Empire State Heroes Mush



  • Amadeus Cho, a dude with super intelligence is denied because it is a low powered game. Rachel Grey's application had to be revised because she had wide reaching telepathic communication and they didn't want it to go past a mile or something along those lines. And yet, they have allowed an OC character to app in with this global telepathic network that gives her all that and more. They have allowed a staffer to apply as a version of an Agents of SHIELD character who is a science nerd, and not a frontline hero, as a cyborg with strength that surpasses Tony Stark's armors.

    The rules about power levels and resources and what they want only apply to who they want them to apply to. This is kind of the crux of the issue that I was bringing up about the whole Cole/Halo versus Bruce/Wayne thing. It's just gone to a whole other level, at this point. I've stopped logging in my bits there, despite having players that I really enjoy playing with.



  • @ShelBeast said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    Amadeus Cho, a dude with super intelligence is denied because it is a low powered game.

    Asked to make revisions, as are at least half of those who app but decided to drop him instead.

    And yet, they have allowed an OC character to app in with this global telepathic network that gives her all that and more.

    The one who requires she actually touch someone and leave a piece of her body behind in order for it to work, among her other flaws and limitations.

    They have allowed a staffer to apply as a version of an Agents of SHIELD character who is a science nerd, and not a frontline hero, as a cyborg with strength that surpasses Tony Stark's armors.

    You mean Jemma Simmons? With her completely canon Deathlok enhancement?

    Also, Tony was never asked to lower his strength. That's what he decided to app in with.

    This is kind of the crux of the issue that I was bringing up about the whole Cole/Halo versus Bruce/Wayne thing.

    You were asked to change the name. That's the thing that caused you to drop the character: the corporation name. But to each his own.

    Let us know if you're done with the characters and we'll get rid of them so others can app them. They're still there till they idle out. Or you can still play them. Your choice.



  • @Ghost said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    I think sometimes the wrong players go for the most powerful characters that can do (in theory) almost anything, because when the game is mostly "talking it out", the concept that said Omega-Level mutant can travel through time to correct failures or Dr. Strange can literally rewrite the universe to hand himself a win is stuff that does get argued over from time to time.

    But why?

    Right. We're talking about the wrong players, right? We're talking about the folks who don't want to talk it out, who just want to win, and will run over people to get it. We aren't really talking about the folks that are collaborative, who don't mind losing every now and again, and are interesting in facilitating others' stories as much as seeing their own blossom.

    I'm presuming that staff is doing a reasonable job of making sure that the earth-shattering ridiculous concepts are either limited or put in the hands of players that are going to play those concepts in a reasonable way that won't squash the enjoyment of other players content to play lower-powered characters.

    If my presumptions are wrong, I'm pretty sure I'll figure it out. So far, not wrong.


    @TNP said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    @ShelBeast said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    Amadeus Cho, a dude with super intelligence is denied because it is a low powered game.

    Asked to make revisions, as are at least half of those who app but decided to drop him instead.

    I was asked to make revisions to my concept. I can't even remember what those revisions were any more. They have not been important at all.



  • The wiki page on Simmons doesn't say that she can lift 30 tons. It just says tossing people around with one arm and breaking down steel doors.



  • @Ganymede said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    But why?

    It's a good question, and you're not wrong.

    I gave the example that I did because it's a good example of when the consent system on a statless game meets a failure of good staffing. I've never been a fan of it, myself, but there are often very well-worded policies about behavior, but the number of reasons why they may not be enforced ranges from "because they're a friend" to fear of mass exodus due to staff being firm. That's why this stuff happens, and you're 100% correct that a stateless, cooperation-based system should be as simple as that. In a lot of cases it works fine, but when it breaks and staff waffle about confronting players, ooooo it's rough.

    Altogether though, I think the class of musher who prefers diceless all-consent games may be a slightly different creature than the one who is comfortable with stats and dice resolution.

    This is why I personally like prefer dice-based superhero mush systems. At the end of the day, people can stop arguing about who has the bigger dick and simply break out the measuring tape. Some people just don't understand characters have flaws and they just parade power power power, and wireless resolution can mean for some players only not-winning when they choose to or are forced to.



  • @Ghost said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    In a lot of cases it works fine, but when it breaks and staff waffle about confronting players, ooooo it's rough.

    Here's the thing I'm fixated on, I guess.

    Let's take the example of Arsenal and Iron Man. Arsenal's player poses something about Arsenal correcting Iron Man on some point on advanced technology. Among Iron Man's player's choices are rolling with that, and moving on. Why not do this? As I mentioned, Iron Man can be wrong about things. What's the importance of being "right" on this one?

    If you follow improv rules, then Iron Man's player should go along with what Arsenal's player does. On a MUSH, we strive for consistency, so Iron Man's player has a legitimate reason to question whether Iron Man would have made a misstatement or Arsenal is actually smarter than Iron Man. But underlying both sets of interest is the question: what's the point of arguing this?

    And that is what I don't understand here.

    This is why I personally like prefer dice-based superhero mush systems. At the end of the day, people can stop arguing about who has the bigger dick and simply break out the measuring tape. Some people just don't understand characters have flaws and they just parade power power power, and wireless resolution can mean for some players only not-winning when they choose to or are forced to.

