Best posts made by faraday

@saturna said in Interest in a Discworld game?:

Spirit Lake is on Ares/FS3 and has magic. @faraday is super helpful, too, and might be willing/happy to help you sort that front out.

Of course I'm always glad to help folks with Ares games.

FS3 isn't well-suited for magical settings, though. Spirit Lake is an exception because @Tat wasn't bound by an established fiction, and was able to design a magic system from scratch that fit within the FS3 framework. Magic armor works like regular armor, spells mirror existing combat actions, etc. It's very constrained. (Even with those constraints, it was still a crap-ton of work.) You can't really do that easily (if at all) when adapting an existing magic system.

But Ares is independent of FS3, so there are many options.

@Ghost said in Why no Mortal Kombat MU?:

I will note that an IP foKusing on death matches may not go over well in a hobby many that are averse to Karacter death and/or failure. However HorrorMux has shown that players are less averse to PC death when they know their Karacter will be able to wake up post-death to RP the horror of it.

Since TGG was able to find players willing to do the meat-grinder of WWI trench warfare, I'm sure you could find SOME players willing to do it. Might not be the most populated game out there, but who cares?

@Ghost said in Cyberrun:

Cyberpunk is currently well within their right to bootstomp Shadowrun right now. If they play their cards right, Cyberpunk will be the name in the same way that Kleenex is synonymous with tissue and Kool-Aid is synonymous with powdered fruit drinks (despite their being dozens of competitors, people dont ask 'do you have any tissue?', ask where the Kleenex is)

It's kind of hard not to be the more recognized name when your product is literally named the same as the entire genre

That said, Shadowrun was always more slanted towards the fantasy side than the cyberpunk side IMHO. So I don't think it is or ever will be a head-to-head race because they have fundamentally different priorities.

A SR MMO would be fun, though.

@Auspice Yeah I hear you. To me that doesn't really solve the continuity issues, it just shifts them. If I get shot in the scene that's live on-game tonight it disrupts the plot RP that's "pending".

But I'm finnicky about continuity so I know my feelings are not universal. I know there are entire games run without much regard to continuity. And I'm glad to see folks trying new things. So don't mind me

@Arkandel said in Privacy in gaming:

If you're having a private conversation I can't use preinstalled microphones you don't know about to record it just because you're under my roof

You say "can't" there, so I presume you're referring to laws. Otherwise what's to stop you?

But federal wiretap laws revolve around the idea of whether there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with the thing being recorded. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.) Two people chatting in my living room without me being present? Yeah, they probably reasonably expect privacy.

But two people chatting on this forum's direct message software? I don't think that same expectation exists because we know the conversation is being saved in a database somewhere and could be viewed. Two people chatting on Blizzard's WoW guild chat? The expectation definitely doesn't exist because it's right there in the terms of service saying "chat logs are recorded and subject to review."

I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it out to be.

@Pandora said in Staff’s Job?:

Or would you say, 'People doing the tasks required for the McDonald's Corporation to keep making money.'?

Actually I would say "people hired by McDonalds to do some kind of job" because that is literally the definition of employee.

But sure, we could apply that same definition to MU staff to say "people 'hired' (appointed might be a better word) by a game owner to do some kind of job'." Or to use something closer to your words: "People doing any variety of tasks that the game owner deems necessary for the game to operate."

Which seems remarkably similar to what I've said:

The only distinction between a non-staff role and a staff role is whatever the game's internal policies say there is.

What I object to are more specific descriptions that include things like "people the players go to" or "tasks that players don't have access to" or "people driving the direction of the theme/game", which I believe are too narrow to be a good definition for "staff". Yes, some staff on some games do these things, but they are examples, not universal constants embedded in the definition of "MU staff".

@derp said in Sensitivity in gaming:

Fine. Substitute Canadian Geese, then. Or Spiders. Or the one I started with, the actual example given earlier, Underwater Horrors. I didn't make that shit up.

Just to be clear though, the underwater horrors was NOT given as an example of a content warning that anyone was seriously asking for. It was a humorous anecdote about how you never know what someone's hangups could be... but if you do know about them, why cause unnecessary drama?

Literally nobody is seriously suggesting that you should put things like "spiders" or "canadian geese" or whatever into a content warning field.

The site/list that @Sunny cited is a good serious accounting of potential triggers, but again highlights some of the complexities involved.

