Posts made by Auspice

One of the things my imgur secret santa sent me was this cake mold that had a bee and honeycomb pattern. And seeing as honey cake is traditional for New Years...

It's not the best cake for showing the details, but it's the best cake for the theme.

I like both. Pure RP and games with Other Stuff.

It's why there's always this little bit in the back of my brain that's like 'go bring back CrystalMUSH' (I mean it'd be super easy I just tell my friend I game with multiple days a week 'hey boot up CM for me and gimme Admin'). There was tons to do in 'off' hours and when I played, I had insomnia heckin bad so I was often the only one on late at night. Not that it was a 'dead game' but there's just times no one is around. Or you wanna do shit but you're working so you need passive stuff (lot of people can MU at work but not MMO after all; I've totally joined MUDs to fill downtime at work before).

CM's systems were nice tho in that they pushed you to interact with others. If you're a singer, you had to interact with other people. Sled broke? Gotta talk to a sledtech. Cutter broke? Gotta talk to a cuttertech. Injured? Gotta deal with those sadistic medics. And yes, you could just leave a note and they'd do it when they were around if times didn't sync up, but the impetus to RP was there.

(Tuner was prob the best role to Do Shit while not interacting with anyone. Which was half the reason there were so few Tuners. The other half was because you had to have the skills (OOC) of a Singer and Sorter both so it was one of the hardest roles.)

WNOHGB was another game where I loved the systems in place, but it only really worked when it was a highly populated game. I fuckin' loved having my Indie company to do space trucking with and hey, when insomnia hit, I'd just setup marketing runs to occupy myself and make us mad bank.

I think 'code toys' can/should serve two purposes:

1- Encourage people to RP with one another (such as in the CrystalMUSH example). The best way to do this is like they did: don't allow people to do All The Things. In my personal opinion, I think this is where a lot of games break down these days. They want people to have fun so they open the door so everyone can do everything (see: Arx & Investigations) and in the end, people no longer NEED to reach out to someone else. They can do it in a vacuum. Which is fine! If that's your model. It does let everyone do and be what they want, but it doesn't encourage interactivity. In the Arx example: since you can use any stat/skill on an investigation (and it isn't mental-focused), you can just spin whatever story to use your best combo and throw a bunch of silver and resources at it and boom. A clue without having to include anyone else. You can pop almost a clue a week this way. Again, not knocking it: it has let my non-mental alts still poke at stuff that I might be unsure about and not ready to share. But on the other side of the coin, it'd be cool if my primary char (Teagan) who is a Mental char had more to do. I'd love if people came to me and went 'hey can you help me look into...'

2- They give people something to do when they don't have opportunity to RP. Maybe they're too busy IRL to RP, but can still be online. Maybe they're on at a time other people aren't. The number one goal of any game is 'keep people here/coming back.' If you give people something to do even when they don't/can't RP, you're keeping them around and they'll be present to see and create RP opportunities.

All that said:
Code toys do not suit every game/concept. Kingsmouth did well with it, but I personally wouldn't want code toys in my WoD. I played Pern for many years without and even today, if I added any, it'd be automated threadfall since gdi we all wanna do threadfall but no one ever wanted to run it, it seemed. But Star Trek, Star Wars, Crystal Singer, certain styles of fantasy game (Arx, Firan, anything with a complex econ system) all support the idea of coded gamification very well.

But like @faraday said: capability is also a huge thing. I've had ideas for years that I am not remotely capable of making happen. So I stick to the non-code-toy concepts.

My only memory of the time I was in State College (all of a weekend) was getting really high and being introduced to a place that puts stuff like onion rings and fries on its sammiches.

This is gorgeous. Wonderful work, really

@reimesu said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

@Auspice

I'd play hell out of this. (Also, if you haven't read Georgette Heyer's Regency romances, they're utterly brilliant for this concept. Faro's Daughter in particular deals with a society gaming hell.)

I'm starting to read more and I'll absolutely check these out! Thanks for the recommendation

@krmbm said in Why are there so many MUs set in Maine?:

@lotherio THERE ARE NEVER CLOUDS IN CALIFORNIA IMMERSION OVER

Except during February when it finally rains and everyone forgets how to drive.

Someone keeps reporting my Instagram account and causing it to get locked.

Like I'm sorry I post pictures of my cats and crafty shit?

I want Austin for the Driskill alone. It's gorgeous and supposedly haunted.

Also we have tons of 'hidden' bars. And Spider House, which the first time I visited (for the worst 1st date I've ever had) I immediately thought 'this is 100% the sort of place I'd put in a MU'). The monthly (well, pre-covid) witches market.

...Austin's pretty baller and it's a shame no games are set here.

@testament said in Why are there so many MUs set in Maine?:

If I ever make a modern game(I doubt I will), I'm going to plant it in Baja, California or somewhere in the middle of New Mexico.

Why? Because it'll allow me abuse one of my favorite words, being 'chupacabra' .

Every time I drive through New Mexico I think how cool it'd be to set a game there.
I don't HAVE any ideas at all to set there, but it'd be a great place for it.

@wildbaboons

I was literally talking to @Aria about this.

My theory is that people are drawn to it because of Lovecraft and Stephen King, but feel like they need a CITY for their WoD/WoD-Lite setting.

The thing is, small town was sort of why those stories worked. The lure of Maine, for me, is that it's quiet, remote, etc. I mean that just makes things even more eery if you're going for something mildly horror-ish.

But I guess people feel that a game must have a city to work, maybe?

@roz

I guess I don't understand where it becomes 'you can't engage in the central stuff' when to play a commoner (under what I outlined) you are required to have a society PC as a primary alt.

