Best posts made by Warma Sheen

@arkandel said in Plot session duration:

But why is no one interested in politics!

I love it. But... whenever I try to engage in politics in games it is usually treated almost as an afterthought. If I deal with mortal politics in a game with powers, the default response is usually 'okay, you can do that, but it would take X months for the bureaucracy machine to get there. Oh and you'd having to be working at making this happen the whole time so you won't have much time to work on anything else political. Okay, see you next year.'

In games where PCs hold all the positions, I think people dislike politics because it very quickly becomes less about IC manueverings and more about OOC preferences. Who likes who and is buddied up with who. Clique madness or whatever. In games where NPCs hold the highest positions it feels that actions are dismissed in favor of steering the PCs towards the direction of the current plots being run. There's not much change being influenced by PCs, especially if it goes against the current plot threads.

Because politics affects so much of the game, it is a sensitive thing for staffers to let go of. It can easily turn the game into a ghost town if it goes the wrong way, especially when you add in powers. So much mind control stuff out there. So I understand that. That is probably why staff isn't big on freely allowing PCs to dive into politics.

For players, you'd need a full group of mature players who can handle getting backstabbed, manipulated, thrown under the bus, or played as a pawn without causing ooc drama over it. And I would guess most people don't have high hopes for that, so that's why players stay away from politics.

Even knowing this, I can't stay away from playing at politics because I find that to be one of the most fun things to do. I run my head into the wall frequently but its better that than focus on things that don't nearly interest me as much. Every now and then I can get stuff done, but mostly I think that's cause staff has found it easier to give me some thing of little consequence than deal with coming up with reasons to steer me elsewhere.

@Rinel I was the same. I watched the show first on Syfy, so Seasons 1 and 2, then (since it was cancelled) I picked up the books cause I loved the show so much that I just had to know what happened with everything. The story was too good to just stop there. And I loved the books even more. Then Amazon picked the show back up and now I'm in the middle of watch Season 3. Still great.

For those that have read the books, but not seen Season 3, Amazon really lets Chrisjen be who she is in the books in a way that SyFy did not (or could not). It is fantastic.

I love it when you can enjoy the books and the TV show (or movie) at the same time. It doesn't always happen, but even with different story choices for media reasons, the stories just really flow together. Although it is super weird that the TV show series seems to begin and end in the middle of each book, it doesn't feel off at all.

I also love that they've included most, if not all of the Expanse novellas. You can tell the people working on the show have a love of the material.

As far as Science Fiction on TV goes, The Expanse has been one of the best things I've enjoyed in a really long time. Sadly, that was specifically what SyFy was going for when it dumped the budget into it that it did, but it also got cancelled because of that budget.

@killer-klown I would actually love a game with glacial advancement again. Where the game was about the characters and the story and the roleplaying and not getting to the next stat level as quickly as possible, even if only to keep up with the other players who are surely getting to the next stat level as quickly as possible.

@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.

@Thenomain Each character of code is loved and appreciated.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/06/entertainment/michael-k-williams/index.html

The main thing I regret about MUs when I was younger was just getting started. If I could go back and not start, I would. It wasn't at all what I thought it was while I was playing it and it wasn't what I wanted it to be. I wanted an online version of a tabletop game (because my gaming group broke up) and it wasn't that at all. I wanted action and adventure and everyone around me wanted drama and TS. People would constantly look down on me and bad mouth me because what and how I wanted to play "wasn't the right way" (or some version of that). By the time I learned what was "socially acceptable" on a MU, I was so angry and resentful at having to play everyone else's way that I was just pissing people off and allowing people to piss me off on a constant basis. I never believed (and still don't) that MUing was a "collaborative writing experience". I'm not sure where that concept came from but I've rarely seen it apply to any MU*.

I was a very negative person for several years in large part due to my frustrations on MUs and with life. Eventually, it made me hate online gaming altogether. Self sabotage is a bitch like that cause I was basically addicted like a crackhead. I loved the high of MUs but couldn't see that the fun times were increasingly outweighed by the frustrations and shit slinging I was taking my way. Whenever a new game would pop up and I'd get that little spark of hope that this one would be better and I'd be let down all over again. I've spent hours, days, weeks, months, years of my life online on a MU, trying to get 'fun' to happen when I could have been out actually doing fun stuff.