It would be ludicrous to include tags for "death", "blood", or "violence" in a Battlestar Galactica plot. That's just a base part of the theme, and it should be made clear to expect that sort of thing when you walk through the door of the game.

But just because it doesn't fit every situation doesn't mean it has no value. It's a good starting point for consideration.

@raeras said in OC Superhero Discussion:

My current intention was to just do FS3 with the Traits system - but I'm willing to read over some of the options presented here, though I'm no coder so I'd need an assist or I'd use the RPG plugin for Ares.

The RPG plugin is for sure an option. Traits are good if you want just generic descriptions. Clockwork also has the ESHTraits plugin if you want a bit of souped-up trait categories.

FWIW I would advise against using FS3 for a supers game. Mathematically it just doesn't scale to super-human abilities, so it falls flat if you have Hulk's strength rolling against Hawkeye's strength. If you want more geeky number explanations, see scaling in FS3 but here's the TL;DR; excerpt:

Now let’s give Charlie insane superpowers. Like “Captain America” reflexes. 20 dice vs Cate’s 7. Of course now Charlie almost always wins, but there’s still that sliver of just under 5% where Cate can beat her to a stalemate. Does that make any sense at all for a slightly-above-average human soldier going up against Captain America? No. It’s stupid.

You could, of course, do some system gymnastics around how traits trump abilities or whatever (Cap's Super Strength ability takes precedence over his 4 dice in Brawn, for instance) but it just gets weird.

@lordbelh said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

To prove my point about conflicting cultures...

Does it? I mean, it seemed from your responses that we were in agreement more than not? You say "within reason...", I say "if you can..." - it's semantics. And I do think there are a lot of gray areas. That's the reason why these are guidelines, not rules.

Should Mary and Joe be required to go to a TP room just because they're on a date at the restaurant? I don't think so. But then if Bob comes along, I have no problem if Bob's "Mind if I join?" is met with "Well, we're having a date at the back table, so it might be a little hard to work you in..." That wouldn't stop Bob from kicking up a scene with Harvey at the restaurant bar, which may result in a heated argument, which may distract Mary and Joe from their date... Sometimes that's the fun of having a "private" scene in a "public" space.

Tangential side note: Speedwalking doesn't bother me personally, but there are some people who are downright incensed by it. It's probably not enough to warrant having it on the list though, in retrospect.

Seems to me there's a wonderful tool already for this.

Thenomian pages Faraday, "Hey this is going to far."

Faraday pages Thenomian, "Oh no! What can we do?"

We're supposed to be adults here, let's try communicating like adults. What in the world am I supposed to do with a vague yellow stoplight indication? Change the entire scene based on some vague guess as to what might be bothering you?

@Apos @kitteh Thanks. I count it as a success by my yardstick. My only point was that different people have different yardsticks and BSG's model isn't some magic bullet that's going to work for everyone. If your goal is to have a ton of logins, having a narrow focus (Rook's point #1) probably isn't the right way to go. If your goal is a political PvP game, I'm highly skeptical of your ability to divorce yourself from a lot of "I want to do XYZ" admin jobs (Rook's point #2) unless you automate a ton of stuff with code.

@surreality My objection involves transferring obligations to any other player, whether they're a GM, or just someone in a pick-up scene. As I stated in my game's policy: if someone is sensitive to a particular topic, it's on them to figure out a way to establish boundaries. It's not on anyone else. I understand we disagree on this point; that's totally fine. When you have a game, you do whatever you see fit. I'm just clarifying since apparently you thought I was only speaking about GM'ed scenes.

@bored said in How to Change MUing:

despite her saying it doesn't interest her

It doesn't interest me. Whenever possible I don't use it. But I haven't found any other way to do a 12-person combat scene in less than a day, so I view it as a necessary evil on a war-centric game. I have not seen any other code for which that's true. Economy code? I'll just RP buying a drink at the bar, thanks. Crafting/creation code? Just RP it. Space travel code? Shoot me now if I can't use +meetme.

That's just a preference though. Lots of people had fun with those systems on Firan. It's just not for me.

@arkandel said in Regarding administration on MSB:

But it's nice to think that hey, some of these folks are more than names on my screen and that, maybe, I am occasionally more than that on theirs too.

This.

And I know, I know, I'm beating a dead horse. I'm sorry (kinda). But this is why I think it's sad that the negativity is cutting out some percentage of our MU* community from participating in all the good things that having a MU-wide community center offers.

