@Thenomain It's not that I don't understand it. It's that I, myself, literally have no idea how you could come up with the idea that there is zero separation between our characters and ourselves.
That entire idea is silly to me because I do not share your opinion.
@Thenomain ... There is /still/ a separation between IC and OOC. Regardless of whether or not I willingly logged into the game, and willingly made a character, and willing RP'd that character, I am still not my character. My character may do horrible things, but I have not done those horrible things OOCly. If my character gets angry with someone, I am not angry with the other player.
That is the separation of IC and OOC, and it does exist even beyond my not being in complete control of my characters depending on what the rules of the game say.
Yes there are elements of /everything/ that are toxic. ANY social interaction has the ability to become toxic. Look at Facebook, Tindr, twitter, and everything else.
PEOPLE /can be/ toxic. The fact that there /is/ a separation from IC and OOC is what helps the hobby from /being/ so Toxic.
I literally have no idea how you can feel there is zero separation from IC and OOC.
@saosmash We're using different definitions of PvP.
@Thenomain said:
Everything your character does is because of what you decide about the character. Everything. Ev-er-y-thing. There is not one single aspect of the character that doesn't come from you. If your character runs from a fight, it's because that's what you want for the character. If your character stands on a table and strips, it's because that's what you want for the character.
<snip>
This is false except in pure consent games.
If my character is attacked by a power that says they run, then they run, regardless of wether or not /I/ want them to run. The rules say they did and the character was not strong willed enough or resilient enough to resist the power. That has nothing to do with what I decided. I could have decided they had a max willpower and still fail the roll, they still have to abide by the reality of the characters circumstances regardless of my own personal desires.
I don't know about factually untrue. In my experience over the past few decades I have never come across a MU* that didn't have PvP in it. Even pure consent games have PvP. Someone always wants to be top dog. Someone always wants to be in charge. Someone always wants to make the choices. Not everyone agrees with that person, and thus, conflict happens.
I'd actually be really interested in what game /doesn't/ have any PvP.
Note: I do not consider PvP to be violent altercation. I consider it to be IC conflict of any type between the characters.
@faraday said:
@Lithium said:
Because as soon as you play favorites one way, it will bite you on the ass eventually once drama hits. Around a gaming table drama is less an issue, people will just say: Shut up Diana, or Bob, or whatever and the game will move on. In a MU* it's a whole different environment.
I think, as @Tat mentioned in a later post, that we play on different kinds of games. My combat code will never kill/maim you in the first place, so the stakes are different. Also there's no PvP and I strive for an atmosphere of trust like one would find in a tabletop setting. (Sometimes it works better than others.)
If skewing results to help players have fun causes drama occasionally, I'll take it.
There's always PvP, even if it's not always PK. Players don't always get along, they will undermine each other, one will attempt to do something, another will attempt to counter it. Even if it's just in interpersonal relationships. There's always PvP.
'Fun' is also a subjective term, each person has their own meanings. To some people it is letting the dice fall where they may, seeing how this character they've built performs in adversity by virtue of design or luck.
To others it's all about the story.
To some they're not mutually exclusive.
I think what it comes down to is that in the games I run, and play, risk has to be an element. If there is no risk, there is no reward. That's just how I feel but then, I cut my teeth on some pretty crunchy game systems, where death was always a very real possibility... and I /liked/ it. So for me being fair is of utmost priority, because people's characters survival may very well be at stake.
As for Drama... Drama happens, there's no avoiding it, but I don't find it fun and I sure as Hades want to minimize it as much as I can.
@Thenomain I'm going to disagree that IC is OOC and OOC is IC, but I think we're talking context.
To me IC is In Character, not Out Of Character. So by that we play to what the character knows, what the character has experienced, what the character feels rather than we ourselves feel about the situation.
Is it possible to do this perfectly? Not likely, we're pretty much unable to have a complete disconnect between ourselves and our characters because we are writing them, but that doesn't mean we just have our characters react to everything we know OOCly with our characters.
