Posts made by TimmyZ

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

@Arkandel
Nice snark. I was more meaning that 'there was a game based on this'.

There still is a game and the 10 players enjoy it and still play as far as I know.

@ShelBeast @Apos I know why folks like stats and have a need for arbitration. I'm pointing out Mu is a multiple user environment, not only for games.

I'm with @Arkandel here. Social elitism if you will. I stop playing when it's dice only. Sorry to ESL or less adept writers. I'm forgiving too, I don't need spelling and grammar. I'm horrid, at times, with both myself. I'm here for story and if a fellow writer can't entertain me with story I'm sorry to say I'm moving on. Roll social stats to your hearts content, I'm moving over to rp with the other story teller.

I enjoy games, tons out there, tons that include rp. These days I'm leaning away from stats. I still MUD occasionally, on a low player base, stat heavy mud, when i want something crunchy.

Playing doesn't mean game (dice, stats, needed resolution). Don't get me wrong not bagging on stat based systems. But I'd like to see some diceless or stat-less systems too. In Mu*, not forum or irc or sandbox with a friend only but amongst a group of players enjoying a theme.

I played Dragonlance Mux (the first DL Mu*) for years with multiple players and no stats.

A number of earlier 'games', especially Mushes, had no stats. It was all social story telling. It's where the concept, very common on comic mu*s, came from; Take turns in the spotlight, or take your losses let others win sometimes.

I'm sad that all mu*s have this relegation to 'game' and required 'stats' these days.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Good TV:

@Meg said in Good TV:

I plan to, one day. But I started with the books first and I want to end with the books first.

Oh, honey.

Well, maybe GRRM will live.

They'll put his head in a jar, next to Walt Disney. We'll get our final books. Because of the plotlines and characters the show skipped or never included that I'd like to see what GRR intended no matter what folks think of his writing.

I'll voice agreement. Sometimes they have made me smile, but mostly I see something new in a thread I like to only find a gif, then the next 2 to 10 times is gif replies. I'm meme'd out.

@Jennkryst I'd be interested if someone worked the old Dragonfist (2e D&D free pdf release pre3e) martial arts action bits into any system regardless of the theme/fluff. We had fun with just the combat bits in that system.

PS: Pendragon was aimed at knightly adventures, chivalry and, dare I say, romance. But I'm wrong on everything else.

@bored said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

You didn't do that on Realms. The issue is you're drawing an equivalency between people who were following the guidelines set for them (wood or weak stone halls, various fashion items on the wiki) and people who said 'fuck your theme, I do what I want,' and calling both sides extremists. You're acting like there's no fault to be found, which is ridiculous.

As has been pointed out by others, castles vs hovels was not a deal breaker to most of the players, by other players. As for fault, I present from the majority of my posts so far:

@Lotherio said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

Lack of theme understanding is entirely my fault.

@Lotherio said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

@kitteh Read all I wrote, that nitpicking as you call it ends with 'I am to blame for lack of theme understanding'.

@TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

I'm only offering the goal of realms was not dirt groveling land holders. Again blame me for theme misunderstsndings.

@TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

And I'll say again, lack of theme consistency is my fault, entirely. But know that dirt groveling landholders was not part of the theme.

@TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

You started with this ^ none of which is entirely accurate. I explained why we stopped Realms, player bickering (ie we're dirty grovelers vs we're glittering nobles; neither of which is accurate). I concur it's my fault. And you keep making jabs, such as the fae char which actually never was far, and even now against that house.

@TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

I take blame for misunderstanding and misrepresentation of theme at Realm, as repeatedly said. But as you can see how it mildly turns to disagreement here, this is foreshadowing what could potentially be expected.

I'm being accused of being a nitpicky anal historian who was not anal enough in enforcing my theme. Which shall I be for you? I am not a nitpicky anal historian nor I was not anal in enforcing them at the expense of pretendy fun time. This continually assault on my lack of tacking fault over dirt groveling or castles illustrates the points, pick your theme stick to it, damned those that disagree. Which is what I am doing now.

Its some of these pedantics and discussion of castles and manors that's part of the larger bickering issues that showed up at Realms.

Last August on the Historicla Mu's thread, there was discussion about folks discussing the finer points of detail vs the majority of players that just show up for pretend fun time and while to those who enjoy history, the semantics of a building that consists of a few rooms, maybe a wing, down to the invention of the chimney is what drives players away from wanting to wade into historical games. Low stakes seems to border into historical and inconsistency at a smaller level will be noted.

I take blame for misunderstanding and misrepresentation of theme at Realm, as repeatedly said. But as you can see how it mildly turns to disagreement here, this is foreshadowing what could potentially be expected.

The dirt grovelers were going for dirt floor/thatched roof concepts. I think it stemmed from Vikings and folks pushing for homes closer to where Ragnor started. In my mind, the period was closer to the homes/abodes of the Jarls. A gathering hall, separated private rooms (solar) for the family, possibly an extension or two. We specifically opened the manor homes with some history in the area, not newly enfoeffed knights given a plot of dirt to build up, they were at least established. The gripes were the few extremists wanting dirt poor and those wanting super fancy, ignoring that most were at about the right level.

