Posts made by Shayd

@Arkandel I've been on games like that (most superhero MU*s that I've checked out run like that). It's not that they have no value (they do), it's that my taste for games runs towards those where conflict resolution is measured by statistics and rolls and suchlike with NPCs and the like. There's no real risk/reward/chance involved in those sorts of games. I realize it's a stretch of an ask, but since I spotted Fate's Harvest and its method, I was curious if there were others.

So I've just started on Fate's Harvest (fatesharvest.com, check it out, it's neat), which is a Changeling game that allows PCs to start at different tiers of XP: 100, 300, 500, 700, and 900. This, in my opinion, is really cool. You don't have to worry about getting the XP to do "basic" awesome crap; at this point in the game, further XP development is just basically icing on the cake if you're at the high end, you can have fully realized characters, etc.

Led me to wonder: are there any other games out there like that? D&D, nWoD, other systems? I very specifically do NOT mean games that are all story-conflict with no dice, etc. etc.. I'm looking for the equivalent of games where I can start my character at 15th level in D&D terms, and so can anyone else.

I've been gaming in various forms for more than 30 years. I am very tired of starting from scratch and fighting for XP to fully realize character concepts. I've been there, done that, and gotten the kewpie doll in more systems than I care to remember. The heroes' journey is no longer for me; I want to be the hero, not the person who has to grow up to be one...again.

I gotta question.

Aside from judging the staff as being inherently flawed if they allow Custodius on the game--you could judge a staff poorly by whether or not they recognize the "threat"...

...don't you think that crediting one person for ruining games is a bit of a stretch, not to mention giving him waaaay too much credit for his impact? I mean, even if I loathed him and thought he was the worst thing ever to "contribute" to MU*ing, I wouldn't allow that to push me away from a game I otherwise liked. It seems like you give him way too much power over your choices.

(Note this doesn't apply to MU* on which he staffs if you hate him. Or anyone. Me, I don't hate him. He's never affected any game I'm on so poorly or strongly that I wanted to leave it or freak out about him. But I see a lot of power being given to one person over other peoples' decisions not to stay or even give a game a chance.)

I guess my view is that you can have one of two things: (a) PvP or (b) make the OBVIOUS baddies all NPCs (e.g. slavers). That's definitely binary, mind you, and there are probably individuals or small groups that can be more nuanced, but MU* aren't small groups of reasonable people.

@Cupcake said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

I kind of feel compelled to point out that this isn't a static issue. Thrax IS evolving.

1. Several members of Thrax and their vassals have either openly or quietly indicated their desire to remove the institution.

2. Political and trade alliances have been made to aid in releasing significant portions of the thrall population.

3. Vassals now have the ability to modify the institution in a variety of ways, such as no longer imposing the debt of a parent on a child, minimum age requirements to be placed in thralldom, etc.

The goal with this is to abolish the institution without destroying Thrax economically, as well as be able to guide those in thralldom slowly into their rights and freedoms. And it is happening at a measured rate. Whether it's happening fast enough for all parties is a matter of IC discussion.

Which I think is awesome!

@Arkandel : Perhaps I'd have more fun (if perhaps a briefer life) if I didn't let my fear of breaking theme or PvP and getting kicked out stop me from roleplaying my character and letting the chips fall where they may. (P.S.: Who do you play? I think I missed it somewhere; I'm Tristram.)

@Roz The problem here? Not the current situation, the historical background of this game would seem to indicate that SOMETIME within the last 1,000 years Thrax would've been rolled over.

@Arkandel said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

@Shayd said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

@Arkandel : To be honest, I feel uncomfortable probably more because I think it's just me bringing up issues which are considered settled and overdiscussed and overargued. Also, I fucking hate slavery and thralldom A LOT. I don't want to look at it as an opportunity for roleplay when in reality if I discovered someone was holding thralls and had the weapons and political tools to stop it, I damned well WOULD, by force, and the idea that all the high and mighty noble houses that are "good" have been around for a thousand years and NOT rolled on Thrax like a Mack truck over a gopher makes all of those houses at the least complicit considering the fact that they're in an alliance. Which with the current threat makes sense to make uneasy allies, and that's how I'm roleplaying it; and willfully ignoring that for hundreds of years these houses have been sitting at the same table with a bunch of goddamn slavers.

There are a few ways to look at this. Let me go over ones which are not specific to Arx.

For starters, saying "I fucking hate slavery" in that manner seems to imply those who play character that support it are, in some way, okay with it OOC. I hope I don't need to explain the impropriety of that. We are all playing characters who are flawed in a lot of ways; I've played Werewolves who thought nothing of murdering a bunch of people to get their way, yet I assure you I don't condone murder.

Secondly it's very dangerous to use so many instances of the phrase "I would" when you are referring to roleplay. That's the idea of, well, playing a role. If you can't separate your own feelings from those of your characters' - or if a topic is sensitive for you for whatever reason - then yes, I would say it's best if you avoided playing about it. But please, for all that is holy, avoid putting your OOC voice into play. It's a really bad idea for all concerned parties. A quick rule of thumb is if you ever find yourself having to justify your character's actions to another player ("but he is RIGHT!") you are already straying off the path; whether your PC is 'right' or not is utterly irrelevant.

