Posts made by Sparks

@Auspice - ah! Yeah, the out-of-box setup gave me an absolutely raging migraine after like 60 seconds for some reason, but it's possible to adjust the PSVR's headband in enough ways that I found the right spot for me. And then it became the easiest to wear long term because it didn't have the first-gen Vive or Rift's front-heavy tendency to slide down and press on the nose after half an hour, which also causes a (more minor) headache, at least for me.

But the Vive Pro was, for a long time, a reasonably close second in the comfort game for me; while I didn't get to try the Index for long, the Pro's now been tentatively pushed to third.

I just really want to try the Reverb, because everyone I know who has, regardless of which headset they preferred for comfort previously, now says the Reverb is the most comfortable. With that much unanimity, I really wanna see for myself. (Mind you, this is a sample size of three, so there's a large margin of error here; it's anecdotal evidence at best. Still...)

@Auspice - Headset comfort in general is a lot better this generation; the PSVR's adjustable headband system was so much more comfortable it wasn't even funny, and everyone else learned from that design.

The one thing I feel like they really need to still improve is the pressure most headsets put on the nose due to their weight. The PSVR wins there by putting very little weight on the nose at all, so remains the leader in comfort of the ones I've tried.

(I really want to try the HP Reverb; from what I hear it has the PSVR beat on comfort—and the Index beat on visual quality. If that's the case, it'll be an amazing one to use.)

@Warma-Sheen said in General Video Game Thread:

Anyone have any personal experience/opinion on the Oculus Quest? I have it on order and have read plenty of professional reviews, but I'd be interesting in hearing from you guys - on the chance anyone here has it.

Do not own it, have used it. (My employer works with people needing VR components at times; pretty much if it exists, I have used it at work at least briefly.)

Short summary:

• Pros: best inside-out tracking in the VR space today, screen resolution improved from original Rift and other first-generation headsets, no cords (Wendy, I can fly!), quickest setup of a decent headset I've ever seen, solid controllers, decent selection of launch games.
• Cons: refresh rate is a noticeable step backwards if you're used to tethered PC VR, system is powered by an aging Qualcomm SoC that may not leave a lot of room for some of the more computationally intense games, inside-out tracking can lose controllers (though this seems infrequent).

Longer assessment:

Along with the Oculus Rift S, the Quest has, hands-down, the best inside-out tracking in the VR field today. Just, flat statement. No other implementation of inside-out tracking works as well. (Inside-out tracking means the sensors necessary to determine position are inside the headset, looking out, rather than outside the headset looking at it.)

And to someone used to the Vive/Vive Pro and original Rift, not having wires to trip on is amazing. You feel so freeeee!

However: I lost tracking on the second-generation Touch controllers twice. Not badly, but still worth noting; I've never lost tracking on the original Vive controllers, nor the original Oculus Touch controllers. To be fair, both times were when I looked far enough away from my hands that the sensors on the Quest could no longer see the controllers, which isn't a common occurrence.

I don't like the second-generation Touch controllers as much as the first-generation ones. Don't get me wrong, they're still great, but the original Touch controller was the best on the market when it came out, and for some reason they took some features out for the second-generation. Notably, I miss the capacitive sensors that let it know whether my thumb was folded (a'la a fist) or extended (a'la a thumbs-up); you can still get the effect by resting your finger lightly on one of the buttons, but I've pressed them by accident before. And hand movements and positioning are super important to one of my favorite VR games (The Unspoken, which is being ported to Quest but is not available yet).

The screen is... okay, true talk time, I don't actually like the screen much. It's not entirely the screen's fault; the resolution is actually better than the original Rift. But it has two things working against it.

First, it has a refresh rate of 72Hz, which is juuuuust high enough to avoid VR vertigo for most people, but it's running a lot closer to the border below which you start getting very motion sick; when VR first launched, the general wisdom (admittedly, largely as pushed by Oculus themselves) was that any refresh rate below 90Hz risked vertigo. They've kind of backed off from that as time went on; the Quest is 72Hz and the Rift S is 80Hz. If it's your first VR headset, you probably won't care, but if you're used the 90Hz of the original Rift, the frankly beautiful 120Hz of the PSVR (seriously, that headset does not get enough credit) or Valve Index, or the Index's frankly absurd high-end 144Hz mode? It can feel slightly wrong, like the world is stuttering on an unconscious level; I found it actually a little disorienting and disturbing after a bit. A co-worker who had never tried VR before the Quest, though, didn't have the same issues with the refresh rate I did, not having grounds for comparison.

Second, while the screen resolution is better than the original Rift—and the PSVR—the Vive Pro and Valve Index have really upped the resolution game, and the Index's screen quality is frankly amazing. If I had not used the Vive Pro—much less the Index—before using the Quest, however, I would've probably called the resolution a good step up.

It's got a pretty decent lineup of launch games, and two of my favorite VR games, Beat Saber and The Unspoken, either are out for it or will be coming out for it eventually. My concern is that the whole thing is powered by a flagship smartphone SOC... circa 2016, which is presumably when they started working on it. The Snapdragon 835 is a solid chip, but I'm guessing that the Quest is pushing its GPU at well over 2/3 of max; using the 855 or even the 845 would've given them a lot more headroom to add ever more intense games down the road. I'm actually not sure why they didn't bump it; it's not a complete drop-in replacement, but since the Quest runs on a modified version of Android, unless they've forked it so far from the base they can't use newer BSPs, it should not have been a huge amount of effort to bump it, and the 845's been out long enough they could've done it while working on the project.

