@KarmaBum If you like FS3, I do happen to have the stats I put together from The Network’s Western series that y’all could use as a starting point.

@DrQuinn said in Historical Games Round 75:

Like a social contract is great, but also is going to probably ensure that your player base is mostly white.

I think that that depends on what’s in the social contract. Like, if the social contract says that no racism will be allowed onscreen, that’s going to be different than if it says you can only inflict it upon your own character, and that’s going to be different than if it says that racism is baked into the setting but that all characters will strive against it, and that’s going to be different than if the contract doesn’t mention racism at all.

The social contract can be used to set expectations for level of engagement with various pain points – at any level of engagement.

@Tez said in Historical Games Round 75:

Throw them out. Throw them the fuck out.

Agreed 100%. You don’t let the nice Nazis in your bar, or they’ll drive off the non-Nazis and bring your friends, and then you have a Nazi bar.

@Trashcan Thank you for articulating this so nicely. It’s a very blurry line that I have issues with myself. Do you disallow IC discrimination at all (as has been neatly pointed out by others, this has its own problems with telling stories of resistance)? Do you only allow it based on non-real-world reasons (“hedge mages suck, werewolves rule!”)? Do you only allow players to apply it to their own characters (that doesn’t stop someone from fetishizing the struggle that another player may have to deal with in RL)?

I don’t know that there are good, “right” answers to any of those questions.

I do agree with others above that if I don’t trust the game runners to enforce the boundaries of their playerbase, the answer to most questions is “no.”

@mietze said in Historical Games Round 75:

I’ve always told people I understand how exploring certain themes from the relative safety of RP is very appealing but that’s probably something better done in a private game or one that the playerbase is heavily vetted because on a public one, one with randos, or one with many “friends” of friends, you are increasing the likelihood of someone who has no business exploring those themes with others being able to come in. Maybe sometimes there’s staff willing to police it, and if there is and you like that avenue of play rather than whining you better treat them well, because most people don’t have time or patience for that.

I think this is a great take, but I also think that some of this can be covered with the use of a Social Contract as described by James Mendez Hodes in one of his several very good blog posts on historical (tabletop) roleplaying:

https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2018/11/10/best-practices-for-historical-gaming

If Staff lays out from the start what is acceptable to see on-screen and what is not, what will be argued about on-screen and what will be accepted, then anyone who violates that Social Contract can pre-emptively be shown the door, allowing those who remain to explore the setting to the extent that they feel comfortable within the protections of that Contract.

@Raistlin said in Missed Settings:

5. Buffy. The setting is so great that I’m shocked there weren’t more of these games, and there aren’t any around today.

I think this has the same problem that Firefly does: the characters are more of a draw than the setting is. For instance, I don’t want to play in the Browncoat-a-verse as much as I want to play with Jayne and Kaylie and the rest of the crew – and no, FCs aren’t enough. Likewise, I would want to play with Spike and Angel and Faith and Willow and Oz… more than in a generic-ish vampire-slaying modern (or '90s period piece) world.

I started on a DIKU MUD called Dark Castle – no RP, just mob-killing.

After a little bit, I wandered over to The Weave, and then to A Moment in Tyme. That was the first game that really got me hooked on MU*ing as I know it now. It was an RP MUD that provided XP (eventually) for both killing mobs and for posing, and then even more eventually the mobs were removed and it was only XP for posing (but the stat system was still otherwise all MUD-style).

That was way back in 1994.

While I’m a big proponent of character-death-when-it’s-appropriate-to-the-story, one thing that I think needs to be talked about a little bit is how that death will impact other characters. Do the players of your character’s loved ones (family, significant others, packmates, etc) want to play out grief?

While I think that character death should pretty much always be done with player consent (except in the case of Aim for the Bushes, but I consider that consent-by-continuation-after-warnings), there’s also the non-death effects on everyone around the character to consider, and a lot of folks (myself included) who have gone for death-for-drama’s-sake haven’t always considered the knock-on effects.

I haven’t seen a non-consent permadeath in more than a decade. Again, back on KotOR, there was a crewman of the Sith Empire who mouthed off to both superior officers and Sith, and when threatened with the brig, attacked a superior officer and Sith. They were OOCly told by a Staffer that it would likely result in character death, and that led to OOC yelling about how it wasn’t fair and they weren’t going to the brig and they would leave the game. The character chose to attack the other PCs, was killed, and left the game. Everyone was happier (save perhaps the player of the dead character).

On another note, one thing that I really appreciated from The Network was that the short seasons (4-6 months usually) meant that character death was less painful. You could have a complete arc for your character within a season, and end it with riding off into the sunset, death, a cliffhanger, or whatever else you liked, without worrying about being “behind” people who kept their character in the midst of their story. The only downside was that if there was a second season in the same world, you might have problems bringing your character back for another go-around (except during the Soap Opera season, that one would have been easy).