Again, please note none of this has anything to do with Arx. These are fundamental concepts.

@Arkandel : I agree with you on the first point. I do not think that people are okay with it OOC; and my passion here obviously overflowed. Let me rephrase it slightly by saying: I don't understand how a House so firmly associated with Honor and Good which my character is a part of hasn't gone on a crusade to wipe them from the face of the earth.

On the second point, see the first point. I was speaking more ICly there than I should have.

@Cupcake said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

@Shayd: I'm...not really sure what thralls or Thrax has to do with this? Yeah, you ICly and OOCly made an assumption that didn't work out well for you. The lesson of that incident is: don't make assumptions. The bi-erasure was not on purpose, but it still happened. I It doesn't make you "bad" it's just a lesson, you've learned it, time to move on.

Oaths are taken extremely seriously in Arvum, so much so there is a deity dedicated to oaths. Polygamy (NOT polyamory) is anathema. So honestly if your fellow expressed how much he loved several people and that had been that, I doubt he would have had much reaction from anyone, at least not publically. People's personal opinions of polyamory are just that, personal, and are not relevant to the broader social morals.

But he mentioned wanting to MARRY all of these people, after which he asked for the hand of one of the most elligible, high ranking women on the continent. Basically, it's like he decided to appear on Sister Wives announcing that he wants to live by the Principle, and then turned around, called Obama and was like, "Hey, can I marry Malia?"

@Cupcake : Your point is taken and I own my problem in the matter. The thrall thing has less to do with polyamory than it does with the view of prostitution.

@saosmash : My fault entirely. I haven't read this page in detail (if I ever read it at all), at least past the beginning; or I didn't recall it. Thank you very, very much for pointing this out to me; it answers a lot of my questions about prostitution and sexuality, and I should've looked first.

First: Thanks for the kind and polite replies, I never know what I'ma get here.

@saosmash : I don't see it all the time; I'm just afraid to RP about sex because I keep thinking I'ma get it wrong per the game, despite me-the-player being an SJW libertine. Sorry about hitting the prostitution argument again. I think that's actually part of my SJW thing because I have known a lot of sex workers in my lifetime and the idea that they should be innately stigmatized bugs me, and I need to let go of that.

@Roz , @Cupcake : That'd be fine if there weren't (a) an anti-PVP community AND (b) players who seem to occasionally fetishize the idea of being pirates/capturing thralls/etc and support it. I get that some of them are roster characters chargenned that way. But if we're so enlightened about sex, one would imagine that beating the crap out of slavers would be right up there. Especially when Thrax is outnumbered by 4:1 and we've had a thousand years of internecine warfare with them. Also, I haven't seen where sex for money can happen in the helpfiles? Can I have a cite so I stop freaking out? As for the polyamory thing: I recognize my fault in that matter and frankly don't blame Ainsley or anyone for their reactions after the second post; it was his initial response and reaction to my initial post--the thing that caused the duel--that bothered me; and I don't even blame that on the PLAYER, who I like. It's why my problem is with the societalcultural aspects and implications, not individual issues. As for the bi-erasure, I was not actually even aware that Ainsley was bi; I thought he was gay; and I was attempting (POORLY) to point out that I supported that and his choice so why wouldn't he support mine in a sexually free society. But I did it poorly.

@surreality : You're right; I should just suspend disbelief. Which would be easier if the acceptance of thralldom wasn't there as a contrast. Because, well...thralldom ain't exactly all that different from pimps forcing whores to earn money if they ever want to be free, and then moving the goalposts.

@Arkandel : To be honest, I feel uncomfortable probably more because I think it's just me bringing up issues which are considered settled and overdiscussed and overargued. Also, I fucking hate slavery and thralldom A LOT. I don't want to look at it as an opportunity for roleplay when in reality if I discovered someone was holding thralls and had the weapons and political tools to stop it, I damned well WOULD, by force, and the idea that all the high and mighty noble houses that are "good" have been around for a thousand years and NOT rolled on Thrax like a Mack truck over a gopher makes all of those houses at the least complicit considering the fact that they're in an alliance. Which with the current threat makes sense to make uneasy allies, and that's how I'm roleplaying it; and willfully ignoring that for hundreds of years these houses have been sitting at the same table with a bunch of goddamn slavers.

I'm going to begin by saying: On the whole, I really like Arx; I try to contribute; and I willfully attempt suspend disbelief and ignore things/let things go that I don't want to cause trouble about.
But I have questions, and they are by and large questions I am afraid to ask online, because there's no real debate about them and it makes me look like an ass when there's arguments about things that have to be settled.
Here's some things that are dichotomies that must be accepted on the game that I have questions about. Please note: my conclusions or even statements may well be incorrect, poor, or stupid. But I feel uncomfortable even bringing them up in-game:

Thralldom:
a) PvP is highly discouraged.
b) Thrax holds thralls, which are indentured servants who are oft kept by increasing debts.
c) Opposing Thrax seems to be a bad idea and only doable politically, and at great risk.
d) Opposing Thrax regarding thralls from within seems to be a problem as well (I have no personal experience, just anecdotes).
e) Most anyone who isn't Thrax is instilled societally with a definitive dislike for the concept of thralldom.