Overall? If it's your first VR headset, it will probably be a great experience. If you're used to tethered PC VR, there will be things that bug you a bit.

@Testament said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

@Sparks You do realize this is more or less the MU equivalent to an argument against the fair wage act, right?

Maybe that's not the intent, but hoo boy that's how it reads.

Let's, for a moment, assume that employment and an in-person GM'd scene with an NPC are a reasonable metaphor for each other in this case.

You're correct; the Fair Play Act prevents me from denying someone employment on the basis of several protected classes, such as gender identity, sexuality, race, etc. Howeer, the Fair Pay Act also still lets me deny someone employment on the basis that they're not actually good at the job I'm hiring for.

Let's say someone gets to the interview and tech screen stage at my company. I cannot disqualify this person based on their race, sexuality, gender identity, or any other protected class. Nor should I want to. But I can still disqualify them because "this person was actively hostile even during the interview, shouted insults at the interviewers, and I think that attitude is detrimental to getting the job done". I can absolutely disqualify them on the grounds that "I am hiring for a firmware engineering position and frankly I'm not convinced this person actually knows C, much less C++." Those are not protected classes, and they are relevant to their suitability for employment.

In this analogy, where deciding whether or not you want to GM an in person, on screen scene for someone is equivalent to giving them a job interview? Traits like "your roleplay is dull as dishwater", or "you are actively hostile whenever roleplay does not go your way", or "when you don't get exactly what you want you revert to one-line poses and sometimes just idle for an hour"? Those are not protected classes. And further, when the 'job' you're referring to is about having fun telling collaborative story via live roleplay, I would argue that your ability to actually make roleplay enjoyable for others (including the GM) is not only not a protected class, but actually a fairly relevant consideration in my deciding if you have the ability to perform the job I am 'hiring' for.

So, even if we apply the Fair Pay Act as an analogy here—which I will note, I still think is a ridiculous comparison—this is still actually acceptable.

I will further note I think it is ridiculous to use the Fair Pay Act here as an analogy here. I feel like a much better analogy would be to make the plot advancement a piece of information you need to get to the player, and GM'ing an in-person scene with an NPC is equivalent to calling someone on the phone; doing some rolls and sending the result is the equivalent of sending an email. If I know the person can never get to the point on the phone, if I know they ramble and I'll never be able to politely hang up, if I know the phone call will make me miserable, if I have made 17 phone calls in the past three days and I'm so tired of talking on the phone, if I just don't feel social enough to want to talk on the phone to anyone this week? I can send them an email instead. The person might wish they had gotten a phone call, but I still got them the information either way.

@Caryatid said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

I hate the extremes we fall into in discussions here. I hate that the distinction becomes "those who get NPC time and plot shenanigans are more fun to play with!" and "those who don't are boring and if they complain they're jealous".

Ugh. This thread. U g h.

Looking at how some stuff's being taken in this thread, yeah, I do think we have a tendency, as a community, to swing to extremes and read one statement as meaning way more than it does. Someone says "sometimes A causes B" and then people swing to "B isn't always caused by A! How dare you suggest that!" That's not what the original argument is. That's not how logic works; "if A then B" doesn't mean "If B then A".

Like, there are so many reasons besides "that player is boring" that someone might not get an on-screen NPC scene they were hoping for. Maybe the GM and the player's RP times don't sync up. Maybe the GM has been swamped and hasn't had time yet. Maybe the NPC is ICly ignoring the character for a reason. Maybe the GM has ADHD and has honestly just forgotten the request. Maybe the GM wrote all the requests down somewhere, and can't remember where. (sighs, raises hand I've done both of those two.)

All "some players can make GM'ing for them excruciating" means it precisely what it says. Nothing else. I have, on one game or another, GM'd for players who make scenes absolutely torturous. They're the ones who complain about the dice every time they fail a roll. They make passive-aggressive metaposes when they don't get exactly what they hoped for. If other characters are in the scene, they get palpably jealous and upset if any other character gets a moment of glory. They're the ones who, when you tell them to knock it off, go sullenly silent, stop posing more than one-line poses, and meanwhile go page all their friends about how the GM is being unreasonable.

My point in that post was just that if we want to say that staff is obligated to give an equal amount of on-screen NPC attention to every player, it's worth keeping in mind that you're telling folks "you must go roleplay with these people". (Or else kick them off the game, but then you get the players complaining "what did they do to get kicked off?")

@faraday said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

What I do pledge, though, is to "provide a sane, fair and friendly environment for you to tell your stories." Part of that fairness means ensuring that Fred has the same opportunities for success as my BFF Mary. I do not need to RP with him to do this. Off-camera scenes and +rolls are a thing for this very reason.

This, I think, is an excellent general pledge.

"Fair" does not have to mean "every staffer is obligated to RP out things with every player who asks for something from an NPC". "Fair" does not have to mean "the plot dished out to every player must be an equal portion, regardless of how much individual effort they put in to seeking and engaging with that plot".

"Fair" can just mean "staffers should not set one character up for failure while spurring a different one along; plot actions/requests from both should be treated with the same level of regard".

@Ganymede said in Our Tendency Towards Absolutes:

I'm not sure how any of this has to do with what I believe Sparks is talking about, which may be why she casually walked around what Too Old for This was saying.

