Posts made by bored

@Thenomain said in How can everyone play the same game?:

you really can't filter them out

Except you can.

Reading comprehension miss. I am saying you cannot filter people out by Bartle type (or equivalent), not talking about theme. And I stick by the fact you cannot. You can try, but these are so ingrained while at the same unrecognized by most people, that you will attract all varieties of players even when some of them are bad matches. It may be the underlying cause of later actionable behavior, but you absolutely cannot pre-screen it.

Staff is always capable of showing someone the door.

A constant or blatant ignoring of game's theme, setting, or intent is a valid reason to show someone the door. If you don't have respect for the game, you shouldn't be playing it. (Or running it. God, the number of times I've seen staff who lack respect outright. I could write a book.)

This is a trivial point and I'm not sure what you think you're adding with it. My definition of playing includes 'adhering to policy,' and the basic elements of setting/theme are implicit policy. When you say 'on our game, we play shiny knights!' that is creating an implied policy that 'no, you may not app Superman or a pokemon, or RP about hacking the Matrix.' Someone doing one of those things is misbehaving as blatantly as someone who spams chat or tries to crash the server.

.

@insomniac7809 said in How can everyone play the same game?:

@bored said in How can everyone play the same game?:

The other issue is the 'getting people to play the same way' problem (I think 'play the same game' is terrible phrasing- so long as you're logged in, using the game resources, and adhering to policy, you are absolutely playing the same game).

That's an... interesting question, although I think it's getting more into terminology than epistemology.

If there are two PCs who log onto the game, interact with no one but each other, are they playing the same game as everyone else?

What if they're doing things in their one-on-one RP that wouldn't pass staff's definition of theme, but nobody but the two of them ever know about it?

An exaggeration, but not by much, of some PCs I've seen on some games. I understand that Arx had issues with a certain knot of Thrax players who actually tried to limit how much staff learned about what they were doing, to keep theme policing from cracking down on some of their stuff.

Same answer as to @Thenomain: this is a trivial case. If they're playing something utterly unthematic, then no, they are not playing the same game. But they are also violating policy. This is an enforcement issue. But so long as their private play isn't in violation of policy, they're absolutely playing. Arx has many such knots of players, and while some might do screwy things, many do valid things that nonetheless will never affect the big picture metaplot outside their family/clique/etc. Presumably you do not discount that as 'not playing.'

I feel like this thread is kind of looping around two very distinct questions. I don't think the title helps.

One is not actually about design or play after the fact, but about communication and education, about relating extant information first to staff and then to players. I don't think there's any better solution here than communication: explain things, have things written down in easily accessible places, and continue to provide access to this information including in real time (a channel with both enough players to answer trivial stuff and staffers to vet those answers/chime in on more complex questions.

The other issue is the 'getting people to play the same way' problem (I think 'play the same game' is terrible phrasing- so long as you're logged in, using the game resources, and adhering to policy, you are absolutely playing the same game). This one is vastly more complex, and deals with modes of play (see academic crap like Bartle types), which are much more inherent to the players and not something you can just teach/enforce. In the latter case, I think it's better to think about these as you build your game and understand how you will engage or channel various player motivations, because you really can't filter them out.

IT was largely inspired by real life stuff he saw and heard in Bangor (with the gay bashing being inspired by real events, etc). It was basically a deconstruction/criticism of the idealized 50s Americana (the way the new movies shift that to a modern deconstruction of 80s nostalgia).

He was also, by his own admission, on huge freaking amounts of cocaine, which is presumably the tween gangbang seemed like a good idea. Also all the magical god turtle shit that didn't make it in.

MU relevant, 4e also more or less requires the grid. We had that one game with pretty good code for it (was that Nuku's?), but it definitely slows things down.

5e is pretty easy to play theater of the mind; even with stuff like Sentinel, you can probably just kinda guestimate stuff unless someone is insisting on something really anal or exploitative. Of course people eventually end up opening secondary windows/programs to do maps in, but at that point you're really veering toward 'why not just VTT' territory.

I think there's definitely a good niche for minimally-staffed sandboxes, to provide a place for people to RP their own stories with just that touch of context. Moreover, the idea that they can't be successful is obviously wrong: the most successful MUs actually fall in this category (albeit plus sex, but let's be real that this is always an implicit attraction), and there have been more typical and smaller scale games that worked liked this. Calaveras comes to mind, and I think was pretty popular?

However, I think there are some particulars with WoD that clash with this. The game has an incredibly complicated CG and a ridiculously wide power curve that only gets worse with XP. It tends to involve 'active' settings with NPCs that require staffers. Can you really manage this with minimal staff oversight? I feel like you might need to do something drastic, like fixed XP, full consent, etc. Or else you're always going to need referees for snipers and telenukes.