It wasn't until I was older and wiser that I realized that the trade offs were not worth it and I was happier not playing at all, than finding little bright spots here and there while being frustrated and annoyed (or worse) all over the place more often than not.

I still think the biggest problem in MUs is the toxic community of players that doesn't really change. Not a lot of new MUers. Same bad people, only a few of which grow and mature. Others carry grudges for years or decades.

I still think too many people bring their RL issues (mental or emotional) to games and expect other people to accommodate them. MUs are not group therapy sessions or outlets for you to unload on others.

I used to think it was fun to find new and unique ways to "win". I swear I learned that from reading "Ender's Game" when I was little. But I missed the part where everyone fucking hated Ender and wanted to murder him. So I don't think its applicable on MUs anymore, if only because it annoys everyone else and ultimately makes everything else less fun for you in the long run.

I still think ICA has to equal ICC if you expect to have any theme on a MU. And not just between PCs, but from staff too. They need to bring the NPC folks that keep people in check in the first place, not just the NPCs that end up as event fodder. Every MU I've been to people do eyerolly stuff consistently because there are no real consequences. People are far too touchy about character death and character control and so consequences go out the window and inanity builds more and more until it overflows into complete theme abandonment and obliteration and even the staff can no longer rein it in.

I have learned to temper my expectations on what I'm getting out of a hobby (not just MUs but any hobby) and that has helped me enjoy the things I do in my life a lot more. And to better evaluate if it is something I want to keep doing or when to quit. I've learned that I'm not responsible for anyone else's fun so if I want to quit a game I can do so and not feel guilty for the people left behind.

I've learned that good staff are undervalued and underappreciated. I used to believe that anyone could be a good staffer so long as they had the right mindset of what the game is about. I've since learned that such is not true.

I've learned that bad staff are overly tolerated. I used to think you can just ignore bad staffers, but I've learned that just their presence infects the game and spreads negativity which spoils a game from the inside out.

And I've learned that no matter how right you are or how great your idea is, it is far more important how you express those ideas or opinions that determines whether people will take you seriously. It applies to RL too, but far, far more on MUs.

In 1999 the red star Talos appeared in the sky the week after the horror of the Time of Nightmares ended. Scholars and talking heads appeared around the world to discuss how such a thing was the herald of cataclysm, with ancient peoples believing that it protrayed a coming cataclysm. Some even say that it burnished the sky a blood red the day Mount Vitruvius buried Pompeii.

A Grand Convocation was call pulling more than 500 mages and their custodes to hide inside the Horizon Realm of Unity. They are the survivors of apocalypse who have lived hiding within their own world for more than 24 years. As the two decades of isolation from the world they abandoned have passed, resources such as Quintessence and Tass have become commodities. Not enough for the many and horded by the few. Fractures have started to appear among the factions of Unity leading to the question of how will they continue to survive? Is it worth trying to fix the small pocket of reality that the magi survive in? Or would it be better to escape and see what became of the world?

Ascension Sojourns in a Mage 20th Anniversary game accepting beta testers ahead of a soft opening this fall, and grand opening this winter. Tradition Mage, Mortals, Sorcerers, Psychics, and Bygone are currently accepted. Bonus chargen XP will be given if you tell us where you saw this ad. We are looking for active players who want to write stories and be involved with plots. Each group, cabal or otherwise, will decide a “plot night” which will run like a weekly (or what works for the group) tabletop session with staff to advance game plots, and/or complete your groups +requests. Between sessions player are welcome to role-play amongst themselves as on any mush.

Connect to: Ascensionsojourns.com:7423
Wiki: https://ascensionsojourns.com
Discord: https://discord.gg/8KzHqZUbmx (or contact us in-game if this doesn’t work)

We have noticed that some Mu clients seem to take longer to connect to the game. We don’t understand why this is happening. However, we highly suggest BeipMU for your client, it seems to connect fastest.

((Note: Not my game. Posting for a friend.))

Definitely Ender's Game.

