Best posts made by Coin

@tinuviel said in A healthy game culture:

I mildly object to the idea that a game can "bring out the worst" in people. People are the problem, not the game. The game is just an excuse people use to be toxic. It's the "what was she wearing" of our little community - along side the actual "what was she wearing."

Even FATAL doesn't bring out the worst in people. It just brings the worst people out, which is different.

@lotherio said in Criticism: X-Men Divergence:

@tinuviel said in Criticism: X-Men Divergence:

@lotherio said in Criticism: X-Men Divergence:

Its through application and not on the web

There is a form on their site to do the claiming.

Not a solution to your problem, but still.

This looks new, its a good step. I don't know if it gives me a confirmation number (peace of mind), but that's a good step. I stand corrected on this account.

The app form on the wiki has been there for months, since it was there when I looked at the game in March.

Like, if you're deterred because you have to log in as a Guest and say 'hey, I applied for [character] and never got a mail' or whatever... like, is that really the issue? Not being able to log in as something other than a Guest? ~.^

This entire thread just gave me alcohol poisoning. I need a medic.

I skipped to the end.

Uh. Pretty sure at this point in the game, a MU is "a text-based online roleplaying game that people call a MU". Like, the actual definition of the word is contextual; like @faraday said when she talked about naming AresMUSH. It's a MU because we, the MU-ing community, call it a MU and decide it is.

Why is, what's it called, WantonWicked not a MU? Because their community doesn't call it one.

That's it, pretty much.

I think by necessity games tend to be set in places that give the broadest range of settings possible, geographically and sociologically. That's why, for example, eldritch is set in Northern California. Mountains? Check. Forest? Check. Desert? Check. City? Check. Beach? Check.

I mean, it took a little fudging or whatever, but there you go.

I like to see settings that are characters in themselves. It's not so much that I'd like to see a specific setting, but that I want the setting to really matter and for both staff and players to really push for it to matter. The Reach lost a lot of its mystique when everyone broke the setting, essentially. It didn't feel like a small town anymore.

I think most people have a point. But I do get annoyed at people who face combat situations with a knowledge that they likely won't be killed by the storyteller and thus do the absolute dumbest shit, and then get upset when the one-in-one-hundred storyteller kills them off. PC invulnerability is a problem when you're trying to create tension, because a lot of people won't acknowledge it. Saying "But I do" doesn't really change anything for those of us who have to suffer the idiots.

@Pyrephox said:

The only thing worse (and less likely) for the average gamer than running away is surrendering to be captured. It's very, very hard to get them to do either of those things, unless it's their idea.

The scene I MOST always wanted to have is a very specific one. I had a character who had a friend. They were both Lost, and therefore crazy, and the friend descended into paranoid delusions that included peppering my character's apartment with crime scene photos of his dead girlfriend before he went into hiding. We talked, OOC, about my character tracking him down and having the most epic and pathetic crazy slapfight ever -- because we were both thinky-type characters, and had absolute crap for combat rolls. Sadly, it never happened.

More generally, though, I've always, always wanted an enemies/rivals to reluctant-and-snarky friends storyline, with all the scenes involved in that. Ideally, it would include at least one unsuccessful murder attempt on each side, and then either the old-fashioned trope of getting stuck in a situation they can't get out of without working together, or just finding someone else they both hate so much that they bond over it.

I would damn near pay money for this storyline with two characters that had real chemistry.

I will play this with you. Well, I will try, chemistry being a fickle mistress.

@mietze said:

I still do it--I think there's only been one PC of mine in recent memory that doesn't barf at blood/guts/weirdness or do silly things like shout and pretend they're going to stand their ground but rarely am I called on it and have to turn tail and run. :). But it is really a bummer that most of the time people don't even blink.

I did get a ton of hilarious pemits when my ghoul lost her lunch at a vampire execution on TR though.

Two things: 1) people will call you stupid for your character doing stupid things, usually because it affects them or because they don't like you anyway and are just clinging to the nearest thing they can judge you for; 2) in my experience the vast majority of people love players who do that sort of hilarious thing... they just don't feel comfortable being that character because omg what if they look dumb?!

