@Artemis It could be that no one is going to try to live up to Arx. Everything else might just be a lackluster comparison. I never played there but I heard people talk about it for years.

@Gashlycrumb said in WoD/CofD/Supernatural Games, One Splat or Many?:

@MisterBoring

Yep. I dislike the sphere system because (among other things) it makes it super easy to let this happen. Frankly, it regularly happens within spheres anyway – the magical tank vs phone call thing really happened, though my character was actually taking a forty-five minute bus ride, not making a phone call. The tank-builder was in the same sphere as I, same GM, it was just, eh, indifference to the issue, or favouritism. It was not actually as frustrating as spending five RL weeks waiting for twenty IC minutes to pass while the staffer I needed to tell me what happened in those twenty minutes was having weekly adventure and daily sphere-baRP with their PC.

It kinda blows me away that gamerunners don’t all acknowledge the timeliness problem and have a stated course of action to deal with it. In my long experience, if you want to lose friends over an RPG the easiest way is to SKIP SOMEBODY’S TURN A LOT. That’s pretty much the simplest way to be a shitty GM. (If you want to really guarantee that friendships’ death, skip their turn a lot and then have a hissy fit when they point out how unfair and shitty it is.)

An aside, I wish we’d all get over the idea that MU staffing is volunteerism. Yeah, sure, it’s voluntary. But volunteerism implies community service. And okay, yeah, sort of, technically, but also, no. GMs are players playing a different role in the game. Yeah, we need them or we can’t play, but. Weellllll. You need a pitcher to play baseball, but you can play without a left fielder if you must. This does not make the pitcher a volunteer whose services you must constantly applaud and the left fielder a mere player who owes the pitcher. (For the same reason, gamerunners and players should all remember that GMs are players too, and they, too, should be having fun.)

It sounds like your bad experiences with MU staffing have soured you on staffers and their value. But don’t let your bad experiences with bad staffers blind distract from the importance staffing has on the hobby or the value in the service they’re offering the community. If anything, your bad experiences should show you just how valuable staffing is and how damaging it can be to have someone stepping into that role who won’t/can’t do it well. They should show you why good staffers should be applauded whenever they can be. Because good staffing is invaluable, even though many people take it for granted and are happy to sour on all of it because of the bad apples.

I thought I was relatively safe in California, but I was very wrong. Watching Trump operate unchecked following the Project 2025 playbook has been a surreal horror.

@Tez said in Metaplot: What and How:

@L-B-Heuschkel That’s a great set up for that kind of play. I’ve mentally filed that kind of thing under ‘Stargate games’, and I think it can work VERY well for games set up for it.

I’ve tried similar things on games I’ve run, although less as a literal portal to other universes structure and more as in there is a homebase and people can go out and run missions on other planets. (Because my bias was scifi rather than fantasy. You could call them portal games too!) The idea being that the distance should empower people to freely do what they like. I think Spirit Lake played with the portal thing too.

The problem I’ve run into is that players don’t necessarily feel that it connects back to the metaplot if there aren’t changes to the homebase region or overall story. Is that just out of the scope for your game?

Respectfully, IMHO, that’s because that example doesn’t really sound like a metaplot. That just sounds like a setting. Stargate’s setting was that there were portals to other universes and the team could go through them and do stuff. You can run a bunch of scenes off of that setting and have a bunch of fun with it, but that’s not a metaplot. Plots in general usually have a conflict (a problem that drives the story forward) and causality (where one thing affects another). Stargate’s metaplot was some action being done by individuals (or forces) over a larger span of time (usually over a season, or multiple seasons which makes it “meta”) that affected things in the universe (causality): like a rebellion forming across multiple worlds to take down Apophis and be free (I’m actually not a Stargate fan, so don’t quote me on accuracy here). The main characters would sometimes be involved with that or sometimes not, same as on a game, sometimes players can have stories involved in the metaplot, sometimes not.

If the metaplot can’t be affected by the players in any meaningful way (or at least work towards being able to affect it), that’s not a metaplot (usually). Its just a setting.

@Roadspike has a great example with The Fifth World. That’s a metaplot. A thing is happening in the game over a long(er) period of time. Characters can be involved in it or do things not involved with it directly. But the thing is happening and the characters can touch that story, but not enough to shut it down right away or overtake it until they’ve built up a good amount of momentum. Some players want to be involved, others not. But a metaplot tells a larger story that’s happening besides the day to day.

A metaplot can sometimes change the setting. I personally think a good metaplot WILL change the setting, even if it is in minor ways.

