@Coin said:
I think people should be able to fail a roll entirely, too, without even rolling, once per scene.
I let people fail anything but things where failure actually matters for the long term. No auto-failing Harmony rolls or stuff like that, but if you wanna fail an action without rolling for it, I'm game. I do this with Nick all the time. It makes for hilarity.
Nope! That's perfect, and now I see what you mean, which is wholly reasonable.
@ThatOneDude said:
How you doing supporting that demon sphere?
Hey, if it were up to me, I would remove Demon entirely. It's a complete pain in the ass, and doesn't play nicely with others. Certain players make me want to send teams of hunter angels to drag them out of whatever hole they're in and use them as an example of why not to be stupid. But as an example of exactly what I'm talking about, @Coin has a vision for the game, and no matter what my personal beliefs on the matter are, I ultimately support what he wants to do with it. Because that's how this system works. So as much as you'd like to snark at me and continue to be petty and juvenile, the fact that you're still there is just testament to why having everything under one guiding vision is a good idea.
Well, paradox is based out of Stockholm, so the Swedish accent on the voice actors is understandable. Beyond that, though, I thought the commercial thing was pretty cool.
@Ganymede said:
In short: I'm pretty sure I'm a good team player. But I'm the team player that will stand firm on issues that relate to my players or that will lead, in my experience, to bad outcomes. When that happens, I have to ask if I want to continue to volunteer on the team, or move on so as to avoid a messy game divorce.
See, I'm kind of with @Thenomain on this one in that what you think you're saying isn't necessarily coming off how you think you're saying it. To me, this reads:
"You might have a vision of the game, but I have a vision of the sphere, and if what I want to do isn't something that you want to allow in your game, then I'm going to be standoffish and obstinate about it until you either concede or I rage quit, no matter your justification for it because my opinion is ultimately the most important one and to hell with you if you can't see my logic."
I've known you to be a fairly reasonable, logical person, but this seems somewhat more antagonistic than what I've seen out of you previously, and definitely isn't something that I would rate very highly in a staff member I was looking to higher to help me manage my vision of a particular game. Perhaps give an example of what you mean, here, so that it comes off a bit less 'fuck you' and we can see what you have in mind?
I've never been a huge fan of either game line, truth be told, but if I had to pick one over the other, I would probably go with the Hunter game just because everyone and their grandma seems to be taking a stab at vampire. It'd be something fresh.
@surreality said:
(I need to stop agreeing with you, @Derp, really this is getting weird!)
I know, right? Spooky.
@Alzie said:
WoD is unique in that it's the only game system where people actively attempt to separate out the different types of character templates.
When you look at Fading Suns, you don't say that Merchants, Priests, Nobles and Aliens are separate spheres. Nobody does that. They're just different things players can play. It's all one large game world.
When you look at shadowrun, you don't say that Deckers, Mages, Shamans, Riggers, Street Samurai and the numerous other professions are all separate spheres. No, you just say they're all different types of people you can play. It's still one large game world.
The same way with the world of darkness. Supernatural is just a type of thing you can play, but it doesn't mean werewolves are somehow part of some different game world than mages are. I think that's one of the biggest problems in sphere games like the reach. They segregate everyone based on splat and pretend we're all playing in a separate game, then act surprised when people get pissed off at any attempt to re-integrate other 'spheres' into their sphere.
But among those, WoD is the only one of those games wherein each of those has a specific focus point in that game world, which I brought up earlier, that doesn't often connect with others in the 'fundamental raison d'etre' sort of way that the focus provides for those other things. Vampires are creatures of social manipulation and scheming that can rage over centuries. Mages, likewise, can be social manipulators, but their stuff is much faster, and is not their primary focus -- solving certain Supernal Mysteries is. Werewolves are almost wholly focused on the balance of the Shadow, which others can interact with tangentially, but rarely have as much focus in. And while the God Machine has the capability to touch everything around it, few of those others are as informed about its nature as Demons are, who are the only ones actively rebelling against it, even if others occasionally muddle its plans.
So while you're right that they do interact occasionally, they're also prone to high levels of distrust, and often tend to keep to themselves, either because their foci do not cross or because they design it to be that way whenever possible. Just because they can interact now doesn't mean that it happens all the time. The games are still insular by nature. It's why there are separate game lines for them, each unified by the world they inhabit but otherwise completely different from each other.
