Legends and Legacies - User contributions [en]

Talk:Code Desires

2020-08-02T15:21:15Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Code|Code]]

Let's see, for code I'd like to see:
*a logger that posts directly to the wiki like HA
*a +hangouts to list suitable locations for RP
*a +summon/+join code
*a +where code that shows where people are, with the ability to opt out of it by setting yourself unfindable if desired.
*a +group code

Some of this might already be standard, of course.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 20:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----

* +events code
* +job/+request
* +hangouts should include an ability to teleport to the hangout rooms instantly - or the nearest 'street' room to the entrance/exit to that hangout at the very least.
* Do we WANT a +account code to link all alts/characters for a given account? It has merits. And is worth considering.
* +watch for friends
* +RP for looking for RP flags [[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 15:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Grid Related Expansions

2020-08-02T15:15:31Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Grid|Grid]]

Unless there is a compelling reason to expand the grid, I don't believe we should. We will have more than enough cities for people to RP in and sandbox rooms for people to play if they want to use other areas with temporary descs. The only expansions I could possibly see is for undersea and space, and then only if we have enough characters who would make use of them. Otherwise, maybe a single room to use as a hub, like Nowhere for space and Atlantis for undersea.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----

Agreed. A majority of the grid rooms barely get used as it is. Unless there is an absolute need for it, there is no reason why we should expand the grid once we've got it set and built. [[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 15:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Core Grid Expectations

2020-08-02T15:14:12Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Grid|Grid]]

Well, I'll leave this up to New Order mostly, I think we pretty much settled on the cities we want? New York, Metropolis instead of Boston/Detroit, Gotham instead of Chicago? Etc.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 20:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----

We should also install an easy-access Hyperloop transit system, or other technology to ease traversing from locale to locale to have an easy integration and prevent grid-locked 'I don't have a way to get from NYC to Gotham', etc... [[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Alt Policies

2020-08-02T12:49:45Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Policies|Policies]]

I think we should limit some types of characters to only one or two, perhaps. Only two green Lanterns at a time, for example. Can be any two...Raynor, Jordon, Stewart, Gardner, whatever, but only two can be played at a time. Likewise should probably say almost no other colors of Lanterns, other than perhaps Sinestro since he's a traditional Earth villain. This might apply to GL adjacent characters like Jade as well. It doesn't make sense to me that Earth would draw that many Lanterns outside of an event scene; it's a backwater sector mostly.

Another idea was for putting some limits on types of characters. I did like how UH used to do things in that respect. Say, 3-4 slots. Maximum of one OC slot, one VFC slot. Then an additional slot that can only be used for someone who is considered a support character...someone like Harvey Bullock or Alfred or Jimmy Olsen, who are unpowered and not superheroes or villains but are nice to encourage people to app so we have them. I feel like encouraging a villain character is nice, perhaps with lowered requirements for logging in since villains are harder to get into social RP often. We could open up the OC thing later, but I feel like we want to limit that to begin with to no more than one per player. And that way if someone doesn't want to get a villain or a OC, they can just have 3-4 FC characters. Though major FCs should be limited to one per player too perhaps? We'll need a list of people we considers major FCs that are restricted to one per player.

Also we need to consider our rules on alts in groups; no more than one alt in a group is usually fair? I mean, I can see allowing some leeway, like if you ant to app an Xmen character who's on the official team, but also have a mutant student who's not involved in the Xmen team stuff. But that seems like a slippery slope for interactions.

And I know Owl has a whole post on this she'll probably be porting over. :)

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 20:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I am not a fan of playable VFCs, or if they are, I really feel they should be heavily limited to ones who can reasonably be expected to be able to play well on the grid.

Players don't like PVP. This is MUSHing, its a hobby with a bunch of nerds who don't like feeling like they are bullying anyone, and it's one thing to beat up an NPC emitted badguy in a scene and another when it's another player's actual character. Also, people don't like losing: villains are meant to lose.

So, if there are allowed villain PCs, I think they should be:

*Highly limited to a specific list we come up with in advance, and probably given a title that isn't Villain. Maybe 'Special Character' or something.
*They should have a slightly longer timeout if there's an alt timer
*????
*Profit.

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 7/4/2020 11:03PM
----
My concern with that is that villains also drive plots when they're being played by active players. That was mostly why I felt there should be a specific slot that is only for those sorts of character, as they are hard to get into RP but I wanted to leave the option over for people who really want to drive things along by playing Lex Luthor or something. We could make a list, but I think that'd be better as the characters we would not allow played than ones that are playable and fold it into the banned list, maybe. Or make a separate villains banned list perhaps.

Also, another limited character set should be Flash. There should be no more than two Flash characters that exist at the same time - Barry, Wally, whomever. I'd be tempted to say one, but I don't want to kill possible mentor teen play there. I'm also considering if we should just add to that caveat that those two characters cannot join the same team; we don't need two Green Lanterns in the same group, or two Flashes, or two Kryptonians. Spread them out; have some teen characters, whatever. That way each gets to shine in their own plots.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 22:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I wonder if forcing them to spread out won't cause other problems.

Hear me out, we're having problems in the Bat Sphere on HAM because Gotham is traditionally a low-power sphere, but in the interest of "spreading things out" and "making more fun for everyone!" suddenly the BOP have a lot of powered members. Which is about to make my life a living hell helping run the Court of Owls plot.

