Posts made by mietze

For all the rapey mcraperson abuse abuse abuse yawn dark DARKNESS backgrounds that I've looked at for old school kinfolk (and that I hear are common amongst wolfblooded too) I have rarely seen it on public display too.

I think that most people exercise some degree of discretion in how much they shove that in people's faces unless they are OOCly sure that it won't cause a stir. I don't know that I think that's a /bad/ thing, since the people who do shove it indiscriminately tend to have other major boundary issues, in my experience.

Even most vampire/ghoul people I know are also similarly careful. I have seen some really super surprising reactions IC and OOC to relatively mild things. After you've had a few OMG TRIGGER YOU EVIL PERSON HOW COULD YOU reactions to stuff like a vampire casually slapping their ghoul that mouthed off to them and sending them away, or references to property, ect, I know that I tend to be a little more mindful. Do I think people flipping out ooc like that is odd given the theme yeah, but I find it hard to blow off when I have upset someone /that much/ OOCly whether I meant to or not, so I tend to try and get some idea as to whether it would be OK to imply or RP out things that some find upsetting before I know it won't or I think it probably won't. If that makes sense.

I agree. But more a loss for those particular players I think. I don't think most people were doing that though, were they? I only noticed a few in particular. I never understood it either. There were times that I thought certain things were kind of passive-aggressive and somewhat crossoverish, but eh. It's not like vampires can't be passive aggressive too! It always made me smile when VERY SERIOUS PC's players left their silly stuff up.

I think that's why there was a Rumors account for RfK wiki, that everyone knew the password to. That way it wasn't obvious to wikistalkers, but the players who posted the rumors had to claim them via beat reporting so that staff knew, or else they would be removed.

That is pretty weird. If they were worried about you taking it personally that they were the ones that shot you, I mean, they could have just said "You got shot and torpored and now So and So has the body." Though that seems kind of weird to try and hide from someone who is going to be on staff (especially that small of a staff).

People do very strange things though. I have had people oocly out of the blue and without me even contacting them first even to say hello page me to start lying about what they or another person were doing. (In one case I knew it was a lie because I was involved IC/OOC with the planning of this thing and was the originator, in the other because I also staffed on the game so at the very moment the person was proactively, preemptively lying to me about the situation on my other window there was a staff conversation going on about it.) The odd thing was in both cases, it wasn't a thing that anyone cared about. (In one case the organization/running of a fluff social event, in the other it was about some OOC facts about a tinyplot thing that neither of our PCs were involved with or could become involved with anyway!) So lying had no point--no action to cover up, no bad juju to spin, nothing.

It's just bizarre some of the things that people OOC lie about. I can understand lying/bragging about RL, or to avoid someone being upset in that minute, ect. Some of that is human nature I think. But the people that like proactively lie about really weird stuff that nobody cares about, eh.

I think lying IC is always okay OOC, so long as the player is willing to have their PC get the consequences if they're caught and if consequences can be enacted.

I think lying OOC is pretty much almost always problematic. Unfortunately some people cross the two. They can't accept that a nasty or swindling PC could be played by an above board/non-cheating player. Or that someone who plays a PC who is one of their buddies has in fact been pretty nasty and destructive OOC, and may have kind of been using them to that end.

I think most people in the hobby do get sucked in to either side at one time or the other (passing on gossip that turns out to be full of shit, avoiding people on someone's say so who later turn out to be folks that are actually fine and our someone was full of shit, taking an IC annoyance/defeat and applying an OOC dislike to the player for a time), but most people don't make that a way of life, thank god.

I guess, after so many years staffing and playing, my point is that I'm so tired of legislating to the lowest common denominator. Because some idiot used X in some way, no nobody can have X and outlaw that type of PC. Because someone might lie about Y when they shouldn't/don't have the IC capability to, we need to do away with any possibility for lying (IC or otherwise). Most folks are not going to be abusive, or cheaters. They're just not. And for the people who are truly compelled to be that way, no amount of very stringent rules is going to make them not, and there are some that are very good and can succeed at that anywhere until they're caught or overstep and wear out their OOC welcome finally. And most of the time, that does happen eventually.

I don't think you can stop people from playing OOC games, really. There will always, always be people who do that. And to be honest, because most people thankfully don't really want to go through MUSHing with the attitude of "you're a liar unless I can prove you're not" there will always be folks who are able to do that sort of thing. (I just think it's far more problematic to automatically assume everyone's a liar OOC when it comes to game culture. ) The worst of it doesn't usually involve outright cheating anyway, though usually that's how folks get caught when they get too lazy or convoluted in who they've told what when OOCly.

