@Thenomain said:
Alice in Wonderland can be read without the satire element, for example, and legitimately so, so how would you enforce the satire and fucked-up nature of a theoretical AiW game?
I'm not sure you can reconcile both. Satire is satire: a calculated ribbing of some particular trope. Fucked-up shit sort of implies going off of the rails of any trope or purpose. To enforce satire, though, I think you are very much limited to heavy staff RP involvement.
@hedgehog said:
The Original Dreaming MUSH had an approval questionnaire. Granted, it was easy to cheat (I did, getting really specific answers from Turner/Demosthenes because I didn't have the books yet), but at least it was there. And, no, it didn't totally weed out abominations like Peri and Ranger, but I think it was at least somewhat successful.
It is great to make sure your newbies don't come in with no knowledge of the theme/setting whatsoever. But the questionnaire was a pain in the ass for folks who did know the system, and did nothing whatsoever to address or prevent the real problems from getting in.
So, I found that shit annoying.
@Arkandel said:
I had a similar butthurt issue on SHH when all kinds of people seemed to be having no post-apocalyptic issues at all; beer was flowing freely (beach party!), there was electricity, the internet, better medical care than we get in Canada (courtesy of a bunch of bored Life 5 Mages around), bars were open, at least one person had a cool car...
I cannot imagine why a place set up to avoid the "rampant corruption" on a game with few directives and less direction would ever devolve into a mutual jerkfest game.
@Ghost said:
Aha! But what about the element of Grimm's Fairy Tales?
Perhaps we are working with different versions of Changeling: the Lost, or coming from a different perspective, but in my opinion, the player's character is the sweet little old lady. She just doesn't know it yet.
You know, one of the many things that RfK did right was create an environment where there was always something to do.
That's a good place to start, to feel included. I got fucking sucked into the game within a couple of weeks after being invited to play a political ally for some players that I didn't know too well, but with whom I enjoyed playing.
If you can build that into your system, great.
@HorrorHound said:
...The Hedge transforms PoohBear into Naughty Bear and starts hanging entrails around like Yule decorations.
That's cute and horrific, but misses the point.
If you're going to play a game based on paranoia of being whisked away to another land to be treated like a Tzimisce meat-puppet, there should never be a Pooh Bear Happy Dwelling in the first place. It's one thing to clamor about "wrong-fun" over-policing, and another to stop people from taking a shit on every part of the thematic material.
I did not mean to imply that there was no activity at all. Only that there did not seem to be much when I was around.
Appropro of nothing, Fallout Shelter is fun.
I'm pretty sure that the genetic diversity of my Vault is questionable, though.
@Sunny said:
I've had both genders, and have had no trouble on either. I haven't really noticed any sort of lack on any of my female characters, that's for sure.
I play a dude. That dude is Raimond. He's awesome.
Time has been a problem for me. Work has been ultra-demanding. But when my playtime slowed, it coincided with my observation that people generally aren't active, or weren't, when I was.
Good game, though. Great RPers. Thumbs up.
@Sovereign said:
I find the best way to communicate with a player base depends entirely on your function within the staff. The person in charge, who handles punishments, dictates policy, and is the End of the Line, so to speak, should have minimal contact. They should engage primarily in imperatives, not conversations, and be polite, firm, and concise.
There is a reason why people dislike judges, and prefer talking to mediators.
In my opinion, the person in charge -- who handles punishments, dictates policy, and assumes ultimate responsibility for staff actions -- should have as much contact as possible with players. That's the best way to get players to trust staff as a whole.
You don't need to be a stranger to be an impartial robot. If anything, being a stranger impedes one's ability to judge reasonably.
@Sovereign said:
It's like, "But Sovereign! What do you do when a player is a total asshole? There are literally no countermeasures in place for this, we're all doomed!" and I'm just staring going "can't you just tell them to quit being an asshole and then ban them later?"
The easy, Ganymede answer is: find complaint; ask questions; determine most likely explanation for behavior; and determine if action is necessary.
If someone's an asshole to me as staff, though, the ban comes out a lot faster.
@Arkandel said:
That won't work well with free weights - but only because the equipment in question includes a squat rack, and I don't have the space to install one. If I did then yes, a few hundred bucks or so paid once would cover me for basically a lifetime since barbells last forever.
Last time I checked, Dailyburn does not require a squat rack.
Why on Earth do you need a squat rack? Are you into power-lifting? Do you intend to try out for the Philadelphia Eagles offensive line unit?
I'd recommend switching to dumbbells, which are more difficult to control if you use them as you would a barbell.
@Arkandel said:
Midway into the 4th session the trainer takes me to his office and gives me the spiel: Do I care about my health? Am I dedicated enough to be great? Am I willing to invest in my well-being? If so I should pay $7k for a year's worth of sessions!
If Dailyburn has taught me anything, it is that I can pay $10 a month and get killer, daily workouts online. You can get the equipment too, and it will still be a fraction of the cost of getting a trainer in.
@Ghost said:
If it works, then it works, and if it's working, then fuck it, make a character, yeah?
Fallcoast appears to be working okay. That does not mean I will set foot there.
Again, it appears that, even if the game works exactly as calculated, I would still not play there. The policy of yes, yes, yes! is patently and demonstrably ill-advised.
I mean, how contentious is any debate on any law that might remotely relate to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? That's just a shitpile I don't intend to put my boot into.
@Ghost said:
Ive said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think a liberal, yes-first game would work.
For me, more pointedly, this sort of game isn't one I would ever want to play on.
I'd help you with that, if you wanted. I have a couple of ideas rattling in my brain to boot.
@Arkandel said:
- Create a liberal, yes-first roleplaying game. If we say no it's for a really good, thematic reason.
You should add to this, and amend as follows:
1) Create a liberal, yes-first roleplaying game. If we say no, it's for a really good reason related to theme, setting, or ability to code whatever-the-fuck you want.