Posts made by surreality

@HelloProject said:

@Thenomain I've jumped all over this thread and I just can't make any sense of it. It seems like two groups of people speaking entirely different languages and hoping to be understood

I feel like this would all be solved if everyone just agreed to make a MOO, somewhere in between a MUD and a MUSH.

RPI Hell MOO.

I wish I remembered the hack someone did to give MOO the %R%T formatting options (though I think they were $r$t; it's been a decade or more so I may be mis-remembering), or still had the old core around that used it. Because MOO almost makes sense in my head code-wise in ways MUX tries to stave in with a hammer with some regularity and some of the tools you could use with it were fantastic. The code is pretty drastically different from the player side in terms of command syntax, however, which was a huge problem. I knew some folks who addressed this, and tried to convert a lot of the commands, but lost touch with them more than a forever ago.

@Thenomain said:

• Coding help for four nWoD games that have not yet been announced

All the in the world for this. Sincerely.

@Misadventure said:

I suspect that many players who enjoy horror on the screen don't realize the amount of slow burn and setup of attitudes etc it needs.

Very much this. Horror movies are generally not action films. There's a hybrid genre for that, of course, but horror itself generally starts off with subtler indications that something is wrong before it gets to the running and the screaming.

It's something that, for a PrP, I think requires multiple scenes rather than just one for the story of it to properly unfold. They're usually fairly small scenes, too, at the outset, and it can be difficult to snag player interest with that.

You can stop dismissing relevant points any time now, and hiding it behind 'focusing the discussion'. It's more than a little condescending since I don't see any solutions posited by you other than "give me my way" and a lot of strawmen and denial.

This is more of a policy issue and culture issue than it is a rules issue, and it always has been. If we saw timestops called to resolve these situations like we do combats -- which may happen but I've never seen it -- I suspect we'd see less twinking in either direction.

From the way you're talking in this thread, it's pretty clear you have some issues with respecting others in the broad sense, so frankly... I'm not surprised you've met with resistance if you've approached people on games the way you've been talking to me. I sure as shit would not want to play with you, because you're behaving like a bully. That would be part of the cultural issue. If you can't discuss the issue respectfully with an ear to the concerns of others, no fucking way would I trust you further than I could throw a piano in an actual OOC negotiation around a contentious proposal in game. You have to respect other players for that shit to actually work.

@Derp said:

allowing immunity to an otherwise universal system

Except that it's not a universal system the game is going to adopt, period.

It is, as the books state with progressively strong emphasis, is not for PvP use and is not recommended for it.

If someone comes up with something else that's reasonable as a universal, that's something worth considering. But the system the creators themselves recommend against for PvP and deem 'optional' and not recommended? Yeah, that's going to be opt-in only and the people who twink around with opting-in and immediately hide behind the opt-in consent factor are going to get hammered hard. (Because that's cheatin' bullshit.)

The only difference really here is that instead of opting-in game-wide, the players who are cool with this are able to do that and use their stuff, and the players who are against it and agree with the not recommended factor are not dealing with it. They may have to deal with something else -- but it won't be that.

However, it's a start, and a good idea. I think that I'd alter it to be somewhat universal, with players able to set a list of things on their wiki that are 'impossible' and will automatically result in finding some meaningful alternative, that way there is clearly something up and there are no surprises on that end. They'll always have the option to take it to negotiation, naturally, as the system allows, but it at least gives a clear idea of 'nope, not interested, not gonna happen' for specific things.

While I'm not keen on the idea of universal, the 'nope' list is a very good idea and that can be implemented fairly easily. I can fold that into the pc page template. There's a generalized preferences system set up already in which players can state a lot of the things that are 'this is completely not fun for me, please don't' that other players can peruse to avoid potential pitfalls -- or volunteer to be a target of other things, etc. It is much better, in my estimation, to allow players to state their preferences about a number of potentially controversial subjects and let them decide for themselves about going there, with the 'most people are not dicks' principle firmly in mind. (The 'most people are not dicks' principle: most people are not dicks, and will not try to go places the other player has made clear are uncool, if they know this, and there are alternative options.) The opt-in is on that list, along with a lot of other things some games just ban outright rather than ever having to deal with, since it allows the people who are interested to find each other and have their fun in peace, and the people who wish to avoid it to say so in a non-confrontational manner, etc. There's nothing binding in there unless it says as much, which only applies to the things usually straight up banned (rape-related subjects, system-level opt-ins) but it operates on the same general premise: people are not dicks, and would rather have fun with people who share the same idea of fun than inflict shit on people who want nothing to do with any particular subject.

Frankly, I'm letting people set a wiki-visible opt-in for it. So the people who wish to use it can, and the people who don't, don't. Which is a lot fucking farther than most games are presently going with it.

