Posts made by surreality

@faraday Yeah, same. A lot of the 'do you want a lot of gold?!' or 'DO YOU WANT THE BESTEST WEAPONS EVAR?' things were just like... 'that is just not even a thing, uh... B?'.

It might be interesting to figure out one of these more tailored to MUSH/MUX/etc. just to get a feel for things some time.

It's also a little funny to me because while I love love love socializing in the sense of talking theory and concepts in a space like this -- brainstorming, essentially -- I am... not so much into the 'getting to know everybody's personal business' at all, and while I'm open to a degree, uh... I'm pretty cagey about more than may be apparent as a default. Like, I could go months without reading Tastes Less Gamey and not bat an eyelash, but I get the pangs re: Mildly Constructive or the gaming subject forums if I'm away for a few days.

@faraday There's a... I dunno how apt this is, because a lot of these were very 'coin toss' or 'no interest in either' or 'both/neither have appeal', but there's a quiz on this.

http://matthewbarr.co.uk/bartle/

I ended up with: You are 87% Socialiser, 73% Explorer, 40% Achiever, 0% Killer

Sorta interesting, and not super surprising results. With slightly more MUSH-style options (vs. the more MMO/MUD options it has), it could potentially be more accurate a tool for (generic) us.

@Thenomain I haven't been going from any of the later analysis on that; there's a bit in the original that's this: "On the flip side, Killers also represent the archetype which is most interested in affecting their environment, so sandbox games in which they can take a direct hand in building (or destroying) a virtual society will appeal to them as well."

@lithium Yeah, I know what you mean. Well, also -- think of it this way: a grid square is part of the scenery. Blow it up, who gives a crap. People are typically much more hesitant to blow up another player's business that that player built on the grid, even if they exist in the same space, because that's a creation of someone on their same level of involvement/investment, rather than a staff-built 'part of the generic background noise'.

So giving people a real stake in being involved in creating the world/etc. has a lot of benefits, and they're benefits that improve things for everybody in some way. (Explorer now has new areas, socializer has less worry that someone they're being social with will vanish into a boredom PK, etc.) It starts to become 'our space' rather than 'a space' and people value 'our spaces' more than just spaces in general.

@miss-demeanor They're actually way better (and cheaper) than the Keebler knockoffs (dunno if those are still made or not), believe it or not.

@miss-demeanor I shouldn't mention this, but Walgreen's home brand has flawless knockoff Samoas for next to nothing, year-round. Can we hate them just a little for this? Because it's definitely a love/hate sort of deal.

@three-eyed-crow I don't know if I will be able to properly explain how my brain tangent-hopped from what you posted to where it landed, but I think there's a lot of truth in this, and it's actually one of the ways I've been working my ass off to build into the setup I've been kicking around for some time.

Mainly, allowing players to contribute elements of the game and make the 'build' of it more shared/communal on the whole. (My working theory is that non-asshat players are more likely to not kick over another player's sandcastle just because they can in the way they might kick sand around the sandbox broadly, especially if they can create a sandcastle of their own they observe other players enjoying and respecting in the same way.)

This actually ties in to that old thesis about the four types of players; one of the most illuminating aspects of it was that the 'killer' type isn't actually interested in destroying things, it's that they're interested in making a permanent impact on/have the ability to change the world, and are typically just as happy creating as destroying, if it serves that goal. Most places just block off the 'creation' ability or restrict it so heavily that 'destroy' is the path of least resistance by an enormous margin. (Over time, some things have become more open, others much more strict, yes, but on the whole even the 'more open these days' things are typically a maze of bureaucrazy and frustration to struggle through.)

I will just leave this here: http://www.springhole.net/writing_roleplaying_randomators/plotgens.htm

It has some amusing stuff that has, at least, helped me flesh out test templates here and there.

http://www.springhole.net/writing_roleplaying_randomators/creepypastaplot.htm has some weirdly viable WoD options here and there.

I built the (mostly a joke) old 'Plot Device' in Reno1's OOC Nexus. Randomizers are, oddly enough, helpful.

@seraphim73 See, I'm a 5ft heavy chick with rainbow green hair. Whoever is showing up may not be frightened of the kind of physical harm they may come to, but 'that weird woman is aiming a sword taller than she is at me, she is crazy, RUN FOR IT!' is definitely a thing I have no qualms merrily exploiting.

I mean, at a glance, the old couple in cheap velour track suits would scare no one. When they were screaming through the door, trying to kick it in, and looking for yard tools to bash in a window... they were pretty terrifying.