I have seen factions done. I have seen it done in an… okay manner. It was baked into the theme. But there were always players who took things too hard, and went too hard, and made it less fun for those around them.

I do think that it’s possible to do CvC (but not PvP) antagonism, so long as it’s managed very carefully.

As others on this thread have pointed out, I think it starts with transparency, includes making outcomes not involve character death, and then I think that it moves on to making it clear that the conflict is Characters vs Character, and that the players are all there to work together to make a fun story. Even then, all it takes is one sore loser or sore winner and things can spiral out of hand.

As far as transparency is concerned, I think that it’s important for players to know what they’re getting into, how the conflict will be adjudicated, and what the possible outcomes will be. The example that @Aria gave is a great one – up until the one Staffer changed things up.

When character death is on the line, players get twitchy. I think that if you can make sure that death isn’t on the line, people are more likely to engage in CvC conflict in good faith. Starting a new character from scratch when you liked the deceased one, or they had some cool gear/stats, or they had great connections – it can be incredibly frustrating, and people will act in bad faith to avoid that frustration.

I do also think that one thing that can help is making sure that the opposing factions are fighting past each other, not fighting against each other. As an example, way back on KotOR MUSH, we had the Sith and the Republic fighting over a neutral system. Except they couldn’t attack each other, because if they did, then the neutral system would support whichever side was attacked. So each side had to work to make the other side look bad, and themselves look good, without ever actually fighting one another.

It’s been long enough that I don’t honestly remember how it turned out – it may have collapsed into complete crap – but I like the general idea of it as an opportunity for CvC antagonism. It means that no PC is directly beating up another PC, so there’s no chance of death (or even maiming).

I don’t see anything at all wrong with players only RPing with other players that they explicitly like – unless they’re hoarding plot in doing so. I think it’s an entirely healthy reaction to want to prioritize RP with those whose RP you explicitly enjoy.

However, I do agree with those who have said that it’s better for the health of the game (and usually the character too) if you expand that pool to at least try RPing with folks you don’t know, or have neutral feelings toward sometimes. Sure, you might find some people you have absolutely zero interest in RPing with again, but you might also find some people that you’d like to add to the list of folks you’re interested in RPing with regularly. Beyond that, it allows stories and plot to spread from group to group across the MU*, connecting play groups in organic ways so that it’s not a setting with a half dozen scattered and separate plots going on, but a world with interconnected stories taking place in it.

@MisterBoring Peanut Butter-filled Pretzels from Coscto.

Sometimes also one of the kid’s string cheeses. But mostly the PB Pretzels.

@Pavel First w in the English manner, second w in the German manner, at least for me, when I steal it shamelessly.

@sao I was trying to come up with a situation too, but I couldn’t. I did want to leave the door open, because there are very few things I want to be an absolutist about.

I could imagine something like the delirium situation @MisterBoring mentioned, or it being a month or two in between creating a character you never played and creating a new character because you forgot about the first one, or getting so excited about the concept that you forgot that there were no alts allowed and submitted a new character.

But the response to Staff going, “Um… hold on a sec” would be very telling, and would decide if I went scorched earth or just nuked all but one character and gave them a warning.

@Roz Agreed. If there is some particular reason that you think they accidentally made an alt (I can’t even think of a reason that might happen, but who knows…), wipe all but one character and tell them that they just got their one and only warning. Otherwise, it’s a flagrant violation of a clear-cut rule: ban, explain, and move on.

@Gashlycrumb I think that there’s a place for that, certainly, but I also don’t want to take away the ability of players to create something truly unique – so long as it fits well within the setting and themes of the game. If everyone on a Clone Wars game played Clone Troopers and no one played the Jedi or the Mandalorian trainers or the stuck-up-soon-to-be-Imperials, it would be a much less exciting game.

But I would love it if there was some way to teach people to use their unique ingredients to make something tasty, rather than inedible glop, as @labsunlimited put it.

@Gashlycrumb said in Numetal/Retromux:

It might be more clear to say don’t be a bore. It’s okay to be boring sometimes. Or even to play a character who is largely static and stock.

I feel like this is a very important point. I love to play “stock” characters like Stormtroopers, Clone Troopers, Children of the Light, Academy-fresh pilots, and other “boring” characters, and then not playing them as bores.

On the other hand, I’ve met players who can take an absolute special snowflake of a character, but the way that they play them is utterly boring and uninteresting.

@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:

At this point, I think there’s value in being able to use GenAI to enhance what you do for as long as you can do it. If you’re a technical writer, use AI to make you a better technical writer so that you can stay working longer than other technical writers who ignore it and do not increase in quality or production.

