So it's a matter of trust between the author and the reader. I can imagine if I had to go out of my way to set up a system that auto-deducted $10/week from my account, I'd be upset if I had to mess around every week tweaking it to my liking.
Incidentally, "a matter of trust between the author and the reader" is what I assumed from the start, only now it has a non-trivial measure of the reader's involvement of time, cost, etc.
I do like "theme drift", but I think it goes further. "Theme normalization," perhaps, where the players as an entity drag the theme toward an unspoken expectation that is at odds with the theme from the source material that they apparently wanted to play.
@surreality said in Flights 'n Tights MUX:
@Thenomain Meh. And we did have four forum trolls who lurved LGBT-baiting in particular...
And that was considered hammering, too.
Okay, so maybe "hammering" is causing some people's pedantic attacks to flare up, but there is a general argument going on here (a different one, not just "this is mean"/"nuh-uh!") which was not created by the initial post or the initial poster.
So months, even years ago, there was a discussion on this board where the differences between all the Shadowruns was hotly (very hotly) debated (fought over) and I have found myself since trying to think of what Shadowrun would look like if it was created today.
I have my vision, but I've run into a snag: What does Shadowrun mean to you? What is the core of the game? Sure, what is fun is important, but all of that can be handwaved and re-added or things that aren't fun can be taken away.
What is it that makes Shadowrun its own game?
I already know: Magic, Metahumans, Cyberpunk. But I can create a lot of different game worlds with these three elements. What else? Is it the D&D-style dungeon-crawl (the 'Run)? Is it the animistic-only spirits? The Native American take on magic? Is it Tolkien? The beauty of the emerging magical world? What?
My interpretation is available on request, but I don't want to taint my question with my own views to be argued over. Argue over your own views first, please!
Well I do think that looking at the situations more objectively is critical, and you can't do that if you can't accept your own involvement in them. People on channel do this, I hate it when people do that. Words and terms that create distance between you and the thing that sucks.
I hate it when I offer to RP with someone and they say nothing or don't show, but why would I get upset about that? I hate it when someone wants me to run the scene for their masturbation, by why would I agree to that? I hate it when someone tries to run me off a game but maybe it's because something I did? Maybe I can page them and ask what's wrong. Such a small action that opens dialogue. Maybe they were afraid that I would explode at them with Theno-like spazztic behavior? Could I blame them? It's not my responsibility to set things right, but if I'm interested in things being right then aren't I morally obligated to try?
If I'm not interested in things being right, aren't I the passive lump you people have been complaining about? (Again, not all of you, but damn.)
How much we try is flexible, but the smallest iota of Givadamn
is better than none. If everyone gave that small amount, it would feed into other people being more willing to try, and fewer people feeling lonely.
You know, I understand going off on someone for missing the point, but I don't read @Ganymede as saying anything more than, "Not my cuppa" and possibly, "The initial post is kind of sketchy."
I know and completely understand that the entirely of history leading up to the Stonewall Riots give people the right to have a double-standard of "no <this kind of sexual preference> in my game" if that person's game is, e.g., toward gay male interactions, but I don't think it deserves the kind of reaction you're giving it.
Where I see the initial post as sketchy (and a note to @Hushicho: I supported it) is the note about women being allowed, but only emitted. If you're going to be very staunchly on one side of a line, then don't pussy-foot around like that. Say 'gay/bi male characters only'. Period. I see no purpose to do it this way, and kind of a slap in the face.
"This group of people exists only as a token on this game." Where is the open-mindedness about that?
This is not a hate. (Again: I was the first person to talk down the negative reactions, so stuff it if you're going to flip out on me.) This is a criticism. Ganymede's is a criticism. They don't come from nowhere, and all criticisms can be ignored, and most are.
If you disagree with the criticism, that's cool. Don't be like me, tho; use more logic than emotion.
@faraday said in Shadowrun: Modern:
Shadowrun is an entire world with lots of non-criminal stuff going on in it.
Part of what I think of as core Cyberpunk is that if you are living well in the world, you are living by someone else's rules. To be an individual is to break some of those rules, legal or otherwise.
Where else would "moral ambiguity" be able to enter?
@surreality said:
Drop a player from GameA onto GameB, they're either going to have to learn to have fun under the different rules and within the culture of GameB, or they're shit out of luck.
Yes, but that's true of all games. I am constantly harping on games, players, and myself for not making this transition easier. Explaining this information to newbies is hard, tho, because by the time you understand it yourself you are in the middle of it and have to unravel what they know back to what they wish they knew before they knew it. It's no easy task, but I believe it's critical.
@Coin said:
@Sanguine, glare all you want. The game is coming along. We've had a few setbacks because code is taking longer than expected (and werewolf still isn't out).
My design team keeps deciding things then asking me how long it would take, and my project manager is swamped with life. I can't resist the puppy dog eyes when being asked to install a completely new system, either.
No, you're not getting squid-taxis on opening days. And screw your fishing system. Seriously. Screw. You.
