Posts made by Arkandel

@roz said in The Death Of Telnet: Is It Time To Face The Music?:

The fact that there are people on other platforms RPing in a different style doesn't actually mean all of them don't want better options, and won't adapt and find the MU* style of things an improvement. It means they're stuck for platform options.

I seriously think someone out there will eventually develop a platform that feels quite a bit like what we think of as "a MUSH" without ever having heard of MUSHes.

We just need the outlier who codes the basics (rooms, a customizable CGen, communications, sheets, boards, 'staff' flags, tickets) and that's it.

@coin said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:

In a game, different people control different characters and their relevancy is dictated by several players who may or may not want to have the same level of cooperation.

What you are arguing is that uncooperative players - which I read as 'bad players' - are bad. True, but that's a separate issue that we'd be running into if one person is playing a maxed out Gangrel and the other is a Mekhet who put all their dots in social fluff. One would be easier to overshadow than the other, but that's on the player.

Your analogy is bad.

But your mom is good.

@lithium said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:

@redmeadow What is good in concept doesn't always work well in practice. Every time Mage is involved in a game, it dominates the game, sometimes that is intended, sometimes not.

I don't like that argument. It's like saying Batman is a useless character because Superman is way more powerful.

But power is not the vector that decides a character's relevancy.

@rook said in The Death Of Telnet: Is It Time To Face The Music?:

What I'm asking is: How would you completely redo MU* so that it is not command>output in two windows? Is that even a goal here?

As far as I'm concerned, the 'goal' is to let game creators be able - technically able - to design the interface they want.

With telnet you have basically no options.

Give game creators such options and someone will eventually come up with a way to cause a shift in paradigm.

It would also serve to make conversations such as the one you're trying to have actually productive more than purely theoretical, too... because, like it or not, at the moment we can just debate on what could be, but won't be, since there's no platform we can use to make it so. I'm not saying we shouldn't be talking about the possibilities, just that this explains why we're not getting in as much depth as we could - it's because it's sort of futile at the moment.

@auspice said in The Death Of Telnet: Is It Time To Face The Music?:

It's not the format. It's largely how we play. If you look at a lot of those places, their play style is vastly different from ours. They don't roleplay like we do, at all.

There's nothing at all about a web-based game that dictates the style. You can have the exact same environment as for a MUSH, with a far superior interface, and pose the way we all know and love.

It just doesn't exist quite yet in a way that we can base games on. Obviously the hope is for Evennia, Ares or a newcomer to evolve the platform to the point where that's doable.

Telnet is going the way of the dinosaurs.

@bored said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

Blame lazy staff, the ever present corrupt/just stupid need to give people feature characters, etc.

Although I agree we (as a whole) tend to copy things other games did without thinking through them too much, malevolence not necessarily the case here. Sometimes it's the source material that's responsible (cue all the Kushiel L&L games here) and other times the emphasis is elsewhere - I've criticized Arx at times but no one in their right minds would blame those people for being lazy or corrupt, you know?

I do agree that making the higher tiers of ranks both much more powerful and accessible cuts other roleplay right at the knees because if I can go to Jane Supernoble directly to get what I want, why would I bother bugging May Kindanoble about it? In a realistic world I probably wouldn't be able to get an audience as easily, or I wouldn't have enough to offer to be worth their effort, but on a MU* both Jane and May's players need to roleplay as much as I do so generally speaking the path of least resistance goes over May's head.

Once again I will mention resource management. It's the real missing piece from politics on MU*; without it granting favors, making meaningful political decisions and maintaining friends (or creating enemies) due to the cost of your choices bears a lot less weight. If you have such a system then it opens a lot more venues for alliances and out-maneuvering others.

One of the perhaps less discussed parts of leadership issues are the closed room scenes. In my opinion it's often a misplaced peeve, but it definitely exists.

We've all seen it; plot is happening and The Glorious Leaders convene together to discuss it. Outsiders sometimes begrudge this because important IC things are being discussed to which they can't be part of or even privy to.

What's less obvious perhaps is that, for one reason or the other, ranging from roleplaying ability, IC relations or even OOC socialization skills (and typically I'd argue, a combination of such factors) such exclusive meetings are inevitable. There can be town-hall get-togethers where eeeeverybody gets a say but those tend to be chaotic as hell and devolve into walls of text and people getting butthurt because they aren't being listened to.

