Best posts made by Sunny

Banning people for talking about other games / etc / etc has nothing to do with respect (and it's a lie to say it is) and everything to do with fear of people leaving/control. Your wife, at least, is well aware that if the bulk of the people playing on your game realized that they actually had options, they probably wouldn't be playing there. The policy is geared towards holding a captive audience -- if you don't play here, you don't play this. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

I mean come on -- in the past, at least one half of your pair have VERY THOROUGHLY displayed that they do not in any way, shape, or form understand Fair Use or IP laws. Let's not pretend the pig is a pony just because we shoved a plug with a tail up its ass.

Also, mushing isn’t dying. That’s fake news.

Given the givens, I'm sure it's the most recent weird troll. This person is hell bent on getting a rise out of the community for whatever reason (probably REALLY bored during quarantine and hasn't discovered Twitter yet), and the more attention we pay to him the more he's going to do it.

Take his weapons away with the realization that nothing he says is sincere or a genuinely held belief, and he is specifically saying things like "I would have changed if you'd talked nice to me" as part of the spiel. Don't give him your regard, your guilt, or your consideration. He is weaponizing your compassion to make an impact. Stop it.

ETA: This talks about this sort of pattern of behavior:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

Buffy. Sigh.

If I ever run a game again (hahaha no) it will be Dragon Age. Because that’s what I want to play.

Anyone who is not sure why people are objecting to this needs to go look at OP’s post history.

@coin

I mean, I asked the question, and then I followed through to SEE. It was the results that weren't pretty.

It's not actually about being intimidating or anything, I don't think -- I honestly think it's about habits and patterns of behavior. Those who can be very social, outgoing, and tend to be confident -- the majority of the time, they're driving relationships, since they have the energy / push to do so.

It creates a pattern of behavior:

I always say good morning to my friend. If I stop saying good morning, the friend is not going to intuit it's because I want THEM to, they're going to assume I don't want to talk, or they did something, or -- any number of things, none of which are "hey, maybe it's my turn to pick up reins I have literally never held". Because I changed the terms of our relationship without including them in the discussion about it.

It's great to say 'this should be changed because people are quitting' but what about the people that are there that like it the way that it currently is? Considering the game has a small but healthy playerbase and mostly folks can find RP, I don't know that the game should be changed to cater to people who aren't playing there, won't play there, have said that they won't come back, etc. I'm a new player to the game and certainly no 'staff buddy', but I haven't had any trouble. The level of antagonism feels just right to me both in a general thematic sense, and when considering that the PCs are a bunch of messed up teenagers. Stuff happens, people cooperate, people argue, and then more stuff happens and they all cooperate again. There's a lot of snark and posturing, but that's so so so appropriate. So maybe there ought to be a little consideration for those of us that do enjoy what the game is providing us with, rather than demanding changes without any intention of coming anywhere near. Just because somebody else thinks something is a problem it doesn't actually mean that it is a problem.

As far as the plot shit all focusing around Grey or whoever the fuck else, I'm not seeing it. I have seen plot stuff centering on other people. At what point does the 'centering around Grey' shit stop? How many plots have to be around other people? Does he have to stop playing entirely for folks to be happy? Like, what?

If I only ever have four sandwiches to bring because it’s a hard limit for me, then if you need more than that, I won’t ever be at your party. Please tell me up front, so I don’t waste everyone’s time.

I have in fact in recent history noped out of more than one game because their activity requirements were just too much. It was no hard feelings, I don’t think anyone was even crabby (a little disappointed maybe) but it wasn’t a PROBLEM.

My life and circumstances are HARD where RP is concerned. My job requires a LOT of mental and emotional energy to get through the day. It’s good, but it leaves me with very little left over for hobbies. I can find the time for my nearest and dearest when I have half a brain, but the full brain required for someone new is RARE. Not impossible, just rare. I still contribute, but it will never be through my gripping bar RP, not again. That’s just sort of how it is. Thankfully I have found a game where my situation works. Thank god I don’t have to deal with people who think not living on the game is a problem, any more.

@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:

I adore being part of this community, but the impression I am getting here is that I am not a good Staffer, so there's that. I'm not going to turn into that person that people don't RP with or interact with because I made poor decisions, or thought I was doing a good job and I wasn't.

