Posts made by Ganymede

@mietze said:

It is a little head scratching to me that it's to be celebrated and commended to state up front that you'll only pick people you know and like for the most important roles on your game, but you are a horrible awful excuse for a game runner if you pick staff for your game who are willing to cede those roles to people who aren't staff.

Hold a second. I never said that I would only pick people I know and like for important roles. I said I would likely prefer them. Although somewhat unlikely, if I found myself having to put hats on people on a game where I knew no one without passing familiarity, I will make judgment choices as best I can. Sometimes, no one wants to take up a role in your play (I mean, who really enjoys Troilus and Cressida?).

The problem that many have regarding the "no featured role for staff" rule is that it prejudges. Regardless of how wise one might think the policy to be, it is clearly calculated to head off problems before they occur -- yet, that presumes that problems will occur. It raises all sorts of issues better expressed in Dick's Minority Report.

Most people prefer a rule where people are granted or denied certain privileges based on some evaluation of merit and/or character. And I find that reasonable. I also understand why one would set a hard-and-fast rule, and they are also reasonable. Myself, I know what I'd prefer.

@Apos

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?

Fuck no. That's a whole separate thread, though.

@bored

I might not have communicated well, but what you cited first is an accurate statement. You should try to maintain a good reputation, and, if you do, doors will open regarding whether you will be trusted with certain concepts or positions. It is entirely unrealistic to waltz into a game and be made Prince, but some people think that it would not be fair otherwise, and those people would be stupid.

Also, if I were to open a vampire sphere, I would not install a PC Prince to begin with. If I were forced to, then you're damned right that I would put it in the hands of someone I know I can work with, who isn't going to flake out on me, and who I can trust to not let things go down in flames and laughter. But I would only do that if I were forced to.

I suppose it depends on how you look at "concepts." I'm all for the idea of making CGen open, and making sure people have equal access to X, Y, and Z stats. I'm opposed to the idea of "restricted" stats, unless those relate to IC status, reputation, and position. If you don't like people having Iron Will, then don't let them have it period. And I don't consider "Seneschal" or "Sheriff" to be a concept; that's a position you can be appointed to.

But if there's an open Court position on a Vampire Sphere game like Seneschal or Sheriff, I will likely not approve of any player's PC taking that position if I know the player to be a shitbag or flaky. It does not serve the game's interests to allow any such player to have a PC in a power position. By the same token, if there's an open position and I know a player wants it who, in my opinion, is an asset to have in the sphere, then I will give it to that player over the unknown candidate.

Also, yeah, I'm all for having to spend XP or whatever to get the higher Status. And if you lose the position, that gets refunded, as per the Sanctity of Merits doctrine.

I hope this post clarifies my position.

@bored said:

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.

Again, you show a basic lack of appreciation or knowledge of "casting" for a community theatre.

When you cast a show, you have open auditions. People come out to try out for roles. For some roles, there will be many prospects; for others, none. For the roles with multiple candidates, you pick the one that fits the role best, and that someone may be the person with the fewest rehearsal conflicts and a good reputation rather than an unknown commodity who puts on a spectacular audition (although this is not always the case). For the other roles, you try to convince the other actors and actresses to take one of them. But, above all things, if you know that a person is difficult or impossible to work with, you don't put them into any role.

What does this mean? If you want your sphere to work well, you let everyone come in. When it comes time to give them hats, make sure that the right hat goes to the best candidate. Use your personal experience and judgment to guide you in that decision. For the open roles, see if others want it, and try to encourage the "best" person into that role. If you have difficult people, keep them out of those important roles.

If you're a shitty director or producer, it won't matter what you do: you're shitty at it and until you become better, more thoughtful, or more reasonable, whatever you do will result in a shitty production. You should probably take up another hobby.

I fail to see how the above is fundamentally terrible. Please explain.

And @Arkandel, I'm not a tyrannical despot. I'm just ahead of the curve.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said:

I use Potato. Used SimpleMU for years, but I'm trying to wean myself off of it, since it will never be supported or updated again.

I also use Potato, but I fucking hate how it prompts me to update it all the fucking time.

@bored said:

I think if you want to cast your MU like a play, you should consider OTT or an invite-only game instead.

You say this like someone that has not been involved in the casting of a play.

@Roz said:

(well, to be fair, sometimes it is)

I'll amend. It's not always because of "favoritism" or "nepotism."

@Sunny said:

Not everybody is capable of playing a (insert any difficult concept here) and why the fuck should we be forced to let them try?

@Roz made a good point about theatre here.

Directors in community theatre have their favorites. It's not because of "favoritism" or "nepotism"; it's because some people have the reputation of working hard, being on-time, taking direction well, paying attention to notes, and not fucking around. They've earned their good reputation, and it makes them more likely to be cast in quality plays.

I have long, long made analogies between online gaming and theatre, especially improv. The fact is, if I'm staff, I'm a director responsible for putting on a good show. I need to trust others, and will pick the people I know I can count on over complete strangers with no references for important roles.

Fair? In a way, yes. Earn a good reputation, and doors will open. Don't expect to waltz into a game and be made Prince.

@Derp said:

If shitty people with shitty friends are the only people who use a meritocracy, then one could just as easily argue that fools are the only people who allow absolutely anyone to play absolutely anything and risk the whole damn thing going up in flames.

I concur.