I worry "spread out the Kryptonians!" will mean say, Supergirl ends up on the Birds of Prey or something BS like that, making it harder to do plots for the Birds she doesn't just steamroll. I don't see where two Green Lanterns on the Justice League is a problem, as long as one has seniority... like at say, Kyle and John, who have and can work well together in the comics. I think forcing "types" of characters apart is going to cause more problems than it will solve.

I think there should be game and group limits, surely, on certain types of characters. I'm also wondering if certain teams shouldn't have a strict "power level" limitation... for example, you don't want Superman on the Defenders.

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I understand what you're saying, but I also would point out how the HA BoP group is being handled is pretty unthemely for the characters they're allowing in. Traditionally it's a low powered/street level thing, with the high end being someone like Black Canary or Poison Ivy or something. Just because Supergirl can't be in the JLA doesn't mean she gets to jump into a group like that, not when something more appropriate like Young Justice or Teen Titans is available. I do agree a power level limitation or description of who is allowable in groups would alleviate the problem somewhat. Not perfectly, but yeah. It's just having two Green Lanterns in a group is focusing a lot of power in that group, and I'm concerned if we do that we're going to end up with two GLs and two Kryptonians and two Flashes that basically dominate any scene because they're all high end powered characters.
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 23:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Mm. But if we're doing a combined JL and Avengers, and whatnot, and cutting down the groups overall... I worry forcing a split will either force high powered characters into low powered groups, or leave them without a group at all (see HAM and Tim/Conner/Bart/etc).

This leads to another issue: if this is the case and we say "no more than 2 of each concept"... does that mean we can have Dick and Damain because they apped first, but no Carrie, Tim, or Jason?

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts:

VFC's don't work. Except for a few examples as already pointed out. These would be VFCs that can/will work with hero-groups from time to time, and can also run their own stories/archs without always conflicting with heroes.

A couple examples off my head of these would be: Talia al Ghul, Mystique, or members of an official Thunderbolts team with Waller running them.

VFC's generally don't work though. For a multitude of reasons.

* They prevent players from NPCing them in scenes (if we are going the consistency route, then we can't have players spoofing VFC's, period) even if they are not apped/played
* Most VFCs don't have sustainability because of their limited RP scope, they're usually dropped within a few weeks, or a couple months at best
* As stated above, most people don't like PvP. It's fine to have the enemy escape once or twice during a Plot, but overall people want to 'win', be it hero or villain. 95% of the people who play VFC's still want to win, or at the very least 'break even'.

We can make a short-list of appable 'Special Characters' if we want, but overall we should not allow VFC's as characters.

If we want to go the 'in-between' route, we could look at the possibility of 'loaning out' a VFC for a time, not as a char bit itself but if, say, Flash's player wants to play Victor Creed and run a month long plot for X-Men in which Creed is the main antagonist, we could have a board or something that alerts other players/scene-runners Creed can't be spoofed until the plot is over, just as an idea. [[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 12:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Alt Policies

2020-08-02T12:42:36Z

DeadWeather:

Talk:Player Policies

2020-08-02T12:37:40Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Policies|Policies]]

I suspect this will be one of those things that Owl posts wholesale about, so I'll wait for that to comment. :) I do feel we should keep the basic rule of Refuge if it's workable though: No player shall be 'verbally' - textually - abusive to another player. Period. If you have a problem, you appeal for help and mediation. You do not treat the other party abusively.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 20:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Stolen shamelessly from my other game:

#General Player Policies
#*Players will act like rational adults and abide by Wheaton’s Law: “Don’t be a dick”. Bullying and harassment of any nature is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Targeting players due to ethnicity, culture, sexuality, or religion will not be tolerated. Players are to respect the privacy and opinions of other players. If you cannot get along with someone, you will be polite. If you can’t be polite, you will ignore them.
#*All players are 18 years of age or older.
#*No PCs that are not of their species “adult” age are allowed to be played or applied for. Any pitch or application for an adolescent or child character will be denied.
#*Consent is encouraged before the use of code, as consent and communication often leads to better storytelling. However, consent is not a shield to avoid IC consequences. If a player feels another is doing so, staff can mediate.
#*If there is an issue or disagreement with a fellow player, or even a staffer, that cannot be resolved, players can request assistance in finding a solution from staff using the Concern bucket.
#*Mature themes may happen and may include themes that are uncomfortable for some players. However, participation in these is optional, and it is up to the player to express if they are not willing to participate and opt out, or off-screen these topics as necessary to the storyline.
#*Malicious actions against the game are unacceptable. It will result in an automatic, permanent site ban.
#Consent Policy
#*No player has to roleplay or interact with anyone they do not wish to.
#*Any effects, good or ill, that happen to a character require the player to consent to it OOCly. This is not a blanket shield against consequences, however.
#*No player is obligated to run scenes or participate in scenes run by another player that they do not wish to.
#*No player is to be bullied, coerced, guilted, or manipulated into relationship roleplay (or any roleplay, really).
#*Remember: communication is key.
#*A player may always file a “no contact” request with staff against any player they are uncomfortable with or feel has violated their consent.
#*TS/sexual roleplay is confined to private rooms, and do not post logs of it to the wiki. Public areas and logs should be at most a hard PG-13 regarding sexual activity.
#RP Etiquette
#*Use the Roleplay channel to request or offer RP.
#*If you are looking to scene with specific player(s), use pages or @mail
#*Always ask the scenerunner before joining a scene, even if it’s in a public room.
#*The RP Suites are rooms set up to be used for when an IC room may not exist for the scene that is going on. If people are in an RP Suite it's a safe bet that whatever they are role-playing is not something that they want random players walking into. Do not walk in on them, please page and get permission first.
#*During scenes it’s all right to use the OOC function to ask quick questions or gain clarification on scenes, though we do ask that the OOC conversation be kept to a minimum. If you want to joke around with someone about something please take it to page so as to not disrupt the other players during RP.
#*Don't powerpose without permission of the player whose character you are powerposing.
--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 03:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I don't agree with no teen characters; that is part of the RP that people like, going back to school with cool powers, having school hijinks or whatever. I really don't want to disallow that. I do think we can put in a policy that there will be absolutely no TS for characters under legal age on pain of being kicked from the character/mush? Also, that a character may not appear to be underage (oh I look like I'm 12 but I'm actually a 300 year old vampire teehee *BAN*) I also feel we need to well define what a no-contact ban means so there is no confusion, i.e. people may still be in the same scene and ICly interact but will be adults about it and can keep that interaction to a minimum as needed. I don't want people going around claiming that they can never been in a sphere scene because player is there and omg total conspiracy to keep them from ever RPing again rahr froth.
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 22:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
We can discuss that ad nauseum, but putting a "no underage TS" rule is unenforcable.

