Best posts made by Arkandel

An issue we're dealing with here, unfairly or not, is that the roadblocks to using social stats convincingly in RP are littered with idiots who've done a fairly good job putting the problems we haven't solved in front of the advantages we'd gain from rolling them more frequently.

Idiots trying to strong-arm people into TS? Check. Fools trying to change someone's entire view of the world in one bar scene? Check. Jerks pointlessly brute-forcing social rolls down everyone's throats just because they can? Check.

On top of that we all have our pet peeves. For example mine has to do with politics, and although I probably shouldn't feel that way I can't separate the words on my screen from the intent of the roll which follows them; someone coming to my character with a ludicrous deal ("if you vote for me against your own interests I'm gonna give you this cookie") and lots of dice irks me. And the reason I shouldn't be bothered by it is that the same crappily posed attempt on the physical plane ("I'm'a gonna punch you good!") wouldn't sound half as bad.

I think what'll make a system work isn't incentives. It will however need to give us something we don't currently have - in other words in any social system we care to propose we - the players - must get toys to play with we don't want to be without. Perhaps an overall overhaul of politics wrapped around the use of such attributes with resources, allies and contacts baked into it. But there must be a reason to make players want this in their scenes, and XP ain't it.

@lordbelh said in Social Conflict via Stats:

The problem with the Doors system, to whoever mentioned that, is that it was utterly in favor of the aggressor.

See, in a table-top setting that isn't so bad. It works for the same reason combat does - things aren't meant to be too nuanced or realistic, especially since it's written to be used on NPCs; the idea is that physical combat must resolve. You can't have defences too high because then no one would win in a reasonable amount of time, which for combat is a complete downer. You need a winner and a loser! So these mechanics are biased toward declaring an outcome either way.

In social interactions not so much! You can absolutely have debates where it's utterly impossible to change the other person's mind... and if anyone has doubts about this, read this MSB thread. Read almost any thread. Or argue politics with that stubborn old uncle of yours who thinks Trump will fix the world. You can have a great argument, articulate it perfectly and yet still fail to convince the other person... simply because they refuse to budge.

And that should be fine, too. Unlike physical combat there should be topics where you just can't make much progress at all because it's a core tenet of the other character, or they just don't like yours or any number of things. And the opposite of course; maybe my character has Strong Beliefs but he's a sucker for a hot chick, so when she comes onto him he crumbles.

@Roz said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

If there's a strict pose order in a big scene and people have to save all of their reactions for one pose, you end up with the giant "I have to respond to everyone" pose. I think KQ is saying that if people were more free to respond to things as they come, it would be easier and read more naturally.

Anyone playing in a large scene who resists using the 3PR is a monster and should be put down for their own good.

But conversely even with it I've seen people try to do all of the things. I've seen it happen on Arx, for that matter, explicitly. With 3PR - what, there are injured people around but there are other medics present other than myself? No matter - here's a 2-line pose about running around healing everyone.

We can't fix inconsiderate players either by having or not having a system in place. But maybe a system could help the rest of the players.

@Bobotron said in Social Conflict via Stats:

Besides, even 'instant modifiers' and 'chosen at chargen things you can never betray' are still part of the thing: trust. No matter WHAT you have to trust the other person and communicate and BE REASONABLE and NOT A FUCKING CHEATER who ignores the stats.
...
No system is going to be perfect without a buy in and, ultimately, a cooperation on the players' parts to be reasonable. Which is going to be a problem no MATTER what is done. I am simply choosing to start out by asking people to work with each other, let the system help guide things when you really need to, and communicate to make things work there.

I think that's the correct approach; there is so much paranoia in our community about all the cheaters, exploiters, terrible people out there who abuse everything to force others into panther-cock TS. So we end up shooting ourselves in the foot this way trying to come up with a ton of provisions ahead of time to eliminate any chance someone might step out of line using our precious systems.

That doesn't work. The type of unwanted person is undeterred; I mean they are completely unobstructed. All they need is the page command and the law of large numbers, hitting up everyone until someone bites. In the mean time legitimate players are faced with borderline hostile mechanics treating them like suspect cheaters and it's not unreasonable that they don't use them.

