I think one of the biggest problems is that people see staff and players as two different species, as though they aren't both the same types of human beings with all the inherent faults and brilliance that come with that.

Then there's a different standard put on the two species. And that is exploited by complaining about every little mistake a staffer does because of the higher standard they are held to and trying to get away with every little thing because players have a lower standard.

As people who are people, that shouldn't be. They should have the same standard of being people who are involved in playing on the same game. When that happens, you start to have much fewer excuses and resentment on the issues that do come up.

Not to weigh in on anything specific, but it just generally sounds like everyone would be happier with their funtimes if they let go of 5 year old resentments.

I have to say, I don't understand the desire to hold staffers to such strict and rigorous standards while players are generally allowed to be shits whenever they choose to be and continue to have as much fun as possible. It seems like there will be more people who don't run games and don't staff places just for not wanting to deal with the drama that such strict standards inevitably creates.

We're all bouncing around on the same games with the same people, pretending they are something new, when the reality is that we've done it all before and we'll do it all again. The same drama of cliquish, teenage whisper campaigns I dealt with 6 years ago, I'm dealing with on the place I play now. I wouldn't even be surprised if the people behind it were the same people from 6 years ago using the same tactics to alienate people. And that's insane.

Maybe it would be better for everyone to stop making different rules for staff and players as though they were two different species and instead hold people accountable for being people. Maybe then more people would be willing to donate time to places and actually be able to have fun, instead of being told that if you volunteer for a position to help all the other players, the rules in place are going to make it as difficult as possible for you to have your own fun. Maybe then we would get new stories and new ideas and less stress and less burn out and more people enjoying more of their time in this hobby.

@Sparks said in MU* Gripes and Peeves:

Many folks don't have the option to put it all aside by logging off.

For the most part, it is true. There have been several times I've tried logging off from being black. It never works.

@Tinuviel said in MU* Gripes and Peeves:

If you have the knowledge to accurately play a POC, with all their culture and history intact, then chances are high you already are aware of your biases enough to deal with them. If you don't, then you're likely just playing a white dude with chocolate frosting.

Just keep in mind there are many flavors of POC who also have many flavors of culture. A lot of people forget the distinction between skin color and culture. I know a few white dudes with chocolate frosting. I know a few chocolate dudes with white frosting. They are people too.

Don't let fear of 'getting it wrong' stop you from playing a POC character. If you want to play it safe, just play to what you know and the skin color won't matter.

I started watching Legacies on Netflix and had no idea it was a Vampire Diaries spin off. I've never seen Vampire Diaries or any of its other spin offs, of which there are a few, apparently (and have never had any desire to). But as I'm watching this show that is not very good in terms of writing or story or anything resembling traditional entertainment, I find myself thinking:

"OMG, I finally understand WoD MUs/MUers..."

Its got a monster of the week.
The monsters usually come to the characters without having to be sought out because the characters are basically ignoring all the huge threats around them to spend time on far more mundane and inconsequential tasks, like finding someone to hook up with.
Its got teenage supers who are the most powerful things around despite other, older things just like them that certainly have to be out there.
The "bad guys" basically just stand around waiting to be killed by the "good guys" with pretty predictable results every week.
Its got cliques...
Despite the powers and the responsibilities the characters primary motivations are took up with and that drives most of the interactions.
Its got boring, uninspired dialogue and interactions wherein the characters try to be so insightful with each other, but just end up pointing out cliches and tropes in the most ham fisted way possible.
Most mortals are seemingly oblivious to the supernatural despite the characters tendencies to throw around magic every chance they get, even though they aren't supposed to.
The characters are always forgiven with little to no consequences for breaking those all important "no powerz" rules.
Cliques...
Its got "that one guy", the character that min maxed their sheet and plays the brooding badass loner who only breaks his eternal skulking to show up in every combat scene to steal the show, but wonders why none of the other characters don't like them.
Its got a guy who started out strong and dove into the plot, took a leadership position then stops logging on except for every once in a blue moon for no discernible reason, except that he got what he wanted so now is bored/boring.
Also, cliques...

And despite many of these being applicable to other shows, I've never seen one that has them all together in a way that is so MU*-like. These are just off the top of my head. Sorry if I'm late to the party. I'm sure someone else has noticed before but I never watched any of the Vampire Diary series and it kind of blew my mind that I was basically watching a live action WoD MU*.