You should at least ask Daithi about his magical flagon.

@kitteh said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

@fatefan The Realms Adventurous (Pendragon game) tried to do the more 'your goats survive' level of play when it started out (characters were knights, but the... lowest, shittiest, 'your farm pays for your armor and horse and that's it' level of knight), but a LOT of people bucked theme and went for frilly L&L. I think it maybe could have worked, but staff wasn't very big on enforcing anything so you had people basically playing in completely different themes.

You started with this ^ none of which is entirely accurate. I explained why we stopped Realms, player bickering (ie we're dirty grovelers vs we're glittering nobles; neither of which is accurate). I concur it's my fault. And you keep making jabs, such as the fae char which actually never was far, and even now against that house.

@kitteh said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

@TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

Clearly some issues remain from a game that closed 18 months ago. The fae girl did redact and change logs, descs and bg as asked by staff. Nothing warranted 'banning'. If it's really this upsetting after all this time PM me or go to the pit.

No u? (Also I'm confused, why am I PM'ing you? I thought @Lotherio ran Realms)

I think it's pretty relevant when the question is 'how can low stakes be compelling'. Part of the answer is 'actually keep people on the same page about what they're playing.' The fairy might have been dealt with, but it took long enough that it did damage to the game environment and the general tenor of RP.

The fae princess didn't damage the game. We were still getting new players when we decided to close down because of player bickering. There were other bigger angst issues between some groups than that specific character.

Keep people on the same page about what they're playing I agree with.

What I am (also) saying (and use your deductive powers on why TimmyZ is saying it*), is that Realms was never dirt squabbling nor high medieval literary fantasy. A big issue in this argument to understand is that fae were a part of the actual game, as was fae characters, fae nobles, fae knights and even half fae characters. However, we as staff did not want magic player characters because their only balance (time to rest) was countered by the nature of the quickened IC time scale. Fae and Fae chars are part of Pendragon, it was our House Rule to not have fae character. Much as we were not allowing saxons, or vikings or other cultures (for this argument, see all the old Cirno threads flaming the game).

What a lot of 'complaints' on said character fail to realize is that saying something like 'she looks elfin' really means that she appears small and mischievous and in no way did it ever imply she was fae. The first logs left it ambitious, it could go either way and we curtailed this within the first week of seeing it, speaking with said player. And after the complaints continued because that player used elfin as a descriptor in desc or in poses, we had her even correct using such descriptors. I feel that was ridiculous to appease a small portion of the population, others were reading more into it than implied, yet we spoke to her again to appease a small number.

I'll grant you, you're welcome to be upset with the character for ball room gown. We as staff we're dealing a lot more with high heels and jeans showing up in descs that we were dealing with over how fancy the dress was.

And again, the dirt squabbling farmer was player insistence because they equated enfoeffed to dirt hovels (thatch roof, no floor, 6th century abodes) and yes I did say it was closer to this than some of the 16th+ century castles appearing, which staff were working to correct. There was a succinct post on this by Madoc in the first month of playing explaining that the holdings were multiple structures including things like kennels and rockery and walls and towers and moats even. This was ignored by the base that wanted dirt groveling enfoeffed land holders. Yes, cattle raiding was a part of the system either way, regardless if they lived in a manor or a thatched roof.

And I'll say again, lack of theme consistency is my fault, entirely. But know that dirt groveling landholders was not part of the theme.

• Yes, I am Sir Kay/Lotherio. I absolutely did not want any baggage of Realms to follow to the new game, and it hasn't. Again, great player base, great stories, and oddly enough, no squabbling over what theme should be. Well, some bickering, and we know who that was too.

@kitteh said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

@Lotherio Ah, my bad.

Anyway re both Realms and newer game ideas, I still don't think a 'dirty' historical setup is actually MU-unplayable, a lot of people enjoyed it. You just have to be willing to actually tell the fairy chicks who walk in with their fantasy ball gowns that it's not actually in theme. If they flounce off in a huff, no loss.

Clearly some issues remain from a game that closed 18 months ago. The fae girl did redact and change logs, descs and bg as asked by staff. Nothing warranted 'banning'. If it's really this upsetting after all this time PM me or go to the pit.

I'm only offering the goal of realms was not dirt groveling land holders. Again blame me for theme misunderstsndings.

And I'd gladly play such a game. Vikings would be fun. I named a period but any time period, alternate time period, fantasy or other wise would be interesting.

A political system was being worked on. Prior to its potential release, we very publicly offered that we would be running political missions and events in July and asked for interested parties to respond. We received one reply. That one reply, we set up an event to see if others might show up, and one more showed. Spur of the moment, staff offered to run a hunt for new players playing huntsmen that same day. Two players for political and 6 showed up for the spur of the moment hunt, it felt that was the will of the players.

Slightly more successful for July was the beginning of the White Knight Quest. Folks were more keen to take and accept challenges from the mystery knight. This is still ongoing, with a chance to contribute, his identify revealed.

