New Comic/Superhero Themed MU*
-
@DnvnQuinn said:
@Sunny TS, FURRY, BDSM Mushes. According to MudStats at least.
So you're basing this on sex MUs that are failing based on MUDstats? Becuase you could just look at Shang and have that entire reasoning fall apart. I also think Shang is freeform? Anyone on Shang wanna corroborate?
@Sunny said:
Shut up, I said it better.
Did not. You shut up. I'm telling mom. @surreality, @Sunny is being mean to me! Do something!
"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.
-
@Sunny What are you talking about? My original question is why one genre is easier to code over another (not systems, literally just the genre)...
Then I made the observation that people here were recently talking about freeform (which I mistook for sandbox) games aren't doing well..
Nowhere did I say that Mushes are failing in general.
-
@DnvnQuinn said:
@Sunny What are you talking about? My original question is why one genre is easier to code over another (not systems, literally just the genre)...
Because of peoples' expectations.
Then I made the observation that people here were recently talking about freeform (which I mistook for sandbox) games aren't doing well..
Right. And the question posed in answer to your observation was 'what games ARE doing well'. When coupled with the discouraging impression that 'aren't those games failing anyway' gives (and please don't say you weren't being negative, because the question by its very nature is negative), one thing leads to another.
Nowhere did I say that Mushes are failing in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
At no point did I actually say that you said mushes were failing in general.
-
@Sunny Not you Coin.
I misunderstood this comment...
"So you're basing this on sex MUs that are failing based on MUDstats? Becuase you could just look at Shang and have that entire reasoning fall apart. I also think Shang is freeform? Anyone on Shang wanna corroborate?"
Cause apparently he thought my example of games NOT failing were examples of games that ARE failing. So he misread me, I misread him and you thought I was talking to you.
-
Right. Either way, this entire thing is taking away from the topic at hand, which is talking about my desire to help create/run a freeform game with a more democratic/fair staffing policy, so that people can enjoy the things that make MU*s fun, and not have to deal with as much of the stuff that makes them not so much fun... because even looking over this site... most of the complaints I see about games are about crappy, self-interested and thoroughly corrupt and/or malicious staff.
-
@Coin said:
So you're basing this on sex MUs that are failing based on MUDstats? Becuase you could just look at Shang and have that entire reasoning fall apart. I also think Shang is freeform? Anyone on Shang wanna corroborate?
Shang has no +sheet, dice system or, for that matter, CGen per se since you basically make a character who can literally be anything you want (a college student, Wolverine, a ghost, whatever) and simply pick match-making preferences for them. There's no staff approval stage either, you just write up anything you like and hit the grid if you like.
The only limitations are legal ones, i.e. age restrictions, and that your character's power is capped by the game's theme. Then roleplay itself is consent-based.
-
@Entropy said:
Right. Either way, this entire thing is taking away from the topic at hand, which is talking about my desire to help create/run a freeform game with a more democratic/fair staffing policy, so that people can enjoy the things that make MU*s fun, and not have to deal with as much of the stuff that makes them not so much fun... because even looking over this site... most of the complaints I see about games are about crappy, self-interested and thoroughly corrupt and/or malicious staff.
Nobody sets out to make a game with crappy, self-interested, and thoroughly corrupt staff. Your goals are noble, but unrealistic. People suck, and internet people suck worse. Beyond that, a certain measure of favoritism is actually a healthy thing for any game, and a LOT of times when that complaint is made it's completely inaccurate (someone earned something / did something that I didn't, obviously it was favoritism rather than them doing something to deserve it).
It's the sort of goal that makes experienced game runners/designers smile and go 'good luck' and then change the subject, because who wants to crush the hopes and dreams of a new ethical mecca?
-
@Entropy said:
most of the complaints I see about games are about crappy, self-interested and thoroughly corrupt and/or malicious staff.
You see people discussing, generally, old shit and paranoia the old shit inspired, or taught people about what potential pitfalls are out there.
There aren't a hell of a lot of active stories of shitty staff these days, nor are they anywhere near as prevalent as they used to be.
Most of the shit you hear is about 'we tried to do more, we didn't make it', which is not remotely self-interested, corrupt, or malicious. Is the end result crappy? Sure. But the people sure as shit aren't.
-
Again, perhaps it is idealistic, but I also don't think it's impossible. It's more about creating a small set of checks and balances when it comes to staff decisions.
And maybe the staff favoritism/corruption stuff isn't as prevalent as it once was, but you still have a lot of talk about the Troy/Sonders, VASpiders, Zero/Elsas and whoever else I'm not thinking of at the moment.
