Posts made by ixokai

I try to write my pose within 6-8 minutes, but sometimes it can take as long as 10-15, but this is rare. Usually it means I've told someone I'm slow cuz work or something IRL is going on, or if I'm in a combat scene in another window (which, again, I warn my partners). Sometimes its much shorter, 2-4 minutes. It just depends.

The size? I have no idea. I tend to pose big. And the later it gets, the bigger it gets. But what's big? Less then 5 lines (as defined on an 80 char width wrap) and I feel I'm not really contributing.

Over 20 happens sometimes. 10-ish is an ideal sweet spot.

Again, it varies.

I can't tell you how much this "swrmud.com" thing throws me. The moment I see 'mud" I mentally discard it as whatever. I've no interest in playing a Star Wars MUD >.>

@Thenomain said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

Another thought:

If you don't have all your Defining Moments set, don't give full chargen points. As you define those moments, allow chargen points to be spent concerning that defining moment.

I think this is a brilliant idea.

@Taika said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

So, I'm rewatching Inside Out, and I had an idea.

I know that nWoD2.0 has Aspirations, and Conditions, and Breaking Points.

But what if, instead of a bg, or just Breaking Points, there was a little section for 'Core Memories'? Little snippets of events that helped shape who that character is?

For example: Sally was bullied a lot, and one of her most remarkable memories, small as it is, was when Johnny stood up for her and saved the day, giving her a much needed break from the bullying but also a self-esteem and self-worth boost that helped her get through the bullying.

I would find this interesting, provided two things: 1) You didn't ask for very many. Expect me to be able to come up with more then 2, max 3, and you're making me pre-plan my character more then I like to do, and 2) Let me add to them after the fact.

As others have said, I might lay out some basic facts about a character in a background, and I might mention one, maybe two, pivotal things, but generally, its a very thin skeleton of a life. I don't really figure my characters out until I play them, hear their voice, and develop not only the depth of what makes them a more real character, but lots of facts that happened.

I used to write up backgrounds in a hugely detailed way, back in the old days, and I'd find once I got into play, I was drained. Tired. Instead, now, I create a rough image of a character in my mind and a certain idea where I'd like it to go-- then I write the absolutely most minimal acceptable background possible to get people to let me get to know that character in IC play and figure out who he (sometimes she) is.

@faraday said in Better Places Code:

Unrelated aside, I share @Thenomain's hatred of phone code. WHY?

On this we agree.

@Arkandel said in Better Places Code:

@ixokai Sure, but how would you be proven wrong? That was my objection. It's not like there's an objective way to say approach <X> is better than <Y>.

</nitpick>

Yeah. No. I'm not talking about this with you anymore.

@Arkandel said in Better Places Code:

@ixokai said in Better Places Code:

I'm still betting on: you can't make it better. You're reinventing rooms.

That's a brave statement! Can't is quite a thing to say - and how would it be proven either way? What's objectively better ?

And if reinventing rooms leads to a solution why is that a bad thing?

Sigh. Why do people not read the front stuff and only read the back stuff.

I'm still betting on: you can't make it better. You're reinventing rooms.

The front stuff was the important part.

Maybe I don't win the bet and am proven wrong. It happens, you know.

@faraday said in Better Places Code:

@ixokai The cluster idea is similar to what I was thinking. If poses and emits were automatically color-coded with the regular pose/emit commands, and all it did was change the color (or add a prefix or something) it would probably be pretty low-hassle.

I'd be careful of using color, because what people like and dislike in color is so variable and up to personal preferences. The prefix thing I wouldn't hate (and the prefix can be color coded, I mean we tolerate channel names having colored text).

On BSP the space code did emits kinda like that:
[RAPTOR_108: Trajan] Trajan's raptor is consumed by a brilliant flash of light. Only empy space remains.

[RAPTOR_216: Sunny] 216 turns into formation of a triangle as the three Raptors make their way and the countdown begins. The time for butterflies and jitters are pushed aside, this one is all or nothing. A fold in space begins as Sunny follows in tandem with 108 and the bright flash of light is all that is seen, then they are gone from sight.

Yeah, that's not so bad. But does it actually improve anything? The scene will still be spammy and hard to follow if its got a bunch of people in it. And if it doesn't make the scene less spammy, you're going to end up with these little magic perfect bubbles of privacy in a room with crickets between them. Unless you add in mutter. (shudder)

I dislike mutter code but it's just a peeve. I prefer transparency, especially for the monitoring and logging reasons others have mentioned.

Agreed.

@Thenomain said in Better Places Code:

@ixokai

I'm not going to give you permission or not to opine, but your post was entirely "I don't code it nor use it", which doesn't answer the original question: How can we make it better.

