@Pavel that’s dumb

@Aria said in AI Megathread:

You should be–if you know how to use them properly–leaving no spaces between the dash and the word.

i came over here to complain about how those are clearly en-dashes, and then i discovered in the quoted text that you did the usual double hyphen dealio we all do, and the forum software just renders it as en-dashes?!?!?!

nodebb why you do this. clearly if you’re going to render that out it should be — not –. absolute clown behavior, nodebb

@MisterBoring I could be wrong, but there’s no indication in the forum post that it was continuing after the initial ban.

@MisterBoring No, that’s not the behavior being described. It was using secret alts to give stuff to/generally benefit their main alt.

Title: Kamzu’s undeclared alt, Sophia, rostered
Posted by: Ada
Date: 2025-11-29 22:51

I am confident, based on server logs and observed behaviour, that Sophia was also being played by Kamzu’s player. I had initially assumed that she was played by Kamzu’s player’s friend, and I am obviously okay about people playing games with friends, but the balance of probabilities from what information is available to me is that they are the same person.

Sophia’s in-character actions are retconned in their entirety. However, since she never told anybody about her sweeping, far-reaching, and utterly transformative plans, including any of the three active Kournis characters, I doubt anybody will notice this retcon.

For those curious about her behaviour, she was invited to each of Kamzu’s actions. She asked questions on those actions as if in Kamzu-voice, for example, exactly how much the numbers on Phavah’s domain could be improved. She was going to cede the entirety of Kournis’ resources to Phavah, supposedly as a “loan”. She was going to spend her actions making administration rolls in Phavah lands. When I checked in with her – as I have with a number of people to see how they are doing – she told me that there was nothing to do, and that the only player who engaged with her was Kamzu.

They never interacted in the game.

yeah this is literally what he got banned from city of glass for

@Yam not if i can help it

@Ominous said in Banning Bad, Actually?:

For those who are on the side of ban early and ban often, might I suggest running private, whitelist server for just your friends? Or maybe have a rigorous review process requiring an interview between staff and an applicant before they can CG?

idk i feel like my counterpoint for this is “if you don’t want to get banned early and often from a public game, might i suggest simply being on your best behavior?”

Staff on games, and mods on forums, have power over the space they’re running. They have power to make the space as they want, and let who they want in and kick out who they don’t. They do control whether a person can interact with their specific space.

But this is different from having power over people.

@Autumn said in Intro to MU*ing Event:

@Jihgfed said in Intro to MU*ing Event:

How the heck do you pronounce “MU*s”, anyway? “Moos”? “Myoo-stars”?

“MOO” was/possibly still is also a server family, standing for “MUD, Object-Oriented.” So I wouldn’t go with that one, just to minimize the possibility of confusion.

Despite the potential ambiguity, “Moos” is still how everyone I know says it out loud, so it’s the correct pronunciation for me.

@Ominous said in Empire Discussion Thread:

What about this game is different from Arx? It looks veeery similar based on the limited info on the website. It is PvE focused (which I really don’t understand for L&L, as the whole theme hinges on politicking and intrigue which you can’t do without competition against each other (well, I guess you could if, instead of outsiders filling the role, other factions/noble houses that are only filled with NPCs are the “bad guys”)), has an empire consisting of loosely affiliated kingdoms that are only held together out of the enlightened self-interest of “united, we stand; divided, we fall,” and has said kingdoms that seem superficially dissimilar without any apparent major cultural differences to serve as tension points.

this isn’t even an accurate description of Arx tho???

Diane Keaton at 79 :C

Redwall MUCK waaaay back in the day. I was too young lol.

i think this one is pretty simple: players push for the spheres they specifically want to play in. they’re not thinking about the big picture health of the game. people just want their favorite splat

I feel like “consenting to death” for me is, like — fully giving a player the choice. Or the player chooses to have their PC die in a scene. I think any death where a character’s death comes down to dice rolls in some way isn’t a fully consensual death.

