Posts made by Warma Sheen

@Ghost said in A.I. in the Community:

@faraday said in A.I. in the Community:

I don't think this practice is as widespread as you assert it is. (Though doubtless it does exist.)

Is there anyone anonymous who uses it under the radar who wants to chime in?

Its really being discussed as though it is black and white. It isn't always. But I understand that there are certain people who are just fundamentally against AI and aren't going to want to give any quarter.

Just using AI to substitute for writing isn't a great way to go about things at all. But if you use it as a tool, it can be great. Not everyone's writing is good. Some people are awful and I imagine there has been far more mocking of people's crappy writing than there has been of their use of AI. So if someone's writing can be enhanced and improved by AI, I am all for that. I am not at all opposed to great writing, and I honestly don't care if it comes from an AI or a person.

I don't have the time or inclination to really think the thought through, but playing video games is a valid form of entertainment wherein you don't have to interact with a human. Someone programed the video game. Just like someone programmed the AI.

If someone uses AI to tell good stories on a text game, then to me, it doesn't matter much at all. But that generally involves having to write text themselves then have the AI improve it. If they are just copy pasting AI responses, then it probably won't be good writing. Parts of it might be. But other parts will either not make sense, not fit the story, or be super repetitive, which is common.

At the end of the day, if the writing in the story is good, I don't care what tools were used, wholly or otherwise. I am entertained.

I get that not everyone holds the same opinion, but I think its hilarious that people would turn away good RP regardless of where it comes from when people have been complaining both about not being able to get good RP for decades while also having to deal with fickle/irrational/psychotic/etc personalities in the hobby.

@Juniper said in A.I. in the Community:

If it's so good, or better than human RP, or indistinguishable, why not go RP with AI?

If it were, people would. I know I would. If I could avoid some of the headaches of dealing with certain individuals and still have good RP, that would be absolutely lovely.

But it isn't.

Not on its own. Its still a tool that a person has to use to make it truly effective. And even doing that is still a skill that comes from a person.

@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.

@FirePuff No, this shut down. Sorry.

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.))

@Misadventure said in MU* Mystery RP:

A mismatch of expectations only leads to suckitude.
Intent -> All Players Expectations-> Game System Design -> ST Communication

That's usually the problem I run into on a MU*. A clash of expectations combined with pretty quick and unrelenting judgement that you can't ever escape from.

So making sure the players are all on the same page about expectations from the ST and from the players both is really important for a game. That's what I find to be missing from most MU*s.

@Macha said in Observation:

@hobos I mean we don't have an ongoing thread here, trying to diagnose someone we don't like with various mental issues, and we (as far as I know, I'm not staff or anything) haven't chased someone down to their Reddit/FB/etc accounts to message them and talk shit?

So I guess that's why I have no desire to go over to that 'other' place. People here are just being chill and talking about the things they like about how things are now. I don't think anyone said we were better. Just that there's less vitriol.

Maybe (if we ignore the irony of that post)... But also the "MU" in MU Soapbox seems to be conspicuously absent. Things aren't being stirred up much, I agree. All it took was the abandonment of the primary topic central to the forum. I wouldn't call that a win. Its more of a sad, cringey surrender to me.

Personally, I would have preferred if this place had continued to talk about MUs, but in a more civil manner that invites discussions and thoughts rather than attacks and bitterness, where people can feel safe to share their opinions and it is okay to have different views on topics and every thread doesn't devolve into someone determined to convince the entire internet that they have the one, true, only valid opinion on a subject. Alas, that might not actually be possible.

But everyone has their own perspectives and if people still like this place for what it is, then I'm happy that people can enjoy... as long as they really do enjoy it and aren't just looking for a silver lining on a bleak, lifeless horizon.

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.

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

People take things wrong, or too serious, or various other things. Instead of just playing a game.

I'm probably repeating myself more than a few times over the last couple weeks, but it isn't just "playing a game" to many people. It is so many things to so many different people.

A good step in repairing "the community" is recognizing that this isn't just one community. Its a lot of different communities all using the same medium, and usually, the same game. That is going to have very obvious difficulties. A good step is getting everyone on the same page so they understand what site they are on and what that site is intended to be about.

@arkandel said in Wish Fulfillment RP:

The issue comes when it's not about playing something better than we are, but playing something better than others are. That's when shit starts to hit the fan, since you now have multiple people all wanting to be the best - the most powerful, coolest, sexiest.

Well that depends on what you want out of MU*ing. The real issue here is if people aren't mature enough to handle wanting something and failing to achieve it or if they ruin someone else's experience in order to achieve it.

At the end of the day it comes back to what we're doing here, a topic that isn't well defined. Is it cooperative storytelling? Is it collective writing? Or are we playing a game: the G of RPG? Games have winners and losers. Most games have more losers than winners. The ideal (in my opinion) is to be a good winner as well as a good loser. Its one of those character traits that seems to be easily overlooked and undervalued as we increasingly see win-at-all-costs and burn-it-all-down-if-we-lose popular models displayed in the world around us.

There's nothing at all wrong with the idea of wish fulfillment itself. Its your own little dose of happiness and pleasure with unlimited refills and no prescription necessary! And most MU*s allows you an opportunity to create that for yourselves. Very few games police private scenes between you and another player. Most let you tell the stories your want amongst yourselves (with varying degrees of limits). That's not good enough for some people though.

The problem with wish fulfillment on a MU* is that many people want everyone else to accept their wish as reality. It isn't enough for someone to live out a fantasy. They can do that on their own writing whatever they want without limits. They don't want that. What does it for them is that other people accept their reality and acknowledge it, willingly or otherwise. So they come to a MU* where people gather. Its a power and control issue, forcing your will onto others. And that's a people problem. So not just players. But staff.

That's where things take a hard turn into problems, especially when people start using unfair advantages, which doesn't just include classic cheating, but also more subtle maneuvers like gaslighting and emotional manipulation, to impose their wishes on other people because their wish can't be fulfilled if someone else doesn't accept it fully.

If people kept their wish fulfillment to themselves, things would be fine. But when problems arise, its usually that someone has extended their wish fulfillment out to someone else trying to force acceptance.

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.

@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.