It suddenly became so much more entertaining.

We've seen this time and time again. Everyone has different opinions. This is where staff needs to have a guiding vision for their game to say "this is our world and here is how it generally works". That's theme. It keeps things together. Yeah, it might not be your preferred method of power level comparison, but it can get everyone on the same page and temper expectations.

@Ganymede said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

It was apparent from the response that the game runner was aware of the issue. Regardless, I brought receipts; however, I know of nothing that was done to address the situation. That lack of action was one of the reasons I lost interest in the game.
This story has occurred many times in my 25+ years.
Going to the game runners is never a guarantee of action and brings with it a threat of exposure because, as Kestrel pointed out, that person may be good friends with staff. And if you want to stay on that game, you are potentially putting yourself in a difficult spot, one that might one day lead to your departure or start a whisper campaign against you.

This sounds oddly familiar to what just happened to me two months ago. A younger version of myself would say 'Yeah, based on my experience if you want to stay on a game just keep your mouth shut and don't ever say anything'.

But being older and wiser, I know that if you end up being kicked off a game by someone, then you were probably only going to be facing an uphill battle trying to have fun there anyway, which would be more work than enjoyment. So speak up and if it goes wrong, find other ways and means to have fun that aren't so toxic.

You'll be better for it in the long run.

I just wanted everyone to remember that people only vote moral, upstanding, law-abiding citizens to office. Anything else is just unthinkably unrealistic. I think, on this, we can all agree.

@Derp said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

For everyone, at large: We really, truly aren't fucking around when we tell people to lay off the personal attacks. STOP IT. Debate ideas all you want to. You can even call out behaviors that you find problematic with evidence, but just trying to browbeat someone to win some kind of internet points is not gonna fly.

Not sure if this was in reference to @Seraphim73 's comments, but it seems like it was. But that's not a personal attack. That's literally calling out behaviors that he finds problematic with evidence. It was just someone else's evidence that was referenced.

And its legit. Most of us have seen it, if not experienced it directly. Best thing to do is own up to past bad behavior and concede those points, especially if you can recognize those behaviors as negative and as something you want to avoid in the future for the community, despite having engaged in them in the past.

The biggest thing that will suck the life out of a game if people don't feel like they can be involved in a substantial way. And I don't mean doing things or going into scenes. I mean the other players have their cliques and you can just tell that the main group is the main group - and you ain't in it.

On a game based on a show where there are definitely the main characters and the background folk, nothing will make people flee faster than feeling like background folk.

That's a player thing, though. Not a staff issue. Just depends on what kind of community you have.

6 years later!?! ROFLMAO

I played a while back when they had wizards and it was a fun time. It suffered temporarily from a rash of players that had NO FEAR! but got upset when characters died and blamed the game in proper dramatic fashion. Otherwise, it was a interesting game with a solid story.

@Devrex said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:

In my opinion death is just the most boring possible thing you can do to a PC or to their story.

Strong disagree.

Like most things in the hobby, it depends on the player. For bad players, I find a resolution with consequences rather than death to be much more boring if the player completely dismisses the consequences, which bad players inevitably do.

"The NPC I love is gonna die. I'll find someone else to love."
"I'm in a deal I don't want to be caught in. I'll back out."
"I'm being blackmailed. So what."
"I wake up at the bottom of a well. I climb out."

For good players, death is just as interesting as other options. But death is only as interesting for the players around the dead character make it when other characters to feel the death and have it affect them and their stories.

Death usually boring because it is handled in a boring way. Dice roll, character's dead. How many times do you see a player roll into a character death, then it is RPed out in a dramatic way? Rarely. They're just dead. But there's no reason a "dead" character can't be on his way out the door, but hold on long enough to say their peace before they go. Fatal injury too far gone, but not quite so immediate that they can't be dragged back for goodbyes.

The dice can guide the story, but it doesn't have to dictate it. The dice are there to add elements of random chance to direct the story in ways you don't have to decide, not to force your characters into crappy stories. But again, good players and good STs know this already and do as they need to to keep the entertainment high.

Bad players and bad STs just look at the dice and say, "Oh. I died. That's dumb." "Yep. Sux bro."

@Devrex said in The Great PC Death Dilemma:

The PCs are supposed to be the heroes of the book, movie, or TV show. We know the MCs just aren't going to randomly die for no reason because of some random dice roll on all our favorite shows.

