Ghoulage on Kingsmouth
-
@Misadventure said:
It's not a democracy. Or a meritocracy. It's tyranny, in both it's positive and negative connotations. It's a brand you chose to purchase or not.
Every good game was and is run as a tyranny. Anyone who believes otherwise is foolish and/or naïve.
-
@Alzie said:
What about the policy seems ambiguous to you?
...seriously? We have been talking about this for a good long while now. How did you not manage to catch the part that several people have mentioned that it's ambiguous and vague, including @coin and others specifically calling out the fact that there is absolutely no mention of staff being allowed to use your PC in any way they want while you're away?
I mean, you're usually pretty on top of things, but this seems sort of naive, especially after we've been talking about it for pages now.
-
Or you could answer the question, focusing on your own specific reply, and not what others have posted.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
It would just be a repeat of what others have posted. And I believe that I -did- answer the question to that effect.
-
As long as that is your sole concern, you've answered. Thread conversations often need summation, especially when they are held over days, with many other threads including the rest of anyone's life. You can complain if someone isn't right there with your thoughts, or you can try to help things out. Only one actually helps get anything done.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
@Alzie The norm in a typical MU*, much less an nWoD MU* is for inactive PCs to be put into the freezer rather than meeting some sort of back office end of their narrative.
Every indication suggests that the policy that staff will commandeer an inactive PC as an NPC or to finish them off off screen is not a written policy and whether it is commonly accepted or not, testimonials have indicated that it is handled in a very ad hoc manner. All that staff has to do is have this in writing on the wiki in a manner that outlines standard protocol in writing and maybe a line saying that they will handle this on a case-by-case basis in writing.
In. Writing. Clear. Unambiguous. Policy. Get it? In writing.
In the time I had to explain to you the conundrum, someone could've pinged Kingsmouth staff and made it so.
No invective about whether or not this policy is a good one. No particular interest in casting any ill will on the game. As an non-involved third party observer, it seems that this would be a good idea and a rather simple fix. I have said this now a couple times now in no ambiguous terms.
-
@Misadventure said:
Thread conversations often need summation, especially when they are held over days, with many other threads including the rest of anyone's life. You can complain if someone isn't right there with your thoughts, or you can try to help things out. Only one actually helps get anything done.
So then why didn't you help things out and summarize the argument in the thread, rather than lecturing me about how it's only helpful if I summarize the things in the thread?
-
Because I don't care about whats being talked about. I am not invested.
If you don't and aren't either, my mistake.
The point remains for those who do and are.Also, you started it. Neeners.
-
I agree with the various persons in this thread that have pointed out that our current policy is not clearly written out on the rules page.
EDIT: We've now updated the rules page, hopefully it's more clear now.As @Alzie has explained the actual policy is that whenever we need a kindred for purposes of plot our preference is to use abandoned PCs rather then introduce new NPCs as we have a 'No random vampires' policy. Most of the time we do this it's with the permission of the player (As they've moved on to a new character) however we've also done this with characters we've been reasonably sure they're not coming back and @Tempest character was one of those.
There are some misapprehensions in this thread that death is something that happens to all inactive characters and I'd like to clarify it's not however unless you notify staff in some way they're allowed to use your PC for plots*. If you know you want to take a break from the game and you want your character to still be there when you're back, then all you need to do is notify staff and mention that your character is going out of town or some other excuse for IC inactivity.
*Sidenote: When we do use abandoned PCs in plots we prefer to use them in an off-screen fashion as we're not comfortable playing other peoples PCs.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
-
@Groth said:
I agree with the various persons in this thread that have pointed out that our current policy is not clearly written out on the rules page.
EDIT: We've now updated the rules page, hopefully it's more clear now.Cheers.
-
Well done. Now we have a happy ending.
-
Oh no. The rule has been clarified. What the fuck will @Derp complain about now?
"Just leave me alone. I'm not myself. I'm falling apart, and I don't want you here." - ― Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon
-
@Apu
Please read more carefully before you go calling people out.
I think this rule is dumb in general and should be avoided at all costs.
@Coin was the one who's only issue was that it was unclear.
Please reference your snipes accordingly.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@Derp said:
@Apu
Please read more carefully before you go calling people out.
