Posts made by Coin

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

It was, after all, just a joke.

At your expense.

But a joke. >.>

If you have to explain it as such, perhaps it wasn't.

Maybe not a good one, alas.

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@DareDaemon said in Punishments in MU*:

don't hand out exceptions for any PC

Why not?

Wouldda thought you learned that on The Reach.

<.<.

(Good natured ribbing, I assure you.)

I didn't handle most of the stat upgrades during my time there, so that hardly applies.

Same general lesson learned, or so I would think!

Although I am loathe to continue the general ribbing in this sense because I don't actually care about something so far back and I wouldn't want the back and forth to turn ugly. It was, after all, just a joke.

At your expense.

But a joke. >.>

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@DareDaemon said in Punishments in MU*:

don't hand out exceptions for any PC

Why not?

Wouldda thought you learned that on The Reach.

<.<.

(Good natured ribbing, I assure you.)

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin Most places I've seen have linked it, as you quoted.

There are systems out there where positions and stats are linked in some form. That's all. Those are going to involve an exception to the universal statement.

Sure, and in those systems those Stats are usually basically just that: marks of position. But again, exceptions to every rule. My response was to the fact that CofD, in particular, i.e. your example, does separate them.

I don't see any drama there or reason for you to be making it.

Uh, okay?

@Derp said in Punishments in MU*:

Sure, Status is one thing. But then we talk about things like Renown. There is no way I'm letting your slobbering spirit-eating locus-destroying werewolf have Wisdom 5 just because you have the xp for it. Sorry, no. Also fuck you.

That's not arbitrary, though.

I feel like you're off-course. If I app a "spirit-eating locus-destroying" werewolf and want high Wisdom, it makes sense to deny it. If I app a spirit-attached, locus-curating werewolf and want Wisdom 5 and you deny it, but this other character who is also a spirit-attached, locus-curating werewolf got it, it's arbitrary.

Don't muddy the issue.

@Tinuviel said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin A lot of the time Status 5 (for instance) is reserved for the Prince. And only the Prince. This is a stupid method and needs to stop.

That is not a fault of the system, that is a fault of the game administrators not using the system the way it was designed. A whole separate peeve.

@surreality said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin In some systems, those things are linked. CoD being a prime example. There's only one prince status slot, for instance. They're corner case issues, but they are out there.

"Prince" is not a Stat, it's a position, especially in CofD. You can be a Status 3 Prince and just be a Prince without a lot of high Status; many Princes who heavily need the support of their fellow elders, etc., could fall into this category. So there is some overlap, but it's negligible regarding what we're talking about.

You can also say, "I would only allow an IC Prince played by a player I personally trust because of the narrative and story effects the position has," and not sound completely ridiculous, whereas, "I will only allow people I trust to have Melee 5 at chargen but everyone else can buy it later" makes you sound like a dumbass.

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

If you're making an exception to a rule, then it's an exception. If X gets to have a stat at 8 and no one else does, that's an exception. If it's because you trust them with it, then 1) what's so important about that ONE STAT that staff needs to TRUST THE PLAYER for them to be able to have it? and 2) why do other people get to buy it later on if they spend XP on it, if it's so important they couldn't be trusted with it at cgen?

On this issue, I concur. Excepting positions of power and boondoggles that arise therefrom, I believe that all PCs should be coming out of character generation with the same access to skills, traits, and the like, barring systems where traits are supposed to be somewhat unique, like a superhero game.

There you go. That was my complaint, not IC positions, because those come with narrative weight that, yes, you typically want someone you can at least trust. They also come with responsibilities.

But stats? Nah, fuck right off with that arbitrary shit.

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

But here's the thing: that exception should either be lauded by the players or go completely unnoticed.

My dissent is premised on my belief that this is not an exception.

Your issue is important, but it is not dichotomous. In my opinion, the choice should be noticeable. If a player asks: "why did staff pick <X> to play <important PC>?", the answer should and must be "because staff trusts <X> to play that character due to his/her/its history." Anything else is a sham.

There's nothing wrong with picking a particular person to play a perspicuous pugilist to perfection. I only have an issue when someone tries to pass the choice off as being part of some impartial selection process.

Honestly, if we're talking about in-game positions of power and the like, I probably agree with you more than not. I think you're conflating stats with position and they aren't the same thing. I wasn't really talking about that. I was talking about PCs on the same level at chargen who just get to have stuff because of arbitrary reasons.

Don't set a criteria for apps if you're not going to apply it across the board, or let people know that some people are gonna get benefits because they are friends and "trusted".

