Best posts made by 3543thrh67

Also! If anyone is planning on trying it out.. I'm working on a bit. If you want connections/CG together.

Also, Drama fixed the offending phrase on the wiki. So, it was not intended to offend or anything.

@arkandel You missed another big enemy.

• Treating a player like they are their characters.

I've had, at least, 3 people in about as many days say that people treat them, the player, like their character. If the character is overly affectionate, they are treated as they are to. Or if they are a crappy character people assume the player is like them too. I've had people do it to /me/ too. As me why /I/ am being so mean to them. Not my character. Me. When it was my character.

@greenflashlight I think it was a joke about the fact Thundergultch isn't doing the women in the 'women roles' and 'men in the men roles' from a historical point of view.

Why couldn't you? A lot of people make unlikable characters. Or they make a character they think is likeable but is not. The only real issue I have is people basically make them static or go to far into the 'unlikable.'

https://atharia.vertinext.com/

We opened for public and people on it seem to enjoy things. I'm generally pretty open to listening to all suggestions and such that people present towards my staff or I. And we just started a couple plots things for people to get involved with. We're kind of a high fantasy L&L, I would think.

@SeriousSirius said in Gauging Interest in a new Erotic RP MU* (with anonymous survey):

@Roz Yeah but, in MU*, you can fuck anywhere. In private, yes, but the added result's the same, everyone's doing their thing either way. When the whole of the platform becomes JUST that, it feels like it's taking options from players more-so than giving them.

You could make the argument that every MU* is a sex game, where everyone pretends to be some famous sex symbol living out a personality of their choosing with flaws and vices and things as they'd like to do the things they want to do in whatever environment they choose.

@SquirrelTalk What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me though. It does allow the whole sexualization to take a more... superlative approach in the sense that it'd become the main story. The thing. The tether that joins everyone together, like a big orgy of sexual nomenclature.

This is already starting to feel like a hit.

I'm mildly curious.. Have you ever played on a place like Shangrila? OR a sexmu* that is 99% about getting laid? Serious questions. The way you speak makes me think not.

Because on games like Arx or WoD ones or what have you sex happens but it is generally not encouraged to bang every which way on everything in the street with basically no consequences.

Hobbies don't need to have endless amounts of people involved. a handful, a couple hundred, a couple thousand, whatever. As long as there people interested and/or joining why does it matter how many people there are? Multiple have mentioned that they have seen younger folks wandering in out of interest.

My list of people I will not RP with is barely beyond 2, I believe. Even then I do not put special effort into avoiding the person. Although, I do not make special effort to play with them as well.

If you kick around Kushiel's Debut, by all means look me up and prod me for RP. I do not promise super brilliant RP or anything but I try making social RP somewhat enjoyable.

@groth said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

@kanye-qwest said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

"Coffee shop" rp (AKA rp amongst yourselves) should be at least half of your rp on a game. Otherwise, you probably aren't roleplaying a character so much as playing the world's crappiest video game.

I make something of a distinction between what we could call 'social rp' and 'coffee shop' RP.

To me social RP is primarily about getting to know the other characters and exploring the interactions they have with my own character and the enjoyment I derive from those interactions is often the primary reason I play MU*.

However 'coffee shop' RP often takes place in a literal bar or coffee shop and has a habit of leading people to the most boring interactions possible.Often the RP is just rote poses about ordering/consuming whatever and talking empty platitudes. It's possible to make these scenes interesting(The article linked in this thread is great) but it takes more effort since you have to break the pattern and introduce something the rest want to interact with.

I'm tempted to suggest it might be good policy to not have any generic bar/coffee rooms on a game grid as a way to guide people towards doing something more interesting as their 'default' scene.

But then you're isolating out people who /do/ like that 'boring' coffee shop play. I know a lot of people who do like to go to a bar or restaurant or whatever and chat about nothing. Not everyone wants to do scenes all the time that has some big purpose. sometimes they spent a whole day doing a thing that has a purpose (push plot along and so on) that they just want to go have casual play that likely will do nothing more than have them meet new people/hang out with people just because.

It really just comes down to letting people play what they enjoy (provided it is within the theme of the game) and directing them to people of similar tastes.

I did mean it more like so you didn't feel like you had to be around or what have you. 'On call' was probably the wrong term. Or do anything unless you want too/something breaks I can't fix. I'm pretty laid back about everything. Only time I'm not is when people are treating people like shit who don't deserve it (See Troy's attitude towards Thenomain, Dresden, Roanoke, and Salem for example), constantly breaking the rules, or when people ignore theme.

I actually like the wiki idea for a roster system. Humm. Except my wiki knowledge is bupkis.

I don't like the default stuff in TinyMUx. I haaaaateeee how the code looks. My coding isn't the best, by a long shot, but it looks neater than the default stuff. I can code the basic stuff myself. Except i hate setunion() because I can never make it work correctly.

