Posts made by Lotherio

@Arkandel said in There's Nothing to Do Here:

@Auspice You know what gets me? Players who do send each other pages ("hey,let's do a scene"). And then they go and have the most boring scene possible, set at a bar, talking about the weather - sometimes literally! For example they're both different supernatural types but they don't know that IC and neither does something or gives any hook for the other to pick it up so they can do something more fun.

But afterwards... 'this place is boring, ugh'. That grinds my gears.

This right here, and what @Insomnia said, just two players on a Mu* should be able to do something. If they make it a bar scene, that's on them. Even if they don't reveal something like being different types, they can do something. Most places are in big enough cities that anything could happen, sure bar fights, gang stuff, but other things, like a fire, or someone has a stroke, or some guy shouts at the nearby store clerk, 'man, that's racist', or a car accident, or a street busker hustles someone (or someone in the crowd is picking pockets), or they overhear trade secrets revealed about the stock market.

But also, yeah, we're more transparent with our chars these days. +finger to read notes, a check of the wiki, two people should be able to come up with something between them as a reason. There are a bunch more better reasons of things to do than that quick list based on actual genre and the two chars involved. If they feed off each other once the scene starts, it could grow to involve others depending on who all each RPs with, and all not needing any Staff intervention.

This is what I get for trying to start a new thread so another isn't derailed too much. I think staff have responsibility too, more closer to @Arkandel's point of providing environment and tools to stimulate player interest and activity. I mentioned in the 2 Many Alts thread that staff should provide things to do, meaning plot, events, RP opportunities. Things to get players together to mingle, to meet new chars, to see what sort of things can happen, to give some flavor and inspiration, to make some cohesion, to inspire other ides for players in their continuing development of their characters and character driven plots.

@Vorpal ... I agree in part. I think staff can make the splash bigger for folks without having to run multiple events each week or holding the reigns on the weekly adventure (and I enjoy weekly adventure), by both allowing broader spectrum in PrP arena and by having the world react to others plots. I favor logs and log posting, as a means to easily keep staff appraised of what's going on without constant bombardment by +request and page alone (I do favor both, I favor communication between staff and players, I enjoy working with a player on a plot idea they have, I prefer pages and such over official +request system).

But staff should react. If two player run plots involve fires in a large city. On one level, folks may say they should of checked with staff before blowing up the city. On the other hand, it takes staff two seconds (five minutes) to simply put up an IC news response, officials are looking into the fires, any word on culprits or suspected arsonists would be appreciated. They can take another two seconds (10 minutes) to contact any folks in the RP circles to spread it out (contact fac heads, the authorities asked around for culprits, point out there is a pinch on the city for anyone selling items related to arson (from chemicals to explosives), etc.).

I think I'm of the mindset, its easier to be reactive to what players do than to be proactive and make hurdles. But, having nothing to do or being bored, is more towards the individual I think, its just seems more and more lately as others are pointing out.

@Kanye-Qwest said in How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts:

This is an interesting point. I've met a lot of really awesome rpers that couldn't get into the 'meta' plot (IE attend GM events) in MUs because of time zone. Feels bad, man, but I'm not sure how to fix it other than trying to recruit a staffer for that time zone.

No worries, I always run PrPs where ever I go, usually sandboxing the story. Its on the player, not having something to do in my mind. I don't think 'having something to do' is a wet blanket to throw at staff, ie, give me stuff to do or I quit. I run my own places, but I still play at others. I don't have a lack of RP (I do have a lack of time to RP lately, another issue that no topic here will bring out a solution to the issue, unless I can start time travel and avoiding paradox thread, and someone has solved all issues with this).

Just to not completely derail another topic ..

Its come up here that if Staff or STs or some other official type person on a Mu* isn't running things, players leave a Mu*. Just the way it is, nothing to do so they lose interest.

I am of the mindset that 'nothing to do' is more on the player than staff.

Personally, I think creating a game, creating theme, should be the ground work for inspiring player creativity to go out and do things. There should be potential for that to change the world (affect the meta), but affecting global scale (whatever scale the mu* is, be it a small village, a city, a nation, a galaxy) shouldn't be the goal, having fun RP should. I think staff should be available to quickly answer a page, 'yes have fun', or 'that will break the world'. If the latter, staff should say yes, do that, but this is how the world reacts (police show up, government military, etc. etc.). Less 'no, that will ruin 'my' meta'.