Actually, it's because I took a very long time writing that post between doing various other things in other tabs (I got maybe a little wordy), and Too Old For This posted directly above mine while I was doing so; I simply didn't notice it before I clicked post and wandered off into another tab. I only noticed it just now when I came back to the thread.

@Ganymede said in Our Tendency Towards Absolutes:

I think Sparks is criticizing the mentality that all staff are bad by default, and how this is deleterious in the hobby.

Yes. Or even the mentality that all staff are bad in the same ways. Or even the mentality that because some staff are bad in a given way, we should assume that all staff might be and treat them as though they are.

@Ganymede said in Our Tendency Towards Absolutes:

I think Too Old For This is explaining that bad staffers don't get the boot as often or quickly as bad players, presuming an equal level of badness.

That's how i read that TOfT's post, too. And I actually agree with it. I think that viewpoint is completely correct.

I'm just not sure that assuming "because these staffers on this place did this specific thing badly, we need to prohibit all staffers from even trying to do a similar thing, and this rule should be applied universally to all games everywhere" is the solution to that problem. (Especially since I think a lot of actively terrible staff are really good at skirting the rules, obeying the letter while ignoring the spirit, so it still doesn't guarantee you can immediately point to a thing and say "you broke this rule, you are the weakest link, goodbye".)

So a universal one-size-fits-all response to things seems overly broad, overly restrictive, and I'm not even entirely convinced it solves the problem posed.

I am in no way perfect. I doubt anyone on this forum is, as we are all human. We all fail at things. I have certainly failed at things and fallen short at times. And I don't even disagree that some of the things that have been suggested are good ideas! I think they're great guidelines, and I would encourage GMs who feel comfortable with them to adopt them!

And if one specific MU* wants to forbid certain things in GMing? More power to them; rules can be great! Staff should absolutely stick to those rules that their headwiz lays down, in addition to whatever further restrictions they put on themselves with their own rules and comfort level.

But I don't think "we need a rule for all MU*s that no GM can use NPCs in a personal romantic subplot for a character" is necessarily useful. Just like I don't think saying "we need a rule for all tabletop games that no GM can use NPCs in a personal romantic subplot for one of the characters" is useful.

Some GMs do that badly, and it ends up turning into favoritism, no question. But try to demand a blanket ban on that, try to apply that rule universally, and you've just done away with all the wonderful story and interplay that came out of Matt Mercer bringing Yeza in as an NPC to flesh out Nott's backstory, over in Critical Role.

Perhaps I am overthinking this.

@Auspice said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

Something I have also been considering throughout this thread whenever the 'Staff are volunteers!' comes up: volunteer work is still work. If you volunteer for an organization IRL, you are expected to comport yourself as a professional and you don't really get to pick and choose (generally) what you do. You might get to choose a department or request a 'top 3,' but then you're handed work. You do that work.

There's some merit to this, yes.

But I feel like this isn't "you are a volunteer at a business".

This is "you volunteered to host a tabletop game for local gamers, whether or not you know them", and then being told by someone else, "Cool. Here's the code of ethics and professionalism which all GMs are expected to abide by."

Yes, if you are GM'ing for a specific organization—if you're running games at a convention for WotC or Paizo—you do have a set of rules you're expected to adhere to, and which you agree to when you sign up to do that for them. But if you are running a game in your house, you are not running it on behalf of anyone else. You do not have to sign anything before you sit down to run a game, not even if you post an open invite on the board at the gaming shop and allow people you don't even know to come.

Generally, MU*s are not run on behalf of another group. If you are running an official D&D MU* for WotC? Yeah, then WotC is going to probably set certain rules and guidelines for you, because you are doing this for them. But most of us who choose to run a game are doing that on our own behalf.

If you are not the headwiz on a game, you absolutely have to adhere to the rules the headwiz makes; you are volunteering on that game. If I ever lose my mind and actually make/run a game as headwiz ever again, I definitely have a sort of 'professional code' as to some guidelines to aim for when GM'ing—to try to spread around RP fairly equally, to make sure NPCs are never in the spotlight, etc.—and I would expect my staffers to try to adhere to them.

But I don't think we get to draft a set of standards and then demand that every headwiz who opens a game is expected to hold to that list. Especially not if we're including things like "you are obligated to GM for every player when they ask, even those who make you miserable or bore you to tears or even creep you out on some level you cannot articulate, as though you were staring into the cold, dead eyes of a killer; you are also forbidden from GM'ing any more for the people who actually make your job a joy than you do for the ones who make you miserable".

If that makes sense? I dunno. I may be talking in circles here. I just feel like we're no longer just saying "what's do you feel is the difference between an NPC and a normal PC played by a staffer" but now trying to define actual codified standards of behavior for those NPCs—and for how to GM in general—which we have no ability or authority to enforce. And it feels like we're prepared, as a community, to be indignant and point fingers if people who never even pledged to use those standards on their game violate them in any way.

Okay, so. I think I've finally managed to actually figure out why this topic is bothering me.

I enjoy GM'ing. I enjoy GM'ing as a bodiless omnipotent narrator who sets the scene, and I enjoy GM'ing with a recurrent NPC. But not all enjoyment is equal.

Maybe I find that GM'ing for Susan is absolutely wonderful. Susan always is engaging. She actively throws out things for the NPC to respond to in the scene; she talks about topics other than just whatever favor she wants from the NPC in question. In short, she makes the scene really enjoyable for me as a GM. I look forward to GM'ing for Susan.

