Best posts made by bored

@Ghost If you think making your cheeky 'you did a bad thing' post instead of just hitting the report button like an adult is you contributing to the positive environment, I don't know what to tell you.

I come down pretty hard on the 'lol, I'm not going to RP something that's not fun' side of things. Especially after more time in the hobby, the idea of putting in RP 'work' (and this isn't the only area where that trope applies) is just kind of a non-starter. If it's not entertaining (OOCly), there's no force that's going to make me sit there and take it.

Now, I think there's valid points about players who continually shit-stir then never RPs the other side of it, but that's back to making policy for the lowest common denominator. And it also cuts both ways. Something can be ICly harsh but OOCly fun if the players on both sides are trying to entertain each other, but I have zero interest playing punching bag for some asshole getting their jollies on quasi-OOC cruelty and power trips. This was a huge trope on Firan, and it looks like Arx hasn't fully escaped it: "If you roster a character after a crippling scandal, it means you're a bad player avoiding consequences (despite uh, losing a character). You should keep RPing them so we can all enjoy harping on your mistake for the next 6 months. It'll be loads of fun, trust us! :)" Yeah fucking right.

Mostly, I feel like there are as many bad winners as there are bad losers. Why shouldn't there be, it's all the same players? So you should aim for getting rid of these people, but in the meantime, not create situations where anyone is forced to deal with unpleasant interactions. A big thing there is not putting quasi OOC discipline and thematic guidance in player hands, since that's really staff's job.

@Tinuviel said in Cyberrun:

If you want to stop paedophiles, look at the games that explicitly allow under-age players - if such games still exist, and watch out for the red flags there. That's where you're going to find them.

Absolutely this. Its funny this thread came up again, after a while back in the New Blood thread I mentioned that the worst case of someone likely to commit statutory rape IRL I've ever encountered (and one where the authorities probably should have been alerted, but fuck, what info do you have?) was on an AAA MMORPG, ie a space that is specifically friendly to all ages. I think that's worth repeating here.

On MUs? Everyone is RPing taboo shit. We've managed to stop with the 'rape fantasies = enjoy rape IRL,' so I guess this is the newest iteration? I personally don't want to RP fucking children, but accusing people who toe the adult-teenager line in RP of being RL pedos is a bit much. Esp when you catch say, most ex-Firan players or any number of other games with teenage settings with that one.

Posting here, although the quote is from the prior thread.

@Ghost said in Ithir Mush:

If these are only character relationships, I don't understand the level of OOC attachment and upset that comes along with them without having to assume that on some level they're not entirely IC. Which is a danger zone topic, probably not for this thread.

This whole thing reminds me of the NPC TS ethics argument a little while back (which saw people defending their NPC staff fuckery... not long before a blow up over NPC staff fuckery), and I will say it again:

I will never buy that people who engage in detailed TS (ie, when you are posing graphic imagery in excess of what is required to get across whatever broader-RP relevant sexposition about your characters and their relationship) are engaging in wholly IC behavior. It just isn't. The constant OOC spillover, in every direction, is proof that people are just not that zen and detached about this shit. This is one of those things we're both broadly guilty of and in total denial over as a hobby. And it makes sorting out the actual predatory OOC behavior from the, erm,.. just crazy but still problematic OOC behavior really fucking hard.

-- Anecdotal confessional time, and a little more directly on OP questions --

I've been wrapped up in this to stupid levels. I had a player who I was really close to, where our relationships (we had characters paired on several games) involved those quasi IC-quasi-OOC fidelity boundaries. Sometimes I broke them. She got super mad and chewed me out. I got super mad and defensive about her being so OOCly possessive. Then we reversed roles and did it all over again, with her cheating and my getting pissed and her firing back. After the last round of it, we stopped being so close, which is really fucking sad.

To actually answer the questions, I don't know, at least not universally. Because I believe there is always going to be some (but not equal amounts) of OOC bleed, it will change the expectations. I think me and the above player should have been more honest with each other. But I don't think your obligations are as high when the OOC bond is less. Judging the seriousness of the OOC friendship is probably the hardest part, and it's people who fail at it that are going to turn into creepers and 'crazies.'