If it could truly be kept behind the wall in the hog pit, then maybe it's no different from it being on a different forum entirely. I have my doubts, but I'm trying to give @Arkandel and company the benefit of the doubt here.

@sunny said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

"I don't want to deal with this in my fun time" =/= "Nobody anywhere ever should have to deal with this in their fun time." I'm not really seeing anywhere in this thread where somebody said the latter, but it sure as hell seems like the former is being responded to as if it were the latter. Nor is anybody making the point saying anything about the people who like to RP this stuff, let alone that they're bad people.

I have seen several posts in the thread that are shades of 'this shouldn't be allowed on games' including statements like 'those (-ist) characters shouldn't be played period' and describing IC -isms as 'fun at someone else's expense'. Now maybe that's not what those folks meant and it's just a misunderstanding - that's fine. But as @surreality said, this isn't the first time this discussion has come up and those points you highlight have most assuredly been made before.

Saying that people should be able to out on a personal level is no silver bullet either. What if you're, say, a woman character in an era rife with sexism? Does that mean nobody can be the slightest bit sexist towards you? Men have to hire you? Etc.? It's complicated. Which is why I think it's good to discuss.

@collective Wow. I point out how maybe your words came across differently than you intended while also supportively saying there's nothing wrong with it, and you decide to attack with I can't read English and I'm making straw man arguments?

Every time I think maybe people can have a civil discussion on MSB and decide to give it another try I'm proven wrong.

@collective said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

That having been said, you were quoting me to illustrate a point I was not making and I do not believe could be reasonably inferred from the text. That's not kosher. Not even a little.

I was quoting you to illustrate a point I (and others too) honestly thought you were making. A simple, "Yo, that's not what I meant" would have sufficed in place of assuming the worst and going on the attack.

Back to the topic, I said back on page 1 that I can see both sides of the argument. I'm not arguing for or against either having -isms or not having them. Games should feel free to make their own choices.

What I don't get is this the idea of the whole "opt-out" thing. It's one thing to say "sexism doesn't exist in this theme". People can deal with that (see: Arx or BSG). But "sexism totally exists in this theme but your cowgirl gunslinger PC can opt out of it" seems problematic.

How does she opt out of it? Is the ranch owner PC forced to hire her even though thematically he would have reason not to? Are the 'proper lady' PCs of town forced to not give her side-eye even though thematically they totally would? Etc. etc.

FTB on an assault scene or avoiding a specific plotline is easy. I genuinely don't comprehend how one would "opt out" of pervasive historic discrimination.

@arkandel said in System dealbreakers:

What makes a table-top system not good to use for a MUSH?

What Rook said. Also, personally, I think that too much complexity is a bad fit for a MU. I adore Shadowrun tabletop. Even if it were fully coded, I would absolutely dread playing that system on a MU. And usually it isn't, requiring entirely too much effort on the part of players and GMs. I know people use it, but I think it doesn't work so great.

@surreality said in The Death Of Telnet: Is It Time To Face The Music?:

@faraday The sad thing is, so much of that can be done in mediawiki... except the chat part.

Eh, kinda but not really either. Maybe if you just want a super-simple lightly-coded one.

@Alzie - You're splitting hairs. I could implement a sophisticated communications protocol over an 8-bit serial bus too if I really wanted to but that would be supremely silly from a technical standpoint. Especially when standard web protocols do everything we need already.

The server-client protocol isn't even the biggest hangup, it's the MUSH clients. Maybe you expect somebody to invent new cross-platform MUSH clients across windows/mac/seventeen-flavors-of-mobile, but I don't. So what you're dubbing technically possible I say is largely impractical.

@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

So, yes, my experience (Level 3!) guides me, but determining what levels you have in attributes and skills can be accomplished just be reading the source material, in my opinion.

That's all I'm asking for, really. If your source material tells me what a doctor should have, then groovy. The reason I brought it up is because multiple people in this thread have said "the descriptions in WoD suck so just ignore them" and it sounded like you were agreeing with them and saying that the mechanic alone should tell you what you need to know. If that wasn't your intent, then it's my misunderstanding.

ETA: To be clear - this is not a WOD-specific problem. The skill descriptions in many systems suck and people ignore them. And even when they don't suck, often people ignore them anyway. I've been on more than a few FS3 games where people have told me I've taken the wrong skills for my character based on THEIR interpretation of what the levels mean when there's in fact no house rule in place to contradict the standard skill levels. (LOL)