And yet that's the part where I think things go wrong - such players are simply not going to be listened to regardless because they lack some of the factors above... yet the only difference here is they get to blame it on not having the right rank. After all if they were Prince or a major House Head they would be, right?

It's kind of an awkward situation all around.

The thing about positions of authority is that they really need to be abstracted. We consider them carrots or hooks, in which case they can be placed in their proper context.

So for instance if a position is a carrot - a goal meant to motivate players - then it's no different than a number of things on their sheet; just like there's a reason we don't just cram enough XP on characters to fulfill their every possible purchase since it'd remove the incentive, there's no point in handing out that Prince position in a political MU* to a person right away either, even if they can handle it. What we obtain easily we esteem lightly.

Likewise if the same position is a hook, serving a thematic purpose for the game ("who do I talk to if I want to convince House Poppins to lend us some of their umbrellas?") or to provide players with distinct roles ("you're the keeper of umbrellas!"), then they need to go in understanding their role. Niches are super important in MU* since ultimately there are so few unique roles; we are never the only sailor, healer or swordsman around, so these should be treasured but also, somehow, monitored. That latter part is very tricky.

Probably a good compromise is a mix of the two. I'd consider it a serious issue in most cases if PCs can hold the highest positions right away in a MU*'s lifespan, but a glass ceiling can harm as much as it can help, being a band-aid over a broader issue. There's usually no reason they can't occupy mid-range ranks though, especially since there can be more of those around, maybe with some objective/fair/non-terrible mechanism for advancement once players can prove they can handle it OOC before they move up the ranks.

Not only are we crazy, we're running our own asylum right here!

@insomniac7809 said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

But I really don't agree with people who say that faction leadership should always be NPCs. I get that it can be hard to find a player who can step up, but "NPC only" except for antagonists is always a call I'm iffy on.

Not to derail my own thread but there are several reasons to pick NPCs other than just not being able to find suitable players for them.

1. There's no 'singing chairs' phenomenon. This is really common in games - they open, and two days after (sometimes two days before) all the leadership positions are already taken.

2. The very act of replacing a leadership figure has a thematic impact on your game. Has the Prince been switched six times this year? Well, your game's Praxis is now a highly volatile one whether you meant for it or not.

3. It's easier on staff to regulate and moderate their own roster. Either they can make such NPCs oppressive to showcase the PCs as the story's underdogs, slap a yellow question mark over their heads to turn them into quest givers, assassinate them to hook new plots... all sorts of things that might be awkward - and take time to communicate and coordinate - if they are PCs.

4. The big one for me... I've never seen as much drama generated by anything, and I mean anything on MU* than chasing ranks and positions. The rat race turns people nuts.

As much as I love a game with leaders played by good folks, the risk is admittedly very high.

@mietze said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

I think the problem is that it can be a good way to do things, and most people have seen a good leader they aspire to be. Or think they were.

I will be the cynic this time around and point out the obvious; to many people a 'good leader' is one who favors them. Conversely that's the same as staff - who's good? The person who gives me what I want.

The best way to judge both the best and worse among us is perspective, and we can only get that once sufficient time goes by.

@faraday said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

Related but possibly tangential ... Has anybody ever seen IC PC leadership work out well in general? Sure there are those rare non-staff players who can handle both the OOC and IC demands without flaking out or abusing their authority, but does it happen often enough for people to really continue beating their heads against the wall? I gave up long ago. It seems that a lot of these problems go away if you just don't go there.

Yes, and when it's worked well it was exceptional. The rare combination of a leader PC played by an active, good, reasonable person - people I usually refer to as flagships - can do incredible things for a game. If you're lucky enough to get two of those at the same time in different factions (which is more likely than it sounds since one motivates the other) they will recruit new players, give them things to do organically and generate incredible plot momentum between them.

But it's rare. In fact I don't know that it can be planned for, since the wildcards here are real life availability (which few people can predict) and getting into the characters, which really good roleplayers can't guarantee they will ahead of time.

@faraday said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

If you're not going to be courteous to your fellow players, then you can't really get too bent out of shape if they decide to go seek their fun elsewhere. This is something that I feel is better handled by "playground rules" than by any game policy.

Yet given the gap in standards - sometimes involving lines somewhat hypocritically drawn, in that they are different for others than one's own self or friends - what's the best way to handle that even through playground rules once things do go south?

Sometimes it's personal. I don't log on 'enough' (whatever that means), so is it fair game to get back after a two week unannounced break to find my character divorced? And sometimes it's more systemic; if my supreme political mastermind (look! Leadership 5!) is fumbling because I just can't organize people to save my life, is it okay to demote him?