I guess we could redefine IC/OOC separation as: Play true to the character, not yourself.
I just don't know how to word that snappily.
Why?
Characters are not real.
They are not who we are.
There should be a separation of IC and OOC.
Some couples and individuals can understand this, and take it for what it is, RP. It is no more threatening than two people writing a book together /unless/ someone tries to cross the line from game to RL. Then it can become a problem but that kind of stuff happens RL even without MU*'s.
It's ok for you to feel that it's not for you, and in that case don't have your character get involved with someone's character whom you know to be in a relationship... but... lots and lots of people have significant others who do not partake of these games, and you'd never know unless they told you.
It's also something that needs to be decided for that couple to determine what's good for them. Nobody else has any say in that one really.
@Arkandel There's a very big desire to just kneejerk against anyone telling /me/ how to roleplay /my/ characters 
Really, there is no real right or wrong way, there's just opinions. I've rp'd with people who liked rapid fire two line poses, and when I rapid fired a larger pose into their poses they got distressed because it took them to long to read it.
There is no one size fits all when it comes to this hobby, or any other.
@Arkandel said:
@Lithium It depends on the rules. For example on KD I couldn't +vote for my spouse's character because we shared IPs, but that was a code limitation. Asherat did let me know I could ask her to +vote on my behalf, so there was a workaround, but one could have chosen to take that as discrimination even though it was unintentional.
I'm not seeing how that's a problem other than the code limitation. I've been on games like that also with my partner and honestly, we don't tend to vote each other even on games where we can.
A problem, to me, is when something is wrong. Incorrect. Not functioning properly. If the rules are written in such a way as to limit a couple, then those are the rules and there's no problem.
If someone is bound and determined to cheat, they will find a way, such as masking their IP's or whatever, so realistically there's only so much we can do on that front anyways.
@Misadventure said:
There is the other problem: not realizing that just because you, your spouse, your RL friends, and close online friends are in agreement, does not make you right, or your way the only way.
I am not sure what you mean by this. If a place wants to say I cannot play with my partner and that we have to follow the rules for 'alts' then chances are my partner won't want to play there at all. Problem solved. She's not as invested into these games as I am since she's been playing them only off and on for little more than two years.
Would it bug me? Depends on how it was presented and the attitude taken. I may continue to play a game that did that, I may not. Nobody is saying people don't have the right to run their game however they so choose.
So I don't know how it is a 'problem'.
@Tat Could be very likely. I tend to play on crunchier games. The lightest game system I play is FATE, and maybe FS3 (If I ever figure it out, and can make a concept to fit the power level of the game, right now I am neck deep in code. Enjoying writing this bit because it is coming together so smoothly)
@Tat If people don't get to use it (aka rolling the dice) then they don't know if their character is actually being /good/ at it or not in that instance. There are sides both for and against it, but without a dice roll it could be construed that no matter what, they were going to get the information anyways and thus the character taking the non-combat skill is just wasting the points to begin with.
That's why I will always allow a roll if there is a possibility of differing amounts of information. You want the story to progress, yes, but you also want the investigator to feel just as engaged and useful as the combat monster in their field of expertise.
@mietze Exactly. A good RP'er engages the scene and interacts enough to keep the scene flowing. It doesn't have to be a six line pose to do that. Sometimes a nod is just a nod, but you can always do /more/ than nod to keep the scene flowing. You don't have to fill it with 6 lines of telepathic prose that people can't even know because it's inside their characters head, or whatever.
Dang, I'd already picked up my season pass... nice little 6$ break, oh well.
@lordbelh Cowboys fight was incredibly short, and he absorbed no damage whatsoever really. If the doctors ok'd him and he is willing (he was) I'd let him do it over Diaz.
@Tat What I do is I still call for an investigation or power roll, but I will give them enough to progress the story regardless if they succeed or fail, if they succeed then they get /more/ that could be helpful down the line. Maybe it makes it easier to connect the dots, or suss out the bad guys plans, etc.
