Posts made by Sovereign

@Thenomain

You are free to interpret both my use of hard ass and drama however you like! I've been clear enough for my purposes and am content.

I'm using hard-ass not to indicate a petty dictator but, instead, someone who does not demonstrate the behaviors I've found exemplified in MU* circles: a reluctance to punish, a fear of appearing heavy-handed or "mean", giving away chance after chance, overlooking misbehavior to not rock the boat, etc., etc.

Now, those people are very often called petty dictators, but I mentally tune out a vast majority of criticisms people sling in this hobby. Too many times I've heard stories of monsters and found normal people. At this point, I treat it a lot like folks who say "I hate drama" - baby, you make more drama than a playwright.

All that in mind, give me the petty tyrant over the teddy bear. When the former's hurting the game, it does so explosively, explicitly, and there's no confusion or lingering sentiment. The latter is a slow rot.

@Ganymede

Oh, yes, it really is trivial. A lot of the horror stories in MU*ing I hear talk of leave me flabbergasted, as they could have been solved in a handful of minutes with minimum fuss by someone with authority showing a willingness to be the hard ass. It's why, earlier in this thread, I said one of the hobby's greatest issues is that it's filled with socially maladjusted people. Assertive, straightforward behaviors are anathema, and people, even the ones nominally in charge, so often resort to passive-aggressive snipes and being bitchy in their shadowy gossip.

I am convinced 99% of the problems people face could be solved if every game had one reasonable authority figure who was willing and able to get involved when bullshit reared its ugly head. Just one! The remaining 1% of problems need a capable coder.

It's amazing that some people are so burned when it comes to simple human interactions that "how would you deal with someone being unhappy" is a serious question.

It's like, "But Sovereign! What do you do when a player is a total asshole? There are literally no countermeasures in place for this, we're all doomed!" and I'm just staring going "can't you just tell them to quit being an asshole and then ban them later?"

@surreality

I admit this does not work if you are a staffer without any such authority. In that case, your next action is to communicate the problem to the one who is in charge, and trust them to address the problem. If they won't, passively accept it, or protest, with resignation if necessary.

I've been MU*ing for a long time now. I don't believe in problem players; the problem is always the authority that won't chastise them by whatever means necessary.

If you're at one of those places, all you can really do is not give them your patronage. There's a reason I will never staff at a game I don't own and will not play at one I don't trust the staff of.

@surreality

Players have absolutely no power save that granted to them by the patience of whoever is in charge. If you are willing to indulge tantrums, you deserve them. Essentially all player concerns can be addressed by firmly, albeit politely, stating the way things will be, and removing those who won't fall in line.

@Arkandel

My initial thoughts.

*( 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.

This works fine and is, broadly speaking, what most games should aim for. A small staff is more efficient and has fewer points of contention. That said, it's a privilege, no matter what you say. Those on staff are marked as different and have authority others do not, even if it's slight. This is avoided solely with staff anonymity or nonexistence.

*( 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.

This immediately makes your game slave to the most aggressively pernicious cliques. The most damaging of OOC behavior breaks no rules and isn't even uncivil on the face of it, but rather is a competitive volley of status-game posturing and passive-aggressive smack talk. The MU* community is, on the whole, socially maladjusted and loathe to indulge any sort of direct confrontation, leaving the environments to be led by the heavy hand of staff or the sly remarks of queen bees.

I don't mean that cruelly, but there's really no nice way to phrase it. These games are filled with people who don't interact with others so well in an astonishing variety of ways. You will want checks and balances in play to counter this.

*( 2, 3, 8 ) Plot is the game's lifeblood. The game comes with its own metaplot which is written to be modular and altered by characters. Staff's primary concern is to coordinate players and either run plots contributing to the overall story themselves or support players in running their own. This takes precedence over all other staff concerns save ones which make the game actually unplayable, staff should never feel they can't run an event because they're busy dealing with a troublesome player. Move the distraction in whatever manner is most appropriate and run the event.

Running events is good. Showing the world has consequences and tying players together through their (in)action is superior. No amount of activity helps when that activity fundamentally feels like pointless fluff.

*( 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.

This suffers the same problem noted earlier: "ability to roleplay" translates to "ability to schmooze and direct friends OOC".

*( 1, 2, 4 ) CGen has no non-automated approval conditions and there are no 'special' cases; roll what you will. It will check if you have a description and that your numbers check out, then you're on your way. If (due to code limitations) staff has to set things by hand it can happen after characters hit the grid with the understanding you can't use any missing attributes or resources in the meantime, in order to prevent mistakes or misunderstandings about mechanics ('oh, sorry, I thought I could buy Sleepwalker merits as a ghoul' -- which would be an example of one of the 'good, thematic reasons' to say no, as described above).

This is largely fine. The problems that ruin games are never mechanical; there's no such thing as a character so overpowered they cannot be challenged within the system, even if the only thing that can challenge them is one that cloned their sheet. You run the risk of concepts and characters anathema to the theme crowding in, but this is a matter your staff ought to be able to handle promptly. It is trivial to address on a case-by-case basis.

*( 4, 6, 7 ) All automated XP are handed on a weekly basis to characters who were in at least two scenes (detected automagically by the code) in that period. Characters also receive a smaller portion of their XP based on incentives - Beats, PrPs ran, etc. Beats are earned on request, audited after the fact if needed to prevent abuse, up to a modest cap per week. New characters receive more automatic XP than older ones until that portion of their XP is equal, although incentive-based XP remain on the characters who earned them without catching up mechanisms. On character death or permanent retirement the majority of all their XP may be transfered to a new PC.

This will lead to dinosaurs if the game lasts long enough and that can be incredibly demotivating to bump into as a newcomer. I prefer experience caps that can, perhaps, be slightly overcome with tremendous contribution to the game's health and enjoyability.

*( 4, 6, 7 ) There is no justification requirement for any XP expenditure. If you have the XP you can purchase anything you wish that's mechanically available to your PC. There are time delays to preserve a believable progression in raising skills, attributes and abilities. However justifications are still optional and, on staff's discretion and subject to incentive-based caps, may be rewarded Beats by staff.

Perfectly fine. Characters never make any sense. Policing expenditures is unnecessarily antagonistic. Yes, going from waitress to Wonder Woman in two weeks is impossible. It's also impossible to do that in two years. Ultimately, you're arguing degrees of absurdity. Focus on player enjoyment.

( 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.

This ought to be fine.

@Cirno

That's not my intention. I am all for revolution and radical forays into largely unexplored territory.. but I'm not so much wed to doing so blindly, or to the idea that different is good simply because it's different. It's far more effective to clearly establish hopes and intentions and then tailor responses to that.

@Arkandel

What do you believe the benefits to this style of game to be? At first glance, I see all downsides and no upsides, and that influences my responses in critical ways. I could give better-tuned feedback if I had some idea what you desired from the system.