Posts made by Warma Sheen

No kicking wolfmen in the nards? Man, this deal is getting worse all the time...

Me too.

@Coin said:

Maybe it was a good run, maybe it wasn't, but we tried. Good enough for me.

Fair nuff.

@Arkandel said:

I loved it in every conceivable way. My only tiny reservation was at the very end -- Chewie is right there when they find Luke, and he doesn't go up to see one of his oldest friends in the world but instead they send a girl he's never met? It didn't make sense.

I didn't find that to be off much. In fact I noticed that right away too, but my first thought was: I probably wouldn't want to see him right now either. As much as we the fans love Luke and wanted to see him. Han (and we can only assume Chewie feels the same) did not particularly really want to put much effort into find him. They probably felt abandoned and were happy to forget about him. Especially since Han entrusted his son to Luke and in his care Kylo Ren turned out to be an evil psycho killer. At that point in the movie, Chewie has also lost Han because of Luke's failure with Kylo Ren.

I probably wouldn't be jumping up and down for joy at seeing Luke either. I don't even know if I'd want him to be found. So I was right there with Chewie in not jumping at the chance to find him. What do you say? Even if you take the reverse view and have sympathy for Luke. He hid himself away because of his failure. Are you gonna be so eager to tell him that on top of everything else, his failure killed Han too? Its a tough call all around.

Rey, on the other hand, has just heard legends about this great and mystical person so she's super eager to find him. So naive... it was great. I thought it was perfect how she bounds up and offers him the lightsaber and he just kind of stands there and looks at it. She's the only one there on that island who doesn't quite 'get it'.

@Derp Mine was just an outsider's perspective. Didn't know you were Sinister there, but you were right in the middle of stuff so you know what was up. But... I'd disagree with the assessment of a 'good run'. Totally just a judgement call per individual perspective. But for all the time and effort that went into it, I think a good run would have had to last more than what it did. At least a year.

I'd be interested in knowing the amount of time that went into making the game from start to a full opening. You got to at least be active longer than it took you to make the game, right? Maybe I'm taking a harsh view cause of being disheartened at the result of it. But that sucks about the timing of all of it.

I can't help but think that another Vampire game is going to be more of the same that everyone has already abandoned. They'll be high interest in something new, then that will fade away to stagnation as everyone realizes they'd already done this all before - and they barely enjoyed it the first three times.

The varied opinions in what a "hunter" is or is supposed to be automatically gives you a variety of interactions and play styles right from the start. Are you recruited to fight the monsters in the night with well funded armories and cataloged knowledge or did you just run into something you shouldn't have and have turned to survival mode from what you know is out there now? Then there is everything in between.

Every other Hunter game has been tucked away inside a multisphere game only to be overshadowed by the power of the other spheres, which is why they've mostly been under represented, but it is the same reason you see the lack of 'darkness' in the WoD MU*s that have been out there.

Go with Hunter. You'll have plenty of variety, a lot of new RP, a darker game setting and something with consequences.

@Apu said:

I had a feeling they were going to do this, although I expected the worst case scenario. At least they're not closing entirely.

The writing was on the mall only about a month or two after it opened. If not for Sinister, it probably would have folded a long time ago. I feel for all the people that put all the work into getting the game ready for use. Coders and stories and background and whatnot. It was good while it lasted, however brief.

SW is my favorite genre, so I have intense feelings about it, both good and bad. I'd say it was average, but scratched a long awaited itch, making it feel much more satisfying than it would have felt otherwise.

My most glaring thought is that I'm intensely disappointed with the recycled plots. I expected much more.

The death star/planet: The only thing that could have saved that would be a different outcome. Perhaps the bad guys learned from their previous failures from multiple other movies. Nope. A handful of enemies infiltrates their base to allow their superweapon to be easily destroyed just moments before they crush their opposition, while also being the only ones to escape the destruction. Apparently those memos on security upgrades, along with evacuation procedures got lost somewhere. The fact that they upped the power level on the doomsday device did nothing to temper the disappointment in a practically identical 'destroy the doomsday device before it destroys us' SW plotline.

The other recycled elements weren't as bad, if you ignore the cheese factor. For example, the lost Jedi master plotline. BB-8's missing piece of Luke's location supposedly matches 'no known charted space', then ends up to be an unaltered, fairly large section right in the middle of the known galaxy somewhere near the mid to outer rim. They couldn't even do some visual flip or refraction on the image to give it some type of encrypted value to explain why it wasn't recognized initially? Seems lazy, but ultimately forgivable.

And for those flipping out about Han, a major father figure character dies at the end of the first movie in each of the trilogies (all by way of lightsaber), so that should not have been too shocking or unexpected. Sad, but it was definitely powerful. So it gets a plus in my book.

