Posts made by surreality

@thebird said:

I find my PB first, and build a character based on what/who they look like, to me. I'm an artist and super visual, so maybe that's part of it. I've been told that's very backwards.

I end up doing this sometimes, too. Though it's less 'I want to make a character, let me find a face', as I stumble across a face, a personality/concept pops into my head, and I'm stuck thinking, 'Well, crap. Where the heck am I going to play that?'

Other times, I have a vague character concept that can be boiled down to one word (wolfblood, noble, waitress, etc.) and search from there, and image-hop until something presses the 'generate backstory' button (that apparently somebody installed behind my left eye or something).

The look of a character, be it a picture or text, is something I focus on pretty intensely. It takes me forever to write a desc, even if it's one of standard or short length. Going to college for costume design will do that to a person, seriously. Every little choice ends up being somehow significant, and if it isn't significant or part of the basics (height, build, hair color, eye color), it needn't be there. This gets really damn wordy now and then with characters that have lasted a long time and collected their share of scars/mementos/etc. they keep on their person. Almost nobody reads +views, so the things just start to sprawl on (and on and on and on) eventually. Heck, almost nobody even reads descs these days, and I still do this.

It makes it easier to pick a face based on general vibe, then extrapolate from the imagery from there. It makes it almost impossible to find something if I start from the desc and an elaborate personality and try to find an image to match it.

Pinterest is my friend for this.

I keep a personal collection of 'that person looks like they vibe right for someone I'd think about playing', and for the site I'm tinkering with, it has a pinterest page for its relevant images, with its own collection of 'here's a bunch of neat-looking people of all ages and races and genders for people to browse and claim if they're having trouble finding a face'.

If the specific 'look' for a game is fairly obscure (historical, space, odd setting with a distinctive look), collecting imagery of people that fit can be a great resource for a game. It can be a huge help.

@Thenomain It isn't really arguing so much as feeling my way around the concept and expanding on the idea.

There is a lot of 'it depends' and, yeah, most of it comes down to expectations. Sometimes to comfort levels and game culture. Some players require more hand-holding or a more direct 'invitation' to participate -- some games are more passive than others about involving new players.

There are definitely corner cases -- god help us -- that break even a 'make space' principle. For instance, the chick who was knocking on the door to a private room on Shang to elbow into a private scene involving a couple that finally got some alone time after three weeks. Sure, there are (and hilariously were) real IC responses to that, but there are, frankly, times that you do not want to make room for another person in a particular scene on the player level, and I think people are reasonable to expect they should be able to have time to themselves sometimes, too, given conditions like the above (private space, not a public scene, etc.).

Going back to the differing expectations and ideas about what being included means, ultimately, some players still make something as simple as 'make space' a more complicated thing than, ideally, it should be.

A lot of the dynamics of this come out more often in more social M*s, I think, where running plots or events is less common or even absent entirely, and all RP involves direct networking, without a sign-up sheet to help it along. (Tangent: as much as a lot of folks complain about events not being perfectly what they want and the like, they're a pretty big boon to getting one's foot in the door that aren't available everywhere.)

@Thenomain said:

I kind of do think that you are social-contract obligated to involve everyone in your scene, which means playing off their character and poses and making space for them to add to things. If they don't take it, if they don't want it, if they don't engage then hey, you did your part to create that upward feedback spiral of awesome that is an engaging situation.

I agree with this on some levels, and not others.

I suppose it depends on how someone defines 'being included', first. Some need a bigger invitation than others. For instance, some feel a glance toward That Person You've Never Met with a 'I notice another person her' sort of nod like you'd potentially exchange in an office waiting room is enough to say: 'hey, let's find a reason to interact', which is perfectly reasonable for most modern settings. Others want an engraved invitation signed in triplicate by everyone in the scene for an 'OK', or instant complete focus from all parties thrown their way when they put a pose even if nobody knows them yet IC -- even if it's that same basic nod pose and scenario.

You can have two people with these differing expectations in one place, and both are going to sincerely believe to have done the right thing, but feel others have not. How reasonable either set of expectations actually is can be argued in a variety of ways.

