Just as an addendum to the above exchange, I’ve edited my first post on this thread to reflect that @voiceinthevoid and I ended up talking things through in DMs, and I do believe they were coming from an authentic place. I stand by the rest of what I said, and also appreciate them hearing out my discomfort and taking concerns on board.

Let us reframe that sentence into the following contexts:

“It also doesn’t make women look great to throw around false rape allegations, and can actually increase misogyny.”

“It also doesn’t make black people look great to play the race-card, and can actually increase white supremacy.”

---

I can’t be certain that you are who you say you are, and I will state plainly that I feel no compulsion to take at face value a post by a day-old account that, seemingly, created the account and posted solely for the purpose of discrediting an allegation of antisemitism.

But I will say that I take issue with this framing, that lying Jews cause antisemitism. Antisemites cause antisemitism. This sentence is either internalised racism, or dishonest in authorial intent.

Maybe it also really was an honest mistake to have created a whole new thread, and the intention was to reply directly to the comments in context. But I really wish this board didn’t now have a whole thread titled “Antisemitism Allegedly” about how, allegedly, allegations of antisemitism cannot be trusted. Did this need to be a topic here?

Maybe Wikibara really is a liar, I don’t know, I don’t know him from Adam. Maybe this is an attempt to discredit a game unfairly, I don’t know, I’ve never played it.

But this thread sets me on edge. If you’re being honest about why you made it, then hopefully you can understand why some people taking an interest in this topic might be on edge.

Because I have receipts I will gladly post of Actual Nazis in this hobby privately admitting in their crusty little Actual Nazi discord servers that they enjoy making false flag posts in the MU* community meant to stir up shit of this nature.

If your intentions are honest, then I really am sorry for what you and your family are going through.

I don’t know who any of the people in this involved are. Not the staff, not the accused, not the accuser, not this poster I’m replying to now, nor what events transpired.

@voiceinthevoid said in Antisemitism allegedly:

It also doesn’t make the Jewish people look great to say this dishonestly and can actually increase antisemitism.

But this sentence reads incredibly suspicious to me.

---

EDIT: FWIW, @voiceinthevoid & I ended up talking things through in DMs after this exchange, and I do believe that the post is authentic in its intentions. I appreciate the good faith & empathy extended in both editing the title and understanding where the suspicion was coming from.

Said it in the other thread and I stand by it: there’s no wrong or right answer to this, it all depends on the kind of game and the kind of playerbase. @Autumn gave some specific examples that I agree with above.

I think that one of the most frustrating experiences I’ve had in this hobby was some 20 years ago when I tried rolling into Shadows of Isildur. The application process took at least a week all in all and was highly involved. Since I’d never played a RPI before and really didn’t understand how the game worked, I perma-died a couple days in, and obviously never gave the game another chance. I’d probably do just fine nowadays as someone who knows how RPIs work, but eh.

But in contrast, I’ve played games with lots of PvP mystery features, which heavily rely on players actually filling all those details in so that there’s something for other players to uncover if they want to go digging into your character. I’ve spent weeks in chargen on such games and had absolutely no regrets about it; it’s been an intensely rewarding experience. In fact sometimes I’ve enjoyed creating even more than I’ve enjoyed playing. I treat it as a creative writing exercise, which is why I’m in this hobby anyway.

I have also had lots of fun on games with literally 0 chargen process. A friend of mine once ran a custom tabletop campaign where we didn’t even get to pick our characters’ names or powers or backstories. All of our characters woke up together in a lab, with an assigned number-name and amnesia, and discovered who we were and what powers we had as the game progressed. I would just as happily do something like that again, but it obviously doesn’t work for every setting.

My big chargen gripes aren’t about how long it takes, but when it’s designed in a way that seems arbitrary and frustrating. For instance, I hate having to pick between ten slightly different, identical-sounding options for a skill. Like if I have to choose between whether to put points into Karate, Krav Maga, Kung Fu, Taekwondo or Jiu-Jitsu, and I have no idea how badly that choice is gonna fuck me down the line if I pick wrong, I already hate your game before I’ve started playing. Just let me pick “Martial Arts” as a stat if that’s my concept, and maybe customise it in character notes with the specifics. I’ve seen this justified as “well we don’t want everyone to have the same build”, but idc, it just smells like a newbie trap. The chargen process should be as intuitive as possible, limit any mechanical advantages that a veteran player could have for making more meta choices, and not encourage/require more work than will end up paying off.

