Best posts made by Apos

I really don't think that saying 'avoid personal attacks' is a good metric for trying to stop threads outside of the Hogpit from becoming super hostile. Like, Tempest's first post that started the genosha split was probably not intended as an attack but saying, 'Hey doing this will make your game fail' whether it's right or wrong is something that's pretty likely to start a fight. Basically anyone talking about anything that assigns fault or grades anyone's ability in this hobby in any way is going to be fighting words, whether it's said as fair minded criticism "I think your design choices there were flawed..." or not even remotely constructive, "your RP sucks and that's why you can't find RP."

In other words, it probably is healthier if the hog pit is just seen as the place to do criticism, because the odds of people arguing and it staying civil aren't great. Hell, most of the threads there don't stay that hostile to begin with, they change topics every page or so and keep going for way long after the original argument.

@ganymede said in A new platform?:

But we also need to do what Lithium is doing, and we need to make sure our gaming environment is as helpful and welcoming as possible. Not that games don't do this, but, let's face it, we've all been on games where people seem loathe to actually help people.

That's a topic for another day. But, as one of the old farts around here, I ain't afraid of no new platform, bitches, so you best get going on that shit.

I don't think it's unrelated though. Like MUDs and MUSHes get grouped together interchangeably on a lot of sites but we know there's some really core philosophical differences in how they are presented for a lot of them, with a lot of MUDs being a MMO writ small while a MUSH being a tabletop writ large. This also means a different approach towards new players, where the former is going to be a lot more automated because a reactive environment is a core part of their game philosophy, while the latter is about getting players into RP situations with other players.

For mushes, I think even aside from all the technological hurdles, we're waaaaaay more reliant on it being a welcoming environment than most other game formats. Not just in removing toxic hostility, but if someone logs into a confusing new game, tries to RP, and has no luck, it's a hard sell for them to just keep at it. I think people will forgive an unbelievably confusing and archaic format if they find RP and have fun, but that won't happen without active engagement and mentorship for most people.

Another tricky aspect is that imo one of the biggest strengths of MUSHes and what makes them a compelling RP format is inherently limiting in size. One of our strong selling points for some MUs is that we are providing hands on, personalized stories that overlap with other people. And GMs can only GM for so many people, so growing past a certain point is extremely challenging with most games just want a sweet spot of players and no more or no less.

@wildbaboons said in Development Thread: Sacred Seed:

@apos Is Tehom willing to make that more public? I know you'd mentioned it as a dream before but it'd be awesome if the core stuff was made available (the where, bbs, mailing, etc)

Yes, definitely. The problem is that the different commands aren't really in discrete modules that can be broken off very well, and giving everything with the API keys would be really really bad, so it all needs to be refactored and sanitized to be able to make it safely public. That's more of an organizational problem than anything though, so if someone was like, 'so how did you code X' then he could just manually copy and paste that particular stuff and someone might be missing some dependencies but nothing they couldn't work around, I think. Or I could do it, I have the repository also, and I'm happy to if he gives the okay.

Answer will vary by every single player, including what plots they want. A lot of those will be problems that cannot be solved.

Some really just want a sandbox to tell their own stories, and will resent anything to the contrary like a nudge to be involved when they really just want autonomy. Some want to world build, whether that's inherently contradictory with anything you made because they don't have the ability to make their own game that's successful to their standards. Some want involvement in plots on a deeply personal level, but also will resent any plots they aren't part of, even if they know that's unreasonable especially if they don't have high playtime. Some want community wide recognition of their efforts and accomplishments, and not see the same thing happen to other people enough where they feel that recognition is devalued. Some are deeply committed to a personal narrative, and will be furious at anyone, player or staff alike, that interferes with what they already have written in their head. It all just depends.

In general, most people want something effortless to join and be involved with in a significant way, fun and entertaining while involved, and that confers no obligations at all to them. That's not sustainable past a point so my advice is to build around the people that are willing to do some work for other people, generally.

@mietze said in Forum Factions:

There isn't, but I wish there was, a grumpy old lady gang that I could be part of.

I'm 99% sure that Team Get Off My Lawn would have a shitload of members.

@arkandel said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

Can finger-pointing also not take place in this section though? It's not a matter of cursing at people or anything like that, but I'd rather we look at problems to solve rather than for people to blame.

The former might actually produce solutions, the latter only tends to generate distractions.