Players can ignore the metaplot, but not the setting. If the setting changes because of the metaplot, that’s just the game.

Aside from that, players grumbling about the metaplot and setting and changes are a different beast, though. People are unhappy for a variety of reasons on staff and player side that just have to do with people being people and the limitations of MU*s.

@Pavel said in MU Peeves Thread:

My problem with backgrounds is that I constantly do the thing where I put all the interesting bits of a character’s life in the background, and leave very little room for interesting stuff to happen on the game.

I don’t think that’s only your problem. Its a problem built into the system that you have to self correct for. You’re told to make a background and usually told that you have to justify your stats. So you come up with whatever ridiculousness you need to to justify the stats, then after approval, you’re not actually allowed to do half the interesting stuff that was approved in your background for various reasons, many of which are completely valid. So you end up in this weird twilight zone of having this very cool character who will not likely accomplish anything near as interesting as what you had in your head. As a result there’s more than a few people who have made characters they really liked, but then have done little to nothing with them before fading out completely.

@Kestrel said in MU Peeves Thread:

I don’t think we shouldn’t describe stuff. I just think we should only describe stuff that matters, when it matters.

It’s the Chekhov’s Gun principle. If it’s not going to go off in the second act, it doesn’t need a paragraph describing it in the first.

I agree completely, which is why I hate writing backgrounds now - when they are mandatory. All things being equal, I’d love writing a background for a character, but when I know that every letter I type is one more letter that is going to be ignored by staff it just kills it for me. But on games where a full background isn’t necessary or only a few bullet points are necessary, I will usually write out the full background all on my own and enjoy the process.

That said, I also don’t hate AI the way so many other people seem to, as long as it is used well. Everyone shows up to the hobby for different reasons and that has a lot to do with why different people feel certain ways about it. And I would love if people kept an open mind to the fact that not everyone shows up for the same reasons as they do. When people don’t do that, I guess that would be one of my MU peeves.

@Pavel said in MU Peeves Thread:

@Third-Eye I wonder how long it’ll be before staff start requiring people defend their applications like one does with a dissertation, just to weed out those who wrote their backgrounds with an LLM.

This is what they get for still having people write out backgrounds that will never again have relevance once the app is approved.

It doesn’t really sound like drama so much as same ol’, same ol’ gripes that a lot of players have on games.

The only thing that adds fuel to the fire is the fact that they just ripped the post down like they had a secret to hide.

Nothing says ‘don’t let all the people in the secret sandbox learn that there are others with the exact same complaints’ like suddenly removing a player’s post on a public board and then announcing ‘Nothing to see here, folks.’

@Meg said in Inuki Ban Thread:

i agree we can get a little echo chamber-y here, but calling this place an echo chamber in a thread where we’re literally disagreeing and arguing with each other is always the funniest thing to me.

I didn’t mean the place as a whole is an echo chamber. Like you said, it can get that way some times. This was one of those times. And not in this thread, but the other one. Everyone pretty much agreed in that thread that Inuki=blech…

So to log onto anything, including a thread where everyone is in virtually unanimous agreement of how bad you are can, like you said, get a little echo chamber-y. Especially in a thread that she popped into to say ‘hey, I didn’t bother you guys, please leave me and my game alone’ (not that anyone has to comply with that) But that has to be hard to take for anyone, regardless if its warranted or not.

Again, I didn’t disagree that she shouldn’t be here. Just not for that comment.

@hellfrog said in Inuki Ban Thread:

@Warma-Sheen said in Inuki Ban Thread:

If the experience of someone here is such that it brings them to empathize with people who have taken that drastic action, is the best reaction to boot them?

Yeah. It is when the ‘experience here’ is being reminded of their own words and actions, and the sympathy is displayed to make people stop talking about their own words and actions. Go read Thirdeye’s post if this is a real question of yours.

It was a real question and still is. I don’t completely know for myself what the answer to that is. I did read the post you mentioned. I just didn’t agree that just because the ‘s’ word was mentioned, that it is a nuclear bomb that shuts down conversation or that it can’t be responded to. I think if you really believed that was real, booting them and isolating them is doing way more harm than good. And if you don’t know if its real that’s what having a conversation is good for, even if it is in the form of a warning.

I think people show up to these forums in war paint with weapons drawn, ready to draw blood. That certainly happened here with at least one poster. So no one should be that surprised when blood is spilled. Even the worst of people can crumble under their weight of their own actions.

