@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.

Depending on what type of Mech combat you want, FS3 will work brilliantly or not at all. I’ve worked on two different ways to handle Mech combat in FS3, with varying degrees of success.

1. Just use them as vehicles. This works best for 30-40 footers that are effectively giant armor or walking tanks. It’s simple, it’s straightforward, and it’s going to be very clean and easy.

2. Multi-part mechs. This works best for a Pacific Rim scale, alongside kaiju or something like it. You have separate ‘vehicles’ for each of the limbs, so that they can each take damage separately and you don’t get lucky one-hit KOs. It’s definitely more complex – both for GMs and for players – but absolutely doable.

If you’re interested in making FS3 work for mechs, I’m always up for talking about implementation of unintended systems into FS3.

I have a folder of faces and associated names – when I see an interesting face in a movie or show, I note down the name, look them up on Pinterest, try to wade through all of the BS AI fakes to find a good picture, and then slip that pic with their name into the folder.

I currently have 374 actors listed in there, across a wide variety of ages, colorings, ethnicities, genders, and pretty much everything else. So the first place I go when I want a PB is there.

Then again, I often get an idea for a character while watching a show, and then I already have a PB in mind (because I saw them in a similar role already). Then I just have to make sure that they don’t become an outright expy.

@Pavel Totally agree that it’s better to have an elegant reason why nuking the other side doesn’t work baked into the setting. But I also don’t really think that it should be necessary to tell players “No, you can’t end the war game’s war in a single stroke” in the lore. We did approach the player with lore reasons why it wouldn’t work first, but the player kept chasing the idea, and so we ended up saying “We’ve given you IC reasons, here’s the OOC reason: we want the war and don’t want to end it at a stroke.” They didn’t take it so well.

@KarmaBum said in World Tone / Feeling:

@Roadspike Those are good conceptual examples. Can you share any specific examples from the perspective of you, as a player?

Most of those were just generalized versions of specific examples. Here are – as best as I remember – the specific examples.

On BSGU, we ran into a Cylon snake, and my character made a quippy remark giving it a nickname. I don’t remember what it was, but as I recall, a GM-run NPC later used that nickname in a briefing (perhaps reluctantly, or with a sigh, or something, it’s been a decade, I don’t remember for sure). That made me feel like I was having an impact on the world.

On Realms Adventurous, Staff there was really good about putting out posts about the actions of players, and of mentioning them ICly in scenes. I remember a skirmish before a tournament and the herald or one of the marshals or something mentioned it, calling out the knights by name who had participated.

Oh! Here’s an even better one because it wasn’t all positive: on Steel & Stone, my character intervened in single combat to save his cousin from a death (it was like my second week on the game, and I didn’t want to be responsible for the death of another PC), and I heard about it for months from GM-run NPCs, including my character’s cousin and liege lord when the crew returned from the Iron Isles. But it came up in scenes where I wasn’t even playing, so it definitely felt like it had an effect.

As for the last concept, I’ve seen it happen enough times that I don’t know that I can come up with a specific great example, but the hypotheticals I mentioned before (a GM NPC mentions that they came in on a ship that the PCs saved from pirates or the zeppelin) should hopefully be concrete enough examples to be examples.

I don’t need my characters to change to metaplot or the setting wildly, I just want the actions of PCs as a whole to impact the game, I want my efforts to be recognized. One of my love languages is Words of Affirmation, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s how that happens in MUSHes.

@Pavel – I think that the distinction between the desires of the characters and the player is a fantastic one. Characters should want to win, players should want the game to continue to be fun for them and those around them. It’s the same way I think that players should approach PvP (at least when it’s OOCly friendly) – yeah, your character wants to win, but you as a player, you want to tell the best possible story with your fellow players.

I do think that it’s important to come up with ways to short-circuit attempts to end the setting/metaplot, but I also think that it’s fair game to OOCly tell someone “doing that would fundamentally change the game in ways that we’re not comfortable with, we’re happy to provide IC rationalization on why your character can’t succeed with this, but please don’t continue down this path as a player.”

@Gashlycrumb The whole idea of share points might work for some games, but it feels like it is absolutely rife with the possibility of the perception of bias. Like, “X told me that it only cost them 3 share points to get spotlighted at a plot, but it cost me 5” or “how does Y always have so many share points?” or even just “I never get into a plot, even when I have share points, Staff must be manipulating event signups.”

Even if none of that is actually true, the perception can destroy trust in a game.