@HelloProject said in Serious Question About Making A MU:

Okay, so we're a bit separated from my old far too fucking ambitious MU thread. A whole year away from me going through therapy and finding purpose and all that random stuff. So I've been thinking about things, regarding MU creation.

So, let's say that you don't really desire a combat system, or if you had anything, it would probably just be some simple dice for emergencies. This isn't really a part of the question, but this is just saying that combat system isn't a factor in my question at all (I know this isn't a popular idea, but it's my preference for this).

Now, let's say that you write up every single room desc, game file, and pretty much everything in Google docs, and you're like, "Man this is basically a fully formed MU".

What next steps would you take here?

WB.

From a technical perspective, if you have descs, news files, etc finished and do not believe you need more than minimal code, much of your game is finished. You need hosting, to pick a codebase (but without code requirements, any of them will work), and go through the varying levels of linux fu to install and run that installation, the effort of which will depend on which one you pick. You don't need all the features, but I believe Ares has actual install images, and will also cover whatever 'casual' code you need (and can handle combat if you decide you want that), so it might be a good choice. Also @faraday is a helpful person.

From a more game design and management perspective, beyond what people have mentioned about staff, you have to think about intended play. You have ideas, but what do you intend for your players to do with them? What characters will you expect them to make, and what will there be for them to do? MUs are social, and often work around orgs or factions of some sort, even if they're not opposed: families, guilds/professions, military branches, etc. Do you have plans for these? Will players run them, or will staff participate? Same for plots: scale, PRP vs. staff run, etc.

Catching up and treating this like @Arkandel survey thread since apparently that's what it is now and why not.

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

Does the played-by (either your character's or someone else's) matter to you when it comes to TS at all? Does it influence how you play your PC or which characters they pursue or uh, how?

I like attractive people PBs. But I'm never going to say 'hey look hot PB I will try and RP at this person in hope of the sexing,' because, well... stalking aside it seems obviously dumb. Anyone can slap on a hot PB and will probably disappoint on RP. Typically, a pose will catch my attention first and then maybe I'll look up the wiki to see what the character's deal is a bit, not just PB-wise, but overall.

So while, logically, I feel like it could be a factor (just in the 'judge level of IC physical attraction), it's rarely come up. The awesome people who stand out in RP usually have good PB taste. My long-term RP partners definitely do, as well.

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

Okay, so while we're still on the topic of IC appearances in general (whether based on a specific PB or otherwise), if you're about to create new character(s) with another player - in other words they're kind of destined to be in a romantic/sexual relationship (*) - do you ask or provide input as to their looks?

With players who have been ongoing partners on multiple games, I've outright let them pick my PBs because I have a tendency toward picking dull or 'normal' looking ones and I want them to enjoy the fantasy too? I'm not that invested in 'my PB as so awesome and also Chris Hemsworth for the 124th time' thing (I think it has to do with pre-dating the PB era?), and unless there's an obvious perfect fit it's usually meh to me.

In terms of my input, I've helped pick among options but I don't think I've ever gone 'hey I'd really like to imagine boning SoAndSo next so could you use her next plz? thnx.' But again my ongoing partners tend to have good taste that jives with mine already.

(*) While we're at it, would you say you usually create characters more or less knowing in advance who their partner's player will be, or do you wing it once they hit the grid purely based on their RP?

I have players I always play with when I play. Its not always romantic, though.

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

How do you guys find partners for non-vanilla kinds of relationships and especially when it comes to the more racy stuff out there? Anything from the somewhat more common "50 Shades" stuff that's relatively generally accepted to arrangements which are crimes or completely taboo in the real world - the obvious examples that I have in mind is IC rape or to incestuous relationships on games such as The Reach (or Arx) where PCs from the same families were sleeping together.

For starters, dick drought is a real thing and I get plenty of people approaching me for whatever when I play. So fairly often it's 'filter out the crazy/weird' vs having to carefully approach people for my own strangeness. Not a brag, just true, and this goes way back. I remember some shock as not-legal to be WoDing teen self with the kind of stuff that would come up. 'tee hee, my vampire is permanently a virgin so will you violently and painfully deflower her with your giant werewolf dick every night?' - some lady in THE YEAR 2000.