Now let's look at Fred. Fred's a nice guy! I don't dislike Fred. Maybe he's even fun to talk with on channels! But Fred... RP'ing with Fred on an NPC is excruciating. Fred is single-minded. When we get into the scene, Fred sits listlessly, poking the NPC with questions and waiting for an answer to fall out, then poking the NPC with another question. RP'ing with Fred is not fun for me. RP'ing with Fred makes me think of the many, many other things I could be doing at that moment. Writing a story. RP'ing with someone else. Cleaning my bathroom.

I, personally, as a GM will run scenes for both of them. I, personally, as a GM like to try to spread plot and RP around. But make no mistake: in this scenario, RP'ing with Fred is not fun, it is an obligation. It is an obligation I have set myself, but an obligation nonetheless.

I want to point out we've also just had a whole different thread where various people spent time expounding on the belief that the joy and pleasure derived from staffing should be reward enough for staff. And now people are saying that staff should be scrupulously fair and give equal access to NPCs to everyone, regardless of considerations.

That if I do not RP with both Susan and Fred precisely equal amounts, I am being a bad staffer and doing it wrong.

You know what you're doing by that logic? You're telling me that if I do my job 'right', my pay gets docked. If my pay is the joy derived from staffing, then RP'ing with Fred is actively reducing my metaphorical paycheck, because I do not derive joy from it. It is anti-joy. It not only does not bring joy, it kills joy that already exists.

Would it be a better hobby for players in aggregate if everyone got equal plot access everywhere? Sure! Is it something we can aspire to? Absolutely. Do I think games would benefit if people held to the guidelines I've put out in this thread earlier? (I.e., pretty much every interaction with an NPC should try to advance story—or at least offer the potential for advancement—whether on a personal or game level, NPCs should never get to be the protagonist of a plot, etc.) Yes. Have I, in the ungodly long amount of time I've been in this hobby, seen behavior on NPCs that I would not personally have felt comfortable doing? Also yes.

But do I get to dictate or demand that rules be imposed on staff? Sure, if it's my game. Otherwise? The more I think about it... no.

The more I think about this more I'm realizing, what's bothering me isn't with the scope of the rules. I think some of what's suggested is maybe overly broad, but there's plenty of rules I think are beneficial. But what's been bothering me on some level is the implication of these rules: that staff are inherently obligated to do certain things, whether or not staff themselves have pledged to do so.

Because it feels manifestly unfair to say "the joy you take from doing this is your reward and payment", then also demand "and also you should do things this way which we have decided is Universally Correct and are guidelines for everyone, regardless of whether it makes you personally miserable to do." That part sits wrong with me, no matter how much we can claim those demands are For The Greater Good.

Here's my flat take on it: if someone (staff or player) has feelings about someone else (staff or player) OOCly to such a degree that it is disruptive, that's a problem. It has nothing to do with NPCs; it doesn't matter whether those involved are NPCs or PCs. If it is disruptive on an OOC level, it's a problem.

If it's the "my faction-leader PC will only play with this one person because they are my bestest friend on the game", it's a problem.

If it's "these two players have TS'd and now the first one is trying to control the second one by becoming OOCly furious and accusing the other player of 'cheating' if they're alone with another character on +where", it's a problem.

If it's "because this person is my bestest OOC buddy, I will give them access to IC resources I control that other players don't have", it's a problem.

If it's "I OOCly hate this person with the passion of a thousand burning suns and, by the old gods and the new, I will see every plot they try to launch go down in flames", that's a problem.

If it's "I OOCly think this person is awful because they betrayed me on another game, so I'm going to spread gossip throughout the entire playerbase that they can't be trusted, and turn all the other players against them", that's a problem.

If someone TSes and that doesn't happen, it's not a problem. The fact that some people do get that way when they TS shouldn't mean that you ban TS, any more than the fact that some people do get that way when they encounter an RP style they really like means you should ban all good RPers.

TS is one possible avenue to the problem, sure, and I guess the reason people tend to leap to it is that it's the most scandalous to gossip about. "I hear Joe and NPC Bob dress up in fursuits and engage in BDSM every Wednesday when their RP times line up!" is, presumably, a lot more fun to whisper around and gasp about than "So, I hear NPC Bob really likes Joe's RP style; I guess he's obsessed with the really atmospheric way Joe poses."

So, no, TS isn't the problem. The actual problem is when you have someone with an OOC opinion about someone else that is so strong it is literally disruptive to gameplay in some manner, whether that manner is beneficial to the target of this feeling or not.

@Auspice said in Our Tendency Towards Absolutes:

I've tried to bring this up before, but I sort of feel as if the last time I did it sort of delved into a 'but because I was burned by someone I know giving people any sort of leeway is how we end up with Spiders and Cullens'

I should note I think there's a difference between "pattern recognition" and "regarding things as absolutes". It's the difference between "Jed has been shacked up privately in a room with that NPC every other evening, and now suddenly he has the Shiny Thing (a new spaceship/a magic sword/private training in dark magic from an abyssal mage thousands of years old/an experimental rocket launcher that normally costs more money than any PC can muster); I have seen this before elsewhere and it Does Me A Concern" and "I hear Jed slept with an NPC for some reason; clearly there are Unethical Shenanigans going on, and it must be stopped!"