What I'm asking is... are all these cases individual, whether explicitly written rules exist for them or not? What are warning bells staff can be on the lookout for, if any, to get in front of some of this? If there is a discussion about how to handle the transition should the 'failing' player be part of them and have a say or would it expose those dependent on him to retaliation and emotional pressure?

@miss-demeanor Also Will Smith. The dude is genuinely funny as hell, and he's shown he has major acting chops. Hell, he even had some pretty good lines in the script.

What the hell was it with his performance that couldn't get a chuckle out of me in this one?

@miss-demeanor said in Good or New Movies Review:

Per Bright:

I felt like the world needed more exposition. I was left with too many questions. Not about the characters, I found I couldn't actually bring myself to care about them... but about the WORLD. There's just so many questions, so much more I want to know about this place! They drop teasers and hints but so much is left up in the air!

If there was any more exposition the movie would last twice as long.

But seriously, I personally don't think having unanswered questions is a bad thing, especially if they were purposefully trying to turn this film into a franchise launching pad. Some mystery is good, leaving us hungry for more is great.

But even if they had decided to give us more information I'm not sure the way they already fed us what they did, often through things everyone in a room would have already known, was handled very well... it just felt pretty clumsy at times.

@pyrephox said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

On the other hand, a large IC organization with many, many NPCs is different - the PCs should presumably have enough autonomy and NPC oversight to not need an IC leader who sits down with each one of them and walks them through everything.

How far would you take the OOC organizational skills needed for a role such as this? What's a good compromise between "this person is a great roleplayer" and "this person might not be able to handle the OOC work needed"?

In a way it's a similar predicament as picking staff, and for similar reasons; for example you can pick someone who's honest and friendly but do they possess entirely RL skills and experience to be able to delegate responsibilities, juggle personalities without burning out or even hand out demotions/promotions thematically (which isn't the same as fairly, making it even more difficult to do than staff does things)?

And if someone is failing at that role, yet their character ought to have been able to, what's a good way to handle it? If Jane has everything on her sheet to be an expert organizer and leader but the player is having issues, what's a good chain of custody for the issues created, starting from acknowledging there is a problem (does staff need to keep an eye on everything?

Or what are some good early signs?) to fixing it (it can be a very awkward conversation to have with someone if you have to explain they don't have what it takes as a person) especially if stripping them of that authority can have a significant impact that's not easily justifiable IC?

I've been meaning to ask this for a while, and the latest MU Peeves has reminded me of it.

In terms of having to remain active or set time aside for people who need to play with you, what do you consider a reasonable amount of 'responsibility' players can be expected to sign up on, and what are the limits? Is it only a matter of initial arrangement, terms and communication or are there more caveats to it?

I'm referring to things such as:

• Attaining an IC position of authority or similar rank
• Accepting a dependent PC attached to yours (ghouls and thralls to Kindred are common examples)
• Running a non-short term plot (let's limit it to PrPs and not staff-ran things for the purposes of this)
• Being in an IC relationship

What I'm mainly looking to see your thoughts should also take the flipside into account - how much freedom should there be for other players to bypass you if your activity and/or time set aside isn't deemed sufficient for them? For instance how easily should you be replaced from an IC position? Should there be a positive or mutually agreed IC justification for it or should you just be fired? If you're not around enough for an IC relationship what's a good guideline for your PC be dumped/divorced off-screen?

As usual, please keep in mind this is the constructive section.

@jaded said in Good or New Movies Review:

Bright on the other hand is fantastic.

I watched Bright last night. My thoughts:

1. It's the closest thing we'll get to Shadowrun in a long, long time.

2. Creatively the concept itself was amazing. The grittiness, the photography and at times even some of the performances themselves were top notch as well.

3. It was deeply flawed. There was way too much exposition for the plot, the jokes were welll written but didn't come naturally - there may have been some chemistry issues between the leads, or possibly the direction accounted for the wooden acting - and its action scenes were often cringe-worthy.

Overall I'd give it a 6-7/10. I wish I could do more, the idea itself deserved it.

@wildbaboons

1. I finished it a few days ago, and it was great. I thought it was a little more oriented toward younger-readers during the first half of it, and thought perhaps Sanderson's other work has been influencing this one, but the final one third was pretty hardcore at times.

2. The guy is a machine. For all we know he has the next one half-written by now.

3. What's Doors of Stone?

***=NSFW content***