Posts made by surreality

@ganymede They did, actually. People did not respond well. (ETA: As in, walked off with some 'fuck you!' thrown in here and there, or just stopped logging in.)

I think at some point they also did something with enormous ST XP benefits -- we're talking XP awards for STs that were running 3-6xp+/scene in CoD XP, for STs who were often running multiple scenes per week and piling on those quantities each time -- and that getting scaled back didn't help either, because some people felt entitled to those grossly inflated amounts; once they weren't getting them, they stopped. Which also says a lot, sadly.

Thus far, 'The Toys That Made Us' on Netflix is fun and interesting. Lots of memories for the inner child, lots of 'omfg, seriously?' for the inner grownup.

There are probably enough of us old enough to enjoy this one on this level, so it seemed like it was worth a mention, even for folks who did eventually grow up and don't have a house full of action figures and dolls and whatnot!

This one, too, Ark. (Warning: potentially angry-making and depressing.)

@ganymede said in World of Darkness -- Alternative Settings:

Bump In The Night is what you're probably thinking of. It had great players, a great wiki, and a great idea. The setup was a bit janky with the Conspiracies, however, and players lost interest in running plots for each other.

It had another issue. This also comes back around to 'the limited resource that is STs', but that isn't the only problem it involves.

An event would get listed.

It would hit max player cap on signups x2 within an hour, often within minutes, by the same people every time. This list wouldn't be identical, no, but the same 10-12 names absolutely dominated the list for a long enough time that prevented other people from having much of a chance at involvement in any of those storylines.

These things were typically listed during the day -- just dumb luck, really, but that's how it tended to go. Anyone not on during the day had almost no chance to become involved early on.

This persisted long enough to be an issue.

Yes, more STs and more events would be a help -- but there were a fair number of them.

People not signing up for everything and blocking others from getting a chance to become involved? Would also have helped.

By the time anything was done about it -- some kind of policy went in, I just did the wiki and RPed so I don't recall what it was -- many people had already given up, and felt completely shut out.

Yes, more STs would have helped. Players being considerate of other players wanting to have a chance to become involved actually would have helped a hell of a lot more.

@thenomain I may or may not ask you to remind me of that whenever I tinker with a +warn command of some kind, if I do. Because... yes, that.

@darinelle This.

This is absolutely a thing that happens, and it is maddening.

"That is clearly not the author's intent!!!"

"I am the author. You're wrong."

"I'm not wrong!" <continues making the same argument, usually with 'you're just changing it then because... ' accusation, the low-hanging fruit of this logic>

This is the reason I buy vodka, in a nutshell.

That I have never broken down and just trolled anyone pulling the 'not the author's intent' card when I am the author with, "What do you think the intent was?" "Really? Interesting!" and instead go with, "How can I make this more clear so this misunderstanding does not recur? Is there something you think would help clarify here?" is one of the hardest tidbits of integrity to hang on to, some days.

@Thenomain There's the 'the system allows it, so you have to!' argument some people try to make.

I do not subscribe to this particular newsletter when it comes into conflict with running the game I aim to run. Yes, it is possible to blow up the entire grid in any modern day real world setting; no, I'm still never going to let (generic) you do it.

There really is never a shortage of people more than happy to scream wrong wrong wrong!!! in the face of anyone -- staffer, GM, fellow player, headstaff, creator, etc.

Whether that person actually is wrong or not isn't even relevant.

@thenomain said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@ganymede said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

The line is blurred between these uses because players don't always take a moment to consider whether or not an outcome should happen.

Staff also don't always take a moment to consider whether or not an outcome should happen. The problem with this is who is going to tell staff that they are wrong?

That's one hell of a rabbit hole, frankly.

I think it's always within staff's rights to say: "This would fundamentally alter the game in a way that was never intended, is not the game we want to run, and is not the game people signed up for."

I also think the reluctance to ever do this on the part of some staffcorps is what blanderizes and dilutes many a setting to an 'Anyworld by 3pm', not even Anytown by Night.

Is it possible to be too heavy-handed about this? Sure.

Is doing anything about this -- ever -- heavy-handed by default? Absolutely not.

As for the actual question? People not playing on that game, because if you don't trust the staff on a game to make this kind of call, or if staff have shown they do not handle this responsibility appropriately by your personal reckoning (too heavy-handed or too lax), you really shouldn't be playing there.

It's an answer I normally hate, but it's profoundly applicable in this case.

I mean, realistically? You can ask why something is having a consequence enforced, or isn't. You should have the right to some kind of explanation, and to present an alternative suggestion in a respectful manner, even if the answer doesn't change. Sometimes, it will, other times it won't, and you have to be able to accept that either way. I don't think anyone's entitled to any more than that.

What you don't have is the right to demand the answer change, or argue a judgment call at tedious length after you've been given an explanation and your case for an alternative has been heard -- which really does leave it as a matter of 'cope or go' in the end. (ETA: It is non-trivial how many people think 'demand it change' or 'argue it forever' are acceptable behavior, and they are absolutely not that.)

@faraday I like to think that when it's a conflict between people, it can be resolved between people, even if that means calling in a mediator to help. When it affects the world for everyone, that's when 'what this one player wants' gets less relevant, the greater the change for everyone else will be.

I think of it as the 'shared world' or the 'you can't non-consent the existence of consequences within the setting, but you can negotiate the form they take' rule, in my head. (It is hard to have as zippy and memorable a moniker for it as 'ICA=ICC', unfortunately.)

The main principle is that world is everyone's toy, and one person doesn't get to break it just because they wanna, even if they feasibly can, because it doesn't just belong to them.

