This thread has gotten weirder, and it started out pretty weird.
Best posts made by Arkandel
-
RE: Arx- Gareth
-
RE: Scenes You Have Always Wanted to Have...
@Misadventure, I could go as far as to say the mechanics are a symptom and that the underlying problem are players refusing to understand they're supposed to be collaborating with each other and the ST, not winning.
Storytelling isn't that much unlike playing a character, you still need to be entertained. In the past I actually had characters who posed once - right at the beginning - and then did nothing else anyone else could see for the rest of the scene other than page me with what their character was rolling. Even if we assume the Storyteller enjoys adjudicating mechanics and dispensing rulings how much fun can that possibly be for the rest of the people in that scene? What are they given to play off of and interact with?
At least if such players understood the objective of a challenge is not to win it but to participate and entertain. Those are the kinds of scenes I want to see.
-
RE: Arx- Gareth
@Kireek said in Arx- Gareth:
C'mon @Arkandel man, I had written out why I was banned- and was accurate... and then... almost as if like clockwork, the standard WORA thing happened.
I'm trying to point out the same people can read the same situation - hell, the same text - and see different things. I won't go into who's right and who's wrong in your case because it literally doesn't matter; if staff in a game doesn't want you there then there's zero reason to stay anyway, ban or not.
But for example in one of your first posts you disagreed with... I think @Caryatid because you thought she was incorrect as you 'had the log in front of you'. That's not enough, as we are often very blind to our own shortcomings - it happens to all of us (other than @Tinuviel ) and don't realize we fucked up, especially if ego gets in the way a bit ('who are THEY to kick ME out? I'm a good person'). That was showcased again later on when you were debating the difference between asking a player for information and telling a player you were very curious about that information, but you couldn't get why that's just barely even semantics at that point.
All I am saying is that, well, you see what happened from your point of view and others from theirs. It's not big deal either way.
-
RE: Scenes You Have Always Wanted to Have...
@SG At a certain level we need to establish what 'conflict' means in the context of the game you're playing.
If all it means is "the characters hate and will attack each other on sight" then yes, obviously that's counter-productive to playing in the long term since the opportunities to actually roleplay are slim.
If they are political rivals but have a healthy respect for each other - for example - or fight their wars mostly through proxies (think Moriarty versus Holmes) it's a different story.
-
RE: The Apology Thread
@Miss-Demeanor Half this thread so far reads like a sorry-not-sorry to me.
-
RE: Best-In-Genre MU*?
@Shayd I doubt you can get anything close to uniform answers. People will answer based on their point of view and timeline, naturally.
I'd say my most fun time was on HM in the VampSphere. Carthians versus the world, with several really good roleplayers headlining their respective factions. Cut-throat politics in the total absence of a staff presence (in fact when staff did get into it they usually made things worse). I had a blast.
Other people's mileage can and should vary.
-
RE: The Apology Thread
I'm sorry this thread went from heartfelt apologies to sarcastic 'sorries'.
We have too many of the latter and too few of the former as it is.
-
RE: DMs, GMs, STs: Do you fudge rolls?
@saosmash said:
"You can't do that" is a terrible thing to have to say as a GM.
There's however a flipside to it - the player who believes they can do anything if only they make some form of roll. Anything at all.
Encounter a completely new supernatural phenomenon with zero information about it? Let me roll wits+occult-5+willpower (when they know on average they'll get at least one success this way).
When it comes to IC actions there's nothing my players can't try. But there is very much such a thing as a task they can't - at the time - succeed at.
-
RE: Development Thread: Sacred Seed
@saosmash said in Development Thread: Sacred Seed:
I think it's pretty easy to avoid rape factories by
making society egalitarian, outlawing rape andbanning creepers. -
RE: Space Lords and Ladies
@mietze For me the very worst IC deaths I've seen - and they haven't happened to my PCs - were off-screen ones handled through +jobs. I absolutely despise that kind of thing as long as the player is available and willing to play something out.
There is just no reward at all, no involvement, dramatic moment or at least closure offered to a character who is killed via a Geist power or the such in his sleep. It can be fun to deal with portraying a demise and walk away from it feeling ending it was a story told with a beginning and an ending - but if all you have to show is a @mail "yeah, you're dead. Sorry about that, please let us know if you have any questions!" then none of these factors apply.
-
RE: Experienced Tiers or How much is too much?
@thatonedude said in Experienced Tiers or How much is too much?:
In a discussion about this last night there was something said that made me laugh, while being a bit sad but also rang true. The comment was something like: Tiered XP is great because I can play the character I want right out the gate before the game dies/shuts down.
