Posts made by surreality

@Arkandel said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

@surreality said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

Do people typically dive into a game and begin CG before skimming the information available on it? That's not a snarky question; it's a serious one. The very idea is completely alien to me, as I always valued my time enough to glance through these materials before ever coming within a mile of a login screen.

Obviously I can't speak on other people's behalf, but just from my own experiences and conversations... yes, absolutely.

Then that's on them if their time is wasted. Seriously. I'm not kidding. We are not children. "I can't be bothered to see if I like something or what it's about before diving in!" is the antithesis of logical behavior.

It should never be a reason people are given to not create original themes, settings, or systems, and yet it often is. This is the most stifling nonsense in the hobby and one of the most insidious problems facing anybody trying anything new -- from XP systems in existing RPGs to new settings to something completely new from the ground up. This is not even absurdist doom-saying, it's

(Generic)Your laziness or unwillingness to be proactive is not the creator(of anything)'s responsibility, full stop.

This is another of those lessons people should have learned in gradeschool: you don't do your homework, it's likely you're going to have some issues. This could be not being prepared for a surprise quiz and failing that, or having grades that suffer from just not doing the thing.

For example a very common scenario is being invited to a game by friends. A while ago I was asked to go play a comic book MU* and I did so - I had to familiarise myself with a (pretty interesting, as it turned out) system but that was after the fact... my real interest was rolling Dr. Strange, figuring out what the theme was, etc. There was a lot to absorb.

Again, things we learned in gradeschool: you should still be looking at what your friends are asking you to join them in doing. My friends have asked me to join them on everything from international cruises to bungee jumping to breaking and entering and hard drugs -- I did not just blindly follow them into these activities, and in three out of four of those cases, "Uh, no," was the answer they got. The 'yes' on that list -- the cruise -- involved a lot of 'homework' in securing visas, etc. that, had I not done it, the entire experience would have broken down entirely.

"My friends invited me," is common, sure, but it doesn't turn off one's critical faculties. Those friends should be helping you acclimate if they're going to extend the invite, and they should be pointing out things you need to know, or telling you important things re: what the place is about.

Would anyone here think 'my friends invited me, and didn't tell me anything, so I didn't look further, I just created my login and dove in' was an excuse to go on and on with horrified outrage about the things that go on if the place someone was invited was Shang or a game similar to it? To those friends, maybe, but not to the game, its creators, or to the game community at large, because it's not the fault of the game, its creators, or the game community at large -- it's on (generic) you and (generic) your friends.

"My friends asked me to" doesn't absolve someone responsibility at all, barring some pretty extreme circumstances that just aren't relevant to this hobby. ("Dude, that friend saved my life, I can't ever say no to that guy about anything!" is the kind of thing I mean here, and that's not really a common scenario in this hobby.)

There are also folks who simply go and play where most people are - you know, that whole 'numbers beget numbers' thing. This happens with Mage all the time but its mechanics are just tricky enough that I know players who've been playing for years and don't really know how it works.

...and this is not the fault of the game in any way, nor is it a reason people should be discouraged from building mage games. This is a real problem that really exists, but the blame for that problem needs to be placed where it actually belongs: with the people who are just too lazy to read or learn before diving in, not the people who make a Mage game.

1. The blame needs to go where it belongs. (If the information isn't presented well, as @Ominous and @Lisse24 describe? Then there's reason that blame should be shared to some extent -- but this is still wholly contingent on someone bothering to look before they leap, which is the behavior I am specifically calling out as problematic.)

2. "Some people can't be bothered to read it" should never be used as a rationale for not trying something new or to discourage innovation or new ideas no matter what their scope, and that is exactly how it is often used in this community. Stop it. Stop insisting we're all stifled and stymied and backed into corners and no one is willing to innovate and in the same breath insist that nobody should ever attempt anything new at all because some lazy and irresponsible people can't be bothered to even take a look at it to see if it seems like it's worth learning first. (Generic) You want new and different, (generic) you want things that work better than what we have now, then (generic) you better be willing to glance over new things to see if (generic) you think they might be for (generic) you or not before trying to shut down the very process of creating new things with the insistence that there is any legitimate excuse for people to not bother at least glancing through something to see if it seems worth trying or learning.