@Ghost said:

I think it's also easier if you and the other player go into it knowing who will win, lose, or if the point is for it to be a bitter stalemate. You don't have to decide on how the win/lose will eventually happen (save this for RP!), but you'll likely avoid any feelings of butthurt if the two players walk into it knowing that eventually playerB will take the bad guy role and eventually lose to playerA

Or just put clear, OOC limitations regarding what's acceptable, and make sure neither player will be a sore loser.

@GangOfDolls said:

It's when RL couples who are also an IC item become weird echo chambers of behavior or ideas-- that's what gets weird feels to me.

Example:

PC has a harsh, slightly creepy, overreactionary, not fun to RP with reaction to in game events. In most cases, you can just say: welp! IC opinion noted! That's creepy, I guess I won't go out of my way to interact with that!

Except the spouse if this player who is also the PC partner has adopted the same position based on what I assume is a little bit of finding out IC but mostly OOC discussion about it.

So now, it's two PCs going overboard and overreacting. I mean, all it's going to do is make it unattractive to RP with both of them but there's often a certain groupthought that takes over. It happens in playgroups of all kinds, though where the view of one PC or its player becomes the unexamined mascot for everyone else connected.

This isn't really limited to OOC couples, though. This happens all the times between just friends who at the time are talking on Skype every day.

Someone who's scared.

Not funny "aiieeeeeee!!!" scared or easily spooked.

But deeply, intrinsically, essentially terrified of the world they now know is around them.

A world they still have to live in, despite knowing all the things that are out there--despite maybe being one of them.

@EmmahSue said in Finding roleplay:

I'm informed that my ES-bias is showing (I have a backpack!) and that I shouldn't expect that everyone can just run a plot without staff coming down on them like a ton of bricks for not getting permission. Mea culpa! I thought my world-view matched your world-view.

So the question becomes: how does one become a player who can run a plot without staff going batshit afterwards? I ask it like that because I have no idea how I reached this point and I'm curious if there was something in particular visible from the outside (so that others can replicate to reach this glorious state).

Only half of this is said with mild sarcasm for being accused of bias. The actual question remains: how can we all get to this state of being? Or is it entirely dependent on the staff in question not being pissants?

ES

It definitely has some basis in staff involved not being pissants. Beyond that, I think you've simply reached a point in the hobby--at least, this area of the hobby--where people know who you are. Just about everyone present has been in a plot you've run, you've directed several games, you have chatted and consulted with myriad people, you are a known quantity and the people who run games that you migth tend to frequent trust you to read the news files and the rules governing what you can and can't run, and to apply judicial common sense to them.

In short, we know you, and we know that if something would be outside a player's power to run without approval, it's probably something you, ES, would stop and say, "huh, I should probably poke staff about this first" about.

You get to that point by being the kind of person who engages with the games they play in and the people that play in them, essentially. I would trust you to run just about anything because I know you. You've come to me and asked "can I run X or Y" when you intuitively thought "I should ask about this". If you didn't, you didn't ask, and it was fine.

It also, I think, has a lot to do with sharing a mindset about what is okay to run with or without staff approval on games as a default. You, me, @tragedyjones, we tend to share a vision for staff involvement and player limitations, or at least we know each other well enough to know what our opinions on this stuff tend to generally be. That goes a very long way. Someone who doesn't know you as well might not trust you. So it's impossible for us all to reach that level--it's circumstantial and situational.

On the other hand, @The_Supremes makes a good point: when a storyteller abandons a plot, or worse, runs something that is completely contradictory to the history and timeline of the game, it's not that storyteller that's held responsible for picking it up, making it make sense, and rectifying it--it's staff.

And it shouldn't be a given that staff need to put up with ill thought-out plots just because one time this one dude had the idea to run a random thing.

That's why I advocate a tiered plot scale. On Eldritch, for example, if you wanted to run spirits, you just needed to keep it at a certain Rank. Beyond that, you needed to consult with us. This also helps you run one-offs and turn them into longer plots: this one low-level antagonist did X, but they did it because this much more powerful antagonist (whom you've now had time to consult with staff about) wanted it done, and the longer plot can take hold. Or you can just leave it at the low-level antagonist having done X sucessfully or not, if you don't feel like consulting.