Sometimes the culture of a game trends toward one direction or another, which can leave the person with the style less common to that space the odd man out, and feeling that they're doing something wrong or are unwelcome there. This can vary a lot based on experience -- good or bad or even if the trend that week seems to be headed in one direction or the other -- confidence levels, and how well the player does or doesn't know the play styles of others present.

My basic take on this boils down to some fairly simple principles, but they have the same ultimate failing "don't be a dick" ultimately does. Most people have some general areas of agreement about how to go about them, but differ on a lot of the fine points. It can be summarized as this: "Be observant. Create openings. Be willing to take risks."

...you can probably see how that works and how it doesn't.

I'll actually try to write up what that all means while snowed in this weekend in hopes it might be a help, but for now... coffee.

There actually are players who simply expect you to do all the work of a scene. I'm not talking about as a ST here, either. It seems to happen most often on Shang, but I've seen it in less intensive incarnations elsewhere.

Essentially, these people will cheerfully tell you in detail what they want and expect you to make it happen in floridly excruciating detail, at length, and you end up getting little more than half a grunt back by comparison in terms of their response poses, which almost never include anything you can work with.

It is essentially, "Write a short story about my character for me in which I get to do X."

@Ghost said:

So before you chargen a character who has no interest in dramatic scenes, combat, roleplaying around sad characters, or wanting to follow military protocol might not be the right fit for the game, and that's not anyone else on the game's fault that it doesn't mix. You have got to ask yourself, during cgen, how the character will fit.

In addition to this, paying some attention to the culture of the game itself OOC counts for one hell of a lot. It can go beyond just the character choice in a lot more subtle ways that ultimately tend to have a much bigger impact on how well the player is themselves rec'd.

Being the hardcore aggressive PvP-focused player arriving on a game with a long-standing PvE culture, for instance, is not necessarily going to win you a mountain of friends at record speed if you proceed with the philosophy you came in with. Slapping porn links all over the channels of an all ages game, similarly, is probably going to rub some people the wrong way (pun not intended) in the same way showing up at Shang and freaking out any time people start talking about sex would.

@Sovereign said:

@surreality

What does PHB mean? Google calls it a Dilbert reference.

I don't think it matters if you're male or female, provided you're willing to exercise the power you have. If someone disrespects you for having ovaries, that disrespect lasts only so long as you'll tolerate it; I'm sure after the first temp-ban people would get the message. It's about boundaries more than genders.

Respectfully, while I have no idea of your gender, or how it may impact your experience, 20 years in the hobby informs mine and, uh, I'll not really go into how clear I am about boundaries, but it's safe to say I'm almost a joke around here at times in regard to how stringent I am on that particular front.

It's unfortunate, but true, that there are some folks who simply will not listen to a woman's call on something without engaging in some pretty sexist asshattery. In some cases, these are dudes who played in tabletop games for years that never had women in them so they're not used to the idea of a woman involved in an RPG period, and then there are others who are convinced female staff don't know the rules as well as the male staff, and then there are just some jackasses that whip out the no woman tells me what to do! card.

Each of these types is distinct, all of them actually exist out there, and each one is something to handle differently.

The first lot generally clue in pretty quickly and chill with demonstrated competence; it's a culture change, something outside their experience and therefore sometimes on the border of a comfort zone, but once they figure out everybody's there for the same 'having fun playing this RPG reason', it ceases to be an issue. This type generally surfaces based on game rule calls more than policy matters, too.

The second lot are a split. Some have lingering beliefs about female gamers that are inaccurate similar to the above, and others are just trying to push someone they perceive to be weaker in some fashion around to see if they can get away with it. First step is to figure out which you're dealing with and it isn't usually hard.

Like the folks from the first example, the people in the first half of this group generally chill the hell out once they realize you're competent. Sometimes, this means having someone with testicles tell them the same thing once or twice to get them to clue in. Is this profoundly stupid? Yup, it is. Doesn't make it any less the actual reality of things. Again, these folks usually surface over game rules more than they do over policy matters.