(Ominous and Lisse's points get their own post. Data organization, it's IMPORTANT, for real.)

@Arkandel Here's the thing: if all of that information is on the wiki, people can skim through it before they even make a login on the game. If it looks too complex, opaque, or unappealing, it's a good reason for them to not bother making a login.

Same is true of setting, or anything else. Look it over, then decide if you're going to make a bit or not. Same with the logs page -- if the place is deader than dirt and nobody's ever posting logs, it doesn't matter how awesome the setting is or how much they know or love a system.

This is really not even the slightest bit complicated or hard.

It's basic common sense. It's basic enough that even if somebody knows a system already for an existing property, they should be doing thing -- maybe there's a HR or setting element that's a deal-breaker for them.

Do people typically dive into a game and begin CG before skimming the information available on it? That's not a snarky question; it's a serious one. The very idea is completely alien to me, as I always valued my time enough to glance through these materials before ever coming within a mile of a login screen.

If this is common, this would explain a lot about why people encounter so many of the problems they do when expectations clash -- but they have only themselves to blame for this, IMO -- and I really doubt this is the norm for most players.

Nobody likes wasting their time. This is one instance in which spending a very small amount can save you much, along with much disappointment and/or frustration.

People who cannot be bothered to take this step and dismiss things out of hand because they don't want to bother to skim something are not people I have much sympathy for in a hobby all about reading and writing, and really, none of us probably should.

@Tinuviel I think the mention is that the person may have thought 'A Knight's Tale' (the movie) was 'The Knight's Tale' (the Chaucer story).

@Tat I don't see people picking up new and unfamiliar sourcebooks for MU, but I do see them do it with tabletop a fair bit.• It's pretty much the same thing -- just in MU form. Pick it up, skim through it, if it looks like garbage, don't bother with it.

It's the 'OH MY GOD THE WORLD WILL END IF I HAVE TO LEARN A NEW THING!' hand-wringing that's common (and super overwrought) on this generally accepted and normal practice that boggles the mind.

• (We are very lucky to have a local mom&pop gaming shop in the area that's been around FOREVER AND EVER, and they're big on carrying everything, even rare indie stuff -- so I will admit I may see more of this than is common experience.)

@Tat said in Which canon property/setting would be good for a MU* ?:

Tabletop source books are not the same as wiki setting, in part because they have been heavily tested and have a reputation. The starting point isn't the same, and I think you really do have to consider that when designing games.

I can't really agree with this one, since over the years, I have seen a lot of complete garbage tabletop games and systems, and there are a number of people I know of who have contributed writing to RPG sourcebooks and MUs alike.

There's crap and gold in both, same as any fiction or television or video game or other media.

@Roz It's a shared peeve, really. Which is why 'television series, series of novels, etc.' is in there, even in what you quoted. Trust me... I am beyond tired of arguing about why an idea won't work based exclusively on why it wouldn't work in WoD, which is prevalent.

Edit: People saying this who still play on WoD games are IMHO the worst offenders, because as far as source material goes, it has the most I've seen that people are expected to be familiar with. Dozens and dozens of books. So when typically WoD players complain about having to read something on a wiki being too much work, they deserve the full anime mallet treatment for having the gall to be whining about this. That's why they're singled out there.

@Roz Agreed, but even many of those involve a fair bit of media to consume -- whether it's a comic to read, a series of novels, a series of television shows to watch, etc.

Usually, any given game system that's going to work well on a MUX can be explained simply in a few pages. It's the setting info that's always going to take some time to digest, no matter what form it takes.

Basically: even if it's 'oh, we're all familiar with this material, and that's why we're here!' (any GoT, BSG, etc. game would count here) still took time for the players to digest the setting information, even if that happened before the game was a twinkle in somebody's eye.

@Sunny I feel you on this. I love -- love love love -- some world-building, but the amount of info needed is not easy for something that doesn't have an RPG book handy that people can get and read through.