Maybe don't actually do WoD, but do a generic Urban Fantasy (or WoD without the system) with something like FATE (as much as I always shit on FATE)?

Overwatch League grand finals (SF Shock vs. Vancouver Titans) are starting shortly, for any unaware and curious.

@Arkandel said in Spars and fights:

Let me ask a different question for the thread.

Is 'knowing how to fight iRL' - having some kind of background in martial arts, or even just watching MMA stuff on TV - an advantage to roleplaying such scenes?

I fenced in high school, and I've found this a bit of both yes & no on related games. I think it can definitely help your own posing. Having an idea about some of the elements aside from 'hit other guy' (footwork is important!) provides, well, ideas. That can't really hurt. I definitely enjoyed RPing some of those scenes and was confident of my pose quality, though most of the places I did had rules or code backing things up so it was mostly color/flavor on top. The knowledge can actually be very handy there for 'huh, the dice say this, how could that occur?' and actually working out some plausible narrative counterpart.

For the other person, it's kind of a wash. Regardless of your knowledge, you can't assume they're going to share it, or acknowledge yours. They might pose 'mistakes,' but not agree that they are, or the dice might go the other way, etc. So again, it's far more handy for elaborating on the results you get than trying to really 'apply' the knowledge.

I also think knowing stage fighting / choreography is probably even better than knowing anything more athletic or realistic, since cinematic fights are often unrealistic and people probably want to emulate that. This touches on the class of styles above, but I think even the 'grittiest' game is still going to be closer to (serious) movie fighting than anything remotely realistic.

@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.

@Ghost said in Cyberrun:

Don't act like this is the same thing as [...] those pornstars who look 16 but are really 19.

If you're relying on this one, you're about 1000% more likely to be 'accidentally' doing RL harm than anyone RPing ageshit on a MU.

Also: every MU any of us plays on relies entirely on a 'You must be 18 to play here' warning that does nothing to assure children are not playing here. Anyone who TSes on any game without knowing the other player extensively enough to verify their RL life details is taking an equivalent risk to be exposing an actual minor to sexual content. Most players I know started when they were underage.

That said, I return you to your regularly scheduled episode of MU:SVU.

@Ghost said in General Video Game Thread:

Then...Battleborn. To this day I'll argue that the game had amazing potential, but it was a MOBA styled shooter with an eccentric cast of characters that was released the same day as another FPS featuring an eccentric cast of characters: OVERWATCH. Battleborn went head to head against Overwatch and lost. They didn't just lose; they got curb-stomped. A few weeks after launch very few people were playing Battleborn at all. Despite liking Battleborn more than Overwatch, I couldn't matchmake for shit because eveeeeryone was playing Overwatch.

To be fair, they didn't 'release it the same day' so much as Blizzard offered it's free public beta weekend for Overwatch over Battleborn's release. I'm pretty sure this was more of a calculated 'no, fuck you' from Blizzard designed to take the hot air out of their launch, and it worked. You could even say they were a little.... cold (I'll see myself out).

I actually don't mind pre-orders. Unless they're tied to some really significant bonuses/locked content (which with modding is a pretty high bar), they're... well, optional, right? It seems a pretty voluntary step players can take to support a game or studio they really believe in. It's basically the real world equivalent of:

If you'd buy it close to release anyway, vs. waiting on reviews, patches, sales, and complete editions, there's not much difference. It's mostly an AAA trend so these games aren't generally going to go vaporware.

Conversely, I'm really leery of Early Access titles. It's sad, because compared to pre-orders, this is more on of the indie side of the coin, and they're often counting on that money to fund later development. But that ends up being the problem. After a few idealistic attempts, I've learned that most of these titles never make it out of Early Access. The ones that do often kill their own chances, as the time they spend in what are essentially long public alphas often kill any hype as the interested players try the games out and move on. I don't want to say small studios shouldn't do anything they can to make their projects successes, but I feel they often end up shooting themselves in the foot here.

I have played Big Rigs. It was only because someone showed it to me at the time as a purposeful 'lol this is so bad try it,' but I did technically play it.

These arguments are always framed as if there are sides. The people who just want to reasonably engage in thematic RP vs. the selfish cowards who just want their own fun and fuck anything that inconveniences them in the slightest. Or is it the players who just want to have fun vs. assholes who abuse in-game power to get their own selfish jollies, regardless of anyone else's comfort? Is it the useless, whining do-nothings who can't make good RP vs. the sainted leaders who get burnt out making fun for others? Or is it the sinister RP-hoarding cliques vs. the average players who just want a little more, guv'nah. Which is it?

Well, there aren't actually any sides because it's all the same pool of assholes.

