Posts made by Darinelle

@auspice said in RL things I love:

@darinelle said in RL things I love:

Homemade honey sriracha wings? YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

gib.

<shares>

Homemade honey sriracha wings? YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

I once ran a DND campaign using LOL characters. That might be a fun MU... >.>

@arkandel @Ganymede

It's a weird situation because they also have two new foster girls. And I suspect that with 2 girls, plus the pig - this one cat is just at her limit.

I don't know how it's going to work at my house because my idiot Australian Shepherds herd the cats into the cat room, and get SUPER AGITATED when the cats are not in Acceptable Cat Areas, those areas being A) The cat room, or B) the cat tree/my desk.

So we're getting a fourth cat, and a spray bottle to try to startle the damn dogs into leaving the cats alone, and another litter box so it stays cleaner, and another cat warming pad so there's enough room for everyone. And we are going to hope this works, because if not then I'm going to have to find a home for a cat who really really likes me. (I'm one of the -two- people she actively looks for when my friend has visitors)

Kinda.

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

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

I don't even like cats, y'all. I don't dislike them, but I don't actively like them.

My dad disliked cats until our first family cat showed up and adopted us. MAYBE YOU WILL FALL IN LOVE!

I have 3 already. I also have 2 Australian Shepherds who have my cats herded into what we politely call "The Cat Room" where two of our cats literally never leave unless the dogs are gone for some reason. I can't get them to stop trying to herd and chase the cats. They don't live in harmony. I don't need a 4th cat, for any reason. The cats we had now are like... 18, 5, and 5 - the idea was that we would stop having cats after these were gone. And here I am, getting a 4th cat of indeterminate age who will be around forever. S I G H.

So Wednesday I'm getting a fourth cat. Because one of my dear friends got a pig, and the pig has upset this one cat's reality to the point that it is shitting everywhere and miserable. And none of their friends would take the cat, and they were going to take her to the ASPCA and it's a really nice tuxedo cat and black cats don't do terribly well at the SPCA anyway and it's fucking freezing so she will die if she has to be an outside cat too.

I don't even like cats, y'all. I don't dislike them, but I don't actively like them.

@thenomain said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@darinelle said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@deadculture I mean I always /try/ to help. Sometimes it's just not possible.

Knowing that limit is one of the few true talents of making this hobby work. Congratulations on somehow being both understanding and reasonable. If you can teach this skill to those willing to learn, you'd probably do quite a bit of good.

I mean, I always /try/ to help. Sometimes it's just not possible. (LOL. I struggle with it too - but I'm getting better at it with age.)

@deadculture I mean I always /try/ to help. Sometimes it's just not possible.

@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@darinelle This.

This is absolutely a thing that happens, and it is maddening.

"That is clearly not the author's intent!!!"

"I am the author. You're wrong."

"I'm not wrong!" <continues making the same argument, usually with 'you're just changing it then because... ' accusation, the low-hanging fruit of this logic>

This is the reason I buy vodka, in a nutshell.

That I have never broken down and just trolled anyone pulling the 'not the author's intent' card when I am the author with, "What do you think the intent was?" "Really? Interesting!" and instead go with, "How can I make this more clear so this misunderstanding does not recur? Is there something you think would help clarify here?" is one of the hardest tidbits of integrity to hang on to, some days.

Sometimes I just let them misunderstand, because they're not going to hear me and any attempts I've made require more access to information they don't have. From a GM perspective, they can be wrong and misunderstand ICly and that's ok, and OOCly they're not hearing me so... they're just ICly wrong and maybe one day they'll realize it and maybe one day they won't but the setting is the setting is the setting, regardless.

@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

There really is never a shortage of people more than happy to scream wrong wrong wrong!!! in the face of anyone -- staffer, GM, fellow player, headstaff, creator, etc.

Whether that person actually is wrong or not isn't even relevant.

This is so true. I had someone recently argue lore interpretation with me in the middle of a scene using lore I HAD WRITTEN that this person misunderstood as their basis for argument.

There's no telling some people, and often they don't want to be correct nearly as much as they want to be RIGHT.

@thenomain said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@darinelle

Something that just came to mind: I've never played a game with an IC war that didn't suffer emotional exhaustion on the part of the players, often killing or starting to kill a game. Firan may be the exception, but given enough time I may be able to pull enough evidence to show that it's the exception that proves the rule.

If the players don't want to play out a civil war, I wouldn't discount that they are wise beyond their apparent years.

There's truth here too.

I'm not opposed to a civil war. Depending on who's doing the uprising I might cheer them on! But there are a ton of other stories to tell as well. I'm not sure Firan's uprising didn't kill the game in the end, or at least turn it into something that was a paler, lesser version of itself. I didn't play before, but there was a certain "golden era" remarked upon fondly by many players that seemed to be before that time. So... <shrug>

@bored said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

Now you're claiming (or at least implying) Arx is an exception and the setup is fine and the players are a problem. From as much as I know, I'm dubious of that, since the game ticks most of the boxes of extremely tiered feudalism, the top tier folks being richer, having better stuff, disproportionate PC population, and just a giant weight of theme behind them. If you feel like you've balanced things perfectly and are baffled people fail to pull the trigger, maybe you should look at how you set and communicate expectations.

