Making a MU* of your own

[Swaggot]

@ThatGuyThere How to say no: "no."

That said, there's really nothing wrong with leaving because you got told "no," so I can definitely see that going wrong.

[surreality]

@Swaggot Leaving because someone is told no is actually one of the most sensible and stress-free 'not ideal' scenarios, really.

People scream and hurl invective for hours -- or sometimes hours at a time over a period of months -- at the staffer or everyone in sight. People decide to try to monkeywrench the game for anyone there. People start crazy conspiracy theories and rumors, or spread outright lies until the OOC atmosphere starts to go toxic.

I'd take someone leaving over a 'no' over any of those any day, truth be told.

[ThatGuyThere]

@surreality
Oddly enough the staffer who I thought told No the best was a female staffer. Treason. Granted said staffer had plenty of other issues but was very good at giving a firm and reasoned no.

[Thenomain]

@ThatGuyThere said in Making a MU* of your own:

@surreality
Oddly enough the staffer who I thought told No the best was a female staffer. Treason. Granted said staffer had plenty of other issues but was very good at giving a firm and reasoned no.

... Wut?

Treason was reasoned by the sense of "she has a reason" but her reasons supported her own ethics, which were about how she thought the world should work. Not a few times that reason was "because I said so".

I wouldn't call her a PHB but a lot of people did. She knew how to say "no" and wasn't afraid of it, but her double-standards, ignoring problems, and (apparently purposefully) misunderstanding people was well-known.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Thenomain
Oh I agree I would never call he a good staffer, but she was very good at that one (in my opinion important) skill.
Granted I did not deal with her a whole lot, as it is my general policy to avoid dealing with staff when possible but my interaction with her while never crossing the line to pleasant were always short and painless, and when the answer to something was no, (which was most of the time) it was always delivered in a manner that was definitely final and delivered in a manner that seemed reasoned and impersonal.
I definitely prefer that to the folks that say no with no reason or those that insist on talking the matter to death while saying no.
It would be the only part of her staff behavior I would ever suggest anyone emulate however.

[Swaggot]

@surreality I do run a very small game, and I try to make it clear the sheer arbitrariness of my decisions. The standard for accepting a character is if I think it's cool or not. If I can't sit there and have a jovial conversation about what you should totally do with this concept you've given me, I don't want it in my shit. It's kept the game I run small, and I kind of like it that way.

It's also quite relaxing knowing that it's still a free country and "lol, fuck that" is a good enough reason to reject someone's idea. What I find the most annoying is not when I get told "no," but when I get told "no," and the reason offered just... doesn't follow. When I perceive the reason given not so much as subjective, but outright wrong, I have this bizarre compulsion to argue the point. Sometimes, I get the impression that the reason they've given is concocted, like they're trying to find a polite way to say "your character is stupid." I'd much rather be just told that I talk like a fag, and my shit's all retarded than have some concocted non-reason thrown at me for why a character/ maneuver is rejected.

After all, it's not like running this game for me is some essential service. They aren't ER doctors who are ethically obligated to treat my injury even if I have "WHITE PRIDE" tattooed onto my forehead. I think the pretense of impartiality coupled with the plain lack of it is way worse than being told to shit in my hat outright. I think the use of professionalspeak in the context of a game about pretending to be a vampire or whatever is just plain cringey; it betrays how seriously you take yourself.

I also think I'm in the minority for perceiving things this way.

[surreality]

@Swaggot said in Making a MU* of your own:

I think the use of professionalspeak in the context of a game about pretending to be a vampire or whatever is just plain cringey; it betrays how seriously you take yourself.

I also think I'm in the minority for perceiving things this way.

Yes and no, I think. We disagree on impartiality. A lot of people merely pay it lip service, but plenty of others I've seen adhere to it.

It's a more -- and less -- complicated issue than it might be otherwise. Less in that, yeah, you could tell people to please just fuck off, but more, because of, well, entitled attitudes and people expecting a customer service rep mentality.

Meanwhile, this is the core policy for staff professionalism I have set up for whatever I end up running someday:

Staff on <game> are not bound to the traditional image of a customer service representative who must endure abuse with a smile as a measure of their 'professionalism'.

