@Bobotron If a system can't scale up it shouldn't be there, IMHO. Code can help but... if it leads to either burnout, delays or subpar responses (because eventually even the best staffers will need to pay less attention to each +job) there has to be some trimming.
@Ganymede said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
You never owed me an explanation or answer or opinion. If @lordbelh's still watching, though, I think he appreciates the support. As do I.
I think it goes even beyond that. Yes, I would hope people who believe @lordbelh was treated unfairly should speak up because today is probably not very pleasant for him and showing some support can go a long way. But it's not not just about that.
If people have no opinion of these things then absolutely they shouldn't feel compelled to contribute. But if they do, even if it's to disagree then shutting up for fear of retaliation - either on a game or a forum - is pretty weak.
When the price of our opinions is this low - basically nothing, at the very worst case scenario you might get rebuked (on MSB we don't even have downvotes!) or lose out on some staff favors in the future in a game - and we still don't say anything, then when do we do so?
It's not that different from people who shit on VASpider, years later and without the slightest fear of reprisal, but happily went along with it when it suited them.
In fact it's the exact same thing.
@Packrat said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Added to that just how would people invade Thrax? Redrain is entirely land locked, Valardin is literally the other side of the continent, you would basically be limited to the Crown, Grayson by extension then maybe some of the Lyceum if you could get them to be interested. Given Thrax would be defending and on islands, with sieges of castles being drawn out and hideously expensive things, I do not find it surprising that nobody has ever done it.
You know what a much easier way is? Get the person playing the Thraxian High Lord banned and give the rostered character to someone else who saw what happened to the last guy who played a certain way.
Just sayin'.
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel : Perhaps I'd have more fun (if perhaps a briefer life) if I didn't let my fear of breaking theme or PvP and getting kicked out stop me from roleplaying my character and letting the chips fall where they may. (P.S.: Who do you play? I think I missed it somewhere; I'm Tristram.)
I play Castiel.
I don't think it's worry about PvP rules that keeps me from engaging in it. As mentioned in a different thread I find the idea of stabbing political opponents in the eye disagreeable; at best it deprives me of RP partners.
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel : To be honest, I feel uncomfortable probably more because I think it's just me bringing up issues which are considered settled and overdiscussed and overargued. Also, I fucking hate slavery and thralldom A LOT. I don't want to look at it as an opportunity for roleplay when in reality if I discovered someone was holding thralls and had the weapons and political tools to stop it, I damned well WOULD, by force, and the idea that all the high and mighty noble houses that are "good" have been around for a thousand years and NOT rolled on Thrax like a Mack truck over a gopher makes all of those houses at the least complicit considering the fact that they're in an alliance. Which with the current threat makes sense to make uneasy allies, and that's how I'm roleplaying it; and willfully ignoring that for hundreds of years these houses have been sitting at the same table with a bunch of goddamn slavers.
There are a few ways to look at this. Let me go over ones which are not specific to Arx.
For starters, saying "I fucking hate slavery" in that manner seems to imply those who play character that support it are, in some way, okay with it OOC. I hope I don't need to explain the impropriety of that. We are all playing characters who are flawed in a lot of ways; I've played Werewolves who thought nothing of murdering a bunch of people to get their way, yet I assure you I don't condone murder.
Secondly it's very dangerous to use so many instances of the phrase "I would" when you are referring to roleplay. That's the idea of, well, playing a role. If you can't separate your own feelings from those of your characters' - or if a topic is sensitive for you for whatever reason - then yes, I would say it's best if you avoided playing about it. But please, for all that is holy, avoid putting your OOC voice into play. It's a really bad idea for all concerned parties. A quick rule of thumb is if you ever find yourself having to justify your character's actions to another player ("but he is RIGHT!") you are already straying off the path; whether your PC is 'right' or not is utterly irrelevant.
Again, please note none of this has anything to do with Arx. These are fundamental concepts.
@Arkandel : I agree with you on the first point. I do not think that people are okay with it OOC; and my passion here obviously overflowed. Let me rephrase it slightly by saying: I don't understand how a House so firmly associated with Honor and Good which my character is a part of hasn't gone on a crusade to wipe them from the face of the earth.
On the second point, see the first point. I was speaking more ICly there than I should have.