I agree with lordbelh that it's actually pretty important to allow for PCs to lie/cheat /ICly/ though. People don't like that either really, but it's a valid thing in game. I think the negative stuff tends to happen when people extend it OOC or keep it all OOC. Which you aren't going to prevent with code. So I don't see a reason to cut off a valid avenue of RP for the small minority of OOC gameplayers; it's not like it's not obvious via other venues after awhile. I think we tend to do a little too much legislating to the exception and closing down things because of the few bad apples, when there are other ways to sanction/remove that behavior that don't take away from others using a valid IC strategy.

Hey, the pagans might have started it, in regards to throwing to the lions and burning at the stake, but the Christians /finished/ it, man.

Depend on what you mean by "dark" maybe. I don't think Dropping Anvils By Night is more dark; the darkness I prefer comes from putting people in situations where they have to make terrible choices and the impacts that result from it, rather things that happen TO the PC.

I've played on places that had random job events come up, as well as random 'roll this' from dark staff, ect. I don't think it made things gritty at all, though it's fun in its own way.

I think it is the STs and the stories that you participate in that make a place dark. I don't think that can be done with processes. I do agree that what you propose would make the game more "alive" or immersive, but I don't think it has anything to do with darkness

I think you have to have a very clear expectation/goal in mind first, and then you can play with policy to get you the closest you can to it, while still keeping in mind what's realistic for the players on the game to achieve.

So: what do you mean by "fiction ownership", specifically?

I don't understand what you mean.

Sounds like you are saying open +sheet game (which I personally love, but think that many people have difficulty with for various reasons), with instant XP awards perhaps (via vote/scene completion/some auto system rather than staff review); what do you mean by fiction ownership? No staff control over how things go as far as MUSH timeline/metaplot/what is or isn't allowed (blowing up stuff, killing off any important NPCs, ect)? I think that would be the hardest of them all, not because staff needs to control everything, but just how would you keep players from doing the same thing at once with very different results, or if people don't read updates. To be fair, sometimes staff don't do that either!

@Ide said:

Obviously this is personal preference but a game where each player effectively is a GM. It won't work for everyone.

How is this different from all players being allowed to run PrPs? Or is it?

*Fading Suns (I so very much want this. Have contemplated trying to start one a few times.)
*NWoD 2.0 but M/M+ only
*Single Sphere NWoD
*I am a weird person who loves historical themed places that are in the 1800s and onwards
*Shadowrun (though I wouldn't know my elbows from my ass in the new rules now)
*Buffy I really had fun on Mystick Krewe even though I detest the TV show, ick.
*Battlestar (with hefty theme control. Please no marines that sob about getting shot and/or disobey orders in combat and leave the line to go rescue kittens.) It's interesting to play a game where the PCs are in theory cooperating with each other towards a shared survival goal, however, with slow pacing it often devolves into PvP over who's fucking who, in my observation. That's kind of meh.)

I was involved on both ends of social combat stuff on RfK, and it was relatively stress free. It was a hell of a lot better to get to use mechanics and rolls to work things out vs. the usual "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" <cue ooc manipulation of others/ignoring poses/people posing or reacting in ways that they did not have the stats to back up, ect.>

Granted, most of the time I didn't do it with asshats I guess. Even the few times where it got tense, there was less asshattery. I think perhaps because there was a system and it was encouraged rather than looked down upon.

I think though that having a game structure where social skills were actually mechanically valuable beyond shits and giggles helped with that culture though. It raised the bar of respect and why people would want to purchase them other than being an ooc wannabe rapist.

I did like that there was an attempt to my status/influence valuable in many aspects mechanically, that there was a cost associated (and at high levels a pretty significant one) to maintain it--you did not just get to play XP with it once and be done. They also limited the slots period, so regardless of whether it was held by player-held NPCs like a retainer or PC themselves, there was only 1 status 5, 2 4s, ect in the mortal influences. You could research them and it was encouraged to attack mortal status as a leg up. (and it seemed to happen on a fairly regular basis, with no major ooc catastrophies)

So I agree if you want influence/rep to have weight, it's good to look at benefits carefully. I like the idea of there being some +s to not having a high one too. I think that maintenance cost and limited spots are probably important too /if/ you want the getting and keeping of influence to be something that people play about beyond just flashing about that they have 5s in everything. I don't know that maintenance would be easy to do without an off screen system though. And I think a lot of WoD people in particular would freak the fuck out about having to pay more than once for something they already bought.

