Best posts made by Arkandel

@DnvnQuinn See, I'd like a game set in Dresden-world as long as it contained no Dresden-support characters (except maybe some of the villains and groups, but exclusively as NPCs).

@Thenomain said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

Hell, I played on Haunted Memories for six years being a person either disliked by staff or in a group specifically targeted by staff via rumors, if not action. Hell, I had the headstaffer and his wife put a "do not contact" order on me partially because I wouldn't let a shitty situation lie but, and here's the fun part, neither could they. I don't know about today, but at the time I wouldn't have trusted them any more than I could throw them, and since I didn't even know where they lived I couldn't throw them an inch.

You touched on something here I hadn't thought of, but which might count for the purposes of this thread... well, maybe.

I used to but I can no longer abide - emotionally, if you will - with knowing people are being screwed over by staff in a game I play, even if that doesn't impact me directly in any way. It just bugs me a lot, and even though a couple of times I made some nominal effort to stick around since I had RP going I didn't want to just abandon it's invariably led to me leaving the MU* not long after. That even included games had a long tenure as a staff and player; after the regime changed on TR and I was made aware of Troy's mishandling of that MGMT person it didn't take longer than a month to walk away, for example.

It's not the content per se that triggers me but it does, and when it happens it's over. To mis-quote Wonder Woman (and @Cupcake) injustice is a turn-off for me.

I think the crux of the issue is the same, and it's as old as gaming itself; people detest it when they don't get their own way. They want what they want, if they can't have it they consider themselves wronged and react in bizarre ways to that.

In regards to playing specific characters I personally don't get it; if I'd play Cyborg in a way that significantly departs from the original comic books - in terms of his personality, sexuality, etc - then why not play an original character instead? At some point the only thing that actually remains from that character is his looks, and it can't be that hard to get staff to approve a new PC with a similar enough appearance (there are hundreds of Cyborg depictions spanning several decades, it shouldn't be hard to find one which sufficiently departs from the traditional one), and voila! Cyberman is born.

Otherwise if the MU* is supposed to reflect regular continuity then play the damn character as per that continuity.

And get off my damn lawn.

@faraday said in FS3:

So where's the disconnect? Is it documentation? Expectation? I'm just being too nitpicky?

The disconnect is in player expectations. When 9/10 games encourage min-maxing then 9/10 people who roll for your own will probably try to do it as well.

Such is the price of doing things differently. But as you said, when you explain and reason it out, most folks will understand and adjust without incident. The ones who don't are probably those you don't want sticking around anyhow.

Just make sure your approach is uniform and consistent over time. For example if you'd nitpick over $stat being high but the other staff member a month from now handwaves it there's going to be a problem.

So, since according to reports FW will be open sometime soon, is anyone thinking of cabal'ing up?

If you wanna talk shop, message me and let's get somethin' going.

@dontpanda Well, that was a good call.

Keep it up @Kanye-Qwest and you'll be banned. Tee-hee-hee.

... Am I being friendly and approachable enough yet or do I need more smileys?

@Tinuviel said in MU and Alternate Channels:

@Arkandel
If you're sexually harassing someone outside of the game, that's the responsibility of the people that run the service you're using. Not game staff's. If they do it on the game then it's an issue, but that's not the point.

If I was staff and you came to say - with some degree of evidence - someone has been following you from game to game creating characters to hit on you then I would have a fairly stern chat with them explaining they are expected to not do it on this game.

Staff response can be preventative as much as it can be punitive. If a line doesn't already exist but it should then create it.

The point is where is the limit to where staff should act, not whether they can act. If I accuse you of dog-fighting ring organisation on here, but don't do diddly on the game, why should game staff be expected to act? They can act, of course. They don't strictly need a reason to act. But should they?

Again, as staff, it's your responsibility to keep your game fun for as many of your players as you can. One person can - and has - ruined games before.

So if you have to choose between that one guy who's trolling everyone, spreads rumors for his own amusement and creates chaos, and the multiple perfectly legitimate players who are not doing these things but who are being chased away by these antics, what do you do?

I'm not saying all cases are as cut and dried, only that you only need to look after your game's interests, not any particular problematic player's virtual rights, especially if they demonstratively don't respect those of others.

@Calibraxa I noticed this was a thing well before I had even heard of a Reno revival. The game being on autopilot was a common enough sentiment for a few weeks now, unfortunately.

I like Elphaba and I've no beef with anyone there, for the record. But from where I'm sitting at least FW's actual issues aren't really related to any external events.

@ThatGuyThere said in MU and Alternate Channels:

Now as to the reputation I would not punish someone for spreading lies about non-game matters period regardless of the place they did so.