The problem there is while someone like Faraday is legitimately looking for civil discourse, other people aren't. They are feeling stung over discussions they felt turned against them and hoping the moderators will change things to get even, and posting about cabals or whatever, when what happened is they posted something dumb and half the board told them it was dumb. If someone posts something misogynistic or transphobic or whatever, I mean, a lot of posters are going to tell them they disagree, and whether that's justified outrage or an unhealthy dogpile pretty much depends on where you sit. And it really is up to the mods how much they want to allow for that, and whether that stuff all gets deleted or we let people vaguebook about the time their pride got injured two years ago because they posted something people disagreed with and got made fun of for it.

@thenomain said in What's out there now and what has been attempted? A codebase discussion.:

@apos said in What's out there now and what has been attempted? A codebase discussion.:

What MUs do best as a format is something that is hard to describe to a roleplayers in other formats.

I will nonetheless try:

Real-Time Play By Post

I have used this description to great effect to people who don’t know what a Mu is.

That's a good description but that wasn't what I was getting at. You could say, 'well it's another chat type way of RPing' and that also works, but it doesn't capture why MUs are really, really good at what they do. Like let me give an example.

Say you're trying to run a consistent world like you have in a MU, even ones that might be a sandbox with a ton of characters are running around, and you have a hundred players doing this, and they are all in four different formats: a MU, a PBP forum, a freeform MMO sandbox, and googledocs/discord/some other chat.

Of those four, MUs are the only one that has the ability for players to automatically update the state of play of the game and change it on their own. Like a PBP game might have say, a forum with character sheets, and people edit them, or a MMO sandbox might have an off game forum with some kind of number tracking, or google docs or discord might have someone acting as a GM... but all of those are unbelievably clunky and fall apart incredibly easy as the numbers of players grow. Most of those games have no more uniformity between them than MUs have with each other. People in large PBP forums flat out have no idea what is happening in other parts of the game, and it diverges quickly and there's no attempt to reconcile continuity because it becomes impossible to do so. MMO players won't even try because they can't effect the game environment in a permanent way so its inherently a sandbox and the communities all are fine with handwaving everything and doing spontaneous RP that has no impact past the immediate scene. Google doc, discord, slack, all of that falls apart outside of the immediate group in close coordination with one another.

A MU is the only format that does a large world well, in my opinion. And there's almost no way to tell people about this, because the kind of big world game that's coherent and unified doesn't exist in other formats. So they don't know what's missing, and all it sounds like is more of the same with a different (and worse) interface until they try it. Saying "It's Real-Time Play By Post" would make someone go, "cool, but why should I switch?" And I'd say it's because we have a format that allows for bigger stories, and a real sense of consequence on the game world and meaning in those stories that other formats have trouble duplicating.

@faraday said in Code Discussion: Ambiance Emits:

@ominous said in Code Discussion: Ambiance Emits:

@faraday For me it depends on the culture of the game. If there are no emits then people can set however they like, changing the time and the weather. If there are emits, the time and weather is what the server says it is. Don't make sets that disagree with it.

That's a fine theory. The reality is that people just don't do that. Time, weather and ambiance emits are at best treated as an inconsistently-applied guideline because it's annoying when your RL schedule only allows you to be on during the IC middle of the night (or middle of the workday), or you can't get people together for a RP scene because the weather isn't cooperating, or it takes 3 RL hours to do a scene that only lasts 30 minutes IC but +time says otherwise, or ... the list goes on and on.

That has not held true in my experiences. This is stylistic and cultural that is specific to MUSHes, not to MUs in general. On games I played that had a high amount of them, players just don't set the same way because they treat the environmental messages as the a shared accepted norm for what the reality is, and only wrote about things outside the scope that would already be defined.

Basically, players treat the game world as another player. In so much that you don't metapose and say what another player is doing, they just don't do it in any way that would contradict the game world. I did not run into elaborate scene-sets until I played a MUSH for that reason. I think of it as just an entirely different RP style, not one that's better or worse, but it definitely exists, and it's one I think of a lot when some RPI players try a MUSH and are very confused because cues just don't exist and there is so, so, so much more handwaving that can be very offputting since they aren't sure what's valid and what's not.

@wizz I've been on boards a lot more toxic than this that turned a corner and became positive, and usually it wasn't like some big thing or clear cut push, just people finding that shit was getting a little old and starting to be a little more constructive. I have a lot of really mixed feelings about the forums, and I think they could be more useful. I don't think it would take much.

@faraday said in Managing Player Expectations:

The problem, to me, is what @Arkandel said earlier: It's the people who aren't reasonable who take up the majority of the effort. I disagree that this is a clear-cut disciplinary issue, because it's usually not somebody screaming at you. More often, it's somebody who is making your admin life perpetually difficult because they just can't seem to reconcile their tenacious expectations of how the game "should be" with how the game actually is.

