@Jaded Where is Ghost!
Best posts made by Arkandel
-
RE: Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat)
@seraphim73 said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
This is a really interesting point, I think. Most humans have the same hit locations for physical combat, but most humans don't have the same "hit locations" for social combat. Trying to use a generic combat system without taking into account the target character's personalities, passions, desires, and stubborn points is like trying to use a fish hit location chart for a person. Sure, you might get a "head" or "abdomen" result that works well enough, but you might also get a "tail" or "dorsal fin" result that... doesn't really work for the situation.
The problem isn't so much that we can't have a system where players input those things for their characters somehow ("Name and rate five things your character would be angered/flattered by") but that doing so very quickly burdens everything with that much extra complexity. The interface is less intuitive, command-line arguments become a maze, CGen takes longer to do and it's easier to screw up, and all that takes place before we even figure out whether the results are 'realistic enough' or not.
Look, we've had RPGs since the late 70s/early 80s. That's almost forty years of some pretty intelligent people creating all kinds of systems, where you can play anything from a shape-shifting kangaroo to a sentient meteorite. It's not an accident no 'social system' has really been presented as a yardstick, that none of the mechanics our collective hobby has come up with have gotten any closer than "well, roll manipulation+persuasion versus composure or something"-type rolls.
It's not because the answer is really close and we just have to refine it, it's because we are asking the wrong question. We are trying to treat social combat like we do the physical equivalent, and it just doesn't work that way.
-
RE: RL things I love
I watched It over the weekend and had a blast! So much screaming from the audience throughout the movie.
Also, is it weird whenever I watch a horror movie I wonder what would happen if Sam and Dean showed up?
-
RE: What's your identity worth to you?
@faraday I think it's also a step beyond that; there is a type of player who doesn't make a fuss, who won't go to staff and complain first or even leave an "I don't like this policy, I'm out" note upon leaving. They just leave.
Those are arguably people no game should want to lose regardless of size, not because they care about the playerbase or even because they'd consider altering the policy in question, but because they never have the chance to examine it first.
These are just lost players, a silent minority alienated by one cog you - as staff - are never given the chance to question whether it belongs, or if it can be removed or... what. Maybe the cog belongs there. Maybe you haven't given it a moment's thought in your life and never realized it'd be offensive to anyone.
-
RE: Shadowrun: Modern
@Kanye-Qwest said in Shadowrun: Modern:
It's a mega bad stat. Oh my god. Every_rper says in OOC: "Teehee/heh SL2/appearance 6...."
What about players who're too cheap to actually buy the stat although they clearly want it, so they end up making a wiki with super attractive supermodel pictures, write descriptions about how scorching hot their every inch is, and yet they don't have the merits because dammit, brawl 4?
-
RE: What's your identity worth to you?
Oh - double post, but you'll notice MSB isn't using (and hasn't ever even before I took over) SSL.
I suppose I could have it do so but frankly you'd be well served not sending anything through this forum which constitutes 'sensitive information' of any sort. It's a gaming forum. Don't trust it.
-
RE: What's your identity worth to you?
@faraday said in What's your identity worth to you?:
But I don't see that changing any time...ever, really. I looked into supporting SSL connections with Ares. The game code is trivial, but the steps involved in enabling it server-side were hideous for anyone who isn't an experienced server admin.
To be honest when I considered it I was busy with migrating MSB from the old to the new server so I had my hands full, and it seemed like an unnecessary detail to worry about.
Now I have more time and I could do it, but I'm not sure there's a use case for it. If there was a strong enough request, sure, but... why? We're sharing cat memes and chat about a hobby no one cares about, which is all public anyway, so unless people are reusing passwords (don't do it!) that might get stolen and authenticate attackers on other sites or sharing sensitive information in private chats...
But yeah. The future is an encrypted one. I also always loved the idea of coding a MUSH that somehow generates private keys for each user then signs everything that gets said or posed, so there's no chance something might be faked or altered in pasting without being able to know for sure.
