Best posts made by Derp

I've personally found that @Faraday is extremely patient and respectful when approached respectfully. She's been pretty great. She does have some vision things that she wants out of it, and so I've asked for things and been told 'no' before, but it was pretty chill, all in all. She even engaged in some discussion about it when I asked (politely, mind you) why she chose to do things a certain way.

If approached like a reasonable human being, I've seen her treat people like reasonable human beings, so I'm not sure that a warning is entirely justified.

As much as I would want to play this... I wouldn't. I would find my eye twitching at every third pose and going on 'oh my god that is not how that works' monologues, probably much to the annoyance of other players.

So while I encourage this, I'm also big enough to realize I'd be one of Those Players, and leave the rest of you to have your funtimes in peace.

Putting in for a much better job in your current workplace that pays better and has way better benefits, and having lovely interviews with people you already work with, and everything seems to be going well...

Only to then be told that you are universally disqualified from taking that position because the job you work currently may create an ethical conflict at some point in the future which would make someone else work a tiny bit harder for a finite period of time.

So are you seriously telling me that I literally cannot move into a job that you're now going to hire someone off the street for because I already work here, when overall policy is to promote from within and reward those that already work here? And I am the only person in this entire place that this applies to?

@Thenomain

I get routinely serial downvoted. It's a pattern. I don't sweat it anymore.

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

@WildBaboons Ha! I just watched Cabin in the Woods last night! I love that movie.

That movie is absolutely glorious, and it's a crime that it doesn't get more love.

One side effect of house rules, in my opinion, is that they both tend to create unreasonable expectations across cultures, as mentioned above. But they also have two other side effects.

1. They tend to become somewhat enshrined, even moreso than the RAW. Someone once upon a time created a house rule to deal with an issue. Nobody remembers what the issue was, half the time. The reasoning for the rule is rarely clearly explained. How it fixes a problem is left to vague interpretations. But nobody wants to remove it, even when it seems senselessly restrictive, because nobody wants to risk pulling the band-aid off of whatever bullet wound is covering it.

House Rules need to be written, IMO, like court opinions. You need to both announce the change to the rules, and explain the reasoning for it (which is an excellent use for MU Talk Pages). You need to offer some background to explain why this fixes a problem, so that (in the event someone has an idea that actually does it better) you can scrap the thing. Or, if it turns out you were just being needlessly reactionary after people review it, you can remove it and go back to basics.

2. They tend to create serious confusion for Storytellers, which leads to less people telling stories. People don't like dealing with rules above and beyond the rules they're already learning for the game system. In games where you have multiple spheres, like WoD, this becomes rather quickly apparent as you have to memorize sometimes a whole supplement's worth of base rules to incorporate one character AND THEN go through and learn all the house rules for it.

It seriously restricts storyteller freedom, and staff will often go back through and review things, tap people on the shoulder, tell them why this story that two people ran essentially for their own fun doesn't work, etc, because once upon a time some staff member made a ruling (recorded or not) on some mechanic and now it's that way FOREVER. In some cases, it's justified, but in others, it makes the person who was trying to create plot even more gunshy. So you end up with no storytellers, because fuck that noise.

So house rules need to be implemented sparingly, if at all (I still feel that the best way to resolve these things is that the storyteller at the time makes a call on it -- subject to appeal to higher powers if it's just way too whacky -- and that's the way it goes). Things don't always work the exact same way, the exact same time, especially when you get into areas like magic. Wind blows a bullet off course by a fraction of an inch, the processor in a computer gets a sudden unexpected load, and the confluence of certain magical energies causes unique, interesting, and unpredictable effects. Storyteller fiat should overrule house rules, and even RAW when called for, but those things should not necessarily be enshrined in formal legalese within the game.

If you DO enshrine them into formal legalese, then please, offer some elucidation on why you think this is so important it has to apply to all people forever.

@HelloProject said in RL things I love:

My friend took a drunk selfie of me that I only recently learned exists.

During my mutton chop phase where I couldn't accept that my sideburns simply don't grow.

I would like to take a moment to applaud you on the level of patience you have for your hair. I decided long ago that anything longer than a sixteenth of an inch was too damn much work.

@Surreality - I would mostly agree that some of the more roundabout systems are okay. But even those social combat systems should be taken into account.

For instance, the Status merit. All it does, mechanically, is give you bonus social dice with the group you have status in. Thematically, they're seen as powerful, perhaps more worthy of respect/admiration/fear, whatever. Different statuses denote different thematic things. But the point is, it should mean something other than a fancy title, and if the only people in the group you have Status in are PCs, then social combat is pretty much the only time it's going to come up mechanically.