So playing a character who would do something about it as-written, it appears as if you're throttled both whether you want to work in the system to fix it , or outside the system to topple it.

Prostitution:
a) There are no prostitutes or sex-workers on Arx, and no one sells or buys sex.
b) Presumably this is for a variety of reasons, but the concept that prostitution is victimization of folks in sex work is probably one of them.
c) That's cool because they don't want to deal with the problems of whores. Which given some folks' reactions to it on Firan makes some sense.
d) Considering the fact that not all sex workers are victimized and, moreover, that there are many types of sex workers historically who were revered which could easily be placed in a fantasy world as the norm, I don't really get it.
e) But especially: contrast this with Thralldom, above. Why is indentured servitude accepted by even a portion of the population while sex work is accepted by none of the population?

Human Sexuality:
a) Part and parcel of the bit on prostitution above is that no one pays for sex because people are enlightened about it, they can have sex without fear of disease or pregnancy.
b) The majority of the people who play on the game come from cultural backgrounds where the above are at least mostly true (condoms, et cetera). However, many of these cultures also have a history of condemning sexuality.
c) Even in a fantasy world where it's okay, it's difficult for people to play things without sexual judgment based on their experience in the real world. I've seen homosexual characters hiding their light under a bushel, so to speak, even though they'd really be no different than anyone else in a society as described. I've rarely seen sex discussed. I was involved in a duel over the idea of polyamory where my character was portrayed as less than honorable because of a publically-expressed (non-sexual) musing about it. I'm willing to fully own the idea that I portrayed myself poorly, or that I was wrong.
d) The intent of a full-sexual-freedom world does not seem to me to be embraced by the players or, in my opinion, even possible.

I'll add to the last bit, if it matters: While I have in the past, it's been many years since I myself pursued TS, and I don't seek it out (I was pursuing romance, not sex). Further, I can't really imagine any society that prostitution in one form or another wouldn't happen. There's always going to be someone who wants a different sort of sex that they cannot easily find or negotiate for free, and there's always going to be someone willing to sell or trade that.

In conclusion: frankly, I'd be happier with a game where there was a flat-out statement: We don't want to touch on human sexuality here because people have many varied and different opinions and expressions thereof, so please don't play here if that's what you want. I don't know how I would handle it on any game I decided to run, though, and not having a solution of my own, I can't condemn staff for their choices; I'm a fan of acceptance of all beliefs and expressions of sexuality. I will, however, say that I'm perplexed by them no matter how many times I go over it in my head. Hence this post, because I don't think I can safely have a meaningful, calm and reasoned discussion about it on game. (Asking for a meaningful discussion about it on MUSoapbox is probably not the best choice either, but I don't really feel I have anyplace else I can go to where people might get the question and help me try to answer it.)

You don't, but I'm more interested in "how the game is like since you're playing it now"

Also--looking for current games, not nostalgia fueled recollections; hoping to find some good places to play.

Oh, I don't expect any kind of uniform answers. What would be nice to see are reviews from people that include at least a somewhat-balanced view of the games they'd choose; sort of what I tried to do with Firan, BNW, and my own Shadowrun MU*s above. Lemme explain further: I am hoping people will acknowledge the sorts of things others find objectionable (Firan's corrupt staff, Elsa's crazy abusive nature, views of me as a narcissistic powermonger) whether or not you agree with them, but then tell us what you think makes it worth it.

On one thread recently, I was a proponent of a game which I'm a fan of the storytelling of, however, a number of people find the headwiz highly objectionable/crazy/etc. On another thread (hell, let's face it, dozens of threads over the last 15 years), one of the most populated and consistent games in MU* history, Firan, has been battered like a redheaded stepchild for its various flaws both real and exaggerated. Years ago, I ran a couple've games that were pretty damn successful in the Shadowrun genre, but also faced a great deal of vitriol over flaws both real and exaggerated. I seem to find a whole lot of threads here about why one-or-another game sucked, was corrupt, had too much drama, failed because of one reason or another, and the like.

So I'm curious. What games, in each main genre, do people find to be (a) the best, (b) least filled with drama, and (c) long-time stable with a good populace OR built/staffed in such a way that they're expected to last a long time? I'm not looking for snowjob pie-in-the-sky MU* reviews because every game has flaws, it's all in what you're willing to ignore/overlook for a good game, so much as I am saying: what games do people find to be "model" games worth praise, emulation and/or joining because they're as good as it gets?

What I'm noticing here is what I suspected: most people on MUSoapbox appear to have discovered text-based games (at the latest) in the 1990s-2000s. Have any of you discovered them after 2010, or do you know anyone who has?

I'm curious how people first discovered text-based gaming was a thing. I wonder if there are any modern ramps to entry, or people who discovered it recently.

For me, it was back when there weren't many other computer-based online gaming options. I'd started with storyboarding on BBSes, and in college I discovered MUDs.

That I understand, or I wouldn't've apologized for it!

If you guys don't get the idea that there's a difference between online games and real life, then I do not know what to tell you.