Posts made by BetterNow

@arkandel said in Good TV:

These days either someone needs to figure out some kind of bundled service for all of these completely different streaming companies (Netflix, Prime, HBO+, Disney, etc)

Uh, you do realize that was what cable was originally and kind of still is? A bundling of all this extra content in which you chose levels to buy that included different channels? You had basic cable, extended basic that had like, 30 extra fluff chans like food network, then the specialty ones that had sports or specific movie channels.

This is just everything old is new again kind of things.

As a GM if I have a player who hugely outscales the rest in combat, I separate them from the party and have them face something on their own scale, while the rest tackle enemies at their level. If they complain about it, well, I can point out the imbalance and the fact the rest of the party doesn't deserve to get one shot, or to have him one shot, the entire encounter.

Guy Lafleur, hockey legend, 70.

@lotherio said in Good TV:

Outer Range - no clue where its going but the vibe of modern ranch horror (or sci fi?) is pretty good.

A good set up for a modern ranch mu-slice of life/small player base. Two large ranches battling over land/etc, one has money/resources, the other is a more established family in the valley/area. Various dramas ensue between the families.

It's very Yellowstone meets Twin Peaks. I'm enjoying it thus far.

@pyrephox said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

Because someone doesn't have to be a perfect GM or a perfect player to have fun playing or running. They don't even have to be very good

And I'd have to counter that with: Except they DO on a MUSH unless they're running for their buddies. Mercer is playing with literal real life friends and his work peers. Not random faceless strangers on the internet who run to bitch boards the moment something isn't how they want it. Vast difference. And ask yourself, who were you forgiving about the GMing stumbles of? Random player X? Or someone you happen to like playing with and had for a while? If I had to guess I'd say the latter. We're an aging population but I'm hard-pressed to say we've matured as MUSHers.

@ganymede said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

The crew in Critical Role is an exception to the general rule that, among gamers, there's commonly a small handful of folks who have the time, energy, and talent to run a campaign. And for those of us who have lived through this, it is self-serving to hold otherwise.

And in the case of Critical Role it's their actual JOB. They're all pro voice actors. They are a business, they all own the IP they've created. They have a literal monetary stake in the game.

I used to be someone who ran tons of plots. TONS. I don't know if they were good but people attended them. But back then I was a housewife, I had tons of time, I had no drains on my creativity.

Now I work a minimum of 43 hours a week while desperately trying to find a house in an insane realty market and by the time I log in, I am mentally exhausted and just want to inhabit someone else for the short while I have. It's why I can only really ever be in asyncs. I can't even get 90 consecutive minutes online. Life //changes//.

@faraday said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

The overwhelming majority of players will not run plots for others, ever, just as most TTRPG players are not GMs. The fact is that running plots means opening yourself up to a fair bit of stress and drama, and requires a lot of preparation and effort. No matter how grateful you are, or what OOC badges or kudos you offer, that's a high mountain to climb for your pretendy-fun-times.

And to be fair, most of us are now stuck #adulting and our freetime to create and run plots is next to nil. It's not all people being stingy or unwilling. Sometimes it's just life. We all grew up, and with that came responsibilities that really put a kink in the RP stuff, and drain the hell out of our creativity and energy. We just want to log in and play, not be responsible for yet another thing.

Or, GMs could not be the only source of plot and let players run their own stuff, make up their own cases to run for others, come up with their own NPC patients with X or Y illness for PCs to solve, etc. Then GMS only have to focus on big, world-changing stuff like a helicopter crashing into the hospital helipad and taking off the arm of Doctor Romano (I'm looking at YOU, ER).

@tinuviel I did that a few years back and dear God, the sheer amount of work for each class felt like the teachers believed their class was the only one students were taking so surely they could handle it.

@arkandel said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

Here's a question, while we're just shooting the shit (*).

Which original TV series would actually make for a good MU*? How would you set it up?

I'd love to see one based on Arcane, with the dichotomy between Piltover and Zaun. There is so much that is happening in that world, I don't think it would require the show's characters to be more than NPCs used to announce plot things occasionally. If they're even needed, it could transpire before the show starts, or during the 7 year time skip.

@lotherio I would be more inclined towards a Mandalorian/Book of Boba Fett era type one, small scale, just Tattooine (or other single planet), with factions of warlords or politically at odds cities or something working together to keep the Empire off their world. No Jedi.

