Best posts made by Seraphim73

I've been thinking big-city cop who transfers to Grand Lake to get away from the stress. Because that will totally be stress-free. No, his name will not be Nicholas Angel.

@three-eyed-crow Yeah. I think that an Age of Legends MUSH... you might as well just make it a sci-fantasy original theme MUSH. There's not enough information about it to be useful, but there's enough to leave hang-ups.

@2mspris said in How do you like things GMed?:

If it is an intro or some part of a long story arch, then I have specific points of information or occurrence that need to get conveyed and those will be planned.

I call this the "Gated" method, rather than on-rails, and it's what I use (and prefer to play within) as well. There are certain points that will happen, but how they happen, what order they happen in, and how that impacts future gates changes. It's a deeply reactive GMing style that works best with proactive players, so it can definitely be troublesome on a MUSH. Sometimes you have to nudge people to follow-up or work toward the next step (whatever they choose to have the next step be).

I want a storyline that shifts with the actions of the players, but still manages to follow a pathway that makes sense for the world and setting of the game. If someone can handle that without any pre-planning, more power to them. I can usually do it for a single-scene plot, or even two, but more than that, definitely needs some gating for me to be able to keep up with it.

@krmbm I'm also a big fan of the Mirror Universe Method. Either replace all the book characters (including random nobles), or just remove the Dragon and his friends and see how things run with the PCs in place instead.

I also enjoy the Zeppo Method (most often used in Star Wars) where major events of the canon still happen -- to a point -- and the PCs are tasked with enabling those things to happen. From the Star Wars perspective, sure, Luke's going to blow up the first Death Star, but the PCs have to steal the X-Wings that Red Squadron flies, have to destroy an Imperial scouting mission to Yavin IV, and have to defend the temple after the Death Star explodes.

In either case, the canon events shift subtly based on PC actions, but they still stay close enough to canon that the setting is recognizable if someone who knows canon joins the game a year or two later.

How about "even if it isn't gaining the 1-2 PCs any benefits, it just looks bad?"

@Ghost said in X-Cards:

...could it be said that for the same reason people are uncomfortable with the use of social dice there could be some correlation to the reasons why they would be comfortable using the X-Card, but aren't paying enough attention to the fact that on some level the X-Card is in the same category of the very thing they hate about social dice? (i.e. No one wants to be controlled, but it's better to hold the reins than to be strapped to the wagon?)

Short answer: No, I don't think so.

Long answer: Nope, it's really not the same. The X-Card when used properly is a method of defense from storylines that are harmful to the player. Social dice are a system that can be used to shape the story and the reactions of the characters around them. The X-Card is explicitly and escape from the story, while the social dice are a way to interact with it. Many people don't like social dice because they take agency away from a player, the X-Card gives a player agency to avoid something that is harmful to them.

Also, @Ganymede said it very well.

I actually like something a little bit in between, but I would rather err on the side of knowing everything than being too secretive. I like seeing how active people are, and reading some of the great RP going on. But you're right that it can lose some of the OOC mystery and intrigue.

Even on Ares, I think it's totally fine to keep scenes unshared until after the IC reveal (as long as they don't time out, of course). I would actually prefer that in some cases (evil cultist status, a big reveal that some characters have been in on for a while first, that sort of thing).

@mietze said in Responsible RP Resolutions:

I find I am rarely invited by others to participate in things without having to shoehorn my way in or taking on a coordinator/arranging role, possibly because they assume that if I wanted to be part of things I'd ask OR that I have a ton of other meaningful stuff going on. As a result I try to be as inclusive as possible with stuff I do, but to be honest that also often results in non-reciprocation or being downplayed as easy-for-me because of similar assumptions.

I actually got this exact feedback from the Staff of another game recently, and it shocked me. I'm feeling a whole lot of what you're saying, as well as most of @Caryatid's intro post. I've been trying to reset my expectations for the last couple of years, and I've succeeded to some degree, but not as far as I'd like. When I get down, I try to spend some laughing with my toddler, or read a book, or kick some AI ass in Madden or Crusader Kings 2, anything to give me another story or something else to think about. Reminding myself that perception is reality from every perspective helps too -- that the people I'm jealous of are probably jealous of someone else, and that other people probably feel like I'm involved in everything, even if I don't feel like I am.

I love showing the world reacting to the players, and seeing the players reacting to what the world does to them. Granted, this is the same thing I love about playing a PC, but you can do it on a grander scale as a ST than you can as a player (usually).

I love seeing characters talk about NPCs or situations I've created for days or weeks afterwards. I love creating those characters and playing them as real people, and seeing them live on after the scene is awesome.

I love seeing how excited and pleased people get during the plot, hanging on every roll or pose (GM and player poses).

I love it when players do something I wasn't expecting, and I have to think on my feet, only to realize that it fits perfectly into one of the ideas I had for the plot, and I can just run with it.

I love giving players the opportunity to learn more about their PCs, or to show off hidden aspects of the characters that they already know.

@Auspice I feel called out. Accurately, but called out.