Staff is here to keep the game operating as smoothly and efficiently as possible. A customer service representative is actually there to fix your problem, take down your feedback, check on the status of your package, or take your online or mail order, not sit there getting kicked repeatedly in the face because you're unhappy. Similarly, we're here to help you get your character approved, run plots, process +jobs, mediate disputes impartially, and make fun things happen whenever we possibly can.

That's our job, and doing our job efficiently is what professionalism actually is by our definition here.

...and then there are further rambly-ass notes with a link to this and this, with the latter example as the better standard to adhere to. (Essentially, "Don't feed someone bullshit and call it filet mignon, people are generally not that stupid," -- which goes in both directions along the player <-> staff continuum.)

[Swaggot]

@surreality I think there's a lot of malice that gets attributed to simply saying "I don't like your character idea" to people. I don't blame you for not wanting to do the customer service rep thing on your games, though. It's a game. You're staffing on this shit because it's something you do for fun. These things almost never generate revenue and real profits, so I don't think there's any expectation of impartiality.

That said. I read your links and the only thing I disagree with is the guy with the Nazi hat. I don't think it's really the job of airlines to regulate the content of people's hats or whatever. I'd have a really hard time believing that the FAA is obligated to make sure passengers go unoffended on flights. The guy with the hat could have played the First Amendment card so hard in that context, and been right: "Well, the First Amendment is Constitutional, whereas your FAA regulations are merely statutory." Someone getting butthurt about this guy's stupid hat is not him interfering with the duties of the crew member. In fact, the person bitching about said hat is the one doing the interfering if anybody is, since you don't have a right to not be offended. For example, if I were on that flight and I were to complain about someone's Naruto shirt because I find weeaboo shit offensive, I'd rightly be told to just deal with it. This is actually a perfect example of a reason given that just doesn't... follow. The real reason for that decision to bring the hammer on the Nazi hat guy is that Nazi opinions are unpopular and, as a private entity (even though it's a heavily regulated one), they have social and legal license to give him shit for expressing those views. It had nothing to do with FAA regulations and everything to do wanting to fuck with Neo-Nazis.

Do I have an inherent objection to Nazi shit being socially unacceptable and people getting in trouble for going around in public with clothes that read "1488 GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW"? Not really, but please don't shit me about why you're doing it when you do. Spare me the mental gymnastics.

In conclusion, just tell me you think my character idea is shit instead of trying to water it down with arbitrary stat restrictions and bureaucracy until I want to quit, and just admit that you want to suppress certain political views when you demand people remove their hats by pain of removing them from an airplane.

[surreality]

I'm not going to touch the objections to the article with a ten foot pole. (Not even someone else's ten foot pole.)

@Swaggot said in Making a MU* of your own:

@surreality I think there's a lot of malice that gets attributed to simply saying "I don't like your character idea" to people.

It isn't really even a case of ascribing malice to it, really.

Most people aren't going to bother making a character they don't like or aren't eager to play, and put time into doing it, so even before the character gets a yes/no to enter the game, there's some measure of investment there, even if it's just a minor investment of time spent going through whatever motions are of the initial chargen process. (Considering how involved or time-consuming that can be for some games, this isn't always something that somebody could breeze through in ten minutes or so.)

So for some folks, they're looking at it as: "You wasted my time, you asshole!" in addition to "What do you mean my Unicorn Star Princess Ninja Babe with Sparkefairy Magic and the ability to control turtles with her mind isn't the most brilliantly original and thematic concept ever?!?!?!" (<-- Not an actual concept that I have seen pitched, but less dumb than the actual dumbest concepts I have seen pitched.)

...none of which is good. For that player, it does suck. They liked the idea enough to try to make it, and they have now wasted their time.

Sadly, it's often people asking for the weirdest, most out there, most 'did they like, even read the game theme or setting?!' concepts that will be the most vocal, histrionic, and irrational about this. This is because they usually have read the theme and/or setting info, and they really just don't give a fuck, because their idea is just that special, and clearly you, the staffer, will be so blown away by their masterpiece that exceptions will be made for them (even if everything says no exceptions will be made to anything for anybody).