Unless you're sitting dark in rooms watching teen characters have sex.

So if we're having teen characters, let it be known, they will be having TS. there isn't a way to prevent it.

Personally, my reaction to apping or pitching Pedobait (I look like a child but I'm really a fuckable adult) is a ban. You can't rehab those players.

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 22:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Yeah, we can't patrol to enforce it, but we've gone on record as saying it's not allowable, which covers us legally if someone does it regardless. I don't want to completely nix any teen school RP stuff over it, mostly, as there are plenty of people who won't too. Or at least, I'd seriously hope that if that's what people want in relationships here they will app 18+ instead of a teen, but people are stupid at times. And yes, people who seriously app pedobait, I would not greatly object to an instant ban. But I would also put it in the banned concepts so they have no excuse for having done it.
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 23:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----

As someone who does play a fair amount of young/teenage characters I can say in a mature mind, you can play 18 years of age and still be in high school, or just getting out.

As an actual teenager, sure, there's a big difference between 16 to 18. As an adult, RPing a teenager? ... Not so much. They will RP the same character that is 16 year old almost the exact same as they will an 18 year old UNLESS they are pedobait 99.9% of the time.

I think 18 is a good set, but I don't think it's a hill worth necessarily dying on either. If there is some hesitation about 18+ only, let's back it up a year to 17. Odd number? Sure.

But, it still kind of puts a hard stop on the pedobait while giving people who 'absolutely need' to RP that youth that opportunity to get those last couple years of teenage RP in. [[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 12:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Staff Policies

2020-08-02T12:28:58Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Policies|Policies]]

*Another thing I expect Owl will post wholesale about. I do feel we should define circumstances when a staffer should recuse themselves from considering a petition or character. I'm not sure if we should make that a transparent process or not.
*I like the idea of having at least two staffers sign off on a charapp and at least two themestaffers (if not all of them) signing off on any theme addition or change requests.
*I'm unsure if we should designate a person as the enforcer of staff rules or not, or if we should simply make a staff bit that is the voice of any staff decisions to avoid them being attached to a specific staffer so much as the collective decision - seems like it might be good?
*I don't want people bitching that Blondie was highhandedly making decisions without input from others or some bullshit like that; it's definitely (and sometimes correctly) the view on other mushes and I want to cut that off at the knees here.
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 20:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Here are my suggestions:
*All +jobs must be signed off on by at least two staffers before completing. This includes character applications. It also includes Code jobs-- someone beside the coder assigned the job must stress-test the fix.
*No staffer may handle their own +jobs, nor may they handle the +jobs of any of their IC relationship partners. They may weigh in with notes or additional information, but they cannot make decisions.
*Staff is bound to the same rules and policies as all players, including idle and vacation policies and alt policies.
*Staff is expected to step back from jobs or situations that they cannot handle maturely. It is all right to be frustrated by a player or a situation. It is not all right to take that out on the player or the job, or their fellow staffers.
*If there is an issue that cannot be resolved by a staff debate, headstaff gets the final vote and say on it.
*Jobs in the Apps (and other buckets similar, will list once we finalize the list) bucket will be resolved within three business days. Yes, the staff gets weekends to relax and play, too.
*Jobs in the Build (and similar) buckets will be resolved within five business days.
*Code bucket jobs do not have a timeframe other than ‘as soon as possible’, as code bugs can vary in difficulty to resolve.
*If any +job requires a player response; or it is not approvable in its current format, staff will update the +job querying for additional information or changes (in the case of CGs or concept apps). Waiting on player response may lengthen the time frame it takes to complete a +job. Staff is not responsible for the length of time it takes for a player to reply.
*If a denial is required, the staffer issuing the denial will give the player requesting the job the courtesy of an explanation as to why the job was denied.
*Staff must disclose at least one of their player alts. However, they may have no more than one of their alts set as a secret alt, should they desire, so they can RP without being poked by players. Staff deserves a break as well sometimes.
*Staff is not required to answer staff-related questions on their alts, and may refer the player to their staff bit or +staff if they are off-duty.
*Though staff may have access to group channels by necessity as they are administrators, staff bits should not pipe in or chat on them unless doing to so for a staff-related reason (usually to disarm an argument that's gone too far). Otherwise, they will use player bits like any other player to converse.
*No special treatment is given to any Staff Alt. If you need an update, you +job it from the alt needing the update. Even if a staffer gave an overview of what they were planning to update while in the staff room, that information will still need to be on the +job.
*Las Vegas rules apply: what happened in the staff room stays in the staff room. Staff should feel comfortable and safe being able to give honest feedback and opinions of a situation without worrying about it getting back to the playerbase, where it is often misinterpreted and held against the staffer if the opinion or ruling isn’t to the player’s desire. Repeated violations of this will be grounds for a staffer to be removed from their position and possibly the game itself.
*Staff will never sit dark and idle in any room on the grid. There aren’t any legitimate reasons we can think of to use the dark function, and if there is one it must be approved by headstaff and a +job for the record noted as to when, why, and who used it and for how long.
-- [[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 20:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I feel like we should assign specific staffers to watch over sphere channels too, just because having all of the group channels on at once would be madness. People can just leave their bit logged in, in case we need to see the backscroll later. Unless there is a simple logging function we could use, maybe that stores 24 hours of it? Then we can just nuke unnecessary logs of chan spam over time.
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)-
----
Ares automatically logs all channels.

