Space Lords and Ladies

[mietze]

I don't remember a lot of fantasy babies on SC, either. I mean there were people who had children (mostly offscreen) but they were heirs or somesuch. I guess I must have seen a very different slice of things though. I definitely think there was a lot of fucking going on, but I don't recall it being a huge emphasis in game play. I only had one ICly slutty PC though, who got surprisingly little action in that area. Custodius didn't care for my RP I don't think, so maybe that's why?

I totally agree though that putting in penalities for things that you know are inevitable (like TS) are not worth the time and distract from concentrating on the other hard lines you want to take a stand on. Like if there IS societal pressure against being seen as the kingdom's bicycle, then maybe instead of whining on bb1 or shaking your finger, just dock people status points or give them rumor crises they have to spend time/effort on to restore. (not like plots, just mechanical stuff, I think the other problem is if you give it too much attention). And have lots of positives and goodies for the behaviors/IC actions you DO wan to see.

[Seraphim73]

@mietze said:

Like, their PC has relationships with 13 other pcs? Or they create a bunch of alts to get involved with someone else's 1 PC?

Either/or.

And they usually are gaslighting the others, @deadculture, or at least just not telling them about the others.

@bored said:

Trying to build your game so it will punish people for the things you don't want them to do but they're definitely going to do anyway is head-to-wall level moronic.

I would Upvote that half a dozen times if I could.

The real issue is... why do you care if there's some Marriage and Baby drama going on, so long as people are still engaging with the plot/political maneuvering/adventuring that Staff is running?

[bored]

@Apollonius said:

Not all Lord and Ladies MU*s are doomed to become marriage simulators. People tilt towards whatever is en vogue. I'm not proposing to block out the fucking aspect in its entirety but this tendency towards pretty princesses and princes playing out their pregnancy fantasies was fairly uncommon in the past. Fading Suns Vargo only had one couple who were dead set on playing through marriage/relationship/pregnancy drama during my five odd years I was there (and that in itself is a much more convoluted web of alts fucking alts and a RL couple TSing in the game).

It was uncommon in the present, too, which is why I'm confused as to why you're so hung up on it. Who actually got married on SC? I mean, there was one plot where someone already had a kid from a dead NPC husband, but I can't think of anyone else? People fucked around but they will everywhere, and so what?

I am truly getting more and more baffled by this fixation. In fact, increasingly, you are saying things that seem totally divorced from reality.

The proliferation of the modern L&L trope really started rearing its ugly head when Firan was no longer a viable platform for multigenerational fucking and the increasing popularity of Kushiel-themed MU*s during the absence of a viable Fading Suns or any other Lords and Ladies alternative while the hard adventuring/political players started to get crowded out of the space or adapt to changing conditions. Game of Thrones and its own sexualized version of nobility exacerbated this trend. I mean, noble etiquette used to be a nightmare to deal with because there were certain protocols demanded in the Fading Suns universe and if they were not met, you could be unwittingly committing major social faux pas that would translate to poor political play. What I am seeing today with a lot of noble-oriented games is an increased relaxation of those protocols, sometimes for the better, but often to break the often steep learning curve of playing a lords and ladies and making it easier for everyone to sleep with one another because this is easy and it is how to make a game popular.

I ... what? See above about leaving reality behind.

None of this is true. 'Couple drama' has been a thing as long as these games have existed, and always will be. There's no great shift. The fact that you have maybe noticed it on a few games (some of which are wholly unconnected in terms of the people running them, or even the playerbases) is only reflective of your own narrow perspective, not actual historical fact.

I don't even know what you're talking about with 'protocols.' The thing you're describing as ideal (a game with some arcane etiquette that if I guess you don't get perfect your character explodes) sounds like a horrible fucking nightmare. Who would want to play this shit? And what does it have to do with Fading Suns?

The issue is in the players that a game attracts and which of the play styles dominate the lay of the land. Fucking, TS, and domestic drama are all a natural part of any MU* but it's really up to the theme makers in terms of the control of the variables of attracting certain players. Packrat can opt to pick a highly adventure-styled game and attract those players to swamp out the occasional ones that want to get married and have pretty children. Packrat can also opt to pick a highly political game that swamps out adventuring concepts and pretty princess and princes concepts. I stand by my point that there are variables that staff is in control of to alter the trajectory of their games by focusing on thematic elements that appeal to certain players and discouraging other players to never play at all or conform to what Rome does. The natural trajectory of any Lords and Ladies game in modern times is to rush towards a mess of marriage simulations and all sorts of domestic drama.