You are thinking about your reaction, not that of others. You might not care if Bob is telling everyone Jane is a prostitute IRL but maybe Jane does, and if it's making the game unpleasant for her then you just let Bob get away with it. You end up with one less good player who did nothing wrong, and you keep the jerk who just realized he's empowered to do this again to someone else.

Does that sound like a good plan?

@Wizz said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

.........

I appreciate the transparency, I really like the setting, and I actually like Fate, but FCs are strike one and staff-played FCs are strikes two and three for me. Purely personal preference and opinion but I wouldn't touch the place unless Beta saw FCs done away with altogether.

Fair enough. I think FCs done correctly could be a great way to set a game up, although I'd prefer them strictly as NPCs controlled by either staff or prominent players reporting directly to staff - there's a lot of potential to act as quest givers, caches of information and linking the MU* thematically to its original material.

But personal preferences are, of course, a thing. Not all games can satisfy all people.

@ThatGuyThere Alright, fair enough. We can disagree about it.

In my book if something's hurting a game I'm responsible for I'm taking steps to fix it. No matter what it is.

@Misadventure said in Star Wars: Insurgency:

You're saying you have a bad feeling about this?

On the contrary, I thought he was getting pretty excited there for a moment.

@Ghost said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

DUDE, I got blackOps'd screened.

That's the badass interpretation for what happened. I can't blame you for choosing to go with that one.

... You could also say it was like highschool all over again and getting a friend to check you out first, but that doesn't sound as cool.

@toreadorfool Why on earth would people be rude to players for making a choice staff made available?

Ah, humans.

I'm only talking about my own playing preferences here, but perhaps it will relate to others. So the crux of it is if social rolls enhance my roleplay I absolutely want them in it; if they detract from the experience I don't.

At the matter's core it's as simple as that.

So for example if I'm in a scene with 2 other people and we end up debating 'how far would that have changed my mind' or 'was empathy really the right skill to use instead of subterfuge' or even worse 'sec, let me ask staff if this is how it works' and these things aren't the exception but the rule then I want no part of it. If rolls interrupt the scene's flow and I spend more time waiting to interpret what we rolled than typing up the next pose then I don't care enough any more; I'd just want the scene to end.

Rolls - to me - need to be extremely simple, fast and specific. I need to be able to push a pose out telling a lie, roll to see if my lie is caught or not, and then the next person sees the result and starts typing their own pose based on the result.

I can understand some situations are more complex than others, same as (for example) a grapple roll in GMC sometimes takes a bit to navigate through all the assorted factors you need to consider, but on a day to day basis it has to not get in the way of RP.

@ZombieGenesis said in DC Rebirth:

We do have the occasional guest or player log on, issue a single command (I'm assuming it's WHO), and then log off. I'm guessing when they don't see 30 or 40 people on they assume we're "dead as fuck" and decide to leave.

Yeah, that catch-22 can be nasty.

If you want to break out of it you could try word of mouth... for example set up a big event, make sure your GMs are present, offer an incentive for new rolls over a weekend then try to get players to give you a try in order to hit critical mass.

@HelloProject said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

Have fun! I hope everyone learned something! I hope this was more helpful than the average Cirno post about race.

One could conceivably hurl a hastily chewed Taco Bell lunch down a toilet and it'd be more helpful than the average Cirno post about race. But yours was quite insightful, yes.

@Pyrephox said in Make a Game with Me!:

@Arkandel said in Make a Game with Me!:

@Pyrephox Why not reward long-standing antagonistic relationships?

So for example when you first clash with the Baron in the local senate it gives you a small amount of XP. As the two of you become rivals the rewards begin to scale up; it's becomnig a long-standing feud which trickles in over time. At that point it becomes a periodic income, which adds up.

Then you don't want to kill him. You need the bastard! In IC terms someone else would have taken his place anyway, at least he's the devil you know... and it's giving you the chance to learn from the conflict.

Treasuring your IC enemies seems like an interesting recipe. Thoughts?

Oh, I /love/ that. That's an awesome idea. Now, you'll have to be careful that people don't just...designate a whole bunch of nemeses and then not push that relationship

The way I'd implement it is have code handle political decisions. So let's say a decision has to be made - do we impose tariffs on those southern barbarians' ships and risk war or placate them to continue the uneasy truce? If you and the Baron vote the same way nothing happens; if you vote against each other a counter is increased.

That counter goes up every time you clash - the code keeps track. And the higher it is, the more you get from the relationship. In that way you want people to stick around - everyone wins from having these clashes. Winning politically is nice, but you always get more from such long-standing friction regardless.

The system should ensure you can't just designate your TS-buddy as your 'foe'. It's handled automagically for you over time.

@HelloProject You're gonna fuck up. You're gonna make mistakes. You're gonna annoy people you like.

The least you can do is make your own mistakes and decisions while you're at it. Own the game, own your calls and whatever happens, happens.