@somasatori said in Strike Systems:

@Jumpscare said in Strike Systems:

Some people can change. Others can’t.

Man, at this point I’m willing to believe that we’re all pretty firmly set in our behavioral ways when it comes to MUSHing and would argue that most, if not all, people in the hobby will resist changing.

I’m inclined to agree. I’m curious if anyone has actually legitimately witnessed a fundamental change in someone with regards to MUSH behavior, perhaps due to some fallout, maybe in the form of banning or lost friends.

@L-B-Heuschkel Yeah, for me what comes to mind is RPI muds. I recall having to salute my captain on channel every time I logged in. It was just in the rules. I signed up for those rules. I can also sign up for enforced engagement (I think?) but the reasoning intrigues me.

I’d basically like someone to explain to me why having a truly, TRULY neutral player who generally RPs with 1-2 people is a NET LOSS to a game. I’d argue that this is even better than a solo player who just lurks. For THAT, you could make the case that they’re just farming XP or something, but personally I wouldn’t care. From what I can understand, ya’ll want a No Dead Weight policy, which seems like it’s usually applied to staffers.

If they are doing anything that somehow reaches you and informs you that they hate the theme and the setting sucks and everyone else sucks, that’s a player problem, not an engagement problem. As ever, it always comes back to the player problem.

I think we can all agree that it is perfectly acceptable for staff to create their own rules. I’m just trying to figure out why games might think a player engaging in this specific manner is a net loss, like they’re somehow taking up a slot that someone else more engaging would be utilizing.

@Trashcan I think player policies (rules) is different different from your version of player engagement, which you haven’t actually defined. I’d like to hear the cold hard requirements that you might expect from players and how you plan to enforce them. Hypothetically.

And if what you’re truly talking about is Wrong Fit… I mean, that’s it’s own discussion!

@Faraday

When I join a game, I’m not signing up for any sort of responsibility to the greater good of that game, nor do I expect that of any players that join a game I’m running.

I agree but I think this is a really interesting topic. We talk about what people expect of staffers a lot, but what about the average expectation of players? I’d like to know if there are more folk that think that if you app into their game, you’d better get your ass out of your room with your pal(s) and dig into the plot.

Personally I could not be happier when I see a few folks on my games kinda’ doing their own thing, being chill, not causing issues. Less overhead for me, and someone’s enjoying themselves in a framework I built. I would rather have them than not have them!

@Tez lmao OK I’m probably shouting into the void yes. GUYS isn’t it nuts we did a 3 strike system??? Maybe it’s from the change of very large games to very small, personal games, idk.

Genuinely curious if the 3 strike system genuinely benefitted the health of any game. As in a system where each strike was a warning and the warnings expired. I witnessed the application of this long ago and all it did was drag a really bad situation out for months, which ultimately ended in a perm ban anyway.

Also curious about peoples thoughts on temp bans and their effectiveness.

Yes I think it’s generally good for your RP health and the game health to eat your vegetables/RP with people outside of your circle. It’s just not something you can really enforce in other people, or guilt them into, or pressure them, or posit questions like why they’re even ON a game (if you’re trying to be effective in getting the result you want). All you can do is encourage it, lower barriers, make it easier, and that’s on you as a staffer, not a player. To me this is one of the important roles of a staffer. I think the platform plays into this as well. Easier to roll into a rando on a grid, for example.

@Gashlycrumb

A while ago I was in an event scene with someone that could not string sentences together to save his life. No real regard for capitalization or punctuation, but he was able to communicate what he was going for. Sure I’d prefer something more polished, but his character was amusing, and he rolled with the punches. He wasn’t boring. He was real. He was genuine. It was clear to me because every word he managed to type at us, no matter how mangled, was something from his own mind. I’m not really sure what my point is. I don’t really know how to explain that it’s important, at least to me, to know that the word you’ve included in your pose was something you chose, you settled on.

I know of another player that was pretty fast and loose with punctuation, and happened to be… pretty boring. They came to an event I was running and we had a minor little poetry contest. A poet character came up with a sweet and snappy haiku. Then, noticing positive reactions, fast-and-loose belted out an 8 stanza rhyming poem in 3 minutes, perfectly formatted, entirely different from that player’s writing style. I was baffled at first. It did not cross my mind that someone would’ve gone out of their way to generate something like that for a silly poetry contest. The stakes could not be lower.

I guess I want to know what people mean by improving their poses. Making them longer. Filling in the gaps? Do you simply give the LLM a prompt like “respond posing my character takes off his coat and goes into the kitchen to make something”? Is it more detailed than that? Simpler?

I’m confused. Is genAI a fun, harmless tool to be more efficient at creating art, or is it the catalyst for the race to the bottom, a “painful and violent” future for humanity? I feel like the original argument deviated a bit.

@Third-Eye I can accept it as something rough but necessary. I recall putting a TON of emotional attention (unwise on my part) into getting through that window, and missing it meant I was pretty much out of RP with my pals for several months. Not really sure where I would’ve gone from there, but as an ST that has been thoroughly fried, I definitely understand.

Back to ratios though, I agree with tez that 5 players per ST is a decent number.

Tangentially related but I thought we kinda’ figured out that gating/limiting/waitlisting wasn’t ideal. As in the people that generally got waitlisted were more or less uninterested after several months passed.

I’m far, far more interested in PVE than anything else. I try to avoid political games. I guess I like a bit of what Tez described? Hopepunk? The world is shitty but we’re trying anyway. Trying to stick to mood here… desperation. That team stuff that Jenn mentioned is pretty appealing. FRENSHIP. Nuanced development in characters. I guess this really depends on your players.

Mostly in agreement with @L-B-Heuschkel’s points, it’s a hard no for me. While I don’t mind a well-placed time jump, I’m not really interested in the end of a character’s story. Takes a lot of work to build stuff up again. That said, this clearly has appeal judging by the results of that poll, so godspeed!

@Kumakun This honestly looks so rad.

@ham rofl no!!!

@Yam oh my god im missing option 30-45

Guys im so bad at this

If you want 30-45 pls just comment.

@Gashlycrumb said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:

Bridget: “How about I set fire to Abelard’s lawn and he just sat there? But you know, I’m good with anything.”

I feel this in my bones. I SEE YOU, BRIDGET.