So comparing them to the other games, wherein all of those things are all straight from the core and lumped together in one big category, is drawing a false comparison. One of these things is not like the other. Ergo, it's wholly reasonable that the insularity found in one is not a fluke, even if the others don't have it.
Thus why it's important to have people who are focused on those aspects of those game lines that help to define their reason for being, even if you don't organize it into sphere staff. The game itself will organize itself into spheres just because of the nature of the creatures that inhabit it and their individual missions. To pretend otherwise is to do a disservice to those game lines and the players who play within them. They expect to play something within that game line, which means that focus has to be respected, even if you don't have traditional sphere staff.
But the WoD is insular by default. That's the way it's designed. You have certain templates which behave under X system of rules, which run in groups exclusive (or almost entirely exclusive) to themselves, each with a different focus on a different aspect of the game world. Their paths cross by accident, most often, and far less by design. Having someone familiar with those over-arching rules sets and foci is really essential to making sure that everything goes down the way it's supposed to, and allows for easier coordination. While it's fun to be able to pick up any job and do it, even if you don't have rigidly defined sphere staff, you will end up with informal sphere staff simply because they know X system better than Y system and are more capable of making informed decisions on that, and others will defer to their expertise in that matter to make sure things flow smoothly.
You can't take insularity out of a game that is by its very nature and theme an insular endeavor. When you have to hide from the regular people and be trust-but-verify with other supernaturals, it's something of a given.
@Bobotron said:
They have plans for a netflix series apparently
Wasn't there already a Masquerade-related series at one point?
Doubleposting because the original idea should stand on its own, but there are things to reply to!
@ThatGuyThere said:
What I mean by authority in this instance if I was chosen to be a sphere wizard I would require the authority to decide who was in the sphere and freedom to run it how I saw fit.
And where does the gamerunner stand in this equation, precisely? That seems like an awful lot of creative control over a wide area of the game. If I created a game and hired someone to manage the sphere, I certainly wouldn't given them that sort of complete carte blanche control over it. It's still a game that's run under a certain vision, after all, and that means oversight. Anyone who thinks that they should have that much control would probably be better served, IMO, by creating a game of their own.
@Surreality makes a good point in that a lot of what we do requires a certain level of creativity when it comes to problem solving. Often, this is caused by restrictions that we have in place, either restrictions in behavior due to game rules or social norms or restrictions on our powers to act based on invested authority or lack of permissions, code-wise or other. In some instances, we have no access to tools that would make our lives easier but come with a certain amount of danger that gamerunners are not willing to risk in the hands of people who are, effectively, still subordinate to their vision of the game, or shouldn't have access to certain information that the top tiers have access to.
Learning to negotiate those sorts of situations requires equal parts diplomacy and cleverness. Simply having absolute power means largely nothing in the grand scheme of things. You can have wizard flags or access to God or whatever, but if you lack the insight to be able to navigate trickier waters in a relatively graceful manner, you're still going to be missing one of the key elements -- respect. And respect exists and flows at every level. We, as players, have to respect that there is a vision for the game that we don't have either the right or the authority to change on our own. Staffers have to respect that players have feelings, goals, interests, and those things should be taken into account. Staffers have to respect each other, acknowledging differing visions of the game and occasionally ceding to someone else's interpretation of things.
There are a lot of tricky bits to this hobby, especially when handed positions of authority. Unlike in the real world, where you have actual bosses and get actual money, this is done by volunteers and enthusiasts, many of whom have precisely no leverage on each other and are simply working for the satisfaction they get from helping to create something. So I think it's important to keep that in mind. Often, we sound like we're entitled to those things, but that's simply not the case, and it might be wise to keep that in mind if we want to continue the hobby in a healthy and responsible manner that actually generates fun.
@surreality said:
It's also worth noting -- this is just going back a bit in the conversation -- that autonomy is just one tool in the required toolbox.
There are others that, without them pre-existing, make a job impossible.
Sometimes, especially in this medium, part of the job is to create the tools to accomplish it well at the same time. It's something that, while we tend to grouse about it while we're doing it since it can be a real pain in the ass sometimes•, is a less visible process. (Basically, we're used to it.)
