Posts made by ixokai

@WTFE said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

This is the danger of having too many guidelines in your policy.

If you see someone doing something wrong, even without a direct complete, drop the fucking hammer on them. End of story. If they whine that it's not in the policy, point out that the overarching policy is "don't be a jerk" and that staff doesn't actually need a complaint if they observe someone being a jerk.

I don't disagree with any point you have here-- in fact I agree with most-- there is a segment of Staff who think rules are important, and that Staff acting in a way that are arbitrary and not in adherence to stated policies is bad. I think this view is not-invalid, though I am inclined to lean otherwise.

I think Player A should be protected.

I think Player B crossed a line. BUT.

I don't think that line violated any of our rules as stated, and those rules aren't nitpicky lawyer-level details, ether.

I don't know quite how to resolve these two situations.

I've recently seen a situation I don't quite know how to deal with.

On the game in question, the policy is don't be a jerk, if you think someone is a jerk tell them to stop jerking at you, if they don't, Staff will come down on them.

Staff is very willing to come down on anyone being a jerk per this policy.

Now, someone put in a request indicating someone made them uncomfortable. I look at it and reasonably say: yeah, I get that. It was sexual and uninvited and weird. I totally agree with the target calling it unpleasant.

But someone's response was to ignore the situation.

And ignore it more when more things that made them uncomfortable happened. More pages, more comments, ignore. Ignore was how the someone expressed 'no' in this situation.

The policy, as stated, says: if someone bugs you, you say NO, and if they don't take that NO, we flatten their asses.

But this someone's responses were to ignore: to not have a response at all.

I honestly don't know how to deal with this.

On the one hand, I recognize that what is 'comfortable' or not ... varies. And people can be unintentionally bad, so they should have some say.

On the other, I completely agree this character has a totally valid reason to be uncomfortable.

On the other-other hand, this seems like a classic case of harassment and women not speaking up, and I totally don't want to pressure onto that situation more of an issue.

Yet on the other-other-other-hand, holding someone accountable for actions that aren't following the rules seems unfair in a way I'm not comfortable being.

And I have so many other hands.

But one is: the policy we wrote down says: say stop, and if they don't stop, Staff will absolutely bring fire and brimstone down on them. But if you don't say stop, but are uncomfortable, ... what do we DO?

I honestly don't know what's the ethical response in this situation.

@Thenomain said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

I have never encountered a game where chargen needed to be coded anything but last. If I weren't in a tub I'd come up with more reasons than one, but this is my main one: If you change anyone about the stat system, you're going to have to change chargen. Each time you need to add, remove, alter stat lookup and recording, you're going to have to consider changing chargen.

Trust me, don't bother giving yourself that level of headache and just do it last.

I do not engage into designing chargen until my stat system is fully designed to encompass the full requirements.

I have never had to change any fundamental of the stat system in any chargen I have ever coded.

Perhaps the difference is, your history tells you that you've done a situation where you code for Game A on System B, and when Game B on System Be came out, you had to reconfigure?

Valid. I can see the difficulties there. I'd handle them with difficulty: I always seek first to player convenience, second to player convenience, then to staff convenience and finally to my own annoyance. This determines what I'm willing to code or not. Perhaps you've been hit by coding games for systems where there's more games coming you need to support: I don't envy you that and agree its a quite hard problem to design around. I, fortunately, haven't.

I can say: I have repeatedly encountered a game which in no way required the chargen to be coded last. That it was true that you had not to take into account some weird new variance. That you couldn't fully plan out the chargen and then take that plan and implement it and be done. I have experienced this multiple times.

No. I don't trust you. Our experience do not match. I absolutely loathe recoding and redoing stuff and avoid it at all costs: doing cg last has never been an issue on this point. I don't start a project until I have a plan, I don't have a plan until I have the full grasp of the scope in my mind. Admittedly, in current project? Shadowrun 5E is escaping me. But I'm committed.

Also, don't say 'trust me'.

@Ganymede said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

Most of the time on WoD games, a player goes through CGen and waits in the end for approval. Some people go through CGen without incident; for others, it is a siege of frustration. I'm in the former category. I can't remember the last time I really had a problem with getting approved, other than delay by staff.

None of this I disagree with. But I believe that writing up a sheet in notepad and submitting it is for some people also a seige of frustration, and in my experience it is more frustrating for more people. Does that mean chargens are frustration-free and never an issue? No.