On the writing side, this also means not having too many “optional” customisation fields that feel like a requirement if they aren’t, or that are asking for subtle variations of the same thing. For instance, you shouldn’t multiple separate textboxes for backstory, history, summary, personality, quirks, hooks. Like … what? I just got finished writing all about how my character’s upbringing in a monastery instilled them religious fervour, now you want me to write another paragraph about their personality, and then repeat that in a catchier way for hooks? This could’ve been 1 box. Or, if the description section is broken up into a bunch of different fields so I can describe my face, eyebrows, hair, fingers, toes, butt, all separately, and then also my hoodie, what the hoodie looks like on the floor, what my hoodie looks like with the hood up, and what other people see when I’m putting it on and taking it off … but THEN after I put all that work in, I discover it’s actually some kind of faux pas to have filled everything in, and I should’ve just picked 1 or 2 of these fields … f u, ur community, ur game, this is also a newbie trap. Don’t put these fields there if filling in every single one isn’t an expectation; and ideally, don’t have these fields at all if they add nothing that RP won’t. I mean I can just write, as needed: “Kestrel walks in, bundled up in a loose hoodie. Shivering, she lifts up her French-manicured fingers to pull the hood up over her long, dark hair.”

Other than that, I am happy to take as long as needed to ensure my app is up to the game’s standards/expectations. I don’t see vetting by staff as a hindrance; if they’re willing to make the time for it, I often find it beneficial to get communicating early on about how to ensure the best possible experience with my character for both of us. This is often better than rolling in and discovering only after that your concept doesn’t actually work.

No comment on staffers I don’t know and a game I don’t play, I’m sure they’ve done lots of bad stuff that deserves the hate they’re getting here, but I do feel that a blanket statement that “X amount of time needed for apps is unreasonable/unfair” isn’t in and of itself a reasonable takeaway. Staff get to set whatever expectations and barrier to entry they want for their game, and can live with the consequences of whatever playerbase they cultivate as a result, for better or worse. Maybe they end up with fewer interested, but much higher-investment players, and they like it that way. I’ve played on games with lengthy chargen processes, and games with quick/painless chargen process. I like them both for different reasons, and think they suit different kinds of games and different kinds of players. There’s no right/wrong way to do these things. Not everything is for everyone. Not everything needs to be.

I think that a core problem is that upwards of 90% of players in this hobby want their characters to be Cool. There are players who enjoy playing weird little gremlins or satirical characters they see as totally separate from themselves, where they get to have fun at that character’s expense. These tend to be my favourite players, but they are in the minority. Mostly people have fantasies about being Sexy or Strong or Smart or Cool that these characters, and their wins, are meant to fulfil.

So as much as we can look down on people who see their character’s loss as their loss, for having trouble separating IC and OOC, the reality is that this is most people. And even if you are someone who enjoys playing the foil or the weird little gremlin, I’ll wager that at some point you’ve realised that what most people enjoy about your characters is they get to feel Cool in comparison, when they’re putting your character down or beating them up or being morally upstanding in contrast to your character. And you’re OOCly giving them the thumbs up that no feelings are being hurt in the process. That’s why playing what most people consider a “good villain” is basically a service you’re providing other players, because they get to feel Cool rooting for their own character against yours, while you’re always holding back just enough that it never feels humiliating or futile. This is CvC, but you’re serving the needs of P through a C veil, and if you stop doing that, the feelings that arise are PvP.

So staff can call it CvC, but they need to understand that it’s still ultimately a balancing act of managing player egos.

On a total tangent, I have mixed feelings about the term CvC and I don’t generally use it. Whilst I totally agree that conflict should be between characters and not players, I think that in reality it’s often messy in ways that aren’t necessarily obvious, provable, or fixable, and I’m not convinced that asserting there’s a distinction does anything to ameliorate these issues.