Ulster invasion is concluding at the moment, there was a lull in fighting (from the onset of news) to give the political missions a try. We'll conclude that.

July introduced fae-touched PrPs, a few took part in this, those touched now can meet with the fae courts.

Now, as far as chance of politics relating to strategy game between houses, this will most likely not happen. The interest has been low. We've been offering things to those who show activity, not making things to increase activity.

As far as marriage maker/TS game, lets be honest, marriages happen on all themes, as does the dating. Its going to happen here, but staff are more focused on continuing to do things. The first parts of August were reserved for the end of the year tourney. We're back into the swing once more.

For all it is worth, I'll be honest, don't expect daily events or staff to offer lots to do. I'm shooting for one event a week if I can, an occasional alternate for doing something Friday nights when I can be around. In the end, we are really seeking personal character stories, in line with medieval high Arthurian literature. There is RP and it is what you make it. Log wise, we average between 1-3 logs posted a day, a slight lull currently after the tourney, a few vacations and mishaps.

For politics, its literally up to players to decide if they want to politic (not strategy resource management simulation/game). I've pointed out on several occasions how easy it could be for anyone to actually politic (convince others to see things their way, not roll dice), to get the political powers that be to promote folks within the game.

All that being said, we've had many chime check it out then leave. The group sticking around is a damn good group of folks who enjoy a little bit of everything, the adventures, the tourneys, and yes the romance (even if they are holding out against Daithi). The RP is enjoyable to read in the logs. I enjoy the RP i can find when not running things. I've been very entertained by this group and will try to keep the pace and theme as it's developed by them too.

Fifth Kingdom, but I'm Biased ...

Still slowly growing. Finished the start of some battle sequences, wall defense against battering rams. The fate of the city of Artri hangs in the balance, the control of the bridge over the River Inny at stake as Ulster tries to push back into Kidare.

The looming suspicion if the western clan of Tirechan can be trusted after dealing with the brehon of the Ulster Courts remains. And suddenly more superstition and folklore is abound; good and bad luck plaguing the Court of Ronain, and the appearnce of an Avanc in the bogs south of the River Shannen. If the Ulster defence holds out perhaps the final Kidare Tourney to celebrate first harvest can lift spirits.

The Court full, we're turning some focus to developing the Septs (house or the families within a Clan). Court politics (our developing system) goes into play in July, and will be used for Septs that develop come August. As @Pondscum noted, it's a roll at beginning of month, any failure or shortfall can be remedied through rp (plot a solution or rp with other houses to trade for needs). End of month could net surplus in resources that could gain house favor.

Like the five top court positions, the heads of the Septs could be good positions for active players in a manner similar to FCs or Faction Heads. The hope is to have house politics coded come August so that failing rolls gives plot ideas for head and members of a house to solve and aid in rp.

Staff will continue focusing on bigger picture meta with plots ready to go for July.

@Lisse24 said in Cary's Playlist:

@Ganymede @Pondscum I also vote Fifth Kingdom! I mean, I've only been there 2-3 days, but I haven't seen any drama, therefore, it must not exist, right? right?

Oh, there is some drama, thankfully its all been IC (the kind we the staff want to see ...). We should take bets on who gets slapped next.

@icanbeyourmuse Alts ... Exactly this. Anything. There is no win, except enjoying story.

Someone could honestly be the Head of a Sept and go to war with their rival Sept. It would be short lived without support of other septs, especially those in your clan. It give Ulster some ground to. But we're not stopping it, staff is more focused on larger plot and threat to the Fifth of Kidare.

It's old school politics, have to go talk and rabble rouse others to your side. But Sept conflict and division could make things interesting.

We're looking at politics, much thanks to @Ganymede. Makes it more tangible, may make Sept conflict and clan vs clan raids a little more work. But our focus is making environment against Kidare to drive personal stories.

Lancelot has great story that is widely known for his character development and personal struggles that go against his presumed nature. Not for fighting giants with Galahad, not for being a de Orkney ( check the c map, hard to imagine someone from there like Lancelot), not for slaying the Dragon near King Pellinore during his visit their. If I ask a random stranger, he's a tramp and Guinevere is a harlot ... They all know love triangle, which is made better with Kay, Galahad, other knights and Arthur's take on this. Knowing it's happening letting it happen, dealing with it after. Redemption, redemption too late. It's effect on the kingdom and later judgement calls.

We have everyone mostly in court to deal with broader issues ... Raiders, famine, foods, bad political decisions, to make the right ones, to fund the right septs to give in times of need. To decide whether we invade Ulster, defend, what to do with Leinster, Munster, who to trust and not trust. Everytime Ronain is available, he's there to listen to what the court folks want or think on ideas. Like Munster now, the lean on his decision is 'no fer now'. There may be more tomorrow to come of this and other situations.

The politics should be more concrete going forward of that helps, but convincing your fellow players of your agenda goes miles now (actual politics and diplomacy, convincing the others your right or they're wrong).