I can argue efficiency simply because it's demonstrable. People hire me because I'm a lawyer: they can learn the law themselves to petition courts, but I'm frankly better at it because I do it all the time. The same applies here: players don't need to learn how to use CGen commands if staff is handling the statting. All players have to do is send a list of desired stats; that seems pretty easy to me.

I know multiple people who find working out stats on paper very difficult.

I seriously doubt that any CGen involves one command to complete. Even @Thenomain's code requires the review of +notes and the occasion hand-setting.

My chargen always includes single command approval; at most there is a one command review that does various checks, but these days I've moved all these checks into chargen itself and run/enforce them before submission. Note setting is automated and fully integrated: if a note is required its prompted for, and yes, when the staffer +cg/review's they get all notes at once and do not need individual approval. It may happen they need to send back a note or make an occasional change: hand-statting must never be required, I define that as a bug to be fixed. Notes may need to be sent back. But these are the exceptions and not the rule.

For most cases with most players there's a review and an approve and that's it. This can't be argued as anything but more efficient then hand-statting to my mind. Maybe I'm missing something entirely.

I'm not suggesting we all go back to hand-statting because it's better. I'm trying to point out that it presents different challenges and different merits. Back in the day, I had a much-closer attachment with my players as well. Why? Because I was the one that helped them cobble together their PCs, for one thing. The other thing was that I had a heart back then.

Me, I believe hand-statting is empirically worse in nearly every way. Yes, it can work. I've played games where it was required. But works is a very low bar. Everyone keeping their stats on a wikipage and +rolling numbers directly works.

But its worse.

Yes, some players will have trouble in chargen. Most, by a large margin I believe, won't. Approval will be faster with chargen: you may be a superstar at entering stats but most staffers, by a large margin I believe, aren't.

Is it perfect? No. But it solves more problems then it causes, and at the end of the day, I, as the coder, am responsible for making problems mine. I'm the one who should be burdened and inconvenienced in the name of making lives for players first, staffers second, faster and easier. That's why I code.

@Arkandel said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

I... don't play on games where everything is on the wiki.

I think one of the problems here then is that you base your resolutions exclsively on your preferences. Wikis are very widely used these days, for example, and you already rejected open CGen games because you don't play those either.

Not to say there's something wrong with the practice, but excluding any scenario that either doesn't fit with or is comparable to your solution doesn't lead to robust approaches.

I'm not excluding scenarios, I'm expressing that I have no experience with some scenarios so have no way of knowing if that scenario would change my opinion. I'm admitting ignorance of certain situations: I can not reliably have an opinion on something that I know only in theory. I am basing my conclusions on my experience, and yes, part of that is my preferences, but those preferences are informed by the experience.

I didn't say I don't play on games with wikis: I can't remember the last time I played a game without a wiki. LA, maybe? But we had web export code and tried to keep everything on the web pre-wiki. What I said was I've never played on a game that required wiki's (this is more what I meant and less what I said), or where everything was on the wiki (this is more what I said which is also true but misses a subtle point of mandatory wiki being the thing I've never seen). Everything was a very important qualifier there in my statement.

I don't choose not to play on games because they put everything on the wiki, I've simply never happened to experience it. I know some games try for everything on the wiki, and some games (to my great loathing) have stuff only on the wiki, and I can have opinions on those. But successful, wiki-mandatory games? I haven't played one yet. Don't know what it would be like or if it would change the basis for my opinions.

That said, I DO choose not to play on any game with open chargen because I did back in the day and had a series of very, very bad experiences that I (rightly or wrongly) attributed to the 'open' nature of chargen. I don't wish to repeat those experiences so I avoid those games.

But still that choice means I am left ignorant of every open chargen game that's younger then about fifteen years, so maybe the truth of those bad experiences aren't valid anymore. But I don't play on them so I don't know. So I can't intelligently speak to an opinion on them beyond not wanting to play on them.

@Arkandel said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

Me, I like wikis, I like the web, but IME there is a significant subset of our player population who do not want to so much as touch anything outside of the game.

Almost everyone already has to do with the wiki as it is. It's where policies are, where your character profile is, etc.

But we can argue about it if you have theories as to why people might be adverse to using a GUI for CGen.