When players get salty over conflict not going their way, they will rarely actually say that. Instead they’ll say stuff like “I’m upset that this other player cheated/used an exploit/is being unthematic/is unpleasant OOCly/is hogging scenes/can’t write for shit/has a super generic character/only cares about the mechanical win” etc. even when whatever complaint they’re making is provably untrue.

Well, to clarify: if the sentiment being discussed is that pacifist characters don’t belong on PvP games and should always be disallowed, I don’t agree with that sentiment. I think you ideally want to cultivate a kind of healthy player ecosystem, where people with different playstyles can engage in ways that are compatible. For instance, I’m generally happy playing villains, but I don’t really care about winning or losing, I just enjoy drumming up excitement and giving people something to bounce off of. I don’t see a pacifist character as incompatible with that, because as long as we’re both having fun, me twirling my moustache and someone else going, “Oh my god! Someone stop that villainous scum!” can create good story for both of us, and solidify both of our concepts.

With that said, and with the explicit caveat that I don’t see outliers as inherently problematic, it can and often does become a problem when the outlier ethos gets normalised in the setting it’s supposed to be pushing back against. So if the theme is space war between humans and aliens, it can be cool to have one or even two guys on the ship going, “Have we even tried talking to them? There has to be a better way than killing each other!” And they can play at being morally upstanding rebels defying the majority consensus. But once one of two things happen:
a) The majority of characters aboard the ship are now Team Peace With Aliens
b) Players start to get very caught up OOCly in wanting to ensure their IC ideology wins, and get frustrated when the aliens still want to kill them or the staff-run space-guard can’t be persuaded against war

Then you will no longer be having a good time playing the Space War game. IIRC this kind of happened on The 100 MUSH, for instance.

This is also the Drizzt problem. One Drizzt is OK and shows drows can be different. But if every drow is Drizzt, then thematically what are drow even? What’s he rebelling against?

I have no skin in the game for whatever happened on SH, and I apologise if it seems I’m moving the goalposts; I realise this isn’t the point that was previously being made, I’m just broadening the discussion.

@bear_necessities said in Non-toxic PvP:

@Jumpscare That has nothing to do with these people playing pacifists. It sounds like you have some jerk players. But there are jerk pacifists and there are jerk combatants and there are jerk everythings. It’s not a pacifist thing.

In a thread about non-toxic PvP it seems pretty on-topic to bring up the issues caused by both jerk combatants and jerk pacifists? And I notice that people often discuss the former but rarely acknowledge the issues with the latter. No one is saying you can’t play a pacifist, pacifists ruin PvP games, any more than anyone is saying that all combat characters are domineering murderhobos. But problematic pacifists exist, as do problematic combatants. There are specific issues with each that healthy community management needs to account for.

I’m generally an advocate for broadening the definition of PvP for this reason. On the surface a lot of people will look at the scenario being described as MH being a meanie PvPer, and PP being a collaborative feelgood player. But actually, they are both engaging in PvP. PP is using social tools, MH physical ones.

I think that most of us will agree that it’s good manners for PvP aficionados to be selective about whom they engage in conflict and try not to bother people who don’t wanna be bothered. It’s obviously domineering arsehole behaviour of the geared up military man to challenge a low xp cafe worker to a duel at dawn. But subjecting the military guy just doing his job to moral shaming and social ostracisation after he shoved someone away from a security barrier is also PvP. And if he’s giving signals of, “I don’t really want to fight you, however I will have to per my role if you keep trying to sneak past the barrier” that is an attempt at conflict deescalation; ignoring it, and then socially persecuting him afterwards, is the same type of unsolicited ahole behaviour as trying to start a fight with a low xp cafe worker.

In text, hitting someone isn’t a worse offence than calling them names like it is in the real world. The latter is often a lot more effective at taking a character out of commission (by making them less fun to play).

So, PP is subjecting MH to unsolicited PvP, that’s just as bad as randomly attacking a character in any other way. A lot of bad feelings seem to arise anytime someone is attacked using something other than their weapon of choice, which they may innocuously pretend isn’t a weapon at all when it advantages them.

