Posts made by Roz

@magee101 said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@roz being able to GM and being able to storytell are two different skillsets of their own as well. GMs are already in the game as Staff, if you cant cobble together an intro, conflict, resolution, and be able to present that material you shouldn't be in leadership positions.

GMs don't necessarily equal Staff? A GM is anyone who's GMing. I don't understand what the understood difference is here between a GM and an ST. My understanding is that these are just people who run plots.

A player shouldn't be expected to run plots to be in a leadership position. They should be belong to enable RP for people in their faction.

@magee101 said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

Personally for me this is my guidelines for the various IC positions you mentioned.

Significant IC position in a group: You should be willing to meet with other memebers for RP at least once a week to pass along IC information, if need be have a 'court day' where your PC has an open door policy. You should also be willing to do ST a miniplot or something along those lines once a month, usually handed out as an assignment from your character.

Leadership PCs should not be expected to GM. Playing leadership and GMing are two completely different skillets. Focus on someone who has the former.

There was a lot of really good conversation on this topic here. There was also some really not good conversation.

But tl;dr: our platform absolutely is a barrier for new players who would totally embrace our playstyle, and the people who insist that telnet isn't part of the barrier are not correct. There are players who force their way through the barrier and then fit great with the playstyle. Playstyle is less of an issue than platform limitations. The point isn't to change the playstyle, it's to make a more accessible platform to the style that exists.

The fact that there are people on other platforms RPing in a different style doesn't actually mean all of them don't want better options, and won't adapt and find the MU* style of things an improvement. It means they're stuck for platform options.

@cupcake I love Crazy Ex-Girlfriend with the fire of a THOUSAND SUNS. I honestly think it's one of the best shows on television right now. (And it regularly gets into most of the major outlet's "Best Of" lists, so I'm clearly not the only one.)

(Although just a correction, the actress/creator is Rachel Bloom, not Rebecca Bloom.)

@nyctophiliac said in Questions About Evennia:

Wow. I wasn't expecting such an overwhelmingly helpful response and so quickly too!

First of all, thank you everyone for your input and guidance. It is extremely appreciated.

@roz said in Questions About Evennia:

@nyctophiliac said in Questions About Evennia:

1. How customizable is the system? Like say for instance I wanted to run an nWoD 2.0 game (>_>), is it feasible? Is the current release stable enough for my coder to tinker around with tweaking this?

AFAIK you can do anything you want as long as you know Python. It comes with very little built in out of the box.

2. Wiki! I've been looking at the games hosted, and they all have wikis that seem similar in design. Is this powered by a 3rd party wiki something akin to mediawiki? Or was it hand coded to suit Evennia?

There's a default website template, which is why a lot of the websites look similar, but they're not wikis.

Thank you! You hit the nail on the head with both of these responses. Especially about the webpage/wiki. I just assumed it was some kind of wiki because of all the integration Arx has. No wonder it works, it's not done in media wiki. XD

We have a player-run wiki for Arx here. It has a regular data pull from Arx's server -- I think hourly? We mostly made it so that it would be easier to write up player guides and also organize some of the data that the Arx website wasn't really offering at that point. I don't think we've had trouble with the data pull, but I also wasn't the one to set up that part. I managed the templates and such.

@nyctophiliac said in Questions About Evennia:

1. How customizable is the system? Like say for instance I wanted to run an nWoD 2.0 game (>_>), is it feasible? Is the current release stable enough for my coder to tinker around with tweaking this?

AFAIK you can do anything you want as long as you know Python. It comes with very little built in out of the box.

2. Wiki! I've been looking at the games hosted, and they all have wikis that seem similar in design. Is this powered by a 3rd party wiki something akin to mediawiki? Or was it hand coded to suit Evennia?

There's a default website template, which is why a lot of the websites look similar, but they're not wikis.

@lithium Check out 'help nick' on the game.

@ganymede said in Mass Effect MU*?:

@ixokai said in Mass Effect MU*?:

No Drell? You are dead to me.

Old homebrew system. It has been stricken. Most non-Council races probably wouldn't have a place, and Drell are really tied to the Hanar.

But, we'll see, I guess.

Omg. First you don't want biotic and tech powers, now you don't want non-Council races? You are KILLING ME, GANYMEDE.

