@thatguythere Well that all comes down to whether you have good moderators with the willingness to draw a line between: "I think that attitude is bad for MUSHing" (Complainer: "Wah wah they're so mean to me" Mod: "Yeah, no") and "You're a crap-flinging howler monkey."
Stupid enter key, ETA: We handle this just fine on our game public channels, for the most part. I don't doubt we could handle it here. People just don't want to.
@thatguythere said in Regarding administration on MSB:
To me I think it comes down to what you see the purpose of this board being. the purpose for me is a site associated with any one game that issues with games (both negative and positive) can be discussed without the powers that be on the games being able to shut down the topic.
And that's a valid purpose. But my view of the board is more in line with what @Arkandel said before - I see MSB as more of a community center for MUSHers to connect beyond the games they play on.
I think it provides value in bringing different perspectives from other "spheres" of MU* gaming together when we discuss aspects of MUSHing. For instance, some of the stuff talked about re: WOD games has been interesting to me, even if it's not very relevant to my games.
It lets people relate more as players, independent of their in-game personas. I'm not sure how many knitters are on BSGU for instance, but it's nice that knitters from all over MUSHland can connect here and chat about knitting. We've seen this have positive impacts when the community comes together to help each other - like the gofundme things that have happened now and again.
It lets us advertise our games - to recruit new players - and our projects - like the status updates on Evennia.
And yes, it lets us air our grievances in a forum that individual game owners cannot silence. This is an important thing, but it is not the only thing. I would argue it's not even the most important thing, though I understand others disagree on that point.
@thenomain said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
But being not even as accurate as a Netflix costume drama is why I always look at any period game with suspicion.
I think that touches on an interesting point though.
Very few would bat an eye at a Netflix period drama where <insert historically mistreated group here> was mistreated. But a lot would bat an eye at one where the protagonist was going around mistreating people, or spent the entire show being mistreated.
We generally want to see our protagonist battling evil, or overcoming their obstacles to succeed against the odds. That works just dandy in books, movies and TV shows.
The problem on a MUSH, IMHO, isn't the departure from historical norms in and of itself, it's the scale on which it's done. Instead of one protagonist being "the special one", you've now got a whole town full of them.
@packrat said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
Nobody is going to take that as the heartfelt view of a player leaking into the in character world. I hope.
I've seen it happen even in fictional worlds. Especially if the IC discrimination is just an allegory for RL discrimination fo some sort, which it often is. (ETA: I mean I've seen people take it that way.)
@peasoupling said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
One issue is the setting, and how much do you remove discrimination and awfulness from the setting at large. Do you allow women to openly serve in the local cavalry soldiers fort? Will a black character be elected sheriff without anyone batting an eye?
I think this is an important point. It's one thing to say "you can't play a flaming bigot". I'm not sure this is any different from limiting any other kind of disruptive character types, so I don't see the controversy there. I mean, you probably wouldn't want someone to play a serial killer on your game either right?
It's quite another to try to rewrite the setting to pretend that pervasive, systemic -ism doesn't exist and never existed. I mean, you can try, but unless it's Star Trek utopia it's going to be hard for people to wrap their heads around. I've seen numerous cases on BSG games where people just have a hard time accepting that "no, really, sexism and homophobia and racism just really aren't a thing here." It creeps into RP in subtle ways.
@peasoupling said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
These things aren't an on-off switch, people can be kinda racist, and kinda sexist, and kinda homophobic, etc. Most people are.
Yeah. And I think it's easy to deal with the extremes. Someone who's running around hurling slurs left and right for the fun of it is clearly a detriment to the game. Someone who's dealing with these themes in a respectful way can lead to rich stories, even if those stories are not everyone's cup of tea.
But looking only at extremes can blind us to the problematic middle ground, where IC discrimination may not be raging a-holes harassing people, but can still have harmful effects on other characters. For example: somebody refusing to hire a woman in a sexist society or reporting an interracial romance to the authorities in a historical setting where such things were illegal. Yes, it's thematic. Yes, real world ugliness creeps into our games in many forms (murder, genocide, assault). But do we really need/want to go there?
@rebekahse said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
I'm sure I've seen some variation on that notice in games before, so the answer is 'Yes' in some cases.
Sweetwater had that notice (in the wiki policy file on "Historical Accuracy" though not on the dang connect screen, which strikes me as ludicrous). BSGU warns generally of TV-MA level themes including "heavy themes including genocide, war and various other traumas" so I think that IC discrimination is pretty well covered. But apparently those warnings aren't good enough for some people.
And honestly, despite those warnings, they've been happy, cooperative games 99.9% of the time. I actually got 10x more complaints on Sweetwater about it not being realistic enough by having so many unconventional characters than I ever had problems with people harassing each other ICly. But yes, there was that one time where somebody forced an issue and it turned unpleasant.
I hate coded systems. (Ironic, yeah?) I much prefer just freeform storytelling.
