![](/uploads/profile/22-profileimg.png)
Best posts made by Arkandel
-
RE: PC antagonism done right
@Bobotron said in PC antagonism done right:
I think the person who talked about people not being able, or willing, to 'lose' when faced with an opposition or antagonist is one of the core problems. Especially when it's not a factionalized game. People want to have only the good things, not the bad things.
My suspicion is that, while that may be true, we might be able to at least sweeten the pot a little bit more.
In most games losing is just that - you gain nothing in return; maybe doors are shut in your face because of it (you didn't become Primogen so no getting into those top-end meetings), maybe you lose your character.
Obviously we won't fix human condition here, but perhaps there are steps we can take to ensure people don't feel that bad. Take death out of the equation by an adjustable level of consent, offer rewards for having long-term enemies, removing the veil of paranoia ("are they out to get me?" is a common one, even if the sad truth is most of the time no one gives a shit about us
), etc.
But what's important here is figuring out how to do these things. Come on guys, we mostly agree here; we know what we want to achieve. How, though? Let's put more thought into methods, systems, actionable systems staff can put into play to tilt the scales back into sanityville.
-
RE: Good or New Movies Review
@coin It also managed very well (in my opinion) to avoid the 'comic book prose' of a direct conversion from the source material coming off as a bit forced. For example I found Watchmen to suffer from that a bit.
But The Batman somehow avoided doing that. It sounded seemed so cool.
I don't think I need spoilers for this as the scene is in the trailer, but the part at the end of the car chase with the Penguin was just fucking incredible. On its own it's easily on par with the 'oh shit' moments like Cap picking up Mjolnir, Thor's arrival in Wakanda, etc. Yet it was just a normal human dude walking out of a car.
-
RE: PC antagonism done right
What I suspect lately is that people create winners.
So take for example a special agent type; he's not created with the intention of being a combatant, he's made to be Batman, a wizard is intended to be Harry Dresden, a clever character to be Sherlock Holmes, an inventor to be Tony Stark... you get the idea. Those act as more than merely inspirations, it's what they are essentially created to be - legends, unstoppable juggernauts in their respective arenas, and they are characters who might even work on a table-top setting.
But they aren't played on a table-top setting, they're played on multiplayer games. I'm still surprised at times about how profoundly defensive people get about others who create anything close to their concept, and it might be because of this; it's not just that they don't want to lose, they don't even want to have competition, even though in the original material of the very archetypes they chose to create there is always antagonism from someone with comparable or even superior skills; Sherlock has Moriarty, Batman has Ra's (or the Joker, take your pick), etc.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Players write themselves into a corner because of the narrow-mindedness of these concepts they specifically set out to play - they roll to be unbeatable, and enter games where no one is supposed to be, and that it's the heart of the problem. I think the damage takes place as early in the conceptual stage of making a character and becomes baggage the player is burdened with for the remainder of that PC's life.
-
RE: Good TV
@derp I like it (although I haven't watched the latest episode). But man... it makes me sad to see Patrick Stewart age. He's still in good shape for his age but he's getting up there.
-
RE: WW released Dark Pack guidelines
@Bobotron I think it matters to the degree we are at least... acknowledged. That's something.
And it makes a gray area a tad less gray.
The only issue here has ever been whether their copyright was weakened. No MUSH has ever tried to make claims on WW's trademarks, so if they feel more comfortable dealing with our merry community this way maybe in the future there can be more opportunities.
Or, even better, other content creators might follow their lead.
-
RE: Good TV
@lotherio That part sounds more like Takei being snarky about Shatner than anything! Although yes, Stewart is definitely in good shape - for his age. Even though there were scenes he couldn't bend his knees to examine someone closer, etc.
-
RE: Magicians Game
One of the really hard parts to convey in a game - because they are not difficult but hard - is just how dangerous magic was in the Magicians' universe.
Magic fucked you up. One slip and you were fucked. Entire classes had been known to disappear - and that's while they were getting tutored in prestigious schools, not picking up tricks by street wizards.
In games that ain't gonna happen because, well, risk.
