Posts made by Ghost

@tragedyjones and stopping, too.

AND MY AXE.

I've got the SR5 main book and a bunch of 4e splat books. I'm not much of a coder but if descs, data entry, NPC design, setting etc is needed, reach out to me.

Edit: IT life too busy to staff, but I can collaborate and listen.

@tragedyjones said in What would you want in a Shadowrun game?:

If you were to play on a Shadowrun game, what would you look for?

Assume for a moment we are talking the most recent full edition (5).

• Chargen Method (Priority, Sum to 10, Point Buy, Modules)

I prefer priority. Less hassle with hunting down other books/methods. Priority is detail mostly in 5e and the game is minmaxxy enough as it is.

• Setting (Seattle, Denver, Tokyo, London, etc)

SEATTLE! Classic. Tons of available content. Ancients vs Halloweeners

• Metaplot (Should there be one?)

Occasional MetaPlots. I.e. Seasonal events.

• Should people be required to BE runners?

Runner affiliated. PCs should be a part of the game. By game I don't mean the MU but the GAME, like the Hustle-N-Flow game. Street docs, runners, bounty hunters, go gangers, fixers, tech designers. Chances are being the one Lonestar, a Mr Johnson, or a corporate might get boring unless you'rein the GAME.

• How often would you want to go on runs vs have social scenes?

Runs every 1-2 weeks, nightly options, social events.

• In-game Nuyen tracking: Y/N?

Yeap. Game is so ungodly gear based that Nuyen tracking is a must. Shadowrun is gear porn. You can make a ninja turtle van with a self targeting minigun auto turret that won't fire on targets you have RFID tags on. ¥ is a must.

• What supplements would you include?

Some of the 4e module content could be fun to include. Will have to look at list at home. I might kill someone if the game doesn't allow gunslinger adepts, tho.

Post 667

Because Neighbor of the Beast

Me being constructive again.

I was talking a lot off chan with @Auspice about this:

I don't think there's a always whole lot of malevolence to this. I think a lot of this staff putting their chars in the drivers seat and railroading everything chalks up to a difference in viewpoint in GM styles:

1. GM runs games like games. Lets the dice decide, will let characters die, will let characters decide their own fate. Is okay with this. Enjoys rping all of the NPCs and is comfortable letting the game be its own monster.

2. GM has a story they wrote, with beginning, middle, and end written up. They're running the game to tell a story and don't logically associate the players as people who want to make their own decisions, but as players that want to play the GMs story. So, naturally, GM's NPCs running the show, all of the combats and scenes are on a railroad, etc doesn't lightbulb as being annoying to the player because OMG THE STORY I WROTE and I CANT LET THE PLAYERS AFFECT THE STORY OTHERWISE MY BEGINNING, MIDDLE, AND END WONT BE ACHIEVED!!!. The PCs will, potentially, make choices that will derail this grand story idea, but in the end, the players may be left feeling as if they were just there to watch it all happen, whether they were involved or not.

I do believe there have been many mushes that fit GM2's model, and I do believe that some of those railroading GMs aren't malevolent, but they do tend to put their characters front and center because that is what's fun for them, and that they're somewhat blind to the concept that any other given player may want to feel important because... omg i wrote this whole story and...

I have played in plenty of TT games where the GM is like GM2 and cant figure out how to write up a game setting without writing up the beginning, middle, and end, and shoehorning the game and chars to fit that vision.

@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

I have something that niggles at me about running a scene for your own character and I'm trying to find a way to put it that doesn't sound accusatory, because I don't think anyone here is actively doing this.

If you are a sphere lead, or headstaff, someone that's a leader even among staff... there's an inherent perception issue with running one's own plots for your character. Namely... if you put in a job to gain approval for a scene that you are running for your character... who is going to tell you no if there's something in that pitched prp that's 'too much'? At that point, you're the one in charge. Who's going to risk angering 'the boss' by telling them they're going too far? Its definitely a bit more sticky of a situation than when 'just a player' is asking for a prp.

(Using the empirical you in this case, again, I don't think anyone here is doing this, but I've found it's a relatively common perception when someone in charge is asking for something for their own character.)

I couldn't agree more with this. I'll refrain from using the term passing the ball to yourself too much more, but I think it applies.

I think that running scenes for yourself for character development purposes always seems a little strange to me, but really it all depends on the WHY/PURPOSE behind the scene that details the level of appropriateness.

• Some game systems/MUs have PrP requirements on sheet changes (I.e. to get membership into X special order in WoD you need a tiny plot to join it) I think is reasonable.
• Running a self-taught scene because you suddenly feel like inserting a character arc that they lose an eye in combat because for some reason you like the idea of your character being that one-eyed villain rogue type? I think is reasonable
• Running a scene for yourself that will ICly place your character into a RP position to have authority or opportunities that other players wouldnt have access to...less reasonable.
• Staff running a scene for themselves that places their character in a role of leadership over their players that will, in the end, require players to go their their character to get things done...the problems start to show.