No, really. It's like a sliding scale, it really is. The borderline crap? Most people are all 'eh, ok, I'll change X' or just drop it and try something else with minimal drama. The more batshit bonkers the concept they're pitching, the more over the top crazy the response to the 'no' is going to be. I'm sure there's the rare exception to this, but I haven't come across them yet.

I don't blame you for not wanting to do the customer service rep thing on your games, though. It's a game. You're staffing on this shit because it's something you do for fun. These things almost never generate revenue and real profits, so I don't think there's any expectation of impartiality.

I don't actually staff for fun (because mediating arguments, doing jobmonkey work, etc. is not remotely fun), or with even the faintest interest in financial gain; financial gain is not even a factor I bother to consider. I staff to help facilitate a space where fun can happen -- for others, for me if there's time for it, and ideally for both.

Only some people want to hear 'that's crap, gtfo with that shit' and consider the matter closed. Others want to find a way to work with elements of what they came up with and try to find a way they'll work, which does involve changing things to reach the point at which the 'no' becomes 'yes'. I've seen considerably more of the latter than the former over the years.

[Swaggot]

@surreality I've seen the requirements to go from "no" to "yes" in a lot of cases and it usually amounts to castrating the concept. The most important parts of the concept are what are usually expected to go because they're too interesting.

[surreality]

@Swaggot said in Making a MU* of your own:

@surreality I've seen the requirements to go from "no" to "yes" in a lot of cases and it usually amounts to castrating the concept.

I'd love to know what kind of examples we're talking about.

• Are they people asking to play an LOTR elf on a Game of Thrones game? (Heard about it, didn't see it personally. Have seen someone come to a WoD game and ask to play a Strix, though, that was... special.)

• Are they people showing up on a game where everyone is given the same amount of points to spend to create a starting character, and scream and flail when told they won't get more to make their character because they just don't want to play a starting character so why should they have to? (Seen it. "Because everyone starts with the same amount, no exceptions.")

• Are they people showing up with, "And I was a fairy when I went to fairyland, and then became a vampire in WoD, and now I'm also a mage from when I played on a Dresden Files game, and then I also became a werejaguar when I lived in Anita Blake world!"? (Sorry, this game is not that game, and we don't have fairies or mages or vampires or werejaguars in ours, so you cannot be or formerly have been those things in-character.)

• Did they show up on a game that had a list clearly labeled 'forbidden concepts' and seemingly concoct their order off that list like a combo plate menu at a Chinese restaurant? ( @WTFE probably remembers this list, how extreme the concepts were, and can imagine how hilarious that had to be when that one went down.)

All of these examples happened. All of those above? They're the just plain "no", because all of the situations above come down to: "We have rules, and you're expected to play by them, too."

This is not staff being assholes. This is not staff "castrating someone's concept" for "being too interesting". This is staff not granting some people permission to break rules everyone else is following just because the player wants to, thinks they're special enough to warrant an exception, thinks they're just that much more amazing than everyone else, etc.

This is the entitlement problem in the hobby.

The most important parts of the concept are what are usually expected to go because they're too interesting.

I have not once seen a concept denied for being too interesting. Not in 20 years. Not even in the years of tabletop and LARP before that.

So you're going to have to define what you mean by interesting, here, I guess.

[Kanye Qwest]

LOL "too interesting". The main thing people forget in their entitlement is that any game is not just about their fun, and what interests them. Participating means you should have an eye towards what is fun and interesting for other people to play with, too.

[surreality]

@Kanye-Qwest Yuuuuuuuuuuuuup!

And let's not forget the cavalcade of idiots that define interesting as:

• Something no one is supposed to be able to have, but they get to. ("I'm the exception!")
• Being more powerful than everyone else. ("I'm better than anybody else can be!")
• Gets to be a dick to others without any consequences. ("But being a complete cockmunch is my concept, you can't make my character suffer in any way for playing my character!!")
• Thinks the concept is such genius the rest of the unwashed masses just can't understand when it actually makes no sense. ("You would realize it's brilliant if you weren't so stupid!")

I love the last group the best. When they hit the grid, they are simply baffled as to why their character -- inevitably a deaf-mute leper trisexual princess/rabbit-hybrid with Tourette's from c.1500 Zanzibar who tries to murder every second person she encounters due to the horrible curse of Azzzzblatt the Destroyer on her saintly family line -- isn't the most popular character ever.