I think its fine that people get called out on their bad behavior, good if they recognize their mistakes, better if they change it. Everyone seemed to agree that she has a history of bad behavior, so why wouldn’t she start to feel the pressure of it when it all immediately gets thrown back in her face whenever she shows her face? If I had said those things, I would be feeling pretty shitty too.

I think what it comes down to was that I took her comments at face value and others thought it was just a manipulation tactic. I can see it from both sides.

And I recognize the staff had a tough call to make and it could have gone either way. They made the call they did and I’m sure it was the best call they could make with the information that was available to them.

@Pavel said in Numetal/Retromux:

Frankly, though, I don’t care about fairness in this kind of situation. If it looks like a dumpster fire, I will avoid it even if it allegedly smells like patchouli.

Right, but the place doesn’t look like a dumpster fire. In fact, I don’t think anything negative has been said about the game itself, just Inuki and some other people that have since left. The game as a whole and what’s being run there sounds great.

But…

@BloodAngel said in Numetal/Retromux:

@Warma-Sheen honestly if you can’t trust the owner or support what they stand for it’s simple vote with your feet. Logging on to a game for a head staffer you dislike or don’t think is safe is still supporting them.

That I can understand. And agree with.

I just wish there was a clearer delineation between the two ideas, you know? The people who are there doing good stuff in MU*ing (in a tiny, tiny hobby) don’t deserve to get raked over the coals just because of who the headstaffer is. They can’t do anything about that. I’m sure they’ve tried. If they’ve managed to run a great game in spite of that, it is actually a credit to them. I just think that kind of thing gets missed under all the negativity.

But I do understand voting with your feet can be a major motivation and impetus for change. I get that people shouldn’t support bad behavior. Agreed.

@DrQuinn said in Inuki Ban Thread:

I think there’s a real difference between “I am having thoughts of self harm” posts and “if I kill myself its your fault” posts. And I’m fine with the latter being a ban-worthy offense.

I agree. But neither of those two things happened here. What was said was, “What I’ve experienced here has given me insight as to why some people have chosen to do ‘this thing’.”

If the experience of someone here is such that it brings them to empathize with people who have taken that drastic action, is the best reaction to boot them?

I think it is obvious that this had more to do with the opinions about Inuki as an individual than the one comment that was made. But rather than just say, “We don’t want you to interact with us anymore,” this was made about mentioning self-harm, which I don’t think was fair to the concept of it or the sensitivity to it.

Cyberbullying is real. The feelings it inspires are real. Perfect example:

@Mushling-0 said in Inuki Ban Thread:

I emphasize with Meg’s viewpoint on the banning and frankly would rather have her still here to give her voice to the discussion as I have more to say and more receipts. I am not comfortable continuing much further with her being gone and because of her response that included suicide.

So even after what was expressed and Inuki being banned, that’s not enough for this person? This person still wants Inuki to be here so they can hammer her with more stuff. Like, what is gonna be enough for this person? What’s the goal beyond emotional domination? Read the boards. Everyone agrees with you. Take the win. Give it up and go home.

Things like that which happen here are emotionally draining and takes a heavy toll on one’s mental health, especially when you hear it in an echo chamber. Is it better for Inuki to not be here? Probably. For her and for everyone else. But don’t make it about that comment.

@Pacha said in Numetal/Retromux:

So, in conclusion: Stay far, far away from this game is what I am taking away?

Asking for real:

Is it fair to paint the whole game this way if the problem is only with this one singular person, even if they are the headstaff?

From what I see above, literally everything negative has only been about Pika. Everything else on the game seems to be good to great. So why condemn the whole game if there’s just the one issue? Just avoid/ignore them and enjoy a great time.

If Pika runs mage and the other spheres have autonomy (one of the things that saves the game IMO), then just don’t make a mage. If the vamp and shifter and changeling spheres are poppin, then obviously there’s merit/value to the game. There’s a reason the mage sphere only has like 3 active characters (two of whom are staff characters), but all the others have 15+.

But the fact that the game has a built in firewall between Pika and the rest of the spheres is a great thing that suggest maybe the entire game shouldn’t be dumped on flippantly.

Shannen Doherty
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/entertainment/shannen-doherty-death/index.html

Being published is a big deal. Gratz.

The problem is people.

@Wizz said in City of Glass - Discussion:

@hellfrog said in City of Glass - Discussion:

not to say i didn’t scream internally and externally when trying to actually USE my sheet.

thiiiis. I love Mage’s setting and themes to death and have been reeeaaally tempted, even started making a bit, but every time I look at the improvised spell chart in the books I want to start hooting and screeching like a baboon

What I do is to write out my most commonly used spells beforehand and work everything out while I have free time. Then I can copy and paste when needed and modify as necessary. It really helps to learn it.

