Controversial posts made by surreality

@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:

I'm not sure why anyone thinks citing a source is pretentious.

Try reading, then. It's explained. (Even though I agree that it isn't in this case.)

I also think it's funny that someone got shamed for trying to bring up the shame game.

You clearly have a very broad interpretation of what shaming entails.

Someone expressing an opinion that something comes across as pretentious is not shaming someone, sweet creeping jesus.

Shaming someone would look a lot more like this:

"What the hell is wrong with you bringing that shit in here, don't you slather that pop psychology tripe all over the place like you're now the enlightened one coming down to talk to us sad, ignorant fucks, because you read some self-help book! Who the hell do you think you are and how stupid do you have to be to bring that crap here!"

...which precisely nobody said to anybody, even remotely.

But that would be shaming.

I would recommend that 'self-awareness' post or three that describe some of the problems that arise when someone doesn't have it.

I guess the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about the Fight Club?

...because nobody's doing that, nope.

Seriously, do you even read things? <-- There, that's some actual shaming. Now you can finally play victim with an actual thing to point at when you get all huffy in the knickers, lawdy be.

@Autumn said in CoD - Victorian - Penny Dreadful-ish.:

While I think it's totally plausible that the name was chosen for self-aggrandizing reasons, I had always just sort of assumed it was called "The Great Game" because they intended to center the game around geopolitical conflicts among the European powers during the end of the Victorian Era. But then, I am notorious for either "preferring to think the best of people" or "failing to notice the totally bloody obvious", depending on how nice you feel like being. More the latter than the former, in this case.

I have that same preference, on the whole, which is why I let them live here for over half a year.

As a result of that experience, 'behaving like a self-aggrandizing, woe-is-me-I's-a-victim-of-errybody an' I'm gonna show 'em all!' twit with as much subtlety as a brick thrown through a plate glass window really is the very best I can think of Spider.

@Thenomain said:

That these games or players on these games don't think of ways to be inclusive to players (not necessarily the characters) is I think a major part of a larger issue, but I boil it down to "how these games are presented to be played need to be fundamentally changed to really work on-line".

This is kinda what I'm getting at.

One game's interpretation may be to remove that theme from the game and turn it into sunshine land. Some players will be drawn to that, enjoy playing it that way, and have a good time.

Another game's interpretation may be to insist that players adhere to the source material explicitly and instate OOC policies to enforce acceptance of the consequences of those thematic conflicts in certain ways. Some players will be drawn to that, enjoy playing that way, and have a good time.

Drop a player from GameA onto GameB, they're either going to have to learn to have fun under the different rules and within the culture of GameB, or they're shit out of luck. If they continue to behave as though they're on GameA, they're likely to piss people around them off pretty quickly. Even if you 'anger a clique', generally speaking, you actually did something that didn't fit the expected norms of that game. Sometimes people are just assholes, but rarely are people assholes with absolutely no cause.

@mietze said:

I have had too many instances of seeing someone primarily in one context, and not listening to others saying "yes, they are nice, but are they good for /this/?"

This pretty much sums up my take on this.

Bear in mind, if I know someone is qualified for something and it's in their interest range, I may approach them about it -- but that tends to be when it involves, uh, work. (See other thread for an example. ~cough~)

PC slots... nnngh. Though I could see myself approaching someone I know who has the responsibility to check in as needed, not overstep any set restrictions noted, and can play the ever living crap out of a certain type in a way that people enjoy to pitch in on a temporary NPC ally or antagonist/etc. The temporary part is pretty relevant, there, too. We generally let anybody create NPCs like this for plots as players with staff approval most places; while this isn't exactly the same thing, it's a delegation and workload handler and sanity saver, basically asking someone who isn't going to abuse what they know/etc. to help pitch in on a staff plot they aren't involved in on their PCs.

I'm pretty broad on this one, admittedly -- since while there are some things I'd want to poke someone I know would be perfect for it about, I'm not above putting out a random call for "there's a staff plot for X group; I need me some NPCs to disseminate info/stir up trouble/be seen in public/nose around for info from PCs/get dirt on characters in faction X IC/whatever" so people who wouldn't normally have the chance to participate in a certain plot on their own characters can still be involved in a different way and have stuff to do that could be fun for everybody.

@Sunny said:

@surreality
Yeah; that's pretty much my number one priority. I want it all to be 'look, it was on the tin' when there are inevitably issues. I'm sort of extra attentive about it because I know damn well that my vision is not going to universally appeal. EVERYONE is happier if people can figure out whether they want to play or not BEFORE they have the time invested. Differing expectations are a huge huge huge huge huge problem with mushes.

This is exactly my thinking, honestly.

I would rather see smaller games with variations in place like this that suit the players and their general vibe than mega-games that aspire to be all things to all people. The mega-game just isn't terribly viable long-term.

It's worth noting that most of these concepts can't be built with standard starting points, anyway.

The bigger 'reality break' tends to be due to rapid advancement, I'd think, as a result, barring the 'I have a mountain of points to transfer so the new alt will be epic from the jump' scenario. Transfers are a different thing.