I think this rule is dumb in general and should be avoided at all costs.
@Coin was the one who's only issue was that it was unclear.
Please reference your snipes accordingly.
I stand corrected and do apologize. So much had been said in this thread and I didn't want to scroll back/up. Lesson learned.
-
I love RfK, I really do. I always say it’s the best game I’ve ever played. It’s one of the most immersive vampire games out there, and when you’re invested in something, you want to see outcomes and you want to see things turn out well.
My rose-tinted glasses are fading a little, and what brought that on in particular is bbpost 5/98. Not just the post but also the attitude that seems to be behind it. Recently the influence system just underwent a massive overhaul and what the post is saying is that staff is closing all influence related jobs and giving players 3 days to update them or they will lose the influence they worked for. I don’t like it, but the least he could do was to be more apologetic about it without sounding like such a dick.
I like OSS 2.0 and I like OSS 3.0. I like them both! I really don’t mind playing under either. This post seems to me like a knee-jerk reaction to being overwhelmed by workload, and workload that is, to an extent, brought on by themselves. Sure it’s nice to have a new system, but was the playerbase clamoring for an overhaul of the OSS? I’m not, and I’m not aware of any that are.
So what’s happening now is that jobs that have been sitting for months (because staff didn’t get to them) are now being closed without even being looked at. People have put resources into these jobs. They’ve all been closed, because staff is just saying, nope, we’re too slow to get to them, and now you don’t get to have it at all.
Which brings me to another problem -- staff making OOC rulings and then taking away things that people have worked for IC. Staff sometimes make rulings that things should be a certain way, which, I get they mean well, but then it sometimes results in staff telling you that you can’t have this position or that territory. People have put in resources, called in favours, and ICly manipulated to get these things.
Now you might say that regardless of staff ruling, it is always possible to use your IC pull to achieve something. But what’s happening is you politick for a territory or a position, have staff make a ruling that takes it away, and instead of getting to enjoy the fruits of your labor, you have to start politicking all over again to get back to where you were before. What makes you think a player that experienced this would still have the drive to keep going? Some might. Some might just give up. It gives the impression that IC politicking doesn’t matter. Do that enough and you will discourage all but the most avid of players from working for anything IC.
-
I'm in the same boat as you, @Munsell: I have an Influence job that is DONE. I've made the rolls, spent the WP to ensure they were good, spent the downtime already to have it happen, but the job is not yet completed. Weirdly, mine isn't closed, and I have no idea why, but I will be (and would be even more so in your position, I expect, if you are who I think you are!) upset if it gets closed after I put everything into it and it was only unfinished by dint of waiting on staff response. I @mailed staff to point out the job should not be closed due to the fact that it was done, but have yet to hear a response. The job remains open.
Though I can see the logic of closing upcoming jobs until the rollover, I am, admittedly, surprised that there was not an exception made for jobs already in the queue, and feel very strongly that there should have been one (or one should be made now, with those jobs that were closed "reopened"). Retroactively closing stuff is, as you said, only going to alienate people who worked hard for those assets.
Granted, I'm saying this as someone whose interaction with the OSS is only jobs, not territories or anything, but if I'm affected as a mortal non-territory holder, I have to believe others are very drastically affected with their vampires. I feel, at times, that the systems being so intense and intensive might detract from, rather than add to, RP. People will make their own fun either way, after all, and the OSS should be an aid and an extension.
-
3 days seems like a pretty shittastic window. If I want to stop playing a game for a whole fucking week, I shouldn't have to check in with staff like they're my mother or something, unless I'm Prince or what have you.
-
@Munsell said:
Recently the influence system just underwent a massive overhaul and what the post is saying is that staff is closing all influence related jobs and giving players 3 days to update them or they will lose the influence they worked for. I don’t like it, but the least he could do was to be more apologetic about it without sounding like such a dick.
I concur with you.
3 days isn't enough time to do what is requested. Even if there were 100 Influence Jobs, I cannot explain the reasoning used to decide to eliminate them all, and cannot concur with that decision.
It does appear to be a knee-jerk reaction. The policy should change.
-
Who made the bbpost? @Alzie, or somebody else?
-