More and more the Mu* seems to be heading towards OTT, players need regular adventures and plot from staff to do things. Now, I come from a large metropolis (its in the top 40, not big by actual big city standards, but plenty of people regardless). Its not hard to find a TT game, its a matter of clicking with personalities. I think MU* is more for getting people together to find others to play with.

The only inverse to this idea I've heard so far is that a player then comes to ask staff what's going on with X, Y, or Z, which is player driven plot, and its a headache. I really don't see the problem with staff then saying, that is player P's plot, lets check with them real quick. Staff can react for the world after seeing a log or hearing about a plot easily enough with something like a BBpost as needed.

I think having things to do is more on the players, and this is only damned by staff that have restrictive policy on what players can do without needing divine (staff) intervention prior to doing anything.

Two quick cents. I don't see alt policy (none/one/four/whatever you can play) as being the issue that makes or breaks a game.

Some of the arguments say less players means more positions of powers for players, but I support what @Arkandel said earlier, positions of power shouldn't make or break a character and their story. Someone else mentioned interpersonal relationships are a prime draw to Mu*'ing over say TT or even OTT campaigns that are episode to episode.

Ultimately I think it comes down to the player and their investment into their storyline that fits within theme/meta that makes or breaks interest in a game for that player. A couple months ago I asked about meta and such and everyone seemed to favor staff having to run things, I'm still not sure if this is the way to go, staff having to control meta to the point of giving folks something to do.

This may be from decades of being a daytime player only. The majority of staff only do things in evenings, just the way it is ... all the haters that come to my places and complain about daytime activity, you've no idea how much worse people that play during my connect times have it with the feeling left out part.

I've always just made my own story, folks can call it sandboxing, but I can't get into meta which is 90%++ only in evenings (low estimate to be honest because I'm trying to be nice). I always find it that interest should be player driven.

If they want 4 alts in less active relationship circles (@faraday mentioned 4 meaningful relationships per PC regardless of alt policy, but some may only RP with 1-2 others only), only want to focus on social drama and their IC relationship, and it keeps them playing with those others, let them have at it. If someone else only wants one alt and interacts with the entire grid and drives their own stories separate from staff meta, more power to them.

I view Mu* more as an environment to encourage creativity, to give players some place to play, to hopefully be safe for them to come and simply enjoy themselves. If that commitment is once a month and they want an adventure on their one day a month, I think the opportunity should exist. If they are daily and socialize only, that opportunity should be there (dependent on activity of other players).

I see a lot of focus always pointed at staff, staff should have alt policy, the should police all player activity. I'm more aimed at the player, if a player can't go out and make their own fun, or find the players that do that, its more on the player, regardless of who has one alt and the ones who have 12 alts.

Sorry, I took the thread and borrowed the soapbox for another topic, but it seems fitting. Arguing about alts, when, if maintaining interest and vestment in a game is what the discussion is about, seems off the heart of the discussion.

Edit to add instead of posting my own reply:

The common topic 'There is nothing to do here', I place more on player than staff. Staff should have opportunities for things to happen, I think it gets players together and that should be the focus of meta, getting folks to mingle more, creating some new potential hooks for players storlyines, introducing ideas of what can be done on the game to help inspire their own plots and stories.. I think things to do anywhere, having something to do, is on the player. I think restrictive PrP policy is more damaging to activity than alt policies and blaim staff for not allowing player creativity to flourish.

This is going to good realm for a new thread .... creating original theme. Only because there is another topic, what do you look for in a game and there is a mix between liking established published stuff versus original theme. Part of my reply stems from that topic.

I don't mind checking out Victoriana, it sounds great. But most established settings always miss a little mark for my with interest in Mu* settings. Its usually the theme sounds good, Victorian/Gothic/Steam/Fantasy sounds like a great mix, but its the implementation. Some race isn't done quite right for me, or the politics just don't work in my mind. Or it just feels like some fluff schlepped onto an otherwise good idea, usually rehashed from another idea. Not inspired buy, but really the fluff is skeleton of other idea with hints of a new façade thrown onto it.

I'd personally be more interested in seeing what @Songtress or @surreality come up with for original theme, or develop my own even. I'd be interested in a joint project even, Redemption Mu* (the fantasy in lost future world Redemption) was developed jointly and a great experiment as far as that went. But I'd be far more interested in playing a mu* developed by someone in the community or by the community than trying Victoriana. Maybe that goes back to the most RPG's are better suitable to TT and not Mu discussion?