How do these conversations take place? How do you make sure the other person is okay OOC?

This is going to sound bad, but it's very rare that I discuss anything? But that's generally because either I'm playing with people I have a rapport with OR because people are pretty obvious about what they want. IE If your in-game sister is throwing herself at you, it seems kind of obvious incest is on the menu? So these scenarios don't tend to come up a lot for me.

The one time I had to clarify with people more was when I was ICly in the position to demand a lot of sex (char ran a brothel), so I did always check if/what people were interested in, though more in an FTB vs. TS sense but those convos covered some thematic abuse as well. Obviously, if in doubt, you talk?

While we're on the topic, how (and if) do you keep them from getting out of closed door situations and reaching the grid?

ICly, I imagine it would depends on the characters and situation? OOCly, I don't care.

@Rinel Are you playing dudes in public? Can you put a literate paragraph together?

I am being honest in that it doesn't even seem to matter if I'm trying to be sexy. The last character I RPed was a balding walking ball of anxiety with a very non-Hemsworth/Momoa PB and he was still neck deep in it, so to speak. I hear this from a female friend who plays men (granted, a bit more attractive ones than I tend for), too.

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

( @bored was kinda right when he said this feels like I'm running a survey here)

TS with NPCs or during PrPs. Where do you stand on this? What I'm thinking is PrPs involving one ST and one player but y'all might surprise me.

We had part of this in one in that prior thread (and boy was the response from certain folks telling). I'm going to repeat what I said there:

Talking staff-established NPCs, 100%, at the point you're TSing on it (and that means detailed erotic posing, not just 'some sex happened') this is no longer fully an NPC and you've strayed into GMPC territory and serious a ethical (wait for it) danger zone.

Your "one on one PRP" case is a weird one, because that's essentially not a PRP and just two people sandboxing, which may violate game rules and be a concern for reasons beyond TS. Beyond that, if you've designed PRPs to be an avenue of player-driven narrative development on your game (ie, if you've empowered players to direct the story to some degree), you probably don't want your overall story being skewed by the drama that accompanies the OOC aspect of TS, which again I separate from 'these characters are having sex, that counts as story.'

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

@bored Hm, I wonder if the problem is in the terminology then.

My idea of a PrP (and I'm not saying it's the correct one) is that it's a scene in which someone - who doesn't need to but could be staff - controls the NPCs and the environment, and everyone else is playing their PCs.

No benefit or inherent advantage is given in that context for participation.

I don't think your definition is much different than mine. But you're missing that there's already an advantage there: the NPCs you get to run usually violate PC restrictions. This is a big part of the staffside problem that people seem much more on board with: your uber powerful NPC Vampire Prince, elf Prince, Jedi Master, etc being used to do RP that seems much more PC-like rather than being used a critical force to drive the plot.

On top of that, XP rewards, stat increases, items, faction improvements, etc are pretty often PrP rewards. Many games will demand you run a PrP to justify any kind of larger impact on the world. So again, benefit.

To be clear: I don't care if the story two people really want to tell involves them fucking each other nine ways to Sunday. My concern here isn't that TS is happening. But in my mind, PrP runners are acting as storytellers and thus mini-staffers for the game. When TS seems the purpose, the motivation and ethics comes into question. Does it seriously matter? It probably depends on the game. I think most people would be upset if they found out, for instance, that PC X became the controller/leader of a new org/fief/resource/whatever based on having been granted a boon by fucking an influential NPC run by their usual PC TS partner. Right?

@Derp said in TS - Danger zone:

@bored said in TS - Danger zone:

First, again, since no one in this thread seems to be able to keep the two terms apart

I mean, I know how annoying it can be when people refuse to stick to the definitions that you've laid out for the argument, because the argument breaks down otherwise, but I think in this case you're needlessly splitting hairs, and people aren't quite as offended by 'not-posed-out sex' and 'posed-out-sex' as you'd like them to be for purposes of making an ethical argument that people are disagreeing is an ethical problem.

