Best posts made by Arkandel

@tiredewok said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@arkandel

I don't think the streamers who have quit streaming their games did it to keep their own brands from being damaged. Not entirely, at least. I think a lot of them have quit streaming WoW and other Blizz games as a show of solidarity with those who have been victimized by them.

Yeah maybe. I don't know. I'm pretty jaded about corporate morality when money enters the equation and streamers are very susceptible to being cancelled since all it takes is one click to unsubscribe.

Either way it's a bummer in many ways. An once great company is going down the drain (and has been for years, even aside from what's been revealed lately), the gaming industry has yet another scandal counted against it to show what a toxic niche in the industry it is, and some great games' futures are up in the air.

Although to be honest players are fickle. If Diablo 4 comes out and it's amazing I could see people flocking to buy it.

Hey folks,

Some folks lately have argued we are settling into groupthink around here and they may have a point. That we have been doing something a certain way doesn't mean it's the only way it can work. So this is something I'm working on and I can use help with - namely, I am after criticism, ideas, brainstorming and fresh approaches.

My only request is this: Be as brutal as you need to be with the implementation but let's not waste time debating the core goals; those are axiomatic, a given. It's what I want a game to be.

In other words I'd like y'all to shoot as many holes as you like into the proposed means for this game to achieve its goals, but not those goals themselves.

The Goals:

1. Create a liberal, yes-first roleplaying game. If we say no it's for a really good, thematic reason.
2. Focus on gameplay first, remove all possible obstacles and bottlenecks between players and scenes.
3. In the IC setting roleplay and players decide as much as possible. Staff decides as little as possible.
4. Automate anything that can be reasonably automated. Job monkeys should be needed as little as possible, eliminate all needless overhead for both players and staff.
5. Audit, do not approve. If possible including CGen in that. Do not pre-empty checks, trust players.
6. Offer incentives to excel, allow casual players to keep up.
7. Limit the impact of character death, encourage new character ideas.
8. Coopt the game to its players so they will have a reason to invest creatively in its course. Allow them to have a lasting impact.

So, my means and methods. The numbers in parenthesis are there to designate which idea is aimed at which goal:

• ( 3, 4, 5 ) Being staff is a role, not a privilege. All staff must contribute and their number should be small. Since the importance of handling +jobs is minimized the main duty is handling interpersonal issues, auditing potential cases of system abuse, but mainly running and coordinating running plot. Staff never decides on character positions or non-mechanical eligibility for ability or power purchases.

• ( 3, 6, 8 ) Characters decide their own groups' composition. Status-weighted votes determine ranks, positions and membership. To facilitate early game launches NPCs are set in place who can be voted out or competed with as normal by PCs. Conversely that means there are no protections for IC actions; highly ranked characters are bigger targets who may be eliminated in the same way as NPCs. Staff only audits this process to ensure OOC behavior remains civil and, to the extent it is possible for them to establish, that no OOC means or information were employed.

• ( 2, 3, 8 ) Plot is the game's lifeblood. The game comes with its own metaplot which is written to be modular and altered by characters. Staff's primary concern is to coordinate players and either run plots contributing to the overall story themselves or support players in running their own. This takes precedence over all other staff concerns save ones which make the game actually unplayable, staff should never feel they can't run an event because they're busy dealing with a troublesome player. Move the distraction in whatever manner is most appropriate and run the event.

• ( 3, 6 ) There are no feature characters, restricted features or application-only concepts. Anything up for grabs is available to all players. Characters are elevated based on the merit of their own ability to roleplay.

• ( 1, 2, 4 ) CGen has no non-automated approval conditions and there are no 'special' cases; roll what you will. It will check if you have a description and that your numbers check out, then you're on your way. If (due to code limitations) staff has to set things by hand it can happen after characters hit the grid with the understanding you can't use any missing attributes or resources in the meantime, in order to prevent mistakes or misunderstandings about mechanics ('oh, sorry, I thought I could buy Sleepwalker merits as a ghoul' -- which would be an example of one of the 'good, thematic reasons' to say no, as described above).

• ( 4, 6, 7 ) All automated XP are handed on a weekly basis to characters who were in at least two scenes (detected automagically by the code) in that period. Characters also receive a smaller portion of their XP based on incentives - Beats, PrPs ran, etc. Beats are earned on request, audited after the fact if needed to prevent abuse, up to a modest cap per week. New characters receive more automatic XP than older ones until that portion of their XP is equal, although incentive-based XP remain on the characters who earned them without catching up mechanisms. On character death or permanent retirement the majority of all their XP may be transfered to a new PC.

• ( 4, 6, 7 ) There is no justification requirement for any XP expenditure. If you have the XP you can purchase anything you wish that's mechanically available to your PC. There are time delays to preserve a believable progression in raising skills, attributes and abilities. However justifications are still optional and, on staff's discretion and subject to incentive-based caps, may be rewarded Beats by staff.