No. What I am claiming is - sometimes it is staff fault. Sometimes it is player fault. It is rarely any one thing, but it's a combination of things. To say "staff is lazy and disinclined to let people affect setting" is provably laughable when it comes to Arx specifically, but I also wouldn't say "things are perfectly balanced." We're imperfect people and we're trying, but we're also not straight-up opposed to civil war.

Sometimes players decide that the external threats are more important, which is in this case probably smart of them, but if they choose to have a civil war and then aren't equipped to handle what else is coming, we're also not opposed to a total system reboot or Arx: HellWorld either.

@deadculture said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@darinelle The family in question is the Firgaliks? Will take to PMs, actually, to not derail.

I just think that sort of piling on because so-and-so is a cripple or whatever is kind of fucking lame.

So this is a really great example, right?

They were sheeted to hate her. All of them except Jalil. It was thematic to hate cripples, because people weren't sure if that meant you had a partial soul or not. She could have been soulless and evil. She was a trumped up commoner because her father was a famous commoner who became High General and eventually won a marriage prize and then - well. There were lots of reasons, and theme, that said the Firgaliks should hate Portia.

I knew that going in.

What I didn't realize was that she not only didn't have any friends, that the only RP I would have with anyone on my actual sheet would be horrible, for months. That gradually changed over time, but there was a lot of bullshit that happened between point A and point B.

It can be thematic, and still be fucking wretched to deal with. Consider the player.

@deadculture said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@darinelle And Portia was a fucking sweetheart, that's just wrong.

Well, now you know why Portia was so friendly with the Ticanee. Because they didn't treat her like shit when she didn't know anyone and didn't have any friends and randomly got locked out of her house and sent to an inn to live. On the no money she had because they also wouldn't give her any access to family funds.

Things changed, but it took a long time and I had a lot of really, really unfun scenes.

@deadculture said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@darinelle What's the point of demanding a scene with someone to give them shit, though? What does that accomplish?

Kind of my point.

Do you have any idea how many people do this? Or single out the one character they hate in a crowded room, to hate on them publicly and somehow embarrass them? Just leave them alone. Work against them, talk about them, be hateful about them. But public scorn and ridicule, particularly when it becomes dogpiling, is MISERABLE to work through.

I damn near quit Portia back in the day because almost every single scene I had for the first month I played her was "we hate you and you don't deserve anything nice or to have any friends and you don't know anyone and you'll be forever alone and you might as well just Dove yourself now before we get around to it you stupid bitch."

And some of this from players who liked me fine oocly. It was exhausting. It was not fun. I ended up having to RP with people WAY outside where she normally would have RP'd just to have a single fucking scene that wasn't "you're a failure and a cripple and we hate you." That was a tough damn month oocly, because this is a pretendy funtime game and I wanted to just have some fucking fun, but no. No, other people were having too much fun shitting on mine, and mine had no way to counter it. EVEN THOUGH THESE WERE ALL IC REASONS, it was oocly fucking miserable.

People lack basic consideration for other players' fun sometimes, and if too many people do it to the same character all at once, it's a miserable goddamn experience.

@deadculture said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@darinelle I don't think giving people OOC grief is fun or fair in any way; naturally, people will talk about someone else behind their backs and there's nothing that can be done about it, but people should have the sense to at the very least not freak out at the PC two months after the fact unless they were directly affected and aren't given a chance to.

Grumble, talk into your drink, look away when she enters the room, sure, but you don't need to walk up and give her shit over a difficult decision after what's an eternity in MUSH terms.

But yeah, there's a point where 'Oh it's just my character giving hers shit' stops being that and starts being undeserved and unfair.

It's not just OOC.

There can be a multitude of valid IC reasons to dislike a character. That doesn't mean you have to demand to have a scene with them to just give them hate. Just - hate them. My character hates lots of people. LOTS OF PEOPLE. I am cold to them in group scenes or ignore them. And... I have yet to message any of them saying "hey, let's talk" and then turned that into "I hate you and here are all my valid reasons why."

That's what I mean when I say "have some consideration for the player, even if my character hates theirs for valid reasons."

@deadculture said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@darinelle To what extent do you consider character vs character interactions to be that? As in -- is actively subverting someone but never actually attacking them physically or socially to be considered CvC? And CvE - where do you draw the line, there? Say, someone wants to declare war on NPC enemy faction Z; this can be a lot of fun, OOCly, and ICly it might be catastrophic for the Allied Forces of Whateveria.

But your character, who is currently invested in rebuilding after a very recent (internecine or not) war, decides to speak out against it and pulls out their troops from the alliance. Is this CvC? Is it CvE? Does this action of your character merit going through due to IC considerations or should it be discarded in favor of the more OOCly fun pursuit?