-
RE: RL Anger
@Tat A few years ago I drove my mom to buy a new washing machine since her old one broke down. She picked one, I paid using my credit card, and the guy promised to deliver it in 3-4 days.
Those 3-4 days turned into a week ("we're still waiting for the model to come in"), then two weeks ("the supplier's delivery truck bringing it to our warehouse had a problem"). I called the store and asked for a refund since my mom needed a washing machine and they said it was complicated 'since I had paid with a credit card', and if I could just wait? I said no, I really wanted a refund, and they basically gave me the runaround.
Fine. I e-mailed my bank and reported this, giving them the full details and asking them to reverse the payment. Which they did within the day - the guy was freaking out at me on the phone about how much work cleaning up the paperwork from that was going to be for him.
I cared less than I perhaps should, and I've always used a credit card when I bought anything of value since... it just gives me more recourse, and a nice paper trail.
-
RE: Make it fun for Me!
@warma-sheen said in Make it fun for Me!:
TL:DR Which type of fun you have is irrelevant when overshadowed by the pettiness of people determined to drag you down because whatever fun you're having, other people can't stand to see you having more of it.
The chief enemy of roleplay is and probably has always been players with OOC issues rather than characters and IC ones. So we see things such as
- ego (I want to win!)
- metagaming (I want my circle of friends to win!)
- baggage (I want my enemies from other MU* to lose!)
- spotlight (I want everyone to see me winning!)
- burning out (no one should win anything)
taking over instead. These are all very common factirs, and at times even though most of us will scoff at the idea (why I would never) we've all been on either side of them. They sneak up on us, and we might only realize it in hindsight, much later and after the fact.
We are not above the pettiness you're referring to. Even perfectly good people get caught up in shitstorms because someone they like was involved, or they were on the periphery when things started getting bad and got defensive then couldn't back out or... whatever.
The worst thing we can do is absolve ourselves from guilt preemptively, assume we can't possible be part of the problem in every possible scenario and, thus, that it's always everyone else who has 100% of the blame. That's how we end up in toxic situations.
-
RE: RL Anger
While I completely understand not wanting any spoilers about major upcoming movies, especially in a trailer...
... but seriously people? You think they are going to put out a freakin' Justice League live-action movie and not put Superman in it? That's not a spoiler, that's the most obvious thing ever.
-
RE: D&D 5E
I'm a strong believer that a MUSH lives an dies by what happens between events; finding RP when no one is doing something is extremely vital. A central, neutral city that is a portal away from whatever adventure / plot / event people go on....
I'll give you advice you already have.
The setting is almost inconsequential; it's important that it's done right and that it's picked well, but not what it is.
What really matters is execution; how it actually turns out on your grid. That starts with you - staff - being excited and letting it stir up your creative juices, because if you're not into it we won't either. It ends with everything else from the code base to the +events you run being enough to occupy your playerbase and get them involved enough to invest their own time and effort.
Nothing else matters. You can probably pick a generic fantasy realm and stick us in it, but if it's done well we'll love it. You can also hand-pick the most unique suberb idea-on-paper ever right out of beloved published material, but if it turns out to be flat and uninspired it'll be a frozen wasteland of idlying sockets.
Tl;DR - pick what feels right to you, then give it depth and a soul. The rest will come.
-
RE: Spotlight.
Without getting into pseudo-sociology here, why is spotlight wanted - and in some cases, needed?
What I mean is, we're not really talking about entertainment at this point, or even giving people stuff to do. The issue isn't that a bartender has nothing to do - in fact in many cases it's easier for one to participate in plots, because they wouldn't need to answer questions such as "why would my High Lady be on a rowboat to catch a special rare fish" before they sign up. On a day to day basis a bartender can find scenes easier - they are already at a bar!
So what gives? Why are (some, and not just a few) folks driven to stand out by being assigned prominent positions?
-
RE: Spotlight.
@faraday This may have had an interesting effect over the years.
When I started playing most if not all really important positions were NPC only, same as in the table-top game where you don't play the Prince, you play the underdog. Then games became more open and allowed players to achieve any goal... only to eventually face the reality of toxicity among their playerbase since there were only so many such 'special' ranks that only a fraction of it could ever achieve them. There was even a time new MU* opened, clones of the last one in all but name, just so the disenfranchised could get to be the ones on top this time around.