The second half of this type? Yes, they are testing boundaries. RPG rule or game policy, they're going to push it, because they're dumb enough to think they can get away with it. It... tends not to go well for these people. Like the last type, which I will just lump in here because the solution is the same, they get handed off to someone else because personally, I'm very nice until I'm not. (There are probably folks out there who think they've seen the 'not' from me staff-side, but they haven't, and there's a reason for that.) That gets handed off to someone else.

"Don't be a dick" is a bad law; too nebulous. But it's a fine game rule, because these are small, purpose-driven communities. And, yes, while you'll still get people who will argue about what constitutes being a dick..

.. those people are usually dicks. People know what's appropriate and what's not. They use ignorance as an excuse or simply assume they won't be called out. They're correct with disappointing frequency.

Essentially, yes. That's not the kind of policy I'm talking about, for precisely those reasons.

All the same, it's very likely we have an entirely different style and approach to things, despite points of agreement here and there. Really not keen on the number of assumptions being flung about nor the rush to conclusions, though, to be frank. One of those boundaries of mine involves avoiding condescension, so... yeah.

@Sovereign said:

@surreality

I find the best way to communicate with a player base depends entirely on your function within the staff. The person in charge, who handles punishments, dictates policy, and is the End of the Line, so to speak, should have minimal contact. They should engage primarily in imperatives, not conversations, and be polite, firm, and concise.

On the other hand, a lot of games can benefit from someone whose job is entirely to mediate and manage PR. This should never be the same person as the first, as "authority figure who dishes out punishment and is the one to tell people No" conflicts immensely with "friendly person I like and trust and can confide in". To many, authority is inherently intimidating. A person who exists to connect authority and player in a more comfortable and removed fashion is handy.

This person could use image macros! It wouldn't be the worst thing. They're inherently lighthearted and that's comfortably disarming.

I'm more or less the opposite of this.

I'm pretty decent at policy-crafting (though shit at policy-wording at times) and tend to be fairly approachable and willing to listen to people on both sides of an issue, and even at making hard calls.

I require a 'You are not listening to the boss, so let me make this more clear if you need to hear it from someone who doesn't have ovaries' staffer. Because sadly, unless you're willing to be a PHB from hell, the whole chick thing has been relevant more than I care to mention.

In all seriousness, the group I'm puttering with on something has a pinterest board for ideas/visuals/concepts. Enough serious, there's also:

...a 'group therapy' board full of stuff like that.

We have, sadly, decided against communicating with the playerbase exclusively in image macros in times of stress -- which is really no less absurd than a lot of things that go on on any given game -- and would probably be a lot more honest much of the time!

We did consider it, without a hint of seriousness at all, for a fair five minutes or so, though.

@Sovereign said:

At this point, I treat it a lot like folks who say "I hate drama" - baby, you make more drama than a playwright.

I keep the following linked and on hand for just that reason:

And so many more. It's amazIng how a brief scan of that image collection can un-bleak the worldview.

@ThatGuyThere said:

If you market yourself as a yes first game then the first no will cause people to bitch regardless of how reasonable that no might be.
Do I think this is right? No not at all. but it is will happen.
If you want to have a game that yes first and not lead to a lot of drama I think you almost have to go the small game or invite only route.

Sadly, quoting for truth.

People will absolutely log into your game and ask to play a Strix.

Not a vampire claimed by one, but an actual, free-floating, Strix.

And this will not be the stupidest thing to happen if people get an inkling of the 'yes first' thing, terminology wise. Wish it was not so, but this is a really, really good point.

@Sovereign ...yeah, I think we have a very different approach to staffing. That, or we've encountered a very different sort of player.

It's also sorta adorable how you think every staff member can 'remove' a player from the game for their behavior, no matter how egregious the behavior may actually be. The person suffering the poor behavior is often enough stuck putting up with it because those with the authority to remove the problem child won't.

@Sovereign said:

You run the risk of concepts and characters anathema to the theme crowding in, but this is a matter your staff ought to be able to handle promptly. It is trivial to address on a case-by-case basis.

How I wish this was actually true more often than not. Never underestimate the level of raw chaos that can be unleashed by a player or group of players when they are told they will have to adapt an idea to fall in line with theme or even the rules of the game.