Penn channels usually have the ability to do recall.

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 22:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Hmm. Well, in that case I'd say that should be enough and that if staff bits are on they can be monitoring or not, depending what they're doing. I don't think it's unfair to say a staffer can mute if they're building or coding or doing something where channel spam interferes, but having specific people who watch different groups at least limits spam.
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 23:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I think the first thing we should do is to set staff positions also. I know Jolee wants to be Buildwiz, which is fine with me. But we originally had a trinity setup, but only Blondie is left of that since Pentonix and old Jean left. I think we need to pick two other headwizes alongside Blondie so we have the original tiebreaker setup to ensure we're never deadlocked on decisions.--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 05:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
----

I would add to this that for player-related staff (Apps/Theme/Headwiz) we should not be going dark, only Off-Duty or On-Duty.

Even if we are Off Duty we should be visible to the player base as a presence. 'Yes, we're here. Just taking a break, back in a few'. Rather than a 'Dark' and 'non-existant' staff.

I've been on a MU* where half the staff sat Dark on a consistent basis, it wasn't good.

All of Owl's points are sound. No problems here with anything said above. [[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 12:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Starting Point of Play

2020-08-02T12:22:38Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Theme|Theme]]

I think starting it in the present year is good. I do think we should dump some things however, obviously, that have happened in RL. I'd like to think that 50 years of metahumans running around has changed events enough that politicians and circumstances are different, and I'm always a fan of not using RL people whenever possible in a comic setting. People can make someone who's similar to a RL person if they want to use that particular flavor of individual well enough.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 20:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----

I agree.

It's just easier to start from now than in the past, or in the future. [[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 12:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Consistency Requirements

2020-08-02T12:21:07Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Theme|Theme]]

The original intention was that all logs of prior RP are canon, and all future apps must support them, or creatively work around them with retroactive continuity.

No player would be bound to any elements of their character beyond what was established in their app and prior RP. No player would be bound to RP out a romantic connection, but those connections would be written out in cooperation with the affected players and staff mediation.

--[[User:BlondieWiki|BlondieWiki]] ([[User talk:BlondieWiki|talk]]) 21:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
----
I feel that the only RP that a character should be tied to is logged RP, and even then if someone can make a compelling case how they feel prior RP choices were not in keeping with how they seem the spirit of the character it can be waived. Any personal RP of course no one should be bound to.

Honestly, I do feel that if a player is found to behave wildly out of character without a compelling reason in a log, that log should be purged, for that matter.

Of course, if a new player wants to talk to other players about previous RP and wants to maintain them, that is purely up to the players in question and allowable if everyone agrees.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 20:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I prefer the "logs and apps are canon unless you can give me a compelling reason otherwise" approach. People are going to want to play different variants of characters, but say, if someone apps in comic-based, adult, not insane Starfire and then drops and the next apper wants to make her the 12 year old psycho that is TeenTitans GO! Starfire, that's going to wreck the already established was she's been played prior. I feel like the ball should be played where it lies, unless there is an actual reason not to.

Obviously, work with dropping or whatever previous relationships as needed, no one should be forced into relationship RP. But I don't think I'm okay with "well I don't like that I'm picking up Starfire and she was previously dating Dick Greyson so I'm just going to write that out and it never happened". That's unfair to the theoretically Dick Greyson character who has been playing and assuming otherwise.

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 7/4/2020 10:42PM
----
Adding:

I don't want to cope with 75 variants on a character. If a player legit has a specific reason to drop something, then I think we can discuss it. But. If there's been a lot of arc/RP regarding, say, Starfire having dated Dick Grayson in the past and new Starfire wants her to have never even met Dick, I cannot say I'd agree with that being "legit". That's crap.