I... don't play on games where everything is on the wiki. Policies are in +news, and while I like wiki character profiles, they're optional everywhere I've ever played. (On my current two projects, Marvel:1963 and unnamed Shadowrun 5E, the first automakes very basic profiles because one staffer is intent on it but otherwise we do not have any information on the wiki. On the latter, everything will be simultaneously and automatically in sync between wiki and in-game cuz I'm reading +news and +help right out of the Mediawiki database in game)

I don't have theories as to why, I just know getting people to want to care about doing anything on the wiki for some people is worse then pulling teeth. Its completely impossible: they will not have anything to do with it. I go out of my way to explain it in clear detail and make it as easy as possible and they absolutely will not do it.

I've no idea why.

I just know that in my experience its an absolute fact that there is a not-insignificant subset of the mushing population who want/need/will tolerate everything being in-game.

@Arkandel said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

I asked Theno once if character data was all in MySQL tables anyway so that we could just make a web interface for CGen. That'd be as ideal as I can think of it, because then we could have a character sheet taken straight out of a WoD book (or whatever) to let players fill out the dots, then magically they'd have the corresponding +sheet in-game. Unfortunately that's not possible with the codebase.

Me, I like wikis, I like the web, but IME there is a significant subset of our player population who do not want to so much as touch anything outside of the game.

So having a web chargen has been something I've thought about from time to time but ultimately a no-go for my priorities.

@Ganymede said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

I don't know if this is rosy nostalgia or just that your experience was on simpler systems, but I think this wrong: I think there are notably less problems with chargen and notably less frustration with players (especially players who are not experts on the system).

I'm going to nitpick because: why not?

There's nothing inaccurate in my statement. If staff hand-statted everything, players would not have the frustration of having to figure out commands to generate their character.

They would have other frustrations, how to properly format their submission, having to do the math, having to deal with inevitable back and forth delays in problems hand-statting creates.

Is chargen perfect? No. I never claimed so, but it is IMHO beyond argument that it is superior -- it has fewer problems for everyone but the coder, fewer frustrations, lower wait, less issues with players having difficulties.

But, as I also said: you are trading one headache for another. Now the onus is on staff to do the work. So, players have to play the waiting game, which is only really solved by a fully-automated CGen with no approval process.

Man, "the waiting game" is there no matter what-- except in open chargen games which I don't play-- but in m experience, the waiting game for hand statting is FAR in excess of the waiting game in a chargen game. So while its true only "open chargen" solves it, the waiting game is mitigated by an extreme degree by chargen.

That good benefit, making the wait far less, is IMHO extremely important. If all someone needs is a look over for approval players will have far less frustration and difficulties with getting in and getting started.

And think about efficiency: if staff must generate PCs for players, they will become better at it. Some staff will be good at it, some will be bad, but those who are good will get better. After hand-statting about a dozen PCs, I could reliably crank one out in 2 minutes using MIAM's code. All I needed was a @mail with the stats.

Yeah, I played on MIAMs. I mostly have done WOD over the years, though I have ventured beyond periodically. You could crank one character out in 2 minutes? Great, you can't argue efficiency though. +approve x is unarguably more efficient of staff's time. The question is does it put too much on the player? I think not. On the contrary, I think expecting players to write up their stats in notepad and send it as a mail or +request is a MUCH higher barrier to entry to put on players.

But, as I said: I think players want control over the process. They may want to hand-wring over where to place their dots, and to shift their stats around on a whim. I know I do that, so I can see why others would too. But if you want that power, then you'll have to put up with the attendant problem of learning CGen commands.

Sorry I really don't see "learning cgen commands" as this serious obstacle for the vast majority of users in the vast majority of cases. Yeah, every so often it is, but those are outliers and is rare.

@Ganymede said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

I think the order you do things doesn't really matter, because IMHO chargen is mandatory and until its active a game shouldn't be open to players. Hand-statting sucks-- it requires the users to literally know everything possible and requires them to do no errors and staff to catch the inevitable errors and not make mistakes when setting up the stats. I hate hand statting.

Players like to have control over setting their stats.

What many players may not remember is that there were once games where there was no chargen. What you did was apply for a character, which meant sending @mail to staff about what stats you wanted. Staff would then review the application, and stat the PC for you.

Sorry no. I full well the day when some games had no chargen, and I full well remember the endless problems hand-statting led to, from player mistakes to staff mistakes to staff failing to catch the mistakes and trying to clean them up later.

I'm not new to this.

Frankly, if staff had to hand-stat everyone, we'd probably avoid a lot of problems, and the frustration of players not knowing how to use the CGen commands. And because most games require a review process anyhow, I don't think it would slow things down substantially.

I don't know if this is rosy nostalgia or just that your experience was on simpler systems, but I think this wrong: I think there are notably less problems with chargen and notably less frustration with players (especially players who are not experts on the system).