@Testament said in Celebrities We Lost 2024:

Carl Weathers

This one kills me as someone who has very cherished memories of watching the Rocky movies with my grandfather. I loved Carl Weathers, and was happy to see his resurgence in The Mandalorian.

Same. RIP Action Jackson.

@GF said in Liberation MUSH:

@Warma-Sheen Oh, I remember. Just seems weird to wait so long.

I actually don’t think its that weird. There’s a lot of reasons to wait. As the above posts show there are a lot of different people that have a grudge against the game and the people involved in it. So it could be any number of things. People take their funtimes very seriously. Here’s just a few reasons I can think of.

1. There’s the obvious idea that if it something like this happens right after an incident, everyone will be pointing the finger at the person involved in that incident. Since this is an actual crime, something you can go to jail for, you don’t want to go in hot and be the prime suspect. At least if you wait there’s time for other suspects to be viable.

2. Sometimes you leave off a situation feeling one way about, then later on realize that you view it differently in hindsight and have different feelings about it and what you want to do about it. Like, if you leave the situation feeling righteously justified and then find out that no one agrees with you, everyone wanted you gone for a long time, and everyone you thought were friendly with you come out to say you were the problem and that this is actually to everyone’s benefit, then your illusions might start to break down, especially about taking the high road. You might decide to try to ‘get even’ after taking months to realize you weren’t the hero in that story.

3. Sometimes other things happen in the intervening time that compounds the problem and triggers other reactions. Like, if you got kicked out of that game, but your behavior in that incident causes you to get you banned and booted from any other games you might want to play, but this world was basically your whole world and you spent 24/7 in it, but now you’re not allowed in any of those worlds and you can’t do the thing you really liked doing and instead have to fill your time with lesser fulfillments, then that could build up some serious angst over time until you do something silly and illegal, months after the initial incident.

4. It could not be targeted at all. It could be random. I mean, its not likely, but its always a possibility.

@GF said in Liberation MUSH:

I know people DDOS websites for incredibly stupid grudges (I remember an internet reviewer whose site got attacked for not giving a video game a high enough score), so I wonder what imagined or real slight the attacker has against the game.

Scroll up…

@Kestrel said in MU Peeves Thread:

I guess my MU* peeve is people who act like it’s exclusionary/cliquish/elitist/bad/sinful to just not hang out with people who don’t spark joy.

You laid down a spectrum of adjectives that aren’t all the same thing. I agree with some and not others. I know people probably won’t agree, but this is my personal opinion on these:

Exclusionary: It is absolutely exclusionary. You’re purposefully excluding certain people from your RP by deliberate choice. That’s basically the definition of exclusionary.

Cliquish: If you only RP with certain people, and especially if those same people only RP with the same other people, it would certainly be cliquish. That is how cliques operate. They stick together and don’t let anyone else in on the majority of what they do. It isn’t necessarily because of some ill intent. That’s just how things shake out sometimes.

Elitist: Whether this applies would depend on why you don’t like to RP with those people you’ve excluded. If you think their RP is just not good and the people you RP with are better, then that would be elitist for sure. But that’s a little muddier because there are certainly reasons you wouldn’t like to RP with someone, but not because you think they aren’t good people or their RP isn’t good.

Bad/Sinful: Not at all. There’s nothing wrong with only RPing in a way that is fun and/or interesting, exciting, etc. for you. It isn’t bad. It isn’t a sin. It is your fun time and time is precious. Too precious to waste it on things you aren’t enjoying.

But don’t shy away from labels or accusations that are true just because you think they sound bad. Own your decisions, don’t be shamed by them. It isn’t everyone’s responsibility to include everyone else. Is it nice to do so? Sure. But not compulsory. And it certainly isn’t all or nothing. Some days you might not want to put out the extra bandwidth to deal with new people or people that aren’t that exciting. And some days you might. That’s cool of you. You maybe improved someone’s day. But still, that’s not your responsibility.

At the end of the day, your time is yours to do what you want with it and if you want to spend it on people you know will be fun, rather than rolling the dice on an unknown or something that might be a slog for you, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Caveat: This doesn’t apply if you have an agreement with the staff or the game to RP with all others, which is often explicit when taking a roster character or a tiered original character or a staff position. In those cases, if you make an agreement to do a thing, then yes, it is bad/sinful to not do that thing you agreed to do. If that’s the case you should definitely give up those slots/positions and take one without any specific requirements and/or responsibilities on your fun.