That said, most games involve at least one RPG book that someone has to get and read through. (Or a television series to watch, or a series of novels, etc.)

It is unlikely that even if you put down a lot of details and information on a wiki and MUX, it still isn't going to be as much as you'd find in your average RPG corebook. Even if most people skim and flip around, they usually end up reading about a third of it, and many read the whole thing. Others read multiple books.

If people can read for WoD or any other game system or setting, they can read for yours. The collective freakout over being asked to read detailed setting and game system information on a wiki -- especially if there is no corresponding media to watch or read necessary -- is just a little silly. (By which I mean it's a lot silly.)

Have summaries, with further detail people can delve into if they're interested and/or want or need more depth for their character (or for other characters they're interacting with when and if it becomes relevant), but the people who claim to be overwhelmed by unnecessary details are often enough the same people who have read -- at the very least -- the core WoD sourcebook from cover to cover before they play somewhere, and there's some bullshit to be called on that particular complaint for hypocrisy.

If somebody can read a corebook for an RPG, which most folks do, they can read a game wiki.

tl;dr: organize the info well, and anybody who complains there's too much information who has ever made a character on TR or FC with a zillion splatbooks required for reference gets an anime-style mallet to the skull, which will conveniently appear out of nowhere for this exact purpose.

@ixokai said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

Finally, its very, very important to let each and everyone who can reasonably do so -- shine in their moment. Note the first -- if the character is playing like they solve everything ever that's another matter. But if you have your iconic moment of awesome, the GM shouldn't hold to a rigid set of reality that punishes you for it unless you went a bit crazy. Let the player shine.

This is what I think is the #1 qualification of a good storyteller, or a good group/faction leader (whether that position is IC or OOC). So often, the IC roles of this nature go to the people great at taking the spotlight themselves -- when in fact it's really the opposite of what makes for a healthy IC group, where creating and sharing those opportunities is the real key to creating maximum fun for everyone involved. This certainly includes that player's character as well, but to no greater or lesser extent than anyone else's in the group.

So in addition to 'is this fun for me' or 'would this be extremely unfun for others', there really is 'would an alternative end up being a lot more fun for everybody, even if that thing is not the bestest wishlist ideal for everybody in the room (because everyone having a good time, just like everyone being miserable, is pretty contagious)?'

It's also worth mention that polling folks for ideas is never a bad idea. Sure, there are the folks who have no clue themselves (and then nope everything anybody else suggests), which is common enough to be discouraging, but often enough, people can and will surprise you with something that turns out to be strangely perfect and inspiring that you may never have expected. Those moments, to me at least, were always the ones I loved best: not when I was able to scratch something off some character goal wishlist in the back of my head, but when something I never even thought of suddenly takes off and takes on a life of its own, organically moving in a direction I never could have predicted.

@ixokai said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

As it happens, a lot of times that is bad. I'm a big fan of consequences and growth from failure. What I don't like is a roll of a dice or a whim of something or other ending my story in a meaningless way.

But bad? And consequences? This is how people grow.

^ This.

While some folks have such thin IC/OOC separation that they just cannot ever handle anything bad happening to their character, or their character not always having maximum IC fun, that's far from universal.

The fun that's relevant is the fun the players are having. This may be in tandem with or directly opposed to the fun the character is having at any given time.

@Admiral That one always makes my skin crawl, too.

Do not follow the advice of my impulse, which would be to just reply with: Same. because it will seriously not help.

@Warma-Sheen I have to second @WTFE on this. You're putting forward a demonstrably false hypothesis, and then trying to use that to prove something else entirely here that is well beyond its scope.

I've seen convos like this going back to the 90s on every game I've played on. Not with everyone on every game, no, but it was always a thing and only once did I see someone remotely surprised by it, way back in.. 1997, I think? Yeah. But not since then have I seen any surprise if I ask someone something, or someone asks me something, etc. about where things might go if it's somewhere extreme or unpredictable (and in more recent years, if it includes a common trigger issue of some kind, ex: racism/torture/rape/etc. as well).