ETA: Joke's on them. As if we do yard work. Ha!

@ganymede The most bizarre part of that whole thing? It was a couple in their... 50s? Early 60s? In cheesy neon velour jogging suits. In one of those bright aqua wee cars from the 90s, from Indiana.

These are not people anyone would normally consider scary.

Until crazy bullshit started flooding insistently from their mouths and they began kicking at the door and looking around the yard for something to break a window with.

I mean... what on earth did Susan do?!

(Probably got accused of something insane by these lunatics and fled for her damn life.)

ETA: We don't have guns in the house, but we do have a completely ridiculous prop broadsword right by the door. Hefting that fucker into view through the little central window in the front door has turned more than one person away from the property since.

@ganymede Fair, fair. Apologies for jumping your shit.

It is pretty scary to me to think that someone could do this, this could be the result, and absolutely zero consequences would apply. Considering the type of person we're talking about who engages in these kinds of things (not especially stable/etc.) it seems like it would encourage more of this.

I have the world's most nebulous address. Not so nebulous I'll post it here, but nebulous enough that the postal sorting machines screw up more often than they don't, and we get mail for dozens and dozens of people.

I'll never really know if it was that, or someone randomly handing out our address falsely to folks, but I do know that one fine afternoon, two people showed up at my house and pounded on the door until I answered it. I was very lucky to have room mates at the time, one of which was home, and was a very tall, brawny guy, because this couple tried to force their way into my home, demanding to know where 'Susan' was. I don't know any Susans. No Susans lived at my address. It is inherited property; it has been in our family since 1979. They continued to attempt to kick in my door in search of 'Susan', and insisted they knew Susan was there because there were boxes in the foyer, and 'Susan had clearly just moved in, there are boxes!'

They did not stop kicking the door until they saw me holding the phone and talking to 911.

That shit is scary, even when it's 'you just have that kind of address'. That some little shit deliberately sent people to an address... <shakes her head> ...just ugh.

@ortallus Yeah, that part I got -- it continuing well past the point it needed to is where we get into browbeating territory, and my eyes start rolling back into my skull with annoyance, and not without cause.

@ganymede Then why continue to go on at me at length for saying I think it's fucked up and that something is clearly broken here? That sure doesn't sound like it's OK for me to have an opinion.

@ganymede I still maintain that the act of giving someone else's address indicates an intent to avoid any potential consequences -- and got someone killed. Without providing an address, the other actions would not have occurred.

So if this guy has no consequences to face, why should the others?

Deal with it: I think that's really fucked up. Because it is.

@ganymede It is very scary to think that the person who set this all in motion would have no consequences to face for it. Something is very, very broken here.

@ganymede It would indicate the desire to avoid that person actually following through. Which means they have to at least have considered the possibility that they might, if they had the real one.

@ganymede I have no idea if that also applies in civil cases; 'suing the asshole into the ground for the remainder of his life' would be similarly appropriate.

'I didn't think he'd take me up on it' is seriously bullshit.

That instigating action should by no means be one that goes without serious consequences of some kind.

ETA: Actually... the very act of giving an address that isn't his would indicate that he understood there was a possibility someone could show up to deliver a beat-down.

@ganymede Inviting violence to someone else's address seems like it shouldn't be something that gets a pass, no matter what you expect to happen.

@ganymede

A: "Come fight me bro, I'm at <not his address!>"
B: <contacts C> "Yo, SWAT this address! <provides address provided by A>"
<SWATs address>

All three have a part of the responsibility here. A shouldn't be getting a pass.

@ganymede said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

He didn't even need to know it was a real address, in my book. He pulled a 'come fight me, I'm here'. He literally invited violence to a location, and... yeah, not knowing what it would lead to isn't much of a defense, in my book.

Defense against what? The decedent doesn't need to put on a defense.

Calling the swat was intentional. That's all you need to show. If you put a bear trap in your background to catch a burglar and it ends up severing the leg of and killing a mailman, that can still be sufficient grounds for an involuntary manslaughter charge.

Not talking about the person who was shot.

An initial party pulled a 'come fight me bro, I'm at this location' -- and gave an address not his own. That person is one of the people I am saying should face a charge, despite not being the one who asked someone to SWAT that address.

@ortallus He didn't even need to know it was a real address, in my book. He pulled a 'come fight me, I'm here'. He literally invited violence to a location, and... yeah, not knowing what it would lead to isn't much of a defense, in my book.