In my particular case, I'm wanting to experience a game that is similar in feel and playerbase as Brave New World is, without the crazy shitstorm that is the One Staffer To Rule Them All. HeroMux isn't a bad alternative, but it certainly has it's share of staff problems, too. Comux is fine, for the most part, but then there, you have two staffers who make up about 80% of the total PC population of the game and run pretty much everything.
I've spoken with a number of players from these games, and they're all pretty much in agreement. They stick with these games because they're what they've got. I just... would rather try to make something that's better, even if only incrementally.
-
@Entropy said:
Right. Either way, this entire thing is taking away from the topic at hand, which is talking about my desire to help create/run a freeform game with a more democratic/fair staffing policy, so that people can enjoy the things that make MU*s fun, and not have to deal with as much of the stuff that makes them not so much fun... because even looking over this site... most of the complaints I see about games are about crappy, self-interested and thoroughly corrupt and/or malicious staff.
The most corrupt, drama-laden staffing experience I've ever had was on a democratic MU*. And I mean by far.
Every decision had to go through voting, which led to multi-hour meetings where everything was being broken down and bickered about endlessly. People would try to arrange for their friends to be present just to cast votes by placing staff meetings at the most inconvenient times according to who they wanted present, and staff politics were basically a game-within-a-game in themselves.
Cliques formed almost immediately so communication between 'spheres' had completely broken down and in some cases was passive aggressively withheld between opposing staff factions, an effect which spilled over to players as well. In some cases important issues couldn't be decided on either way because the 66% consensus wasn't present so we were all bottlenecked, and I don't even want to go into what recruiting new staff was like ('do I want @Entropy to be hired? Are they a friend or foe?').
Man that was a mess. Yay for democracy.
-
@Entropy said:
Again, perhaps it is idealistic, but I also don't think it's impossible. It's more about creating a small set of checks and balances when it comes to staff decisions.
And maybe the staff favoritism/corruption stuff isn't as prevalent as it once was, but you still have a lot of talk about the Troy/Sonders, VASpiders, Zero/Elsas and whoever else I'm not thinking of at the moment.
In my particular case, I'm wanting to experience a game that is similar in feel and playerbase as Brave New World is, without the crazy shitstorm that is the One Staffer To Rule Them All. HeroMux isn't a bad alternative, but it certainly has it's share of staff problems, too. Comux is fine, for the most part, but then there, you have two staffers who make up about 80% of the total PC population of the game and run pretty much everything.
I've spoken with a number of players from these games, and they're all pretty much in agreement. They stick with these games because they're what they've got. I just... would rather try to make something that's better, even if only incrementally.
As per @Arkandel's response above, I think you are savagely underestimating all the problems that come with a fully democratic style of game running.
I would hazard to say that what you want is not a "democratic staff style" but rather "benevolent dictator who isn't fucking batshit".
"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.
-
I'll take a batshit game dictator as long as they are benevolent.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Entropy said:
And maybe the staff favoritism/corruption stuff isn't as prevalent as it once was, but you still have a lot of talk about the Troy/Sonders, VASpiders, Zero/Elsas and whoever else I'm not thinking of at the moment.
Your mistake is in thinking they are representative of the whole. There was a Storm, a Jessica Rabbit, and a handful of other gloriously shit staff back when, too.
There's also all the Coins and the Thenos and the Cobalts and the Sunnys and everyone else I could name that are actually active (unlike VASpider at least, and there hasn't even really been any bitching about Troy around here lately) who make constant positive contributions to the community and the games they work on.
Basically, your assumption of the quality of the sample out there is fundamentally flawed, as is the conclusion you're drawing. Frankly, most staff fuckups do not come from self-interest or malice or corruption, but from simple dumb mistakes like forgetting to follow up on something or overestimating what they can accomplish within a certain deadline, none of which indicates any of the nasty qualities you seem to be attributing as being abundant.
Just as many problems spring from shitty players with unrealistic expectations, paranoia, greed, a desire for special exceptions, etc. and until people grow the fuck up already and realize this is not a problem with staff and it's not a problem with players, but a host of generalized problems in the community rather than some insane Us vs. Them reductive and typically false dynamic, nothing is going to improve.
-
@Thenomain said:
I'll take a batshit game dictator as long as they are benevolent.
I value stability, so I wouldn't. I'd take a competent dictator though even if he/she was a jerk - at least I'd know what to expect, and that they wouldn't screw their own game just to serve their ego.
