Best posts made by Ghost

@Arkandel I get the time commitment/investment. I do. Maybe it's just me but MUs come and go so much that I've always approached MUs and characters are temporary time sinks, anyway. You dont keep a MU, you rent one.

And there are lots of other factors. Once I was RPing IC-relationship stuff with the RL wife of another player on the same game. One night she told me "He's not comfortable with it, can we stop?"

Me:

Edit: LOLOL WRONG GIF BUT FUNNY. THIS GIF BELOW WAS WHAT I MEANT:

But in other cases I've tried to be vague against onslaught of pages about what I feel and what I like and what my promise to them is. My answer was basically "dont know but let's keep role-playing" (because arranging oocly the future of an IC relationship always felt weirdly OOC invasive to me. That and I like surprises. I cant predict where my char will be in 2 weeks). After plenty of clingy and uncomfortable OOC pages I'd be dead-set in RUN AWAAAAAY mode (why? Because I dont want any real estate in other player's well being to the point that feeling like an unrequited proxy relationship always skeeves me out) and politely try to work out through pages an exit from the IC relationship. I'd say after 20 years of MU experience I have a 30% success rate in doing that WITHOUT accusations of being a cheater, a liar, a manwhore, a harem builder, etc etc etc

But, really, what's the better play? Telling a pushy player with a history of OOC accusations that you're making them uncomfortable and need to GTFO of an IC relationship, or just rolling with it ICly.

@Auspice and I have a long history of her going "Dude, I warned you. You gotta stick to people you know" with me replying "I KNOW BUT... I should just be able to RP with whoever comes along but but but..."

My stance is that for a number of people these IC relationships are very real extensions of their OOC insecurities, unfulfilled desires, and personal fantasies. It's risky. It's messy. It's also why the 3-4 people I've connected with over the years with similar stories and "bad reps" because repeat offenders of the "I made it out to be about them being a bad person to get ahead of it being about me being psychotic or clingy" have led me to immediately question the very loud, very vocal, very demanding accusers a bit more. The sudden, knee-jerk "how dare you accuse the victim" has been used as a shield wall more than once, and it's just...so fucking messy.

Writers want plot hooks and story. Online dating uses a whole different set of words, accusations, and tactics.

@Derp said in Recent banning:

@Ghost said in Recent banning:

jb4i48vuHABnw9c8!#34

How did you find my e-mail password?!?

No lie. My middle name is literally "BruteForce".

@Roz GotchaGotcha. I don't think he's wrong I'm just digesting it.

So last few minutes here's what I thought:

What do people want:

• Roleplay
• To not be cut out of roleplay
• To maintain relevance

What do people really not want

• Characters who 'cheat' but do so in a way that can't be discovered ICly, resulting in no closure to the jilted IC lover and a cake and eat it, too scenario with no ramifications.
• Players who do the above but then get angry OOCly if their 'harem' doesn't comply

So, rolling it around in my head I asked myself how I'd want it. Like @Auspice said I'd been here ICly before with little to no angst, so how I'd want it?

• Not to be kept waiting. If your PC is off doing shenanigans you dont have to okay it through me, but let me know not to wait up and that their absence will be notable ICly. Its not my job to be held on pause while you have TS adventures
• You be cool, I'll be cool. We aren't married. I dont really care why you want the character to do their thing. It's your character. You dont get to control the IC response to your IC decision. I'll keep it IC, but story is what it is
• So long as everyone is respectful and pages dont become laborious pre-marriage counseling nonsense? Cool. I dont need your personal OOC opinions on my style of roleplay and you don't owe me alimony. Game on.

I know i keep coming back to this, though, but I think the huge reason why so much TS is behind closed doors is because there's a deeply personal aspect to it. It's probably always going to be my opinion as to why so many cheating episodes ICly are reacted to like RL cheating and not sex scenes on True Blood. Still, really what people want is to maintain the flow of RP, positive or negative scene-wise, and to not just get left on the side of the road with nothing to RP.

But, having said that, you cant make THE RELATIONSHIP your lifeline to RP. If someone wants out of the IC relationship, they havent ruined your character. I refuse to believe that the entire viability of the character exists because of THAT particular dick. If someone wants out...you gotta let them go.

@Joyeuse Star Wars has a bit of an "up and down" reputation with Mushers.