@misadventure That is covered in "stakes". Sandbox and slice of life games are pretty much where players run the vast majority of plotlines and even staff-run ones have no consequences different from any other scene. See Keys for example. No equipment, no extra XP for being in a staff run scene, most scenes are player run, you gain no advantage by having staff's attention.

For me, I think it depends on the very nature of the game. Is it a game where something can be gained over other players or give them an advantage in a PVP type setting, or set them above others, give them all the cool stuff in a PVE one? Then maybe having NPCs start romantic or sexual relationships with PCs is not the best idea. That is where favoritism is born.

Is it a sandbox type game, slice of life, a game in which the NPCs aren't going to be handing you anything not readily avail to everyone else by every alternate means out there? Then it doesn't matter one whit if your NPC is banging that PC. Have at it, enjoy. There are no stakes involved.

Akira Takarada, Who appeared in many films, but perhaps most memorably, the 1954 Godzilla as Hideto Ogata .

@crawfish said in 2022: A New Year, New Dead Celebrities:

Emilio Delgado.

This hurts pretty deep. Luis on Sesame Street, my childhood self is in mourning.

@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

My RL gripe is that time moves ever onwards.

Avril Lavigne's "Complicated" is twenty today. This is unacceptable.

Yeah, I felt like that when they said Eminem was nominated for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame this year. The only formal criteria for the performance category is that an artist has to have had their first record 25 years ago. I died inside a little.

@ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

How do I gently tell her that I'd rather cook for myself without making it obvious that I fear for my life?

Just tell her you love cooking and it is your way to decompress after work?

@saosmash said in GMs and Players:

But I do also agree in philosophy with @farfalla that the harm done by mistakenly excluding a not-wrongful actor from a game I'm running would be a lesser harm than mistakenly continuing to include a wrongful actor. Perhaps it is only this harm analysis that separates the two philosophies? Perhaps it isn't.

Can I just get clarification on this part? How is it less harm to throw someone off your game who might be innocent? If they are, and the reporter is the bad actor, isn't it then keeping someone on your game who might be the actual bad actor? Who then remains on your game free to continue preying on your playerbase?

If you don't know for sure who the bad actor is in the situation (because no proof is provided), how can you have any sense of whether you've done more or less harm to your game with who you chose to remove, and who you chose to let stay?

The only way I'd see to be sure in that circumstance, would be to remove both players from the game? Or am I totally misreading this?

@greenflashlight said in GMs and Players:

If a game's policy is that any claim of harassment must be proven with incontrovertible evidence, then that means we are comfortable beginning from the position that people who report abuse cannot be trusted, right? That they are liars or, at least, too mentally incompetent to understand what other players are doing to them. Since such people are so untrustworthy, their reports must be investigated, correct? That's the only reasonable thing to do. No one's saying they're liars, just that they can't be trusted.

That is not what anyone here has been saying. That's twisting words, and pretty much the EXACT kind of gaslighting they're referring to. I am sure I'll be chewed up for this but VASpider, DownwithOPP and yes, even Ruiz, all practiced this exact thing. It's how they get AWAY with abusing people, by turning the accusations onto the VICTIM, and having staffers BELIEVE THEM over the actual people they are hurting. By not asking people for actual proof of the abuse.

I speak from experience, and if Cobalt were still active she could confirm, that this is precisely what VASpider did on Darkwater, the first iteration of the game, where she literally told staff several players were being abusive to her. Those several players weren't even really interacting with her, and certainly not abusively, and had no idea of who she actually was.

This came down to an apology from Cobalt to me years later when Darkwater 2.0 was made, and a personal invitation to come play there.

I hope this helps with the distinction of "letting abusers run free" and "actually making sure the accused is the abuser".

@ganymede said in GMs and Players:

Here's a "revolutionary" question that has helped guide me in my past decade of MUSHing: am I being fair to staff?

It's a good question, and the answer could be "yes" or "no". Another question is "Is this particular staffer the problem?" Again, it could be "yes" or "no". I mean how many game runners/staffers have been ranted about on here who seriously qualify as being the problem and worth warning others about (ala Spider)? There seems to be a pretty fair share of wrong on both sides of the equation. So how do you figure out which it actually is? Or (I know, revolutionary idea) Could BOTH player and staffer be the problem in the same equation? GASP!