Posts made by Ganymede

@faraday said in What's missing in MUSHdom?:

Why is it so horrible to just assume that they're doing the boring eating/sleeping/avoiding-starvation stuff off-camera?

It depends on the nature of the game.

A vampire must drink blood to survive. This is part of the horror of their condition. You take that out, and you gut a very viable and core plot element, if you're playing in the World of Darkness. Vampires use their powers of persuasion and knowledge of politics to protect their feeding territories, which are necessary to hide their existences.

This is a huge flaw in many of the Vampire games I've played on.

If you're running a post-apocalyptic game, survival is kind of important. Why overlook the struggle to survive by making food and water an after thought? You may not need to force people into a harvest mini-game, but threatening the PCs' collective existence should be part-and-parcel to how the game works. If not, then, again, I think you're missing a chunk of a game that could yield interesting RP situations.

And, in my experience, this is exactly what is missing from many of the games that peter out.

For a BSG game? It's not important because that's not the thrust of the game; BSG:U was about war stories from the front. For a L&L game? It's not important because that's not the thrust of the game; Fifth Kingdom was about questing and defending the countryside from invasion. Even for another World of Darkness splat like Werewolf, it's not important because that's not the thrust of the game.

Whatever resources one chooses to have in the system depends on the game.

For The Last of Us? Junk for weapons; food; water; alcohol; fuel; anything like that. Horizon Zero Dawn? Food; water; wood; usable metal. Mass Effect? E-0; weapons; medical supplies; drugs; AI; anything that could be traded.

So, it's not always about food. It could just be that, to gain influence and status on the game, you need to deliver 5 tons of Vanadium to a neighboring system. Unfortunately, along the way, these Batarian raiders intercept your ship ...

@faraday said in What's missing in MUSHdom?:

Like... what do you think people should be playing instead when they log in 4-5 days a week? Scenes where they wander through the forest looking for berries? Or through houses scavenging for another can of soup? Boiling water? Tending crops? Day to day survival is tedious and freaking boring. I don't blame anyone for falling back to drinking moonshine around a campfire and socializing whenever there's a lull in the zombies/bandits/plague/whatever. I don't even find it that unrealistic - I think people in that sort of environment would crave connection and normalcy, or at least the illusion thereof.

I don't think that's what KQ's getting at, but it's something that I am interested in.

What do you do when the resources you need to live on run out? It's a MUD issue, and there's no reason why it can't be a MUSH issue. Put in mini-game systems to keep people occupied, is my suggestion. For RfK, this was the Territory System. For the Dark Ages game I'm cooking with a couple of others, it will be a Task System.

The thing about necessary resources is that you can compel players to interact with it. That's why such systems are of interest to me.

@the-sands said in General Video Game Thread:

For the most part even the model of 'making sure the business endures' is a method of trying to maximize return on investment. It simply relies on the idea that if you make X dollars per year over Y years you will make more money than if you make 2X dollars over 1/4Y years and then go out of business.

This is definitely true. This is not how "maximizing return on investment" is being taught, however.

@vulgarkitten said in MUSH Marriages (IC):

What's the longest one you've ever had?

All my PC's stories seem to end before marriage. But all of my PC's long-term relationships have been stories I still cherish.

@bored said in Spotlight.:

I think MU players of any... veteran degree are going to understand that being the star all the time, or even ever (if we're talking Luke level), is impossible and would be quite happy to settle for something along the lines of the GoT secondary cast.

I've come to the opinion that there are no true stars in the best stories, and the most compelling tales to participate in are the ones where you really aren't the centerpiece.

@thenomain said in General Video Game Thread:

Tell that to the fucking 90s.

You mean, to MBAs.

@arkandel said in Spotlight.:

Do all players deserve the same access to the spotlight?

"Access" is an erroneous word, I think. In this sentence, no, I don't think so; however, if you mean "opportunity," then, yes.

That is, if you are putting in a lot of your time building up a successful House which your character leads, run plots for its players, recruit others to it, making yourself available as someone in a leadership position and integrating yourself thematically into current politics, then should I as a casual player who's there an hour here and there get to have equal access to metaplot?

Equal opportunity, yes. How you get involved that quickly is another story. If this is a game with a roster, I can see it happening. If it is your average WoD game, I don't think that's even possible.

Even more so, does it make sense for me to?

I don't know. It depends on the setting.

Decisions are often made among high-powered or important figureheads, so do I bring my sailor guy to the inner council meetings?

I don't know. It depends on the setting.

Should metaplot be geared so that there are no closed door meetings in the first place?

I don't know how you can feasibly prevent PCs from having closed door meetings without being unnecessarily or unreasonably obtrusive.