You're forgetting to read what came before "I don't want to code it or use it", and I can't tell anymore if you're doing it on purpose just because or if you missed it.

I said I coded LA's clusters code, and explained how it worked (and its features are what I'd consider the bare minimum of a places system). To say in more general terms and use more words then I think are strictly nessecary but since you couldn't really get it out of the original post:

The 'place' as the unit of players talking is one we didn't like for all kinds of reasons, for one requiring them to be established before hand, for two their fundamental limits of the model (what places exist on a football field?). So we ditched that but kept some backwards compatible support for using pre-defined places if someone could be bothered to put them in a room.

The real abstraction we called a cluster, and defined it as basically an arbitrary group of players who self-determine if they're in, or not in, a given cluster. Cleanly exiting (either by moving to another room, joining another cluster(WITHOUT having to depart, I should have mentioned in my first response), or via 'depart') is as important as cleanly joining (either by join # or join person: if person is sitting at a 'place' named Table, then 'join person' should be functionally identical to 'join 1').

Supporting being in a place secretly, and detecting spies, should be general enough but able to hook into a random RPG system.

If you can manage to make it easy enough to talk into a place without significantly changing the UI of talking on the mush, I'd call it a miracle, but I'm not holding my breath. I find getting tt | right to be painful. But no one could think of a better idea that worked with the mush on LA.

That's what we had on LA for solving the place problem.

I'm still betting on: you can't make it better. You're reinventing rooms.

@Thenomain said in Better Places Code:

@ixokai said in Better Places Code:

But you guys who want to, go ahead. All power to you

So ... thanks?

I just... don't want to.

Then ... don't. I honestly don't know why you're posting.

Because I was trying to share insights with what I did when I /did/ get asked to code a wannabe-next-generation places replacement. I can just not if you prefer.

@Lotherio said in Better Places Code:

A few places in the 90s were running mutter combined with places, so everyone in the room got snippets from conversations that way. How come that wasn't continued.

I hated that too, because the code would use randomness to determine what's overhead, and while it was sometimes funny, it simply had no basis in reality. Its as likely to out something whispered as yelled.

@Thenomain said in Better Places Code:

The one thing that I want to add is the ability to have 'groups', an idea that came from ... well, I'm not reading my own code, but I think it was Metro? or LA? It was recommended to me from someone long ago on Haunted Memories.

I am the one who coded LA's "clusters" code, which were backwards compatible with the historical places, but supplanted them. A pre-specified "place" was just a special case of a cluster, which was any grouping of people.

You "join x", and if x is in a cluster, you're added to their cluster. If they are not, a new one is made. "tt" speaks to your current cluster. If you leave the room or "depart" you are removed from the cluster. It worked fairly seamlessly.

( This also fully supported both spying (ie, someone obfuscated joining a cluster) and detecting a spy (dude with more auspex sees you join) )

All that said, I'm never implementing it again (not that it was super complicated or anything) and I probably won't ever use it if anyone installs it on a game. I just... don't want to. I think rooms are the nice, ideal, perfect granularity of defining a scene, in my opinion. If there's certain scenes temporarily "owning" a location issues? Easily solved with TP/RP rooms. (These should have a way to flag as temporarily public)

And I just don't want to tt |foo all the time. Emitting is ingrained in my fingers now, and I can remember how many times I messed up and emit out of a tt when I didn't mean to. Not to mention the abstraction of these perfect little private bubbles inside a larger room doesn't make sense to me.

I like RPing in rooms.

But you guys who want to, go ahead. All power to you

@Kestrel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

I you guys too, really I do, and I hope you won't take me posting this as a 'fuck you, I'm so mad that you didn't let us join'. But can you see how the environment fostered by this particular etiquette standard might come across as very nerve-wracking and unwelcoming? Me, I could take it or leave it — and to your credit, you paged me later when the scene was less full to let me know that I could now join if I wanted to. But I felt pretty bad for H, who had by then already logged off. I was hoping to introduce him to a group of awesome RPers. But it can be awkward for people to approach OOCly this way.

Honestly, if you had said it was a new person, the outcome may have been different. I know a lot of people go out of their way to try to be accommodating to new people.

That said, also honestly? No, I can't see how it is nerve-wracking or unwelcoming (which you may interpret as hypocritcal or inconsistent with my previous statement and that might be fair). I don't see how OOC communication makes people nervous. I talk to people OOC all the time, working out back-story hooks, talking about RP preferences, shooting the shit about random stuff.

I mean, yes, I recognize that you're saying its awkward and that you find it nerve-wracking, and I respect your right to feel whatever you feel. I just don't see those feelings as ... making sense Is that a good way to put it? Probably not since when does feelings make sense?

I don't know. I've been MUSHing for 22 years. I probably can't see the forest for the trees anymore.