• ( 4, 5 ) Cut down on building delays; in most MU* this is time consuming, requiring checks on behalf of staff, setting exit/entrance messages, etc. It's cool to see 'Bob gets in from the street' but it doesn't provide enough to the game - "Bob has arrived" is sufficient if it cuts down on time. Let players make their own rooms on the grid, even businesses, and simply have a periodic auditing process to make sure they comply with writing regulations (tabs, linefeeds between paragraphs) so the game maintains a consistent style.

This ought to do for the time being. I've other ideas, including some level-of-consent based schemas and consideration for power disparities across different character type tiers (thanks @Misadventure) but those probably fall outside the scope of this particular thread and can wait to be introduced later depending on how this goes.

So... the floor is yours, kids.

A first trailer for The Sandman just came out. This looks good!

@Apos said:

@Arkandel If someone puts in a CG background that's incredibly creepy and a gigantic red flag, with a standard game someone might question them on it and veto it. With a yes-only MU, they won't be questioned, but assume that if they act in a way against OOC rules they will be punished. This is has a core problem:

But they don't. That's not a theory, it's a fact - looking back at some of the people commonly accepted after the fact as the worst, they weren't in trouble too often at all. Sometimes they weren't in trouble at all until the very end. Routinely they were highly esteemed and respected for the vast majority of their time there.

What I'm saying is, your heart is certainly in the right place but you won't catch anyone you want to catch at CGen. You'd find they've written a great description, a very reasonable background (or with just hints of legitimate darkness in them - PTSD for example, stuff you wouldn't stop anyway) and when they pose they're pretty good at it.

On the other hand when your hammer does fall, it'll be on that silly fool who made the wrong poorly worded joke someone was offended by and got him banned. You won't really solve the intended problem, you'll only be creating a new one. IMHO, of course.

@aria said in Good TV:

her great love, Aragorn, the handsome, brooding warrior who becomes the High King of Middle-Earth.*

The High King of Gondor and Arnor. </LotR snob>

I loved that entire rest of the quote.

@Nein said:

The success of the yes-only game will lie strictly on staff and players.

I took the liberty of fixing that for you.

There's no such thing as an autopilot for anything which involves people who need to be managed. If only! No matter what we conceive of here absolutely depends on having good people on both sides of the 'table' for its success.

I grew up reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation. Words cannot express how much I love that series, or the impact it had on young-Arkandel growing up.

It all appealed to me. The idea of this vast, sprawling universe set in the vast future where humanity has spread to the stars but forgot where Earth resided, and the concepts it introduced to define what humanity even means. The way it drove the point - again and again - of intellectualism being nearly synonymous with pacifism ("violence is the last resort of the incompetent"), and the manner its characters as well as the plot showcased it.

And then I watched the first episode of Apple's Foundation. Special ops teams coming in, guns blazing! Explosions! Poolside sex scenes! Right in the first ten minutes!

... Sigh.

Many people online, especially in our hobby, haven't had the best record of being socially accepted or included. On top of it it's exactly those same kinds of people who often seek the sanctuary of us-versus-them cliques (I dislike the term but it'll do), since after all if there's an 'us' then at least I belong!

The issue is further compounded by the fact when you first go to a game you're generally not known. Our gaming identities are a very fluid thing - you may be well known and respected in one game, then you go to another and you're no one at all. It's not an easy transition, especially when harboring a sensitive ego or thin skin.

My personal inclusion tool of choice is the +event command where such exists. I can run plot - that's being included, valued even. And if I'm not feeling the ST thing I can usually find something I can sign and show up for and it's that thing's ST's job to figure out how I fit in there. Usually that's the toughest part - getting in through the door - after which things become smoother since you actually get to meet folks, have something to talk about, etc.

I do agree though that ultimately it's each player's responsibility, no matter what staff or other players do. If I log on and sit in a room staring at who, ignore requests for RP over channels because they're not right enough for me and it's not exactly what I wanted to do... then that's no one else's fault.

@coin said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:

In any case, I don't tend to have too many pearls to clutch when it comes to adaptations. I don't usually care.

Oh obviously I'm butthurt here, no question about it. These books are important to me. I'm clenching those pearls hard.

But is this either a new thing or exclusive to MU*?

Look, I don't play multiplayer FPS. The reason is that I suck at them; my twitch reflexes are just slow enough for assorted teenagers across the globe to effortlessly shoot me in the head. There's nothing wrong with the games themselves, I'm just not that good at them. I can see why someone might not want me on their team - unless they need a guy whose head is effortlessly shot, I'm not their guy. It's not a personal rejection of me and all that I stand for.

I am however a pretty damn good healer on MMORPGs. I'm experienced, attentive, learn the mechanics, I make quick decisions on the fly. People do pick me for their arena teams because of this and I'm invited to raids.

