Best posts made by Arkandel

For visibility purposes, I made some changes to the way game advertisements work.

Recently active ad threads were forked; the initial post remained in the Ads section while the rest of the posts were placed in the Mildly Constructive forum under their own thread.

It's going to be the way we do it going forward, at the very least until we do have a wiki going. Please refrain from replying to the Ad threads directly - use the discussion ones instead (or create a new one if there is none in the Mildly Constructive or Hog Pit forum categories as applicable).

Any posts replying to an Ad thread directly not made by either the original poster or a staff member from that game will be moved to an appropriate thread instead.

If you have any questions please feel free to ask.

@Lithium said in The 100: The Mush:

Cliques themselves aren't a problem. Cliques are only a problem when they are exclusive rather than inclusive. Where they promote RP only for the people inside the clique and possibly try to stop it for anyone else.

Cliques aren't even a problem when they are exclusive - as long as they are passive about it. It's when the exclusiveness is active that this becomes an issue.

A very early warning sign is people circle-jerking on sphere channels. "Lithium you're SO AWESOME, your journalist is sooo hilarious!" "OhmyGAWD Arkandel you're the best cop EVER, we're having so much fun!" And it goes on and on. It could be done entirely over pages but the intention, conscious or not, is to boast; our group is better than everyone else's. It kind of rubs it in people's faces too if they're having a hard time getting into RP.

But it's not until cliques try to take over, silently or otherwise, that this becomes systemic. They roll into groups with the intention of leading them - they all roll into Carthians if they outnumber the other current members and marginalize them immediately, for example. Or they vote for each other, IC or OOC, until they call the shots - in some cases they can even control who can get into 'their' group entirely, which I saw with certain Families on TR.

Compared to these things having 3-4 people sit in a room running plot and TSing each other isn't a big deal. I mean their scenes probably have a relatively smaller spillover on the rest of the game than they could but there will inevitably be some so it's not a bad thing on its own - it could be much worse.

@tinuviel said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

@insomniac7809 Even worse is when you make that erudite natural philosopher that's so-so at the blade, and it turns out every "investigation" or "diplomatic" scene winds up with combat because the ST doesn't know how to do anything other than say roll initiative.

That's the thing about MU*, too. Making combat-oriented character pays off.

It's simple logistics. Creating a plot about fighting evil orcs is easy, and it's hard to disappoint your audience.

On the other hand creating a plot based on politics is hard since the GM needs to know the setting well, and possibly coordinate with factions and/or staff. Creating a plot tailored to specific characters requires talking to them first, becoming familiar with their backgrounds. Etc.

Ergo, most plots will have the party fighting Orcs of some sort. So if you create a character able to do so well, you'll fit in and be useful in most of those plots.

Extra points on MU* - your fighty character with low social/mental stats can be charming anyway. It's not even cheating (well, not necessarily). A great RPer can make playing with their well-meaning dimwit a blast, whereas an iffy one's suave noble can come across as dull through their actual poses. So you might not even be giving anything up to play that master of the blade.

I think you want to avoid a situation where staff who want to be on just in case (but are doing Other Things such as playing alts and would rather not have to handle staffy stuff) would be forced to go offline.

@Seamus said in The OOC Masquerade ?:

So what are the hive mind thoughts on this?

I don't believe in the OOC masquerade.

For starters I don't think it exists; somehow things leak, be it by players finding out through various means (observing +who or +where, recognizing posting patterns, reading between the lines, etc) then telling each other 'confidentially' afterwards or leaked by staff. That doesn't mean it's impossible of course, just that there's no real way to enforce it.

For another I don't think it does anything that useful. Many open sheet games have had great success so it's not like we don't have examples where things worked out without dedicating resources to ensuring things stay hidden, and the very act can actually make them worse. The combination of people assuming the worst, not wanting to 'lose' and being distrustful of staff is a particularly nasty one; at least if you can see for yourself a staff alt's sheet doesn't have any special numbers on it is an easy way to mitigate that.

I think it's a relic of games copying each other without truly examining the reason. It's unnecessary.

I feel that's one of the reasons people don't make games. It's the rampant preemptive criticism. No this can't work, no this will end in tears and bukkake. No!

If these guys fuck up I'll be here with the gasoline. If there are problems maybe we can offer solutions. If we're discussing game design before the fact then that's fine, let's do that - constructively.

But blasting them before they even open or do anything with open, unbrindled cynicism... damn, MSB. Sometimes you can see WORA between the lines.