@arkandel said in D&D 5E:

I've heard of it, and it sounds like fun, but pretty much doesn't cut it; there are specific reasons why D&D 5th Ed specifically is a system I'd be interested in.

It really does cut it, if you expand on it a little to incorporate actions by "the little guys."

@thenomain said in General Video Game Thread:

The problem with the game industry is that it's an industry, that any businessman worth their salt is going to look for a way to maximize return on investment.

Any businessman worth their salt looks for a way to ensure that their business will stand the test of time, even if that means not taking the maximum return on investment.

@thenomain said in Make it fun for Me!:

Where people need to grow the fuck up is in accepting that fun of others is just as important as their own. If everybody was reasonable about this, drama would take a nosedive like you on your SO.

I don't disagree, but I think you misunderstand how busy our lives are with kids, work, school, elections, and so on. If I took a nosedive, I'd probably fall the fuck asleep.

I played Sam Mitchell (Inactive). It was tough to get RP back when I played him/her/it. But now I'm back on Fate's Harvest, and I'm going to try to give it another go.

It's going well so far.

@warma-sheen said in Make it fun for Me!:

Many people in this community don't know how to be competitive, meaning they can't stand going up against someone else, losing, and being okay with it - much less have fun with it.

Many people in this community need to grow the fuck up, then.

My experience differ vastly from yours. The people I run with are generally okay with winning, losing, collaborating, competing, and being good to others. Jealousy is a non-issue. Feelings are shared often and openly, with no fear of reprisal.

But if you are correct -- you may be -- this might explain why I find it difficult to stay for long on any place.

@kanye-qwest said in Make it fun for Me!:

...ok, if you find that people don't seem to want to be around you, have you tried being fun to be around?

@arkandel said in Random links:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/michael-osgood-special-victims-commander-harvey-weinstein.html

The article reads like a very awesome episode of L&O:SVU. Kudos!

@the-sands said in Make it fun for Me!:

As deep and philosophical as that is, hockey is still a competition and not a collaboration (with the other team).

My initial point is that you can be both competitive and collaborative. These are not mutually-exclusive concepts.

Others have already made my counter-argument, but, to be succinct, the game has rules everyone agrees to play by. When those rules are breached, there are penalties. Penalties tilt the competition in favor of the non-offending party, so there is a benefit to play by the rules that the teams, before the game, agree to.

But even if you don't agree that this is collaborative, at the very least the sportsmanship element sticks. People drop gloves and punch each other in the face, but they don't engage in snarky off-game attacks and shit, as we sometimes see in this damn hobby. And most of them don't bitch and whine at the officiating.

If you don't believe one can be competitive and collaborative, let me take a moment to explain how the practice of law works nowadays.

@apos said in Make it fun for Me!:

Some games just can't decide if they are competitive or a collaboration.

Can't they be both?

A wise man once said:

Oh, you. You just couldn't let me go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren't you? You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.

In a hockey tournament, the two teams meet at center ice to shake hands. This is done to show sportsmanship. For me, a MUSH is the same: it doesn't matter how hard I play or another person plays against me, I'm okay with things if we can shake hands and come away thinking that we gave it our all.

It's not about winning or losing, even in competition.

@tinuviel said in Life... in outer space!:

Things get... weird depending on how you determine one civilisation from another. Egypt lasted that long, but the line where one would draw civilisation distinctions is fuzzy-wuzzy.

China.

@thatguythere said in The Basketball Thread:

The biggest issue is if he can maintain being on for the playoffs at his age when his team will be overmatched from at least the second round on.

And if he remains healthy.

Look, there are problems, but the East is weak. No matter how you slice it, LeBron is still the biggest dog out there. Boston will be problematic for them, and Toronto is playing nicely. But I'm not going to bet against the Cavaliers because I watched LeBron win the 2016 finals for them.

@arkandel

No Kevin Love? No problem; LeBron has proven that.

No chemistry? No problem; LeBron has proven that.

Like, let's be frank and fair. The man's ability is otherworldly, and he turns it on during the playoffs. He's got a team of good parts now. He alone could win a series early on.

LeBron's like Tom Brady: love him or hate him, he is a game-changer that can will an entire team to victory.

@thatguythere

I'm in the same boat.

I love the Raptors. Always have, being from Toronto. I was at their inaugural game, and watched Mighty Mouse play. I was around when Vinsanity was the name of the game.

But LeBron is LeBron. The Cavaliers have altered their game more than substantially. You put LeBron in with a bunch of young studs, which the team has now, and he could be unstoppable. He willed victory in his second contest with Golden State.

Toronto has won the only game they played this year. Toronto is better statistically. But the Cavaliers now are different and better than the Cavaliers in January. Toronto has a shot if they keep playing inspired basketball, but that's a big 'if'.