My days on Buffy games before I wrote the chargen for Mystick Krewe... Hand-statting was a nightmare of frustration and complexity and mostly for the player. Just as ONE example.

@Thenomain

Suffice to say I completely 100% disagree with this. Chargen is absolutely mandatory. For reasons specified why hand-statting is unacceptable to me.

But I suspect this is gonna be one of those agree-to-disagree places I've coded on many games and have always done a fully automated chargen.

Until Shadowrun 5E, Buffy Cinematic Unisystem was the first I'd say was difficult: WOD in both eras is easy, its just data entry heavy. I admit data entry blows, but even if you skip chargen and go with get/set you need data entry if you want any kind of even basic validation.

I've coded numerous chargen for various systems over the years; WOD old and new, Cinematic Unisystem, Fudge, others.

I am now coding Shadowrun 5E, and let me say:

@Thenomain said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

Chargen code exists because math is hard. I just went over the Shadowrun 5 chargen system and laughed my skinny white ass off.

Dear god almighty a day does not go past where the complexity of what is required literally doubles with a new revelation.

That said:

Encoding chargen is hard, and it's the least critical part of the stat system so it could be done last. IMO, it always should be.

I think the order you do things doesn't really matter, because IMHO chargen is mandatory and until its active a game shouldn't be open to players. Hand-statting sucks-- it requires the users to literally know everything possible and requires them to do no errors and staff to catch the inevitable errors and not make mistakes when setting up the stats. I hate hand statting.

I usually do the stat-system first: in some fashion I have a stat database and a set of functions that access it, get/set stats on people, do calculations (ie, for derived stats), and whatnot.

But I won't do that all at once, often. I'll code a room in chargen (but I still like rooms in chargen: but I don't like locks. I like rules-based check systems, but I think chargen should hold users hands somewhat and rooms are the best way to walk someone through step by step), a system that uses stats, and... stuff. By jumping from project to project I keep my own interest up, and that's what's most important.

Drop the vampire bit and go full on Mage 20th and I'd say fuck yes.

LA exhausted me on all things vampire.

In like TWO DAYS the latest installment of the Brent Weeks Lightbringer series is being released and I'm seriously loving these books. An interesting, unique magic system, compelling characters (men, women, and one of the main characters isn't your typical hero), and fun writing.

The first book is The Black Prism.

RhostMUSH

Personally, after reviewing this and getting a headache over having to implement it, I've sorta decided modules are ... examples, and serve best when thought of that way. There's a shitton of skills in Shadowrun and it might be quite daunting to have a blank slate and a pile of karma and be told to go at it: the modules give me a way to go step by step through and have an idea for what kinda skill makeup makes sense for my budding character.

At least that's how I'm functionally thinking of them at this point. I might be way off base.

@Sunny said in Coming soon: Lawless Space MUSH:

@fatefan said in Coming soon: Lawless Space MUSH:

I have come to realize I remember jack shit about setting up a wiki beyond getting it installed and running. This is, I think, the biggest obstacle slowing me down before I open up the game for interested testers/players/etc.

Paging @surreality and @ixokai. Since I know you both have such copious amounts of free time...

(Any advice for this person?)

Hm. I'm not sure where to begin with such a general question.

@fatefan what are you wanting to do? Set up templates? Look & theme?

@Jennkryst said in ISO Collaborators for Shadowrun:

@ixokai How do you feel about chargen coding?

I'd have to buy a 5E book but surely Shadowrun can't be as horrible as Cinematic Unisystem which was hands down the most annoying chargen I've ever coded.

That said if I'm going to do main coding (as opposed to maintenance or tweaking here or there) I'd want the game to run on Rhost.

Oh, I can also host the game and wiki and set up the integration between the two, if needed.

I love Shadowrun but my only experience with it is the recent games.

I've never played a SR MUSH or a SR tabletop.

That said, the kind of support I could offer such a project is basically coding.

Man. I would play the hell out of a Supernatural mush, but the 40's is way too far back for me.

(Yeah I have issues with historical non-fantasy games: it took me a good while to feel comfortable with Marvel:1963 and I swear I couldn't go much earlier)

@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.

Agreed 100%. I disagreed with Orion and Andy on some things, but wouldn't even have to think hard about joining another game they ran if they decided to run one. I had more fun on the 100 then I've had on most mushes in my entire mushing career. 8/10 would play again. Even if it isn't perfect or didn't last as long as I'd like.