That said, I do think it’s a sliding scale. A lot of games nowadays fall somewhere in the middle, rather than on the extremes; I feel like a general attitude of “keep players informed when they’re getting into situations where death is a possibility” has become a lot more common, and “you can be PKed on a whim for dumb, petty reasons” has become a lot less common.

I think I’m moreso surprised that Evennia hasn’t seen a community collection of solid tools for very common use cases, the way we often saw on MUSH and MUX back in the day. Not that Evennia should be shipping with it, but that it sounds like there hasn’t been much collection of community-built plugins of sorts.

@Yam said in Character Death:

@Ashkuri I really can’t think of any. Is non-consensual permadeath actually a thing anymore?

Curious if anyone has actually seen a PC death play out where the player certainly didn’t intend to die AND didn’t consent to being in a situation that warned the risk.

I think it depends on how we’re defining things. Because I’d say that non-consensual permadeath would include situations where the players consented to the risk, but still took it, and the dice went how they went. That’s definitely something that still happens on games. Because, to my mind, they still weren’t choosing the PC death.

@somasatori That’s just games sharing a setting/theme with its source material, which isn’t the same as emulating the experience of playing that specific TTRPG. Playing a Star Wars MU* is not the same thing as watching the movie. Playing a Mass Effect MU* is definitely not emulating the experience of playing the video game. But I feel like people always trip over this when it comes to TTRPGs in a way that can be actively detrimental to a MU*'s development, because if people are thinking about emulating tabletop on a MU, they’re not thinking about the process from a MU-first perspective.

Playing CoD in tabletop and playing a CoD MU are wildly different experiences. Playing tabletop and playing MUs in general are wildly different, and the challenges they face are also entirely different. The core structure is different: one is a private experience with a small handful of players getting constant DM attention. The other is a persistent lobby of numerous players, many of whom don’t know each other. The systems require a different approach in order to support a persistent environment that players can exist in without constant DM attention.

@MisterBoring said in Character Death:

I think it’s odd when people say MUs aren’t TTRPGs, but I could take the rules of almost any MU, print them out and run a tabletop group with them.

And yet that experience would still be different! Sharing some mechanics doesn’t make the needs and experience the same.

ETA: Baldur’s Gate 3 shares rules with D&D 5e, and yet no one would say that the experience of playing these two things is the same!

I’ll die on the hill that MUs are not TTRPGs, even when they’re using the bones and theme of a TTRPG system, and that trying to insist on a connection between them has been to the hobby’s detriment. Unless you’re playing on a private game with a small group of people, the fundamental structure of MUs is just too different from a TTRPG table.

@somasatori said in Factions:

If I had to guess, part of CvC/PvP conflict being such a provocative issue is directly tied to how difficult it is to create, get, and build a character on a game. A game where you have a fairly lengthy cgen process that requires putting together a build has that added tang of wasted time when your character that you carefully constructed mechanically over a period of months (or years) dies to another player’s character.

People always say that, but I actually question is that’s the core issue. I think it’s more about expectations and investment. It doesn’t matter how hard or easy the app is: if you’ve spent months or years since then getting emotionally invested in the character’s story, it’s hard to give up.

I only played a couple different characters on it during its runtime - and there certainly wasn’t loss without drama - but one of the things I remember from The Greatest Generation’s gameplay was that it was pretty easy to join the game, get enmeshed and equally very easy to die. It was a bit of a bummer if your medic died because the place you were in got (suspiciously specific reference here, hmm), but there were other options you could jump into. I think TGG was less of a true RPG as we know Star Wars, WoD, Pern, Arx/L&L games more in the vein of a combat simulation a la (what I’ve heard about) BattletechMUX, so maybe that’s part of the difference too, as you kind of expected the characters to be short-lived.

I wasn’t on The Greatest Generation, but my impression of how people have talked about it really points at the expectation aspect to me. People went in knowing their characters were almost surely going to die. That was, from everything I’ve heard, kind of core to the game’s conceit: there were limited-time campaigns, and PCs would die. When players expect to lose their characters, it reframes our entire approach.

@mietze I’m so happy for you!!