Also, yes, players are generally blamed for the failings of their characters, it's something we've all experienced to some extent, I think.

Goodness. So any of that can be fine. IC subverting is fine. We'll use Dawn as an example because she was in a leadership position and took a lot of shit but it's also stone age Arx so hopefully no one's still frothing at the mouth over it.

"The Leadership" make the decision to pay the Tiend (which involves human sacrifice, which also was voluntary, which also saved the world ). Dawn decides to go pay the Tiend with a bunch of NPCs. She intended to die herself there, but wasn't allowed to for IC reasons. Someone else went in her stead. So - the Tiend is paid, she comes back to Arx, and EVERYONE IS MAD.

Okay so here's where it gets iffy and where I think consideration for the other player comes into play:

How long should EVERYONE BE MAD AT DAWN?

How long is she going to have to join every single scene in public and get absolutely shit on because EVERYONE IS MAD AT DAWN?

How long is it going to be fun when it's literally one (or two) people against EVERYONE IN THE WORLD before they're going to quit the character?

How much fun is it if literally every scene you are in, someone wants to personally extract their pound of flesh?

That's more what @Kanye-Qwest and I are talking about here. Not that IC is free from repercussions. But that at a certain point as players it's important to step back and say "wow, giving this person shit is hella fun for me ICly, but what fun am I creating for them?" Like - if there's no way past it, and your relationship is never going to get better no matter what they do, maybe just handwave the scene and say "welp, I'm going to hate them forever and there's nothing they'll ever be able to do to make things better." It can still happen IC. You can still work against them. But maybe don't make them sit there and take your character yelling at them for an hour with no recourse or any way to make things better.

If you want a scene with someone, it doesn't have to be positive. It can be negative - but both players need to have some kind of agency and ability to make story, or you might as well agree oocly "hey, our characters now hate each other for these reasons that won't change." Then you can get your hate on in public group scenes (which is fun and hilarious for everyone) while both having some kind of character development and growth.

That's what I mean when I say "consider the player." Dawn went off grid not because she made some poor decisions (which also saved the world so good job dogpiling on the person who did the needful there guys. Hella standup) but because every time someone asked her for a scene it was to shit on her and call her a traitor and be hateful to her, and there's no actual fun that comes from constantly being berated IC with no development, shift, change, reason, or character growth.

@kanye-qwest said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@darinelle There's the mitigating factor of : players who take risks are usually punished ruthlessly by the playerbase if the outcome of those risks is not 100% positive...even though 100% positive outcomes don't offer nearly as much RP opportunity.

Like, take player A. They did something really (ok stupidly) recklessly, but it was BIG, and more it was something the entire setting was pressuring that faction to do, forever...and the rest of the players want to oust them from everything for doing it in the wrong way.

Staff isn't to blame for this, it's a lack of consideration for people outside our groups of friends and friendly acquaintances.

That's also another thing - and which ties us back neatly to being considerate of each other, and remembering that consequences make great story but "endless negative consequences from all sides" can be exhausting so maybe sometimes be the ray of light at the end of the tunnel if you can.

There's no one right answer, I think.

@bored said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

High tier nobles absolutely make the low tier nobles pointless. Staff will always claim that they're not, that they can agitate or band together and cause problems, but I've seen that happen organically precisely zero times ever.

Blame lazy staff, the ever present corrupt/just stupid need to give people feature characters, etc.

Why don't you blame players afraid to take risks? We've come close to civil war several times now, and each time so far as staff we've been like - "ooooooh, we might get to run a civil war this could be fun" and players go "yeahhhhhhh, I might lose a civil war so uh...... let's find a different way."

Which is fine, but it ain't staff that's the "problem" there. And when staff has talked to parties on all sides and says things like "we are willing to GM a civil war if that's where you want to go with this" then again - staff ain't the problem with that.

What I do see, over and over again, is a player mindset of "I have to ask <this person in charge> if it's okay to <do this thing> and if they say no then <it means I can never, ever do this thing.>" That's again - not a staff problem, especially when I feel like we've made it really super clear and obvious that it's okay to have agency, we're not interested in one person EVER being the gatekeeper for actions, taking independent actions is fine with us, and it's always easier to ask for forgiveness than to beg permission.

The most successful people, at least in Arx, are the ones who find a storyline they want to pursue and then pursue it, finding people they want to RP with and ways to accomplish things even if it's not "I asked my High Lord and they said it was ok to do." Finding unusual ways make for better stories anyway.

Of course, I'm also going to suggest that a lot of L&L players played that one game, where if you submitted a dumb action that was vaguely unthematic or hinted of fun at all, you generally got some humiliating emit to make you feel stupid and/or your character died in a terrible way. So there's a fair bit of brainwashing too in many cases, where distrust of GMs (and leadership characters, because most of those leaders - even the good ones - were played by staff) is ingrained and needs to be worked around, and any hint of fun personal story that might also be interesting and connected to the metaplot is to be avoided at all costs.

But I don't blame OUR staff for that either.