ETA: @mietze said in MU*, Youth, and LGBT+ Identity:

I think it's a lot more subtle now, but sometimes I wonder generationally when this is encountered in a situation that I would just laugh off/brush off, if there is a reaction similar to my kids' horrified reactions to the <lots of stuff that wasn't seen as troublesome at the time and is now>

Hell, how about Han and Leia in the Exoggorth in Empire Strikes Back? I thought that was smooth as hell originally, and now I think it's cringy and squicky.

When I hear a new player ask "what is needed," I think about this just like @mietze and @Apos said: I think they're worried about having a unique position where other players will come to them for RP. And that's not entirely a bad thing, but when they would rather play a doctor because people will come for them to RP than the fifth Marine on the game, a role that they would enjoy more, I think that it's turned into problematic laziness.

That's why I always say, "Play what you find interesting," and then follow it up by some data about what there are lots of and what there aren't many of.

@Kestrel said in Spars and fights:

@Arkandel said in Spars and fights:

Aside from the outcome, using dice or not... aside from all that, I think it's important everyone agrees beforehand how it's going to be, because mixing those things usually won't work well.

I know this is kind of bad and communication is important and all that, but having to do this takes a lot of the magic out of it for me.

I don't know that it's as critical to work out beforehand as @Arkandel mentioned, but I do think it's critical to be on the same wavelength. If one person is posing flipping around and bouncing off walls and waving a zweihander around like a toothpick and the other person is getting into how much their legs ache from having to duck so many sweeping blows and how their sweat is stinging their eyes -- there's going to be a whole lot of cognitive dissonance.

What I think is most important -- and what makes the best fight scenes -- is finding the style that works for the two of you, something you can both share, and really enjoying that. If you find your character talking more and more in response to your opponent's snappy comebacks, and you know that next time you're going to get them with a real zinger and you're excited about that, that's great. If you know that you'll get to enjoy some gritty, sweaty, achy sparring and next time you can't wait to collapse against each other afterwards and you're excited about that, that's great.

I think it's the sort of chemistry that can grow organically through the scene, and as long as the initial styles aren't too far off one another, I think that's the best way for it to happen. If, on the other hand, your styles are way off one another, that might be a time to sit down and chat OOCly, or to discuss expectations before your next spar.

I'm with @surreality on this one: Mission Statement. Up front, on the game's homepage, first thing you (should) read after the title and maybe the connection information. What is the game's setting, what themes will the game be exploring, what type of characters will there be, what kind of things will the characters be doing.

Then you have to enforce it. That involves a lot of saying "No, but" or "No, and here's why," but it's critical to the game. If you have a game about tiny Rebel cells resisting the Galactic Empire at the height of the Dark Times, don't allow a bunch of Indies with no connections with the Rebels or reasons to make connections to the Rebels, don't allow bounty hunters without an explicit connection to the Rebellion, and don't allow Rebel fleet commanders -- they'll all be disappointed when they get on the grid, and their attempts to find RP will spread out your playerbase instead of concentrating it.

ETA: You also have to live it as Staff. That's where we fell down with The Eighth Sea: we had a mission statement that said we were about pirating in a world of monsters, and we ended up running monster hunters in a world of pirates. It led to disappointment and cognitive dissonance.

@Ghost said in Punishments in MU*:

• TECHNICALLY a player who drops charbits when they get bored with an IC relationship, kills the character, then regens with a charbit that is specifically designed to woo a target charbit for an IC relationship is still TECHNICALLY well within their right to do so, but arguably disruptive to the game because it makes other players angry

This is why "conduct detrimental to the MU*" or "Being more trouble than you're worth" should always, in my opinion, by high on the list of bannable offenses. If a player is OOCly making life hard for other players, they don't need to play on any game of mine (yes, this needs to be tracked for groups "going after" single players who have done nothing wrong).

I'm a huge fan of 1:1 except when it serves a specific purpose. I also like my IC time to line up with RL time, because I get a lot of inspiration -- I can be decorating my house for Christmas and wonder how my characters might handle Christmas onboard a giant airship aircraft carrier while also worrying about whether fascists are sending dragons after them for the giant spell they cast on their last mission.

There are definitely times for different time scales -- I think we used 2RL:1IC pretty effectively on The 100 for the first part of the game, because we wanted events to happen close together ICly, but we wanted time to play out the repercussions. And either a time skip or switching to 1RL:2IC or even faster for short periods of time to advance plot can be very effective -- as @Coin said, mostly on small games. That's because, of course, Staff has to either trust everyone to come up with what their character did during the time skip or faster time, or they have to vet everyone's plans.

That said, I still think that 1:1 is the best for games set in our world in a recognizable time, because it helps keep everyone's vision of what's happening in the world in the same place. On a game with a different time scale, it can be jarring to realize that you missed a holiday or that one's coming up very soon, to say nothing of birthdays or other character-important dates.

Leverage. It has the 'small troupe style' problem that most RPGs do, but I adore the Flashback mechanics, so much so that I've brought them into the last two games I've run. Plus, who doesn't like competence-porn?