@faraday said:
@Lithium said:
I've done it in TT, when my dice were on fire and I kept rolling nat 20's, well, I didn't feel like total PK'ing the party that night and so some crit hits became misses. I think there requires some trust in the group with the DM/ST/GM in order to create a good story.
But why is that so different in a MUSH environment? Don't you want your MU players to have the same opportunities for fun and a good story as your tabletop ones in that scenario?
Sure you can say you wouldn't have exactly that same mix of people together, but so what? As long as your mission is always "help players tell a good story" and you apply that mission fairly to everyone (and not, say, just to your buddies), isn't that fair enough?
Because as soon as you play favorites one way, it will bite you on the ass eventually once drama hits. Around a gaming table drama is less an issue, people will just say: Shut up Diana, or Bob, or whatever and the game will move on. In a MU* it's a whole different environment. How many times have we seen systems that work great in table-top not work so well in a MU* environment? It's the same type of thing, it's a different environment so we need some different practices.
Here is my worry, and why I will not fudge in a MU*.
I am running a scene, the BSD are kicking the Gaian's asses through no fault of their own. I fudge dice rolls, and the Gaians win, yay everyone celebrates. No harm done, or so it seems
Then a few weeks later I am running another scene, and someone is outright /stupid/ and I decide that their stupidity needs to be rewarded with an appropriate response. The dice say their stupidity gets them punished, so I don't fudge the dice and the person gets hurt, possibly killed, maimed, renown loss, whatever.
Person of questionable intelligence hears about (or partook) in the scene where I fudged the dice for someone else. Instantly cries of favoritism abound, much drama ensues, and it's just a mess that is completely and utterly avoidable.
If the dice say a group is losing, well, maybe they should be smart enough to know when to cut their losses and retreat. Sometimes a loss even makes for good story, much better than the PC's always win no matter what.
The context and environment are completely different in tabletop than in a MU. The sample size is smaller (in general) and staff have a /duty/ to be fair to everyone equally. Which means the code/dice tell the story, once it comes to dice.
@Halicron said:
@faraday said:
But this: "A good RPer can turn a nod into a six-line pose."
Really? That I'd like to see
The question was a difficult one to answer, and it clearly vexes Bill in a way that's troubling the stout fellow. He pauses, pursing his lips, but checks himself before uttering a word. Dusky grey eyes the color of graveyard granite flicker across the street, to a gaggle of children and tolerant mothers watching like mother hens. Remembering the cigarette in his fingers he brings it to his lips and inhales, ash crackling in the silent wake of inquisition. He holds for a count and then like a smouldering dragon exudes twin plumes of smoke through his nostrils. The late winter's winds pick the ash up and carry it off and away, into the crisp sky overhead. He turns back to Denise, finally, and a tight smile crosses his face. His head dips a fractional amount-- the thinnest of concessions-- and then the smile disappears, and his cool gaze returns to unreadable speculation of passing pedestrians.
There's such a thing as to much purple prose. Length of pose !=quality of pose.
My partner and I play on a MUSH together, as a couple. We also have characters that are not involved. A couple playing together is no different than any other two people who know each other playing together.
My friend who got me into MU*'s and I used to play together in the early 90's. Most of the time our characters had each other's backs, but sometimes they were enemies (best enemy I've ever had in a game honestly, because the story was the point not ending the other character).
Trying to segregate against couples or people who know each other RL is against the whole idea of the gaming group. The whole point is to create connections and stories together and it's /not/ alts being used to benefit one another, it's two different people.
If you tried to limit that then you'd have to say nobody could benefit anybody, ever, cuz they might know that person RL and be their friend!
...
As for the other thing about couples who are weirding out the gaming group, that's something else entirely but that happens with some people regardless of their relationship status. Not everyone is going to mesh well, not everything is going to be acceptable to everyone, and sometimes you have to know when to put some distance between yourself and the thing which is ruining your enjoyment for your enjoyments sake.