@surreality said in What themes and subjects do you look for in a game?:

@Coin Thank you! You know I you, but it's in like ALL THE THREADS lately... and seems to turn people away from universal contributions once it seems all WoD-centric.

I'll help turn it back by responding to @Coin's comment (ie It will all be N edition soon, prior edition no longer accepted).

I think that creates a hard line, another reason I'm not a fan of cannon source (movie- book-verse)/game material (specific rpg). I just spent some ducats (cause I'm Roman, not cause I'm gangster) on N edition books for a good read, but its a year or two later and the new books are billed as N.N edition. I don't want to spend more money to play the game. I don't want to wade through the virus infested swamp that is 4share or some other file share on-line. The kind folks that love that specific game or cannon have taken the their valuable time to enjoy all the books or supplements and decide which is the most fun for their game, but then I have to look through the list to make sure I have the sources material specific to what I want to play or just not play it.

10 pages of wiki for original theme (which is light for some places we can agree) is a lot less reading I have to do to get into something.

Now, I do agree with @Arkandel, I don't want to read all that original theme to discover I'm onto some personal meta by the staff which is really running through the course of some unplanned book they want to write and everyone is just some pawn in the course of them revealing that story to the audience, which is the 10 people remaining on the game after a year who have all been promoted to staff.

This gets into other realms I've brought up, how much needs to be meta versus free form. Any grand meta sets the life of a Mu* to the extent of this great arch, even if it includes dozens of people, there is an end. Any lack of meta means lack of long term interest too. As it comes up a lot and a few WoD have run the course lately of being active with >dozen folks for multiple years running. The old standard when places ran for 5-10 years, just cause we thought they'd never close and the purpose was to stay open forever (SW1 is still running around, bless their soles).

I prefer original theme cause recurring genre like WoD is just a rehash of stories already told it seems. Its white washed and run again. Didn't @Thenomain just comment in another thread, if you have a great game running that eventually 'dies', just white wash it and run again with new name. I don't want it white washed, I want it painted. System doesn't matter, say its historical western. Don't say its small town Colorado again in 1868, the last frontier. Move it to 1842 New Mexico pre Mexican-American War. Do something new. WoD, don't just move city and let it be similar stories. I just want something original. That and a mix of adventure, where I know what the adventure is that I can do on a personal level because I'm never on when staff are around, with social between the adventure bread so I can mix peanut butter and jelly all I want.

@Ganymede said in What themes and subjects do you look for in a game?:

@Arkandel said in What themes and subjects do you look for in a game?:

Conversely I don't like heavily edited home grown themes. My idea of fun does not entail reading through the amateur rumblings of someone who took their plan for a novella/D&D campaign/fanfic spread out over ten pages on a wiki just to set the basics of their metaplot.

I concur with this, for other reasons.

If I have to read a whole bunch of stuff that isn't published or available elsewhere, the barrier of entry is higher for me because I am less inclined or able to concoct backstories or motivations for my PCs. It's all well-and-good to have a noble PC that is ambitious, but why is what I get stuck on.

I wanted to weigh in on the other end of this spectrum. I prefer 10 pages of wiki for some home grown theme opposed to highly developed/published themes and genres. Simply because I don't want to have to be 3 core rulebooks and half a dozen spaltbooks to understand theme enough to be able to RP and enjoy the game. Or, have to have read the 12+ core cannon books based in some world, with 24+ spinoffs that may or may not be considered cannon by some readers. I've played years of TT V:tM back in 2e days, but was never comfortable on WoD games because someone always brings up weird rules (that and XP bloat) and everyone always knows more than me so it is never fun (because I like to run one-shots and personal plots; partially as a daytime player, staff are never around).

I'm more drawn to original themes. Because it is something new. Its easier to buy into something original, as a lot of published material have timelines associated with their books, or the core supplements keep adding and changing the timeline to make room for the new material. I could never play on that Nymeria joint, not because of the owners so much (yes an issue), but because its in an established timeline that leads to where the books take place, no chance of deviation. Bleh, what's there for me to do there, L&L TS (I enjoy me some, but I need more)?

