@thrax said in Numetal/Retromux:
When Staff came to speak to her she did not hide, nor keep information from them. The thing I wonder is how can they ban someone for avoiding conflict from someone known to be a problem. Yes she did hide herself, but is that in itsself worth a full gameban?
Hiding yourself from players you have a no contact with in order to RP with them is something I think deserves a gameban, regardless of how open you are with staff.
It really feels like Ganymede has just decided to let Derp drive it into the ground out of some need to avoid losing face from reversing a decision.
Well, I’m reducing my MSB activity to lurking now. Gany just basically said that the only person who needed to be apologized to on MSB for what happened was Derp.
I get two things from reading stuff from this thread.
That I definitely am not the target audience for Lords & Ladies roleplay.
That Arx, even with all of it’s trouble throughout its history, is a pretty good example of ‘doing it right’ in our hobby.
Congrats to all you Arx players and staff for doing cool stuff.
@Cygnus said in The 3-Month Players:
Without PVP acting as a failsafe, these players often cause games to fail because no one can stand not being able to meaningfully stand up to the bully.
The failsafe against toxic players should be staff action. Going PVP just because a player is toxic seems toxic in it’s own right.
Starting a new thread, for a new year.
First up, and this one hit me hard, David Lynch, legendary director of such weirdness as Eraserhead, Twin Peaks, and the original 1980s version of Dune.
Please stop. If you actually care, stop, step away, and come back in a few days or even a week or two. You’re making yourself look bad with each new post.
Also: I can’t make anyone else on this forum switch topics from your dumpster fire of a character to the dumpster fire of Eddie and the people on Staff that did toxic shit to you. Mostly because you keep running back in here and throwing gasoline on your character dumpster fire and making it a much bigger, brighter spectacle than the other.
@Juniper said in Numetal/Retromux:
Most people want to be special in some way, sometimes tactfully and sometimes… not. I think we all get to have more fun when we’re not veering aggressively away from being “cringe”.
The vast majority of players in our hobby understand how to make unique special characters without trying their damnedest to drive it into everyone’s faces at 100 miles an hour.
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
The objections to ICA=ICC always seem to be that a hypothetical psychopathic player will just go out killing everyone for OOC reasons and ruin the game anyway, so they might as well abandon the game before it happens.
I have no objections to ICA=ICC and I have both played with and had the misfortune of having to deal with psychopaths who PVP for purely OOC reasons as staff.
I too remember some of those games having epic battles and stuff, and I also remember games where getting asked for “RP” from certain characters meant a pvp combat scene. In a few rare cases, those players managed to single out completely new players with completely new characters.
Your experience is not my experience, and neither of our experiences are invalid in this particular conversation. Everybody has their own thoughts on the topic and there’s probably not a single sweet spot of PVE / PVP balance that covers everyone in the hobby.
@somasatori said in Strike Systems:
No one is changing their ideological opinions based on a
nInternetconversation.
I really feel like the majority of people (in the US at least) are locked into their opinions (ideological or not) up until the point something happens to them that flies in the face of those opinions or beliefs. A guy I went to high school with was very right-wing leaning in ideology, had a lot of family in agriculture, and mostly voted Republican across the board (he regularly votes for legalization of marijuana, so there have been exceptions).
That all changed this year when a big part of his family suddenly defaulted on a bunch of their farm loans because of government shenanigans and now his aunt and uncle are living on his couch. He changed his registered party and is now willing to hear any arguments that aren’t Republican ones and vote based on that. He also started noticing a lot of stuff people have been pointing out to him for decades and realizing it’s true.
@L-B-Heuschkel said in Strike Systems:
those people who do learn and reform also tend to keep very quiet about it, in order to leave the past well buried.
I think honestly that’s probably for the best, as constantly going “Remember when I was a total asshole 2 years ago and I took some time to myself and fixed it?” isn’t a good flex in it’s own right.
I have a few friends that regularly play Solo RPs that use IC journaling as a method of play, and they get together every month or so and read each other’s character journals. Through a few bundles online, I’ve acquired a small amount of books for these type of games, and they are definitely intriguing.
One of the most interesting examples of a Solo RP game is VOID 1630 AM. You play by recording an hour of radio on your computer or phone, in character as a DJ. The game provides a method of generating song prompts and callers, and you make up what you’re saying as a DJ, and what you play on the air, in response to that. The coolest part about it is that you can submit those sound clips and your song list to the creator of the game, and he will play it on his ACTUAL AM RADIO STATION and add it to his Youtube. Example below:
Yeah, staff churn & burn seems high on the list of reasons games die. Even if we eliminate staff churn caused by toxic behavior, I still believe it’s high on the list. I’ve seen plenty of games with no major toxic issues die to burnout.
@Babs FATE dice are funny.
@Yam said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
I can also sign up for enforced engagement (I think?) but the reasoning intrigues me.
I think the reasoning for some level of required player engagement comes out of home RPG games, or small group games. For example, you run a Star Trek game and invite 6 people to play. When it’s time to play you begin to tell a story of the crew of a Federation diplomacy vessel making headway into the Delta Quadrant. Five of your players engage with the story and the setting, while the sixth immediately walks into your den and starts talking about how his character is a Klingon warrior uncovering dishonorable criminals in the First City on Qo’noS. He isn’t technically hurting anything by doing so, but he is a distraction.
@Faraday said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
If you’re going to expect players to somehow guess at your intent in creating a game, I think that’s inherently misguided.
I would never have them guess. In any future game I run, my intent will be documented in the game’s documentation, and pointed out on the front page of the game or in the initial room upon connection.
@Yam said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
And if what you’re truly talking about is Wrong Fit… I mean, that’s it’s own discussion!
I think that’s absolutely what’s being discussed.
The players who choose to play with only one or two others and ignore the entire game that’s going on around them are often a Wrong Fit for a game in my experience.
People who suffer from social anxiety type stuff (HI! I’m one of those people.) that often struggle to expand their regular RP circle can still contribute to a game in wonderful ways.
@Faraday said in RPing with Everybody (or not):
Why do we need to wrongfun them for being less social?
Some people build games with specific expectations for players, specifically that they play socially with the rest of the players on the game (with exceptions for no-contact list people), and someone joining a game to play Uno in the basement with their BFF has either missed the cue that the game owner is trying to build a more social storytelling experience, or noticed the intent of the game owners and willfully chose to ignore it.
The people who miss that cue can sometimes be brought around to recognize that the intent isn’t to just let people do whatever (as with a lot of sandbox games) and aren’t wrong, they’re just out of place, or misdirected, which can be remedied with a casual conversation between them and staff.
The people who willingly ignore the intent of the game (to be a focused social plot driven story) are being rude to the staff and rest of the players, and definitely are wrong.
In any case, I think the point is that it’s perfectly acceptable for Staff to set expectations for play on their games. It’s perfectly acceptable for a player to look at Staff’s expectations, go “This isn’t for me” and leave. It’s also perfectly acceptable for Staff on a game to see players who aren’t meeting their expectations, and approach them politely and discuss the matter, and if they’re not able to reach an understanding, ask them to leave.
The big problem in my experience happens when Staff has expectations that they run with, players come in operating with no regard for that, and Staff doesn’t have the confidence to have that polite conversation. Then eventually you end up with a lot of players operating outside Staff expectations, Staff getting more and more frustrated by players not playing the game they’re trying to run, and it leads to rapid staff burnout and game closure.
@Jennkryst said in Star Wars Age of Alliances: Hadrix and Cujo:
CoH opening Mummy (that’s right, its back baby!)
My love for Mummy doesn’t outweigh my disinterest in CoH, sadly.