Hold up. Let me say something here very clearly, because I have put forth firmly worded negative opinions. You are not a bad staffer. You are an incredible storyteller, you have good intentions, you treat people with respect, and you're reasonable. I could probably think of a dozen other things that you excel at, where staffing is concerned.

As a headstaffer you have problems and issues and things to work on to get better, and some of them are pretty significant. They're things you can overcome, work through, and find solutions for. I would rather have a listening, learning person with a good soul than a competent person that is corrupt, by far. The concerns/issues/etc that are being brought up? There is absolutely nothing here that isn't a- normal, b- human, and important to you, I think, c- FIXABLE.

Don't stop doing projects because you weren't as good as you could be -- just get better. That's all. I think the reason people get so AUGH RAWR MUTTER ROAR in your case is that you are so, so close to being exactly what people are hoping to see in their game leads. So close. But the ways in which you are off are lessons that gotta be learned, they're not things a lot of folks are willing to compromise on.

@arkandel

It's a problem better solved by game design, in removing situations in which one person specifically needs to be consulted. It doesn't matter WHY Joe is avoiding Jane; he might have good reasons, he might have shitty reasons, and it literally doesn't matter. Joe should be allowed to avoid Jane if he doesn't want to play with her.

If that is going to create a bottleneck or a situation in which Jane can't get something done, change that. Give the second in command the power to handle whatever it is that Jane needed to get addressed. Not only does this help Jane, this helps your entire game.

Nobody should ever be in a position in which the game requires that they deal with a specific individual. No game should ever build into their requirements a bottleneck in which one single person is required to get anything done.

This goes doubly so when you have to start determining whether or not Joe's reason is "good enough" to allow for him to avoid Jane. He wants to avoid Jane. THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH.

@arkandel

I mean in a perfect world, the Prince is played by somebody who can only RP once every third month to begin with outside of scheduled 'court' type scenes, anyway -- your vampire sphere is a LOT more healthy without having the head honcho about and engaged. Bad leaders are WAY better for creating RP and conflict than good ones.

Playing with the sheriff for the things the sheriff is assigned to do might not hit as hard, but it's way better for the health of the sphere. If your sphere is designed that it can't function without the head honcho breathing down everyone's necks, your problem isn't them taking a vacation.

There are plenty of ways to contribute to running a game that don’t involve running plots, and there’s a substantial number of people that simply do not have the capability. Not everyone is able to DM, not everyone is able to run PRPs, not everyone is able to be creative on demand. Some recognition that it is a thing that not everyone has the capability to do would be wise. If you are a DM/GM/capable of running plot, great. It being easy/possible for you does not make it easy/possible for everyone and there are PLENTY of people I enjoy playing with and spending time with and engaging with in RP that couldn’t plot their way out of a wet paper bag and I would be crushed if they got chased out of the hobby for not contributing enough. Ffs.

“Everyone needs to just step up and run plots” is an unreasonable expectation, full stop.

Yes. I like attributes being separate from skills, and having them impact the skills. Very much, so. .If I'm super charismatic I'm going to be able to persuade people better than I would if I weren't, etc. I far prefer this level of customization.

Even when "just" a player, I don't run scenes / plot that involve my own character. In the example of Yolo, I would never approve that for anyone in the first place. If Fred wants to run it for Yolo, great, that's fine. If Yolo wants to run a plot where Fred's NPC family member is murdered, fine. Yolo running an actual plot about his own NPC family member isn't acceptable in the first place.

Edited to add: As a staffer OR as a player.

ETA again: Now, if Yolo is a HoH / faction head and it's a situation where while yes, the family member is their family member, and they're running the plot for OTHERS in the House and/or faction, and the entirety of the actual character's involvement in the storyline is 'investigate this, please, other family members' -- that's fine. Things on that level are fine.

@Miss-Demeanor said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:

@surreality I'm not suggesting its universal. Obviously it does happen at some games, @Ganymede just related a story where it was allowed. I'm saying that it is a rule on games that currently exist, and those games aren't losing anything by leaving that rule in place. Nowhere in my statement did I say all people or all games.

This entire thread came out of a topic of discussion regarding a game that didn't have the rule, and the staff in question trying to understand where the line is for what's acceptable / not.

I agree that it should be circumstantial, that it shouldn't be a hard/fast rule, that there ought to be room for exceptions. Pick-up-scenes, running something small with a few friends that are fully consenting, and so on. I do think that the rules surrounding the topic, rather than being an absolute 'don't do this' should, in general, spell out the types and circumstances in which there are exceptions, and leave a good amount of wiggle room.