The answer to basically all those questions, as others have mentioned, is politics. Especially during an all-out war about to break out - if the Compact sent their navy to settle the score, other than that it might lose, it would also basically guarantee the Gyre's easy triumph.
But that you can't have gritty grimdark themes without introducing hard choices like this doesn't mean your character can't roleplay about it. Play him as righteous and indignant as you think he should be; milk it for scenes. Go wild.
I get less traction from my PC's nature when he goes around talking shop with those who agree with him. But interacting with fantasy versions of super wealthy, extra murderous, good looking SJWs? Gimme. 
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Arkandel : To be honest, I feel uncomfortable probably more because I think it's just me bringing up issues which are considered settled and overdiscussed and overargued. Also, I fucking hate slavery and thralldom A LOT. I don't want to look at it as an opportunity for roleplay when in reality if I discovered someone was holding thralls and had the weapons and political tools to stop it, I damned well WOULD, by force, and the idea that all the high and mighty noble houses that are "good" have been around for a thousand years and NOT rolled on Thrax like a Mack truck over a gopher makes all of those houses at the least complicit considering the fact that they're in an alliance. Which with the current threat makes sense to make uneasy allies, and that's how I'm roleplaying it; and willfully ignoring that for hundreds of years these houses have been sitting at the same table with a bunch of goddamn slavers.
There are a few ways to look at this. Let me go over ones which are not specific to Arx.
For starters, saying "I fucking hate slavery" in that manner seems to imply those who play character that support it are, in some way, okay with it OOC. I hope I don't need to explain the impropriety of that. We are all playing characters who are flawed in a lot of ways; I've played Werewolves who thought nothing of murdering a bunch of people to get their way, yet I assure you I don't condone murder.
Secondly it's very dangerous to use so many instances of the phrase "I would" when you are referring to roleplay. That's the idea of, well, playing a role. If you can't separate your own feelings from those of your characters' - or if a topic is sensitive for you for whatever reason - then yes, I would say it's best if you avoided playing about it. But please, for all that is holy, avoid putting your OOC voice into play. It's a really bad idea for all concerned parties. A quick rule of thumb is if you ever find yourself having to justify your character's actions to another player ("but he is RIGHT!") you are already straying off the path; whether your PC is 'right' or not is utterly irrelevant.
Again, please note none of this has anything to do with Arx. These are fundamental concepts.
@Roz said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I am pretty sure that neither of the two recent bans (or any others that I've heard about, really) were really only because of one single conversation with no prior history of conflict. There's usually a final straw in instances like this, but it's rarely the first straw.
My objection about this is not all straws are the same. Just from reading this thread there's an atmosphere of... well, I won't call it fear but there seem to be people who don't like to rock the boat too much in case they get slapped down. This is not being debated; it has been a common sentiment. It's not right.
In that kind of atmosphere what constitutes conflict? Disagreeing is not conflict. I believe @lordbelh looked as objectively as he could at his actions and that when he says he sounded more passive aggressive than he perhaps should (I'm paraphrasing) it was just that; I am also willing to bet it wasn't an explosion of profanity, an abusive remark or some kind of personal insult that in most books would constitute a bannable offense. I don't know if you'd agree, but that's my feeling of the situation.
What I'm saying is that this wasn't a case of a chronically disgruntled player who went out of his way to be snide and hurl petty challenges at staff. It was someone who spoke his mind constructively - as we are accustomed to doing here - and got made an example. I am also saying that in this environment, unless something changes, why would anyone make their thoughts public unless they were in complete agreement with the administration?
And how conductive to the MU* is it that the only players who have staff's ear are those willing to whisper 'yes!' to them?
I'm not saying that because I dislike the game but because I like it, I am playing there, and it's a shame.
@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Here's some things that are dichotomies that must be accepted on the game that I have questions about. Please note: my conclusions or even statements may well be incorrect, poor, or stupid. But I feel uncomfortable even bringing them up in-game:
Everything else aside, if we just kept this one thought, it's already showing something's very wrong. Wtf, it's a game. People shouldn't feel uncomfortable asking about things OOC.