But MUs aren't TV shows or books. It is its own beast. What other storytelling medium has 134 main characters. The idea that the PCs are all simultaneously the main characters of a MU is unsustainable.

At the end of the day its a game that's only as good as the people involved. Bad players and bad STs will ruin any game no matter how good your policies or preparations are just as good players and good STs can make any game fun no matter how bad the rules or system is.

Apparently Amazon is satisfied with Wheel of Time and are doubling down.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/wheel-of-time-season-2-is-changing-its-episodes/ar-AA10eiJB?ocid=wispr&li=BBnb7Kz

XP caps are great. But MU*s should have alternate systems for rewarding players besides just giving XP. I get that that's all players really want so that can go to the moon with XP, but we've all seen what the XP bloats do to games.

There was a theory (I don't know that it ever came into play) of adding a secondary kind of currency that you could spend to do other things besides give your character MOAR POWAH. It was spent on things like unique equipment, territory, territory upkeep, and other side benefits that make your character a bit cooler, but is just side benefits. So much stuff is given away by staff for free or just handwaved that could easily be controlled and used as a reward for contributions to the game. Like grid space.

If you want to be a little more restrictive you can do stat caps that are opened with the secondary currency. Like all stats capped at 4. But you can buy level 5 for 10 "MU* points" in addition to the normal XP.

Contribution to games shouldn't be taken for granted. Those are so important. And not just running scenes. There are lots of ways (probably) to contribute to a game. But contributions also shouldn't imbalance the characters in that game.

P.S. The 'show me the logs method' just forces (some) people to do shitty RP to get the stuff. I want my character to have Academics. I DON'T want to RP studying for five scenes to justify it. There is a good reason that some some stuff is skipped over in the stories that we tell. They are boring and no one enjoys them. I want to spend my time on fun RP stuff, not forced subject material. Its a horrific idea, especially if there's no standard to what qualifies as 'good enough' for an acceptable log, which is a nightmare to try to qualify and judge. Overall, just don't.

@Derp said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

For everyone, at large: We really, truly aren't fucking around when we tell people to lay off the personal attacks. STOP IT. Debate ideas all you want to. You can even call out behaviors that you find problematic with evidence, but just trying to browbeat someone to win some kind of internet points is not gonna fly.

Not sure if this was in reference to @Seraphim73 's comments, but it seems like it was. But that's not a personal attack. That's literally calling out behaviors that he finds problematic with evidence. It was just someone else's evidence that was referenced.

And its legit. Most of us have seen it, if not experienced it directly. Best thing to do is own up to past bad behavior and concede those points, especially if you can recognize those behaviors as negative and as something you want to avoid in the future for the community, despite having engaged in them in the past.

@Ganymede said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

It was apparent from the response that the game runner was aware of the issue. Regardless, I brought receipts; however, I know of nothing that was done to address the situation. That lack of action was one of the reasons I lost interest in the game.
This story has occurred many times in my 25+ years.
Going to the game runners is never a guarantee of action and brings with it a threat of exposure because, as Kestrel pointed out, that person may be good friends with staff. And if you want to stay on that game, you are potentially putting yourself in a difficult spot, one that might one day lead to your departure or start a whisper campaign against you.

This sounds oddly familiar to what just happened to me two months ago. A younger version of myself would say 'Yeah, based on my experience if you want to stay on a game just keep your mouth shut and don't ever say anything'.

But being older and wiser, I know that if you end up being kicked off a game by someone, then you were probably only going to be facing an uphill battle trying to have fun there anyway, which would be more work than enjoyment. So speak up and if it goes wrong, find other ways and means to have fun that aren't so toxic.

You'll be better for it in the long run.

@hobos You don't have to pretend to be someone else. You can still be you. You just distance yourself from your past by not announcing yourself as having played X, Y, or Z characters. It isn't that foreign of a concept.

I've done it. It wasn't that difficult for me. People did not like my style of playing when I first started. I changed my views and moved forward without having to worry about the people with the torches and pitchforks who thought I was a horrible human person because I had a different perspective on how funtimes game should be played years and years ago.

But regardless of all that, I definitely prefer an outlet that encourages people to change for the better and grow.

@Derp He's saying that if someone has actually changed, it is easy to get around a preemptive ban. They just come up with a new screen name and can avoid being associated with their previous reputation by just being a decent person / player.