The line between the two is, admittedly, both fuzzy and impossible to define universally; it is very possible (and common) for people to try to justify the one as the other. But I think it's safe to say if your "pattern recognition" is based on a single broad criteria ("is staff" or "is an NPC sleeping with a PC for some reason"), it's really more trying to define an absolute. And that's the part I find worrisome.

@Groth said in Our Tendency Towards Absolutes:

MU* is similar in that if you have the perfect staff, they dont need rules to tie them down since theyll always do the right thing to make the game better for everyone. In reality though most staff are just normal people trying to have some fun with their hobby with others and there's no reason to expect them to be saints.

Good rules and policies makes the hobby better for everyone since it makes the expectations clear and you put less pressure on the staff to always make the right judgement call. Sure at times they might feel cumbersome and unneccesary if you have a lot of trust however I think it's on the whole better to lean on good policy rather then trust.

I don't think we can expect people to be saints, no. And I agree rules can be great. Clear expectations are wonderful!

Is it fair to go "a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government, but people are human, so it makes sense to have checks and balances over whatever person currently sits in the chair where they control your entire country and potentially therefore the actual lives, health, and safety of everyone in it"? Absolutely!

And even universally applied regulations definitely do have an important place in some things, not just nations. Is it fair to go "these handful of investment banks have engaged in shady shenanigans; we should impose universal rules to prevent other banks from doing this?" Yes, because—leaving aside the possible degree of damage—I'd argue that we have no widespread practical way to opt out of the free market economy; we're stuck with those banks. (You could also argue you're still only really applying rules to one thing: the financial sector. The banks are more like the factions on a single game, bound by the game's rules.)

I think trying to apply universal rules to MU*s, though, is not really in the same vein. Sure, you can make an analogy and claim that a MU* is like a tiny nation, and that the people 'living' there should thus enjoy an established, formal system of government. Rules for staffers that they must follow. But I feel like that's a flawed analogy, in part because of those words you use in what I quoted: "the hobby".

Saying "I have expectations of a MU*" strikes me as much more like "I have these expectations of a tabletop game." Wonderful! Those are your expectations; you can have them; it's good you know what you want in a tabletop game, it probably helps you find a gaming group and GM you can enjoy. More power to you!

It's also fine to say, "this particular tabletop game I'm in is not adhering to what I want." It's even fine to tell your benevolent dictator (the GM) your opinion and ask if they can take it into account! But if the GM says no, you have the option to leave the tabletop group and find another. Unlike the free market economy—or a nation which is oppressing its citizens—you are completely free to choose whether to leave or stay; your choice either way does not endanger your life, health, or finances. (Or if it does, I am deeply concerned about what you consider baseline acceptable for a tabletop group you join in the first place.)

You probably don't want to leave, of course; your friends are there, you have time and energy invested in that level 11 half-orc barbarian (and potentially some emotional investment in their story arc), etc. But you do still have the option to walk away; no one's holding a gun to your head and saying you can't. And sure, you can attempt bloody revolution and overthrow the GM to impose the rules you want, but a) that seems like a lot of trouble for a hobby, and b) if you overthrow the GM or otherwise make them feel like their own players are against them, I feel like your campaign has by default ended. Which is arguably not going to bring you an appreciably different level of enjoyment than just leaving the group would've.

And given that tabletop gaming is a hobby, I'm not sure I can agree with "These expectations I have for a tabletop game should be rules that all tabletop games adhere to universally, because that way it removes the pressure from the GM to decide whether or not a given choice—like whether or not to allow this house rule, or if it's kosher to give the party a DM-played cleric as a party member after the existing cleric's player has to leave the campaign—is the right one or not. GMs shouldn't have to be saints to keep their players! Making these the universal rules improves the hobby!"

If your specific tabletop group has rules written up stating explicitly what the GM can and cannot do? Hey, fine! But saying those rules should apply universally to all tabletop groups that you might ever join because that removes pressure from GMs by not forcing them to be saints, and therefore and improves the hobby? That just seems off to me.

@Arkandel — Sophie Turner and Maisie Williams.

So, I'm looking at some recent threads and noticing a common current running through them. "Some staff abuse their role as staff, using staff abilities and resources to glorify their own PC; we should discuss the rules/expectations we think should be a baseline that all staff must follow." "Some staff arguably use plot NPCs in a way I think is detrimental to the story; let's discuss the rules we think that all staff should therefore need to follow."

I've been drawn into it, too. But the more I look at that more closely today, the less I become comfortable with this "assume the worst until it's proven otherwise" mindset we seem to have adopted as our community baseline somewhere along the way.

We take the approach upon seeing a situation that we can imagine might be off and default to assuming it is. We culturally seem to go with "guilty until proven innocent" and demand proof that people weren't doing something wrong before giving them the benefit of the doubt, just because someone else in similar circumstances somewhere else has done something we didn't like.

And we try to discuss these things as absolutes. An example of where the assumption isn't true is never a reason to examine the assumption itself; it must either be universally applicable or else it's just "an exception to the rule". A specific example of how an NPC having a relationship with a PC can serve the story may not be a reason to think "maybe saying NPC/PC relationships are bad isn't always true and we should rethink that default assumption", but rather "oh, that's an exception to the rule."