-
RE: RL Anger
@thebird said:
I had to tell some poor lady that, no...I couldn't do her friend's elaborate wedding cake the next day, let alone in the next hour, this past weekend (frequent occurrence...I do what I can, but
come on...). She thought you "just came in whenever, to get one" and pointed at our styrofoam display cakes =|So sell her a storyfoam cake! She said she wanted one and pointed right at it! The customer is always right. Duuh.
-
RE: How do you keep OOC lounges from becoming trash?
IMHO.
It's very hard to assign blame to something with as unquantifiable an effect as the OOC lounge on a game. Is it that they 'become trash' due to their design? Or would anything replacing it - such as the public channel - under the same culture and staff have become the same thing? Maybe it's better to at least give an outlet to toxicity so the administration is aware of it as opposed to it happening in pages and Skype?
Perhaps?
But the fact is if there are threads asking "how do we keep $thing from becoming trash?" where enough people are scratching their heads for an answer, combined with the secondary facts the $thing in this case doesn't have a quantifiable upside to it either, probably suggests it's safer to scratch the notion.
-
RE: RL Anger
Speaking of all that, have you heard of this?
TL;DR: The story claims a company made the 1/3rd pounder burger to compete with the quarter pounder burger but it failed because people thought 1/4 was larger than 1/3. I mean 4 is larger than 3, right?
-
RE: How do you keep OOC lounges from becoming trash?
Guys. I know it's supposed to only be mildly constructive around here but we're stretching even that pretty thin.
-
RE: Good or New Movies Review
Trailer: Batman vs Superman... now with Wonder Woman! And Lex!
-
RE: Magicians Game
@Wizz I propose we lift any (book) spoiler restrictions from this thread if we'll discuss it here. The Magician's Land has been out since 2014.
-
RE: RL Anger
@deadculture said:
@Arkandel Why... would they do that? What kind of fucking psychopathic monster does this? She's Canadian so it can't be a result of poor education systems. So, what gives?
I've found being an asshole is enough of a cause to act like one.
-
RE: Magicians Game
@Misadventure The series really strays from the books a lot.
More to the point: Playing on the MUSH will need to invariably refer to rules of magic, creature types, etc not mentioned in the TV series. There's no way to tip-toe around this without castrating the theme.
Always IMHO, of course.
-
RE: RL Anger
@DnvnQuinn said:
The act of preventing white people from entering a place based on the color of their skin is the same thing the black's fought to get rid of. Turning around and doing the same things (like your "White people harassed blacks, so...it's not bad when black folks do it to whites" suggestion above) helps absolutely no one.
That's kind of relative though. To give you a counter-example I took exception a few years ago when I was told I wouldn't necessarily be welcome at a lesbian joint, as I couldn't understand why. I'm not homophobic, I have no issues with gay rights and it's not like I'd go in and stare at people or act weird, so how come?
But there are places people go to feel comfortable. It's not about me, it's about them.
There is still a line to be drawn somewhere but it's not probably prudent to draw it in favor of the more privileged groups in existence. It's what it is.
-
RE: PC antagonism done right
@Derp said in PC antagonism done right:
- What the Players Want Isn't Necessarily What They Should Get - I mean, let's face it. We've all felt similar situations before. Just because a kid -wants- ice cream for dinner, because that makes them just the happiest of campers, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. There are lots of unhealthy things that happen if they get their way all the time. The same goes with a MU.
This probably falls outside the scope of the thread but I can't foresee good things happening if staff wants thematic control of their game and can't have it. It's one thing to say it's ran as a sort of sandbox and things are fairly freeform and another to try and run an explorative, adventurous Mage game but end up with hardcore politics on the grid; it's been known to happen, in fact.
Now, what I think a problem is in these cases isn't (only) that many players play to 'win', which leads to white knights and cliques and... all that stuff. I think an even harder issue is that they try to play every game as what they expect it to be - what they've played before elseMU* - and not as intended in the MU* they're actually at.