If you're making an exception to a rule, then it's an exception. If X gets to have a stat at 8 and no one else does, that's an exception. If it's because you trust them with it, then 1) what's so important about that ONE STAT that staff needs to TRUST THE PLAYER for them to be able to have it? and 2) why do other people get to buy it later on if they spend XP on it, if it's so important they couldn't be trusted with it at cgen?

@Ganymede said in Punishments in MU*:

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

I dissent.

Yes, I know. I know. I know about the past corruption. I know about the present corruption; y'all have examples, yo, and I get that. And I also know that this line is abused to the shit, bro, and I have been on the receiving end of such bullshittery when I applied for IC positions.

I get that. Here's the thing, though.

If I have spent eleventy-billion hours of my time and effort to build a game, and that game needs a PC or an NPC of considerable importance who has an active part in keeping the game going, then I am going to guaran-damn-tee you that I'm not going to open him/her/it up for open application. It's just not going to happen. I am going to pick someone who I know to be responsible, honest, and, most importantly, courageous enough to stick it to me and tell me, "Gany, you ignorant slut, << their point here >>."

And that person is likely to be a friend, as close as any lawyer-cat-bot has to having a friend in the MUSH-verse.

If people don't like that, they can kiss my shiny metal ass. I am not going to let a stranger have such a position on my game, period. "Gee, why did Gany pick << let's say Caryatid >> to play << important PC on game >>, huh, huh?* Yeah, because she's got a track record in my books as being someone I can trust with that position, you dimfuck. It's my fucking game, and, like my fucking house, I'm not going to let a fucking unknown come in and potentially fuck it the fuck up. If you've a problem with that choice, so be it; deal with it or get the fuck out, I don't care.

If you want me to admit there is an exception to every rule? Then sure, I can admit there is an exception to every rule.

But here's the thing: that exception should either be lauded by the players or go completely unnoticed.

If it doesn't, then it's not an exception, it's just an issue. And this also isn't a case of "punishing the many because of one bad apple" like when rules are changed game-wide because one asshole is abusing them; this is the opposite, because for every "Gany trusts Caryatid" out there, there are fifty "no, no, Spider has changed, I trust them with this".

So, sure. Exceptions exist. Doesn't change anything.

"They can be trusted with this" is a perfectly-acceptable explanation to me (as long as that is the proffered explanation because I hate it when people try to come up with pretextual excuses to make them seem impartial when they're not).

All that said, if you are going to be upfront about it, then sure. I mean, I'll be the first to accept that as long as you're being upfront about shit like that, no one can really complain about it, because it's not like they didn't know.

@Coin said in Punishments in MU*:

@Seraphim73 said in Punishments in MU*:

@Auspice I could see some people claiming that they're being punished in Chargen by not being allowed that 8th dot of the Awesome skill, when they see that some other characters have it. On a well-run game, those other characters will have more experience/training/etc, and that will have been made clear to the complaining player (along with suggestions on how to explain how the character got their skill that high), but we all know that that won't stop some players from feeling like they're being punished anyhow.

My problem here is that since games have different people doing apps and often don't have a general, well-stated consensus of what makes a good app ont hat game, you end up with one app staffer who approves someone whose concept they like with whatever stats they think are fine while another app staffer doesn't really care about some rando's concept and buckles down on 'you can't have that stat that high'.

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

And further, just as general, unsolicited advice for app staffers out there:

If your reasoning for not allowing someone a stat at a certain level is "it's not supported by your background", and that person adds to the background to support it in their re-app, and it's still not enough, don't just buckle-down and deny it to them when they ask for clarification and maybe an example of what would justify it, because players can't read your mind and know what, in your brain, justifies what, in theirs, is already justified. Communication is key.

If you just sit there and say, "naw, I don't want you to have this but I am going to say it's because your background doesn't support it and then procede to just deny you an example of what would support it", that's lame and you should just say, "I don't want to allow this stat at this level for you, sorry".

The "for you" is key, because you can be sure that someone else has been or will be approved with that same stat that that player wanted at some point.

Stats aren't the be-all, end-all, but the way they are permitted, given access to, and denied, and to whom, with what criteria, etc., does say a lot about the treatment players can expect. I'm never going to not app on a game because they won't let me have a stat at a high level and they did let someone else have it. But it's gonna color my perspective, inevitably.

@Seraphim73 said in Punishments in MU*:

@Auspice I could see some people claiming that they're being punished in Chargen by not being allowed that 8th dot of the Awesome skill, when they see that some other characters have it. On a well-run game, those other characters will have more experience/training/etc, and that will have been made clear to the complaining player (along with suggestions on how to explain how the character got their skill that high), but we all know that that won't stop some players from feeling like they're being punished anyhow.