[Roz]

Lemme tell you, if someone is in love with a concept that just won't work on a game I run, it'd be way preferable for the player to just peace out (if it's really all they want to play). Life would be so much simpler if more people were just like, "Oh, probably not the game for me, have fun with it." I would rather people leave when they're told "no" if it's that important to them.

[il-volpe]

@surreality

• Are they people asking to play an LOTR elf on a Game of Thrones game? (Heard about it, didn't see it personally. Have seen someone come to a WoD game and ask to play a Strix, though, that was... special.)

It was not exactly an LOTR elf. It was desc'd like an elf, and had a background of a player-invented-House (not allowed on GoB) with very elf-y characteristics, and wanted to use of some stats that reflect Game of Thronesy magic powers to represent different, elf-y powers. This player was indeed irate at the rejection, and at my remarking that the core of the problem was not the invented House, but the fact that the character was an elf. Though I imagine I might have enduced him to waste more of his time if I hadn't said it. He just wanted to play an elf, and also wanted to play with friends who were there and probably would have stretched for elfishness in some other way if I hadn't accidentally pissed him off and caused him to leave the game cursing my assholery.

There was also a princess of Normandy at one point, but that player didn't seem to take it amiss to be told that this was not a viable concept.

I think the normal chain of events for this is when someone comes along with 'Former Olympic Gold Medalist, Leader of Underground Crime Syndicate, World Explorer and Treasure Hunter, and also a Wizard,' type concepts and you're trying to explain that yeah, okay, you kinda-sorta-maybe CAN spread the points that way and have it conceivable that a person with that sheet could pull that off if they stayed lucky, but this just isn't Buckaroo Banzai MUSH so it just won't do.

[Swaggot]

@surreality Here are a few examples of something being banned for being too interesting:

• A Moros character can't have the Shadow Name "Exsanguinate" because Shadow Names can't be verbs, you should take uh "Thanatos" instead (WoD game),
• You can't make a Cleric who worships a Magickal God even though the game lets you, and even has special messages for this, because Clerics are supposed to be Anti-Magick (Imperian, decided about a year after I had been doing this IG),
• Your escaped convict werewolf can't have three dots in Brawl or Weaponry even though he spent the last decade fighting in a hyperbolic WoD prison on a daily basis, he can have two dots instead (another WoD game; no rule to this effect was in their guide, they just didn't like combat stats),
• You can't play Ed from Ed, Edd, n Eddie because it's too silly, but these slew of other people can have canon Pokeymanz and canon Ponies (MultiverseMUSH)

I can go on, but to no insignificant degree staff often expects people to color inside of lines they don't actually draw anywhere, and much of the time the lines they do draw are literally there to preclude one from making all but the most cookie cutter, lame shit. Pointing this sort of thing out doesn't really qualify as "entitlement" so much as it does "entirely valid criticism." So spare me the talk of how justified you are in shooting down all these ridiculous concepts as though only ridiculous concepts get shot down, because frankly, what I've seen a lot more of on my time on MU*'s is essentially a an expectation that you follow rigid and arbitrary yet undefined and pointless guidelines, and a ban on reimagining anything. And if you've been on MU*'s for twenty years like you say you have you'd see plenty of it, too.

[surreality]

@Swaggot said in Making a MU* of your own:

@surreality Here are a few examples of something being banned for being too interesting:

Not a single one of these examples is a case of 'too interesting'. Not a one.

• A Moros character can't have the Shadow Name "Exsanguinate" because Shadow Names can't be verbs, you should take uh "Thanatos" instead (WoD game),

Is this stupid and hopelessly pedantic? Sure. Wanting to use a verb for a name doesn't make somebody more interesting in any way, though, so failure to defend a ridiculous assertion #1.

• You can't make a Cleric who worships a Magickal God even though the game lets you, and even has special messages for this, because Clerics are supposed to be Anti-Magick (Imperian, decided about a year after I had been doing this IG),

You're going to have to clarify here. Is it a system based on a book game, or an original thing with just the game site? Most games based on books have house rules that restrict some shit or disallow it entirely. Was this the case? Was this a case of the game changing the rule and expecting people to comply? ('No grandfathering', or 'grandfathered chars won't be lost, but no new characters of this type will be allowed'? -- both very common.) Was this a random staffer just being an asshole?