Maybe.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Thenomain said:
I'll take a batshit game dictator as long as they are benevolent.
That's sweet of you to say! I knew you liked me deep down.
-
We seem to have different ideas about "benevolent" with regard to serving their own ego.
--
edit:@Coin, I was thinking about our beloved but flakey creator of The Reach. Naturally I can't remember his name just now.
-
@Coin said:
@Entropy said:
Again, perhaps it is idealistic, but I also don't think it's impossible. It's more about creating a small set of checks and balances when it comes to staff decisions.
And maybe the staff favoritism/corruption stuff isn't as prevalent as it once was, but you still have a lot of talk about the Troy/Sonders, VASpiders, Zero/Elsas and whoever else I'm not thinking of at the moment.
In my particular case, I'm wanting to experience a game that is similar in feel and playerbase as Brave New World is, without the crazy shitstorm that is the One Staffer To Rule Them All. HeroMux isn't a bad alternative, but it certainly has it's share of staff problems, too. Comux is fine, for the most part, but then there, you have two staffers who make up about 80% of the total PC population of the game and run pretty much everything.
I've spoken with a number of players from these games, and they're all pretty much in agreement. They stick with these games because they're what they've got. I just... would rather try to make something that's better, even if only incrementally.
As per @Arkandel's response above, I think you are savagely underestimating all the problems that come with a fully democratic style of game running.
I would hazard to say that what you want is not a "democratic staff style" but rather "benevolent dictator who isn't fucking batshit".
Sure. I'll go with benevolent dictator who isn't fucking batshit. Sort of. Maybe more like dictators. No one person should really be the end all say all. Maybe not like... the full on "everything needs to be voted" thing like mentioned above. That does seem like it's taking things too far, and looks as if it led to the logical result. But simply put, stuff like denying a player something that's within reason... or giving a clique of lackeys priority over everyone else... that kind of stuff should be checked. Basically, staff who moderates other staff, as well. Just in the interests of keeping things as fair as possible, and so that no rash... or overly stupid decisions... are made and are without a fair chance to be reviewed.
A staffer (maybe former staff? I'm not certain) over on BNW was telling me how he had approached Elsa on behalf of a player to discuss why certain stats on a character's sheet were the way the were. Elsa had denied the sheet and demanded pretty significant changes. When the staffer made polite and reasonable suggestions about why the player had made the decisions the way they were, Elsa flipped out on him and basically said that it was her game, and that he was a bad person for daring to question her authoritah.
That... just isn't cool. I think that there's a lot of potential, and a lot of good people out there that could help run a game that's fun, fair and not just ruled over by one dictator, benevolent or not. But I am a bit of an optimist.
-
@Entropy said:
@Coin said:
@Entropy said:
Again, perhaps it is idealistic, but I also don't think it's impossible. It's more about creating a small set of checks and balances when it comes to staff decisions.
And maybe the staff favoritism/corruption stuff isn't as prevalent as it once was, but you still have a lot of talk about the Troy/Sonders, VASpiders, Zero/Elsas and whoever else I'm not thinking of at the moment.
In my particular case, I'm wanting to experience a game that is similar in feel and playerbase as Brave New World is, without the crazy shitstorm that is the One Staffer To Rule Them All. HeroMux isn't a bad alternative, but it certainly has it's share of staff problems, too. Comux is fine, for the most part, but then there, you have two staffers who make up about 80% of the total PC population of the game and run pretty much everything.
I've spoken with a number of players from these games, and they're all pretty much in agreement. They stick with these games because they're what they've got. I just... would rather try to make something that's better, even if only incrementally.
As per @Arkandel's response above, I think you are savagely underestimating all the problems that come with a fully democratic style of game running.
I would hazard to say that what you want is not a "democratic staff style" but rather "benevolent dictator who isn't fucking batshit".
Sure. I'll go with benevolent dictator who isn't fucking batshit. Sort of. Maybe more like dictators. No one person should really be the end all say all. Maybe not like... the full on "everything needs to be voted" thing like mentioned above. That does seem like it's taking things too far, and looks as if it led to the logical result. But simply put, stuff like denying a player something that's within reason... or giving a clique of lackeys priority over everyone else... that kind of stuff should be checked. Basically, staff who moderates other staff, as well. Just in the interests of keeping things as fair as possible, and so that no rash... or overly stupid decisions... are made and are without a fair chance to be reviewed.
