Posts made by Arkandel

@roz

@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.

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?

@ixokai For D&D in particular as long as you're complying with their explicit SRD rules you should be fine.

@pyrephox said in Spotlight.:

The problem isn't necessarily that a tailor can't sit in at the King's privy counsel and be taken equally seriously, but when the big noble can sit on the privy council /and/ bring in his soldiers to solve the gang trouble on the tailor's street /and/ make better clothes than the tailor /and/ gets the magic sword and stuff as well.

Again good point - I'm glad for this thread now.

It's pretty common in games to see exactly what you described, isn't it? The High Lady who's also hangin' out with the peeps at the pier, the billionaire philanthropist who sits at a bar to have a beer with the riffraff, the nobleman who's a great swordsman... these tropes are far from exceptions, they are very often the rule.

Sometimes it's a product of the system that allows this to happen. Maybe that means someone in CGen is giving the thumbs up without giving it too much thought, or it could be the mechanics simply let you buy some things (street contacts, fighting skills) and still afford the high-end life anyway, encouraging people to dip their toes in more than enough pool. In fact when that happens the norm is for folks seeking the spotlight to have their toes in every pool.

So maybe that's a good rule for games to have. Don't let PCs have it all, force them to make interesting choices - and then, also, enforce the consequences for them when they break social norms. As much of a no-brainer this sounds, it doesn't happen that often.

@sparks said in Spotlight.:

and if you do, you're going to run into "you got a chance to shine once, a year and a half ago, so you can't go on plots anymore", which is a surefire way to burn out otherwise active players (who are the ones who stir up RP when you aren't GM'ing).

That's a pretty good point and a legitimate question on its own right.

Do all players deserve the same access to the spotlight? That is, if you are putting in a lot of your time building up a successful House which your character leads, run plots for its players, recruit others to it, making yourself available as someone in a leadership position and integrating yourself thematically into current politics, then should I as a casual player who's there an hour here and there get to have equal access to metaplot?

Even more so, does it make sense for me to? Decisions are often made among high-powered or important figureheads, so do I bring my sailor guy to the inner council meetings? Should metaplot be geared so that there are no closed door meetings in the first place?

These aren't theoretical questions. There has been plenty of real drama over exactly this kind of situation.

@thatguythere said in D&D 5E:

I would be wary of including too much Lords and Ladies into a D+D game.

Just to clarify, the L&L angle was just my quick pitch for what other kinds of content could be provided to keep things going on a D&D game even in the absence of DMs. I'm not by any means saying it's the only way to generate more hooks for players to occupy themselves with, though.

@kanye-qwest said in D&D 5E:

Once @pax is done with her exploration room system for Evennia, a game that automates adventuring would be totally doable!

A hybrid between a MUSH and a MUD would work really well for a D&D game, honestly. Something where a ST plugs in an adventure ("guys guys, the village is under attack!") plugs in a difficulty level which with D&D rules it's extremely easy to automatically generate an appropriate challenge for, then the code takes over. By taking all the gruntwork out of the equation and letting DMs just pose things I think more content would become available - hell, you could even give stock or randomized adventures for people to play out, which could still be awesome.

Also, a pony!

@tnp said in MU* Gripes and Peeves:

But maybe the question being asked isn't 'why them?' but 'why always them?' Which could certainly be a false impression that it's always them but at least has some vague reasoning behind it.

That's an interesting question that was raised in the Arx thread which I didn't want to hijack, so let's have a new one here.

Spotlight - hogging it, wanting it, avoiding it - is a constant source of issues for our community. But how reasonable is it to expect someone (which usually means staff) to distribute it somewhat equally? I like structuring these questions somehow so I'll try to do the same thing, but please feel to use whatever format you want for your thoughts.

• How feasible is equal spotlight distribution, either for a small or for a large game? Can - and should - everyone have their moment in the sun? The obvious answer is 'yes, of course' but is it that simple? For example should a ghoul have a near equal chance for prominence in a Vampire game, or a sidekick in a superhero MU*?

• How would that be actually achieved without explicitly making OOC rules about it ("No Bob, you were in the last plot, you can't be in this one")?* How about players with pocket STs in their circles who have access to more PrPs and stories than average? What about characters in key positions - is it natural that the Princess has more opportunities to shine thematically than maid #3 other than in that one plot where the latter got her five minutes of fame? Again, I'm not asserting this, I'm asking.