Thralldom:
a) PvP is highly discouraged.
b) Thrax holds thralls, which are indentured servants who are oft kept by increasing debts.
c) Opposing Thrax seems to be a bad idea and only doable politically, and at great risk.
d) Opposing Thrax regarding thralls from within seems to be a problem as well (I have no personal experience, just anecdotes).
e) Most anyone who isn't Thrax is instilled societally with a definitive dislike for the concept of thralldom.So playing a character who would do something about it as-written, it appears as if you're throttled both whether you want to work in the system to fix it , or outside the system to topple it.
Again, from the point of view of a Thrax player.... PvP is discouraged, but politics are not. We're in a political game! That's kind of the point. You can respond in different ways than stabbing a guy in the eye, you know what I mean?
Now, whether it's a bad idea to oppose one of the Greater Houses is basically a point of view. What I don't understand (and I don't mean that rhetorically, I really don't get it) is thinking there is some great risk, or that it's a problem in some way; what are you referring to?
What I think works, in either case, is to not look at thralldom as a problem to be solved. Perhaps look at it as an opportunity for roleplay instead. In other words don't focus so overly much of these things as obstacles but as props meant to facilitate RP; if they weren't there the game wouldn't be better, it would be poorer, since there would be fewer things to roleplay about.
If anyone within Thrax or otherwise tries to OOC dissuade you from playing, makes threats even in a hah-hah-no-but-really fashion or tries to keep you from participating in scenes - say, by omitting you specifically from meetings you should have had access to - then they are assholes. It's pretty much as simple as that.
My offer stands; if you have any issues whatsoever getting RP with Thrax, talk to me in-game.
I'll add to the last bit, if it matters: While I have in the past, it's been many years since I myself pursued TS, and I don't seek it out (I was pursuing romance, not sex). Further, I can't really imagine any society that prostitution in one form or another wouldn't happen. There's always going to be someone who wants a different sort of sex that they cannot easily find or negotiate for free, and there's always going to be someone willing to sell or trade that.
I will be very frank here: I have tried very hard to say nothing in-game about any of these issues - sexuality, prostitution, language - on any public channels, since it's known to trigger Hellfrog hard. Make of that what you will.
On MSB I have no such issues; it's dumb. It's catering to a specific person's political agenda served through a game. I won't do it on the MU* but it makes no sense to me.
In conclusion: frankly, I'd be happier with a game where there was a flat-out statement: We don't want to touch on human sexuality here because people have many varied and different opinions and expressions thereof, so please don't play here if that's what you want.
To be fair they've basically said that in almost those words.
@yourmamasayswhat said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Reading about the bans and the logs, especially with the former being so, as someone stated 'nuclear' as far as a reaction, my fear is that it's going to make players more afraid of staff than willing to reach out to them, as it has done with me. I'm legit //terrified// of saying //anything// in OOC, be they pages or public channels, that it will be taken the wrong way, presented to staff, and then held against me at some later date, no matter how great my reputation for being a helpful player is.
At some point it's conceivable the only people reaching out to staff are those who're prepared to agree 100% with them, unless this culture changes. Maybe they are satisfied with it - I don't know - but they are shooting themselves in the foot.
They are basically antagonizing their own players.
@Ganymede said in Politics etc.:
Still, I sit on my point. Intelligent people figure out politics. Brutes resort to brute tactics.
That is true. However we shouldn't underestimate other factors, such as OOC politics.
It's a well documented fact that people rolling together, being part of a clique or even knowing each other as players can convey in-game political advantages. That's a leg up, and it can be really hard to beat where it's part of the culture, independent of how shrewd or good they are at the game. If I'm negatively predisposed toward your character because FUCK GANY and so are all my entrenched buddies because we're a hivemind, even if you play your heart out you can only make so much leeway.
Just as an example.
@Ganymede said in Politics etc.:
@Arkandel said in Politics etc.:
The problem is when the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
The other problem is when your players lack the intelligence to look at something other than a hammer as a viable option.
True enough, but you don't get to choose your players. You do get to influence the players' culture (hopefully - there are no guarantees) through a number of ways, and one of them is through systems and mechanics offered specifically for it.
It's important to have social pressure valves for when things are getting heated between characters - or groups - so you can aim and whack a different target than the other kid's health points in retaliation for calling you names at the playground the other day.
The problem is when the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
So if the only skills which have been relevant in the past are ones that lead to the complete decimation of the opposition, either in terms of hacking at them with axes until they stop twitching or scorched earth politics trying to oust them from their faction/sphere/world (what was that Bloodline power which essentially de-associated someone from all their ties, which essentially caused the character to become exiled?) then every disagreement leads to extreme measures.