Problem-solving around missing tools is something we do a lot of, broadly speaking.
Autonomy is one of the ones that doesn't have a workaround like this, which is partly why it's essential to have clear boundaries and limits about it.
A lot of us like to take a no-nonsense, common sense approach in talks like this -- I mean I know I prefer it -- but a lot of us have different ideas about what, exactly, constitutes common sense on this front. It might be worth having a community discussion about what various people think this entails at some point, since I suspect it would be fairly illuminating. (Shouldn't happen in this thread, though a thread splinter off a thread splinter is amusing in principle.)
•It also can be awesome brainstorming sessions that are fun, but those are often more rare than the other end of the spectrum is, alas.
I think that @Surreality had a good point when they said that this would be a worthwhile discussion, but should be had in another thread, so I'm creating another thread for it.
Created a new thread per @surreality's suggestion, so going to reply to some of this over there.
@Misadventure said:
Authority + Resources + Responsibility = Results is a formula I was handed on what is necessary for effective leadership/ownership of a task.
Without Authority, you can't make it happen.
Without Resources, you have to means to act.
Without Responsibility, you have no accountability, and you will go off the tracks eventually, if not immediately.
This is not an absolute. There is a lot of gray area in between, both in the MU world and meatworld. There has been quite a lot of talk about noble ideals in this thread, but ultimately, they're still just ideals, and compromises have to be reached.
In my current position, I have quite a bit of autonomy, because I'm trusted to make calls, but I also know that it's someone else's vision and I'm eventually going to have to clear something with them even if just to keep them in the loop about what's going on, or be given feedback about what they would like to see. I have the authority to enact certain things, but not others, and even some things I do have the authority to act on I don't out of respect for the gamerunner. And while ideally there are infinite resources with which to work, there are certain things I would like to have that I don't have, mostly because those things represent logistic or security issues. Does it annoy me? Sure. Do I understand their position? Completely.
These things are only completely true for those at the top of the food chain. The lower down in the food chain you are, the less of these things you will have. Making it seem like that's problematic just smacks of entitlement and bullheadedness, neither of which are conducive to the health of the hobby. They are not absolutes, they are ideals. Compromises still have to be come to, just like in the real world.
That's one of the big draws for me, yeah. When I'm working on a job, I like to be able to take my time and answer things that come up along the way without having to worry about copypasta nightmares. But also like the general look of it. To me, it just has a smoother look than MushClient. When I open up MC now, it looks blocky and harsh.
@Apos said:
Don't you do in depth applications where you have people explicitly write why they'd want such a concept, what they'd do with it, what kind of roleplay they'd create, how it would improve the game, etc?
Sure, that's one way that you could do it, depending on what's being apped for. There are certainly some things that I would trust an application like that for. But for all things? Probably not. Even those applications are just a way of gaining familiarity, and for the things I think are really important I would probably still prefer to see how things play out over time with a specific person than trust a one-off application. It's relatively easy to tailor charming answers to questions that would impress someone in the moment, and then go right back and get your crazy on. But keeping up a consistent pattern of admirable behavior over time takes a lot more dedication which few people are willing to fake for relatively little payoff.
Every method has its advantages and its flaws. Some are better suited to certain circumstances and play styles than others. I'm not saying that my way is the end-all, be-all method by which everything should be done. I just think that it's silly that people get upset about a practice that's intended to make a game better by requiring those who wish to play important roles to prove to the decision-maker that they're capable of playing over an extended period in a way that conforms to the vision of the game.
Editing to Add: In case it's not clear, I am not currently engaged in anything like this. There are no concepts that I can approve that are restricted in any way. The only restricted things I deal with are plot/NPC concepts, which are much looser as they are short term and temporary. This is simply my hypothetical ideal. I mentioned that before, I think, but I think it got a bit lost somewhere, because people seem to think that this is what I'm actually doing.
@mietze said:
Yeah, I do think that a game staff that purposefully always will choose personal friends over new-to-them talent that meets the same qualifications for the position probably should be explicit about that.
But then we circle back around to "How do you know who meets the qualifications?" Through experience, of course. If it were as simple as ask-and-answer, then there would be no need to restrict the concepts in the first place. If you would trust anyone off the street to run them, they'd be open to everyone, which would negate needing qualifications in the first place.