@Faraday said in World Tone / Feeling:
Yet there are always players who want to civilize a Wild West game, create a superweapon that will defeat the Cylons in a Battlestar game, cure the zombie virus in a zombie game, etc.

Having had to deal with players wanting to wipe out the adversary in a world(s)-at-war game with an asteroid strike… I don’t get it either. The only thing that I can think is that some people just want to “win” the game, not realizing or not caring that if someone “wins” a MUSH, then the MUSH that exists is fundamentally over. Sure, something like it may be able to continue on, but it won’t be the same game that brought people to it.

@KarmaBum For me, “touch the world” means seeing my actions (or the results of them) spread through the IC world. Whether that’s something as simple as some slang that I created spreading to Staff-run NPCs, having the First Minister mention the brave, heroic actions of a group of knights who saved a puppy (“Hey, that was me!”), or having a Staff-run plot integrate something that I did as a player GM (the zeppelin that I had PCs defending just showed up in the midst of this big fight and saved the day!).

I want to know that what I’m doing has an impact on those around me, PCs and NPC, because if I’m not able to impact what others are experiencing, why am I playing a multiplayer storytelling experience/game?

@MisterBoring We did something like this on The Savage Skies: each adventure, we had a list of area hooks, common antagonists, common allies, current plots, and any specific resources (like Staff Notes that were of particular use for the adventure) to help player-GMs find their footing. It worked okay, we had a few people run some stuff based on that information. We definitely could have provided more of the “what,” “why,” and “how” for the antagonists along with the “who.”

I too am on the Grimbright or Nobledark train – if the world is dark, I want to be able to make positive change (even if it’s small); if the world is bright, I want there to be a little grittiness to it as well.

I want my characters to succeed somewhere between 51% and 70% of the time – if they succeed all the time, it doesn’t feel like the stakes are really there, and if they fail more than half the time, it gets frustrating.

In the last decade or so, the world has been grimdark enough, if the setting is going to be either grim or dark, I want to be able to punch it in the face.

I agree with a lot of what @Tat, @Faraday, @Pyrephox, and others have said. One incentive that I think can help get people interested in running PrPs is to have Staff weave references to the actions in their PrPs into larger metaplot scenes.

Did they stop a pirate ship from taking a merchantman? The important plotgiver for the next metaplot scene happened to be on that merchantman and is effusive in their thanks.

Not only does this let players know that player-run-plots matter, it provides a thank-you to player GMs, shares a little spotlight with all involved, and might even make it easier for player GMs to feel more comfortable taking on bigger plot ideas.

@Gashlycrumb said in “All the World’s a MUSH”: Genre as Destiny in Collaborative Roleplay Behaviour:

(and winged unicorns a super-special restricted sphere, oooh)

Hello, those are alicorns.

Sorry, my kid was really, really hard into MLP for a while. I promise I’m not a brony, not that there’s anything wrong with that in itself.

As a data-nerd myself (although amateur, not professional), I’m very curious about the data from the poll/study/whatever-you-wanna-call-it. And the qualitative information as well (whatever can be properly anonymized and shared, at least).

I actually love a combination between Royal Heir Finds One True Match (not necessarily love, but a good match), and Bridgerton MUSH; something like this:

There’s an NPC Royal Heir (or maybe two, depending on Staff interest and availability) that everyone is at court to meet and hope to marry, but if PCs want to settle for other PCs, they can. Sure, they don’t get the brilliant and powerful connection, but they might get someone they actually match well with. This would also allow there to be PCs of the same gender as the Royal Heir who might not be interested in a Consort match with the Royal Heir. They could even be of higher rank than the prospective matches, and with chargenned connections to the Royal Heir (probably closer personal connections the lower ranked they were for a balance). This leads to a situation where the Crown Princess’s hunting gal pals or the Crown Prince’s lords-in-waiting can get in on the politicking and can provide connections – but are the prospective matches buttering them up to get closer to the Royal Heir or because they really like them?

You could also theoretically have a Consort selected alongside a Royal Spouse in a given season, if two players play the game particularly well, one romantically and one politically.

I do like the idea of the Royal Heir being played by any and all Staffers to avoid scheduling burnout – and wonder if doing so would allow any Staffer to see unshared logs by the Royal Heir (I think it might?). I like the idea of releasing the private logs at the end of the season, and agree that the Royal Heir should not be TSing during the Season.

I also love the idea of an every-week-or-two Court Reporter sort of gossip sheet.