You cannot just wipe game canon and other peoples BGs because you want to play out something. This is my concern. People will come in and be like "everything in the past doesn't matter, screw other players and their characters". and I'm just ripping my hair out about it, because this is going to cause massive ripple effects.

Basically, I feel like if only one or two logs might need altered or removed; and it's tweaking... that's fine. But!!!!! IT HAS TO BE LIMITED. Very limited. And none of this "it was a clone! It was an alternate dimensional version of me!" or whatever. That's a cop out, it's cheap, its BAD STORYTELLING, and it's unfair to everyone else.

If you want to entirely nuke a character with say, months of RP-- say, someone picks up Emma on HAM after I drop her and says "she never even MET Havok, much less dated him and lived with him"... I feel that's just... stupid. You would have to nuke so many logs and it would ripple effect so many characters. If they were like "I would like to just have the relationship end ICly so I can do my own thing" sure. But not "never existed" because that affects Havok, and Jean, and Scott, and Shaw, and and and... you see where I'm going? It's unfair to other players.

And as I said elsewhere: you cannot expect an honest answer from players on them "being okay with it" when asked by the new player or by staff. Most players will agree to be nice and then seethe silently or complain elsewhere about being railroaded. The best practice is to have a solid policy of the ball being played where it lies, UNLESS the player has a compelling reason beyond "I just can't wanna" or "I don't like it" or "I don't agree with how previous player did x". If it isn't a change that can be handled with minimal to no ripple effects ICly or OOCly, then it shouldn't even be on the table for discussion.

If a character has been played into a corner or made unplayable through player actions, staff should be willing to step in to figure out an IC way to rehabilitate the character if the player (old or new) cannot. It shouldn't be a handwaved retcon (those get confusing for everyone involved!); and it shouldn't be a cheap "they were an LMD all along" either. These situations should be few and far between; and further, a player who consistently ruins characters through their actions and makes them unplayable probably should be considered as a viable prospect to be removed from the game.

I feel like a terrible bad guy here. But a lot of these ideas I'm seeing feel very much like "we want everyone to do whatever they want and be happy!" and like a knee-jerk reaction to playing on a game like Firan or something where everything is over-coded and over-ruled. The answer to that isn't a "rules are bad, we need no rules; consistency is bad, we need no consistency!"; rather, the answer is to put in SMART rules, with GOOD REASONING, and then you don't have to make "too many" rules.

You want a sandbox that's fairly broad, and fairly deep... but with HARD EDGES and a LID. You don't want a dumptruck pile of sand tossed in the backyard without a care, because the local feral cats and raccoons will just piss in it.

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 16:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
----
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]]

I would greatly prefer if we could set a consistency for characters that have been played. To continue the example, I feel there should only be one version of Starfire, and that is the comic version. That is because the other portrayals (TTGo, TT animated, nu52, Dark animated, etc.) are radically different portrayals. The problem I see is, do we set what that is from the beginning and says 'this is the official theme version of this character', or do we let a player set it, and the first version apped becomes the theme version? Because that leads to issues like on HA where you have half of the X-Men apping as teens and half apping as in their twenties or even thirties, instead of being a consistent age group cohort.

So, that seems like we should says 'standard theme defaults to comic version' and set basic ages for a lot of characters and such. I don't think we can avoid that in terms of age and personality and portrayal. I think we may be able to fudge that a little bit in, for example, saying that Valkyrie can either be the blonde blue eyed Asgardian girl from the comics or the shorter dark skinned version from the movie in appearance, but the personality and background should always be from the comics. Otherwise we're going to end up with horrible mismatches, like if we had half our Asgardians thinking they're space aliens with characters based on the movies and half playing the true god Asgardians from the comics that actually did all the myths back in the day.--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 22:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

----
So I think I have a half solution.

I think that the player should set it. Within parameters.

Using X-Men as an example, we should be setting some of the basics, like... ages. "All of the First Class (Jean, Scott, Bobby, Warren, Hank) are between 33 and 35. The New Mutants era mutants should be between 20 and 24". etc.

This will help with a lot of that from the jump, because even if they app a version, it still has to fit within the box we've already set.

For the OG Titans, we may do the same, all the OG Titans are in their late 20s, or whatever. That was we don't have 26 year old Dick and 14 year odl Starfire.

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 22:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Seems reasonable to me. I'm fine with a broad 'must be within this age range' thing. That prevents the worst of the mismatches.
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 23:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----

The 'you have to pick up the prior player's RP/history/baggage' that they have pretty strictly on HAM seems to be working fairly well. It has for me, it has for others. Even with some of the less agreeable baggage it's pretty easy to not say it never happened, but just never bring it up in RP again and use it as a 'my character has grown since X,Y,Z and has learned from his/her mistakes and is moving forward'. And, if needed, that's a conversation we can have with players who have an issue. IF there's something abhorrent out there, then yeah, we can examine that on a rare, case-by-case basis.

So, yes. We should be shooting for consistency.

In the case of 'romance', i.e., Dick was dating Starfire but Dick's new player doesn't want anything to do with that? We can't force that. So it's up to Dick's new player to decide, but it would have at least been in the past, and he can let Starfire's player know that he's not interested and that they ICly broke up, and that way the new player can move on and do what they want to do.