And I think that this is important to note, because if you are a newly turned neonate facing down a thousand-year-old elder, short of being batshit crazy with no self-preservation instinct, you're not just going to roll your eyes and think 'Jesus, this guy again'. He could realistically tear you limb from limb. People don't just walk up to lions and be like 'whatever, lion, I ain't skeered of you'. Or to the leader of an army, or whatever. They can make your life hell in a great many ways, and you should have some real concern there.

Social combat reflects a system that at least tries to mirror most-probable social scenarios. You might get some bonus dice or negative modifiers if you're an especially cheeky whatever-you-are, but those social combat system should still be respected, within reason. You're not going to Persuasion someone into suicide unless you've got some really serious leverage (pull the trigger or I rip the head off of this person you care about more than yourself), but for your standard social interactions, they should still mean something.

The fact that they -don't- mean much of anything on most games is a big reason why I think antagonism goes off the rails. There's no meaningful -mechanical- threat you can make to try and influence behavior without pulling out the nuclear options, most of the time. Physical rolls become the King of Things. And physical antagonism just turns into the Murderboating White Knightism we've been talking about the whole time here.

So sorry for making that such a roundabout point, but that's part of what I think we should be looking at. There should be meaningful mechanical interactions available for people who don't want to throw down and brute force their way through things most of the time. It would take some of the shiny off of the Brute Force options.

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

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

illegal immigrants

Refugees are legal, by whatever means they arrive. A peeve of mine. I don't accept that premise of the argument made by the idiots now sitting in old bunkers on the coast of England. Refugees have a right to come to us. They are different to illegal immigrants.

I've been making the same argument over here, reminding folks that as a matter of international law they are different. Seems nobody cares. It's convenient for their narrative.

@Ghost said in MSB: The meta-discussion:

@Thenomain NO, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR +1.

As far as that other thread goes, I don't have an actual complaint per se, but was more tying in that experience into the greater topic at hand. I read back through it a few days ago because someone +1'd a post of mine after 5+ months, and at some point every now and then someone posts something like: Well, I'm not going to post an apology for something NOW, seeing how people are dogpiling on people trying to follow the spirit of the thread"

I think some of the more constructive threads follow this format:

• Constructive topic! Let's be constructive.
• Someone posts in spirit of topic
• Someone corrects poster
• Poster retorts
• Dogpile begins
• Ten posts arguing semantics
• People shy away from posting about constructive topic
• Personal attacks
• What were we talking about again?
• Attempt to re-rail topic happens
• Someone corrects poster
• Poster retorts
• Dogpile begins
• Ten posts arguing semantics
• People shy away from posting about constructive topic
• Personal attacks
• What were we talking about again?
• Attempt to re-rail topic happens
• Repeat...

Weird. It's almost as if a group of humans with differing opinions are trying to find a happy median on a topic they are passionate about.

No, really. This is pretty much any sort of basic group behavior when there are ideological factions in competition. Some pretty good chunks of psychology, sociology, and political science are devoted to studying this.

This is not an error; this is how our neurological coding works. You see it in literally every heterogenous group.

@Auspice said in Covid-19 Gallows Humor:

'Where's the 5G theory?'

You ever really want to blow their minds, show them this:

Well for me, I know that I enjoy it when advancement (in skills, or stats, or positions, or whatever) have to be worked for. I enjoy starting off low and working my way up. I enjoy things like having to provide justifications for xp spends, etc. It makes me feel that my character has grown, and that I have truly accomplished something.

Many games now seem to give you fast xp for basically nothing and allow you to spend it on whatever, which certainly has a place for certain things. But it kind of bugs me that people end up at Supreme Power Levels because they sat around absorbing the power of the universe through starbucks wifi.

Especially on WoD, there are plenty of games that do fast and easy xp. It'd be nice to have a few games where you still have to work for it at least a little, like HM. The Long Game stuff can be really fun for some of us.

@Kestrel said in Covid-19 Gallows Humor:

genius

very stable genius.

@Lotherio said in What does advancement in a MU* mean to you?:

nversely longevity again ... After a year or two of dinosaur bloat, new players don't want to join. Or join then complain because it's the same dinos with all the power that affect the game.

See, I ... kind of don't think that this is necessarily a valid counterpoint.

Maybe John the New Guy, Perennial Loner can't do things around the oldbies.

But John the New Guy, Tina the Couple Monther, and their friends Tim, Jerry, and Fred could all get together and figure out a way to make changes to their environment by consolidating their specific stuff. A coalition of people can accomplish between them more than what any one oldbie can do. And if they have such a problem with the Way Things Are that they think it needs to change, then they can surely find Like-Minded Folk out there to help them achieve it. (Or if they can't, it might be best that they aren't able to enforce their specific vision of changes).

Gee. What a shame that would be. Players having to work together to get stuff done, instead of Going it Alone Forever. Those dinobots are a problem, man.