The same thing applies to any number of other team games from sports to trivia, we pick people who can play them well unless we have a reason not to. That usually means they're friends of ours, or they're entertaining regardless (or because of) their weaknesses or we all suck anyway so that's the baseline or whatever.

So when it comes to roleplaying... well, same stuff really. Text is our medium so if I can't spell worth a damn I won't be deemed good at it by any group which doesn't want me around for reasons similar to the above ones (maybe they can't spell either!).

There's nothing exceptional about our particular hobby, it's still only gaming and as such people are judged based on the merit of their game-related strengths and weaknesses. The guy who can't spell might be an awesome person iRL but so what? Unless we are RL buddies it's irrelevant on a MU* just like it'd be on an FPS or a MMORPG.

@faraday said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:

It's really really hard to imagine how you're going to improve safety by making actors with minimal firearms training do anything more than hold the gun and pull the trigger under the careful supervision of an expert.

And people (at least online) seem either entirely unsympathetic or entirely unreasonable with their expectations.

A thread I was reading lately insisted that it was the responsibility of an actor 'as long as the gun was in their hand' to individually check and go through all the gun safety steps regardless of what the armorer said.

That's all well and fine but they are actors. They are not necessarily trained. And on top of that they are playing a role at the time; their mindset can be set to playing a panicked person or an angry killer who happens to be armed. It's not easy to suspend all that for a minute, meticulously go through the firearm then slip back into character.

It's never systems (sorry @Misadventure) or mechanics that make me care either way about a game. It's always people.

With some games it's nostalgia; I remember, possibly through rose colored lenses, how I was back at the time I was playing them. The things I was encountering for the first time, the fun I had when my own life was different.

With others - most of them - it's who I was playing with; folks whom I might not have spoken to in a while or who're on MSB reading this right now. 'Dream teams' which lasted for some time and produced roleplay I still remember to this day.

But none of it is transferable to others. I never loved a game because it was perfectly set up or just had some sort of perfect storm of a theme. It's always been people who evoked the strongest response from me - give me great players to be around and that's my favorite game.

@grayson If you look in the Hog Pit you will find the rest of the ingredients.

I seem to be incapable of running short stories. Like, one-and-done scenes are just not my forte, everything I do ends up being a saga made up of acts and many moving parts. I like figuring out the logistics and putting things in motion.

I'd love having players around who stick around for the duration. By time time my plots enter Act 2 either the game is seriously underpopulated and/or enough of the original characters (who possess important plot hooks) are gone, so the story dies a slow and undignified death.

@derp said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

The entire premise of insurance is a thing that, I strongly feel, our generation is going to eventually just nope out of.

Among other things, evidently. Cardboard boxes for everyone!

My housemate at the university and I started reading the Wheel of Time books. I was sort of more or less aware of Medievia IV at the time although I hadn't played that much or for long, but then he discovered "a game just like that but in the WoT universe".

So I went over to A Moment in Tyme. My first day I defended some Aes Sedai from a Whitecloak provoking her. She was Ororo Sedai, and she had weather powers.

... Yeah, so when I look at the logs from these days I cringe, but it all sounded so cool back then.

It's absolutely baffling to me how some companies and teams mistreat their employees. Even from a purely effectiveness point of view they destroy resources which can be valuable and waste the money (and time, which translates to money) spent locating, interviewing and training them in the process.

@Roz Weeell, that's partially true. Not completely though.

I mean we can get into a debate about what is the most 'real' us, but I know people in real life who're considerate, very responsible family people and well behaved as individuals, but treat online like some kind of fake place where they can troll for the lols, or exploit bugs (although they are quite law-abiding outside of those interactions), and generally allow anonymity and the lack of accountability make them act in ways that would be getting them punched otherwise.

Is it because of the punching threat they're nice iRL? Or is it that they just don't take their online interactions seriously?

I can't pretend to have the answer. I do know that it doesn't matter - act like an asshat to me online and, since I will never meet you in flesh, I will treat you like an asshat. That's only reasonable.

@roz said in The Work Thread:

Yeah that requires a LOT of trust for me. Because it doesn't even have to be someone being a jerk and consciously refusing to give me opportunities after giving me a raise to retain me; even an otherwise decent job can just get the seed planted in their brains that you were looking elsewhere and might again and so might give you a bit less, etc.

Yeah I can see that.

To me it's pretty simple; I wouldn't refuse a 20+% rate boost, so why would I expect anyone else to? It's a major career step up - and a QoL change.

I'd have been happy for him if he had taken the other job, although I was happier that he stayed.

It also takes knowing the person and being willing to read between the lines; do they want to keep their position? Would you have to talk them into staying? Or would they rather stay but the money on the table is too good to turn down, and that's where you come in?

People start being found dead in their rooms. The only common element is they were playing online video games when they died (all of them are using the same local ISP - a coincidence obviously).

Then turn the plot into The Last Starfighter using whatever game-inside-the-game you want and PCs stuck in its universe playing it for keeps until they win.