What I do look for: social and adventure. I want adventure in increments, not adventure all the time, just doesn't make sense to have something happening all the time. I want social for the inbetween parts when there is no adventure. Give me a sense of having something to do and when not doing that something, I am plotting the next something to do or dealing with whatever is going on in the social world.

Gothic Victorian Urban Fantasy ... slightly steampunk/shadowrun.

The queen is a puppet of the shadow dragon, the king is a pawn of the lich king. The typical fantasy (or atypical, take your pick) races have their own kingdoms, they are on the verge of war (1890s Europe pre-WW I). The flow of information through some Moroccon like independent city is as free as the whisky, its available for the right price, ask the wrong questions and it'll bite you in the back.

Ah, but supernatural, the war is really being spurned on by supernatural underworld agents, the demigods want souls, war is profit. Some elder/cthuluan demi/gods are trying to re-enter the world. The turmoil is a cover for an age of apocalypse, to cleanse the world and let the horrors have their time in the sun (or shade).

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Lotherio referenced a quote, suggesting 'believing in a thing harms no one'.

I did amend, the belief itself is of no harm, acting out on the belief when one things they're in opposition may be harmful yes.

Not to derail the topic towards belief in general as yes, it goes right into religion. Believing Lake Champlagne has a big fish in it that looks like a giant eel that some people call a dragon or something is not hurting anyone. Seriously, its not.

On the other hand, since we're hinting at it, yes, believing that vaccines cause down syndrome is harmful to the children not being inoculated.

But there is a big difference, one hand is a belief in the paranormal, the other is an attempt to disbelieve western science and empirical evidence.

We're on to proofs here. Science has proven medicine, and the vaccine example, the down syndrome nonsense has already been proven to be false with the scientists coming forward to say evidence was fabricated in agreement with the many other studies that already discredited it.

Science proves there are no large animals in Lake Champlagne, but is it hurting for others to rationalize there is a giant squid in it? I could see an argument, the money folks muster to fund research on lake monsters could be better spent on feeding starving families in America. I counter, how much is spent on lake monster research opposed to how much is spent on political advertising?

Which is more harmful?

@Coin said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Lotherio said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

Pascal's wager, although one of the more respectable arguments assembled in favor of belief, has some serious flaws. Blaise was, of course, a Christian, so he framed his argument for it to accommodate to the Christian god. It assumes there is only one valid religion, God, or belief system to choose from, that of Christianity. Well that just isn’t so. If we can make the wager about the Christian god, then the same argument can be equally applied to the thousands or millions of deities out there from the beginning of time. Zeus, Brahma, Azhura Mazda, Allah, Cher (some say she is a goddess), etc. If you take Pascal's wager as a serious philosophical proposition then you have to apply it to its logical end- an end that, ironically, Blaise the monotheist didn't really anticipate.

That means you would end up believing in every deity, just to be safe... and if the beliefs are contradictory? You'll still have to believe all of them because you never know. In fact, you would have to end up believing in different versions of the same deity, in cases where pantheon origins are a little muddy, which adds a whole layer of trouble. Then, if we apply it to the supernatural and paranormal in general, you would basically have to believe every claim made- fairies, dragons, werewolves, otherkin, la llorona, the chupacabras, conspiracy theories, slenderman, etcetera.

At the end, you'll be an enormous self-contradictory mess, or the most gullible person on earth. Neither of which is an ideal state to be in.

(thank you for the hugs, @surreality - it's been a day like you wouldn't believe)

That's a slippery slope. Let me apologize, I didn't mean it in his complete context, I didn't mean to go religious. Just that it's okay to believe in things that others do not, simply because, if in the end it doesn't exist, no one is hurt.

Except lots of the things that you would argue for using this sort of logic also require you to act a certain way or do certain things, often things that affect other people, or at least encourage actions that affect other people adversely. So "no one is hurt" isn't really applicable.

Even outside of a religious context, conspiracy theorists and people who obsess over UFOs tend to let their lives and those of their loved ones crumble around them. Not everyone is an obsessive, of course, but it's worth keeping in mind. Also, believing in things science can't prove furthers anti-scientific thought, which hurts scientific progress (hel-lo, Climate Change deniers and Creationists)!