1. SYSTEM: There have been multiple attempts using the West-End Games d6 system (low complication, but pretty rigid when it comes to force users), the d20 edition (D20, Saga, both were like D&D: level-based, lots of stat blocks, lots of code to support it, but definitely WALLS of +5 to this, +7 to that, +2 if you're within 5 feet of another...), and the new Fantasy-Flight system (low complexity, but using a dice system most games aren't currently designed to handle. Will take effort to port it over). In the end...the fan favorite seems to be the D6 WEG system.

2. The Dreaded Force-Slot Debacles: For years (probably from about mid 1990s-2008) the D6 WEG games were the only Star Wars games, and it seemed the same issue with Feature Characters (Han, Luke, Leia...) and Force Users (as in, users ALLOWED to have the Force) happened at every game: There were a limited number of allowed FCs and FUs, and everyone else had to have a normal-type character. In many cases, FC/FUs were slotted to staff members or friends of staff, and because they were special characters a lot of the good plots and great things were built around that higher caste of characters. There were rules on each game as to how active FC/FU characters were supposed to be, but rarely enforced. Often, when one would open up there would be this weird "Hunger Games" display of "taking applications" for Force User slots, which would STILL often go to staff or friends of staff.

So, some players have a bit of fatigue from dealing with #2. Sure, there was fun to be found, but it was very hard to simply play what you wanted to play.

3. Divided Playerbase: Some people want BIG UNIVERSE with MANY FACTIONS, and others seem to want ONE PLANET with LESS FACTIONS. There seems to be no general consensus as to what makes a Star Wars game work. Some have tried and people have cited not playing because the game was in too small of a setting without many factions. For some it's WHO staffs the game. For others its WHICH system is used. For some, the moment FC/FU slots get mentioned they're out (I would probably be one of those, because that feeling of waiting and being rejected just to play a character concept you have in mind suuuuucks).

Sidebar: Not long ago were some D20 Saga Edition games where the guy running the game would constantly berate the playerbase, calling them stupid, etc. I quit 2 of them within a day after watching the head staffer bitch people out for not being smart enough to listen to him. This staffer, who is a bit infamous, was also taking side money from people over paypal for stuff like "buying levels" or "purchasing rare equipment".

4. Repeated Playerbase Habits: This may not be a popular opinion, but I think it's relevant. Star Wars, World of Darkness, and Battlestar Galactica have revolving-door players. By this I mean that if you go onto a Battlestar Galactica game, you'll probably come across players who were on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh etc Battlestar Game that has come and gone. With enough time in the hobby you may notice that players and/or characters tend to repeat things from game to game. I don't think this is KEEPING anyone from making a new Star Wars game, but I think most elder-type players will expect things like this:

Example:
Steve played "Chad Starshooter" on four different iterations of Star Wars games. When a new one comes out, he may want to play "Chad Starshooter" again. If not allowed to, he may make "Bill Sunblaster", who maybe uses a different PB, but is the same character in essence. Ellen, who played "Tiffany Darkside" on those previous games was a girlfriend to "Chad Starshooter". She will then play "Debbie Shadowside" and be with "Bill Sunblaster".

Also an example:
Dave ran Star Wars games 1-3. On the 2nd, he disagreed with some player resulting in an OOC spat. The 3rd consisted of players who either sided with him in the spat or people who didn't care. The 4th Star Wars game after Dave's was a "refuguee game" of players/staff that said "FUCK DAVE" and made the new Mecca of Star Wars Mushing. Eventually, the players of that 4th game splintered, some went back to Dave's game. Some just moved on. POINT: A NEW Star Wars game will likely involve the players of Dave's 1-3 game and the 4th game, and will likely bring old baggage based on who is staff and who plays who into the game, resulting in a number of players passing based on who is there or chosen as staff.

Also another example:
I've also seen some players who had issues on, say, one Star Wars game in 2004 get back into Star Wars in, say, 2019 (theoretically) and come back with those same issues. This is kinda like the above example, but more like "I put up with this shit on "Dave's" game in 2004 and am super on alert for it in 2019, so many of the same complaints to staff and whatnot can get repeated or handed down from game to game.

I'm not without my preferences. I think the best there was (despite force user slots) was some of the EPIC starfighter stuff I got into on SW1 eons ago (shit, when was that? closed in 2003? fuuuuuuckme #old). I'd consider coming back for some RP for a few games, one of them being a proper faction/galaxy-spanning Star Wars game that allowed for playing force users right out of character generations. I think it might do well if people gave it a clean slate chance.

@Auspice Thank you. Repeating record, here.

MU transmissions sent over telnet port 23 are transmitted in plaintext and highly susceptible to keystroke loggers, password sniffing, and other forms of interception. Telnet is the current MU standard, replaced in every other industry by SSH around 2005 due to horrific vulnerabilities.