We seem willing to assume the worst, universally; because staff on this other game did things we don't like, we assume that staff on every game will do those things too unless they individually prove otherwise. But an example of where where that bad assumption isn't true? That's the exception. That's "well, maybe that works there, but". It's never a reason to challenge that baseline assumption.

(I think you could argue we do it to other players, too, to a lesser extent.)

And I feel like that isn't a healthy mindset. It's not a healthy world view. And it feels awfully close to a type of judgemental absolutist logic that is way, way too common these days in the real world. "Because some homeless people do hard drugs or buy alcohol when they ask for money, we should assume by default that all homeless people do hard drugs, and make them prove otherwise before we're willing to hand them a dollar." "Because some members of that religion have committed violent acts before, we should assume by default that all members of that religion could be planning to commit acts of violence and make them prove otherwise." And when those individuals can prove in a satisfactory manner that the assumption is false in their case, the conclusion isn't that the assumption itself might be flawed and not quite so absolute, but that this particular individual is "the exception to the rule".

Sure, saying "Because sometimes staffers on games have done shady things with staff abilities and resources, we should assume by default that all staffers who do anything with staff abilities and resources are doing shady things and make them prove otherwise." is an order of magnitude less severe than those examples above; it is unlikely it will lead to literal starvation, or potentially deadly violence. But it's not really a more healthy mindset for us to have, either.

And the more I think about it, the more I find it kind of worrisome that we seemingly have come to just accept this "staff are bad by default and we should make the exceptions prove that they aren't" philosophy as some sort of normalized baseline in the community based on various past examples of folks being lousy, but the examples of people doing otherwise—who prove they aren't lousy—are only ever just "the exception".

@bear_necessities said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

Counterpoint: why would you use NPCs in the last situation? This could be easily accomplished and provide a better story for PCs to have the "master assassin" charge a lower level PC assassin to do this in order to prove themselves or move up in assassin society? Now you are providing story for multiple PCs and not making your npc a pivotal part of the story.

On some games, that's absolutely the right choice! It depends on game culture and circumstance. And I can come up with other examples than the assassin one, as well, for different game settings/cultures. There's no absolute example that works in every setting and every game circumstance; even your counterpoint to this specific example doesn't work for every game setting and culture.

Maybe the game has player secrets; there's a PC assassin, sure, but if they target another PC, even if the PC dies the player maybe tells people afterwards. Now people OOCly know that character is an assassin and find things to "notice" ICly and become suspicious. ("Gosh, Jane wears a lot of dark clothing and has a bunch of large rings. You know who else I've heard rumors likes that style? Assassins.")

In some game cultures, open PvP where another PC opposes (or kills) your character leads to all kinds of OOC drama; maybe everyone OOCly knows Jane is an assassin and that's fine, but you don't want Jane dealing with OOC shit on channels over this. Whereas if this thing was done to you by an NPC during plot, it can feel more like "story" and less like "Jane, who I still see sitting on channel and chatting happily, did this to me, the bitch. My next alt will be written with intent to destroy her."

Maybe you just don't have any PC assassins played, and there just isn't a PC to task with that. Maybe you have only one PC assassin, and they say they're OOCly not comfortable with the task because they're afraid of that possible OOC blowback from the target PC's player and friends. It doesn't even matter if that fear is justified; the target could be the nicest player ever OOCly, but the assassin player is carrying around trauma from a previous game where their life was made OOCly miserable after they did something IC to derail another's plans. (And I'd argue that if you force a player to play out something they are actively OOCly uncomfortable with even after being told of that discomfort, you're now doing GMing wrong.)

My point here wasn't "this specific example always justifies an NPC sleeping with a PC, and therefore NPCs sleeping with PCs is okay", which would be a tough argument to make with any example, but rather "I think saying an NPC sleeping with a PC can never serve story is not accurate; I can see places where it can serve story, so I'm not comfortable making such a blanket statement".

This isn't technically a MU* thing, as it's from an in-person tabletop game, but it is a GM'ing thing so I'm putting it here.

But it is so wonderful when your players do your job for you of complicating their lives and the plotline in interesting ways. We're approaching endgame on a long-running campaign, and the consequences of three mistakes the players made—one way back at the beginning of the campaign, one quite a while ago that had 17 RL months of consequences before they noticed, and one extremely recent one—have dovetailed together to leave them in a truly terrible position.

We're approaching the end of the main campaign's backing metaplot, and they've just realized that not only does the enemy have nearly everything necessary to win, but that they themselves are the ones who handed over said things. And the best part is that they know it. Both ICly and OOCly, they know this is entirely their own fault. This is payoff on 2.5 years of RP. It is not a set of complications I planned, but it is glorious. I wish I could bottle the GM high.

(Of course, they're now in a bad enough situation that it verges on unwinnable unless I make some things happen to give them one more route to victory. Which I will, because I don't actually want them to fail; getting into the final stretch of the marathon and then falling over is anticlimactic.)

Now if I can just manage that on a long-running plot on a MU*, as well!

@Gingerlily said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

I think I'd do better with plain Dex too, I don't need the racing heart/physical symptom boost that the levoamphetamine adds. I'd love to know how it goes.

The plain dex trial went great, for the record. I got my final prescription and everything, and I've been on the real 8-hour delayed release pills for a little while!

@surreality said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

@Sparks One of the things with this that I think is quite relevant is that these are scenarios that are easy candidates for FTB.

I suspect that if these things were off-screen, or handled by rolls in an FTB, the issues would be negligible at best.