@mietze said in Consent in Gaming:

I find that the vast majority of time there's a consistent troublemaker who erodes the IC and OOC goodwill around them with their IC and OOC behavior, it is largely because either they don't grasp that, or they really don't care--and normally the former rather than the latter, since by the time I've ended up talking to them usually it's because they are sad/upset that they have burned so many other bridges to get to that point.

Sometimes for whatever reason there are some players who can get away with it on a game or for a time, and when the situation changes they are often hurt and upset and can't understand why other people don't just want to roll with it and enjoy their story. Unfortunately, there sometimes just isn't a lot of patience to sit down with someone and work through that and help them sort it out, for a lot of understandable reasons.

This occurs often with people who believe that the game they are playing is "their story". When in fact, it is everyone's story. Unless you're going to run multiple instances of a MU, like different dimensions, stories will run into each other. Everyone can't be the lead all the time.

It also occurs on games where there are few consequences for bad behavior, both IC and OOC.

@insomniac7809 said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

Not gonna lie, if I need to read an ethnography to roll up a PC I probably won't.

Actually, I think this works out best for everyone.

I wish more people who did not want to read up about who they are playing did not make characters.

In case anyone missed it. I didn't see it mentioned but thought it warranted a mention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-C1bj0rZPM

The Companion book referenced will be FREE.

@arkandel That's quite the topic, yo. Everyone please keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle for the duration of this ride...

I definitely don't think anyone should be trying to offend players, and I doubt most do. Some definitely try to 'shock' players and the methods for doing that can sometimes be triggering. I'm one of those people that think it is the player's responsibility to remove themselves from situations that are triggering - not to expect others to know and refrain certain topics. I generally get a very passionate disagreement to that view when it has been expressed before, but there's been little in my experiences that has swayed me from it. I certainly don't want anyone triggered or to feel anything other than happyfuntimes when playing a game, but I don't think it is everyone else's responsibility to avoid topics (assuming they even know what those topics are) for the benefit of one person.

If, however, players or plot runners are willing to go out of their way to accomodate certain individuals and their triggers then that is awesome and to be applauded. But on a base, general level, I think we all need to take individual responsibility for the games and scenes in which we play - as well as the themes in those games (e.g. if you are triggered by violent things, don't play on games with a dark, violent theme and then expect everyone to stick to sunshine and rainbows around you).

@tinuviel said in A healthy game culture:

I don't know about the rest of you, but the backstabbing and the politics is the main draw of WoD (specifically vampire) to me. It's almost the entire point. That and the fact that there are no good guys, everyone is fucked.

When I started in WoD, this was the thing. And it was awesome. It was tabletop with friends and it included "fuck your buddy notes". These were index cards where we secretly wrote stuff we wanted to do. It didn't always fuck your buddy over, but sometimes it did. Every 30 minutes the ST would collect cards (everyone turned in a card regardless if they wrote something on them that they wanted to do), read through them, and secretly roll people's dice pools to see who did what, if it was successful, and if anyone else noticed. He would write the results on each card and hand them back. You never got a card back blank. Sometimes it would just be some random ass crap like "it is a busy night tonight. A lot of people are out." And you're just like 'wtf' is that supposed to mean. Sometime it didn't mean anything. Sometimes it was a clue to something someone else did (PC or NPC). And being surprised by what people were doing was the best part of the game. The important part was that you couldn't just do anything you wanted. There consequences besides the other PCs being angry. There were NPCs that had interests and alliances. There was the city in general to consider. Blood baths and shootouts were not looked favorably upon, nor anything else that drew attention.

It was great and in the top 3 of the best fun I ever had. But life stepped in. We got jobs or went to college or turned towards relationship and the gaming group broke up. So I found MUs. And, holy shit, MUs are not at all the same as tabletop even if you're technically playing the same game IP.