This isn't solvable with rules and pages on the wiki. It can be helped by having the right system in place rewarding what staff actually wants to see, but the best way to set a direction, pace and ambience for their game is to actually make sure plot is ran that contains those elements. I can write up all the "ugh, so grimdark!" I want but if the actual PCs land in a faerie tale paradise where resources are bountiful and pretty princesses meet dashing noblemen in taverns to flirt then good luck with that.
It's also kind of a hilarious fallacy to expect the exact kinds of players who if asked "so what plot do you want me to run for you?" typically answer "I dunno" to know what themes the MU* should have. They won't. Give it to them, make it fun and it'll work out.
Fundamentally, I disagree that the systems used need to have as little direct staff intervention as possible. I think that staff are ultimately the ones who tailor both the world and the story, and while PCs can do meaningful things inside of it, the 'hands off' staffing approach is really not a great idea for making sure that this sort of things comes to pass.
Staff should absolutely be able to intervene to steer the boat, and I have little love for positions of leadership being taken up by PCs for a lot of different reasons; what is suicidal is having a system in place which requires staff to have a hand in each everyday move made by characters; every snide comment made by hapless neonates or baseborn peasants to their betters.
What I'm thinking for instance, in a very general overview, is a system where each character has a degree of influence on the IC world. Some people have more, others less based on their positions, skills and attributes - it could be political sway over NPCs, judicial power, economic backing, criminal leverage, physical or military superiority, whatever. If that's in place then all you need is carrots for PCs to chase, which can only be achieved through utilizing those kinds of influences - because suddenly you're giving them what I called interesting choices; sure, you could alienate the Elder today to get on the hot blonde ghoul's good side, but tomorrow when you really really want to get your domain expanded to include that new mall (which gives you access to more influence in turn and opens up options for RP in the future) he can back one of your opponents instead. Oops.
That's an example of tangible choices. But the whole game needs to be set up from scratch to support it, it can't just be an addendum on top as an afterthought. Because then yes, you can still be a White Knight... but it'll cost you, man.
-
RE: RL Anger
@Cirno said:
I...I'm confused. Help.
It's because they don't care for or respect the medium they are posting in.
Mind you, I'm not trying to justify the practice but I've (at times snidely, I must admit) corrected people's rouges and of course the obligatory your/you're antics on WoW only to have them grumble back something about this being only a game and obviously who cares about grammar, spelling or for that matter, manners?
-
RE: PC antagonism done right
@surreality said in PC antagonism done right:
@Derp Yeah, I'm with you on things re: respecting status merits and similar. Those things exist for a reason and they shouldn't be ignored.
In the situation you're describing, though -- the example earlier re: domain is a good one.
Some of it is supported, but people don't use it. A lot could be done with resource blocking, for instance; use contacts to figure out JoeAdversary's money comes from his graft, get Allies in the PD to look into it and freeze the assets for investigation, etc.
Bits and pieces are, but it goes back to what I was saying earlier; such elements are add-ons, they're not integral to the game from the ground up and thus they only affect it so far.
So for instance many Vampire/Werewolf games do support claiming domains, they have colored maps on the wiki to show who's got what, the idea of Status does exist and in some (correctly) there are even different ways to achieve it based on your Covenant; being well regarded among Carthians for instance might have a lot to do with notoriety or popularity but the Ordo have an strict, codified ranking system. Furthermore city-wide Status has been a thing ever since HM.
However the missing gaps is where the magic should happen. Domains don't give you anything and thus, they don't really take anything away when they're absent; they're not tied to city Status for instance, or to hunting (which in turn woulhas to be designed very carefully as to not starve out every newbie and neonate), and thus neither social warfare or resource deprivation are viable tactics.
Boons, which would generate a currency system among Kindred and enable Harpies to actually have a role are usually gone (I understand RfK had a system) so there's no bartering as part of politics like it's described in the books and the main part of what legitimizes Elders in the nWoD - it's not their sheer power (that's mostly an oWoD concept) but the respect, connections and treasure trove of favors they've accumulated over time that matters the most, but what do any of those things mean without the systemic support structure? Exactly as much as Gangrel punches in a statless, consent-based system.
My point stands. For this to work it needs to be part of the initial design. Everything has to be tied together cohesively.