Taking a leap of faith is a genuinely good idea. Rely on players to not be dicks; most are not.

@Apos said in Social Conflict via Stats:

But on the other hand, what about something mostly invisible? A game has a social system that two people in a private scene use, one things it gives authority over another character, the other person is super creeped out but still feels that they would be the bad guy if they don't play along, it leaves a bad taste in their mouth, they log off and never come back, and staff never knows what happens, and the person that even did it probably doesn't even know. Those are the very problematic systems.

But it's not the intent here that I'm disputing. Of course the reason people who want more draconian checks and greater oversight on social rolls are doing it to hinder bad guys. What I'm saying is it doesn't work, and the act of trying to limit these things simply penalizes the good guys.

Look at the worst offenders we've had in our community, the big names, what did they use? Exactly what you mentioned, the insinuation saying 'no' would mean they are doing something wrong. They accomplished that through pages, cherry-picking book passages ("look, Mind 4 means you gobble down that panther dick, it's the rules"), abusing staff connections ("can you prove 100% you were told to gobble down panther dick? No? Liar.") and so on.

In the mean time social attributes in general are barely being used in practice. Sometimes I see social powers, perhaps in certain +jobs for investigations, but their usefulness truly pales compared to their physical equivalents, and part of that is people - reasonable, well-meaning players - are already pretty self-conscious about 'forcing' others to do things, it's being seen as a form of PvP and not creative collaboration using dice to settle outcomes.

That's the real challenge here, I think; the real hurdle isn't to prevent assholes from being themselves because they already have every tool at their disposal to do so. The hard part is to somehow lift the collective cultural taboo we have in employing social rolls in even non-drastic ways (lying/detecting lies, trying to get someone to keep talking and reveal secrets, measure the impact of someone's stern admonishment) during everyday social scenes.

If we go too far in the former direction we'll harm the other too much, IMHO. A system people won't use might as well not exist.

For me the issue is simple... it's just a series of easy questions that determines the outcome.

1. Is the game worth it? If not, leave.

2. If it is, make my mind known about things I think are important and could be improved. Does staff agree? If so, yay! Help them out any way I can.

3. If things I consider important aren't ones staff thinks as problems (or won't fix for any reason) then is that a dealbreaker? If so, leave.

4. If I've made my mind known, staff won't fix what hurts my sensibilities and I decided to stay regardless then I need to shut the fuck up and enjoy what's left of the game. That's not (just) for the MU*'s benefit but primarily for my own - if I keep being peeved I won't enjoy playing, so what's the point?

It's not that complicated as long as we don't take things personally. If a player isn't satisfied with your game it doesn't mean you suck; if they decide/mention they are about to leave your game it doesn't mean it sucks. Likewise if staff won't take your suggestions it doesn't mean much either.

@Lithium said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

@Arkandel By the same token, there is nothing /wrong/ with a staffer saying: This is the theme of the game. It is what the game is built for and towards. That isn't going to change because someone or even a few someone's don't like it.

Of course not. It's their game at the end of the day. But that's what I'm saying, there's nothing wrong with any approach mentioned so far - including a player saying "well, that's not for me". There shouldn't be hard feelings either way about it.

By creating characters that break the theme, they are actively trying to rebel against what the game is all about, that, in my mind, can make a person a problem player because it breaks the immersion for the people who /do/ like the theme, and play on the game for the theme, or rules, etc.

Well, sure, but creating unthematic characters is not the only way you can disagree with staff.

There is no such thing as a perfect game, and this is something players, and staffers need to realize. I agree with your points about leaving if it's not something you like, but trying to smash up the decorations on your way out?

That's just messed up.

When I leave a game I just... stop logging on. No posts, no declarations on channels, no farewells. But I think I make the runners aware with my issues before I did so; I simply never really add "... or else" to them, since that should be implied.

@lordbelh said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

@Deviante BribesBrides work.

FTFY.

In public scenes it's so easy to tell between those who're only farming votes and those who're also farming votes.