This is all such abstract, meaningless word-fill that you're not saying anything useful. We know that staff can set a tone. I'm fairly sure @Packrat wants to set an interesting tone, and pointing out that it's a good thing is fairly unecessary. I don't know what in this thread has convinced you the game will be OMG BABEHS to a degree that sounds hyperbolic even compared to the worst actual examples.

Seriously, what are you on?

[mietze]

Also in the source books for FS there's no real social sanction for fucking whomever you want to (unless your an Avestite I suppose?), as long as you marry who Big Momma/Daddy tells you to, there's forced divorces, a whole house of aliens/humans who can't usually procreate so when they marry they have to choose a fuckbuddy that can knock them up/be knocked up.

I've seen more magical babies and emphasis on pregnancy in WoD (especially for some bizarre reason oWoD) than anywhere else. So I gotta say, I'm with the others that are kind of wondering where this is going.

I mean, look. On ANY mush that's got a tight theme you are going to have people who really don't care to get involved in it that much, they're just there to simper/maybe someone they know dragged them/maybe they want the novelty of the setting sort of even if they never plan on darkening the grid for public RP. Usually these people don't scream and whine and moan about play they're not getting. So as long as they're meeting minimum standards, if you have a player who just wants to parade around with her pregnancy belly and bubble butt or whatever, or the guy who wants to just get laid in his starship (assuming these are not in short supply/taking up resources that another player can't get) vs. a RP room, then really--they harm none. I think sometimes we hyperventilate too much about those people.

Now, if PreggoFantasyGrrl also demands to be captain of the guard war leader and lead the troops into battle in a sexist society and she's bearing a major House's future heir? THAT is a problem that you probably should swat down. Or if Capt. Colin Forsecs wants to be head of the starshippers guild but can't be assed to get out of his bunk to run any events/plots get his people what they need? Also a problem. But you can deal with that shit by having clear expectations + as other people have mentioned non genitalia-centric things for people to do. But it's not /really/ a fucking problem.

[Misadventure]

I am curious, is there a true benefit to having the IC head of a faction act as an OOC head of a faction?

I see a few downsides, but no real upside.

[Seraphim73]

@Misadventure said:

I am curious, is there a true benefit to having the IC head of a faction act as an OOC head of a faction?

Single point of contact, no conflicting information, and that's about it.

I've seen it happen where the IC head of the faction decides to make a major faction-changing IC decision without consulting the OOC head of the faction, and then the OOC head of the faction has to scrap all of their upcoming plots/plans/missions and deal with the fallout from that decision (one that didn't make IC sense based on what was going on behind the scenes).

But I suppose that's really just a downside of bad communication more than the divide between the IC head and OOC head--but any time you have multiple people "in charge," there will be some friction of communication, even if they talk frequently.

I'm curious what you would see as the downsides of having the IC head of the faction also be the OOC head of the faction.

[Misadventure]

Just a few off the top of my head

You have all the IC and OOC power
You have all the IC and OOC knowledge
If you don't want either, you can't be the IC ranking person
Having IC rank equate to total OOC faction responsibilities seems unnecessary

Much of this depends of course on just what OOC and IC powers and knowledge you get. If it's just keeping track of who belongs on the wiki page, whatever. If it means tracking how people are bypassing your IC decisions and politicking against you, less good.

Oddly enough, mainly I dislike if people would assume that you have to have IC authority to have OOC ST authority.

[faraday]

@Misadventure said:

I am curious, is there a true benefit to having the IC head of a faction act as an OOC head of a faction?

I see a few downsides, but no real upside.

Well for me it's a simple fact that most of the OOC leadership stuff ties to things that the IC leader would be doing ICly. Hiring, firing, dealing with IC discipline issues, organizing IC events (which ultimately become OOC events), making decisions, etc. That doesn't mean only the faction head can do storyteller stuff, but I do think it's a natural fit.

[Misadventure]

I see a conflict where players lacking trust, or given reasons to lack trust, suddenly have a an IC boss whose actions have the power of staff behind them. A good player/ST will of course allow for PCs bypassing or overcoming the limits and discipline placed on them ICly, but that puts the faction head in the position of playing their own character like an NPC.

It can be done, especially in a setup where the players are very comfortable talking OOCly about whats going on, and setting their characters up for failures and complications.

[Seraphim73]

Ah yes. That's a very valid concern: When the game is set up for players to strive against one another for positions, you definitely need either some separation between IC leadership and OOC leadership. Alternatively, you have another Staffer who players can go to in order to scheme against the IC leadership (someone who is passingly familiar with the organization but won't have the same conflict of interest as the org leader).

I have to admit that I was thinking back to my good olde Wheel of Time days where Guildleaders were sort of Staff, but not really. They did all of the guild onboarding, maintenance, etc, but Staff was a level "above" the Guildleaders, so anyone plotting against the Guildleaders could always go to Staff.