A good D&D game. That's all.

@Rook said in How to Change MUing:

My ideas are these:

1. Narrow the roleplay of all players on the game, giving all characters reason to interact with all others. WoD, as an example, does not seem to lend itself to this, in fact it does the exact opposite: segregate races and characters apart in order to keep thematic secrets. Make a game where the meta-plot can either be ongoing, episode-based, or

Tribalism is a strong urge, and not one created by in-game social structures - even though those can make the existing trends worse. Players in this hobby do create their own us-versus-them narratives even where none are intended, manufacturing a gap between them and the perceived competition if need be; this happens all the time.

The answer for me isn't in mechanics, it's in cultivated culture. But I'll revisit this in a second.

2. Get rid of the dependencies on +jobs. Enforce interaction. Let's get back to Q&A on channels. Don't +job an activity, RP it. If something that you want to do seems non-RP fodder, then maybe consider something different. This would require people to wean themselves from dependency on the staff of the game to Do Things. Staff should structure the game to be player-run, player-resolved. Everything from coded systems for CharGen to any combat needs to any crafting, economy, etc. I am not saying that the game needs to be code-heavy, just code-supported.

An issue we're seeing in the hobby is that very often not being dependent on staff is usually a consequence of staff not being dependable; I've seen spheres in nWoD (HM comes to mind) function better when there was no one doing even basic administration, but then you are still depended on having proactive players willing to shoulder the burden of providing interesting dynamics and welcome others to play with their toys - however note the tribalism factor from above.

3. Revamp XP gain to be non-singular, non-vote dependent. My idea here was to base a global XP gain pool based on the amount of RP happening on the game. Granted, it would take some hooks into POSE and likewise, but can be done. The more RP, the more XP gets split amongst active characters. On top of that, story goals being met, game being explored and added to, all of these activities add to the XP pool. If you don't RP, you are not active. Channels, paging and OOC conversation do not count. RP in private rooms does not count. While it might further your personal character, it does not further the game, so it is no different than a table-top ST in ruling that your pretty character sheet and folder of pictures gives back nothing to the game at large, so it is not worthy for an XP bonus.

I've coded something like this in the past (for a MUD) which worked pretty well... but the first question is always what you want XP to do for your game (rather than its players); what are the specific behaviors you are trying to incentivize, what are the effects you're after?

For instance Arx tapped into a very positive vein when they turned new players into XP generators, because suddenly you could count on players' greed to encourage socialization and inclusion. I think that might be an answer - it might be a cynical approach but perhaps assuming players will take care of themselves and their friends first, then fashioning the mechanic by which they achieve that to also benefit players in the process then you might have something going.

For instance - and from the top of my head - if a faction generates more XP/goodies for the hicher tiered characters in it when lower tiers are more active, participate in PrPs and advance their characters, then you are giving them incentive to figure out ways to make that happen. I have yet to be in games where someone wasn't trying to creatively exploit the system and improve their own lot, so why not mine those imperatives and make them work in your favor?

Maybe these are stupid ideas, but it seems like we as a community need to change the course of the ship.

I don't think they are stupid.

To be entirely honest this is my game selection process.

1. Check for dealbreaker genres. It's just purely personal preference, but for example I've never liked sci-fi MU other than Star Wars because lightsabers.

2. Is the game ran by sane people?

3. Do I think the game will survive more than a couple of months?

4. Will the game draw more than 15-20 unique logins so there is RP available?

5. (Optional) Is anyone I know already playing there so I have an easier time finding RP?

If all those conditions are met I'm typically going to give it a try. Bonus points for cool new code (Ares has led to an emergence of that) but I wouldn't go play if the rest of it isn't in place.

As you can see it all has fairly little to do with daring new concepts - they help, but it's not a top priority at all.

Although I don't think @surreality came up with it in the first place it hadn't occurred to me before she mentioned it a while ago that episodic TV arcs are a good translation for how metaplot 'should' work on a MU*.

On TV there's an actual formula they had come up at some point to accommodate both new and regular viewers - something like "1 episode in 3 advances the plot and the other two are whatever else". That lets casual viewers tuning in once in a while to not be completely lost if they start watching in mid-season but it also gives more dedicated ones a reason to plant their ass on the couch every Tuesday at 8 and watch the next one once they are hooked; likewise it allows a periodic renewal so you're not exposed to the same damn plot for years by switching old arcs up for new ones before they get too stale.