I think I shouldn't have used the word 'disciplinary'. Since it conjures image of someone screaming and them being thrown out the door while flailing about, and that just doesn't happen very much. It's someone vaguebooking about a point a few times, or mild acts of passive aggression, or even less than that, just someone bringing up the point in a well meaning but ultimately really obnoxious way after it has been politely declined.

Those are frustrating, and I think most people that do it have no idea how taxing it is, how exhausting it is for a game runner doing something for fun has a sore point prodded over and over. Being the bad guy and feeling disproportionate in shutting it down will often solve it, but it's not fun to have to look/feel unreasonable.

@faraday Yeah I agree, I mean not cleaning would be making it harder. They need to be obvious without clicking on a thread which games are open or not.

I'd just say don't excessively future proof characters. Don't ask questions for potentials that are unlikely to ever come up, and wouldn't be a big deal to resolve when they do by asking then.

@derp I played a wretched, terrible human being with no redeeming qualities IC for several years and I never had a single person treat me poorly ooc for it, and the game was a toxic cesspool.

It's not very difficult. The fault isn't with the people being antagonized. If you're getting into fights and having people treat you like a jerk for your actions, you are probably just really, really bad at playing an antagonist or you don't care how you are perceived. It is not challenging to ask yourself, "Are my actions going to be fun for these particular players"? Someone could be incorrect. But if you aren't asking it at all, then it's kind of on you.

@wizz said in Potential Buffy Game:

I don't think you understand the thematic differences of the show if you think you can break it down with "one's set in high school and has a higher joke ratio." Like, at all.

Angel has a completely different tone, a different message, a different storytelling style (can you tell me with a straight face that you think Buffy is noir?). Angel goes to very, very dark places and stays there, where Buffy dips its toes occasionally. The shows end on completely different pages.

I think the point about tone might be one of the hardest things for games to pin down, because it can be so subtle, and just an even slightly different outlook from one GM to another can completely subvert it. Like you take two GMs with an identical game, and one likes to tell very grim stories, and the other does light hearted, and the game is going to get subverted one way or the other from it. And these might not even be conscious choices, just what mood the person is when they decided to create. And I think these can be the most jarring for a player too, and what quickly will make them feel alienated if they had a different idea for the feel of a game. See beach party in post apocalyptic or whatever.

I think it would just be important to state what kind of mood they are looking for in the overall theme, and what kind of stories, and really hammer that home early, because otherwise it's setting up for misunderstandings and people being upset when it's not what they are looking for.

It is painfully obvious when lonewolf independent characters are created because someone has the burning need to be the central, driving protaganist in the story. They never seem to realize that other people on a MU don't just exist as the supporting cast for them.

@faraday said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

@ZombieGenesis said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

Third, sometimes I fail.

I also think that we as a MUSH Community often have a very narrow definition of success. Like the only games that have perceived value are ones with a zillion logins like Arx or that run for years and years like Elendor.

If five people showed up to a game and had fun for six months, it's okay to consider that a success. Heck, that's more than some TTRPG groups get out of a campaign. Certainly more than the longevity of your typical PbPost or Storium game.

It's okay to want more. But let's not sell ourselves short either.

Number of logins is an incredibly silly way for people to define success, since I think virtually everyone would far rather play a game of 20 people that are enthusiastic and having a wonderful time making stories for one another, than a game of 300 people where everyone hates one another and logs in only out of a grim sense of obligation and habit. I mean sure it can be a benchmark of activity, but I think anyone that's had scenes with the more toxic members of the community can say not all activity is a net plus.

And while I like games that can tell long stories, I just don't see longevity as really a hallmark either. I think HorrorMU's design is brilliant. The games we talk about here are run entirely off of people's enthusiasm and creative energy, and that's a hell of a hard thing to sustain indefinitely. There's nothing wrong with creating something that people want to play, experience, and then do something else. That's not a failure. People are just worried about investing their time and not having a pay off for that investment, by failing to find RP or having fun stories abruptly end, but really as long as people make a good faith effort and a lot of people have a good time, I don't really see what the problem is.

@auspice said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Well, obviously. All the times we discuss and choose 'no,' you guys don't see it.

I'm really sympathetic to people getting shit while doing a lot of invisible work, as one of the lone apologists for staff everywhere on the boards. And I'm one of the people that argued for more moderation. That said, I kind of think the term MOD VOICE should be sent up state to live with a nice farm family and quietly retired.