@ganymede said in Mass Effect MU*?:

I think there's a thin line between simplifying the gameplay and losing a lot of the flavor of what makes ME fun for a lot of people.

I'd like to think that what makes ME fun is one of two things: (1) the fast, FPS action; and (2) the interesting setting. I don't think a MUSH is going to be able to compete with the real game for (1), but it can get a bit deeper for (2) due to its nature.

I will say that this thread got a bunch of old A&O players reminiscing, and one of the common threads was how badass people got to feel on that game. So I wouldn't actually discount the idea that exploring creative combat in an exciting way is something to drop by the wayside too quickly.

@glitch said in Mass Effect MU*?:

@roz As long as everyone consented to go, right?

Generally we didn't make anyone go on plots but we have a special Glitch exception for all future games.

@ganymede said in Mass Effect MU*?:

@roz said in Mass Effect MU*?:

I do think that you're starting off right by limiting your setting and faction. For A&O, we were on Omega (which is a GREAT setting for a MU, perfect size) and all our PCs were in one merc company. So similar type of deal in terms of focusing.

Not going to lie, that idea was sort of lifted when I was thinking about what would work for a setting. I just decided not to set it on Omega, which is ground-based, because I saw how fun it is on BSG:U to go from planet to planet.

Hey! We went to different planets all the time. That's like what all of our plots were.

@ganymede said in Mass Effect MU*?:

@roz said in Mass Effect MU*?:

Our playerbase on Alpha & Omega was very much not nWoD players, but WORA sneered at us because we were running a limited consent game on MOO without sheets or statted combat.

Right, but folks that like limited consent and non-statted actions would probably feel comfortable with FS3. It's a pretty simple system that doesn't require giant tomes to achieve awesomeness.

Oh! I totally misread your post. I thought you were saying that you were predicting getting nWoD players. Because I'm dumb and distracted.

I will try to think on my experience with limited consent and FS3 type players and say something smart. Also I'm sure that the other staffers and players from A&O might chime in.

I do think that you're starting off right by limiting your setting and faction. For A&O, we were on Omega (which is a GREAT setting for a MU, perfect size) and all our PCs were in one merc company. So similar type of deal in terms of focusing.

@ganymede said in Mass Effect MU*?:

@roz said in Mass Effect MU*?:

I'm not VOLUNTEERING them, but @Tat and @Glitch might also be able to talk a bit about some of the custom stuff they've been doing for Ares. (Also Tat and I and others staffed on a Mass Effect game for a couple years!)

I'm reading that you're not volunteering them, but I'm understanding that you're TOTALLY VOLUNTEERING THEM THANK YOU!!!!!

Your experiences are greatly appreciated. I don't know what the playerbase for Mass Effect might be like. I can generally predict nWoD players, but I'm not familiar with that part of the MUSHverse. So, I may need your help. A lot.

Also, the lessons you've learned regarding such players and what they want to see.

The tipping point for me is FS3's combat engine. It is damn-near-perfect for a Mass Effect game: it can handle multiple enemies and PCs and grind out a 20-round combat in a couple of hours (if people are posing quickly and paying attention). I think that, with some tweaks, aspects like treating wounds, healing, penetration values, and so on can be modified to represent the ME world's tech-set.

At least, that's my hope.

Our playerbase on Alpha & Omega was very much not nWoD players, but WORA sneered at us because we were running a limited consent game on MOO without sheets or statted combat.

@ganymede I'm not VOLUNTEERING them, but @Tat and @Glitch might also be able to talk a bit about some of the custom stuff they've been doing for Ares. (Also Tat and I and others staffed on a Mass Effect game for a couple years!)

@alzie said in Alternative Formats to MU:

I think there's a confusion here that if we allow backwards compatibility with telnet it's an all or nothing agreement. This isn't true. You could allow a telnet client to connect and make the same commands people have always been used to, but also provide a web client that runs off a restful API. These things are not mutually exclusive.

I mean, Faraday has already talked about how doing backwards compatibility with telnet makes her job harder. I've heard multiple developers talk about how to really do what they want to do, they need to move beyond telnet, and that the restful API isn't actually adequate to their plans and needs.

