Posts made by Arkandel

@Ganymede Why do you need a time bitch?

@Ghost said in Tips on Güd TS:

@lordbelh said in Tips on Güd TS:

@Arkandel I have to admit I just hate the you, and slap that on to a TS scene and it will make me run for the hills.

Agreed, I respectfully agree to disagree with @Arkandel on this one.

It's a... I guess a habit. Perhaps it's because that's what I'm used to ever since I started to roleplay, when emotes on MUDs substituted the proper word in (you saw 'Bob grins at you' but others in the room saw 'Bob grins at Jim') but as I said, I harbor no strong preference either way and have no issues switching if the other person asks. If anyone knows anything about me it's how clear I like to separate IC from OOC so believe me, it's not (necessarily) a sign of any confusion about it.

However the point I wanted to make is how non-universal it is; I've been in plenty of scenes where the other player set and used 'you' without us having to discuss anything first. It happens!

Anyway, to get back into TS, what I honestly never understood is why folks who are only after it, and certain rather specific kinks at that, come looking for partners on non-sex MU*. Why not do it on a sexually themed game? It just seems weird, like going to a Harry Potter game to look for horror RP - it's possible but certainly not the best place for it.

@mietze I like limited consent systems for that alone; you can go after people but it specifically means you are vulnerable as well.

In fact I've seen more PC deaths on at least partially consensual systems than non-consensual ones, possibly because the shock factor is limited; you have more control over your character's fate, and somehow that translates to being more willing to relinquish it.

@Ghost said in Tips on Güd TS:

Just like someone putting YOU instead of <charname> in poses, the concept of bartering into another player's ooc fetishes or wants just seems too strangely personal to me.

There's nothing universal about it though. If someone asks me to not use 'you' in poses - and I'm not talking about TS here - if there's no one else around I'll be happy to comply but I otherwise use it.

I do revert to the third person when referring to my characters OOC though in order to facilitate a separation of interests between the two. So I'll never say "I am trying to be Sheriff", it's always "Bob is trying to be Sheriff".

@surreality said in Faction-Based Villain Policy Idea:

While I think players should be willing to risk a character's death, I worry about the focus on it. Namely, this seems to come up all the time as the one risk out there and all scenarios boil down to life or death, which is not only grossly lacking in nuance, it's wearying and generally tiresome and just plain limited.

I think the willingness is overrated. While yes, some people have no issues (and in fact volunteer to get their characters killed for story purposes) and others are mature enough to deal with the fallout of a dead PC, it's not unreasonable for players to expect such a demise to hold some meaning.

What I mean is, although PvP isn't that frequent on most games I've played, the usual way it happens is quite unsatisfactory; between the infamous telenukes - what is less anticlimactic than your character dying in a +job? - and randomly meeting a psychopath at a bar who throws a bunch of dice for no reason than that he's a psychopath until the PC's health boxes are full of damage, that's just not fun. And for something that can be as disruptive as character death the least we can expect is to make it at least somewhat entertaining for everyone involved, not just the psychopath's player.

I think what's more worrisome than PvP is the pre-emptive expectation of it. Being so paranoid They Are Out To Get You that OOC communication breaks down, They are villainized in your head and people break down into camps opposing each other as players - once the antagonism crosses the IC/OOC line and begins to spread even in the absence of actions, only based on what is perceived or might happen, that's when things really get toxic.

I think handling the logistics @Cobaltasaurus just went over (because yes, words and general terminology can be awkward, especially if you know the other player in a non-sexually themed capacity) is important, thanks for putting that up!

My focus is elsewhere in this thread. Namely, in that unless you're playing on a sex MU* where all the cards tend to be on the table - if you're on a game like Shang you are almost certainly okay with TS or at least sexual themes - the first step is the hardest because you kind of need to get the idea out there.

The easiest way is have a pre-arranged relationship. It's far from rare for PCs to roll out of CGen intended to be with each other and that does solve a lot of issues. All it takes is someone telling you they're considering a game you're on then going "hey, I'm playing a lordling and he needs a future romantic interest if you want". Done. If they say no, it's okay.

Since not everyone likes pre-arranging such things, if you meet someone on the grid the easiest way, shockingly enough, is to ask. "Hey, my character's RP with yours was funny, I kinda see them becoming an item, what do you think about that?". It's that clear, and if they say no it's okay.

The key in both cases though is be prepared to take 'no' for an answer, and that means paying the other person the courtesy of asking them so they get to answer. What is distasteful is shadowing some guy/girl around, showing up in every scene or paging constantly asking for RP then nagging them IC for a relationship. That just isn't cool. Sometimes - hell, often-times - it can work organically without an OOC conversation first but given the sensitive material at hand having a chat early on saves a lot of headache down the line.

Whatever you do, no matter what, for the love of $deity do not spring coercion on people unless it's been discussed in advance. That's the only real no-no in any of this. Your mileage concerning such things can vary wildly; some people figure IC is IC so anything goes, other people only tolerate IC consensual relationships, that's up to you... but no matter what do not try to IC coerce a relationship or sex without discussing it OOC first, ever. Ever.