I think a general 'starting' age range for groups like Avengers/JL/Titans, etc... is good and makes a heck of a lot of sense. [[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 12:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Allowable Variations

2020-08-02T12:11:28Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Theme|Theme]]

The original plan was that any given MC could be adapted in any way the player sees fit; so long as those adaptations could be made to blend with the existing approved world, they could be approved. Once approved, that would be the version of that character within game canon.

Any player wishing to re-app a previously played MC and change their version or adaptation would have to account for that change within their app, explaining how everyone could have experienced the version known in prior RP, while allowing for their desired changes. Clones, magical duplicates, evil twins, other-dimensional dopplegangers, etc. Staff would work with the player however they can. Once the character is approved, their changes become the newly updated in-game canon.

The one concern raised previously had been about variant characters with big, very public differences that change in-game history (''e.g.'' Kara Zor-El/Superwoman being the first modern demonstrated Kryptonian hero). The best answer developed previously had been ''first come, first served''. But there were those who were concerned some of those changes would potentially drive off future interested players.

--[[User:BlondieWiki|BlondieWiki]] ([[User talk:BlondieWiki|talk]]) 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
----
I do feel we will need to artificially set ages and basics on some characters. We don't need to see Batman as just starting out; he should be set to be at his prime and already established, for example. That shouldn't change no matter who is playing them or who played them previously.

I'm okay with the comic versions having priority, but that people can app MCU or other alternate versions within reason if they ask, such as having the movie version of Valkyrie over the traditional comic version.

But we do need to set a hard break on where our theme differs. Asgardians are gods, not space aliens, etc.

There are some character types that should also be limited:
*no more than two Green Lanterns, no matter who they are, should exist, for example, whether that's Kyle Raynor, Hal Jordan, John Steward, Jessica Cruz, etc. If someone drops an existing GL, someone can then app a different character.
*Likewise, we might want to consider that for Kryptonians or other similar characters types so we don't have too many at once.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 20:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I'm more inclined to more hard limits than handwavey ones. I really don't like the idea of alternate world/doppleganger/whatever stuff. It's... ripe for abuse, it's ripe for confusion, and for every player you make happy because they can play their snowflake variant you'll drive ten others away because they can't deal with the inconsistency.

No, there shouldn't be six variants of Starfire in the game. But we should pick one and stick with it. Major characters should be somewhat set in age and a rough arc; the supporting characters should be able to fit in with them. I feel this does mean saying "no" to specific concepts as well-- for example, if you have set Bruce Wayne as in his 20s (not that I'm suggesting this) then a 15 year old Damian Wayne should be entirely out of the question to app because it's not physically possibly for 25 year old Bruce to have a 15 year old son. Period. I don't want to see staff approving crazy alternate timeline, world-skipping, weird muckery to make it happen. Speaking as someone who has played younger character variants or characters who don't have the arc in their BG to support kids/clones/spouses/whatever being forced on them: this is, to me, a core breaking of consent on the part of the player that's there first. (And don't expect an honest answer when someone is put on the spot of "is this okay" because people will try and go the nice-nice don't make waves route and feel guilty about "ruining other peoples RP".

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 7/4/2020 10:50PM
----
I'd also argue that characters like the Flash should be restricted to no more than two (possibly 1) at a time, and that there should be a requirement that characters like the Green Lanterns or Flash or Kryptonians should be separated into different groups so they each can shine and we don't have a preponderance in one group. Personally I'd say the big names should be in their late thirties at least. I'm tempted to say the Teen Titans should actually be teens but they've been around long enough that it's probably unreasonable, so I'd want to say the original Titans must be in their twenties by now.

Now, the kid thing, that's a bit trickier. I'd normally say that they'd have to get permission to app a character related directly to another character, like their child, but would we then have to do it the other way too? If we have a Damien, does someone wanting to play Batman have to get their permission? That seems ass backwards, honestly. So I guess it would be only for kids? And we should damn well limit how old a kid can be to be apped. Or boost all kids to at least mid to late teens. Molly Hayes for example from Runaways I could see being bumped to a teenager for example. I'd say no one below 15 or 16 is allowable.

But this also brings up the problem of what if, say, we get someone who wants to play Starfire, apps hers, people RP with her, then they drop and someone wants to app the 52 version of Starfire (because they have terrible taste). Do we say they can't do that because we've already established the version of Starfire that can be used?--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
That's exactly what I'm saying, unless you can give me a concrete reason otherwise, yes.
--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 22:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Do we need a list of 'locked' characters then? I'd recommend it, just so people know they can't modify the basic idea once it's established.
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 23:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Per discussion on the mush: AU/future children of other characters should be completely banned (no Helena Wayne, AU Steve Rogers daughter, Ruby Summers, Rachel Summers, etc). In the event someone wants to app a child of another character (i.e. Damien Wayne), they must have the consent of both their parents first if they are already apped and played (i.e. Batman AND Talia if they both exist). In the event the parent character has not been apped, they may proceed. If the child character is already apped and a parent character is later apped, they have lost the ability to no-consent to the child character's existence and must work out with them how their timelines mesh. This does not, however, mean that the parent characters are locked into an IC relationship that is ongoing; if Batman says Damien is fine, and a later Talia apper is not interested, she is stuck with Damien having been her kid, but any such relationship between Damien and Talia can be expected to be in the past. In addition, if a parent character is apped at an age where they could not have a child of a playable age (which is 15? 18?) then that child character is disallowed. There may be exceptions to this rule: for example, the Fantastic Four should be set as a family unit, with Reed and Sue married and having kids and any player apping them should expect that is the reality. There may be other character pairings that are likewise set to be already in a relationship like that or to automatically have kids that exist (Stargirl is another example of this, being the daughter of her stepfather who is also a hero).--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 03:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Another requirement is we may need to set the version of a character that we find allowable and a version that is not. For example, Maxima. The canon version that has existed in comics is horribly overpowered; I would not ever want to see her played. However, the nu52 version of Maxima is much more balanced and better characterized, and I'd be okay with allowing her.--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 03:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
----

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said here.