MU* can absolutely borrow a page from that recipe. For instance you do want to cater to newer players who aren't as integrated into your plot; if I roll on today and existing characters who have been leading the war against the evil vampire chief for months then there may not be a niche for my PC to do anything. There are guys around who have personal relationships with NPCs, who've done the research, fought the bloodsuckers and have tales to tell.. my guy has nothing, and catch-up isn't always fun.

But if this is just an arc, not all there is then I could just bide my time and wait it out; in a month or two the bad guys will be defeated and maybe we'll find out it was demons behind it all along using the other stuff as a distraction for their invasion - ah HAH, there's my chance to shine.

On the other hand if the whole game is about fighting vampires for years it gets repetitive. Worse, after a while all characters start specializing for that one thing, which deprives the game of other fun niches; who needs a demon expert if everyone knows it's vampires all the way down?

@ZombieGenesis It's what I suspected. My backseat driver theory is that it's not a fault with the system but rather with players -- our culture is so worried about falling behind the curve in other systems that we carry that mindset to games where it's not really a concern.

@Tempest It's absurd to think of FCs as some sort of singular entities whose ways and personalities are well defined.

With some creator-owned exceptions any given character has been written by multiple different writers over the years, so they have acted... inconsistently themselves in their own works. Some of those writers weren't nearly as good as others or had the FCs act in controversial ways to fit the story they were telling at the time, too.

The spirit of the character is what matters. It's hardly as if past a certain point reading more Batman gives you brand new insights into the character, all it gives you is more versions of the FC written by different people.

Collaboration, mainly.

Sometimes staff get... defensive. Almost competitive - they try to put too many regulations, too many checks and balances, too many rules.

It all works out so much better if a ST feels they are wanted and prized on the game, and that the plots they throw can be picked up and enriched by the 'official' metaplot rather than merely tolerated.

I will preface this conversation by pointing out it's in the Constructive section of the forum. Please be considerate since some parts of it might become controversial.

I'm wondering what the consensus in the community in general is when it comes to playing flawed characters like that with moral hangups in even more significant moral areas as long as it fit the setting.

For instance would you feel about a vaguely racist characters belong on a MUSH set at a time slavery was still legal? Would you find it appropriate (or how inappropriate) for a Victorian age PC to use a slur against Chinese NPCs? How about sexism if the game is set in the fifties("you mean a woman is in charge of your team?!"). How about playing homophobes?

Do characters like that have a place at all? Is it the responsibility of game runners to tweak their settings so all of the above is simply out of place IC? Are they doable as long as the players are considerate and don't simply use their characters as an excuse to drop n-bombs everywhere? Or should the very archetype never be played, period, since it can trigger people who've faced discrimination in their real lives?

What's the best way to handle this sensitive matter?

Inactive Characters:

A Moment in Tyme: Narsil Grimm (Warder), Dacain Two-Step (Aiel spear), Kane (Implementor).

Haunted Memories: Theodore Paleologos (Vampire - Gangrel Stormcrow), Smoke (Mage - Thyrsus Guardian of the Veil).

St. Petersburg: Gabriel (Werewolf - Blood Talon Rahu).

The Reach: Waterdeep (Geist TL), Adrian/Wraith (Mage - Mastigos Libertine), Milton Roth (Vampire - Lancea Sanctum Glutton), Brick (Geist), .

Safe Haven Harbor: Adrian (Mage)

Eldritch: Daniel Derleth (Werewolf)

Kushiel's Debut: Arcturus Rousse, Comte of Nimes

HeroMUX: Stephen Strange

Fallen World: Aegis / Odd-Job Bob (Mage)

Dawn of Defiance: Ban - Banjan Teroven - is a Jedi on the run

Arx: Sir Rainier Ashford of the King's Own, Prince Castiel Thrax

Fallen World Nathan Evans (Werewolf)

X-Men: Mutant Genesis X-Man (The Brotherhood)

The 8th Sea Simon Glover (The Impudent)

Shadows Over Reno: Richter, Gangrel Sworn of the Axe

The Descent: Timothy Watson, a Carthian street preacher

**San Francisco, POTW: ** Morris Jackson, a Sin-Eatiner and professional blogger

Spirit Lake: Damon Ferguson, a big city corporate lawyer.

Echoes in the Mists: Oscar Grover, a werewolf named after two Muppets.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Active Characters

Ithil: High Priest Tykalos Alcaldia.

I do agree with @Admiral that if everyone is just a liberal, nice person then it makes the game more generic, and avoids having some IC friction which can spice things up. Characters who aren't quite villains but are jerks can be great... if played right.