I have seen this when proposing the start of a scene quite often: "Want to RP? Yeah? Cool! Any preference of subject?" or "I can see two things we should probably address IC with the pack, one's more conflict-based and the other's more chill, have any preference for tonight?" and so on.

@Gingerlily I couldn't even read that, because this appeared in the sidebar, and it looked like fantastic popcorn reading.

It is.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/503217/you-literally-can’t-pay-us-go-gym-according-new-study

@WTFE I love that the page header on the last one is: My chop hand to buy the baby perennial pendant mammoth teeth pendant male piano your value, and the item title is I have to buy the baby you have to buy the baby piano baby pony pendant male and female card your values

It broke google translate's "brain", I think.

"I would have <X>, but got caught in traffic," is an excuse that's just as legit IC if you really need to fish one out of the ether. Same with 'the long line at the post office' or any of the other mundane life shit most people have to deal with (whatever form that takes on any given game, there is always some life upkeep task or another). These things are overlooked a lot and are almost never RPed (which is fine, because in most cases oh, god, why would you), but that doesn't remove them from the pool of reasons to avoid any given thing. You may end up taking the hit for not doing the thing IC, or may have to give up doing that specific thing IC, but if you desperately want to avoid it OOC, look to the mundane complications of the world for an IC out, and you'll find a treasure trove of options.

@Derp That is horrible. I'm so sorry. Will keep a candle lit for you and your partner, and hope like hell things get better.

@Gingerlily One lady, when I was 14 -- and already had massive acid reflux -- insisted this was because I was grossly obese. (I was 5lbs over ideal weight, and to put it bluntly, that's because I was wearing a 32G bra size, ffs.) Her reasoning was, no lie: "The only other typical cause is stress and that's simply not possible for someone so young, you have no stresses in your life."

If I remembered her name all these years later I would go on a crusade to make sure she was no longer seeing patients; anyone that egregiously stupid needs a reality check.

@Gingerlily It is honestly amazing how dismissive people are of some things. I'm heavy, I smoke, I've been in car accidents. 95% of the health issues I have now, I had for years before any of the above. This has not stopped every doctor ever from ascribing the problem to one or all of those things.

I still thank gods for the surgeon I dealt with earlier this year, who initially was mentally going down those roads, but when the testing came back that proved no, she is really not having this problem because she's a fat person, all of her numbers are 100% ideal from cholesterol to blood sugar to high end of normal blood pressure at the worst even with this infection that is trying to kill her, so we need to intervene now and not put this off and tell her to eat less and move around more, again.

@Cupcake Yeah... that's a weirder zag than what I was envisioning. It could just be an omission of an initial 'I love Chaucer so much that I... ' that they think is known or understood (or is so huge in their head they forget that it isn't self-evident to everyone else as it is to them) rather than a focus on accomplishments, but that might just be me straining to give someone the benefit of the doubt. If they're a boastful sort once in a while, that's probably it; if they tend to just be awkwardly gushy about things, that might just be a testament of just how much they adore Chaucer that they did that (more than talking themselves up for doing it).

I see this in fandom stuff a lot, in passing.
Example might make more sense re: what I'm getting at:
A: Have you tried NewGame?
B: Not yet, but I hear it's good.
A: You might like it, it's a lot like OtherGame.
B: OMG! I ran a three year campaign of OtherGame!

I'd read that as less a brag than 'omg I love OtherGame a whole lot!' which, personally, I'd just chase with something like, "You should definitely check NewGame out, then!" and see if they keep banging on about their campaign or start asking questions about NewGame, which would ultimately be more telling, kinda.

I can spot the chain, too, on that one. I'm not on the spectrum but have ADD, and the 'keep things in mental buckets' would have 'Chaucer' and 'A Knight's Tale' in a mental bucket (cool characters in guilty pleasure movies I love); 'Chaucer' and 'Shakespeare' would also be together in their own mental bucket (English authors of ye olden days), so you'd probably get an overlap with me, too. It'd likely also give Will a tenuous place in the Entertaining Instances of Anachronisms Included mental bucket, with things like A Knight's Tale and The Princess Bride and Blackadder so on.