Best posts made by Arkandel

@Ganymede said in RL Anger:

Also, you get used to medical terminology when you review medical records as part of your ordinary course of business.

Oh, then maybe two can play that game.

Have you tried turning your toe off and on again?

The issue of how to incentivize plot-running came up in a different thread. Since it's one of the matters I'm interested in I thought to move it here for a more generic discussion of methods to coax more stories out of people.

So I'll try to organize it so we can discuss it in a way that's not terrible to keep track of. If someone has a better structure please go ahead and propose it.

a) Is incentivizing important?

There's a school of thought that says it's not, as people who have PrPs to run will usually do so anyway whether they get rewarded for it or not. Another is that people have been known to game the system by running throwaway scenes which are 'plots' in name only so they can reap rewards.

Arguments against it include that by not rewarding the practice we penalize it, as the default is for the ST's own alt to not participate in their plots, thus they're missing out on opportunities to gather either XP or meta-awards (Renown requirements, for example) by running things. Another is that if someone's on the fence (or even can be lured by the promise of shinies) it's still a gain for the game.

b ) How would you incentivize plot-running? (please note this could include rewards for things other than PrPs, something I know I've discussed with @EmmahSue before without coming up with any bright thoughts at the time)

So I'll list some of the ways I can think of. Obviously if you have others please, by all means add yours.

1. XP. The most common one and for a reason; it's how many games reward people for things. It's easy, easily used, quantifiable and trackable.

2. Recognition. We've seen that most commonly in "ST of the week" type of messages during log-in. In my opinion those tend to be counter-productive since they promote competition instead of collaboration but that might have been the implementation. I'd be quite interested in seeing if we could come up with a better system that doesn't simply come down to a string people see in a MOTD or some random board, the benefit of which probably suffers from diminishing returns since after a few weeks the novelty of seeing their name somewhere would wear off. So, thoughts?

3. Non-XP mechanical benefits. This can be any number of things - lower spend cooldown times or eased up stat-raising requirements, for example, things which XP can't buy.

4. Meta-benefits. Things such as not being counted against caps for things like rolling a character in a sphere or how many people can take part in a PrP. The latter seems fair to me - if you're dedicating your time running scenes then even if a PrP is capped for 4 people, you get to go (without taking anyone's spot, as a 5th participant if the scene's ST is alright with it).

5. Other. How would you do it (if you'd do it) ?

@Ghost said in RL Anger:

Took him 60+ years, but my dad just now discovered what internet trolling is.

If you can survive MSB you can survive your closest of kin being on Facebook.

@Derp "This +job is to use my connections into the printing press industry for propaganda. Jane, my character's girlfriend, will also assist me with her points in Finances to bribe the right people. The goal is to fix relations between humans and pixies. Also I'll run a birthday party PrP in which I'll deliver a two-pose speech as a fundraiser for awareness."

Sports massage. It hurts so good.

The first week or two on a new game with staff I'm unfamiliar with are a trial for everyone involved.

Staff get to see my application which happens to be the first hint of what they can expect from me. How well do I understand the basics of the game's theme? What kind of character am I making, is he a special snowflake? Is he a munchin? Do I like to write and invest time into thinking (or overthinking) things out for my PC or is he a blank slate going in? And how pushy am I? Is my application full of requests for special, restricted merits, talents or concepts? Or do I seem to know the mechanics enough to finish CGen properly or are there actual issues with the numbers on that +sheet?

Then from my end I get to see how likely staff are to micromanage me. Do they nitpick? Are they taking forever? If they ask me to clarify, change or discard something is it with a "yes, but..." or with a "no"? Do they take the time to read and offer helpful suggestions that make my character actually better and more fun to play? Do they get their hands dirty on the grid, running impromptu PrPs during the critical first few weeks, curating theme, answering questions on public channels in a constructive way? Are they friendly? Professional? Rowdy?

Look, it takes a while for trust to be built. I'd accept criticism or 'rejection' from some of you on MSB very gladly because I know the spirit in which it is provided is a positive one, and that your goal is to make me actually have more fun, so I'd come play in your games and give it a shot every time. Others I simply don't agree with on how games ought to be ran - that's not even a mark against you. We're just not a good fit. It's fine! I wouldn't shadow your virtual doorstep which is (in my opinion) better for everyone involved.

But there is a gray no-man's land in the middle where we're strangers, and 'rejection' can either lead to trust or very rapidly detract from it.

After replacing my motherboard (and, given the opportunity, cpu) then power supply for my PC which got fried a few weeks ago, I now strongly suspect the initial problem was a crappy power bar.

In retrospect I should have bought a UPS. Bah.

@Auspice said in Embracing Rejection:

@Arkandel said in Embracing Rejection:

But there is a gray no-man's land in the middle where we're strangers, and 'rejection' can either lead to trust or very rapidly detract from it.

At the same time, if you go into an unknown game and assume the worst of staff: that trust will never occur.

It's a give and take (which was my original point).

Players shouldn't go to games, whether they've been 'burned before' or not, assuming staff are corrupt, authoritative, playing favorites, etc.

Staff shouldn't open their games by expecting players will try to 'get away with it' whether they've seen it happen before, get overly defensive to the point of treating players with suspicion or allow the appearance of feedback coming from a bad place.