@Nein said in Superhero Games: Quest For Villain PCs:

Does anyone know the reasoning behind this, or when this became popular? I'm assuming it's to prevent people from forming Mr. Sinister's Harem of Mutant Wives or General Zod's plot for the longest possible character squatting in internet history, but that's almost along the lines of "cutting off the hands of the musicians".

For starters I've no idea why it's done. I haven't played comic MU* almost at all.

Why I would have it like that? It's because I wouldn't want to see the Red Skull doing random bar scenes or hanging out with random people just because I have the character, I'm bored, and I want to play him. Overuse breeds familiarity and the character becomes less menacing if you've met him fifty times, or a joke if that's 50 times you had to listen through his racist bite-less tirades.

@Thenomain said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

the often confusing documentation was the first thing I asked about on the guest channel (and was called out for on it).

I really wish - not just for Arx but in general - people were more willing to accept criticism without getting defensive about it. Just because your game is good it doesn't mean it's perfect, and just because things can get better it doesn't mean the game sucks.

@Monogram said in Web-based MU poll:

I dunno. Yeah, tel-net clients might be ancient in terms of stuff, but it's not like there's anything inherently wrong with them. Or maybe that's just a thought of 'if it's not broke don't fix it' kind of thing.

Until you try to put a word in italics. Or display an image for a room. Or allow context-sensitive menus by clicking on character names to perform actions on them. Or having a UI for personal messages like Hangouts' as opposed to pages taking up half of your screen when you page several people just to display their names.

Or, you know, showing a newbie how to roleplay online. They go from polished interfaces to a black screen and a command line interface for CGen that requires 'a special program' to access the game at all.

There's only nothing wrong because we're used to it.

Already use my browser for enough stuff as it is.

I don't mean to tell you you are wrong, I just don't understand that reasoning. Can you explain?

@Gingerlily HM. It was surprising because my character - Theodore, a Crone Storm Crow - wasn't political by nature and because the sphere itself was basically unmanned; we had a constantly rotating staff roster who joined and immediately went inactive or did very little while they were there. Rudderless like that, the sphere still flourished.

What made it work was the presence of several really, really good roleplayers spread across the Covenants. Laibah (played by @EmmahSue) joined the Carthians and turned them from a distracted irrelevance into a dominant force, Moritz played an excellent polarizing bad guy Bishop/Prince, Magnus was great in the Invictus, etc. We had a lot of very talented people who went on afterwards to make games of their own all pouring time into the volatile political environment, all player-driven and unplanned.

The main reason I still look back and appreciate it all this time later is that it proves - at least in my mind - that although systems and administrative support matter, it is doable for fluid politics to evolve if there's a strong drive of involved players behind it.

It also shows the importance of both having great people in a game, as sometimes a single really good proactive roleplayer was enough to incentivize and attract others to join their sphere of influence.

@Packrat said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

Added to that just how would people invade Thrax? Redrain is entirely land locked, Valardin is literally the other side of the continent, you would basically be limited to the Crown, Grayson by extension then maybe some of the Lyceum if you could get them to be interested. Given Thrax would be defending and on islands, with sieges of castles being drawn out and hideously expensive things, I do not find it surprising that nobody has ever done it.

You know what a much easier way is? Get the person playing the Thraxian High Lord banned and give the rostered character to someone else who saw what happened to the last guy who played a certain way.

Just sayin'.

To be entirely honest here I have been playing the most what most people have been playing the most.

WoD for me was a derived preference. I like well populated, active games, and those have historically been the ones to match the description.

I think what we'll see a lot in this thread is how varied and niche our interests are, deep down, and how much we compromise so we can find some place to play we can at least tolerate.

@faraday said in How do you keep OOC lounges from becoming trash?:

@Arkandel said in How do you keep OOC lounges from becoming trash?:

Why have an OOC room and not just the OOC channel? What's the upside?

Some people are going to log in without intent of playing immediately. Where do you want them to be?

Aw, come on. Anywhere. Give them personal rooms (which I believe all characters should have, and for more than just TS purposes - it's good to have a private space) or 'quiet' rooms they can idle in without spamming each other.