@auspice said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@glitch said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@auspice Yes, your anecdotal evidence is the correct basis for all the factual statements you've made in your posts so far in this thread. The sheer disrespect and dismissiveness of those not in this hobby, but perhaps interested, matched to the misplaced sense of writing superiority, is infuriating. I'm obviously of the belief that telnet is no longer where I'd like to see the hobby go, but when you adamantly state it's not for you, I can't say I'll be sorry if that turns out to be true.

Someone more even-tempered at the moment might suggest that they hope you're so impressed by new developments that you change your mind, but I think your attitude toward new people will only ever be detrimental. And I'd rather take my chances with them.

This is the most politely worded "Fuck off" I've ever received. Thank you for your time and effort

I support Faraday's efforts on Ares and the web portal. We've had arguments on it, yes. And some things still frustrate me. Even with the web cg. I wish that was all on one page or didn't require reloading between tabs, but it's getting there (I know it's still in development, after all).

But a lot of her work is actively in support of RP and not just for the shiny. That's what I'm trying to say. I don't want change just for the sake of change. I want to see things developed that encourage and enable rp.

I hate logging. I always have. I do not log. I do not edit logs. I do not post them. You have to really pressure me. Except with her scene system. I love it. I sing its praises. And that love goes beyond the logging. I hate big grids. I think people need more freedom to pick where they rp. More flexibility. I get lost on grids and when there's only a few rp rooms, all full... It's like fuck, now what? I'll lose my desire to rp before I ever get oriented. Her system gets rid of that issue.

She's made solutions within the framework that has encouraged more role play. The thing we're here for. I support this.

Honestly, my impression is that you believe Faraday is doing work to help encourage RP because you've experienced her stuff after the fact, but you're characterizing other discussion about new platforms as "just for the shiny." And I don't know why. I feel like the people who are trying to discuss how a new system could look have been doing so from the stated perspective of "how can we make MU* RP more user-friendly and intuitive," which I would say are goals to help encourage RP. To have you repeatedly characterize things as us just chasing shiny or doing new for the sake of new is the reason why I've been so frustrated -- and, frankly, insulted. Because you've been insulting. (I mean, saying that new efforts want to exclude people with disability? That just wasn't necessary.)

It's one thing to bring up "Here are issues that I worry would get left behind in new development," it's another thing -- well, say it how you said it.

@rook said in Alternative Formats to MU:

You're right, but if we're honestly talking about something to replace telnet, I think that our 'core' needs to be broader than 'every game uses this'. It needs to have a full enough list of features that people go 'that looks better', and that's going to include, IMO, logging and conflict resolution.

Point of order... I am confused by the constant usage of the word 'telnet' in this conversation. Telnet is a protocol, like HTTP or SMTP or SSH. This misunderstanding has clogged a lot of this conversation from a technical perspective.

I think the better term to be using here would be 'server codebase', which is the application like PennMUSH or RhostMUSH or TinyMUX or AresMUSH that people are logging into. That is what provides the features that you are discussing.

Not picking on anyone, but please. Unless you are speaking to the specific carrier protocol that people use to log into the server, don't use the word 'telnet'.

When I've been using it, I have indeed been speaking about the specific carrier protocol, which is one of the things limiting development.

@auspice Ares is shiny and new with bells and whistles that weren't there before, and people overall really love the work Faraday has done on it. Any time a MU* client is created or updated, it's generally increasing ease of use. Probably with bells and whistles that you don't strictly need in order to get to the core of RP. But it makes it easier. Why do we do this? Because making it easier for people to RP makes it so that people are more likely to RP.

You keep writing responses that are weirdly aggressive with this idea that a web-based MU* experience is "giving the middle finger to the current product userbase." Everyone on this thread who is talking about making some new things is part of that current userbase. What about the people we see say things like "I was really skeptical of the Ares web portal stuff -- I already do everything on my client! -- but then I started using it and wow it makes X and Y so much easier"?

What's under discussion right now is a new platform. Obviously a platform won't fundamentally change the fact that X game based on X tabletop system has a complicated chargen, or that Y game has long wait times for approval. But this thread is about "alternative formats to MU," not "improving staffing methods on the existing format." Of course the things you're describing are hurdles. I don't disagree! But the idea that any format other than what exists now is just "bells and whistles" and pointless and actually some sort of middle finger to the MU* community is unnecessarily aggressive and naysaying.