That's a real option with 'optional': let the players decide for themselves, and those who won't enjoy it aren't dealing with it, and those who are down with it, they can enjoy themselves without the thing they want to do -- from either side of the coin since some players are totally cool with being targets of this -- being removed from play entirely.

Since it's wiki-side, if someone wanks out and changes their setting the moment it could potentially apply to them as a target, that is visible to abso-fucking-lutely everyone through the wiki log -- with what content changed and a timestamp for when it happened. They can then be handled accordingly.

@Derp said:

@surreality said:

@p. 165

If that’s the case, the Storyteller can opt to use a Down and Dirty Combat.

I rest my case. It is not the standard combat system. Corner cases don't change that.

Except that, again, this is a default mechanic of gauru form. It's not an optional system for use in that shape. Outside of gauru a storyteller can also choose to use it, but in gauru, it's the way things go down.

So I see your point, but it's really sort of moot. And since the entire discussion rests on finding a way to choose in-game systems of influence, etc, and we've been talking about one that is, in particular, already built into the system, I'm not sure that your points are entirely relevant to the discussion at hand, as you seem to be arguing 'don't use one' instead of 'which to use', like the OP asks.

I'm saying there's not parity between the combat system and the social system -- which is, in fact, relevant, as it refutes the 'but but but but but combat!' whining bullshit.

I play predominantly social characters so I feel the sting, too, but jesus.

Edit: Gauru combat, again, is a corner case and exceptional mechanic. It isn't too far off from how disciplines have similar effects to social maneuvering (and often much faster or more intense) without an optional rule involved.

@p. 165

If that’s the case, the Storyteller can opt to use a Down and Dirty Combat.

I rest my case. It is not the standard combat system. Corner cases don't change that.

@Derp said:

@Lithium said:

@lordbelh

I also thought they were for npc's, sort of like the instagib of Gauru being only for NPC's I could and probably am wrong though.

The gauru mechanics are not optional, no, nor are they only for NPCs. Eldritch has HR'd them to be so. Down and Dirty doesn't apply to PC's via House Rule, not because of any actual mechanics. Even against other werewolves, you negate any athletics or other skill-based bonus to their defense. Beaten down, while considered optional, are optional in such a way as the ST can choose to ignore them, as they are 'on' by default. Most places, that I'm aware of, currently use them. They don't apply to most Supernaturals, though, so I can see where it might create confusion.

This is a little disingenuous, though, because the whole Down and Dirty mechanic is optional for use on anyone. It's not the actual standard, no options, combat system.

@lordbelh said:

@Derp The Beaten Down and Surrender mechanics are optional, though.

...just like social vs. PCs is, yes.

And in both cases it's for a reason.

@Pyrephox said:

@surreality Of course, then you run into those folk who say, "My character doesn't back down when intimidated, they go crazy and fight with every bit of combat dice they have." Which means that you get people walking around with all RAR I'M TOUGH because they put all their dice in combat, and none in social skills or resistance abilities. Because they know that if it comes to a social test, they can just move things to a combat footing, where no one doubts the effectiveness of their skills.

Basically, there are always assholes. You can't define a system by how assholes will use it, because every system just privileges a /different set/ of assholes. A system also can't stop assholes from being assholes - that job needs to fall to staff, and trying to offload basic game management skills to the system is one of the reasons why game cultures BECOME toxic. If, when someone skeeves on you by trying to dice-force you (and this kind of abuse is often really aimed at getting the /player/ to do something sexual) into TSing with them, then if you don't feel supported to say, "I don't feel comfortable with that kind of play with you. I don't mind if they get seduced, but we're not going to play it out, and my character will feel guilty in the morning, not fall in love with yours." and know that the staff has your back, then that's something wrong with the /game culture/. Because that sort of situation is not what any social resolution skill system is meant for. For that matter, you should be able to go to staff if someone is stalking you around the grid and /constantly/ rolling combat dice at you. "What my character would do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. "What the rules will technically let me do," is not an excuse to be an asshole. But as long as we keep trying to build and run games with the design goal of "not having to confront assholes with their asshole behavior", then game cultures are going to continue to be toxic, no matter what system is used.

Few differences.

1. Active and reactive aren't at parity.
2. Some (admittedly flawed) systems exist that demand that reaction in WoD, actually. (Kuruth, I'm looking at you and your triggers list.)

I'm not talking about forced roleplay, as FTB covers that and most sites allow for it.

I'm talking about people dictating the particulars in ways that are unreasonable bullshit and expecting you to suck it up.