Now with some exceptions the trend is for new MU* to revert to the old model, this time out of experience rather than naivety.
It's not just ranks, mind you. I've mentioned this before but I had at least one player specifically drop out of a plot of mine because she no longer had as prominent a part in it since others were getting involved; not because the scenes were larger - I made sure to split people up into manageable groups - but the pie remained the same but in her mind the slices were smaller.
The game had become a zero-sum one to her. I suspect this might be more widespread.
-
RE: RL peeves! >< @$!#
@Luna Where else would they save money AND live better? Duuh.
-
RE: Spotlight.
@wretched said in Spotlight.:
I think, and this may seem a bit callous, but a lot of the onus is on the players themselves. Much of the time the people that end up being in 'the spotlight' are there simply because they look at the scene/situation and they take action.
Of course a lot of the onus is on players - in fact I can think of very few issues within the hobby where at least a large part of the responsibility can't be safely placed on the players involved.
The thing though is you can't really change or fix people. We simply lack that capability. What we can do is design systems and implement procedures to mitigate the impact certain personality traits can have, or to minimize the ways they can be triggered if we can do it without creating larger problems elsewhere.
Let me give an example. Please note it's an example and not an actual proposal that everything should be done that way.
When @faraday pointed out not everyone can get the killing blow on the Big Bad she's right; that means we can have a large storyline where many people are involved, but as long as there's a mustache-twirling villain in the end, not all of those people will stab him in the face during the plot's climax. That person will be the one in the spotlight, and along with them, the Storyteller (be it staff or a player ST) will be under some scrutiny - it's just how it goes.
What if there is no big bad? If for example the objective is to stop a plague then a coordinated effort by players is needed to stop it; someone needs to do the research and figure out how it began, someone has to be the scientist who analyzes these findings and starts coming up with an idea of how to stop it, another gets to go gather the rare ingredients that might work as the cure, and a final party will need to go release it into the epicenter of the zombie-infested area.
In that kind of plot no one is the hero; there's no Luke, no Leia. We did it,
redditMSB!Now the question is... should this be something story-runners need to be concerned with? Is the minimization of jealousy and a conscious effort to spread the wealth something that's fair - or wanted - when plots are designed? Are we better off if we specifically try to create a spotlight-sharing environments or are we hamstringing our own creativity to avoid triggering people's somewhat baser instincts?
-
RE: Good TV
@thatguythere Two things:
a) You wouldn't eat great pizza (assuming you like pizza, which come on, who doesn't) because a different company makes it than you usually associate with pizza? That's... interesting.
b) One way to look at it is that social evolution came from somewhere. There was an episode in, I think, Voyager where someone points out after they considered bending their rules that it was specifically for times like these these rules were made; it's easy to be moral in safe, peace times.
As for Captain Lorca, even for his own time, he's clearly suffering from some sort of massive PTSD and his moral code is seriously skewed, and he's been surrounding himself with others as broken as he is. This is made clear by the horrified reaction his own Admiral had over his actions, successful as they may have been.
I find this kind of debate of ethics and civility against one's own self preservation is an engaging one, and Star Trek is all about such debates. I think there will be more.
Also it bears remembering the show is still brand new, and they spent the first 3-4 episodes introducing the new state of things in ways past shows didn't have to; we started in one ship, now we're in another, we were exposed to the reality of Klingon politics, etc so some time was spent setting the pieces.
TL;DR: Give it another chance, IMHO. It might be different but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
-
RE: What's missing in MUSHdom?
@runescryer said in What's missing in MUSHdom?:
@tinuviel Right. Which is why you need to subdivide a MU into smaller groups or 'spheres' like WoD games do.
On the flipside, that's destroyed some WoD games because when they were subdivided, staff neglected to give them a thematic impetus to interact with each other (in fact often enough they were explicitly told not to due to reasons), essentially dividing the playerbase into islands.
That's never a good choice.