I think maintenance costs make intuitive sense ICly. I think implementing them may be trickier, depending (and probably mortal/mundane influence/statuses might need to work different than supernatural groups, so there is that complication too).

Out for curiousity I went and poked around on the site, because I'm a compulsive reader and I like reading about new stuff.

Is it horrible that I don't even really care what the game that people are calling Burp2 is, but I really really reaaaaallllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy want to play it now, because I love the name? That is even better than the sphere WTF.

Why can't WoD places have cool names like that. I may have to check this out now.

I mean really, how can you be logged in to a game that's called burp and not be smiling? That is unbelievably fucking awesome. ANd no, I'm not being sarcastic.

@Arkandel said:

@mietze said:

Ultimately, if there is a list of expectations that staff have for a certain role, they're not "punishing" people who can't make those expectations. I advocate for specific lists of expectations, because it allows for more flexibility OOC, and for more diverse people being given a chance, if they can approach staff with a team proposal or other thing that still meets all of the requirements even though it's not Ye Old Typical person who can afford to be online 24/7.

The problem isn't coming up with lists. That's in fact the easy part.

The problem is monitoring all those people to make sure they're compliant with the objectives on that list over time, offering warnings and taking privileges away when they aren't met. Not only is that a constant burden on staff but also it's much harder to take something away than never giving it to begin with.

I disagree. If someone is not performing in a leadership position then it is pretty easy for staff to take it away. I think the reluctance often comes when there is no list of clear expectations. If someone apps in a higher powered PC and then doesn't meet their obligations, then depending on how large that boost was, perhaps they lose that PC. (Or if it was a minor boost, such as free status coming out of cg vs having to be voted in, ect, then that sort of thing is easy to strip. If it was a boost of # XP, and it was more than a month of passive XP that people would normally get, the difference is stripped, with the player's choice of where to strip from.)

The bookkeeping is easy. I agree that a lot of time staff has a hard time saying no or upholding players to standards, yes. And in that case I agree, if you're not willing to hold people to a standard you say is important or comes with benefits because you are asking for things in return then absolutely, don't have boosts or anything like that if you're only going to enforce it 'sometimes'.

Leadership roles and status in particular are not supposed to be static. And again, if you decided to create a PC with a significant boost by agreeing to uphold clearly written expectations and then cannot meet those obligations, then that was part of the risk assumed.

I do think that it's also good to have a very clear policy of what happens when someone is not able to meet those obligations. Are they given a certain amount of time to turn it around? Can they get an extension if they proactively notify staff or do so as soon as possible, vs. staff having to chase them down? If someone cannot stand the idea that if they can't keep up with the obligations they knew about in advance they might need to forfeit the benefits they received, then perhaps they ought not apply for/agree to a boost out of chargen or a high visibility position.

I think the amount of leadership/high power boost positions would usually be relatively small. So I don't think it's harder to keep tabs on "all of them" no, not unless there's been unwise decisions about how many of these to offer. And the list doesn't need to be complicated. To go and see if the player has run and posted their 3 events in three months (it would be their responsibility to do so) or other measurable, simple as possible obligation, is no harder than processing apps. Significantly less so.

And it's not that someone's "elder" status (like the age of a vampire) would be taken away, it would be their CG power boost that would be taken away. They'd be like any other PC that decided to be old for flavor benefit, or a long time resident, or whatever, but did not elect to take on additional obligations to get extra starting points to play with.

At least, that is how I think it should be done. Most places let you be however old you want within certain parameters, but you don't get extra points for being over 30 (for example) or less for being 18. (But maybe you should, that's a whole different thing though!). It's just a flavor thing, and perhaps a good bg excuse for having more eclectic skills, if that's even monitored (I'm not sure many places do these days!). If you can't bear the risk, don't ask for the boost, just earn the XP as per normal. No big. And if someone really must be a god out of CG, then it's easy enough to just stick to the high power passive XP games or rollover that allow you to do that.

I haven't played at a capped XP game--that's something I'd be interested to try. I did like the increasing expense for spent XP system that RFK had (though I don't know if that would work all that great in a passive XP system. Or maybe it wouldn't make a difference at all).

I think if the concern is not wanting everyone to have everything, then maybe instead of trying to accomplish that through a general XP policy, maybe it would be better to just say outright "no matter how much XP you have, you can only have 3 skills/attributes at 5 or a combination of 523 points of merits max or whatever. I guess maybe that feels too controlling or upfront maybe, rather than people feeling they can do whatever they want with their XP.

