Zsa Zsa Gabor.
You know, I really don't give a damn about celebrities. And she was certainly not cut down in her prime. But I'm getting tired of hearing about people dying whose names I recognize and have encountered in various ways for a very long time. Really, it's enough.
@Arkandel I don't think it comes up all that often. The Legion aren't really Earth based. Most supers game don't have space open to the extent that any cosmic characters is allowed. They're generally okay if they have a reason to be on Earth but there's not usually going to be plots run in another part of the galaxy.
But yes, it is definitely a bunch of people who just can't compromise on the exact version of comic-book gaming. Or the comic book in general. The one side usually refuses to acknowledge that the other ever existed in canon.
@Arkandel said in DC Game Wanted:
I don't know anything from anything comic-MUSH-wise since I've barely played but it sounds like agreeing on which exact version of properties to run is a divisive factor in that community? Is that right?
Let's just say that the proponents for the different versions of the Legion of Super-Heroes are like the Sharks and the Jets. Except without Tony and Maria to make it romantically tragic. It's just tragic.
It would definitely be best to just create one's own version of the Legion to avoid that.
@skew Faraday's code is built on Penn. You're welcome to come log in as a guest and check out various sheets and bgs. They're public to everyone.
Marvel: 1963 uses Faraday's code. In fact, she helped set it up. We don't use the combat system or any of the related code. It's not Anomaly jobs though.
@Auspice Just tell them point blank: no politics. If anyone even mentions the T word, you'll reschedule to leave the next day.
I can't wait to see what happens with that. I hope it's a huge success so we can get it down here. (As if that's ever going to happen.)
He's talking about Beast and then the much younger version who was brought through time with the other original four.
Yes, I'm enjoying Timeless for reasons other than Matt Lanter. I can't think of another series that featured time travel and regularly failing to avoid changes to history. It makes it very interesting.
The thing is, being staff and having a PC that you want o play like a regular PC is a tightrope to walk and takes practice to do well. It is though easier when you have multiple staffers. Then you can have your PC in events the other staffers run and have them adjudicate issues that crop up with the staff alt.
@Sunny said in The 100: The Mush:
@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:
I adore being part of this community, but the impression I am getting here is that I am not a good Staffer, so there's that. I'm not going to turn into that person that people don't RP with or interact with because I made poor decisions, or thought I was doing a good job and I wasn't.
Hold up. Let me say something here very clearly, because I have put forth firmly worded negative opinions. You are not a bad staffer. You are an incredible storyteller, you have good intentions, you treat people with respect, and you're reasonable. I could probably think of a dozen other things that you excel at, where staffing is concerned.
Also, staffing - especially being headstaff - has a learning curve. If you've only started 2 games total? I think you're on the right track. There's been plenty of utterly horrid staffers and even more bad ones.
Okay, feeling the need to add my two cents here. For the sake of transparency, I played Morgan. It was mentioned already way back in the thread but I might as well say so again. I played on 5W but as far as I know, I've never played with @GirlCalledBlu or @Seraphim73 anywhere else and I apped on 100 before knowing it was them who staffed it. I'm also NOT playing on the 5W reboot.
Issue #1.
It's true that their PCs were not in a position of power. However, by dint of being staff alts, they're almost automatically in positions of power. Now, I'm not afraid to be in conflict with staff alts and from day one, Morgan and Grey were pretty much arguing with each other on a near daily basis. But I think I'm the outlier when it comes to that.
Many people have had bad experiences crossing staff alts and that carries over from day to day. Even if that's not the case, many people assume that the goals and attitudes expressed by staff alts are the direction staff want the game to go so they're leery about trying to swim against the current even when, as Andi and Orion expressed multiple times in my hearing/reading both here and on the game, that's not intended to be the case.
Is that their fault? No. They're just playing their characters and, especially in Grey's case, forcefully expressing the views and loudly advocating for the desired course of action OF THEIR CHARACTERS. Not of staff. If players choose to follow along with it, that's their choice and not something staff has any control over. That being said, it is something staff need to be aware of and take into account. There is a very, very long history of staff abusing their positions and those who don't toe the line get the boot or relegated to the sidelines. It still happens though, fortunately, not as much as it used to. Still, the BNW thread is a great example of it.
Issue #2.
Regarding playing the game before it is opened to the public and starting out with an advantage, all I can say it that it is an issue. In fact, it is an issue on every single game I've ever played on. People decide to open a game, build it, invite their friends over to alpha and beta test it, and then open it to everyone else. And not once, to my knowledge, has staff ever reset their characters to starting stats. If it's not a game with XP (like trait based supers games), the staff and all their friends end up with all the most popular FCs. That doesn't make it right but as far as I've seen, it is the default state of opening a game.
Issue #3
This one has no qualifier: A husband and wife team should never be the sole staff on a game (not including the coder). I'll expand this to any two people who happen to be close and think similarly about the direction of the game. Two people are not enough to run a game. It's too easy to burn out. And, in regards to this thread, it's too easy to not get opposing viewpoints.
To use the example @Miss-Demeanor brought up, if you have to ask a player if doing something would be a bad idea, you don't have enough staffers to run ideas by. And the answer would have been: would you have given a player permission to do it? If the answer is no, then the staffer shouldn't be either. There's no qualifier here like in the other issues. It's just a bad idea. It doesn't work well.
After a long, long time, someone finally convinced me to staff. And there are things that happen that I have very definite opinions on. But there's 5-6 pretty active staffers and on anything regarding policy, theme or something similar, we talk it out. Sometimes my opinion gets outvoted or I get talked down. And that's fine. I have my biases and they aren't necessarily the best for the game (actually they are but I'm just waiting to say I told you so).
The point being, games need multiple staffers who don't necessarily have the same opinion on how the game should be. It's not only best for the game, it's less stressful for the staff to be able to take a break and not have everything come to a grinding halt.
Actually, I don't see anyone whining about the 100. it's only @Ghost obsessing about something he tries to pretend he cares nothing about.
@Auspice said in RL things I love:
@Pandora said in RL things I love:
Closer
I'll be totally honest.
... I expected https://vimeo.com/3554226. And I had a moment of '...how is that pop? or chill?!'
Likewise. Though I was thinking this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PwpcUawjK0
@Roz said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
@lordbelh My character's definitely an asshole, but no. This is a very SERIOUS and SINCERE complaint about Leo's TERRIBLE PLAYER.
This is one of those variations of Poe's Law where, without smileys, I can't tell if it's a serious complaint or not. The all caps kind of says not but it's not definitive.
If it is serious, details.
@surreality said in RL Anger:
As I mentioned to a friend yesterday morning: "I need coffee this morning like the debate tonight will need a laugh track. These are the only ways I think I may survive either."
Laugh track? It needed a sad trombone.
You should have used this as called for:
Gog has DAO Ultimate on sale again. $7.99. Really, get it.
@Roz said in Dragon Age: Dread Wolf's Rise:
@TNP said in Dragon Age: Dread Wolf's Rise:
Reusing so many maps was just outright lazy.
Or desperately necessary because they were being rushed through production by EA and forced to produce a finished product much earlier than they wanted to.
Is that the reason? It shows. So it's EA's fault then.
I like DA2 as well. It was a very different game than DAO. Smaller, more focused, but enjoyable. It had its issues. Reusing so many maps was just outright lazy. And the Templar position was so very over the top. A little bit of nuance would have been nice, especially in the part of the game before you know who was affected by you know what. It wouldn't have been hard to improve the game drastically by just taking a little extra time to tighten things up. That being said, it was fun.