Posts made by Nein

@Alzie said:

I did not expect that from a thread about a yes-first game we would delve into such philosophical questions as:

• Is man born with a set of universal understandings
• Is human nature evil by design
• What is winning?
• The sociopolitical ramifications of not being a hard ass
• How humans react to authority
• Is trust innate or earned
• Learning the phrase 'Pon Farr'

I am glad to know that I subscribe to this forum, just so that I might see these conversations pan out. I suggest that @Glitch change the name of this topic to 'Deep Philosophical Ramblings' post haste, we're sorting out mad fucking truths in here.

Well, when you ask the question of how to run a mush, you're effectively asking the question "How do I best rule the tiny nation of Roleplayistan". Philosophers have been chasing the governing question for millennia.

EDIT:
Groth asked what I consider qualifications for leadership, and that's what I answered. I'm not quite grokking what you're asking for some reason. Derp.

@Groth said:

What would you use as the criteria for leadership positions?

1. An attitude of service. They have outgoing concern for others instead of concern only for "gettin' mine".
2. Emotional maturity.
3. A backbone of forged steel.
4. A strong sense of ethics.
5. Creativity.
6. People management skills.
7. Availability.

Obviously these unicorns are rarely seen in the wild. When it comes down to it, the first criteria is the most important. It's always good to have healthy self-interest and not be a people pleaser, but taking into consideration the fun and activity of others should be a higher priority for people in leadership positions. A good leader looks to try and include everyone in the fun and should be able to help tend sphere/faction morale.

@Arkandel said:

Unless brought up, there is no system to perfectly mitigate the risk of unfairness. For each clique like you describe - which I don't deny is A Thing - there is a story about staff alts running a sphere, or favoring their friends, or being completely rudderless because no one cares to be in charge so they just... float up there where nothing ever happens.

Agreed. All I'm doing is pointing out potential loopholes and abuse to watch for. A lot of whether or not these situations depends on how many staff have eyes on the playground and will actually break up the fights over who gets a turn on the swings.

Another thing that could mitigate the above situation of RP feast or famine is inculcating within your playerbase the notion of being an RP self-starter. I come from a radically different MU* gaming background, I suppose; it has always floored me to see players kvetching about boredom because they need a storyteller/gms/staff to function as their own on-demand personal entertainer, and can't seem to think up anything to do on their own.

Also let's not neglect to mention that it's extremely difficult to sufficiently discount partiality in such issues. Is it a clique that's taken over the Carthians or is it a very good group of players, generating a ton of roleplay? That often depends on whether you are yourself included or you're watching this from the outside in - or, in some cases, even if you like those people (or their leader) which can paint your perception. So from a game-runner's point of view what would you rather have, a group of say ten players enjoying themselves immensely or a handful of dissatisfied stragglers finding reasons to feel miserable?

I've been faced with this situation. Impartiality is a goal that is never perfectly achieved but should be striven for. I've been on games in which impartial staff were the rule, not the exception. If you can't fire your friend or your sphere leader when they unequivocally deserve to be fired, you should not be staff. You don't have the spine for it. (I am by no means suggesting you personally do not. I'm speaking to the collective "you".)

From a game runner's perspective, ten people having fun is ideal. Ten people having fun mobbing someone else warrants action. If you have a group of dissatisfied stragglers, you take the time to investigate the problem, and either make some culls from the playerbase (there are some crabs who are only happy when they are preventing others from crawling out of the bucket) or find a means of creating activity. A live game is rarely an either-or situation like this. It's case by case.

I'm not sure if this is part of the point you're making or question you're asking, but ten players enjoying themselves immensely probably shouldn't be an "ends justify the means" goal.

I am by no means saying charismatic assholes haven't ran spheres to the ground like this! Not at all. Only that even if you do have staff authority to act on this, as administrators in traditional games do, it's not easy to know who to listen to or what the best course of action is.

Having staff you trust to act as wise counsel and different perspective helps tremendously. You gather the evidence as best you can, analyze the situation, take advice and then make the best call you can. Sometimes you'll make the wrong call, but if you're willing to admit fault and fix mistakes, you'll earn the trust you need to administrate.

I insist this system does it better though for a simple reason: that by empowering and coopting factions to the players, they are given the incentive to do something there. It's for them to do with as they will. The Carthians aren't a staff-controlled thing As Described In The Wiki where they're squattering, it's theirs. They can do whatever the fuck they want within the sphere and game's greater context. Try to run it as a democratic utopia (and fail utterly because you're all bloodsucking fiends pretending to be fair) or a fascist regime (and clash with the Prince's cronies who're worried this might be a hotbed of insurrection). Whatever it is, creativity usually flows better when it's the least restricted and characters do what they should do best; pose, and let things grow from there.