The only time I code a system for my game is when it makes it easier to tell stories. The FS3 combat system enables you to RP out stories involving epic battles that would otherwise take for-freaking-ever to play out. Skills system allow players to easily resolve disputes without needing a judge, to keep things from devolving into cops and robbers "I got you!" "No you didn't!"
@arkandel said in How much Code is too much Code?:
- Allow for better record-keeping. ... 2) Expedite menial tasks.
Oh yeah, I should have clarified. My "I hate code" sentiment was in regards to code that butts up against actual RP. Starships, economy, crafting, etc. OOC tools to enhance the community or make it easier to facilitate getting people together? Go wild. But even then, always consider what problem is this solving and what problems is this creating.
@auspice said in Code systems that make it easier to get on with the business of roleplaying:
This is the thing that makes me sad. I'd love to see a good weather code someday, but I'm also aware what a bitch it is.
My old Penn codebase has weather. So does Ares. They're not as grand as Keran's system so I dunno if you'd consider them "good", but they should be reasonably easy to set up.
I'm personally proud of my scene system, which @Auspice already mentioned (thanks btw). To be fair with due credit that was inspired by stuff that @ixokai and @skew did with repose and scene capturing. I just improved on it. The quotecolor code was inspired by @Avarice.
The FS3 combat system enables storytelling in mass combats if that's your jam.
I know some people hate it, but I adore meetme code.
@thenomain said in How much Code is too much Code?:
I want to note how much I hate RP rooms with their generic names and hanging off the OOC nexus. Whatever I can do to get rid of them, I will try to do.
Copy my scene system, lol 
It makes RP rooms superfluous. The whole idea is to change the paradigm of how we view MU* RP by making it about "a scene" and not "a location". The location is secondary to a scene, and a scene may span multiple locations.
Probably veering too much off onto a tangent here but I couldn't resist.
@derp said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:
If someone joined a DnD game and didn't have at least a basic grasp of how it works, people would be pissed.
I don't play on WoD so I can't speak to that, but other systems? No, that has never been my experience, either in MUSH or in tabletop. People are generally happy to help/teach someone who doesn't know the system.
Certainly I don't expect anyone coming to one of my FS3 games to already know the system, any more than I expect them to know the theme/setting. The game files should teach them what they need to know to play the game.
Teaching them is, of course, an extra burden for any game based off a non-open-source RPG, since you can't reprint material or point to a free and public PDF. Doubly so for a complex system. But I have never seen a game where it's like "If you don't know the system already, go away."
@tat Yeah I agree. I've thought about trying to expand the Ares game directory to other game platforms too, but it's not as straightforward as I'd like for various reasons. And I need another project like I need a 2x4 to the head
@auspice said in Hobby-related Resolutions/Goals for the coming year... ?:
@insomnia said in Hobby-related Resolutions/Goals for the coming year... ?:
Humble Bundle has a Python Bundle
Aww, shit. The deal goes away right before I get paid again. Sonuva.
Those are not "Python for beginners" books. I'd give it a hard pass if your goal is to learn Python for Evennia or the like.
Codeschool has a level 1 course for free, and you can probably get through the other levels in one month ($30). I've done a number of their courses and they're awesome. They also have Ruby for folks wanting to learn that for Ares.
There's also the free official tutorial. No bells and whistles but it'll get you what you need.
CodeAcademy is also free. Haven't used it.
Udemy is having a crazy New Year's sale ($10 for 100 lectures and lots of video) but I can't vouch for the quality.
I'm sure there are others.
@apos said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:
I think emphasizes a strict pose order since the consequences of someone being skipped or passed over is much higher.
I've never played on WoD but I can agree with this sentiment in general. Even fully-coded FS3 combats take forever when people insist on following a pose order. Having automatic resolutions helps, of course, but the biggest bang for the buck comes from the fact that everyone is reacting to the same code results. Pose order doesn't really matter, and that means you can get through a 12-person combat round in about 15 minutes.
ETA: Even without code, I think you can get a lot of the same benefits if the system were simpler and all the players knew what to roll ahead of time.
@bobotron said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:
However, doing something like this also requires something that most WoD games don't want to do: FUCKING FOCUS.
I agree with everything you said, but this right here is a self-inflicted problem. I mean, yeah, if you're going to let player concepts sprawl all over then it's going to be tough to get them together for anything short of "ZOMG Earthquake!" type epic plots.
@bobotron said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:
Personally, I don't think pose order is the problem (sorry, but pose order is just another word for initiative order). Lack of care for the time put in is the problem.
Lack of care is certainly a problem, no question. I get around that in my FS3 combat games by just flat-out skipping people if they don't pose by the 15-minute turn limit. They can catch-up pose next turn if they like, or just be moving positions/aiming/frozen/whatever for a turn.