Trust is the ultimate commodity. It's an amazing currency. When you have some built it can be spent to get buy-in, and buy-in is just fucking magic in games. But it needs to be earned the hard way.

About some of the criticisms I've been reading online regarding Iron Fist...

Look, if it's a bad show then it's a bad show. Not the first one, won't be the last. It happens.

What I really dislike so far is that so much of the criticism is about a white guy playing the role... of a white guy in comics. Yes, I get the idea of a mystic martial arts warrior trained in the Far East might have fallen on the wrong side of the politically correct wall but the original work was first published in the early seventies, and this TV series is loyal to that.

It's utter idiocy. If these critics want the same concept but using an asian leading character because it's better then make that one. Or judge this one on its own merits, or lack thereof.

I'm torn on the issue.

On one hand yes, aside from assholes in the hobby (and in nearly every hobby) it is good to recognize or even - perhaps - to systematize making sure not that everyone is having a good time but that no one is having a shitty experience.

On the other hand I am wary doing so past a very specific point falls into the category of forcing the majority of perfectly fine players to jump through hoops or explain themselves hoping to stop the minority of assholes who will work around the issue and do what they do anyway.

Change my mind (well, if you want to ).

Completely off topic here, but the ongoing decades-old feud between Grant Morrison and Allan Moore is the pettiest, most legendary thing ever.

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

That's okay - we just see things differently is all. When I write a policy for my game saying "you can always FTB out of a scene that makes you uncomfortable and nobody is allowed to give you grief about it", I intended that for the red flag kinds of scenes. If you want to nope out of my boring staff meeting or party at the bar because it's just not fun for you, that's a completely different level of social interaction IMHO.

I think the disconnect here is trying to create a catch-all rule that applies forever to all situations. That's not so easy - and I include @Thenomain's well meaning suggestion that FTB is a universal answer, too.

For example let's say you play the Primogen in a city and my character fucked up - again. He's rowdy very often, what a rebel!

What are your options, both thematically and as a character? You can 'do' something about it which you could/would be criticized for doing. Come on, chopping an arm off because they mouthed off? Torpor? That's really harsh. It's character-changing.

But if that's out of question then what purpose does tongue-lashing have? That is the consequence. "Okay, let's just say you yelled at me, lol" doesn't mean anything, it's the same thing as having no consequences at all. Where does that leave us?

On the other hand sure, a 'yelling at me' scene shouldn't take hours, that's nuts. I'd be bored of that even iRL.

(Spoilers free)

Iron Fist is much better than the critics seemed to think. I'm currently at episode... 6? 7? I've been binge watching so I've lost track, but so far it's pretty enjoyable.

The first three episodes in particular were stellar, I really wanted to see where they go with the story. There was a slump in the narrative after that the show's working on getting out, so maybe they were setting up pieces to have a payoff later in episodes I haven't seen yet.

Overall I really enjoy the way Netflix structures their Marvel stories. Due to its format there's never a reason to pull off a monster-of-the-week deal, and the whole thing feels much more personal. There's no filler, everything is put in there for a reason - not every subplot is my favorite (especially in this one, I thought Jessica Jones hit all the right buttons for me for instance) but all the pieces do have their place.

@Auspice

@Auspice said in Random links:

My fault for taking from Arkandel's tone that people were getting angry over it.

Hey, all I said was people were bitching about it - I didn't even mean commentators, I meant whoever wrote it.

It's a movie. If we start nitpicking those enough for conforming to modern standards of hygiene or beauty then we should have a beef about all the other non-contemporary ones where every peasant has perfect teeth, etc.

@cumush Wtf do you guys type on a touch screen? I'm having a violent mental reaction even thinking of coping with text scrolling and typing paragraphs of sets on a phone or even a tablet for that matter.

Teach me your ways.

@Clarity Yes, it was fun. It's just not on par with Jessica Jones, Daredevil or Luke Cage, all of which had a really interesting angle.

JJ dealt with the impact superhuman characters have on ordinary people, and David Tennant was amazing, DD was gritty and nasty, he didn't win fights as much as he outlasted them. LC was a love song (sometimes literally) to Harlem and its culture.

Iron Fist was entertaining but not on that level.

I couldn't care less what other people's tastes in music are, as long as I don't have to listen to said music.

My regular basketball group broke up a while ago after the school gym we were using became unavailable as of last August, which means it's been almost a year since I played.

I just subscribed to a new meetup at the UoT. I've missed playing a lot, dammit. Hopefully everyone there won't be in their early twenties and 6'5+.

@Kestrel said in Spars and fights:

I know this is kind of bad and communication is important and all that, but having to do this takes a lot of the magic out of it for me.

Communication doesn't need to be explicit. I agree that sitting down to work a bunch of things in advance can spoil the moment versus simply... playing.

However having played with someone already gives you a pretty good idea of what they're like, for example. Either way you (generic you) can also read your partner's poses, see what they seem to be aiming for and adjust on the fly - in fact this is the default, in my experience.

All that said I don't know if it's just nostalgia but I haven't seen the spirit of 'emote fighting' recreated in another MUSH since. The actual implementation was pretty flawed (and that's partly on me, as I had a big say in it) but the status the practice itself carried as a mini game of sorts was quite fun.