I don’t know the situation @Jumpscare was alluding to, but I immediately assumed — along, I think, with @Juniper — that the issue being described was actually a player who wrongfuns other people for engaging in the established conflict theme, rather than the other way around.

I’ve dealt with this type of player and it’s incredibly frustrating to have someone treat you like you’re a bad mean person OOCly for, say, trying to rob people while being a member of the Thieves’ Guild, lurking in a shifty alley no one is forced to go to. Especially when you’re being compared to other members of the Thieves’ Guild who don’t steal because stealing is wrong, and they just joined to vibe with their friends, but now everyone is treating them like established representatives of the Thieves’ Guild and saying no one is forcing you to be the kind who steals, that’s just you being a jerk. Expecting people to uphold the theme they signed up for isn’t wrongfun, IMO.

I thought @Jumpscare’s suggestions were pretty useful and I ended up making some notes: have clear expectations for how factions engage, and I think I might even write up an OOC newbie guide on “which faction should you join” that spells stuff out like, if you don’t like combat then Engineers or Cooks’ Guild is a good fit, and if you aren’t comfortable with high risk then don’t join the Militia.

@Juniper said in Tales of Zalanthas:

No ERP? What in the fuck is the point then?

Forbidden ERP >>>>>

It’s why I kind of hate that some games have banned in-game homophobia, I mean where’s the fun if I can’t secretly steal away my lesbian lover from her husband to a confessional booth.

One system I’ve been thinking about which I’d like some feedback on:

Would you play a game where:

1. Ordinarily, character death requires consent. Your character can get into serious fights and someone can even try to assassinate them in theory, but the setting’s magic prevents them from falling into the red without prior staff discussion/approval from both parties.
2. Players can permanently toggle a setting that makes their characters killable when they roll in; the flag is publicly visible and is intended as an “I’m up for anything do your worst” signal. In exchange they enjoy slightly accelerated XP gains (think in the realm of 10%), but obviously it means staff won’t rescue them from open PK unless there’s a very obvious/overt sign of OOC-motivated abuse.

I’m mainly interested in how people who wouldn’t turn it on would feel about this sort of system. Would it make you feel like a kind of second-class citizen that some people are getting more XP by being more willing to risk their characters? Would you feel pressured to turn it on even if the idea of open PK makes you uncomfortable? Do you think it would create a toxic subculture within the game’s wider community?

@Faraday said in Non-toxic PvP:

@KDraygo said in Non-toxic PvP:

Character vs Character is a much more accurate designation to use in my opinion.

I personally like the CvC designation, but I think it’s wallpapering over the fact that for a lot of people, it really IS the PvP that attracts them. They view the game like a game of chess, or a game of tennis or whatever, where it really is about “winners” and losers, being “the best”, etc. The fact that it’s another player involved is what elevates the stakes/conflict to a level they don’t get when it’s player characters versus non-player characters (which really when you think about it is also literally CvC).

You can call it what you want, but it’s not going to change their fundamental outlook, and that outlook is what causes a lot of drama on PvP games. (The other large chunk of drama is poor bleed management, and I really don’t know how you address that with a big group of internet strangers.)

To be honest, I think that even games which claim not to be PvP or CvC games tend to have elements of PvP that people don’t like to think about, which means they should always also be accounting for these same issues. You can never fully prevent them, because of what @Faraday says here.

The most common instance on otherwise chill “everyone is on the same team” MUSHes is romance drama. Like it or not, when a hottie who writes good shows up, there will be competition for their affection/attention/dance-card. It often gets ugly in subtle ways, and I consider this a form of PvP. The same is also true for staff attention and metaplot dissemination, etc.

This reply is to bits and pieces of other posts that mention transparency, namely @MisterBoring’s, but I don’t wanna get too scattered with the quote-texts:

One issue I have with very high transparency and OOC communication is that it negatively impacts more cerebral styles of conflict. So, if I’m playing Superman and you’re playing Batman and I’m planning for us to have a big epic fight in an alleyway, very little of substance is lost by tapping you on the shoulder to talk to you and the DM about it first, check if there’s anything you wouldn’t be comfortable with, like maybe no ball-kicking or teabagging after.

