Posts made by mietze

And I would say that if you are NOT willing to be that blunt, and able to live with the discomfort of actually setting real guidelines down , then frankly you deserve what you get in frustration about people not reading your mind when it comes to what is acceptable/ok to RP in that setting. You're not going to be able to guess everywhere people are going to go, and you are going to have to amend, but...I mean jesus. You cannot be so fuzzy especially with a not-modern-sensibilities place. That's just not fair to the players.

I think you need to be more blunt, if there's things you absolutely don't want.

Like, probably "We will not be having stories around racial tensions, the removal/genocide of Native Americans, or the exploitation of foreign laborers even though this is a wild wild west era setting" is far better and more fair.

"Without focusing" is kind of very weak, and not very informative and also leaves quite a lot of wiggle room to interpretation even by reasonable individuals.

I consider myself one, and a pretty nice/focused on the comfort and enjoyment of fellow players type of player.

"Without focusing" means to me that there's limited support FOR it, but that it will not dominate things. Or that staff will not run plotlines for it, but it won't be frowned on if you partake as a player/small group/ect.

"No rape storylines, do not engage staff or other players in that sort of RP here" is always the better way to say it, when you want NONE of it than "We are a grimdark game with adult themes, without focusing on rape."

@arkandel said in Historical settings:

But it's not for everyone. And for those potential staff teams giving their villains fangs or orcish faces makes it more palatable - similar themes with a smaller impact but easier to compartmentalize.

Yes. But by doing that, I think you are firmly planted in a supernatural horror/fantasy game rather than "historical game". Maybe there should be a differentiation between "historical game" and "<X time period> SETTING game." I think there can be a huge difference, in framing and intent. And also how issues are addressed.

That's what I mean by paying very close attention to scope of the game.

I'm not sure anyone is talking about a large or immensely popular game? I thought most of us had agreed this is a niche that's unlikely to draw a huge crowd.

And not to get too deep here, but I can say as someone whose family is deep in the trenches of taking actions and making plans I never in my wildest dreams I'd ever have to take/make in my own fucking country to keep one if my children safe, I personally feel very uncomfortable with people cheapening the evil being done by people to people by dehumanizing the people doing the evil. Oh, that couldn't be people like us, only monsters do that.

I would find a story about the monsters becoming concerned about the true depths of evil rooted in man and trying to protect some folks from it while not exposing themselves for genocidal destruction alongside those beset human groups far more compelling, and less tiresome to me personally.

But that is just a reflection of where I player am at, and of course there are going to be others who will only feel comfortable playing a WWII theme where Nazis are monsters or supernaturally forced from their basic humanity.

This is part of my confusion then. If you are okay with adding fantasy elements like vampires (one could argue that it's a cop out by having monster monsters be the Aryans and promoters of that evil rather than humand) I really dont get why making some alterations to other parts of history would be somehow a more immersion breaking thing.

This is why i do NOT favor hard historical games. I think they're too much work for the staff, tbh. A lot of work upfront, to set scope/strategy for dealing with drift alongside all the other usual shit. A lot of work in delivery, as there's yet another category of stuff that needs monitoring--not just in CG but forever afterwards. (CG is not a good filter for screening garbage players or problematic play).

I would totally support in spirit anyone who'd want to take it on, and I'm sure somewhere there's been a success (TGG?).

But I find the fantasy- flexible- sorta-based-on- "history" /themes/ over actual historical stuff, personally. That's not the thought exercise you laid out though, ark.

Also, to clarify, I don't mean to imply that PCs shouldn't be able to radically alter the state of the /town/ or whatever that the PCs are centered around. There have always been towns and settlements that flouted social conventions and the like for better or worse. Just that I feel like if you allow people to, say, change the entire course of a country's history, you have moved away from strict historical into fantasy, and thus you're opening up more problems to deal with in the long run if in your head you want a historical game.

I think for "hard" historical settings (based on RL, no supernatural or fantasy elements, ect.) you'd need to take a very close look at the scope of the game. I think for most people looking for strict historical being able to change history would be not great (plus that introduces the alt- or fantasy elements IMO); so it might be best to eliminate that from the scope of the game and focus on a fictional town that while all sorts of unusual things and people might happen/gather, they're NOT going to have a world-changing impact.

I would say anyone who really feels the need to have that kind of thing available probably /isn't/ going to be truly happy on a hard historical setting game. They're looking more for a potential alternative world game, which while there's nothing wrong with that, isn't the type of game you've outlined.

So that's one thing that you'd need to take a hard look at. What DO you want in the scope of your game? Then be honest about it.

I think you also need to have a plan in place for dealing with the inevitable problem of some (very small, but sometimes super vocal/noticeable) players who either "don't understand" (because they choose to not, they choose to use that as an excuse, or there's something with them that makes them incapable) the setting, or choose to make themselves the exception. There will be people like this, since there's this variety of oopsie-on-purpose theme flouting asshole on any game with a strong theme, eventually. There is no wrong way to deal with this, really, but instead of thinking that if only you write enough newsfiles, have the greatest wiki, provide lots of historical links, provide great documentation, if only you do those things you'll never have to deal with someone like this--be realistic and think about what you're actually going to do WHEN this person appears or grows into something like that over time.

How much theme drift will you allow?
How will you deal with PCs whose players aren't disruptive in the classic sense of the word (not ooc nastiness), but who are moving towards a theme clash? This would be via drift or bait and switch, not first approval. So how will you deal with players already IN GAME.

I also think it is very important to have focused things for the PCs to /do/. While historical stuff is super enjoyable, if you are not introducing fantasy or alt- elements I actually think it's even more important to have storyline goals/things for the PCs to work towards and participate in that help get/keep them excited about the theme. So whether that is battles, minigames/crises involving historically accurate-ish elements, ect--I think that ideally there should be a plan in place. Putting in a strict no-fantasy no-alt setting and then just leaving everyone to BaRP for the most part seems to be askingfor frustration and drift, IMO.

If your company has HR, and they're actually good at their jobs (by no means a given), then it might be worth taking some time with one of them to help coach you through asking about this. You have to be somewhat careful, since they are there first and foremost to serve the best interests of the company. But they can be really good at helping you navigate dealing with a difficult manager. And it does put you on record as having concerns.

https://twc.texas.gov/jobseekers/eligibility-benefit-amounts

So maybe, maybe not, depending on the case you make.

The only people I personally know who have had no issue at all with being granted benefits are military spouses, in that state. Though in most states they'll do their best to deny you.

I messed up my knee out on a delivery last night, partially because I'm a klutz and partially because people seem to have aversions to turning on their goddamn fucking porch light even though they scheduled the time for the delivery and know I'm coming.

I have hyper mobile joints so sometimes it's hard to tell if something is just out of alignment and I have to pop it back in (I do this with the bones in my feet and my hips all the time) but nope I really did do something to it and it hurts.

Turn on your porch lights and fix broken stairs, assholes! And while you're at it, bother to light or at least make visible your address marker!

@ganymede I am not arguing with that. I am a big fan of thoughtful use of social dice (or combat dice), and the negging of it bothers me (though since it's a constant on WoD places it is something I'm used to).

But I agree with Apos that if a system is in place people will use it. I think that they might only seek to use it when it can get them something they want, while looking down on it otherwise, but the same can be said for any "conflict" system, including combat. I think the assertion that "nobody" or few people would use a social combat system is not true nor should it be a deterrent from building one.

I would say the majority of players on a majority of games are not overly familiar with the combat system either. Yet it is important to have rules around that and a system if you are going to allow violence on the game. (Most of the time combat dice are used against NPCs. I have played on many intense social games and the same can be said for social dice.)

It is possible to have a game where social dice are never cast at another PC per se, but against their assets. (You could do the same thing with violence). Youd still have people complaining about how it ruined things (combat or social) for them, but it totally preserved agency for the individual character. They were not influenced how to feel about one of their warehouses firebombed or their informant in the police rooted out and paid off/turned against them.

I can't answer for Apos but I read their comments to mean more like even though people turn up their nose at allowing other pcs to affect them with dice rolls or social appeal, when it comes to a situation where they are facing real destruction (instead of losing face) they will privately or suddenly embrace it.

Which is my experience as well, which might be why I read it that way!

Hell, people don't even PK people's PCs who by all rights SHOULD be PKed because of the headaches it causes. A lot of time especially within vampire, lethal means of dealing with a problem are used rather than a HUGE amount of non-lethal stuff just to prevent the headaches caused by lesser actions (I'm sure it's the case with other spheres too, it's just I'm most familiar with vampire). i have seen people genuinely act like another PC torporing them /and returning them to their buddies/ or extracting a boon/favor for someone was the same as killing them outright, then proceeded to dial up the ic aggression to the point that the original player who wanted to avoid PK eventually had to do it. With the person screaming and spitting OOC the whole way, escalating at every turn.

So it's not like physical skills are not reacted to the same way in PvP.

The lack of STs and referees is why I'd advocate for players using tools to negotiate for themselves. But that too is objected to? It seems like the less all or nothing approach on a game where you are allowed to have social skills that are impactful towards PCs. If there is an opportunity for hard opt out for specific squicks or uncomfortable things, I really cannot understand why it's so objectionable to work with another person to either learn how to frame things to move them a pace or two in either direction if the roll is significant enough (and so that the other player doesn't have their fun ruined by their PC having to go in a direction that would break or harm enjoyment, assuming and giving the benefit of the doubt that the player does not term "anything that I don't decide for myself and retain total control over" ruins their enjoyment of their character on a non-consent game with other people around).

It really seems there is nothing good enough for the people who just simply seem to want there to be no social skills at all that can be used in PC interaction. Which is ok? But if you're looking to build something that allows both for the use of social skills AND preserving as much player agency as possible in regards to the internal workings of their PC, then you do need to look at SOME way to get the discussion started, because it's not going to happen on its own, unless you're playing with your BFF who apped in with you and thus knows a lot of the development of your PC.

Maybe it's a cultural divide. I enjoy getting to know other PCs through RP and partnership and plots. I enjoy other players getting to know mine through the same, even if the IC goals conflict (and therefore social dice are pulled out). If someone doesn't enjoy that or is open to it, and is more about their own personal development as a PC steered by them, without other people being able to affect or know much except for in very specific circumstances, then clearly there's going to be a discomfort factor there too.

We have talked about seeing to the comfort of people who don't want to engage in discussion. But I think the people who are open to that and are shamed for using skills/dice that lead to that (because I'm sorry, it totally does happen, all the time. For every time someone has been called a cheater for not wanting to let a single dice roll give someone carte blanche to dictate the reaction, there is someone who is called a might-as-well-be-OOC-rapist for asking how to resolve a situation where dice will be rolled to influence a social situation. I have seen and experienced people throwing the fact that so and so forced them into TS by using manipulation, and so me using the same skill to try to get them to go along with this one aspect of a plan or try my PC's idea first is the same sort of thing and I'm a horrible bad person who should feel bad. On multiple occasions. Even though those dice were legal in game, and I started the conversation with the idea that I wanted to influence not dictate, and wanted to be sure that it was fun for them also.

At some point we are going to have to remove the extremists on either side (Because you will never rid yourself of people who refuse to play well with others via systems and polices for using social dice--it's the staffers' job to boot those folks IMO) when taking into consideration on how to build a way to use this stuff, if at all.

I will at admit that the more complicated the system the more likely I personally am to experience brain freeze in a STed situation.

Then there is the factor of me being so overexcited that I get to participate in a scene where SOMEONE ELSE has prepared stuff that I don't know what at all will happen and OMG SQUEEE THIS IS SO AWESOME AND ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE ARE AWESOME AND WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING THINGS!!! that I blow my wad in sheer happiness and eagerness and forget about all the incredibly expedient and useful complicated merits and shit I have in favor of annoying the ST with my SQUIRREL!ness and oohing and ahhing over other folks stuff and trying to be clever.

Unless I have a very task oriented PC or we are on a very task oriented mission. But you can be sure I am screaming with delight inside as well as wanting to gush over all the Cool Things the other folks are doing!

I do a once through before I play. I tend to rely more on the game's wiki for understanding theme and atmosphere. But I like to have an understanding of the mechanics if I can. Not that a lot of games don't have a lot of alterations though.

And as a player my top goal is to have everyone, win or lose, come away with feeling like they got to enjoy their character's interaction with mine. I have never ever had a player NOT respond to my interest in their PC (assuming they has agreed to RP with me specifically, I'm not talking about the people in a scene who are clearly interested in a specific person(s) and all else are window dressing...that's clearly not personal at all and not really a fair comparison). Wanting to work with someone to find a resolution that reflects success on a roll but doesn't totally destroy their ooc enjoyment of the interaction is a tool towards that end. I would much rather do that than roll dice, have them say nothing, and then find out later that they felt I "destroyed their PC."

@arkandel yeah, but if the issue is that people literally do not want to have to discuss with anyone else, just veto it or not...I mean yes, that's disappointing, but maybe there should be a buy in way to be able to avoid the topics that they are unwilling to give any discussion to another player. So that neither party has to waste their time on the other.