@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.

1. That I definitely am not the target audience for Lords & Ladies roleplay.

2. 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.

@Trashcan said in AI In Poses:

“I don’t want to RP with GenAI because it’s not very good” is not going to age well as a position.

I think the better position is “I don’t want to RP with GenAI because I’m here to RP with real people.”

@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.

@Pacha said in Empire Discussion Thread:

My assumption (perhaps false!) is that when opening a game one wants to develop a large and diverse base of players.

I feel like we’re reaching a point where new gamerunners are going to focus more on just running the game they want to run rather than running a game that attracts a large crowd.

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.

@hobos

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.

@somasatori Keep this up and people are going to expect you to start a game.

@Yam said in MU Peeves Thread:

There’s also the whole concept of reputation in our very tiny community. If you have a reputation of being someone difficult to deal with, that may manifest in ways you don’t anticipate. Something you gotta’ just roll with and improve upon. People forget as folk cycle in and out, but I wonder how many people will forget Polk trying to torch 2 game servers in like… 1 year.

@Gashlycrumb said in MU Peeves Thread:

If I have become an insufferable chore recently and this is the reason I’ve had this experience, then staffers have developed time travel. You really can’t say staff is refusing to interact with a player because the player is a chore when there was never a period when they did actually interact with that player.

A lot of people don’t realize they’ve become a chore until well after the fact. We’re not often conscious of annoying social behaviors because we’re used to acting a specific way, even in an online text form.

@sao said in Tips for GMs:

Having a set solution to a problem is a way to frustrate yourself AND your players!

I agree, but I also feel the exception to this is scenes where the players are all on board for a very very specific resolution from the start. The easiest example of this are those one off scenes where a GM gets a bunch of the more combat oriented PCs together to blow off some combat steam against nameless minions of evil. In those situations, trying to find an alternate route to resolution will also frustrate everyone involved.

@Yam said in MU Peeves Thread:

Ask any staffer who was DEDICATED to prompt, “fast”, consistent responses how long they stuck around. How long the game existed.

I can count the number of staffers that were dedicated to that stuff that also stayed through the end of the game and did not contribute to the game’s ending on one finger. It probably didn’t hurt that the person in question was on full disability with a lower back injury and so didn’t actually have a day job.

The closest thing I will ever get to paying to RP is the entry fee to gaming conventions.

Thankfully I’m social enough that I have several MUs to play when I want online RP, and a reasonably sized local tabletop scene for in person RP.

@Gashlycrumb said in MU Peeves Thread:

Hell, there is such a taboo (and likely a justified one) against +where stalking that if a player is waiting for a five minute reply to a +request and happens to see the staffer online 15 out of 16 days and they appears to be spending 5+ hours each day actively RPing their alt with Abelard and Bridget or GMing scenes for Abelard and Bridget, the player still won’t say anything.

This sounds like something you’ve done yourself. Are you a +where stalker?

@Gashlycrumb said in MU Peeves Thread:

But really, the expectation that everybody gets a turn and the GM doesn’t skip yours because they kinda feel like it is not something that needs to be explicitly stated in a policy. It’s how gaming works. It is fair to decry it as rude fuckery, which is what we talk about here.

There’s a lot of stuff to consider on staff side too:

1. Some players will rub staff in a bad way, but not go so far as to do something bannable. The staff in question isn’t trying to generate unnecessary confrontation, so they just sit on those jobs until they have nothing else to do to limit their interaction with the player, when they should honestly just sit down with the player and say something like, “We believe that our staffing style and your playing style are not compatible, and for the sanity of both ourselves and you, we need you to exit the game.” This can even extend between games (as a lot of staff are forever-staff and may know a given player from previous encounters).
2. Some larger games generate hilariously large amounts of jobs in very short time, even with a good number of staff working on them and set policies regarding job response times. If your job is #293 out of 480, it’s gonna be a while before you see a response, even if they’re using buckets and queues and notifications and stuff. I have totally seen players get irate because they don’t enjoy the speed at which the 200 jobs in front of theirs get resolved.
3. Staff might be having a bad month, week, day, or year. This can result in players feeling unnoticed by staff. Staff R People 2.
4. Staff have their own availability schedules, and getting mad that no staffer showed up to ST and provide Staff NPCs for the scene you scheduled for 4 PM on Christmas Day is just a waste of everybody’s time.

@Gashlycrumb said in MU Peeves Thread:

I never hear people complain about staffers having PCs in general,

I’m glad you haven’t had my experiences.

@KarmaBum said in Tips for GMs:

I know it’s a writing hobby, and sometimes we’re trying to establish a mood so we’re including evocative details, but if you mention that this obsidian cave is carved with ancient runes, has a brazier spewing purple flames, smells faintly of candied apples, and I can hear an old woman singing from the mouth of an adjacent tunnel, all of those elements should be open for some sort of follow-up.

You can even cheat in this scenario and have all of them be open to the same follow up of “You realize as you investigate further that this entire cave, this entire space, is entirely illusion.”

@Pacha said in Brainstorming Game Ideas:

I kind of get what you’re going for here, but in this day and age when most of us have less, not more, time for MU, basing advancement on activity is a recipe for disaster, as only the players that are either on all the time, or crawling up staff’s butt to get in all the plots are going to move forward. Perhaps that is what you want, but I wouldn’t play on it.

I can agree with this, and I’m looking at a flat XP model for the game I’m tinkering on in my spare time. All characters will earn the same amount of XP each month, regardless of activity levels, and new characters will come in at whatever the total is for all characters, so that if the game does go for years, PCs created in year 4 won’t be confused as to why their brand new PC is involved in storylines built around characters with dozens or even hundreds of XP more than them.