I don't disagree that it's about forcing the player to do something in most cases. These situations get even uglier. The moment you say: I am not keen on this we need to ftb, which is intended to be 'drop to ooc negotiation and summary about what happens', people who aren't getting the TS (or whatever else they were looking for) tend to escalate to dictating a scripted outcome under their exclusive control into which you are not given as much input as you are due. And it's usually much nastier when it's due to the kind of thing you're talking about, re: the player isn't getting the joy they wanted out of the scene and directed at fucking up the other character as much as possible, and this is not what you get with combat. You can't recalibrate your combat damage to 'extra dickbag screw you damage' level after the roll is made like you can in this scenario, and that's an issue.

To put it on parity with combat, people behave as though the moment they succeed on the first roll, they get to ignore your defense and anything else they feel like to keep whaling on you. And that is not a thing.

One of the major issues is demanding a determined outcome, rather than allowing the character to interpret their real response. There's 'this would be weird for the character to do but if they did they would go about it in the following way', which is reasonable enough to work with.

The folks who don't consider that cool and are all, 'I succeeded on my roll, now you will follow my script exactly no matter how absurd it is' are a huge issue. And people really do do this.

You stab someone, based on what their character is, something specific and not open to interpretation is going to happen.

"I'm going to talk your character into sleeping with my character" is, while a fractious example, a basic goal that's ultimately neutral. It's reasonable for the target character to, depending on circumstances, be uncomfortable during, or awkward, or eager, or any number of things, and that is up to them. Where the problem comes in is when the player making the roll wants to script that shit out entirely on their own and steamrolls the other player. That takes the character out of the player's hands in a very real way, in a way that being stabbed (unless it's a deathblow) doesn't.

If someone can't understand how this 'I'm just gonna play your character for you for a little bit here and do stuff you might not like and react in ways you don't think are remotely appropriate and hand it back to you' issue is an issue to some people, or makes them feel like somebody broke or mussed up their toy, I really don't know what to tell them.

Imagine for a moment that someone else logs in to your character, plays a scene that bears no resemblance to how you play them, has them behave in ways they wouldn't and don't, and then sends you the log when they hand the character back to you. Think for a moment about how WTF you would be over this in terms of 'where do I go from here with this character?' The you will follow my script!!! approach does exactly this in terms of the consequences of it for the target character's player.

@icanbeyourmuse Well, also... you can document it all when you're writing it. The copyright woes alone can be a nightmare if you have a quote that's a little too long in some cases.

One thing I love about an OT project is the ability to build a wiki-side sheet, and literally have every element of the sheet clickable with a link to the exact page or section that describes the stat/power/whatever else. It is a giant pain in the ass to set up, but it is absolutely possible.

@il-volpe said:

Psuedo-historical + some supernatural NPC forces early 18th century Caribbean, ala' Pirates of the Caribbean.

I have really wanted to do pirates + lovecraft for a while. Some day...

I dunno... STG? (Story-Telling-Game)

...STM*? (Story-Telling-M-whichever-the-fuck)?

...STRP?

...hell, just call them STRIPEs, for Story-Telling-Intensive-Role-Playing-Experience and call it a day.

@Sparks I envy the scale of your windows, madam!

@il-volpe said:

Now, here, we have this thread because on the Optional Realities/Project Redshift we've got @crayon redefining a MUSH to mean, not a game that uses the MUSH codebase, but any game, regardless of codebase, which displays cultural standards that he associates with MUSHes that follow cultural and code-use standards that are highly unusual for MUSHes.

...which is so gaggingly stupid it makes my eyes water. I'm sorry, I know we're in the semi-constructive section, but this let me totally redefine a thing and then act like everyone who agreed on the old definition should know what I'm talking about nonsense is exactly the sort of thing that leads to the sort of communication breakdowns that more or less turned the thread that spawned this one into a giant clusterfuck of mixed messages and confusion.

As mentioned before, if I started referring to a black and white cat as a Holstein, and people suddenly asked me what the hell a cow was doing lounging about in the sun on my windowsill, I would, perhaps, consider the possibility that my repurposed use of terminology was inherently problematic.

@Ninjakitten said:

@surreality said:

These terms are for the codebases, they are the names of the codebases, not 'philosophies of game design'.

This is why I would like there to be a good, preferably not codebase-synonymous name for the general philosophy-of-game-design I favour.

This. Very much this. Because repurposing the names of codebases for something other than codebases themselves... that way lies madness.

I... have to shake my head.

These terms are for the codebases, they are the names of the codebases, not 'philosophies of game design'.

I don't call a black and white spotted cat a Holstein just because of their color patterns, either, and it's for a reason.

@Pyrephox said:

By definition, any situation in which you give a single environmental stimuli and ask the player what their character does next is not a removal of player agency.

^ That is truth.

The problem are the people who do not ask what the other character does next, but tells them what they're going to do next, and that actually is a removal of player agency.

And they are, sadly, plentiful enough to be a genuine problem.

They also are dead-set convinced they are not a problem, which is a considerably larger problem.