@faraday mentioned about how playing with friends is different than playing with strangers on the internet, but I think the key part of that dynamic isn't friendship as much as it is trust. You trust your friends, you trust the people you play with (we had different people in and out for play sessions and STers all the time and some I didn't know at all but it still went great). You trust the ST isn't going to fudge the dice for their friend. But on a MU* there's very little trust. Quite the opposite, I think. People are wary of staffers and other PCs, super skeptical about their intentions or motivations. People don't trust that someone else isn't just going to use their character as a weapon to avenge personal slights like an expendable object. Whereas real people (and characters played well) have consequences and things to lose, some characters act regardless of consequence since players can just drop the character and roll up another. So while I agree with the sentiment that friendships keep games fun, I'd argue that the key ingredient to a successful game is trust.

And that's not likely to happen on a MU* any time soon, if ever. (I could be wrong about this and I really wish I was cause that would be awesome).

@ThatOneDude Agreed on that. To say that part of the problem with the game system is that people are asshats is applicable to a great many things. It isn't the system that needs adjusting. Its the people.

Most CoD conditions can be easily resolved. Its just that people don't want to because of they don't want to lose the scene or, as mentioned, they are worried other players will ostracize them for ruining their flawless victory. Conditions aren't just 'stuff I gotta get rid of'. They're guidelines by which characters should be played based on the story that has affected them. Fear based guidelines need things like this because they're routinely ignored or played as 'OMG I'm SO scared... but that won't stop me from expertly performing this intricate task requiring concentration and calm without any hindrance whatsoever.'

Tasks are supposed to be failed because of fear and groups are supposed to be hindered. A lot of people don't play it that way without some incentive to do so. And even with incentive, some people still don't do it.

@devrex said in Mourning a character, how do you do it?:

@arkandel It's frustrating that folks would do that, especially given that killing a PC is the most boring thing a person can do. There's a lot more mileage out of making lives complicated.

In a perfect world with all awesome MU* players yeah, this would be the thing. But that's not the case. There are plenty of horrible people who get their own excitement by ruining other people's fun and people who escalate to eleventy billion as soon as a character looks at them the wrong way.

In my experience (or at least my perception), if it comes down to beating another character in combat and you don't kill them for whatever reason, that other person then makes it their mission to come back with all-the-things/powers/friends/weapons to kill you instead in retaliation.

So the only way to protect your character is to make sure they're dead and they stay dead.

Now, I've never PKed anyone. But I've been the target of IC retaliation and it wasn't fun. It wasn't good story. It was just annoying and petty and draped in far more OOC drama than ever occurred ICly. And just two days after initial incident I was wishing I had just PKed the character in the first place.

I ended up leaving the game after another couple of weeks because it just became so unpleasant. So they won. Not because of the characters or the stats, but because they had more OOC friends that were able to make things unpleasant. No one wanted to hear about how she attacked me and I ended up wining the fight. No one seemed to care that I made the OOC choice to let her live despite being attacked. All anyone cared about was 'rar you almost killed my friend now we're all gonna kill you'.

It comes down to 'I'm going to get my way, somehow'. Could be IC. Could be OOC. Could be dice. Could be a house rule. Could be just flat out lies and gaslighting. But those are the kinds of people we engage with in the hobby. I've never been to a place where that mentality wasn't prevalent somewhere. Usually its players. Most recently for me it was my sphere staffer. But that pettiness and negativity is always present in this hobby and I've found it to be unavoidable. This is why I quit. I have forgotten and come back twice cause I tell myself that maybe, if I do things on my end differently it might have a better outcome.

But no, but it always ends the same way.

@Ghost Most of this sounds like your own issues and hangups, not everyone else's.

People were using PBs for decades. It wasn't an issue before. AI art doesn't suddenly make that bad. It is just another option in a slew of options.

People have sexual thoughts. Sometimes people are in those sexual thoughts. That's been a thing forever. It isn't an issue as long as you keep it to yourself. Its part of the social contract, being as we all understand we can't control people's thoughts, but people can control their own actions. It is pretty disturbing that you repeatedly base your arguments around concepts wherein this basic concept doesn't exist. Your hypotheticals are all creepy, regardless of content, because each one supposes one person unloading unsolicited sexual thoughts to another about them or a celebrity, or a mutual acquaintance, or anyone else ever. None of that is okay. All of it is creepy.

I don't have regular TV anymore so I don't watch this show, but I'll always appreciate it for the first season's winner, T-Pain.