This part I agree on, the belief is one thing, there is a stretch too far certainly to some insistence on beliefs and going over the top. I tend to find that the belief is one thing, the 'requirements' to act certain ways are usually more a personal take on something that was never really part of the doctrine; or the ignored part with the advent of science, ie isolate moldy clothes for seven days, if the mold doesn't spread, then wash it, rinse, repeat and if after seven more days it doesn't spread, its washed again and considered clean to wear again.

I'd argue that anti-scientific thought doesn't truly hurt scientific progress. Creationism isn't stopping the scientific evidence of evolutionism, its just letting some people stay in a happy place that denies that science, or the empirical evidence. Take the Amish, them using a horse and buggy did not stop the automobile or its wide spread use today. Are they hurting themselves, some modernists might think they are fundamentally at ends with leading comfortable lives, but some would say they lead productive and even happy lives. Their belief hasn't hurt me any and I certainly don't agree with them.

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

Pascal's wager, although one of the more respectable arguments assembled in favor of belief, has some serious flaws. Blaise was, of course, a Christian, so he framed his argument for it to accommodate to the Christian god. It assumes there is only one valid religion, God, or belief system to choose from, that of Christianity. Well that just isn’t so. If we can make the wager about the Christian god, then the same argument can be equally applied to the thousands or millions of deities out there from the beginning of time. Zeus, Brahma, Azhura Mazda, Allah, Cher (some say she is a goddess), etc. If you take Pascal's wager as a serious philosophical proposition then you have to apply it to its logical end- an end that, ironically, Blaise the monotheist didn't really anticipate.

That means you would end up believing in every deity, just to be safe... and if the beliefs are contradictory? You'll still have to believe all of them because you never know. In fact, you would have to end up believing in different versions of the same deity, in cases where pantheon origins are a little muddy, which adds a whole layer of trouble. Then, if we apply it to the supernatural and paranormal in general, you would basically have to believe every claim made- fairies, dragons, werewolves, otherkin, la llorona, the chupacabras, conspiracy theories, slenderman, etcetera.

At the end, you'll be an enormous self-contradictory mess, or the most gullible person on earth. Neither of which is an ideal state to be in.

(thank you for the hugs, @surreality - it's been a day like you wouldn't believe)

That's a slippery slope. Let me apologize, I didn't mean it in his complete context, I didn't mean to go religious. Just that it's okay to believe in things that others do not, simply because, if in the end it doesn't exist, no one is hurt.

@Miss-Demeanor said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

So yeah, I'll say I believe in paranormal things. Because really, is it going to kill me to get a thrill from ghosts and psychics for a little longer, until science thoroughly debunks them and shows how it works? Nope! I want my mind to fuck with me, just a little. Because if all I ever saw, ever, were the things that are absolutely true and real and confirmed, etc. Life would be fucking boring.

Belated but also ...

Pascal's Wager ... any 'disbelief' versus 'belief'. It doesn't hurt to believe in something, in the chance you are right and get the rewards, and if its wrong, it doesn't really matter that you did believe now did it? Or, if it was wrong, no one would know otherwise in the lack of the afterlife, so no harm no foul.

Two good threads covered this recently:

http://musoapbox.net/topic/1063/how-does-a-mu-become-successful?page=1

And

http://musoapbox.net/topic/1043/meta-vs-prp-vs-planning-vs-impromptu?page=1

The later talks about staff provided things that make it fun for players ... which boils down to having something to do.

That said, I'll cast my stone with the 'whatever you have fun doing' lot.

If you have fun with 8 people on your own place and they all have fun, running plots for each other or whatever happens in the theme on a regular basis to create story and RP, then you have succeeded. If you want to run things, then maybe having 60 unique individuals with 80-120 unique chars amongst them, all doing things while you throw out meta plot to the various circles and everyone is having fun, then you've succeeded.

Remember the nearly golden rule, you can't please everyone all the time. The places that get the biggest gripes are usually the 'bigger' places, generally having 30-40+ chars on during peak times (even if its 20 people with lots of alts). The gripes always seem to come when the fun of an individual doesn't jive with the fun of others somehow. Its rare to see a place with less than 10 chars active on a daily basis get a complaint here (if ever), and usually those places are just fine with the 10 regulars that keep on telling stories.

I personally think the more a MUSH, outside of a MUD, tries to get crunchy, they more its likely to turn people away. Few that are highly crunchy are truly fully coded for combat, where everything takes care of itself. Thus it leads to rules lawyering and we do see disagreements happen mid scene. These bog down TT games, they make MU* just dredge along while everyone has to wait for the argument to simmer down enough. Folks can opt to leave when they disagree, or agree to not play it out when they lose.