Dude, it's a thread about TS. I'm not 'laying out a definition because my argument breaks down otherwise,' I'm sticking to the fucking OP topic. 'But romance is important and sex is important and people can use sex in stories!' is a straw man that I won't engage with, and I'm not going to engage further if you choose to continue to hammer on it.

Edit: Did you also call me a prude? First, fuck you. Second, I'll just add a big old LOL that anyone who's ever RP'ed with me will appreciate, I'm sure.

@Carex said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

Is it just me or do you automatically suspect anyone playing a wraith/mage leans towards stalker/creep?
Has that been your experience as well?
Have I just had bad luck and ran into the worst people?

While this is broad enough that I suspect you're going to get pushback, if we edit it to

anyone playing a wraith on older games with realm flags

...then, yes. My experience dealing with one wraith sphere on an oWoD game back in the day was that they were largely there to voyeuristically peep on TS. We ended up giving every build an automatic wraith-locked room (regardless of supernatural ability to do such a ward) just so players could have some expectation of privacy.

@Kestrel Oh for sure, nothing wrong with trying them out (again, it's trivial on a code-effort side). I just think there's maybe a weird tendency to lean on this like 'oh if only we'd do this, it would make such a difference,' and I feel its worth highlighting that we have done it and it wasn't particularly any sort of panacea.

Which is why I emphasize its more about the collective approach. Its not how many pieces you have, its how you put them together into a cohesive set of game policy & culture.

@Ghost While I agree that games using systems should, in fact, abide by those systems (as should be obvious by some of my pot-shots at people who posture about being 'above' dice) , I think you're missing one really obvious reason that you see this weird ambiguity. It's especially relevant to WoD, if not exclusively: the games are IPs that people like.

And while, sure, its possible to play free-form versions using the same world (as ye olde AOL chats proved), or use the setting while substituting a lighter dice system, its probably a bit counterintuitive and may dilute the experience. D&D without levels and d20s is generic fantasyland, and without the structure that informs you why a small armed militia may no longer be a match for a single 5th level spellcaster, it may feel loose and arbitrary. Ditto WoD. 'My vampire has supernatural charm' does not have the feel of ticking particular dots of Presence/Majesty, Dominate, etc and seeing those discrete tiers of power.

@Rowan said in Firefly - Still Flyin':

At least they're not using 'observer objects' like Firan, which would be on you 24/7 logging everything both IC and OOC.

I always counted it as a matter of pride when I struck my tent and an observer popped out. My TS was clearly a topic of great interest.

@Groth said in PB 'realism':

In fairness to people picking tiny, fragile-looking characters for their hardcore warriors that has been something of a trend in Hollywood and other visual media. I think the only athletic looking action star that comes to mind is Michelle Rodriguez.

Like I said, I accept it to some degree where media doesn't give you an option, which applies to women even moreso (although I think saying Michelle Rodriguez is the only one is... not true). But there are extremes that bother me. Also, again, its peeve territory, not 'omg I hate you and wont RP' territory.

It also kind of depends on the game genre and its own expectations. I am OK with 'lithe' PBs for fighters in genres & systems where Dex/agility/etc style builds are a thing. Your elf can be whatever, as can your Jedi. And if you're a badass with a gun, it probably doesn't matter what your build is at all. But if you're a medieval badass with a giant axe or something, it might bug me a little more.

And yeah, if it's face-only I don't care. I think this is also an evolution of PB use - when they first came in, they generally were just faces ('faceclaim' is another term for PB in non-MU RP communities) but bigger and more elaborate galleries have become more prominent.

Fwiw, even I saw this coming, about as soon as I saw the 6'7" + all red text shortdesc, and then some totally random chat incident with him posturing about being 'the biggest viking' on the game or whatever. It's actually sort of funny how predictable these people are.

Also, lol at 'ghosted IPs.' Hack that Gibson, you crazy cowboy.

@TiredEwok Like I said, there was a pregnancy emit.

To clarify for the class, the game included random intermittent 'mood emits,' that were sort of like ambient weather messages you might see on other games but which were sent directly to a player. They were random and mostly pretty ridiculous (one of them was about thinking monkeys are funny), and were theoretically just RP prompts. As you can imagine, the total # was limited and it wasn't long before you saw them all and most people ignored them.