So a free clean slate is easy. In theory. But some people are so crappy that they can't help themselves from repeating the same crappy mistakes of being crappy to other people. Some people are unable or unwilling to be better so they keep doing the same crappy things and whether or not they are associated with their previous identity still end up banned for still being a generally crappy person. These are the people being preemptively banned who continuously do crappy things. And it is better for everyone involved that they and their reputations (and baggage) be left outside.

@Arkandel said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

Here's the thing though. It is a game. It's what people sign up for, unless it's explicitly stated otherwise.

Strong disagree.

What you think a MU is and what I think a MU is and what every other person thinks a MU is might be, and probably is, very, very different. What I think a MU* is now is very different than what I thought a MU* was when I first started playing. A significant majority of my issues when I started on MU* s came because I assumed it was a game and to many other people it was something else. I've read through pages and pages on MSB and whatever came before it of what different people thought a MU* was and should be. There's a hundred different ideas of what this thing is.

So if you just assume that it is one thing and people show up with their own ideas and those ideas clash, problems are inevitable. So when you ask what it takes to repair a community, I strongly suggest that a game runner doesn't assume that everyone knows that their game is just a game unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Every single site should very explicitly state what it is and what it wants from its community - the people playing or visiting or interacting on their site.

@Arkandel said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

For example if I go to a soccer game, I expect to watch teams kick a ball around. If the person next to me is enraged and wants to use that as an opportunity to scream profanities or bash my head in that's only 'on me' to the extent that I should be aware such things may happen. He's still wrong.

Perfect example. Depending on what country you're in, even what city, what is "wrong" behavior while watching teams kick a ball around differs wildly. That's culture. That's community. You can't just assume everyone knows what is and isn't okay. Everyone shows up with their own preconceived notions of what is and is not okay based on their own unique history and experiences. Without guidelines from someone, there is no right and wrong, just personal preference. Judging other people because they showed up to the same event with different expectations of what is and is not okay is what causes problems and fights. #wrongfun

If you show up to a soccer game and tell someone else they are wrong for screaming from the stands, then conflict is a given. Verbal at the least, possibly physical. Whether someone screaming obscenities at a soccer match is wrong or not is really just your own personal preference. You don't have the authority to decide how people should act. This is why it is necessary for the stadium to outline what is and isn't appropriate in their venue. And if they don't then people are left to their own devices to act as they please. And if those actions clash, then there will be conflict.

And all that's even assuming you're showing up to play the same game. What kind of equipment are you using if you are invited to show up to play football? Cleats and shin guards or shoulder pads and helmets? Is everyone around the world gonna show up with the same expectations to "playing football"? Nope. Definitely not. Which is why being explicit is good.

Some people show up to a MU* and expect a game where they try to outlast everyone else, beat all the enemies and get all the loot. Some people show up to an experience where their character is the star and is only interested in their own story. Some people show up for a collaborative story experience where everyone is working together to create interesting and dynamic stories. Some people show up to experience new and unique experiences that aren't possible in their real life by living vicariously through a character. All of these players cannot exist in the same place without clashing and usually not without problems.

Don't assume. Be explicit.

Most of the problems we run into in a text medium comes because people are not on the same page. Communication and mutual understanding is key so it would help immensely to say very clearly what a game / forum / whatever is about. What do you what your place to be? What do you expect from your players? Setting expectations is the first step to accepting outcomes.

If your game is supposed to be a collaborative experience, you need to let people know that they'll be expected to work with other players to everyone's mutual best interest. If your game is gonna be cut throat and people might literally get stabbed in the back, you need to let people know that PKs should be expected and are totally acceptable without good reason. If your game is just a game and characters can do as they choose but also be open to negative actions against them from PCs or NPCs, you need to let people know that no one should feel personally attached to characters that can go at any time.

If you are explicit in what your game is and what it should be then everyone else who shows up differently is wrong.

Most games do not want to narrow their focus because they want ALL THE PLAYERZ. Or more humble game runners are afraid that they won't reach that critical mass necessary to keep a game running. But to not be specific about what your game is going to be invites conflict and most game runners either don't realize it or don't care. And this is part of the reason why we have the community that we have with constant clashes of personalities over years or in some cases decades, all of whom think they are right and the other person is wrong. Because everyone keeps showing up to games with their own expectations of what a game should be and what's acceptable behavior, rather than the game runner laying it out explicitly from the start.