I believe VERY strongly in 'the rules are the rules and you (even you, and me too) don't get to break them'. I refuse to make a rule that I can think of easy scenarios in which I would either break it or allow someone else to break it. I refuse to make a rule that I will not enforce. If I am planning on there being exceptions to a rule, I bloody write it in. Because the rules/policies are our foundation. They are the things on which trust is built. They are the things on which expectations are based. If, as I go along, I find that a rule is getting in my way -- I publicly change it. Because it's OK to change the rules, though I don't think it's okay to break them.

My problem with 'it's okay sometimes' as advice in this situation is that the people in question are seemingly pretty terrible at figuring out what's OK and what isn't and finding that line seems to be impossible. In this particular circumstance, I think it is safest and the best advice that can be given, to say 'don't do it. just don't. not ever. not even if you think it's the best idea ever and nobody minds.' There are things that because of my own reputation and history that I cannot do that others might get away with (though that list of things is, admittedly, dwindling fairly rapidly). It is what it is.

Edited to add: Also, I said this before, and I cannot stress it enough. If you are a staffer on a game, and you have requirements for scenes (XP spending, whatever), and you CANNOT find a player / different staffer to run it for you, your game has a problem. If you as a staffer cannot do it, how easy of a time are your players having? Either the requirement needs to go for EVERYONE, or you need to address storytelling problems. Same goes for character development/whatever. If you can't do it, how are they doing it?

@Kestrel said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:

I happen to think that rape, sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia and the like make for great storytelling — this coming from someone frequently derided as a SJW — so I tend not to understand why anyone would want to exclude these themes from their story where they should realistically apply.

Some people do not enjoy having to fight the same fight they have to fight in their everyday lives in their pretendy-fun-time games, don't enjoy exploring trauma that they have personally experienced. It's not really a hard concept to grasp even if you don't feel the same way. Empathy is awesome.

@crusader said:

As unpopular as this opinion will be, I actually think that PrPs have had an overall negative effect on MUSH culture.

Yeah, no.

I think what you're looking for vs what most gamers around here (these days) are two very, very different things. This is becoming clear with your various views on how things ought to be. If you want a game that harkens back to the 90s stuff...good luck, I'll provide what support I can.

What I like =/= what is right/the best. Period, end of story. Saying 'it's an unpopular opinion' has nothing to do with peas and carrots. Validity has nothing to do with popular vs not. It's an opinion you already know that folks around here aren't going to agree with.

Now voicing it and discussing it is something different and is fine, but you really need to slow your roll, read what other people are saying, recognize that most of us have been around probably as long or longer than you have (I started in 1993, have run multiple games, and staffed on at least a dozen others), and understand that we're not just disagreeing with you because we want to disagree with you.

You've got lots of experience and blah blah, but I'm speaking from MY experience, and @Thisnameistaken is definitely speaking from their experience (they started around the same time I did), Gany is speaking from her experience, and so on. Your experiences are not any more valid than anyone else's.

You're displaying very typical poor listening skills; it's very common in meetings and the like to have people closing their mouths while other people are talking, but rather than listening to the other people that are talking and paying attention, the poor listener simply is waiting for their chance to share their opinion further/prove they're right.

Who cares how seriously people take anything? Who cares whether there's actual real danger or not? If you don't want plots that don't offer real danger, don't go to them.

Someone else having fun does not subtract from the amount of fun left for you to have.

Personally, I prefer a game in which there is little to no PVP, nothing major present for characters that they would come into direct conflict for. There are always going to be conflicts, but I vastly prefer a game -- even a mush -- that is as PVE as possible. To do this and support this and keep things actually happening, rather than stagnating, you have to have a LOT of plot-stuff going on. Putting the entire weight on staff to ensure that's happening is nuts for a variety of reasons from burnout to the temptation to hire shitty staff because you need them.

It has been suggested to me that this may be about Testament instead of Auspice. If that's the case, he quit/took a break because of a RL personal tragedy and it's really really really really really really gross to use him this way if you are.

me not letting you punch me in the nose is not bullying no matter HOW many people object to you taking a swing

Y'all know where to find me.

Presently, I am still Natalia@Arx; it is unlikely I will ever be any other characters, as I'm winding down in the hobby.

Take care out in the big world out there. I'll miss what used to be here.