We get the game we encourage, right? If you know this is how all IC clashes get settled, if every disagreement is settled in a Highlander fashion, then of course there'll be OOC drama eventually since people get protective of the time and effort they invest in the game; at some point this 'all IC confrontation' crosses right into RL territory whether we like it or not, unless there's a way to escalate and defuse.
It's kinda like comics. There's a reason villains go to Blackgate instead of getting executed on the spot. A minor setback with the full potential of a triumphant comeback is far superior to a final solution.
@Meg said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I was going to say something fancy and eloquent, but I will just say that I wasn't trying to point out any one person, player, or character. It is understandably fun to play flawed, to play the antagonist. I am more than happy to play against that. I just think that as a whole, culturally, you also have to be aware of how you're coming across to others. And that is valid too for the rest of the factions, that we should be aware too.
Oh, I didn't mean you singled anyone out, I was just trying to explain an insider's view of it. It's always a challenge to try and interpret what other players are thinking or feeling OOC about ongoing roleplay even if you do talk to them and it's perilous to try and guess it otherwise as it leads to situations where it's easy to assume the worse. It's a tempting point of view since sometimes you do end up feeling you're the odd person out in scenes, but it leads to a lot of negativity.
Personally I don't give a single shit if my character manages to pull off any of the several wacky plots he has cooking; in fact I'm pretty sure some of his plans can't ever come to bear. What I enjoy is the political backdrop in a clash of cultures, yet on the other hand what I don't want to do is make him a progressive, liberal person because... well, then I'd be playing an idealized version of myself, which just... isn't as entertaining for anyone involved.
@Meg said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
That has not been my experience. Not regarding @lordbelh or you in particular, but Thrax as a whole has been weirdly exclusive in a number of ways that were just-- odd? Making Donrai's funeral private and secretive is the thing that comes to mind right off the top of my head, but there were a number of incidents. I don't know if it was the culture that was built or not, or whatever. But I don't think the players in Thrax have been particularly helpful of the Thrax vs the world mentality by their actions.
Now, I can't answer to things that happened before my time - Donrai's funeral, for instance - but I can address the situation you're describing itself.
I play Castiel. In the portrayal of a traditional (even a self-proclaimed progressive one) who's in favor of keeping thralls because that's their way of life, it's natural that I'm also playing something of a villain - or at least antihero; it's hard to come across as the good guy when your character supports taking slaves in battle. I get that.
However I'd like to think that's part of the challenge, and the fun, of playing flawed characters. They're not supposed to be nice, that's the point; and yet after any given contentious scene I have made sure to page people (something I don't do often) and basically let them know I enjoyed it, that it was only roleplay, and that I'd like to see more of it happen. Sometimes this was met with the same spirit it was offered, and I've had a lot of good scenes come out of it; other times - well, I could be wrong of course but I got the equivalent of an OOC wall. Eh.
But the majority of my RP has been well outside of the estate. It's easy for an entrenched situation to create the impression of a us-versus-them mentality but it doesn't have to. We're all just playing characters on a game - and at least some of the players I've interacted within Thrax have seemed quite reasonable. I personally don't give a damn if my character 'wins' any more than I think he's 'right'; either of those words don't really have a place in what I'm doing.
Having said that, Thrax is the odd-House out. What I'm saying is what you might be perceiving goes the other way around, too.
@Misadventure said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Did he say perkele?
Not to me at least... and I don't want to speculate.
@FiranSurvivor said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Was Victus banned? I thought he was just leaving?
He was banned.
@FiranSurvivor said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@Pondscum said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
I'll say it again, it's being staffed by people that staffed on Firan. Why anyone expected anything different to the mentality that prevailed there, I have no idea.
Having suffered at the hands of those loons before, I do not see the same mentality from Firan in Arx.
Did you disagree with staff though? I don't know if you have, I'm just saying that in the most extreme cases of drama I've seen in my years MUSHing there are always people saying "well, I didn't see anything", which happened to be because they were - by design or otherwise - on the right side. It's easy to escape unscathed if there's nothing to go after you about.