As staff I take responsibility for my decisions, and I take responsibility for allowing some players to assume roles of power or concepts that I would not allow others. I've been around the MU pool for a long time. I have a pretty good idea of who I can play with, and who I can't.

I have long since abandoned an absolute idea of fairness. If you act like a dickbag on channel, I'm not going to let you be Prince in my Vampire Sphere. If you act like a dickbag to me, I'm going to kick you out. I don't have the time, inclination, or patience to deal with dickbags; I'm too fucking old to pretend I don't have biases, yet some people find me unfailingly fair, if not honest.

@Derp said:

Implementing a policy like that not only sends a bad message, it slows down what could otherwise be a considerably faster process, especially if you have a small staff where each staffer focuses on specific areas in which they are more knowledgeable.

I don't think it sends a bad message per se. I don't think it's a good policy for all of the reasons you and @surreality have raised. But it seems to have worked the game for a long time, until, at long last, there were too many active players to serve.

I would not have imposed such a policy, but I understand the reasons why someone would put it in place.

@surreality

I think you're being hyperbolic. There was nothing subtle or insidious about the policies, or destructive. They were clear and reasonably calculated to dodge future problems. I had no problem with the decision to implement them.

It is reasonable to want to avoid conflicts of interest. RfK had an active political system that was adjudicated by staff. It is reasonable to not want staff to adjudicate themselves, as this is also a problem over time. The one thing I can respect is that RfK set the line, made it clear, and did not waver from it until it absolutely had to. And the game worked for a long time just so, and there was nothing wrong.

But then, the Reach fell down, and people "discovered" this little game that was totally awesome. And staff did not know when to say "no": to the new concepts, to the requested changes to the influence system, to the changes that were being pushed on the game by outsiders. Staff became overwhelmed and overburdened, and then Shav took on a real job and was no longer around. Her decision to close the game entirely, which I disagree with, was hers alone, and was justifiable.

I'm sure the irony isn't lost on anyone.

@Arkandel

One issue was the draconian rules for being staff and playing a PC. I don't recall the details well, but the policies made it impossible for staff to have a PC that owned or controlled domain. That's a problem since much of the involvement any PC had with others dealt with their domain.

Another issue was that the staff structure was very top-down. So, while new staff could handle menial duties, the big ideas, plans, and stories rested with older staff, whose time and interest had begun to wane due to burn-out.

I wanted to step up, but I had a PC that was becoming politically-involved. I decided that my PC's value in politics was greater to the game (and my enjoyment) than becoming a staff member. That was likely what others thought as well. Even with some of the policies being relaxed, I could not reconcile the differences.

Other people were just lazy, I guess.

@Arkandel

I'm not saying that the players who did not see the closure had an obligation to keep themselves informed, so I guess my analogy was poor.

What I am saying was that RfK's demise was easily foreseeable. Job times were getting longer. RfK's core staff were begging for people to come on board to staff and assist. They were also making exceptions to long-existing rules in order to allow people to both staff and play. These requests and changes were public.

You had to literally be blindfolded not to see what was going to happen next. My conclusion was based on circumstances limited to the game. Bad blood within a sphere is not always bloody obvious, but RfK's closure was.

@Arkandel said:

@Ganymede Unless the writing was on a +bbpost it's not unreasonable someone might have missed other signs.

Driving with your eyes bound does not mean you are not responsible for colliding with pedestrians.

In my opinion, you basically had to be blind, ignorant, or completely uninvolved if you did not see closure coming.

@DnvnQuinn said:

... I've met people on other games since then who said the same thing about it closing abruptly.I was gone for a while, sick but not that long and they agree it came outta nowhere.

Anyone who believed the game shut down abruptly was not paying attention to the writing on the wall.

I have to re-work my concept. I had intended to be a landed noble (of a minor family), head of the family, and the Commander of the City Guard. Unfortunately, I was informed that I could not be the Commander and a landed noble, which means I could not be the head of the minor family.

I will take a couple of days to think about what to do, as there are two obvious ways to go. Meanwhile, work is rough right now, and I'm honestly working on the game system I promised a couple of years ago (working on the 'powers' section).

@Scissors

It sure was directed at you. I was suggesting by implication that you try a non-WoD game.

@Ghost

I don't have any experience with them either, but the Wiki does a good job of outlining the setting. If you have any experience with fantasy novels or medieval fiction, you probably have enough information to get your feet wet.

I haven't read them either. I still intend to play the shit out of the game. @Sunny is a good resource to talk to on the game.

I'm one of the goofs waiting.

Good news for me is that KD's system is the nWoD 1e system, which I'm pretty familiar with. So this game, essentially, is a Mortal-only medieval fantasy game, with an emphasis on politics.

@Scissors

I'm going to give Kushiel's Debut a shot. I'm still waiting for approval, but it's Thanksgiving down here in the U.S.

It's giving me time to work on the ol' Mass Effect Project, though. Yes, @Thenomain, I am working on it.

@Jennkryst said:

Maybe. It's just amazing watching paralegal friend flip his shit when a Judge overrules the 'he hasn't taken the bar' objection with 'shut up, I'll allow it' (which is admittedly terrible, if hilarious) and the whole Rule 26(b) thing, which he described as something like 'the most brilliant use of the most annoying rule ever'. It could be because Delaware is redonkulous.

Presuming that Delaware's Rule 26(b) is similar to the Federal Rule 26(b), then, yes, it is a very long, frustrating civil rule.