@faraday said in Sensitivity in gaming:

But what is your definition of "graphic descriptions of wounds or gore"? Everyone's going to be different there

Absolutely agree that everyone's is going to be different. I agree with @mietze on this one: If you're describing that the wound happens, I don't think it's a graphic description of a wound or gore. If you're describing blood trickling down a soldier's side, or washing over half their face from a scalp wound, I don't think that's a graphic description of a wound or gore. But if you're describing the wound in detail, describing what parts have spattered where, what's happening to entrails, or otherwise focusing a lot of attention on the wound(s), I think that crosses over the line to graphic descriptions of wounds or gore (I won't give examples there, because I don't want to go beyond the pale myself on this one).

As for your examples... I think it's a question of what the focus of the scene is. As long as you're talking more about the wounded person writhing, you're fine, but if you start describing the blown-off leg... I think that's a graphic description of a wound or gore. As long as you're more worried about the repercussions of the village getting wiped out by a disaster and the recovery efforts, you're fine, but if you start describing the corpses in detail rather than mentioning that they're there and moving on, I think that's likely to be a graphic description of a wound or gore. When the focus of the scene is the situation, I think that's totally within "violence and grim post-apocalyptic themes," but if the focus becomes the wounds themselves and the human suffering, I think then a warning beyond the standard might be warranted.

But that's just my opinion. I recognize that folks have very different opinions on where the line is, and that's fine by me.

@squirreltalk On TSS we do a "Reels and Radio" update every few weeks or a month that is a listing of major worldwide news items including major PC actions as well as events that can spark scenes (or at least brief discussions in scenes, like how The Hobbit came out during game-time). Pacha over on Crystal Springs does even more: a weekly update on all the gossip at the school. Unfortunately, you're right that it seems like a limited number of people contribute to such items/use them -- but there are Staffers who are interested in similar ideas.

@devrex said in Antagonistic PCs - how to handle them:

Death is the absolute most boring thing you can do. Imprisonment is fine in the short-term, if you're providing some sort of RP experience to go with it (perhaps a fight in the prison, etc).

Daredevil Season 2 does this very well with the Punisher. Frank gets put in prison, but he gets out again pretty quickly, and he gets to do "his thing" in prison.

Building on "Yes, but," or "no, but" (in addition to 'yes,and' and 'no, and') is helpful.

Yes. Yes. Yes. It's something I have problems with sometimes, but I'm always in favor of providing a "No, but," "Yes, but," or "Yes, and" response.

So my first question on this topic is always: What does the setting and theme say?

The original subject, Wheel of Time, says that channelers can defeat non-channelers with a snap of their fingers (without even snapping). So in my opinion (as someone who played on a couple of the same WoT games as @Arkandel -- almost always as a non-channeler), they shouldn't be balanced. Or rather, they shouldn't be //mechanically// balanced. Like @Devrex said, there are a lot of setting-specific downsides to playing a channeler that are rarely actually implemented. In Star Wars, it's the rare non-Force User who can defeat a Force User -- but they do exist (hello Cad Bane), so why shouldn't they be PCs and actually balance things?

In home-brew settings, I believe that either everyone should have the capability for magic (that's what we did on The Savage Skies) so you don't have to worry about balance //as// much (except those people who like to play non-magical characters), or magic users and non-magic users should be balanced.

If you're going to balance magic users and non-magic users, you have several options for how to do it on a MUSH:

1. Resource Management: A warrior can swing a sword (nearly) all day, but a magic user either uses up their mana, or gets tired, or can only cast a certain number of spells per day. We took this route on The Eighth Sea. This method feeds into @insomniac7809's point about interesting choices -- it makes every use of magic an intentional choice. It requires some very careful testing to see how your theories work out in practice, and it will still make it so that when you absolutely, positively need to drop an MFer, you turn to a magic-user (as long as they haven't already burned their mana/spell slots/reserves/whatever).

2. Specialization: A magic user might be able to nuke a room with a fireball, but they can't wear armor, so they're a glass cannon, while the warrior can tank hits like nothing else. It might be armor, it might be something else, but this method just means that magic users literally can't do something that non-magic users can. Again, it has to be balanced carefully, and it means limiting character concepts -- you're not going to be able to make a defensive magic user in the example I used, for instance (or it's going to be either very difficult or sub-optimal).

3. "Weapon" balance: Spells look awesome, but they aren't any more effective than weapons which are available to non-magic users. This is the route that we took on The 5th World. It can be dissatisfying because there isn't a whole lot of mechanical difference to how an archer or a magic user works, but it's certainly the easiest to balance.

4. Requirements: Magic users just have more skills/attributes/advantages/whatevers to spend points on, so they'll never be as good at everything else as warriors. This has the benefit of leaving niches for non-magic users, but it still means that in combat, magic users are royalty. Also, deity help you if you get a creative player playing a magic user (and you will) and they come up with all sorts of arguments about how they should be able to use their magic to do the things the other skills cover.

There are lots of other methods (@Ominous mentioned a bunch of them) that can work great in TT games where it's a small group of players with an omnipresent GM, but I think that for the reasons @Devrex and @Arkandel mentioned, social restrictions or those based on IC traditions just don't work very well on a MUSH, because players want to play the interesting types that can do more than most humans, and they want their characters to be able to be involved in all the things (and to be rebels who break tradition).