When we didn't have much moderation, it almost never came up, and ES and Glitch weren't exactly throwing themselves into every discussion so it just wasn't jarring. But going into more moderation, I think it really doesn't fit the boards well. Everything here is conversational and frequently argumentative, so when you have something super formal suddenly showing up right in the middle of threads, it's super jarring, and comes across as a little patronizing. "Hey time to MODERATE with MOD VOICE to make sure there is MODERATION." It's just offputting, even if what it's doing is fine.

I think it would read a thousand times more helpful if a mod just said, "Speaking as a moderator, this thread is way off track and we need to split it." I don't think people are going to forget any of the moderators are moderators, and that's just the nature of the forum, so it's better to approach it more conversationally than have strict distinctions. Just my opinion.

@collective said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@apos said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@collective said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@apos

So, I'm curious. What's your threshold for the amount of IC abuse that's okay and doesn't need a disclaimer? I thought we were at the point in the discussion where folks were saying that as long as everything is IC, we're all good?

When I think that it is not exceedingly unlikely someone would reasonably encounter it IC.

Okay, this is what I'm getting at. Let me approach it from another angle, if you'll be patient with me on this.

Is there such a thing as a character that you find too bigoted for the good of the game? Even assuming the player is lily-pure and has absolutely none of the baggage of the character she's portraying, is there a limit to how nasty and abusive, entirely in character, you'd allow?

Of course, absolutely. I think I've said as much in other posts, when in the same place I said I wouldn't allow serial killer characters, if I think a concept is too disruptive, it's too disruptive. Even in a fantasy game of fantasy prejudice against fictional people, if I think a character would ruin the fun of all the players of that type there is absolutely no way I'd okay it.

Let me go a step further. I don't think outliers like that are even much of an issue at all. I think what Faraday was trying to get at earlier, and it seemed like no one responded to, was that the more nuanced problems that come up are ones that people will debate endlessly, and put characters in very difficult situations that people can argue either way, and someone -will- take personally. Those are the ones that this board is zero help with addressing but the actual ones that have to be dealt with. Here, let me give an example.

Someone is playing a historical western MU. Great, fine. Sodomy is technically a crime. The sheriff PC is not in any ways generated as a homophobe, and likely doesn't even care about that. Two PC characters have sex in public and get caught, because #thatstheirfetish. Some other PCs imply that if the sheriff isn't going to keep the streets clean, he should lose his job. Other PCs think that the reason it's not a slap on the wrist is due to homophobia, and want the Sheriff to sweep it under the rug. What should he do?

You can modify the same situation a hundred different ways with different degrees. Maybe it was in private. Maybe nothing happened and it's just a rumor because some character wants to discredit another. Maybe it would be treated the same way as if the characters were straight. Maybe they were mixed race and adds another bit of cultural baggage to the mix. Maybe the sheriff already let some trivial incident go by, and if he does so again, he's done. You can modify all of these on an unending scale of how reasonable or unreasonable each person is, and how you perceive them.

So what does staff do for those situations? THOSE are the ones that staff actually deals with, not, 'hurr durr someone used a slur'. That stuff is so easily resolved it is a non issue. The above is way more common, and it is -not-, and does not in any way involve, 'oh sure I allowed some player to make a homophobe.'

@collective Also with no disrespect intended, but in my experience the sheriff WOULD have more important things to do with his time, staff would already be providing that, and the other players would give absolutely zero fucks about how miserable this makes the sheriff in having to deal with a non issue being repeatedly hammered home.

I can roll with about anything, so I dunno if I would call them dealbreakers, but there's two cases that are popular and common that I find intensely annoying and would pretty much always avoid if I had the choice to do so- one example from low code mushes, one from high code RPI type games.

1. Absolutely no means to organically find rp and having to reach out and page people to arrange RP scenes. Look, I just want to jump in and RP. I don't wanna talk to someone and create a weird, pseudo friendly acquaintanceship with every single person that has relevance to a potential story. That's just weird, man. No wonder WoD games feel like a meat market. If the way to find RP on a game is to talk to strangers OOC first, it's not really my thing.

2. Simulation games that have coded features that create absurd, immersion breaking situations. Someone is playing Tywin Lannister, some grave, dignified badass. He is now walking around naked. Why is he walking around naked in the street? Because the player oocly forgot to put on coded clothes. Oh look, he starved to death, because he forgot to codedly eat. Meanwhile all the players are trying to roll with it IC and it is as dumb as a scene as anyone can possibly imagine. Of all the things I can do in RP, trying desperately to justify some unbelievably stupid code results is on the bottom of my list.