I can only surmise that since people don't seem to worry about this (but are horrifed that staffers or other players could be reading their TS) that the emphasis on privacy is more related to feelings on persons within the community than about 3rd party snooping or spouses using spyware.

@Derp Yanno I think there's great wisdom in what you just wrote.

I agree that there was an existing, festering wound in place for a long time, and this place was really a constant state of "fuck you" and "well fuck you, too". In a way it could be said that there are multiple ideologies in play with the people in the hobby themselves, up to and including people who avoided the Hog Pit altogether.

Clearly, it's obvious which camp I'm in, but I think you're right that a schism/donnybrook/fallout to the point where "if you want this then feel free to create your own space" could actually be the best thing that ever happened to the community because it made it clear that it doesn't always have to be the way it's always been. There IS a problem. Recognize it. Decide what you want to do to make it better OR at least recognize the issue enough to no longer enable it.

Anyway, in the least trolly way I agree that the schism needed to happen, some people needed to be told no, and something absolutely needed to be done about behavior guidelines and the Hog Pit.

Clearly there is enough disagreement as to what staff is or isn't that it might help if games, as individual entities, have a statement detailing what staff IS or ISNT.

Define it at the game level.

Head staff states what they're looking for from staff, then posts what staff IS and ISNT to the players. Everyone is on the same page. Boom.

@hobos Yeah I just don't think it's productive to call someone a phony, throw out the word fascist, and then accuse a poster of possibly being someone like Cullen incognito trying to use the discussion as a way to clear the case about them. It's not helpful.

Kinda feel like the likelihood of someone apping 60+ year old Aunt May, Alfred, and Uncle Ben? pretty low.

I mean, maybe Marisa Tomei Aunt May but really, non-hero supporting cast members with no superhero skills (though some would argue that raising a teenager made Aunt May a superhero!) aren't likely to ever be apped.

My Spider-Senses detect shenanigans. What made staff stamp down so hard on this particular player? Did staff really side J Jonah Jameson-style on "HEY SOMEONE MIGHT APP THAT 65 YEAR OLD MATRON LADY THAT HELPS OUT IN THE SOUP KITCHEN! RULES ARE RULES! YOU CAN PICK UP YOUR CHECK ON THE WAY OUT!"?

Seems a little excessive to me. I mean, it could be exactly what it is at face value, but in the past I've seen stuff like this as a vehicle for: Staffer wants the character, staffer friend wants the character, staffer doesn't like player, behind the scenes rudeness between staff and player, etc.

Whenever I see such a staunch ruling on something somewhat minimal, I can't help but feel like there's gotta be a hot scoop for the Daily Bugle.

EDIT: Added more Spider-references.

@Arkandel said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

However what concerns me here, and I'll be honest, is that you don't seem to think the plan went wrong.

As opposed to what about removing the Hog Pit and instituting an anti-attack policy that they thought might have gone right?

I think there's a huge difference between "changing things and accepting the results, even if a number of people don't like it" and "changing things and it being the wrong decision", which I think ultimately is what some people are trying to browbeat the MSB staff into admitting: "We fucked up".

I don't think the staff at MSB are "refusing to admit the plan went wrong" at all. I think the staff at MSB are refusing to adhere to the opinions of a select number of angry people who want to see them admit to being wrong.

@rebekahse My advice:

Playing a kinfolk isn't about being spectacular. It's about being able to go places Garou can't and also maintaining clarity that they lose in their battle with their own rage. Regardless of tribe, they're the ties that bind them to the world of the kine (mortals) and exist to remind them of their responsibilities to them.

Now, that doesn't involve turning into a giant war beast, but its pretty fucking important.

My advice is to make a person. A person who has just as much at stake as they do and only a fifth of the physical strength. What they do know is how to maneuver the mortal world, and in that they can provide human-level connections and real-world know-how.

So worry less about the sheet and less about making things rare or unusual, and instead put your energy into making a regular type person who happens to be caught up in werewolf drama that is designed to flow with the angsty psyche of the werewolves around them.

Those Garou spend so much time licking their wounds and doing wolfy stuff that they often forget to maintain the truck, cook a hot meal, weld security fences into place, etc. In a way, the Garou go off to fight and often kinfolk have to keep watch.

Hope this helps.

@hobos said in The All-New Down With OPP Thread:

If a man plays a female character and notices how grossly people act towards women, that's personal growth through roleplay.

I've said it before on this site and I'll say it again. I am a male who doesn't consider writing female characters to be crossplaying but an exercise in becoming a better writer.