And I, personally, would much rather prevent a problem from occurring in the first place than to have to go back and try to mitigate damage once it's already done. While being willing to crack down on violations of policy is certainly important, I would rather avoid situations where the policy is violated to begin with. No matter how much we'd all like to hit the rewind button and fix a thing that's gone off the rails, there is always some residual left over from that, even if it's just a negative experience for the players involved. Simply having a policy in place is not enough to circumvent that. The only cure is prevention, and the most effective way to prevent it is caution.
But I keep seeing a recurring theme here as well, which is this idea that somehow, allowing friends to do something over strangers to you is just the most bonkers idea ever, which I'm going to have to question the reasoning behind. Simply being familiar with someone doesn't automatically mean they're receiving some sort of unfair advantage. Whenever you talk about qualifications, you're talking about prior experience, and when discussing prior experience with any particular player it means that you're talking about familiarity. And familiarity comes the same way for everyone -- by sticking around, communicating, and showing people what you're made of. Nobody is prevented from reaching that, and everyone works toward it in the same way. So exactly how does trusting someone that you're familiar with over someone that you have absolutely no experience with whatsoever, and thus take on greater risk, mean that you're doing something unethical? If anything, you're trying to be at least responsible. Trusting strangers with the keys to your house? Not responsible. Trusting a stranger with your car? Also not responsible. And while you say that it's neither common sense nor good policy, I fail to see how being responsible is either of those things.
@mietze said:
If someone has no intentions of allowing a player new or unknown to them a chance at a major position, then probably that's something that they should also have the balls to say up front.
While I don't disagree that the policy should be pretty clear, it could fairly easily be argued that some of this is just common sense. As others have stated, no one should expect to be able to log into a game they've never played on, where they know no one, and expect to instantly be able to play the Prince, in much the same way that entry-level applicants generally know better than to apply for the position of CEO or Director of Marketing. Perhaps they would be the greatest candidates for that position in the whole entire universe based on their skills and competencies, but if nobody has ever seen them in action, it's a hell of a risk to take -- and one that not many people would be willing to take in the first place. Normally there is not a sign on the door that says 'experienced candidates for management positions only' -- most reasonable people kind of just know that's a thing, and that's how it's done. If someone had a meltdown over that being the case, do you think that a majority would consider that person reasonable or capable of handling the stresses that come with such a position?
@Alzie said:
@Derp said:
it's nearly impossible to get the full version anymore.
Welcome to the Internet, you must be new.
Hey, I'm not saying that I have any personal experience with SimpleMU. Again, it was before my time. I'm just citing others who've said that it's nearly impossible because of something something can't buy the activation code, or whatever. I'm sure there are ways around
that, depending on who you know, or whatnot, but just getting it without the benefit of someone pointing you toward whatever secret trove there is out there has been noted as being difficult.
I just use Potato. I used to use MUSHClient. SimpleMU was before my time. From my understanding, it's nearly impossible to get the full version anymore.
@bored said:
It's not agitation, its lack of equivocation
There's a lot of 'oh well good staffing can make anything work' in this thread, and on this forum in general, but I think that's BS. The sort of thing @Ganymede is suggesting is a) not actually different from how MU* have always worked and b) fundamentally terrible, as the history of this stuff tells us.
Its fine to make adjustments in game, as I hope I've clarified, but the 'casting' analogies are just kindly euphemisms for nepotism. If you don't promote equality at the fundamental first step, when people are joining your game, you set a precedent of favoritism and bullshit permanently.
You sound like exactly the kind of person those screening processes are designed to weed out, frankly. Everything is a personal attack, everyone is an unethical bastard, which makes me think that you've gone out for these things before, flaked the fuck out, and now you're just ranting about how unfair it is that nobody trusts the twitchy guy giving everyone dirty looks with the matches and gasoline. Discrimination! What sort of country do we live in if someone can't walk into someone else's fantasy world and expect to have all of their flaws ignored in order to be on the same level as everyone else!?!
MU's are not democratic organizations, in many cases. Therefore, you also have no right to expect to be treated the same as everyone else, or have access to what everyone else does regardless of reputation or personal history. If that's not a concept you can handle, then this hobby is not for you.