@Kanye-Qwest said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Arkandel

If they'd all just shown up in a public space to rp, maybe they would!

Honestly, I don't even know what points are left to make here. Some people seem to think politeness demands you ask permission OOC before even posing into an open, public room (which I am vehemently opposed to).

You're putting a whole lot of hard weight behind what people have repeatedly said is a courtesy, or politeness. It doesn't "demand you ask permission". It suggests that its polite to take other people's involvement into account. But, in essence, yes. Sorry you're opposed to it. Don't know what to tell you.

Some people seem to think you should ask permission OOC before butting in to someone's /scene/ specifically. As in, not to pose in to the bar but to pose sitting down at your table and joining - which is common sense, but could also be done IC.

I have literally no idea where you're getting this.

@Thenomain said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Arkandel

What, you can't sit at a table and have your own scene? Do people not use "places" code anymore?

No. I hate places. I have always hated places. I want nothing to do with places. And on games that do pervasive logging, places is a nuisance.

This scenario just happened a moment ago and was relevant (lol, I wonder how many of you are in the scene or on the game and having this conversation simultaneously):

A pages B, C, D, E, and F: Room for another? Wanted to check before just joining!

<OOC> E is okay with it.
<OOC> C says, "I'm fine with it as well."
<OOC> B is having a hard enough time keeping up with you four "But I am willing to pose out and A to come in since I think E has accomplished what he wants with me in this scene.
<OOC> E says, "That's okay. If it's too big for you, we can just say so."
<OOC> C says, "Well I was actually hoping for a nap, so I can pose out next round and she can take my place instead."
<OOC> E says, "Up to you, C. Can always ask her for a raincheck."
<OOC> D says, "I can handle one more but after that I'll have to flee"
<OOC> C says, "Eh, sleep seems real nice right about now, so I'll pose out next round and she can take my place."

You(D) paged A, B, C, E, and F with 'Sure, come along over.'

A arrives from the Apple Orchard.
A has arrived.

G pages F, C, E, D, and B: Hi, room for two more at the Village Centre?

<OOC> D laughs
<OOC> E says, "Now that's too big for me as well."
<OOC> C says, "Heyo, A! I'll be posing out this round, so you'll be taking my spot."
<OOC> A thumbs up.

You(D) paged G, F, C, E, D, and B with 'We you but half of us would have to bail then because the scene's just about its limit for our available attention right now.'
G pages F, C, E, D, and B: No worries.

Did A or G have to page? No. But had they not, three people would have joined the scene, and multiple people would have left. The end result would be a different scene. Is that good or bad? What if A or G wanted to RP with someone who was going to leave due to overcrowding and attention-limits? Or, what if the existing scene just basically ends as a result of the people coming in, at which point A, G and the remainders are basically starting a new scene? At that point, is there really any value for anyone's fun if that new scene just gets started in another place? Does place really matter?

(And should B, C, D, E and F decided to take their scene private? Then A and G wouldn't be able to join them either. Is that a better outcome?)

@Kestrel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

Others in this thread are making it clear that asking is some kind of weird social dance to determine whether or not the other person is an arsehole. ( @ixokai, I was referring to this post, namely.)

Be careful with giving too much credit to one person's response. I don't in any way agree with him and I know a lot of people who don't, either. If you're going to ask, respect a no, otherwise, why are you asking? If you're trying to litmus test for dickness like that, then all you're doing is proving you, yourself, are a dick.

@Kestrel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@ixokai said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

Why is being polite and showing respect asinine? Especially since the denial is so incredibly rare as to being extremely exceptional?

It's pretty asinine, from an outsider's perspective, because it's totally unnecessary by the admission of everyone on this thread who's explained why it's necessary.

I responded and I didn't admit, in any way shape or form, that it was unnecessary. I said it was a courtesy, not a rule. Courtesy is how life among different people is kept oiled and moving smoothly

I think the idea that you would ask someone if you can join a scene just to be able to determine that they're an arsehole on the off chance they say 'no' is pretty weird. That seems like a person is begging to get offended.

Nothing you're saying makes sense to me. I didn't say anything like asking to join is done to determine that someone's an asshole. I also didn't say that a no response indicated an asshole, or was offensive.

It's a social construct that makes no sense. It's inefficient. It's a waste of time.

It makes perfect sense. Its called being polite and respectful of the fact that there are costs to one's actions and one's presence in a scene in addition to the value you add.

Maybe there's a better way of doing things. Just a thought.

Like what?

@Ominous said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@faraday said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

• Ask before joining a scene in progress.

This is the most asinine rule I come across in this hobby, particularly if there are private rooms to use. I am fine with people saying "We're on a dinner date, so, no, you can't sit at our table," but to deny my character being allowed in the room at all? No, I'm going to pose my character striding over to your character's table and pouring the glass on wine on your head. Take it to a private room if you want to control who can join the scene.