Personally I prefer when there's just one PC allowed. But my experience has been that people get very antsy and such when they can't have multiple characters. So my thinking is: 1 PC for society stuff (allowing staff to not be overwhelmed with handling stuff for tons of alts there) and commoner alts for people who have a need for alts or just want to mess around with other ideas.

Essentially a form of: you get your primary PC that staff will give time and attention to and if you want alts they'll be there for fun but won't get the same focus in the story.

I'm not sure how much more I can explain this but having to keep reiterating is making me think it's a terrible idea.

@roz said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

It also looked to me that at least one of those exchanges was just a plain miscommunication, because I ASSUME that when Auspice said that gambling halls would be "populated" by commoner alts, that meant more like the staff? Not that the ton wouldn't be able to go to them. But I think Pyre was confused at the perceived idea that the ton wouldn't be allowed there since that would be a common way of socializing. But also maybe I am assuming incorrectly.

Well yes.
But it also seems like having commoner alts is a really disliked idea unless they get all the same access and treatment as the society PCs. So it might be best to nix that altogether.

@roz said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

I also read excitement and interest from Pyre's questions and just trying to suss out the lines between history and fantasy, but maybe that's because I'm familiar enough with her manner to recognize her interest.

This is entirely probable. Tone in text is difficult. It's possibly a large part of why feedback in professional quarters is encouraged to be a 'compliment sandwich' (say something good, input critique, finish with another compliment).

I didn't read excitement in it. To me I just got a heavy weight of 'this idea is bad and you should feel bad' and I felt buried under it.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuck cedar season.

Here is the thing: when someone is rapid fire responding with what is just negative critique and a lot of it seems to be ignoring things you've already said...

It takes the wind out.
I spent a few minutes just debating deleting the whole idea because 'Well shit if I'm just going to be nitpicked to death for my hey this isn't meant to be ultra realistic idea not being realistic enough why even bother?'

It didn't come across as something you were interested in at all @Pyrephox but rather something you wanted to tear down.

Personally? I'd like a game to be 1 alt at a time but I know how people are and they want a whole fleet of characters. So my solution is: 1 society alt, 2 commoner alts. Will those commoner alts have a big impact? No. They aren't meant to. But they also can't be played unless you have a society PC.

Is this idea going to stick? I don't know. Maybe in working on this I'll decide yeah no, 1 alt per person starting out.

This is just feeling out for ideas but boy it fucking sucks to feel out for ideas and have half of what you say glossed over so someone can tear it all apart going 'no no no this is all wrong'

@pyrephox said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

@auspice Right. But, well, would a seamstress character even be approved, when the game isn't set up for that sort of character to have a lot to do?

You even quoted the bit where I referenced this. I feel as if you hate this concept but don't want to outright say so and have chosen to nitpick. But at least read what I've said. Especially when you've quoted it yourself.

@auspice said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

Gambling halls and the like would be present, but characters populating them would be alts as opposed to someone's primary pc

To rephrase since apparently it was ignored: non society PCs would be allowed as alts.
(This both gives a broader world and allows potential to rise in society such as, say, an entertainer)

@pyrephox said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

@auspice said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

Gambling halls and the like would be present, but characters populating them would be alts as opposed to someone's primary pc (reason being it's not the focus of the game and I don't want balls with 75% commoners because 'but I wanna go!')

I'm not quite sure what you mean, here. The nobility went to gaming hells, and commoners did go to balls and participate in the Season - the daughters of naval and military officers, physicians, clergy, and barristers could all be presented at Court, and as those were considered aristocratic professions, they were definitely part of the social whirl of London. Any sufficiently wealthy person could be invited to the events of the ton, or any sufficiently /exciting/ person - high class courtesans and entertainers often went to balls, even if they wouldn't be invited to the most rarefied venues or to intimate gatherings. Rather famously, Beau Brummell, one of the most influential figures of Regency fashion, was not a peer, but rather a middle-class fellow and military officer who caught the eye of the Prince Regent.

The way I have it written is upper class vs the others. Which includes military officers, clergy, etc etc. And yes could include certain middle-class who catch the right eye.

But does not include 'a seamstress because she wanted to'.

@bear_necessities said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

@auspice said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

not get smacked in social standing for it.

How are you going to represent social standing in Ares?

Undecided. It may require coding something new. It may just be something as simple as bb post updates about who is currently being talked about and why (good or bad).

Gambling halls and the like would be present, but characters populating them would be alts as opposed to someone's primary pc (reason being it's not the focus of the game and I don't want balls with 75% commoners because 'but I wanna go!')

Age-wise: see original post re:modern sensibilities for some things and that this is not going to be an ultra realistic take. No PCs under 18. I just don't do that, personally.

As for family sizes....they'll range. Some will be bigger some smaller. But I'm also going to steer away from houses of 1-2 because that leads to 'Well they have to marry in because I can't abandon my name' and people being endlessly unwed. Secondary reason being: I intend to allow same-sex marriage as long as it's not to the heir. More reason for larger families.

As for heads of house being NPCs: I considered it but it'd be hard enough with just a handful of families. No the way of encouraging drama right now (in drafts) is (tl;de version) 'scandal is encouraged but not forced however if you don't want scandal don't flaunt what you're doing else staff might visit it on you anyway'.
aka have affairs etc but don't expect to be able to waltz around in public with your lover and not get smacked in social standing for it.

@greenflashlight said in A Regency MU (Conceptual):

Seems like a good place to lean into some unashamed soap opera melodrama.

In my notes I already have a draft for a policy file on 'Scandals'