My experiences RPing a female character without declaring up-front that I was a male writer were eye opening in terms of what kind of pressure and harassment some women (or players believed to be women) get on these games, and it really helped define the way I treated others regardless of which gender I perceived them to be.

@faraday said in What is the 'ideal' power range?:

I don't see why this needs to be a global decision.

Here's why:

Because for these games to function properly all players need a clear vision of what the game is and how it is to be played. This also requires an understanding of what the game is not. Generally speaking, a game of players approaching horror like it's Hellraiser is fine, but the 5 players approaching it like it's Buffy the Vampire slayer (while this may be fun for them!) is distracting. Theme is important for cohesion, as is an expected playstyle.

You also mentioned about whether or not it's NOT FUN for newPlayer to be left out of the Hellraiser scene. Here is why that matters:

Because if GAIN matters (xp, level, stats, skills, equipment) and the MU designs rewards related to those, then those rewards are meaningless if a new PC can come in and ball at the same level as a character who has 3 years invested. Allowing this lessens the work players put into getting to that level. If the 3 year player is supposed to be reacting to a scene as if it's dangerous and some 1 day out of cgen player can join in and operate at the same level, then the importance of those rewards is drastically lessened.

Of course, if FUN and WRITING are the goal, then by all means let the 1 day old character get in there, but if it's a GAME, then those rewards determine capability and ultimately the 1day character should be in mortal danger fighting with the dragon with their scrawny arms next to the elder.

This is where cohesion and vision often fails in MUs. BSG games made sense because xp level didnt affect the outcome because those stories were more about survival. In the show even Starbuck died. The setting begins with literally billions of high level NPCs dying due to wrong place, wrong time.

But the classic game experience where xp/skill level matters introduces Luke Skywalker as a bratty teen in part one, not "able to fight Vader alongside Obi-Wan because standing by the Falcon watching isnt fun"

@Macha I just question that "crap talked people", "contributed to the MSB/BMD split", "has minions", and "has been accused of being toxic" are a qualified list of offenses on a forum full of people crap talking others with their minions, who have been accused of being toxic, who were also part of the MSB/BMD split...makes any sense at all.

That's kind of like Kool-Ade accusing Tang of being a powdered flavor-drink.

Also, I prefer Dark World to Ragnarok.

Gotta say though, it's nice seeing another stab at Firefly outside of the convoluted code mess (and unethical WTFness) that was Serenity Mush.

I think what you're seeing here is some residual worry about snooping because some of the Serenity Mush old guard (not just Mal/Inara) were known to snoop and would (up to the point of banning players) abuse players for choosing against their wishes via RP.

I think a lot of people loved their stories and characters from that game, but didnt exactly love the game itself. That make sense?

@Bessarion FYI they don't have to stop anything for you to stop giving then attention. You could, at any time, muster up the self control and stop responding.

Trying to set policy that everyone loves is a moving target that you will never hit.

Set a policy that you feel is reasonable and stand by it.

@Macha said in Ruiz:

And yet you are basically slut shaming me, calling me a creeper and worse, for a log that didn't have any TS in it.

This is an entirely fair statement.

If we can all agree that slut-shaming is wrong, then taking 3rd party details of a scene between two consenting writers and releasing log, personal details on who the player is, and kicking off a campaign to label them as a sexual predator...is slut shaming.

And may I say if there are levels of slut shaming ranging from 1 to 10, taking a romance/intense scene log and turning into a sexual predator campaign lands somewhere between "9" and "I asked Danny Masterson to tweet a link to it."

@Pandora Fucking so say we all.

The only thing I'd add is that the OTHER major difference between an author and a role player is that an AUTHOR is someone who is intentionally trying to use the craft of writing a novel to create an entire story, cast of characters, and plot all by themselves for the purpose of publication with regular edits and chapter-focused scenes. A ROLEPLAYER is someone who is socially playing a form of make-believe for their own enjoyment, be it with text or dice or handcuffs or plaid skirts.

Mercedes Lackey (ole MMO clanny of mine) once told me "Roleplaying isn't writing". She is 100% right. Writing is a whole lot more than just making a character and trying to showcase it, and IMO if people on these games stopped considering it to be some kind of avant-garde writing showcase it might be a more inclusive environment.

Wanna write? Go for it. Create a plot, characters, and get into the craft of writing dialogue between 2+ characters, forging moving chapters, and wrapping it up into the great American novel. I'm sure plenty of people are willing to help edit.

...beautiful wiki.