No 'future' children. Direct kids from lineage need to be able to fit into a parent's IC age/timeline reasonably and have that player's (or those players) permission/okay to do so. There is nothing worse as a MC than getting saddled with a terrible player for a character (like Damian) who ruins shit for you.

2 Green Lanterns, and 2 Flash's - one for JL potentially, and one for Titans potentially.

Also, there should only be one 'premium' Sorcerer in game - either Strange or Fate IMHO. Having them both taints the importance or capabilities of the other.

I agree on no 'alternate dimension' variations once one has been established and created. However, we should also stress that unique characters from alternate dimensions (America Chavez, for example) are okay and acceptable. And if the character hasn't been created, an alternate dimensional variation may be accepted (Gwen Stacy as Spider Woman, for example). [[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 12:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Included Media

2020-08-02T11:56:53Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Theme|Theme]]

The original idea was that the game's blended world would contain elements from multiple comic book worlds/realities, including:
#Marvel comics (616?)
#DC Comics (COIE/Rebirth?)
#Wildstorm Comics
Other possibilities might include:
#Milestone
#Fawcett
#Any others with elements we want?
#If a player arrives and wants to incorporate an MC from another world, they get evaluated to figure out how to adapt and blend those elements into the game world; staff get the decision during app review and approval; once the app is approved, those elements contained within the app and attendant documents are also approved and incorporated into game canon

--[[User:BlondieWiki|BlondieWiki]] ([[User talk:BlondieWiki|talk]]) 19:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
----
Basically good with this. I think we should require any player wanting an outside theme that hasn't already been approved to make us a pitch. Maybe they can make the character bit so we can respond to them. If they can explain to our satisfaction how the character can work within existing theme or how adding them to theme would not be difficult, I'm okay with it.

I am a bit leery of how this procedure might cut off future characters, of course; if we accept one explanation for werecreatures, it will cut off other themely explanations for werecreatures or the like. So we definitely would need to scrutinize the suggestions more closely than a normal character; perhaps it should require several staffers sign off on it instead of just the normal two for charapps?

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 19:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----
''shrugs'' Or just... don't care if it cuts off new apps from new themes? As I said elsewhere, I don't like the idea of "oh if you want additional themes, pitch them!" For every player you make happy with their snowflake, you will annoy ten more at adding a theme they don't want to have to deal with.

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 14:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I can agree with making things easier on charstaff by just cutting things off for stuff outside of the themes we select. Though it would probably just make those players app OCs we'd have to judge, really. Banned themes should probably be a thing too.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 22:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
After further discussion, I would also highly suggest was lower DC power levels to match Marvel power levels. Superman should be about on the level of Thor for example, not where he's pushing around moons. Otherwise, we're going to see a huge power creep into the DC side of things. To some extent limiting the number of Kryptonians/Green Lanterns/etc will help with that, as will templates for types of characters. But it would be good to write down that that's the case, to head off any power monkies that decide they can just easily trash the entire Avengers team because they're Power Girl or something.

Second to that is that I feel we might want to consider putting a power level setting on certain characters to acknowledge that they are on the high level of powers and should not be participating in street level scenes. Someone like Green Lantern should not be playing in Gotham scenes where the average bad guy is a thug with a sledgehammer. I have no problem with the other way around though; if someone like Batman or Green Arrow wants to be in a higher power scene, it's fine - that doesn't seem like it's destined to unbalance the scene (and he's BATMAN so I'm sure he'll think of some way to be useful in it). --[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 03:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
----

The power level for events is easy. We just add a 'Power Level' added to the code as 'Street Level' or 'Powered' as the options. That way the Gothamites, or Hell's Kitchen and such characters won't get mixed in with the Thor's and Flash's or Magneto's of the world.

I am okay with dulling down DC powers a fraction, but I've honestly not seen myself any examples where it's been an issue either - or at least, I'm not aware of them. This could be, frankly, because Superman doesn't really get played a whole lot too and perhaps tweaking his power level down just a few shades might make him more balanced to a MU* enviornment. --[[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 07:56, 02 Aug 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Included Media

2020-08-02T11:55:27Z

DeadWeather:

Talk:Core Concepts

2020-07-08T21:33:02Z

DeadWeather:

[[Talk:Theme|Theme]]
The core concepts for the game were supposed to be:
#Comic book superheroes genre game
#Blended world (not one world as base or the other, but elements of all the relevant worlds blended together into a single unique whole resembling all)
#*Marvel
#*DC
#*Wildstorm
#*Others possibly
--[[User:BlondieWiki|BlondieWiki]] ([[User talk:BlondieWiki|talk]]) 19:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
----
I would say for this that we restrict it to only superhero comic themes as listed already, with a few others (Dark Horse possibly?). Within comics there should be themes we disallow also. For example, I would not want to see anything like GI Joe or Transformers in a comic world, even if they have comics. I could be okay with allowing some other themes on a case by case basis, and giving people the options to make their case for how it could work in the current them.