Regardless of all of the questions above, there's nothing interesting about this one, either. It's someone asking for an exception and being told 'no'.

• Your escaped convict werewolf can't have three dots in Brawl or Weaponry even though he spent the last decade fighting in a hyperbolic WoD prison on a daily basis, he can have two dots instead (another WoD game; no rule to this effect was in their guide, they just didn't like combat stats),

Do these people need to write that shit down if they're going to manage stats that way? They sure as shit do! Is it a stupid guideline? Yes.

...but as a former werewolf TL, I can assure you, I've seen this concept so many times there's not a hint of anything remotely interesting about it. It's pretty common. (It's also pretty stupid one because good luck surviving prison as a werewolf who has already gone through their change without being exposed.)

Again, this has zippity-squat to do with 'interesting' and everything to do with 'we don't want our game a certain way'. Which people need to be up front about. People having unspoken rules? Still has not a goddamned thing to do with whether the character or concept is interesting or not.

• You can't play Ed from Ed, Edd, n Eddie because it's too silly, but these slew of other people can have canon Pokeymanz and canon Ponies (MultiverseMUSH)

OMG you're still going on about this? Really?

I can go on, but to no insignificant degree staff often expects people to color inside of lines they don't actually write anywhere, and much of the time the lines they do write are literally there to preclude one from making all but the most cookie cutter, lame shit. So pointing this sort of thing out doesn't really qualify as "entitlement" so much as it does "entirely valid criticism."

Should these things be written down somewhere if they're going to be enforced? Of course. That is a valid criticism, absolutely. Absolutely.

It still has absolutely nothing to do with whether they're interesting or not in any way, shape, or form, and these things are not the same complaint. They aren't even in the same zip code.

"People expect me to follow rules they don't tell me about!" <-- Valid and sensible objection.

"People are just castrating my ideas because they're too interesting!" <-- Ridiculously delusional stupidity on par with the people who once altered the real wikipedia to try to pitch an absurd concept and try to pretend it was historically accurate.

[Kanye Qwest]

None of those concepts are interesting. "Exsanguinate"? Seriously?

[Coin]

I had an ex-con werewolf. Well, he was a wolf-blooded while in prison--but he had "Anger Issues", so he still had a bit of a transformative rage going on.

But it's prison. As long as you don't turn into a giant rampaging monster, I suspect you can get away with bulging out too much muscle and gutting someone with claws that are magically not there anymore later.

"No, Warden, I didn't have a shiv. Feel free to search my cell."

---

Yeah, none of those are particularly interesting.

[Swaggot]

@surreality I hope you realize that the majority of your post is declaring something uninteresting, as though you declaring it uninteresting makes it uninteresting. To break it down for you:

"I don't like those concepts." --> valid opinion
"Disagreeing with me about what is and is not interesting is 'ridiculously delusional stupidity'." --> ridiculously delusional stupidity

Let's look at your first objection more closely:

Is this stupid and hopelessly pedantic? Sure. Wanting to use a verb for a name doesn't make somebody more interesting in any way, though, so failure to defend a ridiculous assertion #1.

What is and is not interesting is subjective. Are you deliberately being a cunt, or are you just clinically retarded? This is of non-exclusive or, so you can be both.

Either of these conditions can be corrected, but the first step in solving any problem is admitting that you have one.

Onto your second:

You're going to have to clarify here

No, I'm not. The fact that they changed the rules mid-game and acted like I was the one at fault is, in itself, their issue, not mine. No further explanation is needed. Is your reading comprehension this low that you didn't notice this detail, are you too dumb to understand this fact, or are you deliberately ignoring it in the interest of screeching at me over the Internet?

Your third:

It's pretty common.

I've seen maybe one other person do this and I've played Werewolf for a while so, I think you're exaggerating just a wee bit.

How about your last one:

OMG you're still going on about this? Really?

LIKE OMG I CAN'T EVEN is a line of thought that clinically retarded cunts use a lot. Based on this, I'm leaning toward "both" after reading this. This is a non-argument and basically gives me license to ignore the rest of your post.