A staffer (maybe former staff? I'm not certain) over on BNW was telling me how he had approached Elsa on behalf of a player to discuss why certain stats on a character's sheet were the way the were. Elsa had denied the sheet and demanded pretty significant changes. When the staffer made polite and reasonable suggestions about why the player had made the decisions the way they were, Elsa flipped out on him and basically said that it was her game, and that he was a bad person for daring to question her authoritah.
That... just isn't cool. I think that there's a lot of potential, and a lot of good people out there that could help run a game that's fun, fair and not just ruled over by one dictator, benevolent or not. But I am a bit of an optimist.
I think you're too married to the concept of "fairness". Elsa made her game. People play on it. People play on it despite her being batshit, and thus she clearly isn't bad enough to cause droves of people to leave.
In fact, I'd hazard to say that it's much more common for nice people who make mistakes and aren't very stable to lose more players from their games than assholes who treat their playerbase poorly. Many, many games with heinous head staffers have survived and thrived despite it.
And yes, you need a sole authority at the top, in my opinion. That's what brings stability. That person might be batshit, but at least you know that. If you get someone reasonable up there, that's for the best. But I think you overestimate the value and especially the efficacy of a "checks and balances" staff model.
-
@Entropy said:
No one person should really be the end all say all.
Oh for the love of all that is good and cuddly, yes. Yes, one person needs to be the end all say all. Absolutely. It is a hard requirement. The buck has to stop somewhere. At the end of the day, if nobody has the final say than nobody has the responsibility of making the hard choices. A ship has to have a Captain. Even running a triumvirate as I have, or teams I've worked with, or groups that make it LOOK like we're a democracy, someone was always in charge. Someone was always responsible. If you have no final authority, you have no final responsibility or accountability.
Maybe not like... the full on "everything needs to be voted" thing like mentioned above. That does seem like it's taking things too far, and looks as if it led to the logical result. But simply put, stuff like denying a player something that's within reason... or giving a clique of lackeys priority over everyone else... that kind of stuff should be checked. Basically, staff who moderates other staff, as well. Just in the interests of keeping things as fair as possible, and so that no rash... or overly stupid decisions... are made and are without a fair chance to be reviewed.
What about you and your idea makes it so that you and the team you find are not subject to the basic human condition?
A staffer (maybe former staff? I'm not certain) over on BNW was telling me how he had approached Elsa on behalf of a player to discuss why certain stats on a character's sheet were the way the were. Elsa had denied the sheet and demanded pretty significant changes. When the staffer made polite and reasonable suggestions about why the player had made the decisions the way they were, Elsa flipped out on him and basically said that it was her game, and that he was a bad person for daring to question her authoritah.
Yes, crazy game owners exist. I'm seeing a lot of 'we won't look like that' but no 'we will look like that'. What sort of solutions do you have? What examples can you give me of policy that you're going to implement that will prevent these things from happening? It's harder than it looks.
That... just isn't cool.
I don't know Elsa from a hole in the ground, but I'm going to bet that this Elsa person, if you told her about this situation in a way that she didn't realize it was her, she would also agree that it isn't cool. Active maliciousness is VERY VERY VERY rare. Stupidity, assumptions, and breakdowns of communication are usually the culprits.
I think that there's a lot of potential, and a lot of good people out there that could help run a game that's fun, fair and not just ruled over by one dictator, benevolent or not. But I am a bit of an optimist.
No, lovely. I am a bit of an optimist. You're in the realm of pipe dreams.
-
@Entropy said:
No one person should really be the end all say all. Maybe not like... the full on "everything needs to be voted" thing like mentioned above. That does seem like it's taking things too far, and looks as if it led to the logical result. But simply put, stuff like denying a player something that's within reason... or giving a clique of lackeys priority over everyone else... that kind of stuff should be checked.
By whom? Who'll be checking it? If a clique becomes powerful enough (and usually one does, very quickly) then they are in control... sort of. In a democratic environment no one has the authority to do anything about it.
Your fallacy here is assuming you have a group of mature, intelligent people able to work with each other. Compare the likelihood of that with assuming one person - or a tiny group - is sane and you might see the point. It's easier (not easy, mind you) to find Head Staff who fit certain characteristics than basically a majority of your entire staffing team.
As a community we resort to high school tactics way too often as it is. I can't claim democracy can't work on a MU* because that's a ridiculous assumption to make and I can't prove it, but I've never seen it happen, and I think the reasons why it didn't are common enough to make it an inefficient way to run a game. If you can prove me wrong I'd happily eat my words, though.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