Everyone else: I believe Cobalt is using Fate Accelerated, which is stupid easy, even on the combat. Stupid. Easy. And you are the kinds of people who keep wanting scavenging and bomb building and sword making systems because omg we need more complexity!
FAE is easy.
@Lithium said in Shadowrun: Modern:
So part of this really @Thenomain you have to /decide/ what you want the overarching theme for /your/ ShadowRun to be, and then to make it that.
Somehow my reply to this didn't make it through, so an abridged version of that post:
Yes, and I have my views, but I want in part to challenge those views, in part to make something that would be more likely to be accepted (note the "more likely," please; I'm not trying to make friends with everyone in this crazy playground), and to re-introduce the discussion this came from but without the implication that some people are wrong.
This thread is specifically not about what I want. It's not about what anyone "wants". It's about what people see.
On TwoMoons, an ElfQuest MUSH, people just made one character per area and played where the play was. It worked out well.
@Lotherio said:
Beyond this all honestly depends on what the players do.
And there is the key. What do players do on this game? What do characters? You say you don't want dirt-toiling realism, but then what's? Are the characters leaders trying to stave back the Danes? Will they be allowed to? What character model would you use? How to they do this, because I can't even begin to imagine unless you have traits that would answer these questions. (D&D had one for a while that I can't remember. Birthright?)
What RP scenarios are there for Vikings? For monks? Yes, I know some of it writes itself (Chicago 1930s), but most of it doesn't.
No offense taken. This thread has absolutely changed how I want to do things.
I want to see any Fate-based game flourish. I'd log in and pretend to play for that reason alone.
@DnvnQuinn said in Shadowrun: Modern:
Well a world without metahumans is basically...Cyberpunk 2020.
I disagree. It could just as easily be Cast a Deadly Spell in the 2100s instead of the 1940s. Or it could be a take on Gibson's Bridge series instead. Or his "Fragments of a Hologram Rose", which is beautifully about people. (Hell, everything in Burning Chrome is.)
I imagine CP2020's magic would be more psychic anyhow, pushing it more toward space opera and science fiction. I have read one or two magazine articles about adding magic to CP2020, but it was very 90s. Very 90s.
The rules are so close anyways.
What rules? I'm world-building. Rules will come later. Much later.
@Sovereign said:
People are social creatures, and social exclusion is a common weapon. Especially in hobbies entirely dependent on interacting with others.
It is possible as staff to combat cliquish behavior like this. We don't see it often because staff are often afraid to lose known players for unknown newcomers. There are probably ways to split the difference by starting to create a player culture of inclusion, a little at a time.
You can get into a game with cliques just fine, as long as there are not-cliques. Sometimes the best thing to do with a clique is let it stay in its rooms TSing each other all day.
@icanbeyourmuse said in Dragon Age: Dread Wolf's Rise:
I've not seen a wiki that has information for someone dragon age dumb.
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Age_Wiki
Mind you, this is like someone asking about the kinds of things that go on in the Trigun anime and being handed a link to TV Tropes.
If you do nothing else, read everything having to do with Dragon Age: Origins, then DA: Awakening. And even then I'm not sure that'll prepare you but it's easier on most people than playing these horribly dated masterpieces.
Which is why I'm not going to axe them, it just would pretty damn awesome even without them.
What I want, instead, is to push that aspect even higher, make a statement about modern day gender and race issues. Even without that, I think we're ready for more de-Tolkeinized settings, and let regional cultures reign a little stronger. Those Megacorps could use the pressure.
Hopefully people can see why I didn't start with my plans until I got a good survey response. We nerds are distracted by minutiae and take any chance at going down the rat-hole into distraction du jour.
I am sincerely thinking about axing the Shadowrun-style dragons, because Dragon CEOs my ass. Dragon President of the United States super-powerful Marty Stu damned dragons no way in hell.
I never liked the Conspiracy Theory side of Shadowrun. I could be alone in that.
One more before work!
@Warma-Sheen sed:
It is completely possible to not feel welcome without anyone actively doing anything to you
Yeah. This requires self-reflection. I envy people who understand themselves. I do.
All you can really do is take the worst of the worst and try to skim that off the top and be content with whatever ambiguity is left behind.
This as the "only thing you can do" is a horrible choice. Don't let yourself be pushed around until it becomes the last option before leaving the game. I'm going to half-agree with @Arkandel here when he says that "all you can do is enjoy yourself"; I still think it's critical that people allow others to enjoy themselves in what is going on.
For instance, it's a very common criticism here on Soapbox against people who don't give people something to reply to in a pose. This is what I'm talking about. I've seen people in a public area say, "I'm sorry but we're in a kind of tight-knit scene right now," and that's responsible and kind of awesome for them to see you and think of you as a fellow player. I'd rather them find a way to include you in their shenanigans or change it up, but if it can't happen then so be it.
Saying "I play for myself" is, again IMO, the wrong way around. It has that flavor of "I won't try". Again, nobody has to twist things out of sensibility, but showing interest at the very least shouldn't be onerous to anyone, at any time, until the situation or player becomes a detriment to your enjoyment of the situation.