But I have to disagree about pose order being a problem. I mean, it's simple math. Let's say you have 10 super-attentive people all taking 5 minutes to pose. That's an hour-long turn right there!!!! Even at 3-per pose rules it's like... probably a good half-hour. But you put those same 10 people into a FS3 combat round where the results are known in advance and everyone's just posing their hero moments, and now your turn takes 10 minutes. (ETA: It's not unique to FS3; just using that as an example.)
@surreality said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:
Writing the mechanics of a published, for profit RPG system into code that can fire and forget gets into very iffy territory, depending on the game company.
Yeah, frankly that's a big reason that led to the development of FS3. It's not that I couldn't have coded the combat mechanics of my favorite RPG system. I just didn't want to step on copyright toes.
That and I think most tabletop RPG systems are just too complex to use on a MUSH. They're written for interpretation by a GM, and are not very code-friendly.
@botulism said in Diceless/Stats Optional:
...True. But there ARE good players who won't do statless/consent RP.
Sure, but there are good players who won't do a lot of things. As long as you're willing to accept the limited audience, doing the kind of game that you'd be happy running is more important than doing what the unspecified masses may want.
That said, it's pretty well-demonstrated throughout MUSH-land that a) advancement-free games are a tough sell, b) "players do their own thing" games often devolve into relationship soap operas, and c) small-group-based games often lead to a splintered playerbase where people are off doing their own things with limited opportunities to interact. So I think you've got three things working against you from the start. That's not to say "don't do it". Just be aware that you're starting from a disadvantage and will likely have to work extra hard to get people interested/engaged.
I think people are more interested in original sci-fi in the abstract sense. Like "wouldn't it be cool if there was a good original sci-fi game" ranks right up there with "wouldn't it be cool if I won the lottery." Because let's face it - original sci-fi is hard to pull off. I think it's understandable that people are a little gun-shy about actually investing time and energy in learning this wholly new theme that might just end up as yet another EmptyMUSH.
@miss-demeanor Firefly and Starfinder always struck me as settings that freaking rock as tabletop games (where you can be a single crew) and completely fall apart when you try to extend that to an even modestly-sized multi-player game.
I've just been burned too many times by Star Wars games where you're stuck on one planet while everyone else who's online is someplace else, and Firefly games where you're either stuck on a ship with nobody else from your crew on, or stuck on a planet while everyone else is away on their ships.
Which I think is another hurdle Original Sci-Fi games (and established ones too) have: focus. When the entire galaxy is your playground, herding the cats together becomes more of a challenge.
@marsgrad said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):
Then he rolls dice, gets an awesome result and Space Cowboy is expected to be cowed by this, even though it's been established that Space Cowboy is a masochist and doesn't fear death. It overrides his admittedly cliche character and ignores his personality.
I think this is in large part due to the inadequacies of social conflict resolution systems. There's no nuance to them. It's just dice vs dice. Like @kitteh said - there's no way to reflect situational Willpower on a character sheet. Space Cowboy might have a death wish and be utterly unafraid if someone puts a gun to his head, but be soft-hearted enough to be completely cowed by someone putting a gun to the head of an innocent bystander. Both are forms of intimidation, but the execution is very different.
I have a problem with some of the pitches that say: "Well he rolled well, so you need to work with him to figure out what would've worked on your character." That's like having someone roll Salesmanship, get a good result and say: "OK clearly I've done a good job selling you a car - you tell me what kind of car that might be." It doesn't work that way. Maybe my character doesn't need a car. Maybe they can't afford one. Your salesmanship roll doesn't give magical insight into my character's thought patterns - it just means that you made a good sales pitch.
@thenomain said in Make it fun for Me!:
That is, this is me reminding everyone that people "win" at games for different reasons.
Yes, but my point is that some of those forms of "winning" are IMHO very poorly suited to the type of environment posed by MUs. (Others may disagree.)
It's like... I can be a competitive over-achiever by nature, but that's a crappy mentality to take to an improv acting troupe, right? If I always have to be the star of the show, my character always has to come out on top... that would be super-obnoxious, wouldn't it? That's all I'm saying here.
@Three-Eyed-Crow said, "You 'win' these games by telling the best story", but the key word in that sentence is story, not best. Different people will disagree with what resolution is "best", and there needs to be some way to resolve that. But when the focus is on the story and not on any one player's individual player-centric goals, then everyone wins.
Which I don't think is very different from your statement that "the game trumps staff and players alike". Because what is the game if not a collective story?
@surreality said in Make it fun for Me!:
The reason I steer away from sportsmanship is that it implies adherence to 'the rules' (including 'avoiding fouls'), and a lot of the worst actions are entirely permissible within the scope of the rules of a game
I actually have the opposite view of good sportsmanship. It goes beyond the rules and is more of the "good faith" notion that you're describing. Shaking hands and saying "good game" after the game has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with being a good sport. Adhering to the spirit of the game (i.e. in hockey, don't do anything to hurt your opponent) more than the letter of the rules ("But that wasn't technically a slash, ref") is being a good sport.