Now the clear argument here is that this is a truism; obviously a PC will be fun if they are played right, no? The issue is that if a racist/sexist/whatever PC is not played properly they can really polarize people very quickly, and shit can hit the fan soon after that.

For example consider the possibility of a homophobe Sheriff in a WoD MUSH, and the escalation from "he rolls his eyes when two girls are kissing", "he goes out of his way to IC disparage homosexual characters" to "he turns down a gay PC for a position of Deputy". All of those things can be perfectly legitimate RP, and the player might have the best intentions, but the IC consequences to the characters themselves may be something they should discuss with staff (or, perhaps even better, with the players of the PCs who stand to be affected).

Respectful communication when playing these sorts of themes is very important. Playing a villain can be charming or it can be offensive based on just that.

@thenomain said in Hey you motherfuckers.:

Probably the only sane administrator the Wora line of websites has ever had.

Yes, I'm calling you out, @Arkandel.

You think I'm doing this because I'm sane?

@thatguythere said in Regarding administration on MSB:

@faraday
Oh we have the tastes less gamey section here, but to me it is useless to the purpose of the board. It is generally harmless so not really an issue and while i will comment in them they are not what brings me here.

Sometimes I think those sections are as, or even more useful than the rest of them put together.

The greatest hurdle we have - sometimes - is keeping in mind there are people behind the character or user names. Those threads reveal those; the sportsy, the nerdy, the weird... we're here, persistantly, and we have lives beyond the hobby.

It can't hurt to think that more often.

@Lisse24 said in L&L Options?:

The thing is, we don't run combat by fiat. The ST doesn't get to say, "Yes, throwing a punch here is better than a kick, so you win," and I'm of the opinion that political RP should be the same way.

There should 1) be systems that players can manipulate and then 2) How well they manipulate it should come down to their sheet and their rolls and 3) When a player is way off base, but is playing a character that is supposed to be savvy, then the ST might want to step in and let them know that they're not going to succeed at Task A until they've done some more ground work to prep for it.

On the other hand combat is fairly straight-forward. You can't really screw up throwing a punch too badly unless you try, so a roll can fairly easily align with the pose describing it.

You can totally and absolutely do some real dumbass things without realizing the political blunders. I've seen it in a variety of games - people throwing non-existing weight around, insulting higher ranking officials for basically no reason, threatening physical harm in minor disputes alienating parties that joined in good faith... the works.

In my personal opinion although you can base it all on a contested roll anyway it will cheapen and eat away at the source of what makes politics work - well depicted skill at getting people to do what you want them to. Yes - as you noted - this is subjective and yes it's dependent on the player's skill at posing a convincing, charismatic character but... that's just how it is. Oversimplifying the result by making it dependent on a single roll is not going to work, it'll do the exact opposite.

What should be mechanized is tracking the resources available to players because that's something political games in general have often been very unsuccessful at. PCs throw money around like it's inexhaustible, access to troops - or their quality - is up in the air, influence over NPCs and regions tends to be a kind of... fuzzy matters altogether, yet those are absolutely things MU* can be better at tracking down automatically for players.

If that happens then characters can actually be forced to make interesting choices which to me is the heart of what drives politics as well as good gameplay.

@thatguythere said in Regarding administration on MSB:

Ahh so this is one of those community things that I just don't grok.
To me if the main thing I have in common with someone is that we MU then they are a MUer and regardless of the other bits of their lives that is what they are.

Allow me to try and help you grok it.

So let's say you're a MUer and you meet another MUer; that person does something that makes them unlikable to you. It doesn't need to be (and often isn't) anything really bad - maybe they pose a way you don't like, or play characters you find obnoxious. Maybe they spam a little more than you like. Perhaps they use wiki codes in their poses (ugh, those people).

Either way we've seen, again and again, these little petty dislikes go back and forth as the feeling is returned until they become toxic. A perceived microaggression just gets to the point of groups - since people get their friends involved, too - dogpiling each other, until loners get flamed sometimes right out of existence. For nothing.

Anything that helps us keep in mind that 'hey, that's the person who just got a new job and was talking about that movie that I also liked' also establishes the fact the annoying jerk is an actual person. It's a small thing, but it fucking matters.

When I had to put my cat down and I saw all the messages here comiserating it didn't change the fact I no longer had Izie around. But it's nice to think that hey, some of these folks are more than names on my screen and that, maybe, I am occasionally more than that on theirs too.

That, too, matters.