    I like these too, but they are not always available. Besides, I don't always fall back on the systems to resolve issues, and I often like to take the route that leads to more interesting role-play.

    That said, when you have a player that refuses to take a loss and keeps on pressing victory obnoxiously, you simply deprive them of what they seek most: validation. There is no rule that one must RP with someone, and if there was one I would go to staff to point this behavior out.



  • @Ganymede I think it boils down to this. You're saying: Why not just always be reasonable? And others are saying: Not all people are reasonable all the time and dice based/level based systems help compensate for that. It's a simplification but I think that's what all of this boils down to.

    As for the Arsenal/Tony situation, I think it boils down to "what qualifies Arsenal to correct Tony on anything technological?" Yes, it boils down to his app but what if there's ambiguity in that application and neither player agrees on Arsenal's level of competence?

    As for the specific Arsenal situation, I think the player presented it to me in a poor manner. He focused on a specific thing "He fixed a spaceship in the comics and is considered a genius!" instead of saying something like, "Hey, I'm basing this version of the character of his appearances in Red Hood and the Outlaws." It was poor communication which is what I think this entire mini-thread is talking about. Some people, not everyone, like levels/dice based systems to help mitigate communication and/or attitude issues.

    At least that is how I am understanding it.



  • @Ghost said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    Altogether though, I think the class of musher who prefers diceless all-consent games may be a slightly different creature than the one who is comfortable with stats and dice resolution.

    I know many people who are equally comfortable on both (including myself), so I really don't think the gulf you're describing exists. Certainly, though, there are folks who only like one or the other.

    @ZombieGenesis said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    . You're saying: Why not just always be reasonable? And others are saying: Not all people are reasonable all the time and dice based/level based systems help compensate for that.

    Dice-based systems don't force people to be reasonable. I've seen countless situations where players don't agree on what should be rolled, what modifiers should apply, what the outcome represents, etc. And that's just on games based on real-life physics. Throw in superpowers and I can only imagine the "But I should be able to X" arguments increasing.

    Stats can be a tool to help people resolve conflicts, yes. But at the end of the day, unreasonable people are going to break any system and need to be dealt with by staff.


  • Pitcrew

    @faraday said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    @Ghost said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    Altogether though, I think the class of musher who prefers diceless all-consent games may be a slightly different creature than the one who is comfortable with stats and dice resolution.

    I know many people who are equally comfortable on both, so I really don't think the gulf you're describing exists. Certainly, though, there are folks who only like one or the other.

    I'm equally comfortable with either.

    @ZombieGenesis said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    . You're saying: Why not just always be reasonable? And others are saying: Not all people are reasonable all the time and dice based/level based systems help compensate for that.

    Dice-based systems don't force people to be reasonable. I've seen countless situations where players don't agree on what to be rolled, what modifiers should apply, what the outcome represents, etc. And that's just on games based on real-life physics. Throw in superpowers and I can only imagine the "But I should be able to X" arguments increasing.

    Stats can be a tool to help people resolve conflicts, yes. But at the end of the day, unreasonable people are going to break any system and need to be dealt with by staff.

    Yeah, can you imagine if dice made people be reasonable? God, what a world, what a world. That would be utopia.



  • @ZombieGenesis said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    I think it boils down to this. You're saying: Why not just always be reasonable? And others are saying: Not all people are reasonable all the time and dice based/level based systems help compensate for that.

    You've simplified the statements accurately, but the issue is actually: if staff is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not allowed, why are the players fighting? And I believe my argument, which isn't expressly stated, is described by Faraday and Coin well: no conflict resolution system is free of staff adjudication, so it all falls to staff to figure this stuff out, make the rules, and stick them.

    There's something to be said about the lack of consistency, of course, but, news flash: judges do not always come to the same conclusion based on the same set of facts and law either. So, as I've pointed out, I just sort of roll with things, and that strategy has worked on pretty well so far.



  • @Ganymede said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    no conflict resolution system is free of staff adjudication, so it all falls to staff to figure this stuff out, make the rules, and stick them.

    Yep. I will say though, echoing what @ZombieGenesis said earlier, as staff, I think stats can help reduce some headaches.

    When players can't agree and call me in to sort out the mess, they generally react better when I tell them to roll some dice vs when I just say "Arsenal wins". Either way the loser grumbles (because if they didn't mind losing, they wouldn't have needed to call me in the first place!) but I'll take "your system sucks" grumbling over "clearly Arsenal is just your favorite because he's your buddy" grumbling.

    But the presence of stats doesn't really help too much for players sorting things out amongst themselves. Sometimes, sure. But usually low-stakes things don't come to rolls at all, even on a stat-based game.



  • All I can say is why I choose to use stats and levels and whatnot even if in a homebrewed system; because it gives a neutral tool that players and staff can use to help end conflicts. There's no interpretation needed if players and staff can just go, "Well, Tony Stark has an Intellect of 8 and the Technology skill(giving him a +1 when it comes to Technology) and you have an Intellect of 6 and no Technology skill. Let's roll em." And whoever gets the higher roll gets to choose the narrative direction of the scene.

    Yes, this could have been resolved by reasonable players doing reasonable things. Yes, the arguing can continue by truly unreasonable players doing truly unreasonable things. But, to me, I feel this at least gives you one last tool that is neutral and unbiased to help end a disagreement.


Log in to reply