I also also love the idea of Love Letter as an inspiration.

@MisterBoring As @Third-Eye mentioned, there was a mini-bubble at the start of each new Season on the Network, and at the beginning of each Hiatus between Seasons. Some people preferred the Hiatus time in the Dome, some people preferred the Seasons, some people came back whenever a particular Season interested them.

Since most Seasons were 4-8 months, there was definitely a tail-off partway through most Seasons, but it did capture the burst at the beginning.

@Faraday Agreed 100% – what defines BarRP for me is that it’s just two or more characters sitting in a bar making small talk without any purpose behind it, usually because one player asked on a public channel “Hey, does anyone want to RP?” and then another said, “Sure! Meet you at That Bar” without having any further idea of what they wanted to do.

I think that characters going to a bar to try and show off their fan-language skills and send increasingly-elaborate messages with them could be fascinating, as could meeting in a salon to have piano-forte duels, as could being presented at court (although there would have to be some chance for interactivity to that one, or it could get seriously boring).

Add in to this meeting in salons to make and break alliances between the prospected prince(sse)s, having scuffles between commoner supporters, duels of honor and dishonor, accusations of pre-marital hanky-panky, trips to the seamstress that are more like putting on a suit of armor for battle, and carriage races or chases… there’s definitely a whole lot that could be done with a Bridgerton-ish setting (especially if there was also the opportunity to make a match with a lesser noble if you fail hard at wooing the Heir).

@Ominous As for the description “in my style,” I think you could do that even more directly:

The Heir of Kingdomname needs a match! Each Season will be filled with grasping members of the high and low nobility, all struggling to stand out among the crowd and nab themselves a crown through demonstration of their clear social quality.

Pretty Princess Simulator is a humorous game of dynastic intrigue and politicking in a fantasy renaissance setting. Players will portray eligible nobles trying to win a future crown, family members of those nobles trying to advance family fortunes, or servants looking to engage in some skullduggery to get ahead.

Staff will provide opportunities for the prospective spouses to meet with the Heir and their intimate circle to learn more about their likes and dislikes, and will guide players through a Season of matchmaking, providing a backdrop on which the characters can create and break alliances as they chase the crown. Once the Heir makes their choices and the Season has completed, there will be a time skip with a new generation of would-be Consorts and a new Heir. The game is intended to poke light-hearted fun at the Lords & Ladies theme, especially shows such as Bridgerton, while still being a high-quality example of such entertainment.

@bear_necessities said in The 3-Month Players:

OK but what will people RP?

This is something I always want to think about when creating a game – and what I want to put into the mission statement to guide and explain every game I work on. I think that every game should have a sentence/paragraph that talks about the OOC community you’re trying to create, and a sentence/paragraph about what characters will be and players will do.

For example:

Fly the unfriendly skies in airplanes that never were, casting spells, dodging dragons, and fighting fascism in the late 1930s. Characters will be members of a “free” militia, The Sky Guard, secretly serving the interests of the French and British governments from an airship base. They will crisscross the Continent finding high adventure.

This describes the setting in an IC manner and emphasizes a “radio serial” feel.

The Savage Skies MUSH is a game of dieselpunk adventure and modern fantasy. Players might be flying against air pirates one week, gathering information on Nationalist Spanish movements the next, trading spells with minions of the Drachenordnung another, and then treating with a great dragon to convince it to join the cause at the end of the month.

This provides a definition of the game OOCly, including the type of events that might be available.

All characters will be explicitly tied to the militia group at the heart of the game, either as a fighting member or one of the smugglers, informants, and hangers-on that work directly with them. From there, you’ll work together with other players to create your own adventures within the setting and metaplot provided by Staff. Staff-run action will take place in Adventures of 1-4 months, with some time between them.

This describes the expectation for players on how they’ll interact with the game and who they can play.

@Jennkryst I would probably let it sit organically for a little while (whether that’s a few days or a week), and then put up a time limit warning (about the same length of time) after that. Mostly that’s just because I would rather teach people to react on their own, rather than wait for a prompt, but I recognize that sometimes the prompt is necessary.

I always want to keep in mind that I want to reward the behavior that I want to see, so giving those who respond on their own a little bonus (and letting them know it) would be reasonable.

Agree with @MisterBoring’s note that some people will complain even if you reach out and ask them directly to intervene… and you’re never going to please those people. And there is value to @Jennkryst’s yeetable sign.