Then let channels do what they're there for, with a history function so they can be monitored by staff for abuse (as opposed to 'X said Y ten minutes ago' and sending logs back and forth after the fact).

The upside of providing an OOC room is that it gives a better feel for the true RP activity level in the game and can help find RP easier.

I think there are far better RP-finding tools than the OOC room - in fact that's probably a mediocre one, and its function can be easily substituted by ... well, a channel. RP-seeking flags, grid incentives, public +events, hell the +where command, these are all more effective ways of finding a scene.

I dunno, maybe I'm biased. I've never liked hanging out in the OOC room in any game, it's too spammy (without the chance to mute it) and too many attention-seekers make it their home.

@Misadventure said in PC antagonism done right:

@derp Two things going on there, the White Knightism, and the Only Killing is Winning.

It's been said before, but few players want to see their characters as the truly bad people, AND many people are adverse to "starting something" first.

Although I can agree with @Derp that people are eager to jump on the murderwagon and that's a problem, my own issue with this has been different historically.

When I think to run an antagonist, and in many cases that includes NPCs for my plots, I consider theme and then play a purist. Sure, a moustache-twirling villain has a time and a place but there's a shorter shelf life - and it's a much more niche kind of PC to play if that's the wanted direction.

So let's say (to steal @lordbelh's example) that it's a political Vampire game and I'm playing a conservative, traditionalist Elder who happens to be Primogen or whatever. He's Someone. He spots them ghouls walking around Elysium as if they were real people or something and he makes his mind known about them; even if there's no kill squad in response, the chance of everyone, and I mean almost everyone being liberal about them and ganging up on an influential Kindred (who could presumably be a good friend and a bad enemy) to defend someone else they can't gain almost anything from, is very high. If the ghoul's player happens to be popular OOC? You just got fucked.

Look, that can be grating for many players to play out. It can be fun to be the guy everyone's mouthing off to but it can also isolate you pretty fast; it's easy to get the feeling there's a page party going on you're not invited to, and no matter the theme or even your PC's position, you can also end up IC isolated very quickly. Being outnumbered, even over an issue where you're supposed to be representing the majority or at least be on the side of authority on, can be pretty frustrating in the long run. Not only does it limit your RP but it can also derail it - suddenly you're not playing the savvy, respected statesman.

Now, part of this issue is just the average player's nature. But part of it is systemic; if you give nothing up by being a white knight (say, opposing that Elder doesn't penalize you in tangible terms in the least) then it's a win/win. That, to me, speaks of poor game design where they are fewer interesting choices to make.

@Ghost @Ghost said in MSB: The meta-discussion:

Pretty much, if you post here, you should understand that there's a chance people who disagree with you are going to go "fuck that guy" and find out who you play on any given game and avoid you. Which would make sense if you were been stalkerish, but when it happens because of an ooc disagreement on what constitutes as an actual apology, it's just petty and fucktarded.

Petty or not though that's how human beings work. I never operated under the illusion that being critical of certain situations here will always make me friends; it's only been a couple of days since I got an angry PM over the Arx situation. So do I think there aren't players out there who'd rather not play with me because of MSB? Absolutely. Are there folks around here who're trying to incite drama? Yup - and in fact the PMs specifically mentioned 'someone else' was informing them of things I allegedly posted here - which I hadn't even actually done, which is easy to see since... they are all public.

So is this whole affair kind of like highschool? You bet.

But would I rather keep my trap shut (or fingers still, if you prefer) to avoid the fallout? Nah. I'm a big boy, and if anyone wants to not play with me is welcome to do so and I won't be butthurt by it. Despite appearances we're not actually in highschool, you know? My self-esteem doesn't depend on how popular I am or in what circles.

Who cares?

@Ghost The entire point of wikis is that while they can be defaced reverting to earlier versions is also effortless.

So assuming any information offered is voluntary by the rules (i.e. say, you can only add your own past alts/games and not other people's) I don't see a problem. If I don't want you to know I used to play Fucktard Johnson on TR then I don't need to list him.