Posts made by Arkandel

@Thenomain said in Dealing with Staff:

It's also about knowing your options and their consequences. If a staffer is yelling at you or jerking you around, you need to know what you can do about this. Is there escalation possible? Do you need to learn how play in spite of that staffer? Do you want to play the martyr; on the game or on Soapbox?

It might just be observational bias but I've noticed a shift of staff behavior over the years which I attribute to places like MSB. At least I remember a lot more despots in the nineties doing their thing, silencing any voices of dissent overnight without much argument (although you can argue there were also more games at the time as well), but under what I perceive is the threat of having their dirty laundry aired in public where their staff-y commands hold no sway that's not as big a factor any more. At least I can't remember the kind of openly malevolent shitheads favoring themselves and their friends nearly as much as they used to.

So perhaps there are more ways for players to react now despite the fact fewer MU* are being ran in general and more consequences for bad staff. That's probably a good thing.

@Thenomain My playlist is as thick skinned as I am. Spam ahead, you crazy diamonds.

@Faceless As you said, to each their own. I prefer dice-light scenes where mechanics are used to settle disputes and +sheets register which abilities someone possesses (and at which levels).

I can work under different environments but freely flowing roleplay is what I prefer.

@Faceless You just described my ideal environment to run scenes in.

I'll say this about Dawn of Defiance - it's active. I mean things are happening, the +event board is lit up. That's a really good sign.

Once I learn the system I'll chip in. For now I'll just take advantage like a taker who takes and takes.

@Misadventure The burden isn't technical, it's the mindset that's anti-fun. The idea of 'gathering evidence' which leads to every interaction you have with someone having an agenda; you're no longer talking to them, you're trying to expose them, leading to paranoia and wooden talk on both ends. And all of it for what? So you can sift through what could be several MB of unedited text accumulated over weeks or even months to cherry-pick the most incriminating segments and put them in a complaint +job? All of it to try and change someone's mind about one of their associates?

I'm not saying pasting a few lines of "OMFG, did they just say that?" into a +job doesn't have its place, mind you. It's just a procedure like that is the opposite of what I find remotely worth it for a MU*. I'd leave ten times before I had to do it, I just can't possibly see how it's worth it - and definitely not so evil doesn't prevail.

The future of driving.

@ThatGuyThere I like 5 Guys, and its fries are very good, but it's expensive for what it gives you. They're still a fast food chain, you're eating a fast food burger, yet it's priced as a restaurant one.

@Catsmeow said in Dealing with Staff:

However, I would like to remind people that sometimes staffers are DICKS. We've run into them. We know they exist. So maybe this person is dealing with one of those.

People can be dicks, and staff are people, so that's a truism.

Is there a possibility this person is dealing with a dick? Of course. Can the situation be salvaged? It depends on what a satisfactory condition is that works for them; if it's to 'win' - i.e. get their way - it's quite possible the answer is 'no'. Their best bet, that someone else further up the chain of command would give in seems to not have worked.

So what remains is either coming up with a different condition for the outcome to be satisfactory (for example avoiding that staffer, giving up on this particular issue, keeping a low profile, etc) or to keep being pissed off with a game that's supposed to be fun.

But this?

So what do you do? You log any and all conversation. You deal in jobs and @mail. You tell them that you aren't really comfortable dealing with them without time to process what is being said and time to process your response.

This sounds extremely unpleasant to me. In fact if I wanted to come up with a way to make MU*ing unfun 24/7 that'd be it - having to log every conversation, making a point of stating terse comments expressing my dissatisfaction, prolonging an interpersonal grudge.

@Jennkryst said in Arkandel's Playlist:

Oh, Dawn of Defiance. If only you weren't Saga...

I am really intimidated by the sheer volume of all those rules. But hey, the game looks good and staff sane.

And I get to play with my lightsaber all day long!

@Lithium said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

@Arkandel By the same token, there is nothing /wrong/ with a staffer saying: This is the theme of the game. It is what the game is built for and towards. That isn't going to change because someone or even a few someone's don't like it.

Of course not. It's their game at the end of the day. But that's what I'm saying, there's nothing wrong with any approach mentioned so far - including a player saying "well, that's not for me". There shouldn't be hard feelings either way about it.

By creating characters that break the theme, they are actively trying to rebel against what the game is all about, that, in my mind, can make a person a problem player because it breaks the immersion for the people who /do/ like the theme, and play on the game for the theme, or rules, etc.

Well, sure, but creating unthematic characters is not the only way you can disagree with staff.

There is no such thing as a perfect game, and this is something players, and staffers need to realize. I agree with your points about leaving if it's not something you like, but trying to smash up the decorations on your way out?

That's just messed up.

When I leave a game I just... stop logging on. No posts, no declarations on channels, no farewells. But I think I make the runners aware with my issues before I did so; I simply never really add "... or else" to them, since that should be implied.

@Jaded Gratz! You won't regret it. Good for you!

I used to drink over a litre of regular Coke a day a few years ago, and the impact that had was incredible.

@Thenomain said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

But once you start inviting people into your home and letting them invite their friends and advertising on Craigslist that people can stop by your home, the amount of control you have is decreased, by social convention. The responsibility of a club owner for their guests is much higher than the responsibility they have to guests at their home.

When you're staff you're responsible for the overall health, theme and direction of your game; I don't need to tell you that, though. The only way you can exercise that responsibility is having sufficient control over it - you're correct in that it doesn't take a tyrannical despot to do so, however.