Maybe. In theory. But that's the intention.

Road to hell yada yada. But in all seriousness, your suggestions have been pretty much the sort of thing I've done, tried to do, and have the best potential for yes-only. The success of the yes-only game will lie strictly on staff and players.

@Groth said:

If a player/character manages to convince the other players/characters that he should be in charge, I don't see much of a problem with letting that player/character be in charge. What's important when it comes to an IC leader isn't sanity, it's that they generate RP for everyone in their relevant sphere.

I've been in factions (spheres, I guess?) where a friend circlejerk was in charge, voted themselves into positions of power and faction leadership/sphere admin, and used it to benefit themselves. Oh sure, they generated RP - mainly for each other. Everyone else was invited to participate as handclapping peasants to observe their greatness, or have the privilege of being beaten or downdressed by their characters. OOCly, they dangled rank, XP and advancements over the heads of everyone else in the faction and if they didn't like you or you questioned their behavior, you either had to allow yourself to be publicly humiliated ICly and OOCly across the game, self-flagellate or be content to be a low-ranking peon cut out of most scenes.

I've never felt that generating RP and being ICly active should be the yardstick by which leadership value is measured. Is it imporant? Absolutely. Should an egocentric petty tyrant and his lackeys remain in control of a group just because they produce RP? Hell no.

Having looked back over the first post, I have these comments:

• ( 3, 4, 5 ) Being staff is a role, not a privilege. All staff must contribute and their number should be small. Since the importance of handling +jobs is minimized the main duty is handling interpersonal issues, auditing potential cases of system abuse, but mainly running and coordinating running plot. Staff never decides on character positions or non-mechanical eligibility for ability or power purchases.

• ( 3, 6, 8 ) Characters decide their own groups' composition. Status-weighted votes determine ranks, positions and membership. To facilitate early game launches NPCs are set in place who can be voted out or competed with as normal by PCs. Conversely that means there are no protections for IC actions; highly ranked characters are bigger targets who may be eliminated in the same way as NPCs. Staff only audits this process to ensure OOC behavior remains civil and, to the extent it is possible for them to establish, that no OOC means or information were employed.

These two alone are going to hamstring your game in short order. All it will take is one charismatic or manipulative individual to gather to themselves enough willing accomplices to keep voting for them so they can get and maintain power for themselves. See: Communism. People CAN vote for sane leaders who are active but never underestimate those who can fake sanity. When power is available for anyone to grab, the people who probably shouldn't have it are going to be first in line. This is the same reason why having people volunteer themselves to be your staff is a bad idea, as most are going to stab you in the back later.

• ( 3, 6 ) There are no feature characters, restricted features or application-only concepts. Anything up for grabs is available to all players. Characters are elevated based on the merit of their own ability to roleplay.

Be prepared to see an overabundance of whatever race is the equivalent of a Super Saiyan. If you are running sheets and XP, and you are not going to step in and tell someone they can or cannot have a concept or buy a certain thing, you are going to end up with system exploits and munchkins faster than you can reboot a server.

• ( 4, 5 ) Cut down on building delays; in most MU* this is time consuming, requiring checks on behalf of staff, setting exit/entrance messages, etc. It's cool to see 'Bob gets in from the street' but it doesn't provide enough to the game - "Bob has arrived" is sufficient if it cuts down on time. Let players make their own rooms on the grid, even businesses, and simply have a periodic auditing process to make sure they comply with writing regulations (tabs, linefeeds between paragraphs) so the game maintains a consistent style.

Welcome to this week's Porn Hut. When it's destroyed or caught, we'll make new ones until another audit comes around.

...

Whenever I create a rule or policy I refine it by potential for abuse: Can it be abused by players? Can staff use it to abuse players? While it's impossible to make a perfect policy that eliminates both, devoting thinking time to closing loopholes and exploits in policies, rules or system saves a lot of headache later. You can't catch them all, but that's what policy "bug fixes" are for.

The only way power of any kind over others or the capacity of others to have fun in a game should be handed out is on the basis of whether or not the person is responsible, skilled and available to use that power. Trust of that kind can not simply be assumed or given; it has to be earned.

@Bobotron I've always been wary of code dependencies and libraries. Having worked ages ago on ProtoMUCK libraries and cut my coding teeth on MUF, I recall how much of a pain it was to have to install and compile interlinked libraries just so you could say/pose/look.

And then debug them.

It's a good set of code if you have no coder, and you have a theme that can benefit from it. Otherwise, one size fits all does not.

I have witnessed its auto-logging-to-wiki function being used by staff to big brother players across the game, allowing an inclined staffer to immediately pounce on (a) player(s) the moment they crossed some invisible line. While this can be very handy for stopping nutbar roleplay scenes and catching people in the act of breaking rules, it also allows for what is effectively dark spying and instant staff harassment. YMMV, depending on who has control of the game.

