Posts made by Lotherio

I will say, I prefer public grid to be open. If a scene needs to be private or limited, take it to TP or RP or private rooms. Sure, a flag on +who or whatever would be nice, indicating a hangout or location is 'closed' scene, but really there are places to take locked/closed/private RP.

I do like the idea, if you ask for RP (hey wanna rp, or on chan, or whatever), you set the scene. I'm just not so sure about asking if someone wants to RP, and following up with, 'what do you want to do?' If you initiate in any way, have some ideas at the ready. Wiki's are a good tool to get an idea of a character you're asking for RP. Or be forward ... I'm looking for RP, don't know what do to, and am open to suggestions. Just avoid the 'what do you want to do?' ... and you won't get the 'I don't know, what do you want to do?" reply.

Edit: I do miss those days, wandering a grid to find someone then posing whatever came to mind, or seeing what was going on and jumping in.

@Ashen-Shugar said in MUX: Attribute Visibility:

@Hexagon said in MUX: Attribute Visibility:

Is there a good way to restrict attribute visibility to a list of objects (players, rooms, things) contained in an attribute list somewhere?
I know it can be restricted via underscore, or with attribute ownership as attribute owners can read the attribute on an object even if they don't own the object. Visible is too open.

A good example would be if you wanted to have a clan that could issue an arbitrary command and see the names of everyone in that clan... but you only wanted members already added to that clan to run the arbitrary command.

MUX does not have an arbitrary method to specify if you can see specific attributes over someone else.

What you'lll have to do is build a @function to fetch the attribute(s) based on evaluated permission sets.

Sorry I don't have a better answer for you.

Though maybe... hum. Not overly familar with MUX Zones, but it is a potential for murking the ownership a bit to grant you what you want, but it will likely still be object-wide and not per attribute.

I don't think Penn attribute trees would even grant something like this.

On Penn I'd run it through a switch that checks an attribute on the player (clan) against the attribute one is trying to see. Could use a couple objects depending how complex you want it, but could get the effect of certain attributes only visible by certain clans or groups pretty easily.

Not that it helps OP.

Call me old but doesn't this just go back to 1e's Rule of Two?

Anything outside rules is attributed a +2/-2 to the roll (or inversely the difficulty number).

John the fighter cooks for the king .... High difficulty. He's been training and cooking for the party, +2 John, there is a shortage of cummin in the kingdom, -2 John, John flirts with scullery maid she pitches in, +2, the king remembers Johns rescue of the his daughter, +2 ... Etcetera etc. Etc. Figure any circumstance that helps or hinders that you like. Heh, 3e called it circumstance bonus even (or synergy if it came from other pcs, but same thing).

Feels like we just find ways to make it more complex but it boils down to the same thing.

there's a lot of general feeling-out for RP partners but then no specifics are offered to help direct the invention of a situation to build a scene around. (e.g., "What do you want to do?" "Whatever.")

Saw this in another thread, it's been discussed before. It's worth it again.

When approaching another to start a scene, offer ideas to RP. Don't lead to the point of asking what they want or like. If they're uncertain, it will lead to this very response, whatever.

Taking for granted the context of the above was superheroes related, and that means various levels of interest (street, cosmic, whatever).

Offer ideas, they can yay or nay. Something might stick or, if too many nays, you can move onto the next person to try and figure out some RP with.

@Rarest-Pepe said in How do you keep OOC lounges from becoming trash?:

If you want OOC rooms/channels that aren't trash, you're going to have to fill them with people who aren't trash. Bearing in mind that these rooms/channels are pretty consistently trash, we can conclude that our "community" has a lot of trash people in it.

Since banning all of the trash people from your average MU would destroy its userbase, the way to make sure OOC lounges aren't trash is to convince your players to grow the fuck up.

Good luck!

A fine display of some of the attitude the OP was pondering. So how do we get you to grow up?

@Seraphim73 said in PC antagonism done right:

@ThatGuyThere Oh, I've seen a few scenes where the NPC opposition was resolute, powerful, and a real threat. But often it seems (at least to me) like the player expectation is that the NPC opposition be a speedbump--when the PCs start to get pushed around in a scene, their players tend to panic from what I've seen, and many get grumbly if they get too beat up (physically or politically) or fail to accomplish something. It's one of my least favorite trends in "modern" MU*ing.