In that way my experience of Arx is about the same as in most MU* I've played in the last few years; since I'm not an active participant in the work being put in I have relatively few if any demands from the MU* itself; that means I don't pitch things too hard or follow up on my suggestions; I propose changes, some of them are adopted, some are not, but I don't try too hard to convince staff about them. So I haven't had to see what happens if I dissent because frankly... I don't care enough. I play a character. That's it.
For full disclosure though it does bother me that a friend is banned from a game I play. Not only did I trust @lordbelh to be a good player to the point where I rolled a character in his House but it casts doubts on the House's viability overall. For those who might be unfamiliar with House Thrax, it's... a bit different than the others, thematically. IC it takes thralls (who are similar to slaves) and it's pretty patriarchal in nature - traditionally only men find themselves in leadership positions. This wasn't a player choice, it's how it was created by staff, but given how much of a trigger issue this sort of thing has been for Hellfrog in the past it casts the whole notion in doubt - if playing the game as intended can land players in hot waters why was it put like that to begin with?
I've had talks with Victus over time. Not many - I avoid talking about RP OOC too much as opposed to simply... roleplaying - but enough to know he was discontent to no greater extent than most people do about their MU*. That is, he wasn't furious or raging, he was frustrated about things he sounded like he thought could be changed. And whether that happened to be true or not, regardless of whether staff was amiable to listening to one of their players, being banned for it sounds like a disproportionate knee-jerk reaction. "Dude, shut up about this already, I don't want to hear about it again" is quite reasonable. But banning him? That's the nuclear option.
I'm not convinced it was justified.
Perhaps we'll see some actual facts posted here or maybe we won't. So I can't speak about any specifics because there are none at the moment.
What I do know is I've known @lordbelh for years on several games, and the thought he's in any way a detrimental presence in a game is ludicrous. He has always carried himself in a mature way in any interactions I've seen, and until it's proven otherwise that will remain my impression of the guy; that's without even factoring his roleplay in the equation, just who he is as a person.
Arx is an excellent game. It's well coded, well thought out. But it's coming off increasingly as being ran demanding a 'yes-man' mentality where any kind of disagreement is perceived as dissent and treated harshly.
No game, no matter its worth, is perfect. None is above constructive criticism - and they can all benefit from it. Unless it is shown that @lordbelh had some sort of inappropriate, offensive meltdown or some such my interpretation of the situation is that he was punished for the offense of disagreeing with staff. And if that's how staff retaliated then it's wrong, no matter what.
I'd be happy to eat my words if we are shown something else. I'm afraid I won't need to.
About some of the criticisms I've been reading online regarding Iron Fist...
Look, if it's a bad show then it's a bad show. Not the first one, won't be the last. It happens.
What I really dislike so far is that so much of the criticism is about a white guy playing the role... of a white guy in comics. Yes, I get the idea of a mystic martial arts warrior trained in the Far East might have fallen on the wrong side of the politically correct wall but the original work was first published in the early seventies, and this TV series is loyal to that.
It's utter idiocy. If these critics want the same concept but using an asian leading character because it's better then make that one. Or judge this one on its own merits, or lack thereof.
@Gingerlily said in Politics etc.:
@Arkandel I follow. I can glean nothing from your particular story to use but some of my favorite experiences have also come from just having people that I gelled with to play alongside and against, without the staff having done anything to make that happen.
Perhaps this: Invest in good people and trust them to be themselves. They will solve problems for you code can't.
@Gingerlily said in Politics etc.:
@Arkandel Yeah, proactive players can make a lot happen. So it was just having stumbled across a really good core group that made it satisfying? Good players to both team up with and work against?
It wasn't planned. But was it random? Only if you exclude the circumstances.
You know how an idea whose time has come is hard to stop? When HM was around there was no real competition around; very few if any nWoD MU*, not that many non-sex or not extremely niche games around... so it attracted players. It could have still gone terribly wrong, but some of them were actually good and got along OOC even if their IC goals differed wildly - thus the sphere flourished.
I can't say objectively why ultimately HM failed down the road and it would go beyond the scope of this thread. All I do know is that it didn't succeed on the merit of anyone from staff doing, well, anything other than get out of the way. Hell, not even that - most of the time there just wasn't anyone to get in the way. Things just clicked for a while. No special systems, no code, nothing but involved players who made shit happen.