If I want crunchy, I go to a MUD. If it gets into PvP, the other one can't just 'log out' to avoid resolution, or they can, but the game still runs it through for a set amount of time, so they'll still die if they were getting beat up. Without some control to keep dogs in the fight, so to speak, the crunchy becomes arbitrary to me. When it becomes arbitrary, its more just a collaborative story and the crunchy parts are used to find out when there is failure to let the group overcome the failure. Its why I prefer PvE in all Mu*s but MUDs (and most Muds are PvE mostly, the day of PvP trolls who just got big to PK are in the past - not saying they don't do that, but like the PK'ers in WoD on-line, they are more far and few between these days.

I think adding the crunch comes down to playing with those with similar play style and everyone good with letting the dice fall where they land. And playing with those people.

My two cents of preference, I'm good with attributes + abilities/skills. I do like the preference to choose if needed whether strength is helping intimidation by breaking something or charisma by mad-dogging and talking.

My favorite things when WEG d6 came out was the 'you have every skill in this category at the base attribute level' which made a lot of sense. Instead of taking tons of skills, you bought the skills that where above and beyond your natural talent/inclination.

I prefer some weight towards the trained skill over natural talent and it was always odd to me (probably from my enjoyment of WEG d6), that in some systems, the 3-4 pips 'expert' in a skill could still be less than someone with more pips in the base attribute who has no training in said skill. It just doesn't quite jive in my mind; I still play those games and enjoy them the same, but as far as preference goes, I prefer attributes that contribute in some way to skills or abilities in some way and are not just a nice stat to help with like health or something.

And, probably only me, but if you're going for completely new face on the fantasy elements, don't just remove Tolkien feel to elves and dwarves, look at a new culture that is less Euro-centric. I already pointed out if see 'unique modern fantasy' to describe a non-WoD game, it ends up still having that feel of Wod to me. Go for something completely different; if I wend different, I'd go middle/near eastern ... http://musoapbox.net/topic/1050/near-and-middle-eastern-persian-centric-urban-fantasy.

If you go more classic European, its just gonna feel like futuristic WoD to me. Sure you can go classic elves, true Nordic dwarves, they're pretty scary, but its going to sound like changeling to quite a few people (or Pendragon to me, they were all in there before WoD came out). They went more classic, but now a lot of folks are more familiar with it than when it was fresh in WoD.

This may be belated, I'm slowly catching up ....

@Thenomain said in Shadowrun: Modern:

The mood of this can be used to explain how World of Darkness came about, too, but that's not about WoD.

I think this was the whole point of the entire history, 4th Age of Earthdawn to 6th Age of Shadworun. Earthdawn was fighting the horrors, brave new worlds tuff, and it being left at the horrors never truly went away after 4th Age. WoD is there, there are horrors living in the world between 4th age and the 6th age following the Ghost Dance. They are legends, pseudo mythical things, any zoo they can be anything really. Fae, vampires, the krampus, take your pick. They didn't compete with other modern horror systems, and took the book ends, distant past and not so distant future.

I think Ghost Dance just blows it back up, reopens magic, brings the 6th Age early. It also leaves it out there that while Horrosr stayed, they are worse things that will be coming beyond dragons and the bugs before too long. All the shadowrunning is training for the worse things on their way, moths coming to the beacon which is Earth in a magic phase.

Age old question in art ... who decides its meaning?

For public art, its somewhere in the middle, the artist and the viewer, each with their own background. Once it goes up an artist accepts they have some control but can't make everyone see it they way they intended.

If a Mu* is open to public (letting other players join Edit: Advertising and Recruiting in public forums), then players may validly express an opinion. Its certainly acceptable for them to voice concern with how a game promoting itself publically and trying to draw in new players seems to be steering itself. Its certainly acceptable for staff to disagree.

There is a difference between staff recruiting players that only wish to play one way (the term is over used here, but staff sandboxing) versus accepting players with different visions and direction.

Personally, I've always enjoyed when RP seemed to steer off course from anything I ever intend. Simply because it shows creativity and a vestment in the game and theme by those players; short of the point that those players dominate the direction for everyone.

Oh, if its what I want to see in Shadowrun: Modern .... T'skrang awakened ....