I don't think any XP system solves the problem of mixed ability/power levels though. Unless you shut down approvals, you'll always have people who are left out of high power stuff when they first get in (though sometimes high powered people get left behind too if lower powered people want to have a fun thing where they want to be able to do something, they may not invite the dinosaur because they don't want to be shown up or perhaps the dino has a reputation of not really being able to handle mixed power scenes well). Most of the places I've played at seemed to solve this organically by different power level folks running PrPs, sandboxing, or the like. It's been seldom that I've ever played somewhere with constant staff plot driving stuff, it's mostly just been the players, who seem by and large to do an okay job of dealing with it.

Sometimes I wonder how much of a conflict there really is. I play with people from a wide variety of time zones and available log in time. And I have to say, I have never played with someone with a very limited amount of game time who was resentful that they didn't get Head Honcho/Super Visible Leadership Position on a game and who said it wasn't fair. (I try to stay away from stupid people mostly though).

I have seen terrible things happen because leadership positions were given to people with no lives but the ability to be on game 24/7 though, and who were chosen because of the presumptions of greater ability, instead of choosing the more balanced, capable, proven abilities of people who were not on 24/7 but who had excellent skills in putting together a team to help, delegation, organization, and willingness to extend play and fun stuff across diverse group.

So again, I'm not against alternative ways to meet responsibilities. But if someone is really angry over not being "allowed" to get something that has defined responsibilities (not just some vague stupid Be Active garbage) that they are incapable or unwilling to fulfill, honestly I tend to think there's something more wrong with that person than the situation.

Ultimately, if there is a list of expectations that staff have for a certain role, they're not "punishing" people who can't make those expectations. I advocate for specific lists of expectations, because it allows for more flexibility OOC, and for more diverse people being given a chance, if they can approach staff with a team proposal or other thing that still meets all of the requirements even though it's not Ye Old Typical person who can afford to be online 24/7.

But frankly, @icanbeyourmuse your example is confusing to me. If a person cannot participate in most major things regarding the role they wish to fulfill, and are largely limited to +Request and other non-RP avenues, and the role requires that (not all will, sometimes it's better to have someone in there who's an excellent delegator and tabs-keeper, and off-hours folks are often excellent at that), then why would you want a role that you're not going to be able to fulfill, regardless of how much you really really really really really want it? Just for the fancy title?

This is why 'casual' needs to be defined.

And why I don't like vague "be active" stuff.

There are excellent people who have limited time but make efficient use of it. You can structure activity expectations around actual activity vs. just time.

But if the only thing cared about is extra points at chargen so one can have the prettier sheet to do what one wants to do with in theory (even though the player can't be around for anything/will not run anything or whatever the 'activity' expectations are) I guess I have less sympathy for them not getting extra points at the start.

I think that unfortunately one should probably look at ability rather than desire, when it comes to positions or limited things that the staff wants to be RP drivers. Lots of people want titles and shit, but if there are expectations tied to them (activity level) then there will be some people that are cool but can't make the cut. It's not fair, but I'm not sure that an individual who has no time and cannot accomplish the tasks expected of anyone else who takes such a slot should get a pass because of their timezone or RL circumstances or whatever.

I do think, however, it is vitally important to be very specific about what you mean by 'active.' Just logged in? Are they expected to run plots beyond meetings? Do they have to accomplish all the expectations themselves as an individual, or can they have a team approach? (As in, perhaps the elder themselves is in New Zealand , but (to use vampire as an example) they have a lead ghoul who is available EST daytimes, and two childer also incoming who are available at other times with overlap, and who they are confident will be team players even if they don't get the CG stat boost? (I'm actually in support of leadership teams rather than individuals, though it is /hard/ to find them, when you have a great team, there's better longevity).

Lots of people want lots of things,. If they can't perform or can't meet the requirements though, then it really doesn't matter how bad they want it.

I think where most policies fall short in this regard is that they are not well defined expectations wise (so that everyone is on the same page, and there is some measure of performance) and seldom is there a very clear policy about removal (not so importnat IF there are unlimited 'slots'.). I think probably there should be some vetting as to type of activity too. You can have a super active individual, but if they have a catastrophic misunderstanding of theme or their purpose is more to just be sparkly starshine prince look at me I'm a snowflake what do you mean I have to involve people that don't totally want to keep me at the center of attention, then that's even more of a problem than the person who is able to log in 3 times a week, but spends that time generating activity for newbies and friends and the sphere at large and is capable of assembling a great suport time to keep it going.