But, if you’re playing Vesper Lynd and I’m playing James Bond, the emotional and intellectual stakes aren’t the same if I know in advance, hey btw Vesper was actually working for the baddies the whole time, she’s gonna take the money from the hotel room and deliver it to the villain, also the tea she gives you turns out to be drugged. I wouldn’t want to know this information, because it changes how I parse my scenes with Vesper leading up to the reveal. Even someone who thinks they have perfect IC/OOC separation, if they’re invested in the idea of their character as a mastermind who can’t be fooled (a very common failing that can’t be realistically banned out of a playerbase), may then be influenced by out-of-game knowledge in their decision on whether or not to drink the tea, and overestimate whether they’d start to suspect without already knowing the answer. The outcome of physical combat with her boss after the reveal will still be organically determined, but it’s worth bearing in mind this isn’t the only approach to IC conflict — subterfuge and cunning is another, IME favoured by people who lean more towards character-building play than by-the-numbers competition.

So I am someone who generally enjoys PvP in my text-based roleplaying games. I tend not to care very much about combat, but I like political systems, ideological debates about the ethics of magic or what-have-you, mysteries where there are some stakes to being the one to solve a puzzle, and an intelligent, player-controlled opponent.

The problem I find is that it’s very hard to have any system of this kind that doesn’t devolve into player resentment and envy. Even if it doesn’t involve character loss or anyone being beaten up or bullied, if the game features some sort of prize that only one player can get, then no matter how fairly it’s earned, it seems inevitable that those who lose out will grumble about how unfair it is that player one got it and they didn’t. Likewise, if you have Team Magic is Cool and Team Magic is Evil, as fun as it is to design characters with ideologies that can participate in an IC debate club about it, inevitably players on Team Cool start projecting assumptions about Team Evil’s OOC ideologies and comparing fictional themes to sensitive RL politics.

Naturally a lot of games choose to sidestep this entirely by just not having PvP, and putting all players on the same team. But this puts a lot more onus on the DM to provide challenges and conflict, and I think it’s impossible to have truly three-dimensional villains in this kind of setting. It also lowers the stakes considerably, because you know that the NPC team isn’t supposed to have an equally fair shot at winning as the PC team.

So, if you were designing a game where PvP is meant to be part and parcel (it doesn’t have to involve actual combat or risk of character death), how do you go about mitigating any risk of OOC toxicity?

@Gashlycrumb said in Celebrities We've Lost 2026 Edition:

Desmond Morris zoologist, ethologist, sociobiologist.

One of the most influential and underrated thinkers of our time. I always link this short opinion piece of his from +20 years ago, still relevant today as we continue to learn more about animal sentience and linguistics. RIP naked ape, your understanding of how unspecial we are as a species made you special among our kind.

@howyadoin said in MU Peeves Thread:

@Kestrel Would you be comfortable naming who it is? Some of us might have similar stories about this person, too.

Nope. I wish them well.

Had a friend who consistently talked shit about other people in the hobby, and wrote them off over the most minor provocations which were generally misunderstandings.

I feel like over the years of our friendship, I have accumulated hours of lost energy trying to smooth things over between them and mostly benign enemies they’d misinterpreted, but I did it because I knew that at least some of the time their concerns were founded. and so it made sense to be extra guarded even over times where concerns weren’t founded. And I’d consistently defend them to other people as being a genuinely good person and a phenomenal writer/RPer, just someone who’s a bit touchy and needs some patience/understanding.

I guess idk why I’d be surprised after all these years to find myself on the other end of the stick, discarded and written off and shit-talked to our mutual friends, but ouch, does the feeling of betrayal really sting.

@catzilla said in MU Peeves Thread:

I may be wrong to assume this site is anti-Nazi/etc.

SO!

Pet peeve, when the CWOD discord server you’re on decides to open a politics channel and you see not only the host of the server refuse to say they’re anti-Nazism but also a bunch of people supporting Nazism in the server… Many sads that there’s still people clinging to all that nonsense in the RP world.

It’s en vogue now.