As someone who did not hate the original trilogies, I did not hate this movie either. But I didn't love it as much as I had hoped I would.

@Three-Eyed-Crow They did in fact put out a memo about that. I'm too lazy to dig up links and such, but yes they have made it a point (along with financial commitment) to make good sci-fi shows again. However, as usual, results may vary.

@Arkandel said:

The resource healthy spheres run on isn't authority, it's trust. And trust has to go both ways.

I guess that's the short version of my opinion. If you need authority, just decline and save everyone all the trouble. Otherwise trust in the staff and work together to make the game work. Arkandel's examples speak to that as well. If a Headstaff is that damaging to the game, they should be left to run things herself or change their ways so that staff can work with her.

I think what people are referring to revolves mainly around plots and scenes - not what happens in between. What happens there is just based on what a player enjoys. Some people love to TS. Some never do. That kind of thing. In my experience, my best downtime RP is influenced by the scenes I've had recently and the plotlines I'm involved in.

Rather than carefree downtime scenes with a character that appears to be nearly invincible, there's a very different feel from a character that might not be alive the next day who has lost more than a few friends doing what they do. Or there should at least be a continuity of character. Maybe they are carefree because they might not be alive the next day. But regardless this Hunter idea should be a different feel than typical WoD games. (Without consideration of the Compacts - that point might be very valid.)

And if a player doesn't relate the character and the theme, can you really do anything about that? The staff's responsibility is to create (and reinforce) the theme of the game. I remember one game where the staff would give us friendly reminders about the constant threat our sphere was supposed to feel. Then every scene we'd go into we'd thrash the NPC enemies into the ground without hardly a scratch to anyone. Hard to feel a constant threat when you've never known anyone who has been anything but mildly annoyed in scenes.

However, when there was a PVP situation and two sides of players were near blows and someone had been killed, everything suddenly got serious and real. Because the threat was real (or at least perceived to be). People really felt like they might get killed. That was much more of a feel of the theme were supposed to be experiencing. But people couldn't handle it and it became all OOC tension instead of the great RP that it was (could have been) generating.

All of that to say: Players are players. The players are usually going to do what they want, but the actual theme of the game can reinforce that and help your game be where you want it to be.

@Ganymede said:

If I make a decision, and have purportedly been given authority and autonomy to make that decision, then I expect those above me to support that decision unless I: (1) acted arbitrarily and/or capriciously; (2) ruled in a manner that is contrary to the printed rules or game policy; or (3) otherwise exercised power without a quantum of reasonable justification. In that case, they can justifiably take action to correct things.

I don't speak lawyerese, but it sounds like what you're saying is that you don't want your decisions challenged unless the Headstaff thinks you made the wrong decision. But that's pretty much what always happens. Anytime a decision is overturned it is usually because of one of those three things. The problem is that the overturned staffer doesn't think one of those things applies. For example, you may not think you were being arbitrary or capricious but Headstaff thinks you were.

No one is perfect and most decisions made have arguments have arguments and counter-arguments. It is sometimes difficult for us to see our own shortcomings and flaws. Sometimes it takes other people or an outside perspective to make decisions more clearly. But that's the reason not to lock in some idea of autonomy. As a staffer you should be able to trust Headstaff, any Headstaff, to correct decisions they feel necessary to run their game without some ironclad contract written up. Otherwise that just seems like it will lead to more problems down the road.

That's my theory anyway.

Definitely Hunter for me. I think people don't give it enough of a chance because of previous experiences with Hunter and a general disinterest with the low power level compared to other splats. But I think it would make for a great MU* experience that holds long term interest.

The only problem I see is that it wouldn't draw enough people to give it a try. If you're cool with a small game, I think it could be really good.

@Ganymede said:

Autonomy is not complete autonomy. I wasn't suggesting a carte blanche; only the freedom to do what I believe needs to be done.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make.

You don't want the power to do anything, you only want the power to do what you need to do? If so, who determines if it is something you need to do rather than something you just want to do? If you, then you can just give yourself the power to do what you want to do by just saying it needs to be done. In essence, giving yourself carte blanche complete autonomy.

"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

It seems like a lazy admin indeed who allows this kind of staffing to occur on a game. You might also hear one of these quotes from such a Head Wiz:
"Sure, just go do whatevs on my game."
"If I disagree or don't like it... well that will suck for me."
"No, I don't want or need input into my game."
"Yes, you can have autonomy. The rest of the game doesn't really need to fit in with your part."
"Yes, you can have autonomy. And my position as Head Wiz."
"No, I don't worry about what you will do. One person on staff could never really affect the enjoyment or reputation of the rest of the game..."

On a serious note, choosing to staff is a tough responsibility and that's definitely a decision everyone has to make for themselves. The difference between what one 'needs' to fulfill a responsibility and what one 'wants' to fulfill a responsibility is a subtle but important distinction. Its one of the reasons that there is so much staff turnover and voluminous complaints of bad and/or corrupt staffing.