That means no blackmail going into a kinky direction, no spilling vitae into the cheerleader's mouth to make her love your character, no using Awe or Mind 4 to alter their perceptions, no forcefully accidentally whoopsie tearing clothes off during a fight... nothing. It's an instant trip to the creepy side even if it turns out afterwards they were okay with it. You were still a creeper, you just got lucky (no pun intended ).

Just ask first!

I won't go over the er, finer points of TS here.

I will mention one thing though - if your only goal in meeting someone is TS just make it clear somehow. It's not always obvious on non-sex MU* and it makes a great deal of difference especially if the other character (or player) isn't into that... or you!

I've been in situations where I had active roleplay I enjoyed and once they figured my character was romantically unavailable they vanished, which can be pretty frustrating.

@monkey I love that setting. Make it happen!

@Royal said in Changes to The Hog Pit:

@Arkandel can't you turn off notifications for specific threads though? Seems like a silly reason to hide something. Oh no! Notifications!

Yeah, but the threads I post in are typically also the ones I do care about. I'd need to turn notifications off for the site.

No big deal either way, I'm just wondering if this is a bug.

@DnvnQuinn said in Changes to The Hog Pit:

I don't understand what this really fixes anyway. If you don't wanna see them, can't you just...not go to the threads in the first place?

Same reason the political threads are behind a wall. Some people don't want to keep seeing (1) pop up in red every time there's a post in a place they just don't care about.

<scratch head> I'm not looking for an ADMIN ANSWER but is there someone still mass-downvoting posts or something?

I only ask because I get notices someone has upvoted a post, I click on it and when I do it's at 0 karma. It could be a bug or an actual vote/downvote sum of zero, which is peculiar for joke posts like "That's what Matt Murdock said" because wtf.

@Ghost said in Faction-Based Villain Policy Idea:

I've probably said this a dozen times, a dozen ways on different threads, but I think the ultimate killer of faction based games is the "never-ending stalemate" factor. Protagonist players don't want to lose their chars to PC death. Antagonist players don't want to lose their chars to PC death. It becomes two opposing forces circling each other and...nothing really changes unless staff railroads something.

I think the problem there isn't in the stalemate, it's in the setup that necessitates any degree of winning to be exclusively marked by PC death.

It's a poor way to do it because relatively few people actually want their characters to be permanently removed - and that's something games need to take under consideration in the design phase.

Unless the MU* is specifically meant to be a PvP one there should be other paths to victory.

@thebird That's what Matt Murdock said, too.

@Admiral Presumably the idea was that Pit-ty comments or threads will be getting moved to the new Hog Pit where they can stay out of the faces of those who don't want to see them. Or that's how I read it.

@Miss-Demeanor Well, that's what I suspect, but I wanted to know for sure what the theme supports while I'm considering concepts.

Plus "Jedi" or "Sith" is much cooler to me than "Light/Dark-inclined Force user", although obviously YMMV.

@Lotherio It's a matter of picking what works best and what you are trying to do.

A modular event where characters can simply show up and be plugged in regardless of their nature, affiliation etc works fine to create roleplay for new players and as a way to introduce them to each other. It however has the disadvantage that you spend part of the time setting things up, you need to figure out a way for everyone to be there, not to mention by definition the plot is character-blind (and thus not customized at all) since you have no way of knowing ahead of time who's coming.

A custom-made scene can tug on existent plot elements much more efficiently and utilize your characters' individual natures - their social standing, abilities, relations to each other, etc - plus you can tie it better to the game's theme since you can have a wealth of information about the participants and their backgrounds. However it tends to be suited for established people, and since it's after all tailored for them if a few of them stop playing your plot might be screwed.

I've done both. Ultimately the success rate depends on how willing the players are to get creative, as one expects.

@Sunny I suspect because most MU* are based on systems and books written for table-top then modified for use on multiplayer games.

Also tradition. It's harder to break with an existing paradigm than to do what's always been done.

@Kanye-Qwest Asimov disagrees.

@SG OBJECTION YOUR HONOR, SPECULATIVE.

@Lotherio One more thing... it's important to know what your resources are in comparison to your goals. Players - and staff - are fickle and more games have shot for the stars before falling short fast in the past; whatever you are scaling towards you need to plan with an eye on the logistics.

It's basically a management challenge, not that unlike any other project. If you over-extend with your staff for instance you risk lacking cohesion and spending more time managing that staff instead of doing other things; if you are undermanned then between handling +jobs and making sure theme is on point you risk burning people out. And Storytellers come and go.

Essentially you want to shoot for something that can inspire people to pour their time into but keep the moving parts under control, ready to step in and try to fix or replace what's not working - that kind of maintenance work isn't what many aspiring game runners have in mind going into it but it's what it comes down to soon enough.