they do.
or some variation of the above.

This is one of the best analogies I’ve seen.

MUSH games are not very good about setting expectations of what kind of game they are, and players are not very good about respecting those boundaries even when they are established.

Some of the longest running games have been by friends for friends, where expectations are generally always known and there is already a large pool of people willing to help people into the game culture. Some people have no problems putting down a hard but fair line about the expectations, but I find them the exception instead of the rule.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in What MU/RPG opinions have you changed or maintained?:

MUSH games are not very good about setting expectations of what kind of game they are, and players are not very good about respecting those boundaries even when they are established.

I concur, but write to add that most players are simply unwilling to learn the rules of a novel game, and would prefer to twist it to suit their attitudes rather than adapt.