I would love to see individual softcode commands from the suite available without having to install and run the entire thing. A pose order tracker can be very useful, but not every game is going to need a +sheet or (gasp) a wiki.

@Apos said:

The most problematic players that want to assign blame for their own faults to others are probably the most likely to go, 'Finally a game without ridiculous staff where I can do what I want, about time' and gravitate towards it, so unfortunately the game type most dependent on players to create their own constructive environment are likely the ones to be the most toxic.

So much this. I ran into this a lot. I love the idea of providing an open playground for people to come and enjoy themselves in an harassment-free environment, but every time I opened my doors with good intention, the crazy moved in. Cue the downward spiral.

@Arkandel So far your methods are all the methods I'd embrace barring XP/sheets, but I don't know what theme you're trying to set up, so I assume it's going to be something based off an existing RPG that requires them.

@Apu

It sounds like this thread is running into two very old, as-of-yet unsolved dilemmas:

1. Invent a government that works, gives people what they want, and doesn't become corrupt.
2. Are humans basically good/reasonable and only a few bad apples ruin things, or are humans basically subject to human nature and will try to get away with whatever they think they can?

Both of these directly affect a yes-first game. #2 involves whether or not the populace can be trusted not to wreck a yes-first for everyone. #1 involves how long a yes-first game will last before it turns into a banana republic or tyranny.

Yes-first, as outlined prior by Arkandel, can work with certain themes, and perhaps as an invite-only "yes after verification". However, I do not for a moment believe that there can ever be a hard-and-fast set of policies, rules and game mechanics that work across the board for every game. You MUST pick a theme first and build rules, policy, code and even player proclivities around it. One-size-fits all does not.

Before you attempt a yes-first game, you need to pick a theme that suits a yes-first. Code-Plot-Staff-Chargen is the engine in your Theme vehicle, and if you try to slap a 2-cylinder into a jumbo jet, it's not going to go well.

Because I want to be productive in this conversation/game development jam, I found that this website's descriptions of "workplace bullying' works almost interchangeably with MUSH abuse and harassment.

Some red flags to watch out for:

http://bullyonline.org/index.php/bullying/bullies/5-serial-bully
http://timfieldfoundation.org/wiki/index.php?title=Types_of_Serial_Bully

It sounds like what is going to be needed for a yes-first game is staff training in 'how to spot the behavior of narcissistic abusers'. Even professional therapists and lawyers can miss these guys if they don't realize what they're looking at. Read up on overt/covert narcissistic behavior and if you are prepared to spot the red flags and usher these people off the game before they can start the manipulation fests, you'll probably weed out 99.9% of ongoing unreported abuse/explosions.

@Arkandel said:

When a thread like this essentially says 'hey, we've been doing things one way for a while, is there a different approach maybe that could work to improve things?' and some responses come down to 'no, we are all horrible people barely kept in check by the iron fist of empowered dictators who'll smack us back in line if we don't toe it and we'll turn on each other the moment that stops happening' it's... disheartening. Not because I think that's the case - I don't - but because that makes me wonder what their own view of the hobby is. If it's that bleak what are they doing here? If they're that burned out... why?

I'm out of the hobby right now and just sitting on a server and tinkering with code here and there, uncertain what to do with it. Your post got me thinking about that space, and while things do look pretty bleak, I'm still dumb enough that hope springs eternal for another game (something something insanity doing something over and over again and expecting different results, etc.).

Here's why I'm burned out right now: I'd join a game, make a character, enthusiasm was high. Within one to three months, the following would happen:

• Chargen takes a month and is filled with needless busywork that serves no real purpose.
• Chargen design is poor. I'm underpowered or the entire game is overpowered. I can't figure out what is expected of me, or I'm immediately pounded for being underpowered.
• Theme is scattered, inconsistent or missing entirely.
• Policies are either so open to interpretation as to be useless/abuseable, or are so restrictive and ideologically heavy-handed that I dare not speak or move the wrong way, either IC or OOC.
• One or more staff members is suffering from some manipulative, maladaptive behavior and hamstrings plot, fun, character approval, etc., and starts making drama for me or others.
• The game is an idle-fest for old friends to hang out and chat with each other over lunch and maybe RP once every 2-3 weeks in a rushed clustermess of scenes clearly intended for their characters only. If you're new, screw you.
• Someone starts a simmering rumorfest that explodes weeks later like a popped zit, causing everyone to leave or someone to start a new game, or people I was trying to RP with to get banned.
• New game starts somewhere else, everyone leaves.
• Code is confusing, broken, badly documented, used for spying, all-consuming, or nonexistent.
• Game is based on an RPG I have to download, buy, research, and spend hours of time I don't have reading just to know what the hell is going on.
• People RP as if they are on twitter or facebook. Nonsensical disjointed posts in 140 characters or less plox
• YOU WANNA HAVE SEX WITH MY CHARACTER RIGHT WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T DO THAT CAN'T YOU MAKE AN EXCEPTION
• A Queen Bee and her flying monkeys descend on me like plague rats.
• Can't find anything to do after a couple of weeks. No one wants to RP unless someone has a planned scene/event/plot run by an ST.
• Some toxic person begins to grind me down over a course of months until I can't stomach logging onto the game anymore.