Development is one thing, but seeing the next few steps down the road and the why behind so-called development is tricky. Sometimes, is it really for character development purposes, or is it playing into the politics of the game and calling it development?

Thin line, that.

Edit:

OOCly, we know the game, the players, the system, can predict where the game is going, what players may respond to X action with Y response, but when determining to want a scene for ourselves for development purposes, when playing fair, we have to question if that requested development matches what the character knows/wants, or if it's us using the guise of character development to OOCly influence a game and pre-seed it with IC justification.

Also, constructively, this all gets harder when StaffPCs are in the majority of power positions on a game, make the IC decisions, write then implement plot. In a way, staff having StaffPCs in charge of everything becomes a CoI fucking nightmare.

Plot: Battlefield combat to capture an alien bad guy.

Staffer A: Writes the plot, plays the leader of the good guy assault, plays the UberLeader who will make decisions on what to do with the captive, and will run the scene/combat where said alien has been predetermined to be captured, though the players do not know this.

Staffer B: Plays warband leader, roleplays as the bad enemy force, has a PC in the goodguy effort to capture the alien, likely involved with GoodLeaderGuyStaffPC, plays captive Alien StaffNPC, etc

Players: Show up. Rolls dice. Watches it happen?

The more staffbits are in control positions, the NPCs, various PC positions, IC leadership, the bad guys, etc, it's far more likely that when you pass that ball, you're passing to yourselves.

In the end, staff needs to decide if they are telling a story and want to unveil that story without much deviation from their vision, or if they are opening a storytelling game where their players are allowed to let their decisions, or dice, affect the outcome.

@GirlCalledBlu said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

So, if I'm reading these responses right...

A Player -- Staff or not -- should never "GM" (because I can't think of a better word) a story that leads to the development of their character, large or small, significant or insignificant. That a character's development is dependent on someone else running plot for them, and that the player of that character can't put a plot in motion for their character that may or may not have significant impact on their character.

Not a fan of your tone here. Can't put my finger on it.

There's nothing wrong with a GM running scenes that could develop their own characters. In theory, every scene should help develop characters regardless of who is running it. Developing characters isn't the same as making staff-run characters the forefront players in a scene/plot. Also, just because a staff character doesn't gain power/xp/wealth IC (in a scene run by their own staffer) does not mean that said StaffPC hasn't gained. Sure, the staffbit didnt get xp/wealth/equip/power on their sheets through the staff scene, but the bit/staffer gained other things: attention, focus, the final word on the decisions that govern the scene, options for future rp, etc.

Not all benefits from Coi come out on the charsheets. Some of these benefits include never ever having to want for RP while non-staff players are flubbing thru scenes because their chars are unimportant, because the plots are focused on the staffPCs. On some of these games, especially FS3, sheet development is slow and the bumps to the sheet aren't very crunchy. So it's easy for staff to say "I'm not gaining!" but through constantly being the focus of plot, making all the decisions, writing all of the plot, holding the playbook, always having scenes where staffbit chars get stuff done, etc...gain is definitely happening.

There's also nothing wrong with scenes here or there being about the staffbit, or the staffbit having their own shit going on. That's fine. No one is suggesting staffbits cannot develop without someone else running the scene. The suggestion I'm reading here is more that the general metaplot, plots, etc shouldn't be an element of FUBU by the staff.

@lordbelh said in The 100: The Mush:

@surreality Except in that different thread I never told you not to make your game, or suggest you shouldn't make your game (I distinctly remember @ghost spelling out s/he felt these two shouldn't make games at all, but I'm not going to rifle through posts for a quote, so I'll happily let it go).

I said that.

Taken in context, I do hold my belief that these two should not open games, or at least not to the public. From what I wrote there was no suggestion nor really any basis for extrapolating that I believe that because of these two no one should open any games ever, or that no more games was the best solution to my personal views not being met.

@Sunny said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

Even when "just" a player, I don't run scenes / plot that involve my own character. In the example of Yolo, I would never approve that for anyone in the first place. If Fred wants to run it for Yolo, great, that's fine. If Yolo wants to run a plot where Fred's NPC family member is murdered, fine. Yolo running an actual plot about his own NPC family member isn't acceptable in the first place.

Agreed. When I run scenes or Tabletop GM, I do not involve my character, and if my character would logically be present, I push them into the background or as a support-only role and allow the PCs to be the big part of the show. This keeps the plot direction and decision making in the hands of my players and keeps the players from feeling as if my preferred outcome still would have been met had they not bothered to show up at all. Doing this makes them feel important and necessary.

Example: I have a PC in a war campaign, but I'm running a major battle in that war campaign. I will place the PCs where the heart of the action will be, and my GM/Staff PC will be there, a bit faded into the background, as potential backup/story fodder if requested. I allow the PCs to win or lose, regardless of my hopes for the outcome of the scene.

Usage Example: Lord Blackheart's (My staff/GM PC) garrison is fighting on the western flank and holding the western flank, so the PCs do not need to concern themselves with the less-important western flank, and can focus more on the center, where the enemy hero is leading the assault. If they radio Lord Blackheart for assistance if they're losing, then I'll alter the scene to being about them fighting a pitched battle and holding out long enough for reinforcements to arrive. When Blackheart arrives, he will then keep X percentage of the bad guys occupied to free up the PCs to focus on the major resolution points and get their job done.