If you’re a good technical writer, GenAI isn’t going to help you become a better one, it’s only going to help you become a faster one. Of course, in doing so, it’s going to introduce errors into your work that you won’t notice if you’re going fast enough.

Same thing goes for those using GenAI to get the tone right in emails, or to fill in the background of an image, or prototype code, or summarize law briefs, or all of the other relatively reasonable uses of GenAI that I’ve heard of. It doesn’t make you better, it makes you faster.

And when GenAI makes a professional faster, it allows the company to reduce staffing, like you mentioned, but it also introduces errors that slipped through because the now-overstretched staff has to go fast with GenAI to keep up with demand.

So maybe we can’t put the GenAI genie back in the bottle, but we can, and I posit, we should still mock the crap out of companies that can afford it when they use it, and chastise them for taking shortcuts that hurt their workers and are unethical and environmentally unsustainable. At the same time, our higher education and businesses should be working to find out what GenAI is actually good at, and what it can be trained to do (relatively) ethical and environmentally-sustainable methods.

@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:

I just think that on a game where a core theme of the setting is conflict between factions, making that conflict between players meaningless or even impossible for no IC logical reason makes the game setting just as pointless and boring.

You can have conflict between characters without having PvP. Even if the rule is “you can’t directly harm another PC” there’s a whole lot you can still do to play out conflict. Your lack of imagination is your problem, not a problem of PvE games.

It’s like making a game set in the marvel cinematic universe but no one is allowed to play as the heroes or villains, they can only play normal people doing normal things.

Um… no it’s not. It’s like making a game set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe but no one is allowed to play as villains, just heroes – oh wait, that’s pretty much most comic book MU*s out there.

@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:

Putting everyone on the same team means staff takes on the burden of being everyone else in the world.

This is actually almost universally true, unlike most of what you’ve said. A PvE game does require more Staff effort to create all of the antagonists and their actions to frustrate the PCs – but it requires less Staff effort to deal with assholes who are just out to grief other players by killing their characters.

@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:

When the games started being about protecting the feelings of bad actors who instigated trouble then ran to staff for protection it all went to shit.

You have this backwards. Yes, there are some people who do bad things and then complain when they get consequences for those bad things, but those players exist on PvE games too, and they still try to weasel out of consequences. But by closely monitoring or eliminated PvP, you stop allowing the bad actors who instigated trouble by killing characters for OOC reasons – or just to grief the other players. The people who “make it their life goal to ruin things for everyone” aren’t the people asking that their characters not be killed off for no reason, it’s the people killing off other characters for no reason.

@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:

What is happening now isn’t working. What people did then was working. Back in the day there were hundreds of active players on at a time. Now you’re lucky to see five.

Huh… sounds like you’re not on the games that are successful right now. Sure, they may not have 100 players at a time, but they’re perfectly happy with 30. It’s almost like MU*ing is an outdated technological medium whose primary players grew up and are now adults with jobs and lives and families rather than being high school or collect students who time on their hands.

Your issues sound like a you problem.

I’m a big fan of each room having an RP purpose. Maybe it says something particularly cogent about the setting (there’s a monument about a past incident or historical personage), maybe it’s a “critical” RP location (the mess hall on a military game), or maybe it’s a place I think could host RP even if it’s not typical (a dingy alley in a Steampunk game).

But I believe that each and every room should have 2-3 RP Hooks in it. So you’ve got a laundromat, because people like RPing talking to strangers while their undies tumble – why not note that one of the driers sometimes chews up clothing, or that there’s a phone number written inside the door of one of the washers in permanent marker, or there’s a camera in one corner with a screen showing that everyone in the laundromat is being recorded. Little things that people can integrate into their RP and use to spark IC discussion or action.

Whether you’re Grid-based (like most MU*s used to be) or Locations-based (like Ares), this style works, and can turn what could just be vague names that could be drawn out of a hat to run scenes in into something that can help inspire RP.

I feel like, as others have said above, there’s a difference between Player vs Player conflict and Character vs Character conflict. Yes, sometimes people get frustrated or upset and CvC becomes PvP, but most of the stress and toxicity I’ve seen from games on which competition of that sort was encouraged comes from PvP, where the egos of the players get involved and it’s less about losing the character (sometimes it is) and more about just losing.

I have no interest in high-stakes Player vs Player conflict. If I did, I would play PvP video games or play competitive chess or try to become a professional poker player. I love high-stakes Character vs Character conflict, when done with a player who you trust in search of a better story for all involved. I find it elevates the heart-rate almost as much as high-stakes PvP, and has a much better chance of a positive outcome.

I wish that there were more games that were open to CvC conflict (alongside PvE) but whose staff came down hard on any attempts to turn CvC into PvP. And if I had more time in my life, I would absolutely run the one I’ve designed.