There's something to be said about that. Many - most - games don't last nearly long enough for a small trickle of XPs to let you play a powerful version of the character if that's what you have in mind.
Of course not all games should allow let alone facilitate this, but it ought to still be possible somewhere.
What's much harder to implement - and in fact, perhaps counterproductive to - is allowing anyone to actually be more powerful than most. It's the difference between "I'm a great and powerful wizard!" and "I am a greater and more powerful wizard than you conjurers of cheap tricks!".
-
RE: Finding roleplay
My methodology isn't too detailed.
-
Scheduled scenes, roleplay requests and +events are served first.
-
If I'm part of group (coterie etc) they get first shot for scenes. +watch/who helps, too (ES hates it).
-
At this point I might say 'hi' on channels if I'm feeling like opening it up; if I get RP requests from that I'll go.
-
It's +where stalking time; is there a scene already going I like the looks of? If so I'll ask if I could join in.
-
If all else fails I might toss a PrP or discuss scheduling one. It's a good way to meet new people.
As for setting the scene I rarely mind doing so especially if that helps get the ball rolling. However, unless folks explicitly give me constraints about their characters or are courteous about raising objections after the fact, it has at times irked me when I set and they get butthurt because whatever would their character be doing at a park/smokehouse ("I'm a vegan!")/etc. If you wanna set, set, else just roll with it dammit.
-
-
RE: Potential Buffy Game
@cobaltasaurus said in Potential Buffy Game:
I'd like young-ish adult but adult. Not high school, but college.
Either could work. I think Buffyverse would work best for an incestuous crowd; let drama build up between people fighting against the apocalypse who've also used to date, or who're in study groups together but someone's slacking off due to the extracurricular activities involved, etc.
IC drama should drive this game as much as saving the world - IMHO.
-
RE: Finding roleplay
@The_Supremes said in Finding roleplay:
How you frame a policy is at least as important as how you execute the policy, though. And any policy at all is going to offer some kind of resistance, you're right.
That is true, although I'd say it's more important how you interpret and implement policies on a day-to-day basis than how it's worded on a news file or wiki. People respond to what staff does, not (just) what they write.
It might be also important to offer leeway to both staff and your players. For example as I become familiar with staff I talk to them more, bounce off ideas and pitches with them not because I have to but because I want their input; likewise when I lead spheres in the past there were people I knew well enough to realize I just need to support them and get out of their way. Why get mess with something that already works?
So very, very true. Also, staff can be reaching out to their players. With only three staff, we have a number of players who are on during times that staff aren't on-hand. I've had a couple of players comment on this and let drop a story idea or two without even realizing it. Those are opportunities to suggest to the player that they step up and PrP ST. The usual concerns of "what if I do it wrong, etc." come up, but that's an opportunity to coach a new ST, share a few tricks, and help someone get over those first-timer cold feet. Most people who do it enjoy it, even if they never do it again. Some folks catch the bug.
@Bennie just said something that's very true - a lot of plots aren't planned in advance. In fact I'd say there might actually be more of those impromptu ones than well thought out multi-part storylines - basically you have 3-4 people sitting around on their thumbs and one of them gets the urge to 'run something'. It might be something they were inspired to do from a TV show they watched or book they just finished or just a flash of inspiration. If this is to happen it will be right there on the spot, once the moment is gone... it's gone.
When that happens you never, ever want this potential Storyteller-making opportunity to go to waste. Let people do it! Encourage them, tug on their sleeves if you have to. The person who's never ran anything who finally takes the plunge with a couple of buddies who have a blast can easily become your newest asset. This stuff should be boosted any way possible - because if on that critical moment they even think 'well, man, I need to run this by the sphere people first, should I make a +job?' it might never happen, and that's a damn shame.
-
RE: Automated Adventure System
@wizz The inverse could be interesting, making adventuring itself so useful that if there aren't enough nobles to man all these expeditions then wealthy patrons need to recruit brave peasants willing to put themselves on the line for their Houses.
Turn those deep pockets into quest givers. Win/win.
-
RE: Faction-Based Villain Policy Idea
@Ghost said in Faction-Based Villain Policy Idea:
I've probably said this a dozen times, a dozen ways on different threads, but I think the ultimate killer of faction based games is the "never-ending stalemate" factor. Protagonist players don't want to lose their chars to PC death. Antagonist players don't want to lose their chars to PC death. It becomes two opposing forces circling each other and...nothing really changes unless staff railroads something.