For example, if someone wanted to do a Mercy Thompson view of werewolves and werecritters, I could be convinced, but that would also further limit what's possible from other modern horror/fantasy settings once approved. We couldn't then also allow, for example, Anita Blake stuff because how werecritters and vampires are done is completely different in that world.

I also am willing to allow superheroic concepts from other media like books or movies, but only if the player can demonstrate it will work in theme. For example, Worm is an excellent superhero story, but the way powers work (that everyone has shards of power from an extradimensional being) is incompatible with Marvel/DC theme. Could they still do the character of Skitter? Sure; a girl who controls insects is a workable power, but she'd have to rewrite her background to fit theme.

I also think we should outright disallow any anime characters, as I feel they are just not workable because each anime world requires its own world rules, and because I don't want to see someone making OCs based on anime characters or their worlds.

--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 19:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I'm not going to lie, I'd actually go more strict than Meta suggests. By that, I mean, I'd go with "only the comic themes we specify" and sit down as staff and choose those... and no to everything else.

I hate to be the bad guy here, but without a solid no, there will always be someone who thinks their (dumb) implementation of whatever it is will work, when it won't. And they will not accept no for an answer and they won't want to do the work to adjust it; or not accept it can't BE adjusted; or they will want us to adjust to fit them. All this is doing is setting theme and apps staff up for failure and stress in the long run, as well as giving more room for bad OC apps to be pitched.

Basically, coming from a long staffing career: you want to say "no" in +jobs as little as possible. It's better to say "no" in rules and theme upfront.

My suggestion:

*DC
*Marvel
*Wildstorm (excluding the Authority and the Four)
*BRPD (Hellboy)

Make me some suggestions if you think I've missed something WORKABLE, but I just don't see other comics properties fitting the theme overall. I think twisting a bunch of crazy properties (take Sex Criminals as an example) to "work with the theme" is more trouble that it's worth and just opens doors we will later want to close but can't because grandfathered in bullshit. Also, having a strict set to pick from makes actually blending the worlds more palatable and less stressful on the theme folks.
--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 7/4/2020 10:35pm EDT
----
I can see the value of having a hard list, sure. The issue is also that there are some series under a particular publisher I'd be okay with and some that would be problematic. IDW or Dark Horse, for example. We can probably mitigate that with our banned list when we get to it though.--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 22:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

----
It's always easier to make a strict list upfront and add maybe one or two properties later than it is to be like "oh, x publisher is fine" and having to walk it back. Players do not like feeling like something has been taken away.

Further addition: I wouldn't even say "Marvel" or "DC". Some jackanape will take "Marvel" to think they can app Darth Vader, because technically Star Wars is a Marvel imprint.

I know I sound harsh here. But I'm trying to say trouble down the road. Banned lists are fine-- but if we only focus on banned lists, I feel like I'm going to be fighting for every thing placed on it because there will be some reason "it could be fun" or "it COULD work if someone makes it just like this". Staffing is HARD. Staffing a mixed theme is already a nightmare. Please make it easier on yourselves, because you are all nice people and you don't want to do this to yourselves.

--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 22:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Should we take the step of requiring that people put in a request for a character then before we'll make the bit for them? So we have that last check on whether or not we want to allow the character or not?
--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 23:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
I absolutely think so. But again, its a harsh extra step that I see as being one that eventually gets handwaved for the purpose of not being "a bad guy".
--[[User:OwlCity|OwlCity]] ([[User talk:OwlCity|talk]]) 23:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----
Damned if we do, damned if we don't though; a player won't be happy with us if they go through setting up a sheet for a character and submit then get told the concept itself isn't allowed. Or even where they've started statting the character.--[[User:Metahistory|Metahistory]] ([[User talk:Metahistory|talk]]) 23:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
----

Here is how I see it.

I agree with Metahistory's suggestion of strictness in what is allowed/not allowed.

I think for established characters we should not require them to clear a concept with us first, to create a charbit. In so doing, we SHOULD require a naming requirement so that duplicate persons aren't vying for the same bit. Generally, full name (first/last) seems to work really well.

OC characters SHOULD require a concept with a rough outline of powers prior to being able to apply, we can reason this being as, well, because we want to make sure you have a balanced concept that fits within the parameters of our world.

We NEED a banned list. Why? For the OC characters more than anything else so they don't give themselves phenomenal cosmic powers, even if they are in a teeny little living space. Also, so we don't have 35 Green Lanterns on grid at one time, or someone doesn't try to app something like Harold The Duck, people with active Phoenix Force, etc...

I do think we need to keep the banned list as short, and concise, as possible. We can always edit/add to it if someone tries to sneak in something we hadn't thought of or whatever.--[[User:DeadWeather|DeadWeather]] ([[User talk:DeadWeather|talk]]) 17:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Core Concepts

2020-07-08T21:31:24Z

DeadWeather: