Posts made by mietze

A new Fading Suns game would bring me out of retirement.

Though....kinda like certain spheres in WoD you'd probably get the same people who are still grudge holding over the last 3 FS games (I remember people complaining about each other in pages to me about what so and so had done on the FS game that ended like 10 years before Star Crusade!! And I thought vampire and changeling players were bad!)

So probably a very clear, sane, consistent way to deal with tantrums would be best. I think by and large people could get along, with that in place.

I don't think saying "I'll hand you these tools and do what I can to make things easy for you, but I am not really going to take responsibility for people who don't bother to use them but still complain." As taking those player complaints /personally/.

Quite the opposite. If you decide to play on a game where staff makes it clear how to do things, but you don't want to be cause of your horrible experience with someone else--it really /is/ on you to get over it. I'm not unsympathetic as I've been there.

But honestly, I don't think staff unless they obviously are those types of people--and they are very rare--can possible take every player no matter how damage and coax and woo them to greater participation. It's a huge committment and pouring yourself into someone who is just as likely to spit in your face as to appreciate the effort or meet you halfway. But bad things DO happen when players or staff take things uber personally (barring direct personal contact where someone says "you suck" directly) or cannot give and take with suggestions.

These people show up and do this on every game even if the social stats are nerfed. It's tiresome to see the stats talked about as if they are the problem. If anything nerfing social stats and combat seems to be used most often for staff to continue to allow the abuse that happens, because they think they've "solved the problem."

Dealing with problem children requires gonads and spine. I'd say eliminating a whole scope of play that encompasses very different things than sexual issues because one is afraid that the predators and harassers on their game might use it for such (rather than dealing with the real issue regardless of stats), tells me the staff is weak and there's far MORE likely to be predatory behavior on their game.

I don't mean this in a mean way. But I do not think that any system can realistically fix feelings of being "useless" in a scene where their number is somewhat marginally lower than other people's in that scene.

I only say this because I have heard expressed oocly (and indeed at times have felt personally) the feeling of being "useless" in a scene or group when the dice pool was lower, the same, and even higher than the other people in the scene. Usually truly feeling /useless/ has more to do with not feeling like you have a niche in the group (honestly something that stats really won't fix) or not enjoying the RP or feeling out of one's element in the chemistry of the scene.

Even if all rolls and pools were equal, I think that if there is too much redundancy or there's not chemistry in the scene or if there's not the same level of ooc comfort with things, you are going to have people who will feel useless, and those that are totally oblivious.

@WTFE said in FS3:

FS3 is now, confusingly, on its third major version (and were there minor versions in between?). This is the third version made by the same person who seems to have the same specific goals in mind (very narrow subset of genres, an insistence on low numbers of rolls while at the same time relying on purely stochastic processes, etc.).

This seems kind of a petty bitch to make, like you have an axe to grind with this specific person. Did you not mean to bitch about zOMG 3 MAJOR VERSIONS in the last 10 years? Because that's where I'm getting those feels from.

I get that for whatever reason you hate this system. More power to you. It just seems a little weird. Especially the hate towards something that's available for free, as a dice system, for game runners to use or not at their discretion.

Hubby develops war game simulators (and for a few years it was used by a branch of the US military and NATO). LOL. I always thought those people would be less crazy than mushers. But......nooooooope.

@Thenomain

Yeah specific issues were, which is pretty cool. Just seems weird to also bitch about someone updating their free thing 3 times in 10 years like that's just excessive or something.

But, judging from the comments my developer spouse has to deal with on his company page, I suppose not super out of the realm of weird gamer whining.

Uhhhh why is a developer who shares their system being criticized for making improvements or changes and making them available to people 3 times in 10 years?

Like...wow. It's ok to not like something, but man.

Honestly the "zomg I'm failing too much!!!" can also depend on what games the player has played on recently.

Once I went from TR (high high ridiculous dice pools for everyone) to a low powered/starting level game that was also WoD. People freaked the fuck out constantly because "I only got 1 success instead of 17!" Or "I'm not even going to try, since I have a dice pool of 5!" (Which really isn't bad particularly when everyone else has low pools, but people were so used to seeing successes and big ones every roll they'd have anxiety if they thought they wouldn't.)

Saw a similar thing with people transitioning from high power WoD to FS3 in the battle star game I played.

I loved combat rp in the FS3 system, I found it both freeing and more fun. Yeah I'm weird, but I find it easier to describe missing in more fun and varied ways than hitting. Luckily it was not super jarring for me because I wasn't coming directly from an all monster stats all the time environment though.

One way I have done this with random sign ups is to disclose level/type of risk. (Keep in mind, I've never played on a place that did not ban rape, nor have I really met people who loved rape plots that I enjoyed playing with, and I myself don't particularly care for that in a plot so Surprise! Rape! was never in the cards.)

So, if there was risk of death/permanent harm, I would disclose that. If the pcs would be facing a situation where there was going to be tough choices (vs easily seen rah rah no harm done solution to find), I'd disclose that. If there was a fixed outcome (say, like participating in someone's becoming or a scene that was being done because the pcs had lost an asset, etc) then I would disclose the fixed outcome part (but always would incorporate other elements that would not.). If something involved kids I would disclose (even if the kids weren't going to be harmed) because child involvement I've found has a lot of reactionary elements to it (with people getting angry/irritated/worried about any child showing up in scene.)

Once I had my sign ups, I would disclose a little more prior to scene and invite people to ask questions they needed to ask or bring up any concerns. I always asked for graphic gore preferences (going with the most conservative comfort level), as well as whether or not as a group they were comfortable with group/scene set poses involving descriptions that certain pcs could see but others could not, or if they wanted all such info handled via page/permit. This was especially important in law scenes when a lot of the times a party can be divided during the scene.

I don't think you'd need to put "warning: aliens are going to pop out of people!" But probably it'd be a good idea to put "warning: graphic violence depictions including on-screen npc deaths that may be horror movie gory."

When it comes to fucking with things like touchstones (at least for vampires) that have a very heavy affect on the pc both mechanically and in how they are played (which can be very fun and a risk much desired!) I'm going to assume a certain level of intimacy and cooperation with your players (who would need to describe and give you that background for it). In that case I would just have a one on one with those folks about it, oocly, to find out their comfort level. Or if you are gathering a group, I would disclose that participating in this prp will mean that you are putting your +sheeted assets at risk for lasting, irreversible harm. Most players will not be bothered by that and will welcome it--if they trust they'll get a great story out of it. But people who say "no" to that at first may be willing to trust you with it later, once they see your storycraft and your interest in really hooking in to their pc and challenging them.

It is always a deep honor, imo, when you're trusted with that; but a lot of the time it has to be earned a little ooc first.

As far as sacrificial lambs--well. To be honest, the challenge will not be finding someone willing (you'll have people falling all over themselves) but finding someone who is willing to share the spotlight/work with other PCs to enhance everyone's enjoyment rather than assuming the scene will be all about the maiden/lad-in-distress.

And yes. "Moderate pain" can be profoundly hard to deal with, and even provoke suicidal ideation, especially when it's chronic. I'm not saying that people aren't impacted severely even if their pain isn't a 9 or 10 on the therapeutic scale before anyone jumps my shit for that.

Just--when you are talking to a rehab team or for a functional diagnosis, it's helpful to be sure to describe both the nature of the pain itself but also how it impacts your daily life and ability to care for yourself/do your basic activities of daily living.

The pain scale is supposed to incorporate that, but sadly a lot of providers do not do a good job of educating folks on what the numbers mean (and perhaps don't know themselves!) so it sometimes is pretty useless.

When I worked with a lot of rehab/therapeutic clients (and thus had to fill out a lot of specific charting/goals/treatment results paperwork for insurance and medical team purposes) we tried to be a little more specific with the pain numbers and what they meant, vs using the smiley face thing or just an unguided rate from 1-10.

0 - Absolutely pain free

1-3 Mild Pain - Able to do all activities of daily living with little to no modifications needed.

1- pain is present off and on but barely noticeable and often forgotten about.

2 - minor pain is annoying and definitely present most of the time with occasional stronger twinges.

3 - pain is annoying and distracting, but you can adapt and get used to it, still performing your usual activities without moderation.

4-6 Moderate Pain - interferes significantly with daily life activities

4 - moderate pain. You can be distracted from it if you are very engaged in something else, but only for a certain period of time, and you are starting to need to modify your daily activities because you can't function fully.

5 - moderately strong pain. You cannot ignore it for longer than a few minutes. You can push through to so many or your daily activities or social activities, but you must limit both significantly.

6 - moderately strong pain that significantly impacts your daily activities and cannot be ignored or distracted from at all. This level of pain impacts your ability to speak normally/carry on an undistracted conversation.

7-10 Severe pain - Disabling/cannot perform functions of daily living

7 - the pain interferes or severely limits your ability to sleep. It is severe pain that dominates your senses and significantly limits your ability to perform daily tasks or keep up with social endeavors.

8 - intense, acute pain. Severely limits any/all physical activities. Conversation with others is extremely difficult

9 - excruciating pain. Involuntary crying out/vocalizations. Unable to coherently converse with others.

10 - unspeakable pain, delirious, bedridden, unable to perform any tasks or communicate with people.

Unmedicated childbith pain is usually described as a 7-8 level, for reference. If you're at a 9-10 you're in the hospital.

Pain scale is not really talking about pain alone, it's pain and /function/. If you are at the doctors office talking with them coherently during your appointment, having walked there under your own power you are not at a 9 or 10 on the pain scale even if it is indeed the worst pain you personally have experienced.

For example: Incest. Is that blood relatives only? What about legally permitted relationships like between second cousins. Is it incest if two step siblings hit it off, even though they did not live together during most of their childhood? What about a person marrying/fooling around with their sibling's partner?

Suicide: Off screen okay? Is staged to look like suicide homicide ok? Is it acceptable for pcs to commit suicide in the scene?

Child abuse: Actively in front of the pc is not okay, what about mentions? Does this only encompass physical violence (and does that include spanking, or denial of food, etc) and sexual violence or does it also include yelling/name calling?

I don't think you have to think of everything but if the goal is to truly protect people and allow them to participate without having to ask for clarity, then making sure there is a uniform expectation of what falls into that category for all scene runners/participants is a good idea. Otherwise it makes it meaningless; and things might be mislabeled (lowballed or highballed).

If you want actual participation you need to be very specific and brief in your presentation. Few people are going to read a screen long overly justifying news file. They just aren't.

If you make it too "wah WAH wah" Peanuts adult voice then people will actually be more confused not less.

Probably some definitions are in order though to make sure everyone is on the same page.

To be clear, absolutely clear--I am in no way opposed to content warnings, and I apply them in every scene I run whether or not the game requires it.

My opposition is only to the express idea that we could or should put into place a system that removes any expectation of personal communication between players, because some people with triggers don't ever want to have to disclose they have them because they are so avoidant.

I do not care if there's a coded +triggers thing; though I don't have much faith given how many players across all genres neglect to keep things like +info updated as time goes on, that it would be super helpful where it's most needed.

I do very much care about a stated attempt that there should be no expectation of direct communication between people doing a prp or other scene together. I do think it is kind of a paper shield, because if at the start of a spontaneous or last minute scene, if I scene runner pull my +trigger command and see that there is one person that has "please no mention of suicide" in the anonymous feedback response and I say "tonight for this cop scene you will be encountering an apparent suicide" and that person leaves then here then their expectation of total anonymity is destroyed too, and I'd worry if no one leaves that it means I have an extremely avoidant person here now that will not say anything at all but will be damaged.

I really do not at all see why the problem with blind, no communication strategies in dealing with player discomfort is so hard for people to see. I think it encourages terrible habits and game culture. And I would not feel safe playing on a place that actively encourages people to think that personal communication about issues in scenes is optional, rather than expected.

No, I would not. I have had friends also check me (though I've never had to be disciplined in game, because it's relatively easy for me personally to maintain separation). The ability to be honest and to think in broader terms than "must keep friend happy at all costs" is not a rare commodity in our community. We bitch like it is, but IME it is not.

I think that we often as a community attempt many things to depersonalize the conversation or attempt at prevention to save our perception of comfort (but every human organization or group does this).

But it's not rare for someone to tell a friend "no" or "you need to step back" on a mush.

@Arkandel I have and would again, in no uncertain terms, denied things to RL friends in game despite all sorts of tantrums and guilt tripping, when it was clear that they were breaking rules and/or being abusive and/or inappropriate with others.

Even though there's ooc relationship risk.

If you are unwilling to say no, you need to check yourself to an out of control friend, then you are a truly shitty friend. IMO.

Yeah, this is where I think I step out of the conversation, too.

I am a trauma survivor. I understand very well the nature of triggers (not in the anti-SJW sense, but like...the real professional sense). I understand very well how innocent or offhand references made by other people or suddenly confronting it in text or other media form can really be devastating, even if you are capable of holding it together.

But asking me to be prepared to deal with other people's trauma, who I am not close to at all, and making it my as a scene runner responsibility to navigate it for them, when they are incapable or unwilling to communicate beyond very impersonal slotted in advance ways...honestly, that is a fucking trigger for ME, as the caretaker child of a physically and emotionally abusive mentally ill alcoholic parent in a culture where image was everything and the weight of responsibility of family livelihood and community standing rested on my ability to solve the problem/keep the mentally ill person on an even keel/manage their experience and minimize their destructiveness to everyone else.

It is very VERY easy to get sucked into online, especially with so many other trauma surviving folks as part of the community. But honestly, that expectation kind of makes me want to hurl. It's not something I ever EVER want to do again, it's one of the things that drove me out of MUSHing in the first place, and dealing with those kinds of folks is probably what will keep me away in the future, at least as someone who runs anything or has close contact with folks I don't know (which to me lessens the appeal of the hobby, as I love meeting new people/new thought and approaches and creative minds are exciting).

It is simply not worth the risk of having someone try to make me responsible for managing their trauma, or putting the onus on me or I'm the bad person. I need equal partners who respect boundaries.

Ghost, this is why I prefer, as a scene runner, to at least have an open invite to conversation one on one on the table.

Granted, as a PrP runner usually I will never have to deal with relationship issues, ect, because those tend to be a private RP thing (and thus all the labels in the world will not prevent people from going apeshit or running away, they need conversation at least of the "what are your boundaries" variety--which for some people may legitimately be 'I don't want to talk about this OOC ever, it is what it is, no backsies' in which case the other player needs to decide if they can cope with that, ect.).

I do think virtually all "emotional separation issues" stem from reluctance/inability/unsuccessful communication between the two (or more) people involved.

And you know, I have actually, in the course of running a PrP or action scene for people who were not my friends or I had had minimal contact prior to that point, had players say to me privately "You know, I've had a really shitty day/week. I would like things to not be nuanced, and preferably I'd like to at least have some sort of a 'win'." And we all had a wonderful experience. Or, midway through a law scene I ran, someone disclosed to me that they were starting to feel a little anxiety (not because of graphic content, but becuase they were feeling sensitive and were anticipating stuff) and asking for a spoiler/reassurance that it was NOT <subject>.) That too was happily and safely and privately resolved.

In none of those cases would a blanket warning have helped. Nor would a general warning. Nor would have preferences entered the month before at chargen or even a week before when they signed up for the scene, or even 48 hours before.

If people cannot fucking bother to talk to each other, then I don't know what on earth we can do to make a collaborative community scene work.

This is why I tend to be selective in who I run meaty scenes for.

As a scene runner I put myself out there and am just as vulnerable as any PC. It's why I do not do non-social/gathering scenes larger than 3-4 people (not including me). I do probably have higher expectations of my players than some--I start on time (unless someone mails or otherwise communicates to me they won't be there on time and the other player's consent to moving the time). I hold fast to space limits. I respect time by paying attention and managing bog downs and always allow for spillover times in case we don't complete by the original time (so that people don't have to worry about work or other commitments because we went through 4 hours not even getting past the first stage).

I don't make my players spectate. I try to make sure everyone has some spotlight and something unique to do (easier to manage with smaller amount of people). I do big scene poses and @pemits. I ask for and keep tabs of preferences and I read everything my players write.

Risky and/or dark RP is imo by definition pretty intimate and in need of extended trust and respect.

If someone cannot or will not meet me halfway, or if staff sets up the expectation that interpersonal communication is optional rather than necessary, especially during risk-containing scenes--then I'm not really cut out for their game as a prp runner. And probably not as a player. There's a reason I don't play on "Surprise! You're getting raped tonight!!" total non consent games like Haven, but also why should I play again I will run like hell from any game that has no expectation of real-time communication between people. It's a fine line. But I really think creating a system for the express purposes of sheltering avoidant people from needing to talk to anyone about things that may or are bothering them may have unintended consequences. That does not contribute to a community that would welcome me, or that I would feel comfortable in.