More generously, its all the same pool of people rotating through different game experiences, with different degrees of investment, connectedness, OOC or IC power. It's all people who are fun on a good day but prickly on a bad one, inspiring when they're energetic but a drain when they're not. Who are positive when they're happy, but downers when they feel like things have turned against them. Etc etc etc. I could write up long lists of faults and shitty behavior for my favorite people in the hobby, for the players I've enjoyed the most over the years. They'd find no difficulty doing the same for me.

Every one of these arguments is reversible. There's no righteous side, and realistically, we all are in it for our own fun, or we'd do some other activity in lieu of logging in. The fun we (hopefully) create for others is always going to be a byproduct of our own enjoyment, and one sours with the other. I don't know if this points to any useful solution, but I think it's an important point of perspective. A player who isn't having fun will soon not be a player. What common good you expect out of a player, you have to make worth the effort.

@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:

@Ghost

But if I'm playing a Private who thumbs their nose at the Commanding Officer, it's damaging to the brand of the game to let that go. I mean, why are we playing Space Soldiers?

I think 'This is the military, insubordination has consequences' is a matter of theme-enforcement, and thus staff's job. Leaving this in player hands is going to cause problems far more often than it's going to create great, memorable RP (even if it does on rare occasion). If someone is insubordinate, staff should step in and demote them in the org, and make it clear that their character is on probation and in risk of serious consequences. If it happens again, they lose the character to brigging, being taken out and shot, whatever.

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.

I feel like the whole 'omg MUSHing culture is so ridiculously horrible' thing is... I don't know, in comparison to what? Other online venues? In person tabletop?

My anecdote here is that a friend and I joined up for Storium back when it was the new hotness, and that place had a pretty distinct set of dysfunctions as well, including 'that guy' who joined every game and generally stank up the place but no one seemed to be willing to get rid of. I don't know how antisocial behavior is something we have a unique grasp on.

In my eyes, MU*-dysfunction is distinguishable from generalized internet RP dysfunction only in facets that have to do with the medium itself: we have 'garbage pub chat' and 'OOC room toxicity' because we have public channels and OOC rooms as unregulated commons. Our cliques organize in certain ways because the games structurally encourage it (through factions, online tt-like ~6 person plots, etc), but people are gonna stick with their friends everywhere. And, proximity to Shangrila aside, I've seen more egregious 'hey this sounds like statutory rape' while playing FF14 of all things.

The one thing we definitely are is old and established. At least in our little corner. Once again, the other little corners are all similar.

@Runescryer Tongue and cheek as all that was, I wasn't really worried about the physical logistics so much as the tendency toward niche-protection on games.

If the premise is that it is not merely a game that has a fairy brothel, but an entire game built around the fairy sex work subeconomy with an expectation that all PCs will be involved, then the problem is alleviated and my not so seriously phrased concern is withdrawn!

Haven't watched the show (though it's on the list of interesting things, ah Peak TV over-saturation).

Nonetheless, this level of knowledge qualifies me to declare that "racist fairy brothel" is basically guaranteed to sell like hot cakes as a game concept, as much because the players who like to engage with those themes do it for the exploration of the oppressive angles, dark side of tings, etc etc. It's part of the kink. Very likely, your biggest problem will be the fact that the average brothel doesn't have 40 employees and you may have to start telling people 'sorry, we full up on hos' and then the fairy fights start and you've got glitter everywhere.

More seriously, you'll probably have trouble sustaining it in the long term since it seems like a very social-oriented game. The WoD/Changeling/etc folks tend to sort of be trained toward 'do research to defeat the world-ending whosist' as their major mode of play, so a game that's just about social drama and struggles could be tricky?

Best of luck.

@Three-Eyed-Crow I guess? You could pretty easily make Lighstabers just cheesy, broken weapons and restrict who gets to equip them, give them a special stance for blaster deflecting (if you want?), and weapon profiles for things like TK/Force Lightning and... that's it?

Everything else would be narrative, I imagine, and I don't see why it's difficult to give characters a 'Force' skill (or Sense/Alter/Control or w/e) and have them roll those in TPs otherwise. I agree it wouldn't be good at simulating the 'library of detailed force powers' style play, but that's something (pertinent to this discussion) that WEG SW more or less invented not something really inherent to SW canon, right? 'Video game' force powers are very much a result of the EU rpg expansions and, well, videogames.

Is it weird that it feels to me that base FS3 Ares would be better to use than the FFG thing? Primarily because among the short list of things it's actually designed for includes flying space fighters around and shooting each other?

Are people (out of those here, I guess) very intrinsically interested in any of the particular (d6/d20/dFunnySymbols) systems? Just kind of curious. I've talked a bit about how I think FFG's system is a terrible choice for MUing, but it's not like the prior ones are all that great either.