It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition and I feel like insisting "let everyone do all the thinnnnnnnnnnngs!" is the best way to get the worst result. Not to mention that, in my opinion, any storyteller worth their salt isn't going to run an epic, game-breaking plot in a single night--so anyone wanting to do a one-off fun outing for a night will more than likely be able to easily use whatever is freely available without requiring staff consultation. If they can't, chances are they're not very dedicated storytellers and will flake anyway.

My view may be cynical, but it's honestly the product of my experiences in this community. BITN and Eldritch have had some of the laxest PRP policies I've seen short of games where there are none because everyone can do whatever, honestly.

@Tez -- it's only the last bit of it that really underlines the "it's just a game". The first half of the post, especially the Passive Aggression section, does stress that politeness and civility are key.

It's just that the post is geared towards people who take offense and then blow it out of proportion, and doesn't single out jerks. But the sentiment of it is pretty clearly--at least in my opinion--that being a dick isn't acceptable regardless of who you are or why, and that being a dick ona Pretendy Funtime Game is, essentially, worthless of consideration.

It takes a dramatic person to get super butthurt over Pretendy Funtime Games; it takes a complete asshole to ruin Pretendy Funtime Games for others, but that doesn't mean that they are anything but PFG, and that you shouldn't let it ruin your experience.

There are two things to consider, and they are not minor:

1. While the post is structured as an instructive piece of "how to avoid Internet Drama", it's actually very much a rant. It was not, in my opinion, meant to be gospel nor the quotable piece of internet that it has become. It's a rant. Someone got up Wade's butt and he ranted. is it unfortunate that people take it as gospel? Sure. Does that mean it doesn't have solid ideas? Nope. But looking back at it, Wade is not being nice because he's fed up. He ranted, and many, many people identified with his rant. It happens.
2. Keeping the above in mind, let's remember that there is a distinct difference between the people the post is directed to (i.e. people who are otherwise pretty decent and who just get up in arms and are maybe a little too paranoid and easily riled up) and the assholes who would use "it's just a game" to justify their behavior. The difference, I believe, is that the former group can be reached by a post like this one--or other, similar discussion strategies--and it may help them create a barrier between their hobby and themselves that will help them enjoy it without falling into a spiral of drama; meanwhile, the latter group is composed of assholes. And assholes are assholes, and while some assholes do eventually stop being assholes, it's nev er because some wordy fucker on the internet decided to be snarky about it. He doesn't mention the assholes who would use PFG to justify themselves because there's no point, other than to say, "hey, if any assholes are out there reading this, don't use PFG as an excuse to be an asshole," which would have been fine, but is hardly a requirement on Wade's part, given point 1. ETA: The PFG defense is a personal defense, in this instance, to keep yourself inured to the ravishes of assholedom; it's a way for you to put up a wall and be able to continue enjoying a game despite assholes and other undesirable situations. That assholes use it for other means is the equivalent of people using cars to kill people. Yeah, they can. But ... that's not the purpose of an automobile.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Pretendy Fun Time Games:

Only person I have any control over is me, which has always been a liberating thing to keep in mind for me, even if it's also frustrating.

I think this is essentially what Wade's "PFG" diatribe at the end of the post is about.

The only person you can control, is you. So isn't it better if you don't put enough weight on this hobby that it rules your emotions, and instead treat it with the detachment that you need while still being able to enjoy it?

@HorrorHound said in Rise of the machines:

Man, humans are like Orkz.

We need enemies, so, bring it, Metaldeads.

http://imgur.com/gallery/hINj1xf

@Sunny said in Making a MU* of your own:

@Swaggot

Troll is being troll again. They didn't say the fucking concepts were not interesting you mouth breather, they said they weren't denied for being interesting. Learn to read much?

To be fair, I said his concepts weren't particularly interesting.

Because they aren't. Not based solely on what he stated. They're pretty bland.