Turning down a position you can't or don't want to do is the best thing you can do for yourself and the game. It is far better than making concessions that will ultimately lead you to being stressed out. It is also far better than demanding concessions you shouldn't have because otherwise you will be easily stressed out.

Staffing shouldn't be a power position. Staffing should be a service position. We all know staffers who embody the former. We all know staffers who embody the latter. Unfortunately, I think we know more of the former than the latter and that's a big reason we see a lack of quality games to choose from.

@surreality said:

This is the kind of thing I mean when I say: a lot of folks have different takes on these -- and countless other -- situations, and it's probably a good idea for headstaff to lay this out somewhere if they have a strong opinion about it one way or the other. RfK gets a commendation here because it sounds like headstaff there did a fairly solid job of laying this out, even if I disagree with some of the specific choices they made.

This is definitely a big part of the failing when it comes to running games. A lack of effective management, a lack of leadership. Many positions are handed out with minimal instruction or explanation and little to no interaction afterwards.

But laying out clear expectations is just the very beginning of the process for taking on staffers into your game. If any part of the game is a collaborative effort it should be the part between the Head Wiz and the staff. We use titles like Sphere Lead or Team Lead. But rather than being a leader in their position, they are more of a pointer. They just set the direction they want things to go in and expect it to go there. Rather than being in the driver's seat, they lounge in the back and wait for arrival. And for some reason that seems to be fine with a great number of Head Wizzen, who then scratch their heads when things go wrong.

Good players don't always make good scene runners. Good scene runners don't always make good staff. Good staff don't always make good Team Leaders. But a lot of times these positions are used interchangeably without concern, sometimes just to fill the position. The idea that 'something is better than nothing' is not always so true on MU*s. Often cases a bad 'something' can be much worse than 'nothing'.

I don't think the question is wrong. Asking how the comic book writers do it is interesting and informative, but has little to do with what this community does. It is definitely a better way to come up with more compelling stories that everyone wants to read, but it isn't a realistic method for MU*s in general, superhero or not. At least not for games open to the public.

So to the question of to dice or not to dice, I say it doesn't really matter. Combat will not necessarily be faster or shorter either way. Freeform combat can go much faster between cooperating players than dice combat can between non-cooperating players. By the same token dice combat can go much faster by cooperating players than freeform combat between non-cooperating players.

Basically, IMO, the speed of the combat ultimately comes down to the players involved, moreso than the system you use.

Sounds like the blind leading the blind.

A staffer says they'll allow a player they trust to play a restricted concept. But how much should the staffer be trusted. There's all this talk about bad staffing and corruption, so is it any wonder that this thing too should pass? Bad staff. Bad players. Its all a shitstorm of people making power grabs to have the kind of fun they want on a game regardless of how it might affect others.

I've always thought that the idea of MU*s being a "cooperative storytelling environment" is a huge joke that people who want to enjoy the medium try to lie to themselves about to try to make them feel better about the muck we all wade into. This, among so many other posts here and back on WORA, just kind of highlights the hilarity of that idea.

I like the idea, mind you, it just isn't realistic.

This just kind of underscores the idea. The notion that all players don't get access to the same stuff is promoting inequality and saying that all players aren't deserving of the same benefits. And if that's what you believe, how can you expect anyone to view anything as "fair". If your view is that certain people are better than others prepare for drama and accusations and corrpution and all the horrible crap that people hate about this medium.

And somehow through this people expect a "cooperative storytelling experience"? Good luck.

When is it that activity is supposed to go up?

Because every time of the year, I hear reasons why activity is down. During the holidays its: people are busy doing holiday stuff. Then after the holidays its: people are busy going back to work and school. Then before the holidays its: people are busy wrapping up stuff for the holidays. Etc.

Is there a time of year when activity is actually up?

I definitely need progress to stay interested in a character. Whether it is a plot small or large in scope, or attaining something I have had to work for, I need to be able to accomplish something with my character in order to stay engaged. For the same reason if I can get something easily or very quickly, that doesn't quite cut it. Failure and consequences make things fun and exciting for me. I'm the type of player that wants there to be a chance to die in a combat scene. I was once in a game where the first person to die in any scene stayed dead, but to avoid ending the entire chronicle, the results were fudged for anyone else. It turned out really fun. If I feel like there's no chance of failure or serious consequence I tend to do over the top stuff just to keep interest. Then people tend to get annoyed at me and that usually goes downhill from there and eventually stop playing the character.

Running plots as a side ST is also fun, but if it doesn't have some kind of connection to my character, I tend to wrap them quickly and move on to something else so I rarely maintain long plots as an ST unless I'm running the game.