It could just be me, but there's a laundry list of burn-out reasons you can autopsy and mull over at your leisure. I still have moments of hope for making a new game, but right now, it seems like it's not worth the risk.

@Arkandel How about "yes-first after there's a means of determining whether or not someone is capable of playing well with others".

@Apos Oh I've hit that wall of outdated fandoms. I understand and empathize. You're right about generational divide, I just keep forgetting what an old fart I am (yet another sign of aging, I suppose).

Yes-first games existed in the 90's and were one of my favorite haunts. MU*s where you supplied nothing but a character name and an email address, and then were on your merry way to RP with whatever and whomever you found there. That's where I learned to be a self-starter about RP, work with people rather than tear them down so everyone could have fun, and how to just shun/ignore trolls and other headcases, but gave them a chance to come back and play again if they changed their behavior.

The caveat to the yes-first game is that you need a large player base (100+) so that one or two people can't successfully control and destroy the fun of everyone else because people can't get away from them, and you need people who lean towards a skeptical/classic liberal behavior and an easygoing mindset of 'live and let live' combined with basic manners. You could find this in 1995. In 2016, these type of people are an endangered species.

Turn on your television or bring up an internet news station. Look at the current behavior of humanity in western society (I don't know of very many MU*s in non-western nations, so I have to work with what I have seen and experienced). What part of the current culture and generation suggests that you will be able to run a yes-first game? I ask this because the majority of players that could come into your game are generated by or influenced by the social fabric around them.

There may not be any point to discussing how to make such a game work, if the game's population is going to be drawn from individuals who on average may be selfish, abusive or emotionally/psychologically battered and bruised. The only way a yes-only game may work at this point is if you could guarantee the players are emotionally mature, cooperative, rational and psychologically stable. Otherwise, you're just asking how to run a better insane asylum.

Yes, this is butting up against more philosophical and culture issues outside our collective control, but the old phrase 'garbage in - garbage out' still applies. A MU* is made of players, and you only have to look at some of the prior posts about bad behavior examples to see that you may not be able to get the players you need to run a yes-first game.

@Cirno Yep. Popularity crest.

@Ghost Trending themes might also help explain MLP. Five bucks says an Undertale MU* would probably do pretty well riding the popularity crest.

@Cirno Define "giant". Giant used to be 1000+ players. Now giant is 30-40. The whittle down is still going on over time, especially as the people with disposable time for RP grow up, get jobs, have kids, divide time with social media, and find other hobbies.

MLP games are probably more long lasting because the theme and characters themselves encourage cooperation, forgiveness and actual (not political) tolerance. Theme and genre have a subtle effect on the playerbase; when you adapt the mindset of a backstabbing vampire trying to maintain power by any means and you put on that mindset for 2-16 hours a day (goodness help you if you are putting in 16 hours a day, seek help), there's going to be some psychological bleed-over no matter how much you repeat to yourself that it's just a game. People's minds take on the temperature of the culture and behavior around them, even if it's just pretendy funtime games.

Maybe I'm just bloviating at this point, but you have to have a culture where people are willing to forgive offenses, not sweat the small stuff, work together, and be willing to contribute to the fun of others for a cooperative storytelling game. If the majority are irritable, (passive) aggressive, hyper-competitive and have an attitude of "I'm getting mine, screw everyone else", you will not be able to maintain a MU* no matter how many rules and staff and policies you have.

Have we just hit a point in the hobby where we've whittled down to 50-80% people with cluster-b personality disorders who keep things going by swapping games/abuse circles? Because I keep seeing a steady drop in an already long out-dated medium, and it seems like the majority of people holding on are either doing so to maintain social connections with friends, or are just too entrenched in malfunctioning behavior to stop beating a dead horse.

My attempts to get back into gaming have come to a screeching halt largely due to the themes I'm interested in being run by control-freak PC Principle staff, or the game being 20-40 idlers who use it as a 'chat with friends from work' venue, then try to cram in a late night session amongst themselves. Newcomers are greeted with a long hoop-jumping justification process only to be turned out into the desolate idler wasteland where their cries of "Anyone want to scene?" echo into the void.

I think the hobby's about done. It had a good run while it lasted.