It really tells you something about the music industry (or at least the mainstream music industry) that one of the most autotuned voices in music history can actually sing. The people at his record label (RCA) determined that the gimmick of being autotuned was somehow more profitable than an actual talented singing voice. WTF.

They wouldn't let him produce his albums without being autotuned and then when people started hating autotune they just wouldn't let him produce albums. He actually asked to be let out of his contract and they wouldn't - just in case autotune came back into popularity. They didn't want someone else to cash in. Eventually he had to throw together some crap that sounded more "current" just to finish out his contract and be able to move on and make music without autotune.

So if you're one of those people out there (like me) that thinks 90 percent of music out today is just trash, this is a perfect example of why.

Good on The Masked Singer to put the focus back on talent in music... even if they do it in the weirdest way possible.

That continues to be one of the funniest things I've ever watched, obviously in part because of the connection to the material. Still so hilarious.

To be very direct to the question, I don't think games should incentivize failure. I think that just leads to more problems rather than helping the game's situation. A couple of things have been mentioned on that already.

A more useful tool would be to manage the expectations of failure. A lot of that comes with being very clear and comprehensive when establishing your game's theme. Is this the place where everyone is the hero? Is this where you come for wish fulfillment? Is this the place where you come to tell the stories you want about your character? There's nothing wrong with those at all, if that's what you like. But I think @Ganymede suggested that you should pick a system that supports that. If the experience you came for is to always win, then why have a system at all? Tell the story without including chance or stats. Some systems aren't meant for everyone to win everything. Some systems are pretty brutal at allowing success. If you're running the above type of game, that probably shouldn't be the system you use. Or modify your system so that it fits what you need. You can run WoD, but lower all the diffs so that rolling becomes next to pointless and allows everyone to win.

But if you want a game that includes failure, make sure you establish that in the theme. There are so many people that show up to games with their own idea about what the game should be or what MU*ing should be and so disappointment and frustration are inevitable. If you believe that failure makes stories more dynamic and interesting and surprising, then failure is incentivized by the roller coaster of stories you get to tell and be a part of. You can use dice systems that include botches and dramatic twists and situations and everyone on your game should understand that that is the type of game they are signing up for by playing there.

The other problem is that many games ignore all the aspects of a story besides the character. Besides being boring, one dimensional stories have the problem of: if you something happens to the one and only aspect of this that you enjoy, you no longer have any avenues of fun. But stories managing just the setting are ripe for the telling and they are often completely ignored. Character are often handed buildings and land and there's no responsibility to maintain it or involve it or be involved in the surroundings in any way. Positions of importance are mentioned a lot, but I have to believe that the creative types that play and run these games have to be able to come up with enough positions of importance that everyone who wants one can find one. These games often involve power and status and none of that is done in a vacuum. In WoD games, with which I'm most familiar, there are vast swathes of story that are usually level completely ignored. Territories, economies, properties, resource management, items and equipment, etc. So much stuff is just left on the cutting room floor that players feel like their fun is over because they don't get one thing they want when there's hundreds of other things to achieve (in theory) but players rarely get the opportunity to involve themselves with them in meaningful ways.

Lastly: practice, practice, practice.

Like anything, being good at something takes practice. And if you have little to no practice at something, it is very easy to suck at it. And since many of the games I've played have little to no failure at all at any time, it is no wonder that the very few times that players encounter failure they FREAK out about it. If the practical culture of a game is that no one ever fails and then you manage to do so, it is very easy to feel like crap about it, especially when everyone else is succeeding so greatly and living their best life. More failures all around help everyone cope with the fact that not everything is perfection. That's not to say that you should make people fail. Just don't make everything such a cakewalk and let the dice do what they do.

What I've heard too much is 'I don't want X to happen to my character because of bad dice rolls'. Then why are you using dice? Dice randomize the outcomes within stories. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. If you don't want that, don't use dice. What some people really want is to overcome challenges and beat the odds so that they can look and feel impressive - but without any of the risk.

The incentive in failure is the dramatic turn of the failure, the excitement of that story. If you have to incentivize it, something with your game and/or players is already off. The only way to fix that is by cultivating the culture you'd like to see on your game of embracing both the ups and the downs.