To me? This makes you an asshole.

Its just completely disrespectful of other people in a collaborative environment. Asking to join a scene (of which I've heard a no maybe twice-- ever. In 2+ decades) isn't about being a jerk, its respecting that the ongoing scene might have reasons you can't just join in. Some are OOC. Its got 4 people, one of the players there just can't handle a bigger scene. This isn't unreasonable.

And if you are really going to pose your character striding over and reacting, you're like, that kinda asshole that doesn't get cleaned. But I think you're just showing off there and aren't really going to react ICly to OOC responses.

Why is being polite and showing respect asinine? Especially since the denial is so incredibly rare as to being extremely exceptional?

@ThatGuyThere said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@lordbelh said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

This is something I'd agree with, but it also runs directly counter to the idea you have to ask before joining a scene (asking means you can be denied, which means people can totally have private scenes anywhere they like.)

To me the asking to join is not about getting permission, but about acknowledging there is a scene in process and being polite. I would consider anyone who said out right no to the question to join more then a bit of a dick. that still said i will tend to minimized interaction with those that don't ask. It is one of those polite non questions that helps social situations function. Like the How are you doing? to a stranger in RL you aren't seeking a real answer just giving them polite acknowledgement.

Me, I always ask and I mean it when I ask; there's multiple reasons why someone might not want me to join. One of the biggest being that the more people there are in a scene the harder it is to keep up with the scene. Sometimes I can RP but my attention is divided, so having a scene with maybe 2 or at most 3 people works ideal. I still pose at about the same speed, can still do the stuff that requires my attention, and we're fine. But in such a situation a 4th is just more then I can handle. If you just come in and RP in this situation, I'd exit the scene.

Now, if one's in a public place, there's no obligation to ask, but I consider it polite to do so. I know if I'm RP'n in a public place there's a chance someone can come in, and they're free to do so, even if it goes over my attention limit and I must exit.

Granted, I almost never say no, even if I don't feel up to a scene that includes X odd people. My fun's not more important then their fun so I try to deal with it for a bit then withdraw, usually.

@Lotherio said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Kestrel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

This is not OK for me to metapose:

@ixokai is one cocky motherfucker. Kestrel just stares at him with a baffled expression when he steps on up to that wall with the clearly stated intention of climbing it. There is no way he can climb that wall — look how short his stubby legs are.

I can't speak for @ixokai, but this sort of meta is acceptable. What he is referring to would be:

Okay: @Kestrel looks at @ixokai , that cocky mother fucker, he steps up to try and punch him in the jaw.

Not Okay: @Kestrel looks at @ixokai , that cocky mother fucker, he steps up to try and punch him in the jaw, landing one straight on his face and dropping him like a sack of potatoes..

This Not Okay is not okay, but not because its a metapose. That's a powerpose. Metapose inserts "meta" commentary, stuff that can not be inferred from words, body language, etc; its meta. Powerpose takes the power away from the character's player to decide what their character is doing.

@Kestrel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

So here's what I inferred from your post and the others that followed it. This is OK for me to metapose:

Kestrel is one cocky motherfucker. "I bet I can climb this wall in two seconds flat," she says with a smirk, stepping on up to the wall in question. There is no way she can climb that wall — look how short her stubby legs are.

This is totally okay.

This is not OK for me to metapose:

@ixokai is one cocky motherfucker. Kestrel just stares at him with a baffled expression when he steps on up to that wall with the clearly stated intention of climbing it. There is no way he can climb that wall — look how short his stubby legs are.

This ... approaches the line. It doesn't quite cross it. The fact that you included the details of the baffled expression lets me infer that you're thinking something along the line sof "ixokai is one cocky motherfucker", as say, body language. Non-verbal communication. I can take this pose, turn, and say, "Fuck you, I can do it."

The comment about his legs is, if its based on any factual description of the character, also approaching the line but not crossing it.

Overall, its fine.

What's not fine is this:

Ixokai glances at Kestrel and says idly, "I bet I can climb this wall in two seconds flat." That dumbass wouldn't be stupid enough to take the bet.

Its a bit of a silly example because I suck at examples, but the point is, that last comment? Is totally impossible to respond to. Its pure OOC commentary inserted into the pose which is attacking another character.

And so, with both of these examples of metapose, one is OK because it's my character I'm writing about, and the other is not because it's about yours and is a powerposing (or godmoding, as MUDers where I come from would call it) metapose. I inferred that it's the combination of the two that becomes a problem.

The "writing about myself" exception to "metaposing is bad" comes down to the idea that its always OK to not take yourself OOCly too seriously, even if your character is very very serious, and making fun of your character is always fun for everyone.