@auspice said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@roz said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@auspice said in Alternative Formats to MU:

If you want Discord-style 'chat' for your roleplay, why not just go and start roleplaying there? I mean, people have been roleplaying in places like that for a while now.

Single-sentences, rapid-fire RP. 'Mary giggles.' 'Bob smiles.' 'Ryan says, 'Let's go.' 'Mary says, 'Okay.' 'Bob goes over there.' 'Ryan follows.'

You too could be part of that engaging environment!

If an interface of buttons and drop-down menus is what you need for the future of your roleplay, it's out there. If you need avatars, it's out there, too. There's MMOs with roleplay servers.

I just happen to think the crux of MU*ing happens to be the actual writing aspect of it. And the more we obsess over what buttons we're clicking (or not), the further we drift away from that.

And maybe I'm alone in that thinking, which makes me kind of sad.

I think this is a pretty unfair representation of the conversation going on. We're talking about how and why to develop a better, more user-friendly experience for the kind of RP we already have. No one is saying the writing isn't important. We're saying that the user experience of getting to that "actual writing aspect" could be improved in a way that would make it easier to use and more welcoming to new people who might enrich the hobby.

People do not read:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/many-college-students-are-book-virgins
https://www.sott.net/article/354868-Book-virgins-College-students-who-have-never-finished-reading-a-book
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2016/04/why-many-college-students-never-learn-how-to-write-sentences/

They do not write.

You are trying to bring people that do not exist into a hobby by alienating the people that do.

You want to add ultimately pointless bells and whistles to things that will eliminate the people that phone MU.
You want to cut out the people that prefer (or can't for health reasons) not to use a mouse just to RP.

All to gain the one or two college kids that actually do enjoy reading and writing?

I find this to be a really arrogant, patronizing argument. You're positing the idea that all of these people who are doing text-based RP out there in the world not on MU*s are all terrible writers. That's not actually true. There are tons of really quality people out there who would absolutely flourish with the type of RP we do on MUs. I've seen plenty of them do just that: flourish. What you're doing right now is gatekeeping on the idea that those of us here are the real writers and that clearly no other quality writers exist who haven't found us. Like. What? I've seen the success that comes from reaching out to different RP communities and watch them adapt and flourish. And you know what? A lot of them are young. You don't do anything for the hobby by basically insisting that the potential here is "one or two college kids" except limit the hobby's own potential.

The idea that new technology is not going to be able to do things like support mobile usage is weird. I mean, right now the capability to MU* on a phone is pretty painful. I know that some people mostly use a phone, but they're managing despite the technology. You have the chance to make that a whole lot easier.

Instead of saying "you want to exclude people with disabilities," you could be saying, "Hey, here's something to keep in mind when you're developing new tools." The first sentence is lobbing around some pretty hurtful accusations out of nowhere, whereas the second is actually constructive and helpful for the people who are actually looking into building new tools.

@auspice said in Alternative Formats to MU:

If you want Discord-style 'chat' for your roleplay, why not just go and start roleplaying there? I mean, people have been roleplaying in places like that for a while now.

Single-sentences, rapid-fire RP. 'Mary giggles.' 'Bob smiles.' 'Ryan says, 'Let's go.' 'Mary says, 'Okay.' 'Bob goes over there.' 'Ryan follows.'

You too could be part of that engaging environment!

If an interface of buttons and drop-down menus is what you need for the future of your roleplay, it's out there. If you need avatars, it's out there, too. There's MMOs with roleplay servers.

I just happen to think the crux of MU*ing happens to be the actual writing aspect of it. And the more we obsess over what buttons we're clicking (or not), the further we drift away from that.

And maybe I'm alone in that thinking, which makes me kind of sad.

I think this is a pretty unfair representation of the conversation going on. We're talking about how and why to develop a better, more user-friendly experience for the kind of RP we already have. No one is saying the writing isn't important. We're saying that the user experience of getting to that "actual writing aspect" could be improved in a way that would make it easier to use and more welcoming to new people who might enrich the hobby.

@rook I think you kind of have to accept that UI is important to every other person out there, and that your feeling that it's not important is unique to you as an internet user.