I pass the ball to the PCs.

If I railroaded the plot to be my preferred outcome and then used Lord Blackheart to fulfill that outcome above and beyond the desires of my players, I would be passing the ball to myself.

Edited for minor highlights and punctuation.

Conflict of Interest needs to apply to both staff and players, and if staff writes plot that their PCs are the main handlers, decision makers, point of resolution, then the perception is that the plot was written for the staff PC.

I call this throwing the ball to yourself.

Constructively, staff needs to be careful when they have PCs involved in their own plots, because if their PC is a major player and the plot has a predetermined outcome (I.e. scene must end with X bad guy being captured), and their PC is used to ensure the outcome is met (Staff PC rushes in and captures the bad guy before the non-staff PCs, who wanted to kill him, can affect the outcome), then the perception is that the non-staff PCs are secondary to both plot and resolution.

When staff PCs are spread out as major players and are IC plot leaders (I.e. heads of household, battlefield commanders, team leads), and the end result of scenes involving those staff PCs are predetermined (railroaded, etc), then the player base will likely come to feel as if their characters are less important than their attendance in those scenes.

So, in summary, staff needs to never forget to pass the ball to their players, and not themselves.

@lordbelh said in The 100: The Mush:

@Sunny said in The 100: The Mush:

Hold up. Let me say something here very clearly, because I have put forth firmly worded negative opinions. You are not a bad staffer. You are an incredible storyteller, you have good intentions, you treat people with respect, and you're reasonable. I could probably think of a dozen other things that you excel at, where staffing is concerned.

I'd agree with that.

It'd be a shame if @GirlCalledBlu stopped making games. Because, unlike what @ghost seems believe, people not making games is way worse than a game not being up to everybody's standards of perfection.

The idea that everybody'd been better off without @GirlCalledBlu and @Seraphim73 making the 100 is patently false. Because people had fun. Because whatever disappointments were had, including that it shut down, is vastly outweighed by all the tons of fun people had on the game.

Things could've been done better. But lets keep that in perspective.

Oh that's what I seems believe, eh?

I'm being polite and reading and not typing. Don't poke the badger. I was under the assumption something constructive was happening in the last 20 or so posts on this thread. I've been politely bowed back.

And no, I don't have super high standards and think that there should be no games unless they meet my exorbitant standards. I'll not insult you and assume you're truly aware that I was never suggesting that, and that it sounded cute when you typed it.

@tek bear in mind that imposing your aggression on others and forcing them to use words and definitions of your choosing, lest they be presented with ugly mental imagery and wrath of your choosing until they comply...falls under the definition of abusive behavior. Using power to force and control the way people speak is very aggressive and dominating.

The reason doesn't matter. It's bullying-type behavior and is a set of bared teeth to anyone who might dare challenge you or suffer a fight.

Use these words...or else.

You hypocritical twat.

I'm out. This is fucked up.

@tek said in The 100: The Mush:

@Ghost said in The 100: The Mush:

@tek I think that inviting other players to unwittingly play support cast to your personal PC-driven adventure is abusive to the players, yes.

As someone who was beaten, molested and medicated for illnesses I didn't have as punishment from the ages of six to eighteen, you're full of hyperbolic shit.

I did, and I'm done backpedalling around your shock and awe angle.

No one was talking about molestation, domestic abuse, or you. No one asked for you to take the usage of the word abuse personally, and as adults and per context of the conversation it was apparent that I wasn't applying your definition of abuse when I meant the other. We weren't even talking about you...but now we are.

Knock it the fuck off and seriously, fuck you for taking it there.

@tek yes. Words have meaning.

a·buse
verb
əˈbyo͞oz/
1.
use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
"the judge abused his power by imposing the fines"
synonyms: misuse, misapply, misemploy; More

Don't call me condescending when you're being hostile and nitpicking my words to employ some kind of flamethrower assumption. That's fucked up.

@tek On a human level, I empathize and think what you went through is horrible. I, myself, was never subject to similar things but some very, very close people to me have been and I've been a part of their ongoing support engine.

Having said that, I get that you're triggered, but it's not my responsibility nor your entitlement to get rude with me when I type abusive when you would prefer that I typed unethical.

I chose a word. You and I are both adult and mature enough to understand that I wasn't equating it to sexual abuse, nor belittling abuse victims on purpose.

Knock it with your shit, wtf.

@tek ...seriously?

@tek Oh my god, I apologize for using an "A" word.

@tek ...are you seriously fucking kidding me? I apologize that my definition of abusive practices in online gaming didn't meet your definition of real life physical abuse that @tek went through.

Sucks that that stuff happened to you, but fuck off with your over the top fire and brimstone shit. Save that for the real life abuse survival thread. You should be adult and mature enough to realize I wasn't equating sexual abuse to being a dick online.

W...T...F...