I can see a corner-case argument for the assassin scenario I described not being FTB, if they're planning to poison them in the throes of passion; playing it out it gives the PC a chance to spot what's happening in the poses and react. The NPC just rubbed that ring she's wearing across her lips? Sure, it could just be flavor—"I kiss the ring, and now I'll kiss you intimately"—but maybe the PC goes, "Wait... why? That was odd, and now I feel vaguely suspicious of this person..."

But yes, you could also probably just FTB and resolve it with rolls, too. And honestly, that would be my personal preference!

But I admit, I also am not the best judge of this scenario; I'm ace iRL, and the actual "place Part A into/against Part B, perform repetitive actions that make various organic noises and theoretically elicit physical pleasure" portion is as uninteresting to me online as it is in real life. I genuinely do not understand—on an emotional level—the people who consider a four-hour scene of things squishing together or being licked to be the end-game scenario they're aiming for, or some sort of perk/benefit to be aimed for.

@faraday said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

Players of NPCs shouldn't have an agenda beyond "play fair and tell a good story". Of course your NPC ICly has an agenda, but the minute the player becomes too invested in that agenda, they're being played like a PC.

I'd also say the other defining trait is that the NPC does not get to be the protagonist. The story you're telling is not their story; they're not the hero who saves the day. They're the ancient sage the protagonist seeks guidance from. They're the powerful antagonist the protagonist has to overcome. They're the mentor, the teacher who helps the protagonist master a skill and helps them along their path. They can play a major role in the plot, but it is not their plot.

If you were playing Star Wars: A New Hope as as a plot on a game, the NPC doesn't get to be Luke Skywalker. They could be Obi-Wan Kenobi, however.

As such, an NPC should never roll in to save the day; even if they could, you find ways to let the heroes resolve the plot. Obi-Wan Kenobi fights Darth Vader to buy the PCs (Luke, Han, Leia) time to get away, but dies. Whups, now the PCs are on their own; the NPC helped them along the path, but the big hero moments—like blowing up the Death Star—go to PCs.

The spotlight, the real star moments, the 'big damn hero' beats... those should go to the PCs. The NPCs are there to help the PCs get to those.

That's my take on NPCs, at least.

@bear_necessities said in Difference between an NPC and a Staff PC?:

This isnt a pearl clutch. I will just never understand why staff feels the need to utilize their NPCs to have "romantic plot" or bring a child into the world or fuck somebody (which again, does that benefit the game or at least a certain group of PCs? Because it sounds like it benefits 2. The PC you are boning and the NPC).

So, let's say you're in a modern setting but where a lot of the conspiracies around secret societies are real. The Illuminati, the Templars, and so on. And there's an NPC, a senator who is a mid-level member of the Illuminati. And he'll do favors for the PCs, pull strings to get them resources, but he always asks things in return. And owing him open-ended favors is... unsettling, because sometimes when he calls them in, the people who are called come back subtly different.

Now, here's your character, who needs a piece of information they know that NPC has. The price, however, will be too high. So your PC decides to seduce the NPC senator. Maybe this is because they think if they succeed, the NPC will feel more inclined to do them a favor without demanding one in return. Maybe this is because they think if the NPC takes them back to a hotel room, they'll be able to take his phone while he's asleep, use his fingerprint to unlock it, and get the information for free.

Either way, this is a situation where the PC seeking romance/sex with the NPC serves the story; the PC can gain something which advances their storyline. If they were trying to get that information for a plot involving multiple people, it advances storyline for multiple PC's!

Or maybe the PC has been pushing something politically which a sinister secret society wants stopped. PC knows they want this, but has refused to be cowed by their demands, to a point that the society has decided to act. The NPC is a master assassin hired by that society, and wants to get close to the PC in order to poison them in private; once poisoned, they can blackmail the PC into doing what they want by withholding the antidote. Try to force them to turn on their allies and serve this society's interests instead. And what better way to get them in private and poison them than to seduce them?

Here's a place where the NPC seeking sex with the PC serves the story.

There honestly are reasons where it can serve story. I'm not saying it always does when people do it, but I think it absolutely can.

Okay, more verbosity!

@Thenomain said in If you work hard, son, maybe someday you'll RP:

@Thenomain said in If you work hard, son, maybe someday you'll RP:

And you have an organized support network, which is far more than non-staff players can say.

I disagree that this is even guaranteed to be true at all, much less that it's a benefit that only staff can claim

And I think you're starting to put words in my mouth. If I ever mentioned that staff were not entitled to benefits that were available to players, or that players couldn't also share benefits available to staff, then shoot me now because that's entirely the opposite of what I meant.

Okay, please don't take this exasperation as a personal attack or anything. But you literally said that staff have an "organized support network", and that it was more than non-staff players could say they have. That implies that an "organized support network" is not a benefit that non-staff players can say they have, whereas staff are guaranteed to say they do. The sentence stating that is even in the block of text you quoted to write that reply.

But for reference, with bolding, to show what I mean:

@Thenomain said in If you work hard, son, maybe someday you'll RP:

And you have an organized support network, which is far more than non-staff players can say.

I took that to mean that players could not say they had the that benefit, whereas staff are guaranteed it. So apparently I misunderstood what you were saying, but I feel like saying that my interpretation is "putting words in your mouth" is maybe a bit much.