People don't like to lose, or perceive a loss. Even if back and forth, players would hope to have some wins. Eventually PC vs PC antagonist, one side would feel a need to have a win, or the do-gooders would want resolution. Getting PC and PC Antagonist to agree, or to disagree and avoid each other. A big gripe on Realms was too many PC deaths; 5 total, realistically a small amount given the volume of players and the number of combats (actual not tourney) that did take place. Even while the players accepted their deaths, the rest of the players felt beat up on too, like PCs couldn't win.

@Arkandel said in PC antagonism done right:

@Lisse24 said in PC antagonism done right:

In my opinion one of the main hurdles in MU* is we can have our pie and eat it. It's more fun when we can't.

This right here. Lots of us enjoy overcoming the hurdle of failure. We go to do something, but end up in med bay. Some realizes its a well spring of RP more than the one win would of been worth. We know some players thrive off this. Its a string of failures after another such that the one time it is someone elses turn to fail, they are upstaged by the regular.

Not my point, but failure is fun. More so, for everyone one that has more fun with failure, there are those who just want to win. The game mechanics/rules lawyer that gains mathematical superiority, the player who thinks their RP logic is superior and can win by pose alone.

For those who can accept failure and make it fun, there are those who just want to win. Both are great RP'ers. A day late and a dollar short as this thread has derailed but I'm in the boat. Long term sustained PC antagonism doesn't work even if the player is good, separates OOC/IC, tries their best to get along with everyone OOCly.

Not everyone agrees on what makes successful PvP conflict. If it worked it would need to be in the system and I don't think staff have time to monitor this as a playable system - PCs choosing to be antagonist to other PCs and both sides playing it up. Its a question of could staff maintain control, at the loss of their own RP?

@Thenomain said in What do you play most?:

@Lotherio

Do players want the big meta, tho? Those games I've seen the most activity on are either no meta or the meta covers everything but is not one thing. Smaller changes pile up without any one big thing.

Some suggest they do, some don't do anything unless staff run something.

Inversely I agree the most active places have no meta or its more open and not world shattering. Yet those highly active places seen to crop up in hog pit for reasons (too many staff alts, too little staff, staff doesn't do what I want ... More grief and gripe). I play on some and don't join in the slinging. Preception versus reality, just when I've pondered similar thoughts, what folks like in a mu*, answers always point to meta, staff keeping it active (including everyone), etc.

I'm saying I prefer less meta and my own stories. And maybe wrong perception on my part.

@Seraphim73

On a side note, being curious, are you and/or @GirlCalledBlu pondering another game? I am probably miles off base, but the last couple topics seems like you two have some ideas and are trying to narrow down what you may settle on.

Varied, if I stay some place for any length of time, its usually some place I can do my own stories. Most meta happens in the evenings or, more lately these days, is 'mu*' shattering. Something effects the whole game. It sucks that its not during my usual play times, and worse if I have to react to it. I guess tend towards sandboxing on my place, but prefer the ones that encourage sandboxing.

I know folks want the big meta, but I think more players silently take the sidelines and avoid the spotlight competition of overarching metaplot.

@Hexagon I should of been more specific, pennmush is the hardcode that the game runs in, it's 'economy' is just daily login for pennies used to code. I'm looking for softcode I can bring into pennmush.

@skew Depends what hardcode. For pennmush, @faraday has a core that includes all that and many common globals like cron, Myrddin's bbs, anomaly jobs and a bunch of standard globals. Ditch the FS3 components and diceless, sheet less elements.

In the art world, the standard has come to... If it's only about 75% of the original left, it's new art. This leaves Duchamps LHOOQ as an original artwork ( it's the mona lisa with a penciled on mustache and if the letters are read in French translates to roughly 'she has a nice ass' ... From 1919, the first graffiti mustache don't know who has the first eye patch).

If the code is posted for public, have at it. Otherwise ask, folks are kind enough to share usually when you attribute to them.

As for ideas, as said, if it's not serial numbers shaved off, should be fine. IE don't take middle earth and just change the names. But take changing ages, magic, evil super races making mind controlling artifacts, all good. Maybe ditch pages on end of describing mountains cause just as boring now as the first read.

Anyone have something up somewhere, or know where something in the realm of a feasible pennmush economy?