@ganymede said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

The second is to force an outcome on a player's PC against his or her wishes, even if its etiology is sound. This is not always reasonable.

Conceptually, I break this down in a couple of ways as a means of determining both reasonability and consequences, and it's folded into other processes more than it is an ICA=ICC policy as such. Some of the consequences aren't IC, either; sometimes they're OOC.

This is my mental flow chart:

Is the thing the character trying to do physically possible in the game world?
	NO: Then it doesn't occur.
	(This is things like a mundane human being
	suddenly learning to fly for no reason, etc.)
	Has it already been role-played?
		NO: Then it doesn't get role-played; 
		    staff says 'No, that will not happen, 
		    it is impossible, do not role-play that.'
		YES: Then it gets retconned without exception,
		     and the player gets a warning 
		     to not break reality itself again.
		(This is technically an OOC consequence, either way.)
	YES: How disruptive to the reality of the setting for other 
	     players is the action if there are no consequences for it?
	     As in, does it fundamentally change the setting in an 
	     important way for all the other players 
	     if there is no reaction or consequence?
		NOT AT ALL: Go ahead, have a blast!
		A LITTLE: Probably fine.
		          Consequences should be minor anyway, 
		          and should always be negotiable.
		          This is things within the norms of the setting, 
		          but it is known this behavior entails risk.
		          Example: someone starting a bar fight in a modern 
		                   day real world setting; maybe nobody reports it, 
		                   maybe they get a sympathetic cop, etc.
		UH... : Proceed with caution, because there will be 
		        consequences of some kind for this activity.
		        Consequences should be negotiable.
		        This is things that are notably outside the 
		        norm for the setting.
		        Example: someone walking down the street naked on the regular 
		                 in a public place, maybe they get thrown in jail 
		                 overnight to sleep it off, maybe they become a 
		                 subject of gossip
		SHIT: Proceed with caution, and know that if this activity 
		      is discovered, consequences for it WILL exist in the game
		      world, and may be severe.
		      Consequences can be negotiable, but will exist in 
		      some notable form.
		      Much less room to minimize the consequences.
		      Examples: manslaughter, major violence
		OH SHIT: Proceed with caution, and know that if this activity is 
		         discovered, major consequences for it WILL exist in the 
		         game world.
		         There is some room for negotiation here, 
		         but not very much at all.
		         Examples: use of secret supernatural powers in front of
		                   many mundanes with evidence of this, 
		                   murder in public view, destroying a grid zone
		FUCK ME: Proceed with EXTREME caution if at all, because this will 
		         fundamentally reshape the landscape of the game for all the 
		         players on it, who signed on to play something other than 
		         what this is going to be after this occurs.
		         Staff-side 'no' is a very real option, as is retcon.
		         Examples: documented use of supernatural powers in public 
		                   spread all over the news that change world-wide 
		                   awareness of the supernatural,
		                   detonating a nuclear device to take out the grid...

@bleys5 The place we go in Florida every year, their hotel restaurant has added poutine to their permanent menu. (Almost nothing stays on that thing, it changes almost completely from year to year otherwise.)

Every year, we order room service precisely once, for that, because that is sweatpants on the couch food, not 'do we even have clothes nice enough to eat in this restaurant omg how the fuck did this place ever get listed on the timeshare program at all' restaurant dining.

They have seafood variations, too. Kinda amazing.

(Srsly, people... if you happen to be anywhere near Cape Coral, FL? Go to the Westin and order the damn poutine from either of their restaurants. It will cost you but you will be epic food coma happy; they'll customize it with more or less anything you want from their menu on it, from bourbon-braised brisket to grouper.)

Through the year, the fix is sated by a small cup of brown gravy at the diner when something includes fries. Everybody looked at us funny for that at first, until we explained: "Do you ever put gravy on mashed or baked potatoes?" "Well, yeah, of cour--oh, hey, yeah!"

We have converted many a soul away from ketchup this way.

@ashen-shugar I had to click. I had to look at what else they had. What did I find?

Pre-formatted marketing for M*ers!!!

(OK, I know it's an html typo, but this particular one, it still made me giggle for the above reason.)

This feels apt for this thread.

That would be good comfort food.

@mietze Trader Joe's has mini-bries. Full wheels, each just wee and tiny and adorable and round with rind, so they're complete for baking (or toasting in a pan, etc.). So you could make a mini-brie for everyone coming. I did that as my contribution to Xmas dinner, but I know my family, so like... it was more like 3-4 mini-bries each. (They are very wee.)

@auspice Or 'you bastards are making me hungry, dammit'.

@cobaltasaurus OMG, I needed that laugh, that was priceless.

I save the 'fucking with callers' for the Microsoft 'Virus!!!' scammers. I consider them my intermittent refresher workout of improv skills.

@auspice Clearly, a classy lady. Not like those trashy gals who put out at a Denny's, as if!!!

Mac and cheese. Because everything in the world feels better with mac and cheese for some reason.

This came in my snail mail once. I keep forgetting if I have shared it or not.

If I still have it somewhere and it's not mangled or something, I should really frame it, because wow.

@packrat You could arguably break that down further, really. Instead of the flat cost for the secure holding, give an example of a standard secure holding (and the cost for that), with a breakdown of the things that make it that way, or what benefits it provides.

For example, maybe the 'secure holding' is 20 points; that's composed of the following: 5 points in loyal 'armed guards', 5 points in 'strategic/defendable location', 5 points in 'good will of the serfs', and 5 points of 'defensive weaponry'. Then let people pick which things they want to scale down -- or up -- from there, with a general example of what each 'point' purchases of that thing.

@ashen-shugar I am beginning to believe this is how nearly all code is actually created, you realize.