My problem here is that since games have different people doing apps and often don't have a general, well-stated consensus of what makes a good app ont hat game, you end up with one app staffer who approves someone whose concept they like with whatever stats they think are fine while another app staffer doesn't really care about some rando's concept and buckles down on 'you can't have that stat that high'.

That's not even getting into some people getting approved because staff is their friend and "they can be trusted with this".

@L-B-Heuschkel said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

@Coin Agreed. I'll play any codebase if the story grabs me. And none if it doesn't. I prefer codebases that emphasise roleplaying and writing over experience grinding and gold chasing, but I think I lost the right to complain about non-roleplay-oriented systems about at the time I did a five year stint as a guild leader on a WoW roleplay server.

I mean, sometimes a system will kill your interest in even the most interesting story and sometimes the most interesting story will override your dislike of a system, but in the end, it's the story.

If what you're looking for in your RP can only be represented by system or code and cannot, by the power of imagination and cooperation simply be accepted as existing and being important within the narrative, then you are playing an OOC game.

Man, I gotta say, I side with @Herja here, pretty hard.

Nothing matters if the players don't care about it. Mechanics, system, all that is there to facilitate or guide the narrative. Some people may only want to play a certain narrative because it uses a certain system or code or whatever, but that doesn't mean that the real value isn't on the narrative. If people don't care about the story, they aren't going to play it, no matter how cool the system is.

@L-B-Heuschkel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

I found out later that the same player went on to have a relationship IC with another player and when that ended, shamed him as a pedophile. Then again, she also claimed to be terminally ill and that her boyfriend in real life broke into hospital to beat her up twice, and that she regularly missed school because of near-death experiences. There's a certain breed of teenager on the internet you just need to stay the hell away from.

Have had encounters of this kind, will attest it is the worst. Not so much the "damn, you're HOW old?" but yes the hilariously obvious (in hindsight and with years and years of experience that I did not have at the time) lying and woe is me, etc., etc.

@Auspice said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

@Ganymede said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

I mean, my version of Magma on ESH was a hard deviation

To be fair, also: Marvel characters outside the big core 'X-Men' group are easier to 'Year Zero' and just make up your own shit altogether.

In the X-Men: Evolution cartoon, they gender-bent Magma by making her Lance and plunking her in the Brotherhood. Similar character, slightly different powerset, but arguably (IMO I guess) that's exactly where he came from. The 'We need a buddy comedy situ for Pyro....... earth powers would work.... heeeeeeeeeeeey'

Avalanche (and his companionship with Blob and Pyro) is an actual character from the comics, not some replacement for Magma. In fact, in the comics, Pyro and Avalanche are a trio with the Blob, they were in Freedom Force together.

Like, sorry to get all comic book fact-nerdy on you, but uh.

@DareDaemon None of that makes it any less fucking creepy, man. Like I said, I can accept some sort of uninformed consent, but if you're willing to spy, your explicit word, on people, at least inform them of the very real possibility so they can decide whether they want to play there. Don't take it as a granted just because you can do something it's implicitly obvious you will when most people's general expectations differ.

It's super creepy, man.

@Ganymede said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

@Coin said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

We play in a hobby where people routinely choose not to read news files and, for example, things like Gray Harbor's 'don't you dare spoil Game of Thrones' had to be put in bright red in the connect screen.

So, like, neon colors, please.

It is never advisable to set policy based on the lowest denominator.

Anecdotally, I am fairly sure that most people expect privacy unless under suspicion. To think otherwise is a combination of naivete and willful ignorance.

Man, I wish those people were the lowest denominator.

@Tinuviel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

@Coin There's a big difference between being upfront and painting it in neon colours on the door, though.

We play in a hobby where people routinely choose not to read news files and, for example, things like Gray Harbor's 'don't you dare spoil Game of Thrones' had to be put in bright red in the connect screen.

So, like, neon colors, please.

Like I willa ccept some sort of plausible uninformed consent if it's in the news files and just not prominently displayed and people chose not to read--but being up front, IMO, requires you make sure the person is listening, not just muttering it and hoping they chose to listen to those words specifically.

It's the difference, IMO, between "honest" and "up front".

I'm not arguing whether there is a right or even an expectation. I'm saying that spying on other people's RP (where spying is watching them without their knowledge) is creepy as fuck behavior and if you, for any reason, including valid suspicions of cheating are willing and able to do so, you should to be up front about it.

That's all.