Also, I would be hesitant to let such an obvious troll play Ed, too, if I ran MultiwhateverMUSH.

@WTFE said in Fanbase entitlement:

I would be interested in hearing any credible argument in favour of fan entitlement. I cannot think of any, but this doesn't mean they don't exist.

Depends on what we refer to when we talk about entitlement, but I will give an example I think at least edges into the topic:

Spoiler Alert in case you haven't watch Wynonna Earp and plan to.

On Wynonna Earp, Wynonna's sister, Waverly, goes from dating a total dickswab to falling in love with a girl. The object of her affections, Officer Haught, (yes, pronounced hot), is a lesbian--they use the specific word, and she doesn't contest it!--is totally down with this and they develop a relationship over the course of several episodes.

And then Officer Haught is shot. BANG BANG. Urk.

Waverly runs to her. OH NO, said every Earper (that's the fans!) ever, not another dead lesbian in television god dammit!

And so, we get this scene.

Now, this scene was huge, because it essentially established Wynonna Earp as a show where those tropes that so many people who watch these types of shows hate are broken, molded, and used in unexpected and interesting ways, and where characters--and more importantly, types of characters--are respected and treated with some amount of social conscience regarding what representation means for the fans.

You're asking yourself where the entitlement comes in. Hold on. I'm getting to it.

This scene (and a few others, but mostly this one, led to a ridiculously effective and long-lasting movement on social media, because Syfy and NBCUniversal had not renewed the show yet. #RenewWynonnaEarp, by the way. For over a month, easy, my phone exploded with Twitter beeping as the fandom flooded NBCUniversal and Syfy with #RenewWynonnaEarp, citing this specific scene, as well as other aspects of the show that are progressive and fly against the common, usual eye-rolly script-writing we're all used to, especially regarding the treatment of women, LGBTQ, and people of color, as the reason why they love the show and it should be renewed, yadda-yadda-yadda.

During their ComicCon panel, the show announced that Wynonna Earp is indeed getting a second season (and we all rejoiced, yaaaaaay)! That's GREAT!

You're still waiting for the entitlement. That's okay. Hang on.

The producers and writers cited the fandom's unwavering dilligence when it came to getting this show renewed as the reason it got renewed. Without the flooding of social media, etc., there were no guarantees. Not because it's a bad show, but just because--well--Syfy, NBCUniversal, and television executives in general, y'know? It would hardly have been the first good show to die because executives didn't get it.

In any case--the show is renewed thanks in large part to the fans.

The fans deserve for the show to continue on with this sort of treatment of its characters. I don't know if I would say they're entitled to it, but I think at this point, if next season we get a fridging, or we bury some gays for the dramz, then that's definitely a betrayal of the fandom who uplifted, defended, and got the show renewed based on those aspects they loved.

In this case, I think the fans are "entitled" (and I only use the word because that's the word we're talking about, really) to the characters getting a certain type of treatment in season 2 (and onwards).

I don't know if this example is the sort of thing you were looking for. But it's nice to get it out there because it was such a pleasant surprise.

And if you haven't watched the show and you think you might like a progressive show centering around a pair of sisters that kick demon ass with a magical gun--well, give it a shot. First few episodes are a little iffy, but it gets so much better.

@Pyrephox said in Social Conflict via Stats:

One of the big problems when we start talking about "accurate" depictions of social skill use is that we dump it all on the actor, when one of the major problems is the target. PCs do not act like real people. PCs act like puppets moved around by real people who know that none of the shit in their lives is real. There is no way for an IC actor to authentically recreate the pressure and influence that a good social manipulator can bring to bear, because the target, fundamentally, /does not care/ about the things that a real person in that situation would care about, and don't make decisions as if they do. Instead, the player behind the person is always evaluating on a primary level, "Does this make for fun for me," rather than "would this be compelling for a person who really lived this life". Which is why threats and intimidation hardly ever work in RP - it doesn't matter that someone in that position might actually be terrified of losing their job/life/family, because the PLAYER is more interested in "plucky hero resists" than "cowed victim retreats".

Yep. This paragraph in specific.