I think where some staff members fail at is in overcompensating. One doesn't need to compromise their entire vision for their MU* if they collaborate with their players - they can enrich it instead. After all there's only so much creativity (and time!) a single person or small group has, whereas the MU*'s history is coauthored by its characters; again, though, you already knew that.

What's therefore frustrating is when such administrators turn themselves into brick walls where nothing not of their own making sticks. There doesn't need to be back-and-forth, they don't have to take every suggestion, but listening to fair points or constructive criticism pays off if for no other reason then at least because it helps players feel it's their game, too. And that facilitates their own investments in it.

I've been in pet-project MU* and... well, I had mixed results from them. Some parts were great, some less so. What I do know is that if I feel staff wants to default to their-way-or-the-highway then I also immediately assume a reserved stance from my end; I will not volunteer to go above and beyond anything that's not guaranteed returns for my investment. So they can have their precious walled gardens but I'll pay the smallest price of admission in it as well - I think that's fair enough.

Does that make sense?

@Derp It is polite in general (say, if you're referring to a stranger) as it's a way of showing respect. So kids are always supposed to refer to their elders that way.

@Three-Eyed-Crow You are not an adult until a kid calls you sir/ma'am. Then you are forever old.

Trivia: In Greek it's worse because they don't even need to go that far. You defer to your elders by using the 'plural' form of "you". So all it takes is a cashier saying "thank you" like that and - blamo! You're done for.

For me the issue is simple... it's just a series of easy questions that determines the outcome.

1. Is the game worth it? If not, leave.

2. If it is, make my mind known about things I think are important and could be improved. Does staff agree? If so, yay! Help them out any way I can.

3. If things I consider important aren't ones staff thinks as problems (or won't fix for any reason) then is that a dealbreaker? If so, leave.

4. If I've made my mind known, staff won't fix what hurts my sensibilities and I decided to stay regardless then I need to shut the fuck up and enjoy what's left of the game. That's not (just) for the MU*'s benefit but primarily for my own - if I keep being peeved I won't enjoy playing, so what's the point?

It's not that complicated as long as we don't take things personally. If a player isn't satisfied with your game it doesn't mean you suck; if they decide/mention they are about to leave your game it doesn't mean it sucks. Likewise if staff won't take your suggestions it doesn't mean much either.

Perhaps off topic but I wish cellphone service providers in Canada made unlimited plans available - then I could just grab Spotify Premium. As it stands it's a no-go.

@Roz said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

Like, maybe give a little benefit of the doubt here and don't jump to the conclusion that what I'm talking about is showing every player who criticizes my games the door?

It's true we MU*ers are a trigger-happy little community, aren't we? Giving the benefit of a doubt either way doesn't seem to be what we do best. Perspective staffers are polishing the banhammer around here for every slight, players (myself included) often post about how we'd leave the moment we perceive whatever rubs us in a particularly bad way... sometimes, just going by forums such as this, you'd think we can barely tolerate each other at all, and only do it begrudgingly when it'd be too much trouble to part ways.

The truth is probably - as usual - somewhere in the middle. I've never seen a game ran exactly the way I'd want it but I've been quite happy with several, at least for a while. And there are staff members out there who run games I've no desire of playing but who I have enormous respect for.

We just take ourselves a bit too seriously sometimes, you know?

@Kestrel There's a difference between accepting your body for what it is, or at the very least being okay with the fact you'll never be perfect (because you never will be) and not seeing the potential for improvement assuming you want to improve.

You can't improve - or you may only do so very inefficiently - unless you recognize there is something to be strengthened.

What I enjoy the most about lifting as a way to improve health is that it turns failure into part of the process. Failure is never a bad thing, it's never something to really be bummed about... because it's unavoidable. No human being ever just lifts more and more indefinitely, eventually you try a set at a weight you can't manage and that's when the fun begins; what happened? Where was the sticking point? Have I been eating enough? Am I sleeping enough? Is my form good enough?

That's what the best part is, for me... this ideal of simply being honest with yourself. Knowing what you want, figuring out if you're willing to do what it takes to get it, then scouting out your own weaknesses to snuff them out, one by one, on the way there.

@Lithium said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

Theme is theme.

If you don't like the theme, don't play on a game.

To add to that, not all people will ever like a game's theme. That's okay, it's why different games exist instead of just one game that fits all players! So it's a huge fallacy trying to 'fix' a MU* by attempting to change what it's supposed to be unless staff is in explicit agreement with such a shift.

Note that's not to say say MU* always have the theme their staff intends for them to do; it's not terribly uncommon for the playerbase, especially under the guidance of popular, active players to take things in a different direction than intended over time. Sometimes that's okay (Vampire@HM turned out a whole lot better than its rotating cast of staff could have ever managed) and sometimes it becomes Mage@TR until nuking from orbit seems to be the only real option left.

I still feel that playing a character that breaks theme is a cardinal sin, theme should be enforced, it's part of why I as a whole dislike open chargen unless the theme can absorb all sorts of ideas.

I don't know it's a sin but there should be consequences. We see it outside games, too, with very satisfying results; consider Eddard Stark for instance, an honorable straight arrow of a man who entered a cutthroat political environment and stood out like a sore thumb - in a different 'theme' he'd have been the hero of the tale, but in that one he lost his head.

Problems begin either when players refuse to acknowledge let alone accept their own IC consequences or when everyone else, staff included, fail to ensure there are some.