Just looking to save time making it from scratch. I would like something that includes player exchange, banking, staff audit, and potential vending. Doesn't have to have all that, I could add as needed as well, just trying not to reinvent the wheel.

If it's designed for sphere interaction as you say, and not competitive between spheres, I don't see any conflict of interest in there.

@Bobotron said in Policies:

@Arkandel

That line should be drawn scene-by-scene and by the participants. We, as staff, cannot account for every single instance of something that will offend/trigger/otherwise make people go batshit insane. Especially with the number of people who use these hobbies as a way to work out their own issues. My only thing about policies there is make sure your policy gives outs, suggests FTB, and flatly says 'IF YOU ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO PLAY IT OUT. And if people are trying to force you to do it via OOC methods, tell staff, because that shit is harassment. Otherwise, do what you will, to the comfort level of the people involved in the scene'.

This here, I tend to go with its consent based, by playing here one consents to what may happen, but it does not have to be played out. FTB is welcome, it doesn't negate consequences, they just don't have to be played out.

As far as topics that only some are comfortable with, somewhere around harassment I define it as the first party continuing do so something after asked to stop by the second party. If second party doesn't like rape, kiddie sex, clown sex, cats and dogs, hippie hug circle rp, or whatever, and they have stated this to the first party, the first party needs to stop. Trying to get that RP from second party after they say 'no' is harassment in my book.

In the offhand that first party says they never did it, I still go with its a warning and to just avoid second party from now on (knowing the consequence of dealing with them could lead to quiet time, time outs, banning, etc.). Second party needs to log further proof of harassment to get staff to act on policy.

I tried to avoid suggestions on how/where to store the data, as we all have different preferences.

I usually designate in the attributes name what it is (wherever it is stored). I'd have a norm_app in one place, and a trans_app in another. Anyone looking at it one view code side (exam *object) knows which is normal appearance and which is transformed appearance, in the off chance something is messed up (page from player: hey staff, I messed up my XP spend, I put a point in my wolf form appearance but meant to add it to my human appearance).

Then you have two none duplicated names, when they +sheet as normal, it pull norm_app, but if the form is changed, you can generate a list of the appearances by getting all the attributes *_app and summing them up.

A status on the pc to indicate transformed, then +sheet adds normal and transformed stats. If tansformed is static (based on what they transform into) only need the transformed data on one object. Otherwise a duplicate storage for individual transformation stats (however you're storing them).

But either way, I'd stick to a status that tracks if they are normal or transformed, then have +sheet do the math depending on that status.

I like the Dark Water ethics policy @Thenomain, I do agree, it should apply to staff. That's about everywhere, alas. I haven't seen a separate staff ethics policy per say, but a number of places it always seemed like an understanding with the way some staff alts were treated.

As an aside, my TS policy is along the same lines, what happens in the dark stays in the dark, staff doesn't care to know about it, and make sure its okay with your partner. There's usually a other policies apply, no harassment (no means no for anything), age policy (aside from Coral Springs, I prefer 18 to 21 as minimum age to avoid kiddie stuff all together).

The one I'm on the fence about is pose courtesy. Pose order or 3pr or pose at will is more the consensus of the group in my book. The only common courtesy I like is waiting a few poses before jumping in, but don't think there needs to be policy on this either. Some folks like 'page before coming' just to see what's happening and if it all fits, but I'm more a fan of, if you're in a public place, you're in an open scene. There's tons of places to find 'private' scenes from personal rooms to TP/RP/Plot/Anything rooms.

Just curious, as I'm pondering yet another theme on the side (I go back and forth), what sort of policies do most people expect when seeing a new place, what sort of policies would turn someone away or off a new place because they felt it necessary to define, or what sort of non-policy would be a turn off?

Myself, I always have something about TS. Only because I don't care, but I don't want to have to field questions form players (hey, can we fornicate with furniture? - me: don't ask, don't tell, I don't care). Some people may not be interested in a place with such policies because some leap to the idea that TS is encouraged or something.

Or inversely, I usually have a consent saying by playing at the game, there is consent to ICA-ICC, but one doesn't have to consent to play it out, they just need to accept the consequences. Maybe if this policy was missing, staff's take on consent, someone would be hesitant to start RP'ing without knowing how this was handled by staff?

Just curious, I don't want to over due it with policy (or under do it). Curious what sort of policy lists folks like, what the think is too clunky or too lite.