Regardless, even with your clarification—that what you mean by 'organized support network' is access to all chats, the jobs board, all bboards, etc. is a huge perk—I honestly still kind of disagree with this premise. I know it's common to say that knowing what happens behind the curtain is a huge advantage to staffers, as though you can just handwave and say that the ability to look behind a certain is a net advantage to staff as a player. It's not.

Let's take a personal example here.

I enjoy Arx's storyline, and enjoy storytelling in it. I enjoy writing lore and backstory on Arx to use in that storytelling, and I love watching players uncover those seeds that have been planted and grow whole plotlines out of it. It's wonderful and rewarding! ...as a GM, that is.

As a player? It actually kind of sucks sometimes.

I mean, first off, you shouldn't be using things you know OOCly (like, for instance, lore you wrote) to inform IC actions, so knowing something OOCly means you should be really careful about learning it player-side and examine your IC conclusions carefully to make sure they're justified, in a way most players don't usually have to. Did you unconsciously follow that particular route of logic because you already knew the destination ahead of time? I thus examine a lot of my IC conclusions a lot more closely than I ever had to as just a player, before deciding if that's actually what I'd take away as the meaning of the vague hint we just found about some bigger secret.

It's also exceedingly rare for plot revelations to surprise me on an OOC level. Another player might look into who they're a reincarnation of, and be shocked OOCly when it turns out their past life was a historical figure whose reputation they know. Whose journals they've even read! Oh my gosh! Those are wonderful moments as a player. I, as a staffer, generally cannot have them, because chances are I know the reincarnation story OOCly already.

It's like if you work backstage at a theater where a new play is being put on, you've seen the play in all its various stages. You've seen the dress rehearsals. You know all the script revisions. You know the music cues and the scene changes. You know about the giant mechanical dragon that lowers from the ceiling at the end of act 2, and even how it works. And hey, that's cool!

But that also means you cannot have that moment the audience can, where the mechanical dragon descends to hang above the actors, its mane blowing dramatically in the 'wind' made by the fans offstage as the gears in the neck tick and it tilts its head to regard the characters below gravely. The audience sees this and gasps, because it's new. It's a surprise. They just see the sight of an immense clockwork dragon, and can enjoy that moment.

But working backstage, you saw the dragon being built. You not only know there will be a dragon at the end of act 2, so it's no surprise, but you even know exactly how the armature works. You know how the stage lights cause the lubricant on the gears to evaporate if you put it on before the show, so the darn thing will stick unless someone gets up into the rafters and greases it up between acts 1 and 2. You know that one of the stagehands was re-attaching one of the scales on the spine before the show and spilled a bit of adhesive in the mane, and there wasn't time to fully clean it, and you hope no one has noticed there's a patch of hair right over there that isn't fluttering in the wind.

There's no surprise and perhaps little sense of wonder to that moment of reveal on opening night.

So, sure, there are advantages to knowing what happens backstage, but there are also some serious disadvantages too, and those really shouldn't be discounted. What that exact mix/ratio is probably varies from game to game, sure, and maybe on some games it is really an unmitigated advantage. But I don't think you can say that's universally true, and therefore is guaranteed to make up for the hard/unpleasant parts of actually working in that backstage area.

Anyway, I suppose that was a heck of a lot of words to say basically "I don't agree that 'the job should be reward enough for the job' is a philosophy you can universally apply to staffing, much less one you should. Especially when the perceived 'advantages' inherent to doing the job can also be disadvantages."

I appreciate that in this most recent post you do clarify that you feel other games can try it if they think it'll work for their culture. That's cool! But I feel like when we say that in threads like this, it usually carries the implication of "Yeah, if you can convince your players that's kosher, fine, but I will still expect games I play on do otherwise."

And that's the part I think is actually not entirely healthy for the community.

It's the difference between saying running a book signing event and saying "I think the fact that the volunteers will—by nature of their job—be spending time with the author as stock is signed is perk enough." (which is fine, it's your event) versus being an attendee at someone else's event and appending "And therefore this person who brought cookies as thanks for their volunteers is doing it wrong; they either should have brought enough cookies for all the attendees, or they shouldn't have brought any at all!"

At any rate, I think I've said enough words to count as 'enough' on this topic over the past two days, so I have said my piece and shall try to let it be.

@Ganymede said in Not even sure what to title this, but here goes..:

I think the "why" is personal and largely irrelevant.
[...]
The apology was made. Demanding an explanation is a personal thing. Some may want one, others may not. This is not the greatest place for giving such explanations publicly, and I think it's enough to want to change.

Sure, it's nice to know someone's thought process. But it really, honestly, should never be expected.

I think when someone realizes they've done wrong, you have ever right to expect an apology, and actual change. A real apology, mind you, not the prevaricating wishy-washy set of excuses or "I'm sorry people were offended" that puts the spotlight on everyone else rather than your own actions, like seems to be popular with a depressing number of celebrities out there in recent years.

stares for a moment at the various 'apologies' issued in that whole ProJared thing

But I don't think it's really fair to ever expect—much less demand—a detailed explanation of how exactly they came to realize they were wrong. If they want to share it, sure. But maybe it was something private, something they aren't comfortable sharing. Maybe it was just a moment of epiphany and they can't articulate how they reached that "Wait... oh, heck, I am the asshole in this situation." moment.

What matters is that the apology was genuine, and that they carry through on the promise to do better. Not whether they can present a paper trail of receipts on their reasoning to be audited.