Some emits were sex specific; a bunch of the male ones were about being randomly horny, for instance. While codedly pregnant, characters got special versions of these related to their condition. Needing to go to the bathroom was one of these. There was also one for craving a food item, and it selected randomly among all consumables and animal products, so it was possible to end up craving deadly poison or things that weren't strictly edible.

But there was no actual way to go to the bathroom or otherwise respond to or stop the emit, and no penalty for not doing so (same with the cravings). It was probably confusing to some new players who might have assumed they did need to react to it (waiting for the 'I locked in a room with a goat needing to pee' story in 3...2...1...).

@jennkryst If you really wanted to fix it, you could do something like 'Everyone gets 3/2/2/2/1 for rings and your 3 must appear in the clan/family/school' and 'Everyone gets 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 (or w/e) for skills, also selected among clan+family+school.' However, this gets tricky because I think stuff like not being able to get MA is actually design intent, so do you exclude that? And what about the questions? They're important choices, but again it becomes 'unfair' if you allow them to stack, but if you don't allow it, have you devalued one choice?

I will say that I've not experienced these things being actual issues. If you look at the Questions and Heritage tables, it's clearly designed that no 2 characters should be exactly alike. It's not D&D (which I'm not knocking, I run a weekly game!), and what people can accomplish is much more contextual to their exact character and the situation. People will put 2s in skills they care about, not in just anything to save XP. Ie, a Doji courtier might take Courtesy 2 because its core, and Design 2 because they'd like to play a fashion maven who designs kimono, but not Culture 2 because... they're a little avant-garde and care more about setting new trends than aping what's popular? Or they just don't want it? And if they happen to buy Culture 2 a couple dozen sessions later because it's in their Rank 5 curriculum and they need to put a last few XP in to hit rank 6... is that a 'problem?' I'm not sure it is, especially as they had said dozens of sessions to get usage out of their other skill picks (that they probably DID continue to raise).

@Misadventure An XP refund at the end would probably be the best solution (aside from the issue of being able to buy things you couldn't have ended up with, like MA 3) and the easiest because you could just code it. You'd have to specify it not count as XP toward school advancement since the rest of CG doesn't.

@Alzie said:

@bored Paulus had a mission statement? I think this is the first I've ever head of it. Was it 'If it ain't imploding it ain't shit?'

Well, early on, when the game just opened and (I think?) well before you joined, there were a lot of times he spent hanging around on channel talking about the feel of the game they were going for. He emphasized a lot of things to make it more realistically (in FS, lol?) feudal. Vassals not being your strict minions to order around, small engagements that made a single knight with a band of men a meaningful force, limited casualties, and particularly a lot of back and forth with smaller fiefs being lost and regained. OK.

He just didn't keep to most of it, or he made sure those things only applied when they were harmful, not when they were helpful. The small engagement thing was an outright lie, it was doomstacks or nothing. A single knight (or even baron's) forces were insignificant because the counts literally had orders of magnitude more stuff. The feudal disloyalty stuff, well, it definitely happened, but instead of letting that be natural (it's not like MUers won't bicker like rabid wolverines anyway) he specifically lied to people or just outright encouraged them to be rebellious. The casualty thing was applied with no consistency at all as already pointed out. The 'back and forth' mostly meant no one could make gains OTHER than the main plot force, which was all Renaud/Renaud's daddy NPC/etc. You saw that with the Ghilat stuff, where as soon as Antonio won land, they came and took some away (and made damn sure you lost no matter what you did).

@Packrat I'm sure the Kurgan assault lander existed on a spreadsheet somewhere, but that's not the point. The point is when the enemy used it, it worked cinnematically as this super scary doomdrop. When the players used one, it would either have no special effect beyond moving 100 troops around sorta quickly (which was meaningless when everything was 3-5k troops on a side) or... there was that time staff made a magic sandstorm that vetoed it completely. So there's no 'entirely fair' at play there, at all.

Eh. At the point of actual online TT I'd rather just... play online TT. With a pr-arranged group and not just whoever shows up. And I do! albeit not for Fading Suns.