• What makes spotlight so important? I feel it's a question we can use having answered because it's a primary driver for all kinds of other behaviors on MU*; for instance chasing ranks in the first place might be a subset of desiring prominence. Is it something whose less appealing side-effects we can build systems to prevent or mitigate or a "people will be people" thing we can't fix?

Discuss.

@runescryer said in D&D 5E:

@arkandel That's pretty much Birthright: D&D with a Lords & Ladies meta-plot and mass combat system added in.

I've heard of it, and it sounds like fun, but pretty much doesn't cut it; there are specific reasons why D&D 5th Ed specifically is a system I'd be interested in.

Which isn't to say of course an interested game runner couldn't still borrow some ideas and even rip off themes if they can be successfully applied to the MU*.

@coin Didn't all but one die in the comics?

That could work, or their link be severed, etc... and roleplay the fallback and consequences of finally being alone in your own head.

The trick with a D&D MUSH is to figure out a good way to break out of the mold for which the game is developed; namely, adventuring.

Although a good dungeon crawl or quest for a party of happy-go-lucky thrillseekers can and should be part of it, unless you can somehow fully automate this sort of thing it won't really be sustainable, simply because DMs don't grow on trees. It's the same issue most WoD MU* who tried to do the same thing ended up having to face; if your players depend on someone sending them out to do a thing, or facing NPCs, someone needs to run these NPCs and that's where things will go badly.

What you can do is use the system thematically but offer more meat and potatoes to your playerbase. I proposed L&L in a different thread because that does work by providing foils for players - each other - but by combining these elements with D&D tropes you could tap into something special; hunt for items, research spells, track down material components, you have all sorts of carrots for your PCs to chase as opposed to just XP.

Will any shows from the golden age of TV endure.

So I'm making some changes to my diet so I can include more home-prepared food in my work lunches, and the logistics are getting in my way. Namely on multiple days a week I'd have to leave the food in the car for 1-1.5 hours - in the summer, even - while I'm elsewhere.

Does anyone have any experience with lunch boxes or storing food under similar conditions? I'm not sure just how 'insulated' those bags Amazon sells are, but I'm not crazy about the prospect of carrying icepacks back and forth either.

Basically I need to figure out the logistics of taking food to work. Any thoughts?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17130056/telltale-games-developer-layoffs-toxic-video-game-industry

@ixokai said in 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.

@ixokai said in D&D 5E:

If one was to make a 5E MUSH, what D&D setting do people like better? Would you be turned off by an original fantasy-verse?

Although I don't think I'd be turned off by something more generic or a different non-canonical direction for a fantasy game - a L&L take on D&D could be fun, for example - I do feel a sense of nostalgia for certain settings.

The Forgotten Realms for instance give a lot of options, from adventuring to exploration and even conquer. Ravenloft could also be fun if you wanted a more horror-based bend to your game.

Whatever it is, my advice if you went ahead with this kind of undertaking is to keep things as close to the books as possible mechanically. There is so much published material already that people would want to try.

@icanbeyourmuse said in Make it fun for Me!:

I've had, at least, 3 people in about as many days say that people treat them, the player, like their character. If the character is overly affectionate, they are treated as they are to. Or if they are a crappy character people assume the player is like them too. I've had people do it to /me/ too. As me why /I/ am being so mean to them. Not my character. Me. When it was my character.

Yeah, the inability to see the line between OOC and IC is a big deal. It's why I always advise people to refer to their characters as "him/her" rather than "me", even if I understand it's just a convention.

@zombiegenesis You know what really impressed me, too?

They didn't just balance the classes - although that's a real feat on its own. They made them feel different with distinct mechanics, instead of basically the same one class with different names for skills mixing them up to make the numbers add up the same way, which is damn hard to do.

@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.

@misadventure You don't think it's easier to simply refute the '*Earth's curvature from a plane' argument?

Basically they are saying when you're in the air things stuff in the horizing appear round because the airplane's windows are rounded.

Fine. So why don't stuff appear rounded from the plane's windows when it's on the ground?