I could probably roll without any sort of code but the basics but every mu* I've been on outside of TS ones have a stat system. Or at least it seems like that. The want of a combat system is because I hate trying to figure out combat and it balances out the people who play fairly and those who ALWAYS HAVE TO WIN ALL THE FIGHTS. Also, most of the people I know tend to prefer some sort of stat system.

I don't think it is only the antagonist type characters that need to be considered but also the 'good people' since if they avoid antagonists. Which is not entirely uncalled for since a lot of the 'bad guy' types are people who use being an antagonist types as a means to be a jerk to people for no reason and go 'I am just playing my character'. As a result the types of antagonists who go in prepared to be on the losing side or know defeat is basically their end goal get ignored because people 'don't want that drama'. So, I think it should be more 'How to get the good guys and bad guys to work together' over how to handle a specific group. Support needs to be available for both sides and little nudges to encourage people to pull back or push a little harder at getting RP.

Fallcoast is basically TR 2.0. At least from what I've heard from people.

One thing to consider allowing an alt for is that characters in positions of responsibility can be draining and cause them not not desire to log in. Since this is a Lords and Ladies discussion thread I will use stuff relating as an example. Lets say some plays a King and they are doing all the 'duties' of playing a king character. They could be playing a nobody peasant that makes candles for a living and does nothing to take on much responsibility beyond making candles for people just to have a bit of an escape on a game they enjoy playing. So, that is something to consider when deciding alts or not. An option could be that if you play X position you can have an alt for not being leadery and such. People have frequently expressed guilt about not being available for thing because reason.

As an altaholic myself, I do think that if you don't want to allow for alts on your game you shouldn't. There is plenty of games that allow for alts. If not having an alt is a deal breaker for someone that is fine. If an altaholic likes your game enough they will accept that the alt is not an option and will play anyways. Don't cater to us altaholics, cater to what you want your game to be.

Hi! I have a gift card for $60 (20 dollars off the first 3 deliveries it says) that I got in a lootbox. I won't use it. So, rather than have it go to waste seeing if anyone here uses hellofresh.com so I can give them the card.

Other good questions could be 'How can I help the GM move the story along?' 'Am I missing that I should be reacting to a thing?'

So many people seem to basically make the GM chase them to interact over attempting to take what the GM is putting down.

Although, there are also the GMs that focus on just one person in the scene and anyone else is basically just warm bodies and the others actions are ignored, whether they should cause problems or not.

All are claimed.

@derp said in GMs and Players:

@sunny

I know that we're in Mildly Constructive or whatever, but it was pretty plainly a passive-aggresive move to try and undermine the original point, and I'm definitely not alone in that reading.

You weren't used. You did a thing and got called out. Deal.

This is one of the rare times I will comment in regards to any comments Sunny makes. I pass over the stuff said and make no comments towards Sunny for reasons. Anyways, Sunny has not once made the abusive ex a secret so there was nothing about the question that was passive-aggressive. Even if Sunny hadn't
said it was genuine i would have taken it that way because she does not hide the stuff about her ex.Though, it did leave the impression action was expected but not clear in stating that. Rather than treating her question like she is attacking you, treat it as serious.
Assume on your game for a moment she was a player who said it that exact way. It might be better to ask what actions she expects to be taken and if there was a reason she suspected/knows it is her ex. Which is loosely along what @reimesu said.

@l-b-heuschkel said in GMs and Players:

@silverfox said in GMs and Players:

I feel like you can make a false accusation without being a bad actor.

If you are triggered by a specific behavior it is really hard to stay calm and in perspective.

I'd be enough of a semantics nitpicker to say that then that is not a fake accusation -- it's a mistake. And mistakes do indeed happen, but they're rarely deliberately malicious.

I would call it more of a knee-jerk reaction. 'X is doing Y stuff that made my experiences on mu* super uncomfortable. It must be the same person doing it to be an unpleasant player!'

I feel like, to good or bad means, people decide someone is the same person because of similar actions/traits. sometimes it is correct, some times it is not.

I think it is unavoidable to sometimes ban an innocent person. There is the falsifiers, the people who instinctively react to bad behavior and remove it, mistaken identity, etc. So many possibilities of a possible mistake even with evidence. This is why I am a fan of the 'Why do you think' and 'What d you expect' questions and 'This is what you do, this is what we will do, and any evidence you have is important'. It's not perfect but it acknowledges the accusers, shows you are aware and have planned actions. It is not flawless but it does give empathy and clear expectations that you have and they should have.

Like, sometimes a person is /certain/ the stuff they are doing is funny and drawing in people. It might come from good intentions or desire to interact but instead it is resulting into people being very upset. I would consider that 'innocent' because there is no malice in the actions. It falls under the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' for me. Obviously there's the people who use the guise of 'opening discussions' by talking about things that offend and not listening when people express they aren't enjoying the way they are doing the conversation. Though it is not always a clear cut distinction you can generally tell, even in text, when someone is doing a thing intentional or not, at least that has been my experience in stuff like that.

@tragedyjones But you will not be able to do your hand off thing if you don't!