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

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

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

I found out today while doing some cleaning of my place that I own 27 pairs of shoes. I hadn't exactly been keeping count.

That's officially past my previous record that I had when I was in my early 20s and gave away my old collection. I swore I wouldn't get back into this.

The fuck is wrong with me.

Properly accessorizing is one of the key things that you have to take seriously upon becoming an adult.

Or something.

I dunno man just go with it.

Like, go on Etsy and buy different face masks so they match your outfit.

I admittedly bought the Spaceballs the Face Mask face mask.

@Rook said in Identifying Major Issues:

I want to say here that I think that a lot of games are friend-boxes, not run like a business like many of the playerbase would prefer.

Here is where I have to disagree with you. As a current staffer on two moderate-sized games, I've seen players that I would have considered problems before, but the problem comes in two parts:

Part one, Section A -- The people who end up complaining about these people are in and of themselves guilty of some major crap. Take for example our legendary 'Creeper Player'. In many of these that I have investigated, the person doing the complaining to staff has been going along with what our supposed creeper is throwing out there, laughing and making the doe-eyes and egging it on themselves. I will not punish a player for taking actions that he thought were acceptable by another player, period. If he has no reason to believe that his actions are unwelcome, and he's taking his cues from another person/people (often people, plural), and nobody has given him the slightest indication that this is unwelcome? I'm not your momma. Talk to the guy. Let them know that you aren't comfortable with it. Don't lead them on further. But I absolutely will not punish someone for doing something that they had no indication was out of bounds.

Part one, Section B -- If there are other players out there having a problem they're largely unwilling to speak up. Unwilling to file complaints, unwilling to submit logs, etc. And I'm not going to punish a player based on a rumor mill and hearsay, either. I don't care what you claim he did, show me what he did. Your story is only one side of it, and there are other ways that it can be interpreted. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable that staff won't take actions unless we have something logged, or similar, that we can use to say 'this right here is a definite violation of the rules', but someone 'making you feel weird' can either be a creeper player or you having a bad day and misreading something. I've seen it before. I won't be a part of crucifying a potentially innocent player because someone's gang of folks says they're a creeper, but won't show me any logs or anything for it.

TL;DR -- It goes both ways. If you want staff to do shit, then be willing to give staff what they need to do it. We don't operate on hearsay and rumors. If we did, then it sure would be a friendbox. MU's are run more professionally than you might think, and often, the distinction between 'mild' and 'extreme' isn't as brightline as you'd like to think. One person's 'extreme' is another person's 'relatively innocuous', as MSB has shown us countless times. Which brings me to:

Part 2 -- One person's 'serious problem' is another person's 'not even remotely a problem'. That's just the reality of the situation. There are some games with cultures, etc, that just aren't suited for everyone. I think that most games fall under this category. If I'm running a game? It's going to be gritty and dark and not at all rainbows and sunshine, and will deal with mature/adult themes and scenarios that other people here have been very vocal about not wanting to deal with. And that's fine. As someone up above said, games are intended for a target audience. If you're having serious issues with a game? Perhaps you are not a part of their target audience. Wherein lies the problem? You or the game?

These things just aren't as simple, and don't fall as neatly into the little boxes, as we'd like to believe on places like MSB. And games will almost always have players. Maybe not a three-page-long WHO screen, but seriously, who actually wants that? That takes significant overhead and work that most of us don't have time for. There is nothing wrong with a smaller game set for a specific target audience, but for all we come on here and talk about how that's a good thing, ,we sure do like to come up with the most cookie cutter ideas of what 'problematic stuff' is. It's counterproductive. There will always be divisions within the hobby. All we can do, realistically, is find out what works for the game we want to run, and run it that way.

@RightMeow said in RL things I love:

You know what I really want, I mean like what I really really want

Zizazig ah?

@faraday said in Identifying Major Issues:

Look at how freely people share things related to their real identity in the most silly and trivial of ways.

Click here to login with Facebook.

@Chet

@kalakh

The reason for the change wasn't that people were too mean. The reason for the change was that it usually devolved into just browbeating and name calling and shouting people down via sheer pressure of numbers.

Your standard dogpiling, bullying scenario.

To steal a quote from someone else: "MSB follows WORA's spirit still. It is a safe place where MUSHers can post criticism of games without fear of reprisal from the game owners. It was a place to call out the bullshit of games and players under the anonymity of another identity."

But the hands-off approach to moderation eventually just turned into a few very vocal minorities shouting down every user that disagreed with them in some pretty dramatically shitty ways.

And that's what the new Code is meant to curtail. You can argue. You can disagree. It can get heated. But it's not going to just devolve into a series of dogpiling personal attacks anymore because people think it's a no-holds-barred section where anything goes.

In short: we don't expect everyone to get along all the time. But we're enforcing a bare minimum of civility and boundaries for those kinds of debates.