MU Peeves Thread
-
I honestly lost the plot on this gods know how many posts ago but what I’m left with is a legitimate question —
Can you send clerical heads rolling down the stairs IC’ly in response to this? Because if the answer is yes it’s at least a bit of shameless wish fulfillment one can indulge in (as opposed to the real world where creeping theocracy is a thing you’re going to be stuck with in a lot of places).
-
@Snackness Isn’t the OOC reason the same as the IC? Its a world filled with humans that can reproduce in some capacity. Its also a Lords and Ladies game wherein reproduction, families, genealogy, ect ect ect, has always been a major focus in that style of game. A Lords and Ladies game without some kind of detail as to how reproduction is treated would be more surprising than one with such details. This one just has a unique world-building aspect that can lead to unique stories specific to the setting.
I find the mockery more in poor taste when such details should be encouraged to give a setting more life. Literally. Ha haa.
-
wow you guys, people talk about how toxic the MU community is, and i guess I just never saw it before.
mockery? in a peeve thread??
have some class
-
@hellfrog LoL. Touche.
-
@real_mirage said in MU Peeves Thread:
A Lords and Ladies game without some kind of detail as to how reproduction is treated would be more surprising than one with such details. This one just has a unique world-building aspect that can lead to unique stories specific to the setting.
I am already totally breaking Rokugani culture with poorly though out setting changes for the L5R game that I surely won’t flake out on this time, what’s a few MORE changes to FauxSamurai gender roles and marriage customs?
-
@real_mirage said in MU Peeves Thread:
ect ect ect
I find this more in poor taste than anything else.
-
@Pavel I’ll use et al next time.
-
@real_mirage said in MU Peeves Thread:
@Pavel I’ll use et al next time.
At least that’s spelt correctly.
-
-
If it’s the kind of story the players and the mods want to focus on more power to them, but it definitely is one of the more out there ways to handle a ruling of, ultimately, ooc practicality. Sterility is a sensitive topic to rp about, and an entire species’ sterility is a really big piece of world building to have an explanation this late, which can really change a pre-established vibe, if the assumption has been something less… actively controlled before. It might be that this was just buried elsewhere in the theme and is moved to its own page now, but if that’s the case it might have been really buried because I don’t know that there’s been much talk of it before.
-
@real_mirage said in MU Peeves Thread:
This one just has a unique world-building aspect that can lead to unique stories specific to the setting.
‘The Church has absolute control over all reproduction.’ is certainly a unique world-building aspect, and it seems particularly naive to gloss over that aspect of it in your post.
-
IMO, it’s not great to take a stance like ‘the church is in control of reproduction’ unless players are explicitly allowed to take a swing at that institution and that massive social control. Are they allowed or encouraged to make motions back to their own autonomy? Fuckfruits for all?
‘The church is in control of reproduction’ is one thing. ‘The church is in control of people’s bodies and everyone is chill with this IC because that is our ooc policy’ is uhhhhh less good.
-
I’m going to start posing in first person and past tense.
You’re all welcome.
-
-
@tsar I was happy about this change. I thought it was a great idea.
-
-
@imstillhere said in MU Peeves Thread:
IMO, it’s not great to take a stance like ‘the church is in control of reproduction’ unless players are explicitly allowed to take a swing at that institution and that massive social control. Are they allowed or encouraged to make motions back to their own autonomy? Fuckfruits for all?
‘The church is in control of reproduction’ is one thing. ‘The church is in control of people’s bodies and everyone is chill with this IC because that is our ooc policy’ is uhhhhh less good.
I’m going to push back on this.
A game should disclose elements of its IC setting which are going to be dealbreakers for people. If you read an element of a game that is a dealbreaker, and decide “Oh man, don’t want to play there because that’s not something I’d find fun,” that’s good! The system is working, and now that game can select for players who will engage with the setting in good faith, and the players who would hate that setting can go elsewhere.
But saying, “Oh, I hate that element of the setting, so it’s a bad game unless you let me make a character who will try to dismantle that setting because of my OOC dislike for it…” well, that’s not good. That’s a dick move, unless the game is specifically set up to be ‘about’ cultural revolution.
Let other people have fun doing their thing. You don’t have to be involved. Not everything has to be for you, and no game should feel obligated to cater to or support characters that are just there to be disruptive because their players don’t like the setting.
-
@Pyrephox said in MU Peeves Thread:
A game should disclose elements of its IC setting which are going to be dealbreakers for people. If you read an element of a game that is a dealbreaker, and decide “Oh man, don’t want to play there because that’s not something I’d find fun,” that’s good! The system is working, and now that game can select for players who will engage with the setting in good faith, and the players who would hate that setting can go elsewhere.
But saying, “Oh, I hate that element of the setting, so it’s a bad game unless you let me make a character who will try to dismantle that setting because of my OOC dislike for it…” well, that’s not good. That’s a dick move, unless the game is specifically set up to be ‘about’ cultural revolution.
Let other people have fun doing their thing. You don’t have to be involved. Not everything has to be for you, and no game should feel obligated to cater to or support characters that are just there to be disruptive because their players don’t like the setting.
This is something I’m running into as I start looking into L5R more and more. In a setting where your own dirty eyes can deceive you (you can clearly see that waterfall, but the imperial maps say there isn’t a waterfall… until the Imperial maps are updated, this means that the Emperor has declared the waterfall does not exist)… you can remove any perceived problem with the setting by simply having the Emperor declare something is legal now.
But also, how much will changing things affect the vibe of the setting? Is tricksy.
-
@Tez I didn’t gloss over it, that was part of my point re worldbuilding by describing how reproduction is handled. In this case reproduction is handled by fuckfruit and the church of fuckfruit.
-
@Pyrephox
I have seen other games use a ‘social contract’ (credit given to this blog post for the details) and I think having policies presented this way is much more productive than just saying “this is the way it is IC”.The social contract approach tells me if a theme’s elements I find potentially problematic are there to be engaged with in a compelling way, to examine a particular theme, or if I’m expected to swallow it straight-up because that behavior is just part of the world that staff wants to live in. Given that there are a list of potentially problematic human behaviors that used to be (and in some communities still are) normalized, this is an important distinction for players to have.
Without this context, I don’t know what “engaging with the setting in good faith” looks like, and I don’t know whether to be squicked IC or OOC.