[deadculture]

@mietze said:

I don't remember a lot of fantasy babies on SC, either. I mean there were people who had children (mostly offscreen) but they were heirs or somesuch. I guess I must have seen a very different slice of things though. I definitely think there was a lot of fucking going on, but I don't recall it being a huge emphasis in game play. I only had one ICly slutty PC though, who got surprisingly little action in that area. Custodius didn't care for my RP I don't think, so maybe that's why?

I totally agree though that putting in penalities for things that you know are inevitable (like TS) are not worth the time and distract from concentrating on the other hard lines you want to take a stand on. Like if there IS societal pressure against being seen as the kingdom's bicycle, then maybe instead of whining on bb1 or shaking your finger, just dock people status points or give them rumor crises they have to spend time/effort on to restore. (not like plots, just mechanical stuff, I think the other problem is if you give it too much attention). And have lots of positives and goodies for the behaviors/IC actions you DO wan to see.

She wasn't that slutty, @mietze. Or not slutty at all! I did have a total manwhore in that game though.

@Seraphim73: Sometimes that's an IC decision, and some people can't separate both very well. I've played players, and I've played monogamous dudes; drama mitigation is a must, and you definitely have to sound the person out to know if they're trustworthy* or not.

• By this I mean, not likely to cause OOC grief or drama to you over whatever your character does.

@bored Amen.

As for hierarchies: I generally like to play self-starters, to the point where even if they start out at the bottom, I will plot and maneuver (assuming I could give them the necessary stats to do so, in a stat-based game; or the RP resources, in a non-stat based game) to get to the top. I've succeeded at this in many games, usually when I play a villain or at least an anti-hero. Playing in-faction is nice, as well, provided you like everyone in it, and they are known quantities to you. There's nothing quite so terrible as an unstable faction leader.

[Apollonius]

Speaking from experience, comingling of IC and OOC knowledge and power is impossible to avoid and lie in a fine line between successful leadership and collusion/abuse of power/conflict of interest. Transparency is a vague catch all word for all of MU* problems' issues. Some general musings:

In the situation where there is no designated faction head policy, does someone with IC power gain OOC power or does someone with OOC power gain IC power? Is there a propensity or pattern for fac heads to fall in one or the other categories?

What are the IC and OOC outlets for PCs/Players who disagree with their faction head? Is there staff intervention for the will of the minority against the judgment of a majority of a given faction?

What is staff's hand in a player's position with IC and/or OOC power? How transparent is this process?

[bored]

I think the way MUers tend to assume and then empower faction leaders is tied into the whole obsession with feature characters (that I talk about everywhere) and I find it equally problematic (as I note everywhere). I find it far more desirable to just put everyone into play, let people possibly have rank (if they buy it or make some other equivalent trade off), and define what various ranks have in terms of IC actions/powers/resources, but otherwise keep OOC management staff side. I don't see any advantage to giving IC people OOC authority (other than possibly quality of life ooc +commands they might need, ie if they have the authority to promote/demote other people or give people access to a base/safehouse, you might have a code to support that).

[Zen]

Has this become a Fading Suns or Dune game yet? No? Ok.

[Ghost]

Another 2¢ from me:

I don't care what the game is or what setting it is, and I'm doing my best to not sound like some bitter Grampa type when I say this, but I've come to realize that a grand majority of the MU habit is roleplaying relationship simulation. My main advice for anyone starting a game idea is to understand this. Most of your players will focus on some form of relationship arc storyline as their personal baseline, and unless they want to roleplay a character death, will choose IC actions based on their OOC RP desires to avoid having to rekindle or reset their relationship roleplay. A large number of your players will be making IC relationship plans via pages, come into chargen with an already established plan to have relationship RP with another player's character, or will put the game onto the back burner if they fail to find relationship roleplay and are getting it on another game. Because of this, most players will avoid consenting to death, assassination plots, or risk of character loss unless it is predetermined that the outcome will allow them to keep their characters. These players do NOT want to lose their RP with their IC/OOC paramours, because if their character dies and their new character hooks up with the widow, players will call foul.

So...you have to reinvent the wheel. The laser beam focus on relationship roleplay is NOT because players don't have anything to do. This is inaccurate. The focus is cultural, and it travels from game to game. So...the only answer is to not only remove consent as a factor (99% of all players will never ever ever give consent to risk char death to opposed dice rolls), but to incentivize the war of houses, assassinations, and to provide some kind of "Hey, death happens and it's unfortunate, but it's good plot fodder and makes for good, dramatic stories" explanation. Some players will get uppity on an OOC level about it, but the ones that stay will be your good roleplayers who care about things like metaplot, art, and story over whether or not they're getting their super sekret quasi-cheating romance escape.