I think the problem there isn't in the stalemate, it's in the setup that necessitates any degree of winning to be exclusively marked by PC death.
It's a poor way to do it because relatively few people actually want their characters to be permanently removed - and that's something games need to take under consideration in the design phase.
Unless the MU* is specifically meant to be a PvP one there should be other paths to victory.
-
RE: Sci-fi MU idea
@ifrit At the stage you're at right now I think the most imperative question you'll want to ask yourself is "what do I want from this project?".
If you mostly want a discussion then this can be as good a place as any. You can shoot ideas, other people will toss their own, and it can be a lot of fun if you're content with this whole thing remaining at the brainstorming phase. At this level it's similar to creating a table-top campaign since it can live entirely in someone's head, and the upfront commitment in time or effort is somewhat small, and mostly enjoyable for all involved.
If what you're after is collaborators to actually shape it into a potential game - as in, for it to have any chance of becoming a MUSH - that's where the investment starts piling up. To do so you'll either want to call on people who already know you or impress those who don't with your creativity, work ethic, code skills... something to get them to invest as well. Building an actual MUSH is a lot of work, some of it not very exciting or 'fun' per se, so before folks throw in their hats they'll need to know it's not vaporware; you'd need to come up with concrete ideas of what the mechanics would be, if you have any killer OMG-features in mind... basically any way to generate excitement and get the help you'll need, if any. Creating a game single-handedly isn't easy, much more so if you haven't done so before. You'll need help.
You need to distinguish what your goals are, IMHO. Either way though, good luck!
-
RE: Faction-Based Villain Policy Idea
@surreality said in Faction-Based Villain Policy Idea:
While I think players should be willing to risk a character's death, I worry about the focus on it. Namely, this seems to come up all the time as the one risk out there and all scenarios boil down to life or death, which is not only grossly lacking in nuance, it's wearying and generally tiresome and just plain limited.
I think the willingness is overrated. While yes, some people have no issues (and in fact volunteer to get their characters killed for story purposes) and others are mature enough to deal with the fallout of a dead PC, it's not unreasonable for players to expect such a demise to hold some meaning.
What I mean is, although PvP isn't that frequent on most games I've played, the usual way it happens is quite unsatisfactory; between the infamous telenukes - what is less anticlimactic than your character dying in a +job? - and randomly meeting a psychopath at a bar who throws a bunch of dice for no reason than that he's a psychopath until the PC's health boxes are full of damage, that's just not fun. And for something that can be as disruptive as character death the least we can expect is to make it at least somewhat entertaining for everyone involved, not just the psychopath's player.
I think what's more worrisome than PvP is the pre-emptive expectation of it. Being so paranoid They Are Out To Get You that OOC communication breaks down, They are villainized in your head and people break down into camps opposing each other as players - once the antagonism crosses the IC/OOC line and begins to spread even in the absence of actions, only based on what is perceived or might happen, that's when things really get toxic.
-
RE: Wheel of Time
@Seraphim73 said in Wheel of Time:
@Packrat I agree that channelers should be rare and terrifying in RP, but once you've met a dozen and knocked boots with two... they're just not as scary. And because PCs are PCs, the terrifying thing just never happens anyhow. Which means that unless Staff leans hard into the idea that channelers are terrifying and NPCs fear and hate them, it won't be so, so they will get all the benefits of being beatsticks and none of the downsides of being terrifying social pariahs.
Yeah, it's like meeting with the Joker every day in a comic book game. Sure, you as a player want your PC to feel unsettled (and/or scared shitless) but how long can you do that for if Mr. J is on the grid every day, hanging out all the time, etc?
My - probably unpopular - opinion: Keep Aes Sedai playable by all, make male channelers playable only by application (i.e. allowing them only for select trusted folks and carefully curating their numbers), but permit them to be around.
Channelers are too cool and too big a part of the WoT sage to not be present, no matter the setting's era, and it's not worth sacrificing for balance. Balance should not be a major consideration for a Wheel of Time game unless it skews the demographics (i.e. if you start seeing more and false Dragons than you do Whitecloaks or there are more Aes Sedai playing the Great Game than Lords and Ladies).
-
RE: Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes
@surreality Well, sure, but derailing/overcrowding an existing scene isn't a solution to that problem. Starting a new one is.
I don't understand why it's such a problem to just pick a different location. It's not like people idling in the OOC room suddenly felt a great desire to go to Joe's Bar, the only attraction about it is there are already people present. If they go to Jim's Bar with the other 2 idling folks there will be people there, too.