...and then you have to accept that trying to force or incentivize players to get involved and that risking their characters is fair (because let's be fair, the asshole that wants to bang everything and never consents to character death while wading into an army of 2000 bad guys is not only an asshole, but is forcing an unrealistic OOC demand "or I'll take my ball home and complain on WORA" edge to a game), will likely result in no one playing the game. Why? Because this hobby has become so predominantly about roleplaying with the player and NOT the character.

10¢, I suppose.

[Seraphim73]

@Ghost said:

I don't care what the game is or what setting it is, and I'm doing my best to not sound like some bitter Grampa type when I say this, but I've come to realize that a grand majority of the MU habit is roleplaying relationship simulation.

Yeah, you're dead on with this. It's a trend I've noticed too, and it's become particularly prevalent (or at least obvious to me) in the last 8-10 years. Risk has become something to be avoided, because the player has put "too much time and effort" into building the character. That giant list of characters on my playlist from A Moment in Tyme? About 1/3 to 1/2 of them died violent deaths that weren't by my choice. It was just part of the game back then, just how it went. Now, players are way more risk averse, and it's more about everyone telling their stories (and no one getting in the way of the stories of others) and less about telling a single overarching story that is larger than the characters.

So...you have to reinvent the wheel.

I agree that non-consent is the way to go, but what if instead of incentivizing dying, you just removed some of the penalties. This works particularly well for Space Lords and Ladies--what I'm picturing is a universe like Altered Carbon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_Carbon), where "people" are thought processes, and bodies are just sleeves to be changed or discarded at will (so long as you have the money and the facilities). So if your character "dies," all that they lose is some money, some time (until they can get resleeved again), and maybe some memory (if their memory core was wasted and they have a backup to go back to).

This also neatly gives you the genetic nobility: those rich and connected enough to be resleeved if they die. It also takes some of the emphasis away from babymaking, since such things would likely be done outside of "normal" biological methods.

[faraday]

@Ghost said:

Some players will get uppity on an OOC level about it, but the ones that stay will be your good roleplayers who care about things like metaplot, art, and story over whether or not they're getting their super sekret quasi-cheating romance escape.

I think that's an gross mis-characterization. I am against involuntary character death, but it has nothing to do with romance. I care about metaplot, art, and story. But when I'm playing a MUSH, I'm writing my character's story.

You don't read a novel expecting the protagonist to get killed off halfway through. Yeah, sometimes it happens (I'm looking at you, Game of Thrones), but it's the exception not the rule and often times it's not done for "story" but just for shock value.

This is not in contradiction with the idea of telling an overarching story, as @Seraphim73 described. Just look at the expanded Marvel Universe for an example of how to tell individual stories that allow their separate protagonists to shine while still tying into the larger metaplot.

That said, run your game however you want. But understand you'll be potentially depriving your game of a large pool of otherwise good RPers.

[Seraphim73]

@faraday Actually, I think that players viewing MU*s as novels with their characters as the protagonists is part of the problem, if indeed there is a problem. Yes, the personal story of each character is important, but I would argue that the metastory of the game itself is more important. It's the collaborative work between all of the players (including Staff) that should be the heart of the game, not individual story threads, and when those individual threads are put ahead of the metastory, I think that the game suffers.

If by "the expanded Marvel Universe" you mean the movie universe, then I would generally agree with you that it's been handled well (although Age of Ultron definitely had its issues as a "collaborative" story), but if you mean the comic universe... I would actually say it's a tangled, no-good mess of retcons and retcons-that-should-be.

Now, I don't think that game-wide metastory should run roughshod over the stories of individual characters at the whim of a capricious and violent Staff, but I do think that the relatively recent mania for consent-based gameplay and the accompanying (relative) lack of consequences has hurt MU*ing in general.

But we're way off-topic now. Anyhow, as I said, I think that an Altered Carbon-style resleeving technology could keep the game "dangerous" and allow the metastory to proceed unabated, while still offering some protection for individual story threads.

[faraday]

@Seraphim73 Yes, I meant the movie/TV universe. I haven't read the comics. As for the rest - we can agree to disagree. What you see as the (possible) problem I see as the sole reason I play (and run) MUSHes - to enable people to tell their individual stories in a collaborative environment where the sum is greater than the parts.

[Arkandel]

@faraday said:

You don't read a novel expecting the protagonist to get killed off halfway through